Chief
Chief of Sinners.
Last edited:
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
Chief
Chief of Sinners.
Adventists regard the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity, guiding believers closer to Christ and helping them connect with God the Father.
Read more about this fundamental belief here.
The Holy Spirit's Role
- Identity in the Trinity: The Holy Spirit is part of the triune God, witnessed in creation and sent by Christ to be God’s presence on Earth.
- Inspiration of Scripture: The Spirit guided the writing and interpretation of the Bible.
- Support in Jesus' Ministry: Jesus relied on the Spirit for strength, serving as an example for believers.
- Impact on Believers: The Spirit empowers Christ’s followers, convicts them of sin, leads them into truth, offers peace, interprets prayers, writes God's law in their hearts, and grants strength to testify about Christ.
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Baptism in the Holy Spirit signifies empowerment to witness for Christ, as seen in the apostles' boldness post-Pentecost. To be filled with the Holy Spirit, believers must allow God to cleanse them of contrary influences.Receiving the Holy Spirit
God is eager to give the Spirit to those who desire it. Key steps include asking, seeking, living in obedience, and relying on the Spirit for daily empowerment. The Holy Spirit is crucial for Adventists, enabling a deeper connection with Jesus and providing freedom, healing, and hope.Read more about this fundamental belief here.
Why is this doctrine of "God the Spirit" spiritualistic?
According to the dictionary, we find that spiritualism stems from a belief in which the spirit is separate from matter (the body) which leads, in religious practice, to communications with that spirit entity, such as even after one has died (a part of the heresy being that the spirit is immortal). See the definition copied below.
Note that it is not spiritualism to believe in the existence of spirits. It is spiritualism to believe that they have a separate existence to that of their (e.g. bodily) source, i.e. that they are beings unto themselves.
Let's look at a Biblical case by which to illustrate this. Consider Paul's teachings:
We see that Paul's spirit, biblically speaking, could be present in a place where he was not bodily present. Now, if we were to say that the “spirit of Paul” was present there, we are speaking biblically, in agreement with the teaching of Paul in this passage. But suppose we were to say, instead, that “Paul the Spirit” were present—what change does this reordering of the words make?
It converts the “spirit” into a separate being, which is spiritualism.
Let's consider another example:
To whom were the sons of the prophets bowing? By the way, these “sons of the prophets” were themselves prophets. Consider earlier verses as evidence for this.
So the sons of the prophets in two places, Bethel and Jericho, had given the same prophetic message to Elisha before Elijah was taken away. When they afterward say “The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha,” what are they meaning? Do they mean to say that Elijah the Spirit is with Elisha?
No. That would be spiritualism.
Consider Nebuchadnezzar.
Just as Elijah, Paul, Nebuchadnezzar, and every other person on earth, has a spirit, so does God have a spirit. But just as it would be unbiblical to refer to “Elijah the Spirit,” “Paul the Spirit,” or “Nebuchadnezzar the Spirit,” it is unbiblical to refer to “God the Spirit” or “Jesus the Spirit” or “Christ the Spirit.” Nowhere in the Inspired Writings are any of these “_____ the Spirit” forms of address used.
Nowhere.
The reason is clear: this would be spiritualism.
When applied to God, these terms make of Him virtually a non-entity—exactly what our pioneers warned us of. It is the very essence of pantheism.
Because God's Spirit is omnipresent, a belief that this spirit is itself a being separate from God is the very essence of pantheism. The mere use of the expression “God the Spirit” implies that God is in the very fabric of the universe, because His Spirit is everywhere present, and therefore, the universe is itself God.
In another sense of the word, of course, God is a spirit. We see this truth spoken clearly by Jesus himself in John 4:24. This, however, is not to be taken to mean that God has no form. It is simply to be understood that God is not flesh and blood as we are. Though He is “a spirit,” there is no separate being from God to be addressed as “God the Spirit.” This would be absurd. God is already a spirit. If we say “God the Spirit,” assuming that God is plural, then do we not mean to say that at least one of those beings within the plurality is not a spirit? And then what would that make of Jesus' words at the well? At best his words would have been but a half-truth, right?
How can a person, at one and the same time, believe that God is a spirit and that He is not? If God the Father, the only true God (John 17:1-3), is a spirit, then whom does one reference in saying “God the Spirit”?
Consider, too, the potential ramifications of the theology of this verse on a Trinitarian reader's mind. Suppose we have a man named “Heretium.” Now, Heretium reads this verse in John and learns that he must worship God “in spirit.” Should he understand it to mean that “Heretium the Spirit” can worship God, whereas Heretium the Man cannot?
The Bible never once speaks of “God the Spirit.” Neither does Ellen White.
That should give every Trinitarian “Adventist” pause.
How is it that the devil has so successfully sold us a bill of spiritualism? Shall we not forthwith make haste to take back to ourselves the precious pillars of our faith from which not a pin was to be moved? Shall we not go back to the truths God gave our pioneers?
On the other hand, if you are quite willing to continue speaking of “God the Spirit,” I expect you will not be offended if one should speak of “Paul the Spirit,” or “Elijah the Spirit” or "Nebuchadnezzar the Spirit."
May God open our eyes.
According to the dictionary, we find that spiritualism stems from a belief in which the spirit is separate from matter (the body) which leads, in religious practice, to communications with that spirit entity, such as even after one has died (a part of the heresy being that the spirit is immortal). See the definition copied below.
Dictionary said:
Note that it is not spiritualism to believe in the existence of spirits. It is spiritualism to believe that they have a separate existence to that of their (e.g. bodily) source, i.e. that they are beings unto themselves.
Let's look at a Biblical case by which to illustrate this. Consider Paul's teachings:
1 Corinthians
5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
We see that Paul's spirit, biblically speaking, could be present in a place where he was not bodily present. Now, if we were to say that the “spirit of Paul” was present there, we are speaking biblically, in agreement with the teaching of Paul in this passage. But suppose we were to say, instead, that “Paul the Spirit” were present—what change does this reordering of the words make?
It converts the “spirit” into a separate being, which is spiritualism.
Let's consider another example:
And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him. (2 Kings 2:15)
To whom were the sons of the prophets bowing? By the way, these “sons of the prophets” were themselves prophets. Consider earlier verses as evidence for this.
And Elijah said unto Elisha, Tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me to Bethel. And Elisha said unto him, As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. So they went down to Bethel. And the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he said, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace. And Elijah said unto him, Elisha, tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me to Jericho. And he said, As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. So they came to Jericho. And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he answered, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace. (2 Kings 2:2-5)
So the sons of the prophets in two places, Bethel and Jericho, had given the same prophetic message to Elisha before Elijah was taken away. When they afterward say “The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha,” what are they meaning? Do they mean to say that Elijah the Spirit is with Elisha?
No. That would be spiritualism.
Consider Nebuchadnezzar.
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. (Daniel 2:1)
Just as Elijah, Paul, Nebuchadnezzar, and every other person on earth, has a spirit, so does God have a spirit. But just as it would be unbiblical to refer to “Elijah the Spirit,” “Paul the Spirit,” or “Nebuchadnezzar the Spirit,” it is unbiblical to refer to “God the Spirit” or “Jesus the Spirit” or “Christ the Spirit.” Nowhere in the Inspired Writings are any of these “_____ the Spirit” forms of address used.
Nowhere.
The reason is clear: this would be spiritualism.
When applied to God, these terms make of Him virtually a non-entity—exactly what our pioneers warned us of. It is the very essence of pantheism.
Dictionary said:
Because God's Spirit is omnipresent, a belief that this spirit is itself a being separate from God is the very essence of pantheism. The mere use of the expression “God the Spirit” implies that God is in the very fabric of the universe, because His Spirit is everywhere present, and therefore, the universe is itself God.
In another sense of the word, of course, God is a spirit. We see this truth spoken clearly by Jesus himself in John 4:24. This, however, is not to be taken to mean that God has no form. It is simply to be understood that God is not flesh and blood as we are. Though He is “a spirit,” there is no separate being from God to be addressed as “God the Spirit.” This would be absurd. God is already a spirit. If we say “God the Spirit,” assuming that God is plural, then do we not mean to say that at least one of those beings within the plurality is not a spirit? And then what would that make of Jesus' words at the well? At best his words would have been but a half-truth, right?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)
How can a person, at one and the same time, believe that God is a spirit and that He is not? If God the Father, the only true God (John 17:1-3), is a spirit, then whom does one reference in saying “God the Spirit”?
Consider, too, the potential ramifications of the theology of this verse on a Trinitarian reader's mind. Suppose we have a man named “Heretium.” Now, Heretium reads this verse in John and learns that he must worship God “in spirit.” Should he understand it to mean that “Heretium the Spirit” can worship God, whereas Heretium the Man cannot?
The Bible never once speaks of “God the Spirit.” Neither does Ellen White.
That should give every Trinitarian “Adventist” pause.
How is it that the devil has so successfully sold us a bill of spiritualism? Shall we not forthwith make haste to take back to ourselves the precious pillars of our faith from which not a pin was to be moved? Shall we not go back to the truths God gave our pioneers?
On the other hand, if you are quite willing to continue speaking of “God the Spirit,” I expect you will not be offended if one should speak of “Paul the Spirit,” or “Elijah the Spirit” or "Nebuchadnezzar the Spirit."
May God open our eyes.
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
Personally I do not like the NT verse "Elohiym ruwach" because we assume we can translate the construct with "is" when the construct is written as "ruwach elojhiym" we assume we can translate the construct as "of" - really ? Are we not biased?
The Bible teaches nobody has seen the shape of the Father or the Holy Spirit - though the HS is written as simile of a bird?
The broadest word meaning for ruwach for all contexts is "medium"
In narrower contexts "a medium can be ordinary wind"
"a medium can carry divine power from the Most High"
"A medium can administrate your medium, so you are Sons of God" we understand this to refer to our character inside of us, a part of what makes humans human and thus unique.
But my point is it is silly to term GOD as a medium, and make the word "ruwach" refer to some body function, when its not a word meaning like this? God is not some ghostly apparition, as this word is suggested.
If you look at the context
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Fuzzy translation by KJV)
John 4:24 Elohiym's medium: and they that worship the Most High worship the Most High via the medium and faith that affirms truth (with Hebrew intent)
Jesus is talking about the medium as a way humans commune with God, not talking about the bodily nature of God.
--------
Can Paul be present as a medium but not as a body when absent in person? Yes, the medium means Paul is carried by His writings and carried by His past experiences that live on in the Church. This does not mean Paul is some ghost apparition. So I agree with you on this.
The hijacking of the term ruwach as spirit is misleading and wrong, as the precepts and traditions of men have taken many.
Do you understand the ruwach is a function administrated by a third co-eternal Being called the Shadday who expresses feminine love - what I term as responding love?
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
This is a poetry parallel and equates the function of the ruwach with the el shaddai. In the next sinless creation there is no need of a grand medium, but the Shadday exists eternally as does the other godhead members:
Re 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Here in Hebrew it says YHWH Elohiym and Shadday as well as the Lamb. Shalom
Personally I do not like the NT verse "Elohiym ruwach" because we assume we can translate the construct with "is" when the construct is written as "ruwach elojhiym" we assume we can translate the construct as "of" - really ? Are we not biased?
The Bible teaches nobody has seen the shape of the Father or the Holy Spirit - though the HS is written as simile of a bird?
The broadest word meaning for ruwach for all contexts is "medium"
In narrower contexts "a medium can be ordinary wind"
"a medium can carry divine power from the Most High"
"A medium can administrate your medium, so you are Sons of God" we understand this to refer to our character inside of us, a part of what makes humans human and thus unique.
But my point is it is silly to term GOD as a medium, and make the word "ruwach" refer to some body function, when its not a word meaning like this? God is not some ghostly apparition, as this word is suggested.
If you look at the context
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Fuzzy translation by KJV)
John 4:24 Elohiym's medium: and they that worship the Most High worship the Most High via the medium and faith that affirms truth (with Hebrew intent)
Jesus is talking about the medium as a way humans commune with God, not talking about the bodily nature of God.
--------
Can Paul be present as a medium but not as a body when absent in person? Yes, the medium means Paul is carried by His writings and carried by His past experiences that live on in the Church. This does not mean Paul is some ghost apparition. So I agree with you on this.
The hijacking of the term ruwach as spirit is misleading and wrong, as the precepts and traditions of men have taken many.
Do you understand the ruwach is a function administrated by a third co-eternal Being called the Shadday who expresses feminine love - what I term as responding love?
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
This is a poetry parallel and equates the function of the ruwach with the el shaddai. In the next sinless creation there is no need of a grand medium, but the Shadday exists eternally as does the other godhead members:
Re 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Here in Hebrew it says YHWH Elohiym and Shadday as well as the Lamb. Shalom
First, the New Testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew...so your references to Hebrew with respect to NT passages has been confusing for me. Are you reading a Hebrew translation of the Greek? I'm well aware that in the case of the book of Matthew, the Catholics have procured such a translation. Some claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (the claim is that Matthew wrote his book both in Hebrew and in Greek), but whether or not this might be so, the only surviving copies of it that we have are those written in Greek.
But to address your question regarding the Hebrew "of" is fairly straightforward. Hebrew, like a number of other Asian languages, has no actual word for "of." The grammar, however, provides for it. It works like this: a noun which is connected to another noun in a genitive (of/belonging to) relationship will be in construct state, with the following noun in its natural form (absolute state). This connects the two in what is called a "construct chain."
For example, in Hebrew: "son" = "ben". So if one were to address "ben Yisrael," one would be saying "son Israel." But if the "ben" is put into its construct state "bene", as in "bene Yisrael," it would now say "son of Israel." The "of" is not explicitly in the Hebrew text, but the grammatical construction indicates its presence in the meaning, and English would require it in the translation. (Note that I read and study the actual Hebrew characters, and I may not be transliterating their spelling to English in a standard manner--I don't always know how they should be spelled in English.)
In the case of the "spirit of God," such as is found in Genesis 1:2, the word "ruach" (spirit) is in construct state, indicating that it is in a genitive relationship with the following noun, "elohim" (God). So this is correctly translated as "spirit of God." When you look for this in an interlinear Bible, remember that Hebrew reads from right to left, so the words will appear in the reverse order, i.e. "God" followed by "spirit of" if reading left to right.
The Trinity dogma was invented by the papacy, largely during the fourth century at the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and at Constantinople (AD 381). But even the Catholics still adhered, at least in speech, to a belief in God as a single being. Our Adventist website recently changed its language on this doctrine from that of "three co-eternal beings" to "three co-eternal Persons," probably because people were pointing out the incongruity with Ellen White's teaching that "God is a Being," an expression she uses dozens of times in various forms, e.g. "God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being."
So in brief, no, I do not believe that God's spirit is a third co-eternal Being. God's spirit is not even a being. God is a Being; His spirit is His presence. He shares this spirit with His son. Ellen White says of Christ: "In His mediatorial work Christ gives to His servants the presence of the Holy Spirit."
rob
Active member
I see, so you do not believe in the Shadday as an administrator of the Holy Spirit, as Job 33:3 says? Thus you do not consider the Shadday as the third co-eternal person on the Godhead?
Consider this verse (and yes I always translate the Greek (a fuzzy translation) back to Hebrew ( God's truth )
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God.
If we take your theory that the Most High and his spirit is the same essence of the Most High, we have a problem here.
The term is overshadow. You cannot make a shadow from a solitary one Divine Being. Unless you split the Most High and His spirit into two separate beings across space at the same time - a silly thought!
The term overshadow implies the Most High as light as a source and another separate being blocking or filtering the light to make the term overshadow and hence shadows....
What is here according to the word yalad - to be born - is two heavenly divine parents - the Shadday (HS) and the Most High Father.
Shalom
The term "co-eternal" is Catholic nonsense which has no application to God. God is "eternal." His son, as you may recall, died and was in the tomb for parts of three days. How "eternal" is that? If God also died during those three days, I suppose one could say that the two were "co-eternal." But since God is immortal and cannot and did not die, the "co-eternal" term simply does not apply: it is Trinitarian gibberish, and no inspired writer ever employed the term.
The writers of the New Testament wrote God's truth in Greek. Greek is not "fuzzy." The truth is, Greek is more clear than Hebrew. Hebrew is "fuzzy" if you want to use such a term, where I would prefer the term "ambiguous." Hebrew words have more breadth of meaning. "Elohim" is a prime example of this: It applies to God, to angels, to false gods, to people, etc. whereas the nearest Greek equivalent, "theos," applies specifically to a God/god, not to angels or others.
Furthermore, Hebrew has no verb tenses. Verbs in Hebrew are either perfect or imperfect, which means they can imply completion or incompletion. Hebrew verbs may have many forms, indicating active or passive voice, reciprocity, etc., but it is not always clear which verb in translation best applies. Greek verbs have tenses (times) and are far more clear in general as to their intent.
Now, I happen to like Hebrew better than Greek. But I cannot be honest if I try to say Hebrew is more clear than Greek. The reverse is true. The only times when Hebrew might have an edge is where the Greek writer was quoting directly from Hebrew--then we might as well go to the Hebrew itself for its meaning. But even in those times, the inspired Greek may tell us something that was not clear in Hebrew, a bit like Ellen White helping to sharpen our understanding of certain Biblical passages by adding her inspired insights.
Ellen White warns us off the ground of addressing God's "essence." I will not go here. Trinitarians do this regularly, but it does not make it right. There are things we do not know about God, cannot know, and need not know. This is one of those.
The translation itself which you provided is of poor quality. The term "holy thing" does not exist in the original text. Nowhere does scripture address any "thing" inside Mary. Scripture references Mary as pregnant, and references the one who should be born of her, but does not address any "presence" within her. The KJV "with child" is misleading, and inaccurate. In the days of the KJV translation, the term "pregnant" was apparently embarrassing, and "with child" was the formal way of expressing this. However, the scriptures do not have a "child" being addressed. One is not a child until one has been born.
Nonsense. I can make a shadow, even in moonlight, and I am just a solitary being.
This is antibiblical. The Bible is clear that Jesus' parents, as the "son of man," were God (the Father) and Mary. If both his parents had been "God," he would not have been a man.
Note Luke 2:33: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." Joseph is not called Jesus' father--for good reason. But Mary is "his mother."
The incarnation itself is a mystery. But what is revealed is for us and our children. Who Jesus' parents were is revealed.
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
My earlier post was showing you Bible proof of three Divine persons in the Divine Family
not as you claim, as one or two?
(1) Rob quotes “Job 33:3 - the Ruwach is administrated by the Shadday”
You did not notice the verse or its intent. You made a completely different topic.
Who said death means the definition you give it? Not the Bible and not EGW?
I believe Jesus died for three days while experiencing “muwth muwth” which means
“separation” from Divinity powers, not the classic definition of “death” whatever that word means. (muwth muwth is different to hareg) The concept of “separation” is seen in the Bible here
Ps 22:1 My Strong Authority, my Strong Authority, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from Yashah, and from the words of my roaring? (Hebrew intent)
My question remains - what is your understanding of the Shadday - also known as the HS?
(2) Rob likes to render Greek back to Hebrew to obtain a consistent truth.
I note your words and they are correct and well written. There is a prophecy in the Bible that the Hebrew goes out in a new tongue:
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
The stammering lips suggests to me the Greek loses much of the Hebrew intent during the Greek translation process.
(3) Rob “Luke 1:35 comments on TWO members of the Godhead, just as “born” suggests.
You did not discuss my discussion, but went off topic regarding the poor quality of the text.
The Greek word "hagios” is before “gennao” suggests to me that “something special” was “born” - I do not see anything wrong in the translation here? but this is off topic?
I was showing you that there are TWO members of the God-head here, NOT ONE as your theory claims. Did you consider this?
I am not talking about the “essence” of God, I am discussing the number of members of God in this “born” process.
EGW: "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.—Special Testimonies, Series B, 7:62, 63. (1905). {Ev 615.1}
I am assuming you credit EGW saying there are 3 members of the Godhead? I am showing you proof from the Bible that there are 3 members of the Godhead as a Divine Family.
Not talking about essence, but about cardinal numbers of Elohiym power.
EGW: "The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. {AA 52.1}
Again off topic, not talking about the nature of the HS as a medium but the person of the Shadday as a cardinal being, a maths number, is there 1, 2 or 3 Divine Personalities of the Elohiym Power. Luke 1:35 clears identifies three.
(4) Rob looks at the science term “overshadow”
You say you can make a shadow on your own as one being? Great I agree, but who is the light source? To make a shadow you need two things, a light source and a solid object to block or filter the light. The Father cannot make a light source and block His own light source distance from space as another solid object at the same time? This word proves GOD cannot be cardinally one person.
(5) Rob: Most High and the Shadday as heavenly parents
You say "This is anti-biblical. The Bible is clear that Jesus' parents, as the "son of man," were God (the Father) and Mary. If both his parents had been "God," he would not have been a man.” Your response is discussing the “Essence” of Christ and of God - something you said was off limits?
I am saying there are cardinally many persons here in Luke 1:35, at least four
(1) Most High
(2) Shadday-HS
(3) Mary a female human
(4) “Hagios gennao” a special thing born inside Mary called The Son of God. (The eternal pre-existent Son with his Divinity has humanity added to His being.)
First do you agree with me there are four persons suggested here?
Second do you agree two persons (1 & 2) belong to Elohiym as Divine Persons?
Third means TWO Heavenly Parents function with “born” - Do you agree?
Now to make clear EGW comments on three Divine persons as a Divine Family
Consider this verse
Ho 4:19 The wind “ruwach” hath bound her up in her wings, and they shall be ashamed because of their sacrifices. (KJV)
EGW uses this term “her wings” often in her messages:
EGW: “This time is right upon us. The Spirit of God is being withdrawn from the earth. When the angel of mercy folds her wings and departs, Satan will do the evil deeds he has long wished to do. Storm and tempest, war and bloodshed,—in these things he delights, and thus he gathers in his harvest...{RH September 17, 1901, par. 9}
This means "ruwach Elohiym" is a messenger of mercy with her wings - feminine love - responding love.
Shalom
My earlier post was showing you Bible proof of three Divine persons in the Divine Family
not as you claim, as one or two?
(1) Rob quotes “Job 33:3 - the Ruwach is administrated by the Shadday”
You did not notice the verse or its intent. You made a completely different topic.
Who said death means the definition you give it? Not the Bible and not EGW?
I believe Jesus died for three days while experiencing “muwth muwth” which means
“separation” from Divinity powers, not the classic definition of “death” whatever that word means. (muwth muwth is different to hareg) The concept of “separation” is seen in the Bible here
Ps 22:1 My Strong Authority, my Strong Authority, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from Yashah, and from the words of my roaring? (Hebrew intent)
My question remains - what is your understanding of the Shadday - also known as the HS?
(2) Rob likes to render Greek back to Hebrew to obtain a consistent truth.
I note your words and they are correct and well written. There is a prophecy in the Bible that the Hebrew goes out in a new tongue:
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
The stammering lips suggests to me the Greek loses much of the Hebrew intent during the Greek translation process.
(3) Rob “Luke 1:35 comments on TWO members of the Godhead, just as “born” suggests.
You did not discuss my discussion, but went off topic regarding the poor quality of the text.
The Greek word "hagios” is before “gennao” suggests to me that “something special” was “born” - I do not see anything wrong in the translation here? but this is off topic?
I was showing you that there are TWO members of the God-head here, NOT ONE as your theory claims. Did you consider this?
I am not talking about the “essence” of God, I am discussing the number of members of God in this “born” process.
EGW: "There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ.—Special Testimonies, Series B, 7:62, 63. (1905). {Ev 615.1}
I am assuming you credit EGW saying there are 3 members of the Godhead? I am showing you proof from the Bible that there are 3 members of the Godhead as a Divine Family.
Not talking about essence, but about cardinal numbers of Elohiym power.
EGW: "The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. {AA 52.1}
Again off topic, not talking about the nature of the HS as a medium but the person of the Shadday as a cardinal being, a maths number, is there 1, 2 or 3 Divine Personalities of the Elohiym Power. Luke 1:35 clears identifies three.
(4) Rob looks at the science term “overshadow”
You say you can make a shadow on your own as one being? Great I agree, but who is the light source? To make a shadow you need two things, a light source and a solid object to block or filter the light. The Father cannot make a light source and block His own light source distance from space as another solid object at the same time? This word proves GOD cannot be cardinally one person.
(5) Rob: Most High and the Shadday as heavenly parents
You say "This is anti-biblical. The Bible is clear that Jesus' parents, as the "son of man," were God (the Father) and Mary. If both his parents had been "God," he would not have been a man.” Your response is discussing the “Essence” of Christ and of God - something you said was off limits?
I am saying there are cardinally many persons here in Luke 1:35, at least four
(1) Most High
(2) Shadday-HS
(3) Mary a female human
(4) “Hagios gennao” a special thing born inside Mary called The Son of God. (The eternal pre-existent Son with his Divinity has humanity added to His being.)
First do you agree with me there are four persons suggested here?
Second do you agree two persons (1 & 2) belong to Elohiym as Divine Persons?
Third means TWO Heavenly Parents function with “born” - Do you agree?
Now to make clear EGW comments on three Divine persons as a Divine Family
Consider this verse
Ho 4:19 The wind “ruwach” hath bound her up in her wings, and they shall be ashamed because of their sacrifices. (KJV)
EGW uses this term “her wings” often in her messages:
EGW: “This time is right upon us. The Spirit of God is being withdrawn from the earth. When the angel of mercy folds her wings and departs, Satan will do the evil deeds he has long wished to do. Storm and tempest, war and bloodshed,—in these things he delights, and thus he gathers in his harvest...{RH September 17, 1901, par. 9}
This means "ruwach Elohiym" is a messenger of mercy with her wings - feminine love - responding love.
Shalom
Instead of addressing all of the errors, it is better to focus on what is true. Inspiration never uses such terms as "members" for God, nor the Godhead because, believe it or not, the word "Godhead" is not a collective noun and it is singular. Most Adventists do not realize this. In other words, the "Godhead" addresses a single individual. Jesus said that his Father was "the only true God." That is all we really need to know.
But let's look at the "Holy Spirit" a bit more. Suppose that this "Holy Spirit" is actually the "third member of the Godhead." In such a case, the fourth highest being in Heaven would come after Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, right? But that Ellen White did not believe such a scenario is plain on the record.
From her book The Great Controversy we read:
So, according to Ellen White, the rankings in Heaven prior to sin proceeded as follows: Father (God), Christ (God's Son), Lucifer, then all the other angels of Heaven.
Other quotes also indicate that Lucifer/Satan was the next in line after Christ.
Why was Lucifer not "next to the Holy Spirit"? If the holy spirit of God were actually a "being," would not there be some mention of it/him in these statements?
Many Adventists today are caught up in the deception which has come upon the church to the point that they no longer recognize the truth. Now, let's look again at the quotes from Ellen White which you suggested, for they are often used by Trinitarian Adventists to try to support their theories.
The word "persons" here is not synonymous with "beings," as a modern English speaker might presume. The meaning has changed from Mrs. White's day to ours. But even if we were to presume that it meant "beings" (which it does not here), there is nothing in this statement which calls all of these persons "God." Look closely. Do you see three "Gods" here?
But that you might understand the word "person" better, we must refer to Webster's 1828 Dictionary to see how this was used in the 19th century. Keep in mind that "God is not a man...nor the son of man..." according to Numbers 23:19. God is not human, so no definition which would make Him human could possibly apply to God.
Those are ALL of the senses of the word "PERSON" as given in the dictionary of Ellen White's day. Those are the ways in which the word was commonly used by people at that time. It is logical to conclude that Ellen White used the language of her own day when writing. We have so many examples of this, in fact, as to leave no doubt about it, for many of her words are hardly understood today.
We see that only one of the listed senses of the word "person" could have reasonably applied to God. Any other sense from among those would require considerable wresting.
Here is yet another vignette from Mrs. White which portrays Lucifer's rank in Heaven "next to Christ," and which indicates his relationship to the Father, whom Ellen White calls "God."
Again, there is no "Trinity" here. There is no "Holy Spirit" being, nor personage. Father, Christ, and Lucifer were the three highest in Heaven.
All the misguided talk of such things as this....
...could be avoided: unless, of course, you are meaning to say that the "Divine Family" consisted of Father, Son, and Lucifer (or later, Gabriel as Lucifer's replacement).
Instead of seeking unclear passages of the Bible upon which to rest your case, you would be better off looking for what the Bible says plainly. Because God is a God of truth. And God has asked us to worship Him and to worship no other. If we could not know who God is, if it were at all a mystery, then we should be excused from keeping this commandment. But there is no excuse, for the Word of God is plain. The Father, Jesus said, is "the only true God" and is both Jesus' God and our God (see John 17:1-3; 20:17).
But let's look at the "Holy Spirit" a bit more. Suppose that this "Holy Spirit" is actually the "third member of the Godhead." In such a case, the fourth highest being in Heaven would come after Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, right? But that Ellen White did not believe such a scenario is plain on the record.
From her book The Great Controversy we read:
Ellen White said:
So, according to Ellen White, the rankings in Heaven prior to sin proceeded as follows: Father (God), Christ (God's Son), Lucifer, then all the other angels of Heaven.
Other quotes also indicate that Lucifer/Satan was the next in line after Christ.
Ellen White said:
Why was Lucifer not "next to the Holy Spirit"? If the holy spirit of God were actually a "being," would not there be some mention of it/him in these statements?
Many Adventists today are caught up in the deception which has come upon the church to the point that they no longer recognize the truth. Now, let's look again at the quotes from Ellen White which you suggested, for they are often used by Trinitarian Adventists to try to support their theories.
The word "persons" here is not synonymous with "beings," as a modern English speaker might presume. The meaning has changed from Mrs. White's day to ours. But even if we were to presume that it meant "beings" (which it does not here), there is nothing in this statement which calls all of these persons "God." Look closely. Do you see three "Gods" here?
But that you might understand the word "person" better, we must refer to Webster's 1828 Dictionary to see how this was used in the 19th century. Keep in mind that "God is not a man...nor the son of man..." according to Numbers 23:19. God is not human, so no definition which would make Him human could possibly apply to God.
| Definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary | Remarks |
|---|---|
| PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.] | Note that the very origins of this word indicate that a person is quite different from a being. A "person" connotes "a mask used by actors." An individual can certainly have more than one mask, and, as is made clear below, be more than one "person." |
| 1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child. A person is a thinking intelligent being. | INAPPLICABLE TO GOD. God is not a human being, and God cannot be made human according to Ellen White. Not even in the incarnation did humanity become divine, she tells us. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that "God is a spirit," so we cannot say He consists of both "body" and soul. |
| 2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them. A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things. | INAPPLICABLE TO GOD. God is not a man (Num. 23:19) or a woman or a child. |
| 3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant. You'll find her person difficult to gain. The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage. | INAPPLICABLE TO GOD. Again, God is not human, nor is He definable by His "corporeal existence only." |
| 4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person's attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect. | INAPPLICABLE TO GOD. Again, God is not a human being, nor is He a man. |
| 5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear. These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers. | INAPPLICABLE TO GOD. This one comes much closer to a possibility, as it addresses a person as being a "character," yet this sense of the word still references "a human being" explicitly, which God certainly is not. |
| 6. Character of office. How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend. | THIS IS IT! This one can apply to God. God, as the one in the example provided here, represents both Judge and Friend to us. He comes to us in both persons. But notice--these plural "persons" are the same being: "the same man" in the example. |
| 7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents. I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person. | INAPPLICABLE TO GOD. God is not a mere figment of grammar. No further explanation should be necessary here. |
| 8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic. In person, by one's self; with bodily presence; not be representative. The king in person visits all around. | INAPPLICABLE TO GOD. God is not a corporation needing to qualify as a single "person" for legal purposes. |
| PERSON, v.t. To represent as a person; to make to resemble; to image. [Not in use.] | INAPPLICABLE. The words under consideration as employed by Mrs. White with reference to God are not in the verb form. |
Those are ALL of the senses of the word "PERSON" as given in the dictionary of Ellen White's day. Those are the ways in which the word was commonly used by people at that time. It is logical to conclude that Ellen White used the language of her own day when writing. We have so many examples of this, in fact, as to leave no doubt about it, for many of her words are hardly understood today.
We see that only one of the listed senses of the word "person" could have reasonably applied to God. Any other sense from among those would require considerable wresting.
Here is yet another vignette from Mrs. White which portrays Lucifer's rank in Heaven "next to Christ," and which indicates his relationship to the Father, whom Ellen White calls "God."
Ellen White said:
Again, there is no "Trinity" here. There is no "Holy Spirit" being, nor personage. Father, Christ, and Lucifer were the three highest in Heaven.
All the misguided talk of such things as this....
...could be avoided: unless, of course, you are meaning to say that the "Divine Family" consisted of Father, Son, and Lucifer (or later, Gabriel as Lucifer's replacement).
Instead of seeking unclear passages of the Bible upon which to rest your case, you would be better off looking for what the Bible says plainly. Because God is a God of truth. And God has asked us to worship Him and to worship no other. If we could not know who God is, if it were at all a mystery, then we should be excused from keeping this commandment. But there is no excuse, for the Word of God is plain. The Father, Jesus said, is "the only true God" and is both Jesus' God and our God (see John 17:1-3; 20:17).
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
Please do not remark my theory of faith as “trinity” . I do not accept “trinity” but Elohiym as a “Divine Family” - this aligns with EGW and the Bible better.
You are stating Elohiym means “the Father only” : a reference to a cardinal single BEING.
I thought Elohiym is “plural” : you are a Hebrew linguist? I am surprised !
When Adam and Eve sinned, ie they both sinned, Elohiym declared them to be one of US knowing both good and evil.
Ge 3:22 ¶ And the LORD Elohiym said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
Now when it says “YHWH elohiym” this is meant to mean the foundational personality of Elohym speaks for the family
There are Hebrew words for this in a earth family, adonai and baal to name a few.
The masculine provider is LORD over the family, and the responder in love, is only a responder to His providing love, is not termed a baal nor termed a adonai. She is only his responder. But you reject me now because I speak of love and love functions, and this is new and unclear to you - so you reject it.
And yet I am supposed to use only clear Bible texts, not unclear Bible texts? Really is not all contexts of Elohiym supposed to be inspired? Or do we neglect the minor contexts in favour of the major contexts? Why your theory is not even based on the torah of Moses, but upon notions you read from EGW about the supremacy of the Opposer !
You understand there are false elohiym power? Than what is wrong in calling the Father in heaven the the true only Elohiym? Nothing. It does not mean the Father is all alone , solitary as a cardinal one power as you claim. What does that make the Son? Divine but not a divine deity? Is that your belief?
EGW: "If men reject the testimony of Scripture concerning the deity of Christ, it is vain to argue with them; no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. {HF 323.4}
Jesus Christ is plainly a Divine Deity, now we have two members of Elohiym power.
EGW: "The light of day, gilding forest and mountain, meadow and stream, carried the mind up to behold the Deity, the Father of lights, the Author of every good and perfect gift. .. {ST June 8, 1888, par. 8}
The Father Most High is is a deity who is divine, the grand provider.
EGW: "Today this sacrilegious work is being more than repeated. There will be messages borne, and those who have rejected the messages God has sent, will hear most startling declarations. The Holy Spirit will invest the announcement with a sanctity and solemnity which will appear terrible in the ears of those who would not hear the pleadings of Infinite Love, and who have not responded to the offers of pardon and forgiveness. Injured and insulted Deity will speak, proclaiming the sins that have been hidden. As the priests and rulers, full of indignation and terror, sought refuge in flight at the cleansing of the temple, so will it be in the work for these last days. The woes that will be pronounced upon those who had light from heaven, and did not heed it, they will feel, but they will have no power to act. This is represented in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. They cannot obtain a character from the wise virgins, and they have no oil of grace to discern the clear light, or to accept it, that they may join the procession going into the marriage supper of the Lamb. {1888 1490.3}
In context, within Elohiym, one member is mentioned the HS who speaks injured and insulted as Deity, where humans run out of the oil of grace as foolish virgins. Do you agree with my exegesis?
Now all three heavenly powers are referenced as divine deities. Go figure.
I am not surprised there is no reference to three “BEINGS” but only to three persons.
Because when Elohiym made “adam” Masculine Singular He took Adam and showed Adam His creation, noticed Adam was lonely. And thus needed a “Ploughed Head Mate”
Romans 1:20 tells us that Elohiym is a simile in process of His Creation.
Question: How many Beings are there on earth in their image “Elohiym is quoted as US”
Answer: One.
The woman was built out of the man, not created from the ground. She came out of the existing material, And this explains the notions of GOD and it’s persons . But not as a mask of the same person !!!! O boy.
If GOD was a single cardinal person, there could be not sharing of love, no demonstration of faith and no ability to show relational love. So GOD is a Divine Family of ONE Being with three persons of love.
But you reject me already because I talk about sacred things EGW says I am not allowed to speak. Do you understand in Hebrew there are TWO words for love : ahab and ahabah ?
You also reject me because I read ALL contexts of a word and use ALL word meanings for a single meaning - I do not accept the majority while rejecting the minority, as Nehemiah Gordon does for Elohiym for example. I assume you have studied his work?
Again you refuse to discuss my discussion, full of errors ! Really show me the errors in Luke 1:35, a very of poor quality text?
And also Hosea 4:19 is unclear as a Bible verse, so why does EGW use this unclear text many times in her messages?
There are over dozens of verses using “eloah” and “shadday” but you reject these verses completely as to why such verses exist, referencing “heavenly parents” a term EGW uses?
You are a Hebrew linguist you would have noticed masculine takes precedence over feminine personalities of love. If I tried to explain this you will reject me. If I show you a link to my studies you refuse to study them.
The word “ab” does not mean “father” this is a narrow context, which is true for narrow contexts. The broader meaning of “Ab” is “provider”
Song 6:11 ¶ I went down into the garden of nuts to see the “providers” of the valley,
This unclear, rarely known context, I bring to you to consider.
So if the “ab” is a Provider of providing love “ahab” than the Shadday is a responder of responding love. One is a foundational LORD and other has a more passive function.
So in terms of providers, EGW is correct, the Grand provider is the Most High and the Second collective provider is the Son, and the third provider would be Lucifer.
Notice my stance on this comes from understanding the Hebrew, the notions of Hebrew understanding of love and how community functions work in Hebrew.
I use EGW only as confirming the Hebrew is correct. You do not do this. She is your primary authority here?
EGW says the Father has a new name.
So I ask you, as any SDA ; what is the Father’s old name? The scholars do not answer me.
Back to my strongest play but you did not like my serving this ball - unclear texts
Who is the Eloah and the Shadday, dozens of so called unclear texts?
Polyglot: “The word "persons" here is not synonymous with "beings," as a modern English speaker might presume.
Rob: I agree. When two persons marry they become a cardinal one Being, not two beings.
So now you are allowed to quibble away the essence of GOD as you do because you refuse to look into the personalities of love and how such love works in a Hebrew context?
If I have convinced other SDA of the Divine Family of GOD and the Shadday as feminine love, I can convince you, but you have to read our material without bias?
Now for these reasons I cannot make clear “persons and beings” as word meanings, because love functions in a way you do not understand right now. Do you wish to learn Hebrew understandings of love, ahab and ahabah?
Instead I chose to show you names instead. Why is Elohiym referenced most common as three names - Eloah, Shadday and YHWH ? Are these just Three different personal masks over the same single one cardinal PERSON? Are you preaching modalism to me?
I spent thousands of posts talking to a Gnostic Christian who says Elohiym is three expressions of the one cardinal Being. Like the four faces of Ezekiel cherubims, the face of the lion, an eagle, face of an ox, and a man. Do you see the Most High like that?
Where as I see the Divine Family power as three persons who walk and talk with three different and unique personalities of love, Provider love, Responder love and Collective love.
One Being but as three persons of love, just as a simile of a earth family is One Family with three individual humans persons in the family.
Yet you claim this is anti-biblical and reject the claims outright, without explaining the unclear texts I give you?
What is poor about the Greek word "hagios" ? Surely the word was written in Luke 1:35?
Question: Why do we need a passive Divine Deity?
Can you answer that Polyglot? How does the Most High allow sinning to sin while His glory does not destroy the sinner immediately in a nanosecond?
My answer is the create a medium.
Ps 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created:
Why did the Most High create the “ruwach” - so the function of the medium can operate.
Mediums carry power, they change the properties of power and allow powers to diminish or become virtual even. Do you study “medium” and “agency” with EGW?
The Shadday administrates the medium function, so dysfunction can exist on earth.
So if this happens while Lucifer is sinning how many special members sit on the throne of Elohiym? Two. Who appears next in line - Lucifer.
But now we speculate beyond Scripture a little and you will reject my notions?
Do you even understand the Ruwach means “medium” for all contexts?
You cannot see and touch mediums on earth, they do not exist - only media exists on earth - hence the reason why Science does not talk much about mediums as an affect.
The reason why EGW says the nature of the medium does not help the Church and silence is golden. Yet you mock the HS and write the function off , stating Elohiym is cardinal one person?
So when the Eloah and Shadday function, you suppose this is two mask expressions of the same Person, so collectively references Elohiym as a whole?
OK - what about this verse?
Pr 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
So these are two masks of the same “adam” a parallel to “torah” - so you are saying as the Jews say the moral law is just a subset of the other ceremonial laws of the Bible?
Jews say we must obey 613 laws, the SDA says we should obey at least 10 moral laws.
So the notions of father laws and mother laws is poetry nonsense? Two masks of the same laws?
I would describe the Father’s faith principles as Provider Primary powers and the Mother’s teachings as “precious promises” as narrower applications of the Provider powers, so both are useful but both have different functions. Do you even understand me?
You did not read my link to genuine faith and how EGW explains faith in these terms?
From a logical view, if the Most High is infinite, it must be able to demonstrate all there is and will ever be as views of anything that ever exists. If you fully know all function, than by contrast you also know all dysfunction without personally doing such evil.
So the Infinite has to demonstrate Love and being loving, Faith and being faithful; to name a few of relational functions. So the Infinite cannot be a single element of a grand set. Maths allows grand sets to have more than one copy. This does not make more infinity, it only makes elements within infinity? Do you even understand this?
I gave you clearly two names doing the born process in Luke 1:35 but you claim this is unclear? So sad.
I give you another text:
Ps 91:1 ¶ He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
Here is I suppose another unclear text. Question: How does a human dwell in the secret place of the Most High by faith without the Most High destroying your presence?
Answer: By a shadow principle. And by the Shadday.
Question: Can this be a second mask of the Most High?
Answer: NO, because the Most High is a source of light and power, and the shadow is a dimming down of both light and power, by another object blocking and controlling the power and light as a medium affect. Such a divine deity has to function passively so the dysfunctional creature can live and not die.
Shadows require two deities of presence, one is active as light and other is passive as a medium affect.
No point showing you links to my Bible studies on this topic - you will say its unclear, yet 1John uses “light” “shadows” and “sin” all in one scroll. Would you study this if I gave you a link?
You cannot make shadows on your own - you need a light source, a second object and some material matter as a observational platform to view the affect. Shalom
Please do not remark my theory of faith as “trinity” . I do not accept “trinity” but Elohiym as a “Divine Family” - this aligns with EGW and the Bible better.
You are stating Elohiym means “the Father only” : a reference to a cardinal single BEING.
I thought Elohiym is “plural” : you are a Hebrew linguist? I am surprised !
When Adam and Eve sinned, ie they both sinned, Elohiym declared them to be one of US knowing both good and evil.
Ge 3:22 ¶ And the LORD Elohiym said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
Now when it says “YHWH elohiym” this is meant to mean the foundational personality of Elohym speaks for the family
There are Hebrew words for this in a earth family, adonai and baal to name a few.
The masculine provider is LORD over the family, and the responder in love, is only a responder to His providing love, is not termed a baal nor termed a adonai. She is only his responder. But you reject me now because I speak of love and love functions, and this is new and unclear to you - so you reject it.
And yet I am supposed to use only clear Bible texts, not unclear Bible texts? Really is not all contexts of Elohiym supposed to be inspired? Or do we neglect the minor contexts in favour of the major contexts? Why your theory is not even based on the torah of Moses, but upon notions you read from EGW about the supremacy of the Opposer !
You understand there are false elohiym power? Than what is wrong in calling the Father in heaven the the true only Elohiym? Nothing. It does not mean the Father is all alone , solitary as a cardinal one power as you claim. What does that make the Son? Divine but not a divine deity? Is that your belief?
EGW: "If men reject the testimony of Scripture concerning the deity of Christ, it is vain to argue with them; no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. {HF 323.4}
Jesus Christ is plainly a Divine Deity, now we have two members of Elohiym power.
EGW: "The light of day, gilding forest and mountain, meadow and stream, carried the mind up to behold the Deity, the Father of lights, the Author of every good and perfect gift. .. {ST June 8, 1888, par. 8}
The Father Most High is is a deity who is divine, the grand provider.
EGW: "Today this sacrilegious work is being more than repeated. There will be messages borne, and those who have rejected the messages God has sent, will hear most startling declarations. The Holy Spirit will invest the announcement with a sanctity and solemnity which will appear terrible in the ears of those who would not hear the pleadings of Infinite Love, and who have not responded to the offers of pardon and forgiveness. Injured and insulted Deity will speak, proclaiming the sins that have been hidden. As the priests and rulers, full of indignation and terror, sought refuge in flight at the cleansing of the temple, so will it be in the work for these last days. The woes that will be pronounced upon those who had light from heaven, and did not heed it, they will feel, but they will have no power to act. This is represented in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. They cannot obtain a character from the wise virgins, and they have no oil of grace to discern the clear light, or to accept it, that they may join the procession going into the marriage supper of the Lamb. {1888 1490.3}
In context, within Elohiym, one member is mentioned the HS who speaks injured and insulted as Deity, where humans run out of the oil of grace as foolish virgins. Do you agree with my exegesis?
Now all three heavenly powers are referenced as divine deities. Go figure.
I am not surprised there is no reference to three “BEINGS” but only to three persons.
Because when Elohiym made “adam” Masculine Singular He took Adam and showed Adam His creation, noticed Adam was lonely. And thus needed a “Ploughed Head Mate”
Romans 1:20 tells us that Elohiym is a simile in process of His Creation.
Question: How many Beings are there on earth in their image “Elohiym is quoted as US”
Answer: One.
The woman was built out of the man, not created from the ground. She came out of the existing material, And this explains the notions of GOD and it’s persons . But not as a mask of the same person !!!! O boy.
If GOD was a single cardinal person, there could be not sharing of love, no demonstration of faith and no ability to show relational love. So GOD is a Divine Family of ONE Being with three persons of love.
But you reject me already because I talk about sacred things EGW says I am not allowed to speak. Do you understand in Hebrew there are TWO words for love : ahab and ahabah ?
You also reject me because I read ALL contexts of a word and use ALL word meanings for a single meaning - I do not accept the majority while rejecting the minority, as Nehemiah Gordon does for Elohiym for example. I assume you have studied his work?
Again you refuse to discuss my discussion, full of errors ! Really show me the errors in Luke 1:35, a very of poor quality text?
And also Hosea 4:19 is unclear as a Bible verse, so why does EGW use this unclear text many times in her messages?
There are over dozens of verses using “eloah” and “shadday” but you reject these verses completely as to why such verses exist, referencing “heavenly parents” a term EGW uses?
You are a Hebrew linguist you would have noticed masculine takes precedence over feminine personalities of love. If I tried to explain this you will reject me. If I show you a link to my studies you refuse to study them.
The word “ab” does not mean “father” this is a narrow context, which is true for narrow contexts. The broader meaning of “Ab” is “provider”
Song 6:11 ¶ I went down into the garden of nuts to see the “providers” of the valley,
This unclear, rarely known context, I bring to you to consider.
So if the “ab” is a Provider of providing love “ahab” than the Shadday is a responder of responding love. One is a foundational LORD and other has a more passive function.
So in terms of providers, EGW is correct, the Grand provider is the Most High and the Second collective provider is the Son, and the third provider would be Lucifer.
Notice my stance on this comes from understanding the Hebrew, the notions of Hebrew understanding of love and how community functions work in Hebrew.
I use EGW only as confirming the Hebrew is correct. You do not do this. She is your primary authority here?
EGW says the Father has a new name.
So I ask you, as any SDA ; what is the Father’s old name? The scholars do not answer me.
Back to my strongest play but you did not like my serving this ball - unclear texts
Who is the Eloah and the Shadday, dozens of so called unclear texts?
Polyglot: “The word "persons" here is not synonymous with "beings," as a modern English speaker might presume.
Rob: I agree. When two persons marry they become a cardinal one Being, not two beings.
So now you are allowed to quibble away the essence of GOD as you do because you refuse to look into the personalities of love and how such love works in a Hebrew context?
If I have convinced other SDA of the Divine Family of GOD and the Shadday as feminine love, I can convince you, but you have to read our material without bias?
Now for these reasons I cannot make clear “persons and beings” as word meanings, because love functions in a way you do not understand right now. Do you wish to learn Hebrew understandings of love, ahab and ahabah?
Instead I chose to show you names instead. Why is Elohiym referenced most common as three names - Eloah, Shadday and YHWH ? Are these just Three different personal masks over the same single one cardinal PERSON? Are you preaching modalism to me?
I spent thousands of posts talking to a Gnostic Christian who says Elohiym is three expressions of the one cardinal Being. Like the four faces of Ezekiel cherubims, the face of the lion, an eagle, face of an ox, and a man. Do you see the Most High like that?
Where as I see the Divine Family power as three persons who walk and talk with three different and unique personalities of love, Provider love, Responder love and Collective love.
One Being but as three persons of love, just as a simile of a earth family is One Family with three individual humans persons in the family.
Yet you claim this is anti-biblical and reject the claims outright, without explaining the unclear texts I give you?
What is poor about the Greek word "hagios" ? Surely the word was written in Luke 1:35?
Question: Why do we need a passive Divine Deity?
Can you answer that Polyglot? How does the Most High allow sinning to sin while His glory does not destroy the sinner immediately in a nanosecond?
My answer is the create a medium.
Ps 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created:
Why did the Most High create the “ruwach” - so the function of the medium can operate.
Mediums carry power, they change the properties of power and allow powers to diminish or become virtual even. Do you study “medium” and “agency” with EGW?
The Shadday administrates the medium function, so dysfunction can exist on earth.
So if this happens while Lucifer is sinning how many special members sit on the throne of Elohiym? Two. Who appears next in line - Lucifer.
But now we speculate beyond Scripture a little and you will reject my notions?
Do you even understand the Ruwach means “medium” for all contexts?
You cannot see and touch mediums on earth, they do not exist - only media exists on earth - hence the reason why Science does not talk much about mediums as an affect.
The reason why EGW says the nature of the medium does not help the Church and silence is golden. Yet you mock the HS and write the function off , stating Elohiym is cardinal one person?
So when the Eloah and Shadday function, you suppose this is two mask expressions of the same Person, so collectively references Elohiym as a whole?
OK - what about this verse?
Pr 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
So these are two masks of the same “adam” a parallel to “torah” - so you are saying as the Jews say the moral law is just a subset of the other ceremonial laws of the Bible?
Jews say we must obey 613 laws, the SDA says we should obey at least 10 moral laws.
So the notions of father laws and mother laws is poetry nonsense? Two masks of the same laws?
I would describe the Father’s faith principles as Provider Primary powers and the Mother’s teachings as “precious promises” as narrower applications of the Provider powers, so both are useful but both have different functions. Do you even understand me?
You did not read my link to genuine faith and how EGW explains faith in these terms?
From a logical view, if the Most High is infinite, it must be able to demonstrate all there is and will ever be as views of anything that ever exists. If you fully know all function, than by contrast you also know all dysfunction without personally doing such evil.
So the Infinite has to demonstrate Love and being loving, Faith and being faithful; to name a few of relational functions. So the Infinite cannot be a single element of a grand set. Maths allows grand sets to have more than one copy. This does not make more infinity, it only makes elements within infinity? Do you even understand this?
I gave you clearly two names doing the born process in Luke 1:35 but you claim this is unclear? So sad.
I give you another text:
Ps 91:1 ¶ He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
Here is I suppose another unclear text. Question: How does a human dwell in the secret place of the Most High by faith without the Most High destroying your presence?
Answer: By a shadow principle. And by the Shadday.
Question: Can this be a second mask of the Most High?
Answer: NO, because the Most High is a source of light and power, and the shadow is a dimming down of both light and power, by another object blocking and controlling the power and light as a medium affect. Such a divine deity has to function passively so the dysfunctional creature can live and not die.
Shadows require two deities of presence, one is active as light and other is passive as a medium affect.
No point showing you links to my Bible studies on this topic - you will say its unclear, yet 1John uses “light” “shadows” and “sin” all in one scroll. Would you study this if I gave you a link?
You cannot make shadows on your own - you need a light source, a second object and some material matter as a observational platform to view the affect. Shalom
rob
Active member
I offer you a picture explaining Ps 91:1
Notice the Lamp as light comes from the Provider Most High
The HS functions as a medium and controls the flow of light and makes an affect (yellow area)
There are two shadows that come (less gray and more gray areas) - the umbra and pre-umbra shadows
Confirming my understanding is correct from our Hebrew English translator
EGW: "God is love. The love of the Father and the Son is an attribute of every believer. The Word of God is the channel through which divine love is communicated to man. God’s truth is the medium by which the intellect is reached. The Holy Spirit is given to the human agent who works in co-operation with divine agencies. It transforms mind and character, enabling man to endure as seeing Him who is invisible. Perfect love can be enjoyed only through the belief of the truth and the reception of the Holy Spirit. {Ms46-1902.3}
Wind is a medium affect
Truth is a medium affect
Why do we need a passive carrying of divine power in this way?
So the dysfunctional is not destroyed by the Most High.
And the hymn we sing "Under His wings I am safely abiding" Whose wings are these? The Father, or the Shadday/HS?
Ps 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Why does the Hebrew term this picture as under His wings?
The same mystery, why is the Breast written in masculine terms when it refers mostly to feminine creatures?
This picture comes from the origin of the Most High, you cannot make shadows in darkness. Shalom
Notice the Lamp as light comes from the Provider Most High
The HS functions as a medium and controls the flow of light and makes an affect (yellow area)
There are two shadows that come (less gray and more gray areas) - the umbra and pre-umbra shadows
Confirming my understanding is correct from our Hebrew English translator
EGW: "God is love. The love of the Father and the Son is an attribute of every believer. The Word of God is the channel through which divine love is communicated to man. God’s truth is the medium by which the intellect is reached. The Holy Spirit is given to the human agent who works in co-operation with divine agencies. It transforms mind and character, enabling man to endure as seeing Him who is invisible. Perfect love can be enjoyed only through the belief of the truth and the reception of the Holy Spirit. {Ms46-1902.3}
Wind is a medium affect
Truth is a medium affect
Why do we need a passive carrying of divine power in this way?
So the dysfunctional is not destroyed by the Most High.
And the hymn we sing "Under His wings I am safely abiding" Whose wings are these? The Father, or the Shadday/HS?
Ps 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Why does the Hebrew term this picture as under His wings?
The same mystery, why is the Breast written in masculine terms when it refers mostly to feminine creatures?
This picture comes from the origin of the Most High, you cannot make shadows in darkness. Shalom
Where in the Bible is such a term as "divine family" used? Or where in Ellen White's writings do you find this applied specifically to God? I see that she used the term a couple of times:
Ellen White said:
To me it appears this "divine family" is inclusive of both the angels and us. It is not a substitute term for "Trinity."
When the true God is referenced, yes. The Father is "the only true God"--Jesus' own words and teaching. But "elohim" can be applied to other entities which are not God, or both at the same time.
I won't claim to know all there is to know about Hebrew--only that I have been studying it for many years now. But this is one of the points of Hebrew upon which I am more knowledgeable, for it is relatively clear. "Elohim" is plural in form--but is not actually plural. It is a "plurale tantum," listed among over a hundred other such Hebrew words on Wiktionary. This means it has no singular form in the Hebrew language. It is similar to English words like "entrails." There is no such word as "entrail" in English. However, I say "similar" because, whereas in English "entrails" can never be singular, in Hebrew these "plurale tantum" are known to be either singular or plural based on the verbs and adjectives used with them, for Hebrew requires subject-verb-adjective agreement just as other languages do. The "rule of thumb" Hebrew students learn as they begin to distinguish between plural and singular nouns, is: "The adjective never lies."
So, it is true that the "-im" suffix on a Hebrew noun usually indicates masculine plural. However, it is also true that Hebrew has many exceptions to the rule, including a number of words which have no singular form at all...as I've said earlier, words like "faces", "waters", "heavens", "lives", etc. The only way to know if one heaven or if one face is being referenced is to look at the adjectives and verbs accompanying it. The same is true for "elohim."
In Genesis 1 we have additional evidence that God is singular: the verb "bara." "Bara" is translated as "created" in Genesis 1:1 (which is actually a small mistake, as it should have been "creating"--but that's another topic). This verb "bara" is always singular throughout the Hebrew Bible. This is not because it has no plural form, but rather because its subject, "God," is always singular--and "bara" is never used for anyone else, only for God. In Genesis 1:26, a different verb, "asah," is used--a verb that could be used for non-God entities, like people or angels. But in Genesis 1:27 we are back to "bara," and God is clearly referenced in singular.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27)
Until the last word, every single word in this text is singular, with the "bara elohim" (the subject often follows the verb in Hebrew) indicating that the "elohim" is singular. God (singular) created man (singular) in his (singular) own image (singular).
Yes, "elohim" in Genesis 3:22-24 is a reference to the divine family, inclusive of the angels--whom God was addressing in "we" fashion. Both God and the heavenly angels knew both good and evil at this point in time, all of them having witnessed Lucifer's fall and been participant to the war against him in Heaven. God is addressing the angels, giving them the reason for His command in verse 24, two verses later:
"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Genesis 3:24)
These angels were included in God's "us." God acknowledges that they knew both good and evil as He did--and, ironically, this is just what Satan had promised to Adam and Eve as well--that their eyes would be opened and they would know both good and evil. And so it was that the family of Adam became "elohim" in this sense as well, becoming judges to discern between good and evil.
I need more of a "thus saith the Lord" for this than I have seen yet. What I have seen so far is your interpretation of certain obscure passages that you try to make say this.
"Adonai" means "lord." Abraham is also called "lord." "Baal" is another matter, with some possible complications, such as (H1167) meaning "owner/husband/lord," e.g. "husband" in Joel 1:8, or (H1168) meaning "lord" or the supreme male divinity of the Canaanites or Phoenicians.
Perhaps I am simple, but these two paragraphs are confusing to me. What I will say about the "clarity" of the texts is just what Ellen White says: "take the Bible as it reads."
Ellen White said:
Yes, "elohim" can refer to false gods. Ellen White is clear that God had an associate, an accomplice--so, no, He was not alone.
The son of God is divine, but is not deity: yes, that is as I presently understand it.
Look carefully at all of Ellen White's statements and you may see what I have seen: she writes inspired thoughts in a manner similar to those of the Bible writers. Consider John 5:39. What is this "deity of Christ"? Is it not "all the fulness of the Godhead" (Colossians 2:9) which dwelt in him? Was HE the deity? or was it something within him as we are told repeatedly in the Bible?
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:19)
The Bible teaches that God was IN Christ, but never says that Christ was God. There is a marked difference. Jesus was in all points our Example. We, too, may have God dwelling in us--for this reason our bodies are called His temple. But if God is in me does that make me God?
Another commonly misunderstood statement of Ellen White that grammatically parallels the one you quote here regarding this "deity" is this one:
Ellen White said:
Many wrongly conclude that Ellen White is saying her writings are the "lesser light" and that the Bible is the "greater light." This is not so, for the Bible itself places itself on a "lesser light" level. The "greater light" is none other than Christ. Christ is the greater light of the Bible--the greatest light of all.
As Ellen White also said: "John was the lesser light, which was to be followed by a greater light. ..." {RH April 8, 1873, par. 15}. I don't know of any light among the Biblical authors or prophets than John--so this "greater light" can only be Christ.
With this I fully agree. Notice the language. "The Deity" is identified as "the Father of lights" (reference to James 1:17).
But instead of saying "The Father Most High is...'a' deity," why not say it as she did..."the" Deity?
First, Ellen White never speaks of "members" of the Elohim nor of the Godhead. Avoid this word if you are able, for it will lead you astray, being unscriptural. If for no other reason, it is on account of this word that I am compelled to reject your exegesis here. Secondly, the term "Holy Spirit" has often been altered by the publishers of Ellen White's writings to make it titlecase, as seen here. Sometimes Mrs. White did use capital letters, but it is also true that often she did not. Had the holy spirit been a personage like God or God's son, I think she would always have capitalized the term. But the fact she often used "it" as well as "he" to reference God's spirit is also indicative of a difference she makes with this "third person" as compared to the others. Remember, "person" is not synonymous with "being" in Mrs. White's usage nor in the dictionaries of her day (both the 1828 and the 1913 versions of Webster's Dictionary).
You wrote a lot, which is good. Unfortunately, I have no time for more at the moment.
May God guide.
I didn't notice this particular point regarding "muwth muwth" before (I was pressed for time), so I'll address that one now while I grab a bite to eat. Hebrew has many words for death, killing, and murder. "Muwth" is the standard word for "die," and happens to be the word used in Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 where it is defined rather clearly to follow our standard definition of death. The repetition of the word just emphasizes what is to happen. This is a Hebraism, and occurs often with Hebrew verbs when emphasis is needed. English, not saying things like "You will die die," usually translates as "surely die" or something similar. Perhaps in more colloquial language it could be "You will die the death!" But in Hebrew, verbs repeated for emphasis like this are in what is called "tautological infinitive" form--at least, one of the pair is.
Other words besides muwth (H4191) for ways to die in Hebrew include: harag (H2026), ratsach (H7523), nakah (H5221), gava (H1478), shachat (H7819), naphal (H5307), chalal (H2491), tabach (H2873), tebach (H2874), maveth (H4194), nagaph (H5062), nebelah (H5038), zabach (H2076), zanab (H2179), halam (H1986), qatal (H6991), temuwthah (H8546), etc. They have varied meanings, ranging from killing (an animal), putting to death (a person), murdering, smiting (resulting in death), and so on. Some might even look at Hebrew as a rather grim language, seeing as there seem to be far more destructive words than there are for things like "love."
I imagine it would be possible to see "muwth" as a separation of sorts, seeing as the concept of "death" involves the dust or ashes being "separated" from the life-giving breath. But that is hardly the traditional definition of the word. The usual definition is shown below.
https://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5221&t=KJV said:
NOTE: I've attempted to edit this to say "Qal" for number 1 in the definition above, but the forum software is changing it. I don't know if this will go through either. I tried adding the variant "Paal" and it got converted to "Paul."
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Polyglot asks "Where in the Bible is such a term as "divine family" used? Or where in Ellen White's writings do you find this applied specifically to God?
Rob “ I gave you Luke 1:35 it mentions two names doing a born process.
If the Most High alone is solitary as deity, explain the many references to Eloah and Shadday - and Luke 1:35 both names doing a born process for their Son?
The term overshadow requires TWO to make shadows “one is the light source - the other blocks and controls the light source - making a shadow” You cannot make shadows from one object, you need two, a light source object and a solid opaque object.
Of 20 messages I post a few EGW:
(1) EGW: “God would have our families symbols of the family in heaven. Let parents and children bear this in mind every day, relating themselves to one another as members of the family of God. {AH 17.2
Earthly family is a simile of the heavenly family - we are made in their image ! You ignore poetry similes in the Bible - keep it simple !
(11) EGW: "Through Christ men and women have been adopted into the divine family as sons and daughters of God. They are given every advantage of the Saviour’s power and redeeming love.—Manuscript 85, 1899, 1-16. (“The Sanitarium: Where Shall It Be Located?” June 5, 1899.) {10MR 247.4
Take it as it reads you say - keep things simple.
(15) EGW: “ The redemption price for a lost race had been fully paid, and it was now possible for humanity, through faith and obedience, to become once more members of the divine family. {Lt178-1907.3}
Notice EGW uses the term “members” of the “divine family”
Polyglot says "Perhaps I am simple, but these two paragraphs are confusing to me. What I will say about the "clarity" of the texts is just what Ellen White says: "take the Bible as it reads."
Rob” You make elohiym polysemous? You make the EGW quote on deity about Jesus something else? You dig deep into Hebrew grammar and verb uses....hardly simple !!
Consider this:
The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory (The Youth’s Instructor, April 25, 1901). {5BC 1108.6}
Rob: In other words Jesus lived by faith not using His own powers. We are to do the same.
EGW: “Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1113. {7ABC 446.2}
The humanity died life was separated from the Father / HS breath of life
The Divinity also experience separation - what EGW terms “dissolution”.
Consider this rare example of Jesus own divinity as deity:
Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
EGW: "His prayer was heard. Suddenly the heavens opened, and holy radiance descended upon the mount, enshrouding the Saviour’s form. Divinity from within flashed through humanity and met the glory coming from above. Arising from His prostrate position, Christ stood in godlike majesty. His countenance shone “as the sun,” and His garments were “white as light.” {HLv 285.1}
Rob:” I see this as a faith request and His own divinity coming through His humanity to meet the divinity coming down from the Father, so they both met each other and flashed together as the glory of the sun.
You doubt this. It was a sin while Jesus was on earth to use His own power, he lived by faith in His Father. Just as we live by faith in Jesus. If Jesus had not divinity how can we live in Him and His powers by faith?
I ask you who was Jesus called in the pre-existent Christ in the former rains of the OT?
Ho 6:3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.
So YHWH is both the author of the NT and the OT making Jesus Christ have this title.
Ge 4:26...: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. (KJV)
But there are different names
Ex 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by “El” “Shadday” by my name JEHOVAH.
El Shadday is a Name you ignore
Ps 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high. (KJV)
Does this suggest two names ? YHWH and YHWH-elyown ?
Ge 19:24 ¶ Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Does this refer to YHWH and YHWH-elyown ?
Ps 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
Is YHWH-adown a different person to YHWH-elyown?
I will stop here - you do not like me writing lots. Shalom
Rob “ I gave you Luke 1:35 it mentions two names doing a born process.
If the Most High alone is solitary as deity, explain the many references to Eloah and Shadday - and Luke 1:35 both names doing a born process for their Son?
The term overshadow requires TWO to make shadows “one is the light source - the other blocks and controls the light source - making a shadow” You cannot make shadows from one object, you need two, a light source object and a solid opaque object.
Of 20 messages I post a few EGW:
(1) EGW: “God would have our families symbols of the family in heaven. Let parents and children bear this in mind every day, relating themselves to one another as members of the family of God. {AH 17.2
Earthly family is a simile of the heavenly family - we are made in their image ! You ignore poetry similes in the Bible - keep it simple !
(11) EGW: "Through Christ men and women have been adopted into the divine family as sons and daughters of God. They are given every advantage of the Saviour’s power and redeeming love.—Manuscript 85, 1899, 1-16. (“The Sanitarium: Where Shall It Be Located?” June 5, 1899.) {10MR 247.4
Take it as it reads you say - keep things simple.
(15) EGW: “ The redemption price for a lost race had been fully paid, and it was now possible for humanity, through faith and obedience, to become once more members of the divine family. {Lt178-1907.3}
Notice EGW uses the term “members” of the “divine family”
Polyglot says "Perhaps I am simple, but these two paragraphs are confusing to me. What I will say about the "clarity" of the texts is just what Ellen White says: "take the Bible as it reads."
Rob” You make elohiym polysemous? You make the EGW quote on deity about Jesus something else? You dig deep into Hebrew grammar and verb uses....hardly simple !!
Consider this:
The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour’s Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory (The Youth’s Instructor, April 25, 1901). {5BC 1108.6}
Rob: In other words Jesus lived by faith not using His own powers. We are to do the same.
EGW: “Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1113. {7ABC 446.2}
The humanity died life was separated from the Father / HS breath of life
The Divinity also experience separation - what EGW terms “dissolution”.
Consider this rare example of Jesus own divinity as deity:
Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
EGW: "His prayer was heard. Suddenly the heavens opened, and holy radiance descended upon the mount, enshrouding the Saviour’s form. Divinity from within flashed through humanity and met the glory coming from above. Arising from His prostrate position, Christ stood in godlike majesty. His countenance shone “as the sun,” and His garments were “white as light.” {HLv 285.1}
Rob:” I see this as a faith request and His own divinity coming through His humanity to meet the divinity coming down from the Father, so they both met each other and flashed together as the glory of the sun.
You doubt this. It was a sin while Jesus was on earth to use His own power, he lived by faith in His Father. Just as we live by faith in Jesus. If Jesus had not divinity how can we live in Him and His powers by faith?
I ask you who was Jesus called in the pre-existent Christ in the former rains of the OT?
Ho 6:3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.
So YHWH is both the author of the NT and the OT making Jesus Christ have this title.
Ge 4:26...: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. (KJV)
But there are different names
Ex 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by “El” “Shadday” by my name JEHOVAH.
El Shadday is a Name you ignore
Ps 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high. (KJV)
Does this suggest two names ? YHWH and YHWH-elyown ?
Ge 19:24 ¶ Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Does this refer to YHWH and YHWH-elyown ?
Ps 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
Is YHWH-adown a different person to YHWH-elyown?
I will stop here - you do not like me writing lots. Shalom
rob
Active member
This is a side issue - I like your scholarship but you are different to me
I am / was a disciple of Jeff Benner - I agree with his ideas, but often also disagree
You neglect to notice many Hebrew words have verb and noun forms which must have the same basic word meaning, only differences in action - verb incomplete action - noun completed action - many translators FAIL to note this aspect of language. Below is my interpretation based on Jeff Benner and his Ancient Hebrew Lexicon - a book I use for many years since 2012, - but sometimes often disagree. Jeff and I both agree a Hebrew word has a single basic meaning for all contexts. I note already you favour Hebrew polysemy for “elohiym” and this makes us different already.
Proverb 30:5 says Gods words are pure - not mixtures of words meanings as you claim.
Word meanings from myself - often in agreement with Jeff Benner and his Lexicon
muwth (H4191) “Dying/death”
harag (H2026), either “Killing / killed” or “slay/slain”
ratsach (H7523), “wounding/wound”
nakah (H5221), “Crush / Crushed”
gava (H1478), Hmm? a difficult one - “to gasp one’s final breath”
shachat (H7819), “strike”
naphal (H5307), “fall/fallen baby” ? Jeff Benner suggestion
chalal (H2491), “pierce/pierced”
tabach (H2873), “slaughter/slaughtered”
tebach (H2874), Hmm? I see you list Hebrew nouns as separate meaning? This is wrong my friend, as I was taught my Jeff Benner as a student of his.
maveth (H4194), “die/death” Hmm? Why two words the same ? ie muwth - something wrong?
nagaph (H5062), “strike”
nebelah (H5038), “flowing away of life”
zabach (H2076), “sacrificing/sacrifice”
zanab (H2179), Hmm? Jeff Benner is wrong with “tail/tail” dunno?
halam (H1986), Hmm? “hammer”
qatal (H6991), Hmm? “cutting/cut” dunno?
temuwthah (H8546), Hmm? Jeff Benner says “death”
I will not say any more on this, your scholarship is different to mine. Shalom
I am / was a disciple of Jeff Benner - I agree with his ideas, but often also disagree
You neglect to notice many Hebrew words have verb and noun forms which must have the same basic word meaning, only differences in action - verb incomplete action - noun completed action - many translators FAIL to note this aspect of language. Below is my interpretation based on Jeff Benner and his Ancient Hebrew Lexicon - a book I use for many years since 2012, - but sometimes often disagree. Jeff and I both agree a Hebrew word has a single basic meaning for all contexts. I note already you favour Hebrew polysemy for “elohiym” and this makes us different already.
Proverb 30:5 says Gods words are pure - not mixtures of words meanings as you claim.
Word meanings from myself - often in agreement with Jeff Benner and his Lexicon
muwth (H4191) “Dying/death”
harag (H2026), either “Killing / killed” or “slay/slain”
ratsach (H7523), “wounding/wound”
nakah (H5221), “Crush / Crushed”
gava (H1478), Hmm? a difficult one - “to gasp one’s final breath”
shachat (H7819), “strike”
naphal (H5307), “fall/fallen baby” ? Jeff Benner suggestion
chalal (H2491), “pierce/pierced”
tabach (H2873), “slaughter/slaughtered”
tebach (H2874), Hmm? I see you list Hebrew nouns as separate meaning? This is wrong my friend, as I was taught my Jeff Benner as a student of his.
maveth (H4194), “die/death” Hmm? Why two words the same ? ie muwth - something wrong?
nagaph (H5062), “strike”
nebelah (H5038), “flowing away of life”
zabach (H2076), “sacrificing/sacrifice”
zanab (H2179), Hmm? Jeff Benner is wrong with “tail/tail” dunno?
halam (H1986), Hmm? “hammer”
qatal (H6991), Hmm? “cutting/cut” dunno?
temuwthah (H8546), Hmm? Jeff Benner says “death”
I will not say any more on this, your scholarship is different to mine. Shalom
I see that you have noted that "divine family" is synonymous with "heavenly family." I agree. The angels are part of that family, and we may be too.
I do not ignore Biblical poetry, but perhaps I do not read into it what you have. Parallelism and chiasm (inverted parallelism) are common Hebrew forms for poetry, and it is more often than not that the parallels reference the same thing, as opposed to two separate things (that would be contrast).
I am not the one making "elohim" polysemous. Welcome to the Hebrew language. Hebrew is more open to interpretation than most anglophones are comfortable with, as you illustrate. This is simply the nature of the language. We know for a fact that the word "elohim" applies to God, to false gods, to angels, and to people. The textual evidence for this is unmistakable.
Two points here: 1) What was "the Saviour's Godhead"? Ellen White parallels this in the next sentence with "God." This is Biblical: "God was in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19). 2) You say: "not using His own powers" and "we are to do the same"? The Bible says that faith without works is dead, and Mrs. White tells us that we are to answer our own prayers insofar as possible. That doesn't sound to me like we are to neglect the use of our own powers. You may think this a nitpick, or just a point of argument, but I think it is important to work carefully from the definitions of the terms used and not to abuse them. I like to let the inspired writings help to define themselves, and look for the harmony among them.
You still appear to conflate divinity with deity. Deity is certainly divine, but not all divinity is deity. Angels are divine, but they are not God. The son of man was divine, but was not God. We must apply the terms carefully. God was dwelling in Christ, and God may live in us, too. But we are not God.
The English word "as" is tricky. It can mean "like" or "is." You take it to be the latter: I don't. I understand it to be an analogy, not a statement of being. He is not rain. He comes like rain.
rob
Active member
I am struggling with what your theories of faith is Polyglot? I am going to write in your ideas??
So who was Jesus, if he is divine as angels are divine by not deity? Is Jesus just an angel? Or maybe he never pre-existed? And came only as a human from Mary's time?
You also seem to suggest Jesus is not YHWH as in Hosea 6:3 ?
You say :"The Bible says that faith without works is dead, and Mrs. White tells us that we are to answer our own prayers insofar as possible. That doesn't sound to me like we are to neglect the use of our own powers.
The works that are done in us are empowered by Jesus, via faith, as His works of divinity in us, because we ask for them. That is my two pennies on how genuine faith works. You cannot be saved by human works. This is how EGW defines faith :"to appropriate by faith to yourself the precious promises in the Word of God" In other words we ask for Divine Powers specific to our needs every day as our needs arise. Thus faith must assume Jesus is divine with his own deity, to achieve this rescue of sinners from sin. His atonement is sufficient for us, proves His own deity is exchanged for our missing, and this is the reason for faith in Him. He is our substitute and He leads us to the Most High to live under His faith - powers.
Polyglot you ignored previous points I raised?
Repeat "
Consider this rare example of Jesus own divinity as deity:
Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
EGW: "His prayer was heard. Suddenly the heavens opened, and holy radiance descended upon the mount, enshrouding the Saviour’s form. Divinity from within flashed through humanity and met the glory coming from above. Arising from His prostrate position, Christ stood in godlike majesty. His countenance shone “as the sun,” and His garments were “white as light.” {HLv 285.1}
This is a very rare case of Jesus own divinity flashing through his humanity to meet the divinity of the Father flashing down from heaven, so they both combine as the majesty of the Sun, a simile EGW makes. Do you agree with this exegesis?
If you ignore this EGW, there are no other examples of Jesus using His own divinity power as his own deity. He had to live by faith, and you are taking advantage of this to work a different theory of faith - my two pennies on your view.
Repeat: "I ask you who was Jesus called in the pre-existent Christ in the former rains of the OT?
Repeat: "
Ps 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high. (KJV)
Does this suggest two names ? YHWH and YHWH-elyown ?
One other question: If we are only saved by the Name of Jesus Christ, and this saving is by faith in His power,
what powers are we talking about? If He is not deity, he has not powers, other than passing the powers of the Most High unto humans via faith? We did He die than, an infinite sacrifice EGW says, if He is merely what?
So what is Jesus in the OT ? What Hebrew words do we look for? yasha ? YHWH ? Adonai ?
Jesus called himself the great I AM? That suggests to me deity. He was crucified for saying this?
I cannot fathom you at all - if Jesus went to the "muwth muwth" for our sin-offering, how did He rise from the grave? by which power, and how did He stay alive in shaowl for 3 days and 3 nights, while His soul died? He has no corruption, so something inherit in Him stopped Him decaying. The Father did not stop the decaying process, not did the HS. He was separated from the Divine Heavenly parents, as Ps 22:1 says. In shaowl this proves Jesus has his own deity.
Who was the second YHWH in Gen 19:24 than? Proof Jesus is YHWH ?
Your theories are so different I doubt you are SDA? How do you go to church and not disturb your brethren? I don't even know of breakaway SDA assemblies with such views? Some reject the HS as a person. But I have never met a SDA who views Jesus as "divine" whatever that means, BUT has no deity - whatever that means?
I do not believe angels are divine, they are only divine because as messages they carry the Most High powers to humans via faith. I see all creatures (including angels) like humans have to live by faith in the powers of the Most High. See Ps 119:86
So it is near impossible to judge angels as mere creatures who are divine because of their faith.
The Opposer broke faith (Job 4:18) tells us, so this means all angels live and work by faith, the same as we have to.
I will stop here - you do not like too much to read. Shalom
So who was Jesus, if he is divine as angels are divine by not deity? Is Jesus just an angel? Or maybe he never pre-existed? And came only as a human from Mary's time?
You also seem to suggest Jesus is not YHWH as in Hosea 6:3 ?
You say :"The Bible says that faith without works is dead, and Mrs. White tells us that we are to answer our own prayers insofar as possible. That doesn't sound to me like we are to neglect the use of our own powers.
The works that are done in us are empowered by Jesus, via faith, as His works of divinity in us, because we ask for them. That is my two pennies on how genuine faith works. You cannot be saved by human works. This is how EGW defines faith :"to appropriate by faith to yourself the precious promises in the Word of God" In other words we ask for Divine Powers specific to our needs every day as our needs arise. Thus faith must assume Jesus is divine with his own deity, to achieve this rescue of sinners from sin. His atonement is sufficient for us, proves His own deity is exchanged for our missing, and this is the reason for faith in Him. He is our substitute and He leads us to the Most High to live under His faith - powers.
Polyglot you ignored previous points I raised?
Repeat "
Consider this rare example of Jesus own divinity as deity:
Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
EGW: "His prayer was heard. Suddenly the heavens opened, and holy radiance descended upon the mount, enshrouding the Saviour’s form. Divinity from within flashed through humanity and met the glory coming from above. Arising from His prostrate position, Christ stood in godlike majesty. His countenance shone “as the sun,” and His garments were “white as light.” {HLv 285.1}
This is a very rare case of Jesus own divinity flashing through his humanity to meet the divinity of the Father flashing down from heaven, so they both combine as the majesty of the Sun, a simile EGW makes. Do you agree with this exegesis?
If you ignore this EGW, there are no other examples of Jesus using His own divinity power as his own deity. He had to live by faith, and you are taking advantage of this to work a different theory of faith - my two pennies on your view.
Repeat: "I ask you who was Jesus called in the pre-existent Christ in the former rains of the OT?
Repeat: "
Ps 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high. (KJV)
Does this suggest two names ? YHWH and YHWH-elyown ?
One other question: If we are only saved by the Name of Jesus Christ, and this saving is by faith in His power,
what powers are we talking about? If He is not deity, he has not powers, other than passing the powers of the Most High unto humans via faith? We did He die than, an infinite sacrifice EGW says, if He is merely what?
So what is Jesus in the OT ? What Hebrew words do we look for? yasha ? YHWH ? Adonai ?
Jesus called himself the great I AM? That suggests to me deity. He was crucified for saying this?
I cannot fathom you at all - if Jesus went to the "muwth muwth" for our sin-offering, how did He rise from the grave? by which power, and how did He stay alive in shaowl for 3 days and 3 nights, while His soul died? He has no corruption, so something inherit in Him stopped Him decaying. The Father did not stop the decaying process, not did the HS. He was separated from the Divine Heavenly parents, as Ps 22:1 says. In shaowl this proves Jesus has his own deity.
Who was the second YHWH in Gen 19:24 than? Proof Jesus is YHWH ?
Your theories are so different I doubt you are SDA? How do you go to church and not disturb your brethren? I don't even know of breakaway SDA assemblies with such views? Some reject the HS as a person. But I have never met a SDA who views Jesus as "divine" whatever that means, BUT has no deity - whatever that means?
I do not believe angels are divine, they are only divine because as messages they carry the Most High powers to humans via faith. I see all creatures (including angels) like humans have to live by faith in the powers of the Most High. See Ps 119:86
So it is near impossible to judge angels as mere creatures who are divine because of their faith.
The Opposer broke faith (Job 4:18) tells us, so this means all angels live and work by faith, the same as we have to.
I will stop here - you do not like too much to read. Shalom
Last edited:
I believe, just as the Bible says, that Jesus is God's son. He has always been God's son ever since he was begotten of God, and well before this earth existed. God, the Father, has given all things to the Son, including his authority and power. Because the Father has appointed it, the Son is permitted to receive the homage of angels and men. Prior to his incarnation, the Son existed in heaven as Michael, the commander of the angels.
God is invisible. To relate to His creation, it has always been necessary to have a mediator, one who would come in God's image and represent God to His creation. This has been Jesus' position always. It is my understanding that not even the angels have yet seen God, but that after the sin experiment is over, God will reveal Himself--causing the death of the wicked, but the righteous will be permitted to exist in the brightness of His glory.
Ellen White calls Jesus an angel. But I prefer not to use this description because most people have incorrect ideas of what it means and are confused by it. Jesus is not a created being as the heavenly angels we typically think of are. Jesus is begotten, not created. There is a difference.
God is a Being. Ellen White says so. She also speaks of Jesus as his own being. She was clearly not a believer in the 1+1+1=1 mythology, for she references God and Christ as separate personalities. She also teaches that belief in the personality of God or of Christ is one of our most fundamental pillars of faith, equal to our kingpin pillar, the sanctuary.
YHWH is a bit of an enigma. I am uncertain as to whom it applies, whether the Father, or Jesus, or both. The reason for this uncertainty is that both Isaiah 9:6 and John 5:43 teach that Jesus came in his Father's name--which causes me to believe that they both have the same name.
However, I am certain that every interaction people had throughout the Bible with "God" was actually with Jesus, the Son of God. Ellen White tells us this. So, for example, it was Jesus' divine person and voice proclaiming the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai. If the Bible calls this personage "YHWH," then Jesus clearly has come in this name.
I presently believe that the "Ancient of Days" references the Father. I'm open to further study on some of these points insofar as there are revealed truths on them.
I agree that human works will not save us. But Ellen White says that no one will be saved without them. Food for thought.
Jesus is divine, and has divinity. I have never said otherwise here. He pre-existed his humanity--Hebrews 10:5 is clear enough about that. As for the glory of his divinity flashing through his humanity, Hebrews 10:20 touches a bit on that, for his flesh was to be the veil that covered this divinity and kept it hidden.
Remember, divine angels are also quite glorious, and when they do not appear in the shroud of human form, they are too dazzlingly bright to behold as well. Even Moses, coming down from the Mount, glowed too brightly for the people to look at him. This divine radiance or glory was no indication of the one having it being Deity. Moses was certainly not God, nor are the holy angels.
Revelation 22:16 tells us plainly that Christ, symbolically, is the sun--the greater light.
| I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (Revelation 22:16) |
I do not ignore Ellen White, but there is nothing in that statement that references "his own deity." She does not portray Jesus as being deity.
I honestly do not understand your question here. Nor have I understood what you were pushing at earlier when you made similar references. This is why I have not responded to them. I cannot answer a question I do not understand. It makes no sense to me to think of Christ as "rains" of any sort. I'm sure it's all clear in your mind. I'm sorry, but it is far from clear in mind what even you might be alluding to here.
But as I have said, Christ pre-existed his incarnation. This is clear from both the Bible and Ellen White.
No. What this is is Hebrew parallelism, common in Hebrew poetry. In poetic parallelism, two slightly different words will be compared as equals or as expressions of the same concept. They both address the same thing, but it would be boring in both Hebrew or English to just repeat the same word.
For example, one might say:
The ocean is great;
The sea is broad.
This would be the sort of parallelism common in Hebrew poetry. The words "ocean" and "sea" reference the same thing, just as "great" and "broad" are two expressions for the same idea.
I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness:
I will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
Both lines indicate praising (two different Hebrew words). Both lines reference the name of the LORD (only one name, but with varied adjectives). They are paralleled for poetic emphasis.
God cannot die. If Jesus were God, he could not have been our Sacrifice. The entire plan of redemption fails if we understand the man Jesus Christ to have been God.
Not being deity does not mean one has no powers. Even the Devil will work miracles--of powers which he possesses, according to Ellen White. The devil can heal. He can cause fire to flash down from heaven. He can likely do a great deal more than we have yet witnessed, for God has not yet permitted him to work such wonders. But the devil is not God. The devil is not "deity" in the sense most would consider. (He is, of course, called the "god" of this world.)
I think I have answered most of this in some of my explanations above. But the "I AM" must be understood from a separate angle--one that Jesus himself explained.
| John 8:28 | Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. |
| John 8:38 | I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. |
| John 10:38 | But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. |
| John 12:49 | For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. |
| John 14:10 | Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. |
| John 14:24 | He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. |
Jesus was divine as well as human. His divinity did not die, even though his humanity did.
Ellen White said:
Ellen White says "Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death." Note, however, that she does not say he did so. The Bible teaches that it was at the Father's command.
"But God raised him from the dead:" (Acts 13:30, KJV).
The question remains unanswered in my mind for how Christ possessed this power. Two possible reasons come to mind: 1) via his own divine nature; or 2) via the Father, who dwelt in Christ. I don't think knowing the answer is necessary for salvation, so I don't need an answer. If the answer is not given us in the inspired writings, it may well be part of that subject upon which silence is eloquence.
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; (Gen 19:24, KJV)
There is no "second YHWH" here. It is just emphasizing both who did this and from whom it originated.
If one but stops to consider, it would make no sense having two separate entities here. One "YHWH" could not "rain" fire from another one.
I am a Seventh-day Adventist in good standing. I do find considerable resistance when I present these Biblical truths. John 16:2 will be fulfilled, and it will be the saints, Jesus' own disciples, upon whom it will be done. Eventually, that may be my case. For now, I am still here. I do not seek for disunity--it just happens when there is no agreement upon the platform of truth. As Ellen White said...
Ellen White said:
Ellen White called Gabriel divine. Do you disagree with this?