Angel Michael
- Thread starter Chomsky
- Start date
rob
Active member
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Da 12:1 ¶ And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince
Da 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
Da 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
These are all the Bible verses.
Now for context from a particular verse:
In Daniel the prince stood up, when did the prince sit down?
Da 7:9 ¶ I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit
The Father is sitting down for judgement
Da 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And this "Son of Man" is brought to the Father - we can assume to also sit down for judgment:
Cross referencing Scriptures:
Jude 1:9 is quoting this OT verse
Zec 3:1 ¶ And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
From this context , Michael the great prince, must be Jesus-YHWH the LORD.
Summary
1) war in heaven - now war on earth
2) great prince now wars with kings on earth
3) Son of Man called to be great prince over controversy
Questions: Is Jesus termed an angel in the KJV translations" Yes
Ex 23:20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
23 For mine Angel shall go before thee,
Confirmation:
We have a Prophet who functions as a Hebrew English translator, So how does She confirm our findings?
Then the Angel, who is Christ Himself, the Saviour of sinners, puts to silence the accuser of His people, declaring: “The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?” Zechariah 3:2
Why does EGW call Christ an angel? Because the KJV does, and we do not destroy confidence in the Scriptures despite it being fuzzy at times in translation - assuming this is fuzzy?
Ananias could hardly credit the words of the angel messenger, for Saul’s bitter persecution of the saints at Jerusalem had spread far and near. He presumed to expostulate; said he, “Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.” But the command to Ananias was imperative: “Go thy way, for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” {3SP 314.2}
So EGW does know angel is a messenger. Yet she writes quietly and confidently for beginners who read Scripture.
You also require the ability to DOUBT if you want to - for God does not force truth on anybody.
Hope this helps Shalom
Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Da 12:1 ¶ And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince
Da 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
Da 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
These are all the Bible verses.
Now for context from a particular verse:
In Daniel the prince stood up, when did the prince sit down?
Da 7:9 ¶ I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit
The Father is sitting down for judgement
Da 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And this "Son of Man" is brought to the Father - we can assume to also sit down for judgment:
Cross referencing Scriptures:
Jude 1:9 is quoting this OT verse
Zec 3:1 ¶ And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
From this context , Michael the great prince, must be Jesus-YHWH the LORD.
Summary
1) war in heaven - now war on earth
2) great prince now wars with kings on earth
3) Son of Man called to be great prince over controversy
Questions: Is Jesus termed an angel in the KJV translations" Yes
Ex 23:20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
23 For mine Angel shall go before thee,
Confirmation:
We have a Prophet who functions as a Hebrew English translator, So how does She confirm our findings?
Then the Angel, who is Christ Himself, the Saviour of sinners, puts to silence the accuser of His people, declaring: “The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?” Zechariah 3:2
Why does EGW call Christ an angel? Because the KJV does, and we do not destroy confidence in the Scriptures despite it being fuzzy at times in translation - assuming this is fuzzy?
Ananias could hardly credit the words of the angel messenger, for Saul’s bitter persecution of the saints at Jerusalem had spread far and near. He presumed to expostulate; said he, “Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.” But the command to Ananias was imperative: “Go thy way, for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” {3SP 314.2}
So EGW does know angel is a messenger. Yet she writes quietly and confidently for beginners who read Scripture.
You also require the ability to DOUBT if you want to - for God does not force truth on anybody.
Hope this helps Shalom
Chief
Chief of Sinners.
Interesting question. Here's my attempt at responding to it.
(a) Michael is a unique heavenly being: - He is the archangel - not one among many. The Greek “archangelos” = chief, ruling angel.
(b) He confronts Satan directly: - This shows divine-level authority: angels do not argue with Satan on their own terms.
(c) The dispute concerns the body of Moses: - This implies an event around Moses' burial and resurrection.
(c) Christ did not argue - He invoked the Father’s authority
Thus the being Jude calls “Michael the Archangel” is the one EGW repeatedly identifies as Christ Himself.
This is consistent with Adventist Christology:
Michael is a title describing Christ’s function in heaven, not His nature.
The Biblical Anchor: Jude 9
Jude presents three key ideas:
(a) Michael is a unique heavenly being: - He is the archangel - not one among many. The Greek “archangelos” = chief, ruling angel.
(b) He confronts Satan directly: - This shows divine-level authority: angels do not argue with Satan on their own terms.
(c) The dispute concerns the body of Moses: - This implies an event around Moses' burial and resurrection.
Ellen G. White Explicitly Identifies This Event as the Resurrection of Moses
(a) Christ Himself came to resurrect Moses(b) Satan claimed ownership of Moses’ body
This aligns directly with Jude 9’s “dispute about the body of Moses.”
(c) Christ did not argue - He invoked the Father’s authority
This matches Jude 9 exactly.
Thus the being Jude calls “Michael the Archangel” is the one EGW repeatedly identifies as Christ Himself.
EGW’s Direct Identification of Michael as Christ
This is the clearest doctrinal statement:According to EGW:
- “Angel of the LORD” = pre-incarnate Christ
- “Captain of the LORD’s host” = Christ (Joshua 5)
- “Michael the Archangel” = Christ in His role as commander of heaven’s armies
This is consistent with Adventist Christology:
Michael is a title describing Christ’s function in heaven, not His nature.
Doesn't Seventh-day Adventist theology affirm that Christ was turned into an angel between the time of Lucifer's initial rebellion in heaven and remained an archangel up until the point of the Incarnation?
While somewhat complicated the teaching can be studied at the following link https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST19120723-V39-28.pdf#search="took the nature of angels to repeat, the first step, then, in His humiliation, in laying aside His divine nature, was to put on the nature of angels"
Where its developed that after Lucifer rebelled, a charge was leveled against "God" (the Father) that He was ham handed in His dealings - to prove Flesh Father wasn't all that bad Christ sloughed off His on loaned Divinity and lived as Michael the archangel to combat Lucifer the archangel for something like 5000 years in an attempt to provide salvation to the fallen angels in the spirit world. This failed and so the Son of God sloughed off the angel nature and adopted human nature - this was understood to be the final act of the humiliation of creature-christ.
I've also looked at the Michael the archangel question as it relates to the Trinitarian questions I have.
While somewhat complicated the teaching can be studied at the following link https://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST19120723-V39-28.pdf#search="took the nature of angels to repeat, the first step, then, in His humiliation, in laying aside His divine nature, was to put on the nature of angels"
Where its developed that after Lucifer rebelled, a charge was leveled against "God" (the Father) that He was ham handed in His dealings - to prove Flesh Father wasn't all that bad Christ sloughed off His on loaned Divinity and lived as Michael the archangel to combat Lucifer the archangel for something like 5000 years in an attempt to provide salvation to the fallen angels in the spirit world. This failed and so the Son of God sloughed off the angel nature and adopted human nature - this was understood to be the final act of the humiliation of creature-christ.
I've also looked at the Michael the archangel question as it relates to the Trinitarian questions I have.
rob
Active member
This thread is off to a bad start already
You state: "Christ sloughed off His on loaned Divinity
You think Jesus-YHWH power of Divinity and Deity comes to Him as a gift by His Father. based on twisting a single verse
"he emptied himself" some theories from precepts and traditions of men.
It is more important to be saved by Jesus than to talk disparagingly about him. I feel for you.
Before eternity the great uncaused cause founded itself in nanoseconds as three primary functions of love, causing infinity to be copied three times, but expressed differently in each- so that loving personalities of infinity arise in order to make the whole of infinity emerge as a whole.
Jesus-YHWH had no beginning, neither did the Father-YHWH or the Shadday.
Your thinking is way off.
Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pr 8:22 ¶ The Father-YHWH possessed Son-YHWH in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
and
Pr 8:27 When Son-YHWH prepared the heavens, "Holy Spirit as feminine Wisdom" was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Three grand powers from eternity.
You said :"Doesn't Seventh-day Adventist theology affirm that Christ was turned into an angel between the time of Lucifer's initial rebellion in heaven and remained an archangel up until the point of the Incarnation?
No. The Father has a meeting to affirm the angel role of Jesus and his status as fully Deity like Himself. Up to that point Jesus looked and functioned as a angel. Lucifer became jealous of this. Shalom
You state: "Christ sloughed off His on loaned Divinity
You think Jesus-YHWH power of Divinity and Deity comes to Him as a gift by His Father. based on twisting a single verse
"he emptied himself" some theories from precepts and traditions of men.
It is more important to be saved by Jesus than to talk disparagingly about him. I feel for you.
Before eternity the great uncaused cause founded itself in nanoseconds as three primary functions of love, causing infinity to be copied three times, but expressed differently in each- so that loving personalities of infinity arise in order to make the whole of infinity emerge as a whole.
Jesus-YHWH had no beginning, neither did the Father-YHWH or the Shadday.
Your thinking is way off.
Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pr 8:22 ¶ The Father-YHWH possessed Son-YHWH in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
and
Pr 8:27 When Son-YHWH prepared the heavens, "Holy Spirit as feminine Wisdom" was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Three grand powers from eternity.
You said :"Doesn't Seventh-day Adventist theology affirm that Christ was turned into an angel between the time of Lucifer's initial rebellion in heaven and remained an archangel up until the point of the Incarnation?
No. The Father has a meeting to affirm the angel role of Jesus and his status as fully Deity like Himself. Up to that point Jesus looked and functioned as a angel. Lucifer became jealous of this. Shalom
This discussion about who is who, or trying to differentiate by one name or the other, brings up a question in my thinking.
Ellen writes:
"From eternal ages it was God’s purpose that every created being, from the bright and holy seraph to man, should be a temple for the indwelling of the Creator." DA 161
If every created being is to be a dwelling place, inhabited by or possessed by God, is it possible that Michael was and still is an archangel who is possessed by God, through the person of the Son who is also the "Creator"? Is Michael still among the angelic host, or did he disappear or cease to be when Jesus was born?
I think the first question is to define or understand exactly what does indwelling look like? How pervasive is it? How much influence or control comes with it? What does it mean to be one with God?
Obviously it would require each created being to voluntarily lay down their life, ie: self-will, or self-determination and allow the Creator to dwell within, that He might both will and do according to His good pleasure. This would avoid chaos and assure perfect harmony of thought and action throughout the universe.
We use the word Christ which is Greek, or Messiah which is Aramaic and both have the same definition in Strongs. Are they somehow different or the exact same and we just misuse them, as we tend to use Christ as a proper name and Messiah as a title. Both mean anointed or one who is anointed.
Is it possible that these two words indicate God's purpose of dwelling within the bodies or temples of His created beings?
Do these words carry with them the idea of being selected for a specific divine purpose? If so would Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Aaron, Saul or David also be Christ or Messiah or anointed?
It is curious to note that even, Cyrus who was a pagan king, was referred to by God as His anointed. The Aramaic word that was used regarding him is Messiah.
So if God's Son (The Creator), who is a spirit and as such has the ability to indwell every created being as stated above, and has condescended to indwell, as The Anointing element in every created being, it seems clear that He is indwelling and working through an angel named Michael, as well as flawed fallen humans like Aaron, David or Cyrus to perform a certain task to bring about the will of the Father?
Much to think about.
Ellen writes:
"From eternal ages it was God’s purpose that every created being, from the bright and holy seraph to man, should be a temple for the indwelling of the Creator." DA 161
If every created being is to be a dwelling place, inhabited by or possessed by God, is it possible that Michael was and still is an archangel who is possessed by God, through the person of the Son who is also the "Creator"? Is Michael still among the angelic host, or did he disappear or cease to be when Jesus was born?
I think the first question is to define or understand exactly what does indwelling look like? How pervasive is it? How much influence or control comes with it? What does it mean to be one with God?
Obviously it would require each created being to voluntarily lay down their life, ie: self-will, or self-determination and allow the Creator to dwell within, that He might both will and do according to His good pleasure. This would avoid chaos and assure perfect harmony of thought and action throughout the universe.
We use the word Christ which is Greek, or Messiah which is Aramaic and both have the same definition in Strongs. Are they somehow different or the exact same and we just misuse them, as we tend to use Christ as a proper name and Messiah as a title. Both mean anointed or one who is anointed.
Is it possible that these two words indicate God's purpose of dwelling within the bodies or temples of His created beings?
Do these words carry with them the idea of being selected for a specific divine purpose? If so would Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Aaron, Saul or David also be Christ or Messiah or anointed?
It is curious to note that even, Cyrus who was a pagan king, was referred to by God as His anointed. The Aramaic word that was used regarding him is Messiah.
So if God's Son (The Creator), who is a spirit and as such has the ability to indwell every created being as stated above, and has condescended to indwell, as The Anointing element in every created being, it seems clear that He is indwelling and working through an angel named Michael, as well as flawed fallen humans like Aaron, David or Cyrus to perform a certain task to bring about the will of the Father?
Much to think about.
Chief
Chief of Sinners.
I read a protocol report that left me with an afterthought (those who have worked in protocol can lay more emphasis and put things into perspective).
Premise: when the president enters the presidential jet, the jet automatically becomes Airforce 1 - just the presence of the president on board changes the designation and priority of the jet. This is human standards. God says He has loftier standards, higher than anything you could imagine (Isaiah 55:8).
Premise: when the president enters the presidential jet, the jet automatically becomes Airforce 1 - just the presence of the president on board changes the designation and priority of the jet. This is human standards. God says He has loftier standards, higher than anything you could imagine (Isaiah 55:8).
rob
Active member
Thank Gentlemen (LeRoy & Chief) your replies are profound. Much to think about.
I am humbled by Jesus to be under His Divine Powers granted to me daily because I ask for them.
This process of faith and salvation is a simile of the process of anointing.
We are lively stones placed with a unique purpose in His building for glory.
I imagine Jesus wears many hats, and has many functional roles to play.
He is now our High Priest.
Before that is was the Father's chief officer of His army of angels.
When he returns to collect subject for His kingdom, He becomes prince of the earth, with a renewed creation.
And the Father brings his throne down into the Son's midst and the family of humans redeemed.
I note when Abram was renamed by God the old name remained a bit and God called Abram, Abraham
And Saria became Sarah.
Perhaps the commander chief of angels is a old title still, but our Lord gets a new name as Lord of Lords.
Like Newton said we ponder pebbles while an ocean of stones lay out there on the beach of truth.
Thanks for all your insight. Shalom
I am humbled by Jesus to be under His Divine Powers granted to me daily because I ask for them.
This process of faith and salvation is a simile of the process of anointing.
We are lively stones placed with a unique purpose in His building for glory.
I imagine Jesus wears many hats, and has many functional roles to play.
He is now our High Priest.
Before that is was the Father's chief officer of His army of angels.
When he returns to collect subject for His kingdom, He becomes prince of the earth, with a renewed creation.
And the Father brings his throne down into the Son's midst and the family of humans redeemed.
I note when Abram was renamed by God the old name remained a bit and God called Abram, Abraham
And Saria became Sarah.
Perhaps the commander chief of angels is a old title still, but our Lord gets a new name as Lord of Lords.
Like Newton said we ponder pebbles while an ocean of stones lay out there on the beach of truth.
Thanks for all your insight. Shalom
Ellen was an anti-Trinitarian so the concepts in DA would naturally be, anti-Trinitarian. The understanding of this aspect of creature-christ's life during the life and ministry of Ellen White was that Christ was elevated by flesh flesh Father and in order to minister to the angels creature-christ sloughed off his existing nature & subsequently "became an angel" and in doing so adopted the nature of angels so he could witness to the angels (as an angel) to vindicate flesh-Father's law to the angelic host.
It's been a while but from memory I believe the SDA Teaching was that Michael the archangel was a means to an end and while Lucifer the archangel is still around Michael the archangel was deactivated by flesh Father after creature-christ suffered the 2nd humiliation when he sloughed off Michael and put on "the man". I believe Gabriel (the angel) was leveled up on account of this vacancy.
The concept here is that for 4000 plus years creature-christ fought the urges to rebel against flesh Father in his attempt to provide salvation to the angelic host who rebelled with Lucifer, unfortunately creature-christ failed in his mission and couldn't convince any angels to reconsider their rebellion against flesh Father. Later, after creature-christ sloughed off Michael creature christ again had to resist his urges and yearning to commit sin against flesh Father's law.
I have more material on this part and will have to dig it up.
Hello Grunion, I am not sure where yom are coming from about the trinity. It seemed a very settled belief in her day. But today it appears that the denomination has strayed from this truth. Therefore I do not know where you stand.
These are strange terms that I am unable to relate to nor do I know where to begin to reply with any knowing of how you think. "creature Christ"??? Does this mean: 'anointed creature'? what is this creature? is it created? "flesh Father"??? What is that? I have never seen this term before anywhere. It puts me in mind of all this nonsense going on today where they rename things just to be different like Unhoused person, Homeless person. Differently abled person, disabled person, They them "pronouns". Could you clarify what you are trying to communicate?
Perhaps you are a member of some other church group that regularly uses these esoteric to therms.
The idea of "sloughed off" is that like a reptile shedding its skin? What happened to Michael when he was "sloughed off"? It leaves me with a picture of a deflated rubber blowup replica of an angel. Can you give a clear explanation of this concept?
All created beings are temples made for habitation. Since the fall of mankind, Satan has hijacked what God had originally made for His own purpose. A fallen angel can find entrance through thoughts that are suggested and identified with by the human agent. Dark spirits always give these suggestions in first person to try to get the human element to think that the thought came from their own mind. These suggestions will arouse feelings, and more often than not the human agent will act those thoughts and feelings out, giving birth to sin. This is how they gain access to our temple.
If anything should be 'sloughed off' it is these spirits.
Scripture tells us that we are dead and our life is hidden in the Son, and the Son is hidden within the Father. The faithful believer who lives by these words which have preceded out of the mouth of God, knows that these suggestions and feelings are just an illusion from the enemy. This dark imp is trying to get us to think that our old man is still alive. But we know that it was put to death 2000 years ago, because God said it was. Romans 6:6
We can rest our full weight upon His undeniable word to our soul and can then say, “That’s not me because I am dead to sin and alive to my Father.” When we believe what God believes and live in it, that is what justifies us. That is what living by faith is, we simply just believe what He believes. Then the power that is granted by grace flows from the Father through the Son and the power to overcome fills our being, and victory is the result. We also know that sin shall not have dominion over us. The Son and the believer are now one and His imparted righteousness sanctifies the life. The Son is living and walking in us.
That still small voice that flows from the Father through the Son, into our heart, on a moment by moment basis, are for us to own and identify with. As we do those words become our own and we think God’s thoughts after Him. In this we will be guided safely, moment by moment, through this life, and our testimony will be, “The things that I do and say are not my own, they come from my Father and I always do those things that please Him.
I am 100% Trinitarian.
SDA theology during the life and ministry of Ellen White through to today taught that the Son of God was a "potential christ", i.e. he (creature-christ) could have sinned, could have fallen & had this hypothetical taken place creature-christ would have rotted or putrefied in the tomb thereby causing a rupture in the godhead. This understanding (that Christ was capable of mutation) was considered VITAL.
In Adventist theology only the Father is understood to be God in the strict sense and God was taught to be a hominid "flesh" Being that had every member part and organ found in a perfect man. Thus, a flesh Father. This SDA Doctrine was called "The Personality of God". Ellen White identified / codified this Doctrine as a "pillar" of Seventh-day Adventist Faith". Essentially it meant that the Father was a separate Being from the Son who was taught to be another Being - basically two god's.
Adventist groups have an Arian understanding of Christ being subject to mutation, exactly as stated in the Council of Nicaea's documents, specifically the letter to the Egyptians. The Seventh-day Adventists take this position to the extreme by postulating the extreme damage this would cause the godhead.
If, as SDA's believe, that God is a unity in the same way that Ellen White taught - see below:
The above defaults into Christ being no more God than Christ's Apostles are Christ - and that's the rub.
I have more to share about this but want to hear back from you first - make sure you get where I'm coming from.
I'll dig this up for you.
I'd appreciate it if you could confirm for me if you believe "God" is conditional or not. Many Adventists believe God is conditional and I've found it's not really worth spending time if someone believes that differently than me. I just would want to waste your time or mine if that's the case.
It is curious that you had no comment at all on my last reply at the end of the post. For the record I don't know what "God is conditional" even means. I have never heard of this before. You did not give me any reliable or understandable definition of your terms about creature Christ and flesh Father or where this is in scripture. I don't mean to be unkind or rude so I ask you to not read into my response anything of that nature. I'm just not able to follow you in these matters as they are somewhat foreign, especially the wording is very esoteric. What possible new or greater light can come out of your position about the Son and the Father and all this implied differences between them? What difference does it make? What does it profit us to believe this teaching. How does this figure into a greater understanding of the plan of redemption? How does this benefit or make the salvation story more clear? How does this help to create in a believer a new heart? It all seems that there is no beneficial follow through. Is it just an effort to put forth something new and unique? A sort of hairsplitting argument about who is who and how they differ from truth from main stream SOP past teachings with a possible motivation to be proven right. I get the sense that this is feeding at the tree of right and wrong or the tree of the knowledge of I am right and everyone else is wrong. If so I am not motivated to be involved if it is. If there is some uplifting greater light, I hunger for it.
rob
Active member
Grunion I am confused now, you say you are "100% Trinitarian." Yet you presented a post of three eternal persons from one substance?
Can I ask you why you see the Father and the Son and the HS all as a "he" : A common trinity doctrine. This view violates the Scripture verses. What is your view of Eloah and Shadday as Names for heavenly Parents?
I take it you do not see trinity as a Family deity?
So explain why trinity people happily use "Father and Son" if the term does mean a simile to a Family? Was Elohiym just role playing and this notion is a metaphor and therefore "not real". So using poetry we ignore half of Scripture because of similes.
Shalom
Can I ask you why you see the Father and the Son and the HS all as a "he" : A common trinity doctrine. This view violates the Scripture verses. What is your view of Eloah and Shadday as Names for heavenly Parents?
I take it you do not see trinity as a Family deity?
So explain why trinity people happily use "Father and Son" if the term does mean a simile to a Family? Was Elohiym just role playing and this notion is a metaphor and therefore "not real". So using poetry we ignore half of Scripture because of similes.
Shalom
I ran out of time last night but fully intend to address your question.
Read James 1, 13-17.
Ellen White taught that Christ was drawn or yearned / desired to sin but "resisted" His temptations. As Scripture plainly says a man is only tempted within himself when the temptation is something he desires / lusts / yearns for. THAT, is when you feel the pull of temptation. Scripture NO WHERE states that Jesus was tempted within Himself and instead the Scriptures clearly said that The Holy Spirit drove Jesus into the wild to be tempted "BY" or "OF" the Devil.
Because of the Arian foundation of the SDA Church SDA Church leadership had to ensure Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation. This concept was to protect the SDA Church from the Trinity Doctrine which they believed was the wine of Babylon. The primary pillar of faith, according to Ellen White, was the Personality of God Doctrine - the most important Doctrine of all. This Doctrine taught that God was THREE BEINGS with each Being having it's own hominid flesh body. The ultimate God was the Father while the creature-christ was "LIKE GOD" but not God in the ultimate sense. This creature christ was understood to be capable of mutation and could have sinned while operating in his Angel nature and also could have sinned while operating the man avatar.
So sure, I can agree with what you said in the section I quoted but that's not really what this is about - this is about the teaching that Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation AND if that had happened God would have been destroyed. This is the part I disagree with and have questions for SDA's on.
That's my whole point right there! The Father is in Christ and Christ is in the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Christ ALWAYS did those things that pleased the Father. If Christ eternally pleased the Father and heaven and earth would pass away before one word of Christ failed then why in the world was Ellen White so fanatical to convince her flock that Christ "could have sinned and lost his salvation" & if christ did sin he would have been boiling with maggots in the tomb.
rob
Active member
Grunion says :"The primary pillar of faith, according to Ellen White, was the Personality of God Doctrine - the most important Doctrine of all. This Doctrine taught that God was THREE BEINGS
Never does EGW say that Elohiym is three beings, three persons yes, three persojnalities, yes, but never three beings.
You are making an error in understanding how to describe personalities in a creature kind.
Mr Dog and Mrs Dog and Puppy are not three beings of canine, they are three personalities of love of canine.
The Divine is one eternal uncaused cause.
They became three personalities of love in their own divine uncaused cause.
Never does EGW say that Elohiym is three beings, three persons yes, three persojnalities, yes, but never three beings.
You are making an error in understanding how to describe personalities in a creature kind.
Mr Dog and Mrs Dog and Puppy are not three beings of canine, they are three personalities of love of canine.
The Divine is one eternal uncaused cause.
They became three personalities of love in their own divine uncaused cause.
The problem is that she did Rob.
Ellen said Christ was a separate "Being" from the Father here and that Christ was the ONLY Being in all the universe that could enter into all the councils and purposes of God. In case you missed it Ellen just said God was a Being and that Christ was a "Being". That's two, rob. Don't worry, more are on the way.
Ministry Magazine, June, 1961:
The point you've missed in everything I shared with you so far in this thread is that according to Ellen White - God was a collection of "Beings" with each Being having a flesh body. These beings cooperated like a perfect military unit who would come together in purpose and mission. The lessor Being (creature-christ) was capable of eternally passing out of existence.
Not much of a "Divine Cause" if the definition of it includes being just a name of a collection of Being's whereas one of the Beings can die off never more to galivant across the galaxy.
You should understand that Elohim IS Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Grunion thanks for that - always humble and nice at the same time to learn something new
Now I am puzzled - if canine refers to a creature kind. What do you term subsets of the canine kind?
There seems to be no English word, person and being both carry the same meaning?
So Mr Dog can be called a person or a being - the words mean the same?
When I searched "three beings" I came with 2 results on secular use - nothing on God.
So much for EGW writings search program?
Thanks for the information - much appreciated.
Now I am puzzled - if canine refers to a creature kind. What do you term subsets of the canine kind?
There seems to be no English word, person and being both carry the same meaning?
So Mr Dog can be called a person or a being - the words mean the same?
When I searched "three beings" I came with 2 results on secular use - nothing on God.
So much for EGW writings search program?
Thanks for the information - much appreciated.
Can any one tell me where this is going? What profit to our soul is there in this discussion? Perhaps I'm too simple minded but I cannot see any benefit in the discussions that have gone on. It just seems to be feeding at the tree of the knowledge of who is right and who is wrong. Like a sporting game where making points is all that matters. Many years ago in a discussion with a close friend I was able to convince him of something that we did not agree on. I then said, "I wish more people could see my point.” My friend then replied, “Well then, don’t wear a hat.” Can you see my point?