Angel Michael
- Thread starter Chomsky
- Start date
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
How nice to have you reply
You say "Jesus wasn't tested or tempted by the Devil to see if He would sin - Jesus was tempted / tested to show that He COULDN'T sin. This is why the Father of Lies performed the testing himself.
This makes no sense, can you say this is different words please? The Devil is all about getting creatures like humans to sin and remain sinning. Sinning means breaking faith in using the FATHER'S power. Jesus came using His Father's power by faith.
Why would the Devil tempt Jesus to show He couldn't sin? The would tempt is the opposite meaning of "nacah", the Hebrew word normally means "try or test" it's opposite meaning in an opposite context is "tempt to sin"
So how do you know by the context if a Hebrew word is meant to be it's opposite context?
Ge 22:1 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Same Hebrew word, and I disagree with KJV that this context demands the opposite meaning of "nacah". See my problem?
So the verse to me is rendered as
Ge 22:1 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that God did test Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. (meaning God wanted to increase the faith level of Abraham) [not decrease or break faith with a sin]
So in your verse "Mt 4:1 ¶ Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."
Your saying the Devil did not want to make Jesus break faith?
We SDA are so lucky to have a prophet regarding Scripture context and exegesis.
EGW:"
After the baptism of Jesus in Jordan, He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil. The Holy Spirit had prepared Him for that special scene of fierce temptations. Forty days He was tempted of Satan, and in those days He ate nothing. Everything around Him was unpleasant, from which human nature would be led to shrink. He was with the wild beasts and the devil, in a desolate, lonely place. The Son of God was pale and emaciated, through fasting and suffering. But His course was marked out, and He must fulfill the work which He came to do. {EW 155.2}
Satan took advantage of the sufferings of the Son of God and prepared to beset Him with manifold temptations, hoping to obtain the victory over Him, because He had humbled Himself as a man. Satan came with this temptation: “If Thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.” He tempted Jesus to condescend to give him proof of His being the Messiah, by exercising His divine power. Jesus mildly answered him, “It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” {EW 155.3}
Grunion you have to show me using Bible verses that the Devil didn't want Jesus to break faith... Where is your verse?
(1) If Jesus didn't come as a human with free will doing faith as a human doing faith, getting Divine power from the Father as a human gets divine power from the Father, THAN His whole purpose being our example in all things is a FAKE.
That fact Jesus could have sinned, proves He was doing faith as Humans do , using faith and thus was as venerable as you and I are to sin. Such a condition does NOT remove His Divinity or His Deity, if only shows you the risk of heaven took to save humans.
If you remove Jesus infinite risk in trying to save humans, than we have nothing to save us - it is all fake.
I am still waiting for your one good verse to show that Jesus could never have sinned? Such a verse would destroy the example he did for us, leaving us an example that we must do as our Saviour did, and that includes not sinning. What on earth is the 144,000 about Grunion? It's about humans not sinning, not breaking faith, just as Jesus did. If we fail and sin during this time, it will prove to Satan that Faith cannot endure unless God empowers it daily.
Somewhere along this narrative humans also never sin, just as Jesus didn't sin.
You said :" Is there any SDA's here reading this that has something to offer in the way of Bible support for there being multiple "divine deities"? Is this standard SDA understanding?
What are you saying? Catholic trinity has "three persons" who are all "divine" that makes to me "multiple persons of divinity" ?
You showed me yourself EGW speaks of "three heavenly powers" "three persons" "three personalities" and "three beings"
All of these persons or beings are divine, so that means "multiple Divine persons" ?
I quote from a SDA (link already shown before) Catholic and SDA trinity:
" But this divine character is identified as Jesus’ own which He received from
the Father, thus the divine Nature in it is His own, this is how He is God.
John 14:6, 9, 10.
This SDA person says the Father has his own divine Nature and Jesus has his own divine Nature
14. Seventh Day Adventism has sought to identify how the Father, Son and Spirit is God, but
they have made severe mistakes that put them in the fold of Rome with regards to the
Godhead or what is called the Trinity. Here is what Seventh day Adventism says.
“Some Christians argue that we cannot believe in the Trinity because it is a Catholic
dogma. Though it is true that some of the Catholic doctrines such as saints’ mediation,
the mass, purgatory, or Mary’s immaculate conceptions are not founded biblically, we
cannot deny that Catholics also promote teachings that are solidly founded on the Bible
such as the incarnation, the fact that the Bible is the Word of God, or the death and
resurrection of Christ. Thus, we cannot reject something simply and plainly because
Catholics also believe it” Priorities, Jan. 2012, p.25. (The Trinity: Pagan and Catholic?
By J. Vladimir Polanco).
The SDA magazine almost perfectly
explains the Catholic concept of the Trinity. We are told.
“The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Godhead consists of three divine Persons the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are not three Gods but three divine Persons who are
one in nature (same essence or substance), character and purpose… While the three
divine Persons are one. They have taken different roles…” Ibid, p.16.
What this explanation of the Trinity tells us, coming from the Catholic Church is the
following.
-The Godhead is three divine persons.
-They are not three Gods but three divine persons who are one in nature, essence
or substance.
-The three divine persons are one
Rob: How can Catholic trinity affirm three divine persons, but not three divine gods?
Thus they are saying the three divine persons are one? is this cardinally one? or unified as one?
17. However, the horrible, God-dishonoring paganism of this erroneous concept is better
understood because it is better expressed in the following Catholic literature.
“He [Jesus] is the eternal Word born of the Father before time began, one in substance
with the Father, homousios to Patri, through whom all things were made.” General
Editor, Austin Flannery, Vatican Council 11, Volume 2, p. 390.
i.
This statement contains two major deadly errors.
a. Jesus’ birth was before time began.
b. Jesus is one in substance (homousios) with the Father.
So Dudley Canright got his weird idea from Catholics not the Bible. The Son of God was born out from the Father, some eternity past? as this Catholic idea says. Jesus-YHWH and the Father-YHWH came into being all at once - the Bible says.
The reference to born - refers to Jesus-YHWH adding humanity to Himself.
The actual teaching, as we will see, is the following gross falsehoods.
a. Jesus’ divinity was begotten before time began
b. Jesus’ divinity is a divine substance like the Father has because He was
begotten in His divinity before time began.
c. The Spirit is the same substance of God preceding from the Father and the
Son.
d. Thus God is really one substance, homousios, in three parts/persons, thus
three divine persons.
Rob: Catholic trinity is One God who expresses himself as three faces. How is it possible for the Father to be physically on earth as a YH expression while at the same in in heaven as a WH expression, when two YHWH appear in two places at the same time? Gen 19:24
How do you make YH into a messenger when its the same as the WH who sends Him? Exodus 23:21
Why does the YH pray to the WH if they are the same substance ? John 17:1 - 3
These are three Bible verses Grunion you need to address. Explain the following:-
Love has risk - possibility of not loving - this does not exist if all persons are the same substance - ie no independence?
There is no risk of loving each other and the idea of love-unity is fake.
Also the demonstration of faith is fake because no Deity is truly independent.
Also the support of each other as possible independent Strong Authorities is a fake, because nobody is independent.
Your Catholic trinity model has NO love in it - its not a family either, if all three are a he?
You need to do some explaining using Scripture my friend - I would like you to talk using Scripture in Hebrew..
Shalom
How nice to have you reply
You say "Jesus wasn't tested or tempted by the Devil to see if He would sin - Jesus was tempted / tested to show that He COULDN'T sin. This is why the Father of Lies performed the testing himself.
This makes no sense, can you say this is different words please? The Devil is all about getting creatures like humans to sin and remain sinning. Sinning means breaking faith in using the FATHER'S power. Jesus came using His Father's power by faith.
Why would the Devil tempt Jesus to show He couldn't sin? The would tempt is the opposite meaning of "nacah", the Hebrew word normally means "try or test" it's opposite meaning in an opposite context is "tempt to sin"
So how do you know by the context if a Hebrew word is meant to be it's opposite context?
Ge 22:1 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Same Hebrew word, and I disagree with KJV that this context demands the opposite meaning of "nacah". See my problem?
So the verse to me is rendered as
Ge 22:1 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that God did test Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. (meaning God wanted to increase the faith level of Abraham) [not decrease or break faith with a sin]
So in your verse "Mt 4:1 ¶ Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."
Your saying the Devil did not want to make Jesus break faith?
We SDA are so lucky to have a prophet regarding Scripture context and exegesis.
EGW:"
After the baptism of Jesus in Jordan, He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil. The Holy Spirit had prepared Him for that special scene of fierce temptations. Forty days He was tempted of Satan, and in those days He ate nothing. Everything around Him was unpleasant, from which human nature would be led to shrink. He was with the wild beasts and the devil, in a desolate, lonely place. The Son of God was pale and emaciated, through fasting and suffering. But His course was marked out, and He must fulfill the work which He came to do. {EW 155.2}
Satan took advantage of the sufferings of the Son of God and prepared to beset Him with manifold temptations, hoping to obtain the victory over Him, because He had humbled Himself as a man. Satan came with this temptation: “If Thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.” He tempted Jesus to condescend to give him proof of His being the Messiah, by exercising His divine power. Jesus mildly answered him, “It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” {EW 155.3}
Grunion you have to show me using Bible verses that the Devil didn't want Jesus to break faith... Where is your verse?
(1) If Jesus didn't come as a human with free will doing faith as a human doing faith, getting Divine power from the Father as a human gets divine power from the Father, THAN His whole purpose being our example in all things is a FAKE.
That fact Jesus could have sinned, proves He was doing faith as Humans do , using faith and thus was as venerable as you and I are to sin. Such a condition does NOT remove His Divinity or His Deity, if only shows you the risk of heaven took to save humans.
If you remove Jesus infinite risk in trying to save humans, than we have nothing to save us - it is all fake.
I am still waiting for your one good verse to show that Jesus could never have sinned? Such a verse would destroy the example he did for us, leaving us an example that we must do as our Saviour did, and that includes not sinning. What on earth is the 144,000 about Grunion? It's about humans not sinning, not breaking faith, just as Jesus did. If we fail and sin during this time, it will prove to Satan that Faith cannot endure unless God empowers it daily.
Somewhere along this narrative humans also never sin, just as Jesus didn't sin.
You said :" Is there any SDA's here reading this that has something to offer in the way of Bible support for there being multiple "divine deities"? Is this standard SDA understanding?
What are you saying? Catholic trinity has "three persons" who are all "divine" that makes to me "multiple persons of divinity" ?
You showed me yourself EGW speaks of "three heavenly powers" "three persons" "three personalities" and "three beings"
All of these persons or beings are divine, so that means "multiple Divine persons" ?
I quote from a SDA (link already shown before) Catholic and SDA trinity:
" But this divine character is identified as Jesus’ own which He received from
the Father, thus the divine Nature in it is His own, this is how He is God.
John 14:6, 9, 10.
This SDA person says the Father has his own divine Nature and Jesus has his own divine Nature
14. Seventh Day Adventism has sought to identify how the Father, Son and Spirit is God, but
they have made severe mistakes that put them in the fold of Rome with regards to the
Godhead or what is called the Trinity. Here is what Seventh day Adventism says.
“Some Christians argue that we cannot believe in the Trinity because it is a Catholic
dogma. Though it is true that some of the Catholic doctrines such as saints’ mediation,
the mass, purgatory, or Mary’s immaculate conceptions are not founded biblically, we
cannot deny that Catholics also promote teachings that are solidly founded on the Bible
such as the incarnation, the fact that the Bible is the Word of God, or the death and
resurrection of Christ. Thus, we cannot reject something simply and plainly because
Catholics also believe it” Priorities, Jan. 2012, p.25. (The Trinity: Pagan and Catholic?
By J. Vladimir Polanco).
The SDA magazine almost perfectly
explains the Catholic concept of the Trinity. We are told.
“The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Godhead consists of three divine Persons the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are not three Gods but three divine Persons who are
one in nature (same essence or substance), character and purpose… While the three
divine Persons are one. They have taken different roles…” Ibid, p.16.
What this explanation of the Trinity tells us, coming from the Catholic Church is the
following.
-The Godhead is three divine persons.
-They are not three Gods but three divine persons who are one in nature, essence
or substance.
-The three divine persons are one
Rob: How can Catholic trinity affirm three divine persons, but not three divine gods?
Thus they are saying the three divine persons are one? is this cardinally one? or unified as one?
17. However, the horrible, God-dishonoring paganism of this erroneous concept is better
understood because it is better expressed in the following Catholic literature.
“He [Jesus] is the eternal Word born of the Father before time began, one in substance
with the Father, homousios to Patri, through whom all things were made.” General
Editor, Austin Flannery, Vatican Council 11, Volume 2, p. 390.
i.
This statement contains two major deadly errors.
a. Jesus’ birth was before time began.
b. Jesus is one in substance (homousios) with the Father.
So Dudley Canright got his weird idea from Catholics not the Bible. The Son of God was born out from the Father, some eternity past? as this Catholic idea says. Jesus-YHWH and the Father-YHWH came into being all at once - the Bible says.
The reference to born - refers to Jesus-YHWH adding humanity to Himself.
The actual teaching, as we will see, is the following gross falsehoods.
a. Jesus’ divinity was begotten before time began
b. Jesus’ divinity is a divine substance like the Father has because He was
begotten in His divinity before time began.
c. The Spirit is the same substance of God preceding from the Father and the
Son.
d. Thus God is really one substance, homousios, in three parts/persons, thus
three divine persons.
Rob: Catholic trinity is One God who expresses himself as three faces. How is it possible for the Father to be physically on earth as a YH expression while at the same in in heaven as a WH expression, when two YHWH appear in two places at the same time? Gen 19:24
How do you make YH into a messenger when its the same as the WH who sends Him? Exodus 23:21
Why does the YH pray to the WH if they are the same substance ? John 17:1 - 3
These are three Bible verses Grunion you need to address. Explain the following:-
Love has risk - possibility of not loving - this does not exist if all persons are the same substance - ie no independence?
There is no risk of loving each other and the idea of love-unity is fake.
Also the demonstration of faith is fake because no Deity is truly independent.
Also the support of each other as possible independent Strong Authorities is a fake, because nobody is independent.
Your Catholic trinity model has NO love in it - its not a family either, if all three are a he?
You need to do some explaining using Scripture my friend - I would like you to talk using Scripture in Hebrew..
Shalom
Last edited: