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:
There were many things said about The Christ within the Old Covenant (Law, Prophets and Psalms). One of the things said about The Christ was that it was impossible for God to sin. Seriously Rob, if I told you that The Christ could have been born of a Pagan Temple Prostitute what would you say? I'm pretty sure you'd tell me that my sick hypothetical situation would have been impossible because Sacred Scripture clearly says that The Christ would be born of a virgin.
Rob, would you tell me that Christ could have been of the line of the Han Dynasty of China? Something tells me you wouldn't because Sacred Scripture says The Christ would be of the line of David. God is perfect, does not sin and CAN'T be tempted to sin according to the Bible.
Anti-Trinitarians such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and SDA's will often come back with comments about how stupid the average Christian must be to think Lucifer would try to tempt Christ if it were impossible for Christ to sin. "IT WOULD BE A FARCE AND A MOCKERY" scream the anti-Trinitarians with clenched fists. Anti-Trinitarians will vigorously defend every prophecy about Christ EXCEPT where it's stated there would be no iniquity in Him. Adventist groups will feverishly make arguments to promote the concept that God was wrong when through the prophets it was said Christ had to be and do all the things spoken about Him - there was one exception - the great creature-christ doctrine of Arius, Ellen White & Charles Taz Russell. For the Arian system to function it requires a Gilligan christ, a creature and this creature MUST be defended with great vigor or the prophet will get angry.
Rob, you need to shorten your posts. Let's talk about the Adventist yearning to make provision for Jesus being capable of sinning while He was on earth and of course while he was operating as Michael the archangel prior to sloughing off his angel flesh and coming to our planet. Let's stick to that if you want to talk.
rob
Active member
I read your reply - still waiting for that really good Bible text that says Christ could never have sinned.
And you want me to make short replies?
Where is your Bible texts?
I like that fact you are replying Grunion, but we need to discuss our discussions - I have learn nothing so far about Catholic trinity as a term in detail, in fact can you confirm the Catholics even acknowledge Jesus as YHWH-Elohiym as a Name? (Deep Chat AI confirms this - can you trust it though? - can you trust human statements - or are they like ropes of sand? )
I told you already Michael is a shortened way of saying Ps 113:5 "who is like YHWH ELOHIYM" do you agree with this?
The Bible contexts of every context only compare "Ps 113:5 to other pagan elohiym powers" NOT to heavenly elohiym powers. Do you agree with this? So who of the pagan eloihym compare to YHWH-elohiym? Nothing does.
You don't reply to my discussions - while I am reacting to your discussions - that is unfair on your part? I want you replies based on Hebrew Bible verses that show my exegesis is wrong?
I notice you do not discuss your own Catholic trinity - arn't you allowed to?
I ran a Deep Chat AI on Catholic trinity and its seems the same view as mine? SO this makes things confusing. Do you trust human statements? How do you interpret them?
My truth only comes from Bible Hebrew - and I use EGW to confirm my Bible Hebrew understanding is correct - two witnesses is enough to confirm truth the torah says.
The problem is we can interpret Scripture differently?
You said :"Let's talk about the Adventist yearning to make provision for Jesus being capable of sinning while He was on earth and of course while he was operating as Michael the archangel prior to sloughing off his angel flesh and coming to our planet. Let's stick to that if you want to talk.
What does this mean? I will give you my answers from your words -
"Jesus being capable of sinning" is free will. All persons have free will - including persons in the trinity. Do you agree?
"yearning to make provision" is about faith - a faviourite subject of mine - what is your understanding of the faith process?
"while He was on earth" is about leaving us an example of how salvation as a process works - do you agree we must do as Jesus did - for he left us this example - do you agree? That includes not sinning, not breaking faith?
"while operating as "Ps 113:5" is about His real name "YHWH-Elohiym" Do you agree Michael means YHWH-Elohiym?
That is about the theme - who are the NAMES of ELoihym - Job 40 - the oldest Hebrew we have
Job 40:1 ¶ Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
I have to translate this with Hebrew intent because most people can't read Bible very well - the Bible was not written in Greek or English - but Hebrew and not Jewish Hebrew either - but Ancient Hebrew Moses used.
Job 40:1 ¶ Moreover the YHWH-Elohiym answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that contendeth with the Shadday instruct him? he that reproveth Eloah let him answer it.
There NAMES of a Family here, YHWH-Elohym, Shadday and Eloah.
I have never read Catholic trinity talk about these three Names, nor the SDA Church.
It's a pity we don't read our Bibles in Hebrew, EGW does. She knows who the Almighty is....
Do you agree the NAMEs of the trinity persons in Bible Hebrew are "YHWH-Elohiym, Shadday and Eloah" ?
And finally "to sloughing off his angel flesh"
This is pure speculative writing on your part? Nothing in the torah about this. Not much written about Jesus titles and His change of titles, assuming He changes titles, which I don't think, He changes titles, He comes the second time with a host of angels, so He is still the commander of armies. DO you agree that YHWH-ELOHIYM has many titles of function ?
Also to this line - you seem to suggest YHWH-ELOHIYM took off his angel flesh? What? Show me a Bible verse where YHWH-Elohiym was made from cherub flesh in the first place - that is a JW claim - not a SDA theme.
Now this passage you wrote is a huge pile of themes, as I have outlined above. ANd I have addressed all of these
but you do not discuss my talking using Bible verses in Hebrew.
Now there is a principle in the Bible for the Hebrew letter Q. This letter means "unknown" and where the Ancients saw "Q" things they left such things as a mystery. I suggest you stop talking about some things the Bible does not talk about much.
Like why one angel sinned - why did He stop doing faith in the FATHER - Job 4:18
Like why YHWH-ELohiym became the SON of Man did He change "titles" from a chief commander of armies, to a humble servant ?
"Ps 131:1 " Some things are too high for me" Is a beautiful verse to remember.
Oh I have to stop already - keep it short. Now please reply with Bible verses, preferably in Hebrew intent. Shalom
And you want me to make short replies?
Where is your Bible texts?
I like that fact you are replying Grunion, but we need to discuss our discussions - I have learn nothing so far about Catholic trinity as a term in detail, in fact can you confirm the Catholics even acknowledge Jesus as YHWH-Elohiym as a Name? (Deep Chat AI confirms this - can you trust it though? - can you trust human statements - or are they like ropes of sand? )
I told you already Michael is a shortened way of saying Ps 113:5 "who is like YHWH ELOHIYM" do you agree with this?
The Bible contexts of every context only compare "Ps 113:5 to other pagan elohiym powers" NOT to heavenly elohiym powers. Do you agree with this? So who of the pagan eloihym compare to YHWH-elohiym? Nothing does.
You don't reply to my discussions - while I am reacting to your discussions - that is unfair on your part? I want you replies based on Hebrew Bible verses that show my exegesis is wrong?
I notice you do not discuss your own Catholic trinity - arn't you allowed to?
I ran a Deep Chat AI on Catholic trinity and its seems the same view as mine? SO this makes things confusing. Do you trust human statements? How do you interpret them?
My truth only comes from Bible Hebrew - and I use EGW to confirm my Bible Hebrew understanding is correct - two witnesses is enough to confirm truth the torah says.
The problem is we can interpret Scripture differently?
You said :"Let's talk about the Adventist yearning to make provision for Jesus being capable of sinning while He was on earth and of course while he was operating as Michael the archangel prior to sloughing off his angel flesh and coming to our planet. Let's stick to that if you want to talk.
What does this mean? I will give you my answers from your words -
"Jesus being capable of sinning" is free will. All persons have free will - including persons in the trinity. Do you agree?
"yearning to make provision" is about faith - a faviourite subject of mine - what is your understanding of the faith process?
"while He was on earth" is about leaving us an example of how salvation as a process works - do you agree we must do as Jesus did - for he left us this example - do you agree? That includes not sinning, not breaking faith?
"while operating as "Ps 113:5" is about His real name "YHWH-Elohiym" Do you agree Michael means YHWH-Elohiym?
That is about the theme - who are the NAMES of ELoihym - Job 40 - the oldest Hebrew we have
Job 40:1 ¶ Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
I have to translate this with Hebrew intent because most people can't read Bible very well - the Bible was not written in Greek or English - but Hebrew and not Jewish Hebrew either - but Ancient Hebrew Moses used.
Job 40:1 ¶ Moreover the YHWH-Elohiym answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that contendeth with the Shadday instruct him? he that reproveth Eloah let him answer it.
There NAMES of a Family here, YHWH-Elohym, Shadday and Eloah.
I have never read Catholic trinity talk about these three Names, nor the SDA Church.
It's a pity we don't read our Bibles in Hebrew, EGW does. She knows who the Almighty is....
Do you agree the NAMEs of the trinity persons in Bible Hebrew are "YHWH-Elohiym, Shadday and Eloah" ?
And finally "to sloughing off his angel flesh"
This is pure speculative writing on your part? Nothing in the torah about this. Not much written about Jesus titles and His change of titles, assuming He changes titles, which I don't think, He changes titles, He comes the second time with a host of angels, so He is still the commander of armies. DO you agree that YHWH-ELOHIYM has many titles of function ?
Also to this line - you seem to suggest YHWH-ELOHIYM took off his angel flesh? What? Show me a Bible verse where YHWH-Elohiym was made from cherub flesh in the first place - that is a JW claim - not a SDA theme.
Now this passage you wrote is a huge pile of themes, as I have outlined above. ANd I have addressed all of these
but you do not discuss my talking using Bible verses in Hebrew.
Now there is a principle in the Bible for the Hebrew letter Q. This letter means "unknown" and where the Ancients saw "Q" things they left such things as a mystery. I suggest you stop talking about some things the Bible does not talk about much.
Like why one angel sinned - why did He stop doing faith in the FATHER - Job 4:18
Like why YHWH-ELohiym became the SON of Man did He change "titles" from a chief commander of armies, to a humble servant ?
"Ps 131:1 " Some things are too high for me" Is a beautiful verse to remember.
Oh I have to stop already - keep it short. Now please reply with Bible verses, preferably in Hebrew intent. Shalom
Last edited:
There are many Bible texts that say this. Here are a few.
Titus 1,
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior
Unless you identify "ages ago" as being immediately after the Resurrection of Christ you have a really big problem here Rob. Look at what Ellen White said below.
So, had Ellen's real possibility been realized God indeed would have LIED so we can remove the Book of Isaiah from the Bible because it was only "conditionally" accurate so long as and so far as God - would be God. There is Ellen hypothetically calling God a liar 1 time. Let's see if we can find some more.
Matthew 1, 21
"she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
I assume SDA's believe that when the Bible says "an angel of the Lord" comes to someone it means that the angel is there on God's Business. Had Ellen's hypothetical creature christ Gilligan'd the mission this would be the 2nd time God would have been a liar.
One would also have to relegate Jesus' MANY outlandish statements to the dung heap as well - these kinds of statements Jesus made:
- "Many will say to me on that day" Matthew 7,22 - what day Rob?
- "must be killed & raised on the 3rd day" Matthew 17, 22 - who must be raised Rob?
- "when the Son of man is seated on His throne" Matthew 19, 28 -
- And another 150 plus explicit texts which all say Ellen White was in grievous error.
Yes, you are verbose.
I've given you a very small amount of Scripture to chew on where the Bible explicitly tells you Jesus couldn't have sinned. Deal with this and you will see the answer about Michael the archangel literally jump out of the Bible and slap you back into sense.
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion, you want me to comment on these Bible texts?
Your verses have not "sin" in them, the Matthew 21 verse has "sin-offering" - Jesus will save us from our sin-offerings.
Your verses really surprised me. Way off your topic - instead you are raising very complicated themes:-
Now you are really raising a deep question - nothing to do with if Jesus sinned, but like this:
(1)
www.neverthirsty.org
I get it that for Jesus many things about Him were written down in the past regarding his future.
Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
Verses like this say billions of years ago every human born in the future is already written in the Lamb's book of life before they lived a life of salvation? Does this make sense? What is the point of free will if God knows everything? Why bother doing anything?
I quote " God Did Not Plan Our Sins
Another proof that God has not planned or determined everything in our life is that He did not plan our sins. The message of James 1:13-15 says that God cannot be tempted and He does not tempt us. When we sin, we are completely responsible.
This means it is not true that God has your life all planned out. " End quote
Rob" Not sure about this "Hmm?
So Grunion you did not show a verse that said Jesus could never sin. Instead you are raising the issue if God reads the future does this mean our daily actions do not matter?
(2)
God can make prophecy, and it's 100% accurate, does that mean the person in the prophecy is exempt from free will?
You are making that claim. To me the person sins and is forgiven and happens to fulfill prophecy because God knows the end from the beginning. So you taking your theme out of context.
So if person X is written in the Lamb's Book of life billions years ago, does that mean person X cannot freely choose to sin?
Does that mean Jesus life of daily living by faith is fake because every decision was preordained by the Father for Him?
I mean He was born of the HS from birth, so maybe He lived entirely in His Father's will , unlike us?
Again you raise extremely difficult questions.
Lu 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
This emotional stress sweating blood is fake to you, because Jesus path is preordained, so His heart was not human like ours, in agony... again I find you are disparaging a personal savior, even if He was Divine, he was also human.
This is a Q question, (some things are too high for us Ps 131:1 ) and I suggest you talk about a more simple question in your thread. Shalom
PS I answered your post succinctly
Now answer this one question on a much easier subject:
I told you already Michael is a shortened way of saying Ps 113:5 "who is like YHWH ELOHIYM" do you agree with this?
Shalom
Your verses have not "sin" in them, the Matthew 21 verse has "sin-offering" - Jesus will save us from our sin-offerings.
Your verses really surprised me. Way off your topic - instead you are raising very complicated themes:-
Now you are really raising a deep question - nothing to do with if Jesus sinned, but like this:
(1)
Is everything already determined in our life by God?
With so much evil happening in the world, you may wonder, "Is everything already determined for our life by God?"
www.neverthirsty.org
Is everything already determined in our life by God?
I get it that for Jesus many things about Him were written down in the past regarding his future.
Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
Verses like this say billions of years ago every human born in the future is already written in the Lamb's book of life before they lived a life of salvation? Does this make sense? What is the point of free will if God knows everything? Why bother doing anything?
I quote " God Did Not Plan Our Sins
Another proof that God has not planned or determined everything in our life is that He did not plan our sins. The message of James 1:13-15 says that God cannot be tempted and He does not tempt us. When we sin, we are completely responsible.
This means it is not true that God has your life all planned out. " End quote
Rob" Not sure about this "Hmm?
So Grunion you did not show a verse that said Jesus could never sin. Instead you are raising the issue if God reads the future does this mean our daily actions do not matter?
(2)
God can make prophecy, and it's 100% accurate, does that mean the person in the prophecy is exempt from free will?
You are making that claim. To me the person sins and is forgiven and happens to fulfill prophecy because God knows the end from the beginning. So you taking your theme out of context.
So if person X is written in the Lamb's Book of life billions years ago, does that mean person X cannot freely choose to sin?
Does that mean Jesus life of daily living by faith is fake because every decision was preordained by the Father for Him?
I mean He was born of the HS from birth, so maybe He lived entirely in His Father's will , unlike us?
Again you raise extremely difficult questions.
Lu 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
This emotional stress sweating blood is fake to you, because Jesus path is preordained, so His heart was not human like ours, in agony... again I find you are disparaging a personal savior, even if He was Divine, he was also human.
This is a Q question, (some things are too high for us Ps 131:1 ) and I suggest you talk about a more simple question in your thread. Shalom
PS I answered your post succinctly
Now answer this one question on a much easier subject:
I told you already Michael is a shortened way of saying Ps 113:5 "who is like YHWH ELOHIYM" do you agree with this?
Shalom
Last edited:
The text is explicit - it says that "the angel of the Lord" brought the message he was commissioned to bring to Mary that the child she would have, WOULD SAVE His people from their sins. This is in contrast to the message Lucifer put into the mind of Arius (& Ellen White) that Jesus COULD HAVE SINNED and lost His salvation.
I want you to notice that "the angel of the Lord" didn't tell the Virgin Mary that the child she would give birth to MIGHT save the people from their sins (if the child didn't violate God's holy law & have his on-loan deity extracted). The angel of the Lord said the Child WOULD SAVE His people from their sins. This is what I'm directly asking you to address.
You'll also notice that the other Scriptures I shared with you are also explicit that Jesus was operating with 100% certainty that He HAD TO (& WOULD) fulfil EVERYTHING that the Old Testament Law and Prophets said about Him. As a Seventh-day Adventist anti-Trinitarian you would hold a special devotion to the Book of Daniel - well, the Book of Daniel is explicit that the Christ would NOT FAIL. According to the Prophet Daniel this outcome was 100% guaranteed by "THE GREAT GOD OF HEAVEN".
We're not moving an inch from here until you address this Rob. I've provided you with a small fraction of what Sacred Scripture has to say about the possibility of Christ losing His salvation and its well past time you deal with / address it.
You assume a lot Grunion. I have not "admitted anything". Other than I have questions that are unresolved. You have not explained how or if I am in danger of damnation. You just keep demanding that we bend the knee to you. It is like the Diet of Worms. "Submit or die"
Your example about the resurrection is ever so silly. There is no comparison. No Christian denies the resurrection or questions it.
Grunion wrote: The Trinity is the single most important Doctrine in Christianity - everything is based off of it.
LeRoy's reply: Can you explain why you believe this to be 'the single most important Doctrine' ?
How is everything based on it?
Well perhaps I am quite unlearned about this and am willing to be corrected. I have always believed in the Holy Spirit as a separate being. Father communicates to the Son His will for us individually and the Spirit is the empowering agency to accomplish the task. This is what I have always held. However I have heard some sermons about the Son being the one referred to when the Spirit is spoken of. ??? They had some interesting points and were as emphatic as you. So I don't know which is true. I have not looked into the subject enough to give a scriptural reason to accept or reject either. And you have not given enough information to promote your stance. All you have done is said that you are right and someone else is wrong. Again you are under the forbidden tree. You should try eating at the tree of life.
You seem to be very committed to this belief so you should be able to explain why I need to be confirmed in it and why I should reject the other.
If I believe there is only the Father and Son, how does that jeopardize my salvation? Does it open a door for some cascading set of beliefs that will lead me away from salvation?
Grunion! you wrote: "This is in contrast to the message Lucifer put into the mind of Arius (& Ellen White) that Jesus COULD HAVE SINNED and lost His salvation."
I have been of site for a while so I have missed a lot. Besides I tend to find the argumentation of higher learning a bit tedious so I don't read through a lot of it. But my I did catch this one statement from your last post.
I think if you understood the incarnation which I believe is the single most important belief in Christianity you wouldn't be confused on this issue.
Romans 1 clearly states that Mary's son 'according to the flesh' was genetically linked to David. His whole physical being came from the genetic material passed down from David to Mary and by extension from Adam to Abraham to David and to Mary. He was human just as you and I. The Son who is Spirit dwelt in Jesus. He was there to lead and keep him from yielding from sin just as He would do in you if you allowed Him to save you from your sin. It is clear that Paul and John believed this. I am dead yet I live, but it is not me that is doing the living. The life I now have is the Son living in me. For it is God who works in me to both will and do according to His own good pleasure. This is the record that God has given us eternal life and this life is in his Son he that has the Son has life.
I believe that the goal of the plan of redemption is for every redeemed soul to have the Son of God, who is a spirit being, living in their soul temple, in the same way and degree as He did in Jesus. That is how sin will never arise again for he will work in every surrendered being to fulfill the will of the Father.
The son of Mary, the descendent of David could have sinned, he could have disobeyed, that was a possibility, otherwise what was the purpose of temptation if he could not disobey? But the Son of God who dwelt in him kept him from expressing any of the evil that came to Jesus by his heredity from his ancestors. I believe that the Son was so united to Jesus that they were as one. The Bible supports this regarding all of us that we too are to be one with the Son. Scripture demonstrates what it is like when a demon has become one with a human being. There is literally a blending with the spirit and the human and they have become one. So it is with Christ and the believer. God incarnate living and moving in every human being throughout eternity that lays down their life and allows Him to do so. This is redemption.
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
Not directly as a result of you, I have been reading all I can find about SDA trinity and have discovered that a major apostasy is moving in the SDA Church (so the SDA claim) that we uphold "God the Son" not "the Son of God". I have even had the terrible task of reading Uriah Smith comments about trash - terrible things he says about Jesus the Son of GOD. Just because SDA pioneers published material publicly in Mrs White time does not make those statements inspired - not even close.
Now I have to be succinct and not verbose to you? That is hard because I am not experienced in this current SDA heresy.
EGW:"I will try to answer this important question: As God He could not be tempted: but as a man He could be tempted, and that strongly, and could yield to the temptations. His human nature must pass through the same test and trial Adam and Eve passed through. His human nature was created; it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, identical with our own. He was passing over the ground where Adam fell. He was now where, if He endured the test and trial in behalf of the fallen race, He would redeem Adam’s disgraceful failure and fall, in our own humanity. {3SM 129.3}
EGW: “ The temptations to which Christ was subjected were a terrible reality. As a free
agent, He was placed on probation, with liberty to yield to Satan's temptations and
work at cross-purposes with God. If this were not so, if it had not been possible for
Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in all points as the human family is
tempted. (YI Oct. 26, 1899). {5BC 1082.5} Rev. 3:21.
I didn't know such EGW existed, and we marvel I published my views without confirmation by EGW. Go figure !
So my succinct statements posted earilier are correct, and confirmed by EGW by extra study from me (thanks Grunion for allowing me time to read this material for the first time).
Now I have TWO questions for you:
Does JESUS-YHWH-ELOHIYM (Michael Ps113:5) ( I note you can't even answer a simple question of mine to you - is Michael a simply short cut way of saying Ps 113:5) - so I pose you will NOT answer my questions here - you didn't even answer my last single question.
(1) Michael a simply short cut way of saying Ps 113:5? Therefore Jesus is YHWH-ELOHIYM. Do you agree?
(2) Does JESUS-YHWH-ELOHIYM (Michael Ps113:5) have free will in his Deity, His Divinity and thus in His Humanity to make decisions for Himself?
Here is a Bible passage answering that question:
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
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.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Greek word believe / pisteuo is the Hebrew word AMAN a word meaning to have faith in someone.
Greek word verily / aman is the same Hebrew word AMAN also meaning "affirming faith" the KJV makes fuzzy.
So when you live as a human on earth with Satan or in heaven with the Father, your living is always based on faith.
This process requires "free will" because love is always a "risk" that you might stop loving God.
The book of Job - written by Moses- and known to Moses describes the arum creature angel, broke "AMAN" faith and thus became a sinning messenger in heaven - a cherub who sinned as Ezekiel says later comparing King Tyre to a prince angel.
Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
So even angels in heaven live entirely by faith in the Father doing His works of Divinity in the angel because they choose to allow this and ask for this daily - it is an act of faith. (that is why cherubs have imputed divinity in them - my understanding)
Since cherub angels can sin, this implies angels have free will and thus can break off faith in the FATHER.
So I understand Jesus did all works in and through Him by faith using His Father's powers to do them.
He had to live by faith in His Father all the time.
This was a free will decision of love on Jesus part all the time.
A thing any human can do and achieve if they ask Jesus to help them using faith.
Now you are telling me, such a process did not exist in Jesus because prophecy says Jesus did things with 100% accuracy. And so Jesus never failed in his daily faith process - "in fact could never have sinned suddenly destroys the fact Jesus lives daily on earth using faith in His Father - O boy - you make some weird claims "!!
So a billion years before you are born, God has your name written in the Lamb's book of life Before you do any acts of faith using free will? How is that possible? God knows all your free will decisions before you think them through.
Just because the Father knows all things, does not remove the free will daily decisions you make? Care to comment?
Why did you not comment on my last discussion of your post?
Not directly as a result of you, I have been reading all I can find about SDA trinity and have discovered that a major apostasy is moving in the SDA Church (so the SDA claim) that we uphold "God the Son" not "the Son of God". I have even had the terrible task of reading Uriah Smith comments about trash - terrible things he says about Jesus the Son of GOD. Just because SDA pioneers published material publicly in Mrs White time does not make those statements inspired - not even close.
Now I have to be succinct and not verbose to you? That is hard because I am not experienced in this current SDA heresy.
EGW:"I will try to answer this important question: As God He could not be tempted: but as a man He could be tempted, and that strongly, and could yield to the temptations. His human nature must pass through the same test and trial Adam and Eve passed through. His human nature was created; it did not even possess the angelic powers. It was human, identical with our own. He was passing over the ground where Adam fell. He was now where, if He endured the test and trial in behalf of the fallen race, He would redeem Adam’s disgraceful failure and fall, in our own humanity. {3SM 129.3}
EGW: “ The temptations to which Christ was subjected were a terrible reality. As a free
agent, He was placed on probation, with liberty to yield to Satan's temptations and
work at cross-purposes with God. If this were not so, if it had not been possible for
Him to fall, He could not have been tempted in all points as the human family is
tempted. (YI Oct. 26, 1899). {5BC 1082.5} Rev. 3:21.
I didn't know such EGW existed, and we marvel I published my views without confirmation by EGW. Go figure !
So my succinct statements posted earilier are correct, and confirmed by EGW by extra study from me (thanks Grunion for allowing me time to read this material for the first time).
Now I have TWO questions for you:
Does JESUS-YHWH-ELOHIYM (Michael Ps113:5) ( I note you can't even answer a simple question of mine to you - is Michael a simply short cut way of saying Ps 113:5) - so I pose you will NOT answer my questions here - you didn't even answer my last single question.
(1) Michael a simply short cut way of saying Ps 113:5? Therefore Jesus is YHWH-ELOHIYM. Do you agree?
(2) Does JESUS-YHWH-ELOHIYM (Michael Ps113:5) have free will in his Deity, His Divinity and thus in His Humanity to make decisions for Himself?
Here is a Bible passage answering that question:
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
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.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Greek word believe / pisteuo is the Hebrew word AMAN a word meaning to have faith in someone.
Greek word verily / aman is the same Hebrew word AMAN also meaning "affirming faith" the KJV makes fuzzy.
So when you live as a human on earth with Satan or in heaven with the Father, your living is always based on faith.
This process requires "free will" because love is always a "risk" that you might stop loving God.
The book of Job - written by Moses- and known to Moses describes the arum creature angel, broke "AMAN" faith and thus became a sinning messenger in heaven - a cherub who sinned as Ezekiel says later comparing King Tyre to a prince angel.
Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
So even angels in heaven live entirely by faith in the Father doing His works of Divinity in the angel because they choose to allow this and ask for this daily - it is an act of faith. (that is why cherubs have imputed divinity in them - my understanding)
Since cherub angels can sin, this implies angels have free will and thus can break off faith in the FATHER.
So I understand Jesus did all works in and through Him by faith using His Father's powers to do them.
He had to live by faith in His Father all the time.
This was a free will decision of love on Jesus part all the time.
A thing any human can do and achieve if they ask Jesus to help them using faith.
Now you are telling me, such a process did not exist in Jesus because prophecy says Jesus did things with 100% accuracy. And so Jesus never failed in his daily faith process - "in fact could never have sinned suddenly destroys the fact Jesus lives daily on earth using faith in His Father - O boy - you make some weird claims "!!
So a billion years before you are born, God has your name written in the Lamb's book of life Before you do any acts of faith using free will? How is that possible? God knows all your free will decisions before you think them through.
Just because the Father knows all things, does not remove the free will daily decisions you make? Care to comment?
Why did you not comment on my last discussion of your post?
Last edited:
The apostasy started when Ellen White began confirming the Arian apostasy / heresy that James White and the other founders of Adventism were promulgating. Remember Rob, it was Ellen White who insisted that Christ could have sinned, lost his salvation and eternally ceased to exist and this was exactly what Arius taught and exactly what the anti-Trinitarian SDA Pioneer's taught. Rob, you CAN'T be a Trinitarian and affirm the things Ellen White and Uriah Smith taught. You've already admitted you are not Trinitarian so this isn't direct at you. I'm only showing you, at this point, where and why Ellen White violates Scripture.
The current SDA heresy is THE SAME old heresy Uriah Smith advocated, it's just been dressed up and of course SDA's now use common Christian terms like the Trinity but they pour alien and novel definitions into those terms and words.
Stay on track Rob, I've already shown you multiple texts which clearly say Ellen White was teaching false doctrine when she affirmed Christ could have sinned. The Great God of Heaven has said 100 ways to Sunday Ellen White LIED. Now, being a devotee of Ellen White you job is to show me how the 150+ Bible texts are wrong and Ellen White is right. We need to camp out here until you can do that.
NO! Like I've already shown you - this is a rhetorical question in which the only correct answer is NO ONE IS LIKE GOD. Look at the end of the Psalm 113, 5 and NOTE THE QUESTION MARK!
NO, God can't not be God and if God could have iniquity God WOULD NOT BE GOD. The Bible is clear that God will not commit any form of iniquity. This is why James 1, 13 so clearly says that God CANNOT be tempted with evil. What you're trying to here is justify Ellen White by coming up with "What If's". What if when Jesus walked on water he suddenly sunk and drowned? What if Jesus, instead of being born by the Virgin Mary was instead born by a prostitute who worked in the Temple of Zeus? What if while walking in the desert Jesus got bitten by a Cobra and died? These are all stupid questions and the answer to each of them is the same - if ANY of those things (or whatever else you can think of) had happened ALL IT WOULD HAVE MEANT WAS THAT JESUS WASN'T THE CHRIST in the 1st place.
Let's get back on track here and tell me why you believe Ellen White is justified to repudiate God? I want to hear this.
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
OK I will go with you a little on your journey - So nobody is like God!
So why did Lucifer sin and wanted to be like the Most High God ? Isa 14:14
Why does GOD challenge Bel and Nebo if no god is like God? Isa 46:9
Why does God send a rebuke to King Tyre for pretending to be like God ? Eze 28:2
Why does God declare to humans, who have faith in Jesus, to have power, to become like a Son of God ? Joh 1:12
If you are correct nobody is like God! than these other themes should not exist in the Bible, but they do,
so clearly creatures can be like God in some sense, otherwise why would God write against them becoming like Him?
In my second question, you did not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God?
You said " NO, God can't not be God and if God could have iniquity God WOULD NOT BE GOD.
I didn't say that - I asked you if Jesus showed faith in His Father as the Son of God?
But you can't answer that question because you only see the Father and the Son from one substance, not as two persons of deity with unique styles of loving each other, ie two personal natures. You have two persons of God as one nature. How that works - I don't know?
I don't know of anything in Creation (Romans 1:20) where anything is of one nature with two persons? You can have two natures in a creature kind that marry and unite to raise offspring as a family - but this is two natures, two persons and two personalities of love united in compound unity for the purpose of raising a family offspring, so in this sense they become one in nature? You do not see Elohiym as a Divine Family do you? So if these two Divine Persons are one nature, one Lord and one God - why was marriage introduced by the Divine Family - why was echad introduced - the idea to come together as one? My two pennies is humans are a simile of how Elohiym functions.
If the Father and the Son are two persons with one nature - I will go with your journey of faith - why than is it necessary for the SON to use powers from the FATHER by faith? In your view it would not be necessary because they are one nature, one Lord and one God? His power is the same as His Father's power, so why not use His own power?
And if your view is correct, Jesus nature who is the same as Father nature did not leave us an example to follow in His steps.
SO the concept of faith in Jesus by humans is fake because Jesus and the Father are one nature, one Lord and one God.
Nobody was supporting each other and nobody was demonstrating love as independent risk.
Now I asked you does the Son of God have have free? That question does not invoke Him having iniquity as you allude to.
Try to answer my questions here without going off track.
Sorry to be verbose - in your view you could say Jesus showed us an example by faith in order for humans to follow - OK I get that - but Jesus Himself is not an example following His Father - Divinity is making a double standard in your view? DO you understand my logic?
If only humans have free will but Divinity has no free will, than that again is a double standard? God is love? So where is the risk of failure in the Godhead, not saying that God would fail, but that God is the only Being who could fail, because only God is truly independent in terms of power. Creatures have to rely on God for power. DO you understand my logic here? But again you can't answer my question because your view of God is one God with two persons of one nature.
A Few Definitions
What we mean when we say that God is a Trinity is that there is one divine nature, one divine substance. A “substance” or “nature” is what something is. God, as a Trinity, exists in three Persons. A person is “who” someone is. In our experience, one human person each possesses one human nature. A husband and wife, no matter how closely united, are still two separate beings. In God, however, three Persons possess the same divine nature. If you were to ask each Person in the Trinity, “Who are you?” each person would answer something differently: “I am the Father;” “I am the Son;” “I am the Holy Spirit.” If you were to ask each Person, “Who are you?” you would get the same answer from each Person: “I am God.” Not, “I am a God,” as a human would say, “I am a human.” Rather, each divine Person, while not identical to the other divine Persons, is one in being with the other two divine Persons and is fully God. The word we use to describe this in the Nicene Creed is consubstantial.
Rob: So if we assume this message is inspired (meaning truly the truth about Catholic Trinity)
than
The word “God” is a word similar to “adam” the creature kind Adam and Eve were made from, that makes them both “Human”.
So that means The Son of God is Deity and the Father is Deity, who had a begotten "one and only" Son. Why doesn't the trinity model here say the Father and the Son are both two natures of Deity which are united as one "nature" only because of their love for each other in a holy sense of coming together as one. They support each other in love and faith.
This makes much for sense to me. Shalom
OK I will go with you a little on your journey - So nobody is like God!
So why did Lucifer sin and wanted to be like the Most High God ? Isa 14:14
Why does GOD challenge Bel and Nebo if no god is like God? Isa 46:9
Why does God send a rebuke to King Tyre for pretending to be like God ? Eze 28:2
Why does God declare to humans, who have faith in Jesus, to have power, to become like a Son of God ? Joh 1:12
If you are correct nobody is like God! than these other themes should not exist in the Bible, but they do,
so clearly creatures can be like God in some sense, otherwise why would God write against them becoming like Him?
In my second question, you did not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God?
You said " NO, God can't not be God and if God could have iniquity God WOULD NOT BE GOD.
I didn't say that - I asked you if Jesus showed faith in His Father as the Son of God?
But you can't answer that question because you only see the Father and the Son from one substance, not as two persons of deity with unique styles of loving each other, ie two personal natures. You have two persons of God as one nature. How that works - I don't know?
I don't know of anything in Creation (Romans 1:20) where anything is of one nature with two persons? You can have two natures in a creature kind that marry and unite to raise offspring as a family - but this is two natures, two persons and two personalities of love united in compound unity for the purpose of raising a family offspring, so in this sense they become one in nature? You do not see Elohiym as a Divine Family do you? So if these two Divine Persons are one nature, one Lord and one God - why was marriage introduced by the Divine Family - why was echad introduced - the idea to come together as one? My two pennies is humans are a simile of how Elohiym functions.
If the Father and the Son are two persons with one nature - I will go with your journey of faith - why than is it necessary for the SON to use powers from the FATHER by faith? In your view it would not be necessary because they are one nature, one Lord and one God? His power is the same as His Father's power, so why not use His own power?
And if your view is correct, Jesus nature who is the same as Father nature did not leave us an example to follow in His steps.
SO the concept of faith in Jesus by humans is fake because Jesus and the Father are one nature, one Lord and one God.
Nobody was supporting each other and nobody was demonstrating love as independent risk.
Now I asked you does the Son of God have have free? That question does not invoke Him having iniquity as you allude to.
Try to answer my questions here without going off track.
Sorry to be verbose - in your view you could say Jesus showed us an example by faith in order for humans to follow - OK I get that - but Jesus Himself is not an example following His Father - Divinity is making a double standard in your view? DO you understand my logic?
If only humans have free will but Divinity has no free will, than that again is a double standard? God is love? So where is the risk of failure in the Godhead, not saying that God would fail, but that God is the only Being who could fail, because only God is truly independent in terms of power. Creatures have to rely on God for power. DO you understand my logic here? But again you can't answer my question because your view of God is one God with two persons of one nature.
The Trinity: A Catholic Explanation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
The Trinity is a central Dogma in the Catholic faith. Here is an explanation of how the Catholic Church understands the Trinity in an easy to understand way
www.aboutcatholics.com
A Few Definitions
What we mean when we say that God is a Trinity is that there is one divine nature, one divine substance. A “substance” or “nature” is what something is. God, as a Trinity, exists in three Persons. A person is “who” someone is. In our experience, one human person each possesses one human nature. A husband and wife, no matter how closely united, are still two separate beings. In God, however, three Persons possess the same divine nature. If you were to ask each Person in the Trinity, “Who are you?” each person would answer something differently: “I am the Father;” “I am the Son;” “I am the Holy Spirit.” If you were to ask each Person, “Who are you?” you would get the same answer from each Person: “I am God.” Not, “I am a God,” as a human would say, “I am a human.” Rather, each divine Person, while not identical to the other divine Persons, is one in being with the other two divine Persons and is fully God. The word we use to describe this in the Nicene Creed is consubstantial.
Rob: So if we assume this message is inspired (meaning truly the truth about Catholic Trinity)
than
The word “God” is a word similar to “adam” the creature kind Adam and Eve were made from, that makes them both “Human”.
So that means The Son of God is Deity and the Father is Deity, who had a begotten "one and only" Son. Why doesn't the trinity model here say the Father and the Son are both two natures of Deity which are united as one "nature" only because of their love for each other in a holy sense of coming together as one. They support each other in love and faith.
This makes much for sense to me. Shalom
Last edited:
That's right - no one is like God. That's the meaning of Michael's name - NO ONE is like God.
Like I said before, if a group of Seventh-day Adventists got into a time machine and went back in time to the Apostolic Church during the lifetime of St. Paul and was in the Church when Hebrews 1, 5 was read - which asked the question:
"to which of the angels did God ever say, you are my Son today....."
All the SDA's would have been waiving their hands wildly saying "I KNOW, I KNOW" - Michael God said that to Michael because Michael was LIKE GOD". At that point one of the Apostles would have sat the SDA's down hard and asked them who taught them this heretical idea - the SDA's would then proudly say "THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY", Sister White. The SDA's would have then been given a chance to repent of this heresy and if they refused they would have been welcome to go over to the Roman God's Temples and worship Jupiter or one of the other Pagan God's.
Which means Lucifer wouldn't have been God any more or less than Michael (who also wasn't God). Herein you miss the whole point Rob, Ellen claimed Christ "WAS LIKE GOD" (which is the same as saying Christ WASN'T God). Had Lucifer succeeded - Lucifer the archangel wouldn't have been any closer to being like God than Michael the archangel.
For the same reason the Holy Spirit drove Christ into the desert to be temped or tested of the Devil - to PROVE that the Christ wouldn't sin because the Christ COULDN'T SIN. Rob, Isaiah 46,9 has God saying very clearly that there is NO ONE LIKE GOD. You realize that this has been my point from the start and is the opposite position of Ellen White, right???
At least we're getting some where now - lets stay on track and keep working on why you believe Ellen White has the authority to usurp what God said.
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion,
You don't read or answer many questions do you ? Only one or two?
You said: "For the same reason the Holy Spirit drove Christ into the desert to be temped or tested of the Devil - to PROVE that the Christ wouldn't sin because the Christ COULDN'T SIN.
You said No to my question does Jesus have free will? I need to confirm your statement so I am asking again.
Now you have no clue whether the Devil tested or tempted Christ. Because Christ can't be tempted to sin, because Christ can't sin.
So if Jesus has no free will Jesus can't do faith either.
So the Devil can't tempt Jesus to sin. Meaning break off faith in His Father.
It also implies the Devil can't test Jesus to develop deeper levels of faith because Jesus according to you has no free will.
And you need free will to ask a higher power to do faith. And since Jesus is equal in power to His Father, he humbled himself the Bible says and asked by faith to use His Father's power instead of His own power. But you said no to my Jesus does the Son of God have free will.
So this verse about the HS sending the Son of God into the desert is bogus than?
Questions for you
(1) Does Jesus have free will ?
(2) Does Jesus show and exhibit faith in His Father?
(3) Was Jesus tested by the Devil to develop a deeper faith in His Father?
(4) Was Jesus tempted by the Devil to break faith in His Father and sin - meaning use His independent Divine power?
(5) Does Jesus have independent Divine power inside Himself, according to you?
Feel free to comment - I do not mind you being verbose and make long discussions so I can understand what you are thinking.
If you say Nobody is like God? that would have to include Christ Himself? Please explain how the Son of God fits in your view with His Father? I assume the Catholics have a sense of the Son begotten by the Father?
I would imagine the reason why you say nobody is like God, is because nobody is like God, including the SDA god we assume Jesus is - in your view the Father and the Son are the same god and nature - so nobody is like God ! and in your view that is correct, since you have one god. But can you prove there is only cardinally one deity? Don't Catholics say this one deity is expressed as three persons of one nature?
So How would you know from Scripture if there is any more independent deities apart from the Father? That my friend is a question that answers your problem - the answer to all questions.... Please answer this one too.
Shalom
You don't read or answer many questions do you ? Only one or two?
You said: "For the same reason the Holy Spirit drove Christ into the desert to be temped or tested of the Devil - to PROVE that the Christ wouldn't sin because the Christ COULDN'T SIN.
You said No to my question does Jesus have free will? I need to confirm your statement so I am asking again.
Now you have no clue whether the Devil tested or tempted Christ. Because Christ can't be tempted to sin, because Christ can't sin.
So if Jesus has no free will Jesus can't do faith either.
So the Devil can't tempt Jesus to sin. Meaning break off faith in His Father.
It also implies the Devil can't test Jesus to develop deeper levels of faith because Jesus according to you has no free will.
And you need free will to ask a higher power to do faith. And since Jesus is equal in power to His Father, he humbled himself the Bible says and asked by faith to use His Father's power instead of His own power. But you said no to my Jesus does the Son of God have free will.
So this verse about the HS sending the Son of God into the desert is bogus than?
Questions for you
(1) Does Jesus have free will ?
(2) Does Jesus show and exhibit faith in His Father?
(3) Was Jesus tested by the Devil to develop a deeper faith in His Father?
(4) Was Jesus tempted by the Devil to break faith in His Father and sin - meaning use His independent Divine power?
(5) Does Jesus have independent Divine power inside Himself, according to you?
Feel free to comment - I do not mind you being verbose and make long discussions so I can understand what you are thinking.
If you say Nobody is like God? that would have to include Christ Himself? Please explain how the Son of God fits in your view with His Father? I assume the Catholics have a sense of the Son begotten by the Father?
I would imagine the reason why you say nobody is like God, is because nobody is like God, including the SDA god we assume Jesus is - in your view the Father and the Son are the same god and nature - so nobody is like God ! and in your view that is correct, since you have one god. But can you prove there is only cardinally one deity? Don't Catholics say this one deity is expressed as three persons of one nature?
So How would you know from Scripture if there is any more independent deities apart from the Father? That my friend is a question that answers your problem - the answer to all questions.... Please answer this one too.
Shalom
Last edited:
I'm trying to keep you focused Rob. I've shown you numerous times now where the Bible says it would have been impossible for The Christ to sin. It appears you are attempting to justify Ellen's sodomizing of Scripture by providing me answers (& questions) that are not relevant to what I showed you. This is why I answer a couple of your questions - because you are not staying on track.
Again, the Bible says that God "KNOWS THE END FROM THE BEGINNING" , that "GOD HIMSELF WOULD COME AND SAVE" that "THERE IS NO INIQUITY IN GOD", & "EVERYTHING IN LAW & PROPHETS HAD TO BE FULFILLED". Jesus Himself, multiple times, speaks of what will happen when He returns in the clouds of glory and according to the Bible the earth would cease to exist before Jesus' words wouldn't come to pass.
The other questions I've already answered.
God became man without ceasing to be God. I understand you believe what Ellen taught you (Kenotic heresy) but this isn't Biblical Rob, it's a 19th century heresy - a very johnny come lately false doctrine.
God doesn't have the free will to not be God and doing anything apart from God's nature would be impossible.
It's now your turn to provide me some reasons why Ellen can repudiate what the Old Testament and New Testament says about the certainty of God saving humanity.
We've covered this before Rob. God = Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
You are holding the teaching of Ellen White that Christ isn't God - Christ, according to Ellen is "LIKE GOD", Christ, according to Ellen White is "NOT THE LORD GOD ALMIGHY". I keep explaining this to you and you keep circling back.
& Ellen explained how the oneness worked - Jesus was no more God than Christ's Disciples were Christ.
We've covered all this ground before Rob, we are discussing how it is that Ellen White has the authority to correct God?
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion,
You say :" You are holding the teaching of Ellen White that Christ isn't God - Christ, according to Ellen is "LIKE GOD", Christ, according to Ellen White is "NOT THE LORD GOD ALMIGHY". I keep explaining this to you and you keep circling back."
Let me correct you what I support - Jesus YHWH Eloihiym is NOT the same person as Father YHWH Elohiym, the first is His Son the other is His Father. They are both deity, one was born out of the other as BAR, the Hebrew word for Seed, not the same meaning but close as the Hebrew word BEN, meaning a SON through the biological process of Father and Mother. Both words BAR and BEN are mentioned in Psalm 2, these words are similes of each other other. So Jesus is called the SON of GOD. The word "GOD" means a Divine Family. This is my view.
Your view seems to me to be : Jesus is the Father and while they are two persons they are one God with One Nature, hence One Lord. You are saying Christ is God, meaning Christ is the Father. Is this your view Grunion?
Please answer this question - I have asked you three times now.
The following verses challenge your view:
Joh 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.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
The same theme is repeated twice
I am IN the Father, my Father dwells in me, the FATHER does the works in me.
The verse does NOT say "I AM the FATHER" it says "I am IN the Father"
Do you believe this Grunion? I would guess not?
Another verse, same theme
“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; (John 5:26)
This verse says the Father and the Son are both deity, independent deity.
Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Notice they work together, they support each other because they love each other. And show faith to each other.
Now when was the Son begotten by the Father and by the Holy Spirit? The Bible does not answer this question, but it is my two pennies the BAR came forth as the Great Uncaused Cause came into being, all at once in eternity past. The word BAR is a simile function of the word BEN.
They are inseparable as deity, as three deities because they love each other and support each other.
Now can I examine your thinking if you don't answer my questions?
You said " God became man without ceasing to be God.
Are you saying the FATHER BECAME MAN and did not cease becoming the Father? His expression as a person changed into the person we called Christ? Please answer this question.
How on earth can I understand you if you don't answer my question?
Shalom
You say :" You are holding the teaching of Ellen White that Christ isn't God - Christ, according to Ellen is "LIKE GOD", Christ, according to Ellen White is "NOT THE LORD GOD ALMIGHY". I keep explaining this to you and you keep circling back."
Let me correct you what I support - Jesus YHWH Eloihiym is NOT the same person as Father YHWH Elohiym, the first is His Son the other is His Father. They are both deity, one was born out of the other as BAR, the Hebrew word for Seed, not the same meaning but close as the Hebrew word BEN, meaning a SON through the biological process of Father and Mother. Both words BAR and BEN are mentioned in Psalm 2, these words are similes of each other other. So Jesus is called the SON of GOD. The word "GOD" means a Divine Family. This is my view.
Your view seems to me to be : Jesus is the Father and while they are two persons they are one God with One Nature, hence One Lord. You are saying Christ is God, meaning Christ is the Father. Is this your view Grunion?
Please answer this question - I have asked you three times now.
The following verses challenge your view:
Joh 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.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
The same theme is repeated twice
I am IN the Father, my Father dwells in me, the FATHER does the works in me.
The verse does NOT say "I AM the FATHER" it says "I am IN the Father"
Do you believe this Grunion? I would guess not?
Another verse, same theme
“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; (John 5:26)
This verse says the Father and the Son are both deity, independent deity.
Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Notice they work together, they support each other because they love each other. And show faith to each other.
Now when was the Son begotten by the Father and by the Holy Spirit? The Bible does not answer this question, but it is my two pennies the BAR came forth as the Great Uncaused Cause came into being, all at once in eternity past. The word BAR is a simile function of the word BEN.
They are inseparable as deity, as three deities because they love each other and support each other.
Now can I examine your thinking if you don't answer my questions?
You said " God became man without ceasing to be God.
Are you saying the FATHER BECAME MAN and did not cease becoming the Father? His expression as a person changed into the person we called Christ? Please answer this question.
How on earth can I understand you if you don't answer my question?
Shalom
Last edited:
No "Christian" teaching has ever suggested that Jesus was the same Person as the Father. This is the teaching of Arius, Uriah Smith and Ellen White. You are literally parroting the same exact talking points of the very vocal anti-Trinitarian SDA Pioneers.
No, my view is the same as the Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, Reformed & Evangelical view - i.e. that there is 1 what and within that 1 what there are 3 who's (Father, Son & Holy Spirit). God is ONE, SINGLE Divine Nature or Substance and within that 1 Nature exist 3 Divine Persons. These Persons are inseparable. God AKA The Lord AKA Yahweh AKA the Almighty is Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
That's not what the verse says at all. This is the standard interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses and other anti-Trinitarian sects but it's never been the position of historic Christianity. Jesus said He "ALWAYS" did the will of the Father.
Stay focused Rob, I've shared Daniel 2 with you already along with several other Scriptures where God clearly said that victory was the ONLY possible outcome. I immediately share with you where Ellen White said God was wrong and that there was another, very dark outcome that was very possible.
I asked you to provide Biblical support for Ellen White's authority over Almighty God and it seems all you can do is pepper me with standard Jehovah's Witness anti-Trinitarian talking points one would find in a Watchtower magazine in a laundromat.
I get it that you don't accept the Trinity Rob - I'm asking you to focus on how the Great God of Heaven promised the end result of heaven was a 100% sure thing contrasted with how the prophet Ellen White said God was wrong to be so confident it was a 100% sure thing. Ellen said Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation and I'm attempting to determine what it is about Ellen White's hold on you that would have you defer to her on what she said when it's been demonstrated God said the direct opposite.
For anyone else reading this thread what you are watching is standard Adventist theology taking place.
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion, \
You have confused me entirely. How is your view of Jesus and the Father any different to my view?
You say the Father and the Son are two persons of deity. So do I
You say the Son always did what the Father wanted. So do I.
The only difference between us for my understanding is you say the Father and the Son are one God.
That depends upon how you define the English term God, because there is no Hebrew word for "God"
so it is yet again a traditional word used to describe something the Bible never defines.
And I posted a Catholic definition of their term "God" already.
A Few Definitions
What we mean when we say that God is a Trinity is that there is one divine nature, one divine substance. A “substance” or “nature” is what something is. God, as a Trinity, exists in three Persons. A person is “who” someone is. In our experience, one human person each possesses one human nature. A husband and wife, no matter how closely united, are still two separate beings. In God, however, three Persons possess the same divine nature. If you were to ask each Person in the Trinity, “Who are you?” each person would answer something differently: “I am the Father;” “I am the Son;” “I am the Holy Spirit.” If you were to ask each Person, “Who are you?” you would get the same answer from each Person: “I am God.” Not, “I am a God,” as a human would say, “I am a human.” Rather, each divine Person, while not identical to the other divine Persons, is one in being with the other two divine Persons and is fully God. The word we use to describe this in the Nicene Creed is consubstantial.
So according to the Catholic statements here "God" is a term for a "Deity term for Divinity" just as "adam" is a term for the creature kind "human". While this is a Catholic way to make monotheism out of "three persons"
I have another and different way of achieving monotheism.
If this view of "God" as a term for "deity", than how can three persons of deity be one deity? To me that makes no sense.
A devout Jew would say well if there are three humans, you have polytheism. Can you explain this for us?
Another thing that makes no sense is how does three persons become one nature?
Here is a quote from some SDA material, even our Biblical Research Institute, that to me is pure garbage and false.
“The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. . . . The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead.” - Angel Manuel Rodriguez, Director of the Biblical Research Institute, Adventist World Magazine, November 2015, p. 42
So it is really difficult to find SDA people who are promoting the Bible in Hebrew correctly.
So before we go forward any further, I need you to define what you mean by "God"
You seem to think "Elohiym" means "God" No - it doesn't not even close.
Elohiym means "Family powers of Strong Authority"
The only word closest to God in the traditional term for God is the Hebrew word "el"
and this word means "strong authority"
Now how do I achieve monotheism when I have three "els" in the Godhead ?
First I discovered faith is an eternal principle for all eternity, not just to get sinners saved.
Is that a Catholic or SDA idea? Not that I am aware of.
Second the ten commandments are faith principles.
Is that a Catholic or SDA idea? Not that I am aware of.
Faith means to "support someone"
Is that a Catholic or SDA idea? Not that I am aware of.
SO you can see, I am talking to you about concepts that may be different and unknown to you?
I am happy to explain them from Scripture if you need me to.
SO my understanding they support each other and they have to in order to make a single flow of love.
Hence this is why the three "els" exhibit monotheism because love demands it as love is defined in only a relational way, and cannot be shown in a solitary way.
The fact that pagan deities can show independent powers proves their powers are not true love, not even close, hence they show polytheism.
That is how I explain monotheism to a devout Jew.
You say :"I get it that you don't accept the Trinity Rob - I'm asking you to focus on how the Great God of Heaven promised the end result of heaven was a 100% sure thing contrasted with how the prophet Ellen White said God was wrong to be so confident it was a 100% sure thing. Ellen said Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation and I'm attempting to determine what it is about Ellen White's hold on you that would have you defer to her on what she said when it's been demonstrated God said the direct opposite.
I will get back to this stuff of yours after we have common ground to the term "god" "deity" "person" and "nature"
and than we can talk about "faith" and "free will" in the correct terms.
Shalom
You have confused me entirely. How is your view of Jesus and the Father any different to my view?
You say the Father and the Son are two persons of deity. So do I
You say the Son always did what the Father wanted. So do I.
The only difference between us for my understanding is you say the Father and the Son are one God.
That depends upon how you define the English term God, because there is no Hebrew word for "God"
so it is yet again a traditional word used to describe something the Bible never defines.
And I posted a Catholic definition of their term "God" already.
The Trinity: A Catholic Explanation of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
The Trinity is a central Dogma in the Catholic faith. Here is an explanation of how the Catholic Church understands the Trinity in an easy to understand way
www.aboutcatholics.com
A Few Definitions
What we mean when we say that God is a Trinity is that there is one divine nature, one divine substance. A “substance” or “nature” is what something is. God, as a Trinity, exists in three Persons. A person is “who” someone is. In our experience, one human person each possesses one human nature. A husband and wife, no matter how closely united, are still two separate beings. In God, however, three Persons possess the same divine nature. If you were to ask each Person in the Trinity, “Who are you?” each person would answer something differently: “I am the Father;” “I am the Son;” “I am the Holy Spirit.” If you were to ask each Person, “Who are you?” you would get the same answer from each Person: “I am God.” Not, “I am a God,” as a human would say, “I am a human.” Rather, each divine Person, while not identical to the other divine Persons, is one in being with the other two divine Persons and is fully God. The word we use to describe this in the Nicene Creed is consubstantial.
So according to the Catholic statements here "God" is a term for a "Deity term for Divinity" just as "adam" is a term for the creature kind "human". While this is a Catholic way to make monotheism out of "three persons"
I have another and different way of achieving monotheism.
If this view of "God" as a term for "deity", than how can three persons of deity be one deity? To me that makes no sense.
A devout Jew would say well if there are three humans, you have polytheism. Can you explain this for us?
Another thing that makes no sense is how does three persons become one nature?
Here is a quote from some SDA material, even our Biblical Research Institute, that to me is pure garbage and false.
“The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. . . . The term “Son” is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead.” - Angel Manuel Rodriguez, Director of the Biblical Research Institute, Adventist World Magazine, November 2015, p. 42
So it is really difficult to find SDA people who are promoting the Bible in Hebrew correctly.
So before we go forward any further, I need you to define what you mean by "God"
You seem to think "Elohiym" means "God" No - it doesn't not even close.
Elohiym means "Family powers of Strong Authority"
The only word closest to God in the traditional term for God is the Hebrew word "el"
and this word means "strong authority"
Now how do I achieve monotheism when I have three "els" in the Godhead ?
First I discovered faith is an eternal principle for all eternity, not just to get sinners saved.
Is that a Catholic or SDA idea? Not that I am aware of.
Second the ten commandments are faith principles.
Is that a Catholic or SDA idea? Not that I am aware of.
Faith means to "support someone"
Is that a Catholic or SDA idea? Not that I am aware of.
SO you can see, I am talking to you about concepts that may be different and unknown to you?
I am happy to explain them from Scripture if you need me to.
SO my understanding they support each other and they have to in order to make a single flow of love.
Hence this is why the three "els" exhibit monotheism because love demands it as love is defined in only a relational way, and cannot be shown in a solitary way.
The fact that pagan deities can show independent powers proves their powers are not true love, not even close, hence they show polytheism.
That is how I explain monotheism to a devout Jew.
You say :"I get it that you don't accept the Trinity Rob - I'm asking you to focus on how the Great God of Heaven promised the end result of heaven was a 100% sure thing contrasted with how the prophet Ellen White said God was wrong to be so confident it was a 100% sure thing. Ellen said Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation and I'm attempting to determine what it is about Ellen White's hold on you that would have you defer to her on what she said when it's been demonstrated God said the direct opposite.
I will get back to this stuff of yours after we have common ground to the term "god" "deity" "person" and "nature"
and than we can talk about "faith" and "free will" in the correct terms.
Shalom
rob
Active member
Greetings Gunion
www.catholic.com
Specifically, some people claim that Jesus could have sinned but that he consciously chose not to sin. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus could no more have sinned than 2+2 could equal five. It’s simply impossible.
According to Aquinas, sin is, “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”[2] Sin occurs when we disobey divine commands that are rooted in God’s perfectly good, perfectly eternal, and perfectly unchanging nature. God by definition cannot sin because he is perfect goodness itself. It would be a logical contradiction for God to violate his perfectly good and perfectly rational nature.
So if it is impossible for God to sin, then it was impossible for Jesus to sin because Jesus is God.
I could find nothing ABOUT Catholic literature defining sin as breaking faith. Such a definition does not exist in their view.
God by definition cannot sin because he is perfect goodness itself. This statement does not talk about free will and faith.
In another place I found this:
www.catholic.com
Why does it say in Isaiah 45:7 that God created evil?
It seems clear from the context that this verse refers to God creating natural evil.
This is coping statement. "ra" means "ra" without an adjective. How does a sinner observe dysfunction unless GOD creates something not normally allowed to exist in God's sinless functional domain?
Therefore the " he is perfect goodness itself." does NOT hold true.
I can find no true definition of faith in the CATHOLIC literature?
Did Jesus show faith in His Father? Can Catholic literature answer this question?
What is faith?
Quote: "I don’t stand in awe of Jesus because he avoided sinning in the same way that a tightrope walker avoids plunging to his death. I stand in awe of Jesus because he is God. The infinite act of being who, for our sake, humbled himself and became man. I trust in him for my salvation not because he is “really good” at being holy, but because holiness is a part of his nature and goodness ultimately comes from his divinity.
When we say, “Jesus I trust in you” we are trusting in the most firm and reliable aspect of reality, not a God who could have failed but thankfully for us, did not.
1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
How can Jesus be our example if he could never have sinned?
Mt 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
Jesus showed us how to have faith in the Father. What is this faith we are supposed to follow Jesus as an example?
Can faith fail? yes Ro 14:23 for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Therefore breaking faith is sin.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without "breaking faith"
Grunion you are saying Jesus could never have broken faith in His Father because he is God and God is perfect in His nature.
First the Catholic literature has to define correctly what Divine Faith is - not secular faith -
www.newadvent.org
The meaning of the word faith
(Pistis, fides). In theOld Testament, theHebrewmeans essentiallysteadfastness, cf.Exodus 17:12, where it is used to describe the strengthening of Moses' hands;
I find this meaning wrong in context. The hebrew word does not mean steadfastness.
Here are three Hebrew words "related to the Family Word "amanfah"
man aman amanfah
Steadfastness does not fit all three pictures of faith
biological support mechanical support physical support
But the word "support" fits all contexts both OT and NT
So part of the problem is our defining of terms - and what Jesus was doing in relationship to His Father.
Shalom
Could Jesus Have Sinned? Absolutely Not!
Sacred scripture, sacred tradition, and the teaching of the magisterium are unanimous that Jesus Christ was, and still is, sinless. Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we h...
Specifically, some people claim that Jesus could have sinned but that he consciously chose not to sin. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus could no more have sinned than 2+2 could equal five. It’s simply impossible.
According to Aquinas, sin is, “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”[2] Sin occurs when we disobey divine commands that are rooted in God’s perfectly good, perfectly eternal, and perfectly unchanging nature. God by definition cannot sin because he is perfect goodness itself. It would be a logical contradiction for God to violate his perfectly good and perfectly rational nature.
So if it is impossible for God to sin, then it was impossible for Jesus to sin because Jesus is God.
I could find nothing ABOUT Catholic literature defining sin as breaking faith. Such a definition does not exist in their view.
God by definition cannot sin because he is perfect goodness itself. This statement does not talk about free will and faith.
In another place I found this:
Did God Create Evil?
Why does it say in Isaiah 45:7 that God created evil? Isaiah 45:7, in some English translations, reads: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, an...
Why does it say in Isaiah 45:7 that God created evil?
It seems clear from the context that this verse refers to God creating natural evil.
This is coping statement. "ra" means "ra" without an adjective. How does a sinner observe dysfunction unless GOD creates something not normally allowed to exist in God's sinless functional domain?
Therefore the " he is perfect goodness itself." does NOT hold true.
I can find no true definition of faith in the CATHOLIC literature?
Did Jesus show faith in His Father? Can Catholic literature answer this question?
What is faith?
Quote: "I don’t stand in awe of Jesus because he avoided sinning in the same way that a tightrope walker avoids plunging to his death. I stand in awe of Jesus because he is God. The infinite act of being who, for our sake, humbled himself and became man. I trust in him for my salvation not because he is “really good” at being holy, but because holiness is a part of his nature and goodness ultimately comes from his divinity.
When we say, “Jesus I trust in you” we are trusting in the most firm and reliable aspect of reality, not a God who could have failed but thankfully for us, did not.
1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
How can Jesus be our example if he could never have sinned?
Mt 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
Jesus showed us how to have faith in the Father. What is this faith we are supposed to follow Jesus as an example?
Can faith fail? yes Ro 14:23 for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Therefore breaking faith is sin.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without "breaking faith"
Grunion you are saying Jesus could never have broken faith in His Father because he is God and God is perfect in His nature.
First the Catholic literature has to define correctly what Divine Faith is - not secular faith -
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Faith
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness. As signifying man's attitude towards God it means trustfulness or fiducia
www.newadvent.org
The meaning of the word faith
(Pistis, fides). In theOld Testament, theHebrewmeans essentiallysteadfastness, cf.Exodus 17:12, where it is used to describe the strengthening of Moses' hands;
I find this meaning wrong in context. The hebrew word does not mean steadfastness.
Here are three Hebrew words "related to the Family Word "amanfah"
man aman amanfah
Steadfastness does not fit all three pictures of faith
biological support mechanical support physical support
But the word "support" fits all contexts both OT and NT
So part of the problem is our defining of terms - and what Jesus was doing in relationship to His Father.
Shalom
rob
Active member
Greetings again
I quote the same Catholic discussion of the idea that Jesus could never have sinned.
Now according to Catholic literature the term "God" means "Deity" . I have to translate their English into my English so we are on the same page for discussion.
For example, which is more impressive — A ship that is unsinkable as long as the captain follows the instructions, or a ship that can’t possibly sink under any condition? I would say the latter is more impressive. Likewise, which is more impressive – a being that could fail but works really hard not to, or a being that is just goodness and perfection itself and so is immune to failure or sin.
A sink that is unsinkable does not require faith decisions, or human cognitive abilities, so it completely devoid of anything a human would do to the boat. Therefore the boat and human do not need each other. There is no risk of failure all things are perfect.
Deity that is unsinkable does not require faith decision, or personal cognitive reasoning. So Deity is completely devoid of anything relational, and therefore there is no need for community involvement. Deity does not need other deity, deity can stand solitary on itself. There is no risk with other deity, All things in cardinally one deity is perfect and functional.
Now consider the other scenario:
Deity that could break supporting another deity but chooses not to break off supporting other deity because they love each other, supposes that love and community come with risk dissolution, but such dissolution and separation never happens. And since on this earth we have never experienced human marriages of humanity with such loving ability we suppose that this kind of loving is total impossible and that it is therefore impossible to ever reach a state of sinlessness. It would be truly impressive if such a human could come to earth while also having deity, show us as a human, to achieve faithful support in love as a marriage is perfectly able, yet without sin, would truly be impressive, because we humans seem not able to achieve this relational style of living.
I have never met a human who is perfectly in love with Deity. All humans fail and show faults in their loving styles of living.
Imagine a human who is also deity living in perfect love and showing us how to achieve this without requiring deity, but only humanity. That would be impressive.
"I don’t stand in awe of Jesus because he avoided sinning in the same way that a tightrope walker avoids plunging to his death. I stand in awe of Jesus because he is God. The infinite act of being who, for our sake, humbled himself and became man. I trust in him for my salvation not because he is “really good” at being holy, but because holiness is a part of his nature and goodness ultimately comes from his divinity.
This statement fails to understand what faith is. Why was the humanity of Jesus so good at being holy? Did He have any advantages that we don't have? No. So why do we fail at loving while Jesus never failed? I think part of the reason is because we do not fully appreciate the process of faith.
1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
(Written in KJV as it reads - no need to translate the Hebrew intent)
If we abide in Jesus we never sin. If we sin we are no longer abiding in Him.
How did Jesus abide in His Father? by faith. Notice I do not have to talk about "deity" as a "term" . Sure the Father is "deity" and the Son is "deity" but I do not have to talk about "deity" as the Catholic do. I am taking about how to abide in someone who is "deity".
Sure Jesus was "deity" but Jesus abides in His Father's "deity" , not His own "deity" even though this "Deity" is the same to both - it does not matter. Again the Catholic is talking about this out of context. What Jesus is doing is abiding in His Father's will, His Father's power and thus is doing faith, something a human can do, because Jesus as a human is doing the same thing.
Catholic seems to be saying Jesus never sinned because He is "deity". That is not what I am saying here and the Catholic is true and correct Jesus is deity, but I am talking about the humanity aspect of Jesus. Catholic literature misses the relational abiding here. Catholic literature misses the humanity statement here.
When we say, “Jesus I trust in you” we are trusting in the most firm and reliable aspect of reality, not a God who could have failed but thankfully for us, did not.
The last remark of this Catholic literature.
Again faith is not really about trust. Sure we trust Jesus but what does that mean?
www.catholic.com
Unlike the love of Christ, which is perfect, since he is Love, our love is imperfect and so is the love of those who love us. To receive an imperfect response to our love is the order of the day for one who is determined to obey the Master’s command. We are not in control of the inner life or perceptions of others, and so sometimes their love seems to be the opposite, even as they give us what they think we need. We have to dig down deep below the changeable and imperfect humanity with which our love is presented and find the longing, desiring heart that wants to love us and wants us to love, no matter what.
Our response to the perfect love of Christ is never perfect, but he is not touchy or demanding; he accepts what we can give. In accepting our love, he perfects it with his own and makes our love part of his.
Part of the problem is statements like this. Where does love come from? A Catholic sees love and loving as something human can do using their own inherent powers of humanity. Do humans have any inherent powers of their own? The answer is no.
All our powers must come from "Deity" and these powers flow into us because we "ask" for them.
If you ask for love from Deity than your love and loving response is perfect because Deity love is perfect.
If you find your loving is imperfect it is because you are mixing Deity love with Devil powers - a lukewarm mixing that means nothing to God.
The most impressive thing ever - is Jesus who was both deity and human, came to demonstrate how to abide in Deity as a human can abide in Deity, through faith. Such abiding in Deity does not require the human to be Deity, we can achieve this Divine affect simply by asking daily for it. That relational aspect of Deity was demonstrated by Jesus-YHWH for us on earth. Shalom
I quote the same Catholic discussion of the idea that Jesus could never have sinned.
Now according to Catholic literature the term "God" means "Deity" . I have to translate their English into my English so we are on the same page for discussion.
For example, which is more impressive — A ship that is unsinkable as long as the captain follows the instructions, or a ship that can’t possibly sink under any condition? I would say the latter is more impressive. Likewise, which is more impressive – a being that could fail but works really hard not to, or a being that is just goodness and perfection itself and so is immune to failure or sin.
A sink that is unsinkable does not require faith decisions, or human cognitive abilities, so it completely devoid of anything a human would do to the boat. Therefore the boat and human do not need each other. There is no risk of failure all things are perfect.
Deity that is unsinkable does not require faith decision, or personal cognitive reasoning. So Deity is completely devoid of anything relational, and therefore there is no need for community involvement. Deity does not need other deity, deity can stand solitary on itself. There is no risk with other deity, All things in cardinally one deity is perfect and functional.
Now consider the other scenario:
Deity that could break supporting another deity but chooses not to break off supporting other deity because they love each other, supposes that love and community come with risk dissolution, but such dissolution and separation never happens. And since on this earth we have never experienced human marriages of humanity with such loving ability we suppose that this kind of loving is total impossible and that it is therefore impossible to ever reach a state of sinlessness. It would be truly impressive if such a human could come to earth while also having deity, show us as a human, to achieve faithful support in love as a marriage is perfectly able, yet without sin, would truly be impressive, because we humans seem not able to achieve this relational style of living.
I have never met a human who is perfectly in love with Deity. All humans fail and show faults in their loving styles of living.
Imagine a human who is also deity living in perfect love and showing us how to achieve this without requiring deity, but only humanity. That would be impressive.
"I don’t stand in awe of Jesus because he avoided sinning in the same way that a tightrope walker avoids plunging to his death. I stand in awe of Jesus because he is God. The infinite act of being who, for our sake, humbled himself and became man. I trust in him for my salvation not because he is “really good” at being holy, but because holiness is a part of his nature and goodness ultimately comes from his divinity.
This statement fails to understand what faith is. Why was the humanity of Jesus so good at being holy? Did He have any advantages that we don't have? No. So why do we fail at loving while Jesus never failed? I think part of the reason is because we do not fully appreciate the process of faith.
1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
(Written in KJV as it reads - no need to translate the Hebrew intent)
If we abide in Jesus we never sin. If we sin we are no longer abiding in Him.
How did Jesus abide in His Father? by faith. Notice I do not have to talk about "deity" as a "term" . Sure the Father is "deity" and the Son is "deity" but I do not have to talk about "deity" as the Catholic do. I am taking about how to abide in someone who is "deity".
Sure Jesus was "deity" but Jesus abides in His Father's "deity" , not His own "deity" even though this "Deity" is the same to both - it does not matter. Again the Catholic is talking about this out of context. What Jesus is doing is abiding in His Father's will, His Father's power and thus is doing faith, something a human can do, because Jesus as a human is doing the same thing.
Catholic seems to be saying Jesus never sinned because He is "deity". That is not what I am saying here and the Catholic is true and correct Jesus is deity, but I am talking about the humanity aspect of Jesus. Catholic literature misses the relational abiding here. Catholic literature misses the humanity statement here.
When we say, “Jesus I trust in you” we are trusting in the most firm and reliable aspect of reality, not a God who could have failed but thankfully for us, did not.
The last remark of this Catholic literature.
Again faith is not really about trust. Sure we trust Jesus but what does that mean?
Let Nothing Separate Others from Your Love
Homily for the Eighteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A Brothers and sisters: What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or per...
Unlike the love of Christ, which is perfect, since he is Love, our love is imperfect and so is the love of those who love us. To receive an imperfect response to our love is the order of the day for one who is determined to obey the Master’s command. We are not in control of the inner life or perceptions of others, and so sometimes their love seems to be the opposite, even as they give us what they think we need. We have to dig down deep below the changeable and imperfect humanity with which our love is presented and find the longing, desiring heart that wants to love us and wants us to love, no matter what.
Our response to the perfect love of Christ is never perfect, but he is not touchy or demanding; he accepts what we can give. In accepting our love, he perfects it with his own and makes our love part of his.
Part of the problem is statements like this. Where does love come from? A Catholic sees love and loving as something human can do using their own inherent powers of humanity. Do humans have any inherent powers of their own? The answer is no.
All our powers must come from "Deity" and these powers flow into us because we "ask" for them.
If you ask for love from Deity than your love and loving response is perfect because Deity love is perfect.
If you find your loving is imperfect it is because you are mixing Deity love with Devil powers - a lukewarm mixing that means nothing to God.
The most impressive thing ever - is Jesus who was both deity and human, came to demonstrate how to abide in Deity as a human can abide in Deity, through faith. Such abiding in Deity does not require the human to be Deity, we can achieve this Divine affect simply by asking daily for it. That relational aspect of Deity was demonstrated by Jesus-YHWH for us on earth. Shalom
Last edited: