Adventisté to učí od roku 1888 a v roce 1931 se objevilo v článcích víry oficiálně, v roce 1946 GK oficiálně schválila.
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
rob
Active member
I support nearly everything you have said, so why do you nit pick and make things hard? You said you like it simple and "plainly as a verse reads" ?
If the Father is deity and he has a begotten Son, that makes the Son also deity, does it not?
If Jesus is clearly written as YHWH in the OT, that makes Jesus in the NT also YHWH, does it not?
"As Thomas kneeled and said "my YHWH and my elohiym" Was Thomas right to say this? I believe yes.
When Jesus soul died in shaowl for 3 days and nights , separated by the Father and the HS, his own deity kept his body from corruption, and the Father and HS came to call their son from the grave.
Our salvation depends upon Jesus divine works in us as we ask for them by faith. Thus Jesus presents us to His Father, who is our substitute for missing and sins. If we live in Him, and He exchanged his life for our life, than Jesus is eternal as deity. Otherwise he can't save anybody.
Where you differ from me:-
"I agree that human works will not save us. But Ellen White says that no one will be saved without them. Food for thought.
We are saved by His divine works in us by faith. This is proof He knows us and we know him. We ask daily for this and for our needs to be met with divine works that help us.
The only humanness in this process is our Asking. The doing comes from Divinity mixed with our doings in a mystery way because of our asking.
"God cannot die. If Jesus were God, he could not have been our Sacrifice. The entire plan of redemption fails if we understand the man Jesus Christ to have been God.
Since life only comes from deity, since only deity is immortal. I pose to you a different definition of what life is and where life come from? Death is the separation of a body from living powers that flow from GOD.
The breath of life is a flow from GOD to your humanity. If this is separated you die.
The humanity of Jesus died as He was subject to the breath of life as we have, from the Father.
But He did not decay, because his own deity kept Him living for a time on His own - that is why it was 3 days and nights -
And the agony of separation was as keenly felt by the Father and HS as well.
EGW: "The mission of Christ’s earthly life was now nearly accomplished. His tongue was parched, and he said, “I thirst.” They saturated a sponge with vinegar and gall and offered it him to drink; and when he had tasted it, he refused it. And now the Lord of life and glory was dying, a ransom for the race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father’s wrath upon him as man’s substitute, that made the cup he drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. Death is not to be regarded as an angel of mercy. Nature recoils from the thought of dissolution, which is the consequence of sin. {3SP 161.2}
Shalom
rob
Active member
P" If one but stops to consider, it would make no sense having two separate entities here. One "YHWH" could not "rain" fire from another one.
I see. So you also feel one being can make two solid objects in space as well, and make a shadow ? One as the light source and the other blocking the light, making a shadow?
I take the science in simple terms and read the messages as they read.
A shadow is only made from two objects, not one object becoming two objects when it pleases it.
I also see two divine parents doing the born process Luke 1:35 You see the eloah and the shadday as parallels of the same Most High.
SO you have a Most High and His Son, but no HS ? How do you see terms "father and son" but nobody else? Is this role playing? I read the Bible as it reads. I read the Eloah and Michael and the Shadday.
You also do not understand love as the Bible teaches it. Ahab love is provider love and it must be responded to for this love to be completed. Hence love not returned or responded to, is not love. Hence the masculine and feminine were created for this circuit of love and being loved. A loved and a beloved. Simple terms. Missing in your ideas of God.
P:"Ellen White called Gabriel divine. Do you disagree with this?
EGW It was Gabriel, the angel next in rank to the Son of God, who came with the divine message to Daniel.
EGW Gabriel is sent to strengthen the divine sufferer, and brace Him to tread His bloodstained path.
Show me a EGW where Gabriel is inherently divine by himself?
Read my nephew AI program he created :
adventai.app
I see. So you also feel one being can make two solid objects in space as well, and make a shadow ? One as the light source and the other blocking the light, making a shadow?
I take the science in simple terms and read the messages as they read.
A shadow is only made from two objects, not one object becoming two objects when it pleases it.
I also see two divine parents doing the born process Luke 1:35 You see the eloah and the shadday as parallels of the same Most High.
SO you have a Most High and His Son, but no HS ? How do you see terms "father and son" but nobody else? Is this role playing? I read the Bible as it reads. I read the Eloah and Michael and the Shadday.
You also do not understand love as the Bible teaches it. Ahab love is provider love and it must be responded to for this love to be completed. Hence love not returned or responded to, is not love. Hence the masculine and feminine were created for this circuit of love and being loved. A loved and a beloved. Simple terms. Missing in your ideas of God.
P:"Ellen White called Gabriel divine. Do you disagree with this?
EGW It was Gabriel, the angel next in rank to the Son of God, who came with the divine message to Daniel.
EGW Gabriel is sent to strengthen the divine sufferer, and brace Him to tread His bloodstained path.
Show me a EGW where Gabriel is inherently divine by himself?
Read my nephew AI program he created :
Is Gabriel Divine? Examining His Rank in Heavenly Courts
Gabriel is known as the angel who stands in the presence of God and strengthened Christ in Gethsemane. But does this high honor mean he is divine? Discover the scriptural and prophetic evidence that firmly establishes Gabriel as the chief, yet created, messenger.
adventai.app
Last edited:
And LeRoy Froom was your private tutor?
No "Trinity" was ever believed by our church during the time of Ellen White. Right up to 1913 in the Adventist yearbook, the non-trinitarian "Fundamental Principles" continued to be published each year--principles which she said were to be maintained and never changed.
In 1931, the word "Trinity" first appeared alongside "Godhead" in a statement of our beliefs, a change made by the decision of about four or five editors at the press--no official vote had ever been taken by the church or its leadership.
In 1946, Froom published the revised edition of Uriah Smith's "Daniel and the Revelation" which he and a team of accomplices had heavily edited so as to remove its non-trinitarian views and allow for acceptance of the Trinity. They left the name on the book as "Uriah Smith," despite it no longer being his views in a great many instances. See the full comparison of changes between the 1897 and the 1946 revision of this book HERE. For a collection of some of the more salient changes, click HERE. Scroll clear to the bottom of that latter link to see excerpts from Froom's book "Movement of Destiny" which detail his rationale for making the changes.
Show me an inspired "thus saith the Lord" for it and perhaps I would believe it. As it stands now, I do not believe a Son is his Father. They are separate persons.
According to Jesus, his Father is "the only true God." That word "only" should get people's attention, especially in view of who is speaking it.
The Hebrew and the Greek are different. Hebrew "elohim" is much broader in meaning and can encompass heavenly messengers, etc. who are not God. But "theos" in Greek is essentially the same as "God" in English. Thomas' words are recorded in Greek. When he says, "my lord (kurios) and my God (theos)" he is making a statement of faith in Jesus as his lord, and in the God he is seeing by faith who is dwelling in Christ. For "doubting Thomas" to make this statement shows considerable growth on his part, and Jesus would have been happy to hear it.
The trouble with the interpretation of this verse usually comes in understanding the conjunction "and" (kai) in it. "And" can be conjunctive or disjunctive. For example, if one says "my wife is my friend and my companion," it is clear that both "friend" and "companion" refer to the same entity. But if one says "my wife and her friend," the "and" clearly joins two separate entities. There are times when this may be ambiguous, but in Greek if one wishes to clearly link two things as being one and the same, the conjunction "te...kai" could be used, a bit like "both...and" in English. In John 20:28, however, this usage is absent, meaning the conjunction cannot be confirmed as conjunctive, referring to the two things as being one and the same.
Did Ellen White say "Thomas kneeled"? Because that concept seems absent in the Biblical account.
Where do you get this?
Jesus' "soul" did not "die" for three days and nights. He was in the grave less than 48 hours. No prophecy of the Bible ever said he would be dead for three days. The Bible says, instead, that he would be "in the heart of the earth" for three days and three nights, which he was--for the "heart of the earth" at that time was the Roman government, under which power he came at the time of his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, and under whose power he remained until the angel rolled away the stone and called him forth from the grave.
Again, where do you get this? I need a "thus saith the Lord" to support this explanation.
Ellen White said:
Again, where is your "thus saith the Lord" for this? I do not accept this definition, for death and decay are all around us in ways that do not fit this. And if they were considered to fit this, this interpretation would seem dangerously close to pantheistic.
This is strange. Either you are claiming Mary was divine--a Catholic concept if ever there was one, or you are claiming Jesus had THREE parents, which is unnatural and for which there is no precedent.
I am confident that you have no "thus saith the Lord" for this belief. I recommend that you base your beliefs upon God's Word.
The Greek reading of Luke 1:35 is not so muddy as the interpretation you have made of it. First, the expression "Holy Ghost" is a mistranslation. The Greek "pneuma" should never have been translated as "ghost," and the English capitalization, which personifies it, is an English problem that is not present in the Greek. Secondly, the term "overshadow" is perhaps a poor choice for translation as well: it could be translated as "envelop," leaving your entire sun and shade argument out of the picture.
One thing that is very important to understand when doing deep Bible study: Strong's concordance definitions are misleading. James Strong included in his definitions all the ways a word had been translated in the KJV. Because it was translated a certain way, or was not translated a certain way, does not mean that the actual definition of the word followed its translation.
I've already posted those statements. They do not occur in the same paragraph, as they are a page apart. She starts by calling the "presence" of the angel that spoke with Zacharias, "divine." On the next page she names the angel as "Gabriel," still talking about Zacharias' experience while serving in the Most Holy Place. If you attempt to search the EGW CD, looking for both terms together, you won't find this--because they do not occur in the same "hit" (paragraph).
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
P:"Show me an inspired "thus saith the Lord" for it and perhaps I would believe it. As it stands now, I do not believe a Son is his Father. They are separate persons.
According to Jesus, his Father is "the only true God." That word "only" should get people's attention, especially in view of who is speaking it.
R: Of course they are separate persons. The word “begotten” tells you that.
Since when does “Elohiym or Theos” refer to “ONLY the “pater or ab” ? It doesn’t. You are hijacking the term “Elohiym” and making it suit a different word meaning?
Have you read Nehemiah Gordon’s work on the study of Elohiym? Your word meaning must fit all contexts, including the 3 verses Gordon rejects in favour of the others verses.
P:"I do not believe a Son is his Father.
R:” You don’t? So why is the terms used? Makes the Bible deceptive if the terms are not true. Simple and plain reading the verses as they read, your very words? Is “Father and Son” role playing or are the terms true as we understand the terms on earth?
P:"The Hebrew and the Greek are different. Hebrew "elohim" is much broader in meaning and can encompass heavenly messengers, etc. who are not God. But "theos" in Greek is essentially the same as "God" in English.
R:” Elohiym can mean “devils and Satan” “humans - Adam and Eve - any human who sins and does good, judges on earth, - not sure about terming sinless angels as elohiym?
The best word meaning for ALL contexts, is the English word “family”
P” But "theos" in Greek is essentially the same as "God" in English.
R: No its not, otherwise the Greek is a primary source different to Hebrew, and not a translation of the Hebrew.
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
R: How can you have fellowship with theos, when theos created all things by Jesus - if Jesus is not a part of theos?
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
R: How is making known theos different to Jews understanding of elohiym?
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
R: Why is the term theos split into members, Father and YHWH Jesus Christ?
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
R: Why is the word “Family” use to describe “theos” ?
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
R: Why is the word “HS” also added to this “family in heaven” ?
Reading this entire passage, “theos” is NOT a reference to “pater” ONLY. Polyglot you are biased, in reading like this.
P:"here are times when this may be ambiguous, but in Greek if one wishes to clearly link two things as being one and the same, the conjunction "te...kai" could be used, a bit like "both...and" in English.
R: I see. No longer simple and plain reading of the text? We get into grammar?
I thought you agreed Jesus spoke the moral law on Mt Sinai? That makes Jesus YHWH, does it not? Plain and simple all the way through the Bible, no grammar required?
P:” Jesus' "soul" did not "die" for three days and nights. He was in the grave less than 48 hours. No prophecy of the Bible ever said he would be dead for three days. The Bible says, instead, that he would be "in the heart of the earth" for three days and three nights, which he was--for the "heart of the earth" at that time was the Roman government,
R:” Oh, so “in the grave for 3 days and nights” is different to in the “heart of the Roman Government” no longer simple plain reading of the text is this?
Mt 27:40 in three days,
Mt 27:63 After three days I will rise again.
Jon 1:17 . And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
EGW: "to crucify Him: and the third day He shall rise again.” Matthew 20:18, 19. They remembered that Christ’s predictions had so far been fulfilled. Who could say that this also would not come to pass? {HLv 518.2}
P:"Again, where do you get this? I need a "thus saith the Lord" to support this explanation.
R: “Ex 23:21 Beware of “Jesus-YHWH-my Messenger”, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for Father-YHWH name is in him.
Ac 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ac 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
P:"Again, where is your "thus saith the Lord" for this? I do not accept this definition, for death and decay are all around us in ways that do not fit this. And if they were considered to fit this, this interpretation would seem dangerously close to pantheistic.
R:” I see. Where does life come from? How readest thou?
Would you agree if the Most High did not exist, nothing would exist, not even rocks and light? I do not promote pantheism, whatever that theory means.
Shalom
P:"Show me an inspired "thus saith the Lord" for it and perhaps I would believe it. As it stands now, I do not believe a Son is his Father. They are separate persons.
According to Jesus, his Father is "the only true God." That word "only" should get people's attention, especially in view of who is speaking it.
R: Of course they are separate persons. The word “begotten” tells you that.
Since when does “Elohiym or Theos” refer to “ONLY the “pater or ab” ? It doesn’t. You are hijacking the term “Elohiym” and making it suit a different word meaning?
Have you read Nehemiah Gordon’s work on the study of Elohiym? Your word meaning must fit all contexts, including the 3 verses Gordon rejects in favour of the others verses.
P:"I do not believe a Son is his Father.
R:” You don’t? So why is the terms used? Makes the Bible deceptive if the terms are not true. Simple and plain reading the verses as they read, your very words? Is “Father and Son” role playing or are the terms true as we understand the terms on earth?
P:"The Hebrew and the Greek are different. Hebrew "elohim" is much broader in meaning and can encompass heavenly messengers, etc. who are not God. But "theos" in Greek is essentially the same as "God" in English.
R:” Elohiym can mean “devils and Satan” “humans - Adam and Eve - any human who sins and does good, judges on earth, - not sure about terming sinless angels as elohiym?
The best word meaning for ALL contexts, is the English word “family”
P” But "theos" in Greek is essentially the same as "God" in English.
R: No its not, otherwise the Greek is a primary source different to Hebrew, and not a translation of the Hebrew.
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
R: How can you have fellowship with theos, when theos created all things by Jesus - if Jesus is not a part of theos?
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
R: How is making known theos different to Jews understanding of elohiym?
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
R: Why is the term theos split into members, Father and YHWH Jesus Christ?
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
R: Why is the word “Family” use to describe “theos” ?
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
R: Why is the word “HS” also added to this “family in heaven” ?
Reading this entire passage, “theos” is NOT a reference to “pater” ONLY. Polyglot you are biased, in reading like this.
P:"here are times when this may be ambiguous, but in Greek if one wishes to clearly link two things as being one and the same, the conjunction "te...kai" could be used, a bit like "both...and" in English.
R: I see. No longer simple and plain reading of the text? We get into grammar?
I thought you agreed Jesus spoke the moral law on Mt Sinai? That makes Jesus YHWH, does it not? Plain and simple all the way through the Bible, no grammar required?
P:” Jesus' "soul" did not "die" for three days and nights. He was in the grave less than 48 hours. No prophecy of the Bible ever said he would be dead for three days. The Bible says, instead, that he would be "in the heart of the earth" for three days and three nights, which he was--for the "heart of the earth" at that time was the Roman government,
R:” Oh, so “in the grave for 3 days and nights” is different to in the “heart of the Roman Government” no longer simple plain reading of the text is this?
Mt 27:40 in three days,
Mt 27:63 After three days I will rise again.
Jon 1:17 . And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
EGW: "to crucify Him: and the third day He shall rise again.” Matthew 20:18, 19. They remembered that Christ’s predictions had so far been fulfilled. Who could say that this also would not come to pass? {HLv 518.2}
P:"Again, where do you get this? I need a "thus saith the Lord" to support this explanation.
R: “Ex 23:21 Beware of “Jesus-YHWH-my Messenger”, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for Father-YHWH name is in him.
Ac 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ac 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
P:"Again, where is your "thus saith the Lord" for this? I do not accept this definition, for death and decay are all around us in ways that do not fit this. And if they were considered to fit this, this interpretation would seem dangerously close to pantheistic.
R:” I see. Where does life come from? How readest thou?
Would you agree if the Most High did not exist, nothing would exist, not even rocks and light? I do not promote pantheism, whatever that theory means.
Shalom
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
P:"This is strange. Either you are claiming Mary was divine--a Catholic concept if ever there was one, or you are claiming Jesus had THREE parents, which is unnatural and for which there is no precedent.
R: Well Jesus has TWO natures and that makes him unnatural already, we humans are only born with one nature.
An in-veto transplant if one parent sperm is dead, involves three parents, one functions as a surrogate, so there are examples of such things on earth. Mary was a surrogate, supplied the humanity egg and allowed it to develop in humanity. The other parents are divine and supernatural, as the words "shadday and eloah" are older names for Father and HS. If EGW says the Father is His new name, I ask you what is His old name? And why don't you go looking for it? Like I did?
P:"The Greek reading of Luke 1:35 is not so muddy as the interpretation you have made of it. First, the expression "Holy Ghost" is a mistranslation. The Greek "pneuma" should never have been translated as "ghost," and the English capitalization, which personifies it, is an English problem that is not present in the Greek. Secondly, the term "overshadow" is perhaps a poor choice for translation as well: it could be translated as "envelop," leaving your entire sun and shade argument out of the picture.
R: So this verse is not so simple and you can’t read the verse as it reads, without analyzing it into into deep grammar?
P:"One thing that is very important to understand when doing deep Bible study: Strong's concordance definitions are misleading. James Strong included in his definitions all the ways a word had been translated in the KJV. Because it was translated a certain way, or was not translated a certain way, does not mean that the actual definition of the word followed its translation.
R” This is another topic. I do not use Strong’s ever, except to get a word. My word meaning come from reading all the contexts and asking what word fits all, than I use my Hebrew English translator to see if my choice of English is correct.
P:"I've already posted those statements. They do not occur in the same paragraph, as they are a page apart. She starts by calling the "presence" of the angel that spoke with Zacharias, "divine." On the next page she names the angel as "Gabriel," still talking about Zacharias' experience while serving in the Most Holy Place. If you attempt to search the EGW CD, looking for both terms together, you won't find this--because they do not occur in the same "hit" (paragraph).
R” I see. I search EGW with words close together not more than 10 words apart. Thus I get a closer “thus saith the Lord” after all God inspired her words. Your study is not as simple as mine?
Like I said there is no reference to “cherubs are divine” their glory is a flow on affect from having faith connection to God, like Moses had for instance. Try to get back to the simple and read the Bible as it reads - after translating the words in proper Hebrew-English word meanings.
Shalom
P:"This is strange. Either you are claiming Mary was divine--a Catholic concept if ever there was one, or you are claiming Jesus had THREE parents, which is unnatural and for which there is no precedent.
R: Well Jesus has TWO natures and that makes him unnatural already, we humans are only born with one nature.
An in-veto transplant if one parent sperm is dead, involves three parents, one functions as a surrogate, so there are examples of such things on earth. Mary was a surrogate, supplied the humanity egg and allowed it to develop in humanity. The other parents are divine and supernatural, as the words "shadday and eloah" are older names for Father and HS. If EGW says the Father is His new name, I ask you what is His old name? And why don't you go looking for it? Like I did?
P:"The Greek reading of Luke 1:35 is not so muddy as the interpretation you have made of it. First, the expression "Holy Ghost" is a mistranslation. The Greek "pneuma" should never have been translated as "ghost," and the English capitalization, which personifies it, is an English problem that is not present in the Greek. Secondly, the term "overshadow" is perhaps a poor choice for translation as well: it could be translated as "envelop," leaving your entire sun and shade argument out of the picture.
R: So this verse is not so simple and you can’t read the verse as it reads, without analyzing it into into deep grammar?
P:"One thing that is very important to understand when doing deep Bible study: Strong's concordance definitions are misleading. James Strong included in his definitions all the ways a word had been translated in the KJV. Because it was translated a certain way, or was not translated a certain way, does not mean that the actual definition of the word followed its translation.
R” This is another topic. I do not use Strong’s ever, except to get a word. My word meaning come from reading all the contexts and asking what word fits all, than I use my Hebrew English translator to see if my choice of English is correct.
P:"I've already posted those statements. They do not occur in the same paragraph, as they are a page apart. She starts by calling the "presence" of the angel that spoke with Zacharias, "divine." On the next page she names the angel as "Gabriel," still talking about Zacharias' experience while serving in the Most Holy Place. If you attempt to search the EGW CD, looking for both terms together, you won't find this--because they do not occur in the same "hit" (paragraph).
R” I see. I search EGW with words close together not more than 10 words apart. Thus I get a closer “thus saith the Lord” after all God inspired her words. Your study is not as simple as mine?
Like I said there is no reference to “cherubs are divine” their glory is a flow on affect from having faith connection to God, like Moses had for instance. Try to get back to the simple and read the Bible as it reads - after translating the words in proper Hebrew-English word meanings.
Shalom
rob
Active member
P:" This is strange. Either you are claiming Mary was divine--a Catholic concept if ever there was one, or you are claiming Jesus had THREE parents, which is unnatural and for which there is no precedent.
R: " Consider this verse "simple as it reads in KJV:"
Ps 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Who is "my God" here? the "my God" who took me out of the womb and suckled me on her breasts?
Can't be Mary, she was never a God?
Can't be Elohiym the Father, both are not written here? Only "el" is - a Strong Authority who is divine as deity.
Has to reference the Shadday. Something you do not understand.
Shalom
R: " Consider this verse "simple as it reads in KJV:"
Ps 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Who is "my God" here? the "my God" who took me out of the womb and suckled me on her breasts?
Can't be Mary, she was never a God?
Can't be Elohiym the Father, both are not written here? Only "el" is - a Strong Authority who is divine as deity.
Has to reference the Shadday. Something you do not understand.
Shalom
"Elohim" does not refer to only the Father. As I have said multiple times, it is applied in scripture to angels, to false gods, to judges, and to people in addition to being applied to God--as is the most common, percentage-wise. I am not hijacking this term--I am telling you exactly how it is used in scripture, and I have given examples such as Psalm 8:5 and Psalm 82:6 which can be cross-compared to Greek translations in Hebrews 2:7 and John 10:34.
"Theos," as applied to the true God, is only the Father, according to Jesus himself--see John 17:1-3. Any other use of it might be rightly called "hijacking," though the term "wresting" might also apply. It can, more especially in the plural "theoi," reference false gods.
No, I have neither read nor heard of him.
The Bible never says the Son is the Father. If you thought otherwise, you might like to check for yourself if you may have been deceived.
It is not correct to assume that there will be an English equivalent which can fit all contexts. Even a single word in English cannot fit all contexts--consider, for example, the word "cleave." In some contexts it means "stick together," but in some contexts it means "divide; split apart"! The same word, having the same spelling, and having the same grammatical context (verb), can mean opposite things! If such can happen in English, it is hardly fair to assume Hebrew could not have the same phenomenon.
You might know, for example, that the word "keleb" in Hebrew means "dog." Unfortunately, a good and righteous man, "Caleb," has this name, and the Hebrew spelling is identical to that used for "dog." Context tells the reader or translator when to translate it as "Caleb" and when it references the lowly animal instead.
That is correct. Greek is not a translation of the Hebrew: it was a primary source different to Hebrew.
For example, Ellen White's writings are inspired, and constitute a primary source that is different to Hebrew. Her writings were not translated from Hebrew.
I have witnessed demon possession. Have you? When one sees a person possessed, does one assume that the human became a demon? No. Did the demon become human? No. There are two separate beings involved.
Jesus, we are told, was possessed by God. This does not mean that he was himself God. There are two separate beings involved.
I might remind you that even considering grammar will leave the entire New Testament out, for the word "Yahweh" is absent there.
The prophecy said "three days and three nights." We might have three days inclusive of Friday, Sabbath, and Sunday, but where are your three nights?
Note that Jonah, while in the belly of the whale, never died.
But to truly understand this prophecy of the three days and nights, one must first understand the prophecy of creation week, most particularly the fifth day when the whales were created. Only when one understands what whales represent in Bible prophecy will one be prepared to see the connection to the Roman government.
If you are still unaware that Creation Week was a prophecy, you might take a clue from 2 Peter 3:1-8. This is a hidden treasure worth digging for.
More later as I have time....
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
P:"I do not believe a Son is his Father.
P: The Bible never says the Son is the Father.
Rob: You really confuse me. I do not see the Son as the Father, nor the Father as the Son,
this might be a Catholic trinity idea? assuming you can ready their doctrines properly?
God is not some entity that can be expressed as three expressions of the same person : Most High or the Son or the HS, as some claim, different expressions of the same Divine Deity.
No, According to Oscar’s Razor the minimum number of Strong Authorities one needs to demonstrate infinity, everything that every exists is three. And these three function on three aspects of family love. Provider love, Responder love and child like Collective love. Therefore each deity has to be unique and different from each other for these functions of love.
I do not see Jesus as a clone of the Father, or an expression of the Father or His Powers.
Jesus is his own unique deity with his own unique personality and his own unique loving function. He is the Divine Family “one and only”.
The Divine heavenly Parents, are spoken and alluded to by EGW writings, and the Bible as well.
I asked you why does the Bible speak of the Father and His Son, His one and only. This is not role playing, they are both divine and both deity yet both unique. One can say the Provider ranks differently to the Collector in functions of love.
You deny that Jesus Christ has His own deity.
I already posted the only evidence of Christ’s own deity on display just once in the Bible, the transfiguration, but you did not comment on the post I made from EGW.
All other times Jesus had to walk and show powers by faith in His Father, just as we have to walk and do powers by faith in His Son. If Jesus has no deity what is the point of having faith in his deity and divine powers, if He has none of His own?
P:"It is not correct to assume that there will be an English equivalent which can fit all contexts.
I suggest you spend some time with my Hebrew scholar Jeff Benner and see where I come from and why words have a single basic meaning, regardless of the language.
www.ancient-hebrew.org
Though corruption exists in all languages, including Hebrew, in the beginning word meanings were broad and one meaning fits all contexts.
For example “ab” does not mean “fruit or father” for all contexts - it means “provider” for all contexts, a broader meaning.
Jeff Benner does not translate Elohiym into English - I feel for his problem - I would stick my neck out and translate the word as “Family Power” for all contexts. You are correct Hebrew can have opposite meaning for an opposite context.
This link summaries Nehemiah Gordon assessment on Elohiym.
(1) light is a “family” electromagnetic spectrum
(2) humans is a “family power” with male and females knowing good and evil
(3) judges are a “family of strong authorities” for judging cases
(4) Moses was made an “elojhiym” in Exodus, with Aaron and Miriam - family powers
(5) False family powers, such as Baal and the golden calf represent false family deities
(6) GOD is a “family power” of love, with three divine deities of unique personalities of love
Old name “ eloah” “Shadday” “YHWH- Michael”
New name “Father” “Holy Spirit” and “Jesus Christ”
If Mrs White calls the Father a new name, she gives us permission to go looking for the OT old name for the Father.
P:” Greek is not a translation of the Hebrew: it was a primary source different to Hebrew.
R: Of the few in the public domain for free, try this wonderful work by Chris Lancaster
Lancaster goes through dozens of examples showing the NT was written in Hebrew first.
Aramaic is a language similar to Hebrew.
Jeff Benner also says the NT was originally written in Hebrew also. See his website for examples.
As does the Bible: here -
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
I agree with the Bible assessment Greek is a stammering lip - the Jews hated their task to translate the OT into Greek, the so called 70, LXX.
P:"This does not mean that he was himself God. There are two separate beings involved.
Rob: I agree the Divine beings are separate, they are both deity. Something you do not agree with me on.
P:"the entire New Testament out, for the word "Yahweh" is absent there
R” yes so sad, YHWH, adon, Adonay and Baal ? are all translated as “kurios” so the functions in the OT are completely lost by the stammering translation.
Jesus in the OT functions as the imrah “meaning Father personified as words” and in the NT this is termed “logus” completely destroying the function of Jesus as the Father personified.
The rock that followed Israel, in the Greek we have no clue as to who the rock was. I assume it was the Cela Rock. The other rock is the tsuwr rock. Both followed Israel.
P:” where are your three nights?
R:"Many theories abound.
Gethsame is seen by me as the beginning of Jesus dying of a broken heart, not the dying on the Cross, but the sin-offering sacrifice began that night.
So this might be Gethsemane night, Friday morning and night, Sabbath morning, and night, Sunday morning he rose ?
Shalom
P:"I do not believe a Son is his Father.
P: The Bible never says the Son is the Father.
Rob: You really confuse me. I do not see the Son as the Father, nor the Father as the Son,
this might be a Catholic trinity idea? assuming you can ready their doctrines properly?
God is not some entity that can be expressed as three expressions of the same person : Most High or the Son or the HS, as some claim, different expressions of the same Divine Deity.
No, According to Oscar’s Razor the minimum number of Strong Authorities one needs to demonstrate infinity, everything that every exists is three. And these three function on three aspects of family love. Provider love, Responder love and child like Collective love. Therefore each deity has to be unique and different from each other for these functions of love.
I do not see Jesus as a clone of the Father, or an expression of the Father or His Powers.
Jesus is his own unique deity with his own unique personality and his own unique loving function. He is the Divine Family “one and only”.
The Divine heavenly Parents, are spoken and alluded to by EGW writings, and the Bible as well.
I asked you why does the Bible speak of the Father and His Son, His one and only. This is not role playing, they are both divine and both deity yet both unique. One can say the Provider ranks differently to the Collector in functions of love.
You deny that Jesus Christ has His own deity.
I already posted the only evidence of Christ’s own deity on display just once in the Bible, the transfiguration, but you did not comment on the post I made from EGW.
All other times Jesus had to walk and show powers by faith in His Father, just as we have to walk and do powers by faith in His Son. If Jesus has no deity what is the point of having faith in his deity and divine powers, if He has none of His own?
P:"It is not correct to assume that there will be an English equivalent which can fit all contexts.
I suggest you spend some time with my Hebrew scholar Jeff Benner and see where I come from and why words have a single basic meaning, regardless of the language.
The Ancient Hebrew Research Center
Jeff A. Benner, author, researcher and Bible translator, is dedicated to teaching proper Biblical interpretation through the study of the Hebrew alphabet, language, culture and philosophy.
Though corruption exists in all languages, including Hebrew, in the beginning word meanings were broad and one meaning fits all contexts.
For example “ab” does not mean “fruit or father” for all contexts - it means “provider” for all contexts, a broader meaning.
Jeff Benner does not translate Elohiym into English - I feel for his problem - I would stick my neck out and translate the word as “Family Power” for all contexts. You are correct Hebrew can have opposite meaning for an opposite context.
This link summaries Nehemiah Gordon assessment on Elohiym.
(1) light is a “family” electromagnetic spectrum
(2) humans is a “family power” with male and females knowing good and evil
(3) judges are a “family of strong authorities” for judging cases
(4) Moses was made an “elojhiym” in Exodus, with Aaron and Miriam - family powers
(5) False family powers, such as Baal and the golden calf represent false family deities
(6) GOD is a “family power” of love, with three divine deities of unique personalities of love
Old name “ eloah” “Shadday” “YHWH- Michael”
New name “Father” “Holy Spirit” and “Jesus Christ”
If Mrs White calls the Father a new name, she gives us permission to go looking for the OT old name for the Father.
P:” Greek is not a translation of the Hebrew: it was a primary source different to Hebrew.
R: Of the few in the public domain for free, try this wonderful work by Chris Lancaster
Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Western Tradition teaches that New Testament is written in Greek while many of Eastern Tradition (especially Church of the East) teaches that New Testament is...
archive.org
Lancaster goes through dozens of examples showing the NT was written in Hebrew first.
Aramaic is a language similar to Hebrew.
Jeff Benner also says the NT was originally written in Hebrew also. See his website for examples.
As does the Bible: here -
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
I agree with the Bible assessment Greek is a stammering lip - the Jews hated their task to translate the OT into Greek, the so called 70, LXX.
P:"This does not mean that he was himself God. There are two separate beings involved.
Rob: I agree the Divine beings are separate, they are both deity. Something you do not agree with me on.
P:"the entire New Testament out, for the word "Yahweh" is absent there
R” yes so sad, YHWH, adon, Adonay and Baal ? are all translated as “kurios” so the functions in the OT are completely lost by the stammering translation.
Jesus in the OT functions as the imrah “meaning Father personified as words” and in the NT this is termed “logus” completely destroying the function of Jesus as the Father personified.
The rock that followed Israel, in the Greek we have no clue as to who the rock was. I assume it was the Cela Rock. The other rock is the tsuwr rock. Both followed Israel.
P:” where are your three nights?
R:"Many theories abound.
Gethsame is seen by me as the beginning of Jesus dying of a broken heart, not the dying on the Cross, but the sin-offering sacrifice began that night.
So this might be Gethsemane night, Friday morning and night, Sabbath morning, and night, Sunday morning he rose ?
Shalom
rob
Active member
EGW: "Jesus refused to receive the homage of His people until He had the assurance that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father. He ascended to the heavenly courts, and from God Himself heard the assurance that His atonement for the sins of men had been ample, that through His blood all might gain eternal life. The Father ratified the covenant made with Christ, that He would receive repentant and obedient men, and would love them even as He loves His Son. Christ was to complete His work, and fulfill His pledge to “make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.” Isaiah 13:12. All power in heaven and on earth was given to the Prince of Life, and He returned to His followers in a world of sin, that He might impart to them of His power and glory. {DA 790.3}
The Father accepts the sin-offering of the SON and His ability to save others through faith in Him - Jesus. Jesus is called our Prince of Life. We as sinners are saved through His deity and sacrifice for sin-offering. Praise the privilege to ask for Divine powers when we need them to appropriate by faith the Precious Promises in the Father's Words.
EGW: "Through earnest prayer he is to cleave to Christ. To neglect this, to refuse his service, is to forfeit the favor of the Great Teacher, and to become the sport of Satan’s wiles. It was the design of heaven by the infinite sacrifice of Christ, to bring men and women into favor again with God. {FE 514.1}
If Jesus gave an infinite sacrifice this proves He is infinite as well as a divine deity is infinite, And this gracious gift brings us sinners to the Father ! Jesus died for sinners and chooses to live for all eternity cladding his deity in humanity !! What an infinite sacrifice for love.
The Father accepts the sin-offering of the SON and His ability to save others through faith in Him - Jesus. Jesus is called our Prince of Life. We as sinners are saved through His deity and sacrifice for sin-offering. Praise the privilege to ask for Divine powers when we need them to appropriate by faith the Precious Promises in the Father's Words.
EGW: "Through earnest prayer he is to cleave to Christ. To neglect this, to refuse his service, is to forfeit the favor of the Great Teacher, and to become the sport of Satan’s wiles. It was the design of heaven by the infinite sacrifice of Christ, to bring men and women into favor again with God. {FE 514.1}
If Jesus gave an infinite sacrifice this proves He is infinite as well as a divine deity is infinite, And this gracious gift brings us sinners to the Father ! Jesus died for sinners and chooses to live for all eternity cladding his deity in humanity !! What an infinite sacrifice for love.
rob
Active member
EGW comments on Jesus Christ and His deity (showing all results - 24 - here for the search of “Jesus deity"~20 no more than 20 words apart from both words- only new messages are shown.
Jesus Christ and His deity described here
(1) Shall pride be harbored after you have seen Deity humbling Himself, and then as man debasing Himself, till there was no lower point to which He could descend? (The Review and Herald, September 4, 1900)! {5BC 1128.1}
The Father’s own deity did not sink when His son was on the Cross
(2) The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity (reference to YHWH Elohym Shadday) did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” {5BC 1129.7}
Jesus own deity exerts power on our behalf as our Great High Priest
(3) Jesus cares for each one as though there were not another individual on the face of the earth. As Deity He exerts mighty power in our behalf, while as our Elder Brother He feels for all our woes. The Majesty of heaven held not Himself aloof from degraded, sinful humanity. We have not a high priest who is so high, so lifted up, that He cannot notice us or sympathize with us, but one who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. {5T 346.1
Reference to the Father’s Deity
(4) They did not appreciate the fact that Christ was our intercessor, invested with the fulness of divine love. They did not realize the necessity of an Advocate at the right hand of the Deity. Satisfied with their own self-righteousness, they would none of Jesus. {ST June 18, 1896, par. 1}
Why Jesus never showed publicly His own Deity
(5) Many are in danger of being deceived as were the Jews. They expected Christ would appear to our world with the glory of Deity to confirm the fact that He was the Messiah. Then there would be no faith required. But Jesus clothed His divinity with humanity. He walked the earth as a man. His works bore the living testimony that in Him was invested the prerogatives prophets had given to the world’s Redeemer. {Ms64-1890.}
A secular parallel made for humans - Jesus is also a deity - more than these..
(6) Oh, why do the professed followers of Christ become charmed and all absorbed with human frail beings and set their affections upon them and bow to them as to a deity, while Jesus is seeking to win our love and engage our thoughts, to bind us to His own heart by the disclosures of the tenderest sympathy and inexpressible love.
Shalom
Jesus Christ and His deity described here
(1) Shall pride be harbored after you have seen Deity humbling Himself, and then as man debasing Himself, till there was no lower point to which He could descend? (The Review and Herald, September 4, 1900)! {5BC 1128.1}
The Father’s own deity did not sink when His son was on the Cross
(2) The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity (reference to YHWH Elohym Shadday) did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” {5BC 1129.7}
Jesus own deity exerts power on our behalf as our Great High Priest
(3) Jesus cares for each one as though there were not another individual on the face of the earth. As Deity He exerts mighty power in our behalf, while as our Elder Brother He feels for all our woes. The Majesty of heaven held not Himself aloof from degraded, sinful humanity. We have not a high priest who is so high, so lifted up, that He cannot notice us or sympathize with us, but one who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. {5T 346.1
Reference to the Father’s Deity
(4) They did not appreciate the fact that Christ was our intercessor, invested with the fulness of divine love. They did not realize the necessity of an Advocate at the right hand of the Deity. Satisfied with their own self-righteousness, they would none of Jesus. {ST June 18, 1896, par. 1}
Why Jesus never showed publicly His own Deity
(5) Many are in danger of being deceived as were the Jews. They expected Christ would appear to our world with the glory of Deity to confirm the fact that He was the Messiah. Then there would be no faith required. But Jesus clothed His divinity with humanity. He walked the earth as a man. His works bore the living testimony that in Him was invested the prerogatives prophets had given to the world’s Redeemer. {Ms64-1890.}
A secular parallel made for humans - Jesus is also a deity - more than these..
(6) Oh, why do the professed followers of Christ become charmed and all absorbed with human frail beings and set their affections upon them and bow to them as to a deity, while Jesus is seeking to win our love and engage our thoughts, to bind us to His own heart by the disclosures of the tenderest sympathy and inexpressible love.
Shalom
Until your last paragraph there, I was in agreement with you. That last paragraph alerted me to the fact that you are not Trinitarian because you appear to be Tritheist. By "each deity," each of which, in your words, are not "three expressions of the same person...as some claim," you mean to say that they are three separate beings, each of which is "God."
Am I understanding you correctly?
There is no "one and only" in the Divine Family. See John 1:12. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that the Father is "the only true God," so Jesus cannot be "his own unique deity."
According to the dictionary, "deity" means:
Three deities equal three gods. And one who adheres to three gods is a Tritheist.
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
Happy Sabbath
P: Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
This is saying as human receive Jesus, to them he grants His Divine Power for them to become sons of the Divine Family, adopted in as EGW points it, to them that have faith on His Name. (pisteuo is a faith word)
Adopted / grafted is not the same as begotten
Yachyid H3173
"The one and only " is suggested in these verses
Ps 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my "one and only" from the power of the dog.
Jer 6:26 O daughter of my people, gird [thee] with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, [as for] an "one and only" , most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us.
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] "one and only" and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.
Ge 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine "one and only" Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (This verse was copied wrong - according to LXX and Jeff Benner - meant to mean "beloved" )
--------
Not sure I am a Tritheist either - three gods? Such a concept was frowned upon by YHWH when Israel mistook the understand of Elohiym as a Divine Family.
When you read how Israel worshiped the Queen of Heaven in Jer 44:17, YHWH condemned this notion. If the pagan deities were a copy of the Divine Family, what is wrong with YHWH condemning their worship? In my studies of love both Abah and Ahabah one Deity is a provider showing provider love and the other deity is a responder showing responding love, like some declare the lover and the beloved.
My two pennies is the Provider takes precedence over the Responder, and neither is truly independent, but perfectly united in love.
So love flows from one fountain, not three fountains, one spring, not three springs. Hence in this view, Elohiym is monotheistic in nature. Hope this helps. Shalom
Happy Sabbath
P: Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
This is saying as human receive Jesus, to them he grants His Divine Power for them to become sons of the Divine Family, adopted in as EGW points it, to them that have faith on His Name. (pisteuo is a faith word)
Adopted / grafted is not the same as begotten
Yachyid H3173
"The one and only " is suggested in these verses
Ps 22:20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my "one and only" from the power of the dog.
Jer 6:26 O daughter of my people, gird [thee] with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, [as for] an "one and only" , most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us.
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] "one and only" and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.
Ge 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine "one and only" Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. (This verse was copied wrong - according to LXX and Jeff Benner - meant to mean "beloved" )
--------
Not sure I am a Tritheist either - three gods? Such a concept was frowned upon by YHWH when Israel mistook the understand of Elohiym as a Divine Family.
When you read how Israel worshiped the Queen of Heaven in Jer 44:17, YHWH condemned this notion. If the pagan deities were a copy of the Divine Family, what is wrong with YHWH condemning their worship? In my studies of love both Abah and Ahabah one Deity is a provider showing provider love and the other deity is a responder showing responding love, like some declare the lover and the beloved.
My two pennies is the Provider takes precedence over the Responder, and neither is truly independent, but perfectly united in love.
So love flows from one fountain, not three fountains, one spring, not three springs. Hence in this view, Elohiym is monotheistic in nature. Hope this helps. Shalom
"One and only" is much different than "only begotten." Modern translations have deviated on this point. Ellen White warns us that very few of those who accept the devil's Bible revisions will ever enter heaven. We must be on our guard.
Further, Ellen White taught that "God is a Being." She never once said God was three beings. Our church today is quite confused on this point, for errors have crept in to our statement of doctrines, and pastors are leading the people astray just as Ellen White predicted.
Beyond these points, I wish to say simply this: I enjoy studying and teaching. I do not enjoy disagreements nor debate, and will dabble in these only as long as I hope some beneficial knowledge can be shared in the process. For those entrenched in their own limited viewpoints and who seem unwilling to accept anything new, I feel too discouraged to share as much. Jesus also did not share with others when they were not willing nor ready to hear. Perhaps for this reason, I am tiring of this discussion.
I appreciate that you have strongly held views. The Bible says: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Happy Sabbath.
Further, Ellen White taught that "God is a Being." She never once said God was three beings. Our church today is quite confused on this point, for errors have crept in to our statement of doctrines, and pastors are leading the people astray just as Ellen White predicted.
Beyond these points, I wish to say simply this: I enjoy studying and teaching. I do not enjoy disagreements nor debate, and will dabble in these only as long as I hope some beneficial knowledge can be shared in the process. For those entrenched in their own limited viewpoints and who seem unwilling to accept anything new, I feel too discouraged to share as much. Jesus also did not share with others when they were not willing nor ready to hear. Perhaps for this reason, I am tiring of this discussion.
I appreciate that you have strongly held views. The Bible says: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Happy Sabbath.
rob
Active member
Greetings Polyglot
I am a teacher (retired) and I also enjoy teaching and studying. I am not debating with you, only trying to understand you and you are not willing to publish your views in detail so I can understand them clearly. I was revealed by the Lord six months ago what genuine faith was as a process, but you are not willing to read this - nor is any church member so far for that matter? In fact they get offended before you present anything. We seem to have lost our thirst for learning ?
Why is that? I wonder? Here is our link : https://spiritualsprings.proboards.com/thread/93/discovering-genuine-faith-simple-presentation
I have two websites dedicated to the Steps to Christ and when I was 17 I asked the Lord where is Steps to Christ found in the Bible in the same process chapters as Mrs White lists them. I was excited by my discovery and not one Pastor has ever been excited by this. Imagine my wonder to find the Bible verse for Steps to Christ is the same verse for defining genuine faith " As EGW writes "to appropriate by faith to yourself the precious promises in the Word of God"
P:""One and only" is much different than "only begotten."
Rob explain to me how "yachiyd" and "yalad" can be applied differently in translation issues? They are two different Hebrew words and are treated as such? I do not understand you and your logic, but I would like to - and I am not debating you at all.
If you are a teacher, teach me than - surely the Hebrew can handle careful examination?
P:" Further, Ellen White taught that "God is a Being." She never once said God was three beings.
I do not teach Elohiym is three beings. I do not teach a Family is three beings either.
I would term ELohiym as three "el" in a Divine Family, the term "el" means "strong Authorities" and not the term "god"
The term "god" I feel is undefined and not supported by Hebrew words. There you have my view. Based on Hebrew.
What is your view?
Jesus created us as "adam" this is a Hebrew word meaning "mankind" similar to "miyn" meaning "kind".
The word "adam" was built out of, and made into two personalities of love, but placed on the earth as a single being.
This parallels with Romans 1:20 where we are told in simile fashion the origin of Elohiym as a Family.
When you marry the two become echad - this can be considered compound unity, but it is also cardinally one in number.
The provider love and the responder love combine to function as cardinally one love.
This is my two pennies in how love functions and why God made animals into "two subsets" of each miyn as "two different personalities of love", the ahab and the ahabah - there are two Hebrew words for love.
Hence I do not like using the term "god" unless a layperson wishes too. You also teach elohiym different to me.
In my understanding "el" is a cardinal one "power" represented in a "person" manifested as a "being" - As far as I know cherubs have not personalities of love, hence they exist only as beings.
Also "eloah" is the old Hebrew name for "Most high power" usually the Father, but references pagan Most High powers also.
And "eloahm" is the Hebrew word for "The Most High power flows" and is understood my me from the Scriptures as a word meaning a "Divine Family Power" can also reference "Secular Family Power" such as judges, or humans, and "Pagan Family Power" such as Devils and His family of angels.
You are right elohiym is never singular in a sense - it is a corporate word like "adam" is a "corporate" word - not the Word "Adamah" the word used to describe the "person and being" who is masculine.
Mankind was made a little lower than elohiym - not cherubims. ( A fuzzy translation from KJV)
Hence we have something cherubs do not have, an added layer to our "being" it is called "personalities of love"
SO we are higher and different to cherubs closest to Eloihym itself as a DIvine Family.
Now I would like to hear what you teach and the Hebrew verses that align with it. SO far you have not given me much to go on and I am confused with your views?
I am sorry you are tiring of this discussion. Personally I enjoy your teaching, but I also am only beginning to learn.
One thing I get from you is you do not stick to the Hebrew as much as I do with single word meanings. You use other words like "deity" - there is no such word as a Hebrew word meaning "deity" so describing the Son of God as Divine but not Deity is weird to me? There is a Hebrew word for "Divine" H7080 & H7081 meaning "divine/divination".
Can I start up a new topic "poetry parallels" as I would like to know how you use poetry in the Bible?
So I gather from your view, that the word "elohiym" and "father" are much the same word. Angels can be "elohiym" and can be divine, but are not deity. You seem to state the "Father" had a begotten Son but not one with His own deity. So I am left trying to understand this? You have not given me an English word meaning for "elohiym" that fits all contexts. Mine is "Family Power".
When I confront people who do not read their Bibles much - only in fuzzy English - they feel challenged and offended. Are we not supposed to be eating meat, not milk ? Seems like you cannot discuss anything with anybody these days cause they get offended or tired? Surely the Bible can stand examination - I like Charlie Kirk in this regard - as least he talked to people and they talked back.
Do you have a website where your views are published so I don't tire you - trying to understand your view?
Shalom
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Greetings again Polyglot
I was re-reading your presentation - learning takes time - and I am a slow but deep learner.
In your presentation of EGW material that "angels are divine". Yes I agree "angels flow as divine"
So when angels "appropriate to themselves the Divine Powers of God by faith", this power becomes combined in the angel and they become a "divine presence" - this is a complex answer because of the word I see EGW uses "agency" and my studies of her definitions of "Genuine faith" - angels also must do faith in God for their daily living - as we have to as well for all eternity.
Question : Are angels inherently divine, or is their divinity flowing unto them by faith in the one true God?
Reading your selection of EGW I found this
Only as they were united with Christ could the disciples hope to have the accompanying power of the Holy Spirit and the co-operation of angels of heaven. With the help of these divine agencies they would present before the world a united front and would be victorious in the conflict they were compelled to wage unceasingly against the powers of darkness.
You underline in bold "agency" . Is not an "agency" a similar word to "medium" and therefore in answer to my question
Angels are divine only in the sense their divinity is flowing unto them by faith in the one true Provider.
These words "agency" , "agent" and "medium" are not understood well by the average SDA in EGW writings.
To me and "agent" or "Agency" or "Medium" is a person who carries somebody else's power.
A good example of an agency or medium is the HS who is also termed an angel of mercy by EGW.
So I do not see any support for angels with their own inherit divine powers.
Does this answer align with your teachings of your view about angels ? Shalom
I was re-reading your presentation - learning takes time - and I am a slow but deep learner.
In your presentation of EGW material that "angels are divine". Yes I agree "angels flow as divine"
So when angels "appropriate to themselves the Divine Powers of God by faith", this power becomes combined in the angel and they become a "divine presence" - this is a complex answer because of the word I see EGW uses "agency" and my studies of her definitions of "Genuine faith" - angels also must do faith in God for their daily living - as we have to as well for all eternity.
Question : Are angels inherently divine, or is their divinity flowing unto them by faith in the one true God?
Reading your selection of EGW I found this
Only as they were united with Christ could the disciples hope to have the accompanying power of the Holy Spirit and the co-operation of angels of heaven. With the help of these divine agencies they would present before the world a united front and would be victorious in the conflict they were compelled to wage unceasingly against the powers of darkness.
You underline in bold "agency" . Is not an "agency" a similar word to "medium" and therefore in answer to my question
Angels are divine only in the sense their divinity is flowing unto them by faith in the one true Provider.
These words "agency" , "agent" and "medium" are not understood well by the average SDA in EGW writings.
To me and "agent" or "Agency" or "Medium" is a person who carries somebody else's power.
A good example of an agency or medium is the HS who is also termed an angel of mercy by EGW.
So I do not see any support for angels with their own inherit divine powers.
Does this answer align with your teachings of your view about angels ? Shalom