it is rather unfortunate that you would make such an ignorant statement. when Jesus was on earth He was fully dependent on the father because He had to acquire knowledge and wisdom as a normal human being that's is why the bible could say He "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man", but now, as He is already glorified, there is no limit to His knowledge therefore He knows all thing.
Amazing how ignorant someone who claims to be a super bible student can be. If you would read Philippians 2:6-8
Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
You may be able to see that Jesus in His preexisting form was like God. But He gave that away to become like a man obedient to death just like us.
John 1:1, In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And there are more hints in the Bible that Jesus was like God but gave that away to save mankind, and a fool like you can say that Jesus is not God.
It's hard to understand and
Church haven't preached a lot about it! Even His symbols aren't clear enough for all!
Thanks Shiver and Elijah for your interest. I used to love talking about Jesus on Adventist Online, but not many people live to get to know Jesus more. The replies are almost 3 days between replies.
We have a Website that studies Hebrew Sola Scriptoria. The problem as I see is most of us read our Bibles in English, trusting a human translator, rather than reading it in Hebrew, trusting the Holy Spirit.
Is there a difference? Absolutely.... I also study Ancient Hebrew, rather than Jewish Greek Hebrew.
As for "trinity" its a human term and thus invented by men, so should never be used to picture ELohiym
The best picture we have in the NT is family.
Eph 3:14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
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;
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are named here in the context of the Divine Family in heaven.
This implies the Holy Spirit and the Father are parents. If the SOP names the Father a heavenly parent, why do we find it so hard by logic to reference the Holy Spirit as the other heavenly parent?
http://spiritualsprings.org/ Try reading some webpages and tell us why you think. Be the first SDA people to make comments.
My favourite themes are
Starting Spiritually in Jesus menu
Where in Scripture found in chronological order, are all the salvational steps to Jesus?
A famous book called "Steps to Christ" lists such steps in order as"-
When I read this book at age 17 or so, I asked God to show me a single Scripture passage where these same steps are listed in the same chronological order as in the Book "Steps to Christ". Wouldn't that be a wonderful discovery, yet when I ask people or show them, they seem disinterested in this most wonderful golden gem in Scripture. Such a passage is found in the Scroll of Jesus. Most people do not know there are two books in the OT that are named Jesus or Yashua.
Joshua is the book of Jesus showing us how a Church for God is saved.
Hosea is the book of Jesus showing us how an Individual for God is saved.
One the left is the Steps to Christ written by the hand of Ellen White as Jesus told her for the langauge of English. On the right is the Steps to Jesus written by Hosea as Yeshua told him to write in the language of Hebrew.
For the "pious person", who finds it hard to have "child like faith", here is a website journey of all the things one needs to do to be saved by Jesus, following Yeshua 14:1-2.
Shalom my friends.
This is a very good sermon/study about how the trinity doctrine undermines the 3 angels messages. It also addresses the role of the Holy Spirit.
“36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
”32 “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
“The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας or, τῆς πίστεως, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is a statement of belief widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because it was originally adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day İznik, Turkey) by the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople, and the amended form is referred to as the Nicene or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.” Wikipedia; Catholic.
325 AD Jesus declared second God with the point of Emperor Constatines sword at the throat of the church.
381 AD the holy spirit was declared to be the third God, completing the evolution of the so called trinity.
Most of Christianity including SDA is therefore following a Catholic Church dogma completely non-biblical and a pagan doctrine of Devils lie. Jews and early church had no belief or even conception of trinity, which is totally a corruption of the truth without true Biblical or historical foundation in the Hebrew or first century church.
Furthermore the SDA was originally anti-trinitarian, but evolved into trinity doctrine. Again history proves these facts. Creeds are man-made dogmas which denominations have embraced as beliefs.
Creed from Wordbook app dictionary;
”ORIGIN: Old English creda "article or statement of Christian belief," from Latin credo "I believe," the first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, broadening 17c. to mean any statement of belief.”
What we believe is most important.
Keep mouthing what you have been taught without further investigation and therefore follow a false evil doctrine which is all contrary to what Jesus really IS. God and His Son are not blessed by pagan beliefs and chants, dogmas and creeds of the trinity.
I believe in one true God, The Father, and The Son of God Jesus Christ who is not equal with the Father.
The only evil I see here is a fool trying to look wise. God is Bigger than the box you are putting Him in.
Elijah has not addressed my statements with rational pertinent arguments, but rather makes vicious ad hominem attacks. There is no credibility to his behavior which does not reflect Christ. He has not addressed the Catholic historic evolution of the Trinity Doctrine. ”Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” William Paley, 18th century British Theologian.
James all the arguments you have put fore are not based on sound bible study, it's not lead by the Spirit as it is all based on human assumptions. Remember the chip you say would be the mark of the Beast. When you come with foolish assumptions like that you do not draw a lot of credibilities here. As long you do this I have no need to respond to foolish humanistic drivel.
James, you use the word "Catholic" as if you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church. That being the case there are several major points that contest your account. I have enumerated some of them as follows:
1. The Council of Nicaea was not a Roman Catholic council - unless you are a follower of the Roman Catholic Church's version of history. So, any good Roman Catholic will argue that Nicaea was a RC council because they accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome from the apostle Peter onward and believe in the unbroken succession of the Papacy. However, the idea of Papal supremacy at that time is specifically denied by the Canons of that council.
Conversely the SDA Church has never taught or believed this. Like many of the Protestant Reformers the SDA Church views the RCC as the woman of Revelation 17 and therefore dates her supremacy according to the time prophesied in Dan.7 & Rev.12.
2. The Council of Nicaea was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine, it was not called by the Bishop of Rome. Western Bishops were in a minority at the council, about 3 at most, and the Bishop of Rome did not attend. In reality this was an Eastern Church council as there were at least 100 Eastern Bishops in attendance for every 1 Western Church Bishop. The idea that it was a Roman Catholic Council is put forward by agents and sympathisers of Rome's claim to supremacy.
3. The idea of three Persons of the Godhead was not invented at the Council of Nicaea. The purpose of the Council was not to invent doctrine but to confirm the beliefs held by the church in the face of heretical teachings that were threatening to split the church. Eusebius Pamphilius, who attended the Council, wrote that it affirmed what he and the Church had always believed, that is: three persons of the Godhead. It wasn't the concept of three Persons of the Godhead that was the issue, it was the understanding of the substance of the Father and the Son that raised problems. It was an attempt to go beyond what the Bible reveals and to define the substance of God: both sides were attempting to define the undefinable.
4. The Canons of the Council of Nicaea contain no reference to Christ being a "second God", neither does the Nicene Creed.
5. That you claim that the Emperor forced a belief at the point of a sword shows a contradiction in your own reasoning. On the one side claiming that this was "Catholic church dogma" and on the other side claiming it was the Emperor that forced this doctrine.
6. What was attempted by the Emperor was to force the Council to come to a decision in regard to the substance of God and Christ. However, the threats were not enforced and he told them to come to a decision- he did not tell them *what* to decide. In fact, Constantine was not very happy with the conclusion they came to regarding Arius' heresy as it did not deal with the reason the council was called.
7. The council was called to counter the errors of Gnosticism, or the idea that there are "secret teachings" that can be known through experiential means rather than through the Bible. At the same time they were to counter the concept of modalism and the teaching of the Ebionites that led to Mary being co-opted into the trinity.
It would seem that your disagreement with the beliefs of the early Church are based on your personal belief that Jesus is not God.