| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1397 Registered: 3-2005 |
Gilbert, Don't worry about your theological understanding at this point. It sounds like you are dealing with a lot of things right now--in view of your wife's illness, and dealing with other issues of leaving Adventism. The Holy Spirit has promised to lead you into all truth. Reading the Bible is the most important thing you can do right now. When you ask the Holy Spirit to guide you while reading His Word, the promises of God will not fail. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3507 Registered: 12-2003  |
Gilbert, I agree with Stan above that reading the Bible is the most important thing for you right now. Chris's suggested reading is excellentóbut don't feel you have to digest it all at once. God is faithful to bring into focus the things He wants us to deal with at any given time. My experience, which is not necessarily normative nor prescriptive, is that as I read and study the Bible, reality gradually becomes increasingly clear on many subjects which are often peripheral to whatever I'm directly addressing. Many times when I'm trying to understand or study a particularly difficult theological subject I just ask God to teach me the truth. It doesn't all come together at once, but as I am open, He teaches me. Sometimes I realize that my understanding has jelled about things, and I haven't even been totally conscious of how it happened. Just ask God to reveal the truth about Himself to you, and keep reading the Bible. Ask God to direct your reading, and He will. Your "learning curve" is in His hands, and in His time He is teaching you. He is also holding and strengthening you as you live the difficulties of your life right now. He is faithful. Praying for you... Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1398 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, Those are unbelievable quotes from "the pen of inspiration"! Those quotes are not inspired by the same Spirit who wrote the Bible. Thanks for your outstanding research. Stan | ||
| Wolfgang Registered user Username: Wolfgang Post Number: 66 Registered: 10-2005 |
Esther, I have just started following this thread and you made some very good and thoughtful, kind observations,about the sincere folks who for whatever reason (and who are we to judge)are still within the walls of the SDA church. I know of those same people you speak about that are 100% committed to God that are in the church, I was,I met God there,and He gently led me out. I just appreciated your kind words about the folks that are still there,and your right for some of these kids this is the first time they have started thinking for themselves. Dawn | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 638 Registered: 7-2004 |
Gilbert, How are you enjoying BSF? Denise | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 54 Registered: 2-2006 |
Jeremy and Colleen, you have given me a confirmation about Adventism being Gnostic in some teachings from Ellen. When I got the Internet, in 1998, I looked up the Albigensians and Cathars, which EGW upheld so much, and fell out of my chair! They were purely Gnostic! Not at all Gospel believers. After that, I found some more trails of Gnosticism in Ellen's own writings. Ellen didn't teach that Jesus was just a spirit on earth or that the crucifiction didn't really happen, but there are enough other things to say Gnostic footprints are there. Recently, I have read even more about the long, bitter history of the Cathars, et all, and have seen even more correlations. Gnosticism has been a study of mine for years because all lies are basically rooted from it; although it can vary vastly from group to group. It goes back to ancient Egypt and, probably, beyond. Thanks for letting me know, by default, that I wasn't just reading into things. I like to get outside confirmation, so I know it's not just my mind and my own perspective. BTW, when I got the Net, I, also, learned that the Waldenses were not necessarly Sabbath keepers and were not orthodox Christians. There is a debate out there about their Sabbath keeping. Historical scholars cannot agree; it is not set in stone. One thing the Cathari's did good; they copied and handed out the NT to the common people. Cathy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1135 Registered: 10-2004  |
Cathy, your last sentence is interesting. So do you mean the Cathars had the same NT as us, and did not use the "gnostic gospels"? Regarding the Gnostic view of Jesus, here is what Microsoft Encarta says the Gnostics taught:
That bolded part is exactly what Ellen taught--that "Christ" just took on a "guise of humanity" and inhabited the "Son of Mary"--and that it was not God who died on the cross for us. Jeremy | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 56 Registered: 2-2006 |
Jeremy, They used both NT and as many Gnostic 'scriptures' as they could get their hands on. As far as true scripture, they interpreted it in an alegorical way, according to their doctrine of--spirit is good; matter is evil and the other core doctrines. Yes, I very well know of the Gnostic scriptures. I own them all to compare with Ellen, in the past, although I did not continue that extensively. It was too exhausting. I had a family... When I got the Net, I did even more, but family had to come first, again, after that. But in other areas of Gnosticism (ancient and modern), apart from Adventism, I have studied, for different reasons and needy people. Each Gnostic group had their own unique characteristics and differing beliefs, around Europe and the East, and still do today, under various names and major religions, as it has always been. I am not defending the hedious heresy and continuous 'infection' in Christianity (to this day) of Gnosticism by saying they passed on the NT. But, during that time period, towards the end of the persecution and horrendous annihilation (babies too) of the Cathars, the Catholic church passed an edic that the common people could not have scripture. The NT did fall into the hands of the common people, non-Cathars. The interpretation from the Cathars was deadly wrong. I see your point about Ellen's quote. She was all over the place. Saying one thing here, then another there, sounding orthodox (straight), at times, but veering off, always, in the end. Truth will out! I was always confused growing up, immersed in her. Foundationally, I believe she was basically Gnostic at core, with some Christian terminology thrown in; coming from the pioneer men (Joseph Bates, for one) and her husband's influence and paradigms (I have specific reasons for this). Just one drop of certain types of poison are enough to kill you in sugar water. In otherwords, add some of good sounding truth and logic, add the drops of lies, then it is very, very easy for the masses to swallow. (In the modern age, add marketing and control tech...what more can a power-profit-pride org ask for? Evil never changes; *nothing* is new) We are in agreement here. Gnosticism is hard to pin down to just one solid set of doctrine because it can vary so much like the New Age system does today (which is Gnostic, too). But there are some core foundations, which one can follow to find in a suspected heresy. I think you have a good grasp on those and saw them in Ellen's writings. Like I said, it confirmed what I thought I discerned, too. Looks like you may see more than I do. There came a point, years ago, when I just could not read any more of Ellen to research; I could not stomach it any longer. I respect you very much for your continuing research and quotes, and that I continue to learn from you. Thank you! Cathy If I haven't answered your question, let me know. | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 16 Registered: 1-2006 |
Chris: It took me several hours to read all the links concering your teaching of the "triune god". The whole thing goes to answer one question: Who is the only true GOD? I believe the answer is found in what Jesus Christ or EMMANUEL taught in regard to who is the only true GOD? You say that GOD is one being who consists of three persons - father, son, and holy spirit. Are you saying that the only true GOD is one being who consists of three persons and one of these persons is EMMANUEL? EMMANUEL taught that the only true GOD is his Father who is in heaven. See John 17:3. EMMANUEL did not teach that He is the only true GOD and He did not teach that the only true GOD is one being who consists of three persons. He taught that He is the SON of the living GOD. See Matthew 16. EMMANUEL taught that if a person does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God then that person is under the condemnation of God. See John 3:18. EMMANUEL taught that his Father is his GOD and his Father is the GOD of Mary Magdalene. See John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12. EMMANUAL taught that He is the one that liveth and was dead and am alive for evermore. See Revelation 1:18. EMMANUEL taught that his Father would send another Comforter who would abide with His followers forever and he would come to us. EMMANUEL taught that his Father would send the Comforter in the name of EMMANUEL. EMMANUEL taught that his Father is greater than the Son EMMANUEL. See John chapter 14. EMMANUEL taught that when the Spirit of truth is come he will not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak. See John chapter 16. EMMANUEL taught that he is the way, the truth, and the life and that no man comes to the Father (who is the only true GOD) but by him. See John 14:6. EMMANUEL taught that the words he spoke were not his own but the words of his Father (who is the only true GOD). See John 14:10. EMMANUEL taught that He is the faithful and true witness. See Revelation 3:14. Chris, are you teaching that the only true GOD is some other being or person than what EMMANUEL taught? Chris, do you agree that EMMANUEL taught that he is the one who was dead and then are you teaching that EMMANUEL did not completely die? The serpent said to Eve: "Ye shall not surely die". See Genesis 3:4. EMMANUEL died for all including Eve. If EMMANUEL did not completely die as He claims, then the serpent is not a lier as EMMANUEL claimed (see John 8:44). EMMANUEL received a commandment from his Father that he could lay down his life and die for his friends (see John 10:18 and John chapter 15). If EMMANUEL did not completely die then he bore false witness and is not the lamb of GOD without spot and the person who teaches this teaches a false gospel. Chris, I believe that EMMANUEL completely died as he claims and that EMMANUEL claims that he kept his Father's commandments including the commandment which commands us to not bear false witness. See John 15:10. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3529 Registered: 12-2003 |
Gwraitemd, perhaps the concept of one God in three persons will make more sense if you consider that God is outside our three (four?) dimensions. We totally cannot see how He IS and how He functions. If we were outside time, much would make sense that doesn't now. The human hand has four fingers and a thumb. If that hand were hidden behind a curtain, and one finger pressed through to touch a being on the other side, they would see one distinct "thing" interacting with them. Then, perhaps, another finger presses though at another spot and interacts. That makes two distinct "things". The thumb my press through, and it moves and interacts at a different angle from those first two fingers. The being receiving these interactions perceives three unrelated "things" interacting with him. What he can't see, however, is that those "things" are all part of one hand that is interacting with him. They are not separate and independent; each is part of the hand, and they are functioning as one in purpose and intent and substance, but each has a somewhat different "role". One God in three persons, I believe, is something like that. We simply can't understand how it "works". We have to accept the Biblical revelation of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father as the three persons of One God who interact with us in differing ways. Their purposes are identical. Their care of us is unified. They are One. They cannot be separated. Colleen | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 17 Registered: 1-2006 |
Chris: You teach that GOD is one being who consists of three persons - father, son and holy spirit. Then, who do you teach is the "MOST HIGH GOD" OR "HIGHEST"? See Genesis 14:18, 19, 20, 22; Numbers 24:16; Psalms 46:4, 50:14, 57:2, 73:11, 78:56, 107:11; Daniel 3:26, 5:18, 24; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; Acts 16:17; Hebrews 7:1 ; Psalms 18:13, 87:5; Ecclesiastes 5:8; Matthew 20:23; Luke 1:32, 1:35, 1:76, 2:14, 6:35, and 19:38. How can the SON of the Most High God or SON of the Highest and the person who is the Most High God or the Highest be the same being? | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 18 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Colleentinker: You state that we must accept the Biblical revelation of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father as the three persons of One God who interact with us in different ways. Anti-triitarians (see www.smyrna.org) teach that there is no Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit of God is merely the breath, mind, power, force and other part of the one being who is the Father. Are you teaching the same thing when you teach that GOD is one being and the holy spirit is a person who is part of the one being who is GOD and this person or part of GOD cannot be separated from the one being who is GOD? | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 200 Registered: 11-2005 |
Grwaitemd -- Amen! My point precisely. By the way, I like your liberal use of lots of Bible verses. We can spend lots of time splitting hairs -- playing word games and say that beings are not persons, etc. In that, I believe our logic then becomes as faulty as the very people - Adventists - that we criticise for redefining the meanings of words that most people assume mean a certain thing. We can walk up to 10 different people on the street, show them a photograph with 5 humans in it, and ask them how many persons there are in the picture. They most likely would tell us 5 persons. If we then ask them how many "beings" there are they might wonder if we are Mormon or something, but after recovering from their shock they would again reply 5. My wife and I are both human "beings". My wife and I are both "persons". We are one in purpose (most of the time), but to try to redefine our relationship as being two "persons", but at the same time one "being", is a redefinition of what most people commonly understand the meaning of the word "being" to mean. If we are going to start redefining commonly understood meanings of words we have just changed our entire basis for arriving at any meanful understanding of what we are talking about. This is a significant part of what is so frustrating about Adventism. It is as bad as reading one of Richard Brautigan's books where the reader thinks they understand what they have just read, only to find in the next paragraph that the meaning of words in the prior portion have assumed new meanings. When all else fails I have to believe that the Gospel is so simple that even a child can understand it. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1127 Registered: 7-2003  |
Grwaitemd, In answer to your question, the one true God is identified in scripture by the tetragrammaton YHWH, somtimes pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah. There is no other God, but He does have many titles and eternally exist as three persons. What we are discussing is not "my teaching" it is the express teaching of scripture. The Bible clearly teaches that: 1) There is only one God. 2) The Father, Son, and Sprit are God. 3) The Father, Son, and Spirit are personally distinct. Why don't you start by telling me which of these three truths you agree with and which you disagree with. That would give us a good basis for discussion. Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1128 Registered: 7-2003 |
Gilbert, you are making a logical error know as a "category mistake". You have taken a human example and attempted to apply it to a completely different category. In essence, you are saying, "Since a human exists as one living being and one person, therefore God must exist as one living being and one person". This is a category mistake because you are applying something that is true about a certain type of finite creature to the infinite creator. It's like saying that because humans have a beginning, therefore God must have a beginning. It's just not true. It's difficult to understand your suggestion that the terms "being" and "person" are synonomous. That simply isn't correct. Look it up in a dictionary. Let me give you one simple example. A sea cucumber is a living being, but no one would say it is a person. The term "being" denotes a living thing. In a Christian context, the term person describes the eternal realtionships of love and fellowhip that exist within the one true God. Let me ask you this: Do you think that it is as least possible, just possible on any level, that an infinite God could eternally exist in three personally distinct ways? I'm not asking you if you believe it. I'm just asking if it could at least be theoretically possible for an infinite God. What do you think? I'll also ask you the same question I asked above. Which of the following three truths taught by scripture do you agree with and which to you disagree with? 1) There is only one God. 2) The Father, Son, and Spirit are God. 3) The Father, Son, and Spirit are personally distinct. Chris | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 201 Registered: 11-2005 |
Chris -- my Bible refers to: 1. God the Father 2. God the Son 3. God the Holy Ghost My understanding is that the word "God" is an English word, similar to the word "sheep". It can be singular or plural. We used to raise sheep. Whether we had one, or many, we still referred to them as "sheep". We did not refer to them as "sheeps". Here is some information that may be helpful. To quote from http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/name_god.html : The English "LORD" or "GOD" comes from the Hebrew "Yahweh" (Strong's 03068). http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1142161472-5733.html (The uppercase info is actually from Alden Thompson's book "Inspiration"). The English word "Lord" comes from "Adonai", or "Adonay" (Strong's 0136). This is the plural of "adon", or "adown" (Strongs 0113). Adonai is the verbal parallel to Yahweh and Jehovah. Adonai is plural; the singular is adon. In reference to God the plural Adonai is used. When the singular adon is used, it usually refers to a human lord. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1142160111-1934.html The English word "God" comes from "elohiym" (Strong's 0430). This is the plural of "elowahh" (Strongs 0433). http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1142159052-920.html What do you think? Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 202 Registered: 11-2005 |
Chris -- regarding the dictionary definitions for "being" and "person", here is how the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary defines these terms -- First for the word "being":
and
For the word "person":
The second usage of the word "being", as "GOD", is covered in the previous post, where it is noted that in reference to God the original Hebrew plural forms, such as "Adonai" and "elohiym", were frequently used. I really value your opinion, and the obvious thought you have given to this subject. This thread has certainly enlightened me in a number of areas. It seems like some of the confusion might be due to the attempt to apply English language meanings to words that originally came from Hebrew or Greek -- much like the problems surrounding the word "paidagogos" (see http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1142164150-857.html ) and its application to the Mosaic Law, as used in Galations 3:24-25. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 445 Registered: 7-2000 |
Yes, part of the problem in this area, is getting the concepts of the Hebrew language translated over into English. Elohim, implicitly carries the idea of plurality. 'Son of God', as another example, means to a Hebrew that if something is a 'son' or derived from something, then it has the same nature/character as the original. So, 'Son of God' means that (to a Jew) that this 'son' is the same as 'God'! This is what enraged the Jews who crucified Christ and caused them to charge Him with blasphemy. Grwaitemd, here's something that might help. Pick up a concordance and look up all of the references to the Holy Spirit. What you'll find is that the Bible shows this being to be one of the Trinity, with it's own mission, it's own personality, it's own way of working. The other thing you are going to have to change in your thinking is the SDA way of looking at the Bible. SDA's claim that BOTH the Old and New Testament are authoritative. Not true, as much of the Old Testament was directed to the Jews. Also, the Old Testament does not contain all of the truth that came out after Christs' death. So, if you try to compare what the Old Testament says on a subject (as authoritative) and try to do the same thing with the New Testament at the same time, you're going to wind up confused. Remember, the New Testament interprets, completes and adds to the information given in the Old Testament. YOu need to take the info. given in the Old Testament and then go to the New Testament to see what is said there. Bill | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 19 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Chris: You made three statements and asked what I disagree with. I agree with the first and third statments, but I need clarification of the second statement. In regard to the second statement, I believe that the Father is God and that the Son is God. In fact, the Father called his Son "God". In regard to the spirit as God, I agree that the Comforter proceeds from the Father and comes in the Son's name and is the agent for and is the representative of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit who was the representative of God. See Acts 5. Lying to an agent or representative of a principal is the same as lying to the principal, but it does not say that the agent and principal are one and the same persons or beings. I do not believe that the Son and the spirit are the "only true God" or "Most High God" or "Highest". I gave you Bible texts in regard to this. What is your interpretation of these texts? Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, who is the faithful and true witness, who did not commit the sin of bearing false witness said that his Father is the only true God. See John 17:3. Was He telling the truth when he made this statment? He was either telling the truth or not telling the truth. If you believe that he was not telling the truth and his Father was not the "only true God" because there are two other persons distinct from the Father who are true God, then you are believing a false gospel. | ||
| Grwaitemd Registered user Username: Grwaitemd Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dear Loneviking: You write "Elohim implicitly carries the idea of plurality". The word "Elohim" does not necessarily mean more than one, but that it is often used to denote the majesty and greatness of God, rather than to indicate that God consists of more than one person or being. Let the Bible interpret itself. Is the word always used in the Bible to mean more than one person or being or does it always refer to God? See Exodus 7:1; Judges 16:23, 24; 1 Kings 18:27; Psalms 82:1, 82:6, 97:7. |
