Angel Michael
- Thread starter Chomsky
- Start date
For you and I and the readers of this thread YES, you are independent of me and everyone else. The Son is not independent of the Father or the Holy Spirit, or any other combination. The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Ontologically One God - not three independent Beings as Ellen White taught. You are getting this idea from the programming of Ellen White's Great Controversy, an Arian work that was inspired by an accomplished Arian writer (Paradise Lost by John Milton). If Ellen White was in a college writing class she would have received an "F" and been expelled from the college for stealing ideas and phrases from someone else and trying to pass it off as her own work. This is now a fact that even the scholars of the SDA Church can't deny.
Rob, there are certain things God CAN'T do.
Titus 1, 2
"Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior"
Paul is saying God CANNOT LIE, this is something that God does not have free will to do, Rob. The same verse is telling you that this great God of Heaven also promised eternal life / salvation BEFORE the world began. This means "THE SAVIOR" AKA Christ - was identified as "THE CHRIST" (The Savior) in eternity before Jesus was born.
Rob (and SDA's watching this thread), think about this for just a minute.
John the Baptist was PLUGGED IN, he had been dedicated to the Lord prior to his birth. Read Matthew 11, 1-6 and realize that while John was in prison he sent two of his disciples to ask "THE CHRIST" if He was the one they had been waiting for or should they keep looking for another (as in another Christ). Jesus (who was the Christ from Eternity) answers John's disciples by quoting Isaiah 35! Any Jew or pagan at that time familiar with the Book of Isaiah would know that Isaiah was quoting God Almighty when God Almighty said that He Himself would come and save.
So, I've given 3 Scriptures (out of over 150) to ponder and apply your logic to. God CANNOT lie or break His promises combined with Christ being the express promise of God before the world was even created defaults into a situation where IF Ellen White's hypothetical Christ sinning, loosing it's salvation and eternally ceasing to exist had been realized God would have been both a liar AND a promise breaker.
This is why Ellen White's (& your) 'God has freewill to not be God' is easily dismissed because God CAN'T LIE or BREAK PROMISES.
Ellen White took her Arian position to such an extreme that she gloated that after Christ Resurrected, He immediately winged his way to heaven to make sure the flesh father accepted his sacrifice! If this doesn't make the hair stand up on the back of your neck Rob may God help you.
Think of all the things Christ said before His death about "coming in the clouds of heaven", "when you see the Son of Man come in His glory", "When the Son of man comes with His angels" and scores of other statements of Christ where He is affirming what IS GOING TO HAPPEN in the future. Why would the Resurrected Christ need to fly up to heaven to make sure "The Father" approved of his stunt on the cross????
You'll notice I'm not dealing with your other questions because we've not settled the paramount question (THIS QUESTION). Prior to running down a plethora or endless rabbit holes about free will we need to build on the sure foundation of Almighty God and work out from there. This is why I've been discussing this subject with you in this way. I hope you understand.
I'm not saying something here that is only distinctive to Catholics and Catholicism. A Lutheran, a Baptist, an Evangelical Christian, an Orthodox Christ and a Reformed Christian would agree with every ounce of what I've just said. On the other hand the position you (Rob) are advocating are championed by the Jehovah's Witnesses Christadelphians, Branch Davidians and groups like that - ALL of which are Anti-Trinitarian. What do you say about this fact?
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
You say a basic premise that affects your primary theme:
The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Ontologically One God - not three independent Beings as Ellen White taught.
Ellen White never said the Father, Son and HS are independent beings
You also need to show me from the CCC the "term Ontologically One God" explained - I cannot find a single reference
The CCC says the Father, Son and HS are "one God, one nature" yet three distinct persons.
I can find no commentary about how "three persons can be one "?
If A is a human and B is a human and C is a human, you have by maths, 3 humans. They can be only 1 human in the sense of compound unity - they seem independent as personalities, yes, but they press together as functionally one function of love.
They can also be cardinally one human by marriage.
Therefore the simple English "family" can explain the nature of God easily, and there are Bible verses for this idea, but while the CCC commentary "human families are a simile of God, God is not like a human family"?
I don't get that, if a simile works one way, it should also work the other way?
If the Father is called "el" in the Bible, and the Son is called "el" in the Bible and the HS is termed "el" in the Bible, by maths we have three "el" - other Hebrew words like "echad" tell us they press together as one. Just as heart cells press together give up their independent nature as one cell and press all sixteen trillion cells into a single cell of dependence, a heart organ. Compound unity/
And if we make them into a Divine Family Deity, we have using Bible terms "one God" without making complex ideas.
If logically we take the idea the three persons are one "therefore there is no showing of them working together as one, dependent upon each other out of love, there is therefore no showing of "independent" verses "dependent" as a theme. Therefore no provision for free will. No provision for rebellion.
A simple way to explain my view (Rom 1:20) Mt Sinai which is located in Arabia (not where the Catholic temple is) is One Mountain with TWO peaks where you get close to it. The top of the mountain is charred black to this day.
These pictures were taken by Dr Kim Young, a SDA doctor to the Jordan prince in the Country Jordan.
The area is now fenced off and nobody is allowed there.
Shalom
You say a basic premise that affects your primary theme:
The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Ontologically One God - not three independent Beings as Ellen White taught.
Ellen White never said the Father, Son and HS are independent beings
You also need to show me from the CCC the "term Ontologically One God" explained - I cannot find a single reference
The CCC says the Father, Son and HS are "one God, one nature" yet three distinct persons.
I can find no commentary about how "three persons can be one "?
If A is a human and B is a human and C is a human, you have by maths, 3 humans. They can be only 1 human in the sense of compound unity - they seem independent as personalities, yes, but they press together as functionally one function of love.
They can also be cardinally one human by marriage.
Therefore the simple English "family" can explain the nature of God easily, and there are Bible verses for this idea, but while the CCC commentary "human families are a simile of God, God is not like a human family"?
I don't get that, if a simile works one way, it should also work the other way?
If the Father is called "el" in the Bible, and the Son is called "el" in the Bible and the HS is termed "el" in the Bible, by maths we have three "el" - other Hebrew words like "echad" tell us they press together as one. Just as heart cells press together give up their independent nature as one cell and press all sixteen trillion cells into a single cell of dependence, a heart organ. Compound unity/
And if we make them into a Divine Family Deity, we have using Bible terms "one God" without making complex ideas.
If logically we take the idea the three persons are one "therefore there is no showing of them working together as one, dependent upon each other out of love, there is therefore no showing of "independent" verses "dependent" as a theme. Therefore no provision for free will. No provision for rebellion.
A simple way to explain my view (Rom 1:20) Mt Sinai which is located in Arabia (not where the Catholic temple is) is One Mountain with TWO peaks where you get close to it. The top of the mountain is charred black to this day.
These pictures were taken by Dr Kim Young, a SDA doctor to the Jordan prince in the Country Jordan.
The area is now fenced off and nobody is allowed there.
Shalom
Last edited:
She most certainly did say that. Ellen claimed that Christ, had he sinned, would have rotted in the tomb to NEVER wake up again. Ellen taught that the Divine and Human Natures of Christ were MIXED / Blended so that they (the two natures of Christ) became one.
Mixing / blending the two natures of Christ is absolutely incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine Rob.
So, if as Ellen White repeatedly gloated, i.e. that had Christ failed He would have ceased to exist - you know absolutely from that affirmation that we're talking about a different God and absolutely NOT the Trinitarian God. You see now why I've insisted that we move on ONLY after establishing the foundation for our conversation.
You've already established you are not a Trinitarian and I've told you numerous times I'm not going to grind on you about that. What I'm doing here is asking you to state why you believe a woman from the 19th century has the authority to say something about God that God directly repudiates. This is your reasonable task and you appear to be literally doing backflips to keep from answering it.
So, in direct answer to your statement it's easy to demonstrate as false. If the Son can eternally cease to exist under the Ellen White / Arius / Adventist theological rubric it's proven that The Father is a separate BEING than The Son because under Ellen's teaching had The Son potato'D the bed and ceased to exist The Father would have remained. Nothing more needs to be said about this, Rob. Certainly, you can see where your theology has led you.
The word ontological comes from the Greek word "ontos" which mean "being" - the word refers to what God is, in God's internal Nature. In Christianity the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, true God from true God. The Son isn't a percentage of God such as Ellen White gloated where the Son could be eternally killed off.
rob
Active member
Ok Grunion, let me answer you question with a little about your own saints and prophets of inspiration.
(1)
Thomas Aquinas, as a Doctor of the Church, Thomas is considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians and philosophers.[15]
What Is Faith? (Aquinas 101) by Friar Gregory Pine is perhaps the best explanation of Faith I have ever seen, based on the inspiration of Thomas Aquinas.
The CCC is riddled with so called inspired writings of Thomas Aquinas. This video published by me on my website testifies that I like some things by Thomas Aquinas. But he was an ordinary saint like all of us blessed by God and inspired by God's wisdom. And not all statements made by Aquinas is inspired because he was human, and like all humans sometimes we write fuzzy.
Now one thing I find about Aquinas is his writing of the term "ontological" about God. I want you to publish CCC about this term, I get the feeling this term is not used by the CCC?
(2)
I listened to the Thomas Instutite and discovered from "did Lucifer sin from a desire?"
Quote: "In the case of Lucifer, what he desired was to be like God, but he desired to be like God in a wrong way.
It is not wrong to desire to be like God,
and in fact the desire to be like God directs us to the source of our bliss and our one true path to happiness.
Quote: "
But the devil appears to have desired likeness to God in a different way,
seeking to become like God by his own strength, rather than finding that happiness in God alone and receiving it as a gift from God alone.
So the Thomas Institute are nearly there with me, the Devil saw in Elohiym powers demonstrating "dependence and therefore by virtue of dependence also independence" and thus the Devil wanted to be like God, but by his own strength"
Thank your Thomas Institute - the Devil wanted to be independent.
The basic notion of breaking faith and sin.
Please discuss these 2 themes I raise. Shalom
(1)
Thomas Aquinas, as a Doctor of the Church, Thomas is considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians and philosophers.[15]
What Is Faith? (Aquinas 101) by Friar Gregory Pine is perhaps the best explanation of Faith I have ever seen, based on the inspiration of Thomas Aquinas.
The CCC is riddled with so called inspired writings of Thomas Aquinas. This video published by me on my website testifies that I like some things by Thomas Aquinas. But he was an ordinary saint like all of us blessed by God and inspired by God's wisdom. And not all statements made by Aquinas is inspired because he was human, and like all humans sometimes we write fuzzy.
Now one thing I find about Aquinas is his writing of the term "ontological" about God. I want you to publish CCC about this term, I get the feeling this term is not used by the CCC?
(2)
I listened to the Thomas Instutite and discovered from "did Lucifer sin from a desire?"
Quote: "In the case of Lucifer, what he desired was to be like God, but he desired to be like God in a wrong way.
It is not wrong to desire to be like God,
and in fact the desire to be like God directs us to the source of our bliss and our one true path to happiness.
Quote: "
But the devil appears to have desired likeness to God in a different way,
seeking to become like God by his own strength, rather than finding that happiness in God alone and receiving it as a gift from God alone.
So the Thomas Institute are nearly there with me, the Devil saw in Elohiym powers demonstrating "dependence and therefore by virtue of dependence also independence" and thus the Devil wanted to be like God, but by his own strength"
Thank your Thomas Institute - the Devil wanted to be independent.
The basic notion of breaking faith and sin.
Please discuss these 2 themes I raise. Shalom
Rob, you didn't answer the question, the same one you've been dodging.
Why do you reject what God calls impossible in favor of what a woman who lived in the 19th century said was possible?
"Immanent Trinity" or "Trinitas ad intra" means the same thing.
Don't worry about terms which describe precise definitions Rob. You need to keep it very simple and reconcile why it is that you accept Ellen White telling you something about Christ was possible when God has clearly told you in the Bible that the thing Ellen was gloating about was impossible. This is the important and simple task you have - it's been calling you to complete it.
Why do you reject what God calls impossible in favor of what a woman who lived in the 19th century said was possible?
"Immanent Trinity" or "Trinitas ad intra" means the same thing.
Don't worry about terms which describe precise definitions Rob. You need to keep it very simple and reconcile why it is that you accept Ellen White telling you something about Christ was possible when God has clearly told you in the Bible that the thing Ellen was gloating about was impossible. This is the important and simple task you have - it's been calling you to complete it.
rob
Active member
But Grunion I did answer your question. You have prophets like Thomas Aquinas who made many remarks that I too feel the Bible do not agree with, the problem is our view of Scripture is influenced by our prophets who influence us. You are no different to the SDA and our prophet. Now I am not picking on Saint Thomas, as I said he is the best explainer of faith I have ever come across, so I like some of his ideas, and some I don't like.
Now I don't find her statement in our cultural view wrong. I am sure your ontological views of God are fine in your cultural view too, but I would like to know them, and why you think that way.
{I would like you to explain what an ontological God means using CCC statements.
I listened to this - boring stuff - philosophy ideas of God. }
I would also like you to explain to me how the three Divine Persons are one Person. I have read this is a common Catholic question and no simple answer is forthcoming. I tried to ask this of my SDA this Sabbath and they are confused like I am, so what on earth does 3 in 1 mean? Usually we SDA speak of 3 Divine Persons who are one by unity of love - but this is a different view of the trinity to a Catholic?
Shalom
Now I don't find her statement in our cultural view wrong. I am sure your ontological views of God are fine in your cultural view too, but I would like to know them, and why you think that way.
I would also like you to explain to me how the three Divine Persons are one Person. I have read this is a common Catholic question and no simple answer is forthcoming. I tried to ask this of my SDA this Sabbath and they are confused like I am, so what on earth does 3 in 1 mean? Usually we SDA speak of 3 Divine Persons who are one by unity of love - but this is a different view of the trinity to a Catholic?
Shalom
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Greetings again
www.catholicculture.org
CCC: “253The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". 83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." 84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature." 85
If this saying the divine persons of elohiym are all deity, the same deity,
they do not share deity, they are deity.
Therefore there is only one deity. This deity consists of three persons of deity.
If the word “god” means “deity” we have one god and three persons of one god.
The problem is the Hebrew has no word for “deity”
only a word for elohiym and a word for el.
CCC: “254The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." 86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." 87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." 88 The divine Unity is Triune.
Deity is not solitary. The Divine Unity is Triune.
English Translation of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America © 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.
Now I am confused? How is this any different to my view of God as three persons who are one person by unity of love.
Grunion are you sure the CCC says The Divine Unity is Triune.
I thought I read in the CCC that the Father and Son and HS are one God, that's not triune, but monotheism?
Confused?
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Search or browse the Catechism of the Catholic Church. An excellent tool for learning more about the Faith and for research.
www.catholicculture.org
CCC: “253The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". 83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." 84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature." 85
If this saying the divine persons of elohiym are all deity, the same deity,
they do not share deity, they are deity.
Therefore there is only one deity. This deity consists of three persons of deity.
If the word “god” means “deity” we have one god and three persons of one god.
The problem is the Hebrew has no word for “deity”
only a word for elohiym and a word for el.
CCC: “254The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." 86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." 87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." 88 The divine Unity is Triune.
Deity is not solitary. The Divine Unity is Triune.
English Translation of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America © 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.
Now I am confused? How is this any different to my view of God as three persons who are one person by unity of love.
Grunion are you sure the CCC says The Divine Unity is Triune.
I thought I read in the CCC that the Father and Son and HS are one God, that's not triune, but monotheism?
Confused?
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
IN answer to your question
I am surprised by you Grunion for posting an uninspired sentence by a human called Merlin L Neff lucky enough to have her sentenced published. Such a sentence means nothing to me, and nothing to my views as a SDA. There is nothing in the writings of EGW on this theme. Yet below I post where she does suggest the theme without using such blunt and contradictory words:-
EGW: "Christ could have worked a miracle in His own behalf; but this would not have been in accordance with the plan of salvation. The many miracles in the life of Christ show His power to work miracles for the benefit of suffering humanity. By a miracle of mercy He fed five thousand at once with five loaves and two small fishes. Therefore He had the power to work a miracle and satisfy His own hunger. Satan flattered himself that he could lead Christ to doubt the words spoken from heaven at His baptism. If he could tempt Him to question His sonship, and doubt the truth of the word spoken by His Father, he would gain a great victory. {Con 40.2}
He found Christ in the desolate wilderness without companions, without food, and in actual suffering. His surroundings were most melancholy and repulsive. Satan suggested to Christ that God would not leave His Son in this condition of want and suffering. He hoped to shake the confidence of Christ in His Father, who had permitted Him to be brought into this condition of extreme suffering in the desert, where the feet of man had never trod. Satan hoped that he could insinuate doubts as to His Father’s love, which would find a lodgment in the mind of Christ, and that under the force of despondency and extreme hunger He would exert His miraculous power in His own behalf and take Himself out of the hands of His heavenly Father. This was indeed a temptation to Christ. But He cherished it not for a moment. He did not for a single moment doubt His heavenly Father’s love, although He was bowed down with inexpressible anguish. Satan’s temptations, though skillfully devised, did not move the integrity of God’s dear Son. His abiding confidence in His Father could not be shaken. {Con 41.1}
Notice her tact is helping humans udnerstand the nature of Jesus in His humanity.
Shalom
IN answer to your question
I am surprised by you Grunion for posting an uninspired sentence by a human called Merlin L Neff lucky enough to have her sentenced published. Such a sentence means nothing to me, and nothing to my views as a SDA. There is nothing in the writings of EGW on this theme. Yet below I post where she does suggest the theme without using such blunt and contradictory words:-
EGW: "Christ could have worked a miracle in His own behalf; but this would not have been in accordance with the plan of salvation. The many miracles in the life of Christ show His power to work miracles for the benefit of suffering humanity. By a miracle of mercy He fed five thousand at once with five loaves and two small fishes. Therefore He had the power to work a miracle and satisfy His own hunger. Satan flattered himself that he could lead Christ to doubt the words spoken from heaven at His baptism. If he could tempt Him to question His sonship, and doubt the truth of the word spoken by His Father, he would gain a great victory. {Con 40.2}
He found Christ in the desolate wilderness without companions, without food, and in actual suffering. His surroundings were most melancholy and repulsive. Satan suggested to Christ that God would not leave His Son in this condition of want and suffering. He hoped to shake the confidence of Christ in His Father, who had permitted Him to be brought into this condition of extreme suffering in the desert, where the feet of man had never trod. Satan hoped that he could insinuate doubts as to His Father’s love, which would find a lodgment in the mind of Christ, and that under the force of despondency and extreme hunger He would exert His miraculous power in His own behalf and take Himself out of the hands of His heavenly Father. This was indeed a temptation to Christ. But He cherished it not for a moment. He did not for a single moment doubt His heavenly Father’s love, although He was bowed down with inexpressible anguish. Satan’s temptations, though skillfully devised, did not move the integrity of God’s dear Son. His abiding confidence in His Father could not be shaken. {Con 41.1}
Notice her tact is helping humans udnerstand the nature of Jesus in His humanity.
Shalom
Last edited:
Where did you answer? I shown you where the Bible repeatedly said failure was IMPOSSIBLE...
...I've shown you repeatedly where Ellen White said failure WAS possible.
...I asked you where you find justification Ellen was right and God was wrong.
Trinity aside Rob, for the sake of argument I'm allowing you to define god as a toad on a string...
...I'm only interested in the mechanism that allows you to re-define something God already defined.
...Keep it simple.
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
Didn't you read my last post and the picture of where you got your April 2 1940 article from,
from a Merlin L Neff, just a ordinary SDA human, with uninspired sentences.
Not everything published by ordinary SDA people is truth. Didn't you know that?
Read the EGW quote I gave in the last post - she does not say "Jesus might have sinned"
this statement is a reckless admission by a uninspired SDA human.
EGW: "Christ could have worked a miracle in His own behalf; but this would not have been in accordance with the plan of salvation.
This is the closest to your primary theme. Now in this statement it directly impacts our view of the Godhead.
The CCC says Jesus had two wills, blah blah; our EGW says Jesus had one will "blended mysteriously" as deity and humanity.
The CCC assumes the Deity communed all the time to the Humanity; in our EGW the Deity of Jesus did not commune to the Humanity in Jesus (is my two pennies) I am unsure of her messages in this and whether her messages go this deep. My point is we have different commentaries on your primary theme. You have Thomas Aquinas and we have Ellen White.
So how can I keep it simple?
I would like to ask you, why do you post ordinary uninspired sentences by SDA who add nothing to the overall understanding of the Bible? You do this a lot. Uriah Smith, Meriln Neff; etc, and others for instance. The only source of inspiration we SDA rely on is the Bible and our prophet. This is unlike your CCC, you rely on many saints who you assume to be inspired writings all the time.
Not all Church systems runs as your Church system runs, we are supposed to be a different Church system, that run on "what saith the Lord" ? We do not get influenced by traditions and precepts of men. However we are supposed to stick to the basic principles of our pioneers, but sadly this "new SDA movement" is building upon sand and not the Rock of Christ.
I will also point out way back in 1988 when the Internet came out my research into Catholic trinity was different to what Catholic trinity is today. The wording is changed, more public like the SDA - Walter Veith who knows Catholic dogma inside and out, speaks using Catholic writings not available on the Internet, so it is near impossible to judge a Church System that has a public side and a private side to their view of truth - deception is the name of the game - Like Gnosticism is a philosophy quietly running in all Churches including the SDA for over 20 years destroying us slowly as a people - I have studied this theme for 4 years with a person who claims to be a Gnostic Christian, is a play on words. I would term Gnosticism the Omega of apostasy as Gnostics were the Alpha apostasy in Pauls and Johns time. Kellogg was the first Gnostic in the SDA Church and so the evil influence is spreading.
A video against Walter Veith by spurious SDA people, David Barron, gets this quote:
0:14 Veith: “
I don't believe in a Catholic pantheistic Trinity I serve a personal God and there are three powers in heaven
John 4:24 makes a fuzzy translation, that Eloihym is a spirit, some ghost like form - this kind of thinking is wrong and not published by Ellen White. Instead God is a personal God as Ezekiel chapter 1 explains in the likeness of a human.
CCC: " 254. "The divine persons are really distinct from one another. 'God is one but not solitary.' [Fides Damasi: DS 71.] 'Father', 'Son', 'Holy Spirit' are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: 'He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.' [Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 530:25.] They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: 'It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.' [Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 804.] The divine Unity is Triune."
This statements are essentially the same as the SDA view of the Father , the literal begotten Son of God and the HS.
They all have the same Deity and thus are one in the sense of their love from each other pressing them together.
The Bible is clear we do not know the shape of the Father or of the HS, but we know the Son of God took up humanity.
You cannot keep things simple, unless you ask more simple questions on your theme, but since you are not willing to do this, the best I can do for you right now is try to understand you. Shalom
Didn't you read my last post and the picture of where you got your April 2 1940 article from,
from a Merlin L Neff, just a ordinary SDA human, with uninspired sentences.
Not everything published by ordinary SDA people is truth. Didn't you know that?
Read the EGW quote I gave in the last post - she does not say "Jesus might have sinned"
this statement is a reckless admission by a uninspired SDA human.
EGW: "Christ could have worked a miracle in His own behalf; but this would not have been in accordance with the plan of salvation.
This is the closest to your primary theme. Now in this statement it directly impacts our view of the Godhead.
The CCC says Jesus had two wills, blah blah; our EGW says Jesus had one will "blended mysteriously" as deity and humanity.
The CCC assumes the Deity communed all the time to the Humanity; in our EGW the Deity of Jesus did not commune to the Humanity in Jesus (is my two pennies) I am unsure of her messages in this and whether her messages go this deep. My point is we have different commentaries on your primary theme. You have Thomas Aquinas and we have Ellen White.
So how can I keep it simple?
I would like to ask you, why do you post ordinary uninspired sentences by SDA who add nothing to the overall understanding of the Bible? You do this a lot. Uriah Smith, Meriln Neff; etc, and others for instance. The only source of inspiration we SDA rely on is the Bible and our prophet. This is unlike your CCC, you rely on many saints who you assume to be inspired writings all the time.
Not all Church systems runs as your Church system runs, we are supposed to be a different Church system, that run on "what saith the Lord" ? We do not get influenced by traditions and precepts of men. However we are supposed to stick to the basic principles of our pioneers, but sadly this "new SDA movement" is building upon sand and not the Rock of Christ.
I will also point out way back in 1988 when the Internet came out my research into Catholic trinity was different to what Catholic trinity is today. The wording is changed, more public like the SDA - Walter Veith who knows Catholic dogma inside and out, speaks using Catholic writings not available on the Internet, so it is near impossible to judge a Church System that has a public side and a private side to their view of truth - deception is the name of the game - Like Gnosticism is a philosophy quietly running in all Churches including the SDA for over 20 years destroying us slowly as a people - I have studied this theme for 4 years with a person who claims to be a Gnostic Christian, is a play on words. I would term Gnosticism the Omega of apostasy as Gnostics were the Alpha apostasy in Pauls and Johns time. Kellogg was the first Gnostic in the SDA Church and so the evil influence is spreading.
A video against Walter Veith by spurious SDA people, David Barron, gets this quote:
0:14 Veith: “
I don't believe in a Catholic pantheistic Trinity I serve a personal God and there are three powers in heaven
John 4:24 makes a fuzzy translation, that Eloihym is a spirit, some ghost like form - this kind of thinking is wrong and not published by Ellen White. Instead God is a personal God as Ezekiel chapter 1 explains in the likeness of a human.
CCC: " 254. "The divine persons are really distinct from one another. 'God is one but not solitary.' [Fides Damasi: DS 71.] 'Father', 'Son', 'Holy Spirit' are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: 'He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.' [Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 530:25.] They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: 'It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.' [Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 804.] The divine Unity is Triune."
This statements are essentially the same as the SDA view of the Father , the literal begotten Son of God and the HS.
They all have the same Deity and thus are one in the sense of their love from each other pressing them together.
The Bible is clear we do not know the shape of the Father or of the HS, but we know the Son of God took up humanity.
You cannot keep things simple, unless you ask more simple questions on your theme, but since you are not willing to do this, the best I can do for you right now is try to understand you. Shalom
Last edited:
I did read it, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the SDA Church works...
...Ellen White didn't create or invent any SDA distinctive doctrines.
....She affirmed or validated the doctrines the Pioneers fabricated.
Because the SDA Church Pioneers were "ARIAN" they promulgated Arian Doctrines...
...Such as The Christ being capable of mutation - from Holy God to sinner.
...And if Christ had sinned, he would have eternally ceased to exist.
Ellen White insured this teaching / Doctrine of Uriah Smith and James White STUCK...
...Merlin L Neff is / was simply parroting what Ellen wrote in her many books.
...In particular the Great Controversy.
In the Great Controversy Ellen gloats that Christ was basically on probation...
...& could have figuratively messed the bed at any time - thereby activating the paradox.
...i.e. what God said SCORES of times was impossible was suddenly possible.
It's well past time you stop performing sloppy & foppish theatrics and just answer the question...
...God DID SAY many, many times that there could be no possibility of failure in His purposed Salvation.
...A young woman who started out as a Trinitarian gets disfellowshipped from her Methodist Church.
...And marries a rabid anti-Trinitarian and immediately starts claiming God was wrong.
...And that there was a real chance of failure (in God said could not fail).
Deal with it Rob - you are starting to look very bad here.
I've already said I'm giving you a pass on your anti-Trinitarianism and now only want to know what justifies in your mind how your prophet Ellen can blatantly repudiate what God said - God said there was no possibility of failure and your prophet said that God was wrong and that there was possibility of failure. Please just answer the question.
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
So the bottom line is you want me to admit Mrs White is a false prophet.
Now if you supply me with hundreds of pages of writing by Thomas Aquinas in a PDF format, I could measure how inspired he is against Ancient Hebrew word meanings, like I did to Ellen White many years ago. I used Jeff Benner for my Ancient Hebrew word meanings, and Ellen White had to make her English match the Ancient Hebrew.
Now Mrs White never knew Hebrew, let alone Ancient Hebrew, so what is the probability she would get some words right, when I tested her for over 30 Ancient Hebrew words, and difficult words at that.
Martin Luther by comparison only scored 80%.
Mrs White scored 100% - proving her messages are inspired and are literally a translation from Ancient Hebrew into English.
Here is the link to my study : https://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1061.htm
The words I tested were:
(1) Ab: Fruit/Father
(2) Yahweh: Sacred Name
(3) El: Strong Authority
(4) Elohim: Powers
(5) Echad: Unity
(6) the Daily
(7) Chata: Sin
(8) Chataah: Sin-offering
(9) Mocking laughter
(10) Torah: teachings, rain
(11) Tsuwr: FlintRock
(12) Cela: SaviourRock
(13) Hosts
(14) Shuwb: Repent
(15) Shadday: Holy-Spirit
(16) Qahal: Assembly
(17) Edah: Congregation
(18) Cross abolished?
(19) the Righteous
(20) Avon: Guilt
(21) Chamad: Desire
(22) Grace
(23) Ahab: Maleness-love
(24) Ahabuh: Femaleness-love
(25) Ruwach: Holy-Spirit
(26) Kathistemi: Original Sin
(27) Evolution, Amalgamation, propensities
(28) Ets: Trees
(29) Torah feasts
(30) Wilderness
(31) Bread
(32) Faithful
(33) Good
I nearly got her to be a false prophet with the Hebrew word "tsachaq" :laugh, mock.
But than I found a sentence where she does admit the word to mean "mock laughing"
She writes "Like Israel of old, the pleasure lovers eat and drink and rise up to play. There is mirth and carousing, hilarity and glee. In all this the youth follow the example of the authors of the books placed in the ir hands for study. The greatest evil of it all is the permanent effect that these things have upon the character. {AH 524.1}
Testing her messages against Ancient Hebrew is a fairest way to test God's prophet, after all God writes in Ancient Hebrew, which some call Paleo Hebrew, the same Hebrew Moses wrote.
I get your comments that she like God deals with people as they are and direct them over time to better truth.
When the young rich ruler ran to Jesus and wanted a human method to reach heaven, the Lord gave him one that He knew he could not do. My point is Jesus did not tell the man about faith - he met the man on his own ground.
For example it took 45 years for God to wait for His people before bringing out a message about the HS. So your bagging of Ellen White is uncalled for - I would never bag your prophet Thomas Aquinas.
And reading your comments again, please note that people publish their own views with pride and twisting from the Devil - nobody except a prophet writes with tact and respect.
Notice in my test of Ellen White, I tested her for "cela" and "tsuwr" rocks - something not known in any world religion.
Quote: "Now let's see if any major religion even acknowledges that there are TWO rock symbols of the heavenly hosts. There are a few websites acknowleding the "heavenly Father tsuwr" (Google search) as a symbol of a massive rock. I found none acknowledging "heavenly Jesus cela" as a symbolic rock, and even less websites saying anything about the heavenly Father and the heavenly Christ as symbols of rocks, tsuwr and cela respectively. I would really doubt if any denomination would have anything much to say about two rock symbols in the Bible."
{RC 353.5} Our heavenly Father has the power of turning the flinty rock into life-giving and refreshing streams. We shall never know, until we are face to face with God, . . . how many burdens He has borne for us, and how many burdens He would have been glad to bear if, with childlike faith, we had brought them to Him.--Signs of the Times, Sept. 10, 1896. {RC 353.6}
Does your Catholic religion acknowledge the Father is the "tsuwr" rock?
It might you do some good to investigate my studies and see how this testing went.
Even if you assign 2% chance as probability of Ellen White being correct, and multiply independent events 0.02 by 0.02 ...33 times you get a massive probability they she is inspired.
Now prophets do write weird and crazy things at times, like her statements of "divers" meaning "amalgamation" I never knew what this meant until mankind began doing GMO - so the people before the flood of Noah were doing GMO to humans and animals.
Now that is an amazing statement by a prophet. Weird I know.
Shalom
So the bottom line is you want me to admit Mrs White is a false prophet.
Now if you supply me with hundreds of pages of writing by Thomas Aquinas in a PDF format, I could measure how inspired he is against Ancient Hebrew word meanings, like I did to Ellen White many years ago. I used Jeff Benner for my Ancient Hebrew word meanings, and Ellen White had to make her English match the Ancient Hebrew.
Now Mrs White never knew Hebrew, let alone Ancient Hebrew, so what is the probability she would get some words right, when I tested her for over 30 Ancient Hebrew words, and difficult words at that.
Martin Luther by comparison only scored 80%.
Mrs White scored 100% - proving her messages are inspired and are literally a translation from Ancient Hebrew into English.
Here is the link to my study : https://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1061.htm
The words I tested were:
(1) Ab: Fruit/Father
(2) Yahweh: Sacred Name
(3) El: Strong Authority
(4) Elohim: Powers
(5) Echad: Unity
(6) the Daily
(7) Chata: Sin
(8) Chataah: Sin-offering
(9) Mocking laughter
(10) Torah: teachings, rain
(11) Tsuwr: FlintRock
(12) Cela: SaviourRock
(13) Hosts
(14) Shuwb: Repent
(15) Shadday: Holy-Spirit
(16) Qahal: Assembly
(17) Edah: Congregation
(18) Cross abolished?
(19) the Righteous
(20) Avon: Guilt
(21) Chamad: Desire
(22) Grace
(23) Ahab: Maleness-love
(24) Ahabuh: Femaleness-love
(25) Ruwach: Holy-Spirit
(26) Kathistemi: Original Sin
(27) Evolution, Amalgamation, propensities
(28) Ets: Trees
(29) Torah feasts
(30) Wilderness
(31) Bread
(32) Faithful
(33) Good
I nearly got her to be a false prophet with the Hebrew word "tsachaq" :laugh, mock.
But than I found a sentence where she does admit the word to mean "mock laughing"
She writes "Like Israel of old, the pleasure lovers eat and drink and rise up to play. There is mirth and carousing, hilarity and glee. In all this the youth follow the example of the authors of the books placed in the ir hands for study. The greatest evil of it all is the permanent effect that these things have upon the character. {AH 524.1}
Testing her messages against Ancient Hebrew is a fairest way to test God's prophet, after all God writes in Ancient Hebrew, which some call Paleo Hebrew, the same Hebrew Moses wrote.
I get your comments that she like God deals with people as they are and direct them over time to better truth.
When the young rich ruler ran to Jesus and wanted a human method to reach heaven, the Lord gave him one that He knew he could not do. My point is Jesus did not tell the man about faith - he met the man on his own ground.
For example it took 45 years for God to wait for His people before bringing out a message about the HS. So your bagging of Ellen White is uncalled for - I would never bag your prophet Thomas Aquinas.
And reading your comments again, please note that people publish their own views with pride and twisting from the Devil - nobody except a prophet writes with tact and respect.
Notice in my test of Ellen White, I tested her for "cela" and "tsuwr" rocks - something not known in any world religion.
Quote: "Now let's see if any major religion even acknowledges that there are TWO rock symbols of the heavenly hosts. There are a few websites acknowleding the "heavenly Father tsuwr" (Google search) as a symbol of a massive rock. I found none acknowledging "heavenly Jesus cela" as a symbolic rock, and even less websites saying anything about the heavenly Father and the heavenly Christ as symbols of rocks, tsuwr and cela respectively. I would really doubt if any denomination would have anything much to say about two rock symbols in the Bible."
{RC 353.5} Our heavenly Father has the power of turning the flinty rock into life-giving and refreshing streams. We shall never know, until we are face to face with God, . . . how many burdens He has borne for us, and how many burdens He would have been glad to bear if, with childlike faith, we had brought them to Him.--Signs of the Times, Sept. 10, 1896. {RC 353.6}
Does your Catholic religion acknowledge the Father is the "tsuwr" rock?
It might you do some good to investigate my studies and see how this testing went.
Even if you assign 2% chance as probability of Ellen White being correct, and multiply independent events 0.02 by 0.02 ...33 times you get a massive probability they she is inspired.
Now prophets do write weird and crazy things at times, like her statements of "divers" meaning "amalgamation" I never knew what this meant until mankind began doing GMO - so the people before the flood of Noah were doing GMO to humans and animals.
Now that is an amazing statement by a prophet. Weird I know.
Shalom
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Testing Saint Thomas Aquinas for inspiration against Ancient Hebrew word meanings:
(1) Father / fruit / provider / Hebrew word "ab"
Here is a fruit blessed by God, because he has so filled Him with every grace that it
comes to us by showing him reverence. (weak reference - God)
No reference to Father as a provider
No reference to Father as fruit - a weak reference to God with fruit.
Aquinas is not explaining “ab” as “provider” or “fruit”
“father 127 results” “fruit 65 results” “provider 0 results”
Already testing one word - he is less than 100% already/ This kind of testing takes dozens of hours, but I note Thomas used big fancy words, and not really translating the Hebrew, more like adding philosophy to Bible themes. Shalom
No, I only want you to admit that Scripture SHOUTS that it was impossible for Christ to sin, loose His Salvation and eternally cease to exist. I'm saying that when Ellen said that Ellen was wrong. Rob, when you prophet started out her Christian journey as a Baptized Trinitarian then converts to anti-Trinitarianism and starts belching out anti-Trinitarian troupes.
This is why I've asked you to start from a starting point we can both agree on, i.e. God is totally trustworthy, and CAN NOT LIE. God revealed in the Scriptures how the endgame would play out and transmitted this knowledge to us via the Scriptures - which assuredly say that it was impossible that Salvation would fail. Christ was the express purpose of God.
Everything after this admission is either "according to the Scriptures" OR not according to the Scriptures. At this point all you've done is put forth reasoning as to why Salvation was "conditional" on God being God. Not a good place to start your theology from.
rob
Active member
And as I have shown you already Not once does Ellen White say "Jesus Christ might have sinned"' in those exact words.
What you are doing is using ordinary people to disparage her messages from God.
I am sure in the Bible there were prophets and ordinary people used those messages to disparage God.
Two kings of Israel come together to battle against a common enemy - and they decide to rally forces together.
But before they do battle they ask the prophets of God for advice, should they go or not go and do battle.
1Ki 22:6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
400 prophets all say - go up and battle for the YHWH will deliver the enemy into your hands.
Wow that is alot of prophets !!!
1Ki 22:7 And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him?
1Ki 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.
So here are 400 so called prophets and one other prophet Micaiah the son of Imlah,
Now all these 400 prophets publish words that are untrue and false, disparaging both YHWH and Israel.
1Ki 22:13 And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good.
And they force this other prophet to speak a good word.... is that how messages work coming from the YHWH?
No
1Ki 22:14 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak.
Ellen White, like any other prophet only speak what they are told to speak. This assumes that YHWH actually speaks to them in English, or to Micaiah in Hebrew. Do you believe Grunion that YHWH actually can and does speak to you ?
1Ki 22:15 ¶ So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
16 And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD?
Notice at first the prophet tells the good words the King wanted to hear.
1Ki 22:17 And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
So the prophet speaks that Israel the King will be killed in battle.
1Ki 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.
Notice the other 400 prophets are lying because a lying spirit enters into them.
These 400 publish with one mouth that YHWH will deliver the enemy into their hands. This is clearly false publishing.
It is an example of not all prophets speak truly about the YHWH messages.
EGW: "The words of the prophet should have been enough to show the kings that their project was not favored by Heaven, but neither ruler felt inclined to heed the warning. Ahab had marked out his course, and he was determined to follow it. Jehoshaphat had given his word of honor, “We will be with thee in the war;” and after making such a promise, he was reluctant to withdraw his forces. 2 Chronicles 18:3. “So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead.” 1 Kings 22:29. {PK 196.1
EGW: "The more closely the Scriptures are studied, the more clearly shall we understand the true character of our thoughts and actions. But thousands put the Bible on one side for the same reason that Ahab hated Micaiah. Because it prophesies evil against the sinner, they claim that they find objections and contradictions in God’s Word. While professing to be open to conviction, they allow prejudice to hold sway, and refuse to see the truth which that Word reveals (The Youth’s Instructor, June 10, 1897). {2BC 1036.1}
EGW: " Oh, why do you profess to keep the law of God? It is very difficult for man to profess one thing and live another. You will make any shift to suit the articles of your faith to the habits of your life. Men who love sin will not love their Bibles which condemns their sins. For the same reason liquor drinkers and tobacco devotees, and adulterers and licentious men, express their disbelief of the Testimonies. It is convenient for them to ridicule the Testimonies. Ahab was an enemy to Micaiah because he prophesied evil against him. Those whose carnal minds are not in harmony with the Testimonies, take their position that they do not believe them. {Lt 19, 1875, par. 10}
Will you spurn the light and warning God here gives you? You may now with diligence redeem the time. Now is your day. Now is your opportunity. Let this pass and you go on into impenetrable darkness. {Lt 19, 1875, par. 11}
--------------
You say :"At this point all you've done is put forth reasoning as to why Salvation was "conditional" on God being God. Not a good place to start your theology from.
What does "conditional" mean?
Aquinas "
It should be noted that there are two kinds of necessity: absolute and
conditional. Absolute necessity arises from causes prior in the way of
generation, namely matter and the agent, just as the necessity of death
comes from matter’s disposition to join with contraries. This necessity is
called absolute because it has no impediment: and it is also called the
necessity of matter. Conditional necessity arises from causes posterior in
generation, namely form and end, as we say that conception is necessary if
a man is to be generated. This is conditional because for this woman to
conceive is not absolutely necessary, but under a condition: if a child is
going to be born. This is called the necessity of end.
What is he talking about ? no idea
EGW: " Remembering the conditional promise to the young ruler, “Thou shalt have treasure in heaven,” he now asked what he and his companions were to receive as a reward for their sacrifices. {COL 395.1}
The Saviour’s answer thrilled the hearts of those Galilean fishermen. It pictured honors that fulfilled their highest dreams: “Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
I see, but the young rich ruler went away, and did not do his part in the offer of God's salvation to him.
EGW: "Repairing to the temple where He was teaching, they proceeded to question Him: “By what authority doest Thou these things? and who gave Thee this authority?” They expected Him to claim that His authority was from God. Such an assertion they intended to deny. But Jesus met them with a question apparently pertaining to another subject, and He made His reply to them conditional on their answering this question. “The baptism of John,” He said, “whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” {DA 593.3}
Another use of conditional, you answer first and God will answer
EGW: "To him that overcometh,” Christ says, “will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.” Revelation 2:7. The giving of the tree of life in Eden was conditional, and it was finally withdrawn. But the gifts of the future life are absolute and eternal. {Hvn 147.3}
These are some of the themes arising from "conditional" as a theme? Now not sure what you are saying Grunion, if you want to explain this theme, I will try to answer.
Shalom
Last edited:
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion
You say :"No, I only want you to admit that Scripture SHOUTS that it was impossible for Christ to sin, loose His Salvation and eternally cease to exist.
I already have said that it was impossible for Jesus to break faith off with this Father and thus sin. I am only saying this breaking of faith might have been possible because like the angels and like humans and like the Son of Deity, we all have free will to choose.
But Jesus the Son of Deity refused to break faith.
Why did the Son of Deity refuse to break faith? Because He knew it was never an option. Faith is the only process there is. And power from the FATHER is the only option there is. And love is the only attitude there is. Being independent cannot exist on it's own, so cannot exist either.
Hate does not exist
Breaking faith does not exist
Free will extremes does not exist either
As the video by the young child Einstein explains, there is no such thing as "darkness", "cold" and "evil".
EGW: "Christ could have worked a miracle in His own behalf; but this would not have been in accordance with the plan of salvation. The many miracles in the life of Christ show His power to work miracles for the benefit of suffering humanity. By a miracle of mercy He fed five thousand at once with five loaves and two small fishes. Therefore He had the power to work a miracle and satisfy His own hunger. Satan flattered himself that he could lead Christ to doubt the words spoken from heaven at His baptism. If he could tempt Him to question His sonship, and doubt the truth of the word spoken by His Father, he would gain a great victory. {Con 40.2}
Here is her exact words: Jesus had something no human has, power that is independent. He could have worked a miracle using his own power of deity. He had power to satisfy his own hunger. We humans have no independent power to do anything like this - but Jesus has this power, but my point is He REFUSED to use it. That makes his temptation an infinite times greater than our own.
These are things in our world because they are examples of less of the Father flowing in some conditional conditions.
Some wanted an independent power - but such a thing cannot exist - not as Lucifer wanted.
Some want to live by missing on the power from the Father - such a thing cannot be - yet the Father keeps them alive
There is only love as an option.
And if you look at love and love being demonstrated as Lucifer did for a billion years, he saw three persons of deity all pressing together as one love. He saw them as dependent upon each other. He wondered could there exist a sense of being independent?
The answer is no.
But He wanted this sense of being independent and thus the Most High gave this sense of independent power to him.
Here is Jesus talking about this:
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your "provider" the devil, and the lusts of your "provider" ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the "provider" of it.
I translate "father" "fruit" as Hebrew "Ab" correctly in it's broadest term "provider".
I showed you already Aquinas does not understand this, but our Hebrew English translator does.
I will show you an exciting verse:
Isa 43:27 Thy first <ri'shown> father <'ab> hath sinned <chata'>, and thy teachers <luwts> have transgressed <pasha`> against me. {teachers: Heb. interpreters} (KJV)
This is fuzzy
With Hebrew intent
Isa 43:27 In the beginning the first Provider hath been missing of the True Provider's Power, and thy fuzzy translators have transgressed against GOD.
These fuzzy translators along with the false Provider deceive and spoil.
Shalom
You say :"No, I only want you to admit that Scripture SHOUTS that it was impossible for Christ to sin, loose His Salvation and eternally cease to exist.
I already have said that it was impossible for Jesus to break faith off with this Father and thus sin. I am only saying this breaking of faith might have been possible because like the angels and like humans and like the Son of Deity, we all have free will to choose.
But Jesus the Son of Deity refused to break faith.
Why did the Son of Deity refuse to break faith? Because He knew it was never an option. Faith is the only process there is. And power from the FATHER is the only option there is. And love is the only attitude there is. Being independent cannot exist on it's own, so cannot exist either.
Hate does not exist
Breaking faith does not exist
Free will extremes does not exist either
As the video by the young child Einstein explains, there is no such thing as "darkness", "cold" and "evil".
EGW: "Christ could have worked a miracle in His own behalf; but this would not have been in accordance with the plan of salvation. The many miracles in the life of Christ show His power to work miracles for the benefit of suffering humanity. By a miracle of mercy He fed five thousand at once with five loaves and two small fishes. Therefore He had the power to work a miracle and satisfy His own hunger. Satan flattered himself that he could lead Christ to doubt the words spoken from heaven at His baptism. If he could tempt Him to question His sonship, and doubt the truth of the word spoken by His Father, he would gain a great victory. {Con 40.2}
Here is her exact words: Jesus had something no human has, power that is independent. He could have worked a miracle using his own power of deity. He had power to satisfy his own hunger. We humans have no independent power to do anything like this - but Jesus has this power, but my point is He REFUSED to use it. That makes his temptation an infinite times greater than our own.
These are things in our world because they are examples of less of the Father flowing in some conditional conditions.
Some wanted an independent power - but such a thing cannot exist - not as Lucifer wanted.
Some want to live by missing on the power from the Father - such a thing cannot be - yet the Father keeps them alive
There is only love as an option.
And if you look at love and love being demonstrated as Lucifer did for a billion years, he saw three persons of deity all pressing together as one love. He saw them as dependent upon each other. He wondered could there exist a sense of being independent?
The answer is no.
But He wanted this sense of being independent and thus the Most High gave this sense of independent power to him.
Here is Jesus talking about this:
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your "provider" the devil, and the lusts of your "provider" ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the "provider" of it.
I translate "father" "fruit" as Hebrew "Ab" correctly in it's broadest term "provider".
I showed you already Aquinas does not understand this, but our Hebrew English translator does.
I will show you an exciting verse:
Isa 43:27 Thy first <ri'shown> father <'ab> hath sinned <chata'>, and thy teachers <luwts> have transgressed <pasha`> against me. {teachers: Heb. interpreters} (KJV)
This is fuzzy
With Hebrew intent
Isa 43:27 In the beginning the first Provider hath been missing of the True Provider's Power, and thy fuzzy translators have transgressed against GOD.
These fuzzy translators along with the false Provider deceive and spoil.
Shalom
Last edited:
You say it was impossible for Jesus to break faith off with "this" Father and thus sin....
...Immediately after that you say "IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE".
...Because "the Son of Deity, like humans & angels, had / has free will".
All stop Rob, my question isn't about your anti-Trinitarianism.
I'm interested as to how, after God said over 150 times that failure was IMPOSSIBLE....
...That you continue to make up excuses that it was actually possible.
...Because, as you, put it, the Son of Deity had free will to not be the Son of Deity.
Diagram out what you said that I quoted above:
Rob said: "it was impossible for Jesus to break faith off with this father and thus sin".
Vs.
Rob said: "the breaking of faith MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE because like the angels and like the humans and like the Son of Deity, we ALL have free will to choose".
Your task here is to deal with your cognitive dissonance in what you admit was impossible and what mechanism could exist to make God out to be a liar?
Like I've told you before many times - God promised the Gospel "beforehand" through His Prophets in the holy Scriptures and this promise excluded any possibility failure. So, Rob, what is it about Ellen White's hold on you that causes you to say there was possibility in something happening that God said (over & over & over again) that there was ZERO possibility of happening.
You should realize that once God said something is impossible it's irrelevant to come up with hypothetical situations which could make God out to be a liar, mistaken or presumptuous in making a promise "God" didn't have authority to make.
You are producing "classical" Seventh-day Adventist arguments here - your argument thus far is:.
'i know God said it was impossible that The Christ would fail (sin) BUT since angels and people have free-will than Michael / christ had to have free-will so even if God said failure was impossible God was wrong - failure was possible because Ellen white said failure was possible.'
I'm sorry Rob, but your logic is a mess here.
rob
Active member
Ok Grunion, One question for you
Is GOD relational or solitary ?
The CCC says God is not solitary, therefore God must be relational.
That means each Person of Deity, must have free will and the ability to be independent, but they choose not to.
(problem is Catholics do not talk about the Godhead much, though they do use the term Godhead, like the SDA do)
I don't see that as messy logic. I see it as pure factual, considering God is relational.
The other part of your primary question, is God can predict the future in prophecy and write it down 100% accurately.
All prophecies of Jesus His Son were fulfilled accurately so Jesus remained dependent upon God even though he emptied Himself and became a man. To me that means He could not do anything independent of the Father and thus by faith was always getting His divine powers from the Father, not from Himself. But prophecy does not remove a persons free will and a persons struggles with temptation.
By saying that God cannot fail in prophecy and yet not allow human temptations to show independent power, is taking things out of context. If Jesus was relational to God, he must therefore retain free will, faith, love, and a sense of being independent but choosing not to.
Just because He succeeds does not remove the free will aspect of Jesus as a possible independent power.
Why doesn't this make sense to you?
Jas 1:13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
This passage says to me God cannot be tempted to show independent power for selfish reasons because such independent acts cannot exist unless God allows them to exist, so the anything trying to be independent immediately faces non-existence.
That is what the verse is saying to me.
The devil only, thinks being independent can be eternally expressed - but He is wrong. He thought getting Jesus to show some independent power might make being independent, eternal expressed - but His ideas are wrong. Jesus saw through them. He knows what love is from the Scriptures, and "hate" is not an option - and therefore does not exist - apart from God allowing it to exist for a limited time.
Because God is relational, the Persons of Deity have to demonstrate faith in each other,
love in each other and dependency in each other, pressing together as echad - compound unity - one.
I don't get the impression the CCC does not discuss things like what I am trying to convey to you? That there are character relationships within the Godhead?
It is not messy logic but the true essence of the Godhead, that God shows
(1) free will
(2) faith
(3) love
(4) dependence
(5) unity
(6) joy
(7) family
Now if God is one like the term solitary, there is no need for free will, and no need for creatures to have free will either,
because there is no love and no faith in another Deity of Power, no need for dependence on another Deity Power, so there can be no excuse for sin either, since God is all alone, and you note when Adam was alone he was lonely for a help mate, so God being alone would be lonely for one like Himself, so there is no joy and no family model with God who is solitary. I truly feel for Muslims who see Allah as one solitary Deity in heaven. I also feel for Jews who see one solitary Deity in heaven. My question for the Jew is why do they show faith in YHWH when YHWH cannot show faith in another deity power? Therefore there is no example for the creature - the creature is forced to adopt what YHWH says, and do what YHWH says - no example for anything. No example for family love - no example for faith - no example for free will. Jews say angels have no free will - that makes sense if YHWH has no free will in Himself. Such a God of power is like a dictator. Not a God who is relational.
Shalom
Is GOD relational or solitary ?
The CCC says God is not solitary, therefore God must be relational.
That means each Person of Deity, must have free will and the ability to be independent, but they choose not to.
(problem is Catholics do not talk about the Godhead much, though they do use the term Godhead, like the SDA do)
I don't see that as messy logic. I see it as pure factual, considering God is relational.
The other part of your primary question, is God can predict the future in prophecy and write it down 100% accurately.
All prophecies of Jesus His Son were fulfilled accurately so Jesus remained dependent upon God even though he emptied Himself and became a man. To me that means He could not do anything independent of the Father and thus by faith was always getting His divine powers from the Father, not from Himself. But prophecy does not remove a persons free will and a persons struggles with temptation.
By saying that God cannot fail in prophecy and yet not allow human temptations to show independent power, is taking things out of context. If Jesus was relational to God, he must therefore retain free will, faith, love, and a sense of being independent but choosing not to.
Just because He succeeds does not remove the free will aspect of Jesus as a possible independent power.
Why doesn't this make sense to you?
Jas 1:13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
This passage says to me God cannot be tempted to show independent power for selfish reasons because such independent acts cannot exist unless God allows them to exist, so the anything trying to be independent immediately faces non-existence.
That is what the verse is saying to me.
The devil only, thinks being independent can be eternally expressed - but He is wrong. He thought getting Jesus to show some independent power might make being independent, eternal expressed - but His ideas are wrong. Jesus saw through them. He knows what love is from the Scriptures, and "hate" is not an option - and therefore does not exist - apart from God allowing it to exist for a limited time.
Because God is relational, the Persons of Deity have to demonstrate faith in each other,
love in each other and dependency in each other, pressing together as echad - compound unity - one.
I don't get the impression the CCC does not discuss things like what I am trying to convey to you? That there are character relationships within the Godhead?
It is not messy logic but the true essence of the Godhead, that God shows
(1) free will
(2) faith
(3) love
(4) dependence
(5) unity
(6) joy
(7) family
Now if God is one like the term solitary, there is no need for free will, and no need for creatures to have free will either,
because there is no love and no faith in another Deity of Power, no need for dependence on another Deity Power, so there can be no excuse for sin either, since God is all alone, and you note when Adam was alone he was lonely for a help mate, so God being alone would be lonely for one like Himself, so there is no joy and no family model with God who is solitary. I truly feel for Muslims who see Allah as one solitary Deity in heaven. I also feel for Jews who see one solitary Deity in heaven. My question for the Jew is why do they show faith in YHWH when YHWH cannot show faith in another deity power? Therefore there is no example for the creature - the creature is forced to adopt what YHWH says, and do what YHWH says - no example for anything. No example for family love - no example for faith - no example for free will. Jews say angels have no free will - that makes sense if YHWH has no free will in Himself. Such a God of power is like a dictator. Not a God who is relational.
Shalom
rob
Active member
Greetings
You say "if God said failure was impossible
So prophecy is always correct. I would agree with that - prophecy is always correct.
So if your name is already in the Lamb's Book of life a billion years before you are born, (this is prophecy)
does that fact remove your free will?
remove your daily struggles to be always for God?
prevent you from failing?
prevent your daily struggles of faith and temptations to break faith?
God knows when I am going to break faith and why before I even place myself in that place.
Does that mean I don't need to pray, or need to spend time with God?
Jesus spent whole nights in prayer to His Father - most of us spent 5 minutes in prayer.
What was Jesus praying about?
Why so long and what was being achieved?
Seems to me Jesus didn't just do nothing and allow prophecy to prevail.
Something wrong here with your theme of prophecy.
you say :this promise excluded any possibility failure.
Correct, but this cannot remove who or what God is.... if God is relational than we can ascertain traits
like I have listed before.
You are removing God's trait simply because God does not fail.
The CCC boasts a truly unsinkable boat is impressive.
I would disagree. No need for a captain, no need to steer it, no need to worry. no need for anything...Such a boat is not personal - there is nothing for a person to do. There is no risk in driving the boat.
A Captain who by faith asks God for help all the time, to steer the boat, drive it safely and make perfect decisions
by faith, that is truly impressive, as it demonstrates faith, joy and temptations that are overcome. It's more personal.
When I read this CCC I realize our views of the Godhead are totally different. My view is more personal.
If God made us in His image this includes traits that are functionally the same as us - faith, love, joy and a sense of being independent but praying every day to be dependent and give up this silly idea of self independence.
You posted before:
The Son is not independent of the Father or the Holy Spirit, or any other combination. The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Ontologically One God - not three independent Beings as Ellen White taught.
I agree the Father, the Son and the HS are all dependent upon each other, but because there are three persons, they have to by the Law of Association also show possible independence, but they choose not to, out of Divine Love for each and perfect faith in other other. If you remove this trait, than you have no selfless love as an example within the God head, no example of love involving risk of rejection, no possibility of anything less than functionally perfect.
I read the CCC saying God only does natural RA not moral RA - my question to you regarding this idea, if a sinner like Lucifer wanted to do something morally dysfunction and such things do not exist in God's sinless domain, how than did such moral dysfunction exist? Unless God creates it to exist since extreme of free will is expressing itself?
If you make the Father the Son and the HS as dependent beings, where is free will - you have an automaton - a robot.
Not a free will Deity of love. Can you discuss what Ontologically One God - means please?
Shalom
You say "if God said failure was impossible
So prophecy is always correct. I would agree with that - prophecy is always correct.
So if your name is already in the Lamb's Book of life a billion years before you are born, (this is prophecy)
does that fact remove your free will?
remove your daily struggles to be always for God?
prevent you from failing?
prevent your daily struggles of faith and temptations to break faith?
God knows when I am going to break faith and why before I even place myself in that place.
Does that mean I don't need to pray, or need to spend time with God?
Jesus spent whole nights in prayer to His Father - most of us spent 5 minutes in prayer.
What was Jesus praying about?
Why so long and what was being achieved?
Seems to me Jesus didn't just do nothing and allow prophecy to prevail.
Something wrong here with your theme of prophecy.
you say :this promise excluded any possibility failure.
Correct, but this cannot remove who or what God is.... if God is relational than we can ascertain traits
like I have listed before.
You are removing God's trait simply because God does not fail.
The CCC boasts a truly unsinkable boat is impressive.
I would disagree. No need for a captain, no need to steer it, no need to worry. no need for anything...Such a boat is not personal - there is nothing for a person to do. There is no risk in driving the boat.
A Captain who by faith asks God for help all the time, to steer the boat, drive it safely and make perfect decisions
by faith, that is truly impressive, as it demonstrates faith, joy and temptations that are overcome. It's more personal.
When I read this CCC I realize our views of the Godhead are totally different. My view is more personal.
If God made us in His image this includes traits that are functionally the same as us - faith, love, joy and a sense of being independent but praying every day to be dependent and give up this silly idea of self independence.
You posted before:
The Son is not independent of the Father or the Holy Spirit, or any other combination. The Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Ontologically One God - not three independent Beings as Ellen White taught.
I agree the Father, the Son and the HS are all dependent upon each other, but because there are three persons, they have to by the Law of Association also show possible independence, but they choose not to, out of Divine Love for each and perfect faith in other other. If you remove this trait, than you have no selfless love as an example within the God head, no example of love involving risk of rejection, no possibility of anything less than functionally perfect.
I read the CCC saying God only does natural RA not moral RA - my question to you regarding this idea, if a sinner like Lucifer wanted to do something morally dysfunction and such things do not exist in God's sinless domain, how than did such moral dysfunction exist? Unless God creates it to exist since extreme of free will is expressing itself?
If you make the Father the Son and the HS as dependent beings, where is free will - you have an automaton - a robot.
Not a free will Deity of love. Can you discuss what Ontologically One God - means please?
Shalom
Last edited: