ONE God in THREE persons - blessed trinity

[evangelist-7]

What the non-Trinitarian position has going for it is that in a number of places -
God the Son, Jesus Christ is said to be in a subordinate relationship to God the Father.

Sorry, not going for it (or anything else) in the least ...

Of course, God confined inside of a human body is going to be subordinate (in all kinds of ways)
to God who is NOT confined to a human body, but who is sitting on His throne in heaven.
.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jefferson appears not to have made so much an argument from Bible as from rhetoric. But still I think it can be observed that he limits his thinking to "person, place or thing" - and does not allow God to be in its own category but rather God is simply another example of "person".

And in that case - 3 persons are then 3 Gods.

By contrast - I think many will admit that infinite God - is His own category. He cannot be confined to the more simplistic "just another example of a person". One GOD - in three Persons - is possible because God is itself a new category and not just "another instance of a person".

in Christ,

Bob

there is ONE eternal Being, GOD< which In His essense has 3 seperate and distinct Persons, Father/Sin/Holy Spirit...

ALL share the full attributes of God, being God themselves, but there is ONLY one God!

 

[targus]

SDA's do not believe in the Trinity as Christians believe.

The SDA uses Christian vocabulary when talking about their unorthodox beliefs.

A long read but worth the time if you want to understand that SDA's are not Christian.

http://www.cultorchristian.com/#clearword

Click on the link in the article - What Does Adventism's Clear Word "Bible" Teach About the Trinity?

The SDA are POLYTHEIST. They believe in three gods.

 

[percho]

So what I am saying is that we can see that Jesus did not come from sexual reproduction, but is spiritually associated with God as "one". Just as the Jews Jesus spoke with were spiritually associated with the devil (Jesus said they were of their father, the devil) and we are spiritually associated with Abraham (whom God calls the father of many nations).

In John 17 it talks about us being in Jesus just as Jesus is in the Father. That Jesus asks that we be "one" just as He and the Father are "one." He's asking God to extend to believers the same relationship that God has with Jesus. We are called "sons of God" not because God had sex with our human mothers, but because we are IN Christ, and connected in relationship to God. I don't mean "relationship" as in the quality of our conversations and familiarity, I mean relationship as in our position in existence relative to God the Father.

Gal 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

So we can understand about the Trinity in that we can understand all these other metaphors about who we are relationally to Christ. We are the Bride of Christ, the Sons of God, the joint heirs with Christ. Just as my sperm and my wife's egg joined to form my daughter, my spirit and Christ's spirit have joined to form a new creature. Just as there is an essence of me and my wife in my daughter, there is an essence of God in Christ, and an essence of Christ in the believer, and therefore we are joined with God as Christ is joined with God because we are joined with Christ.

Just as Abraham is my father (he is IN ME) because we both share the same faith in the gospel, and just as the devil is the father of those who reject Christ (they are IN him), and just as I inherit the righteousness given to Abraham by way of inheritance, we can see also that the Holy Spirit and Jesus are IN the Father, and the Father is IN them. Like we can understand that all believers are members of one body, just as all the cells and organs are members of one fleshly body, we can see that the Holy Spirit and Christ are part of the Father. There is ONE God, just as we have ONE body of flesh. Just because different organs have different functions doesn't make them part of another body. They share the same LIFE. Similarly, Jesus and the Holy Ghost share in the LIFE of the FATHER as we will one day also share in that LIFE. Just as we have technology to join an organ to another body (a heart transplant for example) it doesn't mean that the life of the transplant recipient is two. It is ONE. The life of the organ depends on the life of it's host, so it is one with the body.

γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν, ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου

The last eight Greek words of Matthew 1:20. Just what was taking place here?

Was there an ovum here that was in some manner fertilized and began to divide?

Just how should we understand, γεννηθὲν, in that passage, relative to the Son of the living God?

Was the living God prior to γεννηθὲν, Father or was he Father to be?

Maybe a better question would be is; Relative to Jesus the Christ was Mary actually a mother?

 

[BobRyan]

SDA's do not believe in the Trinity as Christians believe.

.

Sadly for your endless rant - it is not supported by the facts.

"they expressed their convictions in an unpretending trinitarian confession of faith, the doctrine of one God subsisting and acting in three persons."http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm#note79
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm

That is a reference note in your own playbook website.

And it brings us to the points listed here -

In your endless rant - model of posting - you seldom get off of first base and apparently your post on this thread is no exception.

I start off with the "One God in THREE persons" point - and even in your own ranting - your own material comes back and admits to it.

How sad for your rant.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Sadly for your endless rant - it is not supported by the facts.

"they expressed their convictions in an unpretending trinitarian confession of faith, the doctrine of one God subsisting and acting in three persons."http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm#note79
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm

That is a reference note in your own playbook website.

And it brings us to the points listed here -

In your endless rant - model of posting - you seldom get off of first base and apparently your post on this thread is no exception.

I start off with the "One God in THREE persons" point - and even in your own ranting - your own material comes back and admits to it.

How sad for your rant.

in Christ,

Bob

Do you deny that the SDA "bible" uses the plural "we" when referring to God?

I can't help but notice that you completely ignore my proof and rather than refute THE TEXT FROM YOUR OWN BIBLE have to go to other texts.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sadly for your endless rant - it is not supported by the facts.

"they expressed their convictions in an unpretending trinitarian confession of faith, the doctrine of one God subsisting and acting in three persons."http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm#note79
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm

That is a reference note in your own playbook website.

And it brings us to the points listed here -

In your endless rant - model of posting - you seldom get off of first base and apparently your post on this thread is no exception.

I start off with the "One God in THREE persons" point - and even in your own ranting - your own material comes back and admits to it.

How sad for your rant.

in Christ,

Bob

So you would agree that there is ONE God, whose has always existed as 3 seperate and distinct Persons?

 

[BobRyan]

So you would agree that there is ONE God, whose has always existed as 3 seperate and distinct Persons?

Ahh yes - "One God in THREE persons" - you seem to have accepted that point.

Well done.

As I pointed out in the OP -

This has been called the ONE God - Trinity of PERSONs doctrine.

But for some people there is the objection that THREE PERSONS must = THREE God's not one.

In a 3 dimensional world we think of divisions such as "Person, place or thing".

Because of that limited view - 3 persons = 3 Gods.


But what if there is fourth category, one higher than the category Person? -- God. So then "Person, Place, Thing, God".

One God consisting of THREE persons is then possible and not a contradiction since the higher category "God" is taken into consideration.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Do you deny that the SDA "bible"

I deny that there is such at thing as "The SDA Bible". (as you well know - I am sure.)

This denomination has not authored a single Bible translation.

The fact that among 17 or 18 million Church members - one guy might create a paraphrase-and-commentary - who happens to also be SDA - does not shock me - but it also does not constitute an SDA denomination level authoring of a commentary.

He had free will - he did as he would with that paraphrase-commentary.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again annsi and Greetings steaver, BobRyan and evangelist-7,

I appreciate your responses annsi and steaver and can understand your continued belief in the Trinity. I used a thread that you started steaver and you express much the same sentiment that you claimed in that thread. You may need to do a more careful study of the scriptural teaching concerning the antichrist.

As Bob started this present thread I would like to make a brief comment on my contact with the SDAs on this subject. Over 15 years ago I was invited to attend a Daniel Seminar in a local SDA Church and I attended for some weeks. When quite a few were away one evening they decided to have a session on the Trinity instead. My strongest recollection of this is that, as they discussed the Seminar Notes, almost all agreed that John 10:30 was perhaps the strongest verse that convinced them of the Trinity. I did not accept their opinion at that time because of my previous beliefs, but was unfamiliar with what this passage meant in its context. I had some concept that John 17 used similar language of Jesus and the disciples. That was the last time I attended the Seminar, but over the years since that encounter I was prompted to try to come to a correct understanding of that passage, especially in its immediate context. My present understanding is mentioned in the other thread.

A question for you evangelist-7 and others, we have an Evangelical Christian attending our Bible Class at the moment and we were discussing Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7. I asked him if he could explain why most modern translations (including his Living Bible or New Living Bible) render elohim in Psalm 8:5 as God while the KJV renders this as angels. The writer to the Hebrews quotes and translates this as angels in Hebrews 2:7 and bases his argument about the role of Jesus on this translation. As we will consider Hebrews 2:7 next Wednesday I would like to hear if any of you have an answer. I believe that the modern translators have wrongly used their Trinitarian bias in Psalm 8:5 and I will mention this to my friend if I do not hear an adequate answer to this problem.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[steaver]

I used a thread that you started steaver and you express much the same sentiment that you claimed in that thread. You may need to do a more careful study of the scriptural teaching concerning the antichrist.


Kind regards
Trevor

What I said was the denial of the Deity of Christ is antichrist, not "the" AntiChrist.

 

[targus]

I deny that there is such at thing as "The SDA Bible". (as you well know - I am sure.)

This denomination has not authored a single Bible translation.

The fact that among 17 or 18 million Church members - one guy might create a paraphrase-and-commentary - who happens to also be SDA - does not shock me - but it also does not constitute an SDA denomination level authoring of a commentary.

He had free will - he did as he would with that paraphrase-commentary.

in Christ,

Bob

Kind of like "THE BAPTIST CONFESSION"? :laugh: :tongue3:

You should write a sitcom. :laugh:

Who are you kidding?

It is published by a company owned by the SDA!!!

Why do the SDA hide what they really believe?

I feel like I am Diogenes of Sinope searching for an honest SDA member. :laugh:

 

[targus]

I deny that there is such at thing as "The SDA Bible". (as you well know - I am sure.)

This denomination has not authored a single Bible translation.

The fact that among 17 or 18 million Church members - one guy might create a paraphrase-and-commentary - who happens to also be SDA - does not shock me - but it also does not constitute an SDA denomination level authoring of a commentary.

He had free will - he did as he would with that paraphrase-commentary.

in Christ,

Bob

The SDA Clear Word Bible that is published by a company owned by the SDA - but is not "officially endorsed" by the SDA...

Kind of reminds me of all the abortions performed by SDA hospitals but not "officially endorsed" by the SDA. :tear:

 

[BobRyan]

The SDA Clear Word Bible that is published by a company owned by the SDA -

Seventh-day Adventist publishing houses - publish many non-SDA books - to this very day.

The low information SDA-bashers will sometimes ignore all those "inconvenient details" to claim that anything an SDA publishing house prints - must have had some sort of "papal impramature" or at the very least a vote by the entire SDA denomination affirming it as an SDA document.

Turns out - such fictions do not hold water - in real life.

What does hold water - is the proven fact that we believe in free will.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I deny that there is such at thing as "The SDA Bible". (as you well know - I am sure.)

This denomination has not authored a single Bible translation.

The fact that among 17 or 18 million Church members - one guy might create a paraphrase-and-commentary - who happens to also be SDA - does not shock me - but it also does not constitute an SDA denomination level authoring of a commentary.

He had free will - he did as he would with that paraphrase-commentary.

Kind of like "THE BAPTIST CONFESSION"?

Kind of NOT LIKE the "Baptist Confession of Faith".


Who are you kidding?

Notice that the "inconvenient details" in the "historic facts" about the Baptist Confession of Faith have already been listed.

Went something like this -

==============================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1689_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith

[FONT=&quot]The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith[/FONT][FONT=&quot][1][/FONT][FONT=&quot] (also called the Second London Baptist Confession) was written by Particular Baptists, who held to a Calvinistic Soteriology in England to give a formal expression of their Christian faith from a Baptist perspective. This confession, like The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Savoy Declaration (1658), was written by Puritans who were concerned that their particular church organisation reflect what they perceived to be Biblical teaching. Because it was adopted by the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches in the 18th century, it is also known as the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In 1689, The Toleration Act was passed, which enabled religious freedom and plurality to co-exist alongside the established churches in England and Scotland. This official reprieve resulted in representatives from over 100 Particular Baptist churches to meet together in London from 3–12 September to discuss and endorse the 1677 document. Despite the fact that the document was written in 1677, the official preface to the document has ensured that it would be known as the "1689 Baptist Confession of Faith".[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Particular Baptists were quick to develop churches in colonial America, and in 1707 the Philadelphia Baptist Association was formed.[3] This association formally adopted the 1689 confession in 1742[3] after years of tacit endorsement by individual churches and congregational members. With the addition of two chapters (on the singing of psalms and the laying on of hands), it was retitled The Philadelphia Confession of Faith[4] Further Calvinistic Baptist church associations formed in the mid-late 18th century and adopted the confession as "The Baptist Confession".[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

No Adventist convention has been formed to "adopt" the Clear Word Bible commentary as if it were some sort of official Bible paraphrase and commentary.

UNLIKE the history of the "Baptist Confession of Faith".

Many thanks to the low-information SDA basher group for unwittingly bringing this fact of history to light insisting that we compare and contrast that to the history of the Baptist Confession of Faith.

What would we do without them?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

You are only deceiving yourself, bobryan.

 

[BobRyan]

What I said was the denial of the Deity of Christ is antichrist, not "the" AntiChrist.

Sounds like a good thread title.

---:thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

Ahh yes - "One God in THREE persons" - you seem to have accepted that point.

Well done.

As I pointed out in the OP -




in Christ,

Bob

So you do accept that Father/jesus/Holy Spirit are ALL God, yet there is only ONE God?

 

[BobRyan]

hint: Take a look at the OP - -- reading sloooowwwly this time -- and "with feeling".

======================

This has been called the ONE God - Trinity of PERSONs doctrine.

But for some people there is the objection that THREE PERSONS must = THREE God's not one.

In a 3 dimensional world we think of divisions such as "Person, place or thing".

Because of that limited view - 3 persons = 3 Gods.


But what if there is fourth category, one higher than the category Person? -- God. So then "Person, Place, Thing, God".

One God consisting of THREE persons is then possible and not a contradiction since the higher category "God" is taken into consideration.

==========================

Now see? Not that hard.

Jesus Christ fully God and fully man - but it is still "ONE God in THREE persons".

in Christ,

Bob