Pertaining to SDA teaching on those who have died

Formersda

Active member
AV Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament{G1242 diatheke, covenant, testament}, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus said "the covenant" is "for the remission of sins" or AKA the Gospel.

AV 1Jn 3:1-6 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

When "the law" defines sins. The Gospel is the remedy for sin. The Gospel defines sin, as well.

AV Hb 9:15-22 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Part of the spiritual contract language by GOD.

There is a part of "the covenant" that defines sin, for the agreement to take place.

Yours in Christ, Michael
Which laws in both the Decalogue and the book of laws defines sins in what your saying here?
 

Formersda

Active member
Which laws in both the Decalogue and the book of laws defines sins in what your saying here?
AV Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament{G1242 diatheke, covenant, testament}, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus said "the covenant" is "for the remission of sins" or AKA the Gospel.

AV 1Jn 3:1-6 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

When "the law" defines sins. The Gospel is the remedy for sin. The Gospel defines sin, as well.

AV Hb 9:15-22 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Part of the spiritual contract language by GOD.

There is a part of "the covenant" that defines sin, for the agreement to take place.

Yours in Christ, Michael
Matthew 26:28 is not the blood of the New Testament but the blood of the covenant, this is backed up with Luke 22:20 where Jesus says the new covenant, Mark 14:24 the blood of the covenant. You also misquoted verse 22 of Hebrews it’s not almost all things, it’s all things
 

Icyspark

Active member
I don't hold him as an authority but definitely as one worthy of serious consideration. I was aware of his views on this but generally find that Bible Only Christians stop where the Bible stops - they don't think outside the 9 dots whereas questions like this are concerned. I'm frankly surprised you were aware of this. What do you think of what he taught on God not having "parts" ?


Hi pythons,

I try to scratch where people itch. It seemed to me you might put more emphasis on something Aquinas has written than say something Max Lucado wrote.

I have a very limited knowledge of what Aquinas wrote regarding "God not having 'parts,'" but I don't see the relevance to the current topic of discussion. It seems to me that if one believes the Jesus is God, then His whole premise comes to an abrupt end. :unsure:

God bless!
 

pythons

Active member
Hi pythons,

I try to scratch where people itch. It seemed to me you might put more emphasis on something Aquinas has written than say something Max Lucado wrote.

I have a very limited knowledge of what Aquinas wrote regarding "God not having 'parts,'" but I don't see the relevance to the current topic of discussion. It seems to me that if one believes the Jesus is God, then His whole premise comes to an abrupt end. :unsure:

God bless!

It has everything to do with what it is that we worship...
...If we worship 3 Being's and claim that's God.
...We've departed Christianity.

God is one Being.

From what I've seen here on this forum and from what I've witnessed in Ellen White's writings...
....Christ is ONE with God in the same way / manner as Christ & His Disciples were ONE.
....Like a unified Board of Directors or as others here have said - a committee.

This is not possible with God.

Here

WHY IS GOD SIMPLE? THE REASON FOR DIVINE SIMPLICITY - YouTube
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
pythons said:
Where does it say that that those resurrected folks ascended to Heaven? So you're saying that Matthew 27 provides the possibility that Noah, Abraham, Jacob Isaac the Prophet Daniel and many others of that caliber were raised from the dead and seen in Jerusalem?
Hi pythons,

Matthew records in his Gospel an account of an unknown, unnamed and unnumbered group of people who were raised from the dead when Christ was resurrected:

Matthew 27:50-53
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

So the answer to your question is, yes, absolutely!

I pray this helps.
Matt. 27:50
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened;
and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection,
and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Icy;
Scripture is very specific as to "Who" was raised to life and ascended with Christ;
so we not be confused, as to the where those who have passed on are

We are not told "Who" they are by Name
well; not explicitly, But these teachers Know them are;

Hebrews 1:7
And of the angels he saith,
Who maketh his angels spirits,
and his ministers a flame of fire.
..
14 Are they not all ministering spirits,
sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?


Icy;
When you wear the ""Ear Rings""
placed on you by those that speak for the Gods of Egypt
all you have is;
"""ears to hear """ the Voice of those that speak for
the Egyptian Gods

evidently; you only have "Ears to hear" those that speak for the "Egyptian Gods"

so who are these men ??????????

They are the 4 and 20 Elders of the course of Abia

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,

and her name was Elisabeth.
...

And it came to pass,
that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
According to the custom of the priest's office,
his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.

Rev. 5:8
And when he had taken the book,

the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb,
having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours,

which are the prayers of saints.

in David we find what those prayers are

Icy;
You need to find yourself better teachers

Can the blind lead the blind?
Will they not both fall into a pit?
40 The student is not above the teacher,
but everyone who is fully trained
will be like their teacher.

lest you become "Just as Blind" as they are

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent
;

Rev.11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven,
and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament:
and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings,
and an earthquake, and great hail.
 
Last edited:

SDAchristian

Well-known member
Matthew 26:28 is not the blood of the New Testament but the blood of the covenant, this is backed up with Luke 22:20 where Jesus says the new covenant, Mark 14:24 the blood of the covenant.
AV Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament{G1242 diatheke}, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Is your opinion better than Jesus' choice of Greek words then ???
Strong's G1242 said:
G1242 diatheke dee-ath-ay'-kay
from G1303;
properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will).
KJV: covenant, testament.
Be my Guest, and go argue the Truth from a Greek Dictionary.
You also misquoted verse 22 of Hebrews it’s not almost all things, it’s all things
Nope, I Cut-N-Pasted faithfully from the Interlinear Software to the post.

You have issues with Textus Receptus 1894 ???

Yours in Christ, Michael
 

Icyspark

Active member
pythons said:
Where does it say that that those resurrected folks ascended to Heaven? So you're saying that Matthew 27 provides the possibility that Noah, Abraham, Jacob Isaac the Prophet Daniel and many others of that caliber were raised from the dead and seen in Jerusalem?

Matt. 27:50
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened;
and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection,
and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Icy;
Scripture is very specific as to "Who" was raised to life and ascended with Christ;
so we not be confused, as to the where those who have passed on are

We are not told "Who" they are by Name
well; not explicitly, But these teachers Know them are;

Hebrews 1:7
And of the angels he saith,
Who maketh his angels spirits,
and his ministers a flame of fire.
..
14 Are they not all ministering spirits,
sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?


Icy;
When you wear the ""Ear Rings""
placed on you by those that speak for the Gods of Egypt
all you have is;
"""ears to hear """ the Voice of those that speak for
the Egyptian Gods

evidently; you only have "Ears to hear" those that speak for the "Egyptian Gods"

so who are these men ??????????

They are the 4 and 20 Elders of the course of Abia

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,

and her name was Elisabeth.
...

And it came to pass,
that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
According to the custom of the priest's office,
his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.

Rev. 5:8
And when he had taken the book,

the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb,
having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours,

which are the prayers of saints.

in David we find what those prayers are

Icy;
You need to find yourself better teachers

Can the blind lead the blind?
Will they not both fall into a pit?
40 The student is not above the teacher,
but everyone who is fully trained
will be like their teacher.

lest you become "Just as Blind" as they are

Hi Buzzard (formerly known as Conqueror),

Lol! :rolleyes: What a mess of trolling.(n)
 
Last edited:

Icyspark

Active member
It has everything to do with what it is that we worship...
...If we worship 3 Being's and claim that's God.
...We've departed Christianity.

God is one Being.

From what I've seen here on this forum and from what I've witnessed in Ellen White's writings...
....Christ is ONE with God in the same way / manner as Christ & His Disciples were ONE.
....Like a unified Board of Directors or as others here have said - a committee.

This is not possible with God.

Here

WHY IS GOD SIMPLE? THE REASON FOR DIVINE SIMPLICITY - YouTube


Hi pythons,

Does Jesus have parts? Is Jesus God? If your answer to both of these is yes, then your argument falls before it ever stood.

God bless!
 

pythons

Active member
Hi pythons,

Does Jesus have parts? Is Jesus God? If your answer to both of these is yes, then your argument falls before it ever stood.

God bless!

Your answer demonstrates that you wouldn't understand mine...
...Jesus had how many natures Icyspark?
 

Icyspark

Active member
Your answer demonstrates that you wouldn't understand mine...
...Jesus had how many natures Icyspark?


Hi pythons,

I suppose if there is a lack of understanding on my part it might help that the person attempting to convey a particular idea try again.

I'm guessing what you're after for the question is that Jesus had two natures.

God bless!
 

pythons

Active member
Hi pythons,

I suppose if there is a lack of understanding on my part it might help that the person attempting to convey a particular idea try again.

I'm guessing what you're after for the question is that Jesus had two natures.

God bless!

Yes, two natures. I'm guessing that we would both agree that the 2 would be 1) Divine & 2) Human...
...I'm also guessing that's where our agreement would end as I'm guessing you'd say,
...The Divine Nature was blended or mixed with the Human nature.
...Would I be right guessing that?
 

Icyspark

Active member
Yes, two natures. I'm guessing that we would both agree that the 2 would be 1) Divine & 2) Human...
...I'm also guessing that's where our agreement would end as I'm guessing you'd say,
...The Divine Nature was blended or mixed with the Human nature.
...Would I be right guessing that?

Hi pythons,

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of this thread? I started my response to this thread in relation to the opening post. Since then it seems to have gone off the rails.

Is it possible that Thomas Aquinas' beliefs about the resurrection of "many holy people" could've included those in your opening list? If you agree that that is possible, is it not likewise possible, nay, probable, that these same individuals would not be resurrected only to die again, but rather be taken with Christ as "first fruits" of His ultimate victorious return in which all the righteous dead will be resurrected?

As far as your blended or mixed nature, I'd have to consider the implications of what it is you're attempting to convey.

God bless!
 

pythons

Active member
Hi pythons,

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of this thread? I started my response to this thread in relation to the opening post. Since then it seems to have gone off the rails.

Is it possible that Thomas Aquinas' beliefs about the resurrection of "many holy people" could've included those in your opening list? If you agree that that is possible, is it not likewise possible, nay, probable, that these same individuals would not be resurrected only to die again, but rather be taken with Christ as "first fruits" of His ultimate victorious return in which all the righteous dead will be resurrected?

As far as your blended or mixed nature, I'd have to consider the implications of what it is you're attempting to convey.

God bless!

I'm speaking specifically of the Divine Nature of Christ prior to the Incarnation....
...This Nature is ONE BEING, ONE ETERNAL GOD, Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
...There is not 3 Beings but ONE BEING.

James White, Coming King, p. 33
Only one being in the universe besides the Father bears the name of God, and that is His Son, Jesus Christ.”

So, you'd agree he is saying there are only two "BEINGS" that are God?

I'm fairly sure you seen the following Ellen White quote;

Ellen White, 1888 Great Controversy 493.1
Christ the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,--one in nature, in character, and in purpose,--the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ, the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By him were all things created, that are in Heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers;" [COL. 1:16.] and to Christ, equally with the Father, all Heaven gave allegiance. {GC88 493.1}

So, James White, an anti-Trinitarian, had no problems calling Jesus "God" provided it was in the right context but notice how Ellen unites with James White in asserting that Christ was a separate being from the Father. At this point the Holy Spirit wasn't considered to be God but we can let that rest for now. What I'm trying to show you is that Ellen worshiped & taught not one God but 2 - 2 "BEINGS".

Ellen asserts (as did James & the other early SDA's) that Father God had PARTS, and that Michael & Lucifer the archangels had PARTS (as in bodies of flesh, with members, organs and so on).

In any composite thing the parts are prior to and OTHER than the whole yet the whole has to depend on those parts for it's existence. Like the example below of the Pizza you CAN'T have a pizza without the crust, the cheese and toppings, those parts are prior to and OTHER THAN THE WHOLE. God is pure being, God is the 1st "cause", exists from Himself. The point is made in 2 minutes below.

WHY IS GOD SIMPLE? THE REASON FOR DIVINE SIMPLICITY - YouTube

Compare the Mormon Godhead with the SDA Godhead - perhaps you will see what I'm trying to share with you.

"If by 'the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that." The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God (lightplanet.com) & The Godhead (lightplanet.com)

In Mormonism God is NOT ONE BEING but 3 BEINGS who are unified in purpose, a committee or executive board of directors of sorts. This is how the god's of Mount Olympus were described in Greek Mythology - minus the cooperation.

The quote below was not generated by a Mormon, its from the Sabbath Herald SDA Church paper.


Seventh-day Adventist Review & Herald
A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, AND entered into, the role of the Father, ANOTHER the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven. By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father."

This is three God's no matter how you try and slice it up.
 

Common Tater

Active member
Study that one for yourself, Please !!!

Another poster suggested that SDAs leave because they could not defend what they have been told.

Yours in Christ, Michael
Have you not enough belief in your own doctrines to be able to answer such a question? You are the one who said that the judgement is not for God. I asked you who is it for then? And you won't answer the question.
 

Common Tater

Active member
Judgments(GOD's decisions) are like Resurrections("Moses"). You stated as much, in context.

AV Jn 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
AV 1Pt 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

There are general Resurrections and special Resurrections. So there are general Judgments and special Judgments.

When GOD pours out special judgments in the time of the end, many will blame sabbath keepers for not keeping first/sun day.

That is when the pagans offer live human sacrifices to their gods, for appeasement.

AV Ac 5:1-5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back [part] of the price, his wife also being privy [to it], and brought a certain part, and laid [it] at the apostles'feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

Yours in Christ, Michael
Adventism claims that the Judgement did not begin until the books were opened on October 22, 1844. I ask you how can this be if Moses, Enoch, and Elijah are already in heaven. You say there are also special resurrections and special judgements. You also say that the judgement in not for people, but for God. I know full well that Adventists believe and claim that the Investigative Judgement is to justify God before the angels and all of the members of the universe and show His judgements are fair. If He can make special judgements, evidently He can do so without concern about justifying Himself before the Universe. Please explain why the angels and the rest of the universe are willing to give God a pass on some judgements, but not the rest. Please explain why He does not need to justify Himself to the angels and the rest of the universe on those judgements.
 

Icyspark

Active member
I'm speaking specifically of the Divine Nature of Christ prior to the Incarnation....
...This Nature is ONE BEING, ONE ETERNAL GOD, Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
...There is not 3 Beings but ONE BEING.

James White, Coming King, p. 33
Only one being in the universe besides the Father bears the name of God, and that is His Son, Jesus Christ.”

So, you'd agree he is saying there are only two "BEINGS" that are God?

I'm fairly sure you seen the following Ellen White quote;

Ellen White, 1888 Great Controversy 493.1
Christ the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,--one in nature, in character, and in purpose,--the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. By Christ, the Father wrought in the creation of all heavenly beings. "By him were all things created, that are in Heaven, . . . whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers;" [COL. 1:16.] and to Christ, equally with the Father, all Heaven gave allegiance. {GC88 493.1}

So, James White, an anti-Trinitarian, had no problems calling Jesus "God" provided it was in the right context but notice how Ellen unites with James White in asserting that Christ was a separate being from the Father. At this point the Holy Spirit wasn't considered to be God but we can let that rest for now. What I'm trying to show you is that Ellen worshiped & taught not one God but 2 - 2 "BEINGS".

Ellen asserts (as did James & the other early SDA's) that Father God had PARTS, and that Michael & Lucifer the archangels had PARTS (as in bodies of flesh, with members, organs and so on).

In any composite thing the parts are prior to and OTHER than the whole yet the whole has to depend on those parts for it's existence. Like the example below of the Pizza you CAN'T have a pizza without the crust, the cheese and toppings, those parts are prior to and OTHER THAN THE WHOLE. God is pure being, God is the 1st "cause", exists from Himself. The point is made in 2 minutes below.

WHY IS GOD SIMPLE? THE REASON FOR DIVINE SIMPLICITY - YouTube

Compare the Mormon Godhead with the SDA Godhead - perhaps you will see what I'm trying to share with you.

"If by 'the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that." The Doctrinal Exclusion: Trinity and the Nature of God (lightplanet.com) & The Godhead (lightplanet.com)

In Mormonism God is NOT ONE BEING but 3 BEINGS who are unified in purpose, a committee or executive board of directors of sorts. This is how the god's of Mount Olympus were described in Greek Mythology - minus the cooperation.

The quote below was not generated by a Mormon, its from the Sabbath Herald SDA Church paper.


Seventh-day Adventist Review & Herald
A plan of salvation was encompassed in the covenant made by the Three Persons of the Godhead, who possessed the attributes of Deity equally. In order to eradicate sin and rebellion from the universe and to restore harmony and peace, one of the divine Beings accepted, AND entered into, the role of the Father, ANOTHER the role of the Son. The remaining divine Being, the Holy Spirit, was also to participate in effecting the plan of salvation. All of this took place before sin and rebellion transpired in heaven. By accepting the roles that the plan entailed, the divine Beings lost none of the powers of Deity. With regard to their eternal existence and other attributes, they were one and equal. But with regard to the plan of salvation, there was, in a sense, a submission on the part of the Son to the Father."

This is three God's no matter how you try and slice it up.


Hi pythons,

I'm sorry, but you haven't attempted to explain what this has to do with the topic of this thread. I prefer not to get sidetracked onto unrelated issues.

I believe in the Trinity, however I don't find it beneficial to put a lot of emphasis on words such as "beings" over and against words such as "persons." In my opinion, these are arbitrary distinctions based on conjecture and not found explicitly in Scripture.

Feel free to start up a new thread and attempt to provide a biblical definition of what constitutes the Godhead/Trinity and then attempt to find some way to condemn Seventh-day Adventists based on what the Bible actually says, and not what Catholic tradition supposes and imposes.

God bless!
 

Common Tater

Active member
Hi pythons,

I'm sorry, but you haven't attempted to explain what this has to do with the topic of this thread. I prefer not to get sidetracked onto unrelated issues.

I believe in the Trinity, however I don't find it beneficial to put a lot of emphasis on words such as "beings" over and against words such as "persons." In my opinion, these are arbitrary distinctions based on conjecture and not found explicitly in Scripture.

Feel free to start up a new thread and attempt to provide a biblical definition of what constitutes the Godhead/Trinity and then attempt to find some way to condemn Seventh-day Adventists based on what the Bible actually says, and not what Catholic tradition supposes and imposes.

God bless!
Being and Person are not interchangeable. Being is what you are, person is who you are.
 

pythons

Active member

Hi pythons,

I'm sorry, but you haven't attempted to explain what this has to do with the topic of this thread. I prefer not to get sidetracked onto unrelated issues.

I believe in the Trinity, however I don't find it beneficial to put a lot of emphasis on words such as "beings" over and against words such as "persons." In my opinion, these are arbitrary distinctions based on conjecture and not found explicitly in Scripture.

Feel free to start up a new thread and attempt to provide a biblical definition of what constitutes the Godhead/Trinity and then attempt to find some way to condemn Seventh-day Adventists based on what the Bible actually says, and not what Catholic tradition supposes and imposes.

God bless!


I'm trying to Icyspark, you have an alien understanding of "spirit" and the Biblical teaching on the spiritual side of man. The SDA concept IS THE MORMON CONCEPT, its just that the Mormons are up-front and honest about it.

Below is what the Mormons say about the Trinity
"If by 'the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that. The Latter-day Saints' first article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842, states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost......However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. They do not believe it, because it is not biblical."

The SDA Church has backed itself into a corner here with this. The only "Scholars" who repudiate the Trinity are Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Traditional SDA's or some other variant of Arian. Its stunning to me that SDA theologians and scholars are willing to admit publicly that members of their Church have a strong tendency to be Tri-theist and that someone who departs from Nicaea IS NOT CHRISTIAN but something else yet this "signal" has difficulty reaching the laymen - I'll dig up my sources and post them so you can ponder what your church has admitted as long ago as 2006.

The days of SDA's running around trying to hide behind an alien version of the Trinity are coming to an end - there will be no violence in this - it will just put the denomination more into the camp of Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses - this will continue until the General Conference stops playing footsie with the Trinity issue.

Someone who believes that Jesus "soul slept" while in the tomb is going to have a very difficult time understanding what we say when we say that the spiritual side of man continues on after death. That's why I'm spending the time I have on this subject with you.
 

Icyspark

Active member




I'm trying to Icyspark, you have an alien understanding of "spirit" and the Biblical teaching on the spiritual side of man. The SDA concept IS THE MORMON CONCEPT, its just that the Mormons are up-front and honest about it.

Below is what the Mormons say about the Trinity
"If by 'the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that. The Latter-day Saints' first article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842, states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost......However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. They do not believe it, because it is not biblical."

The SDA Church has backed itself into a corner here with this. The only "Scholars" who repudiate the Trinity are Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Traditional SDA's or some other variant of Arian. Its stunning to me that SDA theologians and scholars are willing to admit publicly that members of their Church have a strong tendency to be Tri-theist and that someone who departs from Nicaea IS NOT CHRISTIAN but something else yet this "signal" has difficulty reaching the laymen - I'll dig up my sources and post them so you can ponder what your church has admitted as long ago as 2006.

The days of SDA's running around trying to hide behind an alien version of the Trinity are coming to an end - there will be no violence in this - it will just put the denomination more into the camp of Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses - this will continue until the General Conference stops playing footsie with the Trinity issue.

Someone who believes that Jesus "soul slept" while in the tomb is going to have a very difficult time understanding what we say when we say that the spiritual side of man continues on after death. That's why I'm spending the time I have on this subject with you.


Hi pythons,

You have yet to explain what any of this has to do with the topic of this thread.

God bless!
 
Top