Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[Wrangler]

Also I am content with my understanding of the Yahweh Name, and your book may contain a discussion of the translation of Exodus 3:14, but I accept "I will be" as the correct translation.

There is a difference between a translation and a definition.

YHWH is the name of God. It requires no translation. (Yet, it is translated Jehovah or capital LORD)

What YHWH's name means is best defined in English as eternal. The VOICE translation uses this as God's name. In Hebrew, the words literally translates into a cumbersome expression, "I was. I am and I am becoming." This alludes to the unique attribute of the past, present and future existence of Jesus' eternal God.

 

[Wrangler]

In your opinion. In my opinion, plenty of your posts are off and not really worthy to dig into or worthy of a conversation.

Opinions are grounded in facts and logic - or their absence, which is error.

The topic is a matter of opinion and your opinion is grounded in factual errors and logical fallacies at every turn. This is why you resort to personal attacks. It's a tacit admission that you've lost the argument. You just cannot admit what you claim is not a salvation issue in Scripture. See Romans 10:9. See Exodus 20:4.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi TrevorHL.


I am glad, and apologize for its brevity, as I am rather ill most of the time, and replying these days takes a tremendous toll on me, physically, mentally, you can see that here - Asking for special serious daily ongoing prayer, having same symptoms still ...



Yes, I understand "Strong's Concordance", which is mostly used to locate the words in scripture, not truly define them, though it can sometimes be helpful for definition if one is careful with it, to compare those definitions to the actual definitions already given by God (Gen. 40:8 KJB) in scripture (Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11 KJB, &c.).



A common explanation given for having the vowels ('e, o, a' (in right to left order of the Hebrew - ADONAI - JewishEncyclopedia.com ), or in reverse, aleph (Psa. 119:1; אֲ) pronounced "ah", daleth (Psa. 119:25; "ō under the Dalet (דֹ)"), pronouned "oh", ai (or ay) for the Qamets under the Nun (Psa. 119:105) and the ending Jod (Psa. 119:73; נָי), pronounced "eye") from 'adonai' ("Lord", "לאדני", Psa. 110:1 HOT, transliterated, "ladoniy") inserted between the consonantal tetragrammaton ("יהוה"; Jod (Psa. 119:73), He (Psa. 119:33), Vau (Psa. 119:41), He (Psa. 119:33)), so that when a devout Talmudic Rabbi would read the Hebrew text, in private or in public, they would not 'take the name of the LORD (JHVH) thy God in vain' (Exo. 20:7) as they thought, that they might accidently misuse the name.

However, inserting the vowels of Adonai into the tetragrammaton would bring about a differing spelling and pronunciation than "JEHOVAH". The true vowels are "“Sheva, Shva (e, eh)”, pronounced "eh", “Cholam (o, oh)”, pronounced "oh", and “Kamatz (a, ah) (qamets)”, pronounced "ah"", so while close to the other, it is not the same. The Talmudic Rabbis wanted to also keep the true spelling / pronunciation of the name of the Elohiym away from the goyim (gentiles), as they (Talmudic Rabbins) still have the mindset that the goyim (gentiles) are unclean animals, and were they (gentiles) to pronounce the true name of the Elohiym, would bring dishonour to the name, and would essentially be taking that name in vain. This is presented in the Talmud, and other Rabbinical materials, as some of those quotations are in the book, in Chapter 2.

Many others, besides myself, have pointed out the historical incongruity of that 'common explanation' - The False Belief That Jehovah Was Pointed with the Vowel Markings of Adonai?

Isaiah 50, the whole chapter in Masoretic Hebrew simply uses the tetragrammaton, "יהוה". In some places in Isaiah 50, the phrase "Lord GOD" (Isa. 50:4,5,7,9; "אדני יהוה" (vss 4,5,9) or "ואדני יהוה" (vs 7), "adonai JHVH", or as some add their vowel markings "יֱהֹוִה", "ádonäy j'hôvih" rather than, "יְהֹוָה", J'hôvãh) is used, but again does not insert the vowels of 'adonai' into the tetragrammton, nor ever indicate that such should be done. The Masoretic Hebrew does not present such vowel markings for either case, but remains essentially consonantal in regards the tetragrammaton.



Yes, any may freely ask, and I will honestly /earnestly answer; and I have stated on several occasions, as I am not ashamed (Gen. 2:25; Psa. 31:17, 34:5, 119:6,46,80,116; Isa. 45:17, 49:23, 50:7, 54:4; Rom. 1:16, 5:5, 9:33, 10:11; 2 Tim. 1:12, 2:15; 1 Pet. 4:16; 1 Jhn. 2:28 KJB, &c.) of being Seventh-day Adventist.


Interesting. I assume by "Doctor" you mean a physician of a medical facility / practice, and not a "Doctor" as in merely a Ph.D. of theology? However, correct me if I made an incorrect assumption. Just curious, and you do not have to answer, which medical facility are they with?


There are several Seventh-day Adventists who use that term "trinity", but rarely properly define it to avoid the errors of other definitions of the same word, and so I like to avoid its use most of the time, as since there are several definitions to that word (some of which are listed in my book), and the majority definition as carried by the religious of the world have errors in their definition, and so I like to avoid all that baggage and error. If I questioned this "Doctor" on his position more deeply, I would probably find those errors and generic mistakes that many make, since some form of syncretism and false ecumenism, has come in over the years, ever since Q.o.D. (Questions on Doctrine) and 'Glacier View', and the absolute mess with the 'evangelical leaders', and theologians like Walter Martin, &c.

I am not "trinitarian" in the common erroneous definition of that word ("trinity") as it is logically and scripturally incoherent, and I use the words "Godhead", and the phrase "Eternal Heavenly Trio" instead.



Some 'pioneers', like Uriah Smith (a semi-arian, and remained that way until his death, and his views on the matter are plainly stated in his original printing of the book "Daniel and the Revelation", but have since been scrubbed by editors for its later re-printing, and I know, since I have read the original, and he is not shy about his semi-arian position), and some others, had varying views on Godhead, Father, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost / Spirit. As for instance, James Springer White (husband of sister Ellen. G. White), originally came from the 'Christian Connexion' brethren, and they too were arian, but James Springer White would later, after becoming a Seventh-day Adventist, renounce all that, and take hold of the view I have in my book and wrote on the subject. Others were more arian than even Uriah Smith. Others were staunchly "trinitarian" after the mainline churches (Roman, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, even Baptist, &c.), and held to those positions, in spite of the greater studies that came about and the increasing light on the subject, which shone the errors of the older positions they had once held. Many, saw the light in the Bible studies that came about and abandoned all their previously held beliefs, especially in this subject, and held to what is in my book. Both arianism and trinitarianism (as commonly defined) are in error, being two sides of the same erroneous coin.

Sister Ellen G. White, originally came from the Methodist faith, and so originally held to that view of "trinity", but as she studied more of her Bible (KJB, the "common version"), after becoming Seventh-day Adventist, and her visions and communications with the LORD (Jesus) and unfallen angels, and along with her husband James Springer White, began to weed out the errors as commonly held by others on "trinity", and eventually solidified into the position I have given in my book, "the eternal heavenly trio". Sister White even made her position clear in her book, The Deire of Ages, and The Great Controversy, which answered to Uriah Smith's errors in the subject. I also show that contrast in the book as well.

Please keep in mind that most of those 'pioneers' came out of various faiths (mostly Christian ones, but not always), and those faiths varied in their tenets, doctrines, dogmas, practices. Some, like Uriah Smith, held to their previous view points on this subject, but most abandoned their past ideologies and took up the truth of the matter in its place, having more clear light than in their past religious experience.

... to be continued ...

Hi A

I just noticed that your avatar has the same image as on your book.
Yesterday I said that I couldn't remember the image.
Silly me!

Also, I sure to pray that you'll be feeling well soon.
It's almost spring --- there's hope!
All these symptoms seem to disappear as spring makes its appearance.

And I'm happy to read along as you and @TrevorHL discuss.
He's also a very learned person and it's most interesting.

Maybe he could discuss Psalm 110:1 with YOU one day?
I tend to keep away from it because theologians cannot agree on its meaning - the persons involved -
and I can only go by what I've learned from 3 different denominations and, at times, this is not enough.
They all agree BTW. (that Lord cannot mean anyone within David's realm because HE is the King and he cannot have a Lord as used in the sense of master).

That would also be interesting to see.


God bless you both!

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Wrangler,

There is a difference between a translation and a definition.
YHWH is the name of God. It requires no translation. (Yet, it is translated Jehovah or capital LORD)

I consider "Jehovah" is definitely a wrong translation and LORD is only used to indicate that this is translated from YHWH rather than Lord which is translated from Adon or Adonai. I am happy with the use of Yahweh, but cannot prove that this is the most accurate.

What YHWH's name means is best defined in English as eternal.

I consider that Exodus 3:14 should be translated as "I will be".

The Yahweh Name

The Yahweh Name Part 1 Initial Declaration and Fulfilment The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14-15. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ...

www.christianityboard.com

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Adventageous]

Are you saying White rejected the orthodox teaching of Trinity

Yes. Compare her statements (Chapter 14, Section 3 in a nice detailed listing) with what 'the orthodox teaching of Trinity" is, and you will see they are not the same thing at all. You can start at the beginning of the chapter, or you can start at the comparison charts in that Chapter - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

and so also at least the original Seventh Day Adventists?

It would depend on which particular "Seventh-day Adventist" one is speaking about among them, as each are individuals, since Seventh-day Adventists are non-creedal. The 'fundamentals' (so called) are not a creed, but more like a 'how close to commonality' check. Some of the wording of those 'fundamentals' needs to be slightly corrected, by 'fundamental #1" (ie Bible).

So people like Uriah Smith remained semi-arian (he would not say Jesus was 'created' but rather 'came into existence by some means of the father in eternity past' (so closer to the error of Nicean Credalism, "born of the Father before all ages."), and was 'God in nature' by that means) in his personal life, and writings (but not accepted by the main body of Seventh-day Adventists in that particular area, and rejected by sister White (see Desire of Ages at least), James White, and the major publishing houses and printed materials, though occasionally, an article would appear therein just to give their viewpoint, or to be argued against, and he by his books (originals, unedited editons) still influence some to this day and is a constant 'headache' to have to 'battle' against theologically, not because it is not easy to refute, but just because certain individuals (who do not associate with the main body a lot) will bring it up, or spout it all over youtube, or some media platform),

while others were more arian than Uriah Smith was (like JW are, such as Ellet Joseph Waggoner; saying Jesus was simply created and not God in nature, but a finite created being, or worse arianism, Jesus was created at conception and had no pre-existence, &c) (and again not accepted by the main body of Seventh-day Adventists, and also rejected by sister White, James White, the major publishing houses and printed materials, though occasionally, an article would appear therein just to give their viewpoint, or to be argued against),

and other individuals remained more 'orthodoxical trinitarian' (think Nicean credalism, and such, or think Tertullian "Una Substantia", or Roman catholic "Perfectly One Superabound", &c., and was not accepted by the main body of Seventh-day Adventists, and also rejected by sister White, and James White, and most of the publishing houses, and printed materials, though, again, occasionally, articles by certain individuals would appear in them to give their view points, or to be argued against).

My experience with the SDA members is that they use similar wording as orthodox Christians, but I frequently have a feeling they do not believe the same way. It is like their words have somehow shifted meanings into something else.

Modern day, post Q.o.D. (Questions on Doctrine), post-'Glacier-View', majority of those identifying as Seventh-day Adventists indeed do "use similar wording as orthodox [catholicity]" and have no real depth of understanding, but simply repeat what is commonly said among other 'denominations', which is dangerous. Ask such persons in detail, and they will more than likely stumble over similar phrases commonly heard among 'orthodoxical trinitarians'. They would be in error, and not in harmony with scripture, neither with the S.o.P. / T.o.J. (Spirit of Prophecy / Testimony of Jesus; aka the materials written by sister White under the influence of the Holy Ghost / Spirit). Even the 'fundamentals' (so called, remember not a 'creed') have incorrect wording in this area (Godhead), and need to be corrected by Fundamental #1 (aka Bible, as sister White would say, 'the common version', or King James Bible).

Notice, the wording of these present "Fundamentals" (wordings have changed over the years in various 'fundamentals' to try to better represent what Seventh-day Adventists believe, though not always successful in that endeavor:

​

"2. The Trinity​

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.​

God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation.​

God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.​

(Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)" - https://adventist.org/beliefs#belief-2​

That is error in several ways, is not in agreement with the scriptures it cites, and not in agreement with the S.o.P. / T.o.J. at all (see the recommended Chapter 14, section 3 (linked previously).

1. It uses the word "trinity", which the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers nearly all (see James White, Alonzo Trevier Jones, et al) wrote against (see Roman "trinity" def., which they (pioneers) rejected "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound", 'God the Father as non-corporeal', &c.). So that is error.

2. While there is "one God" (ie, one "Elohiym"), this does not mean a singular Person / Being at all, but rather a true plurality of Persons / Beings that do work together in "unity" or harmony, as family, team, &c. Now, the wording of the 'fundamental' tries to mitigate that by the ":" (colon) and following words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons", but as one carefully notices, does not in that definition make them 3 Beings (as the Bible, and S.o.P. / T.o.J. states) though it says 3 Persons. This 'fundamental' tries 'very hard' to maintain a more 'orthodoxical catholic trinitarian' view, which is in error. This wording needs to be corrected to reflect the scripture it cites "Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2" and the S.o.P. / T.o.J. it claims to uphold in the later 'fundamental's 17-18 in regards the spiritual gift of prophecy and the messenger of the LORD (sister White) and what she wrote by the Holy Ghost / Spirit. Notice, in this 'fundamental' saying "one God", and "three coeternal Persons" (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but not mentioning "three Beings" it later seems to imply, though not overtly stated, in the language that those 3 Persons, of this "one God" are a singular 'being' or 'entity;' because the language of the 'fundamental' switches from plurality in persons, back to singularity of "He is infinite ... His ...", implying singularity of 'being', which is error, and even possibly implying 'sameness of essence / substance', which would also be error.

3. It confuses the actual Bible scriptures by switching between "God" (which was said to be "three coeternal persons", "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit") and then over to "He" (singularity). The word "God" in Hebrew is from Elohiym, a true plurality, never singularity. It is fine to speak of "God" as "He" if only referring to the Person / Being of the Father, or only to the Person / Being of the Son (as "God"), or only to the Person / Being of the Holy Ghost / Spirit (as "God"), but never all Three Persons / Beings as a singluar "He". The Bible does not do that, though in some places it seems (at first glance) to do that. What really happens is that "God" (Elohiym) is in a verse and a singular verb (&c.) is used in context, which just means that either all three performed that action as a unified whole (like a football team scoring), or as one among them, did the action (like a single kicker of a football team scoring). In other instances, the "God" (Elohiym; plurality of persons) when connected to singular "he", is simply referring to the Father as Ultimate Head (highest heirarchial God) among that Godhead of Three Beings / Persons. So, the 'fundamental' is mixing categories, and has category error in its wording. That needs to be corrected.

4. So the word "unity" seems a bit misleading, since it seems to imply "unity" of 'being', even though it mentions individual "persons", almost like a 'hydra' (triskelon, &c.), 3 heads (3 personal minds, personalities, persons) but a unified 'core'. That is error (or semi-sabbellianism, or semi-modalism).

 

[Adventageous]

Greetings again Adventageous,

Hi TrevorHL,

I have now had a quick read/browse of Chapters 1 and 2.

Ok.

There is far too much detail for me to respond to and even understand.

It is detailed for a reason. :) I have to deal with not merely the common person, but also the theological Ph.D'ed scholars, and so give a little to both. The common person doesn't need all the details, while a Ph'Ded scholar would probably need even more than I provided.

I most probably have a different view of Elohim, and part of this is the fact that I include the Angels in Genesis 1:26.

Gen. 1:26 says nothing about the created unfallen angelic hosts, and one would have to read such 'into' the text improperly to do so (eisegesis). The created unfallen angelic beings do not actually appear in Gen. until Gen. 3:24, after the fall of mankind. Does this mean that the created angelic hosts were not able to see the creation of this Earth, and local Sol system, or when Jesus came to visit in the Garden on occasions? Of course not, they were able to view from their locations (unfallen worlds), and later present (in the garden), as per Job 38:4-7; Gen. 3:24, but are not involved in creating anything in those verses, but only rejoice at creation by the Godhead in Gen. 1-2.

Gen. 1:26 only involves the Godhead, not created unfallen angelic beings.

​

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.​

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

In Gen. 3:24, the created unfallen angelic beings are not identified as "elohiym" [H430], but rather "Cherubims" [H3742, "הכרבים", "et-haK'ruviym"], with Elohiym being a true plural word, and cherubims being definitively only plurality of two, and no more.

Really, out of all the uses of the word "elohiym" in scripture (OT), only Psa. 8:5 (Psa. 8:6 HOT) uses the word in a way which includes created unfallen angelic beings.

Psa 8:5 KJB (8:6 HOT) For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [H430, "מאלהים", "mëélohiym"], and hast crowned him with glory and honour.​

Psa. 8:5, in context, also does not say that the created unfallen anglic beings were involved in creation, or were directly present at the location of the Earth and local Sol system at creation in Gen. 1-2 (neither does Job's texts, since it only speaks of timing "when", not "where" location of their rejoicing, and the texts of Job, do not use the word "elohiym" for the created unfallen angelic beings, but rather "כוכבי בקר", "Kôkh'vëy voqer", "morning stars" or heavenly hosts, and a second group called "כל־בני אלהים", "Käl-B'nëy élohiym", "the sons of God" which are the rulers / leadership of the other unfallen worlds, as the first Adam was once for this world). Why then attempt to include such an idea as 'an heavenly council' (Father, Son, Holy Ghost / Spirit and created unfallen angelic beings, &c) to the word "elohiym" in Gen. 1:26? No such wording, or even idea, is present in the immediate context, and only becomes present when incorrectly read into the words, simply because that idea was taught from someone else first (an aprioric bias).

When the word "God" (elohiym) is used in Gen. 1, there are only 3 Persons / Beings that it relates to in immediate context:

​

1. God said; Gen. 1:3 (The plurality of "Elohiym" singularly speaking by the Person / Being of the Father; Rev. 4:10-11);​

​

2. God made; Gen. 1:7 (The plurality of "Elohiym" singularly making through the Person / Being of the Son; Jhn. 1:1-3,4-18; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; &c.​

​

3. God saw, "spirit" (The plurality of "Elohiym" singularly witnessing all things at all times through the Person / Being of the Holy Ghost / Spirit; Gen. 1:2,31, &c.)​

If not, (and if as you surmised) then mankind was made not only in the image and likeness of Deities (Father, Son and Holy Ghost / Spirit), but also created unfallen angelic beings (as you would have surmised into Gen. 1:26), but mankind is never (in all of scripture) said to be made in the image and likeness of the created unfallen angelic hosts. In fact, scripture is clear than mankind and created unfallen angelic kind are differing in image and likeness (Exo. 25:20; "wings", &c.), and even nature (1 Cor. 15:40; Heb. 2:16 KJB). The created unfallen angelic beings cannot procreate, like mankind can (in after likeness of God who can create). I have a whole section in the book on this. There are other typological problems that arise, since Adam / Eve in their marriage was to represent Godhead on earth in stewardship and character. Adam, represents the Father, Eve, represents the Son (bone of Adam's bone, of his nature, sumbitted to the greater Head), and the Holy Ghost / Spirit (as God) uniting them in marriage (Gen. 2:22-25; Mat. 19:6; Mar. 10:9 KJB). A Three-fold union. Adding created unfallen angelic beings into the mix, spiritually speaking, would more be like what Scientology teaches in regards thetans and creation of mankind. The Three-fold union would be swamped by a vast multitudinous 'council', and the typology to Godhead is completely lost. There are still other issues that I will not belabour here.

Psa. 82:1,6 refers to humanity (vss7-8, "men", "nations") as "elohiym" (H430, "אלהים"); connected to Jhn. 10:34-36 in which Jesus applies it directly to Israelite humanity (using, G2316, "θεοι", "theoi").

Psa 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.​

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.​

So if one is going to postulate that 'angels' are part of the 'elohiym' of Gen. 1, why not also 'humans'?

Also I am content with my understanding of the Yahweh Name, and your book may contain a discussion of the translation of Exodus 3:14, but I accept "I will be" as the correct translation.

Your prerogative. I will continue to disagree with both positions you have taken. I do not intend to argue (present further material) than what I have already provided on those two things.

Also you have not answered my question:
In the picture that @Adventageous supplies with the title of his book:
Is this a depiction before or after Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled?

Why does it matter so much to you (or anyone really) if the image on the cover of the book is depicting Psa. 110:1? I am just curious, not asking harshly (it just seems a strange question, as if there was some a prioric bias / ideology behind it going on that I am not aware of). When creating the image through free AI (NightCafe), I was not concerned with any particular text in scripture, let alone Psa. 110:1. That it somewhat resembles that text is not purposeful upon my own knowing part. I simply prompted the AI to give a general idea of Father, Son and Holy Ghost (and a throne of Deity of course) into a general image, so I would have something for the cover of my book, which would somewhat convey the ideas in the book, and cost me nothing, since I have no money to pay an artist, and my own timing was limited, so I could not draw it myself.

What anyone thinks about Psa. 110:1 is irrelevant to me in the main, since the scripture does not require 'me', 'you' or 'them' to interpret anything (or for any of 'us' to exist for that matter), since that job is already accomplished internally by God (Gen. 40:8; Jhn. 10:35 &c.), and therefore not subject to any "private interpretation" of man (2 Pet. 1:20). Mankind may only "amen" what is already written by God, and interpreted by God therein (Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11 KJB).

... to be continued ...

 

[Adventageous]

... continued ...

A few other question relating to the cover picture:
We know that the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in the form of a dove. In heaven, is the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove hovering above the Throne? Is the Holy Spirit a Person?

The Holy Spirit is simply represented as taking the form of a 'dove' of light (not that it is a dove at all), simply because that is how the AI art program selected my prompt should be displayed. The Holy Ghost / Spirit in scripture has taken other forms in manifestation in representation, such as "cloven tongues like as of fire" (Act. 2:3 KJB), or likened unto "wind" (Jhn. 3:8 KJB), &c. if you look at some of my other AI art, you will see those representations as well. The AI program simply selected from the wording of the prompt, and borrowed a base image to use and 'created' the final result which I really liked (it was the 5th iteration and I had to flip it, so Jesus was at least on the right hand of the Father).

The symbolism of the 'dove ' is simply one of peace, gentleness, of heaven (flying in air), comforting (hovering over, brooding over). Does that mean that the Holy Ghost / Spirit eternally sits above the eternal throne of Deity in the 3rd heaven hovering as in symbolic shape of a dove? No, not at all. The image is not meant to imply that. The image is to simply give the ideology of the Three Persons / Beings in a simplified way, as commonly done among all Christian art (since 1st century AD).

The Holy Spirit is a Person / Being, an eternal living intelligence individual differing from the Father's Person / Being and the Son's Person / Being, but His nature is a complete mystery (unlike somewhat of the Father's and Son's natures) not spoken of in scripture (Deu. 29:29 KJB), and I have a small chapter on that in the book as well.

Just as 'created unfallen angelic beings' (as well as fallen ones, devils) are called "spirit" in scripture, and are living intelligences, living persons / beings, so too the Holy Ghost / Spirit, but is eternal, not-created as those others are.

What do the symbols on the centre of the chest of the Father and the Son represent?

Again, since the image was generated by a prompt to AI program (NightCafe), I did not specifcally choose (even in the prompt) that either the Father or Son should have such 'symbols'. However, upon retrospective consideration, and accepting the image as it was, they could represent the Father as the Sun & Shield (Psa. 84:11), and the Son as the morning Star (Rev. 22:16 KJB).

​

Psa_84:11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.​

​

Rev_22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.​

But, it was not intentional upon my part for such to be so. If any reject the retrospective given above, it is no worry to me one way or another.

Why is the symbol on the Son larger and brighter than that of the Father?

Again, not intentional upon my part. However, if you want a retrospective, think of the following text, or not, according to your prerogative:

Psa_138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.​

And Jesus is called the "word" of God (the Father). So the Father exalts and honours the Son (1 Sam. 2:30; Jhn. 8:54, 12:26; 2 Pet. 1:17), while the Son honours and exalts the Father (Exo. 20:12; Jhn. 8:49).

Eph_1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:​

All men see the Father through the brightness of the glory of Christ Jesus:

​

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.​

​

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.​

​

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?​

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.​

​

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;​

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

Any may take that retrospective explanation or leave it. That is their prerogative and I have no mind one way or another.

Is the Father significantly older than the Son?

The Father looks slightly differing than the Son, since one is "Father" (and his nature His own, underived; Jhn. 17:3) and the other is "the only-begotten" (monogene, Jhn. 3:16; only one of the same nature, which nature is the "charakter" of the Father's nature, and thus at least in this way are differing outwardly) "Son", and the Son is the "express image" (G5481, "χαρακτηρ", "charakter") of the Father's Person / Being, and not the other way 'round. The Father, in scripture is called "the ancient of days" (Dan. 7:9,13,22 KJB), but the Son never is called that. In technical / scriptural terms, the Father and Son are both eternal, having always existed together (along with the Holy Ghost / Spirit), and there was never in eternity past, present or future, where / when they are not in existence.

If one were to take the image as post-ascension, then Jesus would be 'younger' looking (being resurrected and glorified at 33 1/2 years of human age), and so in relation to God the Father's eternal nature, rather than Jesus' glorfied human nature (outwardly), the Father's would be represented as 'older', not that the Father is in age older than the Son, since both are eternally existant.

How a person takes the image in the details is really up to them, since it was only really meant to convey the simple idea of the Three Persons / Beings as Godhead, or Eternal Heavenly Trio, as the subtitle reads.

Is the Throne depicted the Father’s Throne, or the Throne of two Persons of the Trinity? Please consider Revelation 3:20.

Kind regards
Trevor

Do you mean Rev. 3:21?

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.​

The Throne in the image is really meant to be the eternal Throne of Deity (Rev. 3:21b, 4;2, 5:6,13 &c.), that the Father and Son sit upon in the 3rd heaven, while the glory of the eternal light of the Holy Ghost / Spirit surrounds the throne there (in the image represented symbolically as a dove). In sanctuary language this throne is depicted in two ways, by the Golden Table of Shewbread in the Holy Place (on the sides of the north), and by the Golden Ark and Mercy Seat in the Most Holy Place.

Hopefully those answers help you.

 

[talons]

Hi talon...
I've removed myself from this thread and I'm only responding because it's you.

Thank you for your graciousness .

Jesus is God.
Of course.
That's what the Christian religion teaches.

I agree .

It's not easy to see the Trinity in the NT although it IS there.
Several times the NT writers refer to Jesus as GOD.
Titus 2:13
John 20:28

I see Three but the Trinity word will come with creeds attached to it . The Apostles Creed I find acceptable , should I move beyond that ?

It is my firm belief that orthodox/mainline churches teach that Jesus is God.
If a person does not accept this...he cannot be defined as Christian.

Could a person be defined as a born again follower of Jesus ? Such as the Apostles were .
I have never thought the Christian moniker was a necessary thing but it is the label that was applied and it has stuck , take it or leave it .

He might be saved - that's not for us to know.
But he most certainly cannot call himself a Christian.
JWs think they're Christian.
Do you?

Jesus said you must be born again . Not sure what the JWs preach , but is not acceptable that much I remember .

There are members on this thread that are fighting tooth and nail to prove
that Jesus is NOT God.
They think they're Christian.
Do you?

A question for them would be , is Jesus their savior and do they worship Him ?

What does CHRISTIAN mean anyway?
Which is what this thread is about.

A member of the Christian religion .

It's not about salvation.
It's not about the Christian faith.

Salvation is what it is ALL about .

It's about the Christian RELIGION.

Lots of flavors in that box of chocolates .

Have its tenets already been established 2 thousand years ago
or are we going to change what those tenets are?

The tenets without the Trinitarian Creeds ,fine with me .

The point being that the tenets that define the Christian Religion cannot be changed.

They are there in the Bible and yes they cannot be changed .

 

[Adventageous]

Lots of flavors in that box of chocolates .

Did you just "Forrest Gump" a response? :)

 

[TrevorHL]

Greetings again Adventageous,

It is detailed for a reason. :) I have to deal with not merely the common person, but also the theological Ph.D'ed scholars, and so give a little to both. The common person doesn't need all the details, while a Ph'Ded scholar would probably need even more than I provided.

I appreciate the detailed replies but my answers may be brief. I am the Librarian for our meeting but also have a large personal collection. I have a fairly large box with SDA material that I have collected over the years, books and literature, some detailing my interaction with local SDAs, and I mainly now use some of this for reference. I have now your electronic book, which I place in the same category. As well I have many reference books and other material that support my perspective.

Gen. 1:26 says nothing about the created unfallen angelic hosts, and one would have to read such 'into' the text improperly to do so (eisegesis).

We live in different environments with different theological backgrounds. I suggest that you are improperly inserting into Genesis 1:26 the Trinity or Trio (eisegesis). I hold to the view that the correct exegesis of this verse is that the "us" and "our" includes the Angels. I consider the following is David's summary of Genesis 1:26-27:
Psalm 8:3–6 (KJV): 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou (Yahweh) hast made him a little lower than the angels (Hebrew Elohim), and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Why then attempt to include such an idea as 'an heavenly council' (Father, Son, Holy Ghost / Spirit and created unfallen angelic beings, &c) to the word "elohiym" in Gen. 1:26?

From my perspective there is no Trio, only the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. The only other Beings that God is inviting are the Angels. David speaks about the outcome, man was made lower than Yahweh and the Angels. I consider that the Angels are also mentioned in Genesis 3:5. They were present in the Garden.

In fact, scripture is clear than mankind and created unfallen angelic kind are differing in image and likeness (Exo. 25:20; "wings", &c.)

When Angels appeared they were mistaken as men at first. Despite much of the SDA pictures with very large wings suitable to fly to heaven, I do not accept that Angels have wings. I consider that Cherubim and Seraphim are symbolic creatures, not real.

Psa. 82:1,6 refers to humanity (vss7-8, "men", "nations") as "elohiym" (H430, "אלהים"); connected to Jhn. 10:34-36 in which Jesus applies it directly to Israelite humanity (using, G2316, "θεοι", "theoi").
Psa 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
So if one is going to postulate that 'angels' are part of the 'elohiym' of Gen. 1, why not also 'humans'?

The Judges were given the title Elohim because they represented God in their role of representing God in Judgement. This reveals the proper use of the word Elohim. I attended a SDA series on Daniel, but one evening when many were away, they brought out a similar pamphlet on the Trinity. Most of the Class murmured consent to John 10:30, and although I answered that Jesus is the Son of God, I could not properly answer the Class. I now consider that a proper exposition of Psalm 82 is a major contribution to unlock John 10:30-36. That was the last evening that I attended (for a number of reasons).

Your prerogative. I will continue to disagree with both positions you have taken. I do not intend to argue (present further material) than what I have already provided on those two things.

That's fine. I was introduced to the theme of the Yahweh Name when I was 19 y.o., over 60 years ago.

Why does it matter so much to you (or anyone really) if the image on the cover of the book is depicting Psa. 110:1?

My impression together with the Title of your book infers to me that this portrait applies to before and after the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God the Father. If that is the case, how do you interpret the vision of Jesus upon the Temple Throne in Isaiah 6? When and where?

therefore not subject to any "private interpretation" of man (2 Pet. 1:20)

I consider that this is a misapplication of this phrase. Rather it is talking about the inspiration of the prophets.

Again, since the image was generated by a prompt to AI program (NightCafe), I did not specifcally choose (even in the prompt) that either the Father or Son should have such 'symbols'.

It reminded me of some of the RCC artistry and also some of their idolatry. SDAs like artistry including Angels with very big wings.

Do you mean Rev. 3:21?
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Yes, it is called the Father's Throne, not the Throne of the Trio or Trinity. Jesus' Throne will be the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem during the 1000 years, compare Isaiah 6, while the SDA's anticipate a burnt and desolate earth, cf Acts 3:19-21. This is where I became a bit isolated in the SDA Daniel Class after they had considered Daniel 2. One particular member voiced to me a strong objection to my presence and strongly suggested that I should not attend again.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[HealthyShape]

Yes. Compare her statements (Chapter 14, Section 3 in a nice detailed listing) with what 'the orthodox teaching of Trinity" is, and you will see they are not the same thing at all. You can start at the beginning of the chapter, or you can start at the comparison charts in that Chapter - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


It would depend on which particular "Seventh-day Adventist" one is speaking about among them, as each are individuals, since Seventh-day Adventists are non-creedal. The 'fundamentals' (so called) are not a creed, but more like a 'how close to commonality' check. Some of the wording of those 'fundamentals' needs to be slightly corrected, by 'fundamental #1" (ie Bible).

So people like Uriah Smith remained semi-arian (he would not say Jesus was 'created' but rather 'came into existence by some means of the father in eternity past' (so closer to the error of Nicean Credalism, "born of the Father before all ages."), and was 'God in nature' by that means) in his personal life, and writings (but not accepted by the main body of Seventh-day Adventists in that particular area, and rejected by sister White (see Desire of Ages at least), James White, and the major publishing houses and printed materials, though occasionally, an article would appear therein just to give their viewpoint, or to be argued against, and he by his books (originals, unedited editons) still influence some to this day and is a constant 'headache' to have to 'battle' against theologically, not because it is not easy to refute, but just because certain individuals (who do not associate with the main body a lot) will bring it up, or spout it all over youtube, or some media platform),

while others were more arian than Uriah Smith was (like JW are, such as Ellet Joseph Waggoner; saying Jesus was simply created and not God in nature, but a finite created being, or worse arianism, Jesus was created at conception and had no pre-existence, &c) (and again not accepted by the main body of Seventh-day Adventists, and also rejected by sister White, James White, the major publishing houses and printed materials, though occasionally, an article would appear therein just to give their viewpoint, or to be argued against),

and other individuals remained more 'orthodoxical trinitarian' (think Nicean credalism, and such, or think Tertullian "Una Substantia", or Roman catholic "Perfectly One Superabound", &c., and was not accepted by the main body of Seventh-day Adventists, and also rejected by sister White, and James White, and most of the publishing houses, and printed materials, though, again, occasionally, articles by certain individuals would appear in them to give their view points, or to be argued against).


Modern day, post Q.o.D. (Questions on Doctrine), post-'Glacier-View', majority of those identifying as Seventh-day Adventists indeed do "use similar wording as orthodox [catholicity]" and have no real depth of understanding, but simply repeat what is commonly said among other 'denominations', which is dangerous. Ask such persons in detail, and they will more than likely stumble over similar phrases commonly heard among 'orthodoxical trinitarians'. They would be in error, and not in harmony with scripture, neither with the S.o.P. / T.o.J. (Spirit of Prophecy / Testimony of Jesus; aka the materials written by sister White under the influence of the Holy Ghost / Spirit). Even the 'fundamentals' (so called, remember not a 'creed') have incorrect wording in this area (Godhead), and need to be corrected by Fundamental #1 (aka Bible, as sister White would say, 'the common version', or King James Bible).

Notice, the wording of these present "Fundamentals" (wordings have changed over the years in various 'fundamentals' to try to better represent what Seventh-day Adventists believe, though not always successful in that endeavor:

​

"2. The Trinity​

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.​

God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation.​

God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.​

(Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)" - https://adventist.org/beliefs#belief-2​

That is error in several ways, is not in agreement with the scriptures it cites, and not in agreement with the S.o.P. / T.o.J. at all (see the recommended Chapter 14, section 3 (linked previously).

1. It uses the word "trinity", which the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers nearly all (see James White, Alonzo Trevier Jones, et al) wrote against (see Roman "trinity" def., which they (pioneers) rejected "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound", 'God the Father as non-corporeal', &c.). So that is error.

2. While there is "one God" (ie, one "Elohiym"), this does not mean a singular Person / Being at all, but rather a true plurality of Persons / Beings that do work together in "unity" or harmony, as family, team, &c. Now, the wording of the 'fundamental' tries to mitigate that by the ":" (colon) and following words "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons", but as one carefully notices, does not in that definition make them 3 Beings (as the Bible, and S.o.P. / T.o.J. states) though it says 3 Persons. This 'fundamental' tries 'very hard' to maintain a more 'orthodoxical catholic trinitarian' view, which is in error. This wording needs to be corrected to reflect the scripture it cites "Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2" and the S.o.P. / T.o.J. it claims to uphold in the later 'fundamental's 17-18 in regards the spiritual gift of prophecy and the messenger of the LORD (sister White) and what she wrote by the Holy Ghost / Spirit. Notice, in this 'fundamental' saying "one God", and "three coeternal Persons" (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but not mentioning "three Beings" it later seems to imply, though not overtly stated, in the language that those 3 Persons, of this "one God" are a singular 'being' or 'entity;' because the language of the 'fundamental' switches from plurality in persons, back to singularity of "He is infinite ... His ...", implying singularity of 'being', which is error, and even possibly implying 'sameness of essence / substance', which would also be error.

3. It confuses the actual Bible scriptures by switching between "God" (which was said to be "three coeternal persons", "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit") and then over to "He" (singularity). The word "God" in Hebrew is from Elohiym, a true plurality, never singularity. It is fine to speak of "God" as "He" if only referring to the Person / Being of the Father, or only to the Person / Being of the Son (as "God"), or only to the Person / Being of the Holy Ghost / Spirit (as "God"), but never all Three Persons / Beings as a singluar "He". The Bible does not do that, though in some places it seems (at first glance) to do that. What really happens is that "God" (Elohiym) is in a verse and a singular verb (&c.) is used in context, which just means that either all three performed that action as a unified whole (like a football team scoring), or as one among them, did the action (like a single kicker of a football team scoring). In other instances, the "God" (Elohiym; plurality of persons) when connected to singular "he", is simply referring to the Father as Ultimate Head (highest heirarchial God) among that Godhead of Three Beings / Persons. So, the 'fundamental' is mixing categories, and has category error in its wording. That needs to be corrected.

4. So the word "unity" seems a bit misleading, since it seems to imply "unity" of 'being', even though it mentions individual "persons", almost like a 'hydra' (triskelon, &c.), 3 heads (3 personal minds, personalities, persons) but a unified 'core'. That is error (or semi-sabbellianism, or semi-modalism).

Thanks, interesting. I will probably need to bookmark this post for later use if talking to some SDA's again, about whether they are orthodox Christians or not.

 

[ProDeo]

Hi talon...
I've removed myself from this thread and I'm only responding because it's you.

I hear you, at time discussions can be so disappointing, one need a break.

Jesus is God.
Of course.
That's what the Christian religion teaches.

It's not easy to see the Trinity in the NT although it IS there.
Several times the NT writers refer to Jesus as GOD.
Titus 2:13
John 20:28

The Godhead is all over in the OT and NT.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you for your graciousness .

I agree .

I see Three but the Trinity word will come with creeds attached to it . The Apostles Creed I find acceptable , should I move beyond that ?

The Trinity is explained by the creeds.
Creeds were used to define what Christians believed.
I'd have to ask which part of any creed you would not agree with, but that's up to you - it's not what this thread is about.

Could a person be defined as a born again follower of Jesus ? Such as the Apostles were .
I have never thought the Christian moniker was a necessary thing but it is the label that was applied and it has stuck , take it or leave it

Question is DOES THAT MONIKER MEAN ANYTHING?

The Apostles were followers.
They went on to DEFINE what a Christian is SUPPOSED to believe.
That came after Jesus ascension.

The Apostles also taught others to carry on the faith.
Are their writings of any importance?
I'm told they aren't inspired, and yet, persons on these Forums are following MEN that are teaching heresy.
Are these MEN inspired?

A person could be born again.
God will judge.

I'm talking about the Christian religion.

.

Jesus said you must be born again . Not sure what the JWs preach , but is not acceptable that much I remember .

Stating that the JWs is a Christian organization is not acceptable -with which you agree....
because they don't believe the number one core teaching of Christianity.
JESUS IS GOD.

If an organization does not follow Christian tenets,,,how could they be considered Christian?
And yet, they believe themselves to be Christian.
Know why?
Because the word CHRISTIAN is losing all meaning due to heretical teachings that have come about in the recent past.

A question for them would be , is Jesus their savior and do they worship Him ?

That is not the topic at hand.
The topic here is: WHAT DEFINES THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION?

A member of the Christian religion .

OK
But what IS the Christian RELIGION?
When you tell someone that you're Christian...what beliefs should come to their mind??

Salvation is what it is ALL about .

Jesus saves everyone IN HIM....
I was referring to this thread.

IT is NOT about salvation.

Lots of flavors in that box of chocolates .

The Christian RELIGION should not have different flavors.
It's ONE RELIGION and it should have a definition.

The tenets without the Trinitarian Creeds ,fine with me .

Some items of the creeds are in the tenets,,some are not.
This thread is not about creeds.

They are there in the Bible and yes they cannot be changed .

Agreed.
But they are being changed by some that are demanding that they can be defined as Christian....
So the question remains: Does the Christian religion have a definition...
or
Can it mean whatever any one person desires it to mean?

 

[GodsGrace]

I hear you, at time discussions can be so disappointing, one need a break.



The Godhead is all over in the OT and NT.

Good to see you back!

 

[GodsGrace]

Did you just "Forrest Gump" a response? :)

What does this mean??

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again Adventageous,

I appreciate the detailed replies but my answers may be brief. I am the Librarian for our meeting but also have a large personal collection. I have a fairly large box with SDA material that I have collected over the years, books and literature, some detailing my interaction with local SDAs, and I mainly now use some of this for reference. I have now your electronic book, which I place in the same category. As well I have many reference books and other material that support my perspective.

We live in different environments with different theological backgrounds. I suggest that you are improperly inserting into Genesis 1:26 the Trinity or Trio (eisegesis). I hold to the view that the correct exegesis of this verse is that the "us" and "our" includes the Angels. I consider the following is David's summary of Genesis 1:26-27:
Psalm 8:3–6 (KJV): 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou (Yahweh) hast made him a little lower than the angels (Hebrew Elohim), and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

I am sorry Trevor,,,
but your posts are much too long and I find it difficult to reply to them, as I've already stated other times.

BUT
If you want to say that the US in Genesis 1:26.... LET US MAKE MAN
is referring to the angels....

Isn't that equivalent to giving to angels the power to create?

LET US MAKE MAN is an inclusive statement.
It means angels can also create.

And we know that ONLY God can create.

From my perspective there is no Trio, only the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. The only other Beings that God is inviting are the Angels. David speaks about the outcome, man was made lower than Yahweh and the Angels. I consider that the Angels are also mentioned in Genesis 3:5. They were present in the Garden.

When Angels appeared they were mistaken as men at first. Despite much of the SDA pictures with very large wings suitable to fly to heaven, I do not accept that Angels have wings. I consider that Cherubim and Seraphim are symbolic creatures, not real.

The Judges were given the title Elohim because they represented God in their role of representing God in Judgement. This reveals the proper use of the word Elohim. I attended a SDA series on Daniel, but one evening when many were away, they brought out a similar pamphlet on the Trinity. Most of the Class murmured consent to John 10:30, and although I answered that Jesus is the Son of God, I could not properly answer the Class. I now consider that a proper exposition of Psalm 82 is a major contribution to unlock John 10:30-36. That was the last evening that I attended (for a number of reasons).

That's fine. I was introduced to the theme of the Yahweh Name when I was 19 y.o., over 60 years ago.

My impression together with the Title of your book infers to me that this portrait applies to before and after the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God the Father. If that is the case, how do you interpret the vision of Jesus upon the Temple Throne in Isaiah 6? When and where?

I consider that this is a misapplication of this phrase. Rather it is talking about the inspiration of the prophets.

It reminded me of some of the RCC artistry and also some of their idolatry. SDAs like artistry including Angels with very big wings.

Yes, it is called the Father's Throne, not the Throne of the Trio or Trinity. Jesus' Throne will be the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem during the 1000 years, compare Isaiah 6, while the SDA's anticipate a burnt and desolate earth, cf Acts 3:19-21. This is where I became a bit isolated in the SDA Daniel Class after they had considered Daniel 2. One particular member voiced to me a strong objection to my presence and strongly suggested that I should not attend again.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Wrangler]

I do not accept that Angels have wings.

I always believed the wings, like a halo in many paintings, are a way to perceive the glory of heavenly beings.

 

[Wrangler]

the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God

The implications are obvious. Language usage is not a friend to the inherently contradictory doctrine.

Yes, it is called the Father's Throne, not the Throne of the Trio or Trinity

Brilliant.

 

[Adventageous]

What does this mean??

It's a reference based on this 'movie' called "Forrest Gump" in which a statement is made ""My mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." In a separate scene, the character's mother says: "Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get.”"

 

[Adventageous]

SDAs like artistry including Angels with very big wings.

Sanctuary (Psa. 77:13 KJB):

Exo 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.​

Exo 25:19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.​

Exo 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.​

​

1Ki 6:23 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high.​

1Ki 6:24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits.​

1Ki 6:25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size.​

1Ki 6:26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub.​

1Ki 6:27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.​

​

1Ki_8:6 And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims.​

1Ki_8:7 For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above.​

​

1Ch_28:18 And for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out their wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD.​

​

2Ch 3:10 And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold.​

2Ch 3:11 And the wings of the cherubims were twenty cubits long: one wing of the one cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was likewise five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub.​

2Ch 3:12 And one wing of the other cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was five cubits also, joining to the wing of the other cherub.​

2Ch 3:13 The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits: and they stood on their feet, and their faces were inward.​

​

2Ch_5:7 And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, to the oracle of the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims:​

2Ch_5:8 For the cherubims spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above.​

​

Psa_18:10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.​

​

Isa_6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.​

​

Eze_10:5 And the sound of the cherubims' wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh.​

Eze_10:8 And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man's hand under their wings.​

Eze_10:16 And when the cherubims went, the wheels went by them: and when the cherubims lifted up their wings to mount up from the earth, the same wheels also turned not from beside them.​

Eze_10:19 And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight: when they went out, the wheels also were beside them, and every one stood at the door of the east gate of the LORD'S house; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.​

Eze_11:22 Then did the cherubims lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.​

​

Heb_9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.​

​

Those images and models on earth were based on that which exists in Heaven, as seen by Moses, and given to David, and also Solomon by the Holy Ghost / Spirit.