Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
7,022
3,863
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
We can go on Aunty, but I think you know what the Bible says....
I do know what the Bible says very well, @Hobie……every one of the verses you quoted is either mistranslated or misinterpreted with bias towards the trinity as the main driver.
I could go on and show you the errors in every verse, but it would take me all day….and what would be the point?

A couple of points I will address are as follows…
it is a hard thing to call oneself Christian and deny the divinity of Christ as that is all throughout the Bible.
No one is denying Christ’s “divinity”…..can we make that clear…..Jesus is, was, and always will be the “divine” “son of God”…..but being “divine” does not make him a “deity”.
Strongs primary definition of “theos” is…..
  1. a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
Any god or god-like one could be called by this term. Jesus was definitely God-like because he had all of his Father’s qualities and attributes. Even satan is called “theos“ in 2 Cor 4:4.

Jesus was not “worshipped” by angels or men because he was a man. The word “worship” in Greek, doesn’t mean what it means in English.
This word when rendered to God is “worship”……but when rendered to a human it is “obeisance”….Jesus was a human. Do you understand the difference between worship and obeisance?

Obeisance is an act of honor and respect….like bowing down to kiss the hand….something common in Bible times. As the example with the magi demonstrates….they did not come to worship a god…..they came to offer gifts and obeisance to a new King! They were pagan astrologers who followed ”his star” to the one person who would want this new king dead. If the star came from God it would have led them straight to Jesus, as it did only after Herod had plotted to kill to child that would have been a threat to his own dynasty. Open your eyes man! There is so much that you ignore!

Calling someone “theos” is not calling them Yahweh…as John 10:31-36 plainly says. Human judges in Israel were called “gods” by Yahweh himself….they represented him…..so if Jesus was Yahweh, he would have been called “ho theos” to specifically identify him. Nowhere is Jesus called “ho theos”.

Jesus came as “the son of God”, and rightly can be called ”theos” in John 1:1, as it refers to a divine personage, but in Greek that verse identified Yahweh as “ho theos” but the Word is simply “theos”. If you do not do original word studies, but instead rely on outdated pro-trinitarian Bible translations…you will never see the truth.

When Jesus comes as judge of all the world, only those who “know the only true God and the one he sent” will inherit everlasting life. (John 17:3) Those found worshipping the wrong god will not fare well.

It appears that your sect has changed lanes on this important doctrine…..but it is entirely of Catholic origin.
This brings you into line with the rest of Christendom, which by the look of things, has claimed another victim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHC

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Position of Ellen White...

During the early decades of our church Ellen White made statements which could be interpreted as anti-Trinitarian. She at times referred to the Holy Spirit as 'it,'8 and in the context of her description of the fall of Satan, she wrote, "A special light beamed in his [Satan's] countenance, and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels; yet Jesus, God's dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created. Satan was envious of Christ, and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone.

The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that he might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon his Son.... The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself; so that wherever was the presence of his Son, it was his own presence.... His Son would carry out His will and His purposes, but would do nothing of himself alone."9

This seems to imply that after the angels were created, they did not know or recognize that Christ was equal with the Father and it took a special 'heavenly council' to inform them of this.

8 Testimonies to the Church, 1:124; 1888 Material, 1249; Pamphlet 154, 4; Youth Instructor, 8-1-1895.
9 Spirit of Prophecy, 1:17, 18 (emphasis supplied).

On the other hand, if Christ's equality was a 'special honor' which was conferred upon him, the implication is that he was not equal to the Father before that time.10 In the book Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) she wrote, 'He [Satan] was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host, angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wisdom and glory above them. Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father.'11 Two paragraphs further on she explains, There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer's deceptions.12

Nevertheless, these kind of statements are used today to support to the semi-Arian position that some Adventists have recently begun to advocate. Could it be that these passages express Ellen White's understanding of Christ's position in heaven at that time? And that as time progressed she received more light which eventually led to her very clear Trinitarian statements in the late 1890's.13 At any rate, we should not forget that in contrast to the two or three statements of this kind, there are a number of passages where she emphasizes that Christ was equal with the Father from the beginning, 14 and that he was God essentially and in the highest sense.15

As is the case with ambiguous texts in Scripture, we need to clarify ambiguous passages in Ellen White with clear statements on the topic. As we shall see below, during the 1890s several statements came from the pen of Ellen White which clearly support the Trinitarian concept of God.

There were also changes in the understanding of the Godhead in the writings of other Adventist authors as the nineteenth century progressed, e.g., by about 1880 the idea of Christ as a created being faded away and the concept of Christ as the 'begotten' Son of God, became the standard position. The word begotten was taken literally which meant that Christ at some point in eternity
proceeded from the Father, and was therefore subordinate to Him......
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A Time of Transition
The first positive reference to the Trinity in Adventist literature appeared in the Bible Students Library series in 1892. The Bible Students Library was a series of pamphlets, designed for the public, containing brief and pointed essays on Bible doctrines, the fulfillment of prophecy, and other aspects of SDA teachings.16 Pamphlet number 90 was entitled 'The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity.' What is significant is the fact that the author, Samuel Spear, was not an Adventist. The pamphlet was a reprint of an article from the New York Independent of November 14,1889.17

While teaching the doctrine of 'one God subsisting and acting in three persons',18 Spear insists on the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. 'The subordination of Christ, as revealed in the Bible' he says, 'is not adequately explained by referring it simply to His human nature... His subordination extends to His divine as well as His human nature.'19 Although this pamphlet was certainly an improvement on previous positions it still fell short of the true picture of the Trinity. Nevertheless, the fact that it was printed by Pacific Press indicates that the concept of the Trinity was beginning to be accepted by the church. The breakthrough came with the publication of Ellen White's article "Christ the Life-giver" in Signs of the Times in 1897,20 and the book "The Desire of Ages" in 1898. In "Christ the Life-giver" after quoting John 10:18 "No one takes it [life] from Me, but I lay it down of Myself," she says, "In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived."21 In Desire of Ages in the chapter 'The Light of Life' she quotes Jesus answer to the Jews in John 8:58 "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Then she comments, "Silence fell upon the vast assembly. The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He announced Himself to be the self-existent One, He who had been promised to Israel, 'whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity'." Micah 5:2 margin.

16 Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v. Bible Students Library.
17 This pamphlet is reproduced in M. L. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews (Review and Herald, 1948), 115-124.
18 Samuel Spear, The Bible Doctrine of the Trinity, New York Independent (November 14,1889), 9.
19 Ibid., 7.
20 Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897.
21 Quoted in Selected Messages, 1:296.
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A few pages further in the book, in the chapter 'Lazarus, Come Forth' she repeats her statement from 1897, "In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived."23 These statements clearly describe Christ as God in the highest sense. He is not derived from the Father as most Adventists up to that time believed, nor has divinity been bestowed upon him. He is the self-existent One, equal to the Father in every respect. In fact Ellen White had said that much already in 1897, "He was equal with God, infinite and omnipotent ... He is the eternal selfexisting Son."24

In spite of these clear statements from the pen of Ellen White, it took many years before this truth was accepted by the church at large. Not only did Uriah Smith, editor of the Review and Herald, believe until his death in 1903 that Christ had a beginning, but during the first decades of this century there were many who held on to the view that in some way Christ came forth from the Father, i.e., he had a beginning, and was therefore inferior to Him.

During the 1919 Bible Conference, for example, Elder W. W. Prescott made a presentation on 'The Person of Christ.' In the ensuing discussion the question of the Trinity was raised. L. L. Caviness voiced his concern and said, "I cannot believe that the two persons of the Godhead are equal, the Father and the Son, that one is the Father and the other the Son, and that they might be just as well the other way round.... In praying he [Christ] said it was his wish that the disciples might see the glory which he had with the Father, and which the Father had given him. It was not something he had all through eternity, but the Father had some time given to him the glory of God. He is divine, but he is the divine Son. I cannot explain further than that, but I cannot believe the so called Trinitarian doctrine of the three persons always existing." 25

Elder Prescott then raised the question, "Can we believe in the Deity of Christ without believing in the eternity of Christ?"26 Some of those present said, "yes." W. T. Knox suggested that Christ was the eternal Son in the same sense that Levi was in the loins of Abraham. He said, "There came a time in a way we cannot comprehend nor the time that we cannot comprehend, when by Gods mysterious operation the Son sprung from the bosom of his Father and had a separate existence .... "27

This discussion indicates that twenty years after Ellen White's clear statement on the eternal divinity of Christ and his absolute equality with the Father, many in the church still held on to the idea that Christ, although divine, had a beginning.

In 1930 church administrators in Africa requested that the General Conference include a statement in the Yearbook of what Seventh-day Adventists believe. "Such a statement," they said, "would help government officials and others to a better understanding of our work."28

A committee of four (M. E. Kern, E. R. Palmer, C. H. Watson, F. M. Wilcox) was appointed to draft such a statement. They produced a 22 point statement which in 1931 was printed in the Adventist Yearbook. Fundamental Beliefs three and four stated:

"That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matt. 28:19.

That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining His divine nature He took upon Himself the nature of the human family, lived on the earth as a man, exemplified in His life as our Example the principles of righteousness, attested His relationship to God by many mighty miracles, died for our sins on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father where He ever lives to make intercession for us. John 1:1, 14; Heb. 2:9-18; 8:1,2; 4:14-16; 7:25.29"

These statements fully expressed the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Christ is described as "very God", self-existent and eternal, and the Holy Spirit is identified as the third person of the Godhead.

...Ellen White in 1897 and 1898 taught that in Christ "was life, original, unborrowed, underived."43 This can only be true if he was God in the highest sense and did not derive his existence from the Father. In regard to the Holy Spirit she told the students at Avondale College in 1899, "We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds."44

In the context of the Kellogg crisis, Ellen White in 1905 wrote a warning to our workers connected with the medical work in which she unambiguously endorsed the Trinity doctrine. "The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifest.... The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Savior. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers ' the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ' those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ."45

Only someone who believed the Trinity doctrine would speak of 'three living persons in the heavenly trio.' Anti-Trinitarians would not use such language. Furthermore, her bold statements on the Trinity took many by surprise. M. L. Andreasen recounts, "I remember how astonished we were when Desire of Ages was first published, for it contained some things that we believed were unbelievable; among other things the doctrine of the trinity which was not generally accepted by Adventists then."46

During 1909 Andreasen spent three months at Elmshaven where he was able to look at her handwritten manuscripts. He wrote, "In her own handwriting I saw the statements which I was sure she had not written, could not have written. Especially was I struck with the now familiar quotation in Desire of Ages, page 530: 'In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.' This statement at that time was revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my former view and that of the denomination on the deity of Christ."47

This clearly took place long before Ellen White's death. Thus, the charge that only after Ellen G. White's death was the Trinity doctrine introduced into the church cannot be sustained.
.....

10 A similar statement is found as late as 1904. At that time she wrote, "God is the Father of Christ; Christ is the Son of God. To Christ had been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son" (Testimonies to the Church, 8:268). This statement appears immediately following a quote from Hebrews 1:1-5, where reference is made to the fact that
Christ after his ascension is "appointed heir of all things" and is "being made so much better than the angels." Her statement in this
context can be seen as an elaboration of the text in Hebrews which refers to Christ after his ascension.

11 Patriarchs and Prophets, 37.
12 Ibid, 38.
13 Another case of increasing light leading to a clearer understanding are her statements on the eating of pork. In 1858 she wrote, 'If God requires His people to abstain from Swine's flesh, He will convict them on the matter' (1T 207). At that time most Adventists ate pork. After
receiving more light on the subject, she wrote in 1868, 'You know that the use of Swine's flesh is contrary to His express command, given
not because He wished to especially show His authority, but because it would be injurious to those who should eat it.' (CD 392).

14 Fundamentals of Education, 536; Counsels To Parents, Teachers, and Students, 13; Letter 64, 1909 (Mind, Character, and Personality,
1:352).
15 Selected Messages, 1:247.
20 Signs of the Times, April 8, 1897.
21 Quoted in Selected Messages, 1:296.
22 The Desire of Ages, 469-470.
23 Ibid., 530.
24 Manuscript 101, 1897; Manuscript Release, 12:395.
25 1919 Bible Conference Transcripts, July 6, 1919, 57.
26 Ibid., 62.
27 Ibid., 64.
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I do know what the Bible says very well, @Hobie……every one of the verses you quoted is either mistranslated or misinterpreted with bias towards the trinity as the main driver.
I could go on and show you the errors in every verse, but it would take me all day….and what would be the point?

A couple of points I will address are as follows…

No one is denying Christ’s “divinity”…..can we make that clear…..Jesus is, was, and always will be the “divine” “son of God”…..but being “divine” does not make him a “deity”.
Strongs primary definition of “theos” is…..
  1. a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
Any god or god-like one could be called by this term. Jesus was definitely God-like because he had all of his Father’s qualities and attributes. Even satan is called “theos“ in 2 Cor 4:4.

Jesus was not “worshipped” by angels or men because he was a man. The word “worship” in Greek, doesn’t mean what it means in English.
This word when rendered to God is “worship”……but when rendered to a human it is “obeisance”….Jesus was a human. Do you understand the difference between worship and obeisance?

Obeisance is an act of honor and respect….like bowing down to kiss the hand….something common in Bible times. As the example with the magi demonstrates….they did not come to worship a god…..they came to offer gifts and obeisance to a new King! They were pagan astrologers who followed ”his star” to the one person who would want this new king dead. If the star came from God it would have led them straight to Jesus, as it did only after Herod had plotted to kill to child that would have been a threat to his own dynasty. Open your eyes man! There is so much that you ignore!

Calling someone “theos” is not calling them Yahweh…as John 10:31-36 plainly says. Human judges in Israel were called “gods” by Yahweh himself….they represented him…..so if Jesus was Yahweh, he would have been called “ho theos” to specifically identify him. Nowhere is Jesus called “ho theos”.

Jesus came as “the son of God”, and rightly can be called ”theos” in John 1:1, as it refers to a divine personage, but in Greek that verse identified Yahweh as “ho theos” but the Word is simply “theos”. If you do not do original word studies, but instead rely on outdated pro-trinitarian Bible translations…you will never see the truth.

When Jesus comes as judge of all the world, only those who “know the only true God and the one he sent” will inherit everlasting life. (John 17:3) Those found worshipping the wrong god will not fare well.

It appears that your sect has changed lanes on this important doctrine…..but it is entirely of Catholic origin.
This brings you into line with the rest of Christendom, which by the look of things, has claimed another victim.
I know you do Aunty, all I am giving you is what Gods Word declares, what you do with it is your choice. But to deny the divinity of Christ who was with the Father before the foundation of the world is not mans prerogative, these are the deep things of God and we should thread lightly with much fear and trepidations on the truths of the enigma that is our almighty sovereign. That is why I use the word 'GodHead' as I know what is of Catholic origin and they have muddied the issue, but we must not keep it from the study of the deep things of God, the nature of Christ with great care.
 

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
7,022
3,863
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I know you do Aunty, all I am giving you is what Gods Word declares, what you do with it is your choice. But to deny the divinity of Christ who was with the Father before the foundation of the world is not mans prerogative, these are the deep things of God and we should thread lightly with much fear and trepidations on the truths of the enigma that is our almighty sovereign. That is why I use the word 'GodHead' as I know what is of Catholic origin and they have muddied the issue, but we must not keep it from the study of the deep things of God, the nature of Christ with great care.
All I can say is, please ditch the old KJV…an awful translation with many errors!

Use a variety of translations to get an overview, and use a good concordance to introduce yourself to what the original words used in the Bible, meant to the writer…not to the biased English translators.
See how the words are used in other verses of the Bible….this is a real eye opener.

If you stick to what you have posted here….then I fear you have been ensnared like the majority.

Why are “few” found on the road to life? (Matt 7:13-14) and why will the “many” be trying to offer Jesus their excuses when he comes as judge? (Matt 7:21-23) Why does Jesus say that he “never knew” those ones and rejects them as his disciples?

“Never“ means “not ever”….a sobering thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHC

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
All I can say is, please ditch the old KJV…an awful translation with many errors!

Use a variety of translations to get an overview, and use a good concordance to introduce yourself to what the original words used in the Bible, meant to the writer…not to the biased English translators.
See how the words are used in other verses of the Bible….this is a real eye opener.

If you stick to what you have posted here….then I fear you have been ensnared like the majority.

Why are “few” found on the road to life? (Matt 7:13-14) and why will the “many” be trying to offer Jesus their excuses when he comes as judge? (Matt 7:21-23) Why does Jesus say that he “never knew” those ones and rejects them as his disciples?

“Never“ means “not ever”….a sobering thought.
Aunty, Aunty, I know the devil hates the true text of Gods Word, as it shows the true nature of Christ, but you need to look at and study the full history of the 'received text'. Or what has been the Majority Text, which is what the vast majority of manuscripts copies from original, and what the Bible versions were based on till Holt and Westcotts changes from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts which form the basis of the Minority Text. We see the Minority Text is based on previously unknown or unrecognized Alexandrian manuscripts, some curiously under Catholic control. These were called Vaticanus and Sinaiticus since they were somehow 'found' in the Vatican Library a monastery in the Sinai respectively. Neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria along with the Codex Alexandrinus, in Egypt the center of the gnosticism heresy.

Gnosticism tried to blend the new religion but ultimately was against traditional Christian beliefs and attempted to combine Paganism with Christianity. Some Gnostic groups had beliefs that often contradicted the beliefs of other Gnostic groups. The one thing they all had in common was that all of these groups departed from the orthodox Christian faith, but the Gnostic mixed their beliefs into the manuscripts they made of the scriptures, putting changes of their particular beliefs or taking out what disagreed with it.

The Alexandrian Codices that Westcott ad Hort's version used, the Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus reflect this and are unique in their reading as a whole. In fact many, if not all of the passages altered or missing from these codices were in fact quoted by the early church fathers as far back as the late 1st century. Westcott and Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic Greek copies back into their original Greek language and differences began to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott and Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) and even the New KJV (NKJV), and what gives them away is the subtle shift away from the divinity of Christ, what appears to be their purpose....
 

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
7,022
3,863
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I know the devil hates the true text of Gods Word, as it shows the true nature of Christ, but you need to look at and study the full history of the 'received text'.
@Hobie…I don’t know why you assume that I haven’t thoroughly investigated all the ancient manuscripts and their promoters…..there is one truth…and that is what the nation of Israel knew early in their history….

Deut 6:4 KJV…
”Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”. (Jehovah our God is one Jehovah”)

I think you know that when you see the word “LORD” written in capitals, it is where the Tetragrammaton was seen in the original Hebrew text.….Does the KJV tell us the name of “the LORD”?
Yes it does in Psalm 83:18…
”That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.”

Can you tell me why it is not translated that way in almost 7000 places where it has been substituted with the title, LORD? Even one good reason….? There aren’t any.

So, for God’s ancient servants, “Jehovah” was ONE…not three.
The devil has you all worshipping the wrong god….he is jumping for joy at how easy it was to get your sect out of the right lane, and into the wrong one with everyone else who accepts this falsehood. The majority do not have the truth….”few” are on the road to life…(Matt 7:13-14) and they teach one truth, of one God, and one Jesus Christ, that is shared by them all. (1 Cor 1:10)

Did the apostles have any doubt about who their God was?

1 Cor 8:5-6….KJV…
”For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”

Who is identified there as the “one God” of the apostles collectively? Jesus? No! Jesus is their Lord (Master) but only Jehovah is “God the Father”.

Translators were true to their own agenda…and that was promoting something Jesus never once taught.

Altering the very nature of God is a serious thing…..and those who did that will answer to the God of Jesus Christ. Those who stood fast with the truth of the Bible, will be rewarded. (Rev 3:12)
In that verse Jesus mentions his “new name”….can you point out a single verse in the Bible where Jehovah is called by another name?

How do you make a foundational doctrine out of nothing but a series of mistranslations? They had help….It’s the ultimate deception, from the ultimate deceiver…..do not underestimate him.

All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott and Hort Coptic Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) and even the New KJV (NKJV), and what gives them away is the subtle shift away from the divinity of Christ, what appears to be their purpose....
Thank God some were vigilant enough to see the shift in the other direction, and correct it….
There is way more scripture arguing against the trinity than there are any verses supporting it…..in fact, there are no verses supporting it. Not a single verse in the whole Bible is a clear statement about the triune nature of God…..for such an important belief, don’t you think that God and his son would have clear unequivocal statements supporting it?
 
  • Love
Reactions: TheHC

AngelicArcher

Active Member
Mar 15, 2025
253
221
43
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that time. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam, that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations.

Physically, Christ was like us, feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations. Jesus' mental human nature (tendency toward sin) was that of the unfallen Adam and his physical human nature (physical body) was that after the fall of Adam." and at the same time why it makes it hard to understand. What makes Jesus equal (having no advantage over other human beings), is that he had all the damage done by sin (Adam’s human nature after the fall), but he had what Peter calls 'the Mind of Christ' which was what Adam was given to begin with and Paul speaks of, that man can have and become dead to sin. Thus Christ has no advantage in overcoming sin as through the power of the Holy Spirit we also can have the 'Mind of Christ'.
I disagree with the idea Jesus took Adams sin nature.

Jesus was the word,God,made flesh.
And Colossians 2:9 tells us,“For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form.”

I think God cannot sin nor bear a sin nature in the flesh.
 

TrevorHL

Member
Jul 17, 2024
209
57
28
81
New South Wales / Lake Macquarie
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Greetings again Hobie,
Happy Sabbath my brother
I do not endorse the present keeping of the Sabbath, as Christ is the Tue Sabbath, and you are holding on to the shadow and not the Substance.
Yes, it is a mystery and we shall fully understand it till when we get to heaven and see how it all plays out, but till then I would say tread carefully on what is not revealed fully to us as of now.
Your note of caution seems to be in direct contrast with your previous strong claim:
I think everyone sees Gods truth on this, and it is a hard thing to call oneself Christian and deny the divinity of Christ as that is all throughout the Bible.
You are suggesting that @Aunty Jane and myself are not Christian because we do not accept the Trinity.
The Doctrine of the Trinity among Adventists
I appreciate the extensive SDA information on this subject.

The pioneer of my fellowship was a believer in the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. In 1858 he spoke to a large assembly of Jews in New York on a number of occasions, speaking about the One God, God the Father and disagreeing with the Trinity. I have a copy of his talks as he reported them in his magazine.

My own experience with the SDAS with this subject was many years ago, when I was attending a series at the local SDA Church on the subject of Daniel. After a few weeks, when many were away, they issued a similar pamphlet titled "The Trinity". One of the key verses in the pamphlet was John 10:30 and when we considered this, there was a general murmur of consent that this taught the Trinity. I gave my disagreement, stating that Jesus is the Son of God, but I could not give a detailed answer. This was the last time that I attended, but since then I have thoroughly determined my answer to this passage and many other so-called Trinitarian passages.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Hobie…I don’t know why you assume that I haven’t thoroughly investigated all the ancient manuscripts and their promoters…..there is one truth…and that is what the nation of Israel knew early in their history….

Deut 6:4 KJV…
”Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”. (Jehovah our God is one Jehovah”)

I think you know that when you see the word “LORD” written in capitals, it is where the Tetragrammaton was seen in the original Hebrew text.….Does the KJV tell us the name of “the LORD”?
Yes it does in Psalm 83:18…
”That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.”

Can you tell me why it is not translated that way in almost 7000 places where it has been substituted with the title, LORD? Even one good reason….? There aren’t any.

So, for God’s ancient servants, “Jehovah” was ONE…not three.
The devil has you all worshipping the wrong god….he is jumping for joy at how easy it was to get your sect out of the right lane, and into the wrong one with everyone else who accepts this falsehood. The majority do not have the truth….”few” are on the road to life…(Matt 7:13-14) and they teach one truth, of one God, and one Jesus Christ, that is shared by them all. (1 Cor 1:10)

Did the apostles have any doubt about who their God was?

1 Cor 8:5-6….KJV…
”For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”

Who is identified there as the “one God” of the apostles collectively? Jesus? No! Jesus is their Lord (Master) but only Jehovah is “God the Father”.

Translators were true to their own agenda…and that was promoting something Jesus never once taught.

Altering the very nature of God is a serious thing…..and those who did that will answer to the God of Jesus Christ. Those who stood fast with the truth of the Bible, will be rewarded. (Rev 3:12)
In that verse Jesus mentions his “new name”….can you point out a single verse in the Bible where Jehovah is called by another name?

How do you make a foundational doctrine out of nothing but a series of mistranslations? They had help….It’s the ultimate deception, from the ultimate deceiver…..do not underestimate him.


Thank God some were vigilant enough to see the shift in the other direction, and correct it….
There is way more scripture arguing against the trinity than there are any verses supporting it…..in fact, there are no verses supporting it. Not a single verse in the whole Bible is a clear statement about the triune nature of God…..for such an important belief, don’t you think that God and his son would have clear unequivocal statements supporting it?
But what is the purpose of the changes and deletions of the Alexandrian codices is what you need to ask yourself, and the answer is always the same. To deny or obscure the deity of Christ....

The devil has made it his mission and the church of Rome with the Alexandrian text has tried to change Gods Word to accomplish this, so we must discern and understand the corruption that was brought in and spread with what can only be seen as not just bad intent, but to hide the truth given.
 

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Greetings again Hobie,

I do not endorse the present keeping of the Sabbath, as Christ is the Tue Sabbath, and you are holding on to the shadow and not the Substance.

Your note of caution seems to be in direct contrast with your previous strong claim:

You are suggesting that @Aunty Jane and myself are not Christian because we do not accept the Trinity.

I appreciate the extensive SDA information on this subject.

The pioneer of my fellowship was a believer in the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. In 1858 he spoke to a large assembly of Jews in New York on a number of occasions, speaking about the One God, God the Father and disagreeing with the Trinity. I have a copy of his talks as he reported them in his magazine.

My own experience with the SDAS with this subject was many years ago, when I was attending a series at the local SDA Church on the subject of Daniel. After a few weeks, when many were away, they issued a similar pamphlet titled "The Trinity". One of the key verses in the pamphlet was John 10:30 and when we considered this, there was a general murmur of consent that this taught the Trinity. I gave my disagreement, stating that Jesus is the Son of God, but I could not give a detailed answer. This was the last time that I attended, but since then I have thoroughly determined my answer to this passage and many other so-called Trinitarian passages.

Kind regards
Trevor
My brother,

I am just giving truth, and I've been on the forums for over 25 years, starting with politics mostly as its getting almost impossible to do anything with the laws and authority the powers that be are striving for. They took the land from our friends and my inlaws and gave them nothing or less than the real value, and I took the fight to the local and state administration, but we are slowly loosing any say over our lives to say the least especially with the indoctrination being done to those coming up through the schools.

Then I was asked to be a moderator on the Christian forums, and my background is political science so I had to do a lot of studying of Gods Word harder than for any of my classes and so have been learning and seeking deeper understanding of Gods truth. So I try not to rush to any conclusions but work my way through these concepts and core truths, but have with what I consider Gods help, come to some clear understandings. So its been many years and much study, and slowly I have taken it to the next level and begun to teach and preach what I have learned, to say nothing of what I share online.

So if I overstep, I have no issue with a brother (or sister) helping me, to better understand and as I tell Aunty, have 'iron sharpen iron', and she knows I mean no harm. But I stand firm when truth is being set aside or hidden and many may say give what the scriptures declare with unflinching candor, as I care about my brothers and sisters in Christ and hope to see them in heaven when all is said and done.

God Bless
Rick
 
Last edited:

Hobie

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2009
3,524
1,308
113
South Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Hobie…I don’t know why you assume that I haven’t thoroughly investigated all the ancient manuscripts and their promoters…..there is one truth…and that is what the nation of Israel knew early in their history….

Deut 6:4 KJV…
”Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”. (Jehovah our God is one Jehovah”)

I think you know that when you see the word “LORD” written in capitals, it is where the Tetragrammaton was seen in the original Hebrew text.….Does the KJV tell us the name of “the LORD”?
Yes it does in Psalm 83:18…
”That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.”

Can you tell me why it is not translated that way in almost 7000 places where it has been substituted with the title, LORD? Even one good reason….? There aren’t any.

So, for God’s ancient servants, “Jehovah” was ONE…not three.
The devil has you all worshipping the wrong god….he is jumping for joy at how easy it was to get your sect out of the right lane, and into the wrong one with everyone else who accepts this falsehood. The majority do not have the truth….”few” are on the road to life…(Matt 7:13-14) and they teach one truth, of one God, and one Jesus Christ, that is shared by them all. (1 Cor 1:10)

Did the apostles have any doubt about who their God was?

1 Cor 8:5-6….KJV…
”For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”

Who is identified there as the “one God” of the apostles collectively? Jesus? No! Jesus is their Lord (Master) but only Jehovah is “God the Father”.

Translators were true to their own agenda…and that was promoting something Jesus never once taught.

Altering the very nature of God is a serious thing…..and those who did that will answer to the God of Jesus Christ. Those who stood fast with the truth of the Bible, will be rewarded. (Rev 3:12)
In that verse Jesus mentions his “new name”….can you point out a single verse in the Bible where Jehovah is called by another name?

How do you make a foundational doctrine out of nothing but a series of mistranslations? They had help….It’s the ultimate deception, from the ultimate deceiver…..do not underestimate him.


Thank God some were vigilant enough to see the shift in the other direction, and correct it….
There is way more scripture arguing against the trinity than there are any verses supporting it…..in fact, there are no verses supporting it. Not a single verse in the whole Bible is a clear statement about the triune nature of God…..for such an important belief, don’t you think that God and his son would have clear unequivocal statements supporting it?
But Christ is what the whole of Gods Word points to, so to take Him out is what I would say 'fatal' to our spiritual life and truly knowing Him.

Here is a good explanation of what has been done to the true text of the Bible with these changes...

 

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
7,022
3,863
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
One of the key verses in the pamphlet was John 10:30 and when we considered this, there was a general murmur of consent that this taught the Trinity. I gave my disagreement, stating that Jesus is the Son of God, but I could not give a detailed answer. This was the last time that I attended, but since then I have thoroughly determined my answer to this passage and many other so-called Trinitarian passages.
G’day TrevorHL….John 10:30-36 is a favorite passage of mine, especially when read in Greek….and in context.

@Hobie If we might just demonstrate why the Greek shows us that this is not a pro-trinitarian passage at all….starting with a well known and often quoted verse, it says….
”I and the Father are one.”
We know how that reads in isolation, but what other Scripture explains this “oneness”?

A few chapters on in John 17:20-23…Jesus said….
“I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one— I in them and you in me—that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.“ (NET)

So this is not saying that Jesus and his Father are “one God”, but that they share a unity of purpose that is also shared with all true believers.…the ones Jehovah “drew” to his son, (John 6:44) and without that invitation, none can come to him. (John 6:65)

Jesus continues…..John 10:31-36…
“The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God (theos).” If those people to whom the word of God (ho theos) came were called ‘gods’ (theos) and the scripture cannot be broken, do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God (ho theos)’? (NET)

With reference to the word “god” (theos) in Greek, according to Strongs Concordance, their primary definition of this words refers to ‘any god, goddess or divine personage’. And it is important to note that the Greek has no capital letters or punctuation, so the use of the capital letter for “God” gives a false impression in English translations.
You can see in this scripture that the use of upper and lower case “G” differentiates “God” from “gods”. Yet this is not upheld in the translation into English.

To identify the only true God, the Greek requires the definite article (ho) because the Greeks were polytheists and all of their gods had names….the God of the Jews at that time was nameless as the Jews had invented an excuse not to utter it, claiming that the divine name was too sacred for human lips to speak it. That is not the instruction that they received from Moses….

Exodus 3:15….
“God also said to Moses, "You must say this to the Israelites, 'The LORD - the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob - has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.'”

“The LORD” there is Jehovah (Yahweh) and this was to be his “memorial” name for all generations to come.

Did the Jews have an excuse for failing to use God’s name? Do Bible translators have an excuse for eliminating it from Scripture and to substitute a title instead? The Jews did not eliminate the divine name from their Scripture, only from their speech. Bible translators left it out completely almost 7000 times, making verses where God said “that is my name”, completely meaningless. His title is not his name.

Did you know that if the divine name had still been given it’s rightful place in Scripture, that the trinity could never have been introduced.

If you look at the passage in John 10 again, you can see where the definite article (ho theos) identifies Jehovah as opposed to the other “gods” (divinely authorized ones) to whom Jesus referred. You will also notice that the Jews did not accuse Jesus of claiming to be “ho theos” but only that he himself claimed to be “the son of ho theos”. The capital “G” gives a false impression.

John 1:1 is used frequently to prove the trinity, but if the translators had been truthful and not obscured that one little word (ho) by pretending it wasn’t there, as they did in many other passages, it should have read as it does in Greek….
”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with ”ho theos” (Jehovah), and the Word was “theos“ (”a god” or God-like one.) It is not difficult to understand how this apostasy was introduced exactly as Jesus and his apostles said it would…..satan is “the sower” and “the field is the world”…..”the weeds” grow more profusely than the “wheat”, with little needed to feed their growth, which became global with Catholic infiltration and conversion mainly at the point of a sword, or the fear of the Inquisition or a burning hell.

What makes a personage “divine” (God-like)? They are created by God or sent by him and authorized by him to convey Jehovah’s messages to his human servants, or to act on his behalf.
In the scripture quoted above, (John 10:30-36) human judges in Israel were called “gods” because of having God’s divine authority.

Conversely, these “gods” can be created by man under Satan’s influence as false gods and worshipped as such. Satan himself is called “theos” in 2 Cor 4:4. He is “the god of this world”….no doubt about that!

Deep study requires a dive into all the factors involved in translation, and only when we do this deeper study do we find the concealed truth. Who wants it concealed? Who wants you to rely on outdated translations that do not convey the truth of God’s word? This doctrine leads the majority to worshipping one who is not Jehovah, and never was. It’s a breach of the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:4)

If only people would listen……:confused
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: TheHC

Magdala

Active Member
Dec 25, 2024
624
114
43
Pacific Northwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
[...] God is “capable” of anything he wants [...]

It's good you believe that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human.

All Jesus needed to be was sinless…a perfect equivalent of Adam [...] God is not and never could be the equivalent of Adam.

If a sinless human is the perfect equivalent of Adam, then why would God not be the perfect equivalent of Adam when He is sinless, and capable of incarnating Himself as a human?

God is immortal [...]

God is immortal in spirit form, because spirits are incorporeal, and thus are not subject to the limit of physical death, but God is also eternal which means He has no end, and wouldn't cease to exist even if He were to physically die.

God [...] could not be mortal [...]

You said that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human, and humans are mortal, and thus how can you also say that God couldn't be a mortal? Are you saying that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human, but incapable of undergoing physical death as a human?
 
Last edited:

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
7,022
3,863
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
It's good you believe that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human.
Who am I to imagine what God is capable of being? Does anyone really know?

All I know is that God cannot die, because he is an immortal, no matter what form he takes….as if he needs to take any other form in the first place….?

Where, in all of Scripture does it say that God was incarnated in the person of Jesus?
Why did he need to be the “last Adam” and reduce himself down to the level of his own lower creation?
Where did the redemption of mankind even require that?

The Word became flesh, not God. “The Word“ was “with God”…”In the beginning”…..what is this the “beginning“ of, since an eternal God had no beginning….the son of God did. (Rev 3:14; Col 1:15)
He was God’s “firstborn“ before any other creation existed.
If a sinless human is the perfect equivalent of Adam, then why would God not be the perfect equivalent of Adam when He is sinless, and capable of incarnating Himself as a human?
For the simple reason that he cannot die…..do you even remotely understand the concept of immortality?

Do you comprehend the enormity of a God whose power created a Universe so vast that we cannot even grasp its boundaries, as if the Creator needed to become like an insect in his own creation?

How demeaning is your concept of God! He has servants like any other King.
God is immortal in spirit form, because spirits are incorporeal, and thus are not subject to the limit of physical death, but God is also eternal which means He has no end, and wouldn't cease to exist even if He were to physically die.
What is the point of hammering home what you clearly have no way of comprehending with your current indoctrination? Your Catholic doctrines undermine all of the important things that Christ taught…..but if you stick to them, you will never see the truth…only a very distorted version of it.
You said that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human, and humans are mortal, and thus how can you also say that God couldn't be a mortal? Are you saying that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human, but incapable of undergoing physical death as a human?
You are an expert in twisting what other people say, and then answering your own twisted version of it….

Sad is all I can say.…blinded by “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:3-4)…..the one who created your church and led multitudes of people onto the wrong path (Matt 7:13-14)…not through love, but through fear…and on whose hands there is much blood spilled in church sanctioned wars where so called “Christians” killed their own “brothers“ of another nation over politics. (Matt 5:43-44; 1 John 4:20-21) Not to mention the Inquisition and its abuse of power…..a power God never gave them…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheHC

Magdala

Active Member
Dec 25, 2024
624
114
43
Pacific Northwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Who am I to imagine what God is capable of being? Does anyone really know?

Are you taking back your statement that God is capable of anything?

For the simple reason that he cannot die…..do you even remotely understand the concept of immortality?

God is immortal in spirit form, because spirits are incorporeal, and thus are not subject to the limit of physical death, but God is also eternal which means He has no end, and wouldn't cease to exist even if He were to physically die as a mortal.

Unless you tell me differently, we agree that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human. And, if a sinless human is the perfect equivalent of Adam as you say, then would God as a human not be the perfect equivalent of Adam when He is sinless?

You are an expert in twisting what other people say, and then answering your own twisted version of it….

I didn't twist anything.

You said, "God is capable of anything" which includes incarnating Himself as a human (a mortal).
You also said, "God [...] could not be mortal [...]".

Those statements contradict each other. So, again, were you trying to say that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human, but incapable of undergoing physical death as a human?
 
Last edited:

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
7,022
3,863
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Are you taking back your statement that God is capable of anything?



God is immortal in spirit form, because spirits are incorporeal, and thus are not subject to the limit of physical death, but God is also eternal which means He has no end, and wouldn't cease to exist even if He were to physically die.

Unless you tell me differently, we agree that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human. And, if a sinless human is the perfect equivalent of Adam as you say, then would God as a human not be the perfect equivalent of Adam when He is sinless?



I didn't twist anything.

You said, "God is capable of anything" which includes incarnating Himself as a human (a mortal).
You also said, "God [...] could not be mortal [...]".

Those statements contradict each other. So, were you trying to say that God is capable of incarnating Himself as a human, but incapable of undergoing physical death as a human?
Oh for pity’s sake…give it up….

If you want to believe what the Catholic Church teaches, go your way and take whatever is coming to you….
I am not getting on this carousel with you again. It’s like trying to reason with a three year old who can’t understand why anyone would want to take a candy bar off them…..they like it and it tastes good so what’s the problem? The child is a diabetic….dedicated to their taste buds, but not aware of the effects of a sugar overload on their health.

I’m done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHC

soberxp

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2025
506
275
63
42
Xi'an
m.youtube.com
Faith
Christian
Country
China
The Bible says God created man in his own image.
The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God.
In the Bible Jesus says you see me and you see the Father.
In the Bible Jesus says I am not according to my own will, I am according to the Father's will. In the Bible God says, " You may eat of the tree of life, but you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,when you eat it You will surely die.
I said: obey God's word/will, study God's word/will,only God is good.
Forget the theories in the world that you know the knowledge of good and evil,(the result of which can make a person blind and deaf).