I have a question? [Archive] - Christian Forums

MichaelTheeArchAngel

27th August 2007, 09:37 PM

Originally the Adventist church did not support the trinitarian doctrine, because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture. Also it is propogated by secret societies. But as more baptist came into the Adventist Church it was re-established. Now my question is: The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

djconklin

27th August 2007, 09:41 PM

because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture.

Was that the reason?

Also it is propogated by secret societies.

Which one's? Can we see the proof?

The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

Which document are you referring to?

MichaelTheeArchAngel

27th August 2007, 09:58 PM

Quote:
because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture.

Was that the reason? = Reply: Yes.

Quote:
Also it is propogated by secret societies.

Which one's? Can we see the proof? = Reply: I think all of them but one. It woud be a lot of trouble for me to dig my books out. Ill go and check my off line computer.

Quote:
The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

Which document are you referring to? = Reply: Someone in the Trinitarian post produced a document.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

27th August 2007, 11:19 PM

Here's some more info on the trinity doctrine.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." (Col 2:16-18)

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Tim 6:20)

The "oppositions of science falsely so called." is the opposition to a Jewish Gnosticism (science is"gnosis" in the Greek, esoteric knowledge/wisdom). Is the "profane and vain babblings" the Church had to combat?

The worshipping of angels was then and is now one of the distinctive marks of Jewish Kabbalism. Kabbalism today use's angels, magic, and astrology in their occult system, attempting to control their destiny. The first few chapters of Hebrews is another example, in correcting the Jew's emphasis on angels.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says: "The principal elements of Gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation." The Jewish Encyclopedia also states that: "It is a noteworthy fact that heads of Gnostic schools and founders of Gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the early Church fathers."
The Roman Catholic Church with its philosophy of a hidden God who should be approached through intermediaries such as saints and angels is the same distinctive doctrine of the Kabbalah.

The angel that the Kabbalists call Metatron, is the female god of the Kabbalah, which they call the "Shekhinah", it has emerged into Catholic theology as Mary.
The Catholic Church also absorbed the asceticism of the Gnostics into a system of celibacy for monks, priests and nuns.

Albert Pike, a high prophet of Freemasonry, spoke on the origin of Trinitarianism. In his secret book "Morals and Dogma" he says of the Kabbalist "Jews were the direct precursors of Gnosticism," their Kabbalist doctrine is derived from their captivity while in Babylon.
Philo of Alexandria was a Jew who played a key role in the development of the Trinitarian theory. Pike says he was a Kabbalist, "an initiate of the mysteries."
The Pharisees who are Masonic like Kabbalists; they were Hellenistic Jews and the enemies of Jesus Christ.

The Jewish Encyclopedia: "We are forced to conclude that the Pharisees introduced an element of confusion into Christian theology which we still have not emerged from."

"Cast me not away from your presence; and take not your Holy Spirit from me" (Psalms 51:11).
Moses received the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 63:11).
Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1). Was he filled with another person inside his body? No. He was filled with the presence of God.

"He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me; Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he, which baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (John 1:33).

So here we see a change. People are now given the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit at baptism. This will automatically mean more people (not just prophets and patriarchs) would receive the Holy Spirit.

"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). Peter told the people at Jerusalem about Jesus being crucified and they responded by asking what they should do.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Was Peter telling them they could receive a person into their body? No.

So after the day of Pentecost (which is the same day as the Feast of First Fruits) people were able to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit. No longer was this the domain of only a few as in the Old Testament. However those being called were still relatively few compared to the world population.

There is no mention of the trinity in the entire Bible. There is only one place in which the original Greek of the New Testament mentions the Father and Son and Holy Spirit together. For an explanation of this read: The False Doctrine of the Trinity and The Trinity.

Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius were the students of the original apostles. They lived at the turn of the century, before and after 100 AD. They did not mention a trinity or give a description of a trinity in all their writings.

It was not until the second century AD that the idea of a trinity began to take shape in the Christian community

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus is also known as Tertullian. In the second century he was the first to introduce trinitarism into Christianity. He was the first person to formulate the idea of one substance having three persons.

The idea of individual substanence hypostasis was first introduced by Origen. Origen considered the Son to be not coequal, but derived from the Father whom is the Holy Spirit. Arius would adopt the idea of the Son being derivative of the Father in the third century AD. This eventually led to a major crisis in the Counsel of Nicea.

Arius gained many followers as he taught that Christ was a created being, created by the Father.
Arians were the followers of Arius.

The creed that came out of the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD did not explicate the trinity. It simply proclaimed the divinity of Christ, rejecting Arianism. There was no resolution on who the Holy Spirit is. That notion would not arise in full strength until the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Basilius, also known as Basil whom was bishop of Caesarea. In the later 3rd century AD, formulated ideas as to what the Holy Spirit was. This was mainly in reaction to Arius who was his enemy doctrinally. Basil and others such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were encouraged to develop ideas to combat the idea of Arianism. The person who encouraged them was Athanasius who hated Arianism and wanted to wipe it out.

Philo introduced the idea of trinity to the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Philo did not equate the three members of his trinity. He wrote that "the middle person of the three," was Yahweh, the Father of the Universe, who is uncreated and unbegotten. God, the Father of the Universe was accompanied by two "body-guards": the creative power and the royal power. God is greater than them. These ideas of Philo made a great impact on Christianity.

How the Trinity Doctrine Entered Christianity
God commanded, "You will not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name." (Exodus 20:7 NRSV) Because of this command the translators of the Septuagint, did not transliterate the name "Yahweh" into Greek. They believed that the transliteration would have been a misuse of God's name. Instead, they translated it as "Kyrios," which in English is the word LORD. So therefore, the word Lord/Kyrios, became the name of Yahweh in Greek. It was a common title for masters or men of authority. Also, the New Testament writers applied it to Jesus. In the end, Jesus and God shared the same name: Lord/Kyrios.
In the early 4th century, Lactantius (born 240 A.D. died 320 A.D.) wrote: "He {Jesus} taught that God is one {person} and that He {the Father} alone ought to be adored, nor did He {Jesus} ever call himself God." Lactantius did not recognize a Trinity. He emphasized that Jesus is an "improperly called god," and must not be worshipped as God.
Wrong interpretations and the distortion of God's word is what supports the doctrine of the trinity.

When asked, "Which is the most important commandment of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important of all the commandments is, hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is One." (Mark 12:29)

That is what we find throughout the scriptures:

"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6)

"I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me." (Isa. 45:5)

"I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 46:9)

"One God and Father of all, who is above all." (Eph. 4:6)

"Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deut. 6.4)

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 2:5)

"There is but one God, the Father, whom made all things, and us by Himself, and one lord Jesus Christ, by whom we are in. (1 Cor. 8:6)

"This is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)
This last quotation is Jesus speaking; addressing God in prayer as the one true God, and speaking of himself as separate from that one true God.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

27th August 2007, 11:34 PM

Historical proofs as to the way the trinitarian doctrine effected the pure doctrine of the disciples.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence
for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this
would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned
on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical
criticism.

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the
historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must
be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by
the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact
words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to
the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the
second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural
proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in
(AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture." "The chief
Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew
28:19.This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other
Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some
scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out
that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that
the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was
perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text ("in my name" rather than in
the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian
formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does
not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is
doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from
early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal
usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic)
Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian
order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows
only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5;
Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the
second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs
only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and
Justin, Apol. 1:61.Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of
the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such
formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be
disputed." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the
fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing "in the name of Jesus."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637,
Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical
situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early
Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the
mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19.
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and
that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in
the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism
performed with the name of the Trinity."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this
statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the
fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing "in the name of Jesus." Acts 1:5.

Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For
Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the
most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of
this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The
formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and
we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not
baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus
alone.
It is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in
My Name" and then was changed to work in the [later
Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by
German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth
century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship
as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published:
"The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this
world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The
command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late
doctrinal addition."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the
threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic
Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse
Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As
to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in
which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if
possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22,
Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically
says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic
Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured
on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later changed to the name of the Father,
Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G.
Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's
College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that
Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian
Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those
words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all
baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common
and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord
Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites
and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and
Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On
rebaptism") shows."

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1,
Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes
Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is
little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle
of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline
Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem
is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to
Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the
analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New
Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation.
By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the
Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest
form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it
possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ
commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ
given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have
followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the
New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of
this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the
short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and
the longer trine formula was a later development."

A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History
at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again
declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the
name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of
the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed
to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the
original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the
practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the
Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century
retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least,
baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular,
certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text
of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian)
profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and
third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far
as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came
from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew
28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that
started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence
proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated.
Very few know about these historical facts.
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page
152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his
library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered
Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first
copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus'
actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19:
"With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make
disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all
things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

See Daniel 8:9,12 and 2Tim 4:3.

djconklin

28th August 2007, 03:27 AM

The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

Which document are you referring to? = Reply: Someone in the Trinitarian post produced a document.

Virtually anyone can make up a document--I need an exact quote I can look up.

sentipente

28th August 2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:
because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture.

Was that the reason? = Reply: Yes.

I'm surprised you would make that claim when nothing in the Bible explicitly makes the case for the Trinity. How do you deliberately introduce something in document and leave it vague enough to go either way? They may have introduced the doctrine but not "into Scripture." If you are so much against what has been introduced by the Catholic church you will have to discard your views on the interpretation of revealed theology. That's their baby as well.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

28th August 2007, 04:44 PM

Virtually anyone can make up a document--I need an exact quote I can look up. Here is what one person posted : Taken from the EGW estate website:
What did Ellen White believe regarding the Godhead?
Ellen White never used the term "trinity," although she did refer to the "three living persons of the heavenly trio" (Evangelism, p. 615). She believed in the full deity of Christ, stating that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore" (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906). She also referred to the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" (The Desire of Ages, p. 671). Her comments, as collected in Evangelism, pages 613-617, suggest that she believed that the Scriptures taught the existence of three co-eternal divine persons.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

28th August 2007, 04:53 PM

Here is what one person posted : Taken from the EGW estate website:
What did Ellen White believe regarding the Godhead?
Ellen White never used the term "trinity," although she did refer to the "three living persons of the heavenly trio" (Evangelism, p. 615). She believed in the full deity of Christ, stating that "Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore" (Review and Herald, April 5, 1906). She also referred to the Holy Spirit as "the Third Person of the Godhead" (The Desire of Ages, p. 671). Her comments, as collected in Evangelism, pages 613-617, suggest that she believed that the Scriptures taught the existence of three co-eternal divine persons.History of Trinity Doctrine Among Adventists

William Miller, the founder of the Adventist movement and promoter of the 1844 end of the world teaching, was a Trinitarian: "I believe in one living and true God, and that there are three persons in the Godhead — as there is in man, the body, soul, and spirit. And if anyone will tell me how these exist, I will tell him how the three persons of the Triune God are connected" (quoted by James White in Sketches of the Christian Life and Public Labors of William Miller, Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1875, p. 59).

Adventist leader Joshua V. Himes wrote about early Adventists: "At first, they were generally Trinitarians; subsequently they have, almost unanimously, rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural." Their accepted statements regarding the Godhead were, "That there is one living and true God, the Father Almighty, who is unoriginated, independent, and eternal, the Creator and Supporter of all worlds; and that this God is one spiritual intelligence, one infinite mind, ever the same, never varying. . . That Christ is the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Saviour of the world. . . ." (Joshua V. Himes, "Christian Connection", Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, edited by T. Newton Brown, Boston: Shattuck & Co., 1835, p. 362).

Elder Joseph Bates, who introduced the Sabbath to the Adventists via his meeting with Seventh Day Baptists, became a staunch Anti-Trinitarian: "Respecting the Trinity, I concluded that it was impossible for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, ‘If you can convince me [we] are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son, and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the Trinity" . . . (Joseph Bates, The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates, Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868).

Early Adventist leaders were all Anti-Trinitarians. James White referred to Christ as the "Angel" who led the Hebrews, and was a lesser being than the eternal Father (James White, Christ in the Old Testament, Oakland, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1877, p. 11). J.M. Stephenson wrote that "The idea of Father and Son supposes priority of the existence of the other. To say that the Son is as old as his father, is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a natural impossibility for the Father to be as young as the Son, or the Son to be as old as the Father" (J.M. Stephenson, "The Atonement," Review and Herald, VI, November 14, 1854, p. 128). These Anti-Trinitarian views are termed "Arianism." Arians believe that the Son is not co-eternal or co-equal with the Father, as stated by the Nicene Creed, but the Messiah was God’s first creation, and hence less than the Father. Arians believe that Jesus was created by the Father at the very beginning of creation, before anything else was created, even before the worlds began.

D.W. Hull said, "The doctrine which we propose to examine [trinitarianism], was established by the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, and ever since that period, persons not believing this peculiar tenet, have been denounced by popes and priests, as dangerous heretics. It was for disbelief in this doctrine, that the Arians were anathematized in A.D. 513. As we can trace this doctrine no farther back than the origin of the ‘Man of Sin’ and as we find this dogma at that time established rather by force, than otherwise, we claim the right to investigate the matter, and ascertain the bearing of Scripture on this subject" (D.W. Hull, "Bible Doctrine of Divinity," Review and Herald, November 10, 1859, p. 193).

Uriah Smith, perhaps the most famous Adventist writer of the 19th Century, said, "But respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present" (Uriah Smith, "In the Question Chair," Review and Herald, LXVII, October 28, 1890, p. 664). In commenting on Revelation 3:14-22, Smith wrote that he believed that the Messiah was "the first created being" by God the Father (Uriah Smith, Thoughts Critical and Practical on the Book of Revelation, Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1865, p. 59).

Adventist historian J.N. Loughborough wrote, "What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity? There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following: 1. It is contrary to common sense. 2. It is contrary to Scripture. 3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous" (J.N. Loughborough, "Questions for Bro. Loughborough," Review and Herald, XVIII, November 5, 1861, p. 184).

J.H. Waggoner wrote, "Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of the Trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism [denial of the divinity of Jesus]. . . .the Word was God, and also the Word was with God. Now it needs no proof—indeed it is self-evident that the Word as God, was not the God whom he was with. And as there is but ‘one God,’ the term must be used in reference to the Word in a subordinate sense, which is explained by Paul’s calling the same pre-existent person the Son of God" (J.H. Waggoner, The Atonement, Oakland, California: Pacific Press, 1884, pp. 174, 153).

Socinianism, another form of Anti-Trinitarianism, says that Jesus did not pre-exist before His human birth, and had no part in the creation of man. Adventist researcher Jonathan Ross says that the Church of God, 7th Day (Meridian, Idaho group) is Socinian, as well as the House of Yahweh in Odessa, Texas, and the Church of God, Abrahamic Faith (Oregon, Illinois).

The Seventh-day Adventist 1889 Yearbook, under the article, "The Godhead," states, "That there is one God, a personal, spiritual Being, the Creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by His representative, the Holy Spirit. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal Father, the One by whom He created all things, and by whom they do exist."

According to John Kiesz (personal interview, April 1991), Adventist leader James White ridiculed the idea of the Trinity, but his wife, Ellen G. White, was a closet Trinitarian. After the 1880’s, the Seventh-day Adventists underwent a doctrinal change regarding the teaching of the Trinity. The 1931 Yearbook says something quite different from statements of the pioneers, who were by this time deceased: "That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, 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. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father." And in 1980, the second point of the "Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists" states, "2. THE TRINITY—There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal 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. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation."

MichaelTheeArchAngel

28th August 2007, 04:59 PM

Supposedly it was a secret that Ellen believed in trinitarism. The documents are protected in pdf format. It was made know that she believe in trinitarism before her death. I could be wrong, but the documents look like they have been tampered with. I am not an athority in that area, but they did not look right.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

28th August 2007, 05:28 PM

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/The-Trinity.pdf

MichaelTheeArchAngel

28th August 2007, 05:30 PM

Is anyone here that can copy that pdf into another format.

djconklin

28th August 2007, 05:53 PM

History of Trinity Doctrine Among Adventists

Which came from where? I found it: http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/132.trinityhistory.html

Supposedly it was a secret that Ellen believed in trinitarism.

That seems contradicted by quotes in post #8.

I could be wrong, but the documents look like they have been tampered with.

What made you think that?

I looked at the pdf file -- I liked the last sentence in the 1st paragraph. However, we can move forward in our examination of the evidence. On page 1 Tim Poirer cites from DA, 678. We should note here, that DA was written in 1898. In the 1888 materials we can find similar sentence:

"Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power. Another spirit must be met; for the essence of evil was working in all ways, and the submission of man to this Satanic captivity was amazing. {1888 1493.2}"

Later in 1897, she wrote:

"Evil had been accumulating for centuries, and could only be restrained and resisted by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified energy, but in the fulness of divine power. Another spirit must be met; for the essence of evil was working in all ways, and the submission of man to this satanic captivity was amazing." {SpTA10 25.2}

MichaelTheeArchAngel

28th August 2007, 07:48 PM

The problem could be the format that they used for the document. Or they did doctor the document. Anyway, it is not really important if Ellen did or did not believe in trinitarism. What do's matter is what Christians do with the information that is available today.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

28th August 2007, 08:14 PM

In regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." /// The words "Let us" were not there in the original Hebrew. The words "LET US" are A.I.T. Assisted In Translation. Or in other words; not really there. Here are some additional verses from the N.I.V. bible to think about.
#1. Matthew 26:64. "Yes, it is as you say,"

#2. Mark 14:62. "I am, said Jesus." Did Jesus say yes or I am.

#3. John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I am!" Or did Jesus say; Before Abraham was born, I lived.

#4. Micah 5:2. "Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

#1. Matthew 28:19. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," It is recorded in history that the oldest script said, "In my name."

#2. Acts 4:12. "There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

#3. Acts 10:48. "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

#4. Acts 19:5. "They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

#5. Romans 6:3. "All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus ."

N.I.V. 1 John 5:7-8. "7. For there are three that testify: 8. The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
Vulgate 1 John 5:7."For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

Textual Commentary on Revelation 1:11.

K.J.V. Revelation 1:10-11. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,) What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

The bracketed, emboldened portion of the above KJV text was not in the original text of verse 11, as explained below. The NRSV and TEV versions of this verse accurately reflect in English what was written in the original Greek text of that verse.

NRSV 1:10-11. I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

TEV 1:10-11. On the Lord's day the Spirit took control of me, and I heard a loud voice, that sounded like a trumpet, speaking behind me. 11 It said, "Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

Commentary

Modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:

Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,)

The wording at the beginning of the King James Version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned as a footnote in any modern translation. Now the voice of coarse is the Son of Man; and he is the (first and last) god to be born into this world; however he is not the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End.
K.J.V. 1:12-13. 12. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Now all of the different bibles tell us that God the Father is a Spirit, and that He is Holy. Therefore one of His many name titles is Holy Spirit.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

29th August 2007, 12:49 AM

I'm surprised you would make that claim when nothing in the Bible explicitly makes the case for the Trinity. How do you deliberately introduce something in document and leave it vague enough to go either way? They may have introduced the doctrine but not "into Scripture." If you are so much against what has been introduced by the Catholic church you will have to discard your views on the interpretation of revealed theology. That's their baby as well.
sdhnm,hyil,xfvbsd

djconklin

29th August 2007, 08:12 AM

The problem could be the format that they used for the document. Or they did doctor the document.

There are all sorts of formats for documents ranging from simple text files, to rich text files, to WordPerfect format or Word format, or more protected and more readily viewable on the web pdf files. So format has nothing to do with it.

Now, the question is did they or did they not alter the document--what evidence do we have that they (whoever they are) did so? If there is no evidence then why even throw it out as a suggestion?

MichaelTheeArchAngel

29th August 2007, 08:54 AM

There are all sorts of formats for documents ranging from simple text files, to rich text files, to WordPerfect format or Word format, or more protected and more readily viewable on the web pdf files. So format has nothing to do with it.

Now, the question is did they or did they not alter the document--what evidence do we have that they (whoever they are) did so? If there is no evidence then why even throw it out as a suggestion? I have worked a little bit with picture files, and when you alter the appearance it can cause some distortion.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

29th August 2007, 09:01 AM

MichaelTheeArchAngel

29th August 2007, 09:12 AM

There are all sorts of formats for documents ranging from simple text files, to rich text files, to WordPerfect format or Word format, or more protected and more readily viewable on the web pdf files. So format has nothing to do with it.

Now, the question is did they or did they not alter the document--what evidence do we have that they (whoever they are) did so? If there is no evidence then why even throw it out as a suggestion? Even if Ellen did believe in trinitarism, it is not important. All human being are fallible. Not even the angels (messengers) are pure in His sight.

StormyOne

3rd September 2007, 07:10 AM

Even if Ellen did believe in trinitarism, it is not important. All human being are fallible. Not even the angels (messengers) are pure in His sight.
so that being the case, your question is important to us because what?

MichaelTheeArchAngel

3rd September 2007, 10:31 AM

so that being the case, your question is important to us because what? My question was important to me because I wanted to join the Adventist Church! Because I cannot accept the trinity doctrine, I am not allowed to join the church. I thought that because the church was originally anti-trinitarian, that perhaps maybe I could join. I cannot accept the trinitarin doctrine because it was introduced into scripture by the Catholic Church.

sentipente

3rd September 2007, 10:40 AM

My question was important to me because I wanted to join the Adventist Church! Because I cannot accept the trinity doctrine, I am not allowed to join the church. I thought that because the church was originally anti-trinitarian, that perhaps maybe I could join. I cannot accept the trinitarin doctrine because it was introduced into scripture by the Catholic Church.
What you just wrote cannot be true. I am surprised you think you could pass this off as true. You did not wish to join the SDA church because of what it used to teach in the past. No one does that. People try to join organizations because of what the teach today. By that simple assertion you have shown who you really are. You would have been more convincing if you had said that you were a member and had discovered a problem with the Trinity doctrine and then discovered that the church was not always Trinitarian or if you had said that you are trying to show that the SDA church cannot be God's church because of the Trinity doctrine. Claiming that you wanted to join the church because of what it used to teach decades ago is nowhere close to the truth.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

3rd September 2007, 10:48 AM

What you just wrote cannot be true. I am surprised you think you could pass this off as true. You did not wish to join the SDA church because of what it used to teach in the past. No one does that. People try to join organizations because of what the teach today. By that simple assertion you have shown who you really are. You would have been more convincing if you had said that you were a member and had discovered a problem with the Trinity doctrine and then discovered that the church was not always Trinitarian or if you had said that you are trying to show that the SDA church cannot be God's church because of the Trinity doctrine. Claiming that you wanted to join the church because of what it used to teach decades ago is nowhere close to the truth. I was attending an Adventist Church in Portland Oregon. I thought that I would like to join, so I inquired as to what their doctrine requirements were to become a member. need I say more?

JonMiller

3rd September 2007, 11:02 AM

You could find some of the 'historical' churchs. I think that some in the church are still anti-trinitarrian. In this community they are more likely to be found among the 'traditionals'.

We even had a hymn last Sabbath that was anti-trinitarrian.

JM

MichaelTheeArchAngel

3rd September 2007, 01:06 PM

JonMiller

3rd September 2007, 01:09 PM

I beleive that there are some on this site (SDA forums at foru.ms) that are not. I would expect that in many SDA communities, that some of the older/more 'traditional' members are not.

JM

StormyOne

3rd September 2007, 03:15 PM

:amen: Are you saying not all are trinitarin. If so, how would I locate one that is not? :scratch:
trinitarian as defined how?

sentipente

3rd September 2007, 05:20 PM

I was attending an Adventist Church in Portland Oregon. I thought that I would like to join, so I inquired as to what their doctrine requirements were to become a member. need I say more?
That had nothing to do with what the church used to teach. Don't try to defend that statement. It is patently false.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

3rd September 2007, 05:53 PM

That had nothing to do with what the church used to teach. Don't try to defend that statement. It is patently false. Huh! You need to get out of the habit of calling people liers. Are you saying all the other 7th Day Adventist Churches dont have trinitarism as a doctrinal belief?Or what? Half do, and the others dont. Im listening.

sentipente

3rd September 2007, 06:00 PM

Are you suggesting that it is wrong to point out that a statement is false?

MichaelTheeArchAngel

3rd September 2007, 06:08 PM

trinitarian as defined how? The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is another person, and not another name for God. If you have ever seen the statue of Jupitor, the Pagan god, it gives a trinitarian sign with if fingers. Trinitarism goes way back before Christianity. Instead of getting rid of it, they renamed it Peter, the disciple.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

3rd September 2007, 06:13 PM

Are you suggesting that it is wrong to point out that a statement is false? Your sin is in prejudgeing without knowing the facts. Are you going to answer my other questions?

sentipente

3rd September 2007, 06:27 PM

If you have ever seen the statue of Jupitor, the Pagan god, it gives a trinitarian sign with if fingers.
So, you see an old statue with three fingers in a formation and you conclude it refers to a trinity. That's amazing.

sentipente

3rd September 2007, 06:28 PM

Your sin is in prejudgeing without knowing the facts. Are you going to answer my other questions?
I was commenting on the logic of your claim. You could not have been seeking to join a church based on its ancient teachings.

sentipente

3rd September 2007, 06:29 PM

Duplicate. Technical difficulties.

StormyOne

3rd September 2007, 07:00 PM

The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is another person, and not another name for God. If you have ever seen the statue of Jupitor, the Pagan god, it gives a trinitarian sign with if fingers. Trinitarism goes way back before Christianity. Instead of getting rid of it, they renamed it Peter, the disciple.
I would submit that humans really have no clue as to what The Creator really is.... none.... so I don't get bent about humans attempting to put into words what The Creator is... we have glimpses, but ultimately no clue....

mva1985

3rd September 2007, 07:05 PM

I would submit that humans really have no clue as to what The Creator really is.... none.... so I don't get bent about humans attempting to put into words what The Creator is... we have glimpses, but ultimately no clue....
Stormy,

You are correct we see through a glass darkly - no doubt about it!

mva1985

3rd September 2007, 07:06 PM

oops.... sorry i didn't mean to post in the progressive forum. i got carried away.

sentipente

3rd September 2007, 07:07 PM

oops.... sorry i didn't mean to post in the progressive forum. i got carried away.
Hey, we exclude no one. We love all our brothers and sisters.

mva1985

3rd September 2007, 07:16 PM

Hey, we exclude no one. We love all our brothers and sisters.
I do appreciate that.

sentipente

3rd September 2007, 07:18 PM

Hey, somebody has to demonstrate the spirit of Christ.

StormyOne

3rd September 2007, 07:42 PM

oops.... sorry i didn't mean to post in the progressive forum. i got carried away.
everyone is welcome here.... anything can be discussed here... so no apology needed...

mva1985

3rd September 2007, 08:05 PM

Thanks guys !!!

djconklin

3rd September 2007, 10:14 PM

We even had a hymn last Sabbath that was anti-trinitarrian.

Which hymn?

djconklin

3rd September 2007, 10:26 PM

I have worked a little bit with picture files, and when you alter the appearance it can cause some distortion.

If you have a poor program and are working with pictures, then yes, you can get some distortion. But, we are talking about a text file format. And we still have no evidence to claim that there ever was a distortion in the first place.

JonMiller

4th September 2007, 03:10 AM

Which hymn?

Had in the last verse something about the one who is above the others and supreme or something.

JM

daro2096

4th September 2007, 10:11 AM

RC_NewProtestants

4th September 2007, 11:24 AM

T
At the baptism of Jesus you have the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Father all in the same place. Clearly the Bible teaches there are three persons in the Godhead.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 KJV

One as in if you asked the Son a question and the Holy Spirit answered it would be the same answer because all three are one in agreement.

The principle of the trinity is that the Godhead is of one substance not merely that they agree. Second you have quoted a verse which does not exist until the 1500's

The Comma Johanneum is a comma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_%28rhetoric%29), or short clause, present in most translations of the First Epistle of John (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John) published from 1522 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1522) until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) (TR) as the sole source for translation. In readings containing the clause, such as this one from the King James Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible), 1 John 5:7–8 reads as follows, the Comma itself here rendered with emphasis:
5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity) (the doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine) that the Father (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father), Son (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) and Holy Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit) are one God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism)), and for this reason some Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) are resistant to the elimination of the Comma from modern Biblical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical) translations. Nonetheless, nearly all recent translations have removed this clause, as it does not appear in older copies of the Epistle and it is not present in the passage as quoted by any of the early Church Fathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers), who would have had plenty of reason to quote it in their Trinitarian debates (for example, with the Arians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism)), had it existed then. Most Churches now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the Comma is not an original part of the Epistle of John.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

daro2096

4th September 2007, 12:37 PM

The principle of the trinity is that the Godhead is of one substance not merely that they agree. Second you have quoted a verse which does not exist until the 1500's
1 John 5:7 existed before the 15th century. The verse is quoted in letters as old as the 2nd century. Just because the older manuscripts don't contain the verse doesn't mean it isn't part of the epistle. It could be the older manuscripts are corrupted afterall one of them was found in the waste paper basket.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

4th September 2007, 12:40 PM

The Bible does teach the Godhead doctrine. God is three persons in one otherwise Jesus is praying to himself in the Gospels.

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3:16-17

At the baptism of Jesus you have the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Father all in the same place. Clearly the Bible teaches there are three persons in the Godhead.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 KJV

One as in if you asked the Son a question and the Holy Spirit answered it would be the same answer because all three are one in agreement.

The angels in heaven are singing holy, holy, holy all the time. 1 John 5:6. This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7. For there are three that testify: 8. the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement./// God our Father is a Spirit and He is Holy. It is our Father who testifies. Throughout scripture we are told that God is a Spirit and that He is Holy. The bible also says that He is the Spirit of Amen (Truth). The 1 John 5:6 quote I gave is hundreds of years older than the Vatican quote you gave. Thats why Im always saying that our scripture has been changed, to prove trinitarism as a bible truth. The word Vatican is a compound word, meaning prophetic serpent.

daro2096

4th September 2007, 12:46 PM

http://www.geocities.com/johnthebaptisthenry/KJVIssues/1John57.html

OLD LATIN MANUSCRIPTS EVIDENCE: The "three heavenly Witnesses" is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome's original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. (Hills, Jones) This historic usage of the text in the Western Church lay behind its final inclusion in the Greek Text of Erasmus. Here is 1 John 5:7-8 in Latin: "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt."
1) Included in the 2nd century Old Latin Bible.
2) Old Latin MS r has the verse (AD 550).
3) Old Latin MS l has the verse.
4) Latin Vulgate from AD 800 on.
GREEK MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE: There are at least 10 confirmed Greek MSS that contain the Comma.
1) 61 (late 15th century) (Aland's Text, 3rd edition, p. 824)
2) 629 (14th century) (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
3) 918 (Aland's; 3rd ed., p. 824)
4) 221 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
5) 2318 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
6) 634 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
7) 636, margin (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
8) 88, margin, Codex Ravianus, 12th century (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
9) 429, margin (Aland's, 3rd ed., p. 824)
10) Omega 110 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)
11) 635, margin (Holland)
12) Codex Wizanburgensis (8th century) (Cloud)
13) Dr. Waite lists 10 other Greek MSS that are unconfirmed as yet.
GREEK LECTIONARIES (These contained extracts of the New Testanent):
1) Lectionary 60
2) Lectionary 173
WRITINGS AND CITATIONS BY CHURCH FATHERS AND OTHERS:
1) AD 170 - Old Syriac Version (G.A. Riplinger, p. 381)
2) AD 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
3) AD 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
4) AD 385 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
5) AD 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
6) AD 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
7) AD 380 - Varimadum
8) AD 435 - Cassian
9) AD 427 - The Speculum, MS m, a treatise containing an Old Latin texts arranged by topic.
10) Sixth century - Ps-Athanasius
11) Eighth century - Ansbert
12) AD 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
13) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

1) The Waldenses (AD 120 on) of Northern Italy who protected the Old Latin or Italic Bible (AD 157) with their lives. These had the earliest of connections with the church in Asia Minor and Syria, and could easily verify their translation with the Received Text of those churches. (Which Bible, pp. 194-215) The "Comma" is in their Bibles. After an honest study of the history of the Waldenses it cannot be denied that they were the people of God. Their Apostolic connection, their doctrinal beliefs, their evangelization of Europe, and their stand for the Truth in the face of the greatest of persecution are all traits and proof that they were the true church of God in those dark days. They earnestly contended for the Faith, including 1 John 1:9. They translated the Word from their Latin Bibles into Gallic, Flimish, German, and other languages. (Armitage)

daro2096

4th September 2007, 12:49 PM

http://www.geocities.com/johnthebaptisthenry/KJVIssues/1John57.html

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE FOR THE COMMA

After examining 1) the Latin and Greek manuscript evidence, 2) the citations and documentation by the church fathers and others, 3) the grammatical evidence and 4) the doctrinal evidence we should be able to come to a logical conclusion. Let's put the evidence to the "Tests of Truth for New Testament Criticism".
1) Antiquity: We have the testiomon of the Old Latin Version as early as AD 157, Tertullian around AD 200, Cyprian around AD 250, and on the Greek side Codex Wizanburgensis from the 8th century, and 88 from the twelfth century. The Comma passes this test.
2) Consent of Witnesses: There is consent Latin witness throughout history, as well as several Greek witnesses. Pass.
3) Variety of Evidence: There are various witnesses (i.e. MSS, versions, Fathers, lectionaries, etc.) from a virity of locations (N. Africa, Italy, Asia) which qualifies the Comma.
4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight: Tertullian, the Waldenses, Cyprian, and the orthodox African writers are all credible. Pass.
5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition: The reading appears consistently throughout history from AD 150 to 1500. Pass.
6) Credibility of Opposing Evidence: The manuscripts, circumstances and many of the people of the opposing side are suspicious or not credible altogether. 1 John 5:7 passes again.
7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness: The elementary Greek grammar is deficient without 1 John 5:7, and fundamental Bible doctrines suffer without it. The so called Comma passes again!
CONCLUSION

"Finally, it cannot be overly stressed that the successive editors of the TR could have omitted the passage from their editions. The fact that Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs retained the Pericope, despite the reluctance of Erasmus to include it, is not without significance. The learned Lutheran text critic J.A. Bengel ("Gnomon", published in 1742) also convincingly defended its inclusion as did Hills in this century. The hard fact is that, by the providence of God, the Johannie comma obtained and retained a place in the Textus Receptus. We emphatically declare that the most extreme caution should be exercised in questioning its right to that place." (Jones) "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28)
REFERENCES FOR ABOVE WORK

http://www.mindspring.com/~kjb1611/html/holland.htm
http://jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm
http://homepage.netspaceonline.com/~amigatec/which/toc.html
http://homepage.netspaceonline.com/~amigatec/chapel/1john5_7.html
http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/contents.htm
RECOMMENDED SITES ON THE SUBJECT

Compare these verses:
http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/articles/tk.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~bstaggs/kjb.html
Scientist, Henry M. Morris, and the KJV:
http://www.icr.org/bible/kjv.htm
MSS Charts:
Reliable Texts: http://www.hutch.com.au/~rlister/bible/bibtb2.gif
Corrupted Texts:
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rlister/bible/bibtb1.gif
Sites on the KJV issue:
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rlister/bible.htm
http://www.mindspring.com/~kjb1611/html/holland.htm
http://jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm
First John 5:7:
http://jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm
http://homepage.netspaceonline.com/~amigatec/which/appendix-B.html
Acts 12:4 - Easter:
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rlister/wh/wh.htmpp
http://www.aloha.net/~bstaggs/kjb.html Westcott and Hort:
http://jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm
http://www.hutch.com.au/~rlister/wh/wh.htmpp

MichaelTheeArchAngel

4th September 2007, 01:09 PM

Footnotes: From N.I.V.

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century) Also the scripture yuo quoted came later.

daro2096

4th September 2007, 01:17 PM

1) The Waldenses (AD 120 on) of Northern Italy who protected the Old Latin or Italic Bible (AD 157) with their lives.

The Waldenses Bible the Italic Bible quotes 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV and that Bible was translated from greek texts not the latin vulgate. The Italic Bible dates from 157AD.

daro2096

4th September 2007, 01:17 PM

I know what the NIV says. The NASB and the ESV say the same thing. Doesn't mean they are right.

RC_NewProtestants

4th September 2007, 02:02 PM

No it is not found in any Greek Manuscripts. until the 1500's.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] (http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html#_ftn2) It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original. http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

Granted there has been corruption of the texts, both in Greek and Hebrew. But the best sources we have of the Greek Text, the oldest sources do not have the statement. Further it is the consensus of most scholars and Bible translators that it is not part of the book of 1 John. All kinds of things were said by different people in the early centuries but that does not make them reasonable assertions into the New Testament.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want but there is a reason why people do not try to base doctrines upon disputed texts.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

4th September 2007, 03:00 PM

No it is not found in any Greek Manuscripts. until the 1500's.

Granted there has been corruption of the texts, both in Greek and Hebrew. But the best sources we have of the Greek Text, the oldest sources do not have the statement. Further it is the consensus of most scholars and Bible translators that it is not part of the book of 1 John. All kinds of things were said by different people in the early centuries but that does not make them reasonable assertions into the New Testament.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want but there is a reason why people do not try to base doctrines upon disputed texts. Although you have done a good job of making your point, I still do not believe in the trinity doctrine. The reason being is that the Old Testament does not support that claim. Also I do not trust the Catholic Church in any of their claims. If the trinitarian claim was true, then the Old testament would not contradict that claim. And there is no need to quote any scripture from the Old Testament that supports trinitarism, I have looked into to it, and have found it A.I.T. or not correctly translated. Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text
of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian)
profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and
third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far
as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came
from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew
28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that
started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence
proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated.
Very few know about these historical facts.
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page
152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his
library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered
Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first
copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus'
actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19:
"With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make
disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all
things whatsover I have commanded you." ///That "Name" is Jesus.

daro2096

4th September 2007, 03:09 PM

daro2096

4th September 2007, 03:24 PM

Although you have done a good job of making your point, I still do not believe in the trinity doctrine. The reason being is that the Old Testament does not support that claim. Also I do not trust the Catholic Church in any of their claims. If the trinitarian claim was true, then the Old testament would not contradict that claim. And there is no need to quote any scripture from the Old Testament that supports trinitarism, I have looked into to it, and have found it A.I.T. or not correctly translated. Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text
of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian)
profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and
third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far
as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came
from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew
28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that
started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence
proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated.
Very few know about these historical facts.
"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page
152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his
library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered
Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first
copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus'
actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19:
"With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make
disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all
things whatsover I have commanded you." ///That "Name" is Jesus.
No evidense in the OT?

What about Genesis chapter 1?

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Genesis 6:3

And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find [such a one] as this [is], a man in whom the Spirit of God [is]? Genesis 41:38

And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, Exodus 31:3

And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship; Exodus 35:31

And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that [was] upon him, and gave [it] unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, [that], when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. But there remained two [of the] men in the camp, the name of the one [was] Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they [were] of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, [and] that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! Numbers 11:25-26, 29

And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding [in his tents] according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him. Numbers 24:2

And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom [is] the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him; Numbers 27:18

And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim. Judges 3:10

But the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered after him. Judges 6:34

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Daniel 3:25

Dan 7:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Dan/Dan007.html#13) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

There are more but I think that will do for now.

sentipente

4th September 2007, 03:29 PM

Ask yourself one question. Why have the oldest manuscripts survived? The answer is nobody used them because they were corrupted so they didn't wear out. There was no printing press back then. They were hand copied. If you were using a Bible everyday it would wear out sooner or later so you would make copies. This is why there is no early manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV.
I think you have a future in scriptwriting.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

4th September 2007, 03:30 PM

The Waldenses believed 1 John 5:7 was part of Scripture. Their Bible was older than the Latin Vulgate by some 200 years.

Just because the older manuscripts don't support it doesn't mean it isn't part of Scripture. The older manuscripts are corrupted. The majority of witnesses supports 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV.

Ask yourself one question. Why have the oldest manuscripts survived? The answer is nobody used them because they were corrupted so they didn't wear out. There was no printing press back then. They were hand copied. If you were using a Bible everyday it would wear out sooner or later so you would make copies. This is why there is no early manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV.Addition.

This is what I found in regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym: making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." The words "Let us" were not there. According to the N.I.V. Concordence the words (Let us) are A.I.T.= asisted in translation. Here are some additional verses from the N.I.V. bible to think about.
#1. Matthew 26:64. "Yes, it is as you say,"

#2. Mark 14:62. "I am, said Jesus." Did Jesus say yes or I am.

#3. John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I am!" Or did Jesus say; Before Abraham was born, I lived.

#4. Micah 5:2. "Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

#1. Matthew 28:19. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," It is recorded in history that the oldest script said, "In my name."

#2. Acts 4:12. "There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

#3. Acts 10:48. "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

#4. Acts 19:5. "They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

#5. Romans 6:3. "All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus ."

N.I.V. 1 John 5:7-8. 7. "For there are three that testify: 8. The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
Vulgate 1 John 5:7."For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

Textual Commentary on Revelation 1:11.

K.J.V. Revelation 1:10-11. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,) What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

The bracketed, emboldened portion of the above KJV text was not in the original text of verse 11, as explained below. The NRSV and TEV versions of this verse accurately reflect in English what was written in the original Greek text of that verse.

NRSV 1:10-11. I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

TEV 1:10-11. On the Lord's day the Spirit took control of me, and I heard a loud voice, that sounded like a trumpet, speaking behind me. 11 It said, "Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

Commentary

Modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:

Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,)

The wording at the beginning of the King James Version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned as a footnote in any modern translation. Now the voice of coarse is the Son of Man; and he is the (first and last) god to be born into this world; however he is not the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End.
K.J.V. 1:12-13. 12. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Now all of the different bibles tell us that God the Father is a Spirit, and that He is Holy. Therefore one of His many name titles is Holy Spirit.

daro2096

4th September 2007, 03:58 PM

So are you saying Matthew 3:16-17 is not Scripture too since that meantions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Elohiym is plural.
(Strong's H430)
1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
a) god, goddess
b) godlike one
c) works or special possessions of God
d) the (true) God
e) God

And God ('elohiym) said('amar), Let us make(`asah) man( 'adam) in our image(tselem), after our likeness(d@muwth) : and let them have dominion(radahover)...

Since the word for God is in the plural sense that means when its says let us make man and in our image the translators were not translating wrong.

It would be wrong to translate it as God said I make man in my image in my likeness.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

4th September 2007, 04:08 PM

MichaelTheeArchAngel

4th September 2007, 07:24 PM

Elohiym means (God of the living.) Matthew 3:16. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." I know a parabol when I see one. John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. /// And even this scripture John 1:18 that I have quoted here is not translated correctly. The point being, is that your reading a parabol. No man other than Jesus has seen God. Throughout scripture we are told that God is Holy and He is a Spirit.

daro2096

5th September 2007, 08:05 AM

Matthew 3:16. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." I know a parabol when I see one. John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. /// And even this scripture John 1:18 that I have quoted here is not translated correctly. The point being, is that your reading a parabol. No man other than Jesus has seen God. Throughout scripture we are told that God is Holy and He is a Spirit.
If the spirit of God descended on Jesus who was talking from heaven?

Bible also says God is 7 spirits in Revelation chapter 1.

And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; Isaiah 11:2

1. The spirit of the LORD
2. The spirit of wisdom
3. The spirit of understanding
4. The spirit of counsel
5. The spirit of might
6. The spirit of knowledge
7. The spirit of fear of the LORD

daro2096

5th September 2007, 08:08 AM

I have already shown you that the hebrew word for God Elohiym is in the plural form. If God was singular they would have used YHWH.

sentipente

5th September 2007, 09:05 AM

I have already shown you that the hebrew word for God Elohiym is in the plural form. If God was singular they would have used YHWH.
I wish you had not added that second phrase because it not leaves the impression of a Deity who switches from singular to plural.

JonMiller

5th September 2007, 11:19 AM

What is wrong with that?

JM

sentipente

5th September 2007, 11:21 AM

What is wrong with that?

JM
It shows that his complaint had no value. Essentially, he ended up supporting what he claimed to be opposed to.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

5th September 2007, 10:46 PM

I wish you had not added that second phrase because it not leaves the impression of a Deity who switches from singular to plural.:thumbsup: ^_^ He sure stept into that one. Dont forget though, we all have had foot -N- mouth disease.

reddogs

22nd September 2007, 06:49 AM

DrStupid_Ben

22nd September 2007, 09:30 AM

Some further reading from Andrews University Seminary Studies on the historical development of trinitarianism in Adventism (part 1) and the development in EGW (part 2):

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity2.htm

The conclusion from part 2:

Conclusion

Part 1 of this study noted that the 1946 General Conference session was the first to officially endorse belief in the Trinity,[83] just 100 years after James White's strong rejection of that idea in the 1846 Day-Star. This change was not a simple reversal. The evidence is that Ellen White agreed with the essential positive point of James's belief, namely that "the Father and the Son" are "two distinct, litteral [sic], tangible persons." Subsequent evidence shows that she also agreed with James's negative point: that the traditional, philosophical concepts held by many trinitarians did "spiritualize away" the personal reality of the Father and the Son.[84]

Soon after this she added the conviction, based on visions, that both Christ and the Father have tangible forms. She progressively affirmed the eternal equality of Christ and the Father, that Christ was not created, and by 1888, that an adequate concept of the atonement demands the full and eternal Deity of Christ. Only in the 1890s did she become aware of the full individuality and personhood of the Holy Spirit, but when she did, she referred to the Holy Spirit in literal and tangible terms much like those she had used in 1850 to describe the Father and the Son.[85] By 1905, she explicitly declared her belief in three divine persons united in one God.

This confirms the fourfold hypothesis with which this article opened. First, E. R. Gane's characterization of Ellen White as a "trinitarian monotheist" is accurate regarding her mature concept of God, from 1898 onward. She never, however, used the term "Trinity" to describe her belief about God. Perhaps the closest she came was her use of the phrase "heavenly trio."[86] A likely reason why she consistently shunned the term "Trinity," even after she had embraced certain aspects of trinitarian teaching, is the second hypothesis: that she had become aware of two varieties of trinitarian belief, one that she embraced and one that she vehemently rejected. An uncritical use of the term "Trinity" might appear to endorse philosophical concepts to which she was diametrically opposed.

This seems especially plausible in light of the third hypothesis, that as she endorsed conceptual steps toward a biblical trinitarianism, her developing understanding exerted a strong influence on other Adventist writers, leading eventually to a substantial degree of consensus in the denomination.

Fourth, the method by which the early Adventists sought to separate the biblical elements of trinitarianism from the elements derived from tradition, was to completely disallow tradition as a basis for doctrine, and struggle through the long process of constructing their beliefs on the basis of Scripture alone. In doing so, they virtually retraced the steps of the NT church in first accepting the equality of Christ with the Father, and second, discovering Their equality and unity with the Holy Spirit as well. In the process, their theology showed temporary similarities to some of the historical heresies, particularly Arianism. Their repudiation of tradition as doctrinal authority was costly in terms of the ostracism they endured as perceived "heretics," but their dependence on Scripture brought them eventually to what they believe is a more biblical view of the Trinity.[87] A controversial corollary is the conviction that the classical formulation of the Trinity doctrine, resting as it does on Greek philosophical presuppositions of timelessness and impassibility, is simply incompatible with a thoroughly biblical theological system.[88]

Not an objective observer, but a systematic theologian deeply involved in the development of the Adventist doctrine of God, Fernando Canale has written extensively on the distinction between a theology based on Greek philosophical presuppositions, and one based on biblical presuppositions.[89] He argues that

In a very real sense, Adventist emphasis on Scriptures as the sole source of data for executing theology has given theological reflection on God a new and revolutionary start. Systematically distrustful and critical of traditional theological positions, Adventists were determined to build doctrines on the basis of Scripture alone. The difficulties implicit in this fresh approach may account for the scant number of Adventist statements on the doctrine of God.[90]

Canale makes a strong case for his contention that because Adventists, "departed from the philosophical conception of God as timeless" and "embraced the historical conception of God as presented in the Bible," they were enabled to develop a genuinely biblical view of the Trinity.[91]

Do with it what you will and evaluate its claims. In the endnotes is a link to Erwin Gane's MA thesis.

MichaelTheeArchAngel

22nd September 2007, 10:16 AM