Absolutely LOVE ❤️ ❤❤❤❤ Your website - it is the best, a wonderful resource!!! And I am so glad to see you starting to be active with your RUclips! This is just the right time! People are receiving the 1st angels message and learning about WHO GOD IS!!! Praise God! Nobody can stop this message because it is the truth about God and the TRUE GOSPEL OF GOD GIVING HIS SON TO SAVE US!!! Thank you for your work in this important subject!!!! Godspeed!❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I know it is little difference, but for that reason I say non-trinitarian. “Anti” seems to say I’m on a crusade against trinitarians, when it is the opposite, we’re on a crusade to reveal God and His Son. Thanks friends
@1:05:42 non trinitarians generally revere JS Washburn. Note his exegesis: JS Washburn: "Christ himself teaches in John 17:21, 22 that the three persons of the Godhead are three “separable beings.” For the disciples were “separable beings,” and Christ compares the unity of the Father and the Son with the unity of the disciples united in perfect unity of heart."
Unfortunately, JS Washburn didn't do exegesis there at all. Where is any mentioning of three separable beings in John 17:21, 22? Let's read the verses together: "That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. 22 And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one (John 17:21, 22) An actual exegesis of these Scriptures reveals that we are talking about God and His Son Jesus. And notice that there is a mutual indwelling, with the Father being in the Son and the Son being in the Father. It is this oneness that is being extended to the disciples so that they might become one in the Father and Son with the intent that the world will then believe that God sent Christ. Notice also that the glory that God gave to Christ, He in turn gave to His disciples in order to make them one. So, exegetically speaking, there is nothing here about the three persons of the Godhead being three separable beings. Now, lest any man misunderstand, what we Seventh-day Adventist non-trinitarians revere, above all else, is the Word of God. We seek to always base our doctrine upon a plain thus saith the Lord. We also revere the Testimony of Jesus through sister White, finding the best explanation of her life and ministry to be that she was inspired of God. Thus we also turn to her writings to elucidate the matter even more. And you can read all of the Bible and also all of her writings and you will never find the Spirit declared to be a "separable being" from God. Yes, you can find the Spirit referred to as a person in her publications and even referred to as a "being" in a stenographer's report. Yet never will you read about the Spirit as separate. Quite the contrary actually. We will use the Bible itself first. "But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:10, 11) The holy Spirit is presented here in Scripture as the internal searcher of God. Now how, pray tell, can this be separable from Him? This plain Word of God reveals an analogous relation between man and the spirit of man in him to God and the Spirit of God. In other words, the Spirit is within Him. And this, by the way, helps to explain the mutual indwelling that Jesus mentioned in John 17:21, 22. The glory which God gave to Him, which He then shares with us, is actually the very Spirit of God. This is how the Father was in the Son. Egw eluciates. “Jesus is seeking to impress upon them the thought that in giving His Holy Spirit He is giving to them the glory which the Father hath given Him, that He and His people may be one in God…{ST Oct 3, 1892, par.4} Oh that we might better understand the oneness that exists between God and His only begotten Son! It is by one Spirit that we have access to the Father through the Son! Those who make the holy Spirit into a separable being from God and Christ rather than the internal person, the means of mutual indwelling, are, doctrinally speaking, denying their own spiritual oneness with God through Christ and the agency whereby the Father and Son are living within. There are numerous other problems that will come in with a doctrine of a separate holy Spirit being too but I can't get into that now. Suffice it to say that the Spirit is a living personality, just as verily as God and Christ are, with cognitive and emotive capability - able to speak and hear -but the Spirit is never presented as all the fullness of the Godhead bodily like They are. The Spirit is presented as the internal Witness and He (or It) is never presented as altogether separate from God or Christ. Men assume that because they have a tritheistic hermenuetic. The truth of inspiration is that there is always an internal connection to God. No disrespect to Judson Washburn for he was used of the Lord mightily to oppose the errors of orthodox trinitarianism that were creeping into Adventism in his day. Yet that doesn't mean he was right in all of his expositions as even a cursory examination of John 17:21, 22 reveals.
@@Biblejems777 ITS SAD, PEOPLE DON'T KNOW OUR HISTORY!? E.J.WAGGONER WROTE AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, NOT BECAUSE ITS ABOUT 3 PERSONS, WHICH ELLEN WHITE AND THE BIBLE TEACHES ON ALL 3 PEERSONS. NO THE MEANING OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY MEANS IN THE CATHOLIC WRITINGS IS JESUS CAME IN SINLESS FLESH AND HE GOT THAT FROM MARY WHO ALSO HAD SINLESS FLESH. SO WHEN YOU USE THE WORD TRINITY, YOU ARE TEACHING AGAINST THE NATURE OF JESUSN NOT BEING 3 PERSONS. ITS NOT 3 IN 1 OR 1 IN 3 BUT 3 BEING 3 PERSONS.
Hi brother Chris, You have done your research and study this topic thoroughly and came to your current conclusion. While I do not share the same conclusion as you, I see you are zealous for the truth you believe. I do not share you belief, the main reason is that the term trinity are not found in the Bible. I also do not find terms like exegesis, hermeneutics, consubstantial, coeternal, God the Son etc. My faith is in the King James Bible. To me the Bible is perfect, infallible and withstood many tests from the attacks of trinitarians and anti-trinitarians alike. And when the Scripture says: "Of a truth thou art the Son of God." Matthew 14:33, it means that Christ is not the Son of God in a metaphorical sense. Of a truth thou art the Son of God!
@@Tm91studies well then you neither share my belief nor the belief of the author of this video. Note Jason Smith: “I have continually advocated to all parties a return to the 1913(trinity) position that had a flexible Christology and Pneumatology so that all might be SDAs in good standing. -Jason Smith 10/2022 fb conversation 1913 statement: "“For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe,- 1. In the divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of 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 one regenerating agency in the work of redemption.” (F. M. Wilcox, Review and Herald, 9th October 1913,)
You have done your homework and it's good to have more information on this subject. This movement with anti Trinitarian is growing . I've been looking at material for the last several years and what convinced me about the 3 person Godhead was when ML Andreasen went to Sister Whites houes and for three months read everything Sister White had to say on the subject and then accepted the 3 person Godhead. The Christian Conextion church is where this Doctrine started in the movement before 1863 when organized.
Fair enough my friend. I have no problem with a 3 persons Godhead. The Bible clearly reveals that there is a Father, Son, and Spirit and Egw explicitly mentions Them as the the 3 persons of the Godhead. Yet that is different from the doctrine of the trinity which makes the identity of the one God into a unity of said 3 persons. Now, as for M.L. Andreasen, unfortunately, he became an Athanasian trinitarian. If you read his writings and the testimony of his contemporaries this can be seen. Case and point: “D.E. Robinson says that you are the first one he knows of to teach the straight doctrine of the trinity, in Australia…..There is to me a twilight zone in this history which I wish to have lighted. Did all the fathers sin? [he means the original pioneers] And if so, did they repent? How prove the unity of the faith in our succession if our pioneers were Arians and WE ARE ATHANASIANS? ANDREASEN IS VERY POSITIVE THAT WAGGONER MUST BE REPUDIATED," WHICH I UNDERSTAND MEANS "CONDEMNED". I am slow to censure any of the fathers, but I am ready to make situations as clear as they appear to me. In the beginning of my writing I did not realize that the question of the trinity among us was of so serious a nature…..Let me know, if you please, what your part in this movement was, where you got your view and inspiration, who else was instrumental in presenting it, what the actual views of the pioneers were, what relation to the question Sister White had through the years. (A.W. Spalding to H.C. Lacey, June 2, 1947) As A.W. Spalding reports, the SDA leaders at that time were Athanasians. He noted that Andreasen was zealous to repudiate Waggoner and establish his trinity conception among the Adventist people. Now an Athanasian believes that the Father, Son, and Spirit are unified one inseparable God Being. They believe in a timeless existence for God and explain his inseparable oneness by analogies of the sun and its rays. This was actually Andreasen's doctrine. Again, case and point: Andresen's concern: "...We may yet find that THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY will stand us in good stead in the days to come. It might be well if our papers had this in mind, so that once in a while references would appear that would make our stand clear in this respect. Such references are altogether too few. THE WORLD SHOULD BE MADE AWARE THAT WE ARE TRINITARIANS... (M.L. Andreason Ministry Magazine Vol 12, No. 11 November 1939) Andreasen's belief in a timeless god: “THERE ARE THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT GOD DID NOT CREATE TIME, BUT THAT IN SOME WAY HE FOUND IT ALREADY EXISTING. BUT THIS CANNOT BE.... (M. L. Andreasen, The Sabbath, pp. 54) Andreasen's Athanasian doctrine: "The third verse [of Hebrews 1] presents Christ as "being the brightness of his [God's] glory." The participle "being" is an expression of ETERNAL, TIMELESS EXISTENCE, and has the same sense as "was" in John 1: 1, "In the beginning was the Word." The Word is Christ. (Verse 14) He did not come into existence in the beginning. In the beginning He was. When He came to this world He became flesh. He had not previously been flesh. By way of contrast He did not become the brightness of the Father's glory. He always was. This constitutes the essential and eternal ground of His personality. "Brightness" is variously translated outshining, out raying, reflection. IT HAS THE SAME RELATION TO GOD'S GLORY AS THE RAYS OF THE SUN HAVE TO THE SUN. THE RAYS CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE SUN, NOR THE SUN FROM ITS RAYS. THE TWO ARE INSEPARABLE. SO WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON." (M.L. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews pg 28) Did you catch it? Now, amazingly enough, Andreasen's Athansian doctrine did not lead him down the path of impeccability like it usually does for others (i.e. our Catholic friends being the most prominent example). This is due to the fact that he very clearly grasped the Bible and sister White's doctrine of Christ taking sinful human nature. This spared him of the normative consequence of Athanasianism. Nevertheless his doctrine was incorrect in this respect. As a trintiarian he turned Father, Son, and Spirit into a single inseparable being, like the rays of the sun with the sun itself, with a timeless existence. In this regard he actually took hold of a spiritualistic representation that inspiration says we should shun: "...Such representations as the following are made: “The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad.”... {SpTB07 62.2} "All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue... {SpTB07 62.3} Last but not least (and I will talk about this in a later video) the doctrine of the early SDA church, regarding the personality of God and the personality of Christ, in opposition to the doctrine of the trinity is not simply a left over from the Christian Connexion church. That is popular revisionist history among SDA pro-trintiarian apologists today. This doctrine was actually through the result of Bible study and confirming visions from sister White. "Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, ‘We can do nothing more,’ the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.” {SpTB02 56.4} Through intense Bible study and visions from Jesus, a foundation was laid. This foundation includes, as a landmark pillar, the personality of God (aka: personality of the Father) and the personality of Christ, His only begotten Son. Please do not be deceived or led astray by those who have not held fast. "Those who seek to remove THE OLD LANDMARKS are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove THE PILLARS OF OUR FAITH concerning the sanctuary, or concerning THE PERSONALITY OF GOD OR CHRIST, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift, without an anchor. {20LtMs, Ms 62, 1905, par. 14} "A liar is one that presents false theories and doctrines. He who denies the personality of God and of His Son Jesus Christ is denying God and Christ. “If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son and in the Father.” [Verse 24.] If you continue to believe and obey THE TRUTHS YOU FIRST EMBRACED regarding THE PERSONALITY OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, you will be joined together with them in love. There will be seen that union for which Christ prayed just before His trial and crucifixion {21LtMs, Ms 23, 1906, par. 20} "The Lord revealed Himself not only as THE TRUE AND LIVING GOD, but as OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, when HE sent HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON into the world to purchase our redemption {BTS December 1, 1911, par. 6}
@@Biblejems777In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life. DA 530.3 Milian Lauritz Andreasen (June 4, 1876 - February 19, 1962), a Seventh-day Adventist theologian, pastor and author. was such a staunch non trinitarian that when he saw that statement in Desire of Ages he couldn't believe that EGW wrote it. He went to her house in Elmshaven a decade later and only after that visit did he become trinitarian. Here's his testimony: "How astonished we were when Desire of Ages was first published, for it contained some things that we considered unbelievable; among others the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not generally accepted by the Adventists then. I was particularly interested, in the statement in Desire of Ages which at one time caused great concern to the denomination theologically: 'In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived' (p. 530). That statement may not seem very revolutionary to you, but to us it was. We could hardly believe it. ... I was sure Sister White had never written, 'In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.' But now I found it in her own handwriting just as it had been published." ML Andreasen
@@Biblejems777 What do you believe about the Godhead is there 3 persons in one being or manifestations?Sorry trying to understand where you coming from thanks
CHRIST came to our world, but the world could not endure His purity. He has gone to His Father, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to REPRESENT HIM in the world till he shall come again.” - (E.G. White, Ms1, Jan 11, 1897) “CHRIST has left HIS Holy Spirit to be HIS REPRESENTATIVE in the world, to give celestial aid to every hungering, thirsting soul.” - (E.G. White, Lt84, Oct 22, 1895) “The Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT of CHRIST; it is HIS REPRESENTATIVE. Here is the divine agency that carries conviction to hearts. When the power of His Spirit is revealed through the servants of God, we behold divinity flashing through humanity.” - (E.G. White, 13MR 313.3, 1895) “Cumbered with humanity, CHRIST could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is HIMSELF, divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. HE would REPRESENT HIMSELF as present in all places by HIS Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.” - (E.G. White, Lt119, Feb 18, 1895) “While JESUS ministers in the sanctuary above, HE is still by HIS SPIRIT the minister of the church on earth. HE is withdrawn from the eye of sense, but HIS parting promise is fulfilled, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20. While HE delegates HIS power to inferior ministers, HIS energizing presence is still with HIS church.” - (EGW, DA, p. 166) “We cannot be with CHRIST in person, as were His first disciples, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, [John 16:13 quoted]” - (EGW, Ms30, June 18, 1900) “When God’s people search the Scriptures with a desire to know what is truth, JESUS is present in the PERSON of HIS REPRESENTATIVE, the HOLY SPIRIT, reviving the hearts of the humble and contrite ones.” - (E.G. White, 12MR 145.2, 1898)
CHRIST came to our world, but the world could not endure His purity. He has gone to His Father, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to REPRESENT HIM in the world till he shall come again.” - (E.G. White, Ms1, Jan 11, 1897) “CHRIST has left HIS Holy Spirit to be HIS REPRESENTATIVE in the world, to give celestial aid to every hungering, thirsting soul.” - (E.G. White, Lt84, Oct 22, 1895) “The Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT of CHRIST; it is HIS REPRESENTATIVE. Here is the divine agency that carries conviction to hearts. When the power of His Spirit is revealed through the servants of God, we behold divinity flashing through humanity.” - (E.G. White, 13MR 313.3, 1895) “Cumbered with humanity, CHRIST could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is HIMSELF, divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. HE would REPRESENT HIMSELF as present in all places by HIS Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.” - (E.G. White, Lt119, Feb 18, 1895) “While JESUS ministers in the sanctuary above, HE is still by HIS SPIRIT the minister of the church on earth. HE is withdrawn from the eye of sense, but HIS parting promise is fulfilled, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20. While HE delegates HIS power to inferior ministers, HIS energizing presence is still with HIS church.” - (EGW, DA, p. 166) “We cannot be with CHRIST in person, as were His first disciples, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, [John 16:13 quoted]” - (EGW, Ms30, June 18, 1900) “When God’s people search the Scriptures with a desire to know what is truth, JESUS is present in the PERSON of HIS REPRESENTATIVE, the HOLY SPIRIT, reviving the hearts of the humble and contrite ones.” - (E.G. White, 12MR 145.2, 1898)
Jesus said: “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9). Jesus had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), and is “being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person” (Hebrews 1:3), and, being just that, God created the world through Him (Hebrews 1:2) - then … If Jesus is “the express image” of God, and We, humans look like God since we are also “in the image of God“ (Genesis 1:26) … there must be a tangible body for us to be made “in the image of” it and that body must be God’s.
"The Father can not be described by the things of earth. 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 manifested. The word of God declares Him to be "the express image of His person." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father. 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 Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. BTS March 1, 1906, par. 1 - BTS March 1, 1906, par. 2"
To this comment I agree 100%. If you look at the previous sentences, as quoted in SpTB07, Egw warns of spiritualistic representations. "I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: “The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad.” “The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.” Another representation: “The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.” {SpTB07 62.2 } "All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God can not be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. The Father can not be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight {SpTB07 62.3} "The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person.” “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here is shown the personality of the Father. {SpTB07 63.1} "The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. 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.... {SpTB07 63.2} This next video linked below exposes how these types of representations have entered into Adventism through the doctrine of the trinity. ruclips.net/video/uebZYnd7Wlw/видео.htmlsi=SNcafGf7ysc-ec6G
But you can't have the devil being the second goat of Leviticus 1610 !because that destroys everything that that the Bible ever said!. That's why SDA is so confused. They have destroyed Jesus Christ in his entirety in 1844! you can't even get there with the math equation. A 12-year-old kid could verify that.. even if he can't understand Bible!. Daniel 8 has got nothing to do with the sanctuary in heaven!. By that false interpretation you've got an investigative judgment.. the devil does the atonement of Leviticus 1610! and you don't know what the Trinity or who Jesus really is. And Isaiah 43:25 never happens for an SDA person at cross! It's the saddest thing on the face of the Earth!
The uploader is not letting the comments to be visible. you have to hit the (newest) to see some of it. if he erased it. God is going to hold him responsible! I wouldn't have had to print the last two. if you would have let the first one print. like you actually let's you see when you actually get the newest)! why don't you let it print the first time? are you afraid of the truth ?people are not going to treat you as an honest person ,if you don't let them post the first time! There's really four here. But if you don't hit the newest )there's only three!
1.Corintians 8:6 !!! And the Spirit is the Spirit from the Father and Jesus Christ. A Person has a name! God "Jehova" Jesus is a Person" Jesus Christ" The holy Spirit is no Person and has no Name! A Person cannot at the same time in different areas,but the holy Spirit can!!!
Hello William, I do not find this to be the case. Both the Bible and the SoP reveals to us that the Spirit has a name. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt 28:19) "And yet, though Christ made much of this theme concerning the Holy Spirit, how little is it dwelt upon in the churches! The name and presence of the Holy Spirit are almost ignored, yet the divine influence is essential in the work of perfecting the Christian character. {ST August 14, 1893, par. 5} If you read the Old Testament you will see that holy Spirit referred to as the Spirit of the LORD - the caps indicate that Divine Name. (Yahweh or Jehovah) - and so this same Name is associated with the Spirit Itself. That makes good sense. I am Jason and my spirit is the spirit of Jason. Moving forward the idea that the Spirit is not a person is understandable. The Spirit is never presented in a tangible bodily form in whose image and likeness we were created, like we know about God and His only begotten Son yet, with that said, there are clearly personal interactions ascribed to the Spirit in the Bible. When the Bible speaks of the Father, Son, and Spirit together, as it does from time to time, and when the Bible makes clear that the Spirit Itself can speak, hear, and interact with both God and us in a personal way - what else would you say this is, if not a person? I'm curious to know. Now I'm not saying that the Spirit is exactly the same as God or Christ but these attributes do seem to be those of personality. So what label do you use?
2 Corinthians 3:17 (KJV) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. The Spirit is Jesus himself and also eminates from Him and the Father
@@jervionsatahoo3674You have misinterpreted the text by disregarding the context of the verse. The Spirit brings all of the father and all of the son while at the same time being neither of them. When Christ stated if you have seen me you have seen the father he did not mean that they are the same person but rather that they are the same in purpose and oneness. It is in this sense and this sense alone that the Spirit is referred to as the Lord himself.
@@Biblejems777the Father the Son and the holy Spirit are of one substance and they are one. Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man at the same time!. This is why the second Goat of Leviticus 1610 for SDA (is the devil)!! (instead of Jesus Christ!)!!! Until you understand Daniel 8:14.. this is never going to get fixed!!. You destroy Jesus Christ and Daniel 8:14 in 1844!. You can't interpret Daniel 8.. it would be impossible.. and have it correct. that's why you're never going to have this understanding... correct interpretation of the Trinity.. Father Son and holy Spirit!
@@Biblejems777Jason, do you believe that when we are in heaven, Jesus will introduce us to a person with a body that is the Holy Spirit? I believe that we don't have enough information about the Holy Spirit. However, from various passages, it is evident that He is the Spirit of God with special powers that surpass our understanding. But to label Him as a person with physical hands and feet is something I wouldn't dare to claim yet.
Matthew 12:31-33 31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. You can't speak blasphemy against an impersonal spirit. If the Holy Spirit was just the spirit of God or Christ then Jesus makes no sense in this passage when he says " Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. " blasphemy against the spirit of Christ would be blasphemy against the son. However, it says against the Holy Spirit this defines the Holy Spirit as being separate from the Father or Christ.
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God the Father, who sends it and gave it to Jesus so that He could send it also. It is not a third person, but a power and authority that God the Father or Jesus sends. Whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit always does so directly to God the Father and perhaps even through Jesus.
@@mikmark100 Incorrect, and sister White numerous times, in many of her writings addresses the Holy Spirit as the 3rd person of the Godhead as it's own person.
@@TheFaithofJesus-bk4wl The Desire of Ages p.671, which talks about the third person of the Godhead, there were magazines published in Russia before 1917, and one of them is said to have this quote from p.671 of the same book, but it does not talk about the third person of the Godhead, but about the power of the Holy Spirit. A sister from Russia recently wrote this elsewhere in a comment that was deleted a short time later. So the word EGW was coined after her death in this case. This can be ascertained from their books published during her lifetime compared to her books published later or today.
Thank you for your comment friend. I appreciate your zeal to defend your conception but have you considered the following? Look again at Matthew 12:31, 32. Notice that Jesus said if anyone spoke against "the Son of man" they could be forgiven. He did not say that anyone could speak against "the Son of God" and be forgiven. Jesus actually used different expressions when He was speaking about His humanity vs. His Divinity. He gives a great teaching in John 5 about how both natures work for our salvation but that's a whole other subject. What is actually happening in Matthew 12 is that Jesus was speaking about people who only recognized His human personality. They were not aware of His Divine personality. Thus they could find forgiveness because they were not grieving away the Divine Spirit. If, on the other hand, a person realized His Divine personality and yet still spoke against Him then they would become guilty of blaspheming the holy Spirit. Why? Because the Lord is that Spirit. It is written: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor 3:17) Now, please don't think that this makes the Spirit impersonal because it does not. I mean even you and I can be grieved in our spirit. It's like the prophet Daniel said, "I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body,.. (Dan 7: 15a). That's not impersonal but personal. Yet a big difference between the Lord Jesus and you and I, is that He is more than just a man. He is Divine and, as such, has an ability in His Spirit than we do not possess. He can actually send His Spirit out of Himself to be His personal Representative. This actually how He indwells His disciples. It is also how He and the Father have a mutual indwelling too. The personality of Divinity is not limited like how the personality of humanity is. Thus the holy Spirit is not actually separate from the Father and Christ. It (or He) is actually always internal with Them. This is our connection to God and how we partake of the Divine nature and are brought into oneness with God and Christ. Do you understand these things? "That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. 22 And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one (John 17:21, 22)
If sda can show me that (sins go into a sanctuary).. by a Bible verse in in the Bible.. and that's what Daniel 8: 14 is saying. And going so far to say it happens in heaven! ..just print it! so we can read it.. this is why you're having a problem with the trinity!
Hello @jimbob1644 Let's do a Q & A on the matter. It will be based on the fact that the earthly sanctuary and its ministry was based upon a pattern. "And see thou and do [them] by their pattern which thou art shewn in the mount (Exodus 25:40 YLT) Q: On what basis does the author of Hebrews assert that it is necessary that Jesus, the great High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary have something to offer? "for every chief priest to offer both gifts and sacrifices is appointed, whence [it is] necessary for this one to have also something that he may offer (Heb 8:3 YLT) Q: On what basis does the same author assert that it is necessary for the earthly sanctuary to be cleansed? Q: On what basis does he assert that it is necessary for the heavenly sanctuary to be cleansed? Q: What types of sacrifices are the basis of cleansing the earthly sanctuary? Q: What type of sacrifice is the basis of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary? "and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come. It is necessary, therefore, the pattern indeed of the things in the heavens to be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Hebrews 9:23 YLT) Q: Why did the earthly sanctuary - the pattern of the things in heaven - require a cleansing? "And he hath made atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so he doth for the tent of meeting which is tabernacling with them in the midst of their uncleannesses (Lev 16:16 YLT) Q: When was the earthly sanctuary cleansed - at the beginning or the end of the Jewish religious year? "And the Feast of Harvest, the first fruits of thy works which thou sowest in the field; and the Feast of the In-Gathering, in the outgoing of the year, in thy gathering thy works out of the field (Exodus 23:16 YLT) Q: Based on the typology, the earthly high priest would cleanse the sanctuary at the end of the Jewish religious year. This ministry is an example and shadow of heavenly things (see Heb 8:5). In light of this should we expect the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary at the beginning or end of the Christian dispensation? I will await your answers before moving forward.
@@Biblejems777 that's great just print the verse where the sins go into the sanctuary you still haven't done that. I'm waiting for the verse print it! You're saying only the first Goat is the one that's on the cross ,correct.? The first Goat does not bear any sins ,correct? and there's no sins placed on the first Goat correct?
. I'm waiting on you where does verse 16:16, say.. that the ( sins of the people go into the sanctuary). Nobody goes in there but Aaron! and if he goes in there with anything like that , because he's going to be dead. !That's why there was bells on the bottom of his garment. Exodus 28:33-35. it says( because the (sanctuary was amongst) them)... it needs to be cleansed !!!!!.which doesn't say anything about the sins, going in there.. but the sanctuary set there for a year)! it was cleaned because it sat there for a year . But not because of sin in it .😢. if there are sins in there somebody has to die!.. so why would a sanctuary in heaven that has nobody around it ...(need to cleansed ? the verse you put up you're not understanding.. Hebrews 9:23.. the( type the shadow )of the copy) that he is speaking of. ( is the one on the Earth.)!. Not the one in heaven!!!.. Jesus himself when( He entered in) was the the( sacrifice.) That's all that verse says! (That sanctuary it's (not) amongst the people )..it doesn't sit amongst sinful people !! Yes or no?
@@Biblejems777I sent you another text .but why will that not be able to be revealed.? without going to the top and hitting newest )can you explain that? This is why the second goat ends up being the devil instead of Jesus Christ for you do you realize what that means??? There's no way you can be saved Isaiah 43:25 never happens for an SDA person! All because you misinterpreted Daniel 8 you can't know the meaning of Daniel 8 that's your problem! I know it backwards forwards and upside down it took me 3 seconds to realize what you did with it! It's got nothing to do with the sanctuary in heaven! 1844 never happened!
@@Biblejems777you don't seem to realize that Daniel 8 is a prophecy.. that has not been fulfilled.. and it's got nothing to do with salvation! and you destroyed Daniel 9:27 with that false interpretation.. and Daniel 7 in the same manner. .an Revelation 12 in the same manner.. I can show you what you did with every one of them. But the real issue is to say the( devil does the atonement of Leviticus 1610 ).written in the investigative judgment!. Which no person on the face of the Earth that's Christian has an investigative judgment! that's Jesus Christ removing the sins on the cross (1st Peter 2:24)!!( the very first line). Jesus is Aaron and He takes Aaron's place !He places the sins on Himself on the same day!.. your confession of faith is that the (devil is doing your atonement). The sin is removed by the Devil Himself! attributing to the Devil Himself. what Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit does on the cross ..(on the same day!).. the first line of 1 Peter 2: 24.. You cannot have sins on the cross on the same day. And the devil removes the sins on the same day ...in Leviticus 16:10 so which is it?..( see this changes who Jesus is ) and that happened in 1844 with Daniel 8:14. You've got the same Jesus as a Jehovah's witness.. a Mormon ..and you're just like the Catholic Church! You have no atonement!! Isaiah 43:25 never happens for an SDA person. You can't even get to the fall of 1844 with 2,300 ..(the math won't let you do it. ) I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings, or anything. I'm telling you the truth. I've studied this all my life and I'm past 70. Not one thing you teach about prophecy . and not one thing you teach about Jesus Christ is true ..except part of Revelation 17!. Just enough truth to keep you thinking you have truth ,but you don't!
I am a SDA and around me there is no confusion as you are trying to push. We sing GOD in three Persons. The trouble is that people like you are trying to make a science out of the LORD"S word.
Detailed Answer: The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is invisible to us mortals. The only way we can know God (His Godhead) is if He is manifested. Christ inherited the Godhead (divinity) of His Father and is therefore “all the fullness of the Godhead manifested” All the fullness that dwells in the Son of God is His birthright and inheritance (Hebrews 1:4). This divine fullness dwells in Christ because it pleased the Father (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Christ possessed, by divine birth, the glory of His Father (Hebrews 1:3; John 1:14; 2 Corinthians 4:6). “In Christ is gathered all the glory of the Father. In Him is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person. The glory of the attributes of God are expressed in His character.” {E. G. White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, p. 907} “The love of God, manifested toward fallen man in the gift of his beloved Son, amazed the holy angels. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The Son was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person. He possessed divine excellence and greatness. He was equal with God. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell.” {E. G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 2, p. 38}
Uploader Jesus Christ is watch you erase the last comment !that's going to be standing in front of you when you meet the real Jesus of Hebrews 7:13 at the great white throne judgement .at the end of Revelation 20.!
Hello @JamieElison, Thank you for your comment but I think you must be confused. There has only been one comment erased here and that was a couple of days ago. It was a comment from a man named Chris Chung. Nothing else has been erased by me.
@@JamieElison Let's begin with a Bible verse: "And he hath made atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so he doth for the tent of meeting which is tabernacling with them in the midst of their uncleannesses (Lev 16:16 YLT) The verse above is about what the high priest would do on the day of Atonement in the earthly sanctuary. Now the Bible does not specify the exact method of transference of sins into the sanctuary. It appears to take for granted that the reader already knows how they get there (here I believe we see how those unto whom the oraces of God were committed had the advantage in every way). Yet there is one verse that gives us a clue: “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat…” (Lev 16:21) By Aaron's laying on of hands upon Azazel's goat and confessing the iniquities there was a transference. This verse is actually the process of removing the sins from out of the sanctuary and Aaron himself appears to be a conduit for moving them by the laying on of hands and the confession. This is in harmony with Ex 28:38 "And it [the mitre] shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD” (Exodus 28:38) From this verse we learn that Aaron, the High Priest, was actually a conduit [means of transfer] for iniquity. This explains how Aaron, after he had made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar (see Lev 16:20) could carry the iniquities out from the sanctuary and place them upon the head of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:21). So then how did they get there in the first place? If you read the Torah you will see that there was a laying on of hands when a sin offering was made. This was a rule for the priest, for elders on behalf of the whole congregation, for a ruler, or for a common person (see Lev 4:4; 15, 24, 29, 33 for the specific verses that mention the laying on of hands). There is no other explanation as to what this would mean except for what we find in Leviticus 16 so this is most likely the mechanism of transference of responsibility for sin from the person(s) to the animal. So the responsibility of sin was transferred to the sacrifice. Then, after that, we read a very interesting verse that gives us another clue about the next step in transference which brings the sin into the sanctuary. We read the following statement from Moses to Aaron: “Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?” (Lev 10:17) In this verse we learn that God gave the sin offering to the priests so that they might “bear the iniquity of the congregation” thereby making “atonement for them before the LORD.” Now all of these points, so far, have not touched upon the sanctuary itself, only the priest, but when we look at Leviticus 10:18 we begin to see how sin is born by the blood of the sin offering into God’s dwelling place. “Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded” (Lev 10:18) Here Moses berated his brother that since the blood of the sin offering had not been taken into the holy place then the sin offering should have been eaten. Aaron argues that he didn’t do so because of exceptional circumstances (2 of his sons had been destroyed by the Lord that day) and that if he had eaten it “should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord” (vs 19) Here we learn that it was necessary for the priest to eat the sin offering, IF the blood was not taken inside the Sanctuary, and then God was to accept it. In other words, the normal process was that the priests, by eating the sin offering, bore away the sin from the people and the Lord would accept this. So now where does the blood come into play here? The law of the sin offering is as follows: If a priest or the entire congregation sinned the blood of the sin offering was taken inside the holy place and sprinkled 7 times before the veil in front of the Most Holy Place and some of the blood was put on the horns of the altar of incense (Lev 4:3-7, 13-18) If a ruler or individual Israelite sinned then the blood was not taken inside the Sanctuary but it was put on the horns of the altar of sacrifice (Lev 4:22-25, 27-30) Another rule in connection with the sin offering was that “the priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation” (Lev 6:26). But this rule had an exception for “no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten, it shall be burnt in the fire.” (Lev 6:30) When we start connecting all of these verses together we see the case begin to emerge. 1) Aaron the high priest bore the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel hallowed in all their holy gifts (aka: sacrifices) 2) God gave the sin offering to the priest so that they would bear the iniquity of the congregation. It was to be eaten in the holy place 3) The sin offering was to be eaten unless its blood was taken inside of the holy place. If the blood was sprinkled within and put on the horns of the altar of incense then the priest was not to eat it. So we see that the sin offering was to be eaten so that the priest would bear the iniquity away from the people. We also see that the priest was exempted from this IF the blood was taken inside the holy place and left there (via sprinkling and some put on the altar of incense). The logical conclusion, based on the weight of Biblical evidence, is that when this happened the holy place and its altar bore the iniquity away from the people. This is why (and the only time when) the priest was exempted from eating the sin offering. With all of these things said we see the case for how the blood transfers sins. By being sprinkled before the veil and being placed on the horns of the altar it was a record of the sins. Now we see why Aaron had to reconcile the holy place, the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar (see Lev 16:20). The sins that had been transferred there remained until the climax of the sacrificial ritual- the Day of Atonement. On that day, all of the sins of Israel where removed from the sanctuary. And we have already seen above how Aaron serves as the conduit for removing them out from the sanctuary. Now it is important to understand that this is all symbolic. By the priest eating the sin offering or by the blood of the sin offering being sprinkled before the veil or being placed on the altar, this really signifies that the responsibility for sin has been shifted away from the sinner to the priest and the sanctuary. That means God is going to take care of it on our behalf. Now, all of these things are important for us to understand because they point to a necessity connected to the heavenly sanctuary. Yet with the heavenly sanctuary it requires a better sacrifice to be cleansed. "and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come. It is necessary, therefore, the pattern indeed of the things in the heavens to be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Hebrews 9:23 YLT) Let's stop here for now. Are these things clear to you? Do you dispute them or accept them?
@Biblejems777 the scripture verses are true .but you're misinterpreting them. Hebrews 9: 23.. doesn't say anything about a sanctuary being cleansed. in heaven. and not for sin! The copies of things he's referring to the one on the earth ..not the one in heaven. And the one of the earth is being cleansed because it's amongst the people. but not for sin. just because it's amongst the people. So what sins ever went in there from the front door? Just show me the verse that says that. because there's no sin in the blood. of the first Goat. That blood is paying for my sins ..not my dirty sins going in there.. for paying for my sins.. that's Jesus Christ perfect blood to go in there and pay for my sins... so what you'd have to be saying, is if sins go in there Jesus blood has sins in it!.. you keep saying Aaron transfers the sins from the sanctuary where does it say that? You'd have to be removing sins from Jesus Christ blood! which would mean you have tainted blood in Jesus Christ! so how do you place Sins inside that Sanctuary ?just show me where it says that in the Bible!... If then the sins are completely removed by the first Goat.. which it tells you they're not )!because Aaron still places them on the second Goat . And the word remission means just to pay for,, but not to remove..and you teach that's the devil removing them the second Goat of Leviticus 16:10.. But you say Jesus is only the first Goat on the cross.. and Jesus says the sins are placed upon Himself 1 Peter 2:24 the very first line. So the sins still exists after the sanctuary. And they're in Jesus Christ 1 Peter 2:24 what sins are you going to place on the devil,, if they are in Jesus Christ on the same day? Jesus said they're on the cross! with Him !and you're saying they're on the devil! on the same day. Which is it? you have just destroyed Jesus Christ in his entirety with Daniel 8:14! Notice the whole entire levitical thing pertains to who Jesus is. He said destroy this Temple and I will just raise it up in 3 days. that's the sanctuary. The first Goat He pays the price. with his blood. Aaron is now Jesus Christ. All those verses where it says he ate the sin offering. that's representing.Jesus Christ .the sins are in Jesus Christ 1 Peter 2:24 but in the body.. not the blood.. Jesus Christ is one that has the sins( in) Him and He does what Aaron did. with the sins and places them on himself .upon himself ..He Aaron places the sins on the second Goat ..on the same day... as Jesus places the sins upon Himself on the same day. The second Goat is also Jesus Christ .removing the sins that's what those other verses that you put up their represent. But no where do the sins go into the sanctuary in the blood... no where does it say sins are placed on that.. they're paid for on the inside with Jesus sin free blood ! He comes out and removes them... on the outside ,to the outside second Goat. which represents .. both Aaron and Jesus Christ! Notice we're talking about Leviticus 16. you added a bunch of others that represent the same thing that I'm saying .but on that day there are no sins.. in the blood.. the blood does not go into the sanctuary carrying any sin.. Aaron eats it representing that he is Jesus Christ (Aaron becomes the second Goat. He is bearing the sins). The high priest representing Jesus Christ bears the sin the high priest forever Psalms 110: 4. Placing the Sins on himself!.. But on the day of atonement they did (not) eat the Goat they burned it. The goat did not get eaten..(Aaron,!) The sins are in Aaron who is now Jesus Christ!. The whole thing is representative of Jesus Christ from beginning to end in the levitical Sanctuary. you had to have two goats to represent the two parts ,of the atonement. Because after the first Goat dies ,you've got a dead Goat. In the real world, for what it represents.. how are you going to remove the sins? To represent what Jesus does the second part of the atonement. Leviticus 16 10. you now I have a dead Goat!. That's why the second Goat is there representing the( same Jesus! )Which completes the atonement that does not happen for you! Which is Isaiah 43 verse 25 at the cross. God himself. That's who you're calling the devil. Which is Jesus Christ present ,past and future that's what Abraham put his faith in .you don't have that. SDA is not Abrahams seed, Job says I know my redeemer lives .his faith was in what Jesus was going to do. Present, past, and future that doesn't happen for you! That's salvation right there. As soon as you believe that. you're saved .otherwise you're not!.
You say you believe in Ellen White. Then why are you not following her instruction? She warned against entering into controversy regarding this issue. People have been debating this for decades, and it is not going to be resolved by you or anyone else. It is just continuing to cause confusion and take our focus off, preaching the gospel to those who do not know Christ.
зменено Есть у вас аседов, братья по вере. Первые, это Церковь христиан субботнего дня, заведует ими Стефан Бойко.село Били Ославы, Второе, это Церковь Божа христиан субботнего дня. Заведует им Павло Ришко. Деревня Буштино. Обе церкви подавно широко представлены на площадках Ютуба, и имеют связи с себе подобными по миру. Также известно об их критическом отношении к вашему ложному идолу пророку Елен Уайт, это то, какое они о ней мнение имеют))) понятно да, о ком речь. Почему этим занимаются недоброжелатели)) знаменитой вестницы Духа Пророческого предельно ясно, а ведь для них авторитет,, Библия,, - и только Библия - богодухновенность, непогрешность, святость, можно перечислять дальше..... Я же предоставлю, что это уже не то писание, какое было до 11 века. Ведь если храм в котором пребывал Бог не был помилован, из за грехов Израиля, И был подвержен мерзости запустения, которая утвердилась в 1290 году ( падение Иерусалимского королевства и АКРЫ, также Осман Первый получил знаки владычества „мечеть на крыле храма утвердилась надолго,,) Дан 12:11./ 9:27. Также иии, писания подвержены деформации и изменения, что оставило отпечаток мерзости запустения и на нём. А дело состоит в том, что когда какие то светлые умы начинают толковать, вот тут такой артикль, а там такая запятая,а свитки у нас такой датироаки, а они все сфальсифицированы, то почему, извольте не называть вещи своими именами, и тех кто к этому причастен (прочитайте критику Уве Топера,, обман, как папство на протяжении всего времени начиная со своего образования 1075 эдикт диктат, выполнило эту задачу поставленую ему, понятно Кем). То есть Библию „заделали „для детей, но вскормливают взрослым.))) Обратите внимание, на факт предоставленый пастором АСД Александр Головенко в видео „история АСД, 7 часть,, На времени 1.12-1.14 он расказывает, из трудов Елены Уайт, об вмешательстве человечества в творение Божье обозначенное термином- амальгамация. Амальгамация случилась до потопа, что скорей всего и вызвало потоп, поэтому все твари не созданные Богом были уничтожены водами потопа. (Как об этом расказывает Боков на своем канале, куда же делись динозавры???,,))))))с него можно поугорать)) послушав его материал) После потопа, амальгамация повторилась и это вылилось в разнообразии человеческих рас, между человеком и животными??? как к ним спасение применяется????. Вот почему Израильтяне доделывали „работу, после потопа, дорогой в землю обетованную. А почему так происходило, так прочитайте в книге Юбилеев, об этих событиях, разумеющий неразумеет Так вы понимаете какого уровня была цивилизация при начале времён??? Какой уровень генной инженерии, обьемы знаний, оборудования и всего чтобы делать опыты над динозаврами, и смешивать людей со зверями и падшими ангелами.???!!!! А теперь раскажи мне с библии, как Авраам доил коз, и расказывал устную тору будущим потомкам.)))). Гвоздь чтобы, закрепить все это находится в фильме,, Пираты Карибского моря,, там где они несут сирену и она падает на землю, молодой священник, вызывается нести её на своих руках, (в Ютубе есть нарезка этого момента), И ОН ЕЙ ЦИТИРУЕТ, ЦИТАТУ, ЕЛЕН УАЙТ О ТЕМНЫХ ДЕЛАХ ЛЮДЕЙ ДО ПОТОПА!!!!!! ОТКУДА ЭТОOOO TAM.??? ОТКУДА ЭТО В ГОЛИВУДЕ??? В ПИРАТАХ КАРИБСКОГО МОРЯ? СТЕФАН БОЙКОО, ПАВЛО РИШКООО, ВЫ СМОТРЕЛИ ПИРАТОВ КАРИБСКОГО МОРЯ?!? А ЕЛЕН УАЙТ СМОТРЕЛИ ??? А ТО ЧТО 60 ЛЕТ УАЙТ БЫЛА ПОД ЗАПРЕТОМ СМОТРЕЛИИИ???? И ЕЁ ПЕРЕПИСАЛИ, КАК И ВСЮ БИБЛИЮ, вы ВЫ ЖИВЁТЕ В 90 ПРОЦЕНТНОМ ОБМАНЕ, И ЛИШ ДЕСЯТЬ ПРОЦЕНТОВ Всемогущий вам оставил во свидетельство „вина и елея не повреждай,, Мира суботствующим
Was not Jesus talking about angels when He said "A spirit does not have flesh and bone."? I do not trust the trinity, but where do we have Scripture stating God the Father has a physical body? The Bible says, of both Father and Son "God is a Spirit." The closest we can come is that the "image of God - male and female" -representing Father and Son, are physical creatures. Yet, "form" and "physical" are not the same words at all. "Son...does not denote biological descent." (33:47) Obviously, we must accept this fact: Like the Father, the Son of God Jesus IS a Spirit. John 4:24 God is a Spirit… 2Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit… Jesus is NOT a metaphorical Son. He is the literal Spirit-Son of God the Spirit-Father. Jesus is also the Creator of every creature, and of all creation. He is not a literal biologically begotten son; derived from a literal woman's womb. The mere mortal son Adam; a creature, was created by God’s breath; a supernatural Spiritual miracle. Adam came to exist by God physically manipulating lifeless matter; then God supernaturally breathed and created life out of lifeless matter. Adam did not come to breathe by a biological process. Would the Son of God; Jesus have come to exist by an inferior means than that by which Adam came to exist? The Father (a Spirit) and Son (a Spirit); (one Spirit in the Holy Spirit) are not primarily physical biological father and son. Yes, Jesus is now 100% human with a strictly literal physical human body. He is the literal “express image” of the Father. But the Father did not impregnate a human woman to bring rise to the Son. The Son was not begotten through a human womb by egg and sperm, or by any literal human biology.
Hello Sarah Wieland, I suppose it depends on what you mean by the word "trinity." There is a generic sense in which the word "trinity" can be used and, in this sense, it simply means a grouping of three. Although I try to avoid using the word myself, because inspiration never uses it and because of the theological luggage frequently attached to it, this channel will not man an offender for a word. Rather we first ask all men exactly what they mean by the term, if and when they use it. People often mean different things when they use the word. So, if someone wants to refer to God the Father, His only begotten Son, and His omnipresent Spirit as a "trinity," in the generic sense of the term, then so be it. I myself refer to God, His Son, and His Spirit by speaking of a heavenly Trio. However, when it comes to the identity of the one God of the Bible, the word "trinity" has a specific theological meaning. It is a very common term within Christendom and it most frequently means that the identity of the one God of the Bible is a unity of 3 personalities - each of the three persons is supposedly truly and fully Him, in every sense of the word, yet there there is supposedly only one Him. That's who the doctrine of the trinity claims that He is - 3 persons unified as a single, indivisible, immutable Divine Being. That is something this channel does oppose, finding it false according to the Bible and SoP. There's a whole pandora's box of heresies that are opened by that conception. This channel looks at the matter through a Seventh-day Adventist theological lens. You can learn more about the historical development of trinitarianism within Adventism at the following link, if you are interested: ruclips.net/video/mJCvjGbQODA/видео.html
@@sarahwieland Lol! I'm not trying to be difficult. I have heard people use the word "trinity" in a way that I can stomach even though I avoid using it myself. Take for example the 1913 statement of F.M. Wilcox: “For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe,- “1. In the divine TRINITY. This TRINITY consists of THE ETERNAL FATHER, a personal, SPIRITUAL BEING, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of 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 one regenerating agency in the work of redemption.” (Review and Herald, Oct 9, 1913) This "trinity" does not make the identity of the one God into a unity of three persons, nor does it do away with the Fatherhood of God and the only begotten Sonship of the pre-incarnate Christ. You could believe that under this label. Thus I can stomach it. I do not agree, however, with the modern day SDA trinity doctrine or the creedal trinity doctrine.
@Biblejems777 yeah, you're anti-trinitarian. The trinity doctrine is sound, as only God Saves, and the nature of its structure is what ultimately split the church in 1054AD.
@@sarahwieland If the nature of its structure is what split the church then how is this doctrine sound? Yet let's forgo that point for the moment for a different one. Can you explain to me that this doctrine is and why it is true? I have read the Bible through several times and I cannot find the doctrine of the trinity therein. And it's not for lack of trying either. I lost my career over this matter so it would be advantageous for me to be able to affirm the trinity doctrine from Scripture.
Amen brother Jason.
It is very good to see you back with a much awaited presentation.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share these truths Brother Jason.
I've been looking for a series of videos like this one for such a long time, thank you a lot brother Jason, greetings from Argentina🇦🇷
God bless the Truth! Thank you Jason. Praise the Lord!
Appreciate this presentation. Concise and balanced. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Jason. Looking forward for part 2.
Thank you so much brother Smith.
Absolutely LOVE ❤️ ❤❤❤❤
Your website - it is the best, a wonderful resource!!! And I am so glad to see you starting to be active with your RUclips! This is just the right time! People are receiving the 1st angels message and learning about WHO GOD IS!!! Praise God! Nobody can stop this message because it is the truth about God and the TRUE GOSPEL OF GOD GIVING HIS SON TO SAVE US!!!
Thank you for your work in this important subject!!!!
Godspeed!❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I extremely dislike the term "anti-trinitarian."
It's akin to saying, "anti-bigfoot" or "anti-Loc Ness monster!"
I know it is little difference, but for that reason I say non-trinitarian. “Anti” seems to say I’m on a crusade against trinitarians, when it is the opposite, we’re on a crusade to reveal God and His Son.
Thanks friends
Or "anti-Christ".
Thanks Jason. This is really well done.
Thank you......Aloha..
@1:05:42 non trinitarians generally revere JS Washburn. Note his exegesis:
JS Washburn: "Christ himself teaches in John 17:21, 22 that the three persons of the Godhead are three “separable beings.” For the disciples were “separable beings,” and Christ compares the unity of the Father and the Son with the unity of the disciples united in perfect unity of heart."
A text being used seperate from its context is nothing more than a pretext trying to be passed off as a prooftext.
Unfortunately, JS Washburn didn't do exegesis there at all. Where is any mentioning of three separable beings in John 17:21, 22? Let's read the verses together:
"That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. 22 And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one (John 17:21, 22)
An actual exegesis of these Scriptures reveals that we are talking about God and His Son Jesus. And notice that there is a mutual indwelling, with the Father being in the Son and the Son being in the Father. It is this oneness that is being extended to the disciples so that they might become one in the Father and Son with the intent that the world will then believe that God sent Christ. Notice also that the glory that God gave to Christ, He in turn gave to His disciples in order to make them one. So, exegetically speaking, there is nothing here about the three persons of the Godhead being three separable beings.
Now, lest any man misunderstand, what we Seventh-day Adventist non-trinitarians revere, above all else, is the Word of God. We seek to always base our doctrine upon a plain thus saith the Lord. We also revere the Testimony of Jesus through sister White, finding the best explanation of her life and ministry to be that she was inspired of God. Thus we also turn to her writings to elucidate the matter even more. And you can read all of the Bible and also all of her writings and you will never find the Spirit declared to be a "separable being" from God. Yes, you can find the Spirit referred to as a person in her publications and even referred to as a "being" in a stenographer's report. Yet never will you read about the Spirit as separate. Quite the contrary actually. We will use the Bible itself first.
"But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:10, 11)
The holy Spirit is presented here in Scripture as the internal searcher of God. Now how, pray tell, can this be separable from Him? This plain Word of God reveals an analogous relation between man and the spirit of man in him to God and the Spirit of God. In other words, the Spirit is within Him. And this, by the way, helps to explain the mutual indwelling that Jesus mentioned in John 17:21, 22. The glory which God gave to Him, which He then shares with us, is actually the very Spirit of God. This is how the Father was in the Son. Egw eluciates.
“Jesus is seeking to impress upon them the thought that in giving His Holy Spirit He is giving to them the glory which the Father hath given Him, that He and His people may be one in God…{ST Oct 3, 1892, par.4}
Oh that we might better understand the oneness that exists between God and His only begotten Son! It is by one Spirit that we have access to the Father through the Son! Those who make the holy Spirit into a separable being from God and Christ rather than the internal person, the means of mutual indwelling, are, doctrinally speaking, denying their own spiritual oneness with God through Christ and the agency whereby the Father and Son are living within. There are numerous other problems that will come in with a doctrine of a separate holy Spirit being too but I can't get into that now. Suffice it to say that the Spirit is a living personality, just as verily as God and Christ are, with cognitive and emotive capability - able to speak and hear -but the Spirit is never presented as all the fullness of the Godhead bodily like They are. The Spirit is presented as the internal Witness and He (or It) is never presented as altogether separate from God or Christ. Men assume that because they have a tritheistic hermenuetic. The truth of inspiration is that there is always an internal connection to God. No disrespect to Judson Washburn for he was used of the Lord mightily to oppose the errors of orthodox trinitarianism that were creeping into Adventism in his day. Yet that doesn't mean he was right in all of his expositions as even a cursory examination of John 17:21, 22 reveals.
@@Biblejems777 ITS SAD, PEOPLE DON'T KNOW OUR HISTORY!? E.J.WAGGONER WROTE AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, NOT BECAUSE ITS ABOUT 3 PERSONS, WHICH ELLEN WHITE AND THE BIBLE TEACHES ON ALL 3 PEERSONS. NO THE MEANING OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY MEANS IN THE CATHOLIC WRITINGS IS JESUS CAME IN SINLESS FLESH AND HE GOT THAT FROM MARY WHO ALSO HAD SINLESS FLESH. SO WHEN YOU USE THE WORD TRINITY, YOU ARE TEACHING AGAINST THE NATURE OF JESUSN NOT BEING 3 PERSONS. ITS NOT 3 IN 1 OR 1 IN 3 BUT 3 BEING 3 PERSONS.
Hi brother Chris,
You have done your research and study this topic thoroughly and came to your current conclusion. While I do not share the same conclusion as you, I see you are zealous for the truth you believe.
I do not share you belief, the main reason is that the term trinity are not found in the Bible. I also do not find terms like exegesis, hermeneutics, consubstantial, coeternal, God the Son etc.
My faith is in the King James Bible. To me the Bible is perfect, infallible and withstood many tests from the attacks of trinitarians and anti-trinitarians alike. And when the Scripture says: "Of a truth thou art the Son of God." Matthew 14:33, it means that Christ is not the Son of God in a metaphorical sense.
Of a truth thou art the Son of God!
@@Tm91studies well then you neither share my belief nor the belief of the author of this video. Note Jason Smith:
“I have continually advocated to all parties a return to the 1913(trinity) position that had a flexible Christology and Pneumatology so that all might be SDAs in good standing. -Jason Smith 10/2022 fb conversation
1913 statement:
"“For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe,- 1. In the divine Trinity. This Trinity consists of the eternal Father, a personal, spiritual being, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of 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 one regenerating agency in the work of redemption.” (F. M. Wilcox, Review and Herald, 9th October 1913,)
Amen 🙏🏽
You have done your homework and it's good to have more information on this subject. This movement with anti Trinitarian is growing . I've been looking at material for the last several years and what convinced me about the 3 person Godhead was when ML Andreasen went to Sister Whites houes and for three months read everything Sister White had to say on the subject and then accepted the 3 person Godhead. The Christian Conextion church is where this Doctrine started in the movement before 1863 when organized.
Fair enough my friend. I have no problem with a 3 persons Godhead. The Bible clearly reveals that there is a Father, Son, and Spirit and Egw explicitly mentions Them as the the 3 persons of the Godhead. Yet that is different from the doctrine of the trinity which makes the identity of the one God into a unity of said 3 persons.
Now, as for M.L. Andreasen, unfortunately, he became an Athanasian trinitarian. If you read his writings and the testimony of his contemporaries this can be seen. Case and point:
“D.E. Robinson says that you are the first one he knows of to teach the straight doctrine of the trinity, in Australia…..There is to me a twilight zone in this history which I wish to have lighted. Did all the fathers sin? [he means the original pioneers] And if so, did they repent? How prove the unity of the faith in our succession if our pioneers were Arians and WE ARE ATHANASIANS? ANDREASEN IS VERY POSITIVE THAT WAGGONER MUST BE REPUDIATED," WHICH I UNDERSTAND MEANS "CONDEMNED". I am slow to censure any of the fathers, but I am ready to make situations as clear as they appear to me. In the beginning of my writing I did not realize that the question of the trinity among us was of so serious a nature…..Let me know, if you please, what your part in this movement was, where you got your view and inspiration, who else was instrumental in presenting it, what the actual views of the pioneers were, what relation to the question Sister White had through the years. (A.W. Spalding to H.C. Lacey, June 2, 1947)
As A.W. Spalding reports, the SDA leaders at that time were Athanasians. He noted that Andreasen was zealous to repudiate Waggoner and establish his trinity conception among the Adventist people. Now an Athanasian believes that the Father, Son, and Spirit are unified one inseparable God Being. They believe in a timeless existence for God and explain his inseparable oneness by analogies of the sun and its rays. This was actually Andreasen's doctrine. Again, case and point:
Andresen's concern:
"...We may yet find that THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY will stand us in good stead in the days to come. It might be well if our papers had this in mind, so that once in a while references would appear that would make our stand clear in this respect. Such references are altogether too few. THE WORLD SHOULD BE MADE AWARE THAT WE ARE TRINITARIANS... (M.L. Andreason Ministry Magazine Vol 12, No. 11 November 1939)
Andreasen's belief in a timeless god:
“THERE ARE THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT GOD DID NOT CREATE TIME, BUT THAT IN SOME WAY HE FOUND IT ALREADY EXISTING. BUT THIS CANNOT BE.... (M. L. Andreasen, The Sabbath, pp. 54)
Andreasen's Athanasian doctrine:
"The third verse [of Hebrews 1] presents Christ as "being the brightness of his [God's] glory." The participle "being" is an expression of ETERNAL, TIMELESS EXISTENCE, and has the same sense as "was" in John 1: 1, "In the beginning was the Word." The Word is Christ. (Verse 14) He did not come into existence in the beginning. In the beginning He was. When He came to this world He became flesh. He had not previously been flesh. By way of contrast He did not become the brightness of the Father's glory. He always was. This constitutes the essential and eternal ground of His personality.
"Brightness" is variously translated outshining, out raying, reflection. IT HAS THE SAME RELATION TO GOD'S GLORY AS THE RAYS OF THE SUN HAVE TO THE SUN. THE RAYS CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE SUN, NOR THE SUN FROM ITS RAYS. THE TWO ARE INSEPARABLE. SO WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON." (M.L. Andreasen, The Book of
Hebrews pg 28)
Did you catch it? Now, amazingly enough, Andreasen's Athansian doctrine did not lead him down the path of impeccability like it usually does for others (i.e. our Catholic friends being the most prominent example). This is due to the fact that he very clearly grasped the Bible and sister White's doctrine of Christ taking sinful human nature. This spared him of the normative consequence of Athanasianism. Nevertheless his doctrine was incorrect in this respect. As a trintiarian he turned Father, Son, and Spirit into a single inseparable being, like the rays of the sun with the sun itself, with a timeless existence. In this regard he actually took hold of a spiritualistic representation that inspiration says we should shun:
"...Such representations as the following are made: “The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad.”... {SpTB07 62.2}
"All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue... {SpTB07 62.3}
Last but not least (and I will talk about this in a later video) the doctrine of the early SDA church, regarding the personality of God and the personality of Christ, in opposition to the doctrine of the trinity is not simply a left over from the Christian Connexion church. That is popular revisionist history among SDA pro-trintiarian apologists today. This doctrine was actually through the result of Bible study and confirming visions from sister White.
"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, Elder Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, ‘We can do nothing more,’ the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me.” {SpTB02 56.4}
Through intense Bible study and visions from Jesus, a foundation was laid. This foundation includes, as a landmark pillar, the personality of God (aka: personality of the Father) and the personality of Christ, His only begotten Son. Please do not be deceived or led astray by those who have not held fast.
"Those who seek to remove THE OLD LANDMARKS are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove THE PILLARS OF OUR FAITH concerning the sanctuary, or concerning THE PERSONALITY OF GOD OR CHRIST, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift, without an anchor. {20LtMs, Ms 62, 1905, par. 14}
"A liar is one that presents false theories and doctrines. He who denies the personality of God and of His Son Jesus Christ is denying God and Christ. “If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son and in the Father.” [Verse 24.] If you continue to believe and obey THE TRUTHS YOU FIRST EMBRACED regarding THE PERSONALITY OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, you will be joined together with them in love. There will be seen that union for which Christ prayed just before His trial and crucifixion {21LtMs, Ms 23, 1906, par. 20}
"The Lord revealed Himself not only as THE TRUE AND LIVING GOD, but as OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, when HE sent HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON into the world to purchase our redemption {BTS December 1, 1911, par. 6}
@@Biblejems777In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life. DA 530.3
Milian Lauritz Andreasen (June 4, 1876 - February 19, 1962), a Seventh-day Adventist theologian, pastor and author. was such a staunch non trinitarian that when he saw that statement in Desire of Ages he couldn't believe that EGW wrote it. He went to her house in Elmshaven a decade later and only after that visit did he become trinitarian. Here's his testimony:
"How astonished we were when Desire of Ages was first published, for it contained some things that we considered unbelievable; among others the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not generally accepted by the Adventists then. I was particularly interested, in the statement in Desire of Ages which at one time caused great concern to the denomination theologically: 'In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived' (p. 530). That statement may not seem very
revolutionary to you, but to us it was. We could hardly believe it. ... I was sure Sister White had never written, 'In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.' But now I found it in her own handwriting just as it had been published." ML Andreasen
@@Biblejems777 What do you believe about the Godhead is there 3 persons in one being or manifestations?Sorry trying to understand where you coming from thanks
CHRIST came to our world, but the world could not endure His purity. He has gone to His Father, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to REPRESENT HIM in the world till he shall come again.” - (E.G. White, Ms1, Jan 11, 1897)
“CHRIST has left HIS Holy Spirit to be HIS REPRESENTATIVE in the world, to give celestial aid to every hungering, thirsting soul.” - (E.G. White, Lt84, Oct 22, 1895)
“The Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT of CHRIST; it is HIS REPRESENTATIVE. Here is the divine agency that carries conviction to hearts. When the power of His Spirit is revealed through the servants of God, we behold divinity flashing through humanity.” - (E.G. White, 13MR 313.3, 1895)
“Cumbered with humanity, CHRIST could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is HIMSELF, divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. HE would REPRESENT HIMSELF as present in all places by HIS Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.” - (E.G. White, Lt119, Feb 18, 1895)
“While JESUS ministers in the sanctuary above, HE is still by HIS SPIRIT the minister of the church on earth. HE is withdrawn from the eye of sense, but HIS parting promise is fulfilled, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20. While HE delegates HIS power to inferior ministers, HIS energizing presence is still with HIS church.” - (EGW, DA, p. 166)
“We cannot be with CHRIST in person, as were His first disciples, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, [John 16:13 quoted]” - (EGW, Ms30, June 18, 1900)
“When God’s people search the Scriptures with a desire to know what is truth, JESUS is present in the PERSON of HIS REPRESENTATIVE, the HOLY SPIRIT, reviving the hearts of the humble and contrite ones.” - (E.G. White, 12MR 145.2, 1898)
CHRIST came to our world, but the world could not endure His purity. He has gone to His Father, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to REPRESENT HIM in the world till he shall come again.” - (E.G. White, Ms1, Jan 11, 1897)
“CHRIST has left HIS Holy Spirit to be HIS REPRESENTATIVE in the world, to give celestial aid to every hungering, thirsting soul.” - (E.G. White, Lt84, Oct 22, 1895)
“The Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT of CHRIST; it is HIS REPRESENTATIVE. Here is the divine agency that carries conviction to hearts. When the power of His Spirit is revealed through the servants of God, we behold divinity flashing through humanity.” - (E.G. White, 13MR 313.3, 1895)
“Cumbered with humanity, CHRIST could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is HIMSELF, divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. HE would REPRESENT HIMSELF as present in all places by HIS Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.” - (E.G. White, Lt119, Feb 18, 1895)
“While JESUS ministers in the sanctuary above, HE is still by HIS SPIRIT the minister of the church on earth. HE is withdrawn from the eye of sense, but HIS parting promise is fulfilled, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20. While HE delegates HIS power to inferior ministers, HIS energizing presence is still with HIS church.” - (EGW, DA, p. 166)
“We cannot be with CHRIST in person, as were His first disciples, but HE has sent HIS Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, [John 16:13 quoted]” - (EGW, Ms30, June 18, 1900)
“When God’s people search the Scriptures with a desire to know what is truth, JESUS is present in the PERSON of HIS REPRESENTATIVE, the HOLY SPIRIT, reviving the hearts of the humble and contrite ones.” - (E.G. White, 12MR 145.2, 1898)
I see on your youtube site that they are already available. I will watch as time allows. Thanks.
What is the order these should be watched? Have to many part one's and two's.
What is your website, Jason?
It is not my website but some of the articles I have written are available there:
asitreads.com/author/jason-smith/
Hi Jason, I sent you a message on your gmail account (about the creation week (literal or spiritual). Did you receive it? Thanks in advance.
You can also write your response here or address it in a RUclips video if one doesn't exist yet.
Jesus said: “Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9). Jesus had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), and is “being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person” (Hebrews 1:3), and, being just that, God created the world through Him (Hebrews 1:2) - then … If Jesus is “the express image” of God, and We, humans look like God since we are also “in the image of God“ (Genesis 1:26) … there must be a tangible body for us to be made “in the image of” it and that body must be God’s.
"The Father can not be described by the things of earth. 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 manifested. The word of God declares Him to be "the express image of His person." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father.
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 Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. BTS March 1, 1906, par. 1 - BTS March 1, 1906, par. 2"
To this comment I agree 100%. If you look at the previous sentences, as quoted in SpTB07, Egw warns of spiritualistic representations.
"I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: “The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad.” “The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.” Another representation: “The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.” {SpTB07 62.2 }
"All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God can not be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. The Father can not be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight {SpTB07 62.3}
"The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person.” “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here is shown the personality of the Father. {SpTB07 63.1}
"The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. 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.... {SpTB07 63.2}
This next video linked below exposes how these types of representations have entered into Adventism through the doctrine of the trinity.
ruclips.net/video/uebZYnd7Wlw/видео.htmlsi=SNcafGf7ysc-ec6G
But you can't have the devil being the second goat of Leviticus 1610 !because that destroys everything that that the Bible ever said!. That's why SDA is so confused. They have destroyed Jesus Christ in his entirety in 1844! you can't even get there with the math equation. A 12-year-old kid could verify that.. even if he can't understand Bible!. Daniel 8 has got nothing to do with the sanctuary in heaven!. By that false interpretation you've got an investigative judgment.. the devil does the atonement of Leviticus 1610! and you don't know what the Trinity or who Jesus really is. And Isaiah 43:25 never happens for an SDA person at cross! It's the saddest thing on the face of the Earth!
Come on uploader let the comments be posted! because I told you the truth! it's straight from the Bible!
The uploader is not letting the comments to be visible. you have to hit the (newest) to see some of it. if he erased it. God is going to hold him responsible! I wouldn't have had to print the last two. if you would have let the first one print. like you actually let's you see when you actually get the newest)! why don't you let it print the first time? are you afraid of the truth ?people are not going to treat you as an honest person ,if you don't let them post the first time! There's really four here. But if you don't hit the newest )there's only three!
Your answer is written in the stream if you hit the newest the guys hiding the truth!
I am getting a huge amount of ads. Its beyond annoying. Can you turn them off or is it automatic?
You could get an AD blocker. My son did it for me. It only took a few minutes @ no cost.
1.Corintians 8:6 !!! And the Spirit is the Spirit from the Father and Jesus Christ. A Person has a name! God "Jehova" Jesus is a Person" Jesus Christ" The holy Spirit is no Person and has no Name! A Person cannot at the same time in different areas,but the holy Spirit can!!!
Hello William,
I do not find this to be the case. Both the Bible and the SoP reveals to us that the Spirit has a name.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt 28:19)
"And yet, though Christ made much of this theme concerning the Holy Spirit, how little is it dwelt upon in the churches! The name and presence of the Holy Spirit are almost ignored, yet the divine influence is essential in the work of perfecting the Christian character. {ST August 14, 1893, par. 5}
If you read the Old Testament you will see that holy Spirit referred to as the Spirit of the LORD - the caps indicate that Divine Name. (Yahweh or Jehovah) - and so this same Name is associated with the Spirit Itself. That makes good sense. I am Jason and my spirit is the spirit of Jason.
Moving forward the idea that the Spirit is not a person is understandable. The Spirit is never presented in a tangible bodily form in whose image and likeness we were created, like we know about God and His only begotten Son yet, with that said, there are clearly personal interactions ascribed to the Spirit in the Bible. When the Bible speaks of the Father, Son, and Spirit together, as it does from time to time, and when the Bible makes clear that the Spirit Itself can speak, hear, and interact with both God and us in a personal way - what else would you say this is, if not a person? I'm curious to know. Now I'm not saying that the Spirit is exactly the same as God or Christ but these attributes do seem to be those of personality. So what label do you use?
2 Corinthians 3:17 (KJV) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
The Spirit is Jesus himself and also eminates from Him and the Father
@@jervionsatahoo3674You have misinterpreted the text by disregarding the context of the verse. The Spirit brings all of the father and all of the son while at the same time being neither of them. When Christ stated if you have seen me you have seen the father he did not mean that they are the same person but rather that they are the same in purpose and oneness. It is in this sense and this sense alone that the Spirit is referred to as the Lord himself.
@@Biblejems777the Father the Son and the holy Spirit are of one substance and they are one. Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man at the same time!. This is why the second Goat of Leviticus 1610 for SDA (is the devil)!! (instead of Jesus Christ!)!!! Until you understand Daniel 8:14.. this is never going to get fixed!!. You destroy Jesus Christ and Daniel 8:14 in 1844!. You can't interpret Daniel 8.. it would be impossible.. and have it correct. that's why you're never going to have this understanding... correct interpretation of the Trinity.. Father Son and holy Spirit!
@@Biblejems777Jason, do you believe that when we are in heaven, Jesus will introduce us to a person with a body that is the Holy Spirit? I believe that we don't have enough information about the Holy Spirit. However, from various passages, it is evident that He is the Spirit of God with special powers that surpass our understanding. But to label Him as a person with physical hands and feet is something I wouldn't dare to claim yet.
The Omega heresy will most likely be Panentheism.
.
The Alpha was Pantheism.
Matthew 12:31-33 31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
You can't speak blasphemy against an impersonal spirit. If the Holy Spirit was just the spirit of God or Christ then Jesus makes no sense in this passage when he says " Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. " blasphemy against the spirit of Christ would be blasphemy against the son. However, it says against the Holy Spirit this defines the Holy Spirit as being separate from the Father or Christ.
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God the Father, who sends it and gave it to Jesus so that He could send it also. It is not a third person, but a power and authority that God the Father or Jesus sends. Whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit always does so directly to God the Father and perhaps even through Jesus.
@@mikmark100 Incorrect, and sister White numerous times, in many of her writings addresses the Holy Spirit as the 3rd person of the Godhead as it's own person.
@@TheFaithofJesus-bk4wl
The Desire of Ages p.671, which talks about the third person of the Godhead, there were magazines published in Russia before 1917, and one of them is said to have this quote from p.671 of the same book, but it does not talk about the third person of the Godhead, but about the power of the Holy Spirit. A sister from Russia recently wrote this elsewhere in a comment that was deleted a short time later. So the word EGW was coined after her death in this case. This can be ascertained from their books published during her lifetime compared to her books published later or today.
Thank you for your comment friend. I appreciate your zeal to defend your conception but have you considered the following? Look again at Matthew 12:31, 32. Notice that Jesus said if anyone spoke against "the Son of man" they could be forgiven. He did not say that anyone could speak against "the Son of God" and be forgiven. Jesus actually used different expressions when He was speaking about His humanity vs. His Divinity. He gives a great teaching in John 5 about how both natures work for our salvation but that's a whole other subject. What is actually happening in Matthew 12 is that Jesus was speaking about people who only recognized His human personality. They were not aware of His Divine personality. Thus they could find forgiveness because they were not grieving away the Divine Spirit. If, on the other hand, a person realized His Divine personality and yet still spoke against Him then they would become guilty of blaspheming the holy Spirit. Why? Because the Lord is that Spirit. It is written:
"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor 3:17)
Now, please don't think that this makes the Spirit impersonal because it does not. I mean even you and I can be grieved in our spirit. It's like the prophet Daniel said, "I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body,.. (Dan 7: 15a). That's not impersonal but personal. Yet a big difference between the Lord Jesus and you and I, is that He is more than just a man. He is Divine and, as such, has an ability in His Spirit than we do not possess. He can actually send His Spirit out of Himself to be His personal Representative. This actually how He indwells His disciples. It is also how He and the Father have a mutual indwelling too. The personality of Divinity is not limited like how the personality of humanity is. Thus the holy Spirit is not actually separate from the Father and Christ. It (or He) is actually always internal with Them. This is our connection to God and how we partake of the Divine nature and are brought into oneness with God and Christ. Do you understand these things?
"That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. 22 And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one (John 17:21, 22)
@@mikmark100 I'm from the Show Me state, people are always saying these things and making these claims yet produce no evidence for them.
If sda can show me that (sins go into a sanctuary).. by a Bible verse in in the Bible.. and that's what Daniel 8: 14 is saying. And going so far to say it happens in heaven! ..just print it! so we can read it.. this is why you're having a problem with the trinity!
Hello @jimbob1644
Let's do a Q & A on the matter. It will be based on the fact that the earthly sanctuary and its ministry was based upon a pattern.
"And see thou and do [them] by their pattern which thou art shewn in the mount (Exodus 25:40 YLT)
Q: On what basis does the author of Hebrews assert that it is necessary that Jesus, the great High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary have something to offer?
"for every chief priest to offer both gifts and sacrifices is appointed, whence [it is] necessary for this one to have also something that he may offer (Heb 8:3 YLT)
Q: On what basis does the same author assert that it is necessary for the earthly sanctuary to be cleansed?
Q: On what basis does he assert that it is necessary for the heavenly sanctuary to be cleansed?
Q: What types of sacrifices are the basis of cleansing the earthly sanctuary?
Q: What type of sacrifice is the basis of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary?
"and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come. It is necessary, therefore, the pattern indeed of the things in the heavens to be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Hebrews 9:23 YLT)
Q: Why did the earthly sanctuary - the pattern of the things in heaven - require a cleansing?
"And he hath made atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so he doth for the tent of meeting which is tabernacling with them in the midst of their uncleannesses (Lev 16:16 YLT)
Q: When was the earthly sanctuary cleansed - at the beginning or the end of the Jewish religious year?
"And the Feast of Harvest, the first fruits of thy works which thou sowest in the field; and the Feast of the In-Gathering, in the outgoing of the year, in thy gathering thy works out of the field (Exodus 23:16 YLT)
Q: Based on the typology, the earthly high priest would cleanse the sanctuary at the end of the Jewish religious year. This ministry is an example and shadow of heavenly things (see Heb 8:5). In light of this should we expect the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary at the beginning or end of the Christian dispensation?
I will await your answers before moving forward.
@@Biblejems777 that's great just print the verse where the sins go into the sanctuary you still haven't done that. I'm waiting for the verse print it! You're saying only the first Goat is the one that's on the cross ,correct.? The first Goat does not bear any sins ,correct? and there's no sins placed on the first Goat correct?
. I'm waiting on you where does verse 16:16, say.. that the ( sins of the people go into the sanctuary). Nobody goes in there but Aaron! and if he goes in there with anything like that , because he's going to be dead. !That's why there was bells on the bottom of his garment. Exodus 28:33-35. it says( because the (sanctuary was amongst) them)... it needs to be cleansed !!!!!.which doesn't say anything about the sins, going in there.. but the sanctuary set there for a year)! it was cleaned because it sat there for a year . But not because of sin in it .😢. if there are sins in there somebody has to die!.. so why would a sanctuary in heaven that has nobody around it ...(need to cleansed ? the verse you put up you're not understanding.. Hebrews 9:23.. the( type the shadow )of the copy) that he is speaking of. ( is the one on the Earth.)!. Not the one in heaven!!!.. Jesus himself when( He entered in) was the the( sacrifice.) That's all that verse says! (That sanctuary it's (not) amongst the people )..it doesn't sit amongst sinful people !! Yes or no?
@@Biblejems777I sent you another text .but why will that not be able to be revealed.? without going to the top and hitting newest )can you explain that? This is why the second goat ends up being the devil instead of Jesus Christ for you do you realize what that means??? There's no way you can be saved Isaiah 43:25 never happens for an SDA person! All because you misinterpreted Daniel 8 you can't know the meaning of Daniel 8 that's your problem! I know it backwards forwards and upside down it took me 3 seconds to realize what you did with it! It's got nothing to do with the sanctuary in heaven! 1844 never happened!
@@Biblejems777you don't seem to realize that Daniel 8 is a prophecy.. that has not been fulfilled.. and it's got nothing to do with salvation! and you destroyed Daniel 9:27 with that false interpretation.. and Daniel 7 in the same manner. .an Revelation 12 in the same manner.. I can show you what you did with every one of them. But the real issue is to say the( devil does the atonement of Leviticus 1610 ).written in the investigative judgment!. Which no person on the face of the Earth that's Christian has an investigative judgment! that's Jesus Christ removing the sins on the cross (1st Peter 2:24)!!( the very first line). Jesus is Aaron and He takes Aaron's place !He places the sins on Himself on the same day!.. your confession of faith is that the (devil is doing your atonement). The sin is removed by the Devil Himself! attributing to the Devil Himself. what Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit does on the cross ..(on the same day!).. the first line of 1 Peter 2: 24.. You cannot have sins on the cross on the same day. And the devil removes the sins on the same day ...in Leviticus 16:10 so which is it?..( see this changes who Jesus is ) and that happened in 1844 with Daniel 8:14. You've got the same Jesus as a Jehovah's witness.. a Mormon ..and you're just like the Catholic Church! You have no atonement!! Isaiah 43:25 never happens for an SDA person. You can't even get to the fall of 1844 with 2,300 ..(the math won't let you do it. ) I'm not saying this to hurt your feelings, or anything. I'm telling you the truth. I've studied this all my life and I'm past 70. Not one thing you teach about prophecy . and not one thing you teach about Jesus Christ is true ..except part of Revelation 17!. Just enough truth to keep you thinking you have truth ,but you don't!
I am a SDA and around me there is no confusion as you are trying to push. We sing GOD in three Persons. The trouble is that people like you are trying to make a science out of the LORD"S word.
Yet it is the same 'science' that our pioneers preached and believed.
Detailed Answer: The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is invisible to us mortals. The only way we can know God (His Godhead) is if He is manifested. Christ inherited the Godhead (divinity) of His Father and is therefore “all the fullness of the Godhead manifested” All the fullness that dwells in the Son of God is His birthright and inheritance (Hebrews 1:4). This divine fullness dwells in Christ because it pleased the Father (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Christ possessed, by divine birth, the glory of His Father (Hebrews 1:3; John 1:14; 2 Corinthians 4:6). “In Christ is gathered all the glory of the Father. In Him is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person. The glory of the attributes of God are expressed in His character.” {E. G. White, S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, p. 907} “The love of God, manifested toward fallen man in the gift of his beloved Son, amazed the holy angels. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The Son was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person. He possessed divine excellence and greatness. He was equal with God. It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell.” {E. G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 2, p. 38}
@@pastorajohnson6391 Amen.
Uploader Jesus Christ is watch you erase the last comment !that's going to be standing in front of you when you meet the real Jesus of Hebrews 7:13 at the great white throne judgement .at the end of Revelation 20.!
Hello @JamieElison,
Thank you for your comment but I think you must be confused. There has only been one comment erased here and that was a couple of days ago. It was a comment from a man named Chris Chung. Nothing else has been erased by me.
@@Biblejems777 can you print the verse that sins go into the sanctuary from Daniel 8.... (or anywhere in Leviticus) could you print that.
@@JamieElison
Let's begin with a Bible verse:
"And he hath made atonement for the sanctuary because of the uncleanness of the sons of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so he doth for the tent of meeting which is tabernacling with them in the midst of their uncleannesses (Lev 16:16 YLT)
The verse above is about what the high priest would do on the day of Atonement in the earthly sanctuary.
Now the Bible does not specify the exact method of transference of sins into the sanctuary. It appears to take for granted that the reader already knows how they get there (here I believe we see how those unto whom the oraces of God were committed had the advantage in every way). Yet there is one verse that gives us a clue:
“And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat…” (Lev 16:21)
By Aaron's laying on of hands upon Azazel's goat and confessing the iniquities there was a transference. This verse is actually the process of removing the sins from out of the sanctuary and Aaron himself appears to be a conduit for moving them by the laying on of hands and the confession. This is in harmony with Ex 28:38
"And it [the mitre] shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD” (Exodus 28:38)
From this verse we learn that Aaron, the High Priest, was actually a conduit [means of transfer] for iniquity. This explains how Aaron, after he had made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar (see Lev 16:20) could carry the iniquities out from the sanctuary and place them upon the head of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:21).
So then how did they get there in the first place? If you read the Torah you will see that there was a laying on of hands when a sin offering was made. This was a rule for the priest, for elders on behalf of the whole congregation, for a ruler, or for a common person (see Lev 4:4; 15, 24, 29, 33 for the specific verses that mention the laying on of hands). There is no other explanation as to what this would mean except for what we find in Leviticus 16 so this is most likely the mechanism of transference of responsibility for sin from the person(s) to the animal. So the responsibility of sin was transferred to the sacrifice. Then, after that, we read a very interesting verse that gives us another clue about the next step in transference which brings the sin into the sanctuary. We read the following statement from Moses to Aaron:
“Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?” (Lev 10:17)
In this verse we learn that God gave the sin offering to the priests so that they might “bear the iniquity of the congregation” thereby making “atonement for them before the LORD.”
Now all of these points, so far, have not touched upon the sanctuary itself, only the priest, but when we look at Leviticus 10:18 we begin to see how sin is born by the blood of the sin offering into God’s dwelling place.
“Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded” (Lev 10:18)
Here Moses berated his brother that since the blood of the sin offering had not been taken into the holy place then the sin offering should have been eaten. Aaron argues that he didn’t do so because of exceptional circumstances (2 of his sons had been destroyed by the Lord that day) and that if he had eaten it “should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord” (vs 19)
Here we learn that it was necessary for the priest to eat the sin offering, IF the blood was not taken inside the Sanctuary, and then God was to accept it. In other words, the normal process was that the priests, by eating the sin offering, bore away the sin from the people and the Lord would accept this.
So now where does the blood come into play here? The law of the sin offering is as follows:
If a priest or the entire congregation sinned the blood of the sin offering was taken inside the holy place and sprinkled 7 times before the veil in front of the Most Holy Place and some of the blood was put on the horns of the altar of incense (Lev 4:3-7, 13-18)
If a ruler or individual Israelite sinned then the blood was not taken inside the Sanctuary but it was put on the horns of the altar of sacrifice (Lev 4:22-25, 27-30)
Another rule in connection with the sin offering was that “the priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation” (Lev 6:26). But this rule had an exception for “no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten, it shall be burnt in the fire.” (Lev 6:30)
When we start connecting all of these verses together we see the case begin to emerge.
1) Aaron the high priest bore the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel hallowed in all their holy gifts (aka: sacrifices)
2) God gave the sin offering to the priest so that they would bear the iniquity of the congregation. It was to be eaten in the holy place
3) The sin offering was to be eaten unless its blood was taken inside of the holy place. If the blood was sprinkled within and put on the horns of the altar of incense then the priest was not to eat it.
So we see that the sin offering was to be eaten so that the priest would bear the iniquity away from the people. We also see that the priest was exempted from this IF the blood was taken inside the holy place and left there (via sprinkling and some put on the altar of incense).
The logical conclusion, based on the weight of Biblical evidence, is that when this happened the holy place and its altar bore the iniquity away from the people. This is why (and the only time when) the priest was exempted from eating the sin offering.
With all of these things said we see the case for how the blood transfers sins. By being sprinkled before the veil and being placed on the horns of the altar it was a record of the sins. Now we see why Aaron had to reconcile the holy place, the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar (see Lev 16:20). The sins that had been transferred there remained until the climax of the sacrificial ritual- the Day of Atonement. On that day, all of the sins of Israel where removed from the sanctuary. And we have already seen above how Aaron serves as the conduit for removing them out from the sanctuary.
Now it is important to understand that this is all symbolic. By the priest eating the sin offering or by the blood of the sin offering being sprinkled before the veil or being placed on the altar, this really signifies that the responsibility for sin has been shifted away from the sinner to the priest and the sanctuary. That means God is going to take care of it on our behalf.
Now, all of these things are important for us to understand because they point to a necessity connected to the heavenly sanctuary. Yet with the heavenly sanctuary it requires a better sacrifice to be cleansed.
"and with blood almost all things are purified according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding forgiveness doth not come. It is necessary, therefore, the pattern indeed of the things in the heavens to be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (Hebrews 9:23 YLT)
Let's stop here for now. Are these things clear to you? Do you dispute them or accept them?
@Biblejems777 the scripture verses are true .but you're misinterpreting them. Hebrews 9: 23.. doesn't say anything about a sanctuary being cleansed. in heaven. and not for sin! The copies of things he's referring to the one on the earth ..not the one in heaven. And the one of the earth is being cleansed because it's amongst the people. but not for sin. just because it's amongst the people. So what sins ever went in there from the front door? Just show me the verse that says that. because there's no sin in the blood. of the first Goat. That blood is paying for my sins ..not my dirty sins going in there.. for paying for my sins.. that's Jesus Christ perfect blood to go in there and pay for my sins... so what you'd have to be saying, is if sins go in there Jesus blood has sins in it!.. you keep saying Aaron transfers the sins from the sanctuary where does it say that? You'd have to be removing sins from Jesus Christ blood! which would mean you have tainted blood in Jesus Christ! so how do you place Sins inside that Sanctuary ?just show me where it says that in the Bible!... If then the sins are completely removed by the first Goat.. which it tells you they're not )!because Aaron still places them on the second Goat . And the word remission means just to pay for,, but not to remove..and you teach that's the devil removing them the second Goat of Leviticus 16:10.. But you say Jesus is only the first Goat on the cross.. and Jesus says the sins are placed upon Himself 1 Peter 2:24 the very first line. So the sins still exists after the sanctuary. And they're in Jesus Christ 1 Peter 2:24 what sins are you going to place on the devil,, if they are in Jesus Christ on the same day? Jesus said they're on the cross! with Him !and you're saying they're on the devil! on the same day. Which is it? you have just destroyed Jesus Christ in his entirety with Daniel 8:14! Notice the whole entire levitical thing pertains to who Jesus is. He said destroy this Temple and I will just raise it up in 3 days. that's the sanctuary. The first Goat He pays the price. with his blood. Aaron is now Jesus Christ. All those verses where it says he ate the sin offering. that's representing.Jesus Christ .the sins are in Jesus Christ 1 Peter 2:24 but in the body.. not the blood.. Jesus Christ is one that has the sins( in) Him and He does what Aaron did. with the sins and places them on himself .upon himself ..He Aaron places the sins on the second Goat ..on the same day... as Jesus places the sins upon Himself on the same day. The second Goat is also Jesus Christ .removing the sins that's what those other verses that you put up their represent. But no where do the sins go into the sanctuary in the blood... no where does it say sins are placed on that.. they're paid for on the inside with Jesus sin free blood ! He comes out and removes them... on the outside ,to the outside second Goat. which represents .. both Aaron and Jesus Christ! Notice we're talking about Leviticus 16. you added a bunch of others that represent the same thing that I'm saying .but on that day there are no sins.. in the blood.. the blood does not go into the sanctuary carrying any sin.. Aaron eats it representing that he is Jesus Christ (Aaron becomes the second Goat. He is bearing the sins). The high priest representing Jesus Christ bears the sin the high priest forever Psalms 110: 4. Placing the Sins on himself!.. But on the day of atonement they did (not) eat the Goat they burned it. The goat did not get eaten..(Aaron,!) The sins are in Aaron who is now Jesus Christ!. The whole thing is representative of Jesus Christ from beginning to end in the levitical Sanctuary. you had to have two goats to represent the two parts ,of the atonement. Because after the first Goat dies ,you've got a dead Goat. In the real world, for what it represents.. how are you going to remove the sins? To represent what Jesus does the second part of the atonement. Leviticus 16 10. you now I have a dead Goat!. That's why the second Goat is there representing the( same Jesus! )Which completes the atonement that does not happen for you! Which is Isaiah 43 verse 25 at the cross. God himself. That's who you're calling the devil. Which is Jesus Christ present ,past and future that's what Abraham put his faith in .you don't have that. SDA is not Abrahams seed, Job says I know my redeemer lives .his faith was in what Jesus was going to do. Present, past, and future that doesn't happen for you! That's salvation right there. As soon as you believe that. you're saved .otherwise you're not!.
You say you believe in Ellen White. Then why are you not following her instruction? She warned against entering into controversy regarding this issue. People have been debating this for decades, and it is not going to be resolved by you or anyone else. It is just continuing to cause confusion and take our focus off, preaching the gospel to those who do not know Christ.
Ellen says this ellen says that where is the gospel
Good question! The following link is where you will find the Gospel:
ruclips.net/video/EHCRi9cpkb4/видео.htmlsi=192SWCd1J3MHIe93
Genesis 15v17 case closed.
matthewferguson
Clickbait at its finest! Good by!
зменено Есть у вас аседов, братья по вере. Первые, это Церковь христиан субботнего дня, заведует ими Стефан Бойко.село Били Ославы,
Второе, это Церковь Божа христиан субботнего дня. Заведует им Павло Ришко.
Деревня Буштино.
Обе церкви подавно широко представлены на площадках Ютуба, и имеют связи с себе подобными по миру. Также известно об их критическом отношении к вашему ложному идолу пророку Елен Уайт, это то, какое они о ней мнение имеют))) понятно да, о ком речь. Почему этим занимаются недоброжелатели)) знаменитой вестницы Духа Пророческого
предельно ясно, а ведь для них авторитет,,
Библия,, -
и только Библия -
богодухновенность, непогрешность, святость,
можно перечислять
дальше.....
Я же предоставлю, что это уже не то
писание, какое было до 11 века.
Ведь если храм в котором пребывал Бог не
был помилован, из за грехов Израиля, И был подвержен мерзости
запустения, которая утвердилась
в 1290 году ( падение Иерусалимского
королевства и АКРЫ, также Осман Первый
получил знаки владычества
„мечеть на крыле храма утвердилась надолго,,) Дан 12:11./ 9:27.
Также иии, писания подвержены деформации
и
изменения, что оставило отпечаток мерзости
запустения и на нём.
А дело состоит в том, что когда какие то
светлые умы начинают толковать, вот тут
такой артикль, а там такая запятая,а свитки у
нас такой датироаки, а они все
сфальсифицированы, то почему, извольте не
называть вещи своими именами, и тех кто к
этому причастен (прочитайте критику Уве
Топера,, обман, как папство на протяжении
всего времени начиная со своего образования
1075 эдикт диктат, выполнило эту задачу
поставленую ему, понятно Кем).
То есть Библию „заделали „для детей, но
вскормливают взрослым.)))
Обратите внимание, на факт предоставленый пастором АСД
Александр Головенко в видео
„история АСД, 7 часть,,
На времени 1.12-1.14 он расказывает, из трудов
Елены Уайт, об вмешательстве человечества в творение Божье обозначенное термином-
амальгамация.
Амальгамация случилась до потопа, что скорей всего и вызвало потоп, поэтому все
твари не созданные Богом были уничтожены
водами потопа.
(Как об этом расказывает Боков на своем
канале, куда же делись динозавры???,,))))))с
него можно поугорать)) послушав его
материал)
После потопа, амальгамация повторилась и
это вылилось
в разнообразии человеческих рас, между человеком и животными??? как к
ним спасение применяется????.
Вот почему Израильтяне доделывали „работу, после потопа, дорогой в
землю обетованную.
А почему так происходило, так прочитайте в
книге Юбилеев, об этих событиях, разумеющий
неразумеет
Так вы понимаете какого уровня была
цивилизация при начале времён??? Какой
уровень генной инженерии, обьемы
знаний, оборудования и всего чтобы делать опыты над динозаврами, и смешивать людей
со зверями и падшими ангелами.???!!!!
А теперь раскажи мне с библии, как Авраам
доил коз, и расказывал устную тору будущим
потомкам.)))).
Гвоздь чтобы, закрепить все это находится в
фильме,, Пираты Карибского моря,, там где
они несут сирену и она падает на
землю, молодой священник, вызывается нести
её на своих руках, (в Ютубе есть нарезка этого момента),
И ОН ЕЙ ЦИТИРУЕТ, ЦИТАТУ, ЕЛЕН УАЙТ О
ТЕМНЫХ ДЕЛАХ
ЛЮДЕЙ ДО ПОТОПА!!!!!!
ОТКУДА ЭТОOOO TAM.???
ОТКУДА ЭТО В ГОЛИВУДЕ??? В ПИРАТАХ КАРИБСКОГО МОРЯ?
СТЕФАН БОЙКОО,
ПАВЛО РИШКООО, ВЫ СМОТРЕЛИ ПИРАТОВ
КАРИБСКОГО МОРЯ?!?
А ЕЛЕН УАЙТ СМОТРЕЛИ ???
А ТО ЧТО 60 ЛЕТ УАЙТ БЫЛА ПОД ЗАПРЕТОМ
СМОТРЕЛИИИ???? И ЕЁ ПЕРЕПИСАЛИ, КАК И ВСЮ БИБЛИЮ, вы
ВЫ ЖИВЁТЕ В 90 ПРОЦЕНТНОМ ОБМАНЕ, И
ЛИШ ДЕСЯТЬ ПРОЦЕНТОВ Всемогущий вам
оставил во свидетельство
„вина и елея не повреждай,, Мира суботствующим
Was not Jesus talking about angels when He said "A spirit does not have flesh and bone."? I do not trust the trinity, but where do we have Scripture stating God the Father has a physical body? The Bible says, of both Father and Son "God is a Spirit." The closest we can come is that the "image of God - male and female" -representing Father and Son, are physical creatures. Yet, "form" and "physical" are not the same words at all.
"Son...does not denote biological descent." (33:47) Obviously, we must accept this fact: Like the Father, the Son of God Jesus IS a Spirit. John 4:24 God is a Spirit… 2Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit… Jesus is NOT a metaphorical Son. He is the literal Spirit-Son of God the Spirit-Father. Jesus is also the Creator of every creature, and of all creation. He is not a literal biologically begotten son; derived from a literal woman's womb. The mere mortal son Adam; a creature, was created by God’s breath; a supernatural Spiritual miracle. Adam came to exist by God physically manipulating lifeless matter; then God supernaturally breathed and created life out of lifeless matter. Adam did not come to breathe by a biological process. Would the Son of God; Jesus have come to exist by an inferior means than that by which Adam came to exist?
The Father (a Spirit) and Son (a Spirit); (one Spirit in the Holy Spirit) are not primarily physical biological father and son. Yes, Jesus is now 100% human with a strictly literal physical human body. He is the literal “express image” of the Father. But the Father did not impregnate a human woman to bring rise to the Son. The Son was not begotten through a human womb by egg and sperm, or by any literal human biology.
is this an anti-trinitarian channel?
Hello Sarah Wieland,
I suppose it depends on what you mean by the word "trinity." There is a generic sense in which the word "trinity" can be used and, in this sense, it simply means a grouping of three. Although I try to avoid using the word myself, because inspiration never uses it and because of the theological luggage frequently attached to it, this channel will not man an offender for a word. Rather we first ask all men exactly what they mean by the term, if and when they use it. People often mean different things when they use the word. So, if someone wants to refer to God the Father, His only begotten Son, and His omnipresent Spirit as a "trinity," in the generic sense of the term, then so be it. I myself refer to God, His Son, and His Spirit by speaking of a heavenly Trio. However, when it comes to the identity of the one God of the Bible, the word "trinity" has a specific theological meaning. It is a very common term within Christendom and it most frequently means that the identity of the one God of the Bible is a unity of 3 personalities - each of the three persons is supposedly truly and fully Him, in every sense of the word, yet there there is supposedly only one Him. That's who the doctrine of the trinity claims that He is - 3 persons unified as a single, indivisible, immutable Divine Being. That is something this channel does oppose, finding it false according to the Bible and SoP. There's a whole pandora's box of heresies that are opened by that conception. This channel looks at the matter through a Seventh-day Adventist theological lens. You can learn more about the historical development of trinitarianism within Adventism at the following link, if you are interested:
ruclips.net/video/mJCvjGbQODA/видео.html
@Biblejems777 oh my, just say yes
@@sarahwieland
Lol! I'm not trying to be difficult. I have heard people use the word "trinity" in a way that I can stomach even though I avoid using it myself. Take for example the 1913 statement of F.M. Wilcox:
“For the benefit of those who may desire to know more particularly the cardinal features of the faith held by this denomination, we shall state that Seventh-day Adventists believe,- “1. In the divine TRINITY. This TRINITY consists of THE ETERNAL FATHER, a personal, SPIRITUAL BEING, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; of 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 one regenerating agency in the work of redemption.” (Review and Herald, Oct 9, 1913)
This "trinity" does not make the identity of the one God into a unity of three persons, nor does it do away with the Fatherhood of God and the only begotten Sonship of the pre-incarnate Christ. You could believe that under this label. Thus I can stomach it. I do not agree, however, with the modern day SDA trinity doctrine or the creedal trinity doctrine.
@Biblejems777 yeah, you're anti-trinitarian. The trinity doctrine is sound, as only God Saves, and the nature of its structure is what ultimately split the church in 1054AD.
@@sarahwieland
If the nature of its structure is what split the church then how is this doctrine sound? Yet let's forgo that point for the moment for a different one. Can you explain to me that this doctrine is and why it is true? I have read the Bible through several times and I cannot find the doctrine of the trinity therein. And it's not for lack of trying either. I lost my career over this matter so it would be advantageous for me to be able to affirm the trinity doctrine from Scripture.
So much wresting of Scripture in order to try to prove error, and so much twisting of the writings of Ellen White.
Until you understand what Daniel 8 says .what you wrote.. would make absolutely no sense!
Did you say you are connected with asitreads?
I have authored several articles that are found on that site.
asitreads.com/jason-smith/
I've seen it, some months ago, both definitions.
3 persons in one god being and then you scroll down it becomes 3 beings.