from: http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=118163my brother, did you read that source carefully?

i agree with a bit of it, but i had to discard it as a source when i was doing research on "elohiym".

why?

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

the original does not have "adon(a)i" (which, by the way, is also plural http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Adonai/adonai.html).

the original is YHWH. the meaning is eternal, self-existent. adonai misses that important fact since it merely means lords, masters, owners.

one is echad=united

eternal, self-existent our Gods is united eternal, self-existent.

as for having multiple "Gods", those who know the trinity doctrine are not fooled by the adventist "interpretation". they still call us tritheists.

*******Link to other forum topic removed*******

now we seventh-day-adventists have a couple of choices.

we can take the heat and stand by the biblical definition.

or we can take on the complete trinity doctrine and be "at-one" with our non-sda brethern and sisters.

3 persons in 1 being. a spirit being that inhabits everything.

Where does the man Christ Jesus, Who will be forever man, fits into this conception?

The word elohim does not apply only to God. It is translated "goddess" in 1 Kings 11:33, "judges" in Exod. 21:6, and applied to pagan idols in Judges 16:23; 1 Kings 11:33.
It is generally acknowledged that it comes from a root meaning "power" or the "strong one".
The word translated "angels" in Psa. 103:20 is elohim. The Hebrew word elohim is also translated "angels" in Psalm 8:5. Since Paul quotes this passage in Hebrews 2:7, cf. vs. 9, and translates the word elohim by aggelous (angels), it can be inferred that the intended meaning of elohim in Psalm 8:5 is also "angels."

i gave the site link for carm if you wish to ask that poster.


what source would that be from?

from the king james: H4397 mal'ak
From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.

No, I don't have time for several forums. I just asked the question to show that their concept is inconsistent.


I did a quick web search yesterday and this was in one of the articles I read, but I wouldn't be able to find it again. I didn't verify it at the moment, but you are right. The word used in this passage is malak and not elohim.

Context is everything. One of the Hebrew words for "holy" (can't remember which one, possibly qadash [Strong's number 6942]), implies being totally dedicated to whatever, and has been used to describe a prostitute who has totally dedicated herself or himself to pagan worship rites.

how would that prove to her (i believe it was a she)that adventists are trinitarians?

i think we need to stress the God-man part. saying the "man" could lead to misconceptions.

we are told that everything that can be shaken will be shaken. asking her and knowing how she would respond might show where our understanding needs tuning. it isnt until we are challenged that we find out where "we dont know that we dont know".

It would show that the concept of trinitarism being advocated by many churches today not only is not in harmony with Nicea, but in fact is biblically false.
She said,


First, "substance" refers to nature, and nature refers to God's attributes - all of them, while she is reducing it to "spirit."
Second, what does the word "spirit" mean? Does it mean the absence of a body?
She quotes from the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, highlights the phrase "without body or parts," and asks if this statement is unscriptural.
This is funny. If being a spirit means being without body or parts, since His incarnation Jesus is no longer a spirit, and Jesus is no longer God, and Jesus is no longer the second person of the Trinity.


I was referring to 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." I think this is important, because it stresses the fact that Jesus is still a man, and will always be a man.


Maybe, but I find the atmosphere at Carm somewhat hostile (at least this was the impression I got in the past). Perhaps she could be invited to discuss it here.

That's an understatement.

forgive me but you dont get it.

trinitarians make no claim to having stopped at nicea. and it is the exact same concept that was taught in the pioneers day, nothing new about it at all.

trinitarians, and rightly so, are just laughing at adventists who think they can adopt a word used by others to mean one thing and try to make it mean something else and then try to tell others what that "really means".

they arent buying it. period. only adventists are.

i dont mean to be pushing you into a discussion with her, just making the point that over here it is merely propaganda.

But I think they make no claim to be in disagreement with it either (which they are).


Sure. It has been taught for centuries.


They are laughable, for they borrow a word from Nicea and give their own meaning to it.

i strongly suggest that we stop relying on such as jerry moon and company for our information and start studying this issue out for ourself. in the very near future trusting in the "arm of man" is going to come back and bite us very, very, very, hard.

but it is just a suggestion.

i edited your post by numbering the points to make it easier to address.

points 1 and 3 are in keeping with the use of "elohiym".
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
etc.,

point 2 would appear to mean that the judges were appointed as in the place of God as moses was to aaron.
Exo 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
Exo 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

both instances appear to be only used by God Himself in giving the instructions to the israelites. it would seem God was stressing the importance of representing Him accurately in all their dealings with their fellowmen.

point 4 has already been dealt with and acknowledged as invalid.

point 5. ellen white states someplace that we were created to take the place of the fallen angels. but i think the ot has a reason for using elohiym here, we were created in the image of God, as accurately translated by other bible translations, whereas paul is stressing that Jesus was incarnated even lower than angels.

so, for me, the liberty that site takes seems very wrong to me.