搜寻结果

All trinity studies Previous Download 看中文 Next One God and One Lord “One God and One Lord” “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. 8:6) The distinction between the Father and His Son here in this text is clear. The Father is the one God “of whom are all things.” Even Christ belongs to God the Father. 1Corinthians 3:23And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. “...Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” (1 Cor. 1:24)“The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.” (Prov. 8:22) “...he [Father] giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” (Acts 17:25) “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26) Therefore unto us, there is but one God, the Source of life to all. “One God and Father of all, who is ‘ABOVE ALL,’ and through all, and in you all.” (Eph. 4:6) But unto us, there is also but one Lord, Jesus Christ “by whom are all things.” “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath ‘MADE’ that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both ‘Lord’ and Christ.” (Acts 2:36) The Father “made” Jesus “Lord,” or kurios in Greek which means “supremacy.” And this supremacy was given to Christ when He sat at the right hand of God after His ascension, which was the glory He had before the world was (John 17:5). So even before the world was, the Father “made” His Son, “Lord,” and if the Father made Him “Lord,” it implies that before that, He was not “Lord.” Supremacy was invested in Him by His Father before the world was. “But to us there is but... one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. 8:6) This verse already provides us the reason for the Supremacy invested in Christ, it said, “by whom are all things.” “...God, who created all things BY Jesus Christ.” (Eph. 3:9) “For ‘BY HIM’ [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created ‘BY HIM,’ and ‘FOR HIM.’” (Col. 1:16) This is why we have one God the Father because we recognize Him as above all because He is the Great Source of all. This is why we have one Lord, Jesus because the Father made Him Supreme over all creations, by making Him our Great Creator. What is the implication of the invested supremacy in Christ over all creation? “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is ‘Lord,’ to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2:9-11) If the worship of the Son is for the glory of the Father, then this must be included in the context and proclamation of the everlasting gospel in the first angel’s message in Revelation 14:6,7. “Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (Rev. 14:7) Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next E. J. Waggoner on the Trinity E. J. Waggoner on the Trinity Once again, these are the words of one of the founding members of the Seventh day Adventist Church and the truth the Adventist Church was founded on. “In arguing the perfect equality of the Father and the Son, and the fact that Christ is in very nature God, we do not design to be understood as teaching that the Father was not before the Son. It should not be necessary to guard this point, lest some should think that the Son existed as soon as the Father; yet some go to that extreme, which adds nothing to the dignity of Christ, but rather detracts from the honor due him, since many throw the whole thing away rather than accept a theory so obviously out of harmony with the language of Scripture, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He was begotten, not created. He is of the substance of the Father, so that in his very nature he is God; and since this is so “it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” Col. 1:19 ... While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning.” — (E.J. Waggoner, Signs of the Times, April 8, 1889) “In Ps. 45:6 we read these words, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter.” The casual reader might take this to be simply the Psalmist's ascription of praise to God, but when we turn to the New Testament, we find that it is much more. We find that God the Father is the speaker and that He is addressing the Son, calling Him God. See Heb. 1:1-8.This name was not given to Christ in consequence of some great achievement, but it is His by right of inheritance. Speaking of the power and greatness of Christ, the writer to the Hebrews says that He is made so much better than the angels, because “He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Heb. 1:4. A son always rightfully takes the name of the father; and Christ, as “the only begotten Son of God,” has rightfully the same name. A son, also, is, to a greater or less degree, a reproduction of the father; he has to some extent the features and personal characteristics of his father; not perfectly, because there is no perfect reproduction among mankind. But there is no imperfection in God, or in any of His works, and so Christ is the “express image” of the Father's person. Heb. 1:3. As the Son of the self- existent God, He has by nature all the attributes of Deity.It is true that there are many sons of God, but Christ is the “only begotten Son of God,” and therefore the Son of God in a sense in which no other being ever was or ever can be. The angels are sons of God, as was Adam (Job 38:7; Luke 3:38), by creation; Christians are the sons of God by adoption (Rom. 8:14, 15), but Christ is the Son of God by birth. The writer to the Hebrews further shows that the position of the Son of God is not one to which Christ has been elevated but that it is one which He has by right. He says that Moses was faithful in all the house of God, as a servant, “but Christ as a Son over His own house.” Heb. 3:6.” — (E.J. Waggoner, Christ Our Righteousness, pp. 11, 12) “The Word was “in the beginning.” The mind of man cannot grasp the ages that are spanned in this phrase. It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten; but we know that he was the Divine Word, not simply before He came to this earth to die, but even before the world was created. Just before His crucifixion He prayed, “And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” John 17:5. And more than seven hundred years before His first advent, His coming was thus foretold by the word of inspiration: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2, margin. We know that Christ “proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42), but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man.” — (E.J. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, p. 9, 1890) “The Scriptures declare that Christ is “the only begotten son of God.” He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning. But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject. He has by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels; He is “a Son over His own house.” Heb. 1:4; 3:6. And since He is the only-begotten son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God and possesses by birth all the attributes of God, for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead.” — (E.J. Waggoner, Christ Our Righteousness, pp. 21, 22) Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

返回研究目录 上一篇 下载中文 Read in English 下一篇 至高的上帝是谁 至高的上帝是谁？ 创世纪 14:18 又有撒冷王麦基洗德带着饼和酒出来迎接，他是至高上帝的祭司。 创世纪 14:19 他为亚伯兰祝福，说：“愿天地的主、至高的上帝赐福与亚伯兰。 创世纪 14:20 至高的上帝把敌人交在你手里，是应当称颂的。”亚伯兰就把所得的拿出十分之一来，给麦基洗德。 创世纪 14:22 亚伯兰对所多玛王说：“我已经向天地的主、至高的上帝耶和华起誓， 民数记 24:16 得听上帝的言语，明白至高者的意旨，看见全能者的异象；眼目睁开而仆倒的人说， 申命记 32:8 至高者将地业赐给列邦，将世人分开，就照以色列人的数目，立定万民的疆界。 撒母耳记下 22:14 耶和华从天上打雷，至高者发出声音。 诗篇 7:17 我要照着耶和华的公义称谢他，歌颂耶和华至高者的名。 诗篇 9:2 我要因你欢喜快乐，至高者啊，我要歌颂你的名。 诗篇 21:7 王依靠耶和华，因至高者的慈爱必不摇动。 诗篇 47:2 因为耶和华至高者是可畏的，他是治理全地的大君王。 诗篇 50:14 你们要以感谢为祭献与上帝，又要向至高者还你的愿， 诗篇 56:2 我的仇敌终日要把我吞了，因逞骄傲攻击我的人甚多。 诗篇 57:2 我要求告至高的上帝，就是为我成全诸事的上帝。 诗篇 73:11 他们说：“上帝怎能晓得？至高者岂有知识呢？” 诗篇 77:10 我便说：“这是我的懦弱，但我要追念至高者显出右手之年代。” 诗篇 78:17 他们却仍旧得罪他，在干燥之地悖逆至高者。 诗篇 78:56 他们仍旧试探悖逆至高的上帝，不守他的法度， 诗篇 82:6 我曾说：“你们是上帝，都是至高者的儿子； 诗篇 83:18 使他们知道，惟独你名为耶和华的，是全地以上的至高者。 诗篇 91:1 住在至高者隐密处的，必住在全能者的荫下。 诗篇 91:9 耶和华是我的避难所。你已将至高者当你的居所， 诗篇 92:1（安息日的诗歌。）称谢耶和华，歌颂你至高者的名。 诗篇 92:8 惟你耶和华是至高，直到永远。 诗篇 107:11 是因他们违背上帝的话语，藐视至高者的旨意。 诗篇 113:5 谁像耶和华我们的上帝呢？他坐在至高之处， 以赛亚书 14:14 我要升到高云之上，我要与至上者同等。 耶利米哀歌 3:35 或在至高者面前屈枉人， 耶利米哀歌 3:38 祸福不都出于至高者的口吗？ 但以理书 3:26 于是，尼布甲尼撒就近烈火窑门，说：“至高上帝的仆人沙得拉，米煞，亚伯尼歌出来，上这里来吧！”沙得拉，米煞，亚伯尼歌就从火中出来了。 但以理书 4:17 这是守望者所发的命，圣者所出的令，好叫世人知道至高者在人的国中掌权，要将国赐与谁，就赐与谁，或立极卑微的人执掌国权。’ 但以理书 4:24 “王啊，讲解就是这样：临到我主我王的事是出于至高者的命。 但以理书 4:25 你必被赶出离开世人，与野地的兽同居，吃草如牛，被天露滴湿，且要经过七期。等你知道至高者在人的国中掌权，要将国赐与谁就赐与谁。 但以理书 4:32 你必被赶出离开世人，与野地的兽同居，吃草如牛，且要经过七期。等你知道至高者在人的国中掌权，要将国赐与谁，就赐与谁。” 但以理书 4:34 日子满足，我尼布甲尼撒举目望天，我的聪明复归于我，我便称颂至高者，赞美尊敬活到永远的上帝。他的权柄是永有的，他的国存到万代。 但以理书 5:18 王啊，至高的上帝曾将国位、大权、荣耀、威严赐与你父尼布甲尼撒。 但以理书 5:21 他被赶出离开世人，他的心变如兽心，与野驴同居，吃草如牛，身被天露滴湿，等他知道至高的上帝在人的国中掌权，凭自己的意旨立人治国。 但以理书 7:18 然而，至高者的圣民，必要得国享受，直到永永远远。” 但以理书 7:22 直到亘古常在者来给至高者的圣民伸冤，圣民得国的时候就到了。 但以理书 7:25 他必向至高者说夸大的话，必折磨至高者的圣民，必想改变节期和律法。圣民必交付他手一载、二载、半载。 但以理书 7:27 国度、权柄和天下诸国的大权，必赐给至高者的圣民。他的国是永远的，一切掌权的都必侍奉他、顺从他。” 何西阿书 7:16 他们归向，却不归向至上者；他们如同翻背的弓。他们的首领必因舌头的狂傲倒在刀下，这在埃及地必作人的讥笑。” 何西阿书 11:7 我的民偏要背道离开我，众先知虽然招呼他们归向至上的主，却无人尊崇主。 马可福音 5:7 大声呼叫说：“至高上帝的儿子耶稣，我与你有什么相干？我指着上帝恳求你，不要叫我受苦！” 路加福音 1:32 他要为大，称为至高者的儿子，主上帝要把他祖大卫的位给他。 路加福音1:35 天使回答说：“圣灵要临到你身上，至高者的能力要荫庇你，因此所要生的圣者，必称为上帝的儿子（或作”所要生的必称为圣，称为上帝的儿子”）。 路加福音1:76 孩子啊，你要称为至高者的先知；因为你要行在主的前面，预备他的道路， 路加福音 2:14 “在至高之处荣耀归与上帝，在地上平安归与他所喜悦的人（有古卷作“喜悦归与人”）。” 路加福音 6:35 你们倒要爱仇敌，也要善待他们，并要借给人不指望偿还，你们的赏赐就必大了，你们也必作至高者的儿子，因为他恩待那忘恩的和作恶的。 路加福音8:28 他见了耶稣，就俯伏在他面前，大声喊叫，说：“至高上帝的儿子耶稣，我与你有什么相干？求你不要叫我受苦。” 路加福音19:38 说：“奉主名来的王是应当称颂的！在天上有和平，在至高之处有荣光。” 使徒行传 7:48 其实，至高者并不住人手所造的，就如先知所言： 使徒行传 16:17 她跟随保罗和我们，喊着说：“这些人是至高上帝的仆人，对你们传说救人的道。” 希伯来书 7:1 这麦基洗德就是撒冷王，又是至高上帝的祭司，本是长远为祭司的。他当亚伯拉罕杀败诸王回来的时候，就迎接他，给他祝福。 答案：圣父 （耶稣基督的父亲） 上一篇 返回研究目录 下一篇 到最頂

All trinity studies Previous Download Next EGW Quotes on Holy Spirit Who or What is the Holy Spirit? “The HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT of CHRIST, which is sent to all men to give them sufficiency,” — (E.G. White, 14MR 84.3) “We want the HOLY SPIRIT, which is JESUS CHRIST.” — (E.G. White, Lt66, April 10, 1894) “but it is the leaven of the SPIRIT of JESUS CHRIST, which is sent down from heaven, called the HOLY GHOST,” — (E.G. White, Ms36-1891) There is no mistaking that Ellen White says the HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT OF CHRIST. What many fail to understand is that the “Spirit of Christ” can function like a person separate to Himself so it is like it is “another” person, though not a literal person of course. So we do have a heavenly Trio, but NOT a heavenly Trinity! That is twice we have just proven that Ellen White said the SPIRIT OF CHRIST is the third in the Heavenly Trio with unmistakable confirmation. But let's prove it three more times, not that it should be necessary. Ellen White also wrote in the quote, “The COMFORTER that CHRIST PROMISED TO SEND after He ascended to heaven.” The COMFORTER of course is the HOLY SPIRIT which is third in the Heavenly Trio. So whose Spirit does Ellen White say Christ sent? “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]” — (E.G. White, Ms30, June 18, 1900) One more time: “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) Thus Christ sent HIS SPIRIT. It was not Christ physically but HIS Spirit which can function like a person though is not a literal person of course. So His Spirit is like “ANOTHER” person and why she wrote Heavenly Trio! Therefore, it should also require no explanation that the Comforter is not Christ physically but His Spirit. “This refers to the omnipresence of the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, called the COMFORTER.” — (E.G. White, 14MR 179.2) So the Spirit that was sent to be our Comforter and is the third in Heavenly Trio is the SPIRIT OF CHRIST. Why would we expect anything else since she wrote: “We want the HOLY SPIRIT, which is JESUS CHRIST.” — (E.G. White, Lt66, April 10, 1894) And last, Ellen white wrote “THREE GREAT POWERS—the FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.” We know the Father and Son are great powers, and since Ellen White wrote the HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, who do you think the third great power is? There is only one possible answer. “CHRIST has given HIS SPIRIT as a divine POWER.” — (E.G. White, RH, Nov 19, 1908) Trinitarians conclude that the third power is another being. But there is NO other POWER in you apart from CHRIST ABIDING IN YOUR HEART by His Holy Spirit in you! “There is NO POWER in you APART from CHRIST, but it is your privilege to have CHRIST ABIDING IN YOUR HEART by faith, and He can overcome sin in you,” — (E.G. White, OHC, 76.5) How easily we can be deceived if we do not let SOP explain SOP and just assume with a Trinitarian mindset as so many do. So she was not saying that there is a third god as per the satanic doctrine of the Trinity at all. NOTE: God raised the Adventist Church as non-Trinitarian. The Trinity doctrine was slowly brought into the Adventist Church long AFTER the death of Ellen White and the pioneers by a suspected Jesuit who is also a known Freemason. The idea of the Holy Spirit as another being was Satan's idea so he could get worship for his creation. The real truth is that the “Holy Spirit” is the power and presence of God and of Christ which can function independently of themselves like a third (but not a literal third) and is how “They” represent “Themselves” where they are not personally present. Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next The Bible was Written by Non-Trinitarians The Bible was Written by Non-Trinitarians and so is a Non-Trinitarian Book! Have you ever heard it said that the word TRINITY is NOT in the Bible? The deceived often respond by saying, “The word is NOT in the Bible but the doctrine is.” Not only is the word Trinity NOT in the Bible, but neither is the doctrine. And it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE for it to be in the Bible! Here are the facts… True Christianity originated from Judaism, not Catholic paganism. You cannot argue the doctrine of the Trinity from the words of the Jews who wrote them when they never believed in it. Most of the Bible was in fact written by the Jews who never believed or taught the Trinity doctrine and still do not today! And Jesus of course was a Jew as were His disciples. How do you teach a 3 in 1 god from the Bible when it is a non-Trinitarian book? The apostle John for instance could never have been teaching that the Comforter and Spirit of truth is another being as the Jews have never taught or believed that ever! So the Bible had non-Trinitarian authors in fact. In a discussion between Summerbell and Flood on Trinity, p. 38, in regards to the Trinity he says, “it is certain that the Jewish church held to no such doctrine. Says Mr. Summerbell, “A friend of mine who was present in a New York synagogue, asked the Rabbi for an explanation of the word 'Elohim'. A Trinitarian clergyman who stood by, replied, 'Why, that has reference to the three persons in the Trinity,' when a Jew stepped forward and said he must not mention that word again, or they would have to compel him to leave the house; for it was not permitted to mention the name of any strange god in the synagogue.” We also know the Bible is a non-Trinitarian book as the word Trinity did not exist until about 200 AD at which point the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third being and the 3 in 1 still did not exist. The fully developed Trinity doctrine did not exist until 381 AD. The word “Trinity” originated from Tertullian who was a pagan turned Catholic theologian around 200 AD. This word can have no relationship with Scripture as it came from the Platonic term “trias” which is philosophical in origin, and the Bible does not teach Greek philosophy! “The term trinity is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency and formal elucidation only in the 4th and 5th centuries.” — (“Trinity,” New Bible Dictionary, 1996) Tertullian did NOT teach the Holy Spirit as a third being and he NEVER taught the 3 in 1 god as the Trinity doctrine does today. So we know this doctrine developed in stages as Tertullian who introduced the word TRINITY did NOT teach it! So we know that the Trinity doctrine did NOT exist before 200 AD. It was about 225 years “after” the death of the Apostles that the Nicene Council (325 AD) under the pressure of Emperor Constantine ruled in favour of Athanasius who taught a 3 in 1 god. It was about 280 years “after” the death of the Apostles in 381 AD when the Holy Spirit was officially declared as a third being. The Trinity doctrine was now fully established as we know it today. So the Trinity doctrine is a manmade doctrine from the Catholic Church which was formed in two parts. The first part was made up in 325 AD which states it is a 3 in 1 god. The second and final part was made up in 381 AD. This final part states that the Holy Spirit is a third being. So it is impossible for any of the Bible authors to have written about something that did not exist in their lifetime, and not forgetting that the Bible authors were non-Trinitarian! Christians have been indoctrinated with many nice sounding erroneous ideas to make them think the doctrine is in the Bible when in fact it cannot be. It is time to wake up and look at what the real truth is which makes much more sense than the lie. Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next Is the Holy Spirit the Third Highest Being in Heaven Is the Holy Spirit the Third Highest Being in Heaven? The Trinity doctrine teaches 3 CO-EQUAL beings and hence it claims the 3 highest BEINGS in Heaven are therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus the Trinity doctrine declares the Holy Spirit is the third highest being in heaven. But according to Ellen White in the first chapter of Patriarchs and Prophets (p. 35), the third highest being in Heaven before the entrance of sin was Lucifer. And after the fall, Ellen White says Gabriel was the next in line. “It was Gabriel, the angel next in rank to the Son of God, who came with the divine message to Daniel.” — (E.G. White, DA, p. 234) Now consider the following. Who wants to be like the most High and be worshipped and prayed to as God? Isaiah 14:12-14 informs us that this is Satan's desire. Has Satan devised a clever scheme to regain his lost third position and the worship he craves? By Satan creating the Trinity doctrine, it creates a non-existent third being. Satan can then step into that position he has created and not only receives the worship he desires, but he would also effectively regain the position he lost as the third highest being in heaven. This is known as worship by representation and is what Satan has also done with Sunday worship. Has Satan succeeded in accomplishing his goal of being included as deity? If we now believe the Holy Spirit can be worshipped and prayed to just like the Father and the Son, who actually receives our worship? If the Holy Spirit is not a third being then what spirit would we have according to our belief and who would we be giving our adoration to? It would be Satan himself! Below is even a clearer quote from Ellen White that reveals the Holy Spirit is NOT a being let alone the third highest being as the Trinity doctrine claims. She wrote that Satan was second to Christ making Satan the third highest being in heaven. Hence the Holy Spirit is not some third being called “god the holy spirit” as the Trinity doctrine claims but the Spirit of the Father and Son. Below we find that Satan wanted to be next to God and have Christ second to Him. In other words, for the three highest beings in Heaven to be the Father, Satan and Christ. This also proves Ellen White was not a Trinitarian and never saw the Holy Spirit as a third being as some have misunderstood due to her use of the word person in regards to the Holy Spirit. “Satan, who was once a beautiful angel in the heavenly courts, became a fallen angel because HE DID NOT WANT TO OCCUPY A SECONDARY PLACE, BUT TO BE NEXT TO GOD. HE WOULD HAVE THE LORD JESUS BECOME SECOND TO HIM, for his own glory was very precious in his own sight. He was jealous of Christ, the Saviour. Study the Word of God, and see what this jealousy led to in the end. There is nothing to be gained by jealousies. Although in the beginning Satan was an exalted angel of great glory in the heavenly courts, THAT GLORY BECAME EXTINGUISHED THROUGH HIS CRAVING TO BE THE HIGHEST ONE NEXT TO GOD.” — (E.G. White, Ms74, March 20, 1910) This quote from Ellen White proves inarguably that the Holy Spirit is NOT and CANNOT be a third highest CO-EQUAL being in Heaven, and hence is NOT and CANNOT be a being at all. By Satan creating the Trinity doctrine and the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third being, Satan effectively gets his third highest position back, but more importantly, he obtains worship as a god by representation just as he always wanted. Thus the third person in the Trinity is actually Satan! It should be obvious that if you get this wrong you will not be in the kingdom. Note the table for clarity. The Holy Spirit is not included in the Biblical view as it is not a literal being but the Spirit of the Father and Son. Satan used to hold the third highest position in Heaven until he was thrown out and Gabriel took his place. Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

返回研究目录 上一篇 下载中文 下一篇 圣经中的心和灵 圣经中的心和灵 心和灵的经文 创世纪41:7-8 这法老醒了，不料是个梦。到了早晨，法老灵里不安。 出埃及记 6:9 摩西将这话告诉以色列的孩子们，只是他们因被残酷的奴役和灵里的痛苦，不肯听从摩西。 出埃及记 28:3 你又要吩咐一切心中有智慧的，就是我用智慧的灵所充满的，可以给亚伦做衣服，使他分别为圣，可以给我供祭司的职分。 出埃及记 31:3 我也以上帝的灵充满了他，使他有智慧，能理解，有知识，能做各样的工艺。 出埃及记 35:21 凡心里受感和灵里乐意的，都拿耶和华的奉献来，用以做会幕和其中一切的使用，又用以做圣衣。 民数记 5:14 她丈夫被嫉恨的灵所附，他因妻子嫉恨，她也被玷污了；或者她丈夫被嫉恨的灵所附，他因妻子嫉恨，而她并没有被玷污。 申命记 2:30 但希实本王西宏不容我们从他那里经过；因为耶和华你的神使他的灵刚硬，他的心顽梗，为要将他交在你手中，像今日一样。 申命记 34:9 嫩的儿子约书亚，因为摩西曾给他按手，就被智慧的灵充满，以色列人便听从他，照着耶和华吩咐摩西的行了。 撒母耳记上 1:15 哈拿回答说：我主啊，不是这样。我是灵里愁苦的妇人，清酒浓酒都没有喝，而是将我的魂倾倒在耶和华面前。 撒母耳记上 16:14 但耶和华的灵离开了扫罗，就有一个邪灵从耶和华那里来搅扰他。 历代志上 5:26 因此，以色列的上帝激动亚述王普勒和亚述王提革拉毗尼色的灵，他们就把流便人、迦得人、玛拿西半支派的人掳到哈腊、哈博、哈拉与歌散河边，直到今日还在那里。 历代志下 36:22 波斯王居鲁士第一年，耶和华为要成就借耶利米口所说的话，就激动波斯王居鲁士的灵，使他下诏通告全国，说： 约伯记 21:4 我岂是向人诉冤？若是诉冤，我的灵为何不焦虑呢？ 诗篇 32:2 凡灵里没有诡诈、耶和华不算为有罪的，这人是有福的。 诗篇 51:12 将你救恩之乐恢复与我，用你乐意的灵托住我。 诗篇 77:3 我想到上帝，就烦燥不安；我沉吟悲伤，灵便发昏。 诗篇 106:33 是因他们惹动他的灵，以致他以嘴唇说了急躁的话。 诗篇 142:3 我的灵在我里面发昏的时候，你知道我的道路。在我行的路上，敌人为我暗设网罗。 诗篇 143:4 所以，我的灵在我里面发昏；我的心在我里面凄惨。 箴言 18:14 人有疾病，灵能忍耐；但灵若受伤，谁能承受呢？ 传道书 1:17 我又专心认识智慧、狂妄和愚昧，乃知这也使灵忧愁。 传道书 2:11 后来，我察看我手所经营的一切事和我劳碌所成的功。谁知都是虚空，使灵忧愁；在日光之下毫无益处。 传道书 2:17 所以，我恨恶生命；因为在日光之下所行的事我都以为烦恼，都是虚空，使灵忧愁。 以赛亚书 29:24 灵里偏离的必得明白；发怨言的必学道理。 以赛亚书 54:6 耶和华召你，如召被离弃、灵里忧伤的妇人，就是幼年所娶被弃的妻。这是你上帝所说的。 以赛亚书 61:3 赐华美与锡安悲哀的人，代替灰尘；喜乐油代替悲哀；赞美衣代替沉重的灵；使他们称为公义树，是耶和华所栽的，叫他得荣耀。 以赛亚书 63:10 他们竟悖逆，使主的圣灵忧伤。他就转作他们的仇敌，亲自攻击他们。 以赛亚书 65:14 看哪，我的仆人们因心中高兴歌唱，你们却因心中忧愁哀哭，又因灵里忧伤哀号。 以西结书 18:31 你们要将所犯的一切罪过抛弃，你们要造一个新心和新灵。以色列家啊，你们为什么死亡呢？ 以西结书 36:26 我也要赐给你们一个新心，将新灵放在你们里面，又从你们的肉体中除掉石心，给你们肉心。 但以理书 2:1 尼布甲尼撒在位第二年，他做了梦，灵里烦乱，不能睡觉。 但以理书 2:3 王对他们说：我做了一梦，灵里烦乱，要知道这是什么梦。 但以理书 7:15 我但以理的灵在我里面愁烦，我脑中的异象使我惊惶。 何西阿书 4:12 我的民求问木偶，以为木杖能指示他们；因为他们淫乱的灵使他们失迷，他们就行淫不顺从上帝， 哈该书 1:14 耶和华激动犹大省长撒拉铁的儿子所罗巴伯的灵和约撒答的儿子大祭司约书亚的灵，并剩下一切百姓的灵，他们就来为万军之耶和华他们上帝的殿做工。 撒迦利亚书 12:10 我必将恩典和恳求的灵浇灌大卫家，和耶路撒冷的居民。他们必仰望我，就是他们所扎的；必为我悲哀，如丧他的独生子，又为我愁苦，如丧他的长子。 玛拉基书 2:15 虽然上帝有余剩的灵能造多人，他不是单造一人吗？为何只造一人呢？他是要得虔诚的种子。所以当谨守你们的灵，谁也不可以诡诈待他幼年的妻。 玛拉基书 2:16 耶和华以色列的上帝说：休妻的事和以衣服遮掩强暴的人，都是我所恨恶的。所以当留意你们的灵，不可行诡诈。这是万军之耶和华说的。 诗篇 51:11 不要丢弃我，使我离开你的面；不要从我收回你的圣灵。 诗篇 139:7 我往哪里去躲避你的灵？我往哪里逃躲避你的面？ 哥林多前书 2:11 除了在人里头的灵，谁知道人的事？像这样，除了上帝的灵，也没有人知道上帝的事。 马太福音 3:16 耶稣受了浸，随即从水里上来。天忽然为他开了，他就看见上帝的灵仿佛一只鸽子降下，落在他身上。 马太福音 5:3 灵里贫穷的人有福了，因为天国是他们的。 马太福音 26:41 警醒祷告，免得你们入了试探；你们的灵确实愿意，肉体却软弱了。 马可福音 2:8 耶稣灵里深深地叹息，说：这世代为什么求迹象呢？我实在告诉你们，没有迹象给这世代看。 马可福音 8:12 耶稣灵里看出他们里面这样议论，立刻对他们说：你们心里为什么这样议论呢？ 马可福音 9:17 众人中间有一个人回答说：师傅，我带了我的儿子到你这里来，他被哑巴的灵附着。 路加福音 1:47 我灵以上帝我的救主为乐； 路加福音 1:80 那孩子渐渐长大，灵里刚强，住在旷野，直到他显明给以色列的日子。 路加福音 2:40 孩子渐渐长大，强健起来，充满智慧，又有上帝的恩在他身上。 路加福音 4:18 主的灵在我身上，因为他膏我，叫我传福音给贫穷的人；他差我医好伤心的人，宣告被掳的得释放，瞎眼的得看见，叫那受压制的得自由， 路加福音 9:55 耶稣却转身责备他们，说：你们的灵如何，你们并不知道。 路加福音10:21 正当那时，耶稣灵里欢乐，说：父啊，天地的主，我感谢你！因为你将这些事向智慧、精明的人就隐藏起来，向婴孩就显露出来。父啊！是的，因这在你眼中看为好。 约翰福音11:33 耶稣看见她哭，并看见与她同来的犹太人也哭，他就灵里悲叹，又忧愁， 约翰福音13:21 耶稣说了这话，灵里忧愁，就明说：我实实在在地告诉你们，你们中间有一个人要出卖我了。 使徒行传2:4 他们就都被圣灵充满，按着圣灵所赐的口才说起别国的话来。 使徒行传11:12 圣灵吩咐我和他们同去，不要疑惑。此外，同着我去的，还有这六位弟兄；我们都进了那人的家。 使徒行传16:7 他们来到每西亚，试着要往庇推尼去，圣灵却不许。 使徒行传17:16 保罗在雅典等候他们的时候，看见满城都是偶像，他的灵就在里面搅动； 使徒行传18:5 西拉和提摩太从马其顿来的时候，保罗灵里迫切，向犹太人证明耶稣是基督。 使徒行传18:25 这人已经在主的道路上受了指教，灵里火热，殷勤地将主的事讲论、教导人；但他只知道约翰的浸礼。 使徒行传19:21 这些事完了，保罗心里定意，经过了马其顿、亚该亚，就往耶路撒冷去。又说：“我到了那里以后，也必须往罗马去看看。” 罗马书1:4 按圣洁的灵说，借着从死里复活，以大能显明是上帝的儿子。 罗马书7:6 但我们既然在捆我们的律法上死了，现在就脱离了律法，叫我们服侍，要按着灵的新样式，不按着字句的旧样式。 罗马书8:4 使律法的义成就在我们这不随从肉体、只随从圣灵的人身上。 罗马书8:11 然而，叫耶稣从死里复活者的灵若住在你们里面，那叫基督从死里复活的，也必借着住在你们里面他的灵，使你们必死的身体又活过来。 罗马书8:14 因为凡被上帝的灵引导的，他们就是上帝的儿子。 罗马书8:15 你们所受的，不是奴仆的灵，仍旧害怕；但你们所受的，是得儿子名分的圣灵，因此我们呼叫：阿爸！父！ 罗马书8:26 照样，我们的软弱有圣灵帮助；我们本不晓得当怎样祷告，只是圣灵亲自用说不出来的叹息为我们代求。 歌林多前书2:10 但是上帝借着他的圣灵向我们启示了，因为圣灵鉴察万事，就是上帝深奥的事。 歌林多前书2:12 我们所领受的，并不是这世界的灵，而是从上帝来的灵，叫我们能知道那些上帝白白赐给我们的事。 歌林多前书2:14 然而，属肉体的人不接受神圣灵的事，反倒以为愚拙，并且不能知道，因为这些事唯有属灵的人才能辨别。 歌林多前书4:21 你们愿意怎么样呢？是愿意我带着杖到你们那里去呢？还是要我存慈爱，温柔的灵去呢？ 歌林多前书5:3 我身体的确不在你们那里，但灵却在你们那里，好像我亲自与你们同在，已经判断了行这事的人。 歌林多前书5:4 你们聚会的时候，我的灵也同在；奉我们主耶稣基督的名，并靠我们主耶稣基督的权能， 歌林多前书5:5 要把这样的人交给撒但，败坏他的肉体，使他的灵在主耶稣的日子可以得救。 歌林多前书6:17 但与主联合的，便是与主成为一灵。 歌林多前书7:40 然而按我的意见，若她安于现状更有福。我想我也有上帝的灵。 歌林多前书12:3 所以我要你们明白，借着上帝的灵说话的，没有说耶稣是可咒诅的；但若不是借着圣灵，也没有能说耶稣是主的。 歌林多前书16:18 他们叫我和你们的灵都快活。所以，这样的人，你们要认可。 哥林多后书3:3 你们明显是基督的信，借着我们的侍奉写成的。不是用墨写的，乃是用永生上帝的灵写的；不是写在石版上，乃是写在心的肉版上。 哥林多后书3:18 我们众人既然敞着脸，像从镜子里观看主的荣耀，就变成主的形象，荣上加荣，如同从主的灵变成的。 哥林多后书4:13 但我们既有信心，正如经上记着说：“我因信，所以如此说话。”我们也信，所以也说话。 哥林多后书7:1 蒙爱的人啊，我们既有这些应许，就当洁净自己，除去肉体和灵里一切的污秽，借着敬畏上帝，成就圣洁。 哥林多后书7:13 因此，我们因你们的安慰得了安慰；并且因你们众人使提多灵里畅快欢喜，我们就更加欢喜了。 哥林多后书11:4 假如有人来另传一个耶稣，不是我们所传过的；或者你们另接受一个灵，不是你们所受过的；或者另得一个福音，不是你们所得过的；你们容忍他也就罢了。 哥林多后书12:18 假如有人来另传一个耶稣，不是我们所传过的；或者你们另接受一个灵，不是你们所受过的；或者另得一个福音，不是你们所得过的；你们容忍他也就罢了。 以弗所书3:2 我只要问你们这一件事：你们领受了圣灵，是借着行律法呢？还是借着听从信心呢？ 以弗所书5:22，23 但圣灵所结的果子，就是爱、喜乐、和平、恒久忍耐、温和、良善、信心、温柔、节制。这样的事没有律法禁止。 加拉太书6:1 弟兄们，若有人被过犯所胜，你们属灵的人就当用温柔的灵把他挽回过来；又应当自己小心，恐怕你们也被引诱。 以弗所书1:13 你们听了真理的话语，就是那叫你们得救的福音之后，也信靠了他，相信他之后，就受了所应许的圣灵为印记。 以弗所书2:2 那时，你们在其中行事为人，随从这世界的风俗，顺服空中掌权的首领，就是现今在悖逆之子中运行的那灵。 以弗所书3:5 这奥秘在以前的时代没有叫人的儿子们知道，像如今借着圣灵启示他的众圣使徒和众先知一样。 以弗所书4:3 用和平彼此联络，竭力保守圣灵的合一。 以弗所书4:4 身体只有一个，圣灵只有一个，正如你们蒙召同有一个盼望。 以弗所书4:23 要将你们思想中的灵改换一新， 以弗所书4:30 不要叫上帝的圣灵担忧；你们是受了他的印记，直到得赎的日子来到。 歌罗西书2:5 我肉体虽与你们相离，灵却与你们同在，见你们循规蹈矩，在基督里的信心也坚固，我就欢喜了。 帖撒罗尼迦前书5:23 愿那平安的上帝亲自使你们全然成圣；我祷告上帝，愿你们的灵、魂、身体得蒙保守，在我们主耶稣基督到来的时候，完全无可指责。 帖撒罗尼迦后书2:8 那时这罪恶的人必显露出来。主要用他口中的灵烧灭他，用他到来的荣光毁灭他。 帖撒罗尼迦后书2:13 主所爱的弟兄们哪，我们本该常为你们感谢上帝；因为上帝从起初拣选了你们，使你们借圣灵成圣，相信真理，能以得救。 提摩太后书1:7 因为上帝赐给我们，不是惧怕的灵，而是大能、爱、思想健全的灵。 提摩太后书4:22 愿主耶稣基督与你的灵同在。愿恩典与你同在。阿们。 彼得前书1:2 就是照父上帝的预知被拣选，借着圣灵得成圣洁，以致顺服耶稣基督，又蒙他血所洒的人。愿恩典、平安多多地加给你们。 彼得前书1:11 就是考察在他们心里基督的灵，预先证明基督受苦难，后来被荣耀，是指着什么时候，并怎样的时候。 约翰一书4:1 蒙爱的人，一切的灵，你们不可都信，总要试验那些灵是出于上帝的不是，因为世上有许多假先知已经出来了。 启示录1:10 当主的日子我在圣灵里，听见在我后面有大声音如吹号说： 启示录4:2 我立刻在灵里，见有一个宝座安置在天上，又有一位坐在宝座上。 启示录17:3 我在灵里，他带我到旷野去，我就看见一个女人骑在朱红色的兽上；那兽有七头十角，遍体有亵渎的名字。 启示录21:10 在灵里，他带我到一座高大的山，将那由上帝那里从天而降的大城，圣城耶路撒冷指示我。 注意保罗怎么明白以赛亚论到上帝的灵的这句话。 以赛亚书40:13 谁曾指示耶和华的灵，或作他的谋士指教他呢？ 罗马书11:34 谁知道主的思想？谁作过他的谋士呢？ 上一篇 返回研究目录 下一篇 到最頂

All trinity studies Previous Download Next James White and the Trinity James White and the Trinity Adventists believe Ellen White was a prophet of God, or to use her terminology, a messenger of God. She was the lady to whom James White was married for 35 years. He ate with her, slept with her, preached with her, prayed with her, had children by her, travelled thousands and thousands of miles with her, building up Churches together, and yet she never once said to him “James, you are wrong in what you are saying about the trinity doctrine.” Not once in 35 years is there any record that she said anything about his anti-Trinitarian views, and neither is there any record of her saying anything to anyone else. And those who know of Ellen White know she was not silent when error was being taught. Now what does it tell us that in 70 years of her husband and all the other leaders and pioneers of the Church, all publishing anti-Trinitarian materials, and never once said they were wrong? James White was firmly resolved in his anti-Trinitarian belief when he became acquainted with her as Ellen Harmon in 1845. A short while before this in December 1844, she had been given her first vision which had marked her call to the prophetic office. So God had no problem with His prophet marrying a devout anti-Trinitarian either. Russell Holt did a survey on the introduction of the trinity teaching into the Adventist Church in June 1969, as part of the requirements of his studies in Adventist history for Dr Mervyn Maxwell. Russell Holt produced a term paper that had the title, “The Doctrine Of The Trinity In The Seventh Day Adventist Denomination: Its Rejection And Acceptance.” The title of this paper speaks volumes in itself considering that Russell Holt was in favour of the change to the trinity doctrine. Holt rightly says in his term paper that James White was an anti-Trinitarian to the day that he died. Note also that Holt said that James White was far from being on his own in taking this anti-Trinitarian stand, and neither was he on his own in writing and publishing anti-Trinitarian statements in the literature that came off the presses of the Adventist Church. In his term paper, Holt makes this observation about the views of other Adventist writers at the time of James White. “A survey of other Adventist writers during these years reveals, that to a man, they rejected the trinity, yet, with equal unanimity they upheld the divinity of Christ. To reject the trinity is not necessarily to strip the Saviour of His divinity.” — (Russell Holt, “The doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh day Adventist denomination: Its rejection and acceptance.” A term paper for Dr. Mervyn Maxwell, 1969) So it is an undisputed fact that right through to his death in 1881, James White made numerous anti-Trinitarian statements and never changed his anti-Trinitarian stance even in the year of his death when he said, “The Father was greater than the Son in that he was first.” — (James White, Review and Herald, January 4, 1881, found in EGW Review and Herald Articles, vol. 1, p. 244) “I and my Father are one.” John 10:30 The Father and the Son were one in man's creation, and in his redemption. Said the Father to the Son, “Let us make man in our image.” And the triumphant song of jubilee in which the redeemed take part, is unto “Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever.Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one as he was one with his Father. This prayer did not contemplate one disciple with twelve heads, but twelve disciples, made one in object and effort in the cause of their master. Neither are the Father and the Son parts of the “three-one God.” They are two distinct beings, yet one in the design and accomplishment of redemption. The redeemed, from the first who shares in the great redemption, to the last, all ascribe the honor, and glory, and praise, of their salvation, to both God and the Lamb.” — (James White, Life Incidents, 1868, p. 343) “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE faith which was once delivered unto the saints...” (Jude 3, 4) ...The exhortation to contend for the faith delivered to the saints, is to us alone. And it is very important for us to know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for THE faith, a particular faith; “for there are certain men,” or a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ... The way spiritualizers have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, though they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God.” — (James White, The Day Star, January 24, 1846) “Paul affirms of the Son of God that he was in the form of God, and that he was equal with God. 'Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Phil. 2:6. The reason why it is not robbery for the Son to be equal with the Father is the fact that he is equal... The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, “Let us make man in our image?” — (James White, Review and Herald, November 29, 1877) “The Most Holy, containing the Ark of the ten commandments, was then opened for our Great High Priest to enter to make atonement for the cleansing of the Sanctuary. If we take the liberty to say there is not a literal Ark, containing the ten commandments in heaven, we may go only a step further and deny the literal City, and the literal Son of God. Certainly, Adventists should not choose the spiritual view, rather than the one we have presented. We see no middle ground to be taken.” — (James White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, June 9, 1851, The Parable – Matthew XXV, 1-12) “We are told by those who teach the abolition of the Father's law, that the commandments of God mentioned in the New Testament, are not the ten, but the requirements of the gospel, such as repentance, faith, baptism and the Lord's supper. But as these, and every other requirement peculiar to the gospel, are all embraced in the faith of Jesus, it is evident that the commandments of God are not the sayings of Christ and his apostles. To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God. And as the faith of Jesus embraces every requirement peculiar to the gospel, it necessarily follows that the commandments of God, mentioned by the third angel, embrace only the ten precepts of the Father's immutable law which are not peculiar to any one dispensation, but common to all.” — (James White, Review and Herald, August 5, 1852, p. 52) “Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and of sprinkling or pouring instead of being “buried with Christ in baptism,” “planted in the likeness of his death:” but we pass from these fables to notice one that is held sacred by nearly all professed Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. It is, The change of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment from the seventh to the first day of the week.” — (James White, Review and Herald, December 11, 1855, p. 85) “We have not as much sympathy with Unitarians that deny the divinity of Christ, as with Trinitarians who hold that the Son is the eternal Father, and talk so mistily about the three-one God. Give the Master all that divinity with which the Holy Scriptures clothe him. ...” — (James and Ellen White's – Western Tour, Review and Herald, June 6, 1871) “The “mystery of iniquity” began to work in the church in Paul's day. It finally crowded out the simplicity of the gospel, and corrupted the doctrine of Christ, and the church went into the wilderness. Martin Luther, and other reformers, arose in the strength of God, and with the Word and Spirit, made mighty strides in the Reformation. The greatest fault we can find in the Reformation is, the Reformers stopped reforming. Had they gone on, and onward, till they had left the last vestige of Papacy behind, such as natural immortality, sprinkling, the trinity, and Sunday-keeping, the church would now be free from her unscriptural errors.” — (James White, Review and Herald, February 7, 1856, p. 148) “With this view of the subject [that Christ is the very Son of God] there are meaning and force to language which speaks of the Father and the Son. But to say that Jesus Christ “is the very and eternal God,” makes him his own son, and his own father, and that he came from himself, and went to himself.” — (James White, Review & Herald, June 6, 1871) Below James White informs us that the non-Trinitarian view held by his wife is found in her testimonies which were given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Prophecy), and hence were a God given Pillar of our Faith. He says that Trinitarians will needless to say not agree with the God given non-Trinitarian truth and thus condemn her testimonies. “We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The trinitarian may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies' of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views. And a hundred more, each holding different views, may come to the same conclusion. But their genuineness can never be tested in this way.” — (James White, Review and Herald, June 13, 1871) Sunday worship and the doctrine of the trinity are both counterfeits from the Catholic Church. “As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, the trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that the church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upon the world? We think not.” — (James White, Review and Herald, September 12, 1854, p. 36) Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

返回研究目录 上一篇 下载中文 Read in English 下一篇 历史上诸教派对安息日的论述 美国公理会（American Congregationalist） “现今有关基督和祂的门徒用权柄将第七日替换为第一日的观点，在新约圣经中找不到任何根据。” —— （莱曼·爱博特 博士，于1890年6月26日在基督徒联会上发表的演讲 [Dr.Layman Abbot, in the Christian Union, June 26, 1890]） 聖公宗（Anglican） “究竟圣经在什么地方告诉我们要遵守第一日呢？上帝吩咐我们要遵守的是第七日；圣经没有任何一处命令我们守第一日……正如我们遵守其它事情一样，我们守第一日而不守第七日为圣的原因并不是出于圣经，而是因为教会的命令。” ——（以撒·威廉斯， 《教理简训》第334-336页[Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, pages 334, 336]） 浸信会（Baptist） “守安息日为圣的诫命，过去有，现在仍有，但那个安息日在过去并不是星期日。然而，不可带着得意的神情去肯定地说，安息日连同它的权力、特权和命令都已经从一周的第七日转到了第一日（星期日）。关于这个问题——这一转变的记载在哪里可以找到呢？我怀着热切的追根到底的心情研究了多年，发现它不在新约圣经之中——绝对不在新约圣经之中，它毫无圣经根据。” ——（ E·T·锡斯克思 博士《浸信会手册》 Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the “Baptist Manual”） “我很不解，为什么耶稣在三年的传道生涯中，经常与门徒们谈论安息日的问题，讨论有关安息日的某些不同的方面，将它从谬误的曲解（犹太传统）中解救出来。但在这些谈话中，从来没有任何暗示说，要将其转到其它的日子。并且，正如我们所知道的，在耶稣复活后的四十天当中，祂也没有表示出这样的意思。我们也知道，那叫门徒想起耶稣对他们所说的一切话的圣灵，也没有涉及到这个问题。那些受圣灵感动的门徒，在传道、建立教会、劝勉和教导中，都没有论述或提及这个问题。 当然，我十分清楚，在早期的基督教历史中，星期天就已经被视为一个宗教节日，正如基督教众教父和其它资料中所说的一样。然而，这个日子带着异教的烙印，并且以太阳神的名字为名号，然后，背道的教皇采纳并为此“祝圣”，最后又被视为神圣的遗产遗传给了改正教（新教），这一切是多么遗憾啊！” ——（1893年8月20日，在浸信会教牧人员会议上的证道论文，出版于《纽约观察者》1893年11月16日（有一位罗马天主教的领袖/发言人同意这个表述，见下文）[Dr. E. T. Hiscox, report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister's Convention, in 'New York Examiner,' November 16, 1893 (The leader / spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church agrees with this statement.See Below)]） “圣经没有任何一处称第一日为安息日……守星期日是没有圣经根据的，当然我们也没有义务去守它。” ——(《守望者》[The Watchman]) “我们相信，上帝的律法就是其道德政权永恒不变的准则。” ——（《浸信会手册》[Baptist Church Manual," Art. 12]） “从犹太人的安息日转变到基督徒所守的第一日，这是决无任何正当根据或权威的！” ——（威廉·欧文·卡弗《我们当今的主日》第49面[WILLIAM OWEN CARVER, "The Lord's Day in Our Day," page 49]） “没有任何一句经文，要求我们当守星期日为圣日，以此替代神圣的星期六。” —— (哈罗德·林赛（编辑）《今日基督教》1976年 11月5日[Harold Lindsell (editor), Christianity Today, Nov. 5, 1976]) 兄弟会（Brethren） “鉴于律法和我们曾经持守的安息日……这日也许仍旧是大多数忠心基督徒所持守的日子，我们承认，我们无法回答复临信徒。再者，我以前和至今所读到和听到的，都无法最终确凿地辩驳复临信徒建立在圣经之上有关第七日是安息日（出埃及记20:10）的论点。安息日并不是某个人制定的‘七日内任何一日’，而是‘根据诫命的第七日’” ——（《真理恩典之道》第281面[Words of Truth and Grace, p. 281]） 天主教（Catholic） “必须好好提醒长老会教徒、浸信会教徒、卫理公会教徒和其他所有的基督徒，圣经根本没有一处支持他们守星期日。星期日是罗马天主教所设立的一个制度，凡守那日子的人，都是守天主教的命令。” ——(布雷迪神父的致辞，于1903年3月18日出版在新泽西州伊丽莎白市的《新闻》上。参阅《这磐石》[Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903. See This Rock]) “改正教徒……接受星期日替代星期六以此作为公共礼拜的日子，他们乃是在效学天主教……但是改正教徒的思想似乎并没有意识到……藉着遵守星期日，他们乃是在接受那教会发言人——教皇——的权威。” ——(《我们的星期日来宾》1950年2月5日，参阅《这磐石》[Our Sunday Visitor, February 5th, 1950. See This Rock]) “当然，这两段久远的引证十分准确。天主教指定星期日作为公共礼拜的日子，并且因其作出这一改变而备受褒贬。” ——（《这磐石》，《天主教护教学和传道学杂志》1997年六月刊，第八面[This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997]) 问：“你有没有其它证据证明他们（改正教徒）并不是受圣经的指导呢？答：是的，此类证据太多了，以至于我们无法在这个小文章中容纳如此众多的例证。他们拒绝了许多清晰记载于圣经中的东西，并且公开承认很多圣经中从未提及的谬论。” 问：“各自举些例子好吗？” 答：“如果圣经是他们唯一的准则，那么他们应该根据约翰福音第十三章耶稣的命令彼此洗脚；他们也当根据“当记念安息日守为圣日”这条诫命，遵守星期六而不是星期日，圣经中根本没有改变或废除这条命令的证据；……” ——（斯提反·金南神父《教理论》，第101面，1857年，纽约[Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 101 Imprimatuer]） 问：“你还有其它方法证明（罗马天主教教会）有权柄设立法令节期吗？” 答：“倘若她没有此种权力，她就不会做成让当今所有宗教家都一致同意的事情——它就不会建立守一周第一日的星期日的制度，因为（圣经中教导的）当守的日子是星期六而不是第一日，这种改变是没有圣经经文根据的。” ——（斯提反·金南神父《教理论》第174面，1857年， 纽约。Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 174） 问：“我们用什么方法可以向一位改正教徒指出，他所说的那些反对禁食和禁欲的话是不合理的？” 答：“既然他不愿意禁食和禁欲，那就问他为什么要守星期日，而不守星期六作为安息日。如果他回答，圣经命令他守星期日，但没有论到禁食和禁欲，那你就告诉他圣经谈到星期六与安息日的事情，但是没有论及星期日与一周第一日的事情。如果他拒绝星期六为安息圣日，用星期日来代替它，说这只是因为古代教会是如此行，如果他愿意一直这样坚持下去，那么他就要去禁食和禁欲，因为古代教会也这样规定，难道他也要避开这命令？” ——（司提反·金南神父《教理论》第181面，1857年， 纽约[Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 181]） 问：“哪一日是安息日？” 答：“星期六是安息日。” 问：“那为什么我们遵守星期日而不是星期六呢？” 答：“我们之所以守星期日而不守星期六，是因为天主教将星期六的神圣性转移到了星期日。” ——（彼得·耶尔曼神父C.SS.R.《天主教教义教理详解》第50页[Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS .R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50]） 问：“当一位明智的改正教徒发现自己的教会连圣经准则都不顺从的时候，岂不会产生严重的怀疑吗？” 答：“当然会的，当他看到人们给婴儿施洗，废除犹太人的安息日，而遵守没有圣经根据的星期日之时；当他看到他们忽视圣经中清晰命令的彼此洗脚的礼节，并且吃圣经中特别禁止的血和勒死的牲畜时，如果他全面思考，就必定会怀疑……” 问：“当改正教徒发现自己是以遗传为向导时，他会不会产生怀疑呢？” 答：“如果他认真思考，并晓得他守星期日为圣的行为完全是天主教的传统之时，他一定会怀疑的；……” ——（新版《最具争议的教理》作者斯提反?金南，乔治?格马克神父校订，伦敦伯恩斯&奥茨有限公司出版—纽约、辛辛那提，芝加哥：本辛格兄弟出版社，1896年，第6、7页。[Controversial Catechism by Stephen Keenan, New Edition, revised by Rev. George Cormack, published in London by Burns & Oates, Limited - New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1896, pages 6, 7]） “教会（罗马天主教）在把一周的休息日，从犹太教的安息日——也就是一周中的第七日，改成第一日之后；另一方面，又制定了第三条诫命（编者按：上帝十诫中的第四诫），规定星期日才是应当守为圣的主日。特伦特会议（第六部分，第十九条教法）谴责那些否认基督徒应当遵守十诫的人。” ——（《天主教百科全书》，上帝的诫命，卷四。 1908年，罗伯特·阿普尔顿 公司出品——在线版本 1999年，凯文·奈特，尼西·奥布斯塔出品——出版校对拉米·拉夫得-+约翰 M·法利，纽约大主教，第153面。The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, ? 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition ? 1999 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153） “（罗马天主教）教会创始者耶稣基督将那绝无错误而神圣的权威赐给她，因此她将遵守安息日改变成了遵守星期日。改正教徒主张圣经是信仰中的唯一指南，但是对于遵守星期日，他们却没有任何圣经中的根据。在这一问题上，只有基督复临安息日会才是唯一与圣经相符的改正教会。” ——《天主教全球公告》1945年8月14日，第4面[The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4]） “我们所有人所相信的许多有关信仰的事情都无法在圣经中找到根据。例如，我们在圣经中没有找到基督或是使徒们命令安息日必须从星期六改到星期日。我们有上帝赐给摩西的诫命，吩咐我们遵守安息日为圣，这安息日就是一周中的第七日——星期六。然而，今天绝大多数基督徒都在遵守星期日，因为这个日子是圣经之外的教会启示我们的。” ——（出自《天主教弗吉尼亚人》的《告诉你真相》卷22，编号49（1947年10月3日）The Catholic Virginian, "To Tell You The Truth,” Vol. 22, No. 49 (Oct. 3, 1947)） “……倘若你通读圣经，从创世记读到启示录的话，你不会找到任何一句经文可以证明星期日是神圣的。圣经强调了对星期六的虔诚遵守，而我们从来没有尊这一日为圣。” ——（《我们教父的信仰》作者巴尔的摩大主教雅各?卡丁纳?机本，88版，第89面 ，1876年出版，唐出版社和出版公司1980年授权再版。第72-73面。The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.） 倘若否认了教会的权威，你就再没有足够或合理的解释与理由证明上帝诫命中的第三条诫命中——也就是改正教的第四条诫命——中的星期六改成了星期日……教会超越了圣经的权威，更改安息日的遵守就是一个鲜明例证。” ——（《天主教记录》9月1日，1923年Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.） “但因为圣经所特别强调的是星期六，而不是星期日，所以对于那些声称自己的信仰是直接来自圣经而不是教会的非天主教徒，那么他们以守星期日来代替星期六的做法岂不令人感到奇怪么？是的，肯定会的，这样做乃是言行不一；然而，早在改正教出现之前十五个世纪，这个日子就已经被改变了，而且那个时候这日子曾得到普遍的遵守。迄今为止，改正教都在继续这个传统，然而它却是建立在天主教的权威之上，而非以圣经清晰的经文为根据。遵守星期日的传统存留下来就是提醒非天主教教派都是从母教会分裂出来的——就好像一个男孩逃出自己的家，但是他口袋中依然揣着母亲的相片或她的发夹。” ——（《千万人的信仰》The Faith of Millions） “在公元第一世纪，教会所做的也许是最大胆的事情，也是最革命性的改变——就是将圣日安息日从星期六转移到了星期日。‘主日’（dies Dominica）的制定并不是出自圣经中的任何指导，而是教会因着它自身的权柄擅自设立的。复活日以及在其五十天后的五旬节都是在一周的第一日。因此这就成了新的安息日。那些认为圣经是独一绝对权威的人，应该顺理成章地皈依基督复临安息日会，因为他们才是守星期六为圣的。” ——（《哨兵》，牧师手册，圣凯瑟琳天主教会，阿尔贡，密西根州，1995年 5月21日。Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995） “如果改正教徒真的听从圣经，他们就应该在安息日敬拜上帝。他们守星期日就是在跟随罗马天主教的法律。” ——艾伯特·史密斯Albert Smith，巴尔的摩大主教（管辖）区的区长，回红衣主教的信，日期为1920年2月10日。Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.） “改正教守星期日是向（天主）教会权柄致敬的忘我行为。” ——（路易斯·瑟古阁下，《坦率谈论当今的改正教教义》Monsignor Louis Segur, ‘Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today’, p. 213.） 当改正教再三向教皇提出疑问“你怎敢改变上帝的律法？”（主要是针对天主教为何将十诫中“不可拜偶像”这一诫命废除了。）但是，天主教向改正教提出的反问则更加尖锐。以下是（天主教发出的）正式的提问： “你会告诉我说：‘星期六是犹太人的安息日，但是基督教的安息日已经改到了星期日。它已经改变了！’那么，是谁改变的？谁有权柄改变全能之上帝亲自设立的诫命呢？倘若上帝亲自说当记念安息日，守为圣日，谁还敢——不是这样，第七日要劳碌做你一切的工，但第一日是当守的圣日呢？” “这是一个至关重要的问题，我不知道你会如何回答。你是一个改正教徒，并且你口口声声说要按圣经行事，且唯独以圣经为准绳；但是在‘守七日中哪一日为圣’的事情上，你的做法却与圣经明确的吩咐相悖，你还用其它日子代替了圣经中所吩咐的圣日，这是何等的严重啊！” “遵守第七日为圣日的命令是十诫中的一条；你认为其它九条诫命仍然有约束力；那么是谁给你权柄去践踏第四条诫命呢？如果你坚守自己的原则，如果你真的遵循圣经，并且以圣经为唯一的准则，那么，你应该从新约圣经中找出明确改变第四条诫命的经文来。” ——（《基督教教义图书：为什么你不守圣安息日》（伦敦：伯恩斯和奥茨有限公司）第3、4页[Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath-Day? (London: Burns and Oates, Ltd.), pp. 3, 4]） “我再三出价1000美元，奖励给任何可以从圣经中向我证明必须守星期日为圣的人。圣经中没有这样的律法。它只来自圣天主教的律法。圣经说‘当记念安息日守为圣日。’天主教说：‘不对，藉着我的神圣权柄，我废掉了星期六，并且命令你们守一周的第一日。看那！整个文明世界都屈膝，以顺从圣天主教的命令。’” ——（托马斯·恩瑞特神父C.S.S.R.,1884年2月18日，在纽约罗马天主教1893年7月周刊《美国哨兵》出版，第173面。[Priest Thomas Enright, C.S.S.R., February 18, 1884, Printed in the American Sentinel, a New York Roman Catholic journal in June 1893, p. 173] “整个地球上只有一个教会有能力，或者说是自称有能力，制定约束道德良心的律法，这些律法是列于上帝之前，是以地狱之火为惩罚的。例如，星期日崇拜的制度。其它教会守这日子的权柄是什么？你的回答是因为第三条诫命（天主教去掉了第二条有关禁止拜偶像的诫命，所以称第四条诫命为第三条诫命），这一条诫命吩咐说‘当记念安息日守为圣日。’但是星期日并不是安息日。任何一位在校学生都知道，星期日是一周的第一日。我再三拿出1000美元，奖励给任何可以单从圣经中向我证明必须守星期日为圣的人。没有任何一个人能赢得这笔奖金。是圣天主教会将星期六，也就是第七日的安息日，改到了一周的第一日。” ——（T·恩瑞特辅理主教在1893年发表的一篇演讲。[T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture delivered in 1893]） “当然，天主教宣称这种改变是她的作为。并且这一作为，正是（天主教）教会权柄及其在宗教事务上之权威的标记。” ——（红衣主教团团长C`F`托马斯，在回答有关安息日改变的一封信中如此说，1895年11月11日。[C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath, November 11, 1895]） “耶稣基督的教会是建立在传统之上，而非圣经之上。” ——（爱吉恩·拿帮《天特会议所指定的天主教原则》第157面[Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157]） “教皇拥有如此伟大的权柄和能力，以至于他有能力修改、说明或诠释神圣的律法。”（教皇可以修改神圣的律法，因为他的权柄不是来自人，而是来自上帝，他乃是上帝在地上的代理人。” ——（卢修斯·费拉里斯《教会法典》教皇章二，卷六，第29面。[Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29]） “天主教的领袖因信仰而被定义为耶稣基督的代表（并且被众信徒普遍认可）。教皇被尊为在世上‘取代’全能三一上帝之第二位格的人。” ——（教皇 约翰·保罗二世，《穿越希望的门槛》第3面，1994年[John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994 ]） “……牧养机构过去向母教会建议将那作为‘太阳日的’星期日基督化，‘太阳日’是罗马对这日的称呼，现代语言中仍然保留着此种说法。当时这样做，是为了带领忠心的信徒远离那些敬拜太阳之教派的诱惑，并且要指引他们纪念赞美基督，人类的真‘太阳’。” ——（教皇 约翰·保罗二世《受难日》。《基督——真光的日子》1998年（著名的改正教领袖都同意这个声明——请见上文《浸信会手册》的作者E?T?锡斯克思博士[John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998 (Prominent protestant leaders agree with this statement - See above for a statement by Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’)]） “太阳神是异教中的主神……在波斯和其它地方都有太阳神的崇拜者……实际上，有关太阳尊贵王者的形象，适用于象征基督——公义的太阳。因此这些国家的教会可能会这样说‘过去古老异教的名字[太阳日]，应该保留下来，并视之为神圣，圣洁的’。这样，本来是献给巴德尔神的异教太阳日，变成了基督教的太阳日，归耶稣为圣了。” ——（神学博士威廉·吉尔第，《天主教世界》1894年3月，第809面。[William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, The Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809]） “留下星期日的异教名称太阳日，这在很大程度上是因为异教徒和基督徒在观点上基于一周第一日的联合。这是君士坦丁皇帝向他国民下的命令——异教徒和基督徒都一样——尊太阳日为‘可敬’的日子。” ——（亚瑟·P·斯坦利 《东方教会史》第184面。[Arthur P. Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 184]） “当圣保罗批判律法的功效时，他当时并不是指十条诫命，十诫中与上帝自己一样，都是不会改变的，上帝无法在改变律法的同时，仍然算作是无穷神圣的上帝。” ——（《我们星期日的访客》1951年10月7日，[Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, I951.]） 问：“你如何证明（罗马）教会有权柄支配节期和圣日？” 答：“凭着那将安息日改变到星期日的举动，而这又是改正教徒所接受的，所以他们的行为是自相矛盾的——一方面严格遵守星期日，一方面又去掉（罗马）教会所指定的大多数其它的节期。” ——（亨利·特伯威尔，《基督教教义节选》（1833年批准），第58面（这与但以理?法瑞斯所著的《基督教教义手册》中第67面的表述一致）[Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p.67)]） “有一些神学家持有这样一种观点——上帝同样也直接指定星期日为‘新律法’中崇拜的日子，祂自己毫不含糊地将星期日代替了安息日。但现今这个神学观点已经彻底被抛弃了。如今，普遍的观点就是：上帝直接赐给教会权柄，于是教会可以随意撇弃任何一天，或设立教会自己所视为合适的日子为圣。教会过去选择了星期日，也就是一周的第一日，并且也随着时间的推移选择其它的日子作为圣日。” ——（文森特·J·凯利《严禁星期日和宗教节日被占用》华盛顿，哥伦比亚特区(美国联邦直辖区)，天主教美国新闻大学，对神圣神学的研究。第70卷，1943年，第二面。[Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, Studies in Sacred Theology, No. 70.,1943, p. 2.]） “如果我们单单参考圣经，我们应当务必与犹太人一样遵守安息日，也就是星期六为圣，而安息日绝不是星期日…”” ——（《为天主教高中和学院准备的一个宗教课程》作者文学硕士约翰?拉瑞斯神父，本辛格兄弟出版社，1936年版，第一部分。[A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, by Rev. John Laux M.A., Benzinger Brothers, 1936 edition, Part 1.]） “星期日是天主教的一个制度，并且…只能用天主教的教义来辩护…从圣经的开始到结束没有任何一节经文授权我们将一周的公共敬拜日从一周的最后一日转移到一周的第一日。” ——（《天主教新闻》1900年8月25日。[Catholic Press, Aug. 25, 1900]） “安息日是星期六，不是星期日。是（罗马）教会将守安息日改为遵守星期日。当上帝清晰地表明：‘当记念安息日守为圣日’时，改正教教徒必定会为自己遵守星期日的行为而感到十分困惑。星期日这个字眼并没有出现在圣经中任何地方，因此，改正教徒无视这一点的同时，也是在顺从罗马天主教的权威。” ——（《教法大全，教理诠释》第89面[Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89. ]） “理性和理智要求我们只能选择以下这点：要么改正教教义结合守星期六为圣，要么天主教教义结合守星期日为圣。妥协是不可能的。” ——（约翰 吉布斯 红衣主教，《天主教镜报》，1893年12月23日。[John Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.]） 基督教教会（Christian Church） “我认为主日并不可代替犹太人的安息日，我也不相信安息日从一周的第七日改到了一周的第一日，原因很简单——没有任何证据的事情就绝对不可信。在所有属天晓谕中都没有证据说明安息日已经改变，也没有证据说明主日代替了安息日。” ——（亚历山大·坎贝尔，《华盛顿报告》1921年10月8日[Alexander Campbell, in The Reporter, October 8, 1921]） “废除上帝圣言中的安息日，并且设立星期日为圣日，那就是推翻了上帝的第四条诫命。” ——（N·萨门博尔《基督教会历史》第三版，第415面。（[Dr. N. Summerbell, History of the Christian Church, Third Edition, p. 415] ） “并没有直接的圣经权威来支持将第一日作为主日的命令。” ——（D·H·卢卡斯博士，《基督教圣贤》1890年，1月23日。Dr. D. H. Lucas, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890） “一周的第一日通常被称为安息日，这是一个错误。圣经中的安息日其实是一周的第七日。整本圣经中从来都没有称一周的第一日为安息日。称安息日已经改变是一个错误。圣经从来没有将安息日从星期六改到星期日。圣经中也没有任何地方暗示要进行这样的改变。” ——《第一日的遵守》第17、19面。[First-Day Observance, pp. 17, 19.]） 基督的教会（Church of Christ） “然而，关于将一周中的第一日代替第七日安息日一事，我们并没有发现上帝直接的命令，复活之基督也没有任何此类的指示，早期使徒们也没有此类训诫。”“让我们把这一点分析清楚。虽然对于基督徒来说‘那日，也就是七日的头一日’是所有日子中最值得记念的……，但是在新约圣经中没有任何命令或根据，教导我们必须守那日为圣。”“罗马天主教选择了第一日来记念耶稣的复活……” ——（《圣经标准》1916年5月，新西兰，奥克兰。[Bible Standard, May, 1916, Auckland, New Zealand.]） “…如果第四条诫命是为了约束我们这些外邦人务必遵守这日。但是那些要求严格遵守安息日的人要记住，那是上帝所命令的独一的安息日，上帝从未废除这个诫命，如果你要记念安息日，就必须记念这一日；但星期天绝不是安息日。‘基督复临安息日会’所提出的论点是牢不可破的，诫命所提到的并不是一周的第一日，而是第七日。” ——（《圣经标准》作者G·阿尔瑞，1916年4月。[G. Alridge, Editor, The Bible Standard, April, 1916.]） “并没有直接的圣经权威来支持将第一日作为主日的命令。” ——（D·H·卢卡斯博士，《基督徒圣贤》1890年，1月23日。[DR. D. H. LUCAS, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890.]） “一周的第一日通常被称为安息日，这是一个错误。圣经中的安息日其实是一周的第七日。整本圣经中从来都没有称一周的第一日为安息日。称安息日已经改变是一个错误。圣经从来没有将安息日从星期六改到星期日。圣经中也没有任何地方暗示要进行这样的改变。” ——（《第一日的遵守》第17、19面。First-Day Observance," pages 17, 19） “改变第四条诫命，并且设立星期日为圣日，就是废除上帝圣言中的安息日。” ——（N·萨门博尔《基督教会历史》第三版，第415面。DR. N. SUMMERBELL, "History of the Christian Church," Third Edition, page 4I5.） “命令……人……遵守主日……乃是与福音相悖的。” ——（《亚历山大·坎贝尔的论文集》第528页，卷一。Memoirs of Alexander Campbell," Vol. 1, page 528.） “这里已经清楚表明，众教会的教牧人员废除了上帝十诫中的一条，而这条诫命不仅在旧约圣经，而且在所有的启示中，是被重点视为所有信仰和道德的总纲。” ——（亚历山大·坎贝尔《与珀塞尔的辩论》第214面[ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, "Debate With Purcell," page 214.]） “我认为主日并不可代替犹太人的安息日，我也不相信安息日从一周的第七日改到了一周的第一日，原因很简单——没有任何证据的事情就绝对不可信。在所有属天晓谕中都没有证据说明安息日已经改变，也没有证据说明主日代替了安息日。” ——亚历山大·坎贝尔，《华盛顿报告》1921年10月8日[ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, Washington Reporter, Oct. 8, 1821. ] 英格兰教会（Church of England） “许多人认为星期日就是安息日。但是不管是在新约圣经中还是在早期教会，并没有任何证据表明我们有权利将第七日的遵守转到第一日上。不管是在过去还是现在，安息日一直就是星期六，而不是星期日。如果该条诫命依然对我们有约束力，那么我们必须遵守这一日，而不是其它日子。” ——（莱昂内尔·皮尔神父《所有神徒的教会》新西兰，庞森比，《教会和百姓》1947年9月1日。[Rev. Lionel Beere, All-Saints Church, Ponsonby, N.Z. in Church and People, Sept. 1, 1947]） “圣经中没有任何一处指出应当在星期日进行崇拜。当记念安息日守为圣日……！ 那就是星期六！” ——（魁北克大主教P·卡灵顿， 1949年10月27日；引至《预言表号》第12面。[—P. Carrington, Archbishop of Quebec, Oct. 27, 1949; cited in Prophetic Signs, p 12.]) “第一日的遵守取代了第七日的安息日，这样的变更是建立在，而且仅仅是建立在教会本身的证词上。” ——（《霍巴特教会新闻》1894年7月2日；引至《预言表号》第14面。[Hobart Church News, July 2, 1894; cited in Prophetic Signs, p 14]） “究竟圣经什么地方告诉我们要遵守第一日呢？上帝吩咐我们要遵守的是第七日；圣经没有任何一处命令我们守第一日……正如我们遵守其它事情一样，我们守第一日而不守第七日为圣的原因并不是出于圣经，而是因为教会的命令。” ——（以撒·威廉斯神父《教理训言》第334面[Rev. Isaac Williams, Ser. on Catechism, p. 334.]） “诫命说第七日是向耶和华你上帝……当守的安息日。任何的计算，任何的年历都不能让七等于一，也无法让第七意味着第一，或星期六意味着星期天……事实是，我们每一位都是安息日的破坏者。” ——（乔·霍奇神父。[Rev. Geo. Hodges.] “在前三个世纪里，没有任何一位神学作家将守星期日的起源归咎于基督或是基督的使徒。” ——（威廉·顿威尔爵士《六个经文的检验》第6、7（附录）。[SIR WILLIAM DOMVILLE, "Examination of the Six Texts," pages 6, 7. (Supplement)]） “在整本新约圣经中，没有任何一个字，任何一个暗示说明要在星期日禁止一切的工。……在星期日安息根本不是神圣的律法……，对圣灰星期三（大斋首日：复活节前第七个星期三和大斋期的第一天，在这一天很多基督教都用灰在前额画一标记以作忏悔和必死的标志）或大斋节（从圣灰星期三到复活节的四十天，基督徒视之为禁食和为复活节作准备而忏悔的季节）的持守与守星期日一样，都是处于同一种立足点之上的。” ——《艾顿教法》—《十诫》第52、63、65面。[CANON EYTON, 'The Ten Commandments," pages 52, 63, 65.] “到底在新约圣经中有没有命令将一周的安息日从星期六改到星期日呢？绝对没有！” ——（《基督教教义手册》第127面。[Manual of Christian Doctrine," page 127.]） “主日根本没有取代安息日……主日只不过是教会的制度罢了。它并不是第四条诫命所吩咐人遵守的日子，因为他们遵着诫命守这日子约有三百年……早期教会的信徒可以在主日做一切的工，然而，甚至在逼迫的日子，他们都严格的遵守所有神圣的诫命；但是他们根本不知道这一点（要用主日取代安息日）。” ——（杰里米·泰勒主教《开导小信疑惑者-释疑》第一部，第二册，第二章，规则六，第51、59部分[BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR, "Ductor Dubitantium," Part I, Book II, Chap. 2, Rule 6. Sec. 51, 59.]） “星期日（字译：太阳日）就是外邦人隆重朝拜那颗被称为太阳之行星的日子。受这日的影响，也出于是尊重这日的（依他们认为是）圣体，基督徒们认为合宜与外邦人同守这一日，并且用相同的称号，这样他们就不会显得与世俗格格不入了，因为倘若他们遵守安息日就会阻挠外邦人皈依基督教，甚至会产生更大的偏见，以至于使福音受抵制。” ——（T·M·莫尔《主日对话》第22、23面。[T. M. MORER, "Dialogues on the Lord's Day," pages 22, 23.]） “清教徒的观念历来就是令人不快的。它将星期日改成了安息日，甚至教导他们的百姓称星期日为安息日。连教牧人员都如此行。” “除非我的计算是完全错误，否则安息日就是从星期五傍晚六点后的24个小时。因此，在我们进入星期日之前它才结束。如果你向一个严守星期日为安息日的人提出他应当在正确的日子守安息日，那么你提不起他的热情。他会马上回答：这不是原则问题，日子已经更改了。然而，是谁改变了它？整个新约圣经中并没有命令基督徒将安息日改变为星期日呀！” ——（D·摩尔斯·博伊考特——《每日通讯》伦敦1931年2月26日。[D. MORSE-BOYCOTT, Daily Herald, London, Feb. 26, 1931.]） “基督教教会做得（改变安息日）不光明磊落，而是潜移默化、持渐积微、几乎不知不觉地将这一日改变到另一日子” ——（F·W·法勒D.D.《来自西奈山的声音》第167面。[F.W. FARRAR, D.D., "The Voice From Sinai," page 167.]） “不管你是研究教父作品还是研究现代作品，我们都无法找到主日是使徒所定下的制度；他们并没有将安息日变更到一周的第一日。” ——（彼得·赫伊林《安息日历史》第410面。[History of the Sabbath," page 410.]） “仅仅指责星期日世俗化是十分简单的，但也是无效的。我们所需要的就是找到某种原则，这种原则是我们这些基督徒靠得住的，并且我们能将自己的行为和劝勉建立在其之上的。当我们回到新约圣经，我们找不到任何的权威法规。基督的话中没有记载，也没有任何的使徒训言告诉我们必须守星期日，事实的确如此。这真的令人沮丧，如果我们指出那让我们没有选择，使我们要么顺从要么悖逆的确切法规，我们的任务就会变得简单轻省了……无论在圣经中还是在历史上，都没有守星期日为安息日的条例。” ——（斯蒂芬博士，纽卡斯尔主教，新南威尔士，在一篇出版于《纽卡斯尔晨讯》的报道如此说。1924年5月14日。[DR. STEPHEN, Bishop of Newcastle, N.S.W., in an address reported in the Newcastle Morn-ing Herald, May 14, 1924.]） 公理会（Congregational） “基督徒的安息日（星期日）并不是出至圣经，早期教会也没有称星期日为安息日。” ——（提摩太·德怀特1818年的107次传道，卷四，第49面，注：提摩太?德怀特曾任耶鲁大学校长(1795-1817年）[Timothy Dwight, Theology, sermon 107, 1818 ed., Vol. IV, p49 Note: Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) was president of Yale University from 1795-1817.]) “很显然，无论我们多么严格或虔诚地遵守星期日，我们都不是在守安息日……安息日是建立在一个明确无误的神圣诫命之上。我们无法为遵守星期日找到同样的诫命作为辩护……新约圣经中没有任何一句话暗示我们若违背那假定为圣洁的星期日就会招致惩罚。” ——（戴尔博士《十诫》第106、107面[Dr. Dale, The Ten Commandments, pp. 106, 107.]） “必须承认的是，在新约圣经中没有关于第一日的律法。” ——（《巴克神学字典》第430页，[Buck's Theological Dictionary page 403.]） “圣经中没有命令要求我们守一周的第一日作为基督徒的安息日。” ——（欧林·福勒《浸礼的模式和主题》[ORIN FOWLER, A.M., "Mode and Subjects of Baptism."]） 现今，有关基督和祂的使徒们凭借权威将第一日代替第七日的观点在新约圣经中是完全没有根据的。” ——（莱曼·爱博特 博士，于1882年1月18日于基督徒联会上发表的演讲。[DR. LYMAN ABBOTT, Christian Union, Jan. 18, 1882.]） 基督门徒会（Disciples of Christ） “并没有直接的圣经权威来支持将第一日作为主日的命令。” ——（D·H·卢卡斯博士，《基督教圣贤》1890年，1月23日[Dr D.H. Lucas,Christian Oracle,January,1890]） “如果它（十诫）仍然存在，就让我们持守它吧……如果十诫已经不存在了，也让我们放弃一个为了模仿安息日而屈从于另一个日子吧。有人会说‘但是它已经从第七日转到第一日了’。何时？何地？何人？——不，安息日从未改变，它也不会改变，除非再经历创造：因为那指定安息日为圣日的理由根据（创世记2:1-3）必须在尚未持守或尊重这理由之前就先被改变，否则鉴于这个根据，安息日不会改变。所有称‘安息日已从一周的第七日改到了第一日’的说法都是无稽之谈。如果安息日被改变了，那它就是‘威严显赫’之人改变了它，这人飞扬跋扈改变了节期和律法——我想他的名字就是‘敌基督者博士’。” ——（亚历山大·坎贝尔《基督徒的洗礼》卷一，第七章，1824年2月2日。[Alexander Campbell,The Christian Baptist,February 2,1824,vol 1,no. 7]） 圣公会（Episcopalian） “我们已经按照那神圣的、天主教的，使徒教会的权柄将第七日改到了第一日，从星期六改到了星期日。” ——（西莫主教《为什么我们要守星期日》[Bishop Symour,Why We keep Sunday.]） “圣经中的诫命说第七日你要安息。那一日就是星期六。圣经中没有一处称必须在星期日崇拜。” ——（飞利浦·开灵顿《多伦多每日星报》1949年10月26日[开灵顿（1892-）魁北克圣公会大主教，在一大群神职人员面前发表有关这安息日主题的信息。当时在新闻媒体上广为报道][ Phillip Carrington,quoted in Toronto Daily Star,Oct 26,1949 [Carrington (1892-),Anglican archbishop of Quebec,spoke the above in a message on this subject delivered to a packed assembly of clergymen. It was widely reported at the time in the news media].]） 路德宗（Lutheran） “主日（星期日）的遵守并不是建立在任何上帝的诫命之上，而是建立在教会的权威之上。” ——（《奥斯堡信条》[Augsburg Confession of Faith.]） “他们[天主教]宣称安息日已经改到了星期天，也就是主日了，这是与十诫截然相悖的，似乎再也没有其它的例子能比安息日的改变更加夸口自吹了。他们说：大哉！教会的权柄和能力，因为它废除了十诫中的一条。” ——（《奥斯堡信条》28条款，第9段[Augsburg Confession of Faith,ArT.28,par. 9.]） “他们（罗马天主教）宣称安息日已经改到主日了，这乃是更改上帝的十诫；而且他们除了自己口头更改安息日的例证之外，再没有例证来支持自己的观点。他们将教会的权柄膨胀到极至，因为它已经废除了十诫中神圣的原则。” ——（《奥斯堡信条》公元1530年（路德教会）第二部分，第7条款，在飞利浦?沙夫所著的《基督徒信条》第四版，卷3，第64面[这是路德教会所指定并梅兰克吞亲手所写的重要声明，就是在路德将论纲钉在门上并且开始宗教改革后十三年发表][ The Augsburg Confession,1530 A.D.(Lutheran),part 2,art 7,in Philip Schaff,the Creeds of Christiandom,4th Edition,vol 3,p64 [this important statement was made by the Lutherans and written by Melanchthon,only thirteen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door and began the Reformation].]） “迄今为止，人类仍然无视神圣之上帝所制定的最原始和最特别的启示——在西奈山上写于法板之上的十诫” ——（《科郎神学库》第178面[Crown Theological Library," page I78]） “古代教会的基督徒会很快就分别出一周的第一日，星期日；尽管它并不像安息日，但是作为教会聚会的日子，一起学习上帝的圣言，并且相互庆祝习俗：毫无疑问，这发生在第二世纪的最前叶。” ——（格灵麦伦德主教《安息日历史》第60面[Bishop GRIMELUND,"History of the Sabbath," page 60]） “星期日的（为节日）习俗，与其它习俗一样，都是人类的传统。” ——（奥古斯塔斯·尼安德《基督教信仰和教会史》第一卷，第186页[History of the Christian Religion and Church," Vol. 1,page 186.]） “我万分震惊，我怎么会被灌输这么一种观点：我应当弃绝十诫律法……不管是谁想要废除上帝的律法，与此同时也不可避免的取消了罪恶。” ——（马丁·路德《属灵敌基督者》71-72面[MARTIN LUTHER,Spiritual Antichrist," pages 71,72]） “我们都看到犹太教的安息日是如何逐渐从基督教教会的心中褪去，并且看到那基于对第一日遵守的新思想如何完全占据了教会。我们也已经看到前三世纪的基督徒从未混淆安息日和星期日，而是同时庆祝。” ——（出自路德教出版的一本学习手册《星期日的问题》（1923年）第36面[The Sunday Problem,a study book by the Lutheran Church (1923) p.36]） “但他们错就错在教导星期日已经代替了旧约圣经中的安息日，因此必须像以色列人遵守第七日一样来遵守星期日。……这些教会错就错在这只是他们自己的教训，因为圣经中决没有命令用一周的第一日代替安息日。新约圣经中根本没有带有此种含义的律法。” ——（约翰·西奥多·穆勒《安息日还是星期日》第15、16面。[John Theodore Mueller,Sabbath or Sunday,pp.15,16]） 路德自由教会（Lutheran Free Church） “因为圣经中找不到任何确凿之处可以证明主自己或者使徒们已经规定将安息日改为星期日，所以回答以下这个问题并不简单：谁更改了安息日，谁有权柄这样行呢？” ——（乔治·斯维尔德鲁普《一个新的日子》[George Sverdrup,‘A New Day.’]） 卫理公会（Methodist） “我们的主的确涂抹了这‘在律例上所写……的字据’，把它撤去并且钉在祂的十字架上了。（歌罗西书2: 14）但是道德律法是包含在十诫之中，是众先知所强调的，主并没有撤去……道德律法与仪文律法建立在完全不同的基础上。……这道德律法的每一部分对于历代的全人类都是有效的。” ——（约翰·卫斯理《在几个场合的训道》第二版，卷一，第221，222页。[JOHN WESLEY,"Sermons on Several Occasions," 2-Vol. Edition,Vol. I,pages 221,222.]） “无论如何，没有任何一位基督徒可以免于顺从那被称为道德律法的十条诫命。” ——（《卫理公会守则》(I904),第 23面[Methodist Church Discipline," (I904),page 23.]） “安息日是为人设立的；不只是为希伯来人，而是为全人类设立的。” ——（E·O·哈冯《真理的支柱》第88面。[E.O. HAVEN,"Pillars of Truth," page 88.]） “我们守第一日来代替第七日的理由并非基于那些肯定的诫命。任何一个人都不会在圣经中找到将第七日改成第一日的权威根据。早期基督徒开始在第一日崇拜的理由是耶稣在那日复活。逐渐这敬拜的日子也就变成了休息日，也就是法定的假日。这发生在公元321年。 我们守第一日来代替第七日的理由并非基于那些肯定的诫命。任何一个人都不会在圣经中找到将第七日改成第一日的权威根据……因此，我们所谓的基督徒的安息日并不是诫命所认定的。它只不过是教会的所赐予的一份礼物罢了。……” ——（克劳维斯·G·查培尔《人生的十大准则》第61面[CLOVIS G. CHAPPELL,"Ten Rules for Living," page 61.]） “在希伯来语中，安息日表示休息，并且它是一周的第七日……必须承认的是，新约圣经中没有任何有关第一日的律法。” ——（查尔斯·巴克《神学字典》“安息日”条款。[Charles Buck,A Theological Dictionary,"Sabbath"]） “在很久以前，地上的人就开始给万物取名字，并且将嘴中的声音变成单词，因此嘴唇可以表达一个人的想法。在那些日子，人们崇拜太阳，因为人们造出许多单词讲述了有关许多事物的诸多看法。人们当时成为了基督徒，并且在一个名叫君士坦丁的皇帝统治之下。这个皇帝将星期日（太阳日）代替了基督教的安息日，这是因为光和热都是从太阳而来的福气。因此星期日就是太阳日，难道不是吗？” ——（星期日学倡导，1921年12月31日[Sunday School Advocate,Dec. 31,1921.]） “道德律法包含在十条诫命之内，是众先知所强调的，基督也并没有撤去。祂来的目的不是废除十诫中的任何一个部分。这十条诫命永远都不能废除……这律法的每一部分必须存留在全地所有的人中，且在各个时代都有效，它不是受制于时间和地点，也不是受制于那些易变的环境，而是建立在上帝的天性和人的本性，并他们相互间不可改变的关系之上。” ——（约翰·卫斯理《在几个场合的证道》卷1，第二十五讲[JOHN WESLEY,"Sermons on Several Occasions," Vol. I,Sermon XXV.]） “的确，针对婴儿施洗没有明确的命令。同样也没有任何命令要求守一周的第一日。许多人相信基督已经改变了安息日。但是从祂自己的言语中，我们看到祂来并不是为了这个目的。那些相信耶稣已经改变安息日的人都是建立在臆想之上。” ——（阿摩司·宾尼《神学纲要》第180-181面。[Amos Binney,‘Theological Compendium’,p. 180-181]） “这在太初就已设立，并且由摩西和众先知一次又一次坚固的安息日从来都没有被废除。作为道德律，有关它神圣性的一点一划都没有被废弃。” ——（《纽约先驱论坛报》1874年，卫理公会主教牧声1874年[New York Herald 1874,on the Methodist Episcopal Bishops Pastoral 1874]） 慕迪神学院（Moody Bible Institute） “安息日是在伊甸园中制定的，自此以来一直有效。第四条诫命是以‘当纪念’这几个字开始的 ，这表明上帝在西奈山亲手将诫命写在法板之前，安息日就已经存在了。人们怎么会声明这条诫命已经废除，而同时又承认其它九条依然有效呢？” —— （D·L·慕迪“称重与亏缺”第47面。[D.L. MOODY,"Weighed and Wanting," page 47.]) “我真心相信现今这条诫命（第四条诫命）与从前一样有效。我曾与那些说安息日已经废除之人谈话，但是他们从未能向我指出在圣经中有任何地方说上帝已经将其撤除。当基督在世时，祂根本没有说安息日已经废除；而是将它从文士和法利赛人所强加与它的繁文缛节中释放出来，并且将它置于正确的位置，‘安息日是为人设立的，人不是为安息日设立的’对于今天的人们来说，它和以前一样可行，一样必要。实际上，我们如今比以往任何时候更需要它，因为我们生活在如此紧张的时代。” ——（同上，第46面） “这第四条诫命不是针对某个地方或某个时代的诫命，而是针对所有地方和所有时代的。” ——（D·L·慕迪，旧金山，1881年1月1日。[D.L. Moody,at San Francisco,Jan.1st,1881.]） 长老会（Presbyterian） “基督教的安息日（星期日）并非来自圣经，也不是早期教会所称的安息日。” ——（《德怀特的神学理论》卷14，第401面[Dwight's Theology,Vol. 14,p. 401.]） “我们在马太福音24:20节‘你们应当祈求，叫你们逃走的时候，不遇见冬天或是安息日’中看到一个对安息日永恒性质的更加深入之根据。但是耶路撒冷最后的毁灭是在基督教团体完全建立之后（公元70年）。主所说的这些话明显在暗示，当时的基督徒都在严格遵守安息日的。” ——（《约拿单·爱德华之工》（长老会）卷四，第621面[Works of Jonathon Edwards,(Presby.) Vol.4,p.621.]） “我们切不可凭空想象基督的降世已经将我们从律法的约束中解脱出来；因为律法是任何一个虔诚和圣洁生命的永恒之律，律法中包含着上帝的公义，因此律法必须如同上帝的公义一样永远不变，始终如一。” ——约翰·加尔文《有关福音书间相协和的解释》第一卷，第277面。[JOHN CALVIN,"Commentary on a Harmony of the Gospels," Vol.1,page 277.] “上帝在创造人之时就已设立了安息日，祂将第七日分别出来就是为此目的，并且将安息日的遵守指定为超越种族的普世永恒之道德义务。” ——（美国长老会出版卷宗，第175册[American Presbyterian Board of Publication,Tract No.175.]） “过去对安息日的持守从未停止，直到[罗马]皇帝成为基督徒之后将其废除。” ——（美国长老会出版卷宗，第188册[American Presbyterian Board of Publication,Tract No.118.]） “道德律法（十诫）对所有人永远具有约束力，不论是义人还是不义的人，顺从之人还是悖逆之人；此外，道德律法不仅仅是针对本身所包括的内容，而且它涉及到了那位设立它的创造主上帝的权威。基督在福音中不但没有将其废除，反而大大加强了遵守道德律法的义务。” ——（《威斯敏斯特信仰宣言》第19章，第5节。[Westminster Confession of Faith," Chap. 19,ArT.5.]） “安息日是十诫的一部分。诫命本身就可以解决有关这个法律是否持续到永恒的问题……因此，除非有证据表明所有的道德律法已经被废除，否则，安息日仍然不能改变……基督的教训证明安息日是永恒不变的。” ——（D.D博士 T·C·布雷克《神学精华》第474、475面[T.C. BLAKE,D.D.,"Theology Condensed," pages 474,475.]) “星期日（SUNDAY太阳日）就是外邦人隆重朝拜那颗被称为太阳之行星的日子。受这日的影响，也出于是尊重这日的（依他们认为是）圣体，基督徒们认为合宜与外邦人同守这一日，并且用相同的称号，这样他们就不会显得与世俗格格不入了，因为倘若他们遵守安息日就会阻挠外邦人皈依基督教，甚至会产生更大的偏见，以至于使福音受抵制。” ——（T·M·莫尔《主日对话》[T.M. Morer,Dialogues on the Lord's Day]） “在新约圣经中没有一个字，也没有任何暗示教导我们不可在星期日做工。圣灰星期三，或说是大斋节的遵守与守星期日是同出一辙。星期日休息并不是出自神圣的律法。” ——（《艾顿教法》—《十诫》[Canon Eyton,in The Ten Commandments.]） “某些人试图将遵守星期日的理论建立在使徒的命令之上，然而使徒们根本就没有给出有关这问题的命令……事实是，当我们去诉诸圣经的原文手迹时，守安息日的人拥有最佳的依据。” ——（《工作中的基督徒》1883年4月19日和1884年1月。[The Christian at Work,April 19,1883,and Jan. 1884]） 改正教圣公会（Protestant Episcopal） “那一日（安息日）根本没有从第七日改到第一日……但是对于这种改变，我们找不到任何经文根据，我们可以得出一个结论：这是教会的权威擅自改变的。” ——（《教理诠释》[‘Explanation of Catechism’]） 其它领域（Miscellaneous） “你会告诉我星期六是犹太人的安息日，但是基督徒的安息日已经改到了星期日。的确，改变了！然而是谁改变的？是谁有权柄改变这全能上帝亲自颁布的诫命呢？上帝亲口说当记念安息日，守为圣日，谁敢违抗说‘不是这样，第七日要劳碌做你一切的工，但第一日是当守的圣日呢？’这是一个最为重要的问题，我不知道你该如何回答。” “你是一个改正教徒，你口口声声说要按圣经行事，以圣经为唯一的权威；但是在你遵守七日中哪一日为圣的事情上，你所行的却与圣经所说的相悖，并且将其它的日子代替了圣经所命令的日子，这是何等的严重啊！守安息日为圣日的命令是十诫中的一条；你若认为其它九条诫命仍然有效；那么是谁给你权柄去践踏第四条诫命呢？如果你坚守自己的原则，如果你真的顺从圣经并以圣经为唯一的权威，你应当从新约圣经中找到某些能阐明第四条诫命已经彻底改变的证据。” ——（《基督教教义图书》第3、4页[The Library of Christian Doctrine," pages 3,4]） “圣经中的第一个命令就是定第七日为圣日：‘上帝赐福给第七日，定为圣日。’（创世记2:3）上帝在十诫中再次坚固了这个命令‘当记念安息日，守为圣日……第七日是向耶和华你上帝当守的安息日。’（出埃及记20:8,10）另一方面，基督宣称祂来不是要废掉律法，乃是要成全。（马太福音5:17）耶稣本人也遵守安息日：‘在安息日，照祂平常的规矩进了会堂’。（路加福音4:16 ）耶稣去世之后，祂的门徒们也遵守安息日：‘她们……遵着诫命安息了。’(路加福音23: 56)虽然有如此众多的圣经权威的证据表明应当遵守安息日，也就是第七日为圣日，但所有宗派中的改正教徒都在亵渎这日，并且将这日的义务转到了一周的第一日，也就是星期日。他们这样行的根据是什么？根本没有证据，只不过是口头的阐述，或者说是天主教的传统，因为天主教声称使徒们将安息日改到了星期日，为得是记念基督的复活，并且圣灵也是在一周的第一日降临。” ——(约翰·米尔纳《宗教争端的终结》第71面[JOHN MILNER,"The End of Religious Controversy," page 71.]) “当然，安息日就是星期六，也就是一周的第七日，但是早期的基督徒以遵守星期日来代替安息日，为的是记念基督死里复活。” ——（富尔顿·奥斯勒《世界主义》1951年9月，第34、35面[FULTON OURSLER. Cosmopolitan,SepT.1951,pages 34,35.]） “我不愿假冒为一位业余的圣经学者。我只是以普通人为要寻求指引而研读上帝借摩西颁布的十条诫命，在这‘十诫’中，我发现了美好生活的蓝图。” ——（同上，第33面） “十分肯定的是，现今需要十诫，或许比过去更加需要。十条诫命中的神圣信息使我们在这个罪恶横行的世代面临一个深层次的道德挑战；它是一个统一的信息，无论是犹太人、穆斯林，还是基督徒，都可以接受该信息。在历史和现今事件的亮光之下读完十诫时，谁还能怀疑这永恒之律法的特性呢？” ——（同上，第124面） “上帝命令要守第七日为安息日。不可守其它任何日子作为安息日。守一周的第一日或者第四日都不能算作是守安息日……安息日是一周的最后一天，在六日劳作之后，守第七日为圣。遵守任何星期六之外的日子都不能满足律法的要求。” ——文学博士、神学博士H·J·福劳沃斯《十诫的永恒价值》第13面。[ H.J.FLOWERS ,B.A.,B.D.,"The Permanent Value of the Ten Commandments," page 13.]） “传统上视星期日为基督复活的日子，在公元后的几个世纪以来，对于星期日的评价已经产生了巨大的改变。有时候它已经与一周的第七日，也就是安息日混为一谈。在延续那错谬的假定，也就是第四条诫命已经过时，已经被星期日所取代的推测上，以英文为母语的人是最一致的。在大众的演讲中，经常提到星期日，并且以此来指代安息日，但这是错误的。” ——(作者F.M. 赛特泽尔，馆长，人类学部门，史密森学会，摘自一封1949年9月1日的信。[F.M.SETZLER,Head Curator,Department of Anthropology,Smithsonian Institute,from a letter dated SepT.1,1949]) “那些遵守安息日的人正确地把握着有关遵守安息日真实可靠的历史，并且因此相信人的祖先是被造的；相信在六日内那为人预备的美好家园也是被造的；相信诸天和地球最原始和最完美的被造，并且相信在所有这一切被造之先就存在的造物主——祂完成了创造之工后，于第七日歇息了。安息日因此就成为一个记号，可以将那些相信历史启示之人和那些故意遗忘这些伟大事实之人区别开来。” ——(雅各·G·摩菲《对出埃及记的讲解》出埃及记20: 8-11解释。 [JAMES G. MURPHY,"Commentary on the Book of Exodus," comments on Exodus 20: 8-11]) 无信仰者（Infidel） “也许只有很少一部分的基督徒注意到他们所称的‘基督徒的安息日’（星期日、太阳日）是源于异教。…根据历史的记载，第一次守星期日是在公元第四世纪，当时君士坦丁发布一条法令（并没有要求在宗教上给以遵守，而只是禁止在这日做工），法令这样说‘所有的法官，城镇中所有的人以及做各种买卖的人都要在可敬的太阳日停工。’在发布这法令的时期，君士坦丁是一位拜太阳者；因此无论如何这都与基督教无关。” ——（亨利·M·泰博《信仰还是实事》（罗伯特·G·英格索尔十九世纪美国著名的无神论倡导者英格索尔所写序言），第112面[HENRY M. TABER. "Faith or Fact" (preface by Robert G. Ingersoll),page 112.]） “我想挑战任何一位基督教牧师或传道人，让他们向我提出哪怕一丁点有关遵守星期日为安息圣日的根据。倘若他们无法向我证明，为什么他们还坚持教导星期日是圣日呢？……星期日取代了星期六，而且因为犹太人受命守每周的第七日为圣，因此基督徒必须守每周的第一日，此类观点是十足彻底的谬误，令人不屑一顾……通过使徒行传18:4的记载——‘每逢安息日，保罗在会堂里辩论’可以看出保罗习惯性地遵守一周的第七日，并且在那日传道。” ——（同上，第114-116面） 上一篇 返回研究目录 下一篇 到最頂

All trinity studies Previous Download 看中文 Next The Truth of the Trinity [ trinitytruth.org ] 14-26 (total 42 parts) Was Jesus Christ created? It is claimed that Arius who was a fourth century Alexandrian priest taught that prior to making anything else, God had a son who was begotten, or created or established. Some claim that back in the dawn of time, God the Father had some form of cosmic intimate relations with the Holy Spirit and Jesus was the product. They reason, “How else can you call Him the Son.” But these concepts are contrary to Scripture in which Jesus is revealed as the Creator and not a created being and has existed long before He created all things. (John 1:1-4) The Bible states that Christ was not created but created all things. John 1:3 states, “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” This verse has two direct statements being that Jesus pre-existed and created all things and that all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. Did you notice that John said that not only were all things made through Him but also that without Him nothing was made. Paul also confirms what John wrote, “For by Him all things were created.” He continues with even greater clarity to make sure that we understand what he means by all things. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” Colossians 1:16 If Jesus created all things then, He could not have been one of the created things. Paul adds the following just so there can be no mistake about this fact. “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Colossians 1:17. If Christ created everything that was ever created, and existed before all created things, it is evident that Christ Himself is not among the created things. He is above all creation, not part of it. The idea that Christ is a created being denies His Divinity. No one who holds this view can possibly have any just conception of the exalted position which Christ truly occupies. For Adventists: Note that the Spirit of Prophecy does not equate being born with being created as some imply. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person,” — (E.G. White, ST, May 30, 1895) “The dedication of the first-born had its origin in the earliest times. God had promised to give the First-born of heaven to save the sinner.” — (E.G. White, DA, p. 51) Who is God? Is God a person? Is He a thing or perhaps some invisible cosmic force? These are important questions to answer and should be easily answered by anyone who understands and knows God. Surprisingly, many Christians are stumped by these questions because they have been taught that God is some ghostly, mysterious vapour that pervades all nature. Daniel was given a vision that helps us understand God. He wrote, “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.” Daniel 7:9. Someone called “the Ancient of days,” who wears a white garment and has white hair takes a seat on a throne. Shortly thereafter the “Son of man,” (verse 13) comes before Him. The Ancient of days must be God, the Father. So according to the Bible our heavenly Father is a real person. John was given a vision of this same event and states, “And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.” Revelation 5:1. Shortly after John saw this, Jesus Christ approaches the throne and takes the book out of His Father's hand. So again we find that God is a real person who sits on a throne and has a book in His right hand. God must be a real person for Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” Matthew 5:8. And Jesus warned, “Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 18:10. We should expect that God is a real person for we were created in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). When we get to heaven we will find that we resemble God. We will not find a three headed monster with six arms or any other strange thing like that. God's outward form is very much like our own. And in Hebrews 1:3 we learn that Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person. Therefore God must be a person and Jesus Christ is a real person also. Paul confirmed this when He wrote, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” Philippians 2:5-6. The Greek word that was translated “form” means, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision, external appearance.” (Thayer's Greek Lexicon). God has an external appearance and His Son Jesus Christ has the same type of appearance. Revelation 2:7 and 22:1-2 say that the throne of God is in paradise where the tree of life is and that is where we find God and His Son. God the person is not omnipresent but He is through His Spirit. Beware of Pantheism which is the belief that the universe and nature is identical with divinity, which basically would make God everything around us. Who is Jesus Christ? Jesus “asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? So they said, Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 16:13-17 NKJV This passage says that the Father who is in Heaven, revealed to Peter, that Jesus who was on Earth, is none other than His Son. Jesus Christ being the Son of God is so important that John wrote at the close of his gospel, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name.” John 20:30-31 The very first sermon Paul ever preached after learning the gospel from Christ Himself, “straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.” Acts 9:20. The apostle Peter, who lived with Jesus and heard His messages firsthand said, “And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.” John 6:69. Christ's disciples also exclaimed, “we believe that you came forth from God.” John 16:30. Martha who was a close friend of Jesus and heard many of His teachings said to Him, “Yes, Lord: I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.” John 11:27. Right after Phillip preached the gospel to the eunuch, “said, If you believe with all thine heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:37. Mark said who Jesus was in the first verse of his Gospel. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Mark 1:1. Even the demons knew, “they cried out, saying, What have we to do with you, Jesus, you Son of God?” Matthew 8:29. So how did the demons know that Jesus was the Son of God? Because they had met Him before! These demons had once lived in Heaven. When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he took a third of the angels with him. (Revelation 12:9) So they knew Jesus was the only Son of God! Christ said, “For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist:” Luke 7:28. John the Baptist testified, “And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” John 1:34 Of all the witnesses, the greatest is God the Father Himself. Twice He spoke from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son,” Matthew 3:17; 17:5. Jesus proclaimed, “I am the Son of God.” John 10:36. He said that He is “the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ was begotten which literally means born, and before anything was created and long before God sent Him into the world. (John 3:16-17; 18:37; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:1-9 and 1 John 4:9) The Bible does not tell us how Jesus was begotten but God wants us to know that He is His Son whom He loves very much. Jesus said, “For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26. If Jesus had always existed alongside the Father as the Trinity doctrine claims, then God could not have given life to His Son as He would have always had life. But Scripture reveals this is impossible. According to His own testimony, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and literally received life from His Father. He did not say that He was one of the three members of a trinity who took on the role of the Son of God. He said He was the Son of God! Was Jesus the Son of God before His incarnation? Trinitarians often claim that Jesus is only called the Son of God because of His birth in Bethlehem. But being born in human flesh, Christ became the “Son of man” at His incarnation, not the “Son of God” which He already was. Scripture reveals many times and in many ways that Jesus was God's Son “before” God sent Him into the world, not after. The following two verses for instance say that God sent His Son into the world. Hence He was already God's Son before He sent Him. “because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” 1 John 4:9“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” John 3:17 And God's Son was in the fiery furnace with the faithful three over 500 years before His incarnation. “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” Daniel 3:25 Scripture also informs us that Jesus was the Son of God before all things were created. Paul wrote in regards to Christ that, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Colossians 1:15 NKJV. Note that the latter part of this verse is poorly translated in the KJV which says, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” Colossians 1:15 KJV. As a result there are some who use the King James Bible to imply that Christ Himself was a created being. But such an interpretation is contradicted elsewhere in Scripture such as John 1:1-4 and Colossians 1:16-17 Thus we see that Paul is telling us that Christ was “Begotten First or Born Before all creation” because all of creation was by God through His Son Jesus Christ. “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” Ephesians 3:9 For Adventists: “The dedication of the first-born had its origin in the earliest times. God had promised to give the First-born of heaven to save the sinner.” — (E.G. White, DA, p. 51) “God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, liable to physical infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are. He was the Son of the living God. His personality did not begin with His incarnation in the flesh.” — (E.G. White, Lt77, Aug 3, 1894) Thayer's Greek Lexicon says, “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things.” Barnes New Testament Notes on Colossians 1:15 says, “the word firstborn - pro-tot-ok'-os - properly means the firstborn child of a father or mother.” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary says, “Begotten (literally, 'born') before every creature.” Matthew Henry's Commentary states “He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made;” Scripture refers to Jesus Christ as “the image of God,” “the image of the invisible God,” and “the express image of his person.” (2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). An image is never the original but always a likeness or duplication of the original. Christ is the Son of God and therefore the express image of His Father. It would be incorrect to say that the Father is the image of His Son because the Father is the original. In the same manner it would be incorrect to refer to Christ as the true or original God since He is the image of the true God. The Bible refers to Christ as God's Son at least 120 times. Forty seven times using the phrase “Son of God.” Regarding the genuineness of Christ's Sonship, He is called the “only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” three times, “the firstbegotten” once and God's “holy child” twice. Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. Four verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father. The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the literal begotten Son of God who was brought forth from the Father before all creation. The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon G1831 - To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.G2064 - To come from one place to another. John 8:42 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth [G1831] and came from God; neither came [G2064] I of myself, but he sent me.” John 16:27-28 “For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out [G1831] from God. 28 I came forth [G1831] from the Father, and am come [G2064] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” John 17:7-8 “Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. 8 For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out [G1831] from you, and they have believed that you did send me.” Since the Trinity doctrine teaches three co-eternal beings, then the Bible stating Jesus is the Son of God presents another serious problem for Trinitarians as it contradicts Scripture. If Jesus is born of God as the Bible states more than a hundred times, then Jesus cannot be co-eternal with the Father and so this is yet another problem that Trinitarians have to explain away. This is typically done by a play on words from the Thayer Dictionary definition of the Greek word for “begotten” which is “monogenēs.” It is claimed that “monogenēs” means Christ was one of a kind rather than the intended meaning of the only begotten Son of God. Strong's dictionary says, only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child). So it more accurately means only child. Whenever this Greek word is used of persons, it is exclusively used of parent-child relationships. Here is every single use of “monogenēs” found in the entire Bible. “only begotten son” 4 times referring to Jesus and 1 time referring to Abraham's only son Isaac, “only begotten of the Father” 1 time, “only son of his mother” 1 time, “only daughter” 1 time and “only child” 1 time. So there is not one single Scripture in the Bible that uses this Greek word that does not refer to an only son, daughter or child that was not begotten. And since the word “son” is prefixed by the word “begotten” more than once when referring to Christ, then it can only mean Jesus is born of God and explains why He is called the Son of God to state the obvious. We also have Paul's testimony in Colossians 1:15 which says Christ was the first born before anything was created. And the Greek word “prōtotokos” used in this verse cannot be abused as it means, first born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively): - firstbegotten (-born). There are also other Scriptures that show Jesus was born of God as you are about to see, not that there should be any doubt. For Adventists: “Christ is “the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.” The first chapter of Colossians will wonderfully enlighten the mind as to the truth as it is in Jesus.” — (E.G. White, ST, Nov. 15, 1899) Some also claim that Jesus cannot be divine if He was born of God. But this is just another tactic Satan uses to deter people from the truth. In any case, the problem is actually the other way around. Divinity is not based on how old you are but who you came from. Jesus inherited everything from His Father including his divinity. See Hebrews 1:4 for example. Jesus is the literal Son of God, “the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15), and being brought forth from the Father, He has the same “divine nature” as His Father. “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” Colossians 1:19. Also, the Greek word translated “Godhead” in Colossians 2:9 means “divine nature.” Thus Paul states that the fullness of the “divine nature” of God dwells in His Son. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [divine nature] bodily.” Colossians 2:9. Hence Jesus is fully divine because He “is” begotten of the Father, and hence came forth from the Father, and so He has the same “divine nature” as His Father. Thus the “divine nature” is in the Son because He is God's Son. Everything that Christ consists of had no beginning, His divinity, His makeup, His substance had no beginning as it all came from the Father. If you trace Christ back you will have to go through the Father and you will never get to a beginning. But His personality as the Son began when He was brought forth by His Father. And if Jesus did not get His divine nature from His Father, then where did He get it from? That would mean that Jesus would have to be a God in His own right just like His Father and so we would have two gods. This would break the first Commandment where the one true God the Father says, “You shall have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:3. It does not say before us. If Jesus does not have the same divine nature as His Father because He is His Son, then we have a very serious problem. Why do some insist on trying to make Christ conform to the image they have of Him before they will accept Him? They expect Christ to be a second god identical to His Father in every way and thus reject Him as being a real Son. And yet the truth of Christ being God's Son is so precious. Just think about it for a moment. Christ is God's very own Son whom He loves very much! Why would anyone desire to destroy this precious Father and Son relationship? Another means of trying to discredit the truth is to say that Jesus cannot be born of God because He has no mother. But this is an anthropomorphic thought. Why do Trinitarians try and put “human” limitations on God? He is God! Not human! Just because something does not seem reasonable or logical to us, or just because it does not make sense to us, it does not mean it is not truth. Our heavenly Father said, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9. I once heard a Pastor say that if Christ had a beginning that He must be created. Says what Scripture? That is his thought that imposes a limitation on what God can do. God can and did bring forth a Son without having to create Him. Scripture does not lie and those opposing the truth on Christ being begotten of the Father should know all things are possible with God. We must not put human limitations on how or what God can and cannot do based on our human finite knowledge over the omniscience and omnipotence of God. Why do so many Christians try to explain away literally hundreds of clear words that state Jesus is the Son of God just to uphold a pagan doctrine that does not exist in the Bible? When Satan goes to this much effort you know it has to be extremely important. For Adventists: “It is true that there are many sons of God; but Christ is the “only begotten Son of God,” and therefore the Son of God in a sense in which no other being ever was, or ever can be. The angels are sons of God, as was Adam (Job 38:7; Luke 3:38), by creation; Christians are the sons of God by adoption (Rom. 8:14,15); but Christ is the Son of God by birth. The writer to the Hebrews further shows that the position of the Son of God is not one to which Christ has been elevated, but that it is one which He has by right.” — (E.J. Waggoner, CAHR, p. 11-12) “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person,” — (E.G. White, ST, May 30, 1895) “The dedication of the first-born had its origin in the earliest times. God had promised to give the First-born of heaven to save the sinner.” — (E.G. White, DA, p. 51) Considering Ellen G. White endorsed what Waggoner wrote above, what is the difference between Waggoner saying Christ is “the Son of God by birth,” and the SOP saying Christ is “begotten Son of God” and the “First-born of heaven?” There is no difference of course. Jesus is the literal Son of God by birth and hence there was a time when He was brought forth from the Father. You cannot be the First-born of heaven and a Son by birth any other way. The above also proves that being the literal Son of God by birth does not mean being created as many Trinitarians erroneously claim. Did Christ have a beginning or just His personality? Consider the following. If we could travel at a septuagintacentillion (10513) times the speed of light in any one direction, would we ever find the end of the universe, like perhaps a wall with a sign saying this is the end? And if so, what would be on the other side of that wall? And what existed before God created all things through His Son? Was it nothing? And how long did nothing exist for if that was the case? It would have to be forever! And what about God, when did He begin to exist and who created Him? The answer is that there was never a time He did not exist and hence could never have been created. He is God and has always been and so is without beginning! And what about the Son of God who was born of the same substance of God? The same applies. Since Christ is the same substance of His Father, then everything He consists of had no beginning. So His divinity had no beginning, His makeup; His nature had no beginning as it all came from the Father. So in principle, everything Christ is had no beginning. If you trace Christ back you will have to go through the Father and you will never get to a beginning. But His personality as the Son of God began when He was brought forth by His Father. This principle is brought out in Scripture many times. So in effect it was only the personality of Christ that had a beginning. These are the mysteries of God and things our mind cannot possibly comprehend. For Adventists: “The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity, but not in personality.” — (E.G. White, MS116, December 19, 1905). Waggoner explains in words that are easier to understand making what Ellen White said above easier to comprehend. “Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He was begotten, not created. He is of the substance of the Father, so that in his very nature he is God; and since this is so “it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” Col. 1:19 ... While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning.” — (E.J. Waggoner, ST, April 8, 1889) When and How was Jesus born from the Father? Some say Jesus is being continually born of God in the days of eternity based on Psalms 2:7 which says, “I will declare the decree: the LORD has said unto me, You are my Son; this day have I begotten you.” But it is prophesying of a future event and does not say that. Acts 13:33 explains, “God has fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” In the significant passage of Acts 13:16-41, Paul tells the story of our Lord and Saviour and how he came and died for our sins, but was raised from the dead by His Father in heaven and did not see corruption. Thus this passage declares it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. He was born from the dead, and God who raised Him demonstrating that He was His Son. This is also supported by Revelation 1:5 “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead,” So when does the Bible say Christ was brought forth or born from the Father? Proverbs 8:23-26 says, “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.” So Christ was brought forth from the Father before the earth was created in the days of eternity. And of course, if Christ was brought forth than this also confirms His personality has an origin. Note that the Hebrew word “Olam” used for everlasting in verse 23 in the KJV has several possible meanings and has been translated in many different ways according to context and what the translators believed to be correct. It can mean “the vanishing point”, “time out of mind - past or future”, “ancient time” and “beginning of the world” to name a few. Here are some other translations that demonstrate this point. Proverbs 8:23 CJB “I was appointed before the world, before the start, before the earth's beginnings.”Proverbs 8:23 HCSB “I was formed before ancient times, from the beginning, before the earth began.”Proverbs 8:23 NLT “I was appointed in ages past, at the very first, before the earth began.”Proverbs 8:23 NLV “I was set apart long ago, from the beginning, before the earth was.”Proverbs 8:23 RSV “Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.” Who does “wisdom” refer to in Proverbs 8 since some say this does not refer to Christ? 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 “But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” Wisdom in the following verse also refers to Christ. Luke 11:49 “Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles,” For Adventists: “Through Solomon Christ declared: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth.” — (E.G. White, ST, Aug 29, 1900) Some also have the wrong concept of the word beginning in Scripture. God of course has no beginning and the word beginning means the “origin” and source of something. One example from the Oxford dictionary for “beginning” is, “The background or origins of a person or organization.” If Christ was co-eternal with the Father, then like His Father, He would have no beginning. The Septuagint that Jesus quoted from says, “He established me in the beginning, before time was, before He made the earth.” So all Bible translations of Proverbs 8:23 in fact actually say Christ has an origin! Solomon has used Hebrew parallelism in verse 23 which expresses a thought one way, and then uses a complementary thought to express it another way. So the last two phrases of this verse are saying the same thing as the first phrase but in a different way. This gives tremendous clarity on when he is referring to and yet most still get it wrong. Bible writers did not understand science as we do and measured time by the spheres in the sky that did not exist until Christ created everything. So Christ was established in the beginning (Genesis 1:1) before He made the earth, which was before time was since there was nothing to measure time by yet. Thus we know that the beginning was when the earth was made where there was nothing in existence to measure time by and hence was before time was. And so the phrases “from eternity”, “from everlasting”, “before time was”, “the days of eternity”, “from the beginning” and “before the earth was” all mean the same thing. Quite simply, before the earth and all things were created. Micah 5:2 also informs us that Christ has an origin and was brought forth a long time ago. It also uses the Hebrew word “Olam” as Proverbs 8:23 and has the same translation issue. The phrase “goings forth” in the KJV implies an origin of course and why the NIV used the word “origins.” Micah 5:2 KJV “But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2 NIV “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” Some have mistaken the words “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever:” in Hebrews 1:8 to mean His throne has always existed but it uses the same Greek words as Revelation 22:5 in regards to for ever and ever and both refer to forward in time unless of course we have always existed. The NIV is clearer as it says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.” For Adventists: “And although we may try to reason in regard to our Creator, how long He [Christ] has had existence, where evil first entered into our world, and all these things, we may reason about them until we fall down faint and exhausted with the research when there is yet an infinity beyond.” — (E.G. White, 7BC 919.5) “There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.” — (E.J. Waggoner, CAHR, p. 21, 1890). Thus Ellen White and Waggoner say that Christ was brought forth from God a very long time ago. Christ was the Son of God before He was sent to Earth and was tore from the bosom of His Father. “The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” — (E.G. White, RH, July 9, 1895) Note that the nature of God and His only begotten Son is actually illustrated on a small scale with Adam and Eve. “Adam had enjoyed the companionship of God and of holy angels. ... Love, gratitude, loyalty to the Creator—all were overborne by love to Eve. She was a part of himself,” — (E.G. White, PP, 56.2) In exactly the same way Eve was part of Adam, Christ is part of God. “God's love for the world was not manifest because He sent His Son, but because He loved the world He sent His Son into the world that divinity clothed with humanity might touch humanity, while divinity lay hold of infinity. Though sin had produced a gulf between man and his God, divine benevolence provided a plan to bridge that gulf. And what material did He use? A part of Himself. The brightness of the Father's glory came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, and in His own divine character, in His own divine body, bridged the gulf and opened a channel of communication between God and man.” — (E.G. White, Lt36a, Sept 18, 1890) So we find that Christ was tore from the bosom of His Father and hence was part of Himself, which is something a Trinitarian can never say. The Son of God was brought forth from the Father and hence is the same substance of His Father. This means that everything Christ consists of has always existed as it came from the Father. But the person of Christ had a beginning even though what Christ consists of does not. Thus it would not necessarily be incorrect to say that Christ has always existed before he was born from the perspective that He existed in the bosom of His Father. Who or What is the Holy Spirit? Many think a spirit is a ghost in the form of some bodiless phantom that floats around. The American Heritage Dictionary says ghost means “The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.” But the Holy Spirit is certainly not a ghost as just described. Note that πνευμα αγιον (pneuma hagion) should have always been translated as “Holy Spirit” but sometimes is incorrectly translated it as “Holy Ghost.” David wrote, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” Psalm 139:7. Here David uses Hebrew parallelism to express himself. This expresses a thought one way, and then uses a complementary thought to express it another way. His first thought is, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit?” And the second which is equivalent to the first says, “whither shall I flee from thy presence?” So David is saying that God's Spirit is equivalent to God's presence. Thus the Holy Spirit is best described as being God's presence and power. For Adventists: “In giving us His Spirit, God gives us Himself,” — (E.G. White, 7T 273.1, 1902). “The divine Spirit that the world's Redeemer promised to send, is the presence and power of God.” — (E.G. White, ST, Nov 23) The Trinity doctrine however claims that the Holy Spirit is another person because the Bible shows the Holy Spirit has mind, will and emotions. But this is unbiblical and faulty logic. The Holy Spirit has a personality because God has a personality. In giving us His Spirit God gives us Himself. And so His Spirit has “His” mind, will and emotions the same as man. A persons spirit is their mind, will and emotions. It is who you are. So a spirit is not and never can be a literal person in itself. If it were, it would cease to be a spirit. For instance, in order for a spirit to be another person, it would also have to have its own spirit. In other words, for the Holy Spirit to be a person, it would have to have its own spirit in order to have its own mind, will and emotions. So you would end up with the Spirit of the Holy Spirit. Along with this false theology introduced by Satan so he could achieve worship, man seems to have lost all touch with the reality of a what a spirit is. However, while our spirit is within us, God's Spirit can do what ours can't. He can send His Spirit anywhere. The book of Job says, “there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” Job 32:8. A spirit is the part of a person that can be grieved. Daniel explains, “I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body,” Daniel 7:15. A spirit is the part of a person that can perceive or understand things. In Mark's gospel we read, “And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason you these things in your hearts?” Mark 2:8. A spirit is the part of a person that can be troubled. The king of Babylon had a dream and he told his wise men, “I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream.” Daniel 2:3. So we find that our spirit is our mind, will and emotions. This does not make our spirit another person. What would you think if I said, “I know that we have met before, but have you met my spirit? I would like to introduce you to my spirit who is sitting over there on that chair.” You would obviously think I had a twisted concept of what my spirit is. It is not some other person that is separate and distinct from me. My spirit is who I am and hence is my mind, will and emotions. The Bible mentions several types of spirits. We find “evil spirit,” “dumb spirit,” “unclean spirit,” “foul spirit,” “humble spirit,” “excellent spirit,” “good spirit,” “broken spirit,” “wounded spirit,” “faithful spirit,” and “haughty spirit” etc. All these spirits are distinguishable by the adjective that describes them such as good, foul and humble etc. We know that God the Father has a spirit (Matthew 10:20) and His Spirit of course could be nothing other than Holy. The word “Holy” is also an adjective be it in English or Greek. So “Holy Spirit” is not a name but a description of God's Spirit. God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ have different names and titles in the Bible because they are personal beings. If the Holy Spirit is a personal being co-equal with the Father and Son as the trinity doctrine teaches, then why doesn't it have a personal name also? The “Spirit” is not a name, it is what it is. “Holy” is just the adjective that describes God's Spirit, and other terms such as the “Spirit of God” is not a name either but what it is. It is the Spirit of God! It is also called the “Spirit of your Father” which once again is just what it is. So if the Holy Spirit was truly a personal being then why no personal name? Since your Spirit is your mind, will and emotions, the Greek and Hebrew word for “Spirit” also means “mind” as you would expect. Strong's dictionary says, breath, figuratively life, spirit, (including its expression and functions), mind. Now note below that Paul in Romans 11:34 is quoting Isaiah 40:13. So we know that Paul understood the Spirit of the Lord to also mean the mind of the Lord. And of course the mind of someone is not a different person to them any more than their spirit is and this also includes God as Paul reveals below. So again we find that your spirit is your mind, will and emotions for not only people but God also. The Greek word “pneuma” and equivalent Hebrew word “rûach” are also interchangeably translated as “spirit” or “mind” in various translations and “rûach” is translated as “mind” in the KJV Bible six times. “Who has known the mind of the Lord? And who has been His counselor, to instruct Him?” Isaiah 40:13 Septuagint “Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor has taught him?” Isaiah 40:13 KJV“For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?” Romans 11:34 KJV So how can the mind of the Lord be another being? It cannot in fact. It was not in fact until May 381 AD when a newly baptized emperor, with little or “no” knowledge of theology accepted the idea of three Cappadocians that the Spirit of God was a literal and separate being. Anyone who disagreed was labelled a foolish madman and heretic and dealt with accordingly! So this Catholic belief flowed on through the dark ages and straight into the Protestant Churches at the Protestant Reformation without being questioned as did the trinity doctrine. Hence it was just assumed to be correct and so one day they justified it by saying that secular dictionaries state a person has mind, will and emotions and various Scriptures show the Holy Spirit does also, and therefore it must be a literal being. But as we have already seen, this unbiblical logic would also mean my spirit within me is also a person, and separate from me. Would you believe me if I said that a person's spirit is another literal being? After all, a person's spirit can be troubled, Daniel 2:3 “...my spirit was troubled...” And a person's spirit can be grieved, Daniel 7:15 “I Daniel was grieved in my spirit...” And a person's spirit can speak and pray, 1 Corinthians 14:14 “...my spirit prayeth...” And a person's spirit can rejoice, Luke 1:47“my spirit has rejoiced...” And a person's spirit can be received by the Lord, Acts 7:59 “...Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” A person's spirit can also serve, Romans 1:9 “...I serve with my spirit...” And a person's spirit can also rest, 2 Corinthians 2:13 “I had no rest in my spirit...” So we find that a person's spirit has a mind, will and emotions. Therefore, a person's spirit must be another literal being. Right now you are probably thinking I have lost my mind, and yet this is exactly the same logic that is used to imply that the Holy Spirit is another literal being! Some will respond, “But it is different with God's Spirit.” But not so. Not only does the Bible reveal it is not different but in fact says it is exactly the same with only one exception. Our Spirit is within us but God can send His Spirit anywhere. If the Bible does not say the Holy Spirit is a literal being, then let's not assume it to say something it does not say. So let's honour God and trust what His Word does say instead of assuming or believing our adversaries lies. And as we have seen in Scripture, God and His Son and all living beings have a spirit which is what gives us all a unique personality with our own mind, will and emotions. So for the “Spirit of God” to be a “literal being” as it is erroneously believed today, then the “Spirit of God” would have to have its “own spirit” and one that is also distinct from the Father and Son. But then we are forced into the belief of the “spirit of the Spirit,” and if the Holy Spirit did not have a spirit of its own as per this belief, then it could not have a separate personality and hence its own mind, will and emotions anyway! The spirit of every living being has a personality because our spirit is in fact our personality! So the Holy Spirit has a personality because God has a personality. In giving us His Spirit God gives us Himself. It is not another being and it is not some impersonal force. It is the presence and power of God Himself. It is God's own Spirit having God's own personality. If I could give you my spirit, whose personality would you have? Mine! So God's Spirit has God's personality. The same applies to the fact that the Spirit is divine because God is a divine being. Remember that God is a spirit and yet He is a personal being. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 For Adventists: The Holy Spirit is not some force or another being but God Himself. “In giving us His Spirit, God gives us Himself, making Himself a fountain of divine influences, to give health and life to the world.” — (E.G. White, 7T 273.1, 1902). “God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image.” — (E.G. White, 8T 263.1, 1904) Notice how Paul compares the spirit of man with the Spirit of God putting the final nail in the coffin of this lie. And of course your thoughts come from your mind and hence are the result of your mind, will and emotions. “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:11 Here the spirit of man is likened to the Spirit of God. Just as a man has a spirit, God also has a Spirit in the same manner, and His Spirit is the part of Him associated with His thoughts and emotions the same as a man. Ephesians 4:30 says the Holy Spirit is “the holy Spirit of God” and to grieve not His Spirit. So just as the spirit of man can be grieved so can God's. If I told you that I was grieving in my spirit, would you think my spirit was a separate person? Obviously not. And Paul stated it is no different with God and His Spirit in this respect. God's Spirit belongs to God, just as my spirit belongs to me. So as Paul said, the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God because it is His Holy Spirit and hence has His mind, will and emotions just like man. And of course Paul also revealed in Romans 11:34 given above that the mind and spirit are correlated. He further shows this relationship in Ephesians 4:23 where he said “be renewed in the spirit of your mind.” This is Biblical exegesis but to say the Holy Spirit has mind, will and emotions so therefore must be a literal and separate being is an unbiblical assumption and eisegesis. Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:11 shows the difference is that man's spirit is within him but does not say this about God's Spirit as God can send His Spirit anywhere. There is also no Scripture that says the Holy Spirit is God. Notice these examples of how “Holy Spirit” is used in the Bible. Matthew 3:16 “and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:” And in the parallel verse of Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him,” So these parallel verses show that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. And for an even clearer example. Luke 12:11-12 says, “take you no thought how or what thing you shall answer, or what you shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you ought to say.” Note the same account from Matthew and what he called the Holy Spirit. “take no thought how or what you shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” Matthew 10:19-20. Matthew called the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of your Father,” and so is not another being but God's Spirit, and why it is called the Spirit of God. It is not called God the Spirit. His Spirit of course is Holy and why it is also called the Holy Spirit. This is why the Holy Spirit has all the characteristics of the Father because it is His Spirit. Whose Spirit was Jesus anointed with at His baptism? “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:” Matthew 3:16. By the power of whose Spirit did Jesus cast out demons? “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” Matthew 12:28. The Apostles did many miracles by the power of whose Spirit just as Jesus did? “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” Romans 15:19. This unmistakable verse says the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. “Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God who has also given us His Holy Spirit.” 1 Thessalonians 4:8. Whose Spirit is it that dwells in us? Is it another person or God Himself through His Spirit? “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.” 1 John 4:13. There are more than twenty five verses that reveal this simple truth. Here is one more. “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Ephesians 4:30 While Scripture uses the term “Spirit Of God,” it never uses the term “God the Spirit” as its meaning is incorrect. The rules of grammar tell us that the phrase “God the Spirit” means it is a Spirit that is a God, while the “Spirit Of God” means this is the Spirit that belongs to God. As you can see, they have different meanings and only one can be correct. But which one? The one that is found in the Bible of course! The other came from the Catholic Church. Phrases like “God the Spirit” or “God the Holy Spirit” are Catholic Trinitarian terms that resulted from Satan through man in 381 AD turning the Spirit of God into God the Spirit. Why? So Satan could step into his creation and receive worship as a deity just as he always desired. Hence these Catholic terms were made up to match the doctrine they created and never occur in Scripture as they are literally wrong. So why does the Bible never use the phrase “God the Spirit?” Because God's Spirit is not another God! It uses “Spirit Of God” because the Holy Spirit is God's own Spirit. It is not a difficult concept. No sincere Christian should ever be caught using unbiblical terms like “God the Spirit” as you would be following in the footsteps of antichrist. Terms such as “God's Spirit,” the “Spirit of God,” the “Spirit of Christ,” “My Spirit,” “His Spirit,” and the “Holy Spirit” are used to name just a few. Also, the Scriptures never tell us to “pray to” or “worship” the Spirit. Why would the Bible neglect that if the Holy Spirit was a co-equal God of a trinity? We are told to pray “for” the Spirit, but never “to” the Spirit. And the same applies to Christ. Does the Bible call Jesus “God the Son” as Catholics and Trinitarians do, or does the Bible call Christ the “Son of God”? Scripture in fact always calls Jesus the “Son of God” and with good reason. Because that is what He is to state the obvious. If you are using Catholic phrases like “God the Son” or “God the Spirit,” that never originated from Scripture, then you are following the Papal Church and antichrist, not the inspired words of God. Some also mention Genesis 1:2 which says “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” as if that gives support to the Holy Spirit being a literal being. But does it say a separate person called God the Spirit moved on the face of the waters or does it say God through His Spirit and hence His personal presence moved upon the face of the waters? It is also worth noting that in the Old Testament that the phrase “Holy Spirit” is used 3 times, “Spirit of God” 14 times and “Spirit of the Lord” 26 times. All these phrases are synonymous and not one of these 43 verses implies the Holy Spirit is God or an actual separate being but simply the Holy Spirit of God. Jewish scholars examining the references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament Scriptures have never defined the Holy Spirit as anything but the presence and power of God. Are the Father and Son One in Spirit? Paul says in Ephesians 4:4 that there is “one Spirit.” But the Bible speaks about the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of Christ” which involves two Divine beings. If the Father has a Holy Spirit, the Son must too. So how then is there only one Spirit? The answer is something the majority miss because most have been indoctrinated with the Catholic idea of the Holy Spirit as another being rather than God's own Spirit. God and His Son have a shared Spirit and that is how “They” represent “Themselves” where they are not personally present. So the Holy Spirit is the mind, power, character and personal presence of the very life of God that the Father sends through His Son to us. Or to put it another way to make sure this is clear; the Holy Spirit is the presence and power of the Father manifested through Jesus Christ, His only begotten son. This is not a separate person of the Godhead who is being sent, it is the very life of God coming to us through His Son. “But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:24 Everything Christ received He inherited from His Father including His very own life which is self-existent as it came from the Father. “For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself.” John 5:26 But not only His life but Christ also received of His Father's Spirit. Thus the Father and Son are one in Spirit, and that one Spirit proceeds from the Father and comes to us through His Son. This is why Paul equates the “Spirit of God” with the “Spirit of Christ” as it is the same one Spirit of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. And so we find that the Holy Spirit is the same Spirit whether it is spoken of as pertaining to God or Christ. “But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9 Referring to the Holy Spirit, Paul says that Christ is that Spirit. “Now the Lord [Jesus] is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17 And further, while Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:4 that there is only one Spirit, he again tells us in Galatians 4:6 that this Spirit is the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He received from His Father. So when you receive the Spirit of God, you receive the Spirit of His Son into your heart also. The Father did not send another individual. He sent the Spirit of His Son. “God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” Galatians 4:6 Thus through their Holy Spirit both the Father and Son come and make their abode in you. “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” John 14:23 And being one in Spirit gives us access to the Father through Christ our mediator. “For through him [Christ] we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Ephesians 2:18 So it is by the Holy Spirit that Christ lives in us. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:” Galatians 2:20 The Spirit of Christ is our Comforter (parakletos) which also means “helper” and is translated as such in the NKJV, “For I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.” Philippians 1:19 And since the Holy Spirit is the Comforter and Spirit of truth, if the Father and Son were not one in Spirit, then Christ by His Spirit could not be the Comforter and Spirit of truth. It is only by sharing the same Spirit that this is possible. Christ had also spoken through all the prophets. “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” 1 Peter 1:11 Christ has always partaken of the Spirit of God since He was begotten of the Father before they created anything. When Jesus was incarnated on earth 2000 years ago, He was full of that same Holy Spirit of God from His conception, and throughout His earthy sojourn as the Son of Man. After His resurrection and ascension to Heaven, He sent “another Comforter” to earth to empower His people till the end of time, which was Himself in Spirit form. Only the Father and the Son can be present outside of their bodies throughout the Universe. Their Holy Spirit is the way in which they are omnipresent while also being physically present in the Heavenly Sanctuary as we speak. This is where the nascent Catholics made their mistakes when coming up with the incomprehensible doctrine of the trinity versus the plain word of God. In creating the trinity they philosophized when they should have left it alone as it is totally un-Scriptural. “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 Here the Apostle Paul is talking about the two Adams. The first Adam was the first created man on earth who sinned by eating the forbidden fruit. The second (last) Adam is Christ who came to redeem us. Notice that Paul says that this One was made “a quickening spirit.” This is the other important thing about Christ. Not just His earthly human life, but also what happened after. In verse 46 Paul clarifies that the natural comes first and then the spiritual. This is exactly what happened with Jesus. He came to earth first as a man, ministered, ascended to Heaven, and then at Pentecost He came back in Spirit with mighty power! Both times were to instruct and sanctify His people, and that is the same purpose today. So the Holy Spirit of God the Father is now also the Spirit of Christ which point Paul confirms in verse 47. So “the Lord from Heaven” in verse 47 is the “quickening Spirit” of verse 45. It cannot be any clearer. The Spirit of God and of Christ is the third entity of the Godhead, but it is not another being any more than our Spirit is another being. However, the Spirit of the Father and Son as divine beings can do something we cannot. They can leave their bodies in one place (the Heavenly Sanctuary), and also be omnipresent in every place throughout the universe at the same time by their Holy Spirit. In this way they can also enter the hearts of a repentant believer. The teachings of the Catholic trinity (three beings in one god) are now rampant in most Churches which destroys this wonderful truth of who the Holy Spirit really is by the introduction of a third being which does not actually exist! And as if that were not bad enough, Satan receives the unwitting worship of millions upon millions of people through this serious deception that he has inspired man to create. For Adventists: “the Holy Spirit is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.” — (E.J. Waggoner, CAHR, p. 23, 1890) Why both? Because, “The Father gave his Spirit without measure to his Son,” — (E.G. White, RH, Nov 5, 1908)So, “They were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit,” — (E.G. White, YI, Dec 16, 1897) And since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and Son, who do we have in us by the Holy Spirit? The Father and Son! “By the Spirit the Father and the Son will come and make their abode with you.” — (E.G. White, BEcho, Jan 15, 1893) The Holy Spirit is the very life of God coming from the Father and shared by the Son. It is the personal presence of the Father and the Son given to us. Those who partake of this divine presence and power within, the life of God, and allow Him to transform their characters into the likeness of His Son will someday personally meet this wondrous God of love. How do Trinitarians claim the Holy Spirit is God? The Trinity doctrine teaches the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three gods but one God. So when the challenge first arose to prove the Holy Spirit is God, Trinitarians had to find something in Scripture to support this erroneous belief. The following is eisegesis and the best they could find. “But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why have you conceived this thing in thine heart? you have not lied unto men, but unto God.” Acts 5:3-4. Since verse three says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit and verse four says he had not lied to man but to God, it is claimed that the Holy Spirit is God. But this is eisegesis and red fire engine logic. That is, fire engines are red, my car is red, therefore my car is a fire engine! Peter said to lie to the Spirit of God is to lie to God Himself because it is His Spirit. My Spirit belongs to me in the same way as Paul revealed earlier. So if you lie to my spirit you have lied to me, not someone else! God's spirit revealed to Peter that Ananias had lied and so he had not lied to man but to God as it was God Himself through His spirit that revealed the lie. As Paul said, “no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:11 For Adventists: Ananias lied to God's Spirit which was within Peter which is the same as lying to the Almighty God Himself because it is His Spirit. “In giving us His Spirit, God gives us Himself,” — (E.G. White, 7T 273.1, 1902)So does Acts 5:3-4 say the Holy Spirit is god or that they lied to the “almighty God” as it is His Spirit? “Peter asked, “Was it not thine own?” thus showing that no undue influence had been brought to bear upon Ananias and Sapphira to compel them to sacrifice their possessions to the general good. They had acted from choice. But in pretending to be wrought upon by the Holy Ghost, and attempting to deceive the apostles, they had lied to the Almighty.” — (E.G. White, 3SP 285.1) How can this be if the Holy Spirit is another Being? Below is something to consider very carefully. And please understand that I am not mocking. If you stop and think about what I am saying, you will realize this does in fact have to be true. Trinitarians claim the phrase “Spirit of God” in Scripture refers to another being rather than God's own Spirit. But if the “Spirit of God” is not really the “Spirit OF God” but another being, then how can God Himself have His own Spirit if His Spirit is another being? And if God does have a Spirit, what would His Spirit be called? The “Spirit of God” obviously which would also be a Holy Spirit! So that would mean we have the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of God.” One of them is another being and one is not, and both of course are Holy Spirits. So how many Holy Spirits would that make? The only way around this problem is if God Himself does not have a Spirit and His Spirit is only another being separate from Himself. But the problem still does not end there. The Trinity doctrine teaches 3 co-equal beings, meaning equal in every single way. So if the “Spirit of God” is another being, therefore, for Christ to be a co-equal divine being as the Trinity doctrine claims, then the “Spirit of Christ” must also be another being, which would also make another Holy Spirit! How much easier it is if we accept that the Holy Spirit is not another being, and the “Spirit of God” is actually the “Spirit of God” which is shared by His Son. Then we have no problem! For Adventists: The “Spirit of God” is His “own Spirit” and when God gives us His Spirit He give us Himself! “In giving us His Spirit, God gives us Himself,” — (E.G. White, 7T 273.1, 1902) Many believe that Jesus became the Son of God by His birth in Bethlehem. If that were true, then consider the following. Matthew 1:18 says that “Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” So if the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, and the Holy Spirit was an individual god as the trinity doctrine claims, then the Holy Spirit must be the father of Christ. And yet my Bible tells me that God the Father is the father of Christ. So how can this be? Because the Holy Spirit is not another god called “god the spirit” but is the “Spirit OF God” or the “Spirit OF the Father” as the Bible tells us. The Bible also calls the Holy Spirit an “it” which is never done in reference to God or Christ. Romans 8:16 KJV says, “The Spirit itself beareth witness.” And Romans 8:26 KJV “the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us.” Why is it appropriate to call the Holy Spirit it but not appropriate to call the Father or Son it? This means the three cannot be co-equal as you never, ever, refer to an individual person as “it.” Modern translations which are done by Trinitarians have changed these words from it to Him or Himself to hide this fact to try and make the Spirit appear as another being. This is not honest. Does the Bible prove the Holy Spirit cannot be a literal being? Since the trinity doctrine claims the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are literally three co-equal beings, then 1 John 1:3 should have said “truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit,” but not so. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is not a literal being but the Spirit of God. So our fellowship is only with the Father and Son who are literal beings. The same applies to 1 John 2:22-23. John says nothing about denying the Holy Spirit for the same reason. Why did Jesus say that we only need to know the Father and Son to have eternal life, and not the Holy Spirit if it is a third co-equal being as the Trinity doctrine claims? “And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3. Because the Holy Spirit is not “God the Spirit,” but the “Spirit of God.” It is only the Father and Son we need to know as the Holy Spirit is their Spirit. If the Holy Spirit was a literal co-equal being then it would have also seen the Father but once again scripture says no. “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He [Jesus] who is from God; He has seen the Father.” John 6:46. How can the Holy Spirit be a literal being and yet never have seen the Father? Because it is not a literal being but God's own Spirit. Luke wrote that no one knows who the Father and Son are except each other. This makes it literally impossible for the Holy Spirit to be a literal being who would have to be able to reveal the Father and Son if it was but not so. “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Luke 10:22 Paul wrote “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 2:5. But how can Christ be our Mediator when He has returned to the Father? Because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and it is also the Spirit of Christ and why Jesus could say “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20. If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ we have no problem, but if the Holy Spirit was another being we would have two mediators between God and man making Scripture a lie. For example: 1 John 2:1 states that Jesus is our “Advocate” and John 14:26 states the Holy Spirit is the “Comforter.” The Greek word for “Comforter” and “Advocate” in these verses is “Parakletos” which means Mediator, Intercessor, Comforter and Advocate. So we either have two mediators between ourselves and the Father contradicting 1 Timothy 2:5, or the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. So which is it? The Holy Spirit is another being and 1 Timothy 2:5 is a lie. Or the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and all Scripture is in harmony. If the Holy Spirit is a separate being equal to the Father and the Son as the trinity doctrine claims, then why are we “never” told the Holy Spirit loves us? And why does the Bible “never” teach we are to love or worship the Holy Spirit? It cannot be a third co-equal being with that being the case. The thrones of God and His Son are spoken of, but a throne for the Holy Spirit is “never” mentioned. If the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and Son, why is a throne for the Holy Spirit “never” mentioned? Because it is their Spirit and not another god. Ask yourself these simple questions. Why did the Father never speak to the Holy Spirit?Why did Jesus never speak to the Holy Spirit?Why did the Holy Spirit never speak to Jesus?Why did the Holy Spirit never speak to the Father? Yet the Father spoke to His Son over and over again all throughout the Bible, and Jesus spoke to His Father over and over again all throughout the Bible. So how can the Holy Spirit be a co-equal being when it never speaks to the Father and Son? And what an inexplicable oversight for Paul if the Spirit were indeed a literal being co-equal with the Father and Son because Paul excluded the Holy Spirit in every one of his greetings in every single letter he wrote! Peter and John did the same. “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 1:7“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:3“Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 1:2“Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,” Galatians 1:3“Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Ephesians 1:2“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Philippians 1:2“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Colossians 1:2“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thessalonians 1:1“Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Thessalonians 1:2“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” 1 Timothy 1:2“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” 2 Timothy 1:2“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.” Titus 1:4“Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Philemon 1:3“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,” 2 Peter 1:2“Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father,” 2 John 1:3 The Holy Spirit cannot be a literal co-equal being as it is consistently left out of every greeting. If the Spirit was an individual being co-equal with the Father and Son, then this consistent omission is incomprehensible. It would have been effrontery and insubordination by the apostles at the highest level. This would be like having a country with three presidents but only ever acknowledging two of them. In fact not once is the Holy Spirit ever uplifted or praised in the Scriptures. It is always just God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Why is that? Because “there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6. That's why! So the Bible reveals the following: There are only two beings, our fellowship is not with the Holy Spirit, only the Father and Son, we only need to know the Father and Son for eternal life, the Holy Spirit has not seen the Father, only the Son, the Holy Spirit cannot reveal the Father and Son, only they can. Our one mediator is the Holy Spirit of Christ and not the Holy Spirit as another being, the Holy Spirit is never spoken to by the Father and Son and they are never spoken to by the Holy Spirit, we are never told to pray to or worship the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is never included in any salutations. And yet we are expected to believe that the Holy Spirit is a third co-equal being! Clearly that is just not possible. There are many more Scriptures that reveal the same thing over and over. The idea of the Holy Spirit as an individual being was an invention of man through Satan in 381 AD long after the completion of the Bible and hence could never have come from the Bible. It is a very clever and convincing deception until you have seen the real truth. Who is the Comforter? This is another area of great confusion as some believe that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit while others say it is Christ. Both can be considered correct providing you understand the Holy Spirit is not a literal being. A lot of confusion also comes from a misunderstanding of John 14:26 from the King James Bible which says, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” But note the words “which is” are italicized in the KJV because they were added by the translators and do not exist in the original Greek manuscripts. The Modern King James Bible reads, “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name,” These two added words are missing in almost every translation including the NKJV Bible. These added words along with the Comforter in John 14:16 being referred to as a “he” have mislead many into believing the Holy Spirit is a literal being. But this is ignorance on what is known as grammatical gender. The word “he” is not in the original Greek text and is added by the translators to make it readable in English. The only reason the pronoun “he” is used is because the grammatical gender for the word “Comforter” is “masculine” in the Greek and would remain masculine even if the Comforter was a female. Many fail to understand that it is grammatical gender and not sexual gender. In any case, the grammatical gender for the word “Spirit” is actually “neuter” in the Greek and not masculine. Not only that, but the grammatical gender for Holy “Spirit” can be masculine, feminine or neuter depending on which language it was written in, which alone reveals the error and misunderstanding. For instance, in Hebrew the Holy “Spirit” would be feminine. Languages derived from Latin such as Greek, Spanish, French, etc. have a specific gender for every noun that does not change. So every object be it animate or inanimate is designated as masculine, feminine or neuter for each of these languages. But the gender is often unrelated to whether the item is actually masculine or feminine. See is the Holy Spirit a he or it for detail. The Greek word for Comforter is “paraklētos” which Strong's dictionary says means, “intercessor, advocate, comforter.” The Thayer dictionary used these words, “one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate.” So who is our advocate and comforter? Who is the only mediator between God and man? There can be no mistake or confusion as John says, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate (Comforter) [paraklētos] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” 1 John 2:1. Parentheses are added. Note that the word for advocate here is exactly the same Greek word [paraklētos] used in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 for Comforter but has been translated here as advocate. So John says our advocate and Comforter is “Jesus Christ the righteous.” And who does Timothy say our mediator and hence advocate is between God and man? “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” 1 Timothy 2:5 John 14:16 “he shall give you another Comforter [paraklētos] , that he may abide with you for ever;”John 14:26 “the Comforter [paraklētos] , which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,”John 15:26 “when the Comforter [paraklētos] is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father.”John 16:7 “for if I go not away, the Comforter [paraklētos] will not come unto you;”1 John 2:1 “if any man sin, we have an advocate (Comforter) [paraklētos] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” John 14:16-28 tells us many times who the Comforter is, but the moment Jesus says “another Comforter,” most become blind to the fact He is referring to Himself by His Spirit despite His clear words that follow. The Greek word for another is “allos,” which means another of the exact same kind and hence means another as the same kind as Christ. Jesus was present with His disciples in physical form but after His ascension He comes back in another form, that is, by His Spirit. Hence the “another” is His Spirit. Since Christ's Spirit can function independently of Himself, it is like His Spirit is “another.” And because it is His Spirit, it is “another” of the same kind. If the Comforter was someone different, then John would have used the word “heteros” meaning another of a different kind. Easy to understand once you know. Most also fail to notice that Jesus often speaks of Himself in the third person as He has in this passage. See John 17:1-3 for one such example. Compare “heteros” with “allos” HELPS Word-studies © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc. G2087 héteros – another (of a different kind). 2087 /héteros (“another but distinct in kind”) stands in contrast to 243 /állos (“another of the same kind”). 2087 /héteros (“another of a different quality”) emphasizes it is qualitatively different from its counterpart (comparison). [2087 (héteros) sometimes refers to “another” of a different class group or type (as in Plato; Oxy. papyri).] G243 állos (a primitive word) – another of the same kind; another of a similar type. Note Vines dictionary and that the word Comforter to the Hebrew people meant Messiah. “ lit., “called to one's side,” i.e., to one's aid is primarily a verbal adjective, and suggests the capability or adaptability for giving aid. It was used in a court of justice to denote a legal assistant, counsel for the defense, an advocate; then, generally, one who pleads another's cause, an intercessor, advocate, as in 1John 2:1, of the Lord Jesus. In the widest sense, it signifies a “succorer, comforter.” Christ was this to His disciples, by the implication of His word “another (allos, “another of the same sort,” not heteros, “different”) Comforter,” when speaking of the Holy Spirit, John 14:16. In John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7 He calls Him “the Comforter.” “Comforter” or “Consoler” corresponds to the name “Menahem,” given by the Hebrews to the Messiah.” — (W.E. Vine's M.A., Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1940) Here is the entire passage. John 14:6, 16-23 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another [allos] Comforter [paraklētos], that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but you see me: because I live, you shall live also. 20 At that day you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 He that has my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord , how is it that you will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” Parentheses are added. In v. 16 Jesus says He will send “another” Comforter but leaves no doubt as to who He meant in v. 18. In unmistakable words He says “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” This “other Comforter” is none other than Christ Himself in another form (Spirit form). He is not seen (physically) as He was when He was here on earth. He is removed from the eye of sense, but He is still with us in Spirit. The Comforter is referred to as the Spirit of truth in v. 17 which is the first time Christ reveals He is referring to Himself in this passage. Ten verses earlier Jesus says, “I am the truth” (v. 6) and by His Spirit He is the “Spirit of truth.” In v. 17 we also see that the Comforter is someone whom the world cannot receive because it does not know Him. But Christ tells His disciples that they know Him for He is dwelling with them. The only one with them is Christ. In verse 19 Christ says that in a while the world seeth me no more referring to His death and resurrection, so in v. 18 and 19 Christ is saying that though He is leaving, He will not leave them Comfortless and is going to come back to them. So the disciples knew it was Christ who was going to return to them as their Comforter but did not understand how. And so Judas, not Iscariot, asks Christ how is He going to manifest Himself to them as the Comforter and not unto the world? (v. 22). How did the disciples understand “another Comforter?” Did they understand that Christ was talking about someone else? No! This Judas understood perfectly that it was Christ who was coming back to them and not someone else. Notice that his question is not “who” but “how?” And so he was not wondering “who” but he did wonder “how” Christ was going to manifest Himself to them as their Comforter. The answer is: by His Spirit which is something they did not yet understand. For Adventists: “That Christ should manifest Himself to them, and yet be invisible to the world, was a mystery to the disciples. They could not understand the words of Christ in their spiritual sense. They were thinking of the outward, visible manifestation. They could not take in the fact that they could have the presence of Christ with them, and yet He be unseen by the world. They did not understand the meaning of a spiritual manifestation.” — (E.G. White, SW, Sept 13, 1898) In John 16:7 Jesus says, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” So how is it that the Comforter who was yet to be sent to them was dwelling with them in John 14? In John 7:39 we find “But this spoke he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” If the Holy Spirit was another being as per the trinity doctrine, it would not be dependent on Christ returning to the Father and being glorified before it could be given. The Holy Spirit could not be given until Christ was glorified as this is how Christ returns as another, that is, by His Holy Spirit. Did you notice the underlined section of John 14:23 above? It says “we will come unto him and make ourabode with him.” That is, both the Father and the Son through their Holy Spirit. This is not a separate person of the Godhead who is being sent, it is the very life of God coming to us through His Son Jesus Christ. Who is more qualified to comfort us other than someone who has lived and suffered as one of us and knows what it is like to be tempted? How precious is it to have both the Father and Son? Those who do not understand this are missing out on more than a blessing. If you believe the Holy Spirit is another being, which was an invention of man from Satan, then what spirit would you have? For Adventists: “By the Spirit the Father and the Son will come and make their abode with you. [John 14:23 quoted]” — (E.G. White, BEcho, Jan 15, 1893) That brings us back to John 14:26. Many believe that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter as a literal being separate from Christ because they misunderstand John 14:26 and who the Spirit truly is. The added words “which is” in the KJV tend to be misleading, and while these words can be used, this passage would be less likely misunderstood if the word “through” was used instead. This would be consistent with all other Scripture and without the seemingly apparent contradiction with the other verses that reveal that Christ is our Comforter, advocate and mediator. It would read without misunderstanding as, “But the Comforter, through the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 14:26 For Adventists: “It is through the Spirit that Christ dwells in us; and the Spirit of God,” — (E.G. White, DA, p. 388) So in John 14:16-23 Jesus explains to His disciples that He will be soon be leaving them but He will not leave them comfortless and that He will come to them. Judas asks how Jesus is going to come back to them but not to the world. They did not understand that He would come back to them by His Holy Spirit. And not only Him as Christ says but those who love Him and keep His Commandments will have both the Father and Himself make their abode in them by the Holy Spirit. Thus Jesus returns to the Father but comes back again through the Holy Spirit as another of the same kind. Christ explains this to them so that they will not be troubled or afraid, and so that when it happens they will believe. Below is the continuation of this passage and you will note that Christ once again says that He is the one coming back to them. John 14:27-29 “Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. 28 You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' ... 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe.” Jesus not only said He is coming back but also said, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20. What wonderful words of Comfort. Jesus said, do not be troubled or afraid as though I am going away, I am going to come back to you and I am going to be with you even unto the end of the world. But how is Christ going to be with us and Comforting us unto the end of the world when He has ascended to His Father where He is going to remain? By coming back as another of the same kind. That is, through the Holy Spirit as our Comforter! For Adventists: “Jesus was about to be removed from his disciples; but he assured them that although he should ascend to his Father, his Spirit and influence would be with them always, and with their successors even unto the end of the world.” — (E.G. White, 3SP, 238.1) “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, 14MR 23.3, 1895) “This refers to the omnipresence of the Spirit of Christ , called the Comforter.” — (E.G. White, Lt119, Feb 18, 1895) Note how many times many Christians miss Jesus saying that He will be our Comforter because they misunderstand what Jesus meant when he said another Comforter. Parentheses are added. John 14:17 “Even the Spirit of truth [Jesus is the truth and by His Spirit He is the Spirit of truth]; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwelleth with you [Christ is the only one with them], and shall be in you [by His Spirit as the Comforter].” John 14:18 “I [Jesus] will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” John 14:20 “At that day you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you [by His Spirit as the Comforter].” John 14:21 “He that has my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him [by His Spirit as the Comforter].” John 14:22 “Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that you [Jesus] will manifest thyself unto us [as the Comforter], and not unto the world?” John 14:23 “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we [Jesus and His Father] will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” John 14:28 “You heard me say, I [Jesus] am going away and I am coming back to you [by His Spirit as the Comforter].” Christ could not be in all places and with everyone at the same time in human form, but through the Spirit, He could be with everyone as their Comforter. So Christ comes as our Comforter through the Holy Spirit, which He sends to us, and when we receive the Holy Spirit, we are receiving both the Spirit of the Father, and through the spirit, His Son also. Romans 8:9-11. So it should now be very clear that Christ is our Comforter who is also called the Spirit of truth. And for further clarity, here are four ways Scripture reveals Christ is the Spirit of truth. 1) John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26 reveals the Comforter is the Spirit of truth and the Comforter is Christ. “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” John 14:18 2) John 14:6 says Jesus is the truth and by His Spirit He is the Spirit of truth. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:” John 14:6 3) The Spirit of truth does not speak of Himself; it is the Father that tells “Him” what to speak and that “Him” is Christ. See John 8:28; 12:49; 14:10, 24 and 16:13 below. 4) The Spirit of truth is also to show us things to come which Revelation 1:1 tells us it is Jesus Christ which is once again revealed to Him by His Father. John 16:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.” Notice in John 16:13 above that the Spirit of truth (Christ) does not speak of Himself but speaks what He hears from someone else. In the verses below we find that someone else is His Father. Jesus does not speak of Himself but what the Father instructs Him to say. And that remains the same when Christ returns as our Comforter and the Spirit of truth. Even by His Spirit, He does not speak of Himself but speaks what He hears from His Father. That is what He shall speak. John 12:49 “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” John 14:10 “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me,” John 14:24 “He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.” John 8:28 “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things.” The Spirit of truth is also to show us what things are to come which we find in Revelation 1:1 is also Christ. Just as the words He speaks are from His Father, so are the things to come that He is to show us. And hence we find all Scripture lines up without any contradiction or inconsistencies as truth always does. Revelation 1:1 “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;” For Adventists: Hover mouse pointer over the blue text for quotes. What is the Comma Johanneum? This is an addition to Scripture that is so famous and hence so well known that it has even been given its own name. The Comma Johanneum is a comma (short clause) in 1 John 5:7-8 which is the “only” passage in the entire Bible that says all three are one without assumptions or unbiblical human logic. The King James Version reads as follows, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” 1 John 5:7-8 The scholarly consensus is that this passage is a Latin corruption that found its way into a Greek manuscript at an early date while absent from others. The words in red are found in the KJV, NKJV but are missing from the majority of translations. It is disconcerting to find there is no shortage of evidence that reveals this text was added. Thomas Nelson and Sons Catholic Commentary, 1951, page 1186 explains, “It is now generally held that this passage, called the Gomma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries.” Here is how 1 John 5:7-8 reads from the NIV and most other Bible translations. “For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” Mouse over for a list of Bible translations for 1 John 5:7 and Adam Clarke's and other Commentaries. Erasmus did not include the infamous Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 in either his 1516 or 1519 editions of his Greek New Testament but made its way into his third edition in 1522 because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared in 1516, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma Trinitarian formula because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced called the Codex 61, that was written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520, he reluctantly agreed to include it in his subsequent editions. Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns. He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentumto go unsold. Thus it passed into the Stephanus Greek New Testament in 1551 (first New Testament in verses), which came to be called the Textus Receptus, and became the basis for the Geneva Bible New Testament in 1557 and the Authorized King James Version in 1611. To the left is an image of the Codex 61 with the added words underlined in red. There is no doubt that the latter part of 1 John 5:7 and the first part of 1 John 5:8 never existed in the original and inspired words of God. The textual Scholar Bart Ehrman described this forgery as follows, “…this represents the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” The English King James Bible translated in 1611 AD retains this Trinitarian forgery but none of our modern translations have it except the NKJV. And since this text was not from God, then who was it really from? See also was 1 John 5:7 Added to the Bible. For Adventists: “I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition.” — (E.G. White, EW, 220.2) What happened to Matthew 28:19? Trinitarians often say Matthew 28:19 supports their belief stating that by the shared authority of these three we are commissioned to baptize. However, this verse in no way affirms the trinity doctrine which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that make one God. This verse refers to three entities but never says they are one and says nothing about their personality. Nobody denies there is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 28:19 So this verse does not say they are three beings,it does not say they are three in one or one in three,it does not say these three are the Godhead,it does not say these three are a trinity,it does not say these three are co-equal or co-eternal beings,it does not say that these three are all God,and yet some draw the conclusion that this supports their belief in the trinity which is clearly not so. Trinitarians are concluding something from this verse that it just does not say. For Adventists: Here is the Godhead according to Ellen White. “Let them be thankful to God for His manifold mercies and be kind to one another. They have one God and one Saviour; and one Spirit-- the Spirit of Christ --is to bring unity into their ranks.” — (E.G. White, 9T 189.3, 1909). The third person is the Spirit of Christ, not a third being. In any case, I find myself greatly perplexed by this verse, because where do we see the Apostles or anyone else for that matter following the explicit instructions of Christ here? Here are all verses where anyone was baptized into the name of anyone. Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:13; Galatians 3:27. But as you can see, there is not one person following what Christ supposedly instructed them to do. In every verse we find people baptized into the name of our Lord Jesus Christ only. So why the apparent disobedience of the apostles? The following dictionary explains, “The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism.” — (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, p. 585). Further research revealed this to be the case as all Bible commentaries and dictionaries quoting on this issue claimed that it was added by the Church of Rome to support their Trinitarian formula. The quote below states the origin of this baptismal formula. See Mathew 28:19 added text for many others. “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” — (The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, p. 263) So how did this happen and what did the original text say if this is true? It must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the “early church fathers” wanted it to become.) This is what my research revealed. Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” The following example comes from an unaltered book of Matthew that could have been the original or the first copy of the original. Thus Eusebius informs us of the actual words Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 28:19 which were, “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, Ch. 6, 132 (a), p. 152) Eusebius was present at the council of Nicea and was involved in the debates over the Godhead. If the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted instead, “in my name.” So it appears that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread. So should Matthew 28:19 read “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” or “baptizing them in My name.” And based on your conclusion, should Colossians 2:12 therefore read “Buried with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in baptism, wherein also you are risen with them through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised them from the dead.” or “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead.” Colossians 2:12 In conclusion, Matthew 28:19 does not prove or disprove the trinity doctrine and you will have to decide for yourself if this text belongs as it cannot be proven conclusively one way or the other. But Scripture certainly strongly indicates that baptism should be in the name of Christ as all examples reveal. The reason we are baptized in the name of Christ is because we are baptized “into” Jesus Christ. Baptism is a symbol of His death, burial and resurrection. Even if the trinity doctrine was true, only Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again. When we are baptized in the name of Christ we become Christians. Paul argued this point in 1 Corinthians 1:13 when he said, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is, “No. You were baptized in the name of Christ because He was crucified for you.” Consider also “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” Mark 16:16. So whose name do we call on to be saved when we are baptized? “arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16. And what is the ONLY name under heaven that we can be saved? “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12 I think most will agree that the weight of evidence is overwhelming that it should have read “in My name.” Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next Trinity And Sunday Worship Come From Sun And Satan Worship And 666 Trinity And Sunday Worship Come From Sun And Satan Worship And 666 Note the following points… 1. The number 666 comes from SUN and SATAN worship. 2. The TRIQUETRA comes from the worship of the 3 phases of the SUN. 3. The TRIQUETRA then moved into occult world. 4. The TRIQUETRA then found its way into the Church. 5. The TRIQUETRA is now said to represent the Trinity. 6. Two doctrines came from SUN and SATAN worship. 7. They are Satan’s counterfeit sabbath (SUN-day) and the TRINITY. 8. SUN-day worship and the TRINITY originate from the Catholicism. 9. SUN-day worship comes from SUN and SATAN worship and 666. 10. The TRINITY comes from SUN and SATAN worship and 666. 11. The MARK of the beast is also related to the NUMBER of the beast. 12. The MARK of the beast is all about who we worship. 13. SUN-day worship and the TRINITY are both about who we worship. 14. SUN-day is Satan's counterfeit for the true Sabbath. 15. The TRINITY is Satan's counterfeit for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Ellen White’s husband informs us that SUN-day worship and the TRINITY are both Satan’s counterfeits! “As fundamental errors, we might class with this COUNTERFEIT SABBATH other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, THE TRINITY,” — (James White, R&H, September 12, 1854, p. 36) The question was asked in the Catholic Catechism. “Q. What is Sunday, or the Lord's Day in general? A. It is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the HONOUR OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY, and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the holy Ghost on a Sunday, &c. and therefore is called the Lord’ s Day. It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of DIES SOLIS, THE DAY OF THE SUN, to which it was sacred.” — (The Douay Catechism of 1649, p. 143) An interesting statement considering “Sunday worship” and the “Trinity doctrine” both came from sun and Satan worship in Babylon, and they were both brought into Christendom by the Catholic Church whom God calls Babylon, and both are about who we worship, which is the issue of the mark and the number of the beast! Note the two quotes below from the Catholic Church. “Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the BIBLICAL SABBATH (SATURDAY) TO SUNDAY, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” — (Rome's Challenge, www . immaculateheart . com/maryonline, December 2003) “Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in scripture ... But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas, AS THE TRINITY, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels,” — (Assumption of Mary, Life magazine, October 30, 1950, p. 51) It is not just the MARK OF THE BEAST but also the NUMBER OF THE BEAST being 666 Revelation 13:17 “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that HAD THE MARK, or the name of the beast, or the NUMBER OF HIS NAME.” The pagan Babylonian priests had a chief priest who held the title Pontifex Maximus (translated to Latin meant that he was head pagan priest or literally the Greatest Pontiff). So who is Pontifex Maximus and head priest of Babylon now? The “Pontiff” or the Pope in other words! Revelation 13:18 “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the NUMBER OF THE BEAST: for it is THE NUMBER OF A MAN; and HIS NUMBER IS SIX HUNDRED THREESCORE AND SIX.” So where do we find the number of the beast? On the Pope! The head pagan priest who this number has now been given. Why does 666 belong to the head of the Roman Catholic Church? Because 666 and the TRIQUETRA come from SUN and SATAN worship in Babylon which resulted in Satan’s counterfeit Sabbath and counterfeit for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit called the TRINITY. Considering “Sunday worship” and the “Trinity doctrine” were both brought into Christendom by the beast (Papacy), then consider the following. “The third angel's message has been sent forth to the world, warning men against receiving the mark of the beast or of his image in their foreheads or in their hands. To receive this mark means to come to the same decision as the beast has done, and to advocate the SAME IDEAS, in direct opposition to the word of God.” — (E.G. White, R&H, July 13, 1897) E.G. White says there is still more to be revealed. “The light that we have upon the third angel's message is the true light. The mark of the beast is exactly what it has been proclaimed to be. NOT ALL IN REGARD TO THIS MATTER IS YET UNDERSTOOD nor will it be understood until the unrolling of the scroll,” — (E.G. White, 6T 17.1, 1900) It is time to wake up! What is the Origin of the Trinity Doctrine and Sunday Worship? Below are two quotes where the Catholic Church mock other denominations for following two of their doctrines that they brought into Christendom. Both are pagan, and both originated from sun worship, which was Satan worship from Babylon. “Most Christians assume that Sunday is the biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the BIBLICAL SABBATH (SATURDAY) TO SUNDAY, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” — (Rome's Challenge, www.immaculateheart.com/maryonline , December 2003) “Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in scripture ... But the Protestant Churches have themselves accepted such dogmas, AS THE TRINITY, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels,” — (Assumption of Mary, Life magazine, October 30, 1950, p. 51) The question was asked in the Catholic Catechism. “Q. What is Sunday, or the Lord's Day in general? A. It is a day dedicated by the Apostles to the HONOUR OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY, and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the holy Ghost on a Sunday, &c. and therefore is called the Lord’ s Day. It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of DIES SOLIS, THE DAY OF THE SUN, to which it was sacred.” — (The Douay Catechism of 1649, p. 143) An interesting statement considering “Sunday worship” and the “Trinity doctrine” both came from sun and Satan worship in Babylon, and they were both brought into Christendom by the Catholic Church whom God calls Babylon! In 1981, Neal C. Wilson was also GC President and announced that the Church had officially adopted the Trinity doctrine. He said, “There is another universal and truly catholic organization, the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” — (Neal C. Wilson, Adventist Review, March 5, 1981, p. 3) What is this doctrine from Babylon doing in the SDA Church? Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top

All trinity studies Previous Download Next We Need to Realise That if God is Trinity We need to realize that IF God is a Trinity, THEN ... 1. Jesus is not the literal son of God, the Father. 2. The Holy Spirit is not God’s (the Father’s) spirit with which He is everywhere present but a third, separate person of the Godhead. 3. Jesus should have called the Holy Spirit His Father because the Bible clearly teaches that it was the Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary. (Luke 1:35) 4. Jesus never really died because God cannot die (He is immortal—1. Tim. 6:16). a) And because of it, He has never really paid the price for us and the atonement was not complete. b) He had a part of Himself that was conscious after His death, founding the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. 5. Jesus was never tempted here on earth because the Bible says “God cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13). 6. We have a Comforter (the Holy Spirit who is a separate Being, other than Christ) who was never a human being, was never tempted and tried as we are and never suffered death for us. 7. At the new birth, we will possess the Holy Spirit’s life (who was never a human Being and never conquered sin). This life is not a victorious life and there is no union of humanity and divinity in it. 8. We could never really study our Bibles without theological education because it is hard to know when God speaks in a literal and when in a metaphorical sense. (He calls Jesus His Son but in reality He is not.) 9. We have 2 Mediators and 2 Intercessors: Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 10. Jesus is removed from being our Comforter, and the 3rd Person of the Godhead takes His place thus causing us to look apart from Jesus in another direction. (Read what Ellen White said in Review and Herald, August 26,1890, par. 10) The Glorification of Christ ~ by Nader Mansour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VHmDVKquxU&t=1s Who or What is the Holy Spirit ? ~ New gods ~ by Nader Mansour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSGXRSvSKKQ Who Do You Worship ? ~ by Nader Mansour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnDa_crKrs&t=1s ⁠⁠⁠⁠ Previous All trinity studies Next Back to top