| Author | Message | ||
| Maggiethecat Registered user Username: Maggiethecat Post Number: 28 Registered: 7-2007  |
Something jogged my memory before about a few things I was told about Jesus while I was in the SDA church. I was told them by a lady that used to take a little group of us for bible study once a week. She was/is a big Ellen White fan so I'm not sure if what she said was biblical or just Ellen White. She said that when Jesus came to earth and became man he lost his omnipresence (I think that was it, it was one of the omni's) and never gained it back, even after he ascended to heaven. Forever losing his omnipresence was a sacrifice he made for us. Another thing she said that was Jesus will have the scars on his hands from the cross for eternity. Are either of these claims biblical? I'm really starting to question everything I know (or thought I knew). I wish I had a big delete button in my head so I could start from scratch. Thanks Maree | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 852 Registered: 11-2005 |
Maree, I know exactly how you feel. The Adventist indoctrination just keeps popping up everywhere! I like your delete button idea. I wonder what would happen if we passed out a whole bunch of "delete" buttons outside of SDA evangelistic meetings? The truth is the road to freedom. Gilbert Jorgensen It has been 162 Years, 11 Months, and 4 Days since October 22, 1844 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6888 Registered: 12-2003  |
Maree, I was taught the same thing about Jesus losing His omnipresence. That is absolutely false, though! Colossians 1:19-20 says, "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." Also, Colossians 1:16-17 says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Also, Paul told the Athenians, "He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist… (Acts 17:26-27). Jesus never stopped being GOD. He was fully God while on earth; He was fully God from all eternity; He is fully God now, even though He has permanently identified Himself with Humanity. If He were not omnipresent, which is one of the attributes of God, all things could not hang together in Him. And this "hanging together in Him" went on during his time on earth and forever after. Further, if He were not omnipresent, we could not exist in Him, and He could not be not far from each one of us. Adventists have a non-orthodox view of Jesus that reflects their foundational Arian heresy. They still see Him as limited, less powerful than the Father. They see Him as diminished since the cross instead of exalted, as Ephesians and Philippians and Colossians and Revelation tell us He is. Adventists do not teach the true Jesus. The Adventist Jesus is almost a victim of God--he gave up His attributes of God. What kind of perfect Savior is that? As far as the scars...He showed Thomas His hands and his side, and He was in His glorified body when He did that. Unlike Ellen said, He did not shed His glorified body when He ascended. He is the firstfruits from the dead. His resurrection and His body are the guarantee that we will also be glorified. Colleen | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 145 Registered: 8-2005 |
This sounds omnipresent to me: John 1:47-48 NASB Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and *said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" (48) Nathanael *said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2174 Registered: 10-2004  |
Maree, What that lady told you about Jesus not being omnipresent is definitely from Ellen White (and is what the SDA church officially and actively teaches). They teach that Jesus is no longer omnipresent, despite many Bible passages which say the opposite (for example, John 1:45-50, John 3:13, John 14:23, Matthew 18:20, Matthew 28:20, and many more). Here is a good webpage that talks about Jesus' omnipresence (although it is Catholic and mentions their false idea of the Eucharist): http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/present.html If Jesus is not omnipresent, then He is not God, since God is omnipresent. And God can't "lose" His eternal attributes. Since God is omnipresent and there is only one God and He is one simple Being, then all of the following must be true: Wherever the Father is, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are. Wherever Jesus is, the Father and the Holy Spirit are. Wherever the Holy Spirit is, the Father and Jesus are. The SDA heresy that Jesus is not omnipresent is further evidence of their belief in Tritheism, and their denial of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. (By the way, Ellen White and Adventism also teach that Jesus "gave up" His omniscience and omnipotence when He came to earth, and that His divinity was "deactivated" [ceased to exist, basically].) Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on September 26, 2007) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2175 Registered: 10-2004 |
By the way, for more information on some of these issues, see the article "Discovering the Adventist Jesus" in the May/June 2007 Proclamation! magazine (starting on page 10), at the following link: http://lifeassuranceministries.org/Proclamation2007_MayJun.pdf Jeremy | ||
| Maggiethecat Registered user Username: Maggiethecat Post Number: 29 Registered: 7-2007 |
Thanks for helping me with that. I think I'm officially entering the 'anger' phase of leaving Adventism, or at least a very firmly 'miffed' phase. Why do SDAs make everything so unnecessarily complicated with all their extra bits? I think I'm seeing why, right from the word go, the mention of Ellen White's name always gave me the creeps. Maree | ||
| Maggiethecat Registered user Username: Maggiethecat Post Number: 30 Registered: 7-2007 |
Thanks for the link Jeremy, I'll check it out now. Maree | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 778 Registered: 6-2006  |
Maree, I'm glad you asked this question. Is this issue about Jesus something that is widely taught? I don't think I've ever heard about this before, at least not from my SDA family. It's kind of odd though, because in a thread about "Jesus is not Michael" over on CARM, the SDA's there keep saying that they believe that Jesus is fully God, even though he can be called Michael. No one brought up this teaching to the SDA's. (At least that I can remember). Another example of the confusion that continues in the church I guess. Leigh Anne | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 599 Registered: 7-2000 |
Well, let me give you a little different viewpoint on Christ and His humanity. It's funny that this subject came up over here tonight, as I just posted the following over on CARM on the same issue: Thanks John, for pointing out that Christ put aside (literally 'emptied Himself) in the text in Philippians 2. Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus was made 'a little lower' than the angels, just as man (in vs. 7) is described. Hebrews 2:16, 17 says: 'For verily He took not on him the nature of angels; but He took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto his brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people'. Jesus was fully human and fully divine---but many of those divine attributes had been laid aside. We get a glimpse of what was laid aside in Eph. 1:20-23: 'Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all'. Did you catch that last little phrase 'the fulness of Him that filleth all in all?'. That refers back to God the Father who filled the Son and gave the Son his dominion. I've been reading the book 'The Epistle to the Ephesians' by Dr. George Findlay, one of the great expositional preachers of the 1800's. His comments on this event, I think, shed a lot of light on this whole area: 'Of this glory Christ had of His own accord "emptied Himself" (Phil. 2:6,7) in becoming man for our salvation. Therefore when the sacrifice was effected and the time of humiliation passed, it "was the Father's pleasure that all the fulness should make its dwelling in Him" (Col. 1:19). Again, there was poured into the empty, humbled, and impoverished form of the Son of God the brightness of the Father's glory and the infinitude of the Father's authority and power. The majesty that He had foregone was restored to Him in undiminished measure'. (George G. Snyder, Epistle to the Ephesians, vol. 6, p. 27 in the 1956 printing of the Expositor's Bible by Erdmans). There is even a term for what was given back--'Pleroma', which is the 'totality of all divine power'. Clearly, Christ gave up much when He took on human form. So Colleen, I respectfully dissent from your viewpoint... | ||
| Mrsbrian3 Registered user Username: Mrsbrian3 Post Number: 91 Registered: 8-2005 |
Maree, I was taught the same. The loss of His omnipresence explained the need for the Holy Spirit. Kim | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 447 Registered: 3-2005 |
Loneviking: This is a link to the Bible Answer Man's public domain regarding the idea that you posted above. http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2548563/k.7864/The_Kenosis_of_Christ.htm In Christ, Patria | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 448 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ok. I just did a little more studying on that. Maree: I was taught the same thing. Loneviking: I am fully admitting that I won't be back to "debate" this issue. I'm just saying this for whatever it's worth. Here's what I can't reconcile with the idea that Jesus, even willingly, GAVE UP His divine attributes, including omnipresesnce. God cannot cease to be God. What I mean is that to say that when the Bible says Christ emptied Himself, it means that He somehow separated Himself from some other part of Himself, doesn't square (in my opinion) with what we know is true about God. He IS. Jesus Himself used the holy Tetragrammiton to describe Himself, the "I AM". He just is. What He is is. He can willingly NOT USE those attributes at will. He has dominion over every thing, I assume that includes His attributes. I would agree that it's obvious He didn't walk around with His shekina glory visible. What did He do with it? Well, to say that He "left it behind" or something, I think, is to humanize Him. We can't adequately describe WHAT He did with it because "did" implies that the attributes have some human aspect and they don't. I know this is way deep. I'm feeling a little woozy.  But I'm just suggesting that when Philippians says Christ emptied Himself, what we CAN know is that it CAN'T mean He divested Himself of any of His godly attributes because the Great I AM cannot be less than He IS and part of that is the clear teaching that God is eternally existent. So I can see that Christ didn't always USE some of His attributes. That much is obvious. (I think omnipresence is less obvious, but again, that's admittedly my opinion). The rest seems to me to be a diversion from the deepest meaning of the passage in Philippians. And that to me, seems to be that we are to be others-focused. That by emptying ourselves of the desire to live for "me", I will love others and fulfill what I am called to do. In Christ, Patria (Message edited by patriar on September 27, 2007) | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 602 Registered: 7-2000 |
I find it interesting that Hank opened his article by saying 'it is popular to say today'. And yet, the writer I'm quoting from wrote that way back in about 1870! Patriar, you said that 'to say that He 'left it behind' or something, I think, is to humanize Him. And yet, that is exactly what the book of Hebrews teaches. Is God 'God' merely because of a bundle of attributes? Is God 'God' merely because the Trinity has power that no one else has? Or is the Trinity 'God' because of who they intrinsically are (pre-existent and eternal), seperate from their attributes? Something to think about.... | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 449 Registered: 3-2005 |
Loneviking: I think that we know what God has revealed to us and His attributes are a part of that revelation. Since we don't know what He hasn't revealed to us, I'm reluctant to accept something that says He "could be" this or that. Loneviking: I deeply respect your views. In fact, I'm not even sure why I got into this disucussion. I think it's OCD. I really am going to back out of it. Right now, it isn't good for my spiritual walk to be focused on the jots and tittles of theology. Patria | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2178 Registered: 10-2004 |
Loneviking, You wrote:
But notice that it says "...the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all" It's CHRIST's body, therefore the "HIM" "that filleth all in all" is CHRIST. And it is talking about Christ's omnipresence! And "filleth" is in the present tense in the original Greek. How would filling "all in all" mean filling "the Son" anyway?
That interpretation is invalid if you look at the original Greek and also the context. First of all, it nowhere says "the Father's pleasure." If you look at the KJV, you will see that "the Father" is in brackets--it's not there in the original Greek. Young's Literal Translation says:
And looking at the context, from Young's Literal Translation:
So, we see that the reconciling took place on the Cross through His death--and that at that time, according to verse 19, all the fulness did dwell in Him. So, even BEFORE Jesus' death and resurrection all the fulness did dwell in Him. In other words, the One who did the reconciling on the Cross--the One who died on the Cross--in HIM did all the fulness dwell ALREADY. Verse 19 is talking about the Incarnation--not some post-death "filling."
The Greek term pleroma is not a term for what was "given back" to Him, but is a term for who He is (inherently, essentially, always, and eternally)--namely, "all the fulness of the Godhead": "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9 KJV.) Also, the eternality of God is one of His attributes. His attributes are who He is. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity Patria, you wrote: "What He is is. He can willingly NOT USE those attributes at will. He has dominion over every thing, I assume that includes His attributes." Actually, it would be incorrect to say that He "can willingly NOT USE those attributes"--His attributes are who He is. Just like an SDA on CARM was trying to argue that God could act against His nature (and that He could sin), or else God would be ruled by something (His "nature")--NO, God's nature is who He is. Likewise, God's attributes are always in "full operation" (if we want to say it that way), and they are immutable--constant, outside of time, eternal, and unchanging. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on September 27, 2007) | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 450 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy: Thank you for correcting that point. Patria |
