P a g e | 1

Reviewing the "Answers to Trinitarian Objections"

1

by Florin Liu, MTh

Dear Brother Stump,
This is only a modest reaction to your "answer to trinitarian objec-
tions, that you published in your recent book The Foundation of Our Faith.
Probably my English is not so appealing, but I hope you will appreciate my
thoughts.
For a better understanding, I beseech you to read also the other at-
tached documents and the magistral article of biblical theology, authored
by Fernando Canale (Doctrine of God, pp. 105-159) in Dederen, Raoul (ed),
2000, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Review and Herald,
Hagerstown, MD. You will find nowhere a richer and more documented
study on the doctrine of God.
1 John 5:7, 8
The famous "Comma Johanneum" is recognized as a gloss by all
critics,
2
and I doubt if it's there a SDA to argue the Trinity on its basis. How-
ever, the formulation about the testimonial trinity of "Spirit, water and
blood", that are "one" witness, may reflect a trinitarian mentality of the
author. This is not a valid trinitarian argument, but if John is perceived as a
strong advocate of Christ's Deity and of the equality and personality of the

1
Stump, A. [no date; 2007?] The Foundation of Our Faith, sixth printing, pp. 171-190;
Smyrna Gospel Ministries, Welch, WV, USA.
2
"Most Churches now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the
Comma is not an original part of the Epistle"-- Wikipedia, Comma Johanneum,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum. It originated, probably, in the writings of
St. Cyprian ("Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum estEt hi tres unum
sunt", See De Unitate Ecclesi, "On the Unity of the Church", vi), then it crept into the Vul-
gate (Latin) in the 4th century, then it was back-translated in Greek in the 8th century. This
interpolation was discovered by Erasmus in the 16th century, then objected by Isaac New-
ton (d. 1727) and finally discarded only after the modern textual criticism disposed of the
best and oldest Greek MSS. Thus modern translations omit it or at least print it in italics, to
indicate that it is not original.
P a g e | 2

Spirit Comforter, and thus of the unity of the Divine Persons, one may
rightly suspect a trinitarian model behind this symbolistics. No wonder that
this theological gloss entered the text. There are many cases of glosses en-
tering the text in later manuscripts, in OT and NT, and I remember very few
to have a negative theological impact (e. g. Mat 17:21; John 5:3b-4). In the
case of "Comma Johanneum", it is only a theological conflation of the text
and an unnecessary complication in the epistle, but neither heresy, nor a
doctrinal error.
You wrote: "The water bears witness and the blood bears witness,
yet no one would suggest that the water and blood are persons. Why then
should we insist that because the spirit bears witness in heaven it must be a
separate individual?" This indeed is not a proof for the personality (individ-
uality) of the Spirit. However, it is one of the many proofs for the distinct
reality of the Spirit. As water and blood are distinct realities, with theologi-
cal significance (i. e. the Baptism and the Cross, see Jn 1:33; 3:5; Hb 9:14;
10:29; 1Pt 1:2; Rom 6:3-4 et al.), as one joint witness for Christ, so the Spir-
it is the first wittness, because HE precedes the Baptism and the Cross (The
world was created by Christ's Spirit, Gn 1:2; Christ as a human being was
conceived from the Spirit; at the Baptism Christ was made known and an-
nointed by the Spirit; on the Cross, "Christ, ...through the eternal Spirit of-
fered himself unblemished to God" Hb 9:14; then, from the Pentecost, He
is the main witness in and through His Church-- Jn 15:26; Hb 2:4; 1Jn 4:2-3;
Rv 19:10). The author does not say "the spirit of Christ", or the "spirit of
God", but simply "the Spirit". This last name cannot be misunderstood as
regards its significance for distinctiveness, and for individuality. When the
Bible speaks about "the spirit of N...", you sometimes may be confused,
and not sure if it refers to the intelligence (soul, heart, mind, conscious-
ness) of N..., the breath of N..., or the spirit who controlls N, or to whom is
N associated. The context usually helps one understand the correct mean-
ing of the "spirit" in each passage. But when the Bible speaks of "the spirit",
or the Spirit" (it depends on translation), it always refers to a personal su-
perhuman entity, be it un unclean spirit, or a heavenly spirit (angel or Dei-
ty). If in the places where the Bible says "the Spirit of God/the Lord" one
may see the divine mind or power/influence (an impersonal manifestation
or God's personal manifestation through some supernatural action), on the
P a g e | 3

basis of that figurative analogy of Paul (1Cor 2:11),
3
however, in all places
where the Bible says "the Spirit" (or qualified: "the Holy Spirit", "The Eter-
nal Spirit", "the Spirit of Truth", "the Spirit of Grace", "the Spirit of Glory"),
this cannot be simply the mind or the influence of God, because the same
Spirit is called "the Spirit of Christ" or even "the spirit of Moses / Elijah /
Elisha / Paul" (et al.). This is called THE SPIRIT by the inspired authors and
by Christ Himself:
1Ch 12:18... the Spirit empowered
4
Amasai
Is 32:15... till the Spirit is poured
5
upon us from on high
Ez 3:12.14.24; 43:5 Then the Spirit lifted me up
Ez 37:10 the spirit came into
6
them... v. 14 I will put my Spirit in you
Mt 4:1 Then was Jesus led up by the Spirit into the wilderness
Mk 1:10 he saw... the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
Mk 1:12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert
Jn 1:32 "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove..."
Jn 1:33 The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he
who will baptise with the Holy Spirit.
Jn 3:8 "... So it is with everyone born
7
of the Spirit."
Jn 3:34 .... for God gives the Spirit without limit
8
.
Jn 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, .... the Spirit had not been given...

3
Even in such cases, when it refers to God, the expression "the Spirit of God" means a
superhuman entity (good or bad) that proceeds from God (1 Sam 16:16.23; 18:10 in Hebrew
reads literally "the spirit of God, evil" . :s rH-lhm r`); In Gn 1:2, the
Spirit is connected with a special verb that applies only to birds: -e: mraHepet ([she]
hovering), and it cannot mean "wind", as the Jews usually prefer, nor the impersonal all-
might of God. In all cultures, the spirits superhuman entities (real or fantastic; souls, genii
et al.) have been represented by birds, or at least by winged beings. God marked the pres-
ence of the Spirit by the image of a sunny dove, while the unclean spirits are "unclean, hate-
ful birds" (Rev 18). You don't need to be prophet to understand that no heavenly being can
benefit the use of some wings: for angels, "seraphim", "cherubim" etc., they are unneces-
sary, while for the saved they can be used only in the atmosphere, if they will have a light
enough body with strong muscles.
Compare also the true prophet, who is controlled by the Holy Spirit, and the false prophet,
who is controlled by an "the unclean/unholy spirit" (Zec 13:2). See also the expression "the
evil spirit" (AA 19:15) and "the Good Spirit" (Ps 143:10; Ne 9:20). In both cases, it deals with
superhuman control from the part of a distinct spiritual being.
4
Literally, "clothed" (=armed).
5
Metaphor, implying the Spirit's comparison to the rain.
6
Metaphor, God's Spirit is breath of life for the spiritual and national restoration of Israel.
7
Metaphor. The Spirit as a mother.
8
Metaphor. The Spirit is compared here with a heavenly wealth, that believers share as
spiritual gifts. Nobody has a perfect, absolute share, but only the Son of God.
P a g e | 4

Jn 14:17 the Spirit of truth.
Jn 15:26 "When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send to you from the
Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out
9
from the Father, he will testify about me.
Jn 16:13 he, the Spirit of truth, comes, ..will guide.., speak.., hear(s), ..tell
AA 2:4 were filled with the Holy Spirit, ...as the Spirit enabled them.
AA 8:29 The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot...
AA 10:19 the Spirit said to him, "Simon...".
AA 11:12 The Spirit told me
AA 11:28 Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted
AA 20:22 "And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem
AA 21:4...Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem
Rom 8:13 ... but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body
Rom 8:26 the Spirit helps us..., ... the Spirit himself intercedes...
1Cor 12:8 through the Spirit ...by means of the same Spirit
2Cor 3:6 ...not of the letter but of the Spirit; ...the Spirit gives life
Gal 3:2 ...Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law
Gal 3:3 After beginning with the Spirit...
Gal 3:5 Does God give you the Spirit ...?
Gal 3:14 ...we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Gal 4:29 ...born by the power of the Spirit.
Gal 5:5 we eagerly await, through the Spirit
Gal 5:16 live by the Spirit
Gal 5:17 the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit
Gal 5:18 if you are led by the Spirit
Gal 5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
Gal 6:8 ... who sows after the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Eph 2:22 a dwelling in which God lives by the Spirit.
Eph 3:5 revealed by the Spirit to the holy apostles and prophets of God.
Eph 6:18 pray in the Spirit

Col 1:8 your love in the Spirit.
1 Th 5:19 do not extinguish
10
the Spirit.
1 Tim 3:16 was vindicated by the Spirit
1 Tim 4:1 The Spirit.. says...some will...follow deceiving spirits
...demons.
Hb 10:29 ... and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
Jm 4:5... "The Spirit that he has made to dwell in us is jealous..."
1Pt 1:2 ...the foreknowledge of God the Father,... the sanctifying work of
the Spirit, ....Jesus Christ and ...his blood:
1 Pt 4:14 ...the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
1 Jn 3:24 .... We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Jd 19 who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
Rv 2:7.11.17.29; 3:6.13.22. ... the Spirit says to the churches.
Rv 14:13 "Yes," says the Spirit..."
Rv 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come!"


9
The verb "proceeds" or "goes out" refers usually to beings, and only metaforically to other
things. Here it certainly refers to a Person, since it is called ANOTHER COMFORTER.
10
Metaphor. Here the Spirit is compared to the light (Rev 4 "7 lamps"= "7 Spirits). It is about
His function, not nature.
P a g e | 5

While the water and the blood belong to the physical world, or if
you think to their symbolism, they are images of Christ self-dedication and
self-sacrifice in our behalf, the Spirit according to its/his nature, belongs to
the psychological and spiritual realm. Except those cases where PNEUMA
("spirit") means breath, wind, animating force, state of mind, A SPIRIT re-
fers to a superhuman intelligence, an other-worldly being. And the context
in 1 John 5:7, 8 shows that it is the last case, as in the cca 70 quotations
above and the 93 cases where the Bible calls HIM "the Holy Spirit",
11
in
strong contrast with the "unclean spirits", who are always superhuman be-
ings/persons. This title is too frequent and technically used, to say that it
refers to any impersonal reality, or to God's own personality.
12

In fact, the context makes clear that the Spirit, in 1 John 5 is not on-
ly a spirit of truth, but the TRUTH ITSELF (v.6, cf. 3 Jn 8.12), as God and
Christ are named (Jn 14:6; 18:38).

Matthew 28:19
You have no right to reject the clear trinitarian doctrine of this verse,
just because you don't understand why the disciples did not follow Jesus'
injunction in all four instances (AA 2:38; 10:48; 8:16; 19:5). There are ex-
trabiblical witnesses in favour of an old trinitarian baptismal formula:
Tatian the Syrian (170 AD) The Diatesseron 55:
"Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in
heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send
you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the cre-

11
Matt. 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:31f; Mk. 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Lk. 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25f; 3:16,
22; 4:1; 10:21; 11:13; 12:10, 12; Jn. 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33; 4:8,
25, 31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17ff; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44f, 47; 11:15f, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 52;
15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Rom. 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1 Co.
2:13; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Co. 6:6; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess. 1:5f; 2 Tim. 1:14; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 2:4; 3:7;
6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Jn. 5:7; Jude 1:20.
12
The Hebrew text of Isaiah 48:16 in the modern Jewish translation (JPS) makes distinction
between the individuality of God and that of His Spirit: [The Son speaks] "Come ye near unto
Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was,
there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me [about the Father], and His spirit." [about
His Spirit]. Who else can send you, but an individual ?
P a g e | 6

ation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to
keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the
days, unto the end of the world [Matt. 28:18-20]"
Hippolytus (215 AD) The Apostolic Tradition 21:
"When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one
baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: Do you be-
lieve in God, the Father Almighty? And he that is being baptized
shall say: I believe. Then, having his hand imposed upon the head
of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall
say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ? And when he says: I be-
lieve, he is baptized again. Again shall he say: Do you believe in
the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the
flesh? The one being baptized then says: I believe. And so he is
baptized a third time".
Tertullian (216 AD) Against Praxeas 26:
"After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that
he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he com-
mands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only,
but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at
each several mention of their names".
Origen (248 AD), Commentary on Romans 5:8
"The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all
peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of
the Trinity".
The Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21 (250 AD)
"Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, Jesus Christ, Son of
God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this wa-
ter. And Paul said, We baptize thee in the name of the Father and
Son and Holy Ghost. After this he made him to receive the Eucha-
rist of Christ".
Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 253) Letters 73:18:
P a g e | 7

"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do
some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or
of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the re-
mission of sins can followwhen Christ himself commands the na-
tions to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?"
Now, I made no in-depth study of these extrabiblical documents,
and I do not trust in them totally, because one may suspect them of fabri-
cation and interpolations. However, they deserve our attention.
Some anti-trinitarians suspect this verse to be a gloss. But there is
absolutely no proof against its authenticity. You wrote: "Interestingly, there
is evidence that a portion of this verse is a gloss just like portions of 1 John
5:7, 8." But this is not a similar case. In 1 John 5, the "Comma Johanneum"
is universally and long since acknowledged as a gloss, while in Mat 28:19
there is indeed a gloss only in some secondary manuscripts, the passage of
John 20:21 is copied and paste here. Such "interpolation" does not change
anything important; it only connects two related biblical passages, proba-
bly for homiletical purposes. In fact, I am not aware of any Biblical transla-
tion that contains this Johanine gloss in Mat 28.
But Mt 28:19 is indeed an exegetical nightmare for all antitrinitari-
ans, since it is so difficult to manipulate. It is not legitimate to pile up coun-
ter-evidence against a biblical passage, just because you cannot agree with
its message. The only way is to honestly analyze it until you understand it
clearly and can agree with it as well as with the rest of the Bible.
Thus you asserted: "Ephesians 4:6 says that there is 'One God and
Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.' The Bible us-
es the phrase 'God the Father' thirteen times, but it never says 'God the
Son' or 'God the Holy Spirit'. Your reasoning is not valid in this case, be-
cause the fact that you have no technical titles as "God the Son", or "God
the Spirit", it does not mean that you have no clear reference to the divine
nature of the Son and of the Spirit. Your adversaries will similarly say, "Hey,
Allan, where did you find in the Bible such notions as "investigative judg-
ment", "potluck", "morality", "monogamy", "sunday law", or "character
development"? I suspect that you have some fitting answers to such ques-
tioning.
P a g e | 8

You wrote: "To literally baptize someone in the name of a person
we must know the persons name. Yahweh (Jehovah or other similar spell-
ings) is the personal name of the Father. Jesus (Yahshua or some other sim-
ilar spellings) is the personal name of the Son, but the Scripture nowhere
gives a name for the Holy Spirit."
Sorry, I cannot agree. Let me explain why.
First, YAHWEH is not the exclusive name of the Father. Christ, as
preexistent God, is clearly referred by this Name too (cf. Exodus 3,
The Messenger of Yahweh is called Yahweh, God [of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob], and I AM [WHO I AM]. And this pattern is re-
peated several times in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Zechariah
etc., where the Special Messenger of YAHWEH bears the Sacred
name YAHWEH and is called GOD). John, after refering to Isaiah 6
(the scene of the Glory of Yahweh, that will fill the earth), clearly
applies it to Christ in Jn 12:37-43. And NT calls Christ KURIOS, that
is the late Jewish-Hellenistic manner of refering to YAHWEH (in
Septuagint, in NT et a.). While I don't remember where the Spirit is
called Yahweh, it is certainly called by a synonym title, "The Eternal
Spirit" (Heb 9:14). You don't need to find a title "God the Spirit",
because Godhead is SPIRIT in itself (John 4), and when you say
Eternal Spirit, you cannot refer to a creature. And when the Spirit is
called God in Acts 7, the theological reality is confirmed through a
terrific proof, the death of the hypocrite.
But the most important evidence is in the text itself. Christ did not
say "baptize them in the NAMES of Father, Son and Holy Spirit", neither
"baptize them in the name of the Father, the name of the Son and the
name of the Holy Spirit". The Greek text is clear: "baptizing them in the
[one / only] name
13
of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". While
we have three distinct and conscious entities in the unity of God, there is a
single divine nature (essence), that can be exclusively called God, and
which the Bible ascribes divine titles and names (El, Shadday, Elyon, Yah-
weh, Adonay etc.).

13
NOMA (name), not ONMATA (names).
P a g e | 9

But we should ask ourselves if indeed, when Christ used this trini-
tarian formula in the apostolic commision, He meant that they must em-
ploy exactly this wording, or whatever else magic-like formula, when they
fulfill the baptismal rite/ceremony, or rather that He made them under-
stand that each new baptismal candidate is dedicate to the Deity (Father,
Son and Holy Spirit), and shares in all the blessing promised by God
through Christ and His Spirit. In fact, Jesus began His word of commission
with the assurance that ALL AUTHORITY in heaven and on the earth was
given to HIM. Such authority may easily be understood as if in Christ, God's
authority is total, and whoever is baptized as a Christian (that is on his/her
confession of Jesus Christ), and (as usual) then receives the Spirit, is cer-
tainly baptized in the name of the Three-Unity.
Let's illustrate. The disciples of John the Baptist were at first unde-
cided to believe in Christ, and later even thought their Master was the
Messiah. Their baptism was for repentance toward the Law of God. Paul
met 12 disciple of John in Ephesus, and after learning about their incom-
plete experience, he baptized them "in the name of Jesus", in order to re-
ceive the Holy Spirit. Thus they have been implicitely baptized in the (sin-
gle) Name, not only of the Father, but of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
The dilemma tends to disappear, if one takes the expression "in the name
of" not as a strict ceremonial formula, as if the magic power is in the cor-
rect wording, but as a spiritual and practic understanding and accepting
not only a far-off God (as any Jew), but also His condescendence in Christ
and His efficient sanctification and charismatic communion in the Spirit.
In fact you imagined a good suggestion, when you wrote: "..so we
can see that Jesus was not giving a specific formula of words for the
preacher to recite at a baptism." Thus, if you are right, and I am inclined to
agree with you, the second expression "baptized in the name of Jesus" in
the book of Acts, should also be understood in the same manner, not as a
specific formula of words that apostles use to recite at baptisms. According
to Acts 8:37, Luke makes no reference to any "formula", but he records
that the candidate, before baptism, was taught in the basic truth of Christi-
anity: the whole truth about Jesus (v. 35).
You also wrote: "it would not be possible to literally baptize in the
proper name of the Holy Spirit because the Bible makes no mention of such
P a g e | 10

a name". Even though the Bible would not have a special name for the Spir-
it, this formula cannot be rejected on this basis. Indeed, NAME (Heb. shem,
Gr. noma) is frequently a substitute for the person to whom it refers. But
don't forget, that Father, and Son are not "names" at all, they are not
proper names. I would add that even the proper names of God are only
transient linguistic forms (Shadday, Yahweh et al.) in an archaic Hebrew
(which is a North-West Semitic dialect, most related to Canaanite), and the
real name of Christ, even when it is called one way or the other, doen't
know anyone (Rev 19). All divine names are conventional, circumstantial,
historical and cultural, and only their meaning is important, as a human,
limited and imperfect form of knowledge. When the Bible says, "In that
day, My people will know My name", it certainly does not refer to the cor-
rect vowels and consonants, not even to a correct theology of the Name,
but to the spiritual experience of knowing God as a Person (in character
and fame).
You wrote, "Once we realize that Christ was commissioning his dis-
ciples to baptize into the character of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit, it is easier for us to understand his words." Now, let's reason. If
there is one name, then there is one character. When Christ says "the
name of the Father and of the Son", it means that these two holy individu-
alities have the same character. Now, if the Spirit is simply God's
mind/power, or another role of Christ, why did Christ added the Holy Spir-
it? Did Christ want them baptize in His character and in the character of His
INFLUENCE / MIND?
Yo wrote: "This command is closely connected with the command
to teach. Christ wants his disciples to understand the truth about God, his
Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three of these are vital in a Christians life" Vital
? Why the Holy Spirit is vital, as a DISTINCT REALITY, if HE is only the imper-
sonal manifestation of God/Christ, or personal but not distinct from God or
Christ? Why this frequent Biblical need to mention separately the Spirit, if
HE is just an IT, a SOMETHING ?
Then you wrote, "From this we can see that Matthew 28:19 cer-
tainly does not prove a Trinity nor does it prove that the Holy Spirit is a
separate being from the Father and his Son." I cannot compell you to see
and believe, if you don't want, but your conclusion is simply false. While
P a g e | 11

the text is not a systematic exposition of a "dogma", it is quite clear for
whoever is willing to see, that the text is the oldest and the clearest ex-
pression of a trinitarian belief. But in reality no other Biblical doctrine is
systematicaly, explicitely and completely exposed in a single passage. We
should connect all relevant Biblical passages to understand a Biblical doc-
trine and to expose it in the best way.
You finally wrote, "What a blessing that even if there are legitimate
concerns about these verses they have not been distorted so as to teach
error". I suppose trinitarians are the happiest ones with this verse. The
verse certainly does not teach error, but I met anti-trinitarians who are
able to evade or to minimize even the most obvious Biblical statement.
I cannot see a real contradiction between Mat 28:19 and the apos-
tolic baptisms:
Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Je-
sus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit. (They were believers of God, but they needed repentance
toward God and Christ, and the empowerment of the Spirit. Thus, in the
Christian baptism, in Christ, they found the complet, trinitarian dedica-
tion).
Acts 8:12 they believed ....the good news of the kingdom of God and the
name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised... v. 15 [the apostles] prayed for
them that they might receive the Holy Spirit...(v. 16) because the Holy
Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been bap-
tised into the name of the Lord Jesus. (This passage suggests that only
with the receiving of the Spirit, the baptism -- toward Father, Son and
Spirit-- was complet).
Acts 10:48 So he ordered that they be baptised in the name of
Jesus Christ. (This was after they had already received the Holy Spirit,
thus their only need was a public confession of Jesus through baptism. Cf.
v. 47. So, they have been really baptized in the name of the whole Trini-
ty).
Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord
Jesus. v. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on
them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. (The same experience.
To each case of baptism in the name of Jesus, corresponds the receiving
of the Spirit).
P a g e | 12

An interesting observation is that in all these cases, the baptismal
candidates were either Jews or prozelites, or Samaritans, that is people
who listened to the Law and knew about the true God, our Father. They
only needed to know and accept Jesus as the Biblical Messiah, and to re-
ceive His Holy Spirit. This may explain why Luke insists upon a baptism in
the name of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the baptismal commission of
Mat 28, after emphasizing the supreme authority of Christ, refers to "disci-
pling" people of "all nations", that is all kind of pagans or unbelievers.
These probably needed a basic instruction about the Biblical God, before
hearing the Gospel of Jesus and receiving the Spirit. Therefore the refer-
ence to the Trinity is especially fitting in this context.
2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
The force of this Biblical trinitarian expression is not only in the fact
that all Three Divine Persons are present in this verse, but in the fact that it
is a greeting. It is known that greetings are common, reiterated expres-
sions, and therefore such greeting is one of the best proofs in behalf of the
apostolic origin of the basic trinitarian concept.
If "In this verse the title God is used only once, and it is used in ref-
erence to a specific person," is not unusual in such expressions. There is an
interesting reverse of the usual order (God, Christ), and Christ is mentioned
first. This is to stress that Christ is of the same order as God and as His Spir-
it. But if Christ and the Spirit are not explicitely called God in this verse, it
does not mean that the Christians who were using this greeting had a
(semi-)Arian understanting. When we pray, as Jesus taught us, "Our Father
who are in heaven", or when the priests were saying, "The Lord (YAHWEH)
bless you !" or in the swearing formula ("As Yahweh lives...!"), nobody adds
that the heavenly Father, or Yahweh is God. Believers knew it.
In fact, the term GOD is often used as a Personal Name. To illus-
trate, in the Hebrew of Genesis 1-5, ADAM means sometimes "human be-
ing", sometimes "man" (when it is associated with his wife), and sometimes
as a personal name, "Adam". Now, if you keep only its basic meaning (hu-
man being, human race), and you find the expression "(the) ADAM and...
P a g e | 13

his woman/wife", should you conclude that the woman was not sufficiently
human to deserve this "title"? The man bears the name of the human race,
because he was made responsible, head of family, and the woman usually
bears the name that refers to its gender and function; she is functionally
subordinated (Adam gives her the first name ISHSHAH, and the second
one, HAWWAH), but even though she rarely is spoken of as "human", no-
body will question the woman's humanity on that basis.
Likewise, the separate reference to grace, love and communion
does not mean that Christ only has grace,
14
or that God only has love (and
Christ and the Spirit have less love!?).
15

You wrote, "Please observe that Paul did not say we would com-
mune with the Holy Ghost, but he speaks of 'the communion of the Holy
Ghost'. But how would have said Paul "we would commune with the Holy
Ghost", if he intended to express a greeting ? Let's not force the argument,
because "the communion of the Holy Ghost" has the same syntactic func-
tion as the grace and the love mentioned above. It is by becoming partak-
ers of the Spirit (Heb 6:4), that we may participate in the divine nature.
Only through the Spirit, we may have grace/love and access to any divine
blessing. The personality of the Spirit is expressed here not only by this
mediatorial role of the Spirit (that only THROUGH HIM are we connected to
God and Christ -- not through an impersonal influence), but also by the fact
that He is named "the Holy Ghost / Spirit", as a name, not as an atribute of
another one.
In fact, you quoted 1 John 1:3 (truly our fellowship is with the Fa-
ther, and with his Son Jesus Christ) and wrote that "we have fellowship with
the Father and with his Son, through the Holy Spirit." Thus the Holy Spirit,
as an entity that links us in communion with God and Christ, cannot have
but a personal character. Our communion with God is not at the physical
level, but at the spiritual (which is always a personal) level.

14
There are well known verses about the "grace of God" (Lk. 2:40; Acts 11:23; 13:43; 14:26;
18:27; 20:24; Rom. 5:15; 1 Co. 1:4; 3:10; 15:10; 2 Co. 1:12; 6:1; Gal. 2:21; Eph. 3:2, 7; Col.
1:6; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 12:15; 2Th 1:12; Jude 1:4) and about "the Spirit of Grace" (Heb
10:29).
15
The Holy Spirit's love (Rom. 5:5; 15:30;Gal. 5:22; Col. 1:8).
P a g e | 14

Matthew 3:16, 17
God calls Christ "my beloved Son", and this title does not exclude
other realities about Christ. He is not called Christ, but is He? He is not
called God, but if He is "Son of God", what else can be if not a real GOD? I
am amazed to see how anti-trinitarians use the word GOD with reference
to the supreme authority, not to the nature of the Creator, who is SPIRIT
(John 4). The main difference between Creator and creature is that the
Creator/God is of a completely, absolutely different nature. Creation has a
starting point, while the Creator/God must be necessarily non-created. The
hierarchical subordination of the Son and the Spirit must have another ex-
planation, since it is not a natural-conditioned, binding subjection.
In the same time, the expression "son of God" is not an explanation
about a divine virginal birth long time ago in the past eternity.
The titles Father and Son have multiple good explanations in the
Bible:
1. Father and Son are just human titles, as poetical (metaphorical,
figurative) as many others, and they cannot be a complete and ad-
equate description of the Deity. THerefore the Bible uses various ti-
tles for the Divine Persons. In all human languages, Father and Son
cannot be without a Woman-Mother. Neither the expression "born
of the Father" has physical/ontological significance. The expression
"born of God/the Father" has a spiritual (metaphorical) meaning
and it is applied to all who are "children of God" (1 Pet. 1:3, 23; 1
Jn. 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18; Gen 6:2; Rom 8:14). Those who are born of
God, are also born of the Spirit (Jn 3:6.8). Christ is called also the
Father of His followers (Heb 2:13-14), and He continues to be our
Father, through the presence of the Comforter (Jn 14:18).
2. The terms Father and Son express the sharing of the same nature.
As "son of man" is a Hebraism, that means simply "human being",
16


16
The noun BEN (son) is often employed to mean "a member of some group" (Num 17:25
"son of rebellion"= rebel; Dt 25:2 "son of beating"= one who deserves to be beaten; 1Sam
20:31 "son of the death"= one who deserves death; Gen 17:12 "son of N years"= one who is
N years old). It is also used metaphorically: "son of the bow"= arrow (Job 41:20). First of all,
the Bible uses this title for the first time, as regards to Israel "My son, My firstborn" (Dt
14:1).
P a g e | 15

in a similar way, "son of God" means "a Divine Being". A son of
man is as exactly human as his father, and so is a "son of God". In
this case, Father and Son is of the same nature and rank, dignity,
character etc.
3. The terms "Father" and "Son" express in the same time a special
kind of subordination. Christ willingly subjected Himself to God
when He took humanity and became a man, a slave and a victim
(Phil 2:6-8). But He also humbled Himself even before His incarna-
tion, since He functioned as God's Messenger (as an angel!), leav-
ing the supreme authority to God (Zec 3:2; Jude 1:9 et al.).
4. The classical expression "the only-begotten" (Jn 1:14) is a mistrans-
lation of the word MONOGENS (one and only [beloved child]),
that refers to Christ's uniqueness as a "Son".
5. The "firstborn" likewise refers to His highest position of Lord (cf. Ps
89:27/28).
17

6. The repeated expression "You are my Son..., today I have begotten
thee" (Lk. 2:11; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5) has clearly no reference
to the starting point of Christ's pre-existence. First, it says TODAY,
not long time ago; second, it is a quotation of Ps. 2:7, where the
Davidic King (a Messianic type) becomes the "son of God" in the
day of His coronation (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chr. 17:13; 22:10; 28:6); third,
all NT writers apply this quotation as an argument for Christ's hu-
man resurrection, not for a supposed half-divine origin.
You wrote, "It is very evident there are two persons present, one is
Jesus and the other is the owner of the voice which declares this is my
beloved Son. Well, if you say that two persons are present, this is not ex-
plicitly true, since the heavenly voice does not explicitly say that God is He
who speaks (if one attempts to reason in your style !). The person who im-
plies that He is the Father of Jesus is not even seen, it is only heard.
What about the Spirit? He is a Person here, because:

17
"I will also appoint him [David] my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth"
(cf. Rom 8:29; Col 1:15.18; Heb 1:2-6; Rev 1:5 the ruler/prince of the kings of the earth; Gen
49:26: [Joseph] THE PRINCE among his brothers). He is the "firstborn of the dead" but He
was not the first mortal to have been raised (Moses, Lazarus etc.).
P a g e | 16

1. He is not called "the Spirit of N", but "the Spirit", just as a known
person. "Spirits" are persons, except when they are explicitely pre-
sented as psychological faculties, or influences of some person.
2. The Spirit does not speak to the crowd, though often He is said to
have spoken (AA 21:11; Heb 3:7; Rev 2:7 etc.). In this instance He
spoke through the miraculous image of a dove, in order to anounce
the presence of Christ to John (John 1:33). Only a person can
speak, and only a Divine Person can make miracles. The matchless
humility and condescension of the Spirit should not make us be-
lieve that He is nobody.
Now if by person you mean a human face/being, a human body,
the SPirit is not such person. Theologically we use the term to mean indi-
viduality, conscious entity, self, somebody, as opposed to some or any
thing. You said that "Never is the Holy Spirit represented by any symbol
which indicates that it is a person". Humans/Persons are rarely used as
symbols. However, the Spirit is also represented by a symbol with personal
characteristics. He is a "Parakletos" (Comforter, Intercessor, Helper). The
very word PNEUMA (wind; spirit) is a symbol and a metaphoric name in the
same time.
He is indeed represented by "oil, water, wind, fire, and in this verse
as a dove". Christ is also represented by a Lamb (Rev 5), but you cannot
say that He is not a person, because Lamb, light, snake, sanctuary are not
personal realities. However, when the Bible attributes to the Spirit personal
qualities expressed in anthropomorphic (human) language (speaks, groans,
is jealous, is sorrow), why do not anti-trinitarian accept the testimony of
the Word?
Then you say that "it is the Spirit of God! It is the Spirit which be-
longs to God" . But the Spirit of God is distinct from God, as is the Word [of
God] distinct from God (Jn 1:1; Rev 19). You cannot say, "Christ is not a
person, since IT is only the Word of God". Both the Word and the Spirit are
personal qualities and they are used metaphorically (i. e. the communica-
tion of God, -- as statement, commandment or promise--, and the life-
giving breath of God) to refer to divine entities. In fact other Gospel writers
(Jn 1:32; Lk 3:22; Mk 1:10) do not say here "the spirit of God", but simply
"the Spirit", which is usually reffering to an individuality.
P a g e | 17

You say that the Spirit is not "an individual person with his own
identity." But how do you explain that He appears to have then more than
one identities (Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of Elijah)? Thus let Him
have a single identity, which is the simplest way to understand the prob-
lem.
EG White's statement ("beams of glory rested upon the Son of God
and assumed the form of a dove, in appearance like burnished gold") can-
not contradict the Bible. She tells us from what she saw in her vision. For
example, she speaks of Adam and Eve to have been clothed in light. Can
this information destroy the clear statment of Moses: "The man and his
wife were both naked.." ?
Genesis 1:26
You are right, the plural ELOHIM does not mean a plurality of God.
This just an intensiv plural. Even when the verb agrees with plural subject,
sometimes it is not plural (1 Sam 28:13 lit. "gods rising [they]" = Samuel).
Howver, not the plural ELOHIM is our point here, but the plural of the pro-
noun ("We", "Our", "Us" vs. "I", "Me", "My"). In Hebrew, there is no plural
of majesty in the pronoun, in spite of all "scholarly" statements that could
not find another explanation for the use of the plural in VERY FEW IN-
STANCES in OT (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Is 6:8).
18
Languages that use a plural
of majesty or a pronoun of reverence, always employ the official address
"Ye" (e.g. to a king), or "we" (e.g. by a king). Any papal encyclic starts, as a
medieval royal letter: "We, PP 'N' the servant of the servants of God"... But
Hebrew language does not modify the pronoun to express reverence. It
just adds the expressions adoniy ([thou] my lord) and abdekha ([I] thy serv-
ant). In the biblical passages where God emphasizes most His majesty, it is
used undscriminated the pronoun ANOKI / ANI ("I") and the correspondent
pronominal suffixes of the pers. I, singular (e.g. Is 45:5-6, 18, 22; 46:9).
This use of the plural is not a direct and explicit teaching of Trinity.
However, it indicates that the author was not a simplist monotheist, as it is
interpreted in Judaism (see Exodus 3 and many other places in Genesis,
where he is familiar with a heavenly being called the Messenger of Yah-

18
There are probably two references more, that I cannot remember.
P a g e | 18

weh, who is always called God, and Identified with Yahweh). Moreover,
Moses anounced with verse 2 the mysterios presence of a distinct and di-
vine entity, called the Spirit of God, whom he describes as a winged living
being, by using a unique verb (cf. Dt 32:11 rahhp = to hover, to fly up). The
only motive for His presence here is to explain why things happen at God's
command. Therefore, speaking metaphorically, the Bible says that the Cre-
ation was made through God's Word (Jn 1:1), and God's Spirit (Is 40:12-13;
Ps 33:6; Jn 20:22). God certainly did not adress angels, when He said, "let
us do human beings!". He adressed to His royal "Son" (His Supreme and
Absolute Representative, in front of all the angels) and to His Spirit who
was explicitely present there, because He is God's "finger" (Mt 12:28; Lk
11:20), or God's "hand" (Is 66:2a; AA 7:50-51), and He effects all divine
works in all time. Anyway, God could address such proposal only to some-
one who is of the same rank. And probably He did not address just one
person.
John 10:30
You may be right. In the light of v. 29 and John 17, it seems that Je-
sus speaks of functional and moral unity. And in the context (cf. v. 28-29)
Jesus shows that He is united with God in the work, power, and authority
of keeping the believers' flock in the divine hands.
However, it is possible that His ancient adversaries understood Him
better that some friends of today (v. 33) "We are not stoning you for any of
these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man,
claim to be God." Jesus's climactic answer ("I and the Father are one")
came as a response to the Jews' question (v. 24. "How long will you keep us
in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly").
That "Christ is the Son of God" was a common belief in the days of
Jesus.
19
While Jesus never made a public confession that He is "the Messiah
(Christ)" and even prohibited everyone (disciple, evil spirit, or patient) to
proclaim Him the Messiah (because of the political implications of the pop-

19
Mt 26:63 The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if
you are the Christ, the Son of God." Mk 14:61 ..the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" Cf.
Mt 16:16; Mk 1:1; Lk 4:41; Jn 11:27; 20:31; 2Cor 1:19; 1Jn 5:20; 2Jn 3.
P a g e | 19

ular Jewish theology), He made no secret about His real relationship to
God, His Father (Jn 10:25.29.30 "My Father"). He affirms the wonderful
paradox that the Father is "greater than all (including Jesus Himself)" (v.
29),
20
and in the same time, "He and the Father are one" (v. 30).
I would ask, If Jesus meant unity only in the sense of His harmony
with the Father, by perfect submission, then why Jews exploded immedi-
ately ? Why have they understood that Jesus makes Himself equal to God ?
Probably they were interested to have Him state blasphemies, in order to
condemn Him. Christ's statement itself may be understood either way. The
context does not compell one to accept Christ's same-nature (consubstan-
tiality) with God. However, the very ambiguity that Jesus allowed in His
answer, witnesses that the doctrine of the consubstantiality of Christ with
God is not a blasphemy, as Jews feared.
Hebrews 1:8
Hebrews 1:8 says: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne,OGod, is
for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy king-
dom.
The quotation is from Psalm 45:6 indeed, but I cannot see any rele-
vant difference between LXX and the Hebrew M Text. In fact, the second
part of the verse displays more variation between Hebrews 1:8 and LXX,
than between the Hebrew and the LXX text,
21
as you can see:
LXX
22

a. e e|e, ceu e .e, .t, e| at. |a eu at. |e,
b. aee, .uue, aee, , act.ta, ceu.
Heb 1:8
a. e e|e, ceu e .e, .t, e| at. |a eu at. |e,,

20
According to Jn 14:28, this implies that God is greater than Jesus. However, in both
passages, Jesus speaks as a human (Son of Man), and so these passages cannot be used as
regards to the Deity of Christ.
21
In LXX it is numbered as Ps 44:7.
22
An official translation of LXX reads: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre
of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness." LXE

Ps 45:6. (The English Translation of
The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, 1844,
1851, published by Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, original ASCII edition Copy-
right 1988 by FABS International).
P a g e | 20

b. sat aee, , .uue, aee, , act.ta, ceu.

Hebrew (Ps 45:7)
Kisk lhm `lm w`ed
. :. :s zs::


thy throne, GOD, [is] age and ever
be mr be malktek
z-:: z:: :: z::
scepter of fairness [is] the scepter of thy kingdom

An official literal Hebrew translation is YLT

(Young Literal Transla-
tion), Ps 45:6:
Thy throne, O God, is age-during, and for ever,
A sceptre of uprightness Is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.
The JPS translation ("Thy throne given of God") is in this cas an
over-critical, speculative version, which agrees with NJB (New Jerusalem
Bible: "Your throne is from God") and partly with Hermann Menge's trans-
lation (Stuttgart 1927): "Dein Thron, ein Gottesthron (thy throne, a throne
of God / a divine throne), stett immer und ewig." TNK (=JPS 1985): has also
"Your divine throne...".
All these translations sought to avoid the "non-monotheist" impli-
cations, in spite of the clarity of the Hebrew text. There is nothing in the
Masoretic (traditional) Hebrew text, not even in the most obscure manu-
script, to allow us translate "a throne from God", or "a throne of God" (di-
vine, God-given). The Hebrew syntax shows clearly that ELOHIM, in this
text, must be understood as a vocative (God ! / o, God !). To mean "throne
given of God", you must have: Kisk mlhmnot Kisk lhm. If
you remember that LXX is also a JEWISH translation, as well as the Maso-
retic text, then you cannot suspect that Jews changed the text to make it
sound more... trinitarian !
Even the modern Jewish translation evolved from the bold critical
version JPS (1917: "throne given of God") to TNK (=JPS 1985: "Your divine
throne"). The last translation is deliberately ambiguous, because "divine"
may refer to the origin of that throne, not to the nature of its occupant.
If you want an authoritative, ancient Jewish translation, here is the
Jewish-Aramaic (TAR=Targum,) version:
: s:::
2
ss
2
:. :.
1
::


P a g e | 21

Kurs yqarak YHWH l`olm `olmn lh Bimayy qayym
the throne of thy glory, YHWH, for ages of ages , O GOD, in heaven endures


Obviously, the ancient Jews understood always this verse as ad-
dressing to GOD. The Targum is somehow conflated, but it has the same
idea. The Christian Aramaic Version (Peshitta: PEH, Hebrew script), agrees
with the above versions:
:. :. ss :: :s s: .
`al Bar Dn mar D-Kursk Dilak lh l`lm `lmn
Of The Son He said, that Thy throne, O GOD, [is] for ages of ages.
A published translation of Peshitta (ETH) reads: "But concerning
the Son he hath said, Thy throne, Aloha, (is) for ever and ever...." (Ether-
idge Translation of the NT Peshitta, 1849).
Thus neither LXX, nor the author of Hebrews shows any change.
And there is no kind of evidence that in this case a scribal error is suspect-
ed. The Hebrew text and all its versions are plain. The 45th Psalm is a Mes-
sianic poem, and the author of Hebrews, obviously knew it. Therefore, he
quoted the phrase and applied it to Christ. And any straightforward Chris-
tian has no difficulty to admit and believe it.
But you say: "it should be noted that the Father, the Supreme Sov-
ereign of the universe, gave this title to Jesus, so obviously Jesus is not the
Supreme Being". I think you miss the point. There is no question about the
Supreme Sovereignty of the Father. But God Himself speaks here, in this
Psalm, proclaiming the Supreme Sovereignty of the King Messiah, because
Messiah is GOD, not only man. You will say "Son of God". But if son of man
is man, then son of the God is God. Period. He is not "exalted ...to the same
plateau as" God, as a favour given to a creature, but He has absolute sov-
ereignty in His divine nature. Christ as a Son of Man was exalted, but this
exaltation is an evidence of His divinity, because He is the only creature in
the universe, who is both absolutely human and absolutely divine.
The passage of 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 speaks of Christ's willful sub-
jection to God at last, a final act that emphasizes Christ's character, both
the beauty of humility, and the majesty of divine sovereignty. Everything
about God is paradoxical and wonderful. We must not confuse a willful act
of subjection with a bound, nature-conditioned subjection. Since Christ
humbled Himself to become Man, two natures in a single Person, and living
P a g e | 22

in human consciousness, God exalted Him to His throne (which is both His
natural right as His Father, and a prize given to the Man Jesus Christ) Christ
at last decides that His Father must have the supreme sovereignty, to show
the whole universe how great is God, if Christ, though in His full Deity, is
determined to serve and worship FOREVER !
You wrote so well: "Thus, when Jesus is given the title of God, it
is in reference to his divine nature and in reference to his relationship to
us, his children. However, he, is not the Father himself." This is correct. But
who said that Christ is the same person with the Father Himself?
23
Though
Christ is called sometimes Father (in relationship with His followers), He is
never to be confused to HIS Father. He is another divine Person.
Finally, please read the following Jewish (Messianic) translation of
Ps 45:7a:
"Your throne, God, will last forever and ever"
(CJB = Complete Jewish Bible. Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern).
"Orthodox" Jews have certainly thrologic motives to "correct" even
the Hebrew text, or to explain it away, when it smells Christian. Let us not
follow their example, that killed our Saviour. But...
"Christ humbled himself. In him the INFINITE and the finite met in a close
and mysterious union. Deity was veiled with humanity. The Creator
stooped to the created. God was manifest in the flesh." E. G. White, "One
Thing Thou Lackest."The Youth's Instructor , May 27, 1897.
Isaiah 9:6
You wrote, "Some believe that this verse is teaching that Christ is
God the Father". This is a straw man, and your argument is not with us.
Maybe the Branhamist pentecostals (the Movement Jesus only) teach such
confusion. You probably know that SDA are trinitarians, and they distin-
guish the Son form the Father.
You applied the paternal role of Christ in Is 9:6 to the relationship
described in Hebrews 2:13. You may be right. However, the Hebrew name

23
There is, indeed, the so called modalistic monarchianism, or sabellianism (shared by some
heretics of the first centuries, and today in the pentecostal movement "Jesus only", or by
the followers of Branham). But SDA, or any other trinitarian Christians never accepted such
theory. THere is personal distinctiveness in the Godhead.
P a g e | 23

given to Christ by Isaiah is so telling: .:s b`ad (Eternal Father -- lit.
father of eternity). In fact, these four names are arranged in a mirror order
(chiasm):
. se Pele y`c l GiBBr :. s
Wonder-Strategist
24
Hero God
. :s b`ad Sar-lm ::c
Eternal Father Commander of Peace
Thus you may see that the four names are cross connected, so that
the title Wonderful Counsellor (in matters of war) is equated with Prince
(Commander) of Peace. And the name El-Gibbor
25
(God - Mighty
Valiant / Hero /
Brave
) is connected with Abi'ad
26
(Father of Eternity). El-Gibbor is a divine
name that occurs elsewhere in Isaiah 10:21 only (NIB)

"A remnant will re-
turn, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God." The context clear-
ly speaks about the Great God, "Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel" (10:20). I
don't know a greater God.

Your objection that Isaiah refers not to the Almighty God, but only
to a "mighty God", is a clever trick which somebody have sold to you, but it
does not correspond to the Biblical reality. The only Biblical distinction is
made between the true God and the false ones. There is no sense in distin-
guishing a true God allmighty from another God less mighty. Either a Per-
son is God, or he is not God. And if He is God, He is mighty/allmighty.
This is an apparent distinction in English. Hebrew has no compound
adjective "all-mighty". The Hebrew archaic name Shadday, whose meaning
is not certain.
27
LXX sometimes left it untranslated, sometimes transliterat-

24
See NET: "...Extraordinary Strategist, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. The
NET Bible, Version 1.0 - Copyright 2004,2005 Biblical Studies Foundation.
25
El-Gibbor is an original Isaianic name, comparabel to El-Elyon, El-Shadday, El-Royi, El-
Olam (Gen 21:33), El-Elohe-Israel, El-Qanna' (Ex 34:14) etc.
26
It is interesting that in Hebrew it is written in one word, as an archaic name. Normally it
would have been written separately, 'ab 'ad (father forever).
27
Shadday is not a common Hebrew adjective. It is a proper noun used only to name God, in
the Pariarchal times, and later in poetry. The best Hebrew lexicon, HALOT, reads at the en-
try ::, "4. Despite several attempted and suggested explanations the etymology of ::
P a g e | 24

ed it caeat (SADAI), and sometimes translated it as .e, (God), :a|
esae (The Allmighty), sute, (Lord), etc. It is only a Christian custom
to translate it as Allmighty. But there is no indication about such ALL (abso-
lute) might in the term itself. The traditional Jewish explanation is that it is
a compound name from sha (which is) + day (sufficient), that is One Who is
Sufficient to Himself. But this is only a late Rabbinic conjecture. Actually,
this name should not be translated, but only transliterated. Some famous
modern translations render it as "The Powerful" (in French, le Puissant,
always in TOB -- Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible).
Describing the "marriage of the Lamb", that is the receiving of the
universal kingdom (represented by the New Jerusalem, The Bride), John the
Revelator writes:
Rev 19:6 "Halleluiah ! ...the Allmighty has begun to reign"
(CSB-- Holman Christian Standard Bible, et al.)
E. G. White, commenting on this heavenly marriage, intentionally
identifies the bridegroom God, to be Christ:
God is the husband of His church. The church is the bride, the Lambs
wife. Every true believer is a part of the body of Christ. (Letter 39, 1902).
This is in agreement with what she teaches in EW 280; GC 428; cf.
EW 55, that "It is at the close of the investigate judgment, but before Christ
leaves the most holy place, that He receives His kingdom and begins His
reign as 'King of kings' .
28


has still not been completely clarified." The most common attempt is to link this name to
the Hebrew root shadad (to be powerful, mighty).
28 The bride, the Lambs wife is that great city, the holy Jerusalem (ch. 21:2, 9, 10). The
New Jerusalem is to be the capital of the new earth, and as such is representative of the
kingdoms of this world, which are to become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ
(chs. 11:15; 21:15; GC 426). The New Jerusalem will contain the Garden of Eden, in which
the tree of life has been preserved (see ch. 22:1, 2; cf. PP 62; GC 299, 646648). The wed-
ding here referred to consists of the reception by Christ of His kingdom, as represented by
the New Jerusalem, and His coronation as King of kings and Lord of lords, in heaven at the
close of His priestly ministry before the plagues are poured out (EW 55, 251, 280, 281; GC
427, 428; see on ch. 17:14). As in the parable of the Ten Virgins, the waiting saints are rep-
resented as guests invited to the wedding (ch. 19:9; GC 426, 427; cf. Matt. 25:110). Nichol,
Francis D., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association) 1978.
P a g e | 25

The Greek verb in Rev 19:6 .act.uc.| (ebasleusen) is very fre-
quent in both OT (LXX) and NT.
29
It is in the Greek tense called aorist, and
refers to past actions. It means either "has reigned", or "became king". But
in some places, translators render it more freely, as a present tense
("reigns"), as they thought it would fit their understanding. The same verb
is used in Rev 11:17 in the same prophetic context: (NIB) "We give thanks
to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you
have taken your great power and have begun to reign."(.act.uca,,
ebasleusas = you have begun to reign).
Had John refered to the eternal kingship of God, this comes not
from a recent or a future enthronement. But in Rev 19, as in Rev 11:17, it
appears to be a kingdom that has a beginning, when history passes into
eschatology. And I understand that the kingdom of God Almighty is in this
case the enthronement of Christ for His millenial Kingdom.
In fact, Revelation 1:7-8 makes clear that Christ, the one who "is
coming"), is none else but Alpha and Omega, the Lord God Almighty, who
"is, and was, and is to come." This passage lies between the divine greeting
(v. 4-6) and the introductory vision (v. 9-20), and announces the blessed
hope contained in the Revelation:
NIB

"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even
those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn be-
cause of him. So shall it be! Amen.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God,
"who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
This Almighty God is certainly Christ, because the same language is
used by Christ in the Revelation's epilogue (Rev 22:12-13):

29
Gen. 36:32ff; Jos. 13:10, 12; Jda. 4:2; Jdg. 4:2; 1 Sam. 15:35; 2 Sam. 2:9ff; 5:4f; 8:15; 10:1;
1 Ki. 1:11, 13, 18, 43; 2:11, 46; 11:25, 42f; 12:24; 14:21, 31; 15:2, 10, 25, 28f; 16:8, 10, 15,
22, 28f; 22:40ff, 51f; 2 Ki. 3:1, 27; 8:15ff, 24ff; 9:13, 29; 10:35f; 11:12; 12:2, 22; 13:1, 9f, 24;
14:1f, 16, 23, 29; 15:1f, 5, 7f, 10, 13, 17, 22f, 25, 27, 30, 32f, 38; 16:1f, 20; 17:1; 18:1f; 19:37;
20:21; 21:1, 18f, 24, 26; 22:1; 23:31, 34, 36; 24:6, 8, 17f; 1 Chr. 1:44ff; 3:4; 18:14; 19:1; 23:1;
29:26, 28; 2 Chr. 1:13; 9:30f; 10:17; 12:13, 16; 13:1f, 23; 17:1; 20:31; 21:1, 5, 20; 22:1f, 12;
24:1, 27; 25:1; 26:3, 23; 27:1, 9; 28:1, 27; 29:1; 32:33; 33:1, 20f, 25; 34:1; 36:2, 5, 8ff; 1 Es.
1:33, 37, 41; Jdt. 1:1; Tob. 1:15, 21; Tbs. 1:15, 21; 1 Ma. 1:1, 7, 10; 6:2; 7:1; 10:1; 11:19, 54;
13:32; Ps. 46:9; 92:1; 95:10; 96:1; 98:1; Prov. 1:1; Sir. 47:13; Isa. 37:38; Jer. 44:1; 52:1, 31;
Dat. 9:1; Rom. 5:14, 17, 21; Rev. 19:6.
P a g e | 26

"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to eve-
ryone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
Thus the Almighty (:a|esa.) as a free translation of the He-
brew titles cbt ("Hosts", "Warrior", Sabaoth) or aDDay ("Amighty?", "Self-
sufficient?"), is a divine name, applied undiscriminately to God, either Fa-
ther or Son. In fact, you indirectly admit this equation, even though you do
not accept that Christ is Almighty God: "It is certainly appropriate to refer
to the Son as mighty, for he is powerful. It is also appropriate to refer to
him as God, for the Most High God himself refers to his Son as God in He-
brews 1:8. Therefore the terms 'everlasting Father' and 'The mighty God'
can rightly apply to the Son." Then please keep all the implications of which
you have admited.
Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 1:17
You wrote: "Because the term 'I am the first, and I am the last' is
used by Jesus in Revelation, some people conclude from reading this verse
that Jesus is the one and only God of the Bible or, at least, part of the one
God." We have shown above that these titles apply indiscriminately to both
Father and Son. Christ is certainly God, but he is not the same Person with
His "Father". He is a part of this paradoxical God we call Trinity, but not
only as a subject to God. He is also eternal and all-powerful as well as His
"Father".
Your problem is that you cannot see that the inspired author, John,
amphasizes both the humanity and the divinity of Christs. Since He is ONE
PERSON, then the divine and the human are combined in a mysterious
way, and we MUST recognize both natures in their fullest sense.
It is difficult to distinguish in OT speaking about the Lord God,
when it speaks of the Father, and when it speaks of the Son. If the Father
did all things through His Son, we may safely apply to Christ various refer-
ences, because Christ speaks in the Bible in the name of His Father. For ex-
ample, the scene of Isaiah 6:1, where Yahweh in glory is surrounded by
seraphim, is definitely applied to Jesus Christ (John 12: 37-43). Therefore,
we must conclude that the person speaking in Isaiah 44:6 may be very well
the pre-existent Christ. And even though Isaiah speaks about God the Fa-
P a g e | 27

ther, the application of John in Revelation is clearly to Christ. This is
through divine inspiration and we should better keep quiet and add noth-
ing.
You refer to the phrases beside me there is no God (Isaiah 44:6),
or Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (v. 8),
and you add that "This is very precise language to indicate that the speaker
is alone. All of the pronouns are singular, indicating that only one person is
speaking." Let me say, brother, that we should ask first, what is the practi-
cal purpose of this message? Then we can understand better this reference
to God's uniqueness. Because He is ONE (the SAME for all, and UNIQUE),
but He is not ALONE. He alone is God,
30
but He is not a lone Person, and as
we have shown above, there are even a few texts where God speaks of the
Godhead in plural:
TNK Is 6:8: Then I heard the voice of my Lord saying, "Whom shall I send?
Who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I; send me." (cf. Gen 1:26; 3:22;
11:7)
God is not alone. The monotheism of Moses is a theology of a plu-
rality (trinty) of divine persons in Godhead. Moses bowed and worshiped
another person of God, His Messenger (Exodus 3). And in fact THIS ONE is
the God who revealed Himself to Moses. Did Moses anything wrong when
He paid full adoration to this different Person who indtroduced Himself as
God?
The oneness of God is always stressed in the Bible in contrast with
idolatry and pagan polytheism. But the Biblical theology of God, biblical
monotheism is paradoxical, as well as all other realities about God. To se-
lect just some Biblical affirmations, in order to simplify this reality, is not a
wise method, and the result is a bright mutilated truth.
There is no wisdom in admitting sometimes the divinity of Christ,
and sometimes to negate it completely. To emphasize that He is Son only
and not the Father, makes no distinction. Your son is as human as you and
he has the absolute right to bear your family name. If you want, you may
give him your very personal name, in order to stress the relationship be-
tween father and son. Even if your son's authority is still lesser than yours

30
TNK (=JPS 1985) in Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone".
P a g e | 28

(at least for a time), there is no objection about the sameness of your na-
tures.
In Mark 12:32, Christ does not teach a lesson of systematic theolo-
gy. He just heps the scribe be consistent with his own Jewish understand-
ing, though still limited.
In John 8:54, Jesus also speaks as a Son of Man. He humbled Him-
self, by becoming human, to reveal God. So He taught people as a great
Prophet, and He revealed Himself as Messiah only to a limited number of
disciples. To introduce Himself as God, was not the burden of His message.
Yes the answer of the scribe in Mark 12:34 was correct, though not
complete. It was practical and good. Jesus never entered in any controver-
sy with people even for the most important doctrinal matters. For example,
though pharisees believed in the soul immortality, He did not directly con-
tradict them, but he stressed the truth about resurrection, and even used a
phantastic story to teach that beyond grave there is no hope of reconcilia-
tion to God. This is practical truth. He rather gave life to Lazarus and let him
free to tell anyone who would ask him, the other-wordly realities. Thus you
cannot have a good antitrinitarian proof in Jesus' answer. Such paradoxical
truth cannot be completely expressed in each instance. Sometimes the Bi-
ble stresses the plurality of persons, sometimes their subordination is em-
phasized, sometimes their unity of nature is stressed, and sometimes the
unity of character is stressed. Let God be God, as he wanted to reveal Him-
self. We cannot adjust and rationalize Him, according to humanistic mod-
els.
You wrote: "we can be completely sure who is speaking in Isaiah
44:6. He is God the Father and no one else. He is the ultimate first and last,
even though he allowed his Son to carry this title as well." What means this
"allowed"? How God could break His own Law (the first commandment), to
"allow" another to be called God, the First and the Last, etc., if that was not
really God, as truly God as Himself ? Divinity, the divine dignity cannot be
transferred. God cannot create another God, neither can He exalt a crea-
ture to this level. The difference is infinite.
Revelation 1:8
We already discussed this text above (p. 25).
P a g e | 29

1 John 5:20
It is the custom of John to emphasize the divinity of Christ, by mak-
ing paradoxical statements of identity:
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understand-
ing, so that we may know him who is true [God]. And we are in him who
is true [Christ as God] even in his Son Jesus Christ. He [Jesus Christ] is
the true God and eternal life.
21
Dear children, keep yourselves from
idols. 1Jn 5:20-21 NIB.
The true God is the One who revealed Himself in Christ. Thus if One
is in Christ, he/she is in God, because Christ is THE TRUE GOD revealed in
the flesh, as genuine as His Father. Any other model of god is an idol. AF-
TER mentioning Jesus Christ, John says: HE is the true God and eternal life.
This is not in distinction from His Father, but in absolute union with Him.
Jesus is the true God and our only hope of immortality.
The passage of John 17:3 does not contradict this conclusion, but
we should not forget that in 1 John 5, John is the person who speaks of
God and Jesus, stressing the divinity and the unity of Christ with God, while
in John 17, Jesus Himself speaks to God as a Son of Man, our representa-
tive, in an act of worship. He there adresses His Father, as a distinct person
from Himself, and we should not expect Jesus teach His Father the doctrine
of God...
Titus 2:13
You wrote that The Greek of this expression is ambiguous". Why is
it ambiguous? Only Jehovah's Wittnesses (see New World Bible) and some
modern translations attempted to make it sound: "the glory of the great
God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." But this is absolutely false. Here is the
Greek text with interlinear transliteration and translation:
, ee, eu .,aeu .eu sat c.e, .| `Iceu Xtceu,
ts dxs t megl The' kai sotros hmn Is' Christ'
of the glory of the great God and Saviour of ours: Jesus Christ.
In good English, it means "the glory of our great God and Saviour
Jesus Christ", thus making Christ, "our great God and Saviour". The pro-
noun HEMON (our) in Greek is put after its referent, not before the noun,
P a g e | 30

as in English. Here the pronoun refers to the whole expression "God and
Saviour". Now the nouns "God" and "Saviour" (The' kai sotros) are both
in genitive, because this is the syintactic rule in Greek, since it is an agree-
ment chain. Some thought that because SOTEROS (Savious) is in Genitive, it
may be translated as "of the Saviour", and thus the conjunction "and" links
two different persons, not two qualities of the same Person. In fact, this
indicates probably poor gnowledge of Greek, or possibly an interest to
speculate some Greek syntactic specialties, to manipulate the translation.
In fact, if Paul wanted to speak about two different persons (Father
and Christ) in this verse, he would have had the following wording:
, ee, eu .,aeu .eu sat eu c.e, .| `Iceu Xtceu
ts dxs t megl The' kai t sotros hmn Is' Christ'
of the glory of the great God and of the Saviour ours Jesus Christ
The highlighted word (a definite article in Genitive) is the only dif-
ference. Such syntax is present in Revelation 7:10; 20:6, for example.
You wrote: "This would be puzzling, to say the least, especially in
the writings of Paul, who regards Jesus as a divine Being but who consist-
ently insists that 'there is but one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6)."
If Jesus is a divine Being, and if only the Father's person is God
alone, then it is our turn to be amazed of your logic. How can one person
be "divine", without be fully God (Deity). Is the divinity a relative quality to
be shared with some heavenly beings on a preferential basis? We would
say, please, let this paradox to be as God pressed it in the Scriptures, and
do not try to cut it asunder, to get two half-truths, of which none can stand
up alone.
You say that in this text the point of Paul is about the glory of God.
But it doesn't matter what do you want to emphasize, or what is the real
object, the expression "our great God and Savious" hows clearly that Christ
is not only our Saviour, but also "our Great God". And in fact He could not
be our Saviour if he is not the Great God, the same nature (essence, sub-
stance, being) with the Father, but not the same Person (individual).
You wrote, "The Bible teaches that the Father does return with the Son"
(Rev 6:16). The reference is interesting, but this language ("...hide us from
the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!"
P a g e | 31

NIB) does not imply the actual presence of the One who sits of the throne,
nor even the Lamb, because this crying of the wicked occurs just before the
appearing of Christ, when all the nature is shaken at the mighty voice of
God. Since people hear the voice of God, trembling in the expectation of
Christ's immediate return, they want to be hide from the face of God, and
not to meet the one whom they have crucified. There is no Biblical "teach-
ing" about the coming of God with Christ in the Advent. Certainly, God is
always where He wants to be, and He shares with His Son all the joy of the
final meeting, as He shared the spiritual sufferings on the cross (2Cor 5:19).
But He is not present Himself in Person, at Christ's second coming. Neither
E. White attested the Father's actual presence in the Advent. However,
Christ promised to come again, not only in His Messianic glory, but also "in
the glory of His Father, with all the holy angels". It is not about the actual
presence of the Father, but about the majestic glory of God to accompany
the Son at His Second Coming (Mt 16:27; Mc 8:38):
"...the Son of Man ....comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of
the holy angels." (NIB Lk 9:26). "In the glory" can be also traslated "with the
glory". If God Himself would appear to the mortals at the Second Coming of
Christ, this should be made explicit in Scriptures, as an important revela-
tion. But we cannot find any clear statement in this sense. On the other
hand, the Old Testament describes the coming of Yahweh (Elohim) only.
There are no Biblical passage to show the visible appearing of two divine
persons at the second coming of Jesus. The magnific Advent of Yahweh of
OT, is explained as the second coming of Jesus Christ in NT.
We should not wonder of Paul calling Christ "our Great God and
Saviour". Is Jesus really Saviour? The Bible says that God is the only Saviour
(Hosea 13:4; Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; James 4:12). Thus Christ, to be Saviour, He
must be also God. Paul stresses the divine quality of Christ:
"Theirs [of the Jews] are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the
human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen."
Rom 9:5 NIB.
"...and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor 10:4 NKJ
("The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice; a God of faith-
fulness and without iniquity, just and right is He." Deut 32:4 JPS.)
P a g e | 32

The Pauline text of Philippians 2:6 also attests the divinity of Christ:
CJB:
"
Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with
God something to be possessed by force."
The Greek noun e| (morph) means 1. form (as outward ap-
pearance), figure, image; and 2. sort, kind, species, nature.
31
The term
transformation, which is a Latin translation of Gr. metamorphosis, is not
limited to just outward change. Even though many traditional translations
prefer to render the Gr. noun e| (morph) as form, or sometimes as
image, there are many modern translations that render this term as it fol-
lows, with the best connection to the context:
English
NIB (1973): "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped,
NLT (2004) Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as
something to cling to.
French
FBJ (1973) Lui, de condition divine, ne retient pas jalousement le rang qui
l'galait Dieu. [of divine condition]
TOB (1988) lui qui est de condition divine n'a pas considr comme une
proie saisir d'tre l'gal de Dieu. [of divine condition]
BFC (1997) Il possdait depuis toujours la condition divine, mais il n'a pas
voulu demeurer de force l'gal de Dieu. [He ever possesed the divine con-
dition]
Italian
IEP (1995) il quale, essendo per natura Dio, non stim un bene irrinuncia-
bile l'essere uguale a Dio. [being God by nature]
Portugues
SBP (2005) Ele, que por natureza era Deus, no quis agarrar-se a esse direi-
to de ser igual a Deus. [by nature was God]
Spanish
CAB (2003) el cual, siendo de condicin divina, no se encastill en ser igual
a Dios [being of divine condition]

31
See Friberg Lexicon, UBS Lexicon, LSJ Lexicon,
P a g e | 33

NVI (1999) quien, siendo por naturaleza Dios, no consider el ser igual a
Dios como algo a qu aferrarse. [being by nature God]
Old Romanian
NT Blgrad (1648) Care fiind n fire dumneziasc, nu-i pru rpitur a fi
asemenea cu Dumnezu. [being in divine nature]
We cannot say that the Son was only in outward for like God. The
outward appearance was shared also by the human species, when Adam
was created (male and female) in the image of God. Morph, in this case at
least, contrasting with schema (outward form), refers to a more profound
identity, to kind, species, nature.
John 1:1
Stump: "Jesus was not the same God he was with ! In other words,
the text is not trying to tell us that in the beginning Jesus was with himself,
so let us look at the verse very carefully to see what it is really saying."
Right. But who said that God and Christ here is the same individu-
al? The only issue is that the Word and God are Both God (divine), that is of
the same nature. Thus the preexistent Christ is of the very nature of God,
that is God in the fullness of Godhead, not as a nick-name or as a title. He
was THE CREATOR, not a creature, not even the first and most exalted
creature.
Your illustration with the "human" and the "woman" is very good,
as well as your conclusion: In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with
God, and Jesus was God [by nature /], and Jesus was divine. And you
seem to have got the whole teaching of this verse, since you wrote: "God
and Jesus have the same divine nature. Here we see that Jesus is as fully
divine as God, his Father, is divine and that Jesus is not the Father but the
Son of the Father." Again we ask, "Where is that SDA who claims that Christ
is the same Person with His Father? We only emphasize this text, because
we want to fully accept that Christ is God (fully, absolutely divine). "As well
as the woman is absolutely human, so Christ is absolutely God (= divine)".
P a g e | 34

Philippians 2:5-9
In your own words: "What was the position of Christ before he
came to earth? Was he human? Was he angelic? Where would he fall in
the classification of beings? Clearly, he was divine; he was in the category
of divinity. He was in the form of God. It was from this position that he de-
scended to the level of humanity. In other words, it was not an angel who
came to earth and it was not a human being, but rather it was One who
was at the utmost height of existence, even One Who was divine and, in
this respect, equal with God."
Excellent, we have no controversy in this point. You are a crypto-
trinitarian, or a future trinitarian? Up to this point, this is called binitarian-
ism. And is a step forward to trinitarianism. If you admit two divine per-
sons, in spite of the Rabbinic and Islamic belief in just One divine Person,
you are not a "pure" monotheist anymore, you are not a unitarian.
You further wrote that "it is not the divinity of Christ which is in
question. It is not the fact that he is equal with the Father in nature which
is in question. Rather, the problem is the concept of the Godhead which
makes Jesus the sovereign God himself (the supreme Being of the uni-
verse). This would destroy the truth that the Father is the highest authority
in the universe, the source of all, and that Jesus truly is his begotten Son."
We do not understand what is that wrong model of Godhead,
which you are fighting. If you mean a Supreme authority in the universe,
that is for us creatures, Father and Son and Holy Gost, the only Name ! But
if you refer to a hierarchical, functional subordination in the Trinity, the
Father is exalted by both Christ and the Spirit. The Bibl treats this topic as a
paradox, and let us admit all its facets, even though sometimes the appear
as contrary. As a known physicist said: "Contraria non contradictoria, sed
complementa sunt" (The opposed things may not be contradictory, but
complementary).
And what do you mean by the expression "that Jesus truly is his
begotten Son"? Do you mean a physical, organic birth of the preexisting
Christ, from God ? This is only a metaphor that people stretched to cover a
mystery, but if you take it as a physical, pre-historical fact, you will multiply
the confusion. You cannot make a doctrinal belief out of a metaphor. No-
where the Bible teaches such doctrine. There is only a false translation of
P a g e | 35

the Greek word MONOGENES (of John 1), based on the Nicaean Creed, and
a speculation over the terms "Son" and "Father". But if you want to be so
literal, you cannot have a Father without a mother. Some ancient heretics
speculated on the Hebrew word RUACH (Spirit), which in Hebrew is femi-
nine... So they found the Mother... But the Greek correspondent PNEUMA
is neutral (therefore, some say that the Spirit is "IT"...).
Regarding Colossians 1:19 ("For God was pleased to have all his fulness
dwell in him [Christ], NIB) you explain, "Here we see that it is the Father
who has ordained that the fullness of the godhead should dwell in Christ.
This makes it clear that the Father is greater than Jesus and is the One who
has ordained the status of Christ."
Nobody will deny that the Father is greater than Jesus, but we only
want to stress also the opposite, where the Bible teaches Christ's full divini-
ty and highness. This is a paradox, and we should in reverence keep it un-
mutilated. And we want to add that when God exalted Christ, this is not
only a prize for His victorious holy humanity, but in the background, it is
also Christ's eternal right, because He is God from eternity in the Highest
sense, as well as His Father. God did not create or procreate another God,
neither He exalted another one to His level, if that one had not been God
(of divine nature).
John 8:58
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. And
you added: "in other words, what Jesus was saying was, 'The truth is, I ex-
isted before Abraham was even born!'
Correct. But you should notice that Jesus does not say "I
was/existed before Abraham", but "Before Abraham was, I AM" (Gr. EGO
EIMI). John rendered so for his Greek readers, the first Hebrew reference
to the Great and ETERNAL GOD (see Exodus 3), that since became the
name YAHWEH He is [always] (<EHWEH, I am). No wonder that the Jews
were scandalized or that the divinity flashed up from within Him, whenever
He pronounced I AM (Gr. EGO EIMI).
32


32
CJB John 8:24 "This is why I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not trust
that I AM [who I say I am], you will die in your sins." 13:19 "I'm telling you now, before it
P a g e | 36

You said well:
The Hebrew expression that the term IAMis drawn from means to be
self-existent." Jesus noted in John 5:26, For as the Father hath life in
himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. Jesus has self-
existent life, but this life, he says, was given to him by the Father. It is
this life that enables Jesus to be the Author of creation and to exist be-
fore all things (Colossians 1:16; Proverbs 8:22-30; John 1:3).
I guess you are aware that to be "self-existent" and to have a life
given by another cannot easily be put up together. If Christ as God is self-
existent, and also we say that He received that "self-existence" from an-
other, this is a plain contradiction. The self-existent Being has the life in
Himself, from all eternity, without beginning. If one receives this immortali-
ty from God, we might say he is an angel, but not a God.
But if you think in what condition and quality Jesus speaks about
Himself (as a Son of Man!), then you understand that the unique Person of
Christ, living this earthly life in human consciousness, stated that He, the
Man Jesus Christ, received from the Father His self-existence, when He re-
ceived divine nature, at His supernatural conception. Since Christ is not
simply the Man Jesus of Nazareth, but the Word-God who became flesh,
hiding His divinity in the human Being of Jesus Christ, therefore He could
say that the Father made Him to have life in Himself. This is from His hu-
man perspective. But from the divine perspective, Christ has in Himself life
unborrowed, underived.
Isaiah 43:10
Isaiah 43:10 says: Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my
servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and un-
derstand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall
there be after me (Isaiah 43:10).

happens; so that when it does happen, you may believe that I AM [who I say I am]." 18:6
"When he said, 'I AM,' they went backward from him and fell to the ground."



P a g e | 37

In this text, Messiah is called My Servant, so that the One wo
speaks is God the Father. The Son of God in this verse is portrayed as a fu-
ture Servant (Slave), a lower than humiliating condition. This verse stresses
the Supreme authority of God, without contradicting His original and secret
highest nobility (that He was and still is GOD-divine).
In the same time, this verse has a logical flaw, and it is a good ex-
ample to teach us more carefulness, when we draw conclusions from the
Bible. The verse says: "before me there was no God formed". Does Isaiah
say that Israel's God was the first God to be formed? Probably not !!! How-
ever, his language implies this logic, that we think he did not intend. We
checked it against the Hebrew original. There is not textual variation or
syntactic or linguistic problem. This is a warning for those who want to out-
stretch the logic of the text, in order to conclude that the preexistent Christ
has a remote beginning in the eternity past. Such logic would use also this
text to apply it also to the Father (the first God who was ever formed !!! -
ridiculous).
Then you added Isaiah 43:12: I have declared, and have saved,
and I have showed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore
ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Please, tell us, what
about that divine "Messenger", who actually led Israel through the wilder-
ness ? Was He a strange God? As you said, Israel "came to know that he is
the only true God." We apply this uniqueness to that Messenger, as well as
to His Sovereign sender. God did not revealed all the truth about Him in
those days, because people were inclined to polytheism in those days, and
they would have been ready to develop a cult of the Angel(s), distinct from
the cult of the Supreme God, as well as they worshipped Nehushtan (the
serpent of bronze). Therefore the OT even hid much of the truth about Sa-
tan. He would have chances to become a worshipped demon, to be ap-
peased.
John 10:17, 18
John 10:17, 18 say: Therefore doth my Father love me, because I
lay down mylife, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I
lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take
it again. This commandment have I received of my Father (John 10:17, 18).
P a g e | 38

You have written: "These verses are often used to support the idea
that Jesus did not really, truly, and fully die, and that he was able to raise
himself from the dead..... Christ had the authority or permission to lay
down his life so that he could receive it again from his Father. Christ could
not, and did not, raise himself from the dead, for then he could not have
been dead. In the prophecy of Christs complete death, recorded in Psalm
88:8, Christ says, I am shut up, and I cannot come forth.
There is no dispute about the fact that Father has risen Jesus
Christ. But this is not the whole truth. While it was the Father's authority
(since Christ deposed His authority at incarnation), it was also the Son's
divine nature at work, and also the Spirit's work (as at His birth) and even
angels joined to this great miracle:
"The soldiers see him [the angel] removing the stone as he would a
pebble, and hear him cry, Son of God, come forth; Thy Father calls Thee.
They see Jesus come forth from the grave, and hear Him proclaim over the
rent sepulcher, "I am the resurrection, and the life."... [785]... When the
voice of the mighty angel was heard at Christ's tomb, saying, Thy Father
calls Thee, the Saviour came forth from the grave by the life that was in
Himself. Now was proved the truth of His words, "I lay down My life, that
I might take it again. . . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again." Now was fulfilled the prophecy He had spoken to the priests
and rulers, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John
10:17, 18; 2:19. Over the rent sepulcher of Joseph, Christ had proclaimed in
triumph, "I am the resurrection, and the life." These words could be spo-
ken only by the Deity. All created beings live by the will and power of
God. They are dependent recipients of the life of God. From the highest
seraph to the humblest animate being, all are replenished from the Source
of life. Only He who is one with God could say, I have power to lay down
My life, and I have power to take it again. In His divinity, Christ possessed
the power to break the bonds of death. The Desire of Ages (1898:
780.785).

That Christ died completely is a great truth, but it applies only to
His humanity. The divinity could not die. Christ soul (consciousness) was
"sleeping" in death, as it is with all mortals. Yes as a Man, he could not
P a g e | 39

even think in death, but even dead, He was in the same time the Living
God, the eternal source of all life. I hope you will not take the course that
Christ's divinity died on the cross !
"Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine na-
ture of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended
in one person the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature
that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible."
E. G. White, (Letter 280, 1904), in S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 5 (1956:
1113), Lift Him Up (1988: 76) et al.
Add to this, please, 1 Pet 3:18: "For Christ died for sins once for all,
the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death
in the body but made alive by the Spirit." (NIB)
Thus God raised Jesus from the dead by His Spirit (see Rom 8:11).
He sent an angel to call Him out of the grave and other angels to help, but
the power of His resurrection, the life itself, was His own divine life. Even
when He performed miracles, completely subject to God's authority, and
always by His Spirit, however the fountain of all that power as in Himself, in
His absolute divinity, that was hidden:

"But Jesus said, 'Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out
from me.' " (Luke 8:46, NIB)
John 2:19
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
You wrote: "One of the difficulties with accepting the Trinitarian in-
terpretation of this verse is that there are more than thirty texts in the Bi-
ble which state that the Father raised Jesus from the dead".
See the explanation above. Biblical truth is not statistic. All Biblical
statements must be true, if they come from God, even if they are some-
times opposing one another, and apparently contradicting each other. Just
one different statement is important, even though it might me disturbing
for a time. We are not free to dispose of some indesirable Biblical phrases,
P a g e | 40

in order to maintain an apparently more reasonable and harmonious sys-
tem of beliefs.
You said, "In fact, all the apostles taught that Jesus was raised from
the dead by the Father. Can one text override the testimony of thirty?" No,
Sir ! But the teaching of this only verse may complement the others. We
definitely oppose to such statistic methodology, because it is not Biblical.
Statistics ha its own importance, but not to supersede the word of God.
Thus, the real weight of evidence is not statistical, but spiritual. We do not
count the evidence, we are weighing it. Thus you don't need to explain
away this verse, because it is an acceptable evidence to be added to some
other proofs mentioned above. Thus we would not say that "Jesus spoke in
a way that may best be described as cryptic". The text is in good harmony
with other similar statements, and with the whole Biblical truth.
Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we
should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for
us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And you say: "How could the Scriptures refer to the Spirit as it, if
the Spirit is God?" It depends on the translator, and on the target language.
Actually the Greek word for Spirit (PNEUMA) is neutral in gender, as is also
TEKNON (child), PAIDION / PAIDARION (little child), DAIMONION (demon,
spirit, god). In Hebrew, the equivalent word RUACH (spirit, wind, breath
etc.) is feminine !! Thus we should not confuse a grammatical category
with a logical category. For example, I say, "IT's you, who are wrong this
time"; and you may not agree with my assertion, but you will surely agree
that IT in this case refers to somebody, not to something.
You also say, "but when there is a union of body and spirit, we are
now dealing with a person and it would be inappropriate to refer to a per-
son as it." First, not each person must be a union of body and spirit. A body
is the expression of existence of any creature. There are earthly and heav-
enly bodies (1 Cor 15) though angels are spirits. But God is not body, He is
Spirit (Jn 4), though He probably manifests Himself in a visible human-like
P a g e | 41

image
33
in Heaven (Mt 18:10; Rev 22:4; Gen 1:26). An "THE SPIRIT" is a spir-
it in the strictest sense, expressing thus His divine nature. He has not even
a personal appearance or a definite space where He should be present. He
is God everywhere, or at least in different places concommitantly (Ps
139:7-12). Thus the Spirit is a "person", or if you find this term confusing,
you may choose "individual", "conscious distinct entity", even though He is
not a union of body and soul. He is SOMEONE, not SOMETHING, simply be-
cause He is treated as such in the Scripture.
But you selected (1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one
mediator / intercessor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.) to
argue that Christ only is intercessor. We cannot agree with your method-
ology of killing scripture by scripture. 1 Tim 2:5 refers to a unique human
intercessor: THE MAN Jesus Christ. This statement does not prevent a Di-
vine Person to intercess in some way.
You further wrote: "According to 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians
4:5, there is one Lord, who is Jesus Christ." What conclusion should we
draw from these scriptures? Would you argue that the Father Himself is
not Lord, because only Jesus is here called Lord? Who is Lord in Mat 4:10;
Jude 4, Ap 11:4; Gen 15:2; Mal 1:6?
As regards 2 Cor 3:17 (Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.), please read also the following trans-
lations:

NJB:
34
"Now this Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is freedom."
CJB:
35
"Now, 'ADONAI' in this text means the Spirit. And where the Spirit
of ADONAI
36
is, there is freedom."

33
"Man was to bear God's image, both in outward resemblance and in character." E. G.
White (1890), PP 44-57. "When Adam came from the Creator's hand, he bore, in his physi-
cal, mental, and spiritual nature, a likeness to his Maker. . ." E. G. White (1903) Education,
page 15. The Hebrew term for "image", :s celem, refers to physical form, and only rarely
(in fact only in Genesis 5 probably) has a figurative meaning (moral image).

34
New Jerusalem Bible, 1985, Darton, Longman & Todd Limited and Doubleday.
35
Complete Jewish Bible, 1998; David H. Stern; Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.
www.messianicjewish.net/jntp. Distributed by Messianic Jewish Resources International.
P a g e | 42

Since the Greek syntax seems at first glance to be ambiguous, most
prefered to do a word-for-word translation, rendering the English words in
the same order as in Greek: "Now the Lord is the Spirit..."(NIB). Many un-
derstand this phrase as meaning that "the Lord is Spirit". But the context
reveals another aspect: it is about the living "service of the SPIRIT", against
the poor "service of the letter of the Law" (v. 7-8). And in v. 17-18 Paul re-
peatedly refers to "the Spirit of THE LORD", where this lordship is connect-
ed to the idea of freedom. Only in perfect submission is perfect delight to
be free, when you are not the slave of the letter (the distant written Law),
but the slave of God in Christ, through the SPIRIT. The Lordship of God in
Christ is actually executed in our hearts by THE SPIRIT. Therefore The Spirit
Himself is the Lord. Paul does not say that the Lord is spirit, but that The
Spirit is (the/this/that) Lord. It is also called the Spirit of the Lord, because
He represents the indwelling of Christ in us.
This is another proof that the Spirit is a divine individual. Otherwise
He could not be Lord. Your quotation of E. G. White rather speaks in favor
of our exegesis above:
"So the Lord himself must kindle in our hearts the burning desire, if our
prayers are acceptable to him. The Holy Spirit within must make inter-
cessions for us, with groanings that cannot be uttered (The Review and
Herald, February 9, 1897).
Please note the equation THE LORD HIMSELF = THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Possibly His intercession is different from Christ's; Christ intercedes before
God, and the Lord Spirit intercedes within us, to receive. I did not a suffi-
cient study of this question. Anyway, He thus represents well Christ's
Parakletic ministry, and there is no motive to question the validity of this
Pauline statement about the Spirit's intercession. Rather, you should be
careful to observe that an intercession is the work of a conscious entity, of
a person.
Acts 5:3, 4
You says that the Spirit of God is the inward person of God.

36
ADONAI is the Hebrew term for the SOVEREIGN GOD; never a created thing/being is ever
called ADONAI.
P a g e | 43

There are, indeed several biblical passages where "spirit" is used as
synonym with soul, self, consciousness, heart, person (Lk 1:80; Jn 4:23; Rom
2:29; Hag 1:14; 2Cr 36:22; 2 Tim 4:22) but there are also clear passages
where "spirit" denotes a superhuman entity, even when it is called "the
spirit of N". How can a human spirit be imparted to others, empowering
them to do superhuman works, or knowing secrets of the people ?

...."Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit," Elisha replied.

..... The
company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, "The
spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha." And they went to meet him and
bowed to the ground before him. "Look," they said, .....Perhaps the Spirit
of the LORD has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in
some valley." NIB 2 K 2:9.15-16
...Elisha said to him, "Was not my spirit with you when the man got down
from his chariot to meet you?... NIB 2 K 5:26
in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit,
with the power of our Lord Jesus, ...[have decided].

ASV 1 Cor 5:4

In Rev. 3:1; 4:5; 5:6 we read of "the seven spirits of God", in close
connection with God and Jesus Christ only. These ones must represent a
personal entity, because they send greetings (Rev 1), and are sent out by
God into all the earth (ch. 5, cf Zec 4:10). This is a symbol of the multiple,
diverse and perfect work of the Spirit, as well as the entire Church is
symbolized by seven churches. This plural reference is also mentioned in
Rev 22:6: "The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel
to show his servants the things that must soon take place." cf Rev 19:10).
The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, there is no a Spirit of the Fa-
ther, and a Spirit of the Son:
NIB
Rom 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by
the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have
the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
NIB
1 Pet 1:11 ...the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in
them [the Prophets]...
NIB
Acts 16:7 but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.
NIB
Phil 1:19 your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
NIB
Gal 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our
hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father."
P a g e | 44

Does the Spirit call Himself "Abba"? No! Because the Spirit of the
Father is also the Spirit of the Son, only He may help us pray as Jesus, in the
name of Jesus, adressing God as our Father.
But there are still more definite scriptures about the personality of
the Spirit. When the word SPIRIT is not directly linked to a person, it is al-
ways a PERSON itself:
NIB
Mk 1:23 ...a man ... possessed by an evil spirit cried out, ...26 The evil
spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
NIB
AA 19:2 "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They an-
swered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." (Did
not they know that God has a spirit?")
NIB
Hebrews 1:14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those
who will inherit salvation?

As regards 1 Cor 2:11 ("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"), this is only a com-
parison, to help us understand the intimate work of the Spirit. But we must
not draw the conclusion that God's Spirit is just His own searching mind /
self. In the same manner, when Isaiah speaks about Messiah naming him
"the Arm of Yahweh" (Is 51:9-10; 53:1), he does not mean that Messiah is a
physical part of God, and not a distinct individual. In fact The Spirit is
elswhere called "the finger of God"
But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God
has come upon you.

Mt 12:28 NIB
But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God
has come to you.

Lk 11:20 NIB

Now you may agree, that finger and mind are not the same thing,
but both are just metaphors to describe some of the atributes and qualities
of the Spirit.
Finally, we add some E. G. White quotations regarding the Holy
Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ's name. He personifies Christ,
yet is a distinct personality. MR No. 1487 / 20 MR 324 (Ms 93, 1893).
P a g e | 45

We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God
is a person, is walking
37
through these grounds.... The Holy Spirit is a per-
son, for He beareth witness with our spirits
38
that we are the children of
God. Manuscript 66, 1899. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale
School; Ev 616).
The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven,
is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the pow-
er of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal
Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name
of these three great powers --the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--
those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers
will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to
live the new life in Christ.-- Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, pp. 62, 63.
(1905)
The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our
spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also
be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie
hidden in the mind of God. [1Cor 2:10-11:]"For what man knoweth the
things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things
of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."--Manuscript 20, 1906. (Ev
617)
Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of
the Third Person of the Godhead, who would come with no modified en-
ergy, but in the fullness of divine power. (DA 1898: p. 671).


37
Clearly, Ellen White did not imagine the Person of the Spirit as a human body. This is just a
metaphor to emphasize His presence and work in that place.
38
Cf Romans 8:16, KJV: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of God"