Provided he remained loyal to his loyality just as SOP stated...
...He could have chosen to sin in heaven as easily as he could have on earth in human flesh.
I rather still see that (a) Christ Divinity then was still underived and unborrowed, thus outrightly His and (b) the SOP does not makes this conditionality statement for the pre-Incarnate Jesus.
Had Christ "sinned" it was the identity of the pre-Incarnate Michael that would have ceased to exist...
...The human flesh of Michael was just a husk - no big deal.
...Sister White was explicit that whatever it was that was Michael prior to Incarnation.
...Was what Risked it's "Future" eternal existence.
Who says Michael had “human flesh”. As I understand it, though He may have had a concrete physical form (cf. EW 77.1 & 54.2)), it was still of the same Divine substance as the Father’s. That’s what He entirely eternally sacrificed on the Cross and now, at best, has the form of a Mighty Angel, an upgrade from His post resurrection, Human-only, Incarnate form.
NJK: John 3:16 says “gave” (#1325) not “sent” (#3992). The “send” in vs. 17 (#649) has the notion of commissioned as in the mission of an apostle.
cephalopod: I meant to say 1 John 4:9....
...Which does say "SENT".
It does but that “Sent” is the same as in the one in John 3:l7 mentioned above, thus also distinctly meaning “commissioned”. It focuses more on the mandate than on the action. Nothing here involving Christ’s nature, but rather what Jesus was supposed to accomplish while on earth as He repeatedly indicated (e.g, John 5:19, 20; 8:28; Heb 10:7, 9)
Originally Posted By: NJK
-If a Divine Being sins they indeed are susceptible to death.
A Divine Being that's Devine due to conferred deity being given to them....
...Sister White said it would be impossible for Diety to sink and die.
...But absolutely possible for Michael the archangel to sink and die.
You patently wrongly conflately state what EGW actually said with what you
think she said. I personally do not see any explicit, nor even implicit, SOP support for your posited/purported ‘Michael vs. Deity’ claim here, nor also, as already stated, your related “conferred”, actually, to me, mere
hypothesis, at best.
In ancient times God spoke through the apostles and prophets ( the Bible )....
...In Sister White's times God spoke to the people via Sister White.
...Who had more visions than ALL the people mentioned in the so called Bible put together.
...That's a fact many in the SDA church are now trying to push under the carpet.
You can (re)read my understanding on why EGW
needed to have more visions in
this previous response (Post #130939) to this claim of yours, (as well as other restated ones).
Her actual writings were inspired, the human agencies pushing "corrected paper-work to Sister White were not....
She was the one who had asked them to review and (suggestively) provide any deemed improvements, which they did and she then chose whether to go by them or not. She also made many of those later edits herself. And as those came after her first draft and were indeed corrections in many cases and/or additions for what should have been said, it still sinks your “Sock Puppet” verbal inspiration view as this implies that God was both erroneous and deficient the first time around. You seem quite willing to sacrifice a lot to uphold your view of EGW. I.e., the “Word of God” and now, effectively the inerrant God Himself. That’s not Biblical to say the least.
...And I don't think Sister White signing off on things was absolutely inspired either.
What are you saying here... EGW was not under the guidance of God’s Spirit when selecting what is best for her writings??! That goes against what she says for such third party contribution selective matters, as she did when selecting things from other non-SDA authors.
...Which is why I've taken pains to get 1st edition works of Sister White.
You are therefore keyly missing out onher many significant improvements (Pro 20:6) E.g., as explained in
here, Jesus did not say in John 20:17 - “Do not touch me” as she first believed, but more along the lines of her later (in DA) “Do not detain me”.
NJK: -4T 14 & 5T 691.1 - to not imply that ‘everything EGW wrote was either all by the “commission of God or directly from God or verbatim (=verbal inspiration).
Cephalopod: Well, I see we just won't be agreeing on this part....
...I see Sister White as an actual Sock Puppet with God's hand up in her.
...Controlling just when the mouth opens and what comes out of that mouth.
I understand your view. I just don’t moreoverly see the Truthfulness in this needed “stuttering”/mispeaking/mistaken process by God.
When I first heard this way of thinking of it I was shocked and disturbed.....
...However when the person produced a sock puppet and started reading the SOP, I GOT it.
I am not following your denouement here.
The JW's have done pretty well I'd say, at least the actual headquarters has nearly a billion in liquid cash...
...With around 16 million members with approx 8 million being active members.
..That's not that bad I'd say.
First of all, in passing, from what I
historically read about JW’s, with their actually distinct 1870 founding by Charles Russell, they do not technically qualify as an original “Adventist” group, per se. he was only influenced in 1869 by an Adventist Church (not SDA) preacher, who himself had been influenced by William Miller.
Nonetheless, their membership growth is quite noteworthy however in terms of total Ecclesiastical and Institutional Growth, they do not compare to the SDA Church, in fact only the Catholic Church does, and member-per-member, the SDA Church actually blows out the Catholic Church in terms of institutions. I.e., if the SDA Church had 1.2 Billion members, they would have many times more institutions that the Catholic Church presently has.
I also am not seeing what you find so remarkable about JW’s ‘having nearly a billion in liquid cash at the headquarters’. I assume you mean the Highest level of their Church structure. For one thing, the SDA Church takes in
over $2.7 Billion in tithes and offerings (which is given by members in some “liquid cash” form)
alone each year. And given the Bible model of the SDA Church where this money is not hoarded but used to fund the Churches institutions, most of this money is not held at the conference levels (i.e., banks and not the office headquarters themselves), though, as I understand it, a part of it is invested in the stock market. What a Church does with its money towards tangibly fulfilling Christ’s Gospel Commission is more determinative than how much money they have saved up.
The JW’s
Personal Evangelism active membership criteria/distinction is interesting and noteworthy. If this was done in the SDA Church perhaps the active membership would only be that famous ‘one in 20' SOP statement. (ChS 41 (1893). {LDE 172.1}) In fact, the weekly Church attending membership is, if I recall exactly only ca. 50% of the total baptized membership. If the Church was really serious about at least Personal Evangelism (=true membership), then the books would more accurately reflect the real strength of this Israel vs. the current, effectively, propagandizing figures.
