Responding to the claim: “Jesus never literally said ‘I am God.’”

I. The Misleading Standard

• If we demand a word-for-word modern English phrase, we’d have to reject many doctrines:

  • “I am not God” (not in the Bible).

  • “Second Coming” (exact term not used).

  • Even “Bible” itself.

• The real question: Did Jesus claim what only God can claim, in the language His audience understood?

---

II. Direct Claims to Deity (in Jewish Context)

Passage	Claim / Action	OT Background	Audience Reaction	Why It’s a Claim to Deity
John 8:58	“Before Abraham was, I AM.”	Exodus 3:14 — God’s self-name: YHWH (“I AM”).	They tried to stone Him (v.59).	Jesus took God’s covenant name for Himself.
John 10:30–33	“I and the Father are one.”	Deut. 6:4 — YHWH is one.	They accused Him of making Himself God.	Oneness in essence, not just purpose.
Mark 2:5–7	Forgives sins.	Isaiah 43:25 — Only God forgives sins.	Religious leaders call it blasphemy.	Claimed God’s exclusive right.
John 5:17–18	“My Father is working… and I am working.”	God alone sustains creation.	Jews sought to kill Him for making Himself equal with God.	Claimed same divine prerogative.
John 20:28	Accepts Thomas’ worship: “My Lord and my God.”	OT worship addressed only to YHWH.	No correction given.	Receives divine worship.
Hebrews 1:8–10	Father calls the Son “God” and “Lord” (YHWH).	Psalm 45:6–7, Psalm 102:25.	Apostolic teaching.	Explicit testimony of divine nature.
Titus 2:13	“Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”	God alone is Savior (Isa. 43:11).	Pauline affirmation.	Jesus identified as both God and Savior.

---

III. Understanding “The Father is Greater than I” (John 14:28)

• Role, not essence: Jesus humbled Himself in the incarnation (Phil. 2:6–8).

• In function, the Father was “greater” during His earthly ministry.

• In nature, He remained fully God (Col. 2:9).

---

IV. Why Jesus Speaks of “My God” (John 20:17)

• Reflects His true humanity — the Son took on our dependence on God (Heb. 2:17).

• Shows His role as our representative before the Father.

• Does not deny His divine essence.

---

V. Apostolic Witness

• Paul: One God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ) in the Shema (1 Cor. 8:6).

  • “God” = Father; “Lord” = YHWH title for the Son — both in the same divine identity.

• Peter: Jesus is “God and Savior” (2 Pet. 1:1).

• John: Jesus is “the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20).

---

VI. Summary

• Jesus did claim deity — but in Jewish terms, not modern English.

• His enemies understood Him perfectly, which is why they accused Him of blasphemy.

• Denying His full deity is not “honoring Him as He described Himself” — it’s remaking Him into a lesser being.

• The Jesus who is less than fully God cannot save (John 8:24).

---

Conclusion:

• The Bible doesn’t need the phrase “I am God” in English to prove Christ’s deity.
  
  
• It contains His divine claims, His acceptance of worship, the Father’s own testimony about Him, and the apostles’ repeated identification of Him as God in the flesh.
  
  
• To worship Him as anything less is to worship a different Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4).

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

The Striking Similarity Between the SDA “Three Holiest Beings” and the Mormon Godhead

Seventh-day Adventists (SDA) will often say, “We’re not like the Mormons when it comes to the Godhead.” But when you examine the language of Ellen G. White and compare it to Joseph Smith’s teachings, the similarities are far closer than most realize—especially in their denial of oneness of Being.

---

1. Both use plural, separate “Beings” language.

• Ellen G. White — In Evangelism, p. 615, she describes the Godhead as:

  “The eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit—… the three holiest beings in heaven.” 

  She portrays Christ and the Holy Spirit as “heavenly dignitaries” alongside the Father in the “councils of heaven.”

• Joseph Smith — In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370, he taught:

  “They are three distinct personages and three Gods.” 

  He stressed they have different bodies, essences, and functions—united in purpose, not in nature.

• Problem: The biblical Trinity is one God in three Persons—not three separate divine beings. By calling them “beings” instead of “Persons” in the classical Christian sense, Ellen White mirrors Mormon thought: three divine individuals, united only in mission.

---

2. Both imply a polytheistic-sounding structure.

• SDA usage: Ellen White’s phrase “three holiest beings” suggests three separate divine centers of consciousness, equal in authority, but not necessarily sharing one divine essence.

• Mormon teaching: Smith openly declared there are “three Gods” who are perfectly united in purpose (p. 372).

• Biblical refutation:

  • “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deut. 6:4)

  • “I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God.” (Isa. 45:5)
    
    
    Scripture affirms one God in Being—not three beings.

---

3. Both promote a “council in heaven” storyline.

• Ellen White: Describes Christ and the Holy Spirit with the Father in a heavenly council before creation or the plan of salvation. (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 36)

• Joseph Smith: Taught a literal council of Gods planning the creation (Abraham 3:22–24, LDS Pearl of Great Price).

• Problem: This framing can give the impression of multiple divine beings meeting to coordinate, rather than one eternal, coequal, coeternal Being acting in perfect unity.

---

4. Both avoid historic creedal Trinitarian language.

• Historic Christian orthodoxy (Nicene and Athanasian Creeds) clearly states: “One Being, three co-equal Persons.”

• Neither Ellen White nor Joseph Smith used “one Being” language. Instead, they speak of “beings” or “personages” that are separate from one another.

---

5. Both define “oneness” as unity of purpose, not unity of Being.

• Ellen White — Writes of the Godhead being “one in purpose” and “pledged themselves to save man” (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p. 62). There is no affirmation that they are ontologically one Being.

• Joseph Smith — Explicitly denies they are one Being:

  “They are one in purpose, in the same way any three men might be.” (Teachings, p. 372)

• Biblical contrast:
  
  
  Jesus says in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.”
  
  
  This is not “one in purpose only,” but one in essence (Greek: ἕν, neuter—oneness of nature, not merely agreement).

---

6. The Satanic deception factor.

This is a classic theological bait-and-switch: use the same labels (“Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit”) but redefine them. In theology, this is called equivocation—keeping the vocabulary but changing the meaning.

Just as Satan in Genesis 3 did not directly say “God does not exist” but distorted God’s character and words, these altered Godhead definitions present a different God under familiar names.

---

Why This Matters

• SDA & Mormonism: Both redefine the Godhead as multiple beings who work together, rather than one Being who is God.

• Biblical Christianity: Teaches that there is only one God in Being, yet three in Person—coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial.

• Danger: Changing the nature of God—even in subtle wording—changes the entire foundation of the gospel (John 17:3).
  
  

Conclusion

Both SDA and Mormonism deny the ontological oneness of God.

• Mormonism does it openly: three Gods united in purpose.

• SDA writings of Ellen White do it subtly: “three holiest beings” united in mission.

But the Bible’s testimony is clear: there is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4) who eternally exists as three co-equal, co-eternal Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—sharing one divine Being.

---

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

QUESTION: "I am still confused which "curtain" did Jesus Christ opened and went in, in 1844. On the crucifixion day curtain in the temple split from top to the bottom."

 

Answer:

That “1844 curtain” idea is pure SDA myth-making, and it’s actually based on a complete misreading of Scripture. Let’s break it down so it’s crystal clear.

1. The Only Curtain the Bible Talks About at the Cross

When Jesus died, the veil (καταπέτασμα / katapetasma) in the Jerusalem temple was torn in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45). This veil separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (Exodus 26:33). God tore it as a dramatic sign that access to His presence was now open through Christ’s death — no more human priesthood, no more yearly atonement ritual, no more barrier. Hebrews 10:19–20 explains exactly what that veil meant:

“…we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that He opened for us through the curtain, that is, His flesh.”

Notice:

• The tearing happened in AD 30-ish, not in 1844.
  
  
• The “curtain” is symbolic of Jesus’ body — once His flesh was torn (crucifixion), the way into God’s presence was opened.
  
  

2. SDA’s Invented "Second Curtain" in 1844

Adventist teaching says that in 1844, Jesus supposedly moved from the “Holy Place” to the “Most Holy Place” in heaven to start the Investigative Judgment. They claim this is the real entrance behind the “second veil” (Hebrews 9:3) — and that the one torn in AD 30 was just symbolic of access to the first room, not the innermost presence of God. This is built entirely on William Miller’s failed prophecy + Ellen G. White’s visions, not on the biblical text.

The problem:

• Hebrews 9:12 says Christ entered once for all into the Most Holy Place immediately after His ascension, “by means of His own blood.” That’s around AD 30, not 1844.
  
  
• There’s no verse that says He waited 1,814 years outside the throne room.
  
  

3. The Historical-Grammatical Reality

If we read Hebrews in context:

• The earthly temple had "two curtains" — one at the entrance to the Holy Place, one between the Holy and Most Holy.
  
  
• The New Covenant temple is heaven itself (Hebrews 9:24).
  
  
• Jesus didn’t pass curtain-by-curtain like an earthly priest He entered directly into the Father’s presence after His resurrection (Hebrews 6:19–20).

By AD 30:

• The earthly curtain was torn signifying the entire system of separation was finished.
  
  
• The heavenly reality was already accessed Christ was seated at the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3).
  
  

4. Why the SDA 1844 “Curtain” is False

• It rebuilds the wall between God and man that Christ already tore down (Ephesians 2:14–18).
  
  
• It denies the sufficiency of the cross by saying the Most Holy Place access only started in 1844.
  
  
• It contradicts Hebrews, which says we already have a High Priest in the very presence of God (Hebrews 4:14–16).
  
  

Biblical Bottom Line:

• The only veil Christ “opened” was the one torn on the cross symbolizing immediate, direct access to God for all believers, forever.
  
  
• 1844 adds a second, imaginary veil God never put there, based not on Scripture but on a failed prophecy that Ellen White had to patch with “new light.”