Did God give Miller a false message on purpose?

[tall73]

This was buries due to the bug...

Was the Millerites' message false?

Did Jesus come in 1843?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Hi, Jim.

Ellen is herself codified in the fundumental beliefs #18, where it is claimed:
As the Lord's messenger, her (Ellen's) writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.

That right there makes it impossible for Adventism to simply dismiss Ellen.

It is also only in Ellen's writings that you can define the coded phrase "law of love" that appears in fundamental #10. I have sorted through these fundamentals before for another member on CARM, and I consider about 2/3 of the fundamentals to have dependence on Ellen White for at least part of their verbiage.

Victor

Guidance, instruction and correction does not make a doctrine and that is what is being claimed. I have never said that her writings were to be ignored. What I said was that the Bible is the fundamental basis for all of our doctrines.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. Welcome to CF. I seem to remember you from Carm. It's been a long time since I was there.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Hi, Jim.

Ellen is herself codified in the fundumental beliefs #18, where it is claimed:
As the Lord's messenger, her (Ellen's) writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.

That right there makes it impossible for Adventism to simply dismiss Ellen.

It is also only in Ellen's writings that you can define the coded phrase "law of love" that appears in fundamental #10. I have sorted through these fundamentals before for another member on CARM, and I consider about 2/3 of the fundamentals to have dependence on Ellen White for at least part of their verbiage.

Victor

Guidance, instruction and correction does not make a doctrine and that is what is being claimed. I have never said that her writings were to be ignored. What I said was that the Bible is the fundamental basis for all of our doctrines.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. Welcome to CF. I seem to remember you from Carm. It's been a long time since I was there

 

[Jimlarmore]

Hi, Jim.

Ellen is herself codified in the fundumental beliefs #18, where it is claimed:
As the Lord's messenger, her (Ellen's) writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.

That right there makes it impossible for Adventism to simply dismiss Ellen.

It is also only in Ellen's writings that you can define the coded phrase "law of love" that appears in fundamental #10. I have sorted through these fundamentals before for another member on CARM, and I consider about 2/3 of the fundamentals to have dependence on Ellen White for at least part of their verbiage.

Victor

Guidance, instruction and correction does not make a doctrine and that is what is being claimed. I have never said that her writings were to be ignored. What I said was that the Bible is the fundamental basis for all of our doctrines.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Here's an article from the Biblical research site of our church on Desmond Ford if anyone is interested:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/desmondfordtheology.htm

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

Guidance, instruction and correction does not make a doctrine and that is what is being claimed. I have never said that her writings were to be ignored. What I said was that the Bible is the fundamental basis for all of our doctrines.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jim, they say that Ellen White was the messenger of the Lord right in the fundamental belief.

They also say this:

This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White


That is a doctrine.

 

[Pythons]

Tall, what about Ellen degrading Christ to Satan's level or elevating Satan's to Jesus' level? I had found something on the Ellen website in the Trinity discussion which openly stated Satan was "next to Christ"? Could you shed any light on this? I sent you a pm so I would be happy to hear what you know about Ellen's understanding of the Trinity on or off the record.

Pythons

 

[Pythons]

Tall, what about Ellen degrading Christ to Satan's level or elevating Satan's to Jesus' level? I had found something on the Ellen website in the Trinity discussion which openly stated Satan was "next to Christ"? Could you shed any light on this? I sent you a pm so I would be happy to hear what you know about Ellen's understanding of the Trinity on or off the record.

Pythons

 

[VictorC]

Guidance, instruction and correction does not make a doctrine and that is what is being claimed. I have never said that her writings were to be ignored. What I said was that the Bible is the fundamental basis for all of our doctrines.

Ellen isn't regarded as simply a uninspired guide, or else she wouldn't be listed in the fundamentals of the SDA church as an authority. I listed one example that I hoped would be illustrative, and I think it missed your attention:

It is also only in Ellen's writings that you can define the coded phrase "law of love" that appears in fundamental #10. I have sorted through these fundamentals before for another member on CARM, and I consider about 2/3 of the fundamentals to have dependence on Ellen White for at least part of their verbiage.

Try finding the phrase "law of love" in the Bible, and you won't be able to. Furthermore, once you understand what this likely is from the text of the fundie itself, you can search the Bible from cover to cover, and never find the concept of a "law of love".

It is only in Ellen you can find this extra-Biblical concept:

The yoke that binds to service is the law of God. The great law of love revealed in Eden, proclaimed upon Sinai, and in the new covenant written in the heart, is that which binds the human worker to the will of God. If we were left to follow our own inclinations, to go just where our will would lead us, we should fall into Satan's snare, and become possessors of his attributes. Therefore, God confines us to His will, which is high, noble, elevating. He desires that we shall patiently and wisely take up the duties of service. {ST, June 29, 1904 par. 4}

So, you can see from Ellen that the "law of love" is another catch phrase for the ten commandments, by the citation that it was proclaimed at Sinai. This is the Mosaic covenant, according to Deuteronomy 4:13, which you will find never existed prior to the previous generation of those addressed in Deuteronomy 5:3.

Moreover, this covenant mediated in the hands of Moses is not written in the hearts and minds of those brought into the new covenant, as Hebrews 8:9 specifies the writing in us as not according to the covenant from Sinai, and the result is that we come to know God with no further need for instruction (Hebrews 8:11). This is consistent with Jeremiah 31, the source for this prophecy.

So, the ten commandments didn't exist in Eden.
Ellen's contention is against the Bible.
The ten commandments aren't written into the hearts and minds of the recipients of the new covenant.
Ellen's contention is again against the Bible.

The new covenant is made as a replacement for the Mosaic, which Hebrews 8:7 calls "faulty", 2 Corinthians 3:7 calls the "ministration of death", and Hebrews 10:9 tells us can't even coexist alongside the new covenant.

So, what Ellen calls "love" the Bible calls "death".
And that's codified as a fundamental the GC insists every Adventist accept. It doesn't take long to discover why there are so many "former" Adventists floating out there - every single one of them on CARM are adament in their statement that they studied their way out into orthodox Christianity.

My point is that fundamental belief #10 couldn't exist without Ellen White's writings as the extra-Biblical source for a concept that doesn't even exist (and violates) in the Bible it cites as the final authority.

p.s. Welcome to CF. I seem to remember you from Carm. It's been a long time since I was there.

Thanks!
I remember you fairly well.
I'm one of the "never-been" that contributes to the various discussions.

Victor

 

[gcfrankie]

Jimlamore,
Since you say that the bible is the bases of all doctrine post #124 then why not put EGW on the bookshelf and stop letting the church put her on a pedestal? Just use the bible and study without proof-texting?
If this sounds harsh I don't mean it to be as I am saying this in love.

 

[tall73]

Tall, what about Ellen degrading Christ to Satan's level or elevating Satan's to Jesus' level? I had found something on the Ellen website in the Trinity discussion which openly stated Satan was "next to Christ"? Could you shed any light on this? I sent you a pm so I would be happy to hear what you know about Ellen's understanding of the Trinity on or off the record.

Pythons

May want to re-send that pm, I don't think I got it.

But I did have one pm go later in the list due to the timestamp error.

 

[tall73]

Tall, what about Ellen degrading Christ to Satan's level or elevating Satan's to Jesus' level? I had found something on the Ellen website in the Trinity discussion which openly stated Satan was "next to Christ"? Could you shed any light on this? I sent you a pm so I would be happy to hear what you know about Ellen's understanding of the Trinity on or off the record.

Pythons

May want to re-send that pm, I don't think I got it.

But I did have one pm go later in the list due to the timestamp error.

 

[Lebesgue]

Did Jesus come in 1843?

No. But did you know there is a group called the Bahai's that believe He DID return as Baha'u'allah in 1844?

They were the Islamic world's Millerite analog.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[Lebesgue]

The interpretation of the 2300 days was sealed until the time of the end when the scroll was eaten.

And as far as I know the SDAs are the only group that proclaims the Three Angel's message.

It's 2300 "erev-boker" which in Hebrew CLEARLY means evenings-mornings. The day-year principle CANNOT be applied to this and make sense.

Antiochus Epiphanes IV WAS the "little horn".

The cleansing of the Sanctuary happened when Judah Maccabees and his followers overthrew Antiochus Epiphanes IV and the Selucid Greeks and cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem of the filth they had polluted it with.

What is the fulfillment of Daniel 8:13-14?

Just spell C-h-a-n-u-k-k-a-h.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[OntheDL]

It's 2300 "erev-boker" which in Hebrew CLEARLY means evenings-mornings. The day-year principle CANNOT be applied to this and make sense.

'ereb boqer wayhiy 'echaad yom. Evening moring were the first day, Genesis 1:5. Evening morning is the biblical definition of a day.

And would you kindly show me how you arrived at the date of the desecration of the temple for 2300 days?

Antiochus Epiphanes IV WAS the "little horn".

According to the angel Gabriel the vision was for the time of the end,

Daniel 8:17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

Antiochus Epiphanes who died 164 years before the birth of Christ can qualify to fulfill the vision of the end???

The cleansing of the Sanctuary happened when Judah Maccabees and his followers overthrew Antiochus Epiphanes IV and the Selucid Greeks and cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem of the filth they had polluted it with.

What is the fulfillment of Daniel 8:13-14?

Just spell C-h-a-n-u-k-k-a-h.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

The interpretation you wrote is the Preterist view that the Antichrist came in the past was invented by a Jesuit Luis Alcazar. It was designed together with the also Jesuit inspired Futurist interpretation (antichrist comes in the future) to mud the water that the real Little Horn is no other than the office of Papacy.

I had already addressed your view in the previous threads. I will not be wasting anymore of my time if you will not and can not address theological issues.

 

[OntheDL]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebesgue
It's 2300 "erev-boker" which in Hebrew CLEARLY means evenings-mornings. The day-year principle CANNOT be applied to this and make sense.

'ereb boqer wayhiy 'echaad yom. Evening moring were the first day, Genesis 1:5. Evening morning is the biblical definition of a day.

And would you kindly show me how you arrived at the date of the desecration of the temple for 2300 days?

Quote:
Antiochus Epiphanes IV WAS the "little horn".
According to the angel Gabriel the vision was for the time of the end,

Daniel 8:17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

Antiochus Epiphanes who died 164 years before the birth of Christ can qualify to fulfill the vision of the end???

Quote:
The cleansing of the Sanctuary happened when Judah Maccabees and his followers overthrew Antiochus Epiphanes IV and the Selucid Greeks and cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem of the filth they had polluted it with.

What is the fulfillment of Daniel 8:13-14?

Just spell C-h-a-n-u-k-k-a-h.

Shalom,

Lebesgue
The interpretation you wrote is the Preterist view that the Antichrist came in the past was invented by a Jesuit Luis Alcazar. It was designed together with the also Jesuit inspired Futurist interpretation (antichrist comes in the future) to mud the water that the real Little Horn is no other than the office of Papacy.

I had already addressed your view in the previous threads. I will not be wasting anymore of my time if you will not and can not address theological issues.

 

[OntheDL]

Originally Posted by Lebesgue
It's 2300 "erev-boker" which in Hebrew CLEARLY means evenings-mornings. The day-year principle CANNOT be applied to this and make sense.

'ereb boqer wayhiy 'echaad yom. Evening moring were the first day, Genesis 1:5. Evening morning is the biblical definition of a day.

And would you kindly show me how you arrived at the date of the desecration of the temple for 2300 days?

Antiochus Epiphanes IV WAS the "little horn".

According to the angel Gabriel the vision was for the time of the end,

Daniel 8:17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

Antiochus Epiphanes who died 164 years before the birth of Christ can qualify to fulfill the vision of the end???

The cleansing of the Sanctuary happened when Judah Maccabees and his followers overthrew Antiochus Epiphanes IV and the Selucid Greeks and cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem of the filth they had polluted it with.

What is the fulfillment of Daniel 8:13-14?

Just spell C-h-a-n-u-k-k-a-h.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

The interpretation you wrote is the Preterist view that the Antichrist came in the past was invented by a Jesuit Luis Alcazar. It was designed together with the also Jesuit inspired Futurist interpretation (antichrist comes in the future) to mud the water that the real Little Horn is no other than the office of Papacy.

I had already addressed your view in the previous threads. I will not be wasting anymore of my time if you will not and can not address theological issues.

 

[OntheDL]

Hi,

First of all let me introduce you to how things run here at CF. Ellen White is referred to by SDAs as Ellen White, EGW or Ellen G White. Condescending remarks are against site-wide rules.

So, you can see from Ellen that the "law of love" is another catch phrase for the ten commandments, by the citation that it was proclaimed at Sinai. This is the Mosaic covenant, according to Deuteronomy 4:13, which you will find never existed prior to the previous generation of those addressed in Deuteronomy 5:3.

Moreover, this covenant mediated in the hands of Moses is not written in the hearts and minds of those brought into the new covenant, as Hebrews 8:9 specifies the writing in us as not according to the covenant from Sinai, and the result is that we come to know God with no further need for instruction (Hebrews 8:11). This is consistent with Jeremiah 31, the source for this prophecy.

How was the Mosaic covenant faulty? Heb 8 didn't say it was because of the law. It says it was because of the faulty promise (of man).

So, the ten commandments didn't exist in Eden.
Ellen's contention is against the Bible.

The 10 commandments were not codified in Eden. But the principles existed.

The ten commandments aren't written into the hearts and minds of the recipients of the new covenant.
Ellen's contention is again against the Bible.

Which law do you believe is written on the hearts under the new covenant?

The new covenant is made as a replacement for the Mosaic, which Hebrews 8:7 calls "faulty", 2 Corinthians 3:7 calls the "ministration of death", and Hebrews 10:9 tells us can't even coexist alongside the new covenant.

So, what Ellen calls "love" the Bible calls "death".

Not quite. James called the law of liberty. And Jesus Himself said 'if you love me, keep my commandments'. The commandment of God is the law of love. And the motive of keeping the law of God is love.

And that's codified as a fundamental the GC insists every Adventist accept. It doesn't take long to discover why there are so many "former" Adventists floating out there - every single one of them on CARM are adament in their statement that they studied their way out into orthodox Christianity.

I was a Pentecostal then a Baptist. I studied my way into the Adventist church. And I helped a few others studied their way in the Adventist church also. So I don't think your statement qualifies for anything.

My point is that fundamental belief #10 couldn't exist without Ellen White's writings as the extra-Biblical source for a concept that doesn't even exist (and violates) in the Bible it cites as the final authority.

On the contrary, when I studied the Adventist doctrines, I used the bible, not the writings of Ellen White. To be honest, when I was studying these doctrines, I didn't really care to join the SDA church nor did I care for what Ellen White wrote at the time.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Onthedl wrote:

The interpretation you wrote is the Preterist view that the Antichrist came in the past was invented by a Jesuit Luis Alcazar. It was designed together with the also Jesuit inspired Futurist interpretation (antichrist comes in the future) to mud the water that the real Little Horn is no other than the office of Papacy.

I had already addressed your view in the previous threads. I will not be wasting anymore of my time if you will not and can not address theological issues.

this is another myths in Adventism. It is based upon an ignorance of history as the idea that AE is the little horn of Daniel was present in the early centuries of the Christian church. For more see:
It's Not A Jesuit Plot

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

No. But did you know there is a group called the Bahai's that believe He DID return as Baha'u'allah in 1844?

They were the Islamic world's Millerite analog.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

For those interested on more on the above topic see:
Adventist Pulpit on the magnificent Disappointment