SDA and Hebrews 1:1-2

pythons

Active member
What basis do you have for this classification of "local" and "private"? No one calls EGW scripture, but all prophets have a message from God, that is the point.

Public Revelation is what's in Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition - and that closed out with the death of the last Apostle. This is why we have Scripture that we "quote" & sometimes refer to Sacred Tradition. Daniel, Isaiah, etc. were Biblical Prophets - they're Revelations were "Public" (for everyone).

A "Local Prophet's" authority terminates at their death - their revelations don't have a bearing on anyone or anything outside their influence while they are alive and certainly don't have "continuing authority" after their death. Only Canonical Prophets have continuing authority. Below is an example of why its not a good idea to give "continuing authority" to a prophet that had already failed the test of being a true prophet.

Canonical or Public Prophets ALWAYS confirm established "existing" doctrine - Public or Canonical Prophets NEVER MUTATE Doctrine so that it becomes the direct opposite of what it was. Take for example the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross - it was PERFECT and was indeed the Atonement spoken of by the Old Testament Prophets. Below are two examples of "mutations of doctrines" that Ellen White endorsed with her writings and visions. Again, what Ellen taught in the below areas WASN'T development of Doctrine - it was mutation of Doctrine.

1. Rejection in the Doctrine of the Atonement​


Another error, even more generally endorsed than any of the foregoing, is the doctrine of the atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptures plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonement, then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoidable, and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on the cross, not because it leads to this belief, but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsity we have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destructive error. Sabbath Herald, August 29, 1865 No. 13.




2. Mutation Capable Creature Christ that could have sinned & eternally lost Salvation for Himself & eternally passed out of existence
.


Ellen White, Sabbath Herald, Jan 14, 1909
"We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan was, next to Christ, the highest ANGEL in heaven."

Ellen White Desire of Ages page 49

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.”

Ellen White, L5,1900 SDA BC Volume 7,page 926
He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, HIS DIVINE attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation

Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4
He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will

Ellen White, DA 131

Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not ONLY became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure AND eternal loss

Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895

Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.


Ellen White, SM book 1, page 256
Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”


Ellen White, SDA GBC 1 Dec 1895
Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Jesus would have yielded up his life, we may estimate the value of a soul


3. The Doctrine of the Trinity as Catholic's, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodist's, Eastern Orthodox Christians understand it - i.e. Adventist groups reject the Nicene Creed as Babylon and a departure from what the Bible teaches.

James White ( Ellen's husband )
"We invite all to compare THE TESTIMONIES of the Holy Spirit THROUGH Mrs. White with the word of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT, CONDEMN them [ the testimonies of Mrs. White ]. The Adventist Review & Sabbath Herald June 13, 1871


4. The Father or Father God has eternally had a flesh hominid body complete "with all the members and parts of a perfect man". Both Michael and Lucifer the archangels also possessed hominid flesh bodies with organs and parts prior to the Incarnation of Michael the archangel. This Doctrine was called "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD".



Sabbath Herald October 8, 1903
OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualist's, -the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint of any other " ist" or " ism," it makes but little or no difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it makes all the difference in the world. Second^ At the creation God said to Christ, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen. 1: 26, 27. Man bore the image of God both morally and physically; for -after man sinned, we 'read'that Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." Gen. 5:3. Here is an explanation of the words " image " and "- likeness." As Seth bore both the physical and the moral nature of Adam, so Adam bore the physical and the moral likeness of God.Neither was this image of God which man bore a mere concept; for the Bible declares that the Lord has parts, the same as the human body. Therefore we repeat what we previously said, To deny the personality of God, is to deny the existence of the sanctuary in the heavens; for there God dwells. It is to deny the existence of the angels; for they are his throne. It is to deny' the law of God; for it is the foundation of his throne. It is to deny the existence of Satan; for he is a fallen angel

Sabbath Herald Oct 8,1903
"The doctrine of the Personality of God IS the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures..."
...""NEITHER was this image of God a mere concept; FOR the Bible declares that the Lord has PARTS, THE SAME AS the human body"."OUR EXISTENCE as a people is FOUNDED on a belief in the truths stated above
".
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Pythons;
you posted this
Public Revelation is what's in Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition - and that closed out with the death of the last Apostle.
.....

Canonical or Public Prophets ALWAYS confirm established "existing" doctrine -

doctrine;
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.​

What do you mean by " "existing" doctrine - "

whose doctrine and or tradition are you speaking of ??????
 
Last edited:

John t

Super Member
On what basis do you say they don't have the ability to predict the future, or that they don't speak directly in behalf of God? Consider Acts 21:10 which states:
Acts 11: 27 Now in those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 And one of them ⌞named⌟ Agabus stood up and indicated by the Spirit that a great famine was about to come over the whole inhabited earth (which took place in the time of Claudius). 29 So from the disciples, ⌞according to their ability to give⌟, each one of them determined to send financial aid for support to the brothers who lived in Judea, 30 which they also did, sending the aid to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.​
Acts 21:10 And while we were staying there many days, a certain prophet ⌞named⌟ Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And he came to us and took Paul’s belt. Tying up his own feet and hands, he said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews in Jerusalem will tie up the man whose belt this is, and will deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ” 12 And when we heard these things, both we and the local residents urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul replied, “What are you doing weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus!” 14 And because he would not be persuaded, we remained silent, saying, “The will of the Lord be done.”​

Lexham English Bible

The mention of Agabus is limited to only 4 verses, all of them in the books of Acts, so we must confine ourselves to what Scripture reveals, and stay away from speculating from silence.

  1. Agabus used the same pattern of prophesying as did Ezekiel. That is to say that he used ordinary objects, such as Paul's belt to demonstrate something that would happen. (Ezekiel used tiles or drawings.)
  2. He was recognized as a true prophet by Paul (possibly other Apostles) and the other leaders of the early church. Therefore (and despite what the Dispensationalists say), the Gift of Prophecy did not stop after the Resurrection. This is also a strong indication that the Spiritual Gift of Prophesy continues today in some manner.
  3. It is also circumstantial evidence that the other Gifts of Holy Spirit may not have ceased.
  4. He gave full credit for his knowledge to Holy Spirit since this was several years after the Feast of Pentecost mentioned in Acts 2
  5. For sure he was a prophet from Judah (the Southern Kingdom). His being a prophet in the New Testament forbids us to classify him as a "Major Prophet" such as Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel. Nor can he be classified as aa "Minor Prophet" such as Malachi, Amos, Joel, etc..

To confound things further, there are several mentions of a "School (or company) of Prophets in the Old Testament. the names of those in the "school" neither qualifies nor disqualifies one from being a prophet, as Amos tells a priest in Amos 7"14 "I was neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet."

On the other hand, the prophet Samuel had a School of Prophets as can be seen in 1 Samuel 19.

Therefore, the best we can say about Pythons usage of the term "local prophet" is that is a well intentioned harmless error, and then go further on that subject.

I hope that I have clarified some things from the viewpoint of what Scripture says.
 

pythons

Active member
Pythons;
you posted this

doctrine;​
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.​

What do you mean by " "existing" doctrine - "

whose doctrine and or tradition are you speaking of ??????

During the time of the Old Testament Prophets, in every case, the Prophets would be correcting / rebuking the people for NOT following already established doctrines. The doctrine was already there, it was just that the people FELL AWAY from it, worshipped false god's, played the harlot repeatedly, etc.

In the case of the SDA's, Ellen White established "NEW DOCTRINES" that were either alien or a mutation from the historic Doctrines laid down by Apostolic Authority. All this is most explicitly spelled out by White herself.

Ellen White
At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon ME, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.--Gospel Works, p. 302. {3SM 32.1}"

To explain this in simpleton terms what we have here is an admitted vocal group of "Anti-Trinitarians" producing / proposing "NEW DOCTRINES" and Ellen White claims that it was SHE that was empowered by God to DEFINE DOCTRINE. Ellen goes into some depth that whole nights that these Anti-Trinitarians would search the Scriptures but the BIBLE ALONE wasn't enough.

All the distinctive doctrines the SDA hold were NEW, all those doctrines Ellen White DEFINED and are now promulgated by the SDA Church as "PUBLIC Revelation" (as in obligatory). This is what I mean by that.
 

Yodas_Prodigy

Active member
On what basis do you say they don't have the ability to predict the future, or that they don't speak directly in behalf of God? Consider Acts 21:10 which states:

10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

Isn't that a prediction of the future? What do you say is the purpose of a prophet after the ascension if your unproven assertions are correct?

If you were to say that the ministry of a prophet (at all times in history) is to be God's messenger as opposed to solely predicting the future, I would agree with you and state that the SDA church believes the same. If a prophet is God's messenger, then they are speaking directly on God's behalf just as Agabus did; they speak the message which God has directed them to speak. Sometimes that includes foretelling the future, but not always.

To answer your question, ,the author of Hebrews meant that once prophets were the primary means of communication, but now Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh and He is now the primary link between God and humanity. That doesn't negate or remove the gift of prophecy (otherwise Paul woudn't have told us to seek that gift) but that it is not as primary as it was before. The point isn't to denigrate prophecy but to uplift Jesus.

You are correct... There was a prophet who spoke the future in the book of Acts. I clearly should have more carefully constructed my OP. Having said that, any group that needs a prophet to start their denomination is suspect... SDA, JW's, LDS, WOF, and so many more... Your Prophet has plenty of Chinks in the Armor... Having said that, How do you handle Hebrews 1:1-2? How is your prophet better than the LDS and JW prophets?
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
All the distinctive doctrines the SDA hold were NEW, all those doctrines Ellen White DEFINED and are now promulgated by the SDA Church as "PUBLIC Revelation" (as in obligatory). This is what I mean by that.
Not trying to put words into your mouth;
nor read into your post something you did not say

so let me ask;

a person joining the SDA, are they obligated to accept and believe these
" those doctrines Ellen White DEFINED "

maybe Icy, a SDA can answer that for us
 

pythons

Active member
Not trying to put words into your mouth;
nor read into your post something you did not say

so let me ask;

a person joining the SDA, are they obligated to accept and believe these
" those doctrines Ellen White DEFINED "

maybe Icy, a SDA can answer that for us

Ellen White defined the 2300 year prophecy as a true doctrine...
...The only way that this is true is that Scripture is WRONG.
...Jesus observed the Festival of Lights in Jerusalem.

The Festival of Lights - AKA Hanukkah - celebrates the cleansing of the temple...
...Jesus, by example, explicitly taught us that the terminus of the 2300 evenings & mornings.
...Had already taken place prior to His Incarnation.

That's 1 "New" Doctrine SDA's are required to believe (if I'm not mistaken).
 

Geoff

Member
Public Revelation is what's in Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition - and that closed out with the death of the last Apostle. This is why we have Scripture that we "quote" & sometimes refer to Sacred Tradition. Daniel, Isaiah, etc. were Biblical Prophets - they're Revelations were "Public" (for everyone).

A "Local Prophet's" authority terminates at their death - their revelations don't have a bearing on anyone or anything outside their influence while they are alive and certainly don't have "continuing authority" after their death. Only Canonical Prophets have continuing authority. Below is an example of why its not a good idea to give "continuing authority" to a prophet that had already failed the test of being a true prophet.

Canonical or Public Prophets ALWAYS confirm established "existing" doctrine - Public or Canonical Prophets NEVER MUTATE Doctrine so that it becomes the direct opposite of what it was. Take for example the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross - it was PERFECT and was indeed the Atonement spoken of by the Old Testament Prophets. Below are two examples of "mutations of doctrines" that Ellen White endorsed with her writings and visions. Again, what Ellen taught in the below areas WASN'T development of Doctrine - it was mutation of Doctrine.
Scripture canon is closed, I agree.

I don't see a basis for your conclusion that a local prophet's authority terminates at their death. I can agree that messages they share may be contextally determined (the White Estate has said that quite often) and other things they say are still valid through all time even though they are not at the same level as scripture.

Your position on mutation of doctrine is based on your disagreement with SDA doctrine, so that is subjective. I don't think that what you're saying is what Adventists actually believe.
 

Geoff

Member
You are correct... There was a prophet who spoke the future in the book of Acts. I clearly should have more carefully constructed my OP. Having said that, any group that needs a prophet to start their denomination is suspect... SDA, JW's, LDS, WOF, and so many more... Your Prophet has plenty of Chinks in the Armor... Having said that, How do you handle Hebrews 1:1-2? How is your prophet better than the LDS and JW prophets?
1. Your statement about "needs" a prophet continues to reveal a bias, and also condemns the Children of Israel who also needed prophets. If God sends a prophet to a group, He is only using His Spiritual Gifts to edify His church. God calls anyone at any time with a particular message for that time. Huss and the Moravians, Luther and the Lutherans, Wesley and the Methodists, etc; it's not for us to hold anyone God calls as "suspect." At any rate, the SDA church has THREE co-founders: James White, Ellen White and Joseph Bates, only one of whom has a prophetic ministry.

I answered your question of Hebrews 1 already. To summarize; the point is not that prophets are no longer needed, but that the better revelation of Jesus Christ is now here and it takes primacy.

Ellen White was a genuine Christian who uplifted Jesus Christ and His scriptures. At no time did she place herself or her message above Jesus or the Scriptures as did Joseph Smith and C.T. Russell. That alone places her on a different level than those gentlemen. If you haven't already read Walter Martin's assessment of SDA's in his Appendix of "Kingdom of the Cults" where he presents Adventists as a Christian denomination even while he did not agree with Adventist doctrine of the Sabbath, EGW, the Judgment and the state of the dead, I encourage you to do so. It remains the most objective and realistic assessment of Adventism from a non-Adventist, and I respect his views highly.
 

Geoff

Member
Not trying to put words into your mouth;
nor read into your post something you did not say

so let me ask;

a person joining the SDA, are they obligated to accept and believe these
" those doctrines Ellen White DEFINED "

maybe Icy, a SDA can answer that for us
There is no doctrine of Adventism that relies on EGW for its existence. Any discussion of Adventist doctrine should be based completely on the Bible, without any mention of EGW. What I find interesting is that it's always opponents of Adventism who insert EGW into any doctrinal discussion of Adventist beliefs. Adventists never use EGW as a basis for our beliefs in doctrinal discussions. I encourage our opponents to do the same.
 

Formersda

Active member
1. Your statement about "needs" a prophet continues to reveal a bias, and also condemns the Children of Israel who also needed prophets. If God sends a prophet to a group, He is only using His Spiritual Gifts to edify His church. God calls anyone at any time with a particular message for that time. Huss and the Moravians, Luther and the Lutherans, Wesley and the Methodists, etc; it's not for us to hold anyone God calls as "suspect." At any rate, the SDA church has THREE co-founders: James White, Ellen White and Joseph Bates, only one of whom has a prophetic ministry.

I answered your question of Hebrews 1 already. To summarize; the point is not that prophets are no longer needed, but that the better revelation of Jesus Christ is now here and it takes primacy.

Ellen White was a genuine Christian who uplifted Jesus Christ and His scriptures. At no time did she place herself or her message above Jesus or the Scriptures as did Joseph Smith and C.T. Russell. That alone places her on a different level than those gentlemen. If you haven't already read Walter Martin's assessment of SDA's in his Appendix of "Kingdom of the Cults" where he presents Adventists as a Christian denomination even while he did not agree with Adventist doctrine of the Sabbath, EGW, the Judgment and the state of the dead, I encourage you to do so. It remains the most objective and realistic assessment of Adventism from a non-Adventist, and I respect his views highly.
before Walter martins death he knew he had been lied to by the sda church so that he would give a better report about them.

This is the book the SDAS published to show how they are not a cult. It split the church as it was not a true representation of the church. Questions on Doctrines.

Please watch this from the John Ackerman show.

I also include a link to the 1919 bible conference where the difficulties with EGW where discussed and these minutes where hidden for over 50 years.

I also include another link to the report on EGW copying others work.
 

Formersda

Active member
There is no doctrine of Adventism that relies on EGW for its existence. Any discussion of Adventist doctrine should be based completely on the Bible, without any mention of EGW. What I find interesting is that it's always opponents of Adventism who insert EGW into any doctrinal discussion of Adventist beliefs. Adventists never use EGW as a basis for our beliefs in doctrinal discussions. I encourage our opponents to do the same.
This is the deception the sda church publishes, this link to the 28 fundamentals great controversy is clearly EGW, but they refuse to reference her but a bunch of proof texts.
 

JonHawk

Active member
Icyspark said:
Revelation 1:1-3
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants ...


JonHawk said:

The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, 1 Corinthians 14
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through; 1 Thessalonians 5:23

Gee, I do not see any names of any prophets here.
It's not about the names of the prophets.

I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Rev 19:10

Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7
 

Geoff

Member
before Walter martins death he knew he had been lied to by the sda church so that he would give a better report about them.

This is the book the SDAS published to show how they are not a cult. It split the church as it was not a true representation of the church. Questions on Doctrines.

Please watch this from the John Ackerman show.

I also include a link to the 1919 bible conference where the difficulties with EGW where discussed and these minutes where hidden for over 50 years.

I also include another link to the report on EGW copying others work.

Thanks for the link to Questions on Doctrine, it's good to promote and spread that book. To say it split the church is a bit strong; it did have persons like Andreasen and other Last-Generation Theologists (which BTW is NOT official Adventist doctrine as much as they would want it to be) in a tizzy.

Walter Martin was not lied to, and before he died he still maintained his position on Adventistism. Furthermore, QOD has been re-printed.

I acknowledge the fundamentalist shift of the 1919 conference and the lack of confidence exhibited by the leadership in the church's ability to see EGW as a human being as opposed to a paragon of perfection on a pedastal (which she never ever asked for or claimed to be).

My point remains that Martin's assessement of Adventism remains the most accurate and objective assessment by a non-Adventist, and should be required reading for all persons interested in Adventist apologetics.
 

Geoff

Member
This is the deception the sda church publishes, this link to the 28 fundamentals great controversy is clearly EGW, but they refuse to reference her but a bunch of proof texts.
Now you're calling me a liar. :( What you are saying above is not true.
 

Formersda

Active member
Now you're calling me a liar. :( What you are saying above is not true.
Did I say Geoff is a liar? or how deceptive the sda church is?

THE GREAT CONTROVERSY BEGINS WITH WAR IN HEAVEN​

Right from the beginning of the Bible, God lets us in on the facts, explaining why our Ever since sin entered our world, Earth has been the battleground of the Great Controversy. All the pain and loss humanity suffers is a result of that war.

But the war didn’t start on earth.

Back in heaven, before the earth even existed, there was an angel named Lucifer. He was also called “Morning Star” because of his radiance and beauty (Isaiah 14:12).
This is a procreation story, where abouts in the bible does it talk about war in heaven BEFORE creation? That Geoff is pure EGW
 

SDAchristian

Well-known member
Prologue:
AV Ro 1:29-32 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
This is the deception the sda church publishes, this link to the 28 fundamentals great controversy is clearly EGW, but they refuse to reference her but a bunch of proof texts.
Now you're calling me a liar. :( What you are saying above is not true.
AV 1C 2:6-7 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

It is a "proof texts", from her own words in opinion. Opinion does not need facts nor truth in it.

Just be careful, my friend !!!

Yours in Christ, Michael
 

SDAchristian

Well-known member
That Geoff is pure EGW
AV 1C 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

The real spiritual question is: Is it the Truth of GOD in GOD's Omniscience, or not ???

Yours in Christ, Michael
 

John t

Super Member
Now you're calling me a liar. :( What you are saying above is not true.

That post reveals a lack of understanding and comprehension on your part. The topic of the 2 sentences was calling YOUR CHURCH, NOT YOUR PERSON DECEPTIVE"'
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Did I say Geoff is a liar? or how deceptive the sda church is?

THE GREAT CONTROVERSY BEGINS WITH WAR IN HEAVEN​


This is a procreation story, where abouts in the bible does it talk about war in heaven BEFORE creation? That Geoff is pure EGW
Job 38:7
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind,
and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man;
for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof,
if thou knowest?
or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Ez.28:14
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth;
and I have set thee so:
thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;
thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created,
till iniquity was found in thee.

appears to me someone needs to put down the many books Solomon spake of
and
spend some time in Moses and the Prophets
 
Top