Many times when scripture support is lacking in a discussion, many has resorted to discredit me by quoting EGW and putting me in a spot. Those that have been here for awhile like kland knows very well my position. I have replied in the past years numerous times my position which I have clearly stated the following :

#1 - I believe the Lord used EGW as a prophet

#2 - while studying the law(Pentateuch) I understood years later that one of His purpose in sending prophets was to test us whether or not we will follow the Lord's Word or not.

#3 - I am grateful for her and James counsel that it was our Christian duty to stand on scriptures alone.

#4 - I value that James & EGW told us not to quote Ellen.

#5 - Value her work in the health reform

#6 - I am not here to bash EGW or any other brothers and sisters as we are to uplift each other and not the opposite.

#7 - Just recently I realized the Lord has not canonized EGW's writings like He did with the OT and the NT.

I didn't want to start this discussion. ProdigalOne, who is new here and doesn't know me nor my position, had went way off-topic in a discussion and I have answered his numerous posts & comments. Then after a few pages I have ask him kindly to start another discussion if he wanted to go further into this off-topic to understanding my position. He did not but preferred to continue sending me warnings in that discussion by which I would of answered in a new appropriate discussion. After that, for the time being, Prodigalone has ceased; however our dear brother kland has not and is doing his job well in taking whatever opportunity to continue his work in doing what he does best. So thanks to Kland, I am opening this discussion so I can address these here.


Below is the exchange Prodigalone and I had on this subject.



The Lord has canonized the OT and the NT in the past; shouldn't we as a Church take up our Christian duty in canonizing all of EGW's writings? Filtering out what has not come from her pen, and filtering out what was her interpretations and preserving only the WORD heard from the Lord's mouth according to Deut 18, Deut 13 and Is 8:20?

While this work has not been done, should any one of us quote EGW? (by which was against her and James counsel to do at the first place see position #3 and #4 above)

Elle, your only justification for rejecting the writings of Sister White seems to be that they have not been "canonized"?  

Is it your contention that God is powerless to preserve the urgent messages He delivered through His end time Prophet?  Are His desperately needed warnings and wisdom only valid when they have been vetted by some church committee?


Most of the books of the New Testament were read and distributed as Scripture by individual Christians and church’s for hundreds of years before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible.

In fact since the New Testament was not "canonized" until 397AD by the (Catholic) Council of Carthage: according to your reasoning it would seem that for over 350 years following the crucifixion of Christ, the Church should not have quoted ANY of the New Testament!


"My sheep hear my voice".  John 10:27

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Hebrews 11:1

"But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]".
Hebrews 11:6

Where is your faith? 

By the way, how exactly did "the Lord canonize the OT and the NT in the past"??

When we who are spiritually discerning, see the work of the Holy Spirit in Gods people or the fruit/truth that comes out from them, we recognize it as God leading and whether it is a prophet, a leader or just a God fearing member, we know the source.

The Bible as Ellen White made clear, is the unshakeable standard by which all truth must be compared, and if does not match up, we must reject it..

Isaiah 8:20 King James Version (KJV)

20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

What I read from the Bible is the Lord is Sovereign -- meaning He has a plan since the foundation of this earth and all things(events) worked according to His plan.

AV Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

We know the OT & NT was canonized, thus just the fact it was - shows it was the Lord's doing and working via the Holy Spirit.

Elle, I notice that you have not replied to my previous post. Here it is for a third time:

"Most of the books of the New Testament were read and distributed as Scripture by individual Christians and church’s for hundreds of years before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible.

In fact since the New Testament was not "canonized" until 397AD by the (Catholic) Council of Carthage: according to your reasoning it would seem that for over 350 years following the crucifixion of Christ, the Church should not have quoted ANY of the New Testament!"

Is this your belief?

Elle said:

"I think it is very presumptuous to think that all of EGW writings has been preserved without seeing the same work the Lord has done with OT & NT."


Are you saying that ALL of Paul's writings, ALL of Peter and John's writings, ALL of David and Solomon and Isaiah's writings have been preserved? If this were the case we would likely need a much larger Bible!

It seems more likely that the portions of their writings that were necessary to deliver God's messages to humanity were preserved.


Elle said:

"We know the OT & NT was canonized, thus just the fact it was - shows it was the Lord's doing and working via the Holy Spirit."

According to your own logic, the very fact that so much of Sister White's writings have been preserved "shows it was the Lord's doing and working via the Holy Spirit."

Elle said:

"I didn't want to start this discussion. ProdigalOne, who is new here and doesn't know me nor my position, had went way off-topic in a discussion and I have answered his numerous posts & comments. Then after a few pages I have ask him kindly to start another discussion if he wanted to go further into this off-topic to understanding my position. He did not but preferred to continue sending me warnings in that discussion..."


Elle, I do not regret going off of topic previously. When I see error being presented as truth, I have no choice, but to speak. No matter what forum, or what the purported topic, we are told to-

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine..."
2Timothy 4:2,3

Elle, it is apparent that you have already reached the point where you "will not endure sound doctrine". Still, I must try.
Please, hear the words of God's Prophet, they were written for you...

If you lose confidence in the Testimonies you will drift away from Bible truth. I have been fearful that many would take a questioning, doubting position, and in my distress for your souls I would warn you. How many will heed the warning?
Testimonies for the Church 5:672-680

This is the problem. We should accept each other’s position and conviction without patronizing the other knowing that the Lord is there to correct all of us when needed.

I think patronizing church members that rely on Scripture alone is violating freedom of conscience that Martin Luther fought for in favor in trusting the Lord’s ability to teach and lead individuals into truths.(1Jn 2:27) However, I do understand this persecution is in the Lord’s plan and they are doing the Lord’s work(see post#176793). “All things worked together for good”.


No. But I believe the Lord is consistent in His ways and will act in the same manner He has acted in the past.

Nor this give anyone the validity to quote everything or anyone as having authority without first testing it with the help of the Holy Spirit according to Deut 13, Deut 18, Is 8:20 and other texts of the sort. This is our Christian Duty.

We all need to follow the Holy Spirit and His teachings. If He tells you that quote is from Him or this other guys study(or part of it) is from Him, then keep it; but don’t impose it on others or judge them because they don’t believe as you do.
Nice touch!
I do trust in the Lord’s ability to teach, correct, and lead all men in the truth – “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” AV 1Ti 2:4

Not sure I understand what you are saying. I assume(don't know if anyone can prove this) that there were more writings of one writer that didn’t make the canon. So I don't think that everything an individual wrote made the canon. I believe what did make the Canon is what the Lord intended to be because He was behind the event thought no one can prove that because you cannot see Him.

Many reject the authencity of the Bible which is ok also. In His appointed time He will make clear what is truth and what is not. For now, in His wisdom He saw fit that the weeds to grow with the good seeds. I will trust in His ways and plan.


I think you somehow mistakenly equate the word “preserve” with “canonize”. To me, they are not the same.

I don’t think that only 100+ years of an individual's writings existence is much of a proof of being preserve.

I’m sure you do not believe Joseph Smith’s writings is proof of being the word from the mouth of the Lord just because his writings is still “preserve” today.

I don't believe that the “preservation of some writings” is the Lord’s sign that these are His Word. This is not compatible with what Scripture teaches us about the Lord’s way to test all things described in Deut 13, Deut 18, Is 8:20 and etc...

I agree with the above.

You need to be able to show the errors via scriptures. You did very little of that but quickly pass into telling me I was in error, quoting me EGW, putting me on the spot, projecting a futile future without even knowing my biblical basis or doing any studying with me.

Concerning 2Tim 4:2,3, only those who knows the truth according to the law and its testimonies, can correct, exhort, or knows how to rebuke according to the Lord’s ways. Many claim to know the truth, but in actuality they teach doctrines of MEN for the great majority of believers are BLIND and NAKED.

I acknowledge that I am still BLIND in many areas and that’s why I came here to study. I don’t see myself mature enough in understanding truth to rebuke anyone.

In discussion, if the case arise, I will show someone's mis-representation of scriptures when they give a different spin that the plain text says. But I don’t think this is the “rebuke” 2Tim 4:2,3 is talking about. I view noting mis-representation of scriptures to be part of exchanging while studying a topic.


Present sound doctrine with sound Biblical support is the way I think to reach people. I don’t think that condemnation, negative fearful warnings, and a projection of a futile futur is a way of “reproof, rebuke, & exhort” like you just did in this post below :

That’s your repeated ways I’ve seen up ‘till now …. that I think will never help anyone especially those that study scriptures. It may work for a time with those that are ignorant.

Show sound argument with Biblical text to support your points why you think they err while giving them the lawful time to chew on it and letting the Holy Spirit to convict or discard what was said … and at times, with constructive discussion, we find that it was us that our understanding was in lack. I’ve been in that situation many times thru the years. I have learn this way (and many other ways) and got corrected by many who knows how to study by taking EVERY words that proceeded from the mouth of the Lord into account and not just some selected cherry picking ones, that they have blown out of proportion or twisted and mis-represented. That type of persuasive approach doesn’t fly with me anymore.

Elle, it has finally become clear to me why we are not communicating with each other very well. You see in your profile, you claim to be a Seventh Day Adventist. Therefore, I have been speaking to you as one Seventh Day Adventist to another.

Of course, I'm sure you realize that occasionally attending a Seventh Day Adventist Church does not make you a Seventh Day Adventist, anymore than spending time with Christians would qualify as salvation. It is a matter of matching the definition of a Seventh Day Adventist. In this case one must be in agreement with our Fundamental Beliefs. I know back in the eighties, agreement with the Fundamental Beliefs was a requirement for being a baptized member. To my knowledge, this has not changed.

I have just looked over the 28 Fundamental Beliefs with what I have gathered is your doctrinal system in mind. It is now apparent to me that you are not a Seventh Day Adventist. I do apologize for assuming you were.


In order to avoid future misunderstandings with others, it might be a good idea to change your profile to harmonize with your actual beliefs. Any other course would be bearing false witness, something I am certain you would not wish to do.

In any future discussions, I will endeavor to treat you as a non-Seventh Day Adventist. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Here are some of the doctrinal differences you appear to have with the Seventh Day Adventist Church:


Fundamental Belief #18 - Gift of Prophesy

Fundamental Belief #20 - Sabbath

Fundamental Belief #27 - Millenium In Heaven

Please forgive me if I have this wrong as I am not certain about your views on salvation. From what I have seen in some of your other discussions, you appear to believe that everyone will eventually be saved? This conflicts with Fundamental Belief #10 - Experience of Salvation.

When dealing with non-Adventists we should not quote EGW as "proof".
We do need to present our beliefs from scripture and if we do that, then a person who later reads EGW is delighted as her words reinforce scripture and they will appreciate her inspired message.

Both scripture and EGW can be misused.
Elle mentioned "cherry picking". Yet I find most people who disagree with Adventist beliefs are ALSO CHERRY PICKING.

Another misuse is spiritualizing.
This I find especially frustrating when no matter how many passages from scripture a person presents to a "spiritualizer" they will spiritualize the truths away.

That is what I see in the "Sabbath" thread.
The claim is made of "looking at the whole law" by which they then manage to spiritualize away the 7th day Sabbath of God's moral law.


The Biblical reasons for my beliefs as an Adventist are STRONG. I've studied them out from scripture.
They are firmly studied out. They are taken from the whole Bible, believing the Old testament leads into the NEW TESTAMENT.

I'm sorry Elle, but much of your applications of scripture do not match what I have studied in Scripture.
You can call us Adventists immature spiritual and ignorant, and present your ideas as the illuminated ones -- but that won't change my mind.

Your end time hope in a restructured economy will end in terrible disappointment.
All the gold, silver and other earthly securities will let you down. " their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD" (Eze. 7:19)

Zephaniah 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
1:17 And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.
1:18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD'S wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.


Christ's kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:36)
Any kingdom that humanity hopes to establish on this present world is a counterfeit and will end in destruction.

I realize that Adventists are totally out of step with most of the other religions of the world that are prophesying some type of glorious leap (following a tribulation) into a new age of peace for this old world, but they are all false prophets like the false prophets in Jeremiah's day; but like the true prophet Jeremiah's message of old -- the Adventist message is that God will destroy everything on this earth, it will be left desolate.

The denomination has already done that. You can see it here.

By the way, canonization is inherently, a human exercise. Mormons have canonized the works of Joseph Smith, yet SDA do not consider him a prophet; neither do Mormons consider Ellen White one. And both are adamant that theirs is THE prophet.

God has a better way. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." In fact, all those who rise up in our age and shout, "I was shown, I was shown ..." ought to be ashamed of themselves. (Zech. 13:4, cf. Luke 16:16 & Rev. 22:18)

///

1. If you enforced the 28FB to define what constitute a SDA member, you will probably would have to ex-communicate 50% of the attending members or 90%+ of members on the registry.

2. Have you ever been in a business meeting in your Church to review its members registry to do a clean up? I have. In our little Church we have on average less than 15 attending members. In our registry, we have about 100 or more. Our Church doesn't want to remove anyone from its registry unless they are dead. You have to request to be removed, to be taken out. Thus, this shows the Church doesn't want to remove anyone including me.

I don't view this as a bad thing either and I'm in agreement with the Church stand right now about its registry. However, you seem to disagree with the Church stand. Maybe you and MM should do something about it and bring that up to the conference level to change things instead of persecuting the members. So you are not currently in step with the Church whereas I am on that issue.

3. As for myself, I agree that my believes has changed during the last 7 years of my 29 years of being in the Church. I attend no other Church but the SDA Church. I have considered leaving (because of my beliefs changes) and have prayed about it as I want to do what the Lord wants me to do and not what I think I should do. He haven't told me to leave the Church. Actually the last 2 years it became clear to me that He wants me to stay. So I need to obey Him.

However if the Church wants to ex-communicate me then they can do that and I will submit to their requirement and take it that this comes from the Lord(Rom 13).

I had written this in another post as well, But, I thought it would fit here as well. It is a Biblical example of the principle espoused in Deuteronomy 18:22.


Lately, it seems to have come in vogue to proclaim that God's prophets aren't infallible. Even though this is true, most people really don't realize what this means.

Stephen Bohr used this argument to disagree with Ellen White and show what he thought was true contrary to the writings of Ellen White. But, he handled it all wrong.

We must remember what the Bible says in Deuteronomy 18:22. Let me say this right up front; The evangelical view of this verse is a cult teaching. Their view literally attacks God's plan of salvation and leads those who follow this view to destruction.

The Bible gives us an example of how this principle works in Deuteronomy 18:22 works. We see this in the life of Abraham and Sarah. Remember, God made a promise to Abraham that Abraham's descendants would be like the sand of the sea. The Messiah was to come as his descendent to save mankind from their sins.

But, Sarah grew too old to bare children and Abraham and Sarah didn't know what to do! Instead of asking God for help and insight. Instead of trusting in God to resolve the situation they were in. Abraham and Sarah took matters into their own hands.

First point to bring out is this; God and God alone is responsible to bring about the prophecies He gives. Mankind is not responsible to bring about the fulfillment of God's prophecies. If we have to fulfill God's prophecies, that has a terrible bearing on God's claim as God.

Back to Abraham and Sarah. They got together and decided that for Abraham to have a seed, he would have to have a child that Sarah couldn't give. So, they decided that Abraham would have a child through Hagar. And Hagar did bare Abraham a son whom was named Ishmael.

Remember, the plan of salvation required the Messiah being born and being the "seed" and not "seeds" of Abraham.

For at least 12 years Abraham taught that Ishmael was the child of Promise! Now, I am speaking for myself when I say that I believe this prophecy to be more important then any other prophecy in Scripture except the First and Second Comings of Christ! And Abraham got it WRONG!!

According to the evangelical view of Deut. 18:22, Abraham can not be a prophet of God and Abraham's seed can't be promised from God!

They don't have any idea what they are talking about.

In Genesis 17, God talks to Abraham and straightens everything out! The reason God explained and straightened everything out was because this prophecy truly came from God! And God wanted Abraham to know that in about a year Sarah was going to bare him a son and his name was to be Isaac. Isaac, born through a miracle of God, was the child God intended to carry the promise He made to Abraham. Halleluyah!

Second point to bring out; If God's prophet doesn't understand properly the message God gave him. It is God's responsibility to straighten it out! God must make known what the error is and fix whatever needs to be fixed. And God does that in Genesis 17.

Now, it was a little different with Daniel because his prophecies were for a time long after the death of the prophet. But, God made sure there was more than enough information to make sure we could understand the Book of Daniel in our day, the time of the end.

Pastor Stephen Bohr never demonstrated where God clarified an error by Ellen White. That must come from God! That must be available or we should not accept a teaching contrary to what the Prophet of God said!

I hope I was clear.

Maybe you spoke with a member and had not done any ecclesiastical research into the matter. The Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology has this to say about "prophet, prophetess and prophecy":


///

SDA are shaping themselves more and more into the image of the RCC.

///

That was very very good presentation and points Alchemy. I agree with most of what you said below.

Where I disagree or would add ....

1. it is not true the Lord will correct a prophet's mis-understanding or even give the interpretation of the word given. Most prophets had no clue what the Lord was saying, but a prophet is not ask to interpret or understand, but only deliver the word without adding (your interpretation to it) or leaving out any details (the things that often makes no sense to us) spoken by the Lord. A Prophet is require to only speak what the words the Lord said -- without adding nor omitting any part.

2. Jesus said about John the Baptist to be the greatest prophet, and yet we know John never predicted anything futur. His quality was to ony speak what the Lord has said -- that's what made him a great prophets in the Lord's eyes.

3. Since most prophecys spoken [in "dark speeches" that most didn't understand including the prophets himself] by the prophets in the Bible didn't come to pass in their lifetime, this is why the Israelites had the notorious tendency to stone literally the prophets by applying of Deut 18 and Deut 13. This is typical behavior of the "natural man" (=soulish or carnal man see 1Cor 2:14).

4. if you read Deut 13, we see that the prophet(noticed the Bible does not call any prophet a false prophet iin the OT), sent by the Lord who gave them the vision and dreams that these even came to pass ... this law shows us that we shouldn't follow them if what they say is to follow other gods and not the Lord...that we should "stone them". To me this law teaches us that it is our duty to test whatever it is spoken to us, even if that prophets comes with sign and wonder that come to pass"(Deut 13:2).

5.Even this law(Deut 13) implies that the Lord will send prophets for the purpose to test us whether or not we are going to test what they say and go away from the Lord's previous teachings.

6. There's tremendous benefits in testing whatever someone(prophet, brother, sister, etc) else tells us. I think that's why the Lord send them at the first place for He wants us to be in the habit to test whatever is said against His laws and never take anything without testing. The Bereans were praised for testing everything Paul said. This way the Lord can teach us further His laws. So to me the Lords sends us prophets or individuals in our lives for the purpose to study part of His law He thinks we lack understanding in.

7. The person to stone or to put to death, is the voice of our "natural man" inside of us who doesn't understand spiritual things and will never either understand (1Cor 2:14) that tells us to follow other gods. That “old man” opinions or interpretation must be put to death daily. Only the “new created man” begotten by the Spirit, can understand spiritual things via the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

I didn’t really address Alchemy first and second point properly.



This is a HUGE assumption that I have always heard thru out my years in the Church. It’s not even biblical for the Lord says clearly in Num 12:8 that He speaks in “dark speeches” to prophets. Dark Speeches comes from the Hebrew word chiydah (H2420 that means “a puzzle, a riddle” that is difficult to solve). This word is used 17 times in the Bible where 9 times it is used in Judges relating to the difficult riddle Samson gave at his wedding party.

Thus in Num 12:8 it is clear that the word of the Lord given to prophets comes in an obscured language and does not come with the interpretation and is given as a puzzle to be solve. In the whole Bible, I think only Joseph and Daniel that we read got the interpretation of some dreams. But as Alchemy correctly noted that not all the interpretation were given to Daniel. I will extend also to most other prophets.


It is true that Abraham spent 12 years with the incorrect understanding that Ishmael was the promised son. Now the birth and life of Ishmael was part of a prophesy also. Abraham had 2 sons, like the Lord had 2 sons. Abraham’s 2 sons were a type & shadow of the Lord’s two sons that Paul explained in Gal 4.

The first son, was birthed by Mama Egypt, was a carnal son that refused to hear the Holy Spirit, received the law outside their body on stones, and tried to keep it with their own vow, will & ability of the flesh. Paul says Ishmael represents the earthly Jerusalem. Also Paul tells us that Ishmael persecuted Isaac. The bible doesn’t tell us in what way, but it was so bad that Ishmael and his mother had to be cast out. The Lord’s second son represents the Overcomers, that constitute the New Jerusalem, and rely on Jesus to keep His vow to write all His laws on their heart via the personal teachings of the Holy Spirit. Also, Paul tells us that the second son represents the New covenant, whereas the first son represents the Old covenant.

I don’t believe the above was reveal to Abraham. Only the part of his understanding was corrected. Only the part that Ishmael was not the promise son when he got the news that Sarah was going to be pregnant. I really doubt that more than that was reveal then. So to say that the Lord corrected everything to Abraham when he got the news Sarah was going to have a son, is a HUGE assumption that is not said in the Bible. For sure Abraham got some more revelation afterwards especially when he offered Isaac as a sacrifice. But I do not believe that Abraham understanding was nearly complete as you are assuming.


I agree with the highlighted and underlined above, but disagree that everything was corrected and reveal to Abraham about Isaac & Ishmael.

The interpretation rarely comes to the prophet itself, but it is reserve much later on depending on the timing when He will fulfill that prophecy. The fulfillment of prophecies often comes sometimes in the futur generations.

I see this principe in this story of Abraham. Abraham only got the correction of his understanding of the promise son just 1 year prior to the birth of Isaac, but I doubt that much more than that was given to him then. This is what I see standing out in this story.

I am particularly interested in this. I have listened quite a bit to Stephen Bohr and was always struck by his faithfulness to EGW. It would be helpful if you were to provide links to your sources about this particular matter.

///

I will try to find that and post it here. I believe that was actually discussed in this forum already. I will try to do that for you James.

Hmmm....

My point is this; Evangelicals have long held the position that a true prophet of God must have all their prophecies come to pass or they are not a true prophet of God! If any one of their prophecies fail to come to pass, they are a false prophet.

Is this your understanding of the evangelical view of Deuteronomy 18:22?

Elle wrote;

"I agree with the highlighted and underlined above, but disagree that everything was corrected and reveal to Abraham about Isaac & Ishmael. "

My context was clear enough.

I hope this works James.

This is found in the "New Light" Forum and the discussion is called "Pastor Stephen Bohr finds major error in The Great Controversy".

CLICK HERE - S. Bohr

- or -

http://www.thesourcehh.org/pdf/Contribut...20Rev.%2010.pdf


Sorry James, I can't get the link to work here.

It is actually a chart and article explaining where Pastor Stephen Bohr differs from Ellen White on the seven trumpets in Revelation.

Elle, are you really going to shift the responsibility for you own actions onto the Pastor and board members of the Church you attend? If you cease to meet the definition of a Seventh Day Adventist shouldn't you have the honesty and integrity to resign your membership?

You do realize that non-members are still allowed to attend services? You can still obey what you believe is God's will for you without sinning. Just as you can be honest on your profile here without misrepresenting yourself as a Seventh Day Adventist. You would still be allowed to participate in discussions and everyone would know where you stand.

If the Church leadership knows of your apostasy and does not remove you from the books, that sin is upon their heads. The false witness you give by pretending to meet the membership requirements is upon yours.

As for your claim that 50% of the attending members do not accept the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, it is quite possible that you are correct. This situation will be rectified shortly when the Shaking occurs. As Sister White tells us:

"it (the Shaking) would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God’s people." – {CET 176.1}

(Elle, I realize that you refuse to accept the writings of Ellen White; however, this is still a site for Seventh Day Adventists and those who are friendly towards them. Your lack of faith in "the straight testimony" will not prevent me from quoting from the Spirit of Prophesy)

The unbelieving 50% you speak of will be Shaken out of God's Remnant Church!
I truely hope and pray that you are not among them.

God's remnant church is the SDA denomination? lol

• "Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, "Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.
  
  And He said to the disciples, "The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. They will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them."
  
  Luke 17:20-23

Whatever the process of canonization, whoever is deemed worthy of canonization pales in comparison to the character of God in His children of His Kingdom.

///

Home Page - MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE


WELCOMES BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF 
THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, 
ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!


ATTENTION DARYL!

Are we seriously supposed to believe that James Peterson is a FRIEND
of The Seventh-Day Adventist Church?

Doesn't it seem a bit more likely that he lied on his application form and joined
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers Online for the purpose of antagonistic trolling
and mocking our faith?

NO. But look at this:


What do you think about that? Let's discuss the Bible, shall we?

///

You keep saying the "evangelicals" but providing no evidence of THEM having said so. And I showed you what The Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology has to say about "prophet, prophetess and prophecy"; and it does not agree with your accusation against THEM.

Nevertheless, Deut. 18:22 is clear. The "prophet" that prophesies falsely ought not to be heeded afterward: "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

If EGW did prophesy falsely at any time, then the "canonization" of her works ought to be reversed.

///

James, are you understanding "presumptuously" and "falsely" to mean the same thing? The Hebrew root "zadown" (Strong's number 2087) from which we get "presumptuously" does not include "falsely" in its scope.

presumptuously --> falsely

If someone is presumptuous enough to commit himself or herself to some future event without the personal ability to bring it to pass AND without Divine Authority, then that person is a false prophet.

///

Although I agree with you, that did not answer the question.

Both a true prophet and a false prophet can be presumptuous; it is a human characteristic which we all fall prey to. However, the motives of the false vs. true would presumably be different.

Deut. 18:22 actually calls the prophet "presumptuous", and not "false", a point I find important. I am not willing to read that as "false."

... because you are hung up on a little word: "presumptuously"; and splitting hairs over roots. Read on ...

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die." (Deut. 18:20)

By definition, a false prophet is simply one who "presumptuously" declares, "Thus saith the Lord ..." when nothing of the kind ever happened.

///

I agree with that. But, what if the prophet doesn't understand what God told them? What if the prophecy is conditional?

Hagar and Ishmael was NOT part of the prophecy to Abraham. Not ever. Yet, God did say, after the fact, that He would bless Ishmael. But, Hagar and Ishmael were big mistakes on the part of Abraham and Sarah.

1. Example of a prophet that did not understand (Dan. 7 & 8)
2. Example of a prophet whose prophecy was conditional (Jonah 3)

In both instances, Daniel and Jonah did NOT act presumptuously. They did NOT lie about receiving a word from God. Though Daniel did not understand, he wrote what he saw and heard. "Thus saith the Lord ...." Similarly, Jonah delivered a conditional prophecy to the people, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" BUT that was not the only thing he said. We know this because of the response of the King himself, "Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish?"

False prophets, on the other hand, simply chatter like empty vessels: they lie; and when they are caught, they excuse themselves in a million different ways, one of which is to say that the word was conditional -- AFTER THE FACT. Looking at Ellen White through this lens, it behooves every SDA to be fully persuaded in his or her own mind about the canonization of her works.

///

I agree with what you said about Daniel and Jonah. Daniel did not understand some of the visions he received and Jonah's prophecy was conditional. I find it interesting that Nineveh knew to repent that the Lord might save them.

I disagree with you. Ishmael and Hagar was part of the prophecy and a HUGE part of it too. They constitute the largest chunk of the Bible.

I will only address Ishmael, but I could say much more about Hagar and the parallele with her versus Sarah.

Ishmael was Abraham FIRST SON of the FLESH. I agree Ishmael was NOT the PROMISED SON, but it doesn't negate that Ishmael was Abraham FIRST-BORN SON. This is in parallele with the Lord having two sons : #1. Israel born from Mama Egypt, and #2. the coming manisfestation of the Sons of God who are born of the Spirit and are the Overcomers.

This illustrate a prophesy pattern that the Lord works thru – He starts with an “earthy or natural” son, then He begets Christ in him and birth a New Created Spiritual Man in His image. This pattern is repeated in the Bible. Here’s some example:

1. First Son – Adam who was Fleshy, Second Adam – Jesus who was Spiritual

2. First Son – Esau who was Fleshy, Second Jacob – who became Spiritual

3. God’s First Son -- Israel who was Fleshy, Second Son – the overcomers
------- God call Israel His son and His firstborn AV Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn
------- Ishmael was called a “wild donkey”(Gen 16:12) == Israel was also called a donkey(Ex 13:13) and a wild one (Jer 2:24) Lots of other donkey and wild donkey verses in the Bible relating to our first nature.

4. First Son - Levi Priesthood who was fleshy ; Second Son Melchizedek Priesthood who is spiritual.

5. First Son – us who are Fleshy(=natural man 1Cor 2:14), Second Son – the new created Man(2 Cor 5:17) who is Spiritual(1Jn 3:9)

The term “Fleshy” has various synonyms in the Bible : Carnal, natural man, soulish, and earthy.

Even Paul recognizes that Ishmael & Hagar was part of the prophesy (read Gal 4).

Paul even explains this two-sons-prophesy-pattern by saying :
AV 1C 15:45 “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.”

The people who fight over Ellen White, criticizing her on the one hand and vehemently defending her on the other, are like those who play for third place at the FIFA World Cup. They lost the Cup already! The Great Controversy is NOT over Ellen White.

///

This discussion in not to critic Ellen White nor am I interested to bring up any of the items the link is talking about.

It is about criticizing the Church for failling to Canonnize or do a cleanup in her writings.

I even said that Ellen and James was right to tell us not to quote her, that it was our Christian Duty to test all things and making the Bible our only standard. However the Church did not listen to those counsel and many others of the sort.

1. SDA have already canonized her writing. The link Daryl provided and FB#18 are evidence enough.

2. Give TWO or THREE examples of things SDA should remove from her work for it to be cleansed, and reasons for your advice.

///

1. FB#18 is no proof EGW writings has been canonized.

2. For instance, a)personal letters, b)all writings from the pen of others(her team), c)anything that was changed or added by the Church, d)anything that she was expressing her understanding at the time.

The Great Controversy is definitely NOT over Ellen White, however, the book, The Great Controversy, that she wrote, under the inspiration of God, is all about the great controversy between Christ and Satan, between Good and Evil.

Well it is not proof in the technical sense, but evidence enough. FB#18 says, "Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church" cf "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ..." (2 Tim. 3:16)

Do you care to oppose one who speaks with "prophetic authority" under "inspiration of God"? SDA have established Ellen White in their hearts much like Mormons have done Joseph Smith. It is a settled matter, and a fundamental doctrine of the denomination. And there is NOTHING you can do about it.

You ask quite a lot to be removed: personal letters, all writings from the pen of her team, anything that was changed or added by the Church, anything where she was expressing her understanding at the time. Won't you consider annotations instead, explicit identifications of what is what and which is which? I think they have done that already though.

///

And it is easy to misconstrue opposing ideas as "evil" and familiar ideas as "good" making the controversy as if it were then over doctrine. Shouldn't it be over character instead: the character of Christ versus the character of Satan? Jesus said as much, didn't he? "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will NEVER enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. 18:3)

It is not about what you know, but how you express what you do know. (1 Cor. 13)

///

Can you give an example of her writings that have been added to by the church and how you think it so?

The Church takes ALL her writings as being inspired (with the exception of some minor letters to her son). That’s not even close to canonizing her writings at all.

No it doesn’t bother me for I know it is in the Lord’s plan that most (if not all) denomination won’t change their foundation for they were blinded. That is just the way it goes when we build a house in the wilderness when we weren’t allowed to from the beginning and were said to live in a tent without foundation instead. Houses prevents us from following the Lord wherever He goes. Houses were only meant to be built when we reach the promised land, not before. Once a house(=denomination) is build on a certain foundation, most don’t want to change that foundation. It’s too costy and too much work.

When the appointed time will come and the unveiling of Jesus-Christ will be made manifest -- all these [denominational] foundations will be tested against Jesus’ foundation that He has laid. In I Cor 3:11-15 talks about the members’ works set on these [denominational] foundation will be tested. They(the members) may suffer great loss (of their works), but they themselves will be saved by fire. So I see in this, that the Lord purpose is to test the members against what they have worked upon.


In that list I didn’t mention testing all writings against the law and the testimonies. Yes, perhaps it would reduce everything to a small book like one of the writers in the Bible.

No I don’t think that will do. If the Church leadership takes up their Christian duty (which I very much doubt this will ever happen), what I think is best would be to separate what is inspired into a separate book.

Really, it’s up to the individuals to test all things (1Cor 3:11-15, Deut 13 and 18, Is 8:20). We shouldn't expect or wait for the Leadership to do this. Nor will we be spared because of their lack(1Cor 3:11-15). As Ellen and James clearly said that it is each one of us to do our Christian Duty to test all things and stand on the bible alone.

What do I think about that?

Well, I think that you mean to portray the Seventh Day Adventist Church as the Sanhedrin who persecuted the prophets, murdered the Son of God, and stoned Stephen to death.

Strange, I don't recall ever hearing about Seventh Day Adventism committing murder?



I think that in your accusation, you assign yourself the role of Stephen.

Strange, I don't recall reading that Spirit filled Stephen bore false witness by making baseless accusations of murder against Christians?


Strange, I don't recall ever reading about the godly man, Stephen mocking people?

James Peterson said: "God's remnant church is the SDA denomination? lol"

"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time..." Jude 1:17-18



Strange, I don't recall reading about the child of God, Stephen telling complete lies?

I forget,did you ever repent and apologize for lying to all of the members of this forum? It was a month or two ago, in September wasn't it? You do remember falsely claiming to be a Seventh Day Adventist, don't you?



Strange, I don't recall reading about our righteous brother Stephen ever hiding his affiliation with the Apostles from anyone?

I forget, did you ever step out of the shadows, into the Light of God and admit which denomination you are shilling for? Peterson, it's a rather Catholic sounding name... isn't it?

.
.

• lol

.
.

///

Then say plainly that you do not consider whatever quote anyone brings up to be authentic. My point is, you cannot do anything about Ellen White where SDA are concerned, period. Speak to a Roman Catholic and you must contend with the Pope. Speak with a Mormon and you will hear about Joseph Smith spoken with great reverence. And so on .... And so on ....

If the Bible is common ground, stand on common ground. If not, then humanity and love are often common themes in religion. Let your conversation spring from that common experience.

///

I view any Church units as one family of believers. In a family, members don't always agree or believe the same, but it is no reason to ex-communicate anyone. This mentality is quite RCC who doesn't realize that any Church truth & understanding is still not complete.


Interesting definition of sin you have there. I never saw that in the Bible. Isn't it a sin to disobey the Lord or act presumptuously? As I said, He never told me to leave. I have ask. Then just 2 years ago; He shown me via scriptures that He wants me to stay.


Do you think it will be mostly the leaders that will be shakened out? Don't know but I have heard so many stories(that I'm not really interested but many does like to put an emphasis on the sins of the Leadership. I rather focuss on all the good things the Lord is doing.) Nevertheless, the story below did make me think that perhaps many leaders have the mark of the beast(money)on their hands and forehead.

I got this recent news first hand from my best friend (an Adventist) who is from one of the Slavic countries and worked for the Conference of her country for lots of years before coming to Canada like 8 or so years. Anyway, she knows lots of pastors from which have been long friends to her family and she keeps in touch. Well, one of them is now a Pastor in the US in some big city in the East coast. He started to study scripture for himself and started to teach what scripture says -- meaning he started to teach things other than the 28FBs. The Conference Leaders told him "no, no", but he replied back saying "I will teach whatever message the Lord gives me", and kept on studying and changing a little his position. The congregation started studying also and many agreed. Of course some disagreed with him, but most did agree and he got them studying also for themselves. Another word they were learning to receive their teachings from the Holy Spirit.

Then the conference threatened the Pastor that he will loose his job. He said, "no problem do what you think you must do"[all quotes our my paraphrase of what my friend told me]. That went on for many months and the congregation stood by him.

You know what the conference decided to do at the end? They didn't remove him from the payroll and he can preach whatever he wants. He had a large following and perhaps the conference didn't want to loose those tithes and offering.

So that's how it seems to be by various witnesses. The leadership is ok to even pay a pastor for teaching things other than the 28FBs.

Or maybe I'm wrong and perhaps that conference is changing their position themself. I do hope that is the case and I would applaud to that. I think Ellen and James White would applaud to that also.

ProdigalOne -- we are to grow together. One shouldn't stone or cast the other out because of believing different things. Let's open the Word together and learn more about what the Lord wants to teach us. Let's not follow the RCC persecuting and ex-communicating mentality. The Lord told our Church that we are blind, so why do you pretend we can see. We are all blind and in need of the Lord's healing salve to see His glory shine.

"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time..." Jude 1:17-18

Ah, the voice of ecumenism speaks!

I wonder who else thinks we should put aside our differences and seek common ground?



"Divisions among us, but also divisions among the communities: evangelical Christians, orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, but why divided? We must try to bring about unity. Let me tell you something, today, before leaving home, I spent 40 minutes more or less, half an hour, with an evangelical pastor. And we prayed together, seeking unity."

Pope Francis: Catholic Online.



The Beast has his servants, even here on a site that is supposed to be a sanctuary from his blasphemous bile.

Did you ever come clean about which denomination you are shilling for James Peterson?

Elle, does your thumbs up signify agreement with the Ecumenical Movement?

ProdigalOne said:

"Elle, are you really going to shift the responsibility for you own actions onto the Pastor and board members of the Church you attend? If you cease to meet the definition of a Seventh Day Adventist shouldn't you have the honesty and integrity to resign your membership?"



Elle said:

"I view any Church units as one family of believers. In a family, members don't always agree or believe the same, but it is no reason to ex-communicate anyone. This mentality is quite RCC who doesn't realize that any Church truth & understanding is still not complete."


If you read my words above, you will see that I said: "If YOU cease to meet the definition of a Seventh Day Adventist shouldn't YOU have the honesty and integrity to resign your membership?"

You have no control over the board's decisions; however, you are responsible for your own. No one should have to excommunicate you. If you do not fit the definition of a Seventh Day Adventist, then you should be honest enough to do the right thing and resign your membership.

Did "God" tell you to keep your membership under false pretenses, or did He just tell you to continue attending that church?




I do believe that it is extremely important that the SDA Church agrees on the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. If we don't, then we might as well just join up with the rest of the denominations. The appellation of Seventh Day Adventist will have lost all meaning!

Your comment about the RCC "mentality" is quite ironic, considering it is the Papacy that is working so industriously to make us "one family of believers"!



"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household."

Matthew 10: 34-36

ProdigalOne said:

"If the Church leadership knows of your apostasy and does not remove you from the books, that sin is upon their heads. The false witness you give by pretending to meet the membership requirements is upon yours."


Elle said:

"Interesting definition of sin you have there. I never saw that in the Bible. Isn't it a sin to disobey the Lord or act presumptuously? As I said, He never told me to leave. I have ask. Then just 2 years ago; He shown me via scriptures that He wants me to stay."



It is not my definition of sin Elle, it is God's. By knowingly keeping you on the Church books, the leadership has welcomed apostasy and become an accessory
to it. Since, you no longer meet the Churches' definition of a Seventh Day Adventist, accepting your claim of membership is bearing false witness. Whether their motivation is to pad the congregation numbers or inflate the tithe, they are coveting: since such coveting places something above the will of God; they are also guilty of having other gods before Him.

Sounds like sin to me; maybe you should read your Bible again. This time with the eyes of a child, who accepts the simplicity of God's words without sophistry.

ProdigalOne said:

"As for your claim that 50% of the attending members do not accept the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, it is quite possible that you are correct. This situation will be rectified shortly when the Shaking occurs."


Elle said:

"Do you think it will be mostly the leaders that will be shakened out? Don't know but I have heard so many stories(that I'm not really interested but many does like to put an emphasis on the sins of the Leadership. I rather focuss on all the good things the Lord is doing.) Nevertheless, the story below did make me think that perhaps many leaders have the mark of the beast(money)on their hands and forehead."


I was merely responding to your claim that "50% of the attending members do not accept the 28 Fundamental Beliefs". No, I do not "think it will be mostly the leaders that will be shakened out".

It is obvious by the responses here that the division over the importance of the Spirit of prophecy is the main dividing point among Seventh Day Adventist believers. But our church has always supported not only the writings of Mrs White but every individual who were approved in the Spirit, like the visions of William Miller, Hiram Edson and the prophetic interpretation of Josiah Litch. But there is a major drive by those who want to tear the church down in making of no effect the Spirit of Prophecy. That is a shame, because the Spirit says those who are responsible will never make it to the kingdom because their souls will be unprepared. For those who love the Spirit of Prophecy, our Jesus supports you.

I agree James. The tragic part is that unbelief in the Spirit of Prophesy prevents those who need it most from allowing the straight testimony to have it's effect upon their hearts.

"I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen, and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God’s people." – {CET 176.1}

I was just reflecting on our current belief of the coming "shaking". I personally see in scriptures that the Lord follow the same ways He has shown to us in the past. In another word, types and history repeats.

Actually we saw 2 shakings in the Past. Both resulted in destroying the physical Temple(can represents their Church they had put their faith into) and most people didn't make it.

We know from these past shakings, their (Church & Leaders' teachings) interpretation and understanding of the laws and other scriptures were found very lacking. They had the correct law and other inspired books; despite, the leaders and the people that followed their directions were shaking out.

For some reason, we believe the next shaking will be opposite. That the SDA Church and its teachings will remain and the rebellious people that doesn't follow the Church interpretation and beliefs will be shaking out of the Church. We are putting as much trust in our Church beliefs as much as the Jews put their trust in theirs.

Another thing that is amazingly contradictory of our pre-conceived ideas, is we also recognize that we are the Laodicean Church???? So how can the Church be "blind and naked" and yet know the truth all at the same time???

I do believe we are Laodicean and not only the SDAs but all other denominations of todays. We are as blind as the Jews were before their great shaking.

Going by with what happened in the past, my understanding is there will be a remnant that will comes out of the Laodicean Church. The Laodicean Church is the last Church before Jesus 2nd coming. The Laodicean Church itself will not make the shaking and will be destroyed(its teachings and erronous doctrines) and only a remnant of the people will come out of her and make the body of Christ. That remnant will be the overcomers aka the Saints of the Most High.

Exactly. God bless you again.

Sister Elle; The reason it will be a shaking out of those who do not follow the Spirit of Prophecy is because of the pressure of the world against those who are following the Spirit of Prophecy, the straight testimony brings serious persecution against anyone claiming our beliefs in the days ahead. And in the process the halfhearted will be the ones who turn on the remnant more ferociously than even the world because they fold under the external pressures, and the remnant will never dismiss their faith in the SDA message. Those who have already laid aside certain portions of the testimonies will be shaken out and have to forsake their claim to the title of SDA. ESPECIALLY when the Sunday law issue comes. This will be the ultimate dividing of the sheep and the goats. But the events leading to the Sunday law are already unfolding, and here is where our faith is tested to prepare us for the Latter Rain.

Using the Spirit of Prophecy I would like to draw a picture for you to imagine. The very first vision Mrs White received was about the path to the heavenly city. This path was high and lifted up with the light of the Midnight Cry at the entrance to the path. She was shown the 144,000 on this path heading to the heavenly city. So in order to be one of the 144,000 you must believe in the message of the Midnight Cry. This begins the path. But how many pastors do you hear teaching about the midnight Cry? It's a point of contention. They are ashamed that we as Seventh Day Adventists claimed that Jesus would come in 1844 so they discard the Midnight Cry. This excludes them from being prepared because they are not on that path.

Here is the first Vision the Lord's Servant received.



The Spirit of Prophecy and the Great disappointment/ Midnight Cry, is almost as much a part of the path of the 144,000 as scripture according to what God has shown me. So with this mindset if you don't believe that the Great Disappointment was ordained by God you are not on the correct path to the Heavenly city. But how many discard that message?

As an example, I am claiming that God showed me the Spirit of Prophecy. He took me out of my past life and led me directly to this church and I will never claim otherwise. I have never seen anyone as persecuted inside the church as I have been. I have been beaten and attacked and maligned and hated from the moment God had me call the SDA church that first day after telling me to call them. The seventh day of my fast God showed me Matthew 12:8 "Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath" and light circled those words and filled my mind connecting thoughts and I heard the Still Small voice say "this will lead you home to me". I called the local SDA church like He told me to and the president of the Alaska conference (Jim Stevens) came over to my home to hear my testimony with the local pastor and he has persecuted me ever since. WHY? Because I claimed God led me there. My testimony brings major persecution against me, but does that mean I should leave the church? NO WAY. They can leave, I will never.

As a side note, the running of Brother Ben Carson for president has done more to bring us into the spot light than at any other time other than when AT Jones defended our position of the Sabbath in congress. The fact that Mr Carson dismisses the council given, to NOT be involved in politics shows his willingness to Kowtow to popular beliefs and dismiss the SOP. This is a very common attribute to 90% of those claiming our faith. They are willing to dismiss the perfect council of the Holy Spirit through the testimonies to get their way, which is rebellion. They will be the remnant worst enemies. I have already seen it myself.

With a belief system like that, I can understand your reluctance to quote Ellen White.

You say that a remnant will come out of the Laodicean Church.
In Revelation 18 God's people are told to come out of Babylon,
is it your opinion that the Seventh Day Adventist Church is part of Babylon?

No I don't believe the SDA or any other denomination is Babylon or part of Babylon -- rather they are in captivity to Babylon and have been heavily shaped by their teachings.

Basically the last symbolic Church in history(=Laodicean Church) is in captivity to Mystery Babylon like the tribe of Judah was in captivity to Old Babylon before they were set free. Only a remnant**(see number below) came out of Babylon and went to Jerusalem(=New Jerusalem). Most didn't go out --they stayed where they were.

The same as in the time of Jesus, most stayed -- only a remnant followed the "fanatic teachings" of Jesus and came out of the narrowed blinded minded carnal teachings of the Jews.

**
----Ezra 2:64 says the number was 42,630
----it is interesting that only 74 were Levites(Ezra 2:40) were in that count
----it seems those that were priest were not numbered and considered polluted (Ezra 3:61-63)

Those members of the tribe of Judah who refused to leave Babylon remained as permanent citizens. Thus, they became part of Babylon.

By the same logic, if the majority of the SDA denomination refuses to separate from Babylon wouldn't they become part of it? Then wouldn't the call to "come out of her my people" be a call to leave the SDA denomination?

BTW I have changed the post above with the actual numbers of the people who came out and went to Jerusalem(=New Jerusalem). There were 42000 aprox. I don't know if that number included woman and children as in some part it seems that the maidservants were numbered... I didn't read it as closely as I should to determine that.

However, what was interesting in that number above only 74 were Levites and if my comprehension of the text is correct -- there were no priests. My question is was the small list of men listed at the beginning of the chapter -- priests or servants of the King or a mixed of both?


I wouldn't termed it as "permanent citizens" of Babylon. Remember the Babylonian system and government was destroyed. They became citizens of the next government which was Media & Persia.

The basic concept is
a) the majority weren't shaking out
b) only a remnant came out.
c) in Jesus 1st coming only a small remnant(120) came out of their Church.
d) our interpretation of futur event of the skaking is outside down to what scriptures have shown in the past pattern.


I think you're trying too hard to keep your pre-conceived idea. I don't see it working. We need to look at what the Lord has done in the past without any biases to understand what HE will repeat in the futur.

Hi James, its nice to finally cross path again. I appreciate your gentle voice in your reply to me above. There's great strenght in kindness.

Sorry, but I do not share your view of the Midnight Cry-10 virgins, persecution and the shaking out. I don't believe that the 10 "good" virgins will stay in the Chruch...right there I see this conflicting with history and the patterns seen in scriptures. I have expressed these to ProdigalOne in the posts above. I view the 10 virgins differ from the other 10 because they have oil in their lamp. I view this as they have learn to hear, recognize His voice and follow His guidance. That's the only difference I see with those two groups.

However I appreciated that you sharing this view as I want to understand what people believe. It's an interesting view about the midnight cry being the message that most SDAs reject. I can understand why you expect a major "shaking out".

However, now thinking of it, in a way there will be some major shaking out at the Lord second coming when the "manifestation of the Sons of God" will be unveil. Perhaps, then there will be a major shaking out of the believers from all denominationa churches.

As you may see that I haven't changed much over the years. Like many other topics, its sad for the time being we need to agree to disagree.

The persecution that I see repeated in the Bible and history is the Church members persecuting the overcomers. Paul mentions that Ishmael persecuted Isaac, the brothers persecuted Joseph, King Saul persecuted David, the RCC persecuted their members, and today the Church persecute its members for not believing as they do.

I have expressed in more detail in one of the closing post#176793 of the discussion "Should the Body discipline its Members on disagree on the 28FBs?

To comment more on persecution...I understand that anyone that have a new revelation(like yourself) will be heavily rediculed and persecuted. I'm sorry that you have to suffer this James. Plus those that bring rebuke to the Church, will also suffer rebukes. Then I have witnessed some SDA gays(still blinded in their believes) being quite heavily persecuted by the members on Adventist Online. I think that's the worst persecution I have ever witnessed. So what I have seen as persecution -- it comes from all direction by members towards other members and not only the overcomers that gets persecuted.

It does break my heart to see many at the forum making fun or passing accusations on members. A brother or sister should never do this. I'm sorry for all the persecution seen on this forum against you James.

Actually, what I understand is persecution is for our own good. It refines us. That's the Lord purpose in this. All things work together for good. So really there's no need to be bitter or angry at all, but bless the Lord for it.

I'm very happy to see that you are learning to hear the Lord's voice and being faithfull in obeying Him. I personally advocate this and believe we should all learn this. Many Blessings Brother James in your walk with the Lord!

Just curious, how would you define "persecution"?

Maybe you are not aware she has substituted a different definition for Babylon?

Tx for the question. It is always good to look up words in the Bible to see how the LORD has define these and reflecte on these.

The main Greek word for persecution is dioko(G1377) that means “to pursue” (literally or figuratively). It has been used 44x in the NT where it was translated 28x as persecute.

Here’s a portion of the outline of the Biblical Usage given by the Blue Letter Bible :

-to make to run or flee, put to flight, drive away
-to pursue (in a hostile manner)
-in any way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one
-to persecute -- to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something

In Hebrew the word is rawdaf(H7291) that has a similar proper definition as dioko – “to run after”. rawdaf has many application that not necessarily all means persecution. Out of the 143x the word was used in the OT; it was translated as persecute 27x.

I think “to pursue in a hostile manner” would capture the meaning of persecution in a general way.

Some Reflection on the History and nature of Persecution

Jesus made several remarks towards the Jews for killing, a form of persecution, the prophets by stoning. When Israel has their Sovereignty under their Judges or under their Kings…stoning was the “lawful way” to bring judgment on a prophet, on a adulterer, and on a Sabbath breaker. Other sins, the sinner was “accused” in court were the Levite-judge sentenced a debt and put the sinner into slavery according to the law of judgment and the law of Jubilee.

However, despite they acted according to the LITTERAL letter of the law; they had no understanding what the Law-Giver(Jesus) meant with these laws and their purpose was hostile towards their brothers. Thus they juged their brothers and sisters according to the hardness of their hearts and limited narrow understanding of the law.

Also, another sin they were guilty of is they used the law to enslave their brothers and the foreigners. They were guilty of refusing to set free their slaves on the 7th year. The nation of Israel never kept the 7th year as a Sabbath. It wasn’t so much that they didn’t want to give a rest to the land, but mainly the reason was they didn’t want to lose their servants. Also they refused to cancel all debts and restore everyone to their inheritance at the Jubilee year.

The law was never meant for us to “accuse” our brother. This is Satan’s job, not for any “son of God” under training. The law was design to restore us and reconcile us to our brother. The Lord has provided ample loophole in the law to be used to restore anyone. However, the Jews used the law to condemn and sought loopholes to keep their brothers in a perpetual bondage for their were big profit in having free labor(and getting their possession and land) from a slave that was penalized by the law.

The Lord put the house of Israel and of Judah in captivity (under the Sovereignty of another nation) ever since they entered Canaan. Israel were put under captivity 6 times before the 7th captivity by the Assyrian came. On the 7th, they lost all their possession, they were exiled from their land, and most were killed. The same happened for the house of Judah under the captivity of Babylon. Then the Lord showed Daniel that the captivity would continue under 3 additional Beast Empires plus an extension of the Roman Empire.

Under the Roman Empire, the Jews lost their ability to stone (execute to death) their members. Actually, it is the Lord that used the Roman Empire to remove their stoning “rights” from the Jews for it was heavily abused whenever they were under a corrupt leadership -- either when they were under a corrupt priesthood or kings. If they would of retained this “right”, they would of long stoned Jesus and many others.

When the early Church became corrupt (only took less than a 100 years or so…history shows that the Christian were also stoning their members and foreigners when they could during the time the Roman Empire crumble and before the Lord gave the RCC authority) and gained Sovereignty over many nations... the RCC used Scriptures to torture and burn alive their members for simply not believing the Church doctrines. This was a strong witness to the world ‘till today that shows the ways of a corrupt Church.

The Lord removed the authority from the RCC, and the Church is now under the captivity of Mystery Babylon. The Babylonian court system does not allow slavery, nor stoning, nor burning members alive. However, if we still had that authority; I have no doubt that we would of used scriptures to stone, burn, and put our brothers into perpetual slavery.

Our captivity to Mystery Babylon protects us for the Lord used them to impose laws on us that prohibits these savageries including polygamy which stemed from a limited understanding of the law.

We hypocritely point our fingers at the RCC for their pass barbarian behavior, when we ourselves do the same in a lesser measure. And if we could, it wouldn’t take much time for our Church or any other church to become the same as the RCC was. We, including myself, all have manifested the same spirit as the RCC; we just don’t have the authority to do much besides shooting others with our mouth in all directions.

The Israelites, the Jews, the RCC persecution history are all mirrors the Lord has made for us to see our own hearts so to bring us into repentance. It’s now time for the Lord to open our eyes to see our reflection and hearts.

It is the Lord that has blinded us in so many ways until today. The expected latter rain will end this blindness. I think the Lord has planned this in this way so to bring us in such a deep repentance that was never seen before in history. All things work for good! Let us praise the Lord for His wisdom and ability to bring us all into repentance. Much Blessings to everyone!

(bold emphasis mine)


There may be any number of ways to think that God's Remnant Church can become Babylon, but, it can't. Even if the majority of people in it are Babylonians, God's church can never become Babylon.

Yes kland, I am aware that Elle defines Babylon as some sort of wealthy elite coalition. I was merely curious as to how the SDA Church fits into her non-Adventist interpretation.

I agree Alchemy, the SOP is quite clear that the SDA Church is not to be called Babylon.

Since Elle appears to believe it is the faithful who are shaken out of the Church, I was wondering if she thought the SDA Church was, or will become, part of Babylon.

Elle, thank-you for your thoroughly researched reply!

It had occurred to me that you might consider some of my comments to you as persecution. I do hope that is not the case, as they were never intended that way.
I have no wish to put you to flight, or drive you away. My intention is only that your true creed should be made plain, so as to avoid any confusion: after all, our intention here is to walk in the Light.

Do you think Paul's advise to Timothy could be misconstrued as persecution?

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.". 2Timothy 4:2

"Reprove", "rebuke", these are not wishy-washy terms. They imply strong action, tough love so to speak.



Does anyone any have thoughts as to how Paul's words should be applied?

Amen ProdigalOne.

Well Alchemy, Kland, and ProdigalOne you have just failed the Lord’s Deut 13 test by choosing to believe a shaken-&-remnant definition & way that is opposite to the Lord’s definition & way that He has shown 4 times in history.

#1. At the judment of the corrupt nation-Church of Israel at the Assyrian captivity saving only a remnant that came out of the land of Israel,

#2. At the judgment of the corrupt nation-Church of Judah at the Babylonian captivity having only a remnant spared and brought into captivity

#3 At the judgment of the Babylonian Empire, where only a remnant came out of their Church to return to Jerusalem;

#4. After Jesus death having only a remnant coming out of Judaism corrupt Church

All these 4 historical example, we have a repeated theme : a)their Church were corrupt and b)a remnant came out of it.

Now you believe in a shaken-&-remnant definition that He has never shown to us in the past. And you have chosen to go after another way that we have not known in the past; thus it is not the Lord’s == thus is another gods way.

Be careful – for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

AV Dt 13: 1 . If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Also our shaken-&-remnant definition goes against John’s revelation about the Laodicean Church who is the last Church in World history who is corrupt also and who comes before the Lord’s Pure-Perfect-Priesthood-Bride Church who is the remnant that came out of ____________ -- this remnant pure Church will rule with Christ during the Millennium.

We SDA correctly recognize that we currently are that Laodicean Church. Well I personally believe that all denominations form this Laodicean Church as Jesus said His sheep are in many folds; nevertheless the Bible is clear this last Church is far from being perfect just like the #1, #2, #3, and #4 churches were found corrupt in past before Jesus death. Actually perhaps this Laodicean Church is in worst shape than any other Churches in history. Jesus told us AV Re 3:16 “I will spue thee out of my mouth 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Elle, could you clearly say, first, what it is that you think I failed at, and second, how so?

It sounds like you do believe in a remnant: "who comes before the Lord’s Pure-Perfect-Priesthood-Bride Church who is the remnant that came out of ____________ "

This post comes from Adventist brought front and center discussion. Since there were so many response to it and potentially hi-jack the discussion, I decided to copy the post here where it belong. I will address the reply of the post here.

I didn't change the content of my original post but just went over to improve the clarity of it.

================ the revised version of Post #179949


You mis-understood. We were talking (here) about the Jesuit infiltration and Jim Arrabitos documentary and the Campmeeting photos of 1888 with 6 men surrounding Ellen White doing the Mason hidden hand sign -- thus in reference to all those events I was seeing that it wasn't so far-fetch (or unreasonable) for those to not trust Ellen White writing beyond James White death. I wasn't referring about me, I was only referring to those I have known in past years that told me not to trust any writing (or try to detect which did come from her pen from the writing that didn't) beyond that date.


I believe we need to test all things. I believe that some writings of Ellen White are inspired before or after 1888 -- however all needs to be tested.

I was only saying what the whole sentence said. I wasn't at all implying or saying what you said above.

Whatever Ellen white's counsel or laws (whatever term you want to refer them) -- if they don't match to the Lord's counsel or laws -- then it is between you and the Lord to determine what to do with it.

Me, all I'm saying we are to test all things like the Lord, Ellen White and James have told us to do.

When I do a study, I always use the Bible as my source book as I believe Ellen White and James told us to do. If you come to me and say -- well this or that is not in line with Ellen White...but I say to you, well I have this Bible text and that Bible text as my source.....

Then I think you should :

#1. of checked the accuracy of my Biblical source before hand and not bring forth to me any Ellen White quotes.

-1a) suppose my interpretation or application of the scripture does NOT align with scripture (suppose I added something, or I misapplied the text, or misunderstood it, or didn't acknowledge another scripture referring to the same matter). You need to address my erronous scripture application.

-1b) suppose my scripture application DOES align with scriptures but you have other scriptures that aligns with what Ellen White says? Then we discuss these scriptures that might seem to be in contradiction and try to reconcile all scriptures.

-1c)suppose my scripture application DOES align with scriptures but you have NO scriptures to back Ellen's saying? What do you do then? You need to go to the Lord -- not argue with me, nor blame Ellen White, nor blame the Church.

Does that make sense?

To me, I see a purpose for all things especially the reason the Lord wants us to test all things and sending us prophets to prove us. Read, meditate on Deut 13:1-5. The termed used in Deut 13 is Prophet -- NOT false prophet.

Ellen White is NOT a false Prophet to me. Even if there's some portion of her writings that has been tampered with by the Jesuit infiltration, or if she spoke with a lack of understanding, or she spoke a personal interpretation that wasn't in line with the Lord, or she perceived she heard the voice of the Lord but in reality it was her own --- whatever reason may be --- she's still a prophet to my eyes.

I don't believe that any prophets were born prophets that didn't have to grow and weren't without error. What made the cannon in scriptures is 99% without error, but all other words the prophet have spoken -- these are not in the Bible. So these prophets had to grow into their calling and their past mistakes does not make them any less of a prophet.

It it us that do them wrong by neglecting our Deut 13 duty that the Lord told us to do always. We are to never assume that whatever they say is error free. It is our mistakes if we do not test them like told -- our sins -- not theirs.

We need to understand and know that prophets needs to grow. The prophets in training (which is a lifetime training like our own training are) needs to also learn to hear correctly the voice of the Lord and differentiate it from their own. They need to learn to put their heart idols aside like any other brothers and sisters have to learn also. They do not understand all things like any of us. They weren't reveal all things. Most of the cases they are not even given an interpretation of their dreams or visions. And most of the fulfillment of what dream or Words given is only fulfilled in many generations down the road. Most don't see the day that the Word given to them are fulfilled. They can fall into doubt. They can try to interpret or re-interpret what they think the vision, dream or Word means and they can not have it all right. But all of those reason may not mean that the dream or vision or word they heard initially wasn't from the Lord! Often time, it is what they added to it that wasn't His. However that doesn't makes them less of a prophet because they had to grow, they did some mistakes, the interpretation wasn't given to them, or the fulfillment didn't come in their time.

Most people are too quick with their casting stones at them without understanding lifetime personal growth, and what the Lord meant in Deut 13. That's why many prophets died in the OT. Deut 13 is a warning to you (not to the prophets) to always test what a prophet tells you no matter the circumstances.

All those reasons above is why the Lord tells us to always test them and never assume that there's any point that it's ok to not test them. Even if in the time of the past, whatever they said came true. That's not a good enough reason to not test them in the future or whatever they say as said in Deut 13.

Even the pure Word of God (the Bible) needs to be tested at all time -- if you know what I mean with that.

Do you believe that prophets are born prophets? That everything that comes out of their mouth is always the Word of God????

Where in the Bible it tells us this? I never seen any text that alludes to this. However, there's plenty of stories in the Bible that shows that Abram, Jacob, Moses, and etc... had to grow into their calling.


Where do you get that notion?



1. Notice that neither in Deut 13 and 18 the Lord calls them false prophets. They are call prophet.

2. Deut 13:3 the Lord takes credit for sending the prophet to prove YOU.

3. No where do we see in the Bible where the Lord has apply this law in executing to death any [false] prophet. NO WHERE. If you know of a court case in the Bible where the Lord has judge a [false] prophet to death, do let me know. The fact that there's no case, says a lot. It says He does not apply this law like you want to apply it.

One thing the Bible is very clear is there are plenty of case history where people like yourself has killed the prophets of the Lord. Jesus reproved many times the Jews and their fathers for doing so. But no where does Jesus reprove for not stoning the [false] prophets. Go figure!

4. Did you know that we are all [false] prophets? We all speak as if what we say is the truth --- and often it is not what our forefathers has known -- meaning we preach things that the Lord has not taught us or are not in Moses laws.

5. Did you know that we all speak presumptuously probably every day. We all say things that didn't come from the Lord's Spirit. This is speaking presumptuously by definition.

6. If the Lord meant that we are to stone LITERALLY every [false] prophets -- there wouldn't be any people around left alive. These laws are to be apply to us personally.

7. The false prophet is the voice in your head that tells you to follow strange gods, that tells you to say things that the Spirit of the Lord never told you to repeat. It is that voice in your head who is the [false] prophet that you need to stone daily. Not your brothers and sisters.


According to your interpretation of the Law -- not the Lord's interpretation -- for there's not even one case where He told anyone to stone literally a [false] prophet in the Bible -- not once.


That's your private interpretation! You should ask the Lord what is His interpretation of Deut 13 and 18.

I really don't know what to say to you, Elle. The Word of God is quite clear.

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:20


It is a non sequitur to claim that since there is no example of a dishonest prophet suffering the penalty for breaking the law that the law does not exist. Your arguement makes no sense. A law does not need to be broken in order to be a law. If the speed limit in a school zone is 30 kph, it does not matter if no one in all of history has been punished with a speeding ticket for driving through it at 50 kph. 30 kph is till the law!




"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:20

Whether the specific term "false prophet" is used or not is semantic obfuscation. Claiming to speak a word in God's name, which He has not commanded is prophesying falsely; therefore, the speaker is a "false prophet".



Romans 12 tells us that not everyone is a prophet : "the voice in your head" does not qualify you as a Prophet.



God's interpretation of Deuteronomy 13 and 20 seems perfectly clear.
He means just what He says!

And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God
Deuteronomy 13:5

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deuteronomy 18:20

When Balam was on his way to curse Israel, contrary to God's will, what do you suppose the angel with his sword drawn would have done if he had not stopped?

Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
Numbers 22:31



Elle said:
"One thing the Bible is very clear is there are plenty of case history where people like yourself has killed the prophets of the Lord."

The "prophets of the Lord" the Bible was referring to we're NOT false prophets. The people had no right to kill them.

By the way, thank-you for comparing me to godless, murdering, hypocrites. It's always nice to have a fan!

In my experience, people resort to Ad Hominem attacks when they are unable to logically defend their positions.

Read your Bible again. You are not speaking the truth. Ignorance may be your excuse, but how confident you seem to be!

More than once a false or disobedient prophet died for it. I know you'll want some examples, so here are two:

1) Unnamed prophet of God, deceived by a false prophet to disobey God, killed by lion in miraculous manner; 1 Kings 13

2) Hananiah the son of Azur the prophet, died for falsely prophesying against Jeremiah's God-given prophecy; Jeremiah 28

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Elle said:

"Do you believe that prophets are born prophets? That everything that comes out of their mouth is always the Word of God????"

"Where in the Bible it tells us this? I never seen any text that alludes to this. However, there's plenty of stories in the Bible that shows that Abram, Jacob, Moses, and etc... had to grow into their calling."


I believe that prophesy is a gift of the Holy Spirit granted to some, see Romans 12:6

Only what God has "commanded him to speak" is "always the Word of God".

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:20


Abram, Jacob, and Moses were imperfect humans just like the rest of us. They had to allow God to perfect their characters as we all need to do.

When they spoke a word in God's name, which He commanded them to speak, only then were they exercising the gift of Prophesy.

This does NOT mean "that everything that comes out of their mouth is always the Word of God????"

If someone has the gift of Tongues, does that mean that every word they speak is in Tongues? Of course not! Similarly, every word spoken by a Prophet is not prophesy.

The grace of God is manifest in His use of imperfect humanity to accomplish His perfect will. If you believe that a prophet must become perfect in all his ways, before his prophetic Word is dependable, then you doubt the power of the Almighty One!



"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die." Deuteronomy 18:20

Is ignorance your excuse? or is it something else?


I didn't remember this story for it was so strange. Now I think this is a great story that seem to support what I understand of Deut 13 -- to test all prophet. Anyway, I will be pondering and looking at this more closely. Tx.

Anyway in term of your claim -- there you go again Green saying things that the Bible doesn't say.

That Prophet #1(prophet from Judah) that died was not a false prophet. It was Prophet #2 that was by deceiving him by saying that he receive word from the Lord that he could eat and drink with him. If someone should of died for being a false prophet -- don't you think it was Prophet #2, the deceiver, who tricked Prophet #1 with a lie to disobey the Word of the Lord?

This story does not say that Prophet #1 died because he was a false prophet but because he disobeyed the Lord's word to him. There's a difference there, don't you think?


Still adding to scriptures Green?

Hananiah's death was not because he prophecied falsely, but because he "taught rebellion" Jer 28:16. Read what scriptures actually says before posting something. Ok! If you don't, you should know by now that I will check it; then it leads to some embarasement.



Not that any of those stories were even close to show these prophets died because of falsely prophecying. Do noticed, that I said no-one was Stoned according to the judgment of Deut 13 & 18. No where in the Bible the Lord via the people or any case that I know of where a prophet was executed by some sort of stoning.


There's two other stories below that came to my mind :

a) Balaam was killed in war(? my memory correct) Balaam was killed not because he falsely prophecied but because he wanted to curse Israel and ask permission from the Lord to prophecies a curse on Israel probably to receive money from the King. The Lord said NO. Despite he found another way to curse Israel, not by prophecizing but by counseling the King to bring Israel into immorality by worshiping Baal of Peor. <-- This word is important to understand and I have brought it up int the other discussion "Power of Words -- Why definition matter" I hate to say this, but you are guilty of worshiping Baal of Peor like I have been in the past. Maybe we can study this word after we are done with "ratsach".

b) the prophets of Baals were slain by the sword from Elijah. That's a different sentenced than stoning someone to death. The stoning to death was conducted by the congregation. I suppose after a proper court case in court where the individual was proven to be guilty. By two witnesses can someone can be sentenced to death. However, what Elijah did is something different. Elijah used the "sword". That symbolizes and means something different than the "stones".

You do the same mistake as the Jews did. They only saw the LETTER of the law. At least the Jews have more of a reason for this for they didn't have the revelation of Jesus Christ and the NT. But us with all what Paul has written, we do not have as much of a reason as they did to repeat this error.

Paul explained in so many different ways -- the LAW IS SPIRITUAL. They point of the fulfillment of greater thing to come -- in the spiritual realm. One day Jesus will fulfill this law in your heart and you will successfully stone the [false] prophet in you and put him to death.




[False] Prophets were and are very prominent. If the Lord really meant it to be a LITERAL fulfillment; there would be at least one case where He would of shown His intent; but the fact it was never shown -- tells us something else.

The story in 1Kg 13 is quite interesting showing us that the [false]Prophet was not stoned at all but the [true]Prophet was slain by a lion, not because he prophecied falsely, but because he didn't leave the town without eating and drinking after prophecising. I still don't know what the Lord wants us to understand there, but it has to do with Deut 13 & 18. But it is one place in the Bible the Lord shows that He did not execute a [false]prophet.


I don't believe so. The OT is a thicker compilation with many writers -- and not once the Lord ever call anyone a false prophet.

A prophet by definition is someone that speak under inspiration. That includes anyone. For sure not everyone is call to serve full time in the office as a prophet, but every believer in the body needs to learn to perceive the voice of the Lord and speak whenever the Lord moves them to speak. It can be a decision for the Church affairs. It could be to witness to a friend. It could be a revelation on some truth that needs to be share to the body....the Lord speak to each one of us continually and we are to learn to speak ONLY the word of the Lord and obey what He tells us.


That's right. We do not know all the cases for not many are reveal in scripture. For sure we can speculate from we know from other prophets that their message made the cannon. Here is what we know from others:a)most of them their prophesy didn't even get fulfilled right away, b)the people didn't understand what they were saying as some prophesy are very not clear, c)most people didn't understand the law so how could they know if the prophet spoke according to the law, etc... All of these are good reasons to pick up the stones and fulfill the LETTER of the Law right? How many times did they try to stone Jesus?

Since you uphold the LITERAL Law you show yourself to be in favor to pick up a stone and obey the Lord in stoning a [false]Prophet. The only reason why you cannot stone [false]prophets is because the Babylonian law prevents you. But shouldn't you be obeying the Lord's law instead of the Babylonian Law???? Why aren't you stoning the [false]Prophets?