SDA - inspired writings?

Dear unsuspecting reader -- in the above - GE devoted quotes himself -- and then drifts in and out of ranting about Ellen White -- whilst quoting himself repeatedly.

Confusing indeed. Not sure if he intends it to be confusing or if this is just "normal" for GE.

I posted previously about one part of GE's rant -- namely GE's denial of the writings of Paul in Hebrews where Paul tells us that When Christ ascended to heaven He began his work as our High Priest.

Dear reader - read PAUL for youself to see how GE opposes his views.

Between "quoting himself" ranting against E.G White (as if THAT is where all his problems lie) and "denying Paul" it is no wonder G.E "appears confused".

But should one welcome a voice of clarity on this threadl -- let it come from Paul...

Christ becomes our High Priest - NOT while on earth - but when He ascends to heaven.

It is no wonder then the GE struggles with this text -- but why in the world "blame that on Ellen White"??

Just simply study it and deal with the text until you can finally accept it -- a much more honorable solution if you ask me.

Leave all the ranting and railing for someone with more time on their hands.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Dear Bob Ryan, for your grammatical prowess I would fail you for grade five. It seems to me you have not the faintest idea what a Sunjunctive is. So it's no use you repeat and repeat your Hb8:4 refrain - you do not know a thing you are talking. [personal attack deleted] But worse, making that Subjuctive an Indicative makes you the corruptor of the Word of God.

 

We therefore have for reason for saying Mrs White teaches a resurrection of Jesus wherein the Father was absent,

(1) This, her teaching of a ‘heavenly work of redemption’ instead of Jesus’ earthly work of finished atonement for sin perfected in resurrection from the dead.
(2) Her teaching a Resurrection visible for mortals – a Resurrection the guard could look upon without dying as any mortal would, had they seen the Father raising the Son.
(3) Mrs White’s arguing of Jn20:17a, “Touch Me not; for I am not ascended yet to my Father.”
(4) Her arguing of Lk23:43, “I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise.”
(5) Her teaching the ‘First Sheaf Wave Offering’ is not Christ Himself, but, quote, “... the tokens of His triumph ... the wave sheaf, those raised with Him as representatives of that great multitude who shall come forth from the grave at His second coming.” 123/6.
(6) Her making the angel the caller-forth form the grave of Christ. Which resurrection could only have been the resurrection of one who is not God, for God who is not, or God who works not as being, and in being, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is not, nor can be, God.

I consequently re-emphasise my allegation against her, that Mrs E.G. White no matter how nice it may appear at first reading, corrupts the Word of God

 

Answer please! Did the Father raise Christ from the dead?

 

Mrs White dedicates the climactic chapter of her book to the subject, “To My Father, and Your Father”. But her praises are hollow and kaka phonic because she is denying the Father’s very own undividable and unshareable power, prerogative, glory and honour of having raised Jesus from the dead, from death and from the grave when there and then He, the Father and none else or at his side, or in his stead, “exalted” Christ to his own Right Hand of heavenly Majesty “When He raised (Him) from the dead”. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ought to have received Mrs White’s dedication of the chapter, and she might have paid the Father due honour and glory and praises. Unfortunately as typically and consistently Seventh Day Adventist, the resurrection of Christ receives but insultingly little or no attention or respect. The True Temple of God’s Holiness —the very resurrection from the dead of the Son of God— is trampled underfoot, and in the void from the Father’s absence, and in the stead of God’s innermost, most intimate and Private Presence of Almighty Power and Working, the abomination of desolation is found standing. Angels are being worshipped in an emptied Holy Place, and in the Sanctuary where should be the Full Fellowship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit the mere voice of a created being is heard — in its Ark of the Covenant of God’s Faithfulness and Holiness. Whoso readeth, let him understand. (Mt24:15)

 

The problem with Seventh Day Adventists with this is their silly idea of what the 'heavenly sanctuary' is. But my patience with them in this 'matter', has spent itself.

 

What more central and what more basic Truth is there to the Christian Faith than the Truth the Father raised the Son from the dead? than the Truth God in having brought the Son into the Most Holy and Intimate of the Full Fellowship of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, raised Him from the dead— exalted Him, far above all principality and power and might, and dominion, and every name? What more central or what more basic Christian Truth is there than the Truth God in having raised Christ from the dead, brought the Son into the Most Holy and Intimate of the Sanctuary of God’s innermost Being and Presence, of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? No temple can contain God but the Temple of His Own Self.

 

Bob Ryan:

Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
The Sinister

‘John 20:17 and Hebrews 8:4’, say the same devout Seventh Day Adventist, ‘tell us why Mrs White declares it was the angel who ‘called’ Jesus to “come forth”, that is, to ‘come out’ of the grave. ‘Come out’, your Father is not here; He is not in there with you, He calls you through me, his messenger, ‘angel’. Mrs White is a word-artist;



Bob Ryan:

Dear unsuspecting reader -- in the above - GE devoted quotes himself -- and then drifts in and out of ranting about Ellen White -- whilst quoting himself repeatedly.

Confusing indeed. Not sure if he intends it to be confusing or if this is just "normal" for GE.


E.G. White:

.. Testimony in the Spirit of Prophecy, ‘The Desire of Ages’, chapter, “The Lord is Risen”, based on Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15,

“The soldiers see him (the angel) removing the stone ... and hear, him, cry, Son of God, come forth; thy Father calls Thee. They see Jesus come forth ….” “... based on Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15”!


GE:
Based on the Word of God; based on what the soldiers had seen; based on ‘Inspiration’, based on ‘the Spirit of Prophecy’, the angel, called Jesus. Jesus was called by the angel to go to the Father ... after having been “taken up into heaven”, Acts 1:11, not when He rose from the dead! - What GE says??? You cannot be joking ...

 

So far she's batting a thousand in the false prophet department. I expect that will continue.

 

Disparity and Desperation

Now here is the strangest of contradictions of Mrs White’s inspired visions. We have seen how Mrs White denies the Sabbath the glory invested in it by the resurrection of Christ. We have seen how she emptied the Sabbath of God’s Presence, and as a result was forced to reach all her further conclusions of a ‘Still Sabbath’ deprived of all honour and dignity and as still as the stillness of the grave. And then we have seen how Mrs White gave all the honour
that she should have given to the Sabbath Day, to the First Day of the week. (A day, had to receive that honour because Jesus did rise from the dead, on a day— a day could not escape or refuse the dignity attributed it by the eventuality of Jesus’ resurrection, just as a redeemed could not escape or refuse his salvation attributed him by the eventuality of Jesus’ resurrection. Which day or which person, is the only question. And the only answer is, that which only God willed and appointed.)

So Mrs White went and she bestowed on the Sunday the Sabbath’s divinely given virtues and glory— divinely given virtues and glory due to and contained in and consisting of absolutely nothing but the eventuality of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead; and which eventuality of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead again, received divinely given virtues and glory due to and contained in and consisting of absolutely nothing but the Presence of the Father in raising Christ from the dead.

So Mrs White was stuck with the dilemma, I have given Sunday now that which belonged to the Sabbath Day, namely Christ’ resurrection, and the glory and honour that go with his Resurrection. But I removed the Father’s Presence from Jesus’ resurrection, so I cannot allow Sunday that honour that in the last analysis, comes with the Presence of the Father. I’ll make Christ sneak in into God’s Presence on the First Day of the week! Nobody after all would notice! The passion of deceit knows no limits!

Do I commit defamation of character, and that to a person who cannot defend herself? I say, Mrs White is here to present her case herself. This is ‘Mrs White’ – here, between this cover. And she is granted every opportunity to speak in her own defence. Do you have anything to say, Mrs White?

Mrs White: I witness,

“Jesus refused to receive the homage of His people until He had the assurance that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father. He ascended to the heavenly courts, and from God Himself heard the assurance that His atonement for the sins of men had been ample. ... While the Saviour was in God’s presence, receiving gifts for His Church, the disciples thought upon His empty tomb, and mourned and wept. The day that was a day of rejoicing to all heaven (Resurrection-day, Sunday) was to the disciples a day of uncertainty, confusion, and perplexity.” (98/3,4) This was not after “forty days”; this was not Acts 1:3 or 9! This was Matthew 28:5-8, Mark 16:2-8, Luke 24:1-12, John 20:11-18 time! This was First Day

of the week time! And if any doubt still, the next page, page 99, paragraph 4,

“Tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there ye shall see Him.” (99/4) A reference to Mk16:7, “very early sun’s rising”.

“When Mary Magdalene told them she had seen the Lord, she repeated the call to the meeting in Galilee.” A false reference to Jn20:17-18, because besides nothing of the sort is being stated in 17-18, anything of the sort was an impossibility, seeing the angel’s command, “Tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there ye shall see Him”, was given to several women together, and not to Mary when Jesus “appeared to Mary ... first” (Mk16:9) and alone— “But Mary had had stood after” (Jn20:11) while the other women had fled (Mk16:8)!

“When Mary Magdalene told them she had seen the Lord, she repeated the call to the meeting in Galilee. And a third time the message was sent to them”— an absolutely false statement for the next, simple, fact Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene was his first appearance to any person! No one before Mary ever, mentioned as fact that Jesus was risen, except angels, who again, only told, the women that He was risen. No angel ever told any disciple anything! And in all cases but the very last that the women were told Jesus was raised from the dead, nobody – not even the women themselves, believed that He was raised.

But Mrs White must still prove where she got her “third time the message was sent” from! She of course did not explain, but we, could easily see; that she got it from three separate incidences of the ‘message’ being told which she completely confused. She put her foot in it.
On three different occasions,
(1) Lk24:5-7, Two angels who “stood ...” and “said unto them”;
(2) Mk16:5-7, The angel “sitting on the right side”, who “Saith unto them ...”;
(3) Mt28:5-7, The angel who “Answered / explained and commanded the women”.

Each event or visit has its own angel or angels; each event or visit has its own women; each event or visit has its own message, each message with its own main point of emphasis; each event or visit has its own observations and reactions on the part of the women. Each event or visit has its own time-slot in night or day. There was a time-sequence, and because of it, a “third time the message was
sent”. But none of these visit-events was accompanied by an appearance of the Lord, and none of these visit-events was that of Mary Magdalene only.

 

So now, says Mrs White – her living, inspired, own witness self,

“Tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there ye shall see Him. ... When Mary Magdalene told them she had seen the Lord, she repeated the call to the meeting in Galilee. And a third time the message was sent to them. After He had ascended to the Father, Jesus appeared to the other women, saying, “All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell My brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see Me.””

Never forget what she immediately goes on to write: “Christ’s first work on earth after His resurrection was to convince His disciples of His undiminished love and tender regard for them. To give them proof that He was their living Saviour, that He had broken the fetters of the tomb, and could no longer be held by the enemy death; to reveal that He had the same heart of love as when He was with them as their beloved Teacher, He appeared to them again and again.” Throughout this review of Jesus’ resurrection, Mrs White still hasn’t mentioned the Father’s Name once, or referred to Him in any way. And it is there for everyone to see, Mrs White ascribes no inherent power of ability to the Resurrection as such. She emphasises the power of the Appearances, “again and again”.

But that’s not what I’m actually busy on; We were explaining how Mrs White in order to invest Sunday with holy meaning, was obliged to bring into play the Presence of the Father. And here it is exposed, open and clear, how she takes Jesus up into the Father’s Presence after having appeared to Mary Magdalene, but brings Him down back again before having appeared to the other women, so that Mary was prohibited to touch Jesus, but the other women were allowed to clutch him at his feet.

It is during this ‘interlude’ that this must have happened: “While the Saviour was in God’s presence, receiving gifts ...”, 98/4. I just wondered, for what then was this, “Christ’s ascension to heaven (after forty days) was the signal that His followers were to receive the promised blessing. For this they were to wait before they entered upon their work. When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed
glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. The Pentecostal outpouring was Heaven’s communication that the Redeemer’s inauguration was accomplished. According to His promise He had sent the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers as a token that He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over His people.” AA p 38/39”?

O, I see! ‘gifts’ only— any ‘gift’ except being exalted, or “inauguration”, as “Redeemer”, “priest”, “king”, or “Anointed”. For no avail His Resurrection from the dead!

What further confirmation can any honest person ask for what I say Mrs White is teaching? That she teaches the Father was uninterruptedly ABSENT from that Jesus died, until that Jesus between his first two appearances, had – quickly – gone up into the Father’s Presence and – quickly – had appeared back again. Now all this r-u-b-b-i-s-h in spite of Mrs White’s other r-u-b-b-i-s-h talking, that Jesus only after He had entered into the ‘heavenly sanctuary’ and the Presence of the Father there, started pleading for the forgiveness of sins— the implications of which r-u-b-b-i-s-h are infinite and infinitely blasphemous. Hundred and sixty four years after, and Seventh Day Adventists still claiming and proclaiming for the Gospel of Jesus Christ?!


Just the Presence of the Father in the resurrection of Christ from the dead would have made all the difference— would have prevented the whole farrago and gigantic hoax of an ‘investigative judgment’. Just the Presence of the Father in the resurrection of Christ from the dead would have made all the difference— would have ‘given’ the Sabbath of God’s will (and not the Sunday of devilish design), Jesus’ resurrection its very reason for being Christian Day of Worship-Rest.



Gerhard Ebersöhn
Suite 324
Private Bag 43
Sunninghill 2157
[email protected]
http://www.biblestudents.co.za

 

John 20 tells us clearly that Christ had not yet ascended to the Father.

Sadly - GE's objections that are all of the form 'but Mrs White said" does not change that fact.

Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." -- rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual point raised.

Jesus' prayer TO the Father

So while it is also true that Jesus was in fellowship with God on earth (and yes I "could" add an "as Ellen White said" if I was bent on ignoring the text as some are here) - at the same time HE CLAIMS that He is going TO the Father and HE claims that immediately after his resurrection He had not YET been TO the Father.

Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." -- rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual point raised.

Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." -- rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual point raised.

Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." -- rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual point raised.

Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." -- rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual point raised.

Not that GE does not have enough time to dedicate to "ranting" -- I was just making a constructive suggestion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan:
"John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." -- rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual point raised."

GE
Not that I didn't know that you will never admit deceit. Your response is exactly as I expected and what I wanted. Everybody reading can now see for himself. And there are some reading - watch the scoreboard.

Your reference to this text is as irrelevant as referred you to Baruch 2:3. I challenge you again: Answer: Who raised Christ from the dead? You give me John 14:28. You now apply this text to my question, and you with it confirm what I accused you of, that you say the Father was not there to raise Christ from the dead. Thanks, It's what I wanted to hear. Therefore who may read: See for yourself.

 

BR:
So while it is also true that Jesus was in fellowship with God on earth (and yes I "could" add an "as Ellen White said" if I was bent on ignoring the text as some are here) - at the same time HE CLAIMS that He is going TO the Father and HE claims that immediately after his resurrection He had not YET been TO the Father."

GE:
Again you evade the question. Can't you look me in the I man? Read my lips, "Who raised Jesus from the dead - Who called Him from the grave? Don't give me Y-O-U-R 'ranting' - give me your answer; give me Scripture!

BR:
"HE claims that immediately after his resurrection He had not YET been TO the Father."

GE:
First, It - what you wrote here - is NOT what Jesus said to Mary. That - what you write here - is a large, glaring, LIE.

Next, Even had your LIE been pardonable, what Jesus said to Mary was that He had not yet gone away to His Father -- which was, He had not left them - his followers - behind yet; which is as obvious as can be. That is and that was the point then; not what you try to tell everybody here.

Three, I ask you again, who raised the Son? The Father? Who else? So where was the Father when and as and where He raised the Son? Was the fact the Father raised Jesus in his very Own Glory a hindrance to His being present on earth, in the grave, "WORKING" to the exceeding greatness of His Power while raising, in raising, through raising Christ from the dead?

 

Like God formed the first Adam from the dust of the earth, God formed the Second Adam from the body of his grave, the Christ. Were I to write in Hebrew (which I cannot nevertheless might), I would have used God's Name, Elohim, the Plural Name, for God in Three Persons was the God who raised Christ from that very earthy grave from that very earthy body, and on The Corruptible, put on Incorruptibility.

 

BR:
"Hint: The answer to which is NOT of the form "but Mrs White said..." -- rather you need to "deal with scripture" and respond to the actual point raised."

GE:
I wish you applied this 'hint' to yourself! And, hint, Kindly deal with the actual Scripture under consideration?

 

The actual Scripture of John 20:17 from whichever point approached does not exclude that Mary in fact could have 'touched' Jesus. On the contrary, Many people who know say that this word may mean, "Don't keep on holding fast to me", or, "Don't cling to me (so) but go now". So that, if that is correct - which there is absolutely no reason why it could not be correct - then by your way of thinking it is undeniable Jesus had have had contact with, and had have been, in the very Presence of His Father ALL THE WHILE, dismissing your silly notion Jesus and the Father had not seen each other for more than three days.

My personal viewpoint I have also given I cannot tell how many times already - which you of course would have reckoned too low your consideration - that this text has nothing to do with a clinging or touching for whatever reason, but that it has to do with the Gospel-Command: Go on straight, don't even turn back to look at Me again, and go tell my brethren. BECAUSE: This Good News is not by seeing, but by believing!

 

The latest edition: "Christ becomes our High Priest - NOT while on earth - but when He ascends to heaven." It's no longer the older version, Christ becomes our High Priest - NOT while on earth - but only after He had ascended to heaven and had entered into the 'first room'.

 

Bob said
It is no wonder then the GE struggles with this text -- but why in the world "blame that on Ellen White"??

GE:
Here's why:

(1) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at proving the Father’s absence at all in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, from the moment He had died, until the moment “He enters into the presence of His Father”. Not until “After His resurrection” and He had “tarried on earth for a season” “was (Jesus) ready for the
leave-taking”. Only after He “had authenticated the fact that He was a living Saviour” had “Jesus gone to share His Father’s throne”. During all this time, Jesus was assisted by angels, at most, and whatever He had done in this period in between having died and having enter(ed) into the presence of His Father, He had done on His own without the Father’s participation or presence.

(2) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at proving the mere intermediatory and relatively passing value and merit of the Resurrection. The Resurrection is no more than a – be it necessary – stop on Christ’s journey into the heavens and ‘heavenly sanctuary’ where at last He will accomplish continuous and real atonement or forgiveness of sins. “Continued pardon”, I once had an Adventist explaining to me what they have stamped “The Investigative Judgment”.

(3) Mrs E.G. White’s whole endeavour is aimed at proving Christ was not High Priest of the Most High God as He made sacrifice of Himself and as He rose from the dead, but only was made a Priest after He had ascended into the heavens. It meant – for Seventh Day Adventism –, that only after the Resurrection and after that Christ had ascended into the ‘first room of the heavenly sanctuary’, that only “Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done Thy will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption”. It means, for every common Christian, Jesus had not ‘completed the work of redemption’ in or through, during or with, by or for having risen from the dead and grave!

We therefore have for reason for saying Mrs White teaches a resurrection of Jesus wherein the Father was absent,
(1) This, her teaching of a ‘heavenly work of redemption’ instead of Jesus’ earthly work of finished atonement for sin perfected in resurrection from the dead.
(2) Her teaching a Resurrection visible for mortals – a Resurrection the guard could look upon without dying as any mortal would, had they seen the Father raising the Son.
(3) Mrs White’s arguing of Jn20:17a, “Touch Me not; for I am not ascended yet to my Father.”
(4) Her arguing of Lk23:43, “I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise.”
(5) Her making the angel the caller-forth form the grave of Christ. Which resurrection could only have been the resurrection of one who is not God, for God who is not, or God who works not as being, and in being, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is not, nor can be, God.
(6) Her making “the wave sheaf” not Jesus Himself as and when the Father raised Him from the dead, but “those raised with Him”
(123/6), whom Christ “after His resurrection” —after He had “tarried on earth for a season” and after He “had gone to share His Father’s throne”— as “He approache(d) the Father”, “present(ed) to God”.
(7) Her avoiding Scripture that might indicate or imply the Father’s involvement in the Resurrection. White’s omission of such Scripture is conspicuously intentional and conspicuously meaningful— the Father’s absence must appear total. Therefore not a single reference to or from a vast number of most powerful Scriptures.