You are responsible for
knowing and following the rules.

MAIN | WELCOME| RELIGIONS | MOVEMENTS | HETERODOX | THEOLOGY | SECULAR | ISSUES | MINISTRY | LIFE STYLE | YOUTH | OTHER | DEBATES | ADMIN | PRIVATE | EVANGELICAL

Discussion Forums

WWW.CARM.ORG | REGISTER | RULES | PURPOSE | ABREV | RADIO | PODCASTS | MUSIC | STORE | SUPER  | FORUM'S AUTHORITY STRUCTURE | BIBLE
GATEWAY

Christian Discussion
Forums - CARM > CHURCHES-ORTHODOX/HETERODOX
> Seventh Day
Adventism

The Adventist Sabbath Paradox

Welcome, Tree of Life
©.
You last visited: 1 Week Ago at 09:47 PM

Your Notifications:
1

Home

Today's
Posts

Mark Forums
Read

My
Threads / Replies

Contacts

Social Groups

Who's
Online

User CP

Blogs

FAQ

Support
& Super Membership

Members List

Calendar

Arcade

New Posts

Search

Quick
Links

Chat Room [17]

Chat Room

Enter Chat
Room

Enter Chat
Room (Float)

17 User(s) in Chat Room

Who's
Chatting

Log
Out

Search Forums

Show
Threads   Show Posts

Tag Search

Advanced
Search

Search Blogs

Advanced
Search

Quick Links

Today's
Posts

Mark Forums
Read

Open Contacts
Popup

Networking

Contacts &
Friends

Social Groups

Pictures & Albums

User Control
Panel

Edit
Signature

Edit Your
Details

Edit
Options

Miscellaneous

Subscribed
Threads

Your Profile

Who's
Online

Your Notifications

Unread
Visitor Messages

0

Unapproved
Visitor Messages

0

Incoming
Friend Requests

1

Unread Picture
Comments

0

Picture Comments
Awaiting Approval

0

Go to Page...

Page 1 of 8

1

2

3

4

5

>

Last
»

Thread
Tools

Search
this Thread

Rate Thread

Display
Modes

06-01-2009

#1

Troubleshooter

Super Member

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,580

Reputation: 579

The Adventist Sabbath Paradox

William Miller originally believed Christ was
crucified in 33 AD…
…but he changed his position to the 31 AD date
prior to 1843/1844.

Question: Why did William Miller change his
mind?
Answer: William Miller changed the basis for his calculations to
a Karaite luni-solar calendar.

Question: How did changing to a
Karaite luni-solar calendar make 31 AD a viable date?
Answer: On a
luni-solar calendar every Passover falls on a weekly Sabbath
day.

In the Karaite system, the months start with the first
appearance of the new moon…
…”In the first day ye shall have an holy
convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.” Lev 23:7…
…the first
day of the month was the first weekly Sabbath…
…then six work days were
counted until the next Sabbath on the eighth day of the month...
...and
the 15th, the 22nd and the 29th were also weekly
Sabbath’s.

The weekly Sabbaths in the Karaite calendar were
determined…
…by the sighting of the New Moon each month…
…and not by
a perpetual weekly cycle.

The lunar year began with the
month Nisan…
…the 1st day of Nisan was calculated from the first
sighting of the New Moon following the Barley Harvest…
…the Passover
lamb was killed on the 14th Nisan…
…and eaten that night, the night of
the full moon…
…this was the beginning of 15th Nisan a lunar weekly
Sabbath.

So on the Karaite calendar every Passover was a
Sabbath.

This creates for Seventh-day Adventism a Sabbath
paradox?

Seventh-day Adventists are the only group who support
the 31 AD crucifixion date...
...it is the basis of the prophetic
scheme that establishes their October 22 1844 origin.

The Karaite
calendar is the only objective reason to support the 31 AD crucifixion
date.

The Karaite luni-solar calendar weekly cycles do not
coincide…
…with the continuous successive weekly cycle of the
Julian/Gregorian calendars.

The
Paradox...

Seventh-day Adventists lay claim to an origin
calculated using the Karaite calendar…
…whose weekly Sabbath’s are
determined month by month…
…but maintain a weekly Sabbath determined by
the successive Julian/Gregorian calendar.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world
you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John
16:33 -

Last edited by Troubleshooter; 06-01-2009 at 03:05
PM..

Troubleshooter

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Troubleshooter

Add
Troubleshooter to Your Contacts

06-01-2009

#2

BOLSHY

Forum Member

Join Date: Sep 2008

Posts: 344

Reputation: 50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

William Miller originally believed
Christ was crucified in 33 AD…
…but he changed his position to
the 31 AD date prior to 1843/1844.

Question: Why did William
Miller change his mind?
Answer: William Miller changed the basis
for his calculations to a Karaite luni-solar
calendar.

Question: How did changing to a Karaite luni-solar
calendar make 31 AD a viable date?
Answer: On a luni-solar
calendar every Passover falls on a weekly Sabbath day.

In
the Karaite system, the months start with the first appearance of
the new moon…
…”In the first day ye shall have an holy
convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.” Lev 23:7…
…the
first day of the month was the first weekly Sabbath…
…then six
work days were counted until the next Sabbath on the eighth day of
the month...
...and the 15th, the 22nd and the 29th were also
weekly Sabbath’s.

The weekly Sabbaths in the Karaite
calendar were determined…
…by the sighting of the New Moon each
month…
…and not by a perpetual weekly cycle.

The
lunar year began with the month Nisan…
…the 1st day of Nisan was
calculated from the first sighting of the New Moon following the
Barley Harvest…
…the Passover lamb was killed on the 14th
Nisan…
…and eaten that night, the night of the full
moon…
…this was the beginning of 15th Nisan a lunar weekly
Sabbath.

So on the Karaite calendar every Passover was a
Sabbath.

This creates for Seventh-day Adventism a
Sabbath paradox?

Seventh-day Adventists are the only
group who support the 31 AD crucifixion date...
...it is the
basis of the prophetic scheme that establishes their October 22 1844
origin.

The Karaite calendar is the only objective reason to
support the 31 AD crucifixion date.

The Karaite luni-solar
calendar weekly cycles do not coincide…
…with the continuous
successive weekly cycle of the Julian/Gregorian
calendars.

The Paradox...

Seventh-day
Adventists lay claim to an origin calculated using the Karaite
calendar…
…whose weekly Sabbath’s are determined month by
month…
…but maintain a weekly Sabbath determined by the
successive Julian/Gregorian calendar.

the
whole Karaite luni system is exactly this : lunacy

the orthodox
Jewish calender an its determination is correct and pre-dates the karaite
loony system!!

__________________

I am pink therefore I am Spam מנשה
דוד

BOLSHY

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by BOLSHY

Add
BOLSHY to Your Contacts

06-02-2009

#3

Troubleshooter

Super Member

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,580

Reputation: 579

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOLSHY

the whole Karaite luni system is
exactly this : lunacy

the orthodox Jewish calender an its
determination is correct and pre-dates the karaite loony
system!!

Lunacy or not the Karaite
calendar was and remains the basis on which the Seventh-day Adventist
church makes its claims to historical legitimacy...
...and remains the
basis for 1844.

Adventism has no other reason to prefer the 31 AD
crucifixion date...
...than to appeal to the Karaite
calendar.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world
you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John
16:33 -

Last edited by Troubleshooter; 06-02-2009 at 01:32
AM..

Troubleshooter

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Troubleshooter

Add
Troubleshooter to Your Contacts

06-10-2009

#4

peg

Forum Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 2,633

Reputation: 597

So --> Bottom Line

So, after reading this thread along with the
attached links,
The bottom line is that either the Sabbath that SDA
cherishes is not the 7th day of creation

-OR-

Their
2300-day time line doesn't work...
They can't have
both!

Furthermore, they have known this all along, the
largest body of documentation residing at Andrews
University.

Pegg

__________________
Then...Jesus asked them a
question: "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose Son
is He?"
Matt. 22:41-42

peg

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by peg

Add
peg to Your Contacts

06-11-2009

#5

Troubleshooter

Super Member

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,580

Reputation: 579

Either Sabbath or Sanctuary...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peg

So, after reading this thread along
with the attached links,
The bottom line is that either the
Sabbath that SDA cherishes is not the 7th day of
creation

-OR-

Their 2300-day time line doesn't
work...
They can't have both!

Furthermore,
they have known this all along, the largest body of
documentation residing at Andrews University.

Pegg

That's
a good summary Pegg...
...the SDA church has known since at least
1938.

On November 7, 1938, the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists appointed a Research Committee to investigate discrepancies in
calendation.

The committee was comprised of SDA
luminaries...

The Chair was Elder L. E. Froom, Secretary Dr. Lynn
Harper Wood and committee members Dr. M. L. Andreasen, Professor M. E.
Kern, Professor W. Homer Teesdale, Professor Albert W. Werline, Elder F.
C. Gilbert and Miss Grace Amadon.

The report was delivered July, 9,
1939...
...present were all the General Conference members available,
plus all the Union Presidents in the U.S., Bible teachers, Ministers and
many others...
...the report started at 9:30 A.M. and the meeting ended
about 10:00 P.M.

It was not done in a corner...
...and all the
issues were well understood...
...and the implications
realized...
...but it was decided not to trouble the church with
it.

Who would have thought it would come down to...
...either
the Sabbath...
...or the Sanctuary doctrine.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world
you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John
16:33 -

Last edited by Troubleshooter; 06-11-2009 at 05:57
AM..

Troubleshooter

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Troubleshooter

Add
Troubleshooter to Your Contacts

06-11-2009

#6

Sophia7

Forum Member

Join Date: Mar 2007

Posts: 3,658

Reputation: 497

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

That's a good summary
Pegg...
...the SDA church has known since at least
1938.

On November 7, 1938, the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists appointed a Research Committee to investigate
discrepancies in calendation.

The committee was comprised of
SDA luminaries...

The Chair was Elder L. E. Froom, Secretary
Dr. Lynn Harper Wood and committee members Dr. M. L. Andreasen,
Professor M. E. Kern, Professor W. Homer Teesdale, Professor Albert
W. Werline, Elder F. C. Gilbert and Miss Grace Amadon.

The
report was delivered July, 9, 1939...
...present were all the
General Conference members available, plus all the Union Presidents
in the U.S., Bible teachers, Ministers and many others...
...the
report started at 9:30 A.M. and the meeting ended about 10:00 P.M.

It was not done in a corner...
...and all the issues were
well understood...
...and the implications realized...
...but
it was decided not to trouble the church with it.

Who would
have thought it would come down to...
...either the
Sabbath...
...or the Sanctuary doctrine.

That
sounds a lot like what happened in 1919 regarding EGW. They understood the
issues and realized the implications, but they decided not to trouble the
church with them.

__________________
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the
author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured
the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the
throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2).

Sophia7

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Sophia7

Add
Sophia7 to Your Contacts

06-14-2009

#7

Troubleshooter

Super Member

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,580

Reputation: 579

1919 Bible Conference...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophia7

That sounds a lot like what happened
in 1919 regarding EGW. They understood the issues and realized the
implications, but they decided not to trouble the church with
them.

Arthur Patrck has a good
summary of the 1919 Conference here...
http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/patrick/campbell-review-1919.htm

I
have had only one current SDA comment on this thread...
...do they have
nothing to say in defence of their Sabbath paradox?

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world
you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John
16:33 -

Troubleshooter

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Troubleshooter

Add
Troubleshooter to Your Contacts

07-18-2009

#8

standard_output

Forum Member

Join Date: Jul 2009

Posts: 11

Reputation: 14

So what you're really trying to say is that
the 2300 years still ended somewhere in the mid 1800s?

standard_output

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by standard_output

Add
standard_output to Your Contacts

07-18-2009

#9

Troubleshooter

Super Member

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,580

Reputation: 579

The answer is no...

Quote:

Originally Posted by standard_output

So what you're really trying to say
is that the 2300 years still ended somewhere in the mid
1800s?

The text to which you refer is
Daniel 8:14.

The Geneva Bible is quite close to the
Hebrew...

Daniel 8:14 "And he answered me, Vnto the euening and the
morning, two thousand and three hundreth: then shall the Sanctuarie be
clensed."

The Hebrew word for day -'yowm' is not in the
text...
...although it is used many times elsewhere in
Daniel...
...and as there is no 'evening morning' equals a year
principle it can't mean years.

There is simply no reason to apply
2300 'evening mornings' to anything that happened in the
1800's.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world
you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John
16:33 -

Troubleshooter

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Troubleshooter

Add
Troubleshooter to Your Contacts

11-24-2009

#10

Tree of Life ©

Forum Member

Join Date: Nov 2009

Location: Adamah Republic ©

Posts: 66

Reputation: 13

A More Fundamental Bottom Line . .
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peg

So, after reading this thread along with the attached
links,
The
bottom line is that either the Sabbath that SDA cherishes is not
the 7th day of creation

-OR-

Their 2300-day time line doesn't
work...
They can't have both!

Furthermore, they have known this
all along, the largest body of documentation residing at Andrews
University.

Pegg

Dear Peggy,

I certainly
agree with you that one may feel like puking when having to deal with a
real man or woman who knows well the truth about something and the
importance of applying it in real life but who is unwilling to apply it
and who therefore does not apply it. When I realize such things about
someone or even about a group of such ones I first of all ask myself: “To
what extent am I doing likewise? To what extent am I contributing of my
powers unto such a state of being?” To the extent that I then realize that
I am responsible for giving of my strengths unto such proceedings I then
carefully consider how best to take responsibility for withdrawing my
portion of such actions that should not be. Learning the ropes for doing
this is, as I have found, sometimes a trying and difficult path in many
respects, but, in the end, I’ve found that it is always well worth it.
Having had by now a number of such experiences in my life I more and more
realize that others may be going through similar experiences but in re to
other specifics in life of which I may not be aware and which accordingly
I am unable to appreciate, especially while seeing before my eyes only the
unwillingness of such to pursue in their lives the same specific
particulars as I may have been struggling with for years before finally
overcoming…

Seeing that helps me somewhat
in understanding in principle their apparent resistance and where they may
be coming from. I stand humbled. I can begin seeing things a little better
from their position. I do not have to give of my powers in support of such
in their lives as I find fault with, but I can sympathize with their
position and do my best in showing empathy. I can do my best in meeting
them where they are.

In all of this I
very much believe in proceeding along the lines given us in Matthew
18:15-20.

One thing of importance in all
of this is to look at each living being separately while recognizing that
only living beings have the ability to think and consider things.
Organizations, churches, corporations, and States do not have a brain and
cannot think, can they? Thus, I cannot blame someone for errors committed
by a non-living, non-thinking entity upon a living breathing being who is
doing his or her best in learning the ropes, that is, the real truth of
the matter, while yet being blind to exactly how they contribute unto such
errors. Yet, I do have a responsibility for sharing of the light given me
to the extent someone is willing to accept it. God does not force His
light upon any one among us. Neither should I. If I sometimes try too hard
to share of such values as I have been given, I typically find that it is
counterproductive and has the opposite effect. It pays to be humble. Yet,
it is not easy to see one’s most loved ones continue in sufferings that
are obviously – to me - due to wrong choices and an unwillingness to
change. Yet, as a physician I have had to learn that lesson the hard way
many times over, and not only re my
patients…

So what is the
real bottom line?

I for one don’t
believe that the bottom line is whether we are stained by the guano of one
bird or by the guano of another bird. The bottom line, rather, is whether
or not we are willing to be washed from such stains as comes to our minds
from time to time. Choosing to hide our ignorance and errors behind a
cloak of mystery, be such a cloak ever so impressive, will lead us nowhere
but six feet under… that is, in the direction some birds are said to hide
their heads when confronted by things they may fear…

It took some of the remnant of the Millerite movement two
years of eager bible studies before discovering the Seventh-day Sabbath…
It took those same Sabbath keepers another ten years before discovering
that the beginning of Scriptural days, e.g. the Sabbath, begins with
sunset… It took Ellen White two or three days more than the rest of the
church to accept this truth after it was clearly presented before them.
Yet, she did so immediately once she was made to understand her own
resistance… It took another hundred and sixty years before I myself became
aware of the importance and priority of the word “Remember…” as associated
with all true Sabbath keeping… And only recently have I become aware of
the fact that per the Scriptural way of reckoning days, the new Scriptural
day actually begins before the old day is fully gone. That is, there is an
overlap as signified by the rising light upon the hills and mountains and
by the darkness creeping in…

Likewise,
after William Miller’s discoveries re the 2,300 evenings and mornings it
took another hundred and sixty years before I became aware of these issues
to the point of finding more viable – and more beautiful and perfect -
alternatives than such admirable Bereans as our beloved Seventh-day
Adventist pioneers were able to discover after long and arduous studies,
studies without which we would not be where we are
today…

Praise the Lord for guiding each
of us ever onwards into His truths,

Tree
of Life ©

Tree of Life ©

View Public
Profile

Visit Tree of Life
©'s homepage!

Find More Posts by Tree of Life ©

Add
Tree of Life © to Your Contacts

11-24-2009

#11

Troubleshooter

Super Member

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,580

Reputation: 579

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree of Life ©

It took some of the remnant of the
Millerite movement two years of eager bible studies before
discovering the Seventh-day Sabbath… It took those same Sabbath
keepers another ten years before discovering that the beginning of
Scriptural days, e.g. the Sabbath, begins with sunset… It took Ellen
White two or three days more than the rest of the church to accept
this truth after it was clearly presented before
them.

If you actually take the time
to read through the thread you will realize that this has already been
covered.

In 1883 the SDA church had a special General Conference
committee examine the whole issue I have presented in this
thread...
...and they decided not to trouble the church with
it...
...not because a Lunar determined Sabbath was incorrect but it
would have been too hard to implement a lunar calendar.

Even though
the issue was acknowledged they continued to preach that the 'Mark of the
Beast' was Sunday worship instead of Sabbath worship.

This is a
serious contradiction.

Seventh-day Adventists since that time have
not been keeping a biblical Sabbath any more than Roman
Catholics.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world
you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John
16:33 -

Troubleshooter

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Troubleshooter

Add
Troubleshooter to Your Contacts

11-28-2009

#12

Tree of Life ©

Forum Member

Join Date: Nov 2009

Location: Adamah Republic ©

Posts: 66

Reputation: 13

More
Exact References Needed in Support of Your Contention,
Please…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

If you actually take the time to
read through the thread you will realize that this has already been
covered.

In 1883 the SDA church had a special General
Conference committee examine the whole issue I have presented in
this thread...
...and they decided not to trouble the church with
it...
...not because a Lunar determined Sabbath was incorrect but
it would have been too hard to implement a lunar
calendar.

Even though the issue was acknowledged they
continued to preach that the 'Mark of the Beast' was Sunday worship
instead of Sabbath worship.

This is a serious
contradiction.

Seventh-day Adventists since that time have
not been keeping a biblical Sabbath any more than Roman
Catholics.

Dear
TroubleShooter,

I certainly agree with you that if indeed
your contentions are true, then such actions as you are attributing to the
1883 special General Conference committee of the SDA Church, "is a serious
contradiction" and, also if so, "Seventh-day Adventists since that
time have not been keeping a biblical Sabbath any more than Roman
Catholics."

I've been looking eagerly and extensively within the
references provided within this thread, but so far I've been unable to
find anything in support of your quoted words above. The references given
are voluminous and it is certainly easy for me to be missing
something...

Perhaps you'd care to give me - and any other among
the readers of this thread - a more exact reference to each of the
following:

1. Where exactly do you find that the 1883 special
General Conference committee found Scriptural support for the Lunar
Sabbath, or even that they found evidence that the cyclical Sabbath kept
by Seventh-day Adventists today is not the same as the one given in
Genesis 2:2-3?

2. Where exactly do you find support for your
contention that said 1883 committee "decided not to trouble the church
with..." any findings of theirs such as I am asking for in question #1
above?

3. Where exactly do you find support for your statement that
the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, by and through said 1883
committee, determined that "it would have been too hard to implement a
lunar calendar," that is, a change called for by a finding of theirs such
as I am asking for in my question #1 above?

Shabbat
Shalom,
Tree of Life ©

Tree of Life ©

View Public
Profile

Visit Tree of Life
©'s homepage!

Find More Posts by Tree of Life ©

Add
Tree of Life © to Your Contacts

11-23-2009

#13

Tree of Life ©

Forum Member

Join Date: Nov 2009

Location: Adamah Republic ©

Posts: 66

Reputation: 13

The One and Only Way to Get to Higher Ground. .
.

Dear
TroubleShooter,

Don’t forget that a
thing that is only true in part is wholly false, that is, a lie!

On the other hand, one must always
remember that upon discovering one’s former greater errors and falsehoods
and while in the process of being cleansed from and sanctified one may
still be stained by guano, and although one is responsible for learning as
best one can, one cannot be held responsible for not acting in accord with
such as one has not yet learnt while in an honest pursuit of the truth!
That is the one route of true salvation!

As before, I am entering my comments as red font within your
quoted post below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Lunacy or not the Karaite calendar was and remains the
basis on which the Seventh-day Adventist church makes its claims to
historical legitimacy...

...and remains the basis for
1844.

- The fundamental basis for the Seventh-day Adventist
church – composed as it is of each one of its members and that which
they each have thus far come to believe - and for its claims to
historical legitimacy is nothing over and above the Holy Scriptures!
It is Sola Scriptura in contradistinction to Tradition! It is
certainly not the Karaite calendar, even though it is certainly true
that the Karaite calendar has served, and is still serving, as a
valuable and important tool in many respects… a tool that, to the
extent that it is created by man and not by the Creator Himself, is
suffering from frailties and errors of men and not necessarily
reliable. Yet in many respects it is, and has been for ages, a tool
that far surpasses most man made schemes of calculation and
calendrical reckoning. Yes, it too is in need of correction and
improvement, that is, relative to the original instructions provided
by our Creator Himself. For instance, in re to the Karaite’s current
practice of keeping Pentecost always on a Sunday, and not on a 7th
Day weekly Shabbat (non-Lunar based!) as originally directed and as
kept throughout OT and NT times by most or all factions of Jews
alike! Cf.
adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/NTCh/TheFeastofWeeks-TheAnteTypeForTheCycleOfJubilee.htm
!

- Remember always that the one and only way to the
Kingdom of God is a route of learning, line upon line and precept
upon precept! Cf. Isaiah 28:10-13; 29: It is nothing other than that
which is spoken of in the OT and NT alike as the Way . . . Nothing
other than that which is in the name of our Savior: Yehoshua, who
defines his name as “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh
unto the Father, but by me..”

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Holy Scriptures,
KJV

Isa
28:10-13

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept
upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little,
and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and
another tongue will he speak to this people.

12
To whom
he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause
the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they
would not hear.

13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept
upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon
line; here a little, and there a little; that they
might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and
taken.

Isaiah 29:12-14

12 And the book is delivered to him
that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he
saith, I am not learned.

13 Wherefore the Lord said,
Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth,
and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart
far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept
of men:

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a
marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous
work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men
shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent
men shall be hid.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the
way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,
but by
me.

Adventism has no other reason to
prefer the 31 AD crucifixion date...
...than to appeal to the Karaite
calendar.

- This
may or may not be true, yet, without such a stepping stone, without
such a way point, how could anyone proceed along the winding road
towards something ever better and ever more correct?! Again, please
cf. the following discoveries unto which I believe our Creator and
God has thus far led me on my way:

1. Re the timing of the crucifixion:
adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/NTCh/AFewHelpfulQuestions.htm and
associated links, and

2. Re
the prophecies of Daniel:
adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTCh/Centuries1to7BCE/GateWayToDanielsPropheciesAndOTHistoryFromAboutHis
Time.htm respectively! [Again, please remove any spaces within those
URLs before using!]

Shalom,

Tree of Life
©

Last edited by Tree of Life ©; 11-23-2009 at 05:27
PM..

Tree of Life ©

View Public
Profile

Visit Tree of Life
©'s homepage!

Find More Posts by Tree of Life ©

Add
Tree of Life © to Your Contacts

11-23-2009

#14

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

Welcome to the boards

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree of Life ©

The One and
Only Way to Get to Higher Ground. . .

Dear TroubleShooter,

Don’t forget that a thing that is only true in part is
wholly false, that is, a lie!

On
the other hand, one must always remember that upon discovering one’s
former greater errors and falsehoods and while in the process of
being cleansed from and sanctified one may still be stained by
guano, and although one is responsible for learning as best one can,
one cannot be held responsible for not acting in accord with such as
one has not yet learnt while in an honest pursuit of the truth! That
is the one route of true
salvation!

What a strange
irony that those who adhere to a plagiarizing false prophet begin with a
lecture on the basis of truth.

Even in your comments are the works
based ideology of Dear Ellen, the one true route to salvation is Jesus
Christ, on this you should supremely hope, because if you think salvation
is a theology test then the best SDA's can hope for is a pass/fail mode of
grading.

In the grand scheme of things 1Cor 4 says we are the
holders of the mysteries of the church, one of those mysteries is the
incarnation of God into human flesh, what an interesting thought, SDA's
are unable to explain the person who is their salvation but can define
calender dates and types through all of history....

In any event
it's nice to see a new face even if it's only to serve as an example of
where SDA theology ends up.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

11-28-2009

#15

Tree of Life ©

Forum Member

Join Date: Nov 2009

Location: Adamah Republic ©

Posts: 66

Reputation: 13

Thoughts
through the Mind of One Incarnation of God into Flesh and
Blood...

and a Little Re Being Able to "Count to
Three..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

What a strange irony that those who
adhere to a plagiarizing false prophet begin with a lecture on the
basis of truth.

Even in your comments are the works based
ideology of Dear Ellen, the one true route to salvation is Jesus
Christ, on this you should supremely hope, because if you think
salvation is a theology test then the best SDA's can hope for is a
pass/fail mode of grading.

In the grand scheme of things 1Cor
4 says we are the holders of the mysteries of the church, one of
those mysteries is the incarnation of God into human flesh, what an
interesting thought, SDA's are unable to explain the person who is
their salvation but can define calender dates and types through all
of history....

In any event it's nice to see a new face even
if it's only to serve as an example of where SDA theology ends
up.

Dear
Willy,

I cannot know who all you are referencing in your quoted
post above, but no doubt your post is being read by many as a reference to
me, or don't you think so? Yet, I for one do not reckon myself as
'adhering' to Ellen Gould White even though I do find great
pleasure and great values in considering very carefully the truth value of
the words Sister White is sharing with us all through her works. Indeed, I
even hesitate to make the connection by thought between your words, as
smitten by a host of such 'scoffers' as Peter is giving reference to in
his second epistle (2 Peter 3:3,) "a plagiarizing false prophet," and
between that very special Daughter of God, our Sister, who never called
herself a prophet and who closely adhered to the then current practice of
freely copying works of other authors without necessarily giving reference
to them or to their works. After all, it is the truth value itself that
counts, not any power given such words or passages by popular adherence
unto manmade authorities, isn't it? - And isn't such popular adherence the
very essence of such as TroubleShooter is referencing by his word
'anathema' in his post above?

That having been said, I recognize
that it is unlikely that you will find value in things written by Ellen,
should I happen from time to time to copy thoughts or words that she and
other great thinkers have had in their minds before us.

Thus,
let's now move forwards in pursuit of some things more directly connected
with the words of him whom we recognize by the name 'Jesus Christ, our
Savior.' Consider these words of his:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew 16:3 KJV

O ye hypocrites,
ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the
signs of the times?

[Emphasis added
throughout]

Why is Jesus in his use
of the words "the signs of the times" using plural and not
the singular if indeed his intent was to give reference to nothing but the
one sign of Jonas, which sign you also seem to give reference to in your
brief little rep note to me that I so much treasure? That is, your words
"It would seem that with all your study of dates you could count to three,
just read your Friday crucifixion page, it was horrible." (Are you, by
your words "your Friday crucifixion page" giving reference to this page of
mine?:
adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/NTCh/TimingOfTheEventsOfThePaschalPesachWeek.htm
)

Is it, per chance, that, seeing my reference to a Friday
crucifixion you automatically assume, without reading any further into my
studies as published on the web, that the resurrection and the opening of
the tomb was an event the undoubtedly took place at dawn of a Sunday - and
not, as I have shown as based upon the best among the extant Greek (Textus
Receptus) and Hebrew (Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew) New Testament
manuscripts, an event that occurred at sunset of a Monday
night?

Perhaps you'd care to search for and find some pearls of
value re this particular in another web page of mine addressing this very
item? That is, the sign of Jonas, one sign among many referenced by Jesus'
words quoted above? For you that do, here's the link:
adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/IFoundMannah/3Days&3NightsInThatOrder.htm

If
upon considering that page of mine while undoubtedly you do "count to
three" in more ways than one, you find yourself recognizing a taste for
more "signs of the times," then perhaps you'd care to
consider also to what extent there might be for us saving value, this is,
'salvation' inherent likewise in the words of the prophet
Daniel...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel 7:25

to change
times...

... words
referenced also by our Savior in his references to Daniel (Matthew 24:15
and Mark 13:14) and as considered also within this other web page of
mine?:
adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTCh/Centuries1to7BCE/GateWayToDanielsPropheciesAndOTHistoryFromAboutHis
Time.htm [Please remove any spaces out of my URLs! Such spaces aren't
mine.]

Upon this very special day in commemoration of our
Creator, given as it is unto all of us by our Creator to enjoy and be
blessed by forever, if only we choose to thus accept it as one gift of
Salvation among many such special gifts, let us open up one of his
presents and enjoy the contents - lest otherwise "those mysteries" of God
will remain hidden to us forever while we remain with nothing but the sign
given by God unto Cain... The one who made a sacrifice of his own design
and making, and unto which sacrificial gift was tied no natural
consequence of blessing such as was tied to the act, that is, the
sacrifice, of his brother Abel.

Happy non-Lunar
Sabbath,

Tree of Life ©

Last edited by Tree of Life ©; 11-28-2009 at 02:28
PM..

Tree of Life ©

View Public
Profile

Visit Tree of Life
©'s homepage!

Find More Posts by Tree of Life ©

Add
Tree of Life © to Your Contacts

11-28-2009

#16

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

Complexity of thought and word is like the tall grass, it
feeds the wildebeest and hides the loin.

Since most of the source
material Ellen STOLE from is still available, would in not be of more
profit to actually read what the original author had to
say.

Edersheim in his comments on the Garden of Eden commented
that the only place Adam could sin was the tree of good and evil. His
message was theologically sound and well considered, then your prophet
comes along and "borrows" on his idea and adds a second concept of
sabbath, being a theological ignoramus she fails to consider the idea
that adding the sabbath to the concept of original sin totally voids the
idea.

Edersheim being a converted Jew to Christianity knew full
well such verses as there was no law from Adam to Moses and developed
his garden theology in compliance to those concepts.

As for your
other sabbath considerations, it seems odd you link the Hebrew rest for
released slaves to creation, the verb shavath is found in Genesis, it is
not the same noun sabbath that the command is made from.

The
single day of rest God took as a signature single event, He did not rest
the following week as you wrongfully assume, when viewed as a sign it
points to Him as creator not the day, SDA's are doing what all pagan
religions do they worship the created.

You mention comfort from
Ellen, this thought comes from a near fatal blindness as to the quality
and accuracy of her works, I have read all of the conflict of the ages
series at least five times in my life with each time thinking I had some
glorious insight.

What a sad thing to find out that historically
and theologically she was way off and not even close to a sound
theological truth, in most likely one of your favorite volumes "Desire
of Ages" she unashamedly places Christ in temptation and with in the
possibility of failure, and I bet you don't even have an idea how
insidiously evil this concept is,
she a woman who claims to have met
Christ in vision, amd yet reduces Him to a parrot who can only save the
world by repeating scripture,
(thank god Jesus knew his memory
verse.)

Have you ever considered the fact that God in the flesh
had greater thoughts and power than SAtan, and that Ellen was
embarassinlg incorrect as to why Christ answered like He did?

As
for your Daniel references please look and see what the general
Christian community says about it, virtually no one takes the force fit
adaptation thatSDA's do, it's simply unheard of in general theological
circles, J Vernon McGee offers a great overview of the chapter that
complies with the consensus of dispensational thought.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

12-05-2009

#17

Tree of Life ©

Forum Member

Join Date: Nov 2009

Location: Adamah Republic ©

Posts: 66

Reputation: 13

Sharing Thoughts and Views with Willy...

Dear
Willy,

Please consider my thoughts re yours, as found in red font
in my quote below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

Complexity of thought and word
is like the tall grass, it feeds the wildebeest and hides the
loin.

- It is, isn't it? And like a tool, a
hammer, it can be used constructively, towards life, or it can be
used destructively, towards death... No doubt you've noticed before
how that the word 'live' spelled in reverse is nothing other than
'evil.' As in 'good' being quite the opposite of
'evil.'

Since most of the source material
Ellen STOLE from is still available, would in not be of more profit
to actually read what the original author had to say.

- Willy, I am glad you used the STATE convention of using
all caps when using the word "STOLE" above... That is, you're in
effect making a fictitious claim, a claim based upon nothing of
substance. Or so I see it... though I have no right to impose my
point of view upon the dominion and the world of thought of any
other.

As to your question, "Would i[t] not be of more profit
to actually read what the original author had to say[?,]" I'd say
this: It would depend, wouldn't it? If we are talking about such an
original author being a firsthand witness to some specific we are
dealing with, yes, without a doubt! I agree with you whole
heartedly. Or if we are talking about any original proof of some
specific. Yes! - But, on the other hand, if we are talking about
something else, something being considered by two people, neither of
whom is a firsthand witness, then certainly I see no reason why one
of them wouldn't be free to use the words of the other at will...
and without necessarily giving reference to such words being quoted
from the other. In effect, such use of the words of another is in
themselves a credit unto the value of such words of the other,
something for the other to be proud of, and something that will make
the other know that he is being heard... And isn't that last thing
ever so important in all effective
communication?!

Edersheim in his comments on
the Garden of Eden commented that the only place Adam could sin was
the tree of good and evil. His message was theologically sound and
well considered, then your prophet comes along and "borrows" on his
idea and adds a second concept of sabbath, being a theological
ignoramus she fails to consider the idea that adding the sabbath to
the concept of original sin totally voids the idea.

- Well, I have not had occation to read Edersheim, or, by
such reading, to find reason for building trust and confidence in
his writings, so I'd probably be wise not to say very much about
him. I certainly have not found reason to consider him an authority
re any particular in my life.

On the other hand, and leaving
Edersheim out of the picture, I have learnt to perceive the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil as a symbol of teachings such as are part
truth and part error. In any such school of thought it becomes
obvious that the students will be taught such things as will lead
them to 'miss the mark,' 'to miss the point,' re such particulars as
are building in part upon such errors, or wouldn't it? If such is
the reasoning of Edersheim, I totally support his teaching in that
particular. Now, if in that setting we add, as an example of such
teachings of truth and error, "a second concept of sabbath," then
how could it be that, as you say, one would "void..." the other?
Yet, if by 'original sin' we are indeed talking about a teaching
that is part true and part false, then wouldn't it be quite
appropriate that, again as you say, "adding the sabbath to the
concept of original sin totally voids the idea?"

Consider
it!

Edersheim being a converted Jew to
Christianity knew full well such verses as there was no law from
Adam to Moses and developed his garden theology in compliance to
those concepts.

- "No law from Adam to
Moses?" Well, well, now! What is the nature of any law, if not a
contract, covenant, or agreement between two or more parties? Now,
if you carefully consider the Creator as Party #1, and Adam Party
#2, and if you recognize the dominion granted by the former unto the
latter, as per Genesis 1:28, isn't that quite an important Grant
Deed and a most important covenant and 'law' between the two
parties?

If you agree with that, What does that do to your
claim re what Edersheim taught re there being "no law from Adam to
Moses..." and what does it do to whatever "theology..." he may have
built upon such a fiction of his?

And what does it do to your
prior views of the one you formerly referenced by the word
'ignoramus?'

As for your other sabbath
considerations, it seems odd you link the Hebrew rest for released
slaves to creation, the verb shavath is found in Genesis, it is not
the same noun sabbath that the command is made from.

- Thanks! That's an interesting thought to consider! Let's
see now...

In Exodus 20:10 I see the Hebrew letters
'shin-beth-tav' (Strong's H7676) and in Genesis 2:3 I see the same
Hebrew letters 'shin-beth-tav' (Strong's H7673.) And I am not saying
that you are not correct in saying that in the one that same word is
being used as a verb and in the other as a noun. Yet, the word is
one and the same, is it not?! If you or I are adding some vowels
upon those words as dictated by nothing but tradition, or if we
confine one word within such as are 'nouns' and the other in such as
are 'verbs,' then aren't we adding and detracting something of the
value and freedom of thought inherent in the original passages? And
aren't Yehoshua and John saying something of importance re such
doings, i.e. per Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17, and Revelation
22:18-19?

The single day of rest God took
as a signature single event, He did not rest the following week as
you wrongfully assume, when viewed as a sign it points to Him as
creator not the day, SDA's are doing what all pagan religions do
they worship the created.

- That's an
interesting consideration. Yet, isn't it true that children learn by
the example being set by their parents, in other words "Monkey see,
monkey do?" In addition, Have you ever considered Genesis 13:6 and
the use there of a Hebrew word based upon the very same three Hebrew
letters 'shin-beth-tav' (Strong's H3427 ?) (And perhaps similarly re
Genesis 16:3 and 19:30 and 27:44 and 28:15 and 28:21 and 34:22 and
36:27 and 45:10 and 50:20 and Exodus 2:21 and 5:5 and 10:23 and
12:20 and 15:17 and 16:3, all of which words are using the same
three Hebrew letter sequence?) Or could it not be that some of those
passages could have been equally well or better translated in terms
of Seventh Day Shabbat keeping?

You mention
comfort from Ellen, this thought comes from a near fatal blindness
as to the quality and accuracy of her works, I have read all of the
conflict of the ages series at least five times in my life with each
time thinking I had some glorious insight.

-
As with anything ever written by anyone: The reader is free to
project anything, right or wrong, upon the meaning of words. As they
say: "It's all in the eyes of the beholder." At any rate, I am
convinced that as readers or listeners or as recipients of any
message, we are responsible for that which we choose to take to
heart and/or such parts of it as we apply in each our
lives...

What a sad thing to find out that
historically and theologically she was way off and not even close to
a sound theological truth, in most likely one of your favorite
volumes "Desire of Ages" she unashamedly places Christ in temptation
and with in the possibility of failure, and I bet you don't even
have an idea how insidiously evil this concept is, she a woman who
claims to have met Christ in vision, amd yet reduces Him to a parrot
who can only save the world by repeating scripture,(thank god Jesus
knew his memory verse.)

- As I said above, we
are each being colored by the school of thought we choose for
ourselves... Which ever the tint of the glasses we filter our
perceptions through, such will necessarily taint our perception of
reality... Or don't you agree with that obvious
truth?

Have you ever considered the fact that
God in the flesh had greater thoughts and power than SAtan, and that
Ellen was embarassinlg incorrect as to why Christ answered like He
did?

- Ditto...

As for
your Daniel references please look and see what the general
Christian community says about it, virtually no one takes the force
fit adaptation thatSDA's do, it's simply unheard of in general
theological circles, J Vernon McGee offers a great overview of the
chapter that complies with the consensus of dispensational
thought.

- Honestly, I don't care what any
general anything, or what any majority perceive as the truth, or
what any authority, so called, created by men, may or may not be
teaching. Yes, I may well, and I do, study and consider lots of such
writings - and no doubt I too am being mislead by it - yet, I do my
best to sift out reality from fiction, and to grow step by step,
line upon line, and precept upon precept... And that certainly does
not exclude generally accepted Seventh-day Adventist teachings re
the prophecies of Daniel...

If you ever venture to take a
close look at my findings as published at
adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTCh/Centuries1to7BCE/GateWayToDanielsPropheciesAndOTHistoryFromAboutHis
Time.htm [- Please remove any and all spaces out of any URL of mine
before using or it won't work!...] you'll find that those are not at
all the same as generally taught among Seventh-day Adventists or
indeed, by anyone
else...

Shabbat
Shalom,

Tree of Life (c)

Tree of Life ©

View Public
Profile

Visit Tree of Life
©'s homepage!

Find More Posts by Tree of Life ©

Add
Tree of Life © to Your Contacts

12-06-2009

#18

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree of Life ©

Dear
Willy,

Please consider my thoughts re yours, as found in red
font in my quote below:
It is, isn't it? And like
a tool, a hammer, it can be used constructively, toward life, or it
can be used destructively, to wards death... No doubt you've noticed
before how that the word 'live' spelled in reverse is nothing other
than 'evil.' As in 'good' being quite the opposite of
'evil.'

When people offer
such responses it greatly reduces their credibility in my mind, the issues
of deception and falling for a package of lies are of far more import than
the coincidental spelling of words, such things are but distractions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree of Life ©

As to your
question, "Would i[t] not be of more profit to actually read what
the original author had to say[?,]" I'd say this: It would depend,
wouldn't it? If we are talking about such an original author being a
firsthand witness to some specific we are dealing with, yes, without
a doubt! I agree with you whole heartedly. Or if we are talking
about any original proof of some specific. Yes! - But, on the other
hand, if we are talking about something else, something being
considered by two people, neither of whom is a firsthand witness,
then certainly I see no reason why one of them wouldn't be free to
use the words of the other at will... and without necessarily giving
reference to such words being quoted from the other. In effect, such
use of the words of another is in themselves a credit unto the value
of such words of the other, something for the other to be proud of,
and something that will make the other know that he is being
heard... And isn't that last thing ever so important in all
effective communication?!

In
other words it's nice to believe in the assembling of "truths" by our
special prophet, actually considering the implications of those truths by
various authors is difficult and unnecessary when "we" have a special
interpreter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree of Life ©

On the other hand,
and leaving Edersheim out of the picture, I have learnt to perceive
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as a symbol of teachings such
as are part truth and part error. In any such school of thought it
becomes obvious that the students will be taught such things as will
lead them to 'miss the mark,' 'to miss the point,' re such
particulars as are building in part upon such errors, or wouldn't
it? If such is the reasoning of Edersheim, I totally support his
teaching in that particular. Now, if in that setting we add, as an
example of such teachings of truth and error, "a second concept of
sabbath," then how could it be that, as you say, one would "void..."
the other? Yet, if by 'original sin' we are indeed talking about a
teaching that is part true and part false, then wouldn't it be quite
appropriate that, again as you say, "adding the sabbath to the
concept of original sin totally voids the idea?"

Consider
it!

What theologians such as
Edersheim understood was that as a literal command don't eat it was the
only test of loyalty, Dear Ellen also grasped this concept at least
partially, then for her own purposes added the sabbath.

This faulty
mental process is reflected in both yours and her thoughts, the test was
don't eat, that single command was the test, there was not truth to be
found in the tree, it was not as Satan and apparently you claim to
have some truth mixed in with it's promise of death, what you have just
done is reiterate the lie of Satan, and I bet you thought you were just
being wise.

As a second and equally important point, the
covenant was not to eat, and you will have dominion of the earth.
It
was not don't eat and keep the sabbath, if such were the case then the law
Paul spoke of would have been in place, but such is not the case as
scripture clearly states.

This distortion is required because Dear
Ellen and those who edit her books knew that scripture does not allow for
ten commandment law before the exodous, so to men like Edershiem, Ellen
needed to add made up doctrines which conflict with the sound principles
they espoused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree of Life ©

"No law from Adam to
Moses?" Well, well, now! What is the nature of any law, if not a
contract, covenant, or agreement between two or more parties? Now,
if you carefully consider the Creator as Party #1, and Adam Party
#2, and if you recognize the dominion granted by the former unto the
latter, as per Genesis 1:28, isn't that quite an important Grant
Deed and a most important covenant and 'law' between the two
parties?

If you agree with that, What does that do to your
claim re what Edersheim taught re there being "no law from Adam to
Moses..." and what does it do to whatever "theology..." he may have
built upon such a fiction of
his?

It appears to be quite
clear that studing the different covenants has not been your strong suit,
it sounds as though you think the Mosaic covenant was somehow connected to
Adam, there are several passages that indicate that the covenant made with
Israel was specific to Israel, but as we know if you knew that you would
not be an SDA.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#19

Tree of Life ©

Forum Member

Join Date: Nov 2009

Location: Adamah Republic ©

Posts: 66

Reputation: 13

Deja vu on a Monday morning...

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

Dear
Willy,

Upon reviewing your recent communication with me and
others I am being reminded of an experience of mine years ago when I first
began studying organic chemistry at the University:

Having been
brought up as a Seventh-day Adventist in a ditto community and
transferring to a worldly educational institution I had no idea what I was
in for re my new friends in college.

Having decided not to be
prejudiced about who and what they were all about I decided to accept
their invitation to a weekend party of theirs. I knew that they were
making their own refreshments… They had been requesting all in our class
to contribute some of the 98% alcohol we were using in lab, but having
never before attended a drinking party I did not understand the
implications of that.

When I first arrived at the party everyone
was sober and my first impression was that we were all going to have a
pleasant and enjoyable evening together, sharing valuable thoughts upon
which we could all continue to grow in life.

Unfortunately it
wasn’t long until we sat down at the table and the first drinks were being
served… I very quickly noticed how dull the conversation turned and before
long I left the party. It goes without saying that I never tasted any of
their alcoholic beverages.

Well, I never attended one of those
parties of theirs again… There was, and is, nothing of value in such for
me…

What I cannot tell for sure from my point of view is
whether you are drunk on similar beverages as my fellow students at
university were, whether you are drunk on such wine as is being referenced
in Revelation 14:8, or both…

On the other hand, being well familiar
with the principle inherent in “it’s all in the eyes of the beholder” and
likewise the words of our Savior as recorded in Matthew 7:3-5 and Luke
6:41-42, I shall choose at this point to withdraw for the time being from
this dialog with you, while doing, as best I can learn how, as Noah did
per the Hebrew within Genesis 6:8, “And Noah found beauty in the eyes of
Yahweh.” That is, upon beholding the reality of that which is what it is
and the ultimate beginnings of each and any particular, as given by our
Creator, I may learn also, as Noah did, the reality of whom I am myself,
my own weaknesses and my total dependence upon my Creator for any insights
into any and all truths and insights…

So, in the end, whether it’s
me or you, I must humbly beg for the witness of another, first of all from
my Father and ultimate Source, him that made heaven, and earth, and the
sea, and the fountains of waters.

Fare well, Willy! I wish you only
the best! And please, no offense! It could be me... and the three fingers
pointing back...

Peace, and with a prayer,

Tree of
Life ©

Tree of Life ©

View Public
Profile

Visit Tree of Life
©'s homepage!

Find More Posts by Tree of Life ©

Add
Tree of Life © to Your Contacts

12-09-2009

#20

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

It must be difficult to actually consider
ones religion and see it is at best incoherent and haphazard.

In
general when a person accuses another of some behavior it is a reflection
of their own mindset, such is the case with your posts, I attempted to
show the false nature of your prophet by citing an example of her
plagiarizing and addition to a sound concept.

Namely the placement
of Mosaic law in the garden of Eden, Paul was emphatic when he said there
was no law from Adam to Moses, since this concept has been well discussed
out side the world of Adventisum it seems strange to me that you would
relate such principles to drunkenness, it does in retrospect make perfect
sense, after all I am dialogging with a person who by proxy thinks
phrenology was a valid science, and that personal sexual behaviors cause
all manner of illness and blindness.

You didn't seem capable of
answering the most basic of theological concepts, and went straight to the
typical SDA variant accuse the opposition of being some form of
evil.

Nice change from the norm, usually it's that we hate and are
evil and so should not be spoken to, with me it's being a drunk, a charge
no person who knows me would ever consider, so you are correct for the
most part except that all the fingers are pointing at yourself.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

12-09-2009

#21

Elffinagain

Forum Member

Join Date: Oct 2008

Location: Texas

Posts: 3,641

Reputation: 109

The law has been around since the days of
Adam

Just the Mosaic law came
later.

Noachide Laws. Though the first man and his wife, Adam and
Eve, were commanded to observe them, they emerged fully only after Noah
had survived the flood that wiped away violent sinners whose wrongdoings
had engulfed the world in his time. The ancestors of the Jewish people
were also commanded in them until they were given the whole Torah at Mount
Sinai, and they were then reaffirmed through Moses for all the other
nations.

Elffinagain

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Elffinagain

Add
Elffinagain to Your Contacts

12-09-2009

#22

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elffinagain

Just the Mosaic law came
later.

Noachide Laws. Though the first man and his wife, Adam
and Eve, were commanded to observe them, they emerged fully only
after Noah had survived the flood that wiped away violent sinners
whose wrongdoings had engulfed the world in his time. The ancestors
of the Jewish people were also commanded in them until they were
given the whole Torah at Mount Sinai, and they were then reaffirmed
through Moses for all the other
nations.

Mosaic law was not given to
all the other nations it was given to Israel and Israel only,

Deut
4:7 “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the
LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8 And
what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments
as are in all this law which I set before you this day?

19 He
declares His word to Jacob,
His statutes and His judgments to
Israel.
20 He has not dealt thus with any nation;
And as for His
judgments, they have not known them.

4 “ Remember the Law of
Moses, My servant,
Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed
when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The
point I am making is that Ellen White and possibly you are incorrect if
you place Mosaic law in the garden of Eden, Paul says that Adam's sin was
a direct violation of a command, the introduction of Mosaic principles
beginning with Abraham or more specifically Jacob, were not codified
laws.

I think it would also be incorrect to claim Adam was under
any form of Noahatic law, Adam was in dominion, he could kill whom he
chose and be guiltless the same way a king could, Adam's command (law) was
do not eat, there were no other inclusions in that restriction.

In
specific response to this line of reasoning are the two reasons why God
gave the sabbath, creation was one, but the other was
slavery.

God's reason of authority to give rest was not needed or
required as SDA's claim, Adam was in a sin free state and if any man could
be said to be free it was him, it was not until the advent of slavery that
the idea of rest became important, what SDA's and others of their ilk
don't seem to understand is the idea that to claim a needed rest in the
garden is to claim an in-perfection in the creation, the requirement of
rest and communion both imply a need for such things and therefore signify
a lack thereof, this is a projection of man's current sinful weak and
disconnected state upon the perfect and fully connected Adam.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

12-06-2009

#23

Kevin Morgan

Forum Member

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,361

Reputation: 178

We can all make a mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

Complexity of thought and word is like the tall grass,
it feeds the wildebeest and hides the loin.

Since most of
the source material Ellen STOLE from is still available, would in
not be of more profit to actually read what the original author
had to say.

Edersheim [1883] in his
comments on the Garden of Eden commented that the only place Adam
could sin was the tree of good and evil. His message was
theologically sound and well considered, then your prophet comes
along and "borrows" on his idea and adds a second concept of
sabbath, being a theological ignoramus she fails to consider the
idea that adding the sabbath to the concept of original sin
totally voids the idea.

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One (1870), page 34, paragraph 2

The angels cautioned Eve not to separate from her husband
in her employment; for she might be brought in contact with this
fallen foe. If separated from each other, they would be in greater
danger than if both were together. The angels charged them to closely
follow the instructions God had given them in reference to the tree of
knowledge; for in perfect obedience they were safe, and this fallen
foe could then have no power to deceive them. God would not permit
Satan to follow the holy pair with continual temptations. He could
have access to them only at the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Quote:

Edersheim being a converted Jew to Christianity knew
full well such verses as there was no law from Adam to Moses and
developed his garden theology in compliance to those
concepts.

As for your other sabbath considerations, it
seems odd you link the Hebrew rest for released slaves to
creation, the verb shavath is found in Genesis, it is not the same
noun sabbath that the command is made from.

The single day
of rest God took as a signature single event, He did not rest the
following week as you wrongfully assume, when viewed as a sign it
points to Him as creator not the day, SDA's are doing what all
pagan religions do they worship the created.

You mention
comfort from Ellen, this thought comes from a near fatal blindness
as to the quality and accuracy of her works, I have read all of
the conflict of the ages series at least five times in my life
with each time thinking I had some glorious insight.

What a
sad thing to find out that historically and theologically she was
way off and not even close to a sound theological truth, in most
likely one of your favorite volumes "Desire of Ages" she
unashamedly places Christ in temptation and with in the
possibility of failure, and I bet you don't even have an idea how
insidiously evil this concept is,
she a woman who claims to
have met Christ in vision, amd yet reduces Him to a parrot who can
only save the world by repeating scripture,
(thank god Jesus
knew his memory verse.)

Have you ever considered the fact
that God in the flesh had greater thoughts and power than SAtan,
and that Ellen was embarassinlg incorrect as to why Christ
answered like He did?

As for your Daniel references please
look and see what the general Christian community says about it,
virtually no one takes the force fit adaptation thatSDA's do, it's
simply unheard of in general theological circles, J Vernon McGee
offers a great overview of the chapter that complies with the
consensus of dispensational thought.

__________________

Exposing the positiveness of
Adventism to a wider audience through the help of my friends at
CARM.
“And
I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly
I love you, the less I be loved.” --Paul, 2 Corinthians
12:15.

Kevin Morgan

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Kevin Morgan

Add
Kevin Morgan to Your Contacts

12-06-2009

#24

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

As sure as the sun rises

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Morgan

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One
(1870), page 34, paragraph 2

The angels cautioned Eve not to separate from her
husband in her employment; for she might be brought in contact
with this fallen foe. If separated from each other, they would be
in greater danger than if both were together. The angels charged
them to closely follow the instructions God had given them in
reference to the tree of knowledge; for in perfect obedience they
were safe, and this fallen foe could then have no power to deceive
them. God would not permit Satan to follow the holy pair with
continual temptations. He could have access to them only at the
tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Thank you I am familiar
with the quote, have you considered the ridiculous nature of it?
Eve
must now be glued to Adam's side or else the whole world would fall, how
was this to work for the endless ages?

Of course the comments of
Ellen are but speculation, she claims the instruction was given to "them"
this is incorrect it was given to Adam only, she also said that Satan had
the power to deceive Adam, yet scripture says Adam was not deceived, so
apparently Satan did not have this power no matter where Adam was, she
also adds perfect obedience, this also was not the case they need only do
one thing and it was a broad command that was easily kept, don't go near
the tree.

What is so typical is the entire idea of God saves those
who save themselves,
this anti grace thought process is manifested with
predictable regularity in all she wrote.
There was no need for perfect
obedience as if it required special rigor not to eat, Ellen relates the
keeping of the Torah to the tree.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

12-06-2009

#25

Kevin Morgan

Forum Member

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,361

Reputation: 178

A good example of a case built on a faulty
assumption

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

Thank you I am familiar with the
quote, have you considered the ridiculous nature of it?
Eve must
now be glued to Adam's side or else the whole world would fall, how
was this to work for the endless ages?

Of course the comments
of Ellen are but speculation, she claims the instruction was given
to "them" this is incorrect it was given to Adam only, she also said
that Satan had the power to deceive Adam, yet scripture says Adam
was not deceived, so apparently Satan did not have this power no
matter where Adam was, she also adds perfect obedience, this also
was not the case they need only do one thing and it was a broad
command that was easily kept, don't go near the tree.

What is
so typical is the entire idea of God saves those who save
themselves,
this anti grace thought process is manifested with
predictable regularity in all she wrote.
There was no need for
perfect obedience as if it required special rigor not to eat, Ellen
relates the keeping of the Torah to the
tree.

Whatever you think of the
nature of the statement, you mistakenly built your case on Ellen White's
having taken it from Edersheim. All the rest of your statement was
predicated on that assumption.

The dates of her statement (1870)
and of Edersheim's publication (1883) tell us you have made a grave
mistake.

Unfortunately, Willy, you frequently build your case
against Ellen White on a faulty assumption.

Would it not be better
to simply graciously acknowledge ...

I made a mistake.

__________________

Exposing the positiveness of
Adventism to a wider audience through the help of my friends at
CARM.
“And
I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly
I love you, the less I be loved.” --Paul, 2 Corinthians
12:15.

Kevin Morgan

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Kevin Morgan

Add
Kevin Morgan to Your Contacts

12-06-2009

#26

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

I am more than happy to!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Morgan

Whatever you think of the nature of
the statement, you mistakenly built your case on Ellen White's
having taken it from Edersheim. All the rest of your statement was
predicated on that assumption.

The dates of her statement
(1870) and of Edersheim's publication (1883) tell us you have made a
grave mistake.

Unfortunately, Willy, you frequently build
your case against Ellen White on a faulty assumption.

Would
it not be better to simply graciously acknowledge ...

I made a
mistake.

What seems to
be eluding you is that conceptually Ellen's quote of your posting is in
conflict with her ideas in the conflict of the ages series, IF Adam and
Eve could only sin at the tree, then it would not be possible to sin by
breaking a second command as she claims was possible by the presence of a
sabbath order.

As for you admitting you made a mistake, I'll
happily acknowledge it.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

12-06-2009

#27

Kevin Morgan

Forum Member

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,361

Reputation: 178

Another pass at the landing strip

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

What seems to be eluding you is that
conceptually Ellen's quote of your posting is in conflict with her
ideas in the conflict of the ages series, IF Adam and Eve could only
sin at the tree, then it would not be possible to sin by breaking a
second command as she claims was possible by the presence of a
sabbath order.

Perhaps you
misunderstand her point. Satan was not allowed to approach them at any
other place than the tree. God warned them to stay away from it. Had they
listened, Satan would have not been able to tempt them.

Quote:

As for you admitting you made a mistake, I'll happily
acknowledge it.

Whose claim is it that
Ellen White borrowed, in 1870, a statement from Edersheim that wouldn't be
published until 1883?

I appreciate your backhanded acknowledgement
of her gift of prophecy, but wouldn't it be more gracious to simply admit
that you made a mistake?

I still consider you to be a friend, but
your turning an opportunity to acknowledge the obvious into a dig,
demonstrates an unwillingness to deal with reality and poses an impediment
to effective dialogue.

__________________

Exposing the positiveness of
Adventism to a wider audience through the help of my friends at
CARM.
“And
I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly
I love you, the less I be loved.” --Paul, 2 Corinthians
12:15.

Last edited by Kevin Morgan; 12-06-2009 at 08:30
PM..

Kevin Morgan

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Kevin Morgan

Add
Kevin Morgan to Your Contacts

12-06-2009

#28

jaman

Forum Member

Join Date: Jul 2009

Location: Mexico #2

Posts: 436

Reputation: 30

Kevin & Willy the tree was in the garden
that they had to take care of where did God command Adam not to go near
it?

jaman

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by jaman

Add
jaman to Your Contacts

12-06-2009

#29

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

Hello, I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaman

Kevin & Willy the tree was in
the garden that they had to take care of where did God command Adam
not to go near it?

It was not I who
posted or believe that non-sense of Ellen, I am well aware of what
scripture teaches on the subject, minus all the made up additions of
Ellen.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#30

DrPatti

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 11,283

Reputation: 931

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Morgan

Perhaps you misunderstand her point.
Satan was not allowed to approach them at any other place than the
tree.

Where do you find that in
Scripture?

Quote:

God warned them to stay away from it.

Where do you find that in
Scripture?

Quote:

Had they listened, Satan would have not been able to
tempt them.

Where do you find that in
Scripture?

Quote:

Whose claim is it that Ellen White borrowed, in 1870, a
statement from Edersheim that wouldn't be published until
1883?

I appreciate your backhanded acknowledgement of her
gift of prophecy, but wouldn't it be more gracious to simply admit
that you made a mistake?

I still consider you to be a friend,
but your turning an opportunity to acknowledge the obvious into a
dig, demonstrates an unwillingness to deal with reality and poses an
impediment to effective dialogue.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My
grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that
Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal
your joy!

DrPatti

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by DrPatti

Add
DrPatti to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#31

Kevin Morgan

Forum Member

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,361

Reputation: 178

"Perhaps you misunderstand her
point."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPatti

Where do you find that in
Scripture?

Where do you find that in
Scripture?

Where do you find that in
Scripture?

__________________

Exposing the positiveness of
Adventism to a wider audience through the help of my friends at
CARM.
“And
I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly
I love you, the less I be loved.” --Paul, 2 Corinthians
12:15.

Kevin Morgan

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Kevin Morgan

Add
Kevin Morgan to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#32

DrPatti

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 11,283

Reputation: 931

What's to misunderstand?
I simply asked
you some questions that you obviously do not wish to answer.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My
grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that
Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal
your joy!

DrPatti

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by DrPatti

Add
DrPatti to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#33

Kevin Morgan

Forum Member

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,361

Reputation: 178

i.e.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPatti

What's to misunderstand?
I simply
asked you some questions that you obviously do not wish to
answer.

Apparently you need me to
make this plainer:

The insight about the tree is "her
point."

I am sorry I did not make that clearer.

__________________

Exposing the positiveness of
Adventism to a wider audience through the help of my friends at
CARM.
“And
I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly
I love you, the less I be loved.” --Paul, 2 Corinthians
12:15.

Kevin Morgan

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Kevin Morgan

Add
Kevin Morgan to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#34

DrPatti

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 11,283

Reputation: 931

Barking up the wrong tree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Morgan

Apparently you need me to make this
plainer:

The insight about the tree is "her
point."

No argument there.
My
point was to ask where the Scriptures so indicate.

Quote:

I am sorry I did not make that clearer.

What is clear is that you will not answer
uncomfortable questions.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My
grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that
Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal
your joy!

DrPatti

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by DrPatti

Add
DrPatti to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#35

willy

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Anchorage Alaska

Posts: 6,428

Reputation: 808

Let me try again, you seem a little slow on
this topic, A. Ellen claims at one point that the only place Adam and Eve
could sin was at the tree, this is theologically accurate.

B. In a
later writing she claims that the sabbath was present before the fall,
this is innacurate, and incorrect, she tries to morph the Mosaic law into
the garden command of do not eat.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a
knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for
his humanity controlling his divinity.

willy

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by willy

Add
willy to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#36

DrPatti

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 11,283

Reputation: 931

Quote:

Originally Posted by willy

Let me try again, you seem a little
slow on this topic, A. Ellen claims at one point that the only place
Adam and Eve could sin was at the tree, this is theologically
accurate.

Not necessarily.
God's
command was not to eat of the fruit of the tree.
Technically, the
eating could have happened elsewhere.
So this was yet another one of
her additions to Scripture.

Quote:

B. In a later writing she claims that the sabbath was
present before the fall, this is innacurate, and incorrect, she
tries to morph the Mosaic law into the garden command of do not eat.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My
grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that
Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal
your joy!

DrPatti

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by DrPatti

Add
DrPatti to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#37

Kevin Morgan

Forum Member

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,361

Reputation: 178

Who cares about sense, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPatti

Not necessarily.
God's command
was not to eat of the fruit of the tree.
Technically, the eating
could have happened elsewhere.
So this was yet another one of her
additions to Scripture.

OK, by a
technicality, they could have figured out some ingenious way to pick the
fruit without coming near the tree and eaten it somewhere else.

But
does that make sense?

__________________

Exposing the positiveness of
Adventism to a wider audience through the help of my friends at
CARM.
“And
I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly
I love you, the less I be loved.” --Paul, 2 Corinthians
12:15.

Kevin Morgan

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Kevin Morgan

Add
Kevin Morgan to Your Contacts

12-07-2009

#38

DrPatti

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 11,283

Reputation: 931

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Morgan

OK, by a technicality, they could
have figured out some ingenious way to pick the fruit without coming
near the tree

Still you assume that
God commanded them not to go near it.
So your "logical" conclusions
are still based upon Ellen's additions to the Scripture. You cannot
even think outside the little White box.

Quote:

and eaten it somewhere else.

But does that make
sense?

If you are depending upon your
"logic" for spiritual truth, then logic stands against your rationale
here. It happens much more often than not. Unless, of course, you (if you
are a gardener) eat the fruits of your labors in the garden underneath the
plants they grew on.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My
grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that
Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal
your joy!

DrPatti

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by DrPatti

Add
DrPatti to Your Contacts

12-09-2009

#39

Kevin Morgan

Forum Member

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 10,361

Reputation: 178

*

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPatti

Still you assume that God commanded
them not to go near it.
So your "logical" conclusions are
still based upon Ellen's additions to the Scripture. You cannot
even think outside the little White box.

If you are
depending upon your "logic" for spiritual truth, then logic stands
against your rationale here. It happens much more often than not.
Unless, of course, you (if you are a gardener) eat the fruits of
your labors in the garden underneath the plants they grew
on.

You dug this one yourself. I
can't help you out.

__________________

Exposing the positiveness of
Adventism to a wider audience through the help of my friends at
CARM.
“And
I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly
I love you, the less I be loved.” --Paul, 2 Corinthians
12:15.

Kevin Morgan

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by Kevin Morgan

Add
Kevin Morgan to Your Contacts

12-09-2009

#40

DrPatti

Super Member

Join Date: Jan 2006

Posts: 11,283

Reputation: 931

You must have run out...

... of anything that resembles rational
argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Morgan

You dug this one yourself. I can't
help you out.

???

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My
grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'
Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that
Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal
your joy!

DrPatti

View Public
Profile

Find More Posts by DrPatti

Add
DrPatti to Your Contacts

Page 1 of 8

1

2

3

4

5

>

Last
»

Edit Tags

Tags

karaite, lunar, sabbath, solar, william
miller

vBulletin Message

Cancel
Changes

Quick
Reply

The following errors occurred with your submission

Okay

Message:

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

Options

Quote message in reply?

Posting
Quick Reply - Please Wait

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools

Show
Printable Version

Unsubscribe from this Thread

Display Modes

Switch
to Linear Mode

Hybrid Mode

Switch
to Threaded Mode

Search this Thread

Advanced
Search

Rate This Thread

Excellent

Good

Average

Bad

Terrible

Posting Rules

You may post new threads

You may post replies

You may not post attachments

You may edit your posts

BB code is On

Smilies are On

[IMG] code is On

HTML code is Off

Forum Rules

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 AM.

Contact Us - Christian Discussion
Forums - Top

Powered by vBulletin®
Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

copyright
CARM 2006,2007,2008,2009

Number of Page Loads since Jan 2008

DialUp Internet Providers