Adventist Online

Here is a discussion about the Man of Sin or the Anti-Christ.

This was asked of me as a bible question so here is where I'm posting the answer.  

VICARIUS FILII DEI
V = 5
I = 1
C = 100
A = 0
R = 0
I = 1
U = 5
S = 0
F = 0
I = 1
L = 50
I = 1
I = 1
D = 500
E = 0
I = 1
======= ======= =======
112 53 501
TOTAL 112 + 53 + 501 = 666

Hope this helps Samraj R.  It has been a blessing to me.  The information where I found this was found at amazingfacts.org  under storacles lessons.

Views: 901

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Andrew, I thought you just said it was not of any importance seeing you support the "Great Hope"

No the unique Adventist message is important when we start speaking jibber-jab that is when we need to examine ourselves.

Andrew, what do you consider about the SDA teachings to be Jibber-jab?

Bro Elijah,

Nothing that is the point.

Andrew so what do you mean by Jibber-Jaber?

I am not speaking of Andrew but younger folks, 35 and below. They are ignorant of many things, and because they are technically smart and connected they are arrogant to older people who have a greater knowledge of history and are actually well read. So when we speak of things we have actually read out of the Bible, book or experienced historically and express them to a younger person who looks at cat videos on an iPhone all day they look at us like we have two heads. To them speaking of a women who lived in the 1800's is like speaking about a two headed Martian, they just don't get it nor do they want to try. I have experienced reading out of the KJV and having to switch to a different version because the English in the KJV was jibber-jabber to a so called college educated younger person. We also have to take note that many who have been educated in government run public schools have been dumbed down and you really have to take this in account and even dumb down your language so they understand.

Brother Bart, Bro Elijah,

I don't have a problem with Spirit of Prophecy or the EGW Estate?  But what I have a problem is seeing it all in bible principle.  Without the Spirit we can't understand any of it.  But I just can't always see her writings in the light of the bible and when that is the case I just have to accept what I can see in the bible principles.  I'm only held accountable to accept and share what I can see in the bible.  Otherwise it is jibber-jab.  or non-sense.

Peace


Andrew wrote: "I don't have a problem with Spirit of Prophecy or the EGW Estate? But what I have a problem is seeing it all in bible principle. Without the Spirit we can't understand any of it. But I just can't always see her writings in the light of the bible and when that is the case I just have to accept what I can see in the bible principles."



Hey brother Andrew, I understand how you feel, what exactly in her writings do you see that's not from the light given in the Bible?

Perhaps it's something I didn't see, but from what I read, EGW writings reflects what's in the Bible. Let's talk about it bro.



Blessings!

This one- "It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ."... and "We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.  As we thus dwell upon His great sacrifice for us, our confidence in Him will be more constant, our love will be quickened, and we shall be more deeply imbued with His spirit.  If we would be saved at last, we must learn the lesson of penitence and humiliation at the foot of the cross."  DA Page 83.

Peace


Hey brother Andrew, ok, what's the problem you have with that statement?


Without knowing for sure, I'm going to attempt to guess what you have a problem with... Is it this part "If we would be saved at last,..."?



Blessings!

In a way I get the Jib Jab reference from Andrew . Some of what EGW wrote comes off as conflicting unlike the bible which I prefer and recommend people read over and before any other source including EGW.

Statements like the one below puzzle me from EGW. The bible talks of one human race, but EGW refers to Whites and Blacks as two different races. She seems to gives into political narratives.

Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, Page 214

"The work of proclaiming the truth for this time is not to be hindered by an effort to adjust the position of the Negro race."

To me what she stated above would be like Jesus Christ ignoring the adulterous woman because at the time it was acceptable to stone them (and still is in some parts of the world). Being a Christian is more than just "proclaiming the truth" it's about setting an example. Making a conflicting statement with the bible by referring to people with different skin color as a different race as a method to advance "the truth" just seems like something she should have taken her own advice on and remained silent about.. Race based on color/ethnicity is a political/social concept not Biblical.


Premises like the one below also seem to conflict with what Christ came to show and do.

.

Selected Messages Book 2, Page 343

"But there is an objection to the marriage of the white race with the black. All should consider that they have no right to entail upon their offspring that which will place them at a disadvantage; they have no right to give them as a birthright a condition which would subject them to a life of humiliation. The children of these mixed marriages have a feeling of bitterness toward the parents who have given them this lifelong inheritance. For this reason, if there were no other, there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race."

When i read it I can't help but think why be a Christian if that's your stance? You could just as easily test that statement against the humiliation and persecution a lot of people have received for their Christian beliefs? She seems to push you can win souls by ignoring compassion and suffering to "proclaim the truth" at best. Or at worst the suffering brought about by being a part of something interracial is an abomination, so it's justified. From my understanding interracial has no meaning when God judges.


I don't want to come off as EGW bashing because I think she makes wise observations.  However, those wise observations shouldn't outshine and be pushed over the Bible.  Plus she's dead and can't defend/clarify what she wrote since from my perspective she has said some things that only she will be able to truly account for on the day of resurrection. For that reason I can see why some view what she wrote as jib jab or conflicting with what is in the bible.

If EGW was alive today you could bet she would be right there on 3abn with Q & A time with her pure dress and modest appearance on.  :)

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2017   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service