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: 972

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Peace



Rabbittroup wrote: "Also as I stated earlier I'm not sure what would be the point of being a Christian if I were to make blanket statements that indicate ignoring the suffering the others based on no just cause other than the color of their skin."



Sister/brother Rabbittroup, again, you can have your opinion on what you think the proper course of action EGW should have taken, But the statement you've made is false and there's no proof to it..

EGW statement does not "indicate ignoring the suffering the others based on no just cause other than the color of their skin."... Now, you have a right to your opinions, but you can't tell untruths. There's no indication of her ignoring the suffering of others because of there skin color.




Rabbittroup wrote: "I could care less about confusion in a situation like that. You treat others with kindness and respect because it's the right thing to do, not because you're worried about the confusion it might cause to others whose hearts have been consumed with evil."




Right, you could care less, it's just your opinions, which you have a right to... EGW prayed on it, and the word she got was preaching the gospel, teaching the truths of the Bible without the hindrance that was sure to come was the best course of action. She wasn't talking about the confusion of evil doers, but the confusion it would bring a young SDA Church.


You live in the south, do I need to let you know what hindrances would have come? How bout a couple church bombings, how bout the young interracial couple being jailed or killed and there children left without parents... how bout the white people who doesn't have a problem with it in the church and them being called nigga lovers, maybe lose there jobs, hated on, maybe killed. I'm sure some special Jim Crow laws would have been written up for them.




Or how bout what EGW said, and saying the preaching of the gospel and teaching true doctrine of the Bible is more important, despite some of the social injustice in the country... But it needs to be clear, EGW isn't condoning the injustice. She just laser focused on preaching the gospel.


It's a time and a place for everything, you keep comparing Jesus and EGW, but Jesus wasn't worried so much about the Roman rule and injustices, I'm sure He had compassion for what was going on, but I don't recall Him challenging the Roman leaders on their laws and judgments. Even though many like Judas wish He did, they didn't like what they heard from Jesus, they wanted Him to speak up against the Romans and set up the Kingdom. But it wasn't the time for that, He came for His people.




Rabbittroup wrote: "In my view the right thing to say if you say anything at all is that we should treat interracial couples/children with the same kindness, grace and LOVE God gives all his children plain and simple."




Well, she did say something, might not be what you liked... but she certainly didn't say to treat interracial couples/children unkind.




Rabbittroup wrote: "There's no sin in being an interracial couple/child. "



Did she say that? No, she didn't!!



Rabbittroup wrote: "Admonishing others for it does not line up to me with what Jesus taught regardless of the excuses you claim are there. I still hope EGW has a much simpler answer on the day of resurrection because the one's you point out do not make sense to me given how Jesus acted/lived."



Right, her advice was SDA interracial couples shouldn't get married, and she explains why... The points she gave makes sense, you may not like it, but it makes sense.



EGW "Time is too precious to be lost in controversy that will arise over this matter. Let not questions of this kind be permitted to call our ministers from their work. The taking of such a step will create confusion and hindrance. It will not be for the advancement of the work or for the glory of God.—Letter 36, 1912. – {2SM 344.2}



But I guess you believe she should've taken the Malcolm X by any means necessary approach... and perhaps get some SDA Churchs bombed, maybe the young interracial couple getting killed?


Again, she choose to focus on Jesus and the Gospel. Of course, since GOD is a Loving GOD, HE put people in place to handle the social injustice in our society... But the struggle still goes on for many African Americans, but I won't get into that, I just want to focus on the Bible and the Gospel.



Thank you for your time.. Blessings! :)


Sister/brother Rabbittroup, again, you can have your opinion on what you think the proper course of action EGW should have taken, But the statement you've made is false and there's no proof to it..

Again, she choose to focus on Jesus and the Gospel. Of course, since GOD is a Loving GOD, HE put people in place to handle the social injustice in our society... But the struggle still goes on for many African Americans, but I won't get into that, I just want to focus on the Bible and the Gospel.

Right, her advice was SDA interracial couples shouldn't get married, and she explains why... The points she gave makes sense, you may not like it, but it makes sense.

You live in the south, do I need to let you know what hindrances would have come? How bout a couple church bombings, how bout the young interracial couple being jailed or killed and there children left without parents... how bout the white people who doesn't have a problem with it in the church and them being called nigga lovers, maybe lose there jobs, hated on, maybe killed. I'm sure some special Jim Crow laws would have been written up for them.

Right, her advice was SDA interracial couples shouldn't get married, and she explains why... The points she gave makes sense, you may not like it, but it makes sense.

But I guess you believe she should've taken the Malcolm X by any means necessary approach... and perhaps get some SDA Churchs bombed, maybe the young interracial couple getting killed?


Again, she choose to focus on Jesus and the Gospel. Of course, since GOD is a Loving GOD, HE put people in place to handle the social injustice in our society... But the struggle still goes on for many African Americans, but I won't get into that, I just want to focus on the Bible and the Gospel.

Reasoning,

Just as you stated I am entitled to my opinion and so are you.  However, you shouldn't overlook things just to strengthen your opinion.  Your Malcom X statement was a terrible guess and far from warranted.  I've already stated multiple times that the actions of Jesus Christ and situations like how he dealt with the adulterous woman situation spoke louder to me than the words of EGW who is dead.  Jesus Christ is my only role model.   The words of EGW might make to sense to your mentality it does not make sense to mines.  

Jesus Christ was crucified after only doing the right things throughout his life. Christians through out history have been persecuted for doing the right thing.  Fear mongering words like the ones you gave in defense of EGW mean nothing to me.   I grew up in the south and have been around situations where worrisome words like that were said and lead to further division among the races.  People used those words to instill their hatred and distrust but I chose Jesus Christ as my guide and do not let them trouble me.  All of my faith is in Jesus Christ and God over words like that.

You may think what I said was false.  However, as I have also repeatedly said I look forward to learning more about EGW's positions on the day of resurrection since she is now dead and can no longer speak for herself.  Until then I simply dismiss those writings and hope she has a much simpler answer than the ones you gave when the time comes.  Also, until that time comes I would rather focus on the bible and message of Jesus Christ which was meant for a lifetime instead of words that were only meant for a certain time period.

Take care,

Peace


Rabbittroup wrote: "Just as you stated I am entitled to my opinion and so are you. However, you shouldn't overlook things just to strengthen your opinion. Your Malcom X statement was a terrible guess and far from warranted."



Yes, I apologize, I was just trying to show the problems the SDA Church would have to come across, and that would've hindered the preaching of the Gospel and the work of the SDA Church. That is what EGW is saying, so it's not my opinion Rabbittroup, when EGW says it would have been a hindrance,...


EGW : "The taking of such a step will create confusion and hindrance."



... the facts prove white people did cruel things to people who didn't fly straight. Would it have been out of the relm of possibility that an SDA church could have been bombed, and all type of hatered fall down on the Church? No, not at all, that time will come, but that wasn't the time.

You might have to ask GOD Rabbittroup, because EGW said she got that instruction from the Lord.



EGW : "I will say that in my earlier experience this question was brought before me, and the light given me of the Lord was that this step should not be taken; for it is sure to create controversy and confusion. I have always had the same counsel to give. "



SDA believe she was move by the Holy Spirit to counsel the Church, she said light was given to her of the Lord.. I don't know your overall opinion of EGW, but most SDA believe she was directed by GOD. Again, and with all due respect, it's something you would have to question GOD about, and explain the problems you have with the counsel HE gave EGW.




Rabbittroup wrote: "You may think what I said was false."




With all due respect, I know what you said was false, base on the evidence you gave, which is none. You said



Rabbittroup wrote: "Also as I stated earlier I'm not sure what would be the point of being a Christian if I were to make blanket statements that indicate ignoring the suffering the others based on no just cause other than the color of their skin."



Sister/brother Rabbittroup, again, you can have your opinion on what you think the proper course of action EGW should have taken, But the statement you've made is false and there's no proof to it..

EGW statement does not "indicate ignoring the suffering the others based on no just cause other than the color of their skin."... Now, you have a right to your opinions, but you can't tell untruths. There's no indication of her ignoring the suffering of others because of their skin color.

As she explained, it was about preaching the Gospel, and growing as a Church.. Imagine trying to navigate in the 1800's with interracial marriage, with the extreme cruelty to come on them, and those promote interracial marriage.

If she was living now, then I'm sure the counsel would have been different, because I never heard her say is was wrong for different races to marry one another and have children. But back then you had to move differently, and she encourage young interracial couples not to marry. I know, it would have be tough for the couple in love, but for back then it was encouraged not to do it.


Blessings to you and your family Rabbittroup, even though EGW explain it already, may you find the answers your looking for in Heaven where I hope to see you.


Bless!

Reasoning,

I was impressed by God to rely on the bible and the works of Jesus Christ over the words of EGW.   The actions of Christ speak louder to me than any of the words from EGW you pointed out.  I await the resurrection and hope EGW will give a better account of what she said, nothing you've presented changes that stance.

You're free to feel however you wish.  I've already stated how inaccurate your guess was regarding Malcom X.  It furthers the point that you ignore my  view that the fearlessness Jesus Christ showed in the face of evil when he confronted those that wanted to stone the adulteress is an example of what I find conflicting about the excuses you give for EGW.  You don't have to agree with it.  But that is how I look at it and why I rather not waste time contemplating her words over the bible.  I hope EGW has a better simpler answer than the ones you gave on her behalf.

EGW is dead Jesus Christ is alive he is my path to salvation.  Not the words of the deceased EGW.

Rabbit said 

       " It furthers the point that you ignore my  view that the fearlessness Jesus Christ showed in the face of evil when he confronted those that wanted to stone the adulteress is an example..." 

and 

    " 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)." 

and again " 

    "I've already stated multiple times that the actions of Jesus Christ and situations like how he dealt with the adulterous woman situation spoke louder to me than the words of EGW who is dead."

and 

      " Jesus did not cower to the popular sentiment of the crowd that wanted to stone the adulterous woman."

and 

   "  As I pointed out Jesus' interaction with the adulterous woman was against the popular narrative at that time (Which was to stone them).  He was not concerned with their confusion and chose to act wisely instead. Jesus did something out of love and compasion, he didn't simply stand idly by and watch for fear of confusion.

 

and again 

   "... is far out shined by the work of Jesus Christ like when he intervened in the stoning of the adulterous woman." 

Since we love this story so must, should we not try to understand what was going on here? I will post the context here for all to read which is found in John 8 

    " 

But the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery. After setting her before them, they told him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women to death. What do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they might have a charge against him. But Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.

When they persisted in questioning him, he straightened up and told them, “Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Then he bent down again and continued writing on the ground.[c] When they heard this, they went away one by one,[d]beginning with the oldest,[e] and he was left alone with the woman standing there.[f] 10 Then Jesus stood up and asked her, “Dear lady,[g]where are your accusers?[h] Hasn’t anyone condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,”[i] she replied.

Then Jesus said, “I don’t condemn you, either. Go home, and from now on don’t sin anymore.”

So what was the issue here? What did the law say? Leviticus 20:10 : 

     “If anyone commits adultery with another man’s wife, including when someone commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress are to die."

So we see here that both the man and the woman were to be stoned or strangled in this case. Where was the man? Why was this man in the crowd ready to stone the woman? If she was caught in the very act then the identity of the man must be known. Actually this was a set up by them to catch Jesus. They were the ones who made the man to seduce the woman. It may have been one of their own members. 

And more importantly (anyone who reads the bible knows this), this was a test. Jesus was not the judge. If he said no, then they would accuse Him of breaking the law of Moses (falsely) and stoned Him to death instantly. Remember they had the stones ready. Now if He said that the woman should not be stoned,  then they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for taking upon him to condemn a person to death, which belonged to him to do. They thought they had Him cornered. 

In addition by this, time thy had already made the law of Moses void by their traditions. They were no longer killing the adulterers (adulteresses) but beating or warning etc. And many other things they did not do. 

Jason,

Thanks for pointing out why I choose the wisdom/examples of Jesus over the words I pointed out from EGW.   As you stated, stoning was against roman law (The Romans actually brutally put down several Jewish rebellions that resulted from the Jews not liking the restrictions Roman law put on their customs),

People should also know arson/burning churches and lynching people during EGW's time was against the Federal law. In the face of death Jesus didn't avoid the situation or yield to the narrative of the crowd. Jesus used his God given wisdom to over come the evil set before him.  To God be the Glory, I put my faith in the message of Jesus Christ over all others.

Rabbit I don't blame you for not accepting her as a prophet or for not believing in the SOP. We are told by inspiration that in the last days Satan will cause people to have a specail hatred for the SOP: 

    "Satan is . . . constantly pressing in the spurious--to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Prov. 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.-- Letter 12, 1890. 1SM 48

      There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded.-- Letter 40, 1890. 1SM 48

BTW this was not my point. I believe you will love the testimonies if you read it and allow the HS to bring conviction. In addition I perceive that you love social justice. Ellen White had a lot to say on slavery. 

God is punishing this nation for the high crime of slavery. He has the destiny of the nation in His hands. He will punish the South for the sin of slavery, and the North for so long suffering its overreaching and overbearing influence.—Testimonies for the Church, 1:264.

Making reference to the vision of August 3, she declared that she was “shown the sin of slavery, which has so long been a curse to this nation.” She referred to the unconscionable law of the land, the “fugitive slave law” that required the return to their masters of any slaves who escaped to the North. This, she said, was “calculated to crush out of man every noble, generous feeling of sympathy that should rise in his heart for the oppressed and suffering slave.” Months earlier she had written:

“The law of our land requiring us to deliver a slave to his master, we are not to obey; and we must abide the consequences of violating this law. The slave is not the property of any man. God is his rightful master, and man has no right to take God’s workmanship into his hands, and claim him as his own.
“—Ibid., 1:202.

When the laws of men conflict with the Word and law of God, we are to obey the latter, whatever the consequences may be.—Testimonies for the Church, 1:201, 202.

As to slavery, she declared:

“God’s scourge is now upon the North, because they have so long submitted to the advances of the slave power. The sin of Northern proslavery men is great. They have strengthened the South in their sin by sanctioning the extension of slavery; they have acted a prominent part in bringing the nation into its present distressed condition.”—Ibid., 1:264.

She provided the following insight into the situation:

“I was shown that many do not realize the extent of the evil which has come upon us. They have flattered themselves that the national difficulties would soon be settled and confusion and war end, but all will be convinced that there is more reality in the matter than was anticipated....

The North and South were presented before me. The North have been deceived in regard to the South. They are better prepared for war than has been represented. Most of their men are well skilled in the use of arms, some of them from experience in battle, others from habitual sporting. They have the advantage of the North in this respect, but have not, as a general thing, the valor and the power of endurance that Northern men have.”—Ibid., 1:264-266. 

Peace


Rabbittroup wrote: "I was impressed by God to rely on the bible and the works of Jesus Christ over the words of EGW. The actions of Christ speak louder to me than any of the words from EGW you pointed out. "




Ok, we agree, but again, in regards to the statement you brought to view and your twist on what she was saying, it doesn't mean that would " indicate ignoring the suffering the others based on no just cause other than the color of their skin." As you say...
That's your opinion, you have no proof that she was ignoring the suffering.



Rabbittroup wrote: "It furthers the point that you ignore my view that the fearlessness Jesus Christ showed in the face of evil when he confronted those that wanted to stone the adulteress is an example of what I find conflicting about the excuses you give for EGW."




Ok, see, key word here is "fearlessness", you believe EGW was opposite of that (cowardly) from her statements correct?


If so, then that's your twist on it.. She responds to you and says it would have cause a hindrance to spreading of the truth the SDA Church holds, if she would have taken a stand in favor of interracial marriage, then it surely would have damaged that, from within and outside of the Church. That's her point, nothing base on being scared, SDA expects a time of trouble to come, but that wasn't the time.

But hey, like I said, you can be believe what you want, but if it was something you thought couldn't be explained, and you had to wait until the resurrection to get understanding, then why bring it up and then add your opinions on what should've been done and how EGW didn't show fearlessness?



Rabbittroup wrote: "I hope EGW has a better simpler answer than the ones you gave on her behalf."



She did give a simpler answer Rabbittroup,



EGW : "I will say that in my earlier experience this question was brought before me, and the light given me of the Lord was that this step should not be taken; for it is sure to create controversy and confusion. I have always had the same counsel to give. "




Your not satisfied with the simple answer, you have a problem with her not showing "fearlessness"..



What I'm saying, because I know the history, I understand she might had to navigate wisely in action and words in those days and times, and be more focused on the preaching the Gospel. But in no way did she condone the hatered by many white people, and we agree she didn't say to much in regards to the hatered like MLK, she did say all men are created equal, but she was more focused on spreading the Gospel.
I guess you wish she would have taken a more activist role on social issues, and I understand your wishes, but that wasn't her calling.


I pray you'll be in Heaven to see her, GOD Bless!!

.

Jason/Reasoning.  

My stance is pretty simple, Jesus Christ is my guide not the words of the deceased EGW.  There is no lack of vision in that, As long as ones eyes are on him, he will show the way.  You can point out words from the deceased EGW all day long and call them simple explanations but if they don't line up with Jesus Christ the one true role model they do not make sense to me.  The more quotes you give in her defense the more glaring those questions become so I rather not trouble responding to them since she is dead and cannot speak for herself.    

The fearlessness I described means more than the simple word you want to make it out to be.  Jesus' actions were done in a way that was wise without avoiding the narrative set before him.  Jesus makes senses to me when it comes to who I put my faith in..  He was truly the son of God sent to show us the final path to salvation.  Jesus' actions mean more to me than anything you've pointed out in defense of the dead EGW.  

I have no hatred for EGW,  Only questions that I look forward to getting answers to on/after the day of resurrection until then I just ignore them since they have no significant value to me and as pointed out previously some were only meant for her time.  There are lots of things about people who are dead I look to learning more about, David and Samson for example.   But since they are dead the answer is simply to wait and look forward until the day of resurrection.  There is no hatred involved in that revelation.

But hey, like I said, you can be believe what you want, but if it was something you thought couldn't be explained, and you had to wait until the resurrection to get understanding, then why bring it up and then add your opinions on what should've been done and how EGW didn't show fearlessness?

I already answered that Reasoning... literally in the first paragraph of my first response to Andrew and have restated it repeatedly in various ways.  I get the feeling it was overlooked like some of the other things I said in favor of hyperbole/Jib-Jab like trying to associate my faith in Jesus Christ with Malcom X.  I'll post it again below though, hopefully I pray you take note.

"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."

To stress it further, my faith is in Jesus Christ as the path to salvation and I believe the bible is the best source for learning more about him for those that seek truth. I give these responses in support of that which is much more to me than an opinion.

Peace


Rabbittroup wrote: ""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."




Coming off as conflicting doesn't mean it's conflicting... That's an assumption on your part.. the conflict is in your mind.. In your mind EGW didn't have fearlessness... Just opinions base on no proof whatsoever. But when you get in Heaven you can ask her why she lacked fearlessness.



Rabbittroup wrote: "My stance is pretty simple, Jesus Christ is my guide not the words of the deceased EGW. "


Ok, stay with that, but leave your opinions of her character to the side, you believe she lacked fearlessness, again, just our own commentary base on nothing.


Rabbittroup wrote: "The fearlessness I described means more than the simple word you want to make it out to be. "



Ok, what's the opposite of fearlessness? Anyway, you'll get your answer in Heaven right.







Blessings Rabbittroup :)

Ok, stay with that, but leave your opinions of her character to the side, you believe she lacked fearlessness, again, just our own commentary base on nothing.


Ok, what's the opposite of fearlessness? Anyway, you'll get your answer in Heaven right.

Reasoning,

The excuses you gave on the behalf of EGW who is dead are what I'm responding further to. You are alive, EGW is dead. I simply hope your highlights are not her final say on the matter for reasons I've already stated.

You're coming across as bitter because someone doesn't accept your view of the things EGW said. You repeatedly use hyperbole to try to counter/silence things I've said. See the definition of Assumption below.

Assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

If I "assumed" EGW had bad character I wouldn't repeatedly state I look forward to the day of resurrection for a better simpler answer on things I find contradicting with the message Jesus Christ taught. Until then I simply accept that she was not perfect like anyone else who walked this earth other than Jesus Christ. Even you admitted the things she wrote were only meant for her time.

EGW nor her writings are requirements for heaven. The message of Jesus Christ was meant for a life time. EGW was not perfect, she is dead. Even Moses made mistakes in the bible. However Moses' mistakes weren't phrased in a way that indicate he was pure and beyond reproach with respect to how Jesus Christ lived his life (and God worked many MIRACLES through Moses). I prefer to focus on the bible and promote it with it's less distracting words centered around the message and life of Jesus Christ. It speaks louder to me than any other writing in regards to how we should live our lives.

I don't follow Mosaic Laws for the same reason I don't adhere to the writings of the deceased EGW regardless of your over-exaggerate view of you think my opinion of her was, I respect both Moses and EGW but I do not put my faith in neither of them, only Jesus Christ. It's almost seems fanatical the way you throw hyperbole in to counter the reasons I give for promoting the bible and the message of Jesus Christ meant for a lifetime over the writings of the dead Ellen G. White. 

I give God all the Glory and thank him for Jesus Christ.  The one true and pure role model as to how we should live our lives.

Praise God

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service