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: 971

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To be clear I was not speaking of tongues as spoken of in the Bible,  but rather people who pretend to speak tongues because it is required by those around them to prove that they are by un-Biblical standards "Spirit filled".

 

I don't pretend. Praying in tongues with faith and working of miracles has stopped 400 ft. Flames, turned a breach baby in the womb to head first, and a woman walked for the first time in seven years. I know, God and I did it.

Not talking about you or trying to insult you but the devil can cause people to speak in tongues and cause miracles. The Bible gives examples.

Why do you assume the worst, most if not all of you? If there is counterfeit there must be genuine, otherwise there is no need for a counterfeit.

Genuine speaking in tongues is done with freedom of will, though the spirit gives the utterance, and as explained but ignored many times, the speaker does not know the language, otherwise it would not be a sign, nor speaking by the spirit of God. A believer can speak by his own forming of words, or he can speak by the spirit in tongues, interpretation of tongues and prophesy.

Tongues alone is not meant for public display unless it is for instructing or helping new people to speak in tongues and or interpret.

You don't believe me, despite all my reasonable explanations. You guys are conditioned not to believe anything but SDA. But SDA don't speak in tongues, interpret or prophesy. You have no tradition, practitioners of it, mentors or deep understanding. That is factual.

In the First Century Church, they had very little written word, but they had their testimony and the message about Jesus Christ, and they had the nine manifestations. People believed them and then they spoke in tongues as in Acts. The signs followed them, including speaking in tongues. New people would be initiated into the sacred secrets of the spirit and of the doctrines as taught by Paul after he was converted etc.

You are not even in the room of the unlearned when it comes to the manifestations, otherwise you would be doing them? This is not to attack you, but to get you to realize you know practically next to nothing but unbelief, superstition, and fear about these godly and holy manifestations.

Anyone who would mock and ridicule the Temple in the Old Testament would not sit well with either the Priests and Rabbis nor with God. How much is God not happy with no one believing He gives manifestations. Too much glory to Lucifer. Yes, people should be careful, but you don't operate discerning of spirits which is a form of revelation, and you don't know the basics of speaking in tongues and the other manifestations and NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER OF WALKING BY THE SPIRIT.

You attack, you criticize, I have studied and worked in this field longer than all of you put together, going on 43 years now. How egotistical can you get. You are virgins in the manifestations field, and have no understanding hardly, and what you know is is mixed with misunderstandings.

If it was bicycle riding we were discussing, and you never rode a bike, and a person has been riding bikes for 43 years, wouldn't you consider he might know something you don't?

Assume, innuendo, and attacks without reasoning and understanding and deep research will get you no where as far as manifestations are concerned.

Paul talked about demonstrating the power of God, not excellency of speech. The proof is in the pudding, either you have manifested holy spirit or you haven't. I have asked for those to come forward who have, none have.

James There is nothing genuine about you, you brag about what you have and can do. That is not a sign from God. As Jesus said:

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Why do you assume the worst, most if not all of you? If there is counterfeit there must be genuine, otherwise there is no need for a counterfeit.

Why I assume the worst: 

I assume the worst because the Bible speaks of a false prophet in Revelation 13. 

People need to come out of Sunday keeping churches. While the God may have his people in Sunday churches, I find very little in these churches that teaches or edifies me.

I have been an eye witness to false things in Sunday churches.  I have family who have rejected God altogether because of the lies told at at Sunday pulpits, to include false and awkward babbling of glossolalia preachers.

Check out the Fruit not the show.

Rabbit do you accept the writings of Paul? Do you understand everything he wrote and can you also explain it? Do you have questions for him?

BTW the writings of Paul is more difficult to understand than that of EGW.

I take things Paul wrote in context with the bible (in which some of Paul's writings are contained) and it's message of Jesus Christ as our guide along the path God wants.  It's possible I may disagree with others interpretation of things Paul wrote but that does not mean I disagree with Paul since they are not Paul who is now dead.

BTW - Difficulty is relative and based on ability it's not exactly the same as confusing.

Rabbittroup wrote: "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."

Reasoning Wrote: You said all of this before I even responded to you, so don't say it's in response to what I wrote... still You have no proof of any conflict from her statements. There is no problem here, where is it? (Not bitter or fanatical :)

Reasoning,

Wrong.  I said what you quoted in my first post about my view of Andrew's jib-jab terminology and with regards to the deceased EGW's comments about interracial marriage & children.   My further responses were to the excuses YOU Reasoning, the living highlighted on her behalf.  I thought that was pretty clear in my statement below.  

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.

When you consistently overlook things said or only see what you want to see your responses come across as hyperbole / far fetch exaggeration. Seemingly to strengthen your unwillingness to accept the fact someone doesn't accept your highlights of the dead EGW as sufficient excuses on her behalf. 

You may not accept the evidence I provided as a good enough reasons to prefer the bible for learning the message of Christ over all others including the deceased EGW, but evidence was provided.  I'll just LINK to one my previous response and be content with God being the final judge of our decisions for the sake of letting this nonsense end.

To God be the Glory.

Peace



Rabbittroup wrote: "Wrong. I said what you quoted in my first post about my view of Andrew's jib-jab terminology and with regards to the deceased EGW's comments about interracial marriage & children. My further responses were to the excuses YOU Reasoning, the living highlighted on her behalf. I thought that was pretty clear in my statement below. "



Ok, what do you mean you said what I quoted in your first post? let's see, this is the first thing you said in this thread,



Rabbittroup wrote :"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."



Andrew and I didn't even get fully involved into what he thought was jib-jab, he did respond to me by mail and we will talk about it... But you came in talking about something is conflicting. Right there your wrong, there's nothing conflicting, you haven't proved anything conflicting. You say you have, but I haven't seen it.



Check it out on the first page of this thread, I didn't say anything to you, so I'm not wrong when I say the things you eventually started saying to me was express by yourself before I responded to you, so you can't say it was in response to what I wrote.



Again, check it out, I'm not making it up, it's right there on page 1...




Rabbittroup wrote: "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."




Your favorite word Rabbittroup, "seems", "she seems to gives into political narratives".... With all due respect, that's in your mind, what political narratives? Because she refers to white and black people as races?



Saying she "seems" is not proof of what is or was...



Rabbittroup wrote: "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). "



Your opinion, EGW isn't ignoring anything... and it's not equivalent to letting a person die. Really!!? Wow.. It's obvious you have your views on her and what her course of actions should have been. But again, to my point, this is something you said pior to me responding to you. But you say this response was in response to what I wrote, and that is not true Rabbittroup.

You had it set in your head from the outset.. Perhaps you could've look for understanding of what she wrote instead of coming up with what Rabbittroup thinks. No... I'm not bitter.



This is still from you first post on this thread,



Rabbittroup wrote: "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."




This is in your mind, because EGW referred to people with a different skin color as a different race wasn't conflicting with the Bible or a method to advance truth.. First, we do it in these days and times, yes, we're all of the human race, but we still refer to different people to a race. Asking a persons race is asked on many applications.


So, in making her larger point of why she encourages no interracial marriages, her saying white and black races isn't conflicting with the Bible, nor is it a "method" to advance truth. The narrative you have in your head doesn't hold any weight.


You said all of this before I even responded to you, so don't say it's in response to what I wrote. You still have no proof of any conflict from her statements. I know it may "seem" a certain way in your mind, but trust me, I'm Not bitter or fanatical :)




Blessings!

You said all of this before I even responded to you, so don't say it's in response to what I wrote. You still have no proof of any conflict from her statements. I know it may "seem" a certain way in your mind, but trust me, I'm Not bitter or fanatical :)

My first statement was responding to my view of jib-jab and confusing statements from someone who is dead and it is not the same as responding to someone who is alive like yourself.  

Andrew and I didn't even get fully involved into what he thought was jib-jab, he did respond to me by mail and we will talk about it... But you came in talking about something is conflicting. Right there your wrong, there's nothing conflicting, you haven't proved anything conflicting. You say you have, but I haven't seen it.

Andrew may not have fully gotten into it in a way you prefer but he DID COMMENT about how he "can't always see EGW's writings in the light of the bible."  And I responded with an example reflecting why I feel similar.  For whatever reason you over look that, but that just further stresses why you come off as bitter and fanatical about someone not accepting your beliefs.

Reasoning you have free will and don't have to accept it, but I've already stated why I prefer the bible and what it teaches about the message of Jesus Christ over all others including the deceased EGW.  I'm just gonna close by LINKING to my last response since most of what you said is redundant and full of twisted hyperbole.  

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037625

Peace


Rabbittroup wrote: "Reasoning you have free will and don't have to accept it, but I've already stated why I prefer the bible and what it teaches about the message of Jesus Christ over all others including the deceased EGW. I'm just gonna close by LINKING to my last response since most of what you said is redundant and full of twisted hyperbole. "



It's nothing twisted.. This isn't about whether we prefer the Bible over the writings of EGW...( Of course the Bible only, first and foremost). It's about your unfounded conclusions about the writings of EGW. You haven't proven anything.
Right, you say there is a conflict, so that means it is? Yeah, it's twisting going on, but it ain't me. I'm not bitter when I say these things, despite what you have form in your mind about me.


May GOD bless you and your family!


Blessings!

I said you appear bitter. Whether or not you are I'll just take your word for it.  When people constantly over look things and resort to hyperbole it does make it appear that way.  Beyond that I have the same response as before.  I've already stated my reasons and why I prefer the bible over EGW earlier which I'll link to again.  I have no desire to repeat it any further after the erroneous far fetched comments you've made already.

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037625

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037467

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5037577

http://www.adventistonline.com/xn/detail/1451550:Comment:5038294

To God be the Glory,

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service