The Spirit of Prophecy and the Modern Gift of Prophets

[Musicman1228]

“For behold, I will command, and shake the house of Israel among all the nations as one shakes with a sieve, but no pebble shall fall to the earth. Amos 9:9.

What is a true Adventist? Is it a person that blindly obeys the church and its doctrines or is it someone that chooses to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ regardless of how it affects his standing in the church?

In the ancient world in order to separate good grain from the residue of stones and pebbles the farmer would use a mesh sieve. He would bring the harvest into the threshing room and put the harvested grain which also contained dirt and small stones or pebbles into the sieve AND THE GOOD GRAIN WOULD FALL TO THE THRESHING ROOM FLOOR. The pebbles and bits of wood and other refuse would stay in the sieve and would be thrown out.

This is just the opposite as how Christians especially SDA's think today; they wrongly believe that the refuse falls to the floor and the good grain stays in the sieve, but this is the opposite of what really happens.

If the sieve represents the church then at the harvest the good grain falls out of the church. Therefore, whether I am officially considered an SDA or not, whether I am in name and SDA or not does not matter; what matters is that what I believe is based solely on the words of Jesus Christ and not on anything a church teaches as truth.

[John317]

But there's a point that is reached where a person ceases to be an SDA. That point is reached when he not only no longer believes the doctrines of the church but when he vocally fights against the church's teachings and causes strife. When this occurs the honest thing to do is to withdraw his membership instead of continuing to claim to be a member of the church.

[John317]

If the sieve represents the church then at the harvest the good grain falls out of the church.

In that case, you are saying that the true people of God will fall out of the church.

Why do you want to stay in the church, then? It seems like you would be in a hurry to drop out.

Of course, as I'm sure you realize, your idea here is the opposite of what Ellen White says. She speaks of a shaking in which the wheat is shaken into the church and the weeds are shaken out.

[Musicman1228]

I will be an SDA until the church throws me out, and not until you do John; you have NOTHING to do with 'what' or 'who' I am in either definition or practice, and neither does the church. I identify with the SDA church for a variety of reasons which I have explained in various ways here on the forum, but the church is not the reason that I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ. I am such because I, like Wayfinder and Dr. Rich, love the TRUTH more than my own life, and since the names of Jesus are WAY, TRUTH, and LIFE it is HE that I love beyond anything in Heaven or on earth.

When you ask such questions as you have done above, such as 'Why do I want to stay in the church, et al, it shows me that your agenda is one that is not in harmony with what Jesus taught about unity in John 17. For you unity will come when everyone agrees with you.

And I find it very interesting that you unwittingly swerved into the truth when you stated that EGW speaks of the shaking of the church as being opposite to what God wrote in Amos 9:9. You are absolutely correct in this, although you probably didn't mean to be. Because in actual fact the 'good grain' is shaken OUT of the church NOT into it, thus proving by your own words that EGW was wrong in this, as well as so many other things.

I commented upon EGW because you brought it up, not me. If this comment gets me thrown off the forum, so be it. You have the power to do that, John. What you don't have is the power to suppress the truth forever. It will come out in the end regardless of what you do to me.

[Lysimachus]

I will be an SDA until the church throws me out, and not until you do John; you have NOTHING to do with 'what' or 'who' I am in either definition or practice, and neither does the church. I identify with the SDA church for a variety of reasons which I have explained in various ways here on the forum, but the church is not the reason that I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ. I am such because I, like Wayfinder and Dr. Rich, love the TRUTH more than my own life, and since the names of Jesus are WAY, TRUTH, and LIFE it is HE that I love beyond anything in Heaven or on earth.

When you ask such questions as you have done above, such as 'Why do I want to stay in the church, et al, it shows me that your agenda is one that is not in harmony with what Jesus taught about unity in John 17. For you unity will come when everyone agrees with you.

And I find it very interesting that you unwittingly swerved into the truth when you stated that EGW speaks of the shaking of the church as being opposite to what God wrote in Amos 9:9. You are absolutely correct in this, although you probably didn't mean to be. Because in actual fact the 'good grain' is shaken OUT of the church NOT into it, thus proving by your own words that EGW was wrong in this, as well as so many other things.

I commented upon EGW because you brought it up, not me. If this comment gets me thrown off the forum, so be it. You have the power to do that, John. What you don't have is the power to suppress the truth forever. It will come out in the end regardless of what you do to me.

While the SDA Church structure is not going to save you Musicman, neither is rejecting Ellen White. It appears that you like to hang your doubts on "seeming contradictions" that you tend to point out, not realizing that these "seeming contradictions" are no different than the Bible's own "seeming contradictions". Many have left Christianity simply because they did not know how to harmonizes verses that seemed to clearly contradict themselves. You're taking this same course of action with the writings of Ellen White and thinking that somehow she contradicts Amos 9:9. I don't believe she does. You just need to re-evaluate where she's coming from.

Ellen White was just as concerned as you are about our condition as a people, so do not pretend that you are the one "concerned for the problems of our Church", and "she wasn't". She was probably more concerned than you are.

[ClubV12]

Actually it's a question I've been contemplating for some time. WHY do you stay in the church, as in membership, Musicman?

Your theology is clearly against SO many of the fundamental beliefs. Do you see the church folks as your mission field? Is it ethical to carry on such "work" within the very group you oppose? I don't think so! Do it in the parking lot, do it openly without apology, but don't do it as a "member". Your living a lie, how do you live with yourself?

[John317]

...And I find it very interesting that you unwittingly swerved into the truth when you stated that EGW speaks of the shaking of the church as being opposite to what God wrote in Amos 9:9. You are absolutely correct in this, although you probably didn't mean to be. Because in actual fact the 'good grain' is shaken OUT of the church NOT into it, thus proving by your own words that EGW was wrong in this, as well as so many other things.

Amos 9: 9 is picturing God separating the faithful from the unfaithful. God shakes the people of Israel as grain is shaken in a sieve. Israel will be scattered among the nations, and when this happens, God promises that not one good grain of wheat will fall to the ground and be lost. In this way the experience of exile will purify the nation of Israel.

There's no contradiction between this and what Ellen White wrote.

[John317]

When you ask such questions as you have done above, such as 'Why do I want to stay in the church, et al, it shows me that your agenda is one that is not in harmony with what Jesus taught about unity in John 17. For you unity will come when everyone agrees with you.

.... in actual fact the 'good grain' is shaken OUT of the church NOT into it, thus proving by your own words that EGW was wrong in this, as well as so many other things.

You evidently misunderstand why I asked the question.

I asked the question because it seems to me that if you believe the good grain is shaken out of the church, you would want to get out of the church. Why would someone want to stay in the church when he believes the good grain will be shaken out of it?

[John317]

.... I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ. I am such because I, like Wayfinder and Dr. Rich, love the TRUTH more than my own life, and since the names of Jesus are WAY, TRUTH, and LIFE it is HE that I love beyond anything in Heaven or on earth.

Yet isn't it true that all three of you teach that Paul was possessed by a demon, that the apostle Paul was a liar, that 2/3 of the NT was planted by Satan, and that it was really the Devil who inspired Peter and the rest of the disciples on the day of Pentecost?

Isn't this your teaching and the teaching of Dr. Rich and Wayfinder, and didn't you help write a book in which these things are taught?

[Musicman1228]

You have specifically told me that I cannot comment on these things lest you remove me from this forum, therefore I won't.

[John317]

Our agreement was/is that you wouldn't bring this topic onto all of the discussions and hijack them.

You are free to answer the question here, of course.

Are those your beliefs?

[John317]

... For you unity will come when everyone agrees with you.

No, that isn't true. True unity comes only by the Holy Spirit and has nothing whatever to do with whether anyone agrees with either you or me. It has to do with "coming to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man... speaking the truth in love, and growing up in all things into Him who is the head-- Christ..." Eph. 4: 11-15.

But here's the question:

Is the Holy Spirit the One who inspired the disciples on the day of Pentecost?

Or is the Holy Spirit the one who leads you to say that Paul was of Satan and that 2/3 of the NT is planted there by the Devil?

Who are we following-- Christ or a counterfeit, antichrist?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

.... I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ. I am such because I, like Wayfinder and Dr. Rich, love the TRUTH more than my own life, and since the names of Jesus are WAY, TRUTH, and LIFE it is HE that I love beyond anything in Heaven or on earth.

Yet isn't it true that all three of you teach that Paul was possessed by a demon, that the apostle Paul was a liar, that 2/3 of the NT was planted by Satan, and that it was really the Devil who inspired Peter and the rest of the disciples on the day of Pentecost?

Isn't this your teaching and the teaching of Dr. Rich and Wayfinder, and didn't you help write a book in which these things are taught?

Unlike many people on this and other forums about Adventism and Christianity I take Paul at his own words, and by Paul's own words he said he had be given a 'messenger of Satan' to keep him in line. An angel is a messenger, so a messenger of Satan would be an angel of Satan; and an angel of Satan is what is commonly called a demon. Therefore, it is not I that said Paul had a demon it is Paul himself that said it. That being said I never said Paul was 'possessed' as in controlled completely. Anyone can have a demon in them that strongly influences behavior but does not completely control every aspect of their existence. A terrific primer on this subject is in a book by Dr. Rebecca Brown titled 'Preparing for War'.

Yes, Paul was a liar, but in order for his lies to be effective much of what he said had to be the truth. A lie that is obvious is not good to Satan, the lie has to be just off from the truth as to make it discernible ONLY to those who are looking for it. Most Christians believe Paul to be an apostle (the Greatest) of Jesus and never look further than that. There are lots of differences between what Paul has said and what Jesus taught, but these will only be apparent to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. If you don't, you won't.

Jesus gave His own disciples the Holy Spirit BEFORE He left the second time for Heaven (John 20:21-23). Once Jesus Christ gives the Holy Spirit there is no longer any need for it to be given again. Luke is the only gospel writer that has the disciples being told by Jesus to stay in Jerusalem until the received the H.S. in power (Luke 24:49). This story conveniently supports the story of Pentecost in Acts 2. In the gospel of Matthew Jesus tells the women who saw Him after His resurrection to tell His disciples to meet Him in Galilee (Matt. 28:10). Matthew was an eyewitness, Luke was not, so who do you believe because both cannot be correct?

To me personally this is sufficient evidence to support my understanding about Paul. I have never stated anyone else must believe as I do to be saved.

A deception can only work on someone who believes they cannot be deceived. This is the problem with the church in Leodicea in Rev. 3. They do not believe they can be deceived, therefore they are. And when this is pointed out to them they say they have need of nothing other than what they already have.

[John317]

The problem is, MM, that your view of the Apostle Paul is based on a complete misunderstanding of what he wrote. You've demonstrated this time and again on this Forum.

It's like your insistence that Acts 2: 3 refers to "a tongue" when it actually is a plural noun and cannot be correctly translated in any other way than "tongues." (So ALL translations read "tongues," never "a tongue.")

It is madness to think it is "a tongue" despite all the evidence to the contrary. Yet you keep repeating the same error, just as if your mind is in a groove it cannot escape.

And in your book, you use this error to support your belief that it was actually Satan-- and NOT the Holy Spirit--- who inspired Peter and the rest of the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

As far as 1 Cor. 12: 7 is concerned, Paul is not saying that he has a demon. That's a complete misunderstanding.

Here's the verse:

1 Cor. 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Paul is using a well-known expression-- a metaphor-- that occurs in biblical literature in the following places:

1 Kings 11:14-- And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he [was] of the king's seed in Edom.

NOTE: the literal word here is "a satan."

Numbers 33:55-- But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them [shall be] pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

Ezekiel 28:24-- And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor [any] grieving thorn of all [that are] round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD.

[Lysimachus]

I must confess, your concepts of Paul Musicman are atrocious. Some of the most heretical stuff I have ever read, and have no relish to even comment on. I can't believe we've come this far back in Adventism that we are arguing about the inspiration of Paul. Here Lukewarm Adventism is bad enough (believing in doctrine, but not living up to what they believe), but now to deal with new heresies like this is like going back to square 1, and will take everything just to get you back to Lukewarm so that from there we can move forward. So sad how you completely reject the writings of Ellen White concerning the Apostle Paul also. Have you even read Acts of the Apostles?

[John317]

To me personally this is sufficient evidence to support my understanding about Paul. I have never stated anyone else must believe as I do to be saved.

In your book, you indicate that it is important for people to recognize that Paul was a false apostle and that people who believe Paul's writings to be inspired could be lost as a result of their deception. You have said the same thing about 2/3 of the NT-- that it is important to realize that those books were placed there by Satan and teach falsehoods and are not inspired by God.

Don't you also believe that Paul was responsible for the death of the Apostle James?

Isn't this all true?

[Musicman1228]

The problem is, MM, that your view of the Apostle Paul is based on a complete misunderstanding of what he wrote. You've demonstrated this time and again on this Forum.

It's like your insistence that Acts 2: 3 refers to "a tongue" when it actually is a plural noun and cannot be correctly translated in any other way than "tongues." (So ALL translations read "tongues," never "a tongue.")

It is madness to think it is "a tongue" despite all the evidence to the contrary. Yet you keep repeating the same error, just as if your mind is in a groove it cannot escape.

And in your book, you use this error to support your belief that it was actually Satan-- and NOT the Holy Spirit--- who inspired Peter and the rest of the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

As far as 1 Cor. 12: 7 is concerned, Paul is not saying that he has a demon. That's a complete misunderstanding.

Here's the verse:

1 Cor. 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Paul is using a well-known expression-- a metaphor-- that occurs in biblical literature in the following places:

1 Kings 11:14-- And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he [was] of the king's seed in Edom.

NOTE: the literal word here is "a satan."

Numbers 33:55-- But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them [shall be] pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

Ezekiel 28:24-- And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor [any] grieving thorn of all [that are] round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD.

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Act 2:3 (KJV)

1100 glossa gloce-sah' of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

So to keep me from being too elated by the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. 2Cor. 12:7.

32 aggelos ang'-el-os from aggello (probably derived from 71; compare 34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:--angel, messenger.

4566 Satan sat-an' of Hebrew origin (7854); Satan, i.e. the devil:--Satan.

I am not asking you, John, or anyone to believe as I do, I am only telling you why I believe as I do. Silly me for accepting the usage of Strong's as it is stated. Maybe if I had your expertise in Greek I would think differently, but I don't so I won't. And John, so far you have given me no reason to trust your expertise in Biblical interpretation over my own understanding based on the leading of the Holy Spirit in my life. Gainsay all you want, I KNOW that the Holy Spirit is leading me into ALL truth because Jesus promised this, I have prayed for this, and understanding has been given me in this. Just because this does not fit your paradigm does not automatically mean I am wrong and you are right.

[John317]

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Act 2:3 (KJV)

1100 glossa gloce-sah' of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

....I am not asking you, John, or anyone to believe as I do, I am only telling you why I believe as I do. Silly me for accepting the usage of Strong's as it is stated. Maybe if I had your expertise in Greek I would think differently, but I don't so I won't.

But you obviously don't even understand how to read or use Strong's dictionary. If you did, you would know that Strong's isn't saying the the word in the NT is singular. The word in the Greek text is a plural noun.

Pay attention to this if you don't pay attention to anything else I ever say:

You looked up "glossa," right? OK, that is singular. It means "tongue."

However, the word in Acts. 2: 3 is not "glossa." The word in Acts 2: 3 is "glossai." (You can see this if you look it up in any NT Greek text.)

The difference between "glossa" and "glossai" is exactly like the difference between "tongue" and "tongues."

Can you see the difference between "tongue" and "tongues"? Well, it is that simple for someone who knows Greek to see the difference between "glossa" and "glossai."

"Glossai" is nominative plural feminine. Got that? It is plural.

Do you know how to use an Analytical Greek Lexicon? If you did, you would see that it is a plural noun, not singular.

Why in the world do you think all the translations read "tongues"? You think that the translators don't know the difference between a singular noun and a plural?

The difference in Greek is as clear as it is in English:

What if someone told you that "tongues" is a singlur noun? Wouldn't that be crazy? That's what you are doing.

If you really want to know the truth and you don't want to go by what I say, go ask a professor of Greek New Testament.

I can't believe you'd write a book about it and not even find out if your idea is correct or not. That would be like my writing a book in which I comment about the Russian language and I do nothing but look up a word in a Russian dictionary, and refuse to listen to people who know Russian.

Go figure.

[John317]

Gainsay all you want, I KNOW that the Holy Spirit is leading me into ALL truth because Jesus promised this, I have prayed for this, and understanding has been given me in this. Just because this does not fit your paradigm does not automatically mean I am wrong and you are right.

You're under a terrible illusion, my friend. You have no idea in what danger you are. You are under an evil influence.

You have taken the Holy Spirit for the Devil and the Devil for the Holy Spirit. I have to tell you straight up, MM. If I didn't I wouldn't be telling you the truth and would be no true friend.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Act 2:3 (KJV)

1100 glossa gloce-sah' of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

....I am not asking you, John, or anyone to believe as I do, I am only telling you why I believe as I do. Silly me for accepting the usage of Strong's as it is stated. Maybe if I had your expertise in Greek I would think differently, but I don't so I won't.

But you obviously don't even understand how to read or us Strong's dictionary. Strong's isn't saying the the word in the NT is singular. The word in the Greek text is a plural noun.

You looked up "glossa," right? OK, that is singular. It means "tongue."

However, the word in Acts. 2: 3 is not "glossa." The word in Acts 2: 3 is "glossai." (You can see this if you look it up in any NT Greek text.)

The difference between "glossa" and "glossai" is exactly like the difference between "tongue" and "tongues."

Can you see the difference between "tongue" and "tongues"? Well, it is that simple for someone who knows Greek to see the difference between "glossa" and "glossai."

"Glossai" is nominative plural feminine. Got that? It is plural.

Do you know how to use an Analytical Greek Lexicon? If you did, you would see that it is a plural noun, not singular.

Why in the world do you think all the translations read "tongues"? You think that the translators don't know the difference between a singular noun and a plural?

The difference in Greek is as clear as it is in English:

What if someone told you that "tongues" is a singlur noun? Wouldn't that be crazy? That's what you are doing.

If you really want to know the truth and you don't want to go by what I say, go ask a professor of Greek New Testament.

I can't believe you'd write a book about it and not even find out if your idea is correct or not. That would be like my writing a book in which I comment about the Russian language and I do nothing but look up a word in a Russian dictionary, and refuse to listen to people who know Russian.

Go figure.

I'll tell you what, John; You finish writing a manuscript while going through radiation and chemo therapy after major surgery for malignant melanoma; you submit this manuscript to dozens of publishers until finally one is willing to take a look at it; you sign a contract to finish editing the manuscript on time; you go through the editing process with an editor that was as hard nosed as Atilla the Hun; you struggle to finish the fact check on time; you edit and re-write and edit and re-write till you are blue in the face to satisfy your second editor who was even harder on you than the first one; and THEN I'll listen to you gripe about whether a word in Greek is singular or plural. John, you really have NO IDEA what it takes to do what I (and Rick) did to uphold our own reputation and the reputation of our publisher because they BOUGHT THE MANUSCRIPT and now you have to get it right, unless you have done it yourself. Have you, John? Have you published a book that someone purchased because they felt it was worth the risk? JOHN, you have no right to criticize and carp about something that you have not done. You may not like the result, which is your right, but at least I PRODUCED A RESULT. What have you done lately?

[Yesterday, John317 made a comment about Dr. Rich. The problem is John317 has banned Dr. Rich from defending or replying to this comment all because John317's admitted inability to change his foundational theological understanding. Isn't this talking about someone behind his back? Is this what Jesus would do? ]

[Musicman1228]

By the way, John, the word in the KJV for 'tongue' in Act.2:7 IS Glossa in my Strong's, not glossai. So what's a fellow to do? Do I believe you just because you say it is Glossai? I don't think so, because I don't trust you. I guess you pays your money and you takes your chances. So as far as I am concerned the word is 'tongue' not 'tongues' in that verse. You may use it any way you see fit.

If only experts know the truth then only the experts will be saved. That would be quite a short list now wouldn't it?

[John317]

By the way, John, the word in the KJV for 'tongue' in Act.2:7 IS Glossa in my Strong's, not glossai.

Well, of course, MM.

That is what I told you in my last post. Aren't you reading? Go back and look. I'll put it in blue for you. Scroll up.

It is "Glossa" in Strong's because dictionaries don't give you the declensions. (Declensions are the various endings and prefixes which change the way a word is used in a sentence.) Dictionaries and Lexicons list the singular and the present tense of a word. That is the same with American dictionaries, right?

What you are doing would be the same as a Mexican looking up "tongue" in an American dictionary and thinking there is no "tongues." Wouldn't that be foolish?

Like I said, look up the word in the Greek NT.

Can't you do this online? Look up Acts 2: 3 online in Greek and see for yourself. The word won't be "glossa" but "glossai." Guaranteed! DO IT.

I'm shocked you didn't do this a long time ago, before you wrote the book. What will you say to your readers now?

Check this out if it is the last thing you do:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Acts+2%3A+3&t=nas

Look for "glw'ssai {N-NPF}" (Noun, nominative plural feminine)

Let me know when you see it.

[John317]

I'll tell you what, John; You finish writing a manuscript while going through radiation and chemo therapy after major surgery for malignant melanoma; you submit this manuscript to dozens of publishers until finally one is willing to take a look at it; you sign a contract to finish editing the manuscript on time; you go through the editing process with an editor that was as hard nosed as Atilla the Hun; you struggle to finish the fact check on time; you edit and re-write and edit and re-write till you are blue in the face to satisfy your second editor who was even harder on you than the first one; and THEN I'll listen to you gripe about whether a word in Greek is singular or plural. John, you really have NO IDEA what it takes to do what I (and Rick) did to uphold our own reputation and the reputation of our publisher because they BOUGHT THE MANUSCRIPT and now you have to get it right, unless you have done it yourself. Have you, John? Have you published a book that someone purchased because they felt it was worth the risk? JOHN, you have no right to criticize and carp about something that you have not done. You may not like the result, which is your right, but at least I PRODUCED A RESULT. What have you done lately?

All I am talking about is getting the facts straight. How could you write about the Greek language in that way when you realize you don't know anything about Greek? That's what I'm saying. It is basic stuff for any writer.

At the very least, Wayfinder should have known better because that is what he probably told the Sabbath School class, right? Didn't you write the book based on Wayfinder's teachings in Sabbath School class or on the radio program? How did that kind of misinformation get passed by?

But I do realize you worked hard on that book and that you were ill during the time you wrote it.

You can't talk as if the difference between the "plural" and the "singular" noun isn't very important, though, because in your book you make a big thing out of it. You wrote a whole page on it and concluded that it was evidence that Satan tricked the disciples on the day of Pentecost. How can that be a small thing?

I don't think you guys realize how far out you've gone. Do you know what I mean?

[John317]

[Yesterday, John317 made a comment about Dr. Rich. The problem is John317 has banned Dr. Rich from defending or replying to this comment all because John317's admitted inability to change his foundational theological understanding. Isn't this talking about someone behind his back? Is this what Jesus would do? ]

Your statement here is full of half-truths, MM.

Dr. Rich was banned again for again violating the rules of the Forum and for not abiding by the agreement that you and he and Wayfinder made with me when you were allowed on the Forum.

I find it amazing that even after both of you have been banned before, you still seem to think we're not serious about the agreement. And this is after Dr. Rich wrote to me the other day and denied that he even made any agreement!

The agreement was and is that you and he and Wayfinder will not hijack the public discussions at every opportunity you have of attacking Paul and the NT, the character and writings of Ellen White, and the SDA Church. Don't you feel you can abide by that agreement?

[John317]

....If only experts know the truth then only the experts will be saved. That would be quite a short list now wouldn't it?

No one said only the experts can know the truth. You can know the truth, certainly, but you will need to stop trying to translate for yourself and instead start depending on your reliable translations of the Bible, such as the KJV, the NKJV, the New American Standard Bible, and others.

For instance, when it comes to Acts. 2: 3, why in the world would you think that you know better than every translation written in English?

What are you thinking?