Leaderboard

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/ST/ST19400402-V67-14.pdf ^ Page 9 I've got to leave for work so I'll have to burp up the remaining later.

Soon as I get some time I'll post links where the quotes can be read in context. I did a long study into this aspect of Ellen White's beliefs and can assure you that she taught that Jesus stood the risk of falling into temptation AND if that would have happened Christ would have rotted in the tomb and "God" would have turned the universe over to Lucifer.

I do agree that there was no possibility of Jesus not going through with dying for us!! Personally I don't believe she meant that Christ could've failed, but that at anytime he could've just decided that it wasn't worth it? Just a thought!!

I do tend to think if you are going to get out on the world stage, then be ready for the opposing opinions. It is time for her to get her big girl pants on. Whining and demanding censorship regarding posts she doesn't like doesn't help her. This has been an issue before when women get out on the public stage, it is suggested you are not allowed to oppose them because that is oppressive behavior. Sorry, but if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen! I have noted before that part of her message is probably written by others and may be an effort to avoid criticism of the topic. Like you are beating up on a little girl or something. I do think she is being used, but then, she doesn't really need to go along with it. Unfortunately, online discussion tends to be a bit more brutal than face to face discussion. I have had "lefty" friends who thought the sun rose and fell on their Democrat candidate of choice. We could argue, but we were also friends. If our discussions were in black and white here, you would think we were the worst enemies! Words are a small fraction of communication content, and unfortunately, online only has that small part. No non-verbal communication becomes part of the exchange.

It isn't twisting Scripture. Parentheticals are understood to not be part of the original text, but an attempt at explanation of the text. So, these examples are inserting the SDA beliefs and/or interpretations which have been a part of the knowledge base of the church for 150 years approx.

I would have to disagree with your interpretation of these and similar scriptures. NONE of them are in deference to the Sabbath - the seventh-day Sabbath that God often called "good" "hallowed" "blessed" etc. Why would God turn around one day and call the seventh-day Sabbath "good," and then say the opposite a few centuries later? of course, the understanding is not to be seen as some fault in God's word; but more in keeping with our constant misunderstanding of same. There is one point we could tentaively agree on here, this "ceremonial" aspect that God was obviously talking about in lev, or other related verses; it is true, He did say that after the cross there was no more use for any of them; but its equally true that He also said this about that "ceremonial" aspects well-before the cross. If there actually were any changes to the sabbath commandment itself; God would not have beat around the bush, He would just say so. Any change in any "one" commandment, would have to be applied to all the other nine. No really good way to justify it otherwise. But more later...

its not really "beating a dead horse," is it, if someone is asking for said reference? I would still be interested to hear just one or two references you would use to make this statement regarding Ellen White. :)

Sometimes that would be a good point. Not saying one way or the other how I see it, but in this case, theiir use of bracketed emphasis was not passed off as "scripture" nor was there any attempt to make out like they were trying to "add" to said scripture. I think many people in writing about all manner of topics use the bracketed emphasis with good reasons. Your point re "adding or subtracting" from scripture is always a good point. I just don't see that being done in this case.