The Spirit of Prophecy and the Modern Gift of Prophets

[Musicman1228]

[John317]

John said, "Your thinking is totally at odds with virutally all other Christians, including the best Bible scholars alive."

So what.

It would be a different thing if you could show valid, biblical reasons for disagreeing with practically all of Christianity, but you don't do this. You come up with reasons such as your views of Acts 2: 3; 2 Cor. 12: 7,9; Rev. 2: 20; 19:7; and a host of other texts.

We shouldn't differ with other Christians or other SDAs simply for the sake of being different.

Your views of 2/3 of the NT and of Ellen White's writings-- that they are of Satan-- cannot be dismissed simply by a "so what."

[John317]

...

So you now contend that God gave Luke information that the eyewitnesses forgot to, or chose not to include?

Why is this a problem? John's Gospel itself tells us that only a fraction of the words and acts of Christ were recorded in his Gospel.

None of the Gospel writers claims to have included everything. So of course they are not going include the same things. Their whole purpose was to include things that others did not mention or to say something different about Jesus that others didn't say.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

John said, "Your thinking is totally at odds with virutally all other Christians, including the best Bible scholars alive."

So what.

It would be a different thing if you could show valid, biblical reasons for disagreeing with practically all of Christianity, but you don't do this. You come up with reasons such as your views of Acts 2: 3; 2 Cor. 12: 7,9; Rev. 2: 20; 19:7; and a host of other texts.

We shouldn't differ with other Christians or other SDAs simply for the sake of being different.

Your views of 2/3 of the NT and of Ellen White's writings-- that they are of Satan-- cannot be dismissed simply by a "so what."

I already have done exactly what you suggest, but you don't see it, nor will you accept it. It is simply a difference of approach and opinion. And as to your last sentence-of course it can, especially when I have time after time cited text after text in proof. There comes a point of diminishing returns on the expense of time and effort, and I believe I have reached that point, how about you?

[John317]

Two notable contradictions are the outcomes of the Two Thieves on the cross, and whether Jesus had the disciples wait in Jerusalem for the HS, or had them go directly to Galilee. These are easy enough to figure out for yourselves, and speaks volumes as to the validity of those that wrote those contradictions.

What Luke says about the Two Thieves is not a contradiction of the other Gospels at all. It would only be a contradition if you insist that both thieves did not blaspheme and one of them did not later repent and ask Jesus to remember him.

Notice that John's Gospel doesn't mention anything at all about the thieve's blaspheming against Christ. John says nothing about the thieve's talking. Does that mean they didn't say anything? Of course not.

There's also no contradiction between Matt. 26: 32 and Acts 1: 4.

Jesus met the disciples in Galilee after His resurrection, and the disciples waited in Jerusalem after Christ's final ascension. Compare John 21: 1-23 with Matt. 28: 16-20 and Mark 16: 15-18.

[John317]

Have you taken about 5 minutes-- perhaps much less--- to check the Greek of Acts 2: 3? It is online. Look and see if the word is singular or plural. You have claimed that your research shows that it is singular. But that is because you don't know how to read Strong's Concordance. Look it up in the Greek-English Interlinear. You will see that the word that occurs in the Greek text of the NT is the plural "glwssia", not the singular, "glossa."

In your book, you devote several pages to showing that this is important. So don't claim that it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, you should change your book.

[wayfinder]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

...

So you now contend that God gave Luke information that the eyewitnesses forgot to, or chose not to include?

Why is this a problem? John's Gospel itself tells us that only a fraction of the words and acts of Christ were recorded in his Gospel.

None of the Gospel writers claims to have included everything. So of course they are not going include the same things. Their whole purpose was to include things that others did not mention or to say something different about Jesus that others didn't say.

Here-in lies the problem. You said that Luke opens his letter with "eyewitness accounts" cited as his resource, my concern is, why does Luke's account contain so much more then the eyewitness accounts he supposedly is using. Your explaination that it was omitted by the eyewitnesses because of space constraints does not explain why it appears in Luke. If Luke's sources are what was written in the eyewitness accounts it should not contain more information the the sources and the events should not contradict or be at varience with, the eyewitness testimony. In other words, someone using a source from which to write, without any first hand knowledge, should not have different discriptions of events, and what in fact happened, than the eyewitnesses to the events. Also, how is it possible for someone using eyewitness accounts to add to the accounts information that is not contained in the eyewitness accounts, the only explaination is, they made it up. Unless you are able to show me the eyewitness account that matches Luke's discription of events, parables, and teachings, I can not, in good conscience, accept Luke as a valid source or testimony.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Two notable contradictions are the outcomes of the Two Thieves on the cross, and whether Jesus had the disciples wait in Jerusalem for the HS, or had them go directly to Galilee. These are easy enough to figure out for yourselves, and speaks volumes as to the validity of those that wrote those contradictions.

What Luke says about the Two Thieves is not a contradiction of the other Gospels at all. It would only be a contradition if you insist that both thieves did not blaspheme and one of them did not later repent and ask Jesus to remember him.

Notice that John's Gospel doesn't mention anything at all about the thieve's blaspheming against Christ. John says nothing about the thieve's talking. Does that mean they didn't say anything? Of course not.

There's also no contradiction between Matt. 26: 32 and Acts 1: 4.

Jesus met the disciples in Galilee after after His resurrection, and the disciples waited in Jerusalem after Christ's final ascension. Compare John 21: 1-23 with Matt. 28: 16-20 and Mark 16: 15-18.

And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. Matt. 27:44.

And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. Those who were crucified with him also reviled him. Mark 15: 27,32.

You would think that something as important as one of the thieves repenting would be in at least one of the other disciples gospels, but it is in neither. This is in direct contradiction with Luke's account.

From where did Jesus ascend to Heaven? Also show me where it says the disciples went BACK to Jerusalem after Jesus went back to His father.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. Matt. 28:16.

After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, John 21:1. (the Sea of Galilee.)

Jesus told His disciples to meet Him in Galilee, which is exactly what happened. He did not tell them to meet Him in Jerusalem. Galilee is more than a casual walk from Jerusalem, and would be too far to walk to go to galilee and then come back to Jerusalem to receive something that they had already received. That makes no sense at all.

(Eyes to see, ears to hear-ETS, ETH)

[John317]

...You said that Luke opens his letter with "eyewitness accounts" cited as his resource, my concern is, why does Luke's account contain so much more then the eyewitness accounts he supposedly is using.

You are apparently assuming that Luke was only using written accounts, such as Matthew and Mark. But while I am sure Luke did use those Gospels, Luke also talked to the eyewitnesses, no doubt the other disciples who never wrote anything that has survived. He also no doubt interviewed the women and all the other people who heard Jesus teach and followed Him.

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

Your explaination that it was omitted by the eyewitnesses because of space constraints does not explain why it appears in Luke.

I don't mean to give the impression that "time constraints" are the primary reason for omissions, etc. The writers chose their material based on their objectives and their audience. Luke included what he did because of his personal interests, too, the same as Matthew and Mark and John did.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

If Luke's sources are what was written in the eyewitness accounts it should not contain more information the the sources and the events should not contradict or be at varience with, the eyewitness testimony.

Why do you say "more information"? You don't know what information Luke got from his informants or sources. Remember we're talking here about people who Luke spoke to and got information from. You appear to be wrongly assuming we're only talking about written sources.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

In other words, someone using a source from which to write, without any first hand knowledge, should not have different discriptions of events, and what in fact happened, than the eyewitnesses to the events.

Again, you don't know that this is the case. You don't know what the witnesses told Luke.

It seems to me that simply because Luke's narrative is different in some ways from the other Gospels, it shouldn't be called "wrong" or "contradictory" or "made up."

I think it's safe to assume that if the church knew that Luke's Gospel contradicted well-known facts in the story, it wouldn't have accepted his Gospel as part of the inspired record.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

Also, how is it possible for someone using eyewitness accounts to add to the accounts information that is not contained in the eyewitness accounts, the only explaination is, they made it up.

How can you say Luke wrote things not contained in the eyewitness accounts? You don't know what the eyewitnesses told Luke. You are only assuming that Luke made things up, or lied. You have no valid evidence of this.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

Unless you are able to show me the eyewitness account that matches Luke's discription of events, parables, and teachings, I can not, in good conscience, accept Luke as a valid source or testimony.

You appear to be asking for written support of everything Luke wrote. What if we asked for the same kind of support for John's Gospel and for the book of Revelation and for John's letters?

Do you have proof that John did not make up anything in His Gospel or in the book of Revelation? If so, what is that proof?

[John317]

And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. Matt. 27:44.

And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. Those who were crucified with him also reviled him. Mark 15: 27,32.

You would think that something as important as one of the thieves repenting would be in at least one of the other disciples gospels, but it is in neither. This is in direct contradiction with Luke's account.

But that is an assumption on your part that Matthew and Mark would have seen it as extremely important. It also assumes that they knew about the conversation between Jesus and the thief who repented, and they may not have known about it at the time they wrote their Gospels. But even if they did know about it, there's no reason to believe they HAD to give all the details.

If you use that kind of reasoning about the thieves, you have to answer the question why John didn't tell us that the thieves said anything at all.

There's the good possibility that John didn't include the details about the thieves because he knew the other Gospels had already described them.

It seems to me to be reasonable to assume that Luke found out about the repentent thief by talking with the people standing at the cross at the time those things happened. Neither Mark nor Matthew nor Peter were standing there. John and the women were, and of course Luke would have talked to them.

[John317]

....From where did Jesus ascend to Heaven?

Bethany, not far from Jerusalem. Luke 24: 50.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Also show me where it says the disciples went BACK to Jerusalem after Jesus went back to His father.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. Matt. 28:16.

After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, John 21:1. (the Sea of Galilee.)

Since the Bible says the disciples were in Jerusalem after Jesus met them in Galilee and also after Jesus ascended to heaven, we can assume they somehow returned to Jerusalem after Jesus went back to His Father. The writer does not have to describe their return trip or even say "they walked back to Jerusalem."

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Jesus told His disciples to meet Him in Galilee, which is exactly what happened.

Yes.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

He did not tell them to meet Him in Jerusalem.

However, Jesus did meet them in Jerusalem and in Galilee. See John 20: 19-30; 21: 1-23.

All we know is that Jesus did meet them in Jerusalem prior to His ascension. See Luke 24: 50 and Acts 1: 4-11.

Quote:

Galilee is more than a casual walk from Jerusalem, and would be too far to walk to go to galilee and then come back to Jerusalem to receive something that they had already received. That makes no sense at all.

Was it impossible for the disciples to walk back to Jerusalem from Galilee at the time the Bible says they did it?

If Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem after His ascension in order to receive the Holy Spirit, I am sure that they didn't say no. Would they have suggested that it was useless to wait for the Holy Spirit since they already had Him? THAT is what wouldn't have made any sense.

How long would it have taken them to walk about 75 miles from Jerusalem to Galilee and back again? Such a trip was common for them.

[Musicman1228]

John,

IF you are serious about looking at EGW in an honest way you should go to the following web sites and check out the 'facts'.

The first site is a compilation of things that Dick Anderson wrote (both Dr. Rich and I are also listed on this site): Dick Anderson http://www.a4t.org/Sermons/Misc/index.html

The next site is information about EGW that the GC and the White estate do not want you to see. I'm NOT saying you have to agree with everything, but it is of some value to see what your 'enemies' are saying about you.

EGW Exposed http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/egw35.htm

Again, these sites are for information ONLY, and not to try to convince you to not believe in EGW.

[Lysimachus]

Musicman,

Those anti-Ellen White sites, along with their arguments, are as old as the hills of Gilboa.

Most, if not all of the erroneous allegations have been refuted on other websites. I have done much research on this, and have discovered that ALL the Ellen White bashing arguments are simply regurgitated arguments that stem all the way back to the Marion Party and D.M. Canright. Every single instance where Ellen White developed critics originates to some person who got upset that Ellen White didn't go their way, and she rebuked them. Because they got offended (like little cry cry babies), instead of taking and accepting the rebuke, they turned into her worst enemies. And ALL the anti-Ellen White sites you see today find their ORIGINS in these cry-cry, WHINING babies. So when you source links like that, you are showing that you are sympathizing with these cry-cry whining babies who can't take too much. They get easily offended and can't take too much.

[wayfinder]

Musicman,

Those anti-Ellen White sites, along with their arguments, are as old as the hills of Gilboa.

Most, if not all of the erroneous allegations have been refuted on other websites. I have done much research on this, and have discovered that ALL the Ellen White bashing arguments are simply regurgitated arguments that stem all the way back to the Marion Party and D.M. Canright. Every single instance where Ellen White developed critics originates to some person who got upset that Ellen White didn't go their way, and she rebuked them. Because they got offended (like little cry cry babies), instead of taking and accepting the rebuke, they turned into her worst enemies. And ALL the anti-Ellen White sites you see today find their ORIGINS in these cry-cry, WHINING babies. So when you source links like that, you are showing that you are sympathizing with these cry-cry whining babies who can't take too much. They get easily offended and can't take too much.

Lysimachus, I challenge your statement, it is easy to say that, but impossible to prove. One instance is Walter Rea, he did not know Ellen White and she did not know him. He believed her to be a true prophet and inspired by the Holy Spirit. He rejected her authority as a prophet through close study and through research. I used to accept her as authoritative, but through my own research and study have found otherwise. Those on the Ellen white exposed, were, as far as I know, all SDA and, at one time, believed EGW to be a true prophet.

[John317]

The first site is a compilation of things that Dick Anderson wrote (both Dr. Rich and I are also listed on this site): Dick Anderson http://www.a4t.org/Sermons/Misc/index.html

Thanks for the link to this good sermon by Russell Burrill:

http://www.a4t.org/Sermons/Misc/burrill-rich_man-lazarus.html

I see that your link has both the good and the bad.

[Musicman1228]

EGW was not considered to be a prophetic authority by the early Adventists. Many refused to acknowledge her authority with no adverse affects to their membership in the newly found church. It was not until Ellen started to abuse her 'gift' that a number of Adventist ministers challenged her authority to act as the churches prophet and were either roundly criticized by her in public, or were cast adrift from the church for making statements contrary to her proclamations.

When I was baptized EGW was not a test of faith. The church did not say 'you must declare your belief in EGW or you cannot join our company'. What has changed is that now, given the 28 Fundamentals, it is impossible to join the church without first committing heart, mind and soul to EGW as God's prophet on earth. It is for THIS reason that the SDA church is classed as a cult, along with LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses (among others). This would be a tragedy even if she was who she and the church declares her to be, because it places regular Bible believing SDA Christians in the horrible position of not being taken seriously in the world of general Christianity.

God even spoke to this in prophecy:

“‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. Rev. 3:1-3.

The SDA church DOES have a reputation or name for being alive - just look at our medical missions, and our school system, and our overseas missions. Yet God not only says that we are dead, He says we must repent and go back to what it was we had in the beginning; in the beginning before what? It is clear to me that we must get back to what our church was before we became enamored by a woman prophetess that set us on a road that while God knew He did not want for His church.

[John317]

...One instance is Walter Rea, he did not know Ellen White and she did not know him. He believed her to be a true prophet and inspired by the Holy Spirit. He rejected her authority as a prophet through close study and through research. I used to accept her as authoritative, but through my own research and study have found otherwise. Those on the Ellen white exposed, were, as far as I know, all SDA and, at one time, believed EGW to be a true prophet.

You're not bringing up anything new here. The links you posted don't have anything I haven't seen many times before. The problem with all of them is that they contain half-truths and things taken out of context.

Just because some people reject Ellen White doesn't mean she's not a true prophet. If the whole world chose to reject Moses or Paul or any of the other genuine prophets of God, they would still be true prophets of God. Their genuineness doesn't depend on how many people reject or accept them.

You've chosen to reject Ellen White, but you accept books as authoritative which are written by people who don't even accept Christ as their Savior.

[John317]

... It was not until Ellen started to abuse her 'gift' that a number of Adventist ministers challenged her authority to act as the churches prophet and were either roundly criticized by her in public, or were cast adrift from the church for making statements contrary to her proclamations.

The above is written by someone who believes and teaches that Paul's letters and 2/3 of the NT are false.

You will need to show valid evidence that Ellen G. White abused her prophetic gift.

Can you please show references for your statement?

[John317]

EGW was not considered to be a prophetic authority by the early Adventists.

Ellen White was considered a genuine prophet by the early SDA church. There are many statements in the Review and Herald showing this to be true. The General Conferences voted acknowledgements of Ellen White's prophetic gift. But her prophetic authority did not-- and does not-- depend on any official pronouncement by the church officers.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Many refused to acknowledge her authority with no adverse affects to their membership in the newly found church.

There's a difference between having honest questions or doubts about Ellen White's prophetic authority, and agitating within the church itself against Ellen White's writings.

[wayfinder]

John317,

If you want to use assumption and "no doubt" to prove the authority of a "gospel" writer that is fine, if that works for you. If Luke, who is unquestionably not an eyewitness to Christ's teaching and preaching, gave a credible and true account of such, what he says should match what the eyewitness told of the same event, Luke did not. First, there is not record or even inference that Luke associated with any eyewitness; therefore for Luke to claim to have used eyewitness accounts they would, of necessity, be what was already written. Accepting Luke primarily because "it is in the Bible" does not make Luke's writting valid. Sometime back I gave you a link to a paper that was done on researching Luke's writing and the writing of Josephus and how closely the two matched up, closer then Luke matches with the synoptic gospels, you dismissed this theory immediately. There is the possibility that Luke thought that Josephus was an eyewitness and used his accounts changing "the Jews" into Christians, in other words, Josephus was writing about Jews, but Luke changed it to be about Christians.

Luke's letter also smooths out the bumps between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught. I have noticed that eveytime someone tries to show some flaw or some mystical teaching of Christ, it is always in Luke's account. Of course, Luke's letter is the most popular of the gospels as is his teacher Paul's teachings. Most protestent, including SDA, especially evangelical, sermons, bible studies, etc. are from Luke or Paul.

So I have made up my mind, because of through research and study, that Luke, Paul, and EGW have nothing I need more than the account of God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit who leads and teaches and comforts me.

[John317]

....

When I was baptized EGW was not a test of faith. The church did not say 'you must declare your belief in EGW or you cannot join our company'. What has changed is that now, given the 28 Fundamentals, it is impossible to join the church without first committing heart, mind and soul to EGW as God's prophet on earth.

My daughters were recently baptized and they were never told they must declare their belief in EGW in order to become a member of the church.

No one is asked or told to "commit heart, mind and soul to EGW as God's prophet on earth."

I completely agree with the 28 Fundamentals of my church, including the belief regarding Ellen White's ministry.

When I was baptized in 1973, I wasn't told that I needed to accept Ellen White as a prophet of God in order to be a member of the church.

However, given the problems that I see arising in the church over the issue of the Spirit of prophecy, I do believe that we need to make sure that people who are baptized have a good foundational knowledge of Ellen White and of her role in the Remnant church.

[John317]

John317,

If you want to use assumption and "no doubt" to prove the authority of a "gospel" writer that is fine, if that works for you.

Are you willing to use the same standards for John that you have for Luke and Paul?

Can you show proof that John did not make up any of the words he put in Jesus mouth?

[John317]

...Sometime back I gave you a link to a paper that was done on researching Luke's writing and the writing of Josephus and how closely the two matched up, closer then Luke matches with the synoptic gospels, you dismissed this theory immediately. There is the possibility that Luke thought that Josephus was an eyewitness and used his accounts changing "the Jews" into Christians, in other words, Josephus was writing about Jews, but Luke changed it to be about Christians.

Nonsense. For one thing, you never gave me a link to that paper.

For another, it is absurd to claim that Luke thought Josephus was an eyewitness of Christ. There's no evidence of this.

This is more garbage, and is similar to your telling people that the devil inspired Peter on the day of Pentecost and that the devil was the one who was behind Paul's letters and the writings of Ellen White.

In my previous posts, I asked you questions, but instead of answering them, you pile on more groundless claims.

[John317]

Have you taken about 5 minutes-- perhaps much less--- to check the Greek of Acts 2: 3? It is online. Look and see if the word is singular or plural. Look it up in the Greek-English Interlinear. You will see that the word that occurs in the Greek text of the NT is the plural "glwssia", not the singular, "glossa."

In your book, you devote several pages to showing that this is important.

Secondly , do you agree with Musicman that Jeremiah 31: 31 contains a Hebrew word meaning "renew"?

[wayfinder]

Have you taken about 5 minutes-- perhaps much less--- to check the Greek of Acts 2: 3? It is online. Look and see if the word is singular or plural. Look it up in the Greek-English Interlinear. You will see that the word that occurs in the Greek text of the NT is the plural "glwssia", not the singular, "glossa."

In your book, you devote several pages to showing that this is important.

Secondly , do you agree with Musicman that Jeremiah 31: 31 contains a Hebrew word meaning "renew"?

Your first question about the Greek tense of "glwssia" vs "glossa". In my Greek New Testiment, the translation would appear to be saying that a tongue appeared, seperated and distributed "itself". And "and it sat". This last phrase is decidedly singular. My question, given this information is; if many tounges appeared then why would they seperate in order to sit on each one. What my Greek NT says is: cloven tounges like: tounges parting asunder, like| distributed and resting] and it sat

In his book "James the Brother of Jesus", biblical scholar Robert Eisenman ( co-author of "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered"), explains his understanding of the account of Acts 2:3, "In Acts' revised portrait of it, Pentecost rather confirms the descent of the Holy Spirit on the whole community and in the process, the new mission to all the Nations. This is accompanied by the imagery of 'a rushing, violent wind', 'forked Tongues as of fire', and 'the speaking in other Tongues as the Holy Spirit gave it unto them'.

Since writing the Book, my understanding has grown and changed as it has grown. I now have serious questions as to the specific accounts in both literary works by Luke, so wheather the word is tongues that separated into many or a parted/cloven tongue, has lost it's significance for me.

Addressing your second question, no I do not think the Hebrew word means renew, what I have said in the past and MM may have heard it differently is, anew. Anew in this context, God had a covenant with Israel, then when the split came the covenant remained in force, although at the time with the two separate nations (God did not view them as separate). When they broke the covenant for the last time (they reached the limit of forgivness) God "divorced" them and sent them away to foreign lands. Jeremiah was told by God that a new covenant was promised to the exiles in all the lands in which they dwelt. It was not a different covenant, but it was new in the sense of where it would be written and reside. According to God it would be in the heart and mind of each individual, so that, no one would have to teach his brother and neighbor to know the Lord, for they would all know Him. You may or may not know that this promise does not first appear in Jeremiah, it was first given in Deuteronomy 30:1-9. God foretells of the sending away into all the nations and the promise of restoration "if" the condition of obedience and love (see verse 10). God says, both in Deuteronomy and in Jeremiah that the covenant will be made anew with the generation of those who live in the various nations into which they have been dispersed, and that covenant is based upon the commandments.