Questions?

[Truth Files]

Teresa this reference material may be helpful for your research:

http://www.mmoutreachinc.com/seventh_day_adventists/sda_index.html

[teresaq]

Actually, As valid as the standard answers to why an "IJ" are, the one that works for me is,

I believe God is coming very soon and because He wants to save as many as possible He tells us,

Quote:

Psa 24:3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?

Psa 24:4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

Psa 24:5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Psa 24:6 This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah.

Mal 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

Rev 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

If those such as Daniel were not able to see God without being prostrated how much less the rest of us who are far more faulty?

So I believe that God is simply saying starting in 1844, "Humble your hearts and seek me because it is time to wrap this up. I'm coming and you can't stand in my presence as you are."

[teresaq]

I've already seen that. The problem is that the SDA understanding of the bible makes sense to me and much of the understanding of others do not. (shrug)

[ClubV12]

Seventh-day Adventists are not a "cult". Those who have said this, like truth files, do not understand the meaning of the word and are ignorant of SDA beliefs.

Since were posting links to web site, truth files, here is one for your edification and answers about SDA's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church

It pretty much answers every question in this thread. Including the "cult" lie.

[John317]

Questions from a former SDA member:

According to the Bible, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son"

Yes. Notice that this passage does not say anything about whether there will be prophets after the time of Christ.

Not that it matters but the verse reads, literally, "by a Son."

Originally Posted By: Truth Files

According to the Lord's Word, there are no prophets today, nor have there been since the book of Revelation was completed in A.D. 96 and thereby completing the Bible [Revelation 22:18-19]

The completion and closure of the NT canon is altogether different from the question of whether God would have prophets after the time of the apostle John.

I totally agree that the NT canon was closed with the books written by the apostle John. However, it is worth noting that the book of Revelation may not have been the last book of the Bible to be written. That distinction may rightly belong to the Gospel of John (70-100 AD) or perhaps the 3 letters (85-95 AD). Revelation (95, 96 AD) is believed by many Bible scholars to have written before the Gospel of John. Some scholars date Revelation during Nero's reign (54-68 AD). I tend to believe it was written between 95 and 100 AD, whether it was written before or after the Gospel of John is questionable.

In any case, even if we say that Revelation was the last book written, it wouldn't mean that there could be no more prophets of God. All Christians, including SDAs, agree that the NT canon was closed by 100 AD. But why would that fact necessarily preclude God's use of prophets?

The closure of the NT canon does not mean that God had said all He wanted to say or that He had nothing more to reveal to human beings. The closure of the canon simply means that all future prophets-- and indeed, all teachings and practices-- would need to be tested by the Bible. That is precisely what Paul says in 1 Thess. 5: 19-21. It agrees with what God told Moses. It seems obvious that God is not going to reveal truth to a prophet and then contradict Himself in His revelation to another prophet.

Finally, the idea that there would never be any prophets after the time of John contradicts the NT. Ephesians 4: 9-15 shows that Christ gave the gift of prophecy to the church "till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ..."

Notice that the reason given for the gift of prophecy is so "that we should no longer be children, tosssed to and fro and carried about with every word of doctrine, by the trickery of men..."

This agrees perfectly with 1 Cor. 12: 7-11. Notice that neither of these passages give the least hint that the gift of prophecy would cease forever. On the contrary, these passages give clear indications that the gift of prophecy would continue to be used of God in His church "until we all come to the unity of the faith... [and come] to a perfect man..."

That point has clearly not be reached. Therefore it is possible for God to raise up another prophet. As Paul wrote, "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess. 5: 19-21).

What would be more quenching of the Holy Spirit than for Him to inspire a prophet and then for the church to reject the Spirit by rejecting the messenger of the Lord?

Does this ever happen? Sure.

Did it ever happen in sacred history? Yes, it did.

Are humans any different today? No, we aren't.

Has it ever happened since the time of John? Yes, it has. Sorry to say, it still happens today when people reject God's prophets.

Continued

[John317]

Continued

On whether the Bible allows for prophets in the last days prior to the coming of Christ--

An additonal piece of evidence-- and a powerful on-- that God would use the gift of prophecy after the time of the Apostle John is found in Rev. 12: 17 and Rev. 19: 10.

12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

I believe these verses, when correctly understood in the prophetic context, show without a doubt that God would restore the gift of prophecy to His people a relatively short time before the coming of Christ.

When we compare those verses with Rev. 14: 12, it is clear that the Three Angels Messages of verses 6-11 results in the people who "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."

So we can say with certainty that these people come on the world scene some time after the seas-beast of Rev. 13 receives its deadly wound and the earth-beast is rising up. The prophecies show that the "commandment-keeping" people arise between those events and the giving of the mark of the beast. Of course we know that Christ's return is the next event after the making of the image of the beast and the enforcement of the beast's mark.

The three angels messages are intended to do three major things:

1) Give the Good News about God to the entire world.

2) Alert the world to the fact that there is a judgment in process.

3) Draw the world's attention to the fact that God is to be worshipped as the creator of heaven and earth. (Worship essentially means obedience, so in this case we're talking about obeying the Creator. Can anyone imagine a call to worship God without its affecting people's obedience to God's laws?)

4)Warn people against the receiving of the mark of the beast in order to keep people from receiving the seven-last plagues, which are described in Rev. 15 & 16. Especially read Rev. 14: 9- 11. It is the most serious warning given in the entire Bible.

Next notice that the above messages result in people who have great patience as they wait for Christ return, and they are identified as keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."

Finally, notice their numbers. They must be a relatively small group of people because Rev. 13 tells us that "the whole world marvels and follows the beast" (13: 3) and receive the mark of the beast (13: 16).

Is it any wonder that God would have a prophet during the times that are described in these chapters? Satan is enraged and seeking to devour these people. The Bible calls it a war (Rev. 12: 17). He tries every trick in the book that God allows. That would include false prophets and every other kind of lie, particularly subtle ones. That is why a genuine prophet of God would be needed--- just as Ephesians says, "that we should no longer be children, tosssed to and fro and carried about with every word of doctrine, by the trickery of men..."

One last thing: Notice that in Daniel 8: 10-12, the work of the little-horn power is described. What does this little-horn do? He "casts down the place of God's [heavenly] sanctuary" and he "casts truth down to the ground."

Therefore, what is the work of the group of people described in Rev. 12: 17 and 14: 12?

Their work is:

1) To draw the attention of the world to Christ's work for us as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 4: 14 to 9: 26).

2) To re-discover and proclaim all the Bible truths that the little-horn power has cast down to the ground and tampled on.

If we take a good look at Daniel 7: 25, we will see that one of these re-discoveries and proclamations will concern the law of God that the little-horn power attempted to change. What part of the law? The part that has to do with time. The only part of God's law having to do with time is the Sabbath commandment. It is obvious to anyone familiar with history and with Christianity that someone has indeed tried to change that part of God's law.

This is exactly the work that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been attempting to do since its founding in 1863. The SDA church today has workers spreading the Three Angels Messages in practically every nation on earth. It is truly a world-wide movement, just as Rev. 14: 6.

Having begun with only a few dozen believers in Dec. 1844 (when Ellen White received her first vision), the remnant church has grown to over 15 million members and about 20 million who meet for Sabbath School on Sabbath morning.

Praise God from whom all blessing flow!!

[John317]

Seventh-day Adventists are not a "cult".

I agree we are not a cult. However, I wouldn't want to see our beliefs altered one whit for the purpose of changing the minds of other denominations about the SDA church. If we change our beliefs, it has to be for only one reason-- to conform to the truth of the Word of God.

[Aussiemike]

Teresa this reference material may be helpful for your research:

http://www.mmoutreachinc.com/seventh_day_adventists/sda_index.html

Teresa, beware of websites like this. They do not have a special truth to reveal about the SDA church in order to save us poor SDA's

These sites are a bunch of lies and half truths usually the product of ex SDA's who are heretics.

They usually attack EGWhite first thinking that if they can destroy her credbility they can bring the denomination down. If you are unsure about EGWhite i recommend these sites for you.

ellenwhiteanswers.org

ellenwhitedefend.com

[John317]

Questions from a former SDA member:

If what SDAs teach is true concerning Ellen G. White, then surely the Word of God would have foretold of the coming of such a great prophetess, who would reveal new doctrines.

The part of your question related to God's Word in regard to prophecy is answered fully on the previous post.

It is false to claim that Ellen White revealed new doctrines. There are no new doctrines in her writings. If you can find any, let me know.

Are there new truths? Certainly, but none that can't be found in the Bible. They are truths that have either been lost or gone unnoticed. An example would be the Health Message. The Bible is clear that God's wants His people to be healthy and to live long so they can glorify Him in their body temples, but this truth had been to a great degree disregarded or ignored until about 1865, when God gave the "health visions" to Ellen White. They call us back to God's original diet for humans in the Garden of Eden. (There will be no meat-eating in heaven, nor smoking, nor driking alcohol.)

But perhaps you mean that she says things that can't be found in the Bible. Yes, this is true, but those aren't "doctrine." They are new information and explanations, but new infomation is not new doctrine. For example, Ellen White gives us new insights into the Fall of Lucifer and the Fall of Adam and Eve, but these are new details of things that the Bible already teaches us about. Furthermore, Ellen White's new insights or new details do not contradict the plain words of Scripture. If they did, they would be rejected.

[John317]

Exactly right, Aussie. Those are good links. Thanks.:-)

[teresaq]

Quote:

"What is curiously missing in this statement is an indication of whether or not the "three co-eternal persons" are of one being or of one essence. This has led to some debate among critics about whether the current Adventist view of the Trinity is orthodox, or if Adventist views are tantamount to the heresy of Tritheism. In fact, Adventist scholars themselves have actually pointed out the distinction between the Adventist view and the orthodox view of this doctrine:

"She [Ellen G. White] taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct individuals, which is not true of the medieval doctrine of the Trinity."[62]"

Thank God!! I have often wondered about that. (I have often wondered what our current SDA church believes in this area.)

...

Quote:

Furthermore, some commentators suggest all of Western Christianity, especially English-speaking Christians, do not possess a proper understanding of the Trinity, but instead profess a type of semi-Tritheism. This is because the English translation of the Trinitarian formula, ‘One God in Three Persons’, is an imperfect one. As Roger E Olson notes in The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (1999), the ancient Fathers did not mean ‘person’ as understood in English today – i.e. an individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity. Rather, ‘person’ is a poor translation of the Latin ‘persona’, which in itself is arguably a poor translation of the original Greek ‘hypostasis’.

That explains the difficulty I have been having!! True trinitarians do understand, tho, and are not hesitant to call adventists on it.

Quote:

One recent study has argued, however, that early Adventism had neither an Arian nor Trinitarian theology, but rather a materialist one, in which Ellen White participated fully, after rejecting her original Methodist theology. As such, she was not a major influence in the Adventist shift toward Trinitarian doctrine.[60]

I fully agree with this study.

Quote:

- various Adventist offshoots and other minority views, such as the Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church, who arguably hold a kind of Binitarianism, believing the Father and Son are two separate and distinct beings;[69]

As did our pioneers against the trinitarian definition which, according to paragraph 2 above most don't seem to know what it is, anyway.

Not a bad article.

[John317]

Questions from a former SDA member:

The Word of God is our final and only authority!

SDAs agree that the Bible, the Word of God, is the final and ultimate authority of truth. Ellen White wrote much on this point and agreed wholeheartedly. Her works point all her readers to the Bible as the final authority with respect to the Christian's faith and doctrines.

There's no contradiction between this and the belief of SDAs in the prophetic gift of Ellen White. In fact, I believe the Bible tells us to do what we are doing, which is to test the spirits whether they are of God, and to hold fast to that which is good. If we didn't do this, we would be quenching the Spirit and doing the opposite of what the God requires of His people. See 1 Thess. 5: 19-21.

May I suggest that you do a search of Ellen White's writings and find out exactly what she actually did teach about the Bible.

Here just two brief examples:

Quote:

When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, "It is written." Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.-- The Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1885. {1SM 416.2}

The word of God in His law is binding upon every intelligent mind. The truth for this time, the third angel's message, is to be proclaimed with a loud voice, meaning with increasing power, as we approach the great final test. This test must come to the churches in connection with the true medical missionary work, a work that has the Great Physician to dictate and preside in all it comprehends. Under the great Head we are to present God's word requiring obedience to the system of Bible truth, which is a system of authority and power, convicting and converting the conscience. The demand of the Word to obedience is a life-and-death question. {10MR 314.1}

[teresaq]

Quote:

“Martin’s conviction remains my own—that one cannot be a true Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, or Christian Scientist and be a practising Christian in the biblical sense of the word.

Hmmm. I met a JW lady that I admired immensely for her patience and Christlikeness under opposition.

I rarely see such behavior here, or in myself. I would say she was a "practising Christian in the biblical sense of the word" in spite of certain things she believed that I strongly disagreed with.

[John317]

As such, she was not a major influence in the Adventist shift toward Trinitarian doctrine.

Of course Ellen White was a major influence. You can't read what she has written on the topic or know about experiences of men such as M.L. Andreason without realizing that, apart from the Bible, she was THE major influence.

In brief, it was Ellen White's books, Patriarchs and Prophets and Desire of Ages, which caused SDAs to reinvestigate the Bible's teachings on the Godhead. Our doctrine with respect to the Godhead is based on the Bible, but it has the support of Ellen White.

Anyone who reads Evangelism 614-617 can see the evidence for themselves of what she taught. Those comments by Ellen White are only a small portion of what she had to say, but they do not contradict anything she says elsewhere.

[John317]

Quote:

Martins conviction remains my own that one cannot be a true Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, or Christian Scientist and be a practising Christian in the biblical sense of the word.

Hmmm. I met a JW lady that I admired immensely for her patience and Christlikeness under opposition.

I got to know Jehovah's Witnesses very well over a period of studying with them and basically living with them and going to their conventions and meetings for about 1 1/2 years. They do have some practicing Christians among them if we can tell anything about a person at all. Of course I cannot read the heart, but I saw no reason to doubt their sincerity and honesty before God.

I will say, though, that the Jehovah's Witnesses religion/beliefs is very works orientated, but this doesn't mean that none of them have true faith in Christ as the Son of God. This despite-- not because of-- the many false teachings they hold.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Truth Files

Teresa this reference material may be helpful for your research:

http://www.mmoutreachinc.com/seventh_day_adventists/sda_index.html

Teresa, beware of websites like this. They do not have a special truth to reveal about the SDA church in order to save us poor SDA's

These sites are a bunch of lies and half truths usually the product of ex SDA's who are heretics.

They usually attack EGWhite first thinking that if they can destroy her credbility they can bring the denomination down. If you are unsure about EGWhite i recommend these sites for you.

ellenwhiteanswers.org

ellenwhitedefend.com

[teresaq]

You are quite free to disagree with that study, which I have not read yet, but please point out where she believed that the Father and Son are immaterial, for starters? :)That is a major part of the trinity doctrine.

Quote:

One recent study has argued, however, that early Adventism had neither an Arian nor Trinitarian theology, but rather a materialist one, in which Ellen White participated fully, after rejecting her original Methodist theology. As such, she was not a major influence in the Adventist shift toward Trinitarian doctrine.[60]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

As such, she was not a major influence in the Adventist shift toward Trinitarian doctrine.

Of course Ellen White was a major influence.

[John317]

Questions from a former SDA member:

....The Word of God is our final and only authority! Jesus never told us to look for another messenger or prophet. If what SDAs teach is true concerning Ellen G. White, then surely the Word of God would have foretold of the coming of such a great prophetess, who would reveal new doctrines.

I fully answered the above on the previous posts, but include here because of its relationship with the next paragraph.

Originally Posted By: Truth Files

To the contrary, the Bible says nothing of the such.

See my previous post#, which contains Bible evidence that there would be prophets after the time of John the Beloved.

If you are talking about new doctrines, there are no new doctrines in the books of Ellen White. All of the doctrines she refers to are in the Bible itself. She does mention some details that are not in the Bible, but they are contradicted by the Bible, and those details themselves are not new doctrines per se.

Originally Posted By: Truth Files

It is utterly disturbing that the entire SDA religion was formed out of a major embarrassment, when William Miller set a date for Christ to return, and then Christ did not return.

The truth is that Miller himself never set an exact date for Christ's return. He always said-- as you'll see in the title of his book-- that Christ would come "about 1843, 44." Miller didn't accept the Oct 22 date until the morning of the day before.

To the Millerites on the morning of Oct. 23, 1844, the worst thing, which was uppermost in their minds, was not the embarrassment but their sadness at not seeing their beloved Lord. You have to understand that these people truly loved Jesus and wanted nothing more than to meet him in the clouds and go to be with Him for the rest of eternity.

But now consider:

Do you believe that when Christ was put to death as a criminal, Peter and the other disciples were mostly "embarrassed"? Or do you think Peter and the others were mostly sad?

So it is more accurate to call it the Great Disappointment, because that is what it really was to those who passed through that sad experience.

(Read The Midnight Cry by Francis D. Nichol for documentation for everything I say about the Great Disappointment.)

Isn't it true that the whole Christian religion was formed out of a major disappointment? Think of it: all the disciples were thinking that Christ would soon set up His kingdom and be crowned king, bringing the Roman Empire to a screeching halt. They were all ready for it. They'd had a big parade celebrating what they were sure would soon happen. But then--- instead of a king in His glorious kingdom, there amid the rough laughter and shameful ridicule, was a common criminal impaled to a cross. Then suddenly Jesus lay all bloody and dead before their eyes.

Talk about an embarrassment and sadness! And talk about a Great Disappointment!

The Great Disappointment of 1844 was not nearly as great as it was the year Jesus died, was it?

Yet out of each of those disappointments, God raised up a great movement, one that would begin the spread of the gospel in that part of the world and the other to spread the eternal gospel fully around the globe in order to prepare the nations for the soon return of Christ.

Originally Posted By: Truth Files

And why did all of those Millerites descent, suddenly starting a whole different religion? The entire matter is disturbing to say the least.

Do you mean dissent?

It is hard to believe that a former SDA is asking these questions and making these remarks. Any SDA who has read anything about the history of the church should know the answer to this question, as well as to most of the others.

The Millerites dissented because when they talked about their faith in Christ and their belief that Christ was coming soon, the churches in which they worshipped tried to hush them up and keep them from talking and sharing their understanding of the prophecies.

They weren't told why they were wrong to believe as they did. They were often simply told that they must not speak of it in the churches or they would be put out. None of the Millerites left their churches because they wanted to. They were usually kicked out or disfellowshipped. Ellen White and her parents and family are good examples. Her father had been an elder in the Methodist Church, but after a while, the leaders came to the Harmon home and told the parents that they could not continue in the Methodist Church if they insisted on talking about their Advent hope. The leaders didn't attempt to study with them in order to show them their error, but instead they simply gave them a choice, either lay aside their hope in Christ's return or leave the church.

If the Millerite Movement and what happened at that time is disturbing to you, it's because you don't know what happened or why.

There's really nothing to be disturbed about. But I know the Devil is disturbed by it. He doesn't want people to love the Lord and want Him to come or to believe that He is coming soon. He doesn't want people to live for Christ's return. That is what most of the Millerites did, people such as Joseph Bates, a former sea captain, young Ellen Harmon, and James White, a young Millerite preacher.

If you are interesting in reading a good book on the Millerites and on William Miller, see The Urgent Voice: the Story of William Miller, by Robert Gale, originally published by the Review and Herald, 1975. You can order it online. Google the title and author's name. It was on the reading list in church history at a major university where I studied. It's excellent.

[John317]

You are quite free to disagree with that study, which I have not read yet, but please point out where she believed that the Father and Son are immaterial, for starters? :)That is a major part of the trinity doctrine.

I never suggested that Ellen White taught that the Father and the Son do not have a body and parts. Of course she believed that, and so do I.

The SDA doctrine of the Trinity doesn't teach that the Father and the Son are bodiless or without parts. Christ is a man, a real man with a glorified human body. That is what SDAs believe. The Father doesn't have a physical body like Christ has or like you and I have, but the Father also has a body and parts. (It should go without saying that the Father's body is not the body of a human being. He is in the form of God, just as Christ was prior to the Incarnation.)

Could you please quote the SDA Trinity doctrine which teaches what you claim?

Perhaps you are thinking of the Roman Catholic or some other view of the Trinity. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is not defined by Roman Catholics or by the church councils and creeds. The doctrine is defined by the Bible and that is where SDAs get their understanding of the Trinity from. Read the official doctrines of our church with respect to the Godhead: FB 1, 2, 3, and 4.

[teresaq]

Hi "J", could you save us all some time and just reread carefully my post above until you understand what I was talking about? Thanks. It is #462863 8 posts above this one.

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

You are quite free to disagree with that study, which I have not read yet, but please point out where she believed that the Father and Son are immaterial, for starters? :)That is a major part of the trinity doctrine.

Could you please quote the SDA Trinity doctrine which teaches what you claim?

[John317]

What is the Seventh-day Adventist Trinitarian doctrine, according to your understanding? Do you believe it?

It is exactly what Ellen White teaches in her own writings. Every point of the SDA Trinitarian doctrine is supported by both the Bible and Ellen White.

The SDA church doesn't care anything about what other denominations teach in regard to the Trinity because many of them are influenced more by creeds and tradition than by the Bible, and SDAs only go by the Bible and by the Spirit of prophecy. The problem with the creeds and the church councils is that the early church was influenced more by Greek philosophy than by Scripture when it came to the Trinity.

The main reason Ellen White didn't use the word Trinity was doubtless because it came with a lot of negative historical and theological baggage. Also, our church at that time had enough problems without adding to it by asking people to support something-- the Trinity, by name-- that they had been against for so long. Ellen White was a uniter, not a divider, and it would certainly have caused problems if she had tried to force people to accept the concept of the Trinity under that very name. Therefore she chose words such as "heavenly trio," "the three great Worthies," "the three holiest persons," etc.

[John317]

Questions from a former SDA member:

The SDA religion was formed by a group of sinfully proud people who could not accept the fact that they had been hoodwinked by a misguided Miller.

What is your evidence of that they were a group of "sinfully proud people"?

Those people would be the first to confess that they were sinful and in need of God's mercy and forgivess and that they were unworthy of His salvation. But to say they were "proud" is ridiculous if you know anything about the people who made up the first SDA church. They were poor, working class people, some of whom owned almost nothing because they sold practically all of their earthly possessions in order to help with the spread of the gospel.

The ones who became SDAs didn't believe at all that Miller had "hoodwinked them." They didn't feel tricked by Miller.

Based on what you write, I am sure that you don't even know what Miller preached. Have you ever taken the time to read his book, and any of his sermons? If not, how can you claim that Miller was misguided or that he "hoodwinked" people? Have you ever read a single book from a positive viewpoint about either the Millerites or William Miller himself? Why don't you?

[Truth Files]

Here is the book that I read regarding your questions [Matthew 24:4-5; 2Peter 1:16-21; Revelation 3:9]

Have you ever seriously read it?

[teresaq]

Please show me exactly what it is in my posts in this thread, in its context, that prompts your question? Otherwise it is beginning to look like the last few pages of http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post462752, pages 41-43. But if you insist we can do it again, tho I have to admit I see it as a waste of the precious Lord's time.

Hi "J", could you save us all some time and just reread carefully my post above until you understand what I was talking about? Thanks. It is #462863 8 posts above this one.

[Truth Files]

"Please show me exactly what it is in my posts in this thread"

Sorry, the question is a response to John317

"Based on what you write, I am sure that you don't even know what Miller preached. Have you ever taken the time to read his book, and any of his sermons? If not, how can you claim that Miller was misguided or that he "hoodwinked" people? Have you ever read a single book from a positive viewpoint about either the Millerites or William Miller himself? Why don't you?"

Revelation 1,2,3 is addressed to the Lord's church .... His evaluation of professing Christianity over time [from the first century unto this day]

He specifically points out that there would be those who would come and say that they are "Jews" [israel] .... when they are not

.... those professing Christians who steal Israel's identity by replacement theology are on His hit list [Revelation 2:9; 3:9]