Was Christ's Tomb Guarded By Roman Soldiers

[John317]

Quote:

Please give some specific examples of where you think the evidence shows that something was published under Ellen White's name that she did not write or that is not what Ellen White believed and taught.

You have a point, but those are not the kinds of things I was talking about. There is no evidence that she did not write those things or that she wouldn't have approved of them.

Whether she would have liked the way they put together all the compilations, such as MYP, is another matter. Ellen White gave them permission to do what they did. You can always go to the original sources and read everything in context, and of course it is best to read everything she wrote on a subject, just as it is best to do the same with the Bible. The essential point for me, though, is that nothing in that book or in the other compilations is not Ellen White. One can have a different opinion about what is put in a compilation but that is not a denial that all the material in it was written by Ellen White.

Do you have a objection to anything in Steps To Christ? I certainly don't. I think it's one of the best she wrote. I also have the book that influenced her in the writing of it. They are both good books, but Ellen White's is definitely the better of the two.

As far as handwriting goes, I don't think they have any of her main books in her handwriting.

[John317]

Quote:

Please give some specific examples of where you think the evidence shows that something was published under Ellen White's name that she did not write or that is not what Ellen White believed and taught.

Yes, I have that book and have read it.

It is always good to read widely. Some of the things Graeme Bradford says in that book are not necessarily so. Many of those things are merely his opinion and interpretation and that's OK as long as we recognize them for what they are. It is not as if his views represent the church. I would say that generally speaking Bradford did a good job but I don't agree with quite a bit of it, including the parts where he discusses the inferiority of New Testament writers' authority compared to those of the Old Testament. Nor where he says that Ellen White's depiction of end-time events as recorded in The Great Controversy are not dependable. Those and other positions he takes are his interpretation and certainly are not authoritative statements. In fact, they contradict the church's positions on those issues.

It's important to notice that the Foreword says incorrectly that the manuscript was evaluated favorably by officers of the Ellen White Estate. You can get more info on this at www.whiteestate.org/

You need to read The Voice of the Spirit by Dr. Juan Carlos Viera, and The Messenger of the Lord, by Herbert Douglass. Like I say, it's always good to read widely and not stick to material written from only one viewpoint.

[Woody]

Quote:

It is not as if his views represent the church.

The VIEWS of Floyd Bresee do not represent the church either. So ... why do you like to quote him so much?

I think that if we accept that as Adventists we do have different views on this topic and others ... and allow for differnces with tolerance then we will make our church a much more loving place. I think there is room for your belief in our church John317. But I also think there is room for mine without saying it has to be one way or another.

[John317]

Quote:

Please give some specific examples of where you think the evidence shows that something was published under Ellen White's name that she did not write or that is not what Ellen White believed and taught.

...?The heart of his disciples fainted within them. The mother of JESUS was agonized, almost beyond endurance, and as they stretched JESUS upon the cross, and were about to fasten his hands with the cruel nails to the wooden arms, the disciples bore the mother of JESUS from the scene, that she might not hear the crashing of the nails, as they were driven through the bone and muscle of his tender hands and feet.? Spiritual Gifts Volume I, p.58

The nails did NOT go through the bone, and she corrected the mistake later...

?She saw His hands stretched upon the cross; the hammer and the nails were brought, and as the spikes were driven through the tender flesh, the heart-stricken disciples bore away from the cruel scene the fainting form of the mother of Jesus.? DoA.

So it is clear that she published a few (not many) factual errors, and corrected them when they were pointed out to her. I do not know a single case where she was right and the history books later changed to match her position./Bevin

Of course the nails went through the bone, Bevin. It has been proven fairly recently by well known archeologists that the Romans drove the nails through the bone-- the heel bone, to be exact. Driving the nail through the bone did not break the bone. A break, or a fracture, of the bone is where the various parts of the bone are separated. A book I recently bought shows the heel bone of a crucified man with a nail still in it, and the bone is not broken. See below:

break |br?k| verb ( past broke |br?k|; past part. broken |?br?k?n|) 1 separate or cause to separate into pieces as a result of a blow, shock, or strain : [ intrans. ] the rope broke with a loud snap | the slate fell from my hand and broke in two on the hard floor | [ trans. ] windows in the street were broken by the blast | break the chocolate into pieces. • [ trans. ] (of a person or animal) sustain an injury involving the fracture of a bone or bones in (a part of the body) : she had broken her leg in two places. • [ trans. ] sustain such an injury to (a bone in the body). • [ intrans. ] (of a part of the body or a bone) sustain a fracture : what if his leg had broken?

[bevin]

John317 - I notice you have not produced a single instance of EGW successfully correcting a historical fact, nor can you deny that she made historical errors.

Nor can you deny that she condemned the use of quinine - one of the most important drugs ever discovered. Not one word did she publish in favor of this life-saving medicine. NOT ONE WORD. Instead she doesn't even know that malaria is caused by an organism - blaming bad air, and encouraging people to sleep with their windows open (letting the mosquitos in).

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

Of course the nails went through the bone, Bevin.

In that case, why did she change it?

/Bevin

[John317]

"Before the development of recent events, the course that would be pursuded by Dr. Kellogg and his associates was plainly outlined before me. He with others planned how they might gain the sympathies of the people. They would seek to give the impression that they believed all points of our faith, and had confidence in the Testimonies. Thus many would be deceived, and would take their stand with those who had departed from the faith." Ellen G. White letter 328, 1906

"The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God...There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satanic." 1 SM 48

The Omega will have its roots in a neglect and rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy. "The Omega will follow [the alpha-- a deadly heresy in early 1900s], and will be received by those who are not willing to heed the warning God has given." See Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 2, p. 50; also 1 SM 200

[John317]

Quote:

Of course the nails went through the bone, Bevin.

In that case, why did she change it?

/Bevin

Did she ever say the nails were not driven through the bone? Is saying the nails were driven through his feet and hands saying they did not go through the bone? The essential meaning of the two narratives is the same. They use different words and the sentence in DA is shortened. The details about the nails crashing through the bone is not included in DA, but they both agree with the NT narrative, and the fact that she does not include the part about bone cannot be interpreted to mean she is saying they only went through flesh and not into the bone. The Bible also says nothing about going into bone, nor does the Bible say the nails went into the palm of the hand. The NT Greek uses a word that can also include the lower forearm.

[bevin]

It would appear that,

• unable to supply a single instance of EGW correcting a historical point (which you claimed she did), and
• unable to explain why she published things that she later had to change because they were wrong (which she did)

you have retreated into some kind of "it is naughty of you to tell the truth about her writings" shell

/Bevin

[John317]

Someone wrote well the following:

"I am confused at to the exact book that you reference. I assume that you reference: SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS BELEIVE: A BIBLICEAL EXPOSITION OF THE [27]/[28] FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES. If that is the point of your reference, and if I understand your comment accurately, you are wrong.

That book was prepared for publication under the auspices of the General Conference Ministerial Association. Floyd Bresee was the Secretary of that Ministerial Association when it was published. Another person with some responsibility for its publication was J. R. Spangler.

However, the primary author of every chapter [NOTE: I am referring to the "27" book in all of my comments.] was P. G. Damsteegt, who was assisted by his wife Laurel who was also a trained Bible scholar. In addition, some of the work of Norman Gulley of Southern Adventist University was incorporated into the book.

Along with those people, there were others (committees of 27 and 194) who read the manuscript and gave feedback.

While it may accurately be stated that many people had input into this book there was one primary author who was responsible for the majority of the material contained in the individual chapters. That person was P. G. Damsteetgt. It was not Floyd Bresee.

To the extent that you will argue that the chapter material is not an authoritative stated of SDA belief, I will not challenge you. The authoritative beliefs of the church are stated in the introductory paragraphs printed on separate pages at the beginning of each chapter.

The individual chapters, however, are more than Damsteegt's statement of his personal belief. Yes, they contain some of that. But, they are more than that. They reflect Damsteegt's understanding of the various doctrinal blocks within Adventism.

Again, I may be confused as to exactly what you said. So, I wanted to comment a little more as to what the book represents, and its authorship."

[John317]

It would appear that,

• unable to supply a single instance of EGW correcting a historical point (which you claimed she did), and
• unable to explain why she published things that she later had to change because they were wrong (which she did)

you have retreated into some kind of "it is naughty of you to tell the truth about her writings" shell/Bevin

No, not even close. I will be back after taking care of some business. Hold your horses.

In the meantime do you like those quotes? Do you believe them?

Do you believe Ellen White was a prophet of God or a fake? I believe she was a prophet of God. What is your own conviction if you have one?

[bevin]

The opening topic in this thread was discussing the possibility that the guard on the tomb was not Roman, but Jewish. This point has no theological consequences at all.

You are arguing that we should be prepared to rely on DoA as authoritative on this subject.

Bradford's book, and the EGW Estate, and the official SDA, all take the position that true prophets are not infallible - on matters of history, science, or prophecy. Heck, in the NT we can see big disagreements between the writers - on such fundamental questions as to what is the appropriate erquirements to place on new gentile converts.

I agree with this position - infallibility is not a test of a true prophet.

/Bevin

[John317]

I agree with this position - infallibility is not a test of a true prophet.

/Bevin

We agree on this, although I suspect we would disagree on application and interpretation of the details. You know what they say about details.

Am I correct in interpreting that to mean you beleive she was a true prophet of God?

I look forward to continuing the discussion after I've seen my dentist.

[bevin]

Quote:

Am I correct in interpreting that to mean you beleive she was a true prophet of God?

I think that statement carries far too much room for personal interpretation for me to state it. Here is what I think

• All people have external senses and thoughts
• This information is remembered, thought about, acted on
• The actions leave an impact on the world
• which is perceived by other people

There is LOTS of room for error in this chain.

We know she read lots of books, travelled a lot, had a lot of conversations, and read a lot of materal prepared for her by her literary assistants. Like all people she dreamed about what she thought about. There are some records of her having visions, especially in her early years. These records are unreliable - being based upon poor examinations in emotionally charged settings, and being written down by biased observers.

Human memory being what it is, these sources would all have blended in her mind. I doubt that SHE could distinquish which dreams were inspired and which were the natural consequence of thinking about the Great Controversy. And I doubt that she could keep distinct which ideas came from what she had seen in vision, had dreamed, had read, had discussed...

She was, however, forming from these sources a relatively coherent concept of the Great Controversy through history. She interacted with her associates to produce many magazine articles and sermons and books etc which approximately matched her current thinking on various topics. Approximate because (a) her thinking changed, and ( it is just too hard to collaborate like this and get something which is up-to-date and error-free - the product simply does not converge.

She was part of a bigger SDA movement, and people within that movement interpreted her material to their own ends. She was not able to stop the misrepresentative and misapplication of her material - and was frustrated by this. In particular it was hard to resist the extremes of "either she is of the devil or she is perfect". Since people at the first extreme left the denomination, that heavily skewed the denomination towards the "she is perfect" end.

She unsuccessfully fought this while she was alive, but once she was dead that view because the main stream of SDA'ism in the USA and Australia/NZ. The truth about the material was produced and about its fallibility got lost in the PR machine.

This whole process, by the way, is equally true of the formation of the Bible. We are not sure that Paul wrote all of the books of the NT that we ascribe to him. We don't know that John the Revelator is John the disciple. The 4 gospels that we have are incompatible in some not-so-subtle ways (just what did God say when Jesus was baptised?)...

The nett result is that we have the Bible, St Augustine, EGW's writings, Charles Darwin's writings, and John317's notes in this thread - and from them all God reaches out to us to try to get us to choose Him...

/Bevin

[John317]

In Spiritual Gifts, Vol 1-2, page 68, Ellen White wrote that she "saw the Roman guard," showing that she was given a view of the resurrection and specifically saw the Roman guards. She also says on the same page that she saw the resurrection take place and heard what the angel said when Christ was came forth from the dead.

The language of the Bible is clear that they were Roman soldiers, and not, as some have suggested, Jewish temple guards. As I've shown in another post, Matthew 28:12 calls them "soldiers," using a Latin word transliterated into Greek that the Bible, and even extrabiblical sources, never use in reference to Jewish temple police. The NT uses a completely different word for the latter.

[bevin]

You have done a good job of showing linguistically that the author of Matthew believed the guard on the tomb to be Roman - and used an unfortunately ambiguous phrase for Pilate's granting of the request.

The behavior of the guard is more in line with them being non-Roman.

So the issue is open but leaning towards Roman (if you like linguistic evidence) or Jewish (if you like behavioral evidence), mere trivia in importance, and interesting only in that it enables us to investigate our techniques for exploring such issues.

The view that the guard was Roman is vanilla Christianity. The idea that they might not be Roman seems to post-date EGW. Do you know of any pre-1920 discussion of it? I don't.

EGW saw some guards in her vision - I doubt they had big labels on them saying "Roman Guard #1". She, like in so many other places when she wrote down her visions, could be using the standard beliefs of her time to categorise them as Roman - she may never have even considered the possibility they could be any other variety.

/Bevin

ps: It is also worth noting that none of the other Gospels even mention the guard...

[John317]

You have done a good job of showing linguistically that the author of Matthew believed the guard on the tomb to be Roman - and used an unfortunately ambiguous phrase for Pilate's granting of the request.

The behavior of the guard is more in line with them being non-Roman.

So the issue is open but leaning towards Roman (if you like linguistic evidence) or Jewish (if you like behavioral evidence), mere trivia in importance, and interesting only in that it enables us to investigate our techniques for exploring such issues.

The view that the guard was Roman is vanilla Christianity. The idea that they might not be Roman seems to post-date EGW. Do you know of any pre-1920 discussion of it? I don't.

EGW saw some guards in her vision - I doubt they had big labels on them saying "Roman Guard #1". She, like in so many other places when she wrote down her visions, could be using the standard beliefs of her time to categorise them as Roman - she may never have even considered the possibility they could be any other variety.

/Bevin

ps: It is also worth noting that none of the other Gospels even mention the guard...

OK, we're in basic agreement here. I also thought about the possibility that Ellen White identified them as Roman guards because she assumed they were, but I believe that Roman soldiers were dressed differently than the Jewish temple police.

I don't know of any pre-1920s discussion of whether the guards were not Roman. I'll look into that.

[John317]

Quote:

Am I correct in interpreting that to mean you beleive she was a true prophet of God?

...I think that statement carries far too much room for personal interpretation for me to state it...

...This whole process, by the way, is equally true of the formation of the Bible. We are not sure that Paul wrote all of the books of the NT that we ascribe to him. We don't know that John the Revelator is John the disciple. The 4 gospels that we have are incompatible in some not-so-subtle ways (just what did God say when Jesus was baptised?)...

..The nett result is that we have the Bible, St Augustine, EGW's writings, Charles Darwin's writings, and John317's notes in this thread - and from them all God reaches out to us to try to get us to choose Him.../Bevin

I would like to say I agree with everything you say here, especially about St. Augustine and Darwin, because I enjoy reading all these and many more. I have read almost all of Nietzsche's writings, as well as a lot of Marx and Lenin. I have several rooms full of books of all kinds, and have been reading this stuff since I was 18. I consider these writers almost as if intimate friends, I have gotten so close to them through their writings. I have no doubt that God was working on their minds, but I don't accept what they wrote as authority on TRUTH. Satan was also working on their minds, and some of them show it more than others. In order to understand truth I only accept the Bible and Ellen White as authoritative.

When I was about 16, my father took my Nietzsche book away from me, because he didn't think it was good for me to read. I wish he had read it with me and talked to me about it.

On Ellen White, you mentioned MYP. I used to hate that book as a kid, but now when I go back and take a second look-- yes, it's been that long since I read it!-- I see so much gold in it. (I have to agree with Somerset Maugham who said that there is no reason a young man should like the same book when he is young as when he is old.) But as far as MYP is concerned, it's possible that at certain ages, we see it as leaning toward legalism because of the state of our minds when we read it.

I disagree with some of what you say here about the Bible, but it is true that the same aguments used against Ellen White can be, and are, used against the Bible. More about that later.

By the way, I haven't forgotten about the issue of whether Ellen White ever made any corrections in her writings concerning historical information. My computer is acting up so I can't write long posts any more. God bless. Gotta go.

[bevin]

Quote:

In order to understand truth I only accept the Bible and Ellen White as authoritative.

I don't accept any book as infallible.

To me "authoritative" means "more likely to be closer to the truth".

I regard a math text book as more authoratative than either the Bible or EGW - but, of course, only about the precise topic it is addressing.

/Bevin

[John317]

Quote:

In order to understand truth I only accept the Bible and Ellen White as authoritative.

I don't accept any book as infallible.

To me "authoritative" means "more likely to be closer to the truth".

I regard a math text book as more authoratative than either the Bible or EGW - but, of course, only about the precise topic it is addressing./Bevin

I have done enough close work with both the Bible manuscripts and the writings of Ellen White to know that they contain errors. There are no two ancient manuscripts that are precisely the same. Yet almost all of the variants are unimportant and none of them are enough to cause a major change in doctrine. And Ellen White made a few errors of fact, but as far as I know, she corrected those. The point is, not that the Bible or Ellen White's writings contain no errors but that they are authoritative in terms of understanding God's plan of redemption and how God is disposing of the sin problem. The Bible is infallible in the sense that if we follow it and obey it, we will be saved in God's kingdom.

Let's assume for the moment that Ellen White and the Bible contain, say, 5% error. There are people who would throw out the whole and thus be lost because of that 5% error. I would rather accept all of it, including the 5% error, and be saved.

Math is fine but apart from the word of God, it can't change you into being like Christ. It can't lead you to greater faith in God and bring about repentance and faith and the new birth. Thus the math won't save anyone. Math can lead one to look to God, but a person can only find salvation by studying the Bible. It's the word of God that causes us to grow in faith and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which is what results in eternal life both here and in the future life.

[John317]

Quote:

Of course the nails went through the bone, Bevin.

In that case, why did she change it?

/Bevin

I think there are stylistic considerations that may at least partly account for the change. The style of writing is different in the DA compared to the narrative style in the Spiritual Gifts. I would call the style in SG as less polished, perhaps even in some ways more primitive as it were, than the style throughout DA. The same difference in style applies when you compare the writing of SG and PP. There are a number of reasons for this, not least of which is the fact that DA and PP were intended for a different audience.

[John317]

Bradford's book, and the EGW Estate, and the official SDA, all take the position that true prophets are not infallible - on matters of history, science, or prophecy. Heck, in the NT we can see big disagreements between the writers - on such fundamental questions as to what is the appropriate erquirements to place on new gentile converts.

I agree with this position - infallibility is not a test of a true prophet./Bevin

Yes, it's true that some of the Bible writers disagreed about some things, such as what you mention here, but when it came to actual writing, I don't believe there are any disagreements. (I don't take things such as differences as in the words on the sign nailed above Christ's head to be disagreements or contradictions; message is the same, just using different words.) For instance, there were disagreements between Paul and Peter and even between James and Paul, etc. No one that I know of thinks that prophets make no mistakes in their lives or in their thinking. They are normal people as far as that goes. They could have wrong ideas just like anyone else. Being inspired by God and being given visions does not make them above making mistakes. But that is not the same as saying they make mistakes, at least significant ones, in their writings.

Where would you say the prophets or a disciple made a mistake in prophecy?

[Woody]

Quote:

Where would you say the prophets or a disciple made a mistake in prophecy?

Try 1T 131 .

[John317]

Quote:

Where would you say the prophets or a disciple made a mistake in prophecy?

Try 1T 131 .

Hey without looking, I bet I know what that is about. It's about some being food for worms, right? I don't consider that a false prophecy, because Christ could have returned and would have returned around that time, and also later in the 1880s, if the church had not rejected the light that God sent it. She said several times that Christ would have taken His church (all the saved, that is) to be with Him if certain conditions had been met. In other words, there are conditions. We find that also in the Bible prophecies sometimes, where people are told what will happen "if". Even Paul evidently believed that he would be among the living at the return of Christ. The book of Revelation also speaks of the return of Christ as being very close.

It is evidently just a fact that the angels and the visions God gives always portrays the return of Christ (the parousia) as some that would happen very soon. Is that a false prophecy? I don't really think so.

[Woody]

John 317 ... This is exactly my point. It is impossible to say that any prophet or disciple made a mistake in prophecy because all prophecy is condition according to some.

By the way ... I am not in agreement that this was a conditional prophecy. It sounds like a statement to me.