₦airaland Forum

Bari_kade I will leave you to your tricks. Keep playing the game and see who will lose eventually when the truth confonts you.

I have nothing to fear by being obedient to God's word, so I am a free man in Jesus. Matthew 5 speaks of you as teaching men to disobey God's commands. In God's heavenly kingdom you're not favoured because you make out God to be a liar by mis-representing His words.

1. When Jesus said the sabbath was made for mankind you have insisted that it was made for the jews. You draw falsely upon other references to further confuse your readers, and no doubt yourself. You barage the board with long drawn out speeches, and irrelivant questionings,  that have no bearing on the real issues.

2. When Jesus said that "not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass untill heaven and earth pass first", you draw upon other references to further confuse the issues.

3. The scriptures that clearly show that Paul kept the sabbath even in nature you have clearly denied. You have also failed to see the frequency with which Paul kept the sabbath during his missionary journeys as his custom was.

4. You have also failed to notice that not once has the NT given us a command to observe Sunday as a day to meet, or has been designated as such.

Its about time you confess that your going to church on Sundays is traditonal that scriptural.

@ Mrpataki

@ bobbyaf,
Is the true church about sabbath keeping?

Excellent question! Its simple and to the point. The true church is about truth in its entirety which includes a proper knowledge and understanding of the Lord's sabbath.

Why are you yawning Free? Bored?

@ bari_kade

If the seventh day begins at sunset Friday, why wait until Saturday before gathering in SDA for worship? The reason I'm asking this question (whether or not "irrelevant" to you) is because up until now you've been evading answers to HOW the sabbath was supposed to be kept/observed according to Scripture. What you don't have Scripture answers for, cannot be used to denounce other Christians.

If the sabbath begins at sunset Friday? If, you you say? , come on! Hahaha, you're giving me stitches man.

I am taken a back as to why your wanting to know how the sabbath was supposed to be kept has any bearing as to whether ror not the sabbath is still relevant. Thats not and will never be my onous.

The 4th commandment of the 10 gives all a guide as to what is required. As I have repeatedly said God has given mankind 6 working days to do his or her business, and a designated day on which to rest.

If the seventh day begins at sunset Friday, why wait until Saturday before gathering in SDA for worship?

Simply because sabbath worship is not confined to a church building. Every true sabbath keeper will welcome the sacred hours at Friday sunset at home or a convinient place designated for worship. After a good night's rest we then meet as a church body to continue the worship services until sabbath ends.

Easy - just please give me the reference for "the Law" of the Sabbath. At least we have discussed the Sunday issue and I followed through with questions asking if you actually gather on Saturday nights for worship in the SDA. What you don't obey cannot be used against other Christians - that is what the Bible calls hypocrisy.

No we don't meet on saturday nights for worship. Paul had an unusually longer meeting that went into the night way back till early morning.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

As was said before breaking bread was a daily experience with the apostles. This special meeting with Paul was a farewell meeting. If you search the NT you will not find another occasion like this one. You'll not find any indication that a precedent was already set for Sunday gathering, and that this meeting was a second or third of previous ones.

Acts 20:7 spoke of one unique experience and the reasons for it has already been laid out by me.

I went on to say that it was referred to the first day of the week because the sabbath had already passed, and that would naturally lead into the first day of the week based on jewish time reckoning. Hence your question about our meeting on Saturday night is totally irrelivant.

Let me supply you another example of how the writers used the expression "first day of the week" to suggest the passing of the sabbath.

Matthew 28:1, In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

You know as well as I do that the sabbath starts at Friday sunset and ends at Saturday sunset. 24 hours are between both sunsets. You know too based on scripture that the day that follows must be Sunday. So let me work it out for you as to what happened in Acts 20:7.

Paul simply planned a special meeting that would have occured after the usual sabbath services. We don't know for sure if there might have been a break before the other meeting began, but the fact still remains any time after Sabbath/Saturday sunset is regared by scripture as "the first day of the week"

What we call Saturday night was their beginning of Sunday, only that the dark portion of the 24 hours of Sunday came first. In the case of Mary who went to the tomb, she actually went when the light portion of Sunday or what we call dawn was appearing.

Bari_kade you cannot read into scripture what you want it to say. Merely reading one scripture passage to indicate a Sunday gathering precedence isn't what Peter would appreciate when he cautioned against private interpretation of scriptures.

Am aware according Jn 14:14 that we should say our prayers through Jesus Christ, But I don't know number of times one should use that it becomes abuse, direspect or hypocrisy or others. Is it supposed to use in Jesus Name as a filler while praying?

One man challenged a fellow over leading a closing prayer for about 1 Min and 10 Seconds. Within he used 19 In Jesus name and 12 Father King of Glory. According to the man in every 3 words one In Jesus name and every 4 words one Father King of Glory. Is there anything wrong with that?

Am not saying that it is wrong but am seeking you opinion.

I see your point and its a valid one. Its not necessary and, I find it a big tun off. Imagine talking to a friend and he is constantly saying your name ever so often. Notice Jesus' model prayer to His disciples? Notice how many times He used the word "Father" Only once did He use the title "Father"

I notice that it is quite convinient for you to not use context in your display of 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7,which have nothing to do with the christian church setting any precedent for Sunday services, yet when I rightfully declare Mark 2:27 as providing meaning for Genesis 2:1-3, you make a big deal out of it by cross referencing other passages that have no bearing on the subject.

It is very simple bari_kade, and no amount of spinning will help you circumvent the simple expression of the Lord Himself. "The sabbath was made for man (mankind)" If you want to limit mankind to the jewish race then go ahead.

If you're saying that Adam wasn't a man then what else should we argue about? Common sense alone should dictate that if God immediately after creation set aside a day as holy, and blessed, then Adam had to be apart of that experience. Why would God sanctify a day immediately after creation, and when things were perfect, and then wait some 2000 years after, within a sinful environment, to then pass on the significance of rest to a people called the Hebrews? beats me!

That is why I said that Mark 2:27 provides meaning for people like you who find it extremely difficult seeing the logics of scripture.

As soon as you find a text that commands that Sunday has been designated as the New day on which to meet and celebrate the Lord's supper I will gladly accept it as truth. Until then I will stick with the original sabbath for now. Since heaven and earth are still standing as Jesus alluded to, then His law still stands, and if His law still stands then the sabbath still stands.

@ Fadenike

do christian need to curse anyone in other to defend jesus death and resoraction ? many curse.

When you say curse what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about when christians make moslems look evil because they don't believe that Jesus died and was resurrected?

Well, that shouldn't be the approach if that is what you mean by cursing, but at the same time moslems are guilty of the same problem.

Peace.

@ Seun

Sounds like a scene from a dry horror movie. Or a practical joke someone played on you guys.

Hahahahahaha!!!, , that was a good one.

Larrydee don't take my dying with laughter to mean I don't believe you, because I do. I just would like for you to know however that what you saw were demons or falling angels who often times pretend to be people who died.

@ bari_kade

Jesus' custom was to keep the sabbath, "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16

"As His custom was" - what was His custom: going into the synagogue, or keeping the Sabbath? Do not mix up the two. Jesus also did several other things on the Sabbath: (1). He went into the corn field with His disciples and they plucked corn and rubbed them in their hands - Luke 6:1; (2). He healed the sick and asked the healed man to carry his bed on the Sabbath - John 5:8-11. Now, can I ask you if it was also His custom to do these things on the Sabbath day in order to prove that He was keeping it? Was it Jesus' custom to keep the Sabbath by going through the corn fields and asking a man to carry his bed - just to prove that He kept the Sabbath?

I don't have to mix up Christ's keeping the sabbath, which was a given, with He going into the synagogue, since both actions are connected. Christ and His disciples walked through the cornfields, but He certainly didn't tell them to pick the ears of the corn. They did it for whatever reason, but Christ was accused by the jewish leaders. As to whether Christ did good works on the sabbath so as to prove He kept it is pointless to whether the sabbath was kept by Him. The fact is there is nothing that He did on the day that would have been considered worthy of sabbath breaking, since there is no law against doing good on the sabbath.

One doesn't have to prove that Christ or His disciples kept the sabbath. It was a given that they did.

The answer is obvious. He did not come to impose the law of the Sabbath on those whom He came to call and save - and for this reason, He was often seen doing the very things that were not stipulated as part of keeping the Sabbath.

He never had to impose the sabbath because it was already being kept, even if those who kept it didn't fully understand the spiritual implications of it. The fact is by the time Christ came the jewish leaders had obscured the true meaning of God's law by their traditions. So, when Christ came part of His job was to bring back the true purpose of the sabbath as he did in one occasion in Mark 2:27. You may have noticed that at no time did Christ denounce the sabbath, but made sure to correct any mis-representation concerning it.

In John 5:18 and 9:16, the Jews may have many problems, but they recognised that Jesus was not keeping the Sabbath in consonance with the stipulations of the Mosaic Law. The fact that He declared who He was - Lord of the Sabbath - explains His actions.

Thats becasue they had lost the true meaning of what is involved with sabbath keeping. Listen to what Jesus said of their tradition and the ensuing results;

Matthew 23:23
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

Mark 3:4
Then He said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they kept silent.

What do you gather from the above texts? Christ recognised the importance of the law as well as the sabbath. He also recognised what it meant to those mistaken leaders as well. Instaed of denouncing the sabbath, He admonished them to at least see part of the overall purpose of the institution, which apart from resting from mundane matters, also involves doing good as well.

This is why I keep asking, if you think anywhere you see "Sabbath" in the NT, it is to be assumed that Jesus and the apostles were observing the Sabbath, then you really will miss the point - and I presume that is even more the reason why you haven't been able to answer my questions in the several rejoinders you posted.

Yes I believe so. If Jesus or Paul knew that the sabbath was no longer relevant, they would have made it clear. It was Jesus who said the following in Matthew 5: 18,19, 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So here we see that Christ had to be faithful as an exemplar, in both keeping the law, as well as admonish all to follow suit untill all be fulfilled. Hence because the sabbath is a central part of the 10 commandments I have reason to believe that He kept it and gave no authority to any of His disciples to annul any. Likewise Paul had to have kept the sabbath since there was no reason for him not to.

,

I beg you, Bobbyaf, just as above - read the context of verses you quote! What was Paul doing in the synagogue of the Jews on the Sabbath days - keeping the sabbath, or reasoning with the Jews?? If this is difficult for you, then solve the problem by simply asking these questions:

And I beg you to do likewise.

(a) HOW did the Scripture command that the Sabbath be kept or observed?

I am not aware that they did. God's law of 10 commandments already did that initially.

(b) who were the Jews with whom Paul was reasoning out of the Scriptures in Acts 17:1-2 - Christians or Judaics?

A mixture!

If you think paul was speaking to a "Christian" crowd in those texts, then your dilemma will be verse 4 - where some of them "some of them believed", which tells us that Paul was speaking to non-Christians and persuading them to believe in Jesus Christ so that they might be saved (carefully read verses 3-4 again). How could he have been reasoning with the Jews to persuade them to be saved if they were already Christians?

There were different categories of christians in the temples. Some new converts were being misled by some jewish christians, albeit misled ones, who insisted on their keeping Moses' law of circumcision. Paul on his journey simply saught to enlighten them on the real essence of salvation. The Pauline letters remind us of that reality.

,

First, please read the context of any verse you discuss in the Bible. Jesus did not bring up the sabbath issue with the Jewish leaders; rather, they brought up the issue to Him!

Well, put it this way He cleared up the issue with them, just lik ehow I am clearing it up with you now.

It is interesting, though, that you attempted to relate the spiritual purpose of the Sabbath without actually answering my questions earlier offered. Here they are again, and I add a 4th based on your above:

Even though I addressed them all I will again.

Besides, when taken separately, what would be the significance of each of the clauses in Mark 2:27 -

[#2] the Sabbath was made for man
[#3] man was made for the Sabbath
[#4] man was not made for the Sabbath

"The sabbath was made for man" clause signifies that the sabbath was made for man's benefit. It was a day for man to reflect on God's act of creatorship, without having to think about mundane matters. Such resting provided relaxation and re-creation.

I cannot address # 3 because there is no such clause.

The significance of clause 4 has to do with the fact that man was not made after the sabbath, but before it was instituted. Adam was made on the 6th day, while the sabbath was made on the 7th day. The expression "made for" suggest purpose. Anything that is made for somehing else must have a purpose. In other words one cannot put the cart before the horse, and that is exactly what Christ had in mind when He clarified matters with those misled jewish leaders. They made the sabbath more important than men's needs in the act of keeping it. Sabbath keeping must never be done at the expense of neglecting to do good to mankind, as well as animals. Man cannot serve the sabbath, but the sabbath was made to serve the needs of all mankind according to Jesus.

. . . and the 4th added question:

[#5] how was the Sabbath to be kept according the its specific commandment?

The essence of the sabbath is resting from one's own labour or work. The 4th commandment makes it clear. It also has come to symbolise our rest from sin. When a person accepts Jesus and enters into that spiritual rest, such a person will also rest according to the commandment. Salvation leads to obedience to God's set of instructions. We must trust as well as obey. We must have faith as well as do good works. We "must let our lights so shine so that men will see our good works and be led to glorify the Father, "

,

Interestingly enough, you failed to provide a direct command for Adam in the entire Bible.

How could I when there was none! But as I said Mark 2:27 took care of that, unless of course Adam wasn't a man!

As for Sunday (commonly called 'the first day of the week'), I don't remember ever stating that there was a direct command for any particular day: at least, I made clear that lafile's post has my vote on that.

Good! At least we are getting somewhere!

However, please see how the Bible indicated when Christians gathered for Christian worship in the following:

Are you 100% certain about these texts? I can assure you these texts won't do justice to your notion. Let me explain starting with 1 Cor. 16:2

1 Cor 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Paul writes to the Corinthians that he is requesting money be saved for distribution to the needy saints in Jerusalem (v. 3). Paul is recommending that each person, on the first day of the week, lay aside and save by themselves a proportional amount of their income for the purpose of this offering. In that way, when Paul arrives the necessary funds will be already set aside and available.

1 Cor 16:3 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

1 Cor 16:4 And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

Upon meeting with Paul after his arrival at Corinth, the money that had been saved up would be given to the designated courier and taken to Jerusalem by Paul's direction. Most notably, Paul is not instructing the Corinthians to observe Sunday, or even implying that funds are to be collected at a Sunday worship service. He is saying that on the first day of the week each person is to allocate and set aside in store (save) a portion of their funds. There is no indication that the individual even need to leave home to do this, but rather that the entire process was to be done at home.

It is also clear from the book of Acts, that Paul kept only the Sabbath day in Corinth, and not Sunday:

Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

That's 72 Sabbaths that Paul preached in Corinth. There can be no question that Paul raised up a Sabbath keeping church in Corinth, a church that knew nothing of observing Sunday as a holy day. So, while many will point to 1 Corinthians 16:2 in the light of Tradition, and say that it refers to passing the collection plate during a Sunday service, in context, that is simply not indicated by the text.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Clearly the disciples are meeting on Sunday, the first day of the week. It might even be presumed by some that by "breaking bread" they celebrated the Lord's supper that Sunday. The question that needs to be asked though, is why were the disciples assembled on this day? What reason brought them together? In context, it will be seen that Paul was departing the next day on his journey to Jerusalem to be present during the Pentecost festival (v. 16). This gathering was a farewell assembly with Paul, the last day the people at Troas could meet with him, and that is why it lasted into the early morning hours. In fact Paul talked with them all through the night and then left in the morning at sunrise (v. 11).

Did Paul preach? Yes, without doubt, as verse 7 makes clear. Did they celebrate the Lord's supper? Perhaps, yet even if they did, as some maintain, there is no indication that that Sunday, or any Sunday, was being observed as a newly instituted weekly holy day to commemorate the resurrection. The breaking of bread did not indicate a special day of worship, or even that the Lord's supper was being celebrated, as scripture tells us they met daily and broke bread from house to house:

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

This seems to indicate nothing more than eating what are called agape meals of fellowship, which are not necessarily connected with a formal worship service involving partaking in communion.

This first day in question was simply a Saturday night that was to the Jews the first day of the week. Jewish time reckoning was totally different than ours today. According to scriptures a day begins at sunset and ends at sunset., and not at 12am. Since the sabbath ended at sunset, then the dark portion of the day would automatically become Sunday which would have been the dark portion. This explains why Paul preached until sunrise of the same Sunday which we would refer to as Sunday morning.

There is noting definitive about those two texts. Sorry bari_kade you'll have to do better than accuse me of not being contextual, yet taking these very same texts way off base.

@ Lafile

There is no Scriptural command to keep sunday because there is no longer any need to keep any day.

I wonder. Perharps Paul went to synagogue on the sabbath because he knew there will be a large crowd there. Notice he and other disciples also went to the synagogue on other days.

Acts 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart

Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ

All those texts don't necessarily speak to the issue as to whether God's sabbath has been abolished, or that Sunday is now the Lord's day.

The point I have chosen to address right through this thread is that God's church has continued the teachings and practises of Christ, and the apostles right down through the centuries. Anyone speanding time with scriptures, and doing a thorough reading and study, cannot honestly conclude that during the initiation of the New Covenant, that Sunday was now to represent that covenant.

Since no such command, via Christ or His apostles, can be found to support the idea of Sunday being used to commemorate Christ's resurrection and also the ratification of the new covenant, then on what basis can they continue to repeat that blatant lie.

Hence the question still lingers: is God's holy sabbath still relevant for mankind as Jesus alluded to in Mark 2:27? If it is, and there is reason to believe so, then the onus rests with God's people to highlight that reality. We contend that none of God's 10 commandments have been abolished at least not by a "jot or tittle untill all have been fulfilled"

What we see in scriptures, and history, is a continuation of sabbath observance by the apostles and church fathers even up to the early part of the 4th century. During the persecution from Rome, a tendency was being developed for christians to dissociate themselves from the Jews, and instead of the usual sabbath services, they resorted to meeting on another day, ie Sunday, which incidentally was decreed by Constantine as a day as rest in AD321.

@ Goodguy

One thing we Christians fail to realise is that, the same way we feel about our religion is exactly the same way the Muslims feel about their religion.  Nothing you say will convince the other party that your own religion is superior, because both parties strongly believe their religion is the best.  The same way a Christian cannot accept claims made by a Muslim against Christianity, a Muslim will never accept claims made by Christians against Islam.

When we're arguing with Muslims, or any others, we should try putting ourselves in their position and try viewing things from their perspective.  Try seeing what makes him/her believe what he/she believes in, and then counter it from that angle.  Everyone has a very strong opinion about what they truly believe in.  We believe in what we believe in, because we believe it is worth believing in, and if anyone now comes from no where to refute that which we strongly believe in, it will be difficult to accept it.  It'll even be more difficult, if that someone refutes our belief aggressively.

And I'll like to say this - You can never win an argument with an aggressive approach.  (Because grievous words stir up anger - Proverbs 15:1)

However, you can only totally convince an unbeliever by your good actions, your good deeds, your good lifestyle, and not just words alone.  Those that were referred to in the Bible quotes provided by Shahan not only convinced whoever was convinced, with their debates/words alone, but with the manner of lives they lived.  It's even more difficult to convince someone over the Internet, because nobody knows anybody, and whatever somebody says cannot just be generally accepted by everybody.

Someone once said, you'll not be remembered for what you said only, but also what you did. -- I guess we can apply this here also.

And yeah, you're right.  We should convey our messages without offending unnecessarily.

I don't think anyone can gainsay such a response. Really appreciated.

The approach we have taken over the years is to work among the moslems and buddhists in a practical way. We build strong bonds and friendships and also schools, clinics, that serve practical purposes. We also send our contractors, builders, doctors and health professionals to help restore their war-torned buildings, and to show them the path to a healthy lifestyle, and what we have seen is a tolerance among the moslems, and others for this kind of involvement.

In India with such a large and dense population, and where poverty is rampant, spending money to assist with education and a proper health-care system in some villages, has witnessed staunch buddhists and hindus accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Peace!

@ Bari_kade

Re the command for Adam to keep the sabbath. You won't find a command as such, but it is implied. Setting aside a day that is holy automatically implies rest. Other NT verses give support to this rest as was exemplified by God Himself.

The whole matter becomes that much clearer when you understand the purpose of the sabbath. From the beginning it was given for the purpose of rest from man's labour. God gave mankind 6 days in which to do work, but it was expected of him to rest and re-create in holy communion and reflection. That day was dedicated to spiritual reflection, which was not to be distracted with mundane matters.

What was implied in Genesis 2 is explained in Mark 2:27, That is why the scripture says, "line upon line, " Hence I believe that Jesus was not necesssarily dealing with the Jewish sabbath in his discourse, but hinted at the general purpose of the sabbath as it related to all of mankind, and that is why He used the phrase "man", or in this case mankind, rather than the jews.

Bear in mind that the only reason why Jesus brought up the sabbath issue with the jewish leaders, was simply because they were twisting its true purpose. Jesus saught that opportunity to clear up the issue that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. in other words, the sabbath was not intended to be a burden to mankind, but was to be a blessing, and that is why it was made for mankind, and not only for the jews.

The context is clear that at all times the jewish leaders saught a reason to condemn Christ. Whatever good works that Christ did on the sabbath would have been a problem to them just the same.

As to your point that it was a jewish population He addressed, makes no difference. The sabbath was made before the Old and New covenant, and is not confined to just the jews.

Jesus, and the apostles were jews and were accustomed to keeping the sabbath, both inside the temples, and outside the temples where gentile and jewish christians worshipped. Bear in mind that it was from the temples that Paul hitherto Saul, persecuted those same christians who worshipped therein. (see Acts 9:1-2)

You are saying that Paul only encountered the sabbath because he had to go in the temples to preach or teach. The scriptures say the opposite.

Jesus' custom was to keep the sabbath, "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16

The apostle Paul kept the sabbath also, And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2.

Bear in mind that as Paul travelled he preached. In this instance he stayed in that area and preached on three different sabbaths to the people. There is no record of paul preaching to a church on Sunday as a custom. The argument that is given is that Paul just happened to be preaching to the people because they were jews, and that they worshipped on the sabbath, leaving Paul no recource but to be in those temples.

Paul and his entourage kept the sabbath under the open canopy of heaven, "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13.

So even in nature Paul and his friends kept the sabbath. Ever wondered why the sabbath keeps coming up? If this were another day would the bible have stressed it? Besides, there is still no indication of Paul even remotely addresssing the supposedly new Lord's day. Isn't it strange that something as important as that was not emphasised in the NT?


"Paul and his company , went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down." Acts 13:13, 14.

Still no mention of Sunday.

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.


"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44

This text makes it absolutely clear that the gentiles begged Paul to come back with the same message the next sabbath. These gentles were perhaps new converts. Those words were definitely not about keeping Sunday I'd imagine, would they?

Bari_kade while you ask me to provide a direct scriptural command from Genesis for Adam to have kept God's sabbath, I now ask you to provide a scriptural command for keeping Sunday.

I see the point you're making Goodguy. It is so easy to get caught up with religious contention. Do you think there is a way to overcome that problem?

What would it require to be more successful in delivering what one thinks is truth, without offending un-necessarily?

James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the WHOLE LAW, and yet offend in ONE point, he is guilty of ALL."

That is why you should keep all 10, and not just 9.  

Gal 3:10 "For as many as are of the WORKS of the law are UNDER THE CURSE: for it is written, CURSED is everyone that continueth not in ALL THINGS which are written in the law to DO THEM."

This speech by Paul has nothing to do with the law of 10 commandments, but the law of ceremonies. If you were an ardent reader of scriptures instead of just copying and pasting the views of others, you'd have seen how the same Paul magnifies God's law in Romans 7.

Romans 7:12-14, 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Note verse 14 that Paul concludes that God's law isn't a curse, but rather spititual, and as such something to look to as a guide in distinguishing good from evil.

Those under the law were responsible for obeying "all things" written in the law (2,713 commandments)--not just TEN as taught by 7th Day Adventists and others who can't read! The Bible makes it clear that the Christian is not under the law!!

In case you ddin't know the 10 commanments are different than all the jewish laws that were written by Moses. God wrote the 10 on Mount Sinai, and Moses wrote the laws of ceremonies in a book. Paul makes a distinction between the two which some persons find hard to see, unfortunately due to convinience.

Don't be decieved. There is one code that is eternal, and another that was meant to be temporary.

Rom 3:19 "Now WE KNOW that what things soever the law saith, it saith to THEM who are UNDER THE LAW: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the WORLD may become guilty before God. Therefore by the DEEDS of the law there shall NO FLESH be justified in HIS SIGHT: for the law is the knowledge of sin."

Once again context is important. If you go to the very beginning of Paul's discourse in Romans 3 you will see the context, but let me remind you in case you overlooked it:

Romans 3:1, 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

The general discussion was around how the jews saw salvation, faith, and the law. Paul simply made it clear that there is no amount of works, and in this case circumcision, that can save a person. Not even sabbath keeping can save a person in and of itself.

One is saved by grace through faith according to the same Paul, but he goes on further to argue in other sections of Romans, that this faith does not make void God's law. Although it cannot save by virtue of lacking the power, it is still to be seen as a divine guide, that is holy, just, good, and spiritual. (Romans 7:12-14)

Clearly, the law is for an UNSAVED man. The law came by Moses (John 1:16) and was given to ISRAEL (Ex 19, 20)--not the Gentiles, and certainly not the CHURCH OF GOD.

Wrong! The law is for everyone! When a christian commits adultery has he or she sinned? If a pastor steals church funds has he sinned? Therefore, if all those are acts of sin, and the bible says that "sin is the transgression of the law" see 1 John 3:4 then how can you say the law is only for the unsaved?

Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over YOU: for YE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, but under GRACE."

Those who are obedient to God's law by His enabling grace, obviusly are not under its curse, or condemnation. That is exactly what Paul meant. A person in society who respects the law of the land for example has nothing to fear, because he has not broken the law. Hence he is free.

You know as well as others that I am not advocating salvation by works. I have said it so many times before, but of course you insist on labelling me, as well as the SDA church as such.

Do as you must!

@ Bari_kade

Please, please, please. This is a classic example of twisting Scripture. Jesus did not say that the sabbath was given to Adam the first man.

It didn't have to spell it out for you for you to see that reality. If Jesus said that the sabbath was made for mankind, then does'nt Adam fit into the picture? Isn't he the progenitor of mankind? Why would the Creator not desire for Adam to celebrate creation every seventh day?

Not even the verses you quoted (Gen. 2:1-3) indicate that God issued the Sabbath as a commandment to Adam: it just merely stated what God did on the seventh day.

What does sanctifying the seventh day means if not setting it aside for holy use? Isn't that what the word sanctify means Bari_kade? The fact that God made the day holy, or hallowed it, means that Adam was very much aware of that principle.

When you go back and read when the Sabbath was instituted as a Law to Israel, then you will see that Gentiles were not specifically addressed as being under the Law of the Sabbath.

Besides, when taken separately, what would be the significance of each of the clauses in Mark 2:27 -

          (a) the Sabbath was made for man
          (b) man was made for the Sabbath

If this is not properly understood, then the idea of driving the Sabbath issue too far will not help solve the enquiry.

There is something wrong with clause b in your construction. You have left out the word "not", which puts the wrong idea to the contrast that Jesus wanted to bring accross. That changes the whole meaning of the sentence.

Why would Jesus say that the sabbath was made for mankind, if in truth it was made for the Jews? Wouldn't that be a contradiction on His part? The sabbath existed among God's people before it was re-instituted at mount Sinai. In fact the sabbath was never intended to be only for the jews in the time of the covenant renewal. Listen as God speaks through scripture:

Isaiah 56:2-5
2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

Exudus 20:10
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates

Even in the days of the apostles the gentiles kept it.

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.  

With respect to the five questions asked earlier about the SDA and Ellen G. White, I see that you really don't know much about her works or the history of the SDA. When you take time to delve further beyond the surface of the edited sections of her works, then you will not be so inclined to interpret issues from the position of SDA.

I will say this much, what you think you know is not the same as what you know. There are questions and there are questions. When you look at the overall ministry of Mrs. Ellen White who ministered for 70 continuous years, and the extent to which her writings benefited the church in terms of its growth and development, there is no doubt that God's hand was with her.

I'd say this much also, that not only has the church benefited from her works, but the world also. In the area of health, education, among others, Ellen White has done far more than the mind can imagine.

Radio personality and syndicated columnist Paul Harvey, in his noontime ABC radiobroadcast of September 27, 1997, reported regarding Ellen White: "Her writings have been translated into 148 languages. More than Marx or Tolstoi, more than Agatha Cristhie, more than William Shakespeare. Only now is the world coming to appreciate her recommended prescription for optimum spiritual and physical health. "Ellen White! You don't know her? Get to know her.

Long before even I became involved with the SDA church as a boy at age 10, I started reading her books. At the time I wasn't aware of the intricacies of the denominational differences. I just was an avid reader for my age at the time and found one of her books called "Desire of Ages", a book about the life of Christ, very interesting.

One thing I can conclude is that whatever mis-informed ideas people may have of her, and about the SDA church heaping far too much praise on her, and pacing her writings on par with scrpture, is quickly dispelled as soon as they start readng any of her books, and as soon as they get the facts straight.

If you do not believe me try reading the book mentioned above. Its online so feel free to read. If you choose not to, then that is ok, but you owe it to yourself to remove whatever doubts you may have.  


Peace.

@ Bari_kade

1. Has the SDA Church ever regarded any of Ellen G. White's writings to be on equal authority with the Bible?

No we have not. She herself said that also that we should not view her writings as being on par with holy writ.

2. Has Ellen G. White ever contradicted the Bible in any of her works?

Not that I am aware of in all my readings.

3. Has Ellen G. White ever taught things that are not substantiated by or found in the Bible?

That depends on what you mean by "not found in the bible" There are a lot of things that Ellen White taught that cannot be found in the bible, like for example, her health messages, and things that pertained to education, etc. If what she taught had a biblical connection she would have brought that out in her writings. There isn't an admonition given by her that doesn't feature the word of God.

4. Has Ellen G. White ever not contradicted herself in any of her writings?

That depends on who is doing the reading, and how people view her before reading her books. Most of the criticisms leveled against her, are taken out of context. Outsiders often get piece by piece information which isn't the best way to judge a person in her status.

5. Has the SDA Church ever rejected any of Ellen G. White's writings as contrary to the Bible?

Historically speaking the early members had their doubts initially, but the experiences were too overwhelming. The test is in the writings and visions. The official body has never had reasons since to reject her as a messenger of the Lord.

Perhaps, these questions in sound-bites may help us progress the discussion a bit further so that we understand exactly what the issues are, and why many people are persuaded that the SDA merits the status of a cult.

Our doctrines don't indicate that at all, but if people get their kicks saying it, then such is life. It doesn't phase me one way or the other. The onus is for them to prove it.

If it does not, then I would be willing to drop any presumptions thereto after a careful examination of the position of the SDA from the Bible.

You can start with the doctrines. I am always available to assist with any mis-conceptions.

Mr 30 years locked up in a cult,everyday is the lords day
Is that too hard to grasp?.

Sorry, that is not what the scriptures say! The bible says that one day has been blessed, hallowed, and sanctified which happens to be the seventh-day sabbath of the "Lord thy God"

Genesis 2:1-3
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The word sanctified means to set apart something for holy use. No other day was set aside as a memorial of God's creation, and was blessed, and made hallowed as a result. No where in these verses de we see God blessing every day as the Lord's day.

According to Jesus Himself the sabbath was given to Adam the first man. For every seventh day that came around within the weekly cycle, Adam and His wife were to rest from their work and celebrate God's creation. Like the institution of marriage, the sabbath was instituted from the very beginning of time, indicating that this divine institution could not be associated with rites and ceremonies, and that it was not intended for one race only. This is where most go wrong when they say that the sabbath was given to the jews only.

Mark 2:27
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

In other words, the sabbath as a divine institution was made for man's benefit, and not the other way around. This was said in the context that the Jewish leaders had taken away the spiritual meaning of the sabbath with their endless traditions. Not even when Christ did good on the sabbath did it mean anything to them. Hence their constant reproval of His sabbath ministry.

Notice also that Jesus did not say that the sabbathw as made for the jews, but man, and the word man is used generically to mean mankind. In other words, the institution was meant span all races, and in all times. I fail to see why God would make a gift for man's benefit, and then having to take it back. Has He taken back marriage? So why should He take back the sabbath?

This text as often used by your kind is often used to suggest that the sabbath has lost its meaning and significance. To the contrary because Christ came to once again show the full purpose of His law including the true purpose of His sabbath being a continuous sign of His Creatorship. As long as Christ is Creator of heaven and earth His sabbath is as relevant as when it was first given to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

Peace!

Do you know that SDA believe that the coming of Christ will be marked by a return of the sabbath worship.
God have mercy.

Return of the sabbath worship? Expound a bit please! As far as I know the sabbath is here to stay, and its never been lost. So what do you mean by a return to sabbath worship? Listen to scripture:

Jesus said: "think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets, I have come not to destroy but to fulfil. Until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law (which includes the sabbath commandment) till all be fulfilled" (see matthew 5:17-22)

Well, if you can prove to me that heaven and earth are not still around then I will accept the notion that God's law (of 10 commandments) is no longer valid. God's 10 commandments were never meant to be temporary, but eternal. David says "all His commandments stand fast and forever, they are done in truth and righteousness" (see Ps. 111:7-)

David also said "the law of the Lord is perfect, making wise the simple, " (see Ps. 19)

My friend if you're prepared to grasp all truth I am prepared to show you, as long as you allow God's Spirit to be your guide.

The SDA church is not what you think it is, but I will deal with that later.

Shalom.

bobbyaf thanks to you I now understand SDA doctrine after a little internet research.

As I have said before if all you can do is to ferret info from the web, then you'd missed the opportunity to discovering bible truth. I have been an SDA christian for the past 30 years. If you have a difficulty with our doctrines then pose your query with me.

Ask me anything you desire, and I will answer you. All our doctrines are bible-based.

See a site for those who left the cultic teachings.

People leave all denoms for different reasons. Pointing to any website about people leaving an organization is neither here nor there.

If you prefer a reasonable debate about the issues no problem. Just be prepared to come with scriptures.

I hope you're not scared.  

May God help you.
http://www.exadventist.com/

do you know SDA calls other churches the antiChrist with RCC as the head.
This is the no 1 sign of a cult.

@ mrpataki

Please be careful lest, the scriptures you have just quoted here stands against you in the day of Judgment.

I said in the beginning the true church is CHRIST. Not in the doctrine any denomination whatsoever preaches. Take a deeper look into the scriptures personally and ask the holySpirit for his teachings.

Christ is not the church. He is its head. This is the very thing of which I speak about people speaking their own words, and not allowing the scripture to speak.

It is written: "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God"

Besides, its highly non-sensical to go around saying that doctrines are not imprtant, when Christ Himself warned back then to beware of false teachers. The very name on which you call is the very person whose words you deny with your failure to understand scripture.

If doctrines aren't important then why are you here resisting truth, and presenting your set of doctrines however faulty they are?

I suggest you take your own foolish advice.

This testimony from someone who finally left the cult and the reasons they did PTL.http://macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/resignation.html

So what is that website going to prove? Absolutely nothing, except that you are so weak in defence of truth, that your only resort is to ferret what others have created without ever being able know whether such posted material bears truth or deception.

I don't need to resort to internet propaganda in order to defend truth. I go straight to scripture and not any second hand information about other denoms. Not even when I am debating with the JWs do I ever go to the enemies of the organization for amunition. All I need is the Holy Writ.

So because people leave the SDA church that makes it a cult, huh? No one leaves the church, but its the church that leaves them behind. Just bear in mind that God's church is a marching army. There are those who leave organizations for different reasons, and will not entirely speak the truth in order to make themselves look good.

Cheap shots will do you no good!

@ babyosisi

If only you knew how ignorant you're of scriptures. If all you can do is quote with little regard for context, then all you do is rob the forum of precious truth. I recommend you plead the Spirit to lead into all truth, and not what you think the scriptures are saying.

So although you pretnd to denounce denominations, yet you push it without even realising it. You push what you have been taught, and you criticise those who present truth.

May God help your soul. I will pray for you also that God's Spirit will guide you.

Shalom.

@ Shahan

Just remember this each time you deny truth:

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

If you think it is a nornal thing to accept that its ok to be in any organization, as long as all you do is call on the name of the Lord Jesus, then you'd have missed all that the apostles fought for and gave their lives trying to maintain.

Go ahead with your "itching ears" notions, and see how far it will take you when that day comes. Go ahead and sit in your comfort zone feeling you're doing people any good with your watered down version of christianity.

You've been warned.

@ babyosisi

Only a cult believes theirs is the only true way and y'all are coming dangerously close.

So I guess Paul and the apostles were apart of a cult movement then? They too felt that anything other than what was established by Christ, and were maintained by them had to be false.

The SDA church is not considered to be a cult, and it is not one either for your information. If you would take the time to examine our beliefs you'd have seen that, but like others, it suits your case to refer to the SDAs as cultic, when you like  they cannot gainsay our arguments with scriptures.

Christianity as practised by the majority in this era, is not what Christ, or His apostles would approve of, if they were alive today. Instead what they practise is a man-made version of it, and until they realize that fact, their worship goes in vain. Listen to Jesus' own words:

Matthew 15:9
And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Their practise of christianity is derived from the RCC, which built theirs on the foundation of paganism, even though they call upon Christ, and profess that He is Saviour and Lord, yet fail to do His Father's will. Listen to what Jesus said about such:

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

@ Sage

Leave them be Sage. Time is the master of everything.

@ Softee

You may think it is very hypocritical of me to say this as i have done this quite a lot. However i stopped when Christ layed it on my heart to do so. I haven't debated or wrote one religious comment since last year august.

CHRISTIANS

Christ said himself that the world hated him first. It is unlikely that us arguing and trying to put his word across to unbelievers who don't want to hear, but mock the word is going to change their opinion. I don't think there is anything wrong with informing a nonbeliever or reasurring someone of course, but debating is a problem that Christ himself said don't do. It is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that a non-beliver can be transformed and we all need to trust the Holy Spirit.

You see what makes us differen't is that we have the gift of the Holy Spirit so we do not need to take part in Religious Debating. We serve a powerful God, A God of Concequences and A God of Love.

Remember whoever will perish will perish.

Satan is moving and has blinded the eyes of Men.

I tend to agree with you to some extent, as much as I love to debate. Debates can be informative and educational if and when they are conducted in the right spirit, and under a more controlled situation. Because this is a virtual forum there is no real control. Persons are free to say whatever comes to their mind and often times get away with it.

They insult, mock, jeer, and do all sorts of things just to carry a point over. , but such is life.

And there is absolutely nothing to stop them either.

@ babyosisi

Christ is the only way, not a denomination.

Yes Christ is the way, and no one is doubting that. In all honesty you need to define what a denomination is. After you do that lookat your place of worship and say whether or not it is not a denomination. If denomination doesn't matter then why is it you are here debating about what is true or not true?

If a JW, or a SDA were to invite you to one of their meetings for a bible study would you go? Why is it you would go to some assemblies versus not going to others? Its because deep down you know that there is something about the ones you have rejectd that don't quite match up with what you have been taught, and still happen to believe.

Chances are probably your pastor might have told you to avoid those cultic groups, huh? 

@Backslider

If you go by the scripture you will see that in him do all things consist and there nothing that was created that was not done by him he is the high Servant or High Priest. I speaking in the Spirit and flesh. He is the creator of all things so he Created himself as Jesus Christ ( MAN)

The Son of God became a man. He wasn't created as one. Even though the bible says "He was made flesh, " that is just its way of saying that the Son took on humanity. Try as we may we cannot fathom that mystery.

But In spirit he The Son Of God was never created. He came down and was made man as Jesus leaving all the power and authority as The Almighty God That I will forever worship to be become mortal man and that in his death and resurrection we might Have Zoe (life).

Let me ask you this question. At what point did Jesus become the Son of God? Was He the Son of God before He became a man, or was it before? Just curious to know what you believe.

When the bible refers to the Son as "the only Begotten", what does it mean? Was there a time when the Son was not begotten?

This brings into sharp focus whether or not Christ and the Father are co-eternal. One school of thought suggests that at one point God the Father alone existed, and that He divided Himself in two, thus begetting the Son.

Another school of thought suggests and which is supported by the bible is that Both beings are co-eternal. They both share the same substance and attributes. The only difference is their roles.

Christ assumed a role of humility. Paul in Phillipians makes that very clear. Although He possessed divine attributes, just as His Father, He chose to become a man in order that He might die for the sin of the world.

Now Oracle8 would have us believe that because Christ prayed to His Father while on earth and called His Father God even while praying makes Jesus lesser. He goes on to quote some other texts that shows the total dependence that Jesus had on His Father, to suggests that Jesus was not almighty, and hence inferior.

I would say this much to Oracle8; don't confuse Christ's submissive role when He was a man setting an example for us, with whom Christ really was and still is. Christ was and still is, fully God, and fully man, yet He could not exercise both God-like and human attributes at the same time. I know some will take me to task on this, but I will still hold my ground on this.

My take is simply this. Christ is fully God, but when He became man in order to show sinful mankind how to live the life that counts, He did so as a man totally dependent on His Father. He could not because of choice, use His Godly power to gain the victory. Every victory that Christ gained He gained through His Father's power. Thats why He said "I can do nothing of myself, "

Trust me this is deep stuff. Christ knew what was at stake, and that is why He prayed to His Father in the garden not for His (Jesus) will to be done, but for the Father's will to be done.

Excellent thread!

I myself have thought about what the bible means about the untimely death. Can a person die before his or her time? I ted to believe so.

@ Shahan

Right, so when I stated the case for BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY, you refer to it as a version that has caught a cold. No worries, because while you think you're being funny, you little realise how you're actually attacking the Word of God. Carry on.

You'll soon find out who is attacking what!

In that case, are you admitting to two things:

(a) SDA is the only Church of God today and all others are going to hell?

Those are your words not mine. Besides, we are not discussing hell here are we? As I have said so many times, the SDA church is the best representation of what God intended His church to be, in terms of doctrines, and lifestyle practise. I am not saying that the SDA church is perfect, and at least I am honest enough to say that. God's church is continually growing by His grace, until we take on the "fullness of the stature of Christ" (see Eph. 4)

(b) So, inspite of your problems with other denominations, you don't even have full confidence in the members of SDA?

So why should I have confidence in men may I ask? I have full confidence in Jesus Christ and His word. You as well as I know that you will always have un-converted people in all denominations, including mine. So, please avoid trying to send the wrong ideas about what I am really trying to say.

My emphasis is doctrines which lead to a particular lifestyle. Once someone is sold on God's will and instructions as being more important than one's wishes and fancies about christianity, then you're ok with me. That is why I said that in all denominations there are God's people who are just waiting to hear the truth presented. Jesus said "you shall know the truth and it shall set you free"

The problem is that what they are exposed to is the doctrines and traditions of men. I say down with man's traditions and false teachings. Let us rebuild the old places. Let us restore the will and instructions of God so that the curse will be lifted from the land. Listen to what God's word has said:

Isaiah 24:5

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

They the innocent in babylon have been taught to ignore God's eternal law and covenant, and even the blind can see what is taking place upon the land. Lawlessness prevails.

Which means that the SDA has no errors??

That is for you to show me. I wouldn't be there if I had any problems.

I didn't query the splinter groups but SDA as a whole. Specifically, has Ellen G. White not propagated any heresies that the SDA church promotes and holds up until now?

As for Ellen White I haven't read all her material as yet, because of the huge volumes of books she has written. But so far I haven't read anything that would suggest heresy. And even if she made mistakes that doesn't necessarily mean that she wasn't called as a messenger of God for our time.

What I do know is that millions have come to know Jesus because of her writings. No other woman has written more in terms of volume than E.G. White.

Shahan there are several sites that point to the so-called heresies of Ellen White. A lot of things that were said by her have been taken out of context, and that is why I don't bother anymore about such criticisms.