Cheap Copies of "The Great Controversy" Fill Big City Recycle Bins

Paul says we have already reached the target relationship, “children of God”:

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3: 24-29)

That are is present tense!

but paul himself also strongly suggests that whatever we are is ongoing, meaning there’s no arrival point, unlike what you appear to be insisting on:

“Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.” Phil 3:12.

as i read his comment, this ongoing quality is what Robert was getting at…

but in any case, whereas Paul says we’re adopted, other scripture suggests we’re begotten:

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.” 1Jn 5:1.

obviously Paul needs to be interpreted through the writings of those who knew more than him…and we can’t just latch onto one verse, or passage, in Paul…his entire extant output, full of superficial contradictions, needs to be internalized…

Now you’ve promoted Ellen above Paul? Yikes!

4 Likes

egw definitely knew more than Paul, no question…but that’s only because she came 2,000 yrs after him, and god revealed much more to her…

That’s your wild assumption! The Scripture is all sufficient, nothing to add and to take away. What she had written came from plagiarised material, not from revelation.

2 Likes

i would say that’s your wild assumption…you can’t prove that egw didn’t simply use the words of others to express the thoughts she received from revelation, which was her claim…

it’s a fact that she sometimes used several authors in a single page or even paragraph, which certainly argues against wholesale copying…and the fact that she left out of her own writings the vast majority of material in her sources also argues against wholesale copying…generally the moral lessons she draws, and especially the eye witness imprimatur she uses, are completely absent in her sources, which argues even further against wholesale copying…

as for comparisons with Paul, take a look at the thousands of pages of material she wrote about that is totally absent in Paul…even if we assume Paul wrote Hebrews, which is a big assumption, he simply didn’t understand the heavenly sanctuary like egw did, although we do have to give him credit for recognizing the typology of the OC sanctuary with respect to the NC sanctuary, which is more than we can say for the other bible writers…

1 Like

What if I proved?

Much of her writings were compiled from ‘wholesale’ plagiarised material.

Paul knew but he didn’t think it was necessary to dwell upon what was not necessary. But She gathered information from other pioneers, which was their own invention, and called it inspired!

3 Likes

she never claimed that the words she used, sometimes from others, was inspired…

2 Likes

Hey Jeremy, great seeing you again.
I have a question for you, pls:

According to what God showed EGW in a vision when Joseph Bates was present, how many moons do Saturn and Jupiter have?

3 Likes

So how can we discern which words were inspired and which were not?

3 Likes

Welcome back George! We missed you…,

5 Likes

How can someone know more than its creator?

3 Likes

She stated that everything she wrote was according to what she “was shown.”

Jeremy, You certainly know that she said that. WDYT, was it,

____ TRUE
____ FALSE

4 Likes

So now we fully know who the arbiter of truth is. It now appears there is one who knows more than EGW & Paul?

2 Likes

Actually, she did. When an assistant softened some of her unkind [and worse] words describing someone she disagreed with, she said every word she wrote was given to her by God and not a word was to be changed.

Despite the fact that she had hired them to rewrite and ghostwrite.

Go figure.

4 Likes

Thanks. But…, not that fast Elmer… :wink:
By the way, in the past we were able to see who gave us the “likes,” were we not? This “secrecy” now is not much encouraging.
But hey. let’s go back to the topic…Waiting for Jeremy’s @vandieman answers.

3 Likes

hi George, good to see you again, too…

like many others, you’re misunderstanding this account, which egw haters love to use…you’re thinking egw identified the planet with four moons she saw in vision as Jupiter, and the planet with seven moons, where she saw Enoch, as Saturn…in reality, egw didn’t identify these planets, or any of the planets she saw in vision…and she didn’t attempt to correlate what she saw with planets in our solar system…the fact that she saw humanoids on at least one planet actually means she saw planets outside our solar system, and likely outside our milky way…

it is Bates, an amateur astronomer, who affixed identities to the planets egw described, obviously in terms of what mid-19th century science knew at the time (James White ran with these identities afterwards, thinking Bates knew what he was talking about)…but before you beat up on Bates, or James White, understand that they had no way to know what all of us know, or think we know, namely that Jupiter has 79 moons, and Saturn 82…they can’t really be considered as villains…they’re just quaint, pathetic examples of how somewhat educated people thought at the time, at least in the case of Bates (James White was only marginally educated, due mainly to poor health and eyesight as a child)…and they give us a glimpse of just how primitive the world in which egw rose to immortal greatness really was…

2 Likes

Oh…, really?
Did EGW agree with Bates about the planets that she saw? This is just another Y/N question.
Sorry, I know you don’t like, and avoid answering Y/N questions, but they are the only ones that are helpful. Some things are black & white and don’t need some mental exercise to just justify fraudulent behavior. Like this one, she either agreed or disagreed with Bates identification of the planets that she saw. Which one was it?
I am not actually holding my breath expecting you to just answer it Y/N. But, I am askin’ anyway…

BTW, did you have the chance to read Steve Daily’s latest book on EGW? You don’t have to read the whole thing, I would love you reading and responding at least to his (literally) daily postings on the subject on his Facebook page. Check it out, a new post with extremely well documented facts about EGW, every day. Go to Facebook and search for “Steve Daily” - unless you prefer to not deal with so many facts, and would rather feel comfortable being unendingly duped.

4 Likes

my take of the story is that she neither agreed nor disagreed…but i wouldn’t have expected her to agree or disagree unless the vision was given to educate the church about our solar system, which it clearly wasn’t…

1 Like

Well, your take is “interesting.”
But this take is still much more factual, you may like it. Check it out:

https://www.facebook.com/stevengdailyphd/posts/490899882376555?notif_id=1642400330587614&notif_t=close_friend_activity&ref=notif

Also, if you have some spared time, you may like this unrelated story:

1 Like