where does she say that? and if we are going to go by scripture, where does it say that in the scriptures?



and what is the proof of this?

amazingly, and who knows why, the papacy had the scriptures for centuries and still painstakingly copied it word for word. why they didnt change the scriptures during all those centuries to make it say what they wanted it to say is absolutely amazing, wouldnt you think?

You can do an EGW database search with the word apostasy and find it yourself. EGW called it Omega apostasy and there was another label, however, really I don't want to waste my time on it. I'm not here to point fingers and to find the dirty laundry of the Church. To me it's a waste of precious time.

Again same thing as above. I'm not interested in wasting my time on that. Green is showing how new versions of Scriptures has been tampered with, so I'll leave him to show you what he's discovered. Everyone has their gifts, and it's not mine.

However, I'm interested in reading what Green has discovered. Already, I learn something very important with Green's research and I'm grateful for that. I'm looking forward to other of his post.

All I have said is that I acknowledge that it is very possible that EGW writings was tampered with. And some proves has already been brought to you. However, you seem to think it is not valid. So maybe, someone will come on the forum with a good research with quantitive proves beyond measure gathered from comparing different editions of EGW writings.

Regardless, I want to stand on Scripture and Scripture alone for all matter of doctrines.

Regarding #111315, I agree with your point that the fact that Jesus could be tempted implies He took fallen nature, and for the reasons that you give. I've tried to make this argument in the past, without effect. Maybe I should try it the way you presented it!

Tom you mean #111314 right? #111315 is my reply to Rosangela.

Well, you know, these pre or post-laps terminology and arguments was getting frustrating to me and it was a lot for me to learn. I'm not saying I understand the issue and that's why I'm digging. Anyway I don't want to prove any views including my own. I just want to know the truth.

But there's a possibility that this study about the immortality might shed light on the incarnation of Christ and see fully what Paul understood in the power of the Gospel. I think these are quite important and holds tons of blessings to those who study and keep the words which we need, to pull us through the end-times.

Elle, regarding Ellen White's saying the church will apostatize, I don't know where you got that idea. There are many statements which contradict this idea. For example:



It's true that the church is in a sad condition, being rich and increased with good needing nothing, not aware of its true condition. However, the church will respond to the message to the church of Laodicea and repent. Don't know when, but it will happen.

it seems to me that if a person is going to make accusations they should be able to back them up. i would suggest that either you did not understand what she said, or that indeed you have been to the sites that say these things.

i personally have already checked and found it all untrue.



elle: Again same thing as above. I'm not interested in wasting my time on that. Green is showing how new versions of Scriptures has been tampered with, so I'll leave him to show you what he's discovered. Everyone has their gifts, and it's not mine. [/quote]

if you go back and study the issues it isnt that the versions have been "tampered" with, they come from different manuscripts.





and where were the "proves already brought to (me)" on this thread that i started, or anywhere else?
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forum...7167#Post107167

you havent been privy to my discussions with others on other sites, unfortunately, but if there are any "proves" surely someone could produce them.



then perhaps you might like to contribute to this study......
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forum...5744#Post105744

I agree with what Teresa said, especially important being this point:



I've seen this a lot on this forum, which is unfortunate. I think an easy way to avoid this is to simply be more careful with the language one uses. If you're not sure of something, perhaps ask a question, or put things in such a way that the uncertainty is clear. We should be very careful with things we assert.

Please delete in you mind what I said about the apostasy. I never studied the subject, and I don't know what I'm saying and I just repeated what I've heard from many many individual including leaders. I really don't care to go into that subject. And I agree with you, that I shouldn't of said it in a assertive way, but as a question. So please forgive me.

However, you rebuked me for this comment:
1. which could be a true comment, or a false. So for an individual to have concluded using this term depends on the individuals knowledge of the true foundation our pioneers has laid, and their knowledge of the doctrines, and how much of a deviation someone think deserve the term apostasy.
2. which was my respond to Teresa's false accusations of my person in explaining my thoughts. If you read from the beginning you will see what I mean.
3. but don't say nothing about Teresa's two faults accusations she did on my person.
4. She never apologized or even brought proved about those accusation. I don't want her to bring proved about my person on this thread. If she wants to open another thread and try to proved what she has accused me. That's fine with me, but as it is right now, she owes me an apology.

Already lot's of post has been brought here about things that wasn't relevant to this subject. So I would appreciate that any further comments, about apostasy or my motives on the forums can be brought to other posts. This thread is about the study of Immortality and Jesus death.

Elle, I looked back at the posts, but couldn't find anywhere where you were being accused personally. The only post I thought you even might be referring to is this one:



If this is the case, I think Teresa's points are right on, but aren't limited to you. Actually, I think everyone is guilty of this, to differing degrees. We all tend to interpret things (anything, Scripture, SOP, anything), according to how we see things.

Like Teresa, I would tend to be skeptical of interpretations which depend upon conspiracies to work (btw, one of the "complaints" I have against the idea that EGW was a prelapsarian, although, in this case, it requires a conspiracy of 1 -- maybe 2(?), I wonder if Prescott was in on it?).

One more point. First of all, I have no status to be judging another. I've certainly been guilty in my life of insensitivity. I try to be as careful as I can be in posts here to keep things issues related and not hurtful to people, as one is handicapped by not seeing the body language or hearing the voice of others, so the tone one writes always comes off several degrees stronger than it would in other circumstances. It seems to me that Teresa is being quite careful in the way she puts things, qualifying her statement with "it seems" and "I think" and so forth, which I think is very appropriate.