Perfect pick-me-up, Elle! Thank you.

William

No, it wasn't. Here's the part I was referencing:



Just a bit later in the thread:



You made a couple of amazing statements here. "I simply disagree with your definition of probability." "Knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability" "Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree."

Or course, these are just fundamental concepts of probability. There's no "private definition" involved, nor is this a concept with which is "sometimes used" that someone can disagree with. As I pointed out (later in this thread), this would be akin to my saying "5 is an integer" and your responding "Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree."

You've said this before, and it's been pointed out to you before that there was more than one instance. There were at least four.

I don't know why you would think this significant, however. Isn't the fact she said it once enough to establish the point? I could see how if there were something unclear in what she said, or the context of it (as with the Baker letter) why one would be interested in more than example of a phrase, but in the case of MM 181, isn't what she wrote clear?



He had a "sinless nature" of His own, and upon that sinless nature He took "our sinful nature" for the purpose of succoring those who are tempted.

At any rate, here's another use:



This brings out a number of points I've been making.

1.Christ took "out sinful nature." Therefore the nature He took is like ours, since it is ours.
2.He did so to reveal God's character.
3.He pleased not Himself (taking our nature required His not pleasing Himself).

Yes, but this book doesn't say that Christ had no beginning. It says this:



This simply affirms that Christ proceeded forth and came from God some time long ago in the past, as per Proverbs 8, not that Christ had no beginning.



To assert that Christ's humanity had tendencies to sin is imprecise. This sort of error happens a lot. Ellen White has given us counsel to be extremely careful when dealing with this subject. To assert that Christ's humanity had tendencies to sin could convey the impression that Christ sinned, which is something to be avoided at all costs. Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature, and that sinful nature, like ours, had the tendencies to sin common to sinful nature (not due to one's actually sinning, of course).



If all the statements you think contradict Ellen White really did, the message God sent would have been very defective. It's really difficult to understand how such a defective message could be termed in any correct sense a "message from God" or how it could have been "showers from heaven of the latter rain."



Again, I think you could only make this statement, as well as the others I mentioned (such as agreeing with Prescott's sermon, or that knowing the outcome of an event does not impact the determination of its probability) by not having a familiarity with the subject upon which you are commenting. She didn't only endorse the "general thrust" of the message, which can be easily verified by simply reading her endorsements.

No, not for Jesus, but for His flesh.



He was like unfallen Adam in terms of being sinless, but He took the nature, or flesh, of Adam the transgressor.



So did Jesus. She made it clear that she believed this to be the case by endorsing Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh" as "truth separated from error." This sermon of Prescott's asserted several dozen times that Christ came in sinful flesh.

For example:

Yes, this is exactly the point. Well put.

this is both a true trinitarian position, as well as an antitrinitarian position. one proposes that Christ has been eternally begotten, and still is being begotten, and the other that Christ was begotten at some point in time, once.

but ellen white pointed out that Christ is eternal and self-existent. she didnt endorse waggoners view of Christ, nor uriah smiths, tho she did endorse smiths daniel and revelation.

Hi Teresa. Good point. I don't think you'd find anyone to disagree with you on this. Yet we also know how difficult it is to have millions of Bible readers come to agreement on one correct interpretation for any given text.

Here's how one Bible student understands Scripture on the HOC:

Christ was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3-4). What kind of flesh? “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). And where did Jesus condemn sin? He “condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3).

What nature did He take? “but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant [slave]” (Philippians 2:7, NIV).

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same [so that He could] deliver them who were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Hebrews 2:14-15).

Once again, what nature did Jesus take? “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:17).

How much like us was He? “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2:18).

What does this particular nature qualify Him to do? “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:17-18).

Did Christ share in my temptations and weaknesses? He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).

What was the purpose of the Incarnation? The Messiah came “to make an end of sins” (Daniel 9:24). John the Baptist, at Christ’s baptism and annointing, proclaimed Him as the “Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

William

i see no one wants to explain how they understand that. what the "clamorings of the flesh" are.

Yes, poor Tom. Sniff.

He wasn't such a bad bloke. I'll remember him well.