This is what I find so deficient and lacking in our correspondence. I make many solid points and they are ignored. There is no acknowledgement even when you know I am right. You'd think that if you believe what I say is false, then you'd point out why. Likewise I'd like to do the same but this is not possible upon ignorance of points.

EGW has a great quote--

"When their questions have been fairly answered, they turn the subject and bring up another point to avoid acknowledging the truth."(Test. to Min. p.108)

We can proceed in the original format. Remember when you replied like this??

***********

question and points addressed on this point

***********

question and answer addressed on this point

***********

and so forth.

***********

Why do I think this is important? Because we want to arrive at truth, yes? We are not here to promote "our" agenda are we?

Do you not realize that both you and I can learn things from the other, things we did not know?

Other wise it becomes as EGW said an jump around exercise and with no real goal to arrive at -Truth. Which is Jesus.(John 14:6)

Is it possible to return to that clear format with you? If so I would be happy to keep my end of the deal and address each and every point you wish to make.

Are you sure you want to find truth, or is your aim just to lead people through Houteff's studies?

Is your aim to convince us that Houteff is a prophet, or is it to present Biblical truth? I have lots of reasons why I do not agree with Houteff's teachings. I see HUGE contradictions and I've voiced them.

To find the TRUTH one has to look at the BIGGER PICTURE involved in the subject under discussion. And when the end destination is so obviously way off -- why look for remote little statements from EGW to try to prove that she supports something SHE OBVIOUSLY does not support?

And remember you have been overwhelming things with Houteff's writings on all sorts of subjects to confuse the issues.

I read several of them in the last few weeks and they did not convince me, in fact it did the opposite.
I hope and pray that you will see the error in those teachings for they do not lead to Christ in the end, but to an earthly kingdom where someone reigns in the place of Christ.

Anytime we focus on the teachings of a man other than Christ, question marks are raised in my mind. When we have "a more sure word of prophecy," why should we give so much heed to a mere man?

Study the Word of God. It will be all we ever need.

(Note of clarification: "word of God" includes all inspired writings of God's prophets, e.g. Ellen White and the Bible.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ded- Are you sure you want to find truth, or is your aim just to lead people through Houteff's studies?

Gsll-- I want the truth, and wherever that is found (upon close investigation) I'm on board.

Ded- Is your aim to convince us that Houteff is a prophet, or is it to present Biblical truth? I have lots of reasons why I do not agree with Houteff's teachings. I see HUGE contradictions and I've voiced them.

Gsll-- My aim is to show FIRST the Scriptures. And in them we find the all Truth. Sure you have reasons, but just be aware, you may soon find someday that you have ignored the "rejected" message that we now know is the TRUE message from the Lord.

I see total harmony and this is why I want to share what the Elijah message encompasses. But for you to come and respond back and yet when I have shown you your error, and you by- pass that then that tells mes it's not truth you're seeking but an agenda (your ideas of truth).

Ded- I read several of them in the last few weeks and they did not convince me, in fact it did the opposite.
I hope and pray that you will see the error in those teachings for they do not lead to Christ in the end, but to an earthly kingdom where someone reigns in the place of Christ.

Gsll- all I can say is that one of us is being deceived. For there is only ONE Spirit of Truth, and it's this One that GUIDES US INTO ALL TRUTH. (John 16:13)

Ok , again, you did not answer my questions. Do you want to go over point by point with the mentioned outline, or not?

Gl&l wrote:-- My aim is to show FIRST the Scriptures. And in them we find the all Truth. Sure you have reasons, but just be aware, you may soon find someday that you have ignored the "rejected" message that we now know is the TRUE message from the Lord.


The "REJECTED MESSAGE", mentioned in EGW's writings is not about Houteff's message, the message that must take root is the message of Righteousness by Faith in Christ.

The message of Righteousness in Christ is the TRUE message from the Lord. The true message which the church needs was given in 1888 when the latter rain began to fall, but the thorns and thistles and rocks of life have been choking out that message. We need to sense our need for Christ, and hunger and thirst after His righteousness, that His righteousness can take deep root in our lives.




GL&L wrote: when I have shown you your error, and you by- pass that then that tells mes it's not truth you're seeking but an agenda (your ideas of truth).


I by pass some of your comments because I've already explained it several times in previous posts and find it just isn't accepted by you. Why go round and round forever on something we just don't agree upon. You have not convinced me that I am in error, but rather I am even more convinced that Houteff's basic message (though clothed with a layer of truth) is a very deceptive ERROR




GL&L wrote: all I can say is that one of us is being deceived. For there is only ONE Spirit of Truth, and it's this One that GUIDES US INTO ALL TRUTH. (John 16:13)


I can agree on that point.



GL&L wrote Ok , again, you did not answer my questions. Do you want to go over point by point with the mentioned outline, or not?

Posts were getting far too long to answer everything in the few hours I have in the evening. (I like to do other things during that time as well)

Nor do I want to be led down a path that restricts the broader picture from view.
When each persons broader picture on a subject is completely different, trying to convince someone of a particular detail in one person's picture just doesn't work.
One can actually agree on the WORDS used, but totally disagree with the interpretation or conclusions attached.

Keeping on one subject would be good, though it seems subjects keep merging into one another

Yes, agreed. One point at a time, that is why I said this format

*****
point raised and point addressed
*****
Same
*****
it's a better way to focus on each point. As it was done before. if it's one thing I find worthless is to jump around and not have any points cleared(Agreed upon or at least admitted as viable)

As I said I learned from the many Sunday keeper discussions

SDA tie themselves up mightily, always having to add footnotes to their hypocritical appeal to "sola scriptura".

///

All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

"Sola scriptura" is defined in the Bible. By definition, Mrs. White's writings are scripture.

The hypocrisy exists where people do not take the Bible to mean what it says.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. {1SM 21.1}

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). {1SM 21.2}

The Lord speaks to human beings in imperfect speech, in order that the degenerate senses, the dull, earthly perception, of earthly beings may comprehend His words. Thus is shown God's condescension. He meets fallen human beings where they are. The Bible, perfect as it is in its simplicity, does not answer to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. Instead of the expressions of the Bible being exaggerated, as many people suppose, the strong expressions break down before the magnificence of the thought, though the penman selected the most expressive language through which to convey the truths of higher education. Sinful beings can only bear to look upon a shadow of the brightness of heaven's glory.--Letter 121, 1901. {1SM 22.3}

And when God does speak clearly as through His Son, the testimony is rejected...

Indeed, by your own definition. But I was alluding to the common observation that prophethood in our day is like a buffet. People choose what they find palatable: you, EGW; the SR, both EGW and Houteff. To the LDS, Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon is scripture. And so on.

When did the Bible lose its sheen and bright lustre for you?

///