|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
JESUIT DIALOGUES !!
(Dan T, after appearing on a discussion forum and vouching for someone who was accused of being a Jesuit, then, naturally, immediately went into attack mode against Ellen White and used the same tactics that identified the other fellow as being a Jesuit. He here starts out by complimenting someone who only posts attacks against Ellen White.)
| Dan T. (The Jesuit) |
| Our Comments |
Randy,
Great post.
Until I unshackled my chains and took off my blindfold, I accepted everything E.G. White wrote as gospel -- literally. I didn't know any better. That is how I was raised. My parents, being good and faithful SDAs all their lives, have almost every E.G. White book ever printed. During our Friday evening worships he would read to us from -- you guessed it -- E.G. White books. Even now, when my Dad has some free time to read, guess what he turns to. The Bible? No, he reaches for a E.G. White book. His Bible rarely sees the light of day.
Obviously, this is not indicative of every SDA church member. But I cannot count the number of similar stories I've heard from other SDAs and former SDAs. The church, whether they wish to admit it or not, encourages its members to regard the writings of E.G. White as *equal* to the Bible.
[The first problem, as usual, is that these all told us that we can have our honest views and that no one is to ridicule or put down anybody for them. As you can see, true Adventists neither hate nor have a problem with people just because they disagree as this strange person has often stated. This is just one main indicator that the person is a Jesuit. No one who tells us that we must expect that people are going to disagree, are supposed to be narrating about any "blindfold" that they see in others who disagree with their views. True Adventists were not the ones who brought in all this debate with the intent to destroy Adventist doctrine. It was the Jesuits who brought in this condition. One main indicator of a person being a Jesuit is that he will continually bring in rules and principles upon us that he has no intention to keep.
Yet please remember that the second readily visible problem with this person is that he is not here focusing upon Christ, as the rest never really do, but merely blasphemously uses the name of Christ in order to hide their papal agenda.]
I've heard statements from reputable sources that indicate about one-third of SDA pastors do not believe that E.G. White was an inspired messenger of God. Another third have serious doubts, and the rest are die-hard supporters.
Why do many have doubts? You have correctly pointed out some of the reasons, Ray, and there are many more:
On the question: Was Adam Deceived by Satan?
E.G. White: (YES) "Satan, who is the father of lies, deceived Adam in a similar way, telling him that he need not obey God, that he would not die if he transgressed the law." (Evangelism, p. 598)
The Bible: (NO) "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (1 Timothy 2:14)
[Both statements are correct, depending upon how you look at the issue. Adam was not deceived in the sense that the Lord told him not to eat of the fruit. Regardless of anything any serpent said, Adam knew. If Adam was with Eve at the time she was tempted, she would never have been fooled.
Yet again, Adam was deceived upon another very critical point. When he realized that Eve was lost, he thought that the best course to pursue was to eat the fruit along with her. In the process, he rationalized the idea that God, who had often demonstrated such love to them, would, in the time of the greatest fear, look the other way and not punish them for their transgression. Adam became deceived by his love to Eve. He did not bother to think that Eve could have been replaced, and after Adam actually did the deed, he afterward lamented that he had done it. He therefore WAS deceived in that sense.]
Or, how about this one: Did God Send Ravens to Feed Elijah?
E.G. White: (NO) "There He honored Elijah by sending food to him morning and evening by an angel of heaven." (Testimonies, Vol. 3, p. 288, 1873)
The Bible: (YES) "I have ordered the ravens to feed you... The ravens brought him bread and meat." (1 Kings 17:4, 6)
But then Mrs. White changes her mind three years later and says: (YES) "He who fed Elijah by the brook, making a raven His messenger." (Testimonies, Vol. 4, p. 253, 1876)
[The person here is struggling to deceive his hearers by picking at every word and forcing them to conform to contemporary standards. Yes the ravens did feed Elijah, and YES, the reason why they had sense to do that was because they were guided by an angel. At times the bible even may say that an angel appeared to someone, and elsewhere we learn that it is Christ.]
Another question: Was Adam With Eve When She Was Tempted in The Garden?
E.G. White: (NO) "The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger... She soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree." (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 53 & 54)
The Bible: (YES) "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." (Genesis 3:6)
[Eve, after eating of the fruit, ran to Adam with it, and therefore Adam "was with her." You must understand here therefore what is being said. This man is trying to tell us that Adam was with Eve all that time and just stood by and watched her pick of the fruit and eat. Therefore, just as this person was stating that he had a mandate to expose the "inconsistencies" and "deceptions" of Ellen White, you must understand that he did not take too kindly when his inconsistencies were here exposed. He, and the Jesuits in general, then go into all kinds of guilt-tripping, trying to shame us into thinking that it is unloving, unchristian, and even criminal to expose their inconsistencies while they continued a barrage of attack against Ellen White and the Adventist Church without a problem. THAT IS JESUITISM! That is not a matter of having a problem with someone just because they disagree. This very charge is typical Jesuit tactics!]
Yet another one: Was The Plan of Salvation Made After The Fall?
E.G. White: (YES) "The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race." (Great Controversy, p. 347)
The Bible: (NO) "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake." (1 Peter 1:18-20)
The Bible: (NO) "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." (Ephesians 1:4)
[The plan of salvation was INSTITUTED after the fall. It cannot be done before when no emergency existed. IT WAS PLANNED or CREATED before the fall, but it was actually put into practice after it.]
It's not just the contradictions with the Bible that I found disturbing, it's also the fact that she continually contradicted herself:
Are We Required to Kneel Every Time We Pray?
(YES) "Where have our brethren obtained the idea that they should stand upon their feet praying to God? One who has been educated about five years in Battle Creek was asked to lead in prayer before Sister White should speak to the people. But as I beheld him standing upright upon his feet while his lips were about to open in prayer to God, my soul was stirred within me to give him an open rebuke. Calling him by name, I said, "Get down on your knees! This is the proper position always." (Selected Messages, Book 2, p. 311)
(YES) "Both in public and private worship, it is our duty to bow down before God when we offer our petitions to Him." (Selected Messages, Book 2, p. 311)
(NO) "We need not wait for an opportunity to kneel before God. We can pray and talk with the Lord wherever we may be." (Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 266)
(NO) "It is not always necessary to bow upon your knees in order to pray." (Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 267)
[Need we answer this!??]
And I could go on and on... The contradictions with the Bible and with her own writings began to appear glaringly in my research -- and continue to do so as I delve deeper into SDA history and theology.
[Now listen closely to these words:]
-- It bothers me when I read her statements that indicate she wrote every word in her books, through inspiration, then find out that much of her work was plagiarized or written by her assistants.
-- It bothers me when SDAs believe her to be a chosen prophet of God and elevate her to such lofty status without serious critical thought.
-- It bothers me when SDAs choose to ignore the discrepancies in her teachings, and flippantly dismiss critics as being "Jesuits."
-- It bothers me when SDAs claim that they are the only true church, the "remnant church," and all others will perish.
-- It bothers me when SDAs claim that those who oppose their messages regarding Sabbath and meat-eating will not be admitted into Heaven.
-- It bothers that some of the SDA teachings do not have a biblical foundation.
-- It bothers me that SDAs point to "Jesuit infiltration" as proof that they are recognized by Rome as the true church. What they fail to say is that ALL Protestant churches are outreach objectives of Rome, including Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others. If this "infiltration" is going on in other denominations then what makes SDAs special? If they are the true church why would Rome be expending valuable resources on the others?
[The first problem is that, "IT BOTHERS ME." Often, when God's people stand up to oppose the Vatican attack on the forums and in their churches, these tell them that they need to stop and rest in Christ. They frequently even posted in on the forums against the concerns of Jesuit Infiltration. These tell them that they need to focus upon Christ, and allowing anything to bother them is an indicator that they are not focused upon Christ. When we alert about the attack from Rome, they post in misapplied scripture and ask us whether or not Christ can defeat all enemies. They then post in their great concern about a little "insignificant" woman they told us was struck in the head with a rock (Ellen White).
Another thing they tell us is that everyone is to be only concerned about his own spiritual life. They are not to be concerned about what anyone else is doing, thinking or believing. Here this author and the rest of them violate this precept without any conscience. Remember also that they told us we must expect that people will differ and disagree with our views.
Lastly here, in every attack you just can't help noticing that everyone who participates is ECUMENICAL. It is ONLY such people who are concerned that there are churches in the world (other than Rome) that claim to be the true church. They will always express their irritation about this, because their purpose is for all the churches to give up their doctrines that distinguish them from others, so that they can all join together in union, singing and worship, all ultimately to be under Rome. This is the part they keep secret until there is no stopping them.
It is odd that there are people around telling us to focus on Christ and not be concerned about any attack upon their church, to then consistently reveal all of their concerns. This is Jesuit activity, for Christians do not do these things. If there is any honest reader here who believes that Christians do perform the tactics listed here that we identify as Jesuit activity, please email us.]
If we can't think critically, or aggressively pursue the truth, then what are we? We're brainwashed.
[When we defended the truth about their attacks upon Ellen White and Adventism, they told us that CHRIST IS THE TRUTH! We are not lying. They literally told us that. Afterwards, they posted all their "research" not on Christ, but on Ellen White, and pointed us to websites they claimed preached, "THE TRUTH," and all those websites focused exclusively at attacking Ellen White and Adventist doctrines. When we reminded them about their own words, they naturally ridiculed and ignored us. Jesuits are trained to have no conscience.]
It's as simple as that. If we blindly accept the teachings of Mrs. White without fail, and refuse to expose ourselves to the possibility that she may not be what SDAs claim, then we do ourselves a grave injustice. If she is, indeed, an inspired prophet then what do we have to fear? Truth will always reveal itself plainly.
[We do not leave it up to the judgment of people who claimed to love a diversity of views and arranged it so that everything within Adventism has become a debate forum to tell us whether or not we blindly follow anything. They told us that we can have our views and should expect that people would not agree with us, then they soon post about how blind we are. Christians cannot use these tactics!]
Now, some might say that this proves nothing; that Mrs. White was never purported to be infallible. After all, she's only human and therefore susceptible to errors just like everyone else. Besides, she herself predicted that people would find fault with her writings. And since this is actually happening, she must truly be a prophet.
This is like a student proclaiming to his class that he will get an A+ on his test, but saying that the teacher will certainly find something wrong. If the student was absolutely sure that he got every answer correct, why would he make such a statement?
Likewise, if Mrs. White was absolutely convinced that her writings were inspired why would she predict such a controversy?
[Problem is that in truth who can explain the GREAT SURGE of attack against Ellen White and Adventism today as she has predicted to take place just before probation? Ellen White was always attacked, but she is now being attacked like never before in the history of the planet. That is what she had predicted. Still yet, people who so flagrantly told us that we must not be critical are not supposed to be the ones to fulfill her prophecy!
But ultimately understand that Ellen White is being attacked because to believe one is to disbelieve the other. If these are successful in turning your minds from believing that the teachings of Ellen White are bible-based, they will not then leave you alone for you to figure out what is truth for yourselves, but they will continue to guide you into principles that will make you succumb to the ecumenical movement under Rome. They will guide you into forgetting all your understandings of the prophecies which expose the Papacy.]
Shouldn't truly inspired writings be able to stand up to any challenge? No one would argue that the Bible is not an inspired work. Yet why hasn't the Bible produced similar discrepancies? Are there differences between inspired writings? Are some more inspired than others?
[Yes, any inspired writings can stand up to any challenge--even if dirty tactics are used, just so long as the people open their minds and think. Yet problem is that this man has asked why the Bible has not produced discrepancies. Well I have to state very plainly that the bible HAS produced discrepancies in the same nature as those of Ellen White AND FAR MORE INTENSELY. In both cases the story is the same: ONCE UNDERSTOOD, there is PERFECT harmony with the Scriptures. ONCE UNDERSTOOD, there is harmony with the writings of Ellen White, except where she herself had admitted that there were misconceptions.
In various sections of this website, we see discrepancies found in the scriptures that we would naturally find if we attempt to fit its lessons in with 21st century language and understanding.
We learned that there are many discrepancies with the gospel. Multitudes of people argue that the Ten Commandments are to be kept, while multitudes of others claim that it says that they are dangerous to be even considered. Most all the churches used to proudly support the Ten Commandments even at the turn of the 20th century. That has all changed now, and this fact tolls against the statement of the Jesuit that the bible does not produce discrepancies. It does to unstable or evil minds.
Even somewhere in the language of Paul, we see that we can find discrepancies. The very multiplicity of denominations today proves to us that, according to contemporary understanding, the bible has far more discrepancies than do Ellen White's writings. This is because the scriptures are not properly understood. The same is true of Ellen White's writings to a lesser degree, for her writings are clearer in the language of the day. An understanding of her writings has never and will never produce as many different groups that claim to support her as those which have appeared that claim to support the scriptures. The statement made by our Jesuit example is FALSE.]
Ask any devout Mormon if they believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and they will answer in the affirmative. They will be able to "prove" it through selected quotes and comparisons with the Bible. Then ask them which one is the final authority and they will say that the Bible is, of course. Joseph Smith, they will say, is only a light that sheds additional insight on the Bible. Sound familiar?
Yet I would venture to guess that there are more than a few Mormons who have their doubts about Smith and his teachings. I would also say that there are a few ex-Mormons who are actively trying to pursuade other Mormons to seek the truth about their "prophet." And since Joseph Smith made similar claims about the authenticity and possible challenge of his writings, do you think that there are Mormons who point to this as the proof that theirs must be the true church?
Those of us who question the traditional SDA view that E.G. White was a prophet are not attempting to incite an argument or distract the faithful from the real issues facing the church. We are not trying to subvert, infiltrate, attack, or slander. We are simply trying to understand how reasoning people, when presented with various evidence, can choose to turn away and refuse to look objectively at what is being presented.
[But there are many Adventists who have doubts about Dan T. and the barrage of ecumenical posters on the forums everywhere claiming to be Adventists or former Adventists. Are they being allowed to disagree? When these Adventists tell them to leave, do they go? or do we find that our church itself is being refashioned to what these are telling us whether we like it or not?
The whole statement is a lie, but still when we presented to this person and the rest why they continually tell us that we must expect that people are going to disagree with us, while they yet now tell us that we are blind and unreasonable, they always refuse to present an answer to us. They then continue the attack and continue to call us blind, AND ALSO CONTINUE TO TELL US THAT WE MUST EXPECT THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIFFER WITH US. Yet what they are contending with her now, is not to make us leave Ellen White and accept Christ. They are telling us to leave Ellen White AND FOLLOW THEM, in their interpretation of the scriptures contrary to Ellen White's, and they will lead us in the ecumenical movement to their Pope.
Now next comes a very cleverly placed statement. Most Jesuits, just before their attacks, tell us that we must not criticize or condemn, for this is contrary to the spirit of love and of Christ. We had been belted by this dogma so often during the last decade that we should never be deceived upon this point ever again! This person is just one who had been pointed out as violating this principle. He therefore planned ahead and added this very clever statement:]
Does looking critically at the very foundation of the SDA church prevent us from the spreading the love of God or witnessing to others? Of course not.
[He is therefore justifying his and his friends CONTINUAL and OBSESSIVE attack upon Ellen White and Adventism by adding this statement. Again, he was not pleased when even the inconsistencies and deceptions of this post was exposed on that forum.
Next, they have to continually ridicule the honest views of others who have found that they always use Jesuit tactics. They do all in their power to have others laugh at those who know that Jesuits now terribly infiltrate the Adventist Church, and most everywhere attached to power, knowledge and influence the eye can see. They often call such "conspiracy theorists"--the very name suggesting that those who have their honest views should not be taken seriously, but everyone must think the new way they are directing us:]
I can't speak for the other "Jesuits," but once I began to see the church for what it was, and embarked on a quest for the truth as taught in the Bible, a great feeling of joy came over me and my spirit was uplifted. I felt that a great weight had been lifted from me -- the weight of guilt and uncertainty that remained with me through my days in the SDA church. I no longer felt that I was carrying the weight of sin on my shoulders, but rather Christ was now doing it for me. It was such a wonderful feeling, and remains with me to this day. It makes me want to shout to the hills and proclaim His love to everyone. PRAISE GOD!
[This is a typical tactic. There was one Jesuit on that forum that to this day only always posts attacks upon Ellen White. That is literally all he does. Unlike the others, this one hardly even mentions the name or love of Christ to cover his hate.
The problem is that this one also claims to have been successful in turning the minds of Adventists from the church to "THE TRUTH." He would tell them to purchase some book or to visit some website condemning Ellen White, and then would recite how the peace of Christ suddenly came over those people through realizing that Ellen White was a phony. When we told them that we thought both peace and salvation came only through Christ, they just continued the attack and posted how everyone must find "THE TRUTH" that Ellen White is a phony.
Now this Jesuit makes a statement to in some way dilute the force of truth that will appear in response to his deceptions here. He therefore writes:]
I will undoubtedly catch the wrath of George and/or his followers for this post. Frankly, I welcome it. It means that they find me important enough to respond to, or that something I have said hit a chord with them. But I will ask them this: Rather than respond with criticism toward MY statements, respond to the inaccuracies and deceit evident in Mrs. White's writings.
[Ellen White is ALWAYS more important to talk about and to respond to than is Christ. When this is brought to them how they violate their own rules so freely, they just ignore it and continue the attack. All this bears on the historic lessons learned of the Militia of the Papacy. Our neglect of studying this information is going to cost us DEARLY!]
Ask this of yourselves: If you truly believe that E.G. White was an inspired prophet, how do you explain all of the inaccuracies and blatant contradictions, not only with the Bible but within her own writings? If you choose to respond, please limit your response to this question without carrying on about how typical this is of the "forum Jesuits" and how we are attempting to divert attention away from the "real issues." Thank you.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
DT
[This person has proved no such blatant inaccuracies, inconsistencies or deceptions, but he must do what he can to force the issue whether we agree or not. He claims that he has proven this and disregards his eternal statement that people can disagree with him. This is one clear inconsistency you will always find with them, and you will definitely know they are Jesuits when they demonstrate to you that they have no intention of repenting of this sin.
The people were alerted that these were Jesuits so that they can understand what is necessary to do for their own protection. Most do not understand that these are the most dangerous people on the globe. Soon they will know and understand, and they will be offended at the Lord for not alerting them about this, when the warnings are all around for them to see, but they refuse to see it.]
END
TO THE ADVENTIST BETRAYAL PAGE
