From the pen of Ellen White

[Magdala]

I was pondering taking up your challenge, and thinking, I'm a gold miner, not a silver miner, but the Lord said in my spirit, go to the link and see what you will find. So I did. I read the introduction, and the next 3 paragraphs. That was enough. God doesn't need to make me unwell these days I hear Him when He speaks, and in those first few paragraphs I found all i need to come back here and state, unequivocally, this woman is not receiving anything from God, but from Satan. Quote...She possessed the greatest purity that a creature of God could have. I grew up Catholic. I understand the "immaculate conception". I know it doesn't apply to Jesus, but to Mary's conception. It stems from the belief that Jesus couldn't inhabit the womb of a common human and live a sinless life, or He would be tainted, so needed a pure mother so as not to inherit the traits of humanity. That my friend is a lie. A deception designed by Satan to take Rnt focus away from Jesus, to Mary, hence her gradual elevation to today where she now presumably holds the lofty position of co-redemptrix and Mediatrix. I don't need to read any further. I reject her as a prophet of God. Visionary maybe, but Satan can give visions. Loyola and classic example. No. No. No. Not going there.

Firstly, my challenge was to read all five volumes of The Poem of the Man-God before making a conclusion about Maria Valtorta, just as the challenge you presented was to read all three books by Ellen G. White before making a conclusion about her.

Secondly, prior to your even reading the first three paragraphs of The Poem of the Man-God, you've made it clear it me in the past that you already reject Maria Valtorta as being a spokesman of God. Why? Because she's Catholic. You just confirmed it, despite trying to appear not prejudiced, because you refused to read the entire Work as challenged, and didn't even explain why it's not possible that your understanding regarding certain content within it is wrong.

By the way, the first chapter is a vision of Mary's parents and later visions of their conception of Mary, the future Mother of God in the flesh: Jesus. That in and of itself is a position unlike anyone else in the past, present, or future. It takes a certain kind of person to contain the Most Holy Pure God, and it's not as though Mary was born Immaculate of Her own doing. God did that. What She did do of Her own free will was maintain a good will, holiness, and purity throughout Her life, by God's Grace. If you kept reading, you'd read the visions of Jesus's conception, birth, childhood, three year ministry, trial, torture, death, Resurrection, Ascension, and events following the Ascension. And, throughout Jesus's life on Earth, from the visions you'd learn that Mary always directed people to Her Son, and that She constantly prayed and served others in some way, and She still does. You take issue with Mary's title "Co-redemptrix"? The prefix "co-" means "with: together: joint: jointly" and "having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility". Mary didn't do the act of redeeming like Jesus did, but She assisted Him in accomplishing that in various ways, which makes Her a "co-redeemer" because, for example, without Her bringing Jesus, our Redeemer, into the world to begin with, Jesus wouldn't have been able to redeem, would He? She assisted Him in helping Him accomplish what He came to do in other ways too throughout His life. And, She suffered along with Him, just as Simeon prophesied when She presented Jesus in the Temple. All suffering is redemptive as Jesus taught.

God isn't prejudiced, so why should you be? God speaks to whomever, whenever, and about whatever He wills. That doesn't mean there's not false claims of being God's spokesman, because there are, but it does mean that there's true claims too, and thus you shouldn't automatically reject them either, even if they come from a Catholic.

 

[Brakelite]

Firstly, my challenge was to read all five volumes of The Poem of the Man-God before making a conclusion about Maria Valtorta, just as the challenge you presented was to read all three books by Ellen G. White before making a conclusion about her.

Secondly, prior to your even reading the first three paragraphs of The Poem of the Man-God, you've made it clear it me in the past that you already reject Maria Valtorta as being a spokesman of God. Why? Because she's Catholic. You just confirmed it, despite trying to appear not prejudiced, because you refused to read the entire Work as challenged, and didn't even explain why it's not possible that your understanding regarding certain content within it is wrong.

By the way, the first chapter is a vision of Mary's parents and later visions of their conception of Mary, the future Mother of God in the flesh: Jesus. That in and of itself is a position unlike anyone else in the past, present, or future. It takes a certain kind of person to contain the Most Holy Pure God, and it's not as though Mary was born Immaculate of Her own doing. God did that. What She did do of Her own free will was maintain a good will, holiness, and purity throughout Her life, by God's Grace. If you kept reading, you'd read the visions of Jesus's conception, birth, childhood, three year ministry, trial, torture, death, Resurrection, Ascension, and events following the Ascension. And, throughout Jesus's life on Earth, from the visions you'd learn that Mary always directed people to Her Son, and that She constantly prayed and served others in some way, and She still does. You take issue with Mary's title "Co-redemptrix"? The prefix "co-" means "with: together: joint: jointly" and "having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility". Mary didn't do the act of redeeming like Jesus did, but She assisted Him in accomplishing that in various ways, which makes Her a "co-redeemer" because, for example, without Her bringing Jesus, our Redeemer, into the world to begin with, Jesus wouldn't have been able to redeem, would He? She assisted Him in helping Him accomplish what He came to do in other ways too throughout His life. And, She suffered along with Him, just as Simeon prophesied when She presented Jesus in the Temple. All suffering is redemptive as Jesus taught.

God isn't prejudiced, so why should you be? God speaks to whomever, whenever, and about whatever He wills. That doesn't mean there's not false claims of being God's spokesman, because there are, but it does mean that there's true claims too, and thus you shouldn't automatically reject them either, even if they come from a Catholic.

I dint need to swim the entire Arctic ocean to know its cold.

 

[Magdala]

I dint need to swim the entire Arctic ocean to know its cold.

No one does. But, you challenged people to read all three books by Ellen G. White before they conclude she's a false prophet. Then, you refused to read all of Maria Valtorta's five volumes, nor investigate the wealth of proof I handed lending credence to her claims, but concluded that she's a servant of Satan. Why? just because Maria Valtorta wrote of things taught in Catholicism.

That's prejudice.

You may not presently believe certain information she wrote to be true, but that doesn't mean what she wrote isn't the truth.

 

[Brakelite]

That's prejudice.

No, it's discernment. And if folk tread the first few paragraphs of any of EGWs books and cannot tolerate what they read, who am I to coerce them to continue regardless? I don't expect anyone to read EGW if they believe it conflicts with Scripture. The challenge was to at least read her works in person and tests judgment. I did begin to read your mystic's work and as I said, ibelieve it conflicts with Scripture, as do many, if not all, Catholic teachings.

 

[Magdala]

No, it's discernment. And if folk tread the first few paragraphs of any of EGWs books and cannot tolerate what they read, who am I to coerce them to continue regardless? I don't expect anyone to read EGW if they believe it conflicts with Scripture. The challenge was to at least read her works in person and tests judgment. I did begin to read your mystic's work and as I said, ibelieve it conflicts with Scripture, as do many, if not all, Catholic teachings.

You said, "To all reading this thread, I challenge you to read those 3 books and then return here and explain why Ellen G. White is a false prophet". It's not coercion to complete a challenge one chooses to accept and finish, regardless of what it entails. I challenged you to read all five volumes by Maria Valtorta. You accepted my challenge and you should've finished it, regardless of the content you read, because the challenge was to read all five volumes before passing judgement, the same rules you set in your challenge for others. You displayed your prejudice when you stopped reading the moment you read something taught in Catholicism, then passed a negative judgment before completion of the challenge. Are you afraid that if you complete the challenge and read all five volumes that you'll magically become a Catholic??

I did begin to read your mystic's work and as I said, ibelieve it conflicts with Scripture, as do many, if not all, Catholic teachings.

You say that what you read conflicts with Scripture because you'd rather believe something else. But, when push comes to shove, you can't actually explain why it does, whether using Scripture or not. You read an excerpt and immediately said that it's from Satan. In response, I took the time to explain why it's not. What did I get in reply about it? Crickets. Nothing. Why? Because what you read is the truth, but it's not what you'd rather believe, so it's just automatically from Satan without any evidence for it.

 

[quietthinker]

You said, "To all reading this thread, I challenge you to read those 3 books and then return here and explain why Ellen G. White is a false prophet". It's not coercion to complete a challenge one chooses to accept and finish, regardless of what it entails. I challenged you to read all five volumes by Maria Valtorta. You accepted my challenge and you should've finished it, regardless of the content you read, because the challenge was to read all five volumes before passing judgement, the same rules you set in your challenge for others. You displayed your prejudice when you stopped reading the moment you read something taught in Catholicism, then passed a negative judgment before completion of the challenge. Are you afraid that if you complete the challenge and read all five volumes that you'll magically become a Catholic??

I think Brakelite has given a cogent reply in the later half of post #240

 

[Magdala]

I think Brakelite has given a cogent reply in the later half of post #240

And, I responded to it in post #241, to which I got nothing in reply from Brakelite about it.

 

[quietthinker]

And, I responded to it in post #241, to which I got nothing in reply from Brakelite about it.

Perhaps you didn't hear what he stated in the #240 post?

 

[Magdala]

Perhaps you didn't hear what he stated in the #240 post?

Or, perhaps you didn't understand what he said and my reply?

 

[quietthinker]

Or, perhaps you didn't understand what he said and my reply?

hmmm, that's always a possibility although I thought I did understand it having read it several times.
What do you think I missed?

 

[Magdala]

hmmm, that's always a possibility although I thought I did understand it having read it several times.
What do you think I missed?

I can't know until you explain what you read from he and I and how you comprehended it.

 

[quietthinker]

I can't know until you explain what you read from he and I and how you comprehended it.

Just so we are on the same page, here is the later half of Brakelite's #240 post. The underlined are pertinent sections. I think they are self explanatory.

'I was pondering taking up your challenge, and thinking, I'm a gold miner, not a silver miner, but the Lord said in my spirit, go to the link and see what you will find. So I did. I read the introduction, and the next 3 paragraphs. That was enough. God doesn't need to make me unwell these days I hear Him when He speaks, and in those first few paragraphs I found all i need to come back here and state, unequivocally, this woman is not receiving anything from God, but from Satan. Quote...She possessed the greatest purity that a creature of God could have. I grew up Catholic. I understand the "immaculate conception". I know it doesn't apply to Jesus, but to Mary's conception. It stems from the belief that Jesus couldn't inhabit the womb of a common human and live a sinless life, or He would be tainted, so needed a pure mother so as not to inherit the traits of humanity. That my friend is a lie. A deception designed by Satan to take Rnt focus away from Jesus, to Mary, hence her gradual elevation to today where she now presumably holds the lofty position of co-redemptrix and Mediatrix. I don't need to read any further. I reject her as a prophet of God. Visionary maybe, but Satan can give visions. Loyola and classic example. No. No. No. Not going there.

 

[Magdala]

Just so we are on the same page, here is the later half of Brakelite's #240 post. The underlined are pertinent sections. I think they are self explanatory.

'I was pondering taking up your challenge, and thinking, I'm a gold miner, not a silver miner, but the Lord said in my spirit, go to the link and see what you will find. So I did. I read the introduction, and the next 3 paragraphs. That was enough. God doesn't need to make me unwell these days I hear Him when He speaks, and in those first few paragraphs I found all i need to come back here and state, unequivocally, this woman is not receiving anything from God, but from Satan. Quote...She possessed the greatest purity that a creature of God could have. I grew up Catholic. I understand the "immaculate conception". I know it doesn't apply to Jesus, but to Mary's conception. It stems from the belief that Jesus couldn't inhabit the womb of a common human and live a sinless life, or He would be tainted, so needed a pure mother so as not to inherit the traits of humanity. That my friend is a lie. A deception designed by Satan to take Rnt focus away from Jesus, to Mary, hence her gradual elevation to today where she now presumably holds the lofty position of co-redemptrix and Mediatrix. I don't need to read any further. I reject her as a prophet of God. Visionary maybe, but Satan can give visions. Loyola and classic example. No. No. No. Not going there.

Again, I addressed those in post #241. No counter-argument from Brakelite.

 

[quietthinker]

Again, I addressed those in post #241. No counter-argument from Brakelite.

I get the impression Brakelite is definitive, particularly in the last comment.....'No, no, no not going there'
In your reply, post #241, you are trying to reboot the debate when he has already given a definitive answer.

 

[Magdala]

I get the impression Brakelite is definitive, particularly in the last comment.....'No, no, no not going there'
In your reply, post #241, you are trying to reboot the debate when he has already given a definitive answer.

Then, he shouldn't have started what he couldn't finish. Would you allow me or anyone else in discussions saying "I'm right and you're wrong because that's from Satan, bye!" without supporting our claim??

 

[quietthinker]

Then, he shouldn't have started what he couldn't finish. Would you allow me or anyone else in discussions saying "I'm right and you're wrong because that's from Satan, bye!" without supporting our claim??

What he should have done or shouldn't have done is subjective and unhelpful to any insight.

 

[Magdala]

What he should have done or shouldn't have done is subjective and unhelpful to any insight.

Then you shouldn't be on a discussion/debate board if you don't understand what he shouldn't and should've done and why. And, you didn't answer my question.

 

[quietthinker]

Then you shouldn't be on a discussion/debate board if you don't understand what he shouldn't and should've done and why. And, you didn't answer my question.

It's not complicated LM. Not taking no for an answer only complicates unnecessarily. Now, you're an intelligent person, I'm sure you understand this.

 

[Magdala]

It's not complicated LM. Not taking no for an answer only complicates unnecessarily. Now, you're an intelligent person, I'm sure you understand this.

Firstly, in post #240, Brakelite didn't say "No no no. Not going there" as in he was done with our discussion. He was referring to not completing my challenge of reading Maria Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God: Vols. I-V: "I don't need to read any further. I reject her as a prophet of God. Visionary maybe, but Satan can give visions. Loyola and classic example. No. No. No. Not going there." Therefore, my reply post (#241) wasn't "not taking no for an answer". But, how could you have not already known that after having read his post "several times"?...

Secondly, also in Brakelite's post #240, he claimed that the excerpt he read in The Poem of the Man-God was of Satan, but he didn't provide support for that in the same post, nor did he provide any in response after I replied (post #241). Also, you didn't answer my question when I asked if you would accept that conduct from me or anyone else on this forum.

 

[Brakelite]

You said, "To all reading this thread, I challenge you to read those 3 books and then return here and explain why Ellen G. White is a false prophet". It's not coercion to complete a challenge one chooses to accept and finish, regardless of what it entails. I challenged you to read all five volumes by Maria Valtorta. You accepted my challenge and you should've finished it, regardless of the content you read, because the challenge was to read all five volumes before passing judgement, the same rules you set in your challenge for others. You displayed your prejudice when you stopped reading the moment you read something taught in Catholicism, then passed a negative judgment before completion of the challenge. Are you afraid that if you complete the challenge and read all five volumes that you'll magically become a Catholic??



You say that what you read conflicts with Scripture because you'd rather believe something else. But, when push comes to shove, you can't actually explain why it does, whether using Scripture or not. You read an excerpt and immediately said that it's from Satan. In response, I took the time to explain why it's not. What did I get in reply about it? Crickets. Nothing. Why? Because what you read is the truth, but it's not what you'd rather believe, so it's just automatically from Satan without any evidence for it.

I think Brakelite has given a cogent reply in the later half of post #240

What he ^^^^said

That my friend is a lie. A deception designed by Satan to take Rnt focus away from Jesus, to Mary, hence her gradual elevation to today where she now presumably holds the lofty position of co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.

Why do I need support to state the obvious?

No. No. No. Not going there.

Yep. Not going deeper into satanic deceit and deception.

but he didn't provide support for that in the same post