Critics towards Ellen White
Princesa SophiaPAGES (however, it is good that you read since the beginning):
If you don't know who is Ellen White, read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White
She wrote books that Adventists (or some Adventists) takes as core concepts of their beliefs.
However, i don't believe her revelations were from God, and neither i believe her core concepts. Especially that i'm not only a meat eater, but i also advocate to meat eating, i believe we are MORE carnivorous than omnivorous, but some plants can grant some good nutrients. If i were to decide to live from only plants or only meat, i would live from ONLY meat.
And i like to drink my coffee... :)
For once i believed that Ellen had no bad intentions, i believed she had just a "mere spiritual experience", things i could relate when i began in my spiritual journey.
When i began my journey, i also once talked even about not using coffee, it was in my early 20's and i had began my spiritual journey; and once i also kept around one year being a vegetarian-that-eat-eggs (around 2016 to 2017), and i preached like it was "from God".
I had other documents i wrote thinking with such certainty that it was "revelations of God", until having other spiritual experiences which defied such view, and i then ripped and threw away those writings. I noticed i was summing my own concepts over the mystical experience, that it is possible that a mystical experience is contaminated by your bias.
However, i found some crazy hypocritical things from her that i'm very confident to call her a charlatan.
Ellen is a good example of what i have in my principles: to avoid the vain philosophies of men. People that know me know that i'm "lazy" to read about other people's philosophy, i only read scientific books and i don't read Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and etc... I only read the bible and scientific articles, in philosophy, i have read a lot, but not about people, but about specific logical concepts: logic, rhetoric and semantic. I believe all philosophies are barely useful, as everything are concepts we are going to reach one moment or another when questioning things of our lives. That does not mean i condemn reading things from philosophers.
I don't trust humans.
Wouldn't my own text go against my concepts? Yes and Not, because i'm trying to testimony and instruct what i know, but i'm not aiming to create a philosophical concept, way of life, neither claiming my experiences as truth (even if it sounds like). I write as a sort of diary, testimony and notes of what i call "scientific approach of spirituality" (that is why it may sound like i'm talking like it is truth, it is just easier to talk like that).
I also advice people to not give me much attention, to not be fascinated by what i write or whatever. Neither i say people shouldn't read such stuff, that is just my opinion. So, yes, don't trust me...
I keep saying i'm a sinner and i may be wrong, as i was wrong numerous times. To be good in fighting, you need to be beaten a lot, and for me to be secure in my concepts, i had to be wrong a lot, and so, i'm not failure-proof. And i also wouldn't say people should or shouldn't keep reading my texts, i like to make it public for others, but, mostly, my texts are a back up of my ideas and for myself (that is one of the reasons i don't write in very open and public platforms and neither i try to attract popularity towards my texts, people here very likely got the link for this page directly from me).
Here i talk about the fooling that can happen in such mystical experiences and when hearing voices:
https://telegra.ph/Voice-of-God-11-02
Extra:
https://telegra.ph/The-Mystical-Experience-11-02
Let's start with a quote from my article 'Voice of God':
God will NOT lie, and wont deviate from truth.
If something isn't aligned with SCIENCE, it is NOT truth, and when i say that, i say about established science, and not consensus or theories, neither about what was not observed, as i believe we can only have science of what we observe. In this case, my belief in miracles would not be considered science, but not because i don't think it is scientific, but because i believe nobody cares to observe and study miracles.
However, in my researches, i came to conclusion, that, we humans, can only fully digest meat, that meat nutrients are vastly more bioavaible, that we have a single stomach, that we, in fact, CAN'T digest vegetables properly, then, it would be like calling God a liar if i attribute that "God told me that vegetarianism is the way".
For this reason, if the mystical experiences you are having are NOT aligned to CONCRETE science (when logical as 2+2=4 and not dubious, ambiguous and / or incomplete), it is NOT from God, simple as that!
Here we can see that the vegetarianism of Ellen White is just her own voice summed over the revelation she was (or could be) receiving from God, she used her bias and personal belief summed to a state of mystical experience. Something that lot of us that had our first moments of mystical experiences noted to happen.
NOTE: Ignore the paragraph above. I'm going to keep it here, because i think the message is important, but in my further researches, i discovered she is a hypocrite and ate meat without any care about it.
She considered it something about health and about "polluting the body".
She also attacked in such terms things like coffee... But let me show that what she said is not true...
~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~
HEALTH REFORM UNTRUTHS:
" Those who have received instruction regarding the evils of the use of flesh foods, tea, and coffee, and rich and unhealthful food preparations, and who are determined to make a covenant with God by sacrifice, will not continue to indulge their appetite for food that they know to be unhealthful. God demands that the appetite be cleansed, and that self-denial be practiced in regard to those things which are not good. This is a work that will have to be done before His people can stand before Him a perfected people."
"those who indulge in meat eating are sowing seeds for a harvest of pain and death."
Such a diet contaminates the blood in their veins, and stimulates the lower animal passions. It enfeebles keen perception and vigor of thought to the understanding of God and the truth, and a knowledge of themselves.
Here i'm going to talk about meat, as it seems to be a focus point in her concept:
It got big, so i decided to make an article:
https://telegra.ph/In-Defense-of-Meat-Eating-11-03
I wont talk about other substances she mentions, because it would be redundant and she used as example of keeping our mind "free from substances". So, merely addressing that coffee is good for health already debunks her self-imposed views (which she attributed to God) and that what she said is WRONG, and so, NOT from God:
Plus, it’s rich in antioxidants and may affect insulin sensitivity, inflammation, and metabolism — all of which are involved in the development of type 2 diabetes (8).
Although studies have turned up mixed results, some research suggests that coffee may help protect against certain neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease.
According to one review of 13 studies, people who regularly consumed caffeine had a significantly lower risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. What’s more, caffeine consumption also slowed the progression of Parkinson’s disease over time (9).
Another review of 11 observational studies in more than 29,000 people also found that the more coffee people consumed, the lower their risk of Alzheimer’s disease (10).
Additionally, several studies have demonstrated that moderate coffee consumption could be associated with a lower risk of dementia and cognitive decline (11, 12).
For instance, one study found that drinking more than two cups of coffee per day was linked to lower rates of liver scarring and liver cancer in people with liver disease (20).
Other research shows that the more coffee people drank, the lower their risk of death from chronic liver disease. Drinking one cup of coffee per day was tied to a 15% lower risk, while drinking four cups per day was linked to a 71% lower risk (21).
Another recent study found that coffee consumption was associated with decreased liver stiffness, which is a measure healthcare professionals use to assess fibrosis, the formation of scar tissue in the liver (22).
In fact, one review found that drinking three to five cups of coffee per day was tied to a 15% reduced risk of heart disease (23).
Another review of 21 studies showed that drinking three to four cups of coffee daily was associated with a 21% lower risk of stroke (24).
What’s more, one study in more than 21,000 people also found that increased coffee intake was associated with a significantly decreased risk of heart failure (25).
For example, one review of 40 studies concluded that drinking two to four cups of coffee daily was associated with a lower risk of death, regardless of factors like age, weight status, and alcohol consumption (27).
Similarly, another study in 1,567 people found that drinking caffeinated coffee was linked to a lower risk of death after 12 and 18 years of follow-up. Furthermore, drinking at least one cup of coffee per day was also associated with a lower risk of death from cancer (28).
Interestingly, one test-tube study showed that coffee was able to significantly extend the life span of yeast by protecting against free radicals and DNA damage (29).
However, more research is needed to determine whether this could also apply to humans.
Still, drinking coffee in moderation — about three to four cups per day — has been associated with several health benefits and is generally considered safe for most adults (35).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coffee
[I MAY ADD MORE STUDIES AND INFORMATION ABOUT COFFEE]
AND SO...
... She goes against her own teachings, she preaches to not eat meat, but vegetables are more unhealthy than meat and it is really what makes people have "enfeebled perception" and makes people lack "vigor of thought", led people to "pain and death", and so, she was eating "food that they know to be unhealthful" and, in her own terms, she should be punished and not worthy of heaven. Can you see how stupid this is?
So, how can we consider as truth and from God something that is not even truth to begin with?
Isn't Satan the father of Lies?
I keep saying "God is Truth", some people say that is not written on bible, i know i know, he is not "merely truth", but you get what i mean, if Satan is the father of Lies and if God NEVER lies, and if Satan does the opposite of God, then, in a simple form is easier for me to simple say "God is Truth". So, how can Ellen be talking as her visions are from God if there is NO TRUTH in it? It is just a concept that could be formulated at her time, but science advances and the truth is being revealed each time more and supporting each time more what Jesus truly preached in all levels, archeological, diet, philosophical, mind and body and more...
For this reason, if the mystical experiences you are having are NOT aligned to CONCRETE science (when logical as 2+2=4 and not dubious, ambiguous and / or incomplete or mere consensus), it is NOT from God, simple as that!
"But i don't trust your science". It is not even a matter of trust, you can get gastric acid by yourself and test it yourself without any "mainstream stuff". Get gastric acid, put in a beaker, and drop vegetables and meat in that and you are going to see that your stomach only fully digest MEAT, and vegetables wouldn't be fully digested, will rot in the colon and will not break down enough for bioavailability of its nutrients. And if you deny the evidence before your own eyes, then, for real, what can i do? Even if i believe in miracles, are you REALLY REALLY going to claim that inside our body somewhat, magically, this effect is not what happens?
Here, if you can't get pure gastric acid, you can simulate:
https://www.wikihow.com/Simulate-Stomach-Acid
Now, for some that are suspect of "ScIenCe" (even skeptical at a point of being skeptical of the experiment i asked for you to do), it isn't even BIBLICAL anyway:
- Jesus ate fish;
- Jesus gave fish to his disciples and multiplied it and gave to numerous people;
- Jesus ate a lamb for Passover with his disciples;
- Even children had eaten meat (and so, supposedly, stumbled because of Jesus);
- Numerous case of meat eating in the bible;
- Bible saying that those who eat only vegetables are weak in faith (Romans 14:1-4);
- Matthew 15 (not only for what we eat, but the vain philosophy and commandments of men);
For this, one would have to assume that either Jesus miraculously took out the "bad part of meat eating" or that Jesus didn't care enough to pollute people's blood, blur their mind and lead then to "pain and death", maybe because that it was the only resource? But isn't God almighty?
If Jesus can multiply fish and bread, and if Satan said that Jesus could transform a rock into a bread and eat (and Jesus had not said he couldn't do, but he justified why he shouldn't do), that means, if Jesus so much wanted to take people from hunger, why wouldn't, with God's almighty power, he multiplies vegetables instead? Or only the bread?
If her logic is right, so, wouldn't Jesus be guiding himself and others to lose understanding of God? And if Jesus can miraculously not be affected by it, wouldn't he be leading those that CAN be affected by it to such wrong destiny? Why would Jesus lead people to the wrong direction?
Why, me, an avid meat eating supporter, is not falling out from the spiritual path as she said meat eaters would eventually do? Everyday i'm practicing things that makes me closer and closer to God, things i don't used to know, frequency of mystical experiences that i wasn't having before. Shouldn't it be otherwise? Am i lying? I can't prove, but i can talk and explain my spirituality and it will be obvious that something is happening to me and that i have both experience and knowledge to evidence it. I'm very secure and confident of my faith, VERY SECURE... And as an asexual (could be me, or those who know me knows that i'm a schizoid), in fact, the "lower sexual passions" that my diet supposedly gives would also not be true.
Everything she said about the flood is just from her head, there is nothing biblical that remotely points that is the issue. For people that knows me, i'm very against sexual immorality, and judging how was Sodom and Gomorrah, i rather believe that most of the bad acts that lead to the flood were related to sexual immorality and other sins, and maybe because at the time, the religion their practiced was basically only what we know today as paganism. But, since most people aren't murderous by nature, for all them to be committing sin, very likely that most of them were punished because sexual immorality. But i won't say "this is a God revelation that God gave to me", and rather i'm going to say that this is MY BELIEF.
Consider:
1 Corinthians 6:18-19:
"Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own".
Ellen talks like only after the flood people were permitted to eat meat, but that does not seems true either, as, in Genesis 4, Abel gave as offering the fat from some of the firstborn of his flock (verse 4).
Even if some say about that this was for offering (which would be strange that God wants an offering of dead flesh considering about what Ellen said of the violence of killing and other stuff related to impurity and etc), still, the fact Abel had a flock and knew how to butcher the fat, is, in my opinion, an indirect proof that Abel created his flock for food.
Since, not only he knew how to manage butchering skills for food, he also knew that the fat would be desirable to God, and that seems to me a strong evidence that he knew that the fat was good to eat. Just like we know that fat (tallow or lard) is one of the healthiest ways to fry food (check the links from the sources i gave that meat is good for health) and healthy to eat.
And as we know, offerings to God, as far as i know (i should look again to check if my memory is not misleading me), are always food.
Very likely Abel knew this was good for him, and so, for God as an offering.
God also doesn't seems to have liked the "mere fruits" of Cain's offering (verse 3). However, this may not be about what was offered (materially speaking):
https://www.gotquestions.org/Cain-and-Abel.html
Considering how far she went into saying that those who eat meat (in some Adventists interpretation, and in how i see about what she wrote) will not be saved, she is also anti-biblical in terms of what we know about how Jesus saved us by the cross.
She also said:
"All who are connected with our health institutions especially should be educating themselves to subsist on fruits, grains, and vegetables."
That, for me, shows in fact she was manipulated by said "health institutions" of the time, which were lay about meat eating. And so, this kinda proves it was not revelations from God.
"(...) while proclaiming the most solemn and important message God has ever given, men war against the truth by indulging wrong habits of eating and drinking".
Ok, Ellen, i'm waiting to be debunked in all the "not truth" scientific articles i posted in this article, good luck. So much for a "revelation of God". The most important message, for real?! This is also anti-biblical, our faith in Jesus is the most important, even more than works.
"They have no evidence that they are walking in safe paths".
Lol, i posted thousands...
"Many times when meat is eaten, it decays in the stomach."
See how wrong she is? First, this is a myth (i posted the source). Second, it is on the colon, not stomach. Third, in fact, VEGETABLES decays in the colon and meat is the only food that is fully digest.
"It is impossible for those who make free use of flesh meats to have an unclouded brain and an active intellect."
The studies shows exactly the opposite, the brain itself requires mostly fat and meat, and it needs DHA, which you CAN'T find in vegetables, for real?!
"Those who live in new countries or in poverty-stricken districts where fruits and nuts are scarce, should not be urged to exclude milk and eggs from their dietary.
(...)
The people everywhere should be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, so far as possible, and yet have their food wholesome and palatable." - Ellen
However, eggs are one of the most complete food there is, and one of the most healthy food there is... So much for "visions from God". And if you deny her, you are denying the Holy Spirit with blasphemy, and your sin is unforgivable.
CONCLUSION ABOUT THE [UN]HEALTH REFORM:
Considering the Health Reform of Ellen White, we can already see here that her revelations WERE NOT from GOD. God wouldn't lie and lead us to an unscientific diet that only harms us. She was guided by her heart and not by the Holy Spirit.
And if i were to judge her from her own words, i would even feel bad with myself, since then she wasn't saved, the heaven would be closed to her, Satan was with her, by her "soul sleep" concept, she can't go back and is lost forever and bla bla bla... Ok, so let's not do to her what we don't want to ourselves, and what we don't want to ourselves is what she did to us.
I wrote in the article:
Wisdom is worth more than gold, seek knowledge and sanity-check your mystical experiences, brothers! In doubt, trust the bible and reason (allied with concrete science), not humans! In my belief, if Satan is the father of lies, then, seeking truth is godly, and so, seeking scientific knowledge is godly! Science should make you have more FAITH in God, and not otherwise!
When i was atheist i used to think "the more science advances, the more atheism becomes obvious", oh my God, what a lie! I was always a lover of science, my mother is testimony of that, when i was kid i said "i want to be a scientist". The more i study science and the more it advances, more faith i have in God, as his system is perfect and science just proves concretely what was written in the bible!
Hypocrisy:
One of the reasons i began to delete what i previously wrote that i though Ellen was just a "noob" in terms of mystical experience, is because i found harsh evidences that she is in fact a HYPOCRITE!
She was eating meat without any care about it! Even asking for herring and oyster from her daughter-in-law! And in a travel, she wrote a letter for her sister talking about how she ate chicken!
She even went far into saying that her followers should take fruits and bread with them so they don't eat meat. But she secretly ate chicken! Not once, twice! And called it "good" and "nice".
Her secretary got shocked that she was being lied to after she caught Ellen eating all sort of meat. White's son tried to deny, but admitted she ate red meat and they weren't teetotalers. Her son also said she had lunch baskets filled with turkey, chicken, and tinned tongue.
Her physician, Dr. Charles Stewart, asked for explanation of numerous testimony of her eating meat and oyster. She got caught eating oyster in a restaurant. She have not responded him and also never denied the accusations.
A SDA minister and a SDA president are testimony that she ate butter and eggs.
She went camping and ate meat of lot of different animals!
ELLEN DENIED THE DIVINITY OF JESUS:
And also, at least some Adventists and the older ones believed he was the archangel Michael.
https://ellenwhite.org/topics/253
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/754.145#147
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/754.153#155
Something i see in SDA people is that they cherry-pick any comma and period of the bible to justify their apologetic, however, in a "macroscopic" view of the bible, it makes no sense at all.
I make the words of this article my own:
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/why-is-jesus-thought-to-be-the-archangel-michael.html
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Seventh-Day%20Adventist/ew-deity.htm
Take in mind:
Only by the turn of the century did Adventism begin to move out of Arianism to espousing Jesus’ deity, and subsequently, the Trinity. This was hard to do in light of Ellen White’s statements, spanning over 50 years, upholding Arianism.
So i'm not here bashing all Adventists if they accepted Jesus as God.
1900 "The mighty angel who instructed John (Rev. 1:1) was no less than the person of Christ" (ms 59, 1900).
1903 "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty" (ms 150, SDA Bible Commentary Vol. 5, p. 1129).
1904 "To Christ had been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father" (Testimonies vol. 8, p. 268).
1905 Rev 10:6 "In swearing by the creator, the angel who is Christ, swore by himself" (ibid., p. 798).
If Christ Jesus, quote: "was not the Lord God Almighty", she is being unbiblical to "Titus 2:13":
"As we await the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God AND Savior Jesus Christ".
As someone that likes programming, is hard to not consider the word "AND" in its pure form... :p
How can i interpret in other ways that Jesus was GOD AND SAVIOR?
The first link i posted in this topic says that angels don't had the authority of God, but Jesus had authority since the beginning, and it was not "given" to him, and it is not something related to an archangel.
However, i'm going to be honest that this might be misquoted:
"The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one", is the full quote, and i confess she is maybe saying that Christ is the Son and God the Father, and not that Christ is not God. But the quote still sound strange.
My main problem with her was considering Christ and Michael one.
"This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John".
- Revelation 1:1
And so, Jesus is the angel, and he also sent His angel, which is himself?
It makes no sense...
"God informed Satan that to his Son alone he would reveal his secret purpose". - Ellen
"Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God”".
- John 16:29-30
"Jesus asked a third time, “Simon son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was deeply hurt that Jesus had asked him a third time, “Do you love Me?” “Lord, You know all things,” he replied. “You know I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep".
- John 21:17
"Even if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and He knows all things."
- 1 John 3:20
Here we can see that Jesus "knows all things", and there is no "secret" that must be taught to him. Also, this show he is not an archangel. And, if only God knows all things, so, Jesus IS God.
Considering this, the fact she thinks Jesus can be GIVEN an exalted position and be MADE equal to the Father, means he was not the God to begin with. Some may question this, and some SDA may give their work-around excuses, but if you consider that she thinks Jesus is Michael, it is hard to interpret this in another way than that she thought Jesus was Michael, and since, in her concept, Michael was an archangel and NOT God, then, it makes sense that for an archangel to reach such point, it must be "given" a position and "made" equal to the Father.
That can be interpreted that Jesus was not equal to God, until God decided to make him equal.
Like i said about Adventists being cherry-pickers, just like their "comma excuse" for the crucified robber, there is nothing in the bible that infers that Jesus was Michael, only otherwise, they need to hunt down small pieces of things to consider it.
Let's consider their cherry-picked verse:
"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first."
- 1 Thessalonians 4:16
Someone must do a great mental gymnastic to interpret that by having the voice of an archangel means to be the archangel.
How many people have the voice of other people? Are they the same people?
Let's consider the philosophical concept of the axe-and-the-handle, that is it:
If you replace the blade, and later the handle, is it the same axe?
You may be asking me, "but what it have to do with said verse?"
Simple, if there is an axe your grandfather gave you from his war times, and i get a stick of wood and add a blade to it that is a replica of your grandfather's axe, can i say "it have the blade of an axe" (the voice of an archangel) and say, "there is it, it proves that my axe is the same axe as your axe", is that right?
Even if it was "Voice of THE archangel", it would be the same idea, "it have the blade of THE axe", doesn't mean it is another axe.
So, for me, to abstract that this is what it means, is another proof of the cherry-picking Adventists have to do to attempt to make the bible fit Ellen's work. The bible is clear in lot of things, the Adventists can only interpret their concepts by cherry-picking the few non-clear and ambiguous things of the bible.
They are also lot of times using the "it is not in the bible", when there is references in the bible and extra-biblical concepts, they act like atheists, but "the absence of proof is not proof of absence", and so, for them, "if it is not in the bible" it simple doesn't exist. But that goes against their own narratives.
For example, the bible never explain what is spirit and soul, however, there were people that existed at the biblical times. I normally joke, "the atheists are right, the bible is just a history book", that doesn't mean the bible is wrong as the atheist believe, but, that there is too much nuances and more, we need to study what the bible mean by what it says. There are cities mentioned in the bible, the bible doesn't tell how these cities came to exist, if we consider the premises of the Adventists, "it was not in the bible", so that mean those cities never existed until chapter 'n' verse 'm' was written, it makes no sense.
In this case, for example, it is something i hold for long, the word Soul and Spirit was not explained in the bible, because the bible was written with the words and concept that people at those times knew. People at those times DON'T needed an explanation of what is spirit and soul, that is why the bible talks like you are expected to know already.
The Adventists takes that as "if it was not written, it is not", and they can cherry-pick things from the bible that tries to push to their "soul sleep" theory. Even when there are thing in the bible that makes this theory ambiguous, especially the Lazarus part, where Adventists itself says it is complicated for them. And then, you can see that Adventists can't understand what, in the past, people meant by Soul or Spirit, as, if it is not in the bible, then, they can give any meaning to Soul or Spirit. And for that, they can give strange interpretations to passages like Ecclesiastes 12:7: "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it", which is pretty clear that the spirit leaves the body and returns to God. But for that, they are once again going to cherry-pick one comma or period in a random passage and be like "aha! my faith is justified!" and ignore other passages that defies their concepts.
I'm not here to say they are right or wrong in this concept, i believe that we return to God when we die, but that he can kill our soul. But that the bible explain nothing about Soul and Spirit to affirm something.
This is the same for this archangel concept, there is numerous passages that shows Jesus had things and capacities beyond what archangels had, and that it is God-like (because he is God) and other things, and for them to try to dismiss it, they need to cherry-pick things like "the voice of the archangel", which means nothing in semantic terms.
The same when they use Daniel 10:13: “Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me”, when that in fact shows there is more than one chief prince, and it means nothing about who is the prince, the princes, what it means by prince and whatever. It is NOT in the bible, and then, it backfires to the Adventists with their attitude of saying something isn't because it is "not in the bible". It only matter of if it is in or not in the bible when it is up for them to defend their ambiguous concepts, most that are just a way to try to justify Ellen, which should be discredited since when she began preaching vegetarianism. Even if modern Adventists have members that says some things Ellen said are wrong and some now believe in the Divinity of Jesus, their concepts comes from her from the core and they need to keep drifting, step by step, away from her "teachings", how long will it take for them to fully dismiss Ellen?
"But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."
- Hebrews 1:2
Check: "and through whom He made the universe", so the universe was made through Jesus. If we consider the Genesis, so he made the heavens and earth, and so, the angels, and so, if Jesus is Michael, who made Michael?
Ellen drifts a lot from her own arguments, whenever she is faced about something, she suddenly have "an answer", how can visions of God be like that?
These statements, along with her 1844 vision of Jesus with wings, and her repeated calling Him the Archangel in Desire of Ages and other books, certainly befog her 1897 and 1898 statements regarding Jesus’ Deity. In Daniel and Revelation, page 341, Uriah Smith identified the angel of Rev 1:1, etc., as Gabriel. But Ellen made it to be Jesus Himself! Her error is manifest in the context of Rev 1:1; furthermore, the Greek word ‘allos’, used in Rev. 8:3, shows this angel the same kind as the seven angels of verse 2. In addition, in Rev. 19 the angel rebukes John’s attempt to worship him. "Trinity" quotes W.W. Prescott: "For a long time we believed…that Christ was created, in spite of what the Scripture says" (1919 Bible Conference p.62)
D.M. Canright showed how Ellen synthesized the risen Jesus with her view of him as the angel Michael. In Life of Mrs. E.G. White, chapter 17, page 31, he tells of Dr. Kellogg’s theory that the dead body would not be raised, but all that was left of a person at death was a record of his life kept in heaven, and a new body of new matter was raised and made to think that it was the same person as the old one. When asked if she had light on this, Ellen declared the Lord shew her not a particle of the old body would ever be raised, but a new body of new material would be formed. Canright asked "How about Christ’s body which was raised?" She responded "He dropped it all when he ascended". She failed to recognize him as ‘the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim 2:5 & Heb 7:24-25); and that ‘in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form’ (Col 2:9).
This also begs the question: if he dropped it all when he ascended, where is his former body?
Maybe they could say that miraculously it disappeared or became pure dust.
But that would look like another of their mental gymnastic.
PAGE 2:
https://telegra.ph/Critics-towards-Ellen-White-2-11-04