I agree! Common ground!



The thing about the serpent in the wilderness is one thing, with the EGW comment supplied, explaining how Nicodemus wasn't understanding Jesus until he referred to it. Genesis 15 (quoted from Gal. 3) is another passage. I also explained to you how you could get your own passages by simply reading Paul in Romans, where I mentioned several chapters, and Galatians 3. Actually Paul's writings abound with these references. But if you don't think Paul is clear, what's the point?



This isn't all Paul quoted in Gal. 3. Read on! See if you can understand Paul's argument. That might help you to understand Moses.



I'd suggest quoting something I actually wrote. I never said this!

All the reasons? No. None of the reasons. Let's get that straight!

In answer to my question, "What's the point?" your answer is that this thread is an offshoot of another one. So? What's the connection? Could you connect this up please?

My specific question regarding "What's the point?" is that if you don't believe Jesus Christ, or John, or Paul, or any other inspired person (except Ellen White) clearly explained Christ's death, you surely won't believe Moses did. So what's the point in discussing this?



Apparently it's only obvious to you! I know non-believers who would agree with you on this. I don't know any believers who would though.



Ranting and raving! Are you having a bad hair day?



I dealt with this in a previous post. I've got a question about your oral tradition idea. When do you think this originated?

Tom, you can end the frustration here by simply posting passages from the Pentateuch that clearly explain why Jesus had to die and that the animal sacrifices symbolize His death. Nothing Paul quoted fits the bill. Neither does the uplifted brazen serpent fit the bill. It requires oral tradition and intricate interpretation which does not fit the bill.

Perhaps you don't understand what I'm requesting of you. Pretend like all you have is the Pentateuch. Now, show me where it clearly explains why Jesus had to die and that the animal sacrifices symbolize His death.

PS - Please understand that I believe oral tradition enables people to know why Jesus had to die and that the animal sacrifices symbolized His death notwithstanding all the contradicting views that have evolved the correct view survived.

The point of this thread is the Pentateuch - not the rest of the Bible. Simply post the passages that you feel clearly explain why Jesus had to die and that the animal sacrifices symbolize His death. It should be clear to unbelievers as well as believers. If it requires circuitous thinking and elaborate round about methods to arrive at a "clear explanation" then clearly it is not clear. Or, if it depends entirely upon oral tradition in order to correctly decode the symbolism, inferences, and implications then again it is not clearly explained.

My point is that it obviously isn't clearly explained, but this isn't problem because oral tradition fills in the gaps and we end up with a clear explanation - but not so clear that it prevents confusing and contradicting views, as you pointed out earlier. However, I disagree with you that the SOP can be twisted to support contradicting views.


In the Garden of Eden. A&E received it from God and passed it on. It continues to be passed on to this day. But oral tradition experienced an upgrade when God inspired Ellen to write it down.

The explanation which Christ gave to Nicodemus could hardly be termed "intricate interpretation." Jesus said a few words to Nicodemus, and Nicodemus understood Him. So the uplifted snake was clear to him, hence Moses' explanation of Christ's death was clear to him.



The uplifted serpent is one place.

I think you're not understanding the point about Paul. Paul's arguments are all sound on their own merit. You can take away the fact that they written by Paul and simply apply them. So all of the texts which Paul quoted from Moses to establish the meaning of Christ's death "fit the bill." This is precisely what Paul was doing: explaining the meaning of Christ's death by quoting from the OT, especially Moses. I've suggested several chapters that would be especially good for doing this, including Romans 4 and Gal. 3.

Let's go back to Nicodemus for a moment. You agree that Nicodemus understood Jesus' explanation, don't you? That once Jesus explained things to him, he understood Jesus' death? Or do you disagree with this?



When something is communicated from one person to another, there is a whole basis of communication which is assumed, involving one's language and culture. For example, when you write, "It's cool with me" you're assuming that I'll understand what you mean, because I share the same language and culture you do.

So any communication assumes commonality between the sender of the message and its receiver. Now you're saying that because of Oral Tradition, the readers of the Pentateuch could understand the meaning of the sacrifices and know why Jesus Christ had to die. This forms a basis of commonality of culture and language between Moses and his readers. Thus Moses' writing constitute a clear explanation of Christ's death.

The fact that *you* come at things with a different language and culture does not mean *Moses* was unclear. It just points to an ignorance you have.

Now when Ellen White explains things, you say she's clear. Why? Because she shares a language and culture with you, so you understand her words more easily. But this doesn't mean she's any clearer than Moses was. It just means you and she share a language and culture.

Now suppose we go forward in time 500 years, and Christ hasn't come (just for the same of explaining this concept). Cultures have changed a lot in 500 years, and so has English. God raises a new prophet who writes in Chinese. A Chinese person, thinking like you do, could claim that no prophet except for this one ever explained Jesus' death clearly, simply because he didn't share a common language and culture. Ellen White's writings would be no clearer to him than the Bible.

If it were indeed a fact that Ellen White is the only one who explains Christ's death clearly, then it should be the case that those who read her writings would have a view of Christ's death that others do not have. But this isn't the case.

This doesn't answer my question. If you don't think Jesus Christ or Paul explained things clearly, how could you think Moses did? This doesn't make sense to me. Do you think this makes sense? If so, why?



But not when Jesus Christ spoke of it? So we have:

a)Oral tradition, written down by Moses. No upgrade.
b)Oral tradition, explained by Jesus Christ. No upgrade.
c)Oral tradition, explained by Paul. No upgrade.
d)Oral tradition, written down by Ellen white. Upgrade.

This is what you think?

Okay, let's go with this example. Here's what Moses wrote:


Now, in keeping with my suggestion (articulated above), please pretend like I'm an Egyptian who is showing an interest in the God of Israel. I've just witnessed the whole fiery serpent look and live episode play out. Pretend you're a Jew and all you have is the Pentateuch up to and including the written account above to clearly explain why Jesus will have to die and that the animal sacrifices symbolize His death. What would you say?

I would say something along the lines of that which follows, which is from PP 430:

The people well knew that there was no power in the serpent of brass to cause such a change in those who looked upon it. The healing virtue was from God alone. In His wisdom He chose this way of displaying His power. By this simple means the people were made to realize that this affliction had been brought upon them by their sins. They were also assured that while obeying God they had no reason to fear, for He would preserve them.

The lifting up of the brazen serpent was to teach Israel an important lesson. They could not save themselves from the fatal effect of the poison in their wounds. God alone was able to heal them. Yet they were required to show their faith in the provision which He had made. They must look in order to live. It was their faith that was acceptable with God, and by looking upon the serpent their faith was shown. They knew that there was no virtue in the serpent itself, but it was a symbol of Christ; and the necessity of faith in His merits was thus presented to their minds. Heretofore many had brought their offerings to God, and had felt that in so doing they made ample atonement for their sins. They did not rely upon the Redeemer to come, of whom these offerings were only a type. The Lord would now teach them that their sacrifices, in themselves, had no more power or virtue than the serpent of brass, but were, like that, to lead their minds to Christ, the great sin offering.

Great answer. Now, please prove these points from the Pentateuch itself. Where in the Pentateuch is this explanation recorded?

See post #109474, especially the last part.

It's not necessary that Moses recorded something that you understand without explanation, but that those who read him would. (i.e., his immediate audience). That this happened in evident in the case of Nicodemus because when Jesus spoke of his being lifted up like the serpent, Nicodemus got it.

I'm not suggesting someone like yourself could understand Moses without doing some study. Post #109474 discusses how culture enters into communication.