We disagree on this. I don't think Jesus contradicted Himself, teaching one thing while simultaneously teaching the reverse of that same thing. This would be pretty confusing, which I think helps explain why you often comment things like "I don't understand this" "this isn't valid" "this doesn't make sense" and so forth.



Sure He taught the truth. But what's the truth? Is it what you think it is, or something else?

My comment was that it's hard to imagine how one could read the life of Christ and think we should kill sinners (to name one of two things mentioned). One could hardly imagine a conclusion more in contradiction to Jesus' teachings than this. "He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword." The whole point of this is to not live by the sword.



I've written at length on this in the past. I'll see about putting something together on this.



This sounds more like your view, not mine. I'm certainly not going to show that Jesus was teaching this!



Ok (regarding what I actually think, not what you wrote about it).

Here Jesus speaks to what condemnation is. This goes along with Ty Gibson's observation that the condemnation of sin is organic to the sin itself. It's not something arbitrary which God does, but is a property of sin.

Jesus Christ revealed the character of God (this is the light). Only the pure in heart could abide in His presence.

Here's an example of this principle:



The SOP makes it clear that it was not a physical action which caused the money changers to leave, but if one knows something about the actual size of the temple, the SOP's conclusions are evident from the account itself. The temple was a huge area, akin to a football field. There's no way Christ could physically have caused all these people to live over such a large area. Something happened to spook them.

Moving on, Jesus taught that the Father does not judge anyone, but that judgment has been committed to Him:



Regarding His judging, He says:



Also



So putting this together, we see that judgement does not come as the result of an arbitrary action on the part of God (who does not judge, but has committed judgment to the Son) nor from Jesus Christ (who does not accuse, nor judge). Rather the judgment comes as a result of Jesus' word, which is the truth. Remembering that light signifies truth, we can see how this ties into Jesus' earlier statements regarding light.

These are a few thoughts. Of course, Jesus said much more, but this brings out a few principles.

Come to think of it, you rarely admit that you don't understand something. Surely you must know then that I do not think Jesus taught contradicting things. The reverse of mercy is justice. Both are true, and Jesus taught both. Listen:

The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. . . Even now they have almost exceeded the bounds of the long-suffering of God, the limits of His grace, the limits of His mercy. {COL 177.5} Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. {AG 70.3} Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. {LDE 240.3} In all the Bible, God is presented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of strict and impartial justice. {LDE 240.4}

Interestingly, though, even the angels are baffled by the mystery of mercy. Listen:

This is the mystery of mercy into which angels desire to look--that God can be just while He justifies the repenting sinner and renews His intercourse with the fallen race; that Christ could stoop to raise unnumbered multitudes from the abyss of ruin and clothe them with the spotless garments of His own righteousness to unite with angels who have never fallen and to dwell forever in the presence of God. {GC 415.2}

I don't feel as dumb now because I don't understand the mystery of mercy, "that God can be just while He justifies the repenting sinner," knowing that the angels have a desire to study it more thoroughly (which I take to mean they don't understand it perfectly yet). Neither do I understand why God can justify pardoning and saving sinners in light of the fact law and justice demands death for sin. Why Jesus' death counts as my death is truly a mystery to me, the mystery of mercy.


Do you know of anyone here who believes Jesus taught we should kill sinners? I know in the OT Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners, but I don't see where in the NT He commanded such a thing. Do you?

By the way, my comment above had to do with what Jesus taught about sin and judgment and punishment and death - not about commanding people to kill sinners.


Please include the passages I posted and reposted above. Thank you.


What? Have you changed your mind? You have repeatedly quoted from the DA to prove that the glory (character) of God will cause sinners to suffer mental anguish in proportion and in duration to their sinfulness. All I'm asking of you is to use the passages I posted and reposted above to support this idea.


Thanx!

Yes, people naturally feel guilty and ashamed when they sin. That's the way God designed and made them. However, sinners like Satan, who are dead in sin, are hardened beyond feeling guilt and shame. In such cases, when self-condemnation is void and absent, their condemnation and unfitness for heaven must be established in some other way. For this reason, I suppose, there will be a millennial period where the saints will review the verdicts of the wicked, and they will agree with them. Based on these judgments, the wicked dead will not be raised in the first resurrection, and the wicked living will not be caught up to meet Jesus in the air.


It was the divinity that flashed through His humanity that caused them to fear and flee for their lives. Listen:

When divinity flashed through humanity, not only did they see indignation on Christ's countenance; they realized the import of His words. They felt as if before the throne of the eternal Judge, with their sentence passed on them for time and for eternity. {DA 162.3}

A similar thing happened to Satan earlier on. Listen:

Satan had questioned whether Jesus was the Son of God. In his summary dismissal he had proof that he could not gainsay. Divinity flashed through suffering humanity. Satan had no power to resist the command. Writhing with humiliation and rage, he was forced to withdraw from the presence of the world's Redeemer. Christ's victory was as complete as had been the failure of Adam. {DA 130.3}


Who enforces the verdict? Will the wicked willing lay down and die? Here's how Ellen describes their reaction to the verdict:


And then here's how she describes the actual execution of the sentence:


You seem to be saying the verdict and the execution of the sentence, as described above, are somehow organic to sin itself, that it is the property of sin. Did I misunderstand you?

T: I've been saying over and over again that the approach I think should be taken is to form a Model of God's character based on studying Jesus Christ, and only *then* go back and look at the OT.

K: MM, why shouldn't Jesus' life, which was intended to represent Jesus of the Old Testament, be the basis upon which to understand the Old Testament?

M: I believe His life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT. Do you?

(I now noticed you inserted "and teachings")

K: I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain how if Jesus' life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT, how you see Jesus in the Old Testament behaving different than that of the New.

M: I don't see Jesus addressing the problem of full-cup sinners any differently in the OT and NT. His life and teachings, while here in the flesh, reflect everything we need to know about God punishing and killing full-cup sinners in the OT. For example, Jesus taught:

Matthew
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

K: I'm glad you cleared that up. For some reason I thought you thought Jesus acted differently in the OT than the NT.....What does that passage mean to you.

M: Jesus did "act" differently in the NT. For example, He didn't command anyone to kill sinners. Nor did He employ the forces of nature to kill sinners. True, He taught these things, but He didn't demonstrate them.

I'm getting a mouth full of flies again.

M: If we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will use fire to punish and kill the wicked at the end of time.

Where does it clearly say in the above passage that Jesus will use fire? I believe the commentary has a different view of what "outer darkness" is.


Fly time.

Tom asserted that a way of understanding the Old Testament is to look at it in the eyes of Jesus' life. I asked you why shouldn't Jesus' life be the basis of viewing His representation in the OT. You replied that His life (and added teachings) represent everything we need to know about Him in both the OT and NT. I then questioned if this being how you viewed it, how you saw Jesus behaving differently between the two. You then emphasized your added teachings and claimed that Jesus taught differently than He acted by quoting Matthew 8:11-12. However, I fail to see how that passage shows Jesus killing or using force to kill sinners or teaching that.

Could you shed light on how He taught differently than He lived?


Are you saying that Jesus taught that He would use force Himself and command others to kill sinners and also taught that He would not use force Himself and command others to kill sinners?

If that were so, would that mean He didn't really teach anything?

I would admit I don't fully understand something, but I don't often discuss regarding which I have no understanding. In this case I would tend to read things from others who do, or ask questions.



No, this isn't true. This is easily seen. If the reverse of mercy were justice, then the reverse of justice would be mercy. But the reverse of justice is not mercy, but injustice.



Yes, this is right.



This wasn't the issue. This was:



Jesus did not simultaneously teach something and teach its reverse. (More later)

Tom, Jesus taught mercy and justice. Let's eliminate the word "reverse". He demonstrated mercy while here, but He didn't demonstrate justice. I am, of course, referring to the following contrasts:

The long-suffering of God is wonderful. Long does justice wait while mercy pleads with the sinner. . . Even now they have almost exceeded the bounds of the long-suffering of God, the limits of His grace, the limits of His mercy. {COL 177.5}

Were there no justice, no penalty, there would be no stability to the government of God. {AG 70.3}

Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne, and justice will take their place. {LDE 240.3}

In all the Bible, God is presented not only as a Being of mercy and benevolence, but as a God of strict and impartial justice. {LDE 240.4}

It's protein!


If we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will use fire to punish and kill the wicked at the end of time.


I've been saying "life and teachings" all along. It's a class in college, you know. Like NT authors, who taught things they didn't act out, so too, Jesus taught things He didn't act out. For example, John, the loved and loving disciple, wrote about the punishment and suffering and death of the wicked at the end of time; however, he was the greatest pacifist.


No.

But, if we interpret this passage in light of all the other ones Tom and I posted above, the message is loud and clear - Jesus will NOT punish and directly kill the wicked at the end of time.
How do we decide which passage to use? (seems like I have asked this before) Should we just consider you are the expert and go with that? Why do we have to interpret "in light" of certain others? Is that because the passage itself doesn't say, but one has to gather others that seem to support their presumed premise in order to interpret it?


Ok. Could you shed light on how He taught differently than He lived?


Ok. What are you saying when you said He taught the reverse? I noticed you are eliminating the word "reverse", so what word are you putting in it's place or... just what did you mean by that statement?

Jesus Christ did not demonstrate justice! Wow, what an affirmation! Jesus Christ was *the* demonstration of justice. It is because of Christ that we can know what justice is. His entire life was a just one, one which corresponded to and revealed justice.







The first two speak for themselves. The last one I cited because surely no one epitomized this more than Jesus Christ.