Yes, this pretty much what I understood your approach to be. I think it's a common one, but I believe incorrect. I believe the correct approach is that Jesus Christ is the foundation, and everything else is subservient to Him, and to be build upon Him.





She didn't say that everything about Jesus was revealed in 33 years (nor did I!) but that everything that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son (as did I). Here's the quote again:



Since all that man needs to know, or can know, of God has been revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh (this is the context of the quote), it makes perfect sense to start there, and build up a theology of God's character. Then, *after* having a correct understanding, we can explore other areas, which have been misunderstood.



But the Revelation of Christ had not yet come, so it is as a dim reflection. It's like the moon to the brilliant glory of the Son. As EGW points out in DA, the earth was dark through misapprehension of God. Why dark? Because God's character had not been revealed in its fullness by Christ.

The OT writers did the best they could, but they were hampered by not having had the opportunity to live with Christ, to hear Him and see Him and touch Him, as John puts it. Having seen the Son in His glory, the Gospel writers were able to write first hand of God in the flesh.

The whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God. Because no one had seen God, Christ came to show us what He is really like. Not what we thought He was like, but what He really is like.

If we do not allow the testimony of Christ to impact our preconceptions of God's character (new wineskin to receive the new wine), it's inevitable that the errors in our thinking will persist. How could it be otherwise?



Here we are in disagreement. According the SOP, all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. Here's her statement in more detail:



Now given that *all* that man can know of God was revealed by Christ, it should be clear that if there is some additional thing we think we learn by supplementing this "all" we are in error! This couldn't be more clear.

Let me try to give an analogy. Let's say I have a twin brother. I've lived all my life with him, and I know him far better than anyone else. I give a full and complete account of him. An inspired writer says, "All that anyone can know of Tom's twin brother was made known by Tom's complete account of him."

Say some other people wrote some things about my brother, things which people find harder to understand than my account, which some people find to be in harmony with my account but others find not to be.

Isn't it clear that if what the inspired writer wrote is true, that anyone who has the idea that what these other people wrote differs from my account must be wrong? Isn't is also clear that my full account is the place to go if you really want to understand my twin?



I think it should be clear that if one thinks one sees some aspect of God which was not revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, what one thinks one sees must be in error. God most assuredly did not reveal anything about Himself through the plagues that He did not reveal in Christ.

In posts which follow, I'll present in more detail ideas related to how we should approach understanding God.

How did they, in practical terms, force God to do something He didn't want to do? Or, did He want to do it? For example, how did the 250 force God to allow fire to kill them? Did they surround Him and bind His arms? Or, what? Please speak in practical terms. Thank you.


Please indulge me, Tom. Or, are you going to insist I ask your questions and not mine own?


Thank you for answering my question. Your insight seems to imply evil men and angels only use force and violence when God withdraws His protection. It also seems to imply He violates their freedoms when He prevents them from using force and violence.


Tom, your unwillingness to deal with specific cases, such as the one described in PP 404, makes it impossible to arrive at any concrete conclusions. Please answer the questions I posted a few pages ago regarding PP 404.


The truth is evident when viewed in the context of the Bible.


Please cite an example of Jesus withdrawing His protection, while here in the flesh, and permitting evil men or angels to cause death and destruction. Please do not cite the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as an example of something Jesus did while here in the flesh.


Are you implying that holy angels leaving the temple in heaven symbolizes evil angels? If so, where else in the Bible is this the case?

Do you know of any other place in the Bible where holy angels leaving the temple in heaven symbolize evil angels? And, is it possible that the voice of God in Rev 15 symbolizes Satan?


Probably not. What do you think?


Probably not. What do you think?


Do you think the angel in this vision is an evil angel? If so, why? If not, why not?

Also, is there some kind of rule or principle we can use to determine which parts of Rev are literal and symbolic?

I was simply following your example. Ha! Yes, I have an observation.

You asked - "is God a punishing God or a God Who restrains evil?" Both are true.

"is He constantly protecting us from circumstances we are completely oblivious to." Yes. He also protects us from ones we are aware of.


How do we determine what the truth is? And, is it safe and true to believe that God does nothing contrary to the truth? If so, is it true He commanded Moses to stone people to death?


The picture that comes to mind is the one described in the Bible and in the SOP, namely, God caused the earth to open up and swallow the rebellious and then He caused fire to consume the 250. Are we supposed to assume those descriptions are symbolic of evils angels causing death and destruction?


Yes, in the vision the details are literal, namely, John literally saw an angel with a vial, etc. I don't think he saw something he was unfamiliar with and used language he was familiar with to describe it. The description of the plagues in the SOP is most helpful. I take her explanation literally. She describes literal things happening in relation to the out pouring of the plagues.

What about you? Do you read her description literally?


I am totally sold on the truthfulness of that statement. But I am also interested in what you think about the rest of this thread. My interest in no way implies I am not more impressed with statements like the one you posted above.

Why do you think He must have worked contrary to His laws in the plagues? [/quote]hey, my sister, where did i say that, hint or give any impression to that effect? since i seem to stepping on toes, now i will just back off. have a good day, y'all.

Well, you gave me that impression when you said,

I understand you implied He might be acting contrary to His laws in the plagues and asked if there were other examples of this having apparently happened. So I provided some other examples, and suggested that in these incidents there might be involved some laws we don't know.
Sorry, but I don't have a clue as to why you thought what you said was taken negatively.
I was trying to contest the idea, true, but not in a negative tone.

hmmm, how did you get from there to here so-to-speak?
i put up the statements by ellen white some pages back on when Christ leaves the sanctuary. are we going to base our beliefs on that and her and the bibles other statements, or on something else? im asking if we are going to actually search the scriptures or just try to defend beliefs we already hold? ive been doing whatever word searches i could think of to see what she says on the subject and try to stay within that.
where did you get evil angel from? ive looked back through my posts and cant see where i give the least hint that the angel in the vision was evil. as i stated above, is there some reason we shouldnt search the scriptures and sop for a better understanding? :0

forgive me, my brother, but i do not see how you can consider this any kind of legitimate question. while Jesus is just as much God as the Father is, He also laid aside all His powers and took on humanity while here on earth. if He wasnt exercising His powers here, He also wasnt exercising them to protect anyone. so how can there be any such example?

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Christ came to the world to reveal the character of the Father, and to redeem the fallen race.{RH, January 7, 1890 par. 1}

They did so in a similar manner mentioned here:



Regarding whether it was something God didn't want to do, of course it wasn't!





Force isn't a principle of God's government. Neither is violence. Do you disagree?



Do you really think so? Do you think the fact that God doesn't allow Satan to destroy the entire human race violates his freedom?



I've spent dozens of pages, if not hundreds, discussing these types of things with you, so it's not like I haven't done so in the past.

I don't think this approach is fruitful. I think the fruitful approach would be to consider the life and character of Christ first, from that obtaining a foundation upon which we may understand God's character. *After* so doing, we may consider incidents which apparently have God using force and violence, principles we know from the SOP to be contrary to His government.

Did you read my analogy of my making an account of my twin brother? Or read the posts where I spoke of Piaget and the lumps of clay?



Jesus Christ is the truth. The truth is evident when we believe what He revealed about God.



The cross.

What example would you give?



No.



N/A.

maybe we need to define "punish" and i mean by the bible, the original meanings, and uses, and not the dictionary.


how about searching the scriptures and sop prayerfully?

this is off-topic and has to do with your agenda.
this seems to be something you have just taken at face value and havent prayed and studied over. neither have i but i am now. it also is but since the moderators be the bossmen and started it in the first place....i wouldnt mind it being explored eventually but this skipping all over the place has started wearing on my nerves big time-to put it mildly.in other words you havent really studied this out except superficially? otherwise the way you are stating things is rather confusing and give no evidence of dealing with the question. in other words it appears that you are saying you believe a literal angel will literally pour out some vial, instead of the angel and vial being symbolic of something that will happen.i have been collecting and integrating her statements on this subject. i am still studying and praying and dont believe i will have all the info all at once. as ellen white said, "we have much to unlearn and much to learn".