I appreciate and accept your apology.



Other than a reference, quoting EGW, and a couple more, quoting me, I didn't see any references (also, I wasn't singling you out specifically; I didn't see anybody referring to Jesus Christ. That His life and teachings need to be understood in order to understand God's actions doesn't seem to be an idea that people have, was my point).

My point was not relating to a number of references made, but to the methodology. I keep saying I disagree with the methodology being used, which is to look at isolated texts, as opposed to considering Jesus Christ, but, in spite of this, what I'm seeing is more questions of the nature of "What about this? ... What about this? ... What about this?..."

My nature is to answer all the questions I receive, and respond to any points made. But in so doing, I'm acting counter to what I personally believe would be most productive. I'm mostly wanting to make that point clear.



I accept it just as I accept that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.



Without a doubt it's too narrow a base, as Ellen White herself specifically makes this clear. So one cannot be guided by Ellen White and restrict oneself to Ellen White, as to do so is not what she herself taught.



I think this is completely backwards, and the fundamental problem. I think this problem is a really difficult one to get. I try my best to explain it, but it seems difficult to grasp.

Perhaps the following SOP statement in regards to angels may help me in communicating the point I wish to make:



This is very significant. Why? Because the Great Controversy is about two individuals, each of which are making claims about the other. Basically both God and Satan are claiming to be one way (kind, compassionate, considerate of others, etc.) while claiming that their adversary is another (a liar, wanting his own glory, etc.) To the extent that we misunderstand the character and principles of the one, we misunderstand the character and principles of the other. Therefore the enlightenment of Satan's character by Jesus Christ was also an enlightenment of God's character. It became crystal clear to them who was telling the truth. The loyal angels had already had some conviction regarding this, enough to take a stand, but until the cross, they still had some doubt. The cross removed all doubt. The cross made clear who Satan really was, and what his principles were.

Now if even holy angels did not fully understand things until the cross, what hope do unholy human beings have of so doing?

The OT has been misunderstood. It *appears* to present a totally different picture of God than Jesus Christ does. In the OT we see God telling people to kill their enemies, and take for their wives whoever appeals to them. We see an angry God who takes vengeance and kills those who would dare oppose Him. We see a God who applies more and more force to get His way, until His adversary can resist no more, and is overcome by force.

But this can't be right. Why not?

First of all, we have statements like the following from the SOP:



This tells us:

1.God does not overcome rebellion by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

I don't see how the SOP could have expressed this any more clearly.

When we consider the traditional understand of the Egyptian plagues, the idea is that God applied more and more force until, when God applied enough, Pharaoh capitulated. This seems to be as diametrically opposed as possible to the principles laid out by the SOP.

The second reason this cannot be right is because it is contrary to what Jesus Christ lived and taught.

Here's another quote from the SOP, which might make the point clearer.



Notice that the world was through misapprehension of God. This means God was not understood. Because of the sophistry of Satan, the OT was not enough. Jesus Christ was needed. Indeed, this was His purpose; to reveal God. If God had already been known, it wouldn't have been necessary for Jesus Christ to reveal Him.

In addition, we see the same points made about force. God was misunderstood, so Jesus Christ came to clear up the misunderstandings. Misunderstood in what way? Consider what was specifically pointed about by the servant of the Lord:



Working by means of force is specifically mentioned. Not only is force a principle by which God does not work, but it is a principle by which Satan misrepresents God.



Satan's power to deceive, as well as the destructive power of sin, is greatly underestimated. When the destructive power of sin is apprehended, it becomes apparent that there's no need for God to be destructive, as there's quite enough destructive power in sin to do whatever destruction is needed. In addition, by understanding this principle, we don't need to bump heads with the principles regarding force which the SOP brings out.

To conclude, in regards to what is completely backwards, is rather than:

1.We need the OT to give us a background to understand Christ.

it should be

2.We need Jesus Christ to give us a background to understand the OT.

Now, to be clear, you didn't exactly say 1., but this was the impression I was getting. My apologies if I misrepresented your point here, but it does seem to me you are advocating an approach which uses the OT as foundational, as opposed to what I think needs to be foundational, which is Christ's life and teachings as revealed when "the Word became flesh."

My thinking involves neither of the above and all of them at the same time. I am not making just one part the "foundational" one. I am opening the base wide to accept the whole as "foundational," just as I do not build on Ellen White alone, but also the Bible with her. Together, we have a more complete picture.

I do not accept that everything about Jesus was revealed in 33 years. Nor will I. I do not believe Mrs. White ever said so, and to make her say such would be to misunderstand the import of her words. (I'm not saying you have misunderstood her, only clarifying my position relative to the quote you brought here.)

It just so happens that the Old Testament gives more "foundation" to the New than the other way around simply because the Old Testament happened first. But truth is progressive. The more time passes, the more light is given. Today, we have much more light and capacity to see Jesus than did the early church just after His ascension. The "central" theme will always be the cross. The ancient Israelites were always looking forward to that, while modern Israel must always look back to it. It is the foundation of our redemption. However, if we had only the cross, and nothing more, by which to know Christ, we should have scant knowledge indeed. And as far as I'm concerned, our knowledge would also be quite limited if we had only those 33 years, and nothing more.

Which brings us back to the plagues: God has shown us a part of Himself through these judgments. Without first understanding God's love, we could never hope to see the justice in His plagues. But sin cannot go unpunished. It is just.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

my brother do you equate Jesus with the Father? that they are one and the same?

.... Nature is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul His laws, or work contrary to them; but He is continually using them as His instruments. {FLB 28.5} so did God work contrary to His laws in the plagues of egypt? or anywhere else since peoples like to skip around instead of dealing with one issue at a time.

What makes you think this has anything to do with the plagues?

"searching the scriptures" and sop, there seems to be more than some validity as to why the brethern believe it is lightning.
No sooner had his prayer been uttered, than flames of fire in a distinct manner, like a brilliant flash of lightning, descended from Heaven, kindling the wood for sacrifice, and consuming the victim, licking up the water in the trench, and consuming even the stones of the altar. The brilliancy of the blaze is painful to the eyes of the multitude, and illumes the mountain. The people of the kingdom of Israel, not gathered upon the mount, are watching with interest the gathering of the people upon the mount. As the fire descends, they witness it, and are amazed at the sight. It resembles the pillar of fire at the Red Sea, which by night separated the children of Israel from the Egyptian host. {RH, September 30, 1873 par. 19}

In the day of the Lord, just before the coming of Christ, God will send lightnings from Heaven in his wrath, which will unite with fire in the earth. The mountains will burn like a furnace, and will pour forth terrible streams of lava, destroying gardens and fields, villages and cities; and as they pour their melted ore, rocks and heated mud into the rivers, will cause them to boil like a pot, and send forth massive rocks and scatter their broken fragments upon the land with indescribable violence. Whole rivers will be dried up. The earth will be convulsed, and there will be dreadful eruptions and earthquakes everywhere. God will plague the wicked inhabitants of the earth until they are destroyed from off it. {3SG 82.3}
what power does satan have?


i also came this:

guess im thinking the nile river, frogs, lice, flies, locusts, hail,....

.... Nature is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul His laws, or work contrary to them; but He is continually using them as His instruments. {FLB 28.5}just wondering how that worked. He doesnt work against His laws yet they are His servants. i havent studied every instance she brings this up yet, but im interested in just how that works.

Indeed, it is a matter of paradigm.

Tell me if I understand your methodology correctly: You take "what Jesus Christ revealed of Him in His life and teachings" - basically, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - and restrict yourself to this set of data to determine what God is or is not like, what He does or does not do. Then, whenever you read any of the other 62 books of the Bible, your interpretation of any passage must match the paradigm you formulated based on those 4 books. If you come across anything that describes God as doing something that your paradigm cannot account for, then you conclude that God must not have done that, and He simply allowed it to happen. Whether or not you have a plausible alternative explanation for the phenomenon, if your paradigm from the 4 books does not allow for God to do it, He didn't do it - He didn't cause it to happen, but simply allowed something else to cause it to happen.

Does that sound about right?

My paradigm, and it seems GC has a similar paradigm, is to take all 66 books, figure out what they are saying, and use all of that to formulate a paradigm of what God is or is not like, what He does or does not do. IOW, Christ's 33 years in the Middle East does not constitute a comprehensive description of everything God is and could possibly be; it only constituted what He was in that context. There will be other contexts, such as when Jesus comes in His full divine glory, when He will do something He didn't do while in fallen flesh.

It is very possible that we do not know how all of His laws work. It is also possible that some of His laws require a catalyst that is beyond human ability to generate.

But one thing to note is that nature is God's servant or instrument, as opposed to lying in wait for God to let it do some bad thing. Nature, as well as sin and God's law, are not sentient beings.

Why do you think He must have worked contrary to His laws in the plagues? What about the occasion when He walked on the water? Or when the sun stood still in Joshua's day, or when He brought the shadow ten degrees backwards from the point to which it had gone down on the dial of Ahaz? Like Arnold said, can some laws we don't know be involved in these incidents?