Because you stated, "Everything that man can know of God, including things which man doesn't need to know."


Again, "needs to know" does not imply everything there is to know. In the military we used the phrase, "On a need to know basis". We only told the troops what they needed to know, which, by the way, excluded a ton of information they didn't need to know. And, of course, "can know" refers to one's ability to grasp and comprehend something. When my kids were small, I only told them things their young minds could grasp, which, by the way, excluded a ton of information they could not comprehend.


I believe Jesus revealed them. It's just that I don't believe He revealed them while He was here in the flesh. I believe Jesus' revelation of God includes both the OT and the NT. I do not limit it to the NT. Your view (i.e. Jesus revealed the Father more clearly in the NT) seems to be at odds with the following passage:

"The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New. It is the light from the prophetic past that brings out the life of Christ and the teachings of the New Testament with clearness and beauty." {DA 799.2}

I asked the two unanswered questions above because I do not know what you believe about it. As far as I know, you have never clearly stated why you think Jesus in the OT commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. You cite your humane hunter story and then trust that it clearly states your position. But it doesn't, at least, not for me.

The only thing I get from it is that the young man's father gave in against his wishes and taught his son how to hunt humanely, and that in so doing he ran the risk of people misunderstanding him and concluding he is in favor of hunting. But I don't see how this insight explains why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. We're not talking about killing wild game; we're talking about killing human beings.

No, in this case the "sin" definitely would not have made the incisions on its own. The "sin" caused pain, but it wasn't nearly as bad as the incisions. It was definitely the doctor who made the cuts, not the "sin."

And by all accounts, she did it herself. I'm glad for that, since she is the expert on what to cut, where to cut, how far to cut, etc. Letting the drug dealers perform this crucial task would not have been good for my wife.


Thanks.

I tell her that the suffering she's experiencing now is much more preferable to the ultimate consequences of not addressing her problem. Pain that leads to life is better than comfort that leads to death.

I wouldn't be qualified to say what we need to know and what we don't. God knows. You understand that what one needs to know is a subset of what one can know, don't you?



Right. "Can know" implies this. "Need to know" is a subset of "can know."



She said "all that man can know," so she didn't qualify this, other than limit it to man.



Well, that's what she said.



John made the same point (which she quoted).



Of course it does. But her point is that all that man know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ during His incarnation. That means whatever was revealed in the OT was also revealed while Jesus was with us in the flesh. To put it another way, there was nothing lacking in Jesus Christ's revelation of the Father during His humanity.



Ellen White did. Not limit in the sense that Jesus didn't reveal things at other times, but limit in the sense that Jesus Christ's revelation of God, during His incarnation, was a full and complete revelation of God. It wasn't lacking, as you're appearing to understand it.



"My" view is based on passages such as the following:




Please note:

1.The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. (This is in spite of what had been done in the OT)
2.That the gloomy shadows might be lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan's deceptive power was to be broken. (This is something which had not been done, which remained to be done, and was done by Jesus Christ in the flesh).
3.This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known.(This is like John 1:18, which refers to Christ's being "in the bosom of the Father," or, as another version puts it, "He who knew Him best.")

Now how was Satan's deceptive power broken? By revealing the truth.

IMO, if we don't perceive that Jesus Christ in the flesh did something important, vitally important, by means of His revelation of the Father, we're missing something vital. When Jesus Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," He was proclaiming the Gospel. The Gospel is the Good News about God. God is not like the devil has portrayed him to be, but He is like this! Behold Me and see!

A couple more statements which deal with this theme:



This points out that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." Such a vital purpose (His "whole purpose") cannot be overemphasized.



We are drawn back to God by beholding His character, which Jesus Christ revealed, especially in His death. She looks to have Peter's statement in mind here:



Regarding the quote you cited, in the OT, the Savior was pointed to prophetically. This is pointed to by the quote itself:



The prophetic past is referring to the prophecies of Christ. In the NT we get to see the revelation.

In the sentence immediately before where you started quoting her, we have the topic sentence of the paragraph, which is:



It's helpful to take into account the context of statements.

In Hebrews we read:



Something special happened when Christ came! The whole universe received a revelation of the Father that had never been seen. God in all His splendor was revealed in human flesh. "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." There was never a time in all human history that this was the case, until Christ.



You've asked this dozens of times. I've been very patient about this, but not everyone feels the same way about being repeatedly asked something and having this characterized as "unanswered."

I've discussed why we see things differently, and what I think the right way of proceeding is. Specifically, we're told that the atonement is the great truth around which all truths cluster, and that all things should be studied in the light of the cross in order to understand them. So I suggest doing this.

You say you're unhappy with my answer, which is your prerogative, but IMO it's unreasonable of you to characterize the dozens of pages I've written to answer your questions as not answering them, as well as quite odd that you would say you don't know what I believe, given how much I've written. But if you still don't know, in spite of all I've written, I doubt anything else I'd write would help.

I'd once again suggest studying the subject in the light of the cross.

Ok, Arnold. If you prefer to believe the doctor is responsible for your wife's pain, rather than sin, or her sickness, that's fine. Likewise if you prefer to believe that God is responsible for people's pain rather than sin. We all interpret things according to our paradigm. The Calvinist reads the Scriptures and see evidence that there's no such thing as free will.

My question to you is, what's your motivation in seeing things this way? That is, why do you prefer seeing God as responsible for these things rather than sin?

if you had read what i actually wrote instead of what your mind said i had written you would not have addressed me like this.

i have defended tom because of the way i have seen him treated. i would defend the pope if i perceived him being treated in a manner that i do not perceive to be Christlike.

but we all seem to perceive "Christlike" behavior differently. a recent contributor here and his buddy thought it was quite permissable to call me a lesbian because i put up a 16 page article that had one paragraph relating to homosexuality last year elsewhere. of course the buddy thought calling any woman lesbian, dike, etc., were very acceptable and "Christlike".

a common tactic by several practiced against me, as well as others that saw an issue differently than they, is to misrepresent, slander, malign.....

so i perceive it all depends what one believes is permissable behavior, or behavior that Jesus Himself practiced.

i hope and pray for a rapid and as painfree recovery for your wife as God will grant. i also pray that life will remain fairly smooth for your family during this time. may all Gods children say amen.

reading this which is saying the same thing over and over again seems to me is that your issue is with what ellen white wrote. it is very clear to some of us that she meant specifically Christs incarnation and life, not from eden to His incarnation.

but yet, if im understanding correctly, it seems perfectly clear to others that she meant from eden to His death and not specifically His incarnation and life.

again this seems to be quite clearly stating prophecy foretold Christs life for some of us, yet it seems to just as clearly, for others, mean His "dealings" from eden til His death.

actually what i keep reading is from egypt, not eden.

so as long as the statements are read and interpreted differently how can there can there be any kind of understanding?

i should have read further. apparently my points were already covered.

I'm one of the ones to whom is seems clear this statement is dealing with Christ's incarnation and human life. Indeed, I don't see how "taking humanity upon Him" and "He became flesh" can be speaking of anything other than Christ's incarnation and human life.

Regarding the other statement, I started out assuming that she wasn't contradicting what she had written elsewhere, and saw that the context was:



which verified what I thought she was getting at. There has to be other statements from the SOP which speak of Christ's revelation of the Father in His humanity being unique. I think I've thought of one:



I'll bet there's a bunch of these in "The Desire of Ages."

I have a new quest.

there are. all through her writings because ive seen them. hence my surprise at the reinterpretation.

Did you write more than I quoted above? I'm pretty sure I read it completely and accurately. And I appreciate your concern. Thanks.

I'm guessing it's the 2nd part that's getting your feathers all ruffled up. It wasn't a "serious" comment, as evidenced by the at the end. I think Tom "got it" based on his reply.

And that was a good thing, since it was also a fish for Tom. I saw this as a very practical example of the concepts we've been exploring here. (Note: We homeschoolers are always in teaching mode, and are quick to find and use "teaching moments" in everyday life. For instance, I once used cutting tofu for lunch as a tool to teach a little geometry to my kids. And you can be sure that I've been milking this surgery for worship as much as I can.)

My comment is now bearing fruit in that it has revealed a premise that I wanted to address last week, but have not had the chance. The premise is now more apparent, and I hope to address it soon.


I don't think he's been treated in an unchristlike manner in these discussions. Sure we disagree, and very vehemently at times, but that doesn't mean we do not have Christian love for each other. If I think someone is in error and I do nothing to correct them, that is proof that I do not love that person.

But there's another thing you should consider. If Tom has been treated unfairly, God will give him grace to overcome the persecution. However, God does not promise to give YOU any grace for TOM's troubles. So don't take other people's burdens upon yourself; it will cause you grief that you might not be called upon to bear.


Thanks. I appreciate it.