This is pretty cryptic. When I made my comment about "pulling teeth," it's things like this that come to mind. That is, it's not a normal conversation back and forth where one trades ideas. *Occasionally*, IMO, it's OK to hold off on some point, because you want to set up a foundation, but to do this too often makes for a frustrating experience.

Instead of sarcasm, etc., more laying out what you think and why I believe would make the process more pleasant for those with whom you are discussing things, if that's something important to you.

Here, for example, you made a comment last week(!) that you claim is "bearing fruit" in that it is "revealing a premise" which you hope to address soon! That's a long time to drag a thing out. Why not just write out a well reasoned post which makes the points you wish to make?

I don't even see how the things you are writing have to do with the points I was making. I was discussing God's supposedly inflicting excruciating pain against those who act contrary to His wishes. I see this as contrary to the principles of God's government for a number of reasons. For example, we're told that compelling power is to be found only understand Satan's government, but upping the ante on pain and destruction until you get your way seems to me as fine an expression of compelling power as one could hope to find. I also don't find the violent ways by which God supposed acted to be in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed of God's character.

Now you're talking about other things, like a Doctor's causing pain in order to heal a patient. I don't see the connection here.



If you wish to know my opinion regarding this, I'd be happy to share it.





To stick up for someone who you believe is being unfairly treated is completely Biblical.

you so totally misunderstood. and it isnt the first time.

i said the sky was blue. somehow you read that i said the sky was green and are taking me to task for it, as usual. your problem, my brother, and i will just have to leave you bear it yourself.

i guess we all pick up different points in the scriptures.

This would make a great quotable quote. Well put.

Are you qualified to say Jesus revealed things about God that we do not need to know? And, no, I don’t see it as a subset.


Do you think there is any possibility that my view of the two phrases is correct? Or, are you convinced you’re right and I’m wrong?


Awesome study, Tom. Thank you. I think I’ll read it in Sabbath school class tomorrow. Well done. Again, thank you. Having said that, I hate to continue on a different vein. While I agree with what you posted above, I do not agree that Ellen White’s 8T 286 statement excludes Jesus’ revelation of God in the OT. However, please bear in mind that I also believe Jesus revealed certain aspects of God’s character by teaching them rather than by demonstrating them (i.e. employ the “withdraw and permit” principle or command people to kill sinners). Seems like I recall you agreeing with this point.


Tom, the bulk of what you’ve written about it is along the same lines of your answer here, namely, alluding to what we should do to arrive at an answer. I can honestly say you have never clearly explained your position, your conclusion. I doubt anybody here can summarize what you believe. Again, 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 wrote, “. . . 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.” Even if you were to do this, how would it change your summary? For example, if you were to say, “Therefore, in light of these things, I think Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death because . . . .” How would you finish this sentence?

for me, these kinds of questions and pursuits leads away from what the scripture/sop stated and just wanders into confusion.

in other words we are no longer thinking of what the messenger of the Lord meant and meditating on that, we are now dissecting another person.

dont debate the statements! meditate on them prayerfully! why interrogate and wonder off into confusion, far, far from God?

I’m sure you are aware of the fact that this statement is one of many in a chapter entitled – The Essential Knowledge. In this chapter she, among other things, writes:


In this chapter Mrs. White speaks of the various and different ways God seeks to reveal Himself to us. "The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ." Yes, the revelation of Jesus, while He was here in the flesh, is by far the best. However, it is also evident that she did not say Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.

On the contrary, she clearly says there are many things about God that we are too dull and dimwitted to grasp or comprehend and that because of this He has not yet revealed them. Not even the angels know everything there is to know about God. Why? Because He has not yet revealed everything there is to know about Himself. This is the point I've been trying to make all along.

God saw that a clearer revelation than nature was needed to portray both His personality and His character. He sent His Son into the world to reveal, so far as could be endured by human sight, the nature and the attributes of the invisible God. {8T 265.5}

” All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}

so i guess the question is,

why keep running away from it?

why run to other places to escape it?

that is how it is coming across to me as an observer, anyway. not only that i feel like some arent just doing the running themselves, they are also trying to drag others along with them. we'll run off exploring on all these sideroads, anything but stay on the straight and narrow.

Perhaps you don't understand what a subset is. Many people who aren't mathematically inclined don't, so this isn't an insult. I'll explain it.

A set X is a subset of set Y if all of the members of X are in Y. In order for X to not be a subset of Y, that means there is some member of set X which is not in set Y. So if we say X is the set "things man needs to know of God" and Y is "things man can know of God," then your assertion that you don't see X as a subset of Y means that you believe there is something which man needs to know of God but can't, which is obviously nonsense, and so cannot be true.

So X must be a subset of Y. The two could be the same set, which is probably what you have in mind. That is, you believe that the set of things which man needs to know of God is identical to the set of things man can know of God. One would have to define what "need" means in this context. If you have in mind "need" in terms of "to be saved," then this seems to me very unlikely to be true. That is, there are things which Jesus revealed of God that we do not need to know in order to be saved. If you say "need" in terms of "in order to be translated," I think that could be true. That is, to be translated, we need to know everything Jesus revealed of God.



What specifically are you perceiving that I am saying that's different than what you are saying? I'm asking you this because it's not clear to me what you're asking me if I'm convinced I'm right about and your wrong.



Thanks a lot. I appreciate that.



Clearly it's not included. She wrote:



Obviously this isn't talking about the OT. Right? There aren't many things clearer than this.



What Ellen White wrote is that "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." So why not stick with the word used? Christ "revealed" God, in what He said, taught, and lived. All of this testimony is important.



kland could for sure. I know of others who could as well, but I won't name them.



You're whole way of thinking is wrong, IMO. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but merely to point out that I can't even begin to answer your question because there's no foundation upon which I could start. Or, trying to say this in another way, you are assuming things which I don't see as true. That is, I disagree with your assumptions, your paradigm, your whole way of looking at this. So there's no way for me to answer your question in a way you can understand. We would have to build some sort of bridge upon which to communicate. I've suggested ways that this bridge could be built.

The story of the father/hunter and his son was an attempt. But this story doesn't make sense to you. I said a number of times that if you didn't understand the story, that I could do a better job of explaining it than the story does.

I'm sorry I can't answer you in a way that's more satisfying to you, but I don't see how it would be possible to do so. I would, once again, suggest going back to the cross. We are told that all truths are to be understood in the light of the cross. So what happened there? How do we see God acting? How do we see man acting? What were the principles, the dynamics, involved there? Only by understanding the answers to these questions can we begin to tackle the more difficult ones, I believe.

You'll recall that I resisted your attempts a couple of years ago to discuss these things with you. It was only because of your undaunted persistence that I finally succumbed. Do you recall this? I don't mind having given in, because I learned a lot in our discussions, and I thank you for that. However, if this were going on today, I don't think I would have agreed, as I'm more convinced than ever of the truth of EGW's words that an understand of the cross is vital. And I think your understanding of the cross is way off.

I'm not saying mine is perfect, far from it, and I would expect that I can learn from insights you have on the subject. However, given the reality of how you view the cross, I don't think there's any way you could understand the truth of what I'm saying about these other subjects (assuming that what I'm saying is actually true). Therefore I think we would be better off discussing other subjects, such as the judgment and the cross. Also the fall. I think these are the foundational subjects upon which the others depend.

So you say I misunderstood, yet you say nothing to clarify.

You say I have a problem, yet you leave me to bear it without your help.

The father chastens the son he loves. That's in the Bible. What you are doing, that's not love. Telling someone their zipper is open is love; letting them walk around unzipped is not.

I'll take pain any time over this namby-pamby sentimentalism that many mistake for love.

In case I was not clear, I am telling you right now that what you are doing and the attitude you are exhibiting is unloving. I'm simply doing for you what I wish others would do for me.

Please do. If you have experienced bad treatment, especially by me, I would like to know.