You wrote, ". . . we are no longer thinking of what the messenger of the Lord meant and meditating on that . . ." This assumes, of course, that your understanding of what she meant is correct. Are you sure, though, that your personal biases aren't altering what she actually meant to say, that your conclusions aren't far afield?

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying your understanding of what she meant IS wrong. Neither am I saying it is right. Honestly, I have no idea what you believe. You seem to think her statements are so plain that they are too obvious to require comment or interpretation. But if it were true she would not counsel us to compare what she says with everything else she wrote about it.

No one statement is an island that stands alone. There is a sea of information that must be considered before drawing concrete conclusions. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." Only thus does the beautiful balance emerge in all its luster and grandeur. Discussing different ways of viewing what she meant is one of many ways to arrive at the truth. "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." (Prov 27:17) The following insights are pertinent:

Harsh words from a harsh person? Is that what you're attempting to prove? Can you not think of a less critical way of conveying your thoughts? Please stop and think about the effect of your words before you post them. Are they calculated to inform and uplift and encourage? Or, are they designed to insult and offend and discourage?

In the quotes I posted above Ellen White makes it clear that Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God. This insight does not take away from the fact that Jesus is the by far the best revelation of God. But it also true He is not the only revelation of God.

If she did, then she contradicted the following:



You are saying, "Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God." while EGW is saying that He did.

Or, if you're right in your conclusions above, in one place she is saying "Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God." while in another place she is saying that He did.

This is right, isn't it?

The impression I got from the very first time I posted this quote (i.e. 8T 286) is that you didn't believe it was true (that is, the Jesus Christ, in His humanity, revealed all man can know of God). I can tell you, it came as quite a revelation to me when I first became aware of it (the 8T 286 quote). It's been quite a number of years now, 5 or 6 I think, and I still find it amazing.

Thank you for further explaining what you meant by “subset”. You are definitely more informed about such things than I am, and I appreciate the lesson. You are a good teacher. However, I do not view the two phrases as subsets or the same sets. Again, “needs to know” and “can know” are referring to two different aspects of knowledge. The one deals with content, whereas the other deals with ability. Yes, the knowledge Jesus revealed about God is what we “need to know”. I agree with the way you differentiated between salvation and translation.

You overlooked the first question in my post above, namely, Are you qualified to say Jesus revealed things about God that we do not need to know? How can you be so sure He revealed things about God we don’t need to know? Do you have an example in mind?


I wrote, “Again, ‘needs to know’ does not imply everything there is to know. . . And, of course, ‘can know’ refers to one's ability to grasp and comprehend something.” You seem to be objecting to this way of looking at it. Do you think I’m looking at it incorrectly?


You are very welcome. Something came up, though, and I didn’t make it to church. I hope to share it with them one of these days. Again, thank you for putting so much time and effort into writing such a great study.


Did you happen to read what I posted in #116926? In that section in 8T Ellen White was addressing false views regarding the person of God the Father. In it she says, "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.


I agree. “Revealed” includes what He taught. And He said He was in the future going to employ the “withdraw and permit” principle of allowing death and destruction to happen. He will also command holy angels to pour out the seven last plagues.


I doubt it. I’ve seen no evidence of it on this forum.


You wrote, “I disagree with your assumptions, your paradigm, your whole way of looking at this.” How are we supposed to look at the following passage:


Is it absurd to ask, Why did Jesus command Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death?

You wrote, “I think your understanding of the cross is way off.” What do I believe about the cross that you think is way off? Are you referring to the “judicial punishment” aspect of it: “He, the sin-bearer, endures judicial punishment for iniquity and becomes sin itself for man.” (SR 225) “God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin.” (MB 114)

You wrote, “The story of the father/hunter and his son was an attempt [at building a bridge to understanding why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death]. But this story doesn't make sense to you.” Sure it makes sense to me. It’s a very good analogy. It explains why God risks being misunderstood. I just don’t think it explains why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. He wasn’t taking a risk. He was commanding them to do what the law demands and requires. “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Capital punishment is the penalty required by law. "In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin." (Con 21) “But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression—‘the wages of sin.’ They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, ‘according to their works,’ but finally ending in the second death.” (GC 544) “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished ‘according to their deeds.’" (GC 673) She goes on to say:


“What did God command Moses to do with those who were guilty of adultery? They should be stoned to death. Does the punishment end there? No, they are to die the second death. The stoning system has been done away, but the penalty for transgressing God's law is not done away. If the transgressor does not heartily repent, he will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. {TSB 131.3}

I realize you are just sharing your personal opinion, but your opinion is unloving and unChristlike. Yes, you are entitled to it, but I believe such unsolicited opinions are harsh and counterproductive. It does not promote a positive study environment.

I concur with what Arnold stated above - "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."

Every once in awhile people like you come along and destroy the atmosphere of this forum with their unloving words and attitudes. Eventually they get bored with the rest of us pleading with them to stop being so harsh and unloving and they go away. Sad to say, though, most of us do not miss them. The worst of it, though, is that in some cases other members are offended and go away, too.

I would prefer it, Teresaq, if you would learn not to share your harsh and unloving words. Please keep such opinions to yourself. Instead, share the truth as you see it. Nothing positive can come from attacking people that you disagree with. Yes, you can disagree with their point of view but not without sharing why and what you believe is true. I'm hoping you don't go away mad. I'm hoping you will be a positive part of these studies. Think about it.

it appears to be all in how one looks at it.

the penalty for drinking hemlock is death.

the penalty for ingesting arsenic is death.

the penalty for smoking is death.

the penalty for drug abuse is death.

the penalty for reckless driving is manglement or death.

a very tragic and heartbreaking recent example is, the penalty for an unhealthy lifestyle is death.

the penalty for breaking the 10c is death.

so, it seems to depend on how one looks at it.

i do not agree that that is what i am doing.

now how do i stop you from the way you address me. i have stated it everyway i know how but you do not see yourself as doing what i see.

what is the answer?

Everyone has a right to their own opinions, which are formed from ones own experience. However we all know that being a Christian is not easy, so if you find it difficult to be exercise patience with someone, then you know you are on the right track. Just persevere a bit longer and do the right thing.
FYI: We are all in the same boat, only advantage we have is we have accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior, which is a gift.

Lets keep this civil even if it means you have to bite on your lip.

God Bless,
Will

In the case of the plagues in Egypt, Ellen White wrote the following:


God commanded Pharaoh, “Let my people go, that they may serve me.” He sent plague after plague until His object was achieved, namely, “that thou mayest know that there is none like Me in all the earth.” “In His dealing with Pharaoh, the Lord manifested His hatred of idolatry and His determination to punish cruelty and oppression.” (ibid.) “God had judged the Egyptians by sending the plagues upon them, and made them hasten His people out of Egypt with all that they possessed.” {SR 120.2}