kland, that's a good point. I'm thinking about how Jesus Christ was able to meet people regardless of where they were (i.e. their paradigm and how they thought). Perhaps we could consider some of the different techniques Jesus Christ used and apply that to a study of Himself.

The sort of thing I had in mind originally was considering different incidents in Jesus' life, and discovering things about God's character from that. I threw this question out in Sabbath school class (this is from the lesson, which was talking about WWJD - "What Would Jesus Do?") and got some interesting responses. One of them was the incident about the Widow's mite. How Jesus commended her act, saying that she gave more than the others. Another was how Jesus was concerned about the thief on the cross, even as He was suffering.

These are just incidents in general. We could consider specific incidents which are related to the question of violence and how one should treat one's enemies. For example, we could consider how Jesus treated His enemies. When He was urged to destroy the Samaritans, for example, how did He respond?

so, you going to start a thread? id like in on it. but i think heavy prayer is needed to keep that on track, the enemy would love to derail it every chance he could. anything that would help us to understand God and become more like him he hates with a hatred we barely comprehend.

but im not saying anything everyone doesnt already know.

Done!

Your assumption is too far fetched to make your point. That is, the idea Dr. Seuss wrote everything I need to know about butterflies is audacious. He only wrote silly books for children. I am an adult. Let’s say I’m seeking a doctorate degree in butterflies. Is it true that Dr. Seuss wrote everything I need to know or can know about butterflies?

Let’s try again. In the context of disputing the claims of pantheism (the subject of 8T Section Five), how would I convey the idea that, due to our inadequate mental ability to fully comprehend God, the Bible only reveals those things we need to know or can know about God? (Note – I’m not saying this is what she was trying to convey, just asking how it could be conveyed).

From Section Five: 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} The whole Bible is a revelation of the glory of God in Christ. Received, believed, obeyed, it is the great instrumentality in the transformation of character. And it is the only sure means of intellectual culture. {8T 319.1}


You wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” I agree. That’s the main point I’ve been trying to get across. And, I also agree that the person possessed of normal abilities (not mentally handicapped) has what it takes to understand everything that needs to be known of God. Again, “can know” is referring to one’s mental ability to comprehend what has been revealed.


Above you wrote, “I agree that ‘needs to know’ does not necessarily imply everything there is to know.” And I wrote above, “However, it is also evident that she did not say Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God.” It sounds like we’re saying the same thing.


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. These are attributes of God Jesus revealed in the OT.


It has yet to be seen if anyone you named can summarize your position, in particular why you think Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. Nor does the author of the book you linked explain it, at least I didn't see it.


Please point out where the author addressed these kinds of cases, namely, where Jesus commanded 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}

mm, you already posted that here #117108 on this thread. youre doing that in a couple of other threads also.

Do you remember kland's comment regarding you and abstraction? It's comments like this that made him think in the terms he expressed.

"Dr. Seuss" doesn't matter. I could have said "Dr. X". This is where abstraction comes in. I was expecting that you would grasp the principle I was illustrating, not that you would get hung up on Dr. Seuss. "Dr. Seuss" is simply the name of a person. It doesn't matter what the name of the person is. It the concept of a person that is being expressed, a person who knows all there is to know about butterflies.

And even this wasn't the point. The point was to illustrate a point of language, what "All that can be known by man about X was revealed by Y" where X is a subject and Y is a person.

However, it's possible your mind doesn't work this way. Not all minds work alike.

Do you understand the point here? Or is this way of thinking something uncomfortable or difficult for you to do?

Easy. You would just say what you said.





I'm assuming you have some point in mind. What is it please?



I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

EGW's point when she wrote that all we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in His humanity is really simple. Even a child can understand it. I don't understand how this is something being posted about for so long and so many posts. It's a very simply concept.



No, MM, these are two very different things. The concept she expressed is "All that man needs to know of X, or can know of X, was made known by Y." My point is that what man needs to know of X need not be exactly what man can know of X. What man needs to know of X is a subset of what man can know of X.

Do you understand this?

What you said is that "It is evident that she did not say that all that man can know of X was made known by Y." This is not my point.

Do you understand this?

In addition, what you wrote disagrees with what Ellen White said, which is "all that man can know of X was made known by Y."

You are saying it's evident that what Ellen White said is not the case. I don't know how else to understand what you wrote.

(More later)

and if it is difficult brother mm, that is ok. i have serious limitations in some areas that i am very well aware of, others that i am learning of (even at 58).

when we come from a very critical background, not saying you have, but many have, we can feel we're being criticized when our limitations are being pointed out. but all of us have limitations in some area or another.

Yes, and the SOP tells us that what He taught, He lived.



Why do you insist on using this phrase? Why not use, "He taught that people can cause God's protection to be removed?"



What does this have to do with Jesus Christ while here in the flesh? MM, you're going off track.



I told you kland could summarize it.



Ok. You didn't see from the father story either. As I pointed out, this is a more difficult subject than the cross or the judgment.

According to the SOP, all truths cluster around the truth of the cross. The cross teaches us that there is no limit to the ends the devil will go to use force and violence to promote his agenda, and no limit to the sacrifice that love will make to avoid resorting to these tactics.

I suggest considering the cross, and asking, "What are the principles I see at work here?" and see how they apply.



This brings to mind the same point kland made about abstraction. This is an abstraction, MM. If you understand abstraction, you should be able to figure this out for yourself. If you don't, then I'll have to try some other way to try to communicate with you.



I wrote the following:



I realize saying, "And I think your understanding of the cross is way off." is a bit strong, which is why I followed it immediately with, "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." Please include this mitigating sentence with the other one if you quote it again.

Regarding where I think your understanding of the cross is off is in that you see that God punishes those who act contrary to His will by causing them to suffer and die, and the cross is a means to escape this punishment. I actually agree that the cross is a way to escape punishment, but we disagree with what the punishment consists of, and hence, how the cross creates an escape.

I believe the punishment is "the full results of sin." Sin causes those who give way to it to form characters so out of harmony with God that His mere presence is a consuming fire. The escape from this punishment is to not give way to sin, and the cross is a way, the way, to do that.

Your belief is that the punishment is due to a judicial decree, and the cross is a way to avoid that punishment because God agrees to life the judicial sentence against those who accept Christ. I think this view makes both the punishment and the cure arbitrary.

I believe our same disagreement applies to these other areas of discussion. You see that as God will cause the wicked to suffer and die in the future, that He did the same thing in the past. That's consistent, I recognize, but I think if you could saw the punishment of the wicked as due to their own choice in the future, it might open the way to seeing this as having been the case in the past. However, given your view of what will happen in the future, I'm not seeing the point in discussing the past.



It does.



This is how you see it. I understand that. However, the author of the analogy doesn't see it that way. If you try to understand the story holding on to this idea, of course you won't understand it. You can't put new wine into old wineskins.



You're saying you view the cross as capital punishment? Obviously it was capital punishment for the Romans, but it looks like you believe it was a form of divine capital punishment? God executed His Son so He could pardon us? Is this your idea?



This all fits perfectly with what I've been sharing. The only way to be freed from sin is by repentance and faith. The inevitable result of sin is death, so one must be freed from it. The punishment the wicked suffer is due to the guilt of sin, and the mental anguish that causes. When the truth is revealed to them, in such a way that they see all, of course they suffer. And it makes sense that they suffer in proportion to their sin, and light they've had, as the more sin there is, and the more light, the more guilt.




It's too much to comment on all of these. I think what I have said above covers what was said in these quotes as well.

Tom, I was getting ready to type but read further and saw you beat me to it! This is exactly what I was meaning.

MM, is my theory confirmed? But, is it possible to ask someone who I think cannot grasp abstract things, if he agrees that he did not grasp an abstract example. I could give an example to demonstrate what this would be like, but I'm sure you would take offense like with my previous examples and Tom's Dr. Seuss'.


I've been reading this most interesting book by Oliver Sacks. In it he made a statement about the inability to abstract:

their world is vivid, intense, detailed, yet simple, precisely because it is concrete: neither complicated, diluted, nor unified, by abstraction.

In the book, he also gave examples of those who only had abstraction, devoid of concreteness. I can only understand the way to understand God from Jesus requires abstraction. I cannot think in a different way nor understand why anyone else can't think that way. However, where does that leave those who cannot think abstractly, or have varying degrees difficulty? I can't believe Ellen White made such a statement, which appears to require abstraction, leaving some people without an understanding of God.

Dr. Sacks gave examples of the concrete people finding meaning and purpose when given concrete situations. When giving them a bunch of tests designed to show their limitations or forced into certain environments, they became frustrated, rude, crude, irritating and no one wanted to be around them. But, when allowed to excel at what they were able to, they became "whole" and the same others found them to be dignified, decent, respected, and valued. Many were able to function with song, worship, and drama.

Obviously, as you and others have shown post after post (I'm reminded of the hunter story which completely explained things to me!), trying to get MM to understand abstraction has not worked and has frustrated all of us. Sacks' words of "vivid, intense, detailed" could have a possibility. How can we reach those unable to abstract Jesus onto God? After learning OO, something seemed to click and opened a whole new world (but not "new", just bigger and with support) to me. I also felt a disconnect with others not of that world. I am now starting to see an explanation in differences in thinking patterns where one type cannot understand the other type. (I'm reminded of a Star Trek show)

I am not able to fathom how to even go about explaining God and Jesus without abstraction. I cannot understand why anyone couldn't understand it. I don't know about you, but perhaps Teresa hinting at not fully at an abstract level, could come up with a concrete way of explaining how Jesus fully represented God.