GC, this is at least the third time I'm saying this. I believe that to understand the incidents where God apparently acted violent in the OT, one first needs to have a firm understanding of God's character. You have not been correctly representing what I've been saying, in spite of my clarity regarding this point. I am NOT saying there is not value in studying the OT accounts, but that FIRST one should embark upon this already having a firm understanding of God's character.

You're free to disagree with this, of course, but please disagree with something I've actually been saying!

I asked you the following:



What do you think?

in my opinion, the subject of eli would have been much better brought up under a discussion of parental responsibility and holy office responsibilities. page 6 118790

thanks tom for your posts specifically related to Gods wrath, and therefore on topic to this thread, especially this one 118936.

our God is a God of justice and it is interesting to watch how He works:

Title: "The Wrath of God,The Wrath of Satan, the The Wrath of Man"

And would the "Wrath of Jesus" help us understand the Wrath of God?

Does Jesus help us understand what God's character is like or should we determine God's character through another means and try to fit Jesus into that idea? I also am not sure how Eli would help us understand what God is like. Unless, of course, it fits in with the latter means of fitting him with our conceived idea of God.

you know the "wrath of Jesus" hadnt occured to me...

but that does bring up a point.
the bible says God was manifested in Jesus.

was God manifested in Jesus?
or are we denying that in some form?

Tom,

I do largely agree with this statement, except that I disagree with the verb tense. I believe I have also reiterated this several times in our discussion, but the fact is that I believe it was Jesus Christ who walked with Enoch, Christ who met with Abraham, Christ who wrestled with Jacob, Christ who led His people out of Egypt and through the wilderness, and it has always been Christ, throughout time, who IS revealing the Father to us (this is why He calls Himself the "I AM"). Notice that the last book of the Bible was written well after Christ had ascended to Heaven. Yet it is called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." Christ has also revealed more through Ellen White. Christ has always, is always, will always, reveal the Father to His people.

In other words, I have no special binoculars focusing on the "only Christ" of the 4 BC - 31 AD era. I see Christ as continually giving His people a revelation of the Father throughout time.

In our day, He continues to do so through the Comforter, sent in His name.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In what sense do you agree with the statement? (i.e., the first part of your first sentence says, "I do largely agree with this statement.") I'm not seeing this.

Both Scripture and the SOP bring out that Christ came with the explicit purpose of revealing the Father. The SOP points out that the true understanding of God had been lost, so Christ came to reveal the truth. If the OT presented the Father as clearly as Christ in the flesh did, then why would it be necessary for Christ to do this? In fact, the SOP says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God. (ST 1/20/90). If God had already been revealed, and this was the whole purpose of His mission, it seems like He would have had to have come at all, if this had already been done.

The difficulty involved in the revelation of God in the OT is that God was constrained in His actions by the unbelief of the people. For example, God allowed divorce, polygamy, and so forth, so that some thing that God approved of these things. When Christ came in the flesh, He was not so constrained. He was free to reveal what God is really like, without being in the context of governing a hard-hearted and unbelieving people.

Also, and extremely important, Christ was flesh! He was a human being, that could be seen and heard and felt (as John points out in 1 John chapter 1). We, being human beings, can best understand what God is like by studying a human being who was God. God, in His graciousness, has given us this opportunity.

The SOP tells us it would be good for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day studying the life of Christ, especially the latter scenes.

To be clear, again, I'm not saying that we should limit our study to the life of Christ in the flesh, but that this should be our foundation. That is, this is indeed where our binoculars should be focused, but they shouldn't be mounted on a tripod that can't move.

God did not sit back idly wishing there was something He could do prevent Saul from dying. The only reason Saul was able to successfully kill himself is due to the fact God chose not to intervene and prevent it. Do you agree? If not, what do you believe?

PS - Finding fault with my view does not explain what you believe is the truth. So, please take the time to explain what you think is true. Thank you.

Tom, by focusing on Jesus while here in the flesh you ignore a huge part of the Bible. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Also, Jesus came the first time as a suffering sacrifice - not as a conquering king. Therefore, His revelation of the Father was incomplete in certain key ways, namely, He did not reveal the wrath of God. He never "employed" the withdraw and permit principle. He never commanded someone to stone a sinner to death.

MM, Ellen White suggested that we focus on the life of Jesus while here in the flesh. She said it would be good to spend a thoughtful hour doing this, especially considering the latter scenes of His life. Was she ignoring a huge part of the Bible?

Tom, if our desire is to understand the wrath of God, His retributive justice, then, no, studying what Jesus did while here in the flesh will not be helpful. Yes, we can study what He said while here in the flesh. He spoke often about the future punishment and destruction of the wicked.