Ok, if it's a real question, what specifically are you asking? Are you asking if the Jews were physical descendants of Abraham? Or are you asking in a spiritual sense? (as in how Jesus spoke when He said God could make children of Abraham from the rocks). Or do you have some other meaning in mind?



I said, "When she says that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, she's clearly speaking of when He became flesh." I quoted the following:



making the part bold I was emphasizing. Jesus Christ, in His humanity, while here in the flesh, revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God.



You didn't respond to my question. Why are you objecting to logic that was never set forth?

The statement speaks for itself. Jesus Christ revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God. She quotes John 1:18, and speaks of Jesus Christ's taking humanity upon Him, becoming flesh, even as we are.

The question you're asking here isn't very precise. I haven't said "I only believe Mrs. White was referring to Jesus' life in the flesh" but that the context of the statement which I cited is Jesus Christ in His humanity. In other words, I didn't say Ellen White said that Jesus Christ only revealed God while in His humanity, but that she said that Jesus Christ, in His humanity, revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God.

Tom,

I'm glad you see a distinction here. That is partly what I am getting at. Shall we subdivide the question?

1) Were the Jews of Jesus' time physical children of Abraham (i.e. descendants of Abraham)?
2) Were the Jews of Jesus' time spiritual children of Abraham (and let's clarify this as referring to the time of Jesus' ministry, prior to the cross)?


I see the quote you've posted, but how can you be sure the first sentence there and a sentence in a later paragraph are directly corollary?

(I can give a multitude of examples where things appear on the same page or within a few paragraphs of each other that look related but can be demonstrated otherwise.)

Is there any statement where she specifies that all we can know of God was revealed by Jesus while in the flesh?

The statement which you have quoted does not specify this. It can easily be read to say that by taking humanity, Jesus revealed a part of God which could not be revealed in any other way. It does not, however, exclude the possibility of Jesus having revealed aspects of God prior to, or following His incarnation on earth. The very fact that John 1:18 is quoted, beginning with "No man hath seen God at any time," indicates that Mrs. White is addressing times beyond that of Jesus' earthly ministry, and inclusive of it. To then transition into speaking of that earthly ministry would be quite natural, and appropriately, as the focus shifts, a new paragraph is started.

Your objection to my objection of certain logic here seems to be a result of misunderstanding my statement. If you say that you have never made the claim which I was objecting to, then this discussion will soon end as you and I will find ourselves in agreement.

To restate it, in hopefully better terms, the logic is this (pardon my summarizing here):

1) Mrs. White says that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God.

2) Tom says that no aspect of God was revealed prior to this mission that was not also revealed during this mission, and that much had never yet been revealed.

3) I say that Christ's whole purpose, even before His "mission" (meaning His earthly ministry) has been the revelation of God. Jesus may or may not have re-revealed every point previously revealed about God. (And I say He did not accomplish such, but recommended the Scriptures to His hearers for "further study." See John 5:39.)

I further see the fact that the converse of "the whole purpose of [Christ's] mission," i.e. either this was not His purpose before (new purpose) or else He had different purposes before (purpose changed), cannot be true.



This purpose has not changed. His "whole purpose" was to "set men right." Additionally, I believe He has always sought to do so "through the revelation of God."

Was God not revealed at Sinai? When did Jesus ever thunder down the Ten Commandments during His earthly ministry? Does that mean that since He did not do this, it could not have been in character for God to do so at Sinai? If so, then who proclaimed the law at Sinai, if not God?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

When you speak of Jews, are you speaking physically or spiritually? If the former, than most were children of Abraham (i.e. descendants) although some were not (being converts or children of converts). Some of these were also spiritual children of Abraham. If you're speaking spiritually, then all of these were children of Abraham in the spiritual sense, and some were also physical children, and some not.



The section heading is "Christ's Revelation of God". Her topic sentence is "All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." She then quotes John 1:18, where John was making the point that Christ became flesh in order to reveal the father (this is John's context) and goes no to make the same point that John did, that Christ became flesh to reveal God. It's clear to see that when she says that Christ revealed all that man needs to know of God, or can know of God, she is referring to His humanity. She doesn't speak of anything other than His humanity.



Of course Christ revealed aspects of God prior to and following His incarnation, but her point is that all that man needs to know of God, or can know of Him, were revealed by Christ in His humanity.



John's point is that no one had seen God, and so Christ came, to make God known, to make Him visible, familiar. Ellen White makes the same point in ST 1/20/90:



This is the same theme as John, and the same theme as her message in 8T.



She says that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and she starts talking about that. There's a topic sentence, which introduces her topic, and then amplification of that.

Are you looking at a book, or online? (in regards to 8T 216)



I said that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity. This does not imply there aren't things about God which could be known before or after this, but that anything which can be known of God was revealed by Jesus Christ in His humanity. I've repeated this a number of times. This seems very clear to me. Is there something unclear here?



Right.



I said this follows from EGW's statement that, in His humanity, Christ revealed all that man needs to know, or can know, of God.



I agree with this. This has always been Christ's mission, and is the focus of the Great Controversy. Since the accusations against God's character began, one could rightly say this has been His "whole purpose." However, there were things about God we could not know without His becoming flesh, so He became flesh so that we could know everything we needed to know, or could know, of God.



If He, in His humanity, revealed everything man can know of God, then this must include everything, whether previously revealed or not.



That says that the Scriptures testify of Him, but they wouldn't come to Him to receive life, which has been my point. Eternal life is to know God. Christ is the way to God. He revealed God.

There's a nice Ty Gibson quote on this. Maybe I'll look that up later.



If you're saying He had the same purpose before and after His incarnation, I agree.



Agreed. But before coming in the flesh, He was limited in how effectively He could do so.



Have you read Waggoner's "The Everlasting Covenant"? He speaks of how Christ was revealed at Sinai. It's online. Perhaps I'll quote from that too.

I think most people misunderstand the revelation of God from Sinai. Certainly if we think the revelation at Sinai presented a different revelation of God than Christ's revelation while in the flesh, we're misunderstanding it.

You described the final experience of the wicked this way:
Did Jesus, in His humanity, ever "reveal reality to the wicked" in a way that "cause[d] them suffering" such as what you describe? Since you are saying this is what God will do, can you cite an example when Jesus did this in His humanity?

Tom,

I agree with that assessment. Well said! Now, we both believe these points because they fit our logical minds given the historical information we have, right?

Guess what?...this may throw us for a loop....

If I wish to be dogmatic, I can say that since Mrs. White said "Jesus denied that the Jews were children of Abraham," then that means that the Jews are not descendants of Abraham. Or, I could apply this in the spiritual sense and say that none of the Jews were children of God! Either way is a misinterpretation of Mrs. White's words, don't you think?

Mrs. White speaks of the Jews being children of Abraham. She speaks of Jesus, who was a Jew, being a descendant of Abraham.


The point I am making here, Tom, is that even though in one paragraph Mrs. White says something very emphatic about Jesus' portrayal of the Jews' not being "children of Abraham," the emphasis notwithstanding, Ellen White's statements in other places provide us with necessary balance to catch the context of these words.

The same is true of Mrs. White's statement regarding "all that man can know." There are balancing statements which must not be ignored. There is no need to put blinders on and say "B-b-but here it says 'all' and she relates it to Jesus' earthly ministry ONLY." The fact is, she had no such intention, any more than Mrs. White intended to deny the Jewish heritage. She was speaking to a particular issue, making a singular point, which was not to be broadly applied to every other topic.

One must "rightly divide the word of truth." Common sense can help--but proper use of balancing statements and context is quintessential.

To me, the "Holy Bible" consists of 66 books. How many books are in your Bible? Do not they all reveal God to us? Can any of the books be said to NOT reveal God to us?

Mrs. White's balancing statements to the one you like so well are these:

The Bible and Jesus' life receive equal mention here. Significantly, the Bible is the first to be mentioned in this statement. The statement includes the entire Scriptures, with special emphasis on the Living Word (Jesus).
All that is necessary to know for salvation does not necessarily mean all that is possible to know.

The more we know, the more capacity we have to know. Moreover, God "delights" to give us "Much more."

Jesus told His disciples rather plainly here that they would learn MORE, when the Spirit of Truth was come to them...which in other places He stated would happen AFTER His ascension.

The context is important. And it is clear. God wants to teach us more, much more. Ellen White is one such source. Ellen White's truths have not come to us "from the earthly ministry of Jesus," but from her personal visions of Heaven and communion with God and the angels. Has she revealed things that Christ did not share? She most certainly has. If she has not, and if truly no prophet can teach us anything more since we have already learned "all" that it is possible to know about God from Christ's earthly ministry, then I guess we need not believe in the prophetic gift any longer. The gift would have perished at Christ's ascension--or at least, no new truths would be uncovered afterwards.

I hope you understand why I cannot accept such a view as you hold about "all" revelation of God coming packaged in 33 years' time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

First of all, the point isn't that Christ did everything that God has done, or will do, but that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Christ in His humanity. This is what was second.

Secondly, in response to your question here, the cleansing of the temple comes immediately to mind. It seems to speak of similar principles, the wicked becoming aware of their sins because of a look of Christ, divinity flashing through humanity, their not being able to abide His presence because only the pure of heart could, etc.

GC, I hold the view that all that man can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ because of Ellen White. I learned it from her, but I know of others who have echoed it. Here's one place:(The following are excerpts from "Is God to Blame" by Greg Boyd)



It's rather interesting here that the author (not an SDA!) uses almost the same language as Ellen White did:



I believe the reason this writer was able to express this truth so articulately, and so similarly to Ellen White, is that it comes straight from Scripture.

Here's another author, this time an SDA, presenting similar thoughts:

How do you know God is going to do what you say He is going to do? When Jesus cleansed the temple, nobody experienced mental anguish to the point of eternal death, as you say will happen at the end. They ran away, but they came back, with their hearts still as impure as before. If the cleansing of the temple is your prototype, there will be no eternal death caused by mental anguish - they will just run away, then return after a while.

How did you find out that God will do what you say He will, when Jesus never did that in His life? In your example, He just revealed enough reality to make the bad guys run away for a little bit, but not eternal death, not even the first death.

Do you have another example that can better support your thesis?

I think we all hold that view. The difference is that you believe the time frame for the "revealed by Jesus Christ" is limited to the 33 years He spent walking in sandals, while there are those of us who believe He has been revealing God for thousands of years.