Probably a FOTAP response. That is, you phrase things in a way that forces me to say "no" no matter what you ask, because I disagree with the assumptions involved in your questions.



If you take what I say in my own words, that's probably an easier way to understand what I'm saying.



The story of the father/hunter should have made that clear.



Yes (as the story makes clear).



Yes, I think so. I don't think I've ever made this comment in regards to capital punishment. I'm quite sure I haven't.



Please refer to my post just before this one.



I think that's a problem. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ is a revelation of God which didn't exist before, especially Christ crucified.



The context of this is Jesus' Bible Study to the disciples on the road to Emaus.



It's clear this is pointing forward to Christ. The Savior, as One who would come, was clearly revealed in the Old Testament. But Christ had a work to do, which was prophesied, and which was necessary.

From what you write, it sounds almost as if you think there was no need for Christ to come to do that which was the whole purpose of His ministry, which was to reveal God. If God had already been clearly and fully revealed, why did Christ need to come to do this?

I suppose I am not understanding your statements. I am trying to understand what you are saying but am having a hard time as it seems to me to be contradictory. However, your above statement seems to suggest that there are two things going on which may have been why I'm having a hard time understanding.

Right spirit:
Timing and circumstances must be right.
Reasons in harmony with the will of God.
(Not sure what you defined motives but sounds equivalent to Right Spirit)

But it still is confusing when you say the "disciples are a perfect example of not being in harmony with the will of God and having the wrong motives and the wrong spirit."

I see an example of recursion in that statement. Do you?
Probably not since you said it. I'm still trying to understand what a right or wrong spirit is. Maybe you could help by saying what is being out of harmony with the will of God.

So far, all I have understood from you saying is that the disciples asked to call fire down when it was not the right time. It sounds harsh to me for Jesus to give them such rebuke for a technical issue of timing. So, it must be they were out of harmony with the will of God. Seems like we're back to the original question just worded differently. How were they out of harmony, how could they be in harmony with the will of God to call fire down on the Samaritans?

I may have misunderstood Kland when he expressed shock when I commented you affirmed Jesus never withdrew His protection, while here in the flesh, and permitted sinners to suffer and die. He listed Luke 8-10 as examples of Jesus withdrawing and I assumed he did so to disprove my observation. I encouraged him to go back and read what you wrote assuming he would discover what I observed.

I appreciate the suggestion. You may be delighted to learn that I do indeed spend a minimum of an hour a day on the life and death of Jesus. I often take long walks with the dog and listen to the Bible, and books like DA, MB, COL, SC, etc on an Ipod. "Faith cometh by hearing."

And it occurs to me over and over again that not once did Jesus withdraw His protection, while here in the flesh, and permit sinners to suffer and die. Therefore, it makes me stop and ponder - Why does Tom believe we can understand why Jesus commanded people like Moses in the OT to kill sinners by limiting our study to the life and death of Jesus in the NT?

Again, here’s the dialog:


Regarding the first question, were you objecting to the “main reason” concept? If so, what do you think was the “main reason” Jesus commanded people like Moses to kill sinners? If not on account of their hardened hearts, what else do you think was the main reason? Please feel free to use the NT as the basis of your explanation. Thank you.


Here’s what you said, “Capital punishment existed because of the hardness of their hearts.” Is this the same thing as saying, yes, Jesus commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners because the Jews were hard-hearted and expected it?


The father taught his son how to hunt in a humane manner. How does this aspect of the analogy demonstrate the difference between Jesus commanding godly people like Moses to kill sinners and Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting the forces of nature or evil angels or evil men to kill sinners?


To be clear, are you saying the humane hunter analogy makes it clear Jesus is culpable for the death of sinners He commanded godly people like Moses to kill?


Do you believe executing capital punishment is arbitrary and violent? For example, do you think godly people like Moses were executing an arbitrary, violent form of punishment when they obeyed Jesus and killed sinners?


Do you agree Jesus came the first time to bear the sins of the world and to taste death for everyone, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice, to make pardon and salvation possible for penitent sinners, and that in doing so He revealed the character of God? And, do you agree Jesus will come the second time to resurrect and translate the redeemed, and that in doing so He will reveal the character of God? Finally, do you agree Jesus will come the third time to resurrect unsaved sinners, to execute justice and judgment, to restore paradise, and that in doing so He will reveal the character of God?

If you agree with all of the above, then we are in agreement Jesus did not come the first time to execute justice and judgment. Accordingly, we should also be in agreement Jesus did not come the first time to demonstrate how and why He executed justice and judgment in the OT. Therefore, we cannot study the life and death of Jesus in the NT in order to understand why He commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners. Do you see what I mean?

Kland, the timing and circumstances were not right for Jesus to rain down fire on the Samaritans. The disciples wanted to call down fire for the wrong reasons. Jesus said so. I also quoted Ellen White who elaborated on how and why their spirit was wrong. You seem to think calling down fire on sinners is intrinsically, inherently evil and, therefore, never right. Or, have I misunderstood you? If not, do you believe Elijah's spirit was wrong when he called down fire on the two bands of fifty? And, do you believe Jesus made a mistake when He rained down fire on them?

I did find this from Tom:


Oh and then this:

He lists some texts and then this:

Were any of those things what you had in mind?

While you are technically correct that Tom did speak about Luke 9 after I brought it up, I still don't see Tom as commenting about it as Jesus withdrawing His protection. But, if you want to assume what Tom would say about it, I would venture a wild guess that he might possibly believe Jesus was withdrawing from the Samaritans.


There is page after page where I keep asking you over and over to explain what "right spirit" is. You seem to avoid defining it for some reason. The best I can see you explaining it is that "Jesus said so". Reminds me of the, God said, I believe it, that is all there is to it idea. Are you ok with that explanation and see no need for understanding why it is not the right spirit nor further discussion?

Was the quote where you said Ellen White elaborated this one:I would fail to see that as an elaboration, but it does seem to me to make one question if wrong spirit meant what you mean it to be. It seems to me she is saying that they had been with Jesus through all these things and yet, they missed His whole character. Could others also miss His character?


Yes, you do understand me that I believe setting people on fire is "intrinsically, inherently evil and, therefore, never right".
I also believe Jesus did not rain fire down on anyone.
Fallacy of the assumed premise.

I think the father/hunter story explains my thoughts better than anything else.



No.



It explains the principles involved in terms of how someone hearing the conversation of a constrained person might come to a wrong conclusion in regards to the values and principles of the person being constrained. God, in dealing with the Israelites, was constrained. Jesus Christ, in the flesh, was not thus constrained; He fully and completely revealed God's character in a way that could not be done before.

The importance of Jesus Christ's work in revealing the Father cannot be overemphasized. This was absolutely something which needed to be done.



You asked if He was more or less responsible. I said he was, in accordance with how the story explained.

God isn't responsible at all is the clearer way of putting it, which the story makes clear.



I haven't said anything about this. I don't have any intention of doing so.



I'll again refer to the father/hunter story. I cannot answer your questions as you put them because they are embedded with assumptions with which I don't agree. I've pointed this out to you repeatedly. Simply repeating the same questions isn't going to help.



Not as you're thinking, no.



Of course anything Jesus does revealed God's character, since Jesus is God, but this doesn't have anything to do with my point.



I completely disagree with your whole framework. That is, what Jesus' mission was when He came the first time. The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. That's what I believe. Why? Because this is what man's problem was; He didn't know what God was like.

Every aspect of the Great Controversy involved God's character and the principles of His government. Jesus Christ came to make it possible for God to win the Great Controversy. He did so by revelation.

It doesn't appear you answered the following question:

I don't recall affirming this. I think I've mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem as an example of this principle at least a dozen times.



I know I had no thought of what you're talking about in any comments regarding Luke 9:24, so I don't see how this would help.

kland knows how I think. It's the same as he does on this subject. I'm not aware of our having any disagreement.

Why would you think about this?



Let's step away from this a moment, and consider the bigger question: What is God like? What is He passionate about? In your meditations of Christ, what ideas come to your mind?