Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,242
Members1,327
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, 2 invisible),
2,513
guests, and 16
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132681
04/14/11 06:17 PM
04/14/11 06:17 PM
|
OP
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I apologize for the confusion. I now understand you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it. He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction. The choice is His. Nothing happens by chance or fate.
T: Chance and fate are two very different things. I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. Indeed, everything you wrote above after "I not understand you believe ..." should read "I not understand I believe ..." as you're just repeating things you believe, is what it looks to me. What *I* believe is that God has created beings with free will, and these often, on earth, unfortunately, have chosen to act contrary to God's will, and *that's* why bad things happen. And similarly for the unfaithful angelic beings. Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His, that nothing happens by chance or fate (the “or” denotes a difference)? M: As sovereign Lord and King, Jesus is ultimately in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.
T: Satan and his followers are responsible in every way, including ultimately, for sin an all its results. God is entirely innocent. God is not in control of sinners. If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them? Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything. It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control. Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment. M: When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?
T: I don't think it matters what the exact mechanism was. I believe the principles laid out in GC 35-37 were at work. It matters if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude (from your perspective) Jesus employed fire to burn them alive. In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth? T: You've read Job. What does it say?
M: Ellen wrote [quotes omitted by Tom] Quotes like the ones posted above make it clear to me Jesus and holy angels work to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limitations imposed upon them.
T: This seems like an odd response. I ask you what Job said, and you respond by saying, "Ellen wrote." Is "Ellen" a pseudonym of Job's? As I've often said, if permitted, Satan would destroy all human beings, which would not leave a Great Controversy to be fought.
M: For this reason, Satan is not free to do as he pleases.
T: He is, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it? I hope you don’t mind me allowing Ellen to weigh in on the discussion. I trust her insights. Based on what I’ve read in the Bible and the SOP, I am convinced Satan is only as free as Jesus permits. Whatever he does is done by permission. All heaven, however, works to ensure he does not exceed the limitations Jesus imposes on evil men and angels. M: It is Jesus, not Satan, who ultimately establishes and enforces the degree of punishment meted out.
T: This is like saying it is Jesus, not Satan, who metes out and enforces the degree of punishment meted out when someone ignores the law of gravity. Sin causes misery, suffering, and death because of its nature. These things are what happen when one separates from God. It doesn't require an extra, unrelated, special action on the part of God for misery, suffering, and death to occur, but merely acting contrary to God's principles, and separating from Him, is sufficient. This is what "me first" does. "Me first" can not end up in anything other than misery, suffering, and death. These things are the fruit of Satan's government, of choosing his principles. Yes, sinning results in unrest and unhappiness. But whether or not it results in death and destruction is entirely up to Jesus. Yes, we manage the choices, but Jesus manages the consequences so far as things like death and destruction is concerned. For example, whether or not jumping off a cliff results in death is not up to gravity; instead, it’s up to Jesus. If He intercedes, death does not occur; otherwise, it does. But this example does not speak to the issues concerning capital punishment. In the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. Sinning does not result in fire blazing out from the presence of God in holy places and burning sinners alive. Fire is not self-acting. Neither is gravity. The laws of nature act the way they do because Jesus acts the way He does, that is, nature is a weapon in the arsenal of Jesus and does whatever He wields it to do. He employs nature to mete out capital punishment. But not always; sometimes He uses His enemies, evil men and angels, to punish impenitent sinners. M: It must irritate Satan to know he is not free to exercise his powers as he sees fit.
T: Satan is free to exercise his powers as he sees fit, to a great degree, or else there would be no Great Controversy. It's imperative that we understand that *all* the bad, all the evil, there is in the world, is the result of Satan, and none of it due to God. Satan gets irritated when his plans are thwarted, which is what happens when one chooses to follow God instead of him. Amen! However, what qualifies as evil or bad? Was it evil or bad when fire blazed out from the presence of God in holy places and burned sinners alive? Is death and destruction always deemed evil or bad? Or, are their times when it counts as divine justice and judgment? For example, when Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death, was it evil or bad? M: Like a chained lion, try as he might, he cannot tear to shreds the prey just out of reach. “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3}
T: They are used as GC 35-37 explains. I agree; always have. But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews. Again, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. It was entirely arbitrary, imposed, meted out. Sinning does not result in soldiers killing sinners, at least not in the same sense cancer results in tissue damage and death. Also, is it a sin, evil, or bad when evil angels and soldiers kill impenitent sinners when God is using them as instruments to punish? M: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?
T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)
M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?
T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.
M: I don’t understand how your response answers my question.
T: My answer describes the principle at work.
M: Is offering protection, while here in the flesh, from something that happened in 70 AD equivalent to Jesus allowing N&A and the two bands of fifty to be burned alive?
T: The same principles are at work. Your question should be if offering protection in the one case is equivalent to offering protection in the other, as this would be apples to apples, and I would respond "yes" to such a question. Seems to me the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty and the death of Jews in 70 AD are similar in the sense Jesus, from your perspective, would have simply withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to cause the resulting death and destruction. If so, what protection was Jesus providing, until He withdrew it, in the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty? Does fire lie in wait until Jesus gives it permission to selectively burn sinners alive? If so, doesn’t it imply fire is self-acting? If not, who, then, employed the fire that killed them?
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132682
04/14/11 07:32 PM
04/14/11 07:32 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
NJK:Again, and this is not a rhetorical question: How was man to live forever before sin? By “learned dependence” osmosis??? You, uniquely in this thread, blindly and unbiblically refuse to see any ‘life-perpetuating “supernatural power” in the Fruit of Life’.
Tom: I don't believe this is the case. If you think otherwise, please quote something I've written to support your idea here.
NJK:(1) In regards to your view on the Tree of Life and man’s life in this thread: Both APL and Mountain Man have stated that it is what perpetuates life as stated in the Bible and SOP (e.g., Gen 3:22-24 & PP 60.3). I don’t know what kland’s view is on this.
(2) The reason why “osmosis” is my only remaining logical option for your view is because you state that man lives eternally by the death of Christ, Where do you think I state this? I asked you to provide quotes to support your idea of what I'm saying, but you haven't done so. Please do so. however you do not explain/point out how mortal man is supposed to live eternally. If man had not sinned, why would he die? If he doesn't die, he continues to live, as long as God gives him life. You further do not take into any substantive consideration what the Bible and SOP say about the physical contribution of the Tree of Life, including in Heaven for the redeemed. Your claim that ‘it is only to a lesson of dependence upon God is outrightly without any Bible or SOP support. It is entirely borne out of your view. Your single quote has no matching single quote. What is it you are trying to paraphrase? Please provide a direct quote. If the Redeemed are to receive bodies that could live eternally then (a) that makes them have immortality tangibly contained in themselves, but the Bible is clear that only God has immortality; (b) why were Adam and Eve never said in the Bible or SOP to have such immortal bodies.
That is why is can only see osmosis as the only logical option left to explain how God can make mortal created beings live for ever. You made a claim that I had a certain view. I denied your claim. I asked you to provide a quote of what I said to support your claim. I continue to deny your claim. Please provide direct quotes to support your assertion that as to what I'm claiming. Please do not claim as my positions positions which I have not asserted. Quote: NJK Even Jesus does not endorse your view (e.g., Rev 2:7 and many other SOP statements confirm this fact.)
Tom: What you're suggesting is my view isn't my view.
NJK:It, substantively speaking, actually is the only option left. Left from what? You haven't quoted anything I've said. What are you reasoning from? You're not providing any context here. Quotes please! Quote: NJK: Do we need the Tree of life in Heaven to supposedly continue to learn dependence on God???
Tom: It's obvious that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life, isn't it? Assuming you agree this is the case,...
NJK:For the reasons stated throughout this thread and summarized in the response above, I unequivocally, certainly do not believe this as it is contrary to what the Bible and the SOP plainly say. You're saying, then, that God does need the Tree of Life to give us life, that God had no other way of providing us life other than that. How could God, the Creator of the Universe, and the tree, of course, in the first place, be dependent upon it to give life to another creature? Where are you seeing that ‘this is obvious’?? 1.God created all things. 2.God is life, and gives life, to who He wants in whatever manner He chooses. 3.God created the tree of life. Given these facts, it is obvious to me that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life. This isn't obvious to you? If not, please explain why not. Originally Posted By: Tom .... then God must have deliberately chosen to have us eat of the Tree of Life in order to live, just as He has chosen to have us breathe in order to have life.
NJK:Again, the premise for that statement is Biblically unfounded, nonetheless, continual breathing is indispensable to remaining alive, so I don’t see what your logic/point is here. This point is moot if you don't understand why it's obvious that God is not dependent upon a tree to give us life. Originally Posted By: Tom So why did God choose to have us eat of the Tree of Life when He didn't have to? Clearly, to my mind, it is because there are spiritual lessons that He wants us to learn by so doing.
NJK:That is a circular reasoning based upon a Biblical and scientific fallacy. No, this isn't circular reasoning. It's reasoning from premise to conclusion. You don't agree with the premise, but that doesn't make the argument circular. What you should have asserted instead is that the argument is not true, because the premise if false. Therefore it does not begin to be true/valid. This is wrong too. An argument's being valid has to do with the logic of the argument, not whether or not it is true. You could rightly assert the argument is false, because the premise is false, but it would still be valid, because the logic is sound. So faced with such a choice of the Bible&SOP vs. your unfounded and unscientific rationalization, I can, and will, only choose the Bible and SOP. To do this you should provide some support from either the Bible or the SOP that God could not have provided us life in any other way than by means of a tree. (more later)
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132683
04/14/11 09:34 PM
04/14/11 09:34 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
NJK, it sounds like you're saying it's OK to disregard Ellen White's statements as long as she doesn't preface it by "I was shown." If she does preface it by "I was shown," then it has greater weight, and should not be disregarded. That’s indeed the difference I Theologically understand between the Spirit of Prophecy that God gives to a human vs. that human’s still fully present own thoughts. It can also be seen, especially by comparative/developmental analysis of repeated passage/statements of EGW if that segment it had been a direct revelation or not. Especially in early works such as e.g, SG, SP she mainly related such direct revelations, with the statement: “I was shown” being copiously stated there, then later she began to insert comments of her Biblical/Theological understandings to pastorally enlarge these works, seeking to have practical applications/understandings to the various circumstances of the readers life. I'm not clear if a "I was shown" statement can be contrary to Scripture, and thus be disregarded as well, (but not as readily as a statement not prefaced by "I was shown), or if shouldn't be disregarded at all. I have yet to see be the case. I would say that this would be the case if it had been mis-written, however that is really hard to do unless one is being dishonest. The closest thing to this is when EGW describe the Christ she had seen in the vision on the Plan of Salvation as having been ‘troubled’ in 1SG 22.2 (1858), 1SP 45.1 (1870); but later changed that (as far as I know, lone) word in that vision to “doubt” EW 149.2 (1882). (I reconcile the two as ‘a doubt that had caused Christ to become troubled, thus troubling doubt’ and EGW probably wanted to make more clear why Jesus had appeared/been shown as “troubled” to her in that vision.) I must all emphasize that I strongly believe that any mistake that are found in EGW’s own comments were all honest mistakes derived mostly from limited scholarly understandings. I also do not believe, as commonly assumed that whenever she consulted the works of other people to find material and insights to include in her works, that she was always guided by the Holy Spirit to select only what was accurate. Her quoting verbatim John 20:16 from KJV translators (i.e., the “Touch Me not” phrase) is a perfect example of that. Only much later (ca. DA 1898) did she realize that “Detain Me Not” was a more accurate reading. So she could have restated the inaccurate understandings of other authors. I indeed see that she, when not directly impressed by God, as it probably was the case, selected from those other writings what she understood was in harmony with her main set of what would end up being ca. 2000 revelations over her lifetime (if that figure has been substantively accurately reckoned by the EGW estate). So in summary, “I was shown” type of statements can be ascertained to indeed be direct revelations and when there is no evidence that they had been mis-recorded/written then it should not be discarded. The Biblical principle is clear: ‘Test all prophesying and hold on to what is good’ (1 Thess 5:19-21).
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132684
04/14/11 09:37 PM
04/14/11 09:37 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
NJK: In this case, No, as the “Greater Light of the Bible” unequivocally states otherwise and the two views are not reconcilable.
Tom: This is just your opinion. There are many scholars who agree with what Ellen White wrote. Not it is not, for substantive, exegetical reasons. You’re defaulty assuming that these scholars have done a proper exegesis of this passage. Perhaps they, like you, are just approaching in it from a philosophical view that ‘(a) this was not an act of judgement, therefore (b) God could not have been forcing Pharaoh to not obey Him.’ However the exegesis of that passage clearly indicates the complete opposite for both of these assumptions. The difference of verbal tenses used, even with Pharaoh’s own choices were at times he acted naturally and at other times he had to take decided efforts to do so, (and when he didn’t do any of these himself, God stepped in and did it to/for him), it too black-on-white, clear to be exegetically ignore or indifferently dismissed. I have encountered many errors by scholars and don’t take my word for it, but just see how many times scholars correct other “scholars” on even what should have been objective truths. Usually this is because of the erroneous scholars not having delve deep enough in the study/topic/issue. I've seen "strengthen" given as a suggested translation, so that the idea is that God gave Pharaoh strength to do that which was already in his heart to do. As I see by seeing other uses of that Hebrew word #2388 - “to strengthen” is indeed the basic meaning, however since the text here shows that Pharaoh could naturally ‘strengthen his heart’ without any intensive action (Qal tense) but in 4 occasions in only the plagues, not only did he no do it as in the other 6, but God did it, and had to use intensive action to “forcefully” make it so (Piel) then that, especially in combination here, unequivocally clear to me of a forceful overturning of Pharaoh heart/will. Furthermore why would God have to say from the start that He was going to do this? If that then involved solely what EGW had described then why would the text make explicit mentions in the latter half of the Plagues, and when indeed Pharaoh was/felt defeated/helpless. Indeed that all seemed from the start as a heads up to Moses to ‘not be surprised when Pharaoh refuses to obey you because I will, when need be, working to harden his heart. Present all of this to a (also a non-SDA) scholar and see if they do not agree.
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132685
04/14/11 09:39 PM
04/14/11 09:39 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
Tom: My original thought upon reading this verse was the intended meaning is "the violent seek (or "attempt") to take it by force," that is, that the word "seek" is implied. I don't know if this is a viable idea or not. NJK: Where the notion of “‘similar mental bias’ here?? Tom: You wrote this: From a semi exhaustive exegetical study that I have done on this verse, but succinctly summarized here:
-the Greek word “biazomai” translated here as “violent’ actually refers to “(mental) bias” thus it refers to one who acts with a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue situation; influence in an unfair way; or going across the grain. It speaks of forcefully acting with a mindset and not pointedly to the physicality involved. It involves changing a bias mindset. Tom: What's the difference you're seeing here between what I said and what you said? Everything!!! Again: “Where the notion of “‘similar mental bias’ here??” Those who would take the Kingdom of heaven by violence have it, it being this: "It speaks of forcefully acting with a mindset and not pointedly to the physicality involved. It involves changing a bias mindset." That may have come to be what you later came to understand after reading my answer, however my entire point in all of this was that your initial point said nothing in regards to mental bias. In fact you were apparently speaking against what you manifestly had believed was the use of “physically violent” force. Thus your emphasis that ‘seeking to get the Kingdom of heaven through such force’ was what Jesus was speaking against.
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: kland]
#132686
04/14/11 09:40 PM
04/14/11 09:40 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
Looks like you confirmed I was correct on your views, but maybe I'm wrong about the Inquisition. Seems to me that you are simply patting yourself on your back here kland. What precisely do you think is my views? I have debunked all of the false conceptions of my actual view that you keep fancifully conjecturing, (for lack of less descriptive terms for what you are patently, defaulty doing with what I say)! OK, I'll listen. Could you explain why you think the Inquisition came about with God fearing people approving of it? While a few may have participated knowing it was not "just" or correct or right, the way something so large, so encompassing could come about is if the majority of the people believed in it. And they didn't believe they were going against God, but believed they were following God. What or how was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts? The Papacy was not anything close to being compose of ‘God-fearing men’. They knew right from the start that they were teaching Biblical error and instituting unbiblical traditions. Their knowing, official changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, which occurred long before the ca. 12th century and onwards Inquisitions, completely destroyed any association that God may have continued to have with the mainstream NT Church, So, especially by the 12th century, God was certainly not inspiring any of them to do any of their warring/inquisitive actions. Furthermore all of this was mainly being done to instill false fear upon Church members, and those carry out these Papal orders had no choice but to obey, lest they also be considered as a heretic and suffer that penalty of death. And the difference I see in what the catholic Church did vs. what God legislated and commanded in the OT and also what Jesus taught in the NT was that God did not command that capital actions be taken against people who did not simply believe like He instructed but who had acted in tangibly variously socially threatening ways in Israel. That certainly was the case for people foreign to Israel who were not forced to join Israel as the Catholic Church was doing, but were to only be kept out unless they freely chose to believe. And the OT’s probationary restrictions for these foreigners was removed in the NT. Also Jesus similarly instructed that those who did not believe be kicked out the main body and not put to death. (E.g., Matt 18:15-18). So the Catholic Church had no Biblical basis for their murderous campaign against mere intellectual heretics. And also their union with the Roman State, which forced millions of intellectual opposers to falsely become part of their ‘ecclesiastical jurisdiction’ was also complete contrary to God’s ways. So I see that their overall misconception of God the Father and Jesus and the ways that had been stated and clarified in the Bible ended up in this aberration. That’s really what Revelation’s Babylon, vs. God Biblical Israel, can only end up doing.
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132687
04/14/11 09:41 PM
04/14/11 09:41 PM
|
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
|
|
NJK:Again, and this is not a rhetorical question: How was man to live forever before sin? By “learned dependence” osmosis??? You, uniquely in this thread, blindly and unbiblically refuse to see any ‘life-perpetuating “supernatural power” in the Fruit of Life’.
Tom: I don't believe this is the case. If you think otherwise, please quote something I've written to support your idea here.
NJK:(1) In regards to your view on the Tree of Life and man’s life in this thread: Both APL and Mountain Man have stated that it is what perpetuates life as stated in the Bible and SOP (e.g., Gen 3:22-24 & PP 60.3). I don’t know what kland’s view is on this.
(2) The reason why “osmosis” is my only remaining logical option for your view is because you state that man lives eternally by the death of Christ, Where do you think I state this? I asked you to provide quotes to support your idea of what I'm saying, but you haven't done so. Please do so. however you do not explain/point out how mortal man is supposed to live eternally. If man had not sinned, why would he die? If he doesn't die, he continues to live, as long as God gives him life. You further do not take into any substantive consideration what the Bible and SOP say about the physical contribution of the Tree of Life, including in Heaven for the redeemed. Your claim that ‘it is only to a lesson of dependence upon God is outrightly without any Bible or SOP support. It is entirely borne out of your view. Your single quote has no matching single quote. What is it you are trying to paraphrase? Please provide a direct quote. If the Redeemed are to receive bodies that could live eternally then (a) that makes them have immortality tangibly contained in themselves, but the Bible is clear that only God has immortality; (b) why were Adam and Eve never said in the Bible or SOP to have such immortal bodies.
That is why is can only see osmosis as the only logical option left to explain how God can make mortal created beings live for ever. You made a claim that I had a certain view. I denied your claim. I asked you to provide a quote of what I said to support your claim. I continue to deny your claim. Please provide direct quotes to support your assertion that as to what I'm claiming. Please do not claim as my positions positions which I have not asserted. Quote: NJK Even Jesus does not endorse your view (e.g., Rev 2:7 and many other SOP statements confirm this fact.)
Tom: What you're suggesting is my view isn't my view.
NJK:It, substantively speaking, actually is the only option left. Left from what? You haven't quoted anything I've said. What are you reasoning from? You're not providing any context here. Quotes please! Quote: NJK: Do we need the Tree of life in Heaven to supposedly continue to learn dependence on God???
Tom: It's obvious that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life, isn't it? Assuming you agree this is the case,...
NJK:For the reasons stated throughout this thread and summarized in the response above, I unequivocally, certainly do not believe this as it is contrary to what the Bible and the SOP plainly say. You're saying, then, that God does need the Tree of Life to give us life, that God had no other way of providing us life other than that. How could God, the Creator of the Universe, and the tree, of course, in the first place, be dependent upon it to give life to another creature? Where are you seeing that ‘this is obvious’?? 1.God created all things. 2.God is life, and gives life, to who He wants in whatever manner He chooses. 3.God created the tree of life. Given these facts, it is obvious to me that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life. This isn't obvious to you? If not, please explain why not. Originally Posted By: Tom .... then God must have deliberately chosen to have us eat of the Tree of Life in order to live, just as He has chosen to have us breathe in order to have life.
NJK:Again, the premise for that statement is Biblically unfounded, nonetheless, continual breathing is indispensable to remaining alive, so I don’t see what your logic/point is here. This point is moot if you don't understand why it's obvious that God is not dependent upon a tree to give us life. Originally Posted By: Tom So why did God choose to have us eat of the Tree of Life when He didn't have to? Clearly, to my mind, it is because there are spiritual lessons that He wants us to learn by so doing.
NJK:That is a circular reasoning based upon a Biblical and scientific fallacy. No, this isn't circular reasoning. It's reasoning from premise to conclusion. You don't agree with the premise, but that doesn't make the argument circular. What you should have asserted instead is that the argument is not true, because the premise if false. Therefore it does not begin to be true/valid. This is wrong too. An argument's being valid has to do with the logic of the argument, not whether or not it is true. You could rightly assert the argument is false, because the premise is false, but it would still be valid, because the logic is sound. So faced with such a choice of the Bible&SOP vs. your unfounded and unscientific rationalization, I can, and will, only choose the Bible and SOP. To do this you should provide some support from either the Bible or the SOP that God could not have provided us life in any other way than by means of a tree. (more later) I am not going to waste my time to respond to these quibbling, vexatious answers of yours because I had made my points contextually and sequiturly clear in that post. You made your spurious objecting answers simply by mindlessly and wrongfully splitting and isolating points and thoughts. So carefully re-read what I had said to get the answers. I suggest this careful reading for any other answers, as well as substantive arguments vs. quibbling, obfuscating, spurious and/or peripheral ones, as you’ll just get the same reply as this one. ---- This is the only segment in your reply that I had found to be substantively valid and not previously answered, thus worth my time: NJK: Where are you seeing that ‘this is obvious’??
Tom: 1.God created all things. 2.God is life, and gives life, to who He wants in whatever manner He chooses. 3.God created the tree of life.
Given these facts, it is obvious to me that God doesn't need the Tree of Life to give us life.
This isn't obvious to you? If not, please explain why not. Statement 1 & 3 are Biblical Facts. Statement #2 is at best a philosophical assumption. The Bible and SOP show that God gives life to Man, indeed all nature by an ingestation of the Tree of Life. The only switch I see is that in Heaven, humans will be ingested the supernatural power in the Tree of Life aromatically. And what we breathe in does tangibly get into our blood and entire body. So the tangible ingestation is the same. So according to Bible and SOP the Tree of Life is squarely still in the Perpetual Life picture. So that is what I am convinced to go by and not your rational about God and/or what God should do. Perhaps God can implant a perpetual fruit of life gene in us, indeed e.g., replace one of our kidneys with a fruit of life secreting organ. However since what will have to be implanted in that secreting organ will have to perpetually have life in itself and also never be consume/die, then that amounts to man having immortality in themselves. To me that perpetual power in itself is something that man cannot enclose in themselves. So God has to first couch it in something that we can safely ingest, lest He first has to create us with a make up like His to be able to do this, then we too would become gods, and then what???, i.e., if a free moral agent decides to rebel. Angels, with us being a little lower than them, have a bodily constitution greater than our, literally, earthen one, yet they too are not immortal. How God enables them to live perpetually has not been revealed, however it clearly has been for created man. And I only see that we are limited to that provision/method. And Angels may be using actually using the higher method of aromatically breathing in the Fruit of Life, and without it, they can only live ca. 10,000 years vs. (lower) Man’s ca. 1,000 years.
Last edited by NJK Project; 04/14/11 10:45 PM. Reason: Sole Valid Argument Addressed
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: NJK Project]
#132689
04/14/11 11:05 PM
04/14/11 11:05 PM
|
OP
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
T: Well, let's just do some math. Let's say a wicked person commits 1,000 sins in a day. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. In one year that's 365,000 sins. If the person lives a long life, that's 3,000,000 sins. Let's say it takes 10 seconds to review a sin. Does that seem reasonable to you? If not, we can adjust it. To review 3,000,000 sins at 10 seconds a sin would take 30,000,000 seconds, or a little over 57 years. I don't think the judgment will take 57 years. Do you?
M: I enjoyed your math. Nicely done. However, the following quotes, omitted in your response above, make it clear Jesus will judge every sin everyone has ever committed.
T: Not in the way you're apparently thinking, as the math makes clear.
M: So we’re not accused of using human logic to undermine Inspiration, please post inspired passages that refute what she clearly stated above.
T: I have no desire to refute anything EGW wrote, which I'm sure you know, so your question is completely out of place. To refute how you're apparently thinking, I explained the math to you.
M: In particular, note the following insight – “As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed.” It should be obvious that opening “the books of record” doesn’t take 57 years.
T: It should be obvious that a person cannot be conscious instantly of 3,000,000 individual sins. That cannot be her intent. The human mind simply does not have that capability. Have you ever had a near death experience where your life passed before your eyes? If so, that could serve as an approximation for what's going on here. Remember the EGW statement that says that God is pleased when we use common sense? That should be considered in interpreting statements such as these. There's advice from the EGW estate explaining this as well, to avoid coming to extreme interpretation of her statements, making her say something which was not her intent. To review a person's entire life is clearly something that would take time. Not an extraordinary amount of time, like 57 years, if each individual sin were considered, but certainly much more than an instant. Just consider how much time is taken in earthly courts to consider things which involve the judging of a person. “As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed.” I suppose we can join you in rejecting the obvious meaning of this passage (and the other passages you omitted which say the same thing), or we can take it at face value and assume she actually said precisely what she meant to say. Otherwise, how could she have stated it more plainly if that’s what she intended to say? I’m surprised you believe Jesus is incapable of causing the wicked to be “conscious of every sin which they have ever committed . . . as soon as the books of record are opened.”
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Tom]
#132690
04/14/11 11:31 PM
04/14/11 11:31 PM
|
OP
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
M: You say it's the grace of God that enables sinners to sin without immediately experiencing the second death, but then you say it's Satan's vital force that enables him to live with sin long after sinners perish in the lake of fire. What's the difference?
T: I was suggesting that Satan lived longer than other angels because of having a greater vital force than they have.
M: Does vital force enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death?
T: Why would this be the case?
M: Or, must God act to enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death?
T: Haven't I said as much? Many times?
M: Who or what is the origin of their source of life?
T: Don't you know? It's God! It sounds as though you believe it is God, and not vital force, that acts to enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death. I agree. M: Also, who or what will act during final judgment to enable sinners to live long enough to suffer intense emotional and physical pain proportionate to their sinfulness? Ellen wrote: They suffer punishment varying in duration and intensity, "according to their works," but finally ending in the second death. {GC 544.2}
Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days. All are punished "according to their deeds." The sins of the righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. {GC 673.1} M: Who or what is the origin of their source of life? T: I don't think this is a good way of looking at things. Actually, very bad. As to what I think the right way of looking at this: This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.
At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764) T: Note the overwhelming emphasis on the fate of the wicked being due to their own choice. Yes, absolutely, they will be punished because they refused to embrace Jesus as their Lord and personal Savior. Jesus doesn’t arbitrarily decide to impose the death penalty. He worked very hard to woo and win them. They are deserving of punishment and eternal death. They are reaping what they have sown, namely, capital punishment. They knew the stakes - obey and live, disobey and die. His “very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.” “Some are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days.” To this end Jesus will resurrect them. He enables them to live long enough to pay for their sins; otherwise, they would die prematurely. Or, do you know of some other source of life that enables them to live past the first few seconds of judgment let alone “many days”?
|
|
|
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?
[Re: Mountain Man]
#132692
04/15/11 12:00 AM
04/15/11 12:00 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
T:NJK, it sounds like you're saying it's OK to disregard Ellen White's statements as long as she doesn't preface it by "I was shown." If she does preface it by "I was shown," then it has greater weight, and should not be disregarded.
NJK:That’s indeed the difference I Theologically understand between the Spirit of Prophecy that God gives to a human vs. that human’s still fully present own thoughts. Is this different than Scripture? Wouldn't the reception of the vision, as well as its presentation, also involve the human element? It can also be seen, especially by comparative/developmental analysis of repeated passage/statements of EGW if that segment it had been a direct revelation or not. Especially in early works such as e.g, SG, SP she mainly related such direct revelations, with the statement: “I was shown” being copiously stated there, then later she began to insert comments of her Biblical/Theological understandings to pastorally enlarge these works, seeking to have practical applications/understandings to the various circumstances of the readers life. She wrote that nothing she wrote were merely hew own ideas. Why do you think there should be a difference of weight placed between statements which say "I was shown" and those that don't? She never made this suggestion. She said none of her writings were merely her own ideas. I must all emphasize that I strongly believe that any mistake that are found in EGW’s own comments were all honest mistakes derived mostly from limited scholarly understandings. Is this different than Scripture? Most of the Bible writers weren't scholars any more than she was, were they?
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|