As stated in this earlier post


The various Hebrew words that are translated as “awe” and “reverence” also involve: being afraid, dread, fear, trembling/shaking.

Same as in the Greek phobos (#5401) e.g., Acts 2:43.
Heb 12:28 deos (#1190a) from deido





Succinctly said: It makes one wise to truly believe that there is a God, as their life will then be lived according to God’s Wise/Wiser ways.



I actually said that the type of judgement that EGW described in GC 35-37 (and not the Destruction of Jerusalem itself) must involve an organic, cause-to-direct-effect, act. As I see it, if God acts to prevent something, which only occurs when he stops this protection, then it really is not “organic.” That also includes what Satan pushes men to do. Case in point, since the Roman were idolatrous peoples why didn’t another nation destroy them.

That is why I find this “organic” requirement to be “stringently” artificial to this theological issue as it is clear that God judiciously chooses which sins he will permit to be immediately visited by its ultimate end result of death. That is why, as I said in my first post in this thread, all sins in Israel were not to be capitally punished.

Also in regards to EGW saying:



I see that this only applies, as she qualifies, “when men pass the limits of divine forbearance” and “that restraint is removed”. That then involves God not seeking to do any acts of mercy in a judgement. However, as seen in e.g., the Flood, the fiery serpents, the destruction of Sodom, the first destruction of Jerusalem, the most part of the War of the Jews, etc. God actually wanted to have and show mercy to anyone who would repent. Also in some case, He wanted to limit/control the extent of destruction. (That is also reversedly present in the final Hell Fire judgement). So He was there standing as the administrator and executioner of this sentence, as EGW also understood (see also her later comments in GC 614.2). You want this to apply to every judgement mentioned in the Bible but I don’t see this as being the intention of this EGW statement. I see it only applicable to pointed “absolutely no mercy” situations.

It also seems to me that when a natural destruction can’t or won’t occur in a timely way, then God intervenes to supernaturally bring that destruction about. I.e., not every sinful action will not lead to an “immediate” and even “organic” result. The penalty of all sin is death however not every sin tangibly, immediately has this physical consequence of a ‘naturally resulting death.’ Hence God’s capital punishment provision for some of those sins.



I don’t see this in either Bible and SOP. Furthermore, as stated here in Post #133189 the snake had to ‘be made to sent into the camp, in the midst of the people and with (biting) interest’. And the symbolic healing figure that was to be built was only a serpent and not also a scorpion. So it is clear to me that this was a targeted punishment.



Again by saying “GC 35-37” I am referring to the extent of secondary judgment mentioned there where God is not at all involved in the act. That thus is by definition evil, again not implicating God and His allowance of it, but because then it is either the devil who is directly acting, and that in full control or man is suffering a natural consequence of the evil that Satan has concocted (e.g,, overdosing on drugs, getting cancer from smoking).

It is not an evil act of God in precisely same way that though He “permitted sin” (cf. PP Chapter 1), He is not the author of it. That is how I understand He “creates evil” (Isa 45:7). Indeed as seen with Ahab, God was at a loss when He needed someone to be a lying Spirt to Ahab until a Evil Spirit came forth and God permitted that element for this overall beneficial and deserved judgement purpose here. In a sense it is like Police claiming to have evidence in order to make a criminal confess to a crime, except that God would permit someone else to do this lying and also as such a confession would probably be contested in court (if coercion was used), but could lead to the obtainment of admissible evidence through this creation of an actionable, reasonable suspicion and probable cause for this “evidence of a guilty mind”.



That is the common example, however what makes the Holocaust more deserving of God’s intervention than any of the following:

-the death of 25 million Russians (with ca. 14 million being civilians deaths) due to WWII at also the hands of the Nazis.
-the civilian death in the Nuclear Bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima
-the various systematic murders of Communist Leaders such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot
-the 1994 genoicide in Rwanda
-the more recent slaughter in Sudan and the Darfur Region
-the ongoing legalized and/or committed 65,000,000+ million abortions per year

All of these are the natural effects of man hatred toward their fellow man, as was the Holocaust, and not actually a judgement of God. The fact that the Holocaust is commonly brought is only because it is believed that the were a Special people of God. They officially lost that status in the Fall of 34 A.D.

My point is that God’s not intervening when GC necessary to defend, judge avenge a Biblically Righteous and Faithful People would be evil. Indeed, where is the “GC circumstance” in the Holocaust. Citing the persecution of Christians during Church History is the pertinently applicable example, but here God had a much greater, anc crucial good in mind. I.e., the potential billions of Christians in the future, or even the Remnant few, who would be encouraged to faithfulness by these martyrdom. Even Church growth was fostered by the faithfulness in the face of death demonstrated by these “martyrs” as this indeed gave great “testimony” that what they believed was true.

In terms of free will, that is plausible but not the case. Satan willed to remain in Heaven, even after his defeat in the organized War, but God overrode that will and cast him out of Heaven. That resulted in a relative peace in Heaven.



As I stated on my blog, if choosing sides was the only intent, the a physical conflict was not needed after these sides had been chosen. And “room” was no longer found in Heaven only after Satan lost that War, not after they had chosen sides. God had given them an opportunity to exclusively remain in Heaven through his brute force War, if they could!



This is speaking of ending the greater ideological rebellion and not who could remain in the Universe HQ of Heaven. That ideological aspect is required “time” (i.e. 6000+ years) (= DA 759.2) and the Battle for Heaven therefore needed to be settled as God could not cohabit, even co-rule with the usurping Satan during all of this time. Indeed as the SOP says:





Once, again this speaks of compelling power to ascribe to God’s view. That was not what the War in Heaven was for.



In regards to belief. In regards to effectuating just and deserved judgement God see nothing wrong with using the necessary force.



To settle the greater ideological GC Conflict and not the Occupancy of Heaven Battle.



Indeed. However this is distinct from timely effectuating key judgements. Indeed the reason why there were a number of ‘subsequent’ capital punishments in Israel, was because it was not meant to compel belief. People still freely chose to commit these capital sins or not. However God made provision to justly deal with them for the Greater good of keeping the rest of a Righteous people pure and thus capable of having His presence in their midst.



Unfortunately from a substantively stubborn one-sided viewpoint vs. what the Bible and SOP fully reveal in e.g,. 1SP 17-24. I suspect that you are doing this in regards to that SOP passage because you believe that what EGW wrote in DA 759ff somehow either corrects or supercedes her earlier, even if, direct revelation account. Is that the case?



These are the means for Great GC War, not the War for Heaven.



1SP 21.1-2 clear reveals that it was God who decided this solution of a physical confrontation and that Satan only later agreed by saying that he would indeed defend his stance physically.

(I personally find a joke to be ‘funny’ when they are realistic and sequitur.)



That probably won’t occur given what I see as only being needlessly time consuming to me. If you or anyone else didn’t have a Bible, then that would be a justified and needed request.

By the way, again, as you are continuing to do this. Clicking on the “Reply” link at the end of the actual post you are responding do will be beneficial to everyone as it allows for easy backtracking to that post to follow the background of the discussion when needed, especially as you do leave some things out in your responses.



Not in actuality as it depends on the actual content of the texts referred to.



That’s all simply how you and/or others are choosing to peripherally view this. Simply quoting references actually allow me more time to search for more supporting passages and post them. That is substantively more crucial to me as I don’t like to build a teaching on just one verse. And as I said, I only post the text when it involves translational tweaking. I certainly know that it has absolutely nothing to do with the supporting weight I give to that text.



My point is that English is not only most readily understood, but I’ll also add more translationally reliable than other translations of the Bible in other languages. At least, as I can tell, in regards to French.



The Bible says that God “caused” it which points to his involvement through an agency. So God may e.g., commissioned an angel to convince Saul that all hope was lost and God was indeed truly, not going to forgive him for this latest waywardness. The ensuing despair then led Saul to take his life. The point of the Hebrew Hiphil here is that God someone actively orchestrated this through an agency.



Thanks. That tense distinguishing line is actually highlighted in my copy of IBHS. Again this is emphasizing the nuance being the type of causation involved in the Piel and Hiphil. Furthermore IBHS clarifies this difference by saying:





No comment on, or even objection to, these also key exegetical elements?? Why?



It was indeed because of many such perceivable and visible physical manifestations of anger from Christ that these people fled. In fact they were later ashamed because of this. Their guilty conscience resulting from Christ’s effectuated penetrating psychological force did indeed condemn them, but Christ’s angry physical demeanor and outburst did indeed literally spook them and made them run.



As recently pointed out elsewhere, it actually is not saying that. They were caused to flee out of sheer fear. Indeed fear of receiving the punishment for the sins they have been made to feel most guilty of by Christ’s distinct “Spiritual, psychological” force .



That does not make Theological sense to me. The sinner who clings to his since receives the “wrath” of God. And Christ’s pity was actually because the chose to flee rather than repent.



I (1) rather see that God removing his shielding hand is itself and “act of judgement of God” and (2) these dangers are not necessarily self acting. They are simply something that could happen. Therefore in cases where God was protecting, as in the serpents, he may also need to further make it happen, especially if a timely judgement is needed. Indeed Babylon was always present, but God worked to call it in war against His rebellious people. The same thing manifestly, according to Christ’s view, occurred for the 66-70 A.D. war.

There are however cases, as with the Flood, S&G, the Rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, where God has to supernaturally act to effectuate a timely judgement. In fact if he had even simply led them to the place where a sinkhole was surely about to form, then I still would consider this as His acting. However I do not see this as Theologically tenable as it implies that God knows the future freewill decisions of people and that in moreover a timely precise way. I personally do not see Biblical support for that view.



Christ’s pity came after, as, and because they were fleeing. That’s what the SOP clearly reveals and is not my subjective view. And despite a possible ‘tearful voice’ here it was nonetheless a “scathing rebuke” (cf. DA 353.1). Both tone and message could equally and fully be conveyed. And the offender had thus a choice to make between the two. So that is why Christ pitied them when they only would perceive the indignant rebuke message. Indeed in the same way as you choose to see my, even merely Bible quoting and/or references, as “sarcasm and insults” rather than seek out the underlying substantive reason/cause that made them applicable and “needed” (DA 353.1).



If you feel that you can defend your point(s) view without reading my supporting references, then go ahead. That’s entirely up to you. Just don’t be surprised if/when this non-looed at evidence disproves your points. (I had also mentioned the SOP statement earlier).



The inclusion of the Scripture reference for the healing of the paralytic (Matt 9:1-8|Mar 2:1-12|Luke 5:17:26) would have been doubly pertinently necessary here as chronological sequence is key. My (reliable) Harmony of the Gospel has that episode came after the Temple Cleansing incident. (John 2:13-25); the meeting with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21); Jesus leaving Judea (when John was captured, in the light of potential similar opposition to him by the Jewish leaders (Matt 4:12|Mar 1:14a|Luke 3:19, 20; 4:14a|John 4:1-4)). It seems to me that Jesus’s pointed veilings was in direct proportion to the level of opposition unbelief. To those who accepted him He spoke more openly, but to those with some doubts, even His own disciples, He also included veiled sayings.

I see that Christ’s statements during the healing of the paralytic was keyly veiled in Christ using the term “Son of Man” instead of “I”. Indeed as He did throughout his ministry. The fact that this was meant to be cryptic, and just enough to cloud to otherwise quite pointed statement is see in all three Gospels as Jesus does not specifically say: ‘...forgives sins, I therefor say:’ but ends his statement by just straightly (cf. DA 269.2) commanding the paralytic. This third person approach therefore left open room for interpretation. (Cf. Paul’s similar concealing usage in 2 Cor 12:1-7ff.) Indeed there is still some debate if Paul is actually referring to his own experience. (Which I see/believe he is). Similarly in Christ’s case, that circuitous statement could lead to the question of is He speaking of Himself or in behalf of another, through which He could do such miracles. Their natural question then should have been: “who is the Son of Man”. But manifestly their pride, lest the answer corroborated by these miracles, should prove to be even more incontrovertible to them, they chose to abstain from receiving further light. And thus this light served to blind them. They nonetheless knew that Jesus was speaking in pointed reference to Himself (cf. DA 270.4) and so by this abstaining, which they probably felt was a good thing, they therefore did not have the ‘actionable, first-hand, and even “widely witnessed”’ proof that Jesus had committed a supposed blasphemy. (Cf. Christ’s ‘other/additional (concurrent) reason’ for such ‘veiled pronouncements’ in COL 22.1).

The subject matter also played a significant part in determining if what He was going to say should be veiled, even if only in key areas. Thus in the sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) which really was the key exposition of the nature of His Theology, the only thing that He said that I see could have been more substantively veiled was in Matt 5:20. However He “double-ententely” could be (inoffensively) construed as saying that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was very high and/or, at least that the one of these people was inferior to theirs. So that pointed being ambiguous, was actually effectively veiled. (= COL 22.1's other reason).



These leaders had more privilege than the rest of the people so they had no default margin for mercy, and if they chose to quibbling rebel, then they got the corresponding veiled treatment from Jesus. Indeed as seen in their first encounter in John 2:13ff and also subsequent ones, including the ones you mentioned above.

Jesus also wanted to paramountly break the hold of false teaching and spiritual pressure that these leaders were oppressively and self-servingly exerting upon the people. So if they chose to continue in these ways then they were also to be so uprooted and overturned. Jesus went directly to the people and not to these leaders to seek to teach and implement His kingdom. That “snubbing” which indeed automatically set Him at odds with these leaders, speaks volumes, especially in these times and its hierarchal customs, to what He taught of these wayward leaders. It also, indeed cut at their foundational, abusive pride that God could not do anything in Israel except by going through them.



Nicodemus, relatively, singularly humbled himself just enough to come to Jesus for more light based upon what he had subsequently studied out in the Bible. (DA 168.1) Yet Jesus proceeded to humble him even more, which Nicodemus humbly took (DA 173.4). Still this was only all done upon the same “veiled information” and background that all of those rebuked religious leaders had. The chose to persist in their ‘roused hatred’.



That emboldened part (and thus also what follows) does not make sequitur sense to me. God is straightforward and real in his dealing and does not seek to obtain love by acts that arouse hatred. Indeed to do so he would have to engage in acts of judgement and adverse overturnings/destruction (as all seen in the Temple cleansing), and that would only be trying to compel love, and that through fear of punishment. As you apparently fully know, God does not work in this way.



And that is not done by acts that should entrench this pride or arouse hatred. Clearly Jesus was entering into deserved judgement with these leaders. How they chose to respond (i.e., flee, and that to regroup, or seek repentance) is entirely up to them. They self-servingly were sinning against light and they fully knew it, and that is what Jesus found fault with and justly dealt with. They then chose to ‘hate rebuke and the rebuker’ hold on to their wayward ways.



Christ here wanted to first, and fittingly, provoke contrite repentance through a confrontation with the weight of this sin. The “collateral damage” for this needed pointed action was almost automatically “hatred” however only if these leaders so chose. And as seen with the also similarly rebuked Nicodemus, it was indeed a choice.



I am pointedly speaking of Christ’s dealing with the Jewish leaders and how he dealt with those who actually allowed themselves to be corrected (i.e., Nicodemus, Simon, the thief on the cross) is on a different, subsequent level.

Christ's designs were that those entrapped by sin be led to repentance, and He did all He could to bring that to pass.



Also “Agape” love is not unconditional, but (realistically) faithful, even if “70x7” times of forgiveness have to first be “faithfully” exhausted. Thus it is only “faithfully” applied, i.e., whenever there is a “benefit-of-the-doubt” reason to do so, thus being “faithful”. Indeed agape love is not illogically also present when God executes His judgements. His “Wrath” stemming out of His “Passion” is in full effect here.



“Love your enemies” does not mean being a doormat to them and ‘letting something adverse and detrimental that can be prevented continue. In this case Christ chose to treat these leaders as they deserved, yet with a chance to be corrected, if they so chose, in order to rescue those suffering under their oppressions. With that ‘opportunity for correction’ Christ was indeed abiding by His teachings as He was still doing good to them. In fact not making them see the sinfulness of their ways, or acting as if what they had been doing was perfectly acceptable would not be “love” as it would only approvingly facilitate their waywardness.

These leaders also would not have accepted a non-rebuking reproach as their belief was that they were unimpeachably superior, so that stance had to be “faithfully” and truthfully (i.e., non-hypocritically) dealt with. Jesus was indeed faithful in doing this and not water-down truth to seek to be accepted or pleasing to the baseness of men.



I am basing this on how Jesus chose to, in judgement, deal with them right from the start. Indeed He did not go into the temple and seek to reason with them, giving them a benefit of a doubt, and/or given them a Bible study. But instead He immediately, unequivocally “forcefully” rebuked them.



The fact that they did not act like Nicodemus, even as they easily could have by choosing to hold a formal hearing with Jesus, indeed if (many) others were also like Nicodemus, speak volumes to their spiritual condition and decision.

In terms of this “unrevokable judgment” I mean that their various unbiblical actions were going to be judged. If they chose to persist in them they so would they. Jesus indeed continually rebuked these wrong and detrimental actions and did not overlook them.



They were of course, quite naturally, “taken aback” as Jesus here inceptively confronted them in scathing judgement. And as EGW says that following this first encounter their response was hatred, then I see that they immediately chose ‘what to make of this’. It substantively was Christ’s Biblical words against what actually they fully knew was an unbiblical practice that was crucially pertinent here and not the “peripheral” fact that ‘they had never met or heard Jesus before.’ (Cf. John 12:47-48ff) Indeed what difference does that make. That is indeed the reasoning that made them reject the substantive words and actions of Jesus (John 2:18; cf. Matt 21:23), and that throughout His ministry. (cf. Matt 12:38, 39ff).



“Almost” obviously does not avail to anything. Judas chose to maintain the wrong intentions and motivations he always had from the very first day, and indeed for the reason why, he had volunteered his “service” to the cause of Christ.



That Holy Spirit’s working in an individual is besides the point. The fact that Jesus set up his “Independent Ministry”, and that from the start, which indeed flustered them, shows this ‘position revocation’ belief and judgement of Christ.



On the individual level, there was indeed time for them to change, but that obviously did not result in Christ joining their sect. These repenting ones had to join his. The leadership system was corrupt and maintain in this way by a vast majority. So there was no practical way in which they could not but be institutionally judged by Christ.



The only interaction with the priests I see are when they confronted Him in seeking to oppose His work. And these confrontation are marked by either a barrage of wholly or keyly veiled pronouncements and/or scathing rebuke (e.g., John 8:12-59; Matt 23) I certainly don’t see where you supposedly see these ‘majority of the time’ nor even ‘respect’.

Furthermore, the fact that, on top of setting up an independent ministry, continually implying that they were teaching the Truth, Jesus did not at all go and “confront” these Teachers, but only responded when they came to Him to question him, further shows that He did not mind that they remained in darkness. Indeed he could have easily sought them out and/or requested a meeting with them to “respectfully” plainly and, peripherally most significantly/facilitatively, privately, explain His Truths to them, but deliberately chose not do that.




A) As it is seen this post (#133001), your comments were pointedly in regards to my statement:



Your desire and attempt to try to attribute this understanding to ‘my fault’ is substantively spurious. Jesus fittingly/correspondingly responded to his open and confrontational opposers which cutting words of substantive/factual truth. These are not “insults or sarcasm” nor is my applicable quoting or referencing of them. Biblical truth, being as sharp as a two-edge sword, naturally hurts someone/something who opposes it as it cuts into especially ones pride and entrenched skin and sinew of “preferred” beliefs. I see that you are “conveniently” confusing/conflating that Truth cutting effect with, supposedly, me personally.



[Again the [Acts 23:1-5] Scriptural reference would help]. Paul was also pointedly addressing the “inhuman command” (AA 411.1). And since it indeed was ‘a Truth that Ananias was a whitewashed sepulcher’ (AA 414.1), it thus was not an insult, but a factual description.

Also this clearly was not how Christ, Paul’s ‘imitated Master’, treated the leaders of His day as Jesus had no qualm about calling them, with reason, among many other things, “whitewashed” (Matt 23:27). Manifestly Paul had a different intention/purpose here. Indeed it all seems to me that Paul’s response was carefully and “courteously” calculated to be diplomatic. He only said in excuse that ‘he did not know that Ananias was in the position of the High Priest’ though he clearly was a priest. And indeed used this calculated peace fostering appeasement, to instead cause this trial to fath through a sure-to-work diversion (Acts 23:6-10 = Matt 10:16). Yet nothing said here was a lie since Paul indeed may not have known that Ananias was made the High Priest.)



Your claim of (default) “respect” towards the Jewish leaders needs to be substantiated.

God only treats sinners with agape love when there is an actual valid reason to do so, as he easily can know. Even a seemingly vile sinner, may be doing so out of the weighed but sure belief that ‘there is no God, who moreover has an authority on his life.’ However God never “respect” hypocrisy, but realistically deals with it in corresponding proportion to which it has been allowed to be entrenched. The religious leaders had knowingly made God’s Law subservient to their self-serving desires and God/Jesus had absolutely no “respect” for that hypocrisy, especially as it was tangibly, oppressively exerted upon Spiritually, even economically, helpless victim. So when I see Jesus treat someone in those cutting and scathingly rebuking ways and terms, then I know that there is a just actionable reason from Him to “real-ly” do so, and that usually is various forms of hypocrisy, especially, as it actually only is, indifferent hypocrisy (= lying).



In the SOP’s statement as in DA 567.5, I rather only see that Simon, like David, would not have realized the great guilt of his sin in relation to Mary, -a sin which he may have already asked and even received forgiveness of. Yet he was still holding an air of superiority here and that is what Jesus sought to pointedly address here. That then in turn, but distinctly, addressed Simon’s apparently personally genuine, but Spiritually spurious, opposition that Jesus was not a prophet since He “obviously” didn’t know that Mary was a (former) adulteress.

Relatedly, how do you think it made the proud and boastful Peter think when Jesus implied that he was, (most utterly despicable) ‘a mouthpiece for Satan’??! (Matt 16:23). Christ surely wanted Peter to be saved (cf. Luke 22:31, 32) but that did not prevent him from pointedly and fittingly addressing his Spiritually bankrupt and wrong expressed, and actually still publicly (Mk. 8:33?), “rebuke”. (At least, Matthew apparently heard it first-hand here! Unless Peter was later forthcoming in recounting it). It surely would have been a difference response if Peter had instead sought to ask deferential questions.



Indeed because I see that Christ method of response here was pointedly because Simon had not pridefully spoken out against Jesus based upon what he actually genuinely felt. So in a way, he actually felt that he was respecting Jesus, even to his own loss because he did not see how he could not openly bring this issue up with Jesus without revealing that he no longer believed in him. (The issue of his and Mary past sin may indeed have been a completely forgiven issue in itself.) So Jesus “correspondingly” responded to that “courteous” however Theologically/Spiritually misguided it actually was. Indeed Simon’s natural reaction, as this was not a hypocritical act by him, should have been to immediately stand up and kick Jesus out for having pretended to be a prophet all of this time. Instead he opted to “suffer in silence”, not even by giving Jesus a benefit-of-the-doubt, but out of pure, now host’s courteously. Jesus was fully aware of all of this and responded in due kind, also endeavoring to set things right here. Indeed after this correction ‘Simon now began to see himself in a new light.’ (DA 567.1)



Where are you reading that Mary was Simon’s niece?
Where also are you reading that the feast was an “obligation”? Did everyone who Christ heal have an “obligation” to hold a feast of thanks for this??

I also read that Simon “desired to show his gratitude” (DA 557.2) and apparently did so in a feast at the first occasion he got. Indeed with Jesus travelling around, that was not an occasion he could easily have and such a (fitting) feast was not thrown over night. So by time he figured to do so, even overcoming his fear of his Pharisee colleague, Jesus may have been long gone, and for a undetermined while.

(I recall something along the ‘initial non-thanking’ lines of Simon’, but can’t specifically relocate it at the moment. If you know the specific SOP reference, please let me know.)

Also, from the fact that Simon was still a Pharisee, I see that this indeed was in itself a most courageous, and thus noteworthy public act. Indeed the Pharisee hated Jesus pointed because of the miracles He was doing that were attesting to the veracity of Himself and Ministry, both exposing and opposing them and theirs. So the last thing that a Pharisee wanted to do was (a) throw a feast indicating public acceptance of Jesus, and (b) for a claimed/observed miracle. Though the Pharisee let Simon continue in his function, thus admitting that he was wholly healed, the certainly did not want to make a public spectacle of this, especially if they knew it was Jesus who had done it, as they probably did.



Uhhh... No.. That’s is what you can only think that I would/should think here. Like Peter in Matt 16:23|Mark 8 33, Christ would have just fittingly, openly, if that was the case with Simon, exposed his sin and hypocrisy. What Simon chose to do with that shaming rebuke, like Peter, (and any other similarly deserving person in Christ’s ministry) was entirely up to him.



From many examples in the Bible, God|Jesus treats each person individually, according to the light they had. So e.g., in Moses’s case (Exod 4:24-26), a pagan could live a peaceful life despite not having circumcised his sons, but for Moses that was an eminent, now confronting, life or death issue. God read hearts, as Jesus was Spiritually empowered to do, and thus His pointed responses are always judiciously fitting and deserved, and individually tailored.



Not to take anything away from that Biblical Truth, that actually sidesteps the present issue that God’s fitting dealings with forwardly manifested, indifferent hypocrisy. God’s love of the sinner, does not excuse, nor certainly, “respect”, such heightened level of sinfulness.



Like the OT God, and how He actually revealed it to Moses, ‘Christ exercises this mercy on whoever He chooses to have mercy.’ (Exod 33:19). If God ‘has to be merciful’ it is no longer mercy, but an obligation. And furthermore, that means that He can never not be merciful, i.e., deal/allow judgement.



Mercy|grace|forgiveness is granted to only those who seek it. And in Simon’s deferential approach, despite feeling otherwise, Jesus saw that he was deserving of this discreet approach, eventhough that unexpressed hypocrisy still had to be rebuked. So Simon only fittingly obtained “mercy/grace” for the manner in which He was to be rebuked.



Just emphatically saying “No” does not change the substantive text. (cf. also Deut 7:9-11; 1 Kgs 8:23) Christ effectively died for everyone, but what actually made Him fully go through with is were His ‘faithful friends’ (John 15:13, 14); “following sheep” (John 10:11) and the many sinners who would accept this sacrifice. (AA 601.2). Giving everything up and engaging in finding the ‘lost sheep/coin’ is pointedly speaking of Christ’s incarnation, but not necessarily of His “baptism of blood” death (DA 690.3) which indeed was an entirely different ordeal. And that was indeed a “decision” (DA 693.1) that He had to take and not ‘just naturally do it’ (cf. Luke 12:49, 50). So in a most realistic way, those who ‘pridefully objected’ to Jesus only benefited from the fact that ‘Jesus had “friends” who depended on Him to “go all the way,”’ including a throng of dead OT saints. That fact indeed made the cross effectively entirely bearable for Him.



That’s again is just an excuse, and the Truth from that passage still stands. Let’s just say, you, at least, and anyone else who may subscribing to this “excusing”, will be the one(s) who will not be aware of the revealed Truth here.



As I see it, indeed as discussed in this one (#132406), Jesus found enough genuine and non-hypocritical honesty in this most gifted and “electable” vessel of Saul, to present Him a fitting (and actually faith cementing) “opportunity” to from then live a life of utter trials for the sake of the Gospel.



Christ was dealing with Simon disbelief that Jesus was a prophet in regards to His non-objecting to Mary. So if Christ had explicitly said: “I am reading from your thoughts Simon that...” then Simon would really have no other choice than to be compelled to believe. But by not letting on as if he had read Simon thoughts, Simon was still left to accept this in faith, on top of first accepting it as a just rebuke, as he could have easily vexatiously discounted it.



Like I had been saying/meant all along, Simon exercised suppressing option is pointedly what warranted the discreet manner of this response. The issue of Simon sin of hypocrisy is a distinct matter.



Why, as logically impliable: ‘“Perhaps” ‘not more’’ in regards to the substantive remainder of my post (#133009)??

Okay. I couldn’t tell with certainty. A few categorizing/qualifying words my have helped.



Seems to be possibly so from the dictionaries I have consulted. In fact my printed Webster’s Dictionary comically has as first definitions:

-Allow: “to permit”
-Permit: “to allow”



kland: Does that lack of contrast make logical sense to you? That is, what God does and allows is from Him, but what God allows the Devil to do is not from Him?

I colloquially had seen something more formal in “permit” I.e., ‘People get a driving “permit” (which allows them to drive on public roads).’

Probably the second definitions should be understood here

-Allow: “to acknowledge, admit, concede”
-Permit: “to give opportunity”

So with “allow” it seems to me that you are aware that something is happening or will happen and you just let it be. While with “permit” you weighingly, formally give one this opportunity (but with specific conditions restrictions), and even in your care/name.

That is indeed (or actually) what I had said and meant by saying:

I substantively see that your view here, pointedly with Fire, (among others) is squarely at odds with many examples in the Bible and SOP, namely Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24|PP PP 162.2), Ahab’s two groups of 50 soldiers (2 Kgs 1:10, 12|PK 208.3), rebellious princes during the D-K-A rebellion (Num 16:35; 4aSG 32.1|PP 401.1); Nadab and Abihu (Num 26:61; PP 359.2). Both the Bible and SOP indicate that these fires were judgements from/of God.



And my still unanswered question is “How??” How does a person/sinner live more than a few seconds in a Lake fo Fire?? Indeed it is but for the supernatural life-sustaining act of God, who alone has the power to impart life, let alone death resisting life.



That is only in regards to the White Throne judgement which occurs just before the Hell Fire execution of the sentence of that Judgement. That White Throne serves to inform the lost why they are about to be punished as they “thoroughly, but justly” will be.



That is actually only because of the offsetting influence for good exerted through fiathful followers of God.



Base on what I had responded:



Thus for sin to naturally cause an “organic” death, it first has to live out its full destructive life. However that cannot always be allowed by God to be the case and He must at times intervene to “prematurely” end the “life” of a sinful course.



I rather see that you are again curtailing this deliberate “ana-logical” illustration. Especially in the light of your previous expressed view that ‘all sins “organically” bring death’. It is instead shown here that ‘stages of life’, included a distinct “fully live life” are pointedly described here. Natural death, i.e., “from old age” is thus also being implied. But sin first needs to reached that fully matured stage to, of itself cause death.



No, since it was God who had permitted these trials. If Satan had outrightly engaged in making Job suffer and God had then sent angels to protect Job, then that would have been an intervention.

I also don’t see this as either a judgement on Job, nor, especially not, an “absentee action” of God. God was always present in that permit trial by limiting what the Devil could do. So this example does not even qualify as an example of ‘God’s judgement on people who have exceeded His mercy’, which are typically, if not only, His former people vs. people who were never followers of God.



This protection removal is always a choice of God. God indeed no longer commission angels (14MR 3.1) or His Spirit to “protect”. God justly chooses to no longer have mercy on those people (Exod 33:19). He thus ultimate holds the responsibility for what occurs but not the fault/blame.



The Jews ‘forged their fetters’ not by committing a simple sin of initial unbelief that automatically put them in this jailhouse of God but actually by their ensuing “stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy” (GC 35.3) that led them to reject, and then in the NT Church era, continue to reject, Jesus their Messiah. Jesus’ death had broken that jailhouse wide open. But the Jews forced themselves to be trapped in it by the own fetters they had forged.

Even more pointedly, by then likewise rejecting the many offers of peace and mercy by Titus, the also ‘forged their fetters’ and tough Titus had enter in war judgement against them for their effective, and then full-blown, revolt against Rome, this utter destruction end was indeed their fault, though it was Titus who resolutely ordered it to be so.



Again I now further see a two-part aspect to the Destruction of Jerusalem, even intermixed. The First/A part being from the start of the war, with the first siege of Cestius through to after Titus’s campaign, and a second when Titus decided no longer to have mercy. Many surrendering Jews were indeed saved, some fleeing, in the first part, but the obstinate ones that incited Titus’ wrath were mostly killed in the merciless sacking of the city.

Because of the mercy shown/“allowed” in the first part I see God’s hand in it. I’ll however concede that the utter destruction end God was there/then completely withdrawn.

To answer your question ("Why do you think I said this") you haven't actually stated who or what you believe caused the fire that blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Would you mind answering the question?


You wrote, "Let's just deal with one passage." Is this right or wise? Doesn't such an idea fly in the face of everything we believe about arriving at the truth?

I believe the passage in 8T 286 makes it clear Jesus revealed what we need to know about God. However, as stated before, "needs to know" is not the same thing as "everything there is to know". It is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh.

You’re unwillingness to plainly state who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place to burn N&A alive is suspicious. We both agree fire is not self-acting; therefore, someone employed it to burn N&A alive. Both the Bible and the SOP plainly say it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nowhere does it say otherwise. Assuming, as you do, the principles outlined in GC 35-37 apply to N&A smacks of “private interpretation” in light of the fact both the Bible and the SOP plainly say it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Assuming, as you do, it is “not important” who killed N&A also smacks of “private interpretation”.


What do you believe? You haven’t been forthcoming. Do you think it’s up to sin? Or, up to sinners? Or, up to Satan? Does Jesus have any say so? Does He have the right to intervene and prevent it (the abuse you specified above)? Or, is He required to sit back and do nothing?


Evil angels are not free to tempt, torment, or terminate people at will. What they are allowed to do is tightly regulated by Jesus. The reason evil angels tempt, torment, and terminate people is because they are evil. The resulting evil that exists in our world is due to the fact evil angels act within the perimeters Jesus permits and controls.


Comparing laws regulating and requiring capital punishment is not the same as laws regulating and permitting polygamy. There multiple places in the Bible where Jesus commanded godly people to execute ungodly people in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment. The laws regulating and requiring capital punishment are symbolic of final judgment. Punishment ending in eternal death is both physical and psychological. “His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy the” – not sin, not self, not Satan. The light radiating from the person and presence of God will cause the wicked to suffer emotionally and physically according to their sinfulness eventually ending in eternal death. You have yet to plainly explain what you think will cause the wicked to suffer emotionally and physically according to their sinfulness. Please do so. Thank you.

My wife, though a kind and caring and compassionate person, is, nevertheless, a sinner like everyone else. I would reserve judgment until forensics proved who or what caused the fire that killed the person. In the case of N&A, however, forensics prove it was Jesus who employed fire to burn them alive. You, on the other hand, seem to think it doesn’t matter who burned them alive.


I know you believe Jesus permitted His enemies to employ fire to burn N&A alive. My question to you is – Who employed the fire that killed them? And, how did they make it blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place?


If what Jesus permits evil angels to do is not His will, what, pray tell, is it? Is it Jesus’ will to prevent evil angels from exceeding the limits He imposes on them? Yes, there are places in the Bible where it portrays Jesus doing the things He permits His enemies to do; however, it smacks of “private interpretation” to assume passages like the ones in my last comment above must be forced to mean something they obviously do not specifically say. Also, the absence of even one passage that applies the withdraw-permit principle of punishment to the passages posted in my last comment above is evidence against your point.


Here’s the answers to your questions:

1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.
3. Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? No.
4. Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? No.
5. Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? Yes.
6. If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect? Yes.
7. Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? If people were forced to choose only one of the many different ways God has revealed Himself to learn the truth about Him, then no, there is no one way better than studying the life and teachings of Jesus while He was here in the flesh.

Now, please answer my questions. Thank you.

Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit? Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?