Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now?

I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive.

Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:


Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. In fact, the following testimony presents a view very different than the one you are advocating:


You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.

Ok.



That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's. So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.



Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.



This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.



They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.



Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.



You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech? I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.



I assume "led" here means "let."

Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.



Actually I've never said this.



What is "that" here?



Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.

Here's the issue:



If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.



No one has argued that Jesus came to change anything from the OT. Jesus came to reveal the Father.



Or to understand God's character, which helps to understand what happened.

I think a vital point that's not being addressed is that Satan was at work for the purpose of misrepresenting God's character. Who God was, and what He was doing, was NOT understood. The why wasn't the big problem, but the what. For example:



1.Satan desired power.
2.So he misrepresented God's character.
3.He did so by vesting God with his own attributes of character.
4.Only Christ could make clear God's true character.

When we look at Christ's life and teachings, we don't see explanations as to why God was violent, but, rather, the revelation of God who is NOT violent.

Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." What is it we see when we look at Jesus? A violent being who explains the necessary of violence? Or a non-violent Being who explains why violence is not the way of truth?



This is an explanation of the war in Revelation 12:



What caused Satan to be cast down? Was it physical force? Indeed not. Just a little earlier we read:



We see from this:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is found only under Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.
4.God's authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used.
5.God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power.

I really don't know how to state the ideas I've been trying to share more clearly than this. These five points are exactly what I've been trying to say.

When we look at the passage dealing with Satan's being cast down, we see that what happened is referring to a loss of influence on Satan's part. The point of contention of the Great Controversy has never been who is more powerful, but who has the better way of doing things. Satan has one way, and God has another. The cross made clear to the angels that God's way was the superior way, and who had been telling the truth. Satan could still physically go to heaven to make his claims, but there was no longer anyone to even listen to him. That had had enough. They would simply turn their backs. Thus Satan was "cast down" because he had utterly lost any influence whatsoever upon heavenly beings to even have an audience upon which to make his claims.

The same thing will happen in the final judgment. This is how God wins the Great Controversy; by making clear to all sentient beings what His true character is, as well as the principles of His government, in contrast to the claims of the enemy.

When we consider the other accounts of the war in heaven, we need to keep in mind the principles revealed here. We can't simply take one account of an event as if the author had not written about the event elsewhere. The even I'm talking about here is the Great Controversy.

It really doesn't make sense that in regards to one battle, where Satan is cast down, that EGW would make the points that:

1.Rebellion was not to be overcome by force.
2.Compelling power is only found in Satan's government.
3.The Lord's principles are not of this order.

while for another batter, also resulting in Satan's being cast down, that it would be the case that.

1.Rebellion was overcome by force.
2.Compelling power was found in God's government.
3.The Lord's principles were of this order.



Agreed. Therefore it's not a question of Jesus Christ's revelation plus other revelation, in terms of understanding God's character. Rather Jesus Christ becomes the prism by which we understand all other revelation.



What in the Gospels are you thinking of here?



I cannot think of a single instance where Jesus Christ referred to any destruction which had occurred, or bad thing of any sort, that He did not attribute to Satan. That is, is there any such event (an even where people became sick, or were killed) which occurred in Jesus' time to which he referred, some event which had already taken place, that he attributed to God?



Did He attribute this to God?



From the SOP:









This last quote is particularly clear.



From the SOP quotes, we see God's view of polygamy, that He never sanctioned it, that it was contrary to His law, and contrary to His will. Nevertheless, it was permitted. So we see that God will give counsel in regards to acts which are contrary to His will.

We also see this in relation to slavery.

Israel's desire for a king is another example.



Agreed.



You men God kills people who break the Sabbath? Or has them killed? They deserve to be killed?



I think more likely because they would see it as an affront to their power. I can't think of any government, even today, that allows it's citizen's to carry out capital punishment. If they did, that would be tantamount to a rejection to the government's authority.



It seems clear to me that what happened with Ananias and Sapphira was that they were doing their evil deeds in the presence of great light, the Holy Spirit working mightily in their midst, and when the revelation of the truth hit them, it was too much for them. I think this is similar to what will happen in the final judgment. Our conscience cannot bear the reality of our guilt. God, in mercy, veils our guilt. We can be healed of our guilt, if we so choose, by Jesus Christ.

If we take the viewpoint that God is in favor of capital punishment in His church, it's hard to see how this wouldn't lead to violence in the church.



Should they be? That is, if there was a territorial jurisdiction where NT Israel existed, would it be proper to put to death people who didn't keep the Sabbath?



Why is this clearly not God's will? Because they had the wrong day in mind?



What if they could? Should Sabbath-breakers be put to death by them?



If it's not God's actual will, then it is "mootly not contributive" to understand what God's will is in this matter? What? If it's not God's actual will, then, of course, it's not God's will. What's the point in stating this?

This only leaves the done righteously part. So if it's not done righteously, then it's not God's will. Let's assume it's done righteously then.



This is too long a sentence. The main point here looks to be that the violation of God's Sabbath principles involve selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others is easily seen. How so?



So capital punishment is fully justified for breaking the Sabbath because it involves selfishness and being indifferent to the murder of others. If this is the justification for capital punishment of this act, then it should apply to other similar acts as well. Anyone who is selfish or indifferent to the murder of others should be killed.



Would this be preferable? If so, why?

Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.



Good! She wrote:





None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission.

Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?



Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

Here are the last three:



They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?



Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this.

You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it).

Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make.

There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.



The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

Regarding Saul's purpose, we read:



This points out that Saul's purpose was selfish and proud. To think that Saul's argument here was the same as mine would seem to indicate you're either misunderstanding Saul's argument or mine.

Here is mine:

1.All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
3.Jesus Christ did not reveal God as One who uses force to get His way, or compelling power, or One who burns people alive to punish them for not doing His will.

Here's an issue I see with your way of thinking. You appear to believe that it's OK to kill people who are not doing God's will, if you believe God is telling you to do so. I think that's dangerous, especially given the fact that this is exactly what's going to happen during the last plagues (i.e., people will try to kill those whom they think are not doing God's will, and will think they are doing God's will by so doing).

What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? How did He respond when it was suggested He do so?

Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner?

(Again Tom, don’t forget to answer Post #133507)

-Also, as it is also generally pertinent to this discussion, you have said (back in Post #131319) that you “majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary”. Did you graduate (i.e., obtain a degree)?

-And did you take (and complete) courses in Biblical Languages, namely Biblical Hebrew and NT Greek?



I don’t from where you are making/justifying your objection here because what you stated: “not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation” is exactly what I had expressed by saying “what God had actually intended in the OT”. Because the OT People and also those in Christ’s times had a wrong perception of that revelation they therefore did not see nor understand what God had actually intended in what He had said or done.

E.g., the Sabbath was not a day to selfishly not do any work, per se, but to variously, pervasively provide God’s rest to others, and as Jesus showed, by “doing good” and “save life” (Mark 3:4). So “work” was really what was done to selfishly gratify/convenience oneself, including not doing the feasible pre-Sabbath “preparations”. (In an applicable way, the Church today won’t engage in the actually feasible ‘“work” needed to save millions of lives’ and all in the Pharisaical sanctimony that ‘God’s Sabbath rest is “at the door”, so effectively, they fully subscribe to the Capitalist ‘live and let die’ tenet.)



In terms of substantive things, Jesus read and thus “saw” the same thing that anyone in his day could see. I see that you are here trying to impose your own view for Christ’s here and claim that e.g., He did not see God actively doing the Destructions and judgements of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram, and all these other examples. That premise to me is completely irrational. Jesus did not engage in restating these acts of God as if God had not actually done them as the OT record unequivocally states. Even EGW did not see this in her Revelations of these episode. It is circularly only your view that needs this to be the case with Jesus and EGW, despite the clear testimony to the contrary, including Christ’s applicable “jot and tittle’ statement.

Furthermore, Christ’s non-contradicting ‘fulfilling of the OT’, just as with EGW OT episodes revelations, only confirmed and even made it more clear that God was indeed involved in those actions. Jesus, and also EGW, only made these revelations more “palpable”/understandable to their applicable generations.

So it is you who is engaging in changing ‘jots and tittles’, even, redactively, whole phrases and statements of God. Your approach, however strongly/“blindly” you effectively think ‘Jesus also did this’ is just ‘a house built without deep, if any, foundations.’



Not necessarily, in terms of either ‘doing everything’, or your view-implied imposition ‘redoing/restating everything’. Jesus had to deal with the reality of the state of readiness and receptivity of those He dealt with. (E.g., John 16:12-15). Indeed just like in this ongoing GC, as documentedly revealed especially for OT Israel, God’s plans and intentions can be temporarily, and even greatly, delayed, curtailed and frustrated by the way people come to react to it.



Christ did this “whole accomplishing” by furthering the standing OT revelation. And this “OT revelation” does not include the unbiblical “traditions” and “precepts of men” that Jewish leaders added to this “Word of God” (Matt 15:1-9) I.e. what had been not fully said (i.e, what Paul later referred to as “mysteries” = “hidden truths” (cf. in this post #132603, indeed the ‘mysteries of God’s Kingdom), and “misunderstood” by the people, which included.

Furthermore, the Character of God inclusively includes Justice, as indeed seen throughout the OT. So that was to also be involved in Christ whole/complete revelation. Christ’s revelation reforms in this regard involved the perfect righteousness that is to be involved when Justice/Judgement is done, as seen in the episode of the Woman caught in adultery.



That is besides the point. The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred. As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., sLuke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).



By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).



No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.

In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.



Do elaborate/explain. I don’t see the correlation. Catholic rituals don’t include child sacrifices, in fact no (actual) sacrifices at all.



As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place. Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers. The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.



Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this. That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’



As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.



Really|Seriously|Truthfully|Honestly, Tom!??? Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here???? If your really believe/always believed so, then why do you keep on insisting on citing Job 1:21 as ‘a mistake of understanding by Bible writers.’ E.g.:



(Obviously you also did not at all mean in regards to “cause” that: ‘Satan “caused” and God actually physically “did”’.)

Indeed the truth was always that both Job and Moses knew exactly what they were talking about here when Job said, and then Moses later faithfully related, that Job 1:21 statement.



The issue here, without using the method of building a teaching on a single verse/passage, was that affliction and calamity were not always, and that arbitrarily, a judgement of God, but many times simply the natural results of sin and also disobedience to God’s laws which served to avert many of these adversities. Yet that does not isolatively mean that God never directly inflict the punishment of disease and death. As I see Biblically clearly it, when God needs to deservingly/judiciously effectuate such a punishment, and there is no immediate natural/organic consequence for the sin, He then either does it Himself, or commissions His Angels to do it, or stirs up foreign nations/powers, or even permits Satan and/or his angels, to do it. Indeed even EGW who made this DA 471.1 statement, did not see this as you do, as in e.g., GC 614.2.

Also by God legislating that some sins should be capital punished wile others were not, He Himself had clearly shown that not all sins would immediately result in a divinely ordained consequence of death.



I don’t get your point here. The Bible is indeed full of such ‘same Divine agency’ examples. Indeed I rationally see that when the Bible says/shows that God directly did something, then it not only means that ‘He permitted it’ but also that He did it. That is however slightly different in cases where the Bible says that God had commissioned an Angel to do the work of judgement. In such cases, God did not actually directly do the action. Still it is generally considered as a Divinely-done judgement.



That what you, by entailing implication, are indeed arguing in statements to try to substantiate your view. Indeed according to your arguments, when we read e.g., that ‘fire came from God’ in the OT, we are to read, and that ‘because of Jesus’ revelation’, effectively, anything else but that clear statement.



Same difference. Once one understand that God is Just, they won’t see His judgement actions in the OT as “violent” acts, as you do. It is because you do not understand this “justice” that you privately, indeed without any Scriptural or SOP mandate, need to redact/reword/“whitewash” the OT of such statements and acts. The SOP statement quoted by Mountain Man above from ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7-14 indeed applies to your stance and its underlying false justification. The fact that the same rationale is used by those who keep Sunday as the NT Sabbath, speaks volume of the actual source of this unbiblical approach.



The “what” is crystal clear. The “why” is indeed the issue and asking this “why” involves an implicit trust that “what” was done was according to God’s will and in harmony with His Character. So what is left to be understood was “why” was this the case.



The main/general/foundational problem with this position of yours here is that you are using modern/human understanding/view of “violent” and imposing that notion on the actions of God. Therefore if the OT is to be taken as it plainly reads, these action are to only be seen as “violent”. That is like saying that Law Enforcement today is inevitably “violent”, even in using reasonable force. Despite your supposed good intentions, you are conversely still doing the same work that Lucifer had done. Indeed, similarly, ‘because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, you are causing His OT actions to be deemed “violent” and murderous.’ Furthermore, your are also casting discredit upon most of the Bible. I.e., it cannot be taken for what it plainly says. You are also doing this with the SOP in regards to passages that does not support your view. Of course, you may claim that I do that with the SOP, except, you won’t engage the superior Biblical reasons I always present when I do not accept comments of EGW as being in harmony with the Bible.

And as I have already addressed, God’s use of necessary force to effectuate a judgement is not Him using force to compel people to not rebel against Him. Indeed as seen in the Bible, even those judgement did not compel obedience. At times open rebellion persisted even on the heels of a clear act of judgement of God (Num 16:28-35 vs. 41-45ff).



Your questions do not deal with the full issue at hand. Jesus correctively taught and showed that the use of varying force was only actually just when in complete righteousness was involved. And that included giving the judged person the full opportunity to properly understand the Truth. Indeed as repeatedly done, as relatively required, by the OT God. Jesus however did not at all do away with the use of “righteously justified” force. You are the one who only can but see, even this, as (cruel) “violence”.



Surfacely interesting, even plausible view, but is substantively and exegetically still is spurious and futile. In the light of the many responses already given to these arguments, these are simply obliviously-nondisturbed, restatement of your prior views on the War in Heaven. When you will responsibly engage the exegetical comments that I have made which have disproven all of your arguments/objections here you’ll have the Biblical answers and view of this episode, pointedly the pre-Creation one. Indeed it is only by shoddy exegesis and selectively, falsely giving some SOP statements more weight than others that you continue to hold this wrong and unbiblical view on this War in Heaven.

You clearly believe that your view makes the Bible and EGW not actually say that a physical battle took place??! How then do you read those clear statements in relating this physical battle in 1 SP 21, 22?? Or do you, as usual, just ignore them.

The Bible and SOP are harmoniously, unequivocally, clear that there was a physical war in the Pre-Creation application of Rev 12:7-9. And also that it was not a war to decide the GC, by “compelling” the rebelling angels to view things as God does, but to simply decide the Occupancy of Heaven for this GC.



That’s not what I meant. Only, the people who had/have an incorrect understanding of the actions of God in the OT needed to be corrected by the teachings and principles of Jesus. If one just accepts the Bible as it reads, as Jesus did, then you can directly read and understand what the OT God did by that OT record and revelation. And approaching this OT revelation with the humble and deferential attitude that “God is Perfect, Wise and Holy” in all He does will just as easily lead on to find out the righteousness and justice in those OT passages. Indeed, e.g., similarly as the fact that first Century Jews did not understand the goodness of God, you and others like you today, cannot see any “goodness” in those directly executed Ot & NT judgements of God. Indeed as it is consistently found, and ascertainable, throughout this GC, -from the “War in Heaven” right through to the Hell Judgement in the end.



Pointedly the great, quasi-“end of the world”, event in the complete physical destruction of the Temple and the City of Jerusalem and virtually OT Israel. Just as in the OT, God summoned a foreign power to execute this punishment on His rebellious People.

As I also see it, Christ’s actions in Matt 13:10-17, were similar to God’s in Isa 6:9-13 with both “designing” that this deserved judgement would come to pass if the rebellious ways were persisted in.



That ‘“attributive” slant’ was not my point at all. As I went on to say, I was referring to Jesus decision in Luke 12:49, 50 which implicated the Cross.

Notwithstanding, try e.g., Matt 22:7. Furthermore, this “attributive” necessity seems to only be required for your view. When e.g., Jesus spoke of the Flood, or the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as pointed types(Luke 17:26-30; cf. 2 Pet 2:5 & 6 which says that ‘God did those two events’)) of the judgement at His Glorious Coming (cf. Jude 14, 15), He did not have to, nor evidently feel a need to (falsely) claim that Satan or Nature, had done them. These were active acts of God just as the destruction of the wicked in the end will be (cf. Matt 25:31-34, 41, 46)



Again that was not the point of my statement. Again, notwithstanding, if Jesus was going to be the one to bring down this Hell Fire right then and there, then He clearly understood it to be His Own/God’s act. Indeed, is the devil in charge of Hell Fire???? (Matt 25:41; cf. Jude 6)



Interesting SOP statements, however, as I had said, this was a “working thesis,” and for several reasons, I actually challenge the SOP statements here. In pointedly that polygamy was a “sin.” I rather see much Biblical support for the view that God dealt with it more specifically, in a marriage case by marriage case issue and there may indeed have been valid/justifying reasons why some people were not reprimanded for additionally marrying another (or more) woman/en. It indeed is quite indicative to me that God would become enraged against e.g., Moses and David for certain sins which he made known to them as sins and explicitly reproved and judged them for it, but not do the same with these men having more than one wife. Furthermore, in the light of this would be, unconfessed, unrepented of and unabandoned, would be, “sins”, speak most approvingly of e.g., Abraham, Moses, and David, and e.g., answer the prayer from the “sinful household of” Elkanah, granting the request of his other wife, with the birth of Samuel. (1 Sam 1:1, 2ff).



I really don’t see this Theological rationale of yours as being Biblical nor Divinely-feasible. Indeed as shown below, your other “supporting examples” actually do not substantiate that conclusion.



God only permitted indentured servitude within Israel, and in regards to procuring foreign slaves, I have previously addressed that issue here (Post #131229); here (Post #131393), and here (Post #131484).



I also have addressed the issue of a King for Israel here (Post #133434) .

And in regards to all of these three (polygamy, indentured and (quasi-adoptive) slavery, and a king for Israel, I see that since God made legislation on them in His “perfect” Law then it certainly was not against His will, though not a recommended practice, but, as I understand it, one that was permitted in certain extraordinary circumstances (= slavery and polygamy). Polygamy, perhaps for offspring purposes. (See e.g, Deut 21:15 for the law on polygamy).

If currently only in terms of getting Biblical information on the issue of polygamy, I found this website to be helpful. I have not read through everything posted there.)

(I hope these issue of polygamy, slaves and a king will not become the main issue here as they are not really determinative to this thread’s topic.)



Yes... and since God has said that this is what should be done, then I trust that it was/is a deserved judgement.



That too, especially as it implies that there is a civil encroaching law that is greater than theirs, but, given the love of money in men, I see the underlying/intertwined reason as also being for census-revenue purposes.



That reasoning doesn’t pass the Biblical test as they dropped dead, not when they conspiratorily conceived and decided to lie (Acts 5:1, 2, 4b), and also in full knowledge of the truth of the Power in the NT Church, suppressing their feeling of guilt, but upon Peter’s summary statements of these already fully known and understood acts of deception (vs. 5, 7-10).



Like in Israel, even in Capital Punishment today, “violence” as in unfair acts, is not involved, but this process is done through a judicious process and possibly “humane” execution. And of course, like with Israel in the times of Rome, this cannot presently be done in the Church which are under the laws of temporal powers. However a sovereign country is free to implement the Laws and punishment it deems fit. That is why e.g., treason in the U.S. is subject to capital punishment and conversely, also, e.g., why there is no capital punishment in the U.S’s northern neighbor, Canada.



I, humanly speaking would knee-jerkly say no, however, in a truly Godly society, such an act would be as high handed as it was in the OT, indeed also in the very presence of God, and so I would see that such just laws of God would continue to apply. Only by truly and fully understanding “why this was deemed as justified by God can it be seen as indeed Just and Biblical.” It then is not seen as an act for “breaking the Sabbath” but for all of the potential, literal death that this violation can lead to, including Atheism. Indeed if Israel had faithfully observed the interelated Sabbath, other sabbaths, and God’s socio-economic sabbatical principles, they would have been a glorious light to the world (Isa 58:13; 14) and would thus have helped saved the temporal and eternal life of many, many people in darkness (cf. Isa 60:1-3).

As Jesus did with the Woman caught in adultery, when God’s law is not understood/violated, there really is no justification for a person also violating it to exercise its punishments on another.



Indeed. For the exact same reason that e.g., France will not execute someone who violated a Muslim Law. It’s all or nothing with God’s Law and Sunday sacredness does not begin to be God’s Sabbath Law, especially as the Catholic Church fully knows that they switched the day for their Church.




That’s what Jesus implied (=taught).



That therefore should have self-suppressed your objection/question here!



Indeed my point is that it is not God’s will that people be put to death for violating Sunday. So there mootly is no point trying to apply the portion of God’s Law permitting this to, effectively Satan’s law.



Then as Jesus taught, it is God’s will. Not popular of course, but that’s the truth, Church discipline in the SDA Church is also not popular and largely just ignored when it only involves censures or loss of membership.



For the ‘live and let the vitally needy die/be aborted’ reasons stated in that long sentence. That should be straightforwardly seen/understood?! See EGW’s Welfare Ministry 28-65ff for more.



It already does because, as seen in Isa 58, God’s sabbath is the underlying template/basis for other laws which have such a harmful socio-economic impact.



Before I address this question, notwithstanding my prior, would then be, hypothetical answers on this issue, where in the Bible does it actually state, i.e., as a Law, that Sabbath-Breakers should be put to death?? I only see an episode in Number 15:32-36 where a Sabbath breaker was caught in the act, brought before Moses and Aaron and since ‘it had not been declared what should be done’, manifestly for a Sabbath Breaking violation, he was put in custody by Moses and Aaron until God spoke on it. (vs. 34) It is then that God declared, by manifestly injunctive decision, that this person should be put to death. (vs. 35, 36). Yet even in the ensuing, related directives of God (vss. 37-41) God did not make this injunctive, judicial decision either the Statutory Law, nor the “Case Law”. Seems to me therefore that the penalty for Sabbath breaking was not death, especially not automatically, but at best custody until God judiciously decides the fitting punishment.

By extension I would say that, in a Biblical society that fully implements God’s Sabbatical principles, the violation of not only the Sabbath, but these principles can indeed result in tangible harm and therefore should indeed be subject to fitting custodial penalty, just as defrauding someone of their money would.

I also would see this forced (i.e., encouraged and facilitated) emigration to any other country) vs. the alternative domestic sole option of, if applicable, long-term/life imprisonment as equivalent to the “cutting off from Israel” punishment notion in the OT which did not necessarily mean death.

Usually it's time, if I respond to the first part, and not to the rest. If I respond to a post that's not addressed to me, I'll often just respond to a some portion of the post. Other than that, it's likely to be an oversight.



I can't think of any like this.



I can't think of any like this.

Well obviously, factual contents taking into consideration, it indeed is not time, since you respond to some parts of a post skippings some points in between. In regards to parts of a post, you may begin to selectively answer part of a post, then not the rest, but then respond to another post after that, or e.g., the third post after that. So manifestly only answer what you think you have an answer to.

And how is time an issue when, as I told you before, you can take as long as necessary (e.g, a month) to answer a post?? You clearly are just choosing not to answer them at all.



They still are there and can easily be demonstrated. I don’t have the time to do this recollection and factual demonstration, but these facts and “ignored” content speak for themself. Indeed by simply the “logic” of your response, you then agree with everything that I said in e.g, my past three wholly unanswered posts which disproved your latest arguments!?? Or perhaps, as I suspect, you obliviously consider you view to be true irrespective of the facts!?!



Again the facts speak again you hear despite what ‘you can’t think of’.

Either this amnesic forgetfulness is clinical on your part, including a possible (subconscious) psychological block to whatever opposes your view, or you are, as I suspect with you being “guileful.” Given that you view was the basis for your conversion to Adventism, I can see why/how it could subconsciously “psychologically” affect you.
Being careless and irresponsible, especially given your supposed training, or pulling an “ostrich move”, or (like the Jews of Christ’s time), effectively ‘blocking your eyes and ears’ (Isa 6:9ff), and making oblivious, mantra repetitions, is not an excuse/justification for being guileful.

Of course you are going to find a way to peripherally object to this, but one thing I can’t stand is a liar, in any related degree/form/measure. As does the Godhead by the way (e.g, Rev 14:5; Acts 5:4; cf. Num 23:19).

Don’t forget the Seminary related questions, and that info can be duly lawfully verified.

Wow, this is a huge post! I'll respond as several posts.

I responded to the post you mentioned. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I graduated with honors in my undergraduate degree. I completed the coursework for the graduate degree, but did not graduate. I took Biblical languages. I have taken a lot more Greek than Hebrew (I had already studied classical Greek).



What God had actually intended in the OT is what was revealed. I pointed out that this is not the issue, but people's perception of this.



Right, and still today people perceive the revelation incorrectly.



They could have seen these things if they were as sinless as He, as insightful, and listened to and understood the Holy Spirit as He did.



This is a good example of the principle I'm addressing. You're seeing something which isn't there (i.e., you see that I'm trying to impose my own view for Christ's here. What I'm actually doing is arguing that Christ's view is represented by His life and character).



You're not identifying the premise correctly. The premise is that Christ revealed what He heard and saw.



This is again not identifying the argument correctly.

The argument is that Christ revealed that which He saw and heard of God in His study of the Scriptures. So the picture we see of God that Christ revealed is in harmony with how Christ perceived God to have acted. What did Christ reveal of God? That answers the question of what Christ perceived of God's character. That's one argument.

Another argument is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. There are many examples of this in the writings of Ellen White. I've already mentioned a few, including the destruction of Jerusalem, the serpents in the wilderness, those who love not the truth being sent delusions, and others. So, given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, how do we know if the thing God is presented as doing is something He permitted as opposed to something He actively did?

One way would be to simply assume this must be what happened, unless there is some other statement elsewhere which presents a different point of view. So if there were simply the statement that God slew Saul, without the details, it would be assumed that God actively killed Saul. Or, without the statement from the SOP, it would be assumed that God sent fiery serpents to harm the Israelites, as opposed to removing His protection.

Another way is to perceive the principle involved, that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us, and that it is both contrary to God's character to sent serpents to harm others, and unnecessary as a means by which God can effect judgments. Given an understanding of this principle, a corroborating statement from the SOP is unnecessary.



What do you have in mind here? Especially the "palpable" part. What's an example of Jesus making a revelation of this type more "palpable"? Also, what EGW statement did you have in mind?



I can't tell if you're missing the points I'm making entirely, or simply avoiding commenting on them, but you're not responding to points I've actually made. You're just responding to your own ideas regarding things I've said. This reminds me of when Huss, I think it was, was ordered to recant certain things he had supposedly taught, and his response was he couldn't recant things he had never said.

Also, you're citing anything specific here. If you're going to make an accusation like this, it would be good to quote something I've said. Otherwise it just becomes a pointless exchange of accusations and denials.



??? I don't know what you have in mind here. I haven't suggested Jesus Christ did either of these things. I quoted many paragraphs explaining what I had in mind, as well as commenting on them. Why not respond to that?



Which is what? Say what it was, or quote the text. Don't just cite a Scripture text you're not going to quote. That's pointless.



How does this relate to the point that Christ had enough time accomplish His mission? Really, I don't see why you would think you have any grounds of disagreeing with this claim. Do you really doubt that Christ had enough time to accomplish His mission?

As regards to what Christ's mission was, it was the revelation of God, which I stated and quoted from the SOP to support (who, in turn, quoted from John 17).



"Whole accomplishing?" Why is this in double quotes? No one used this expression. That's an odd thing to do. I understand you use single quotes to indicate a paraphrase, but don't you use double quotes to refer to an exact statement? If not, what is their purpose?

What Ellen White actually said was "whole purpose." The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God is what she wrote.



He accomplished His mission by living the life that He did.



Why are you making this point?



Yes, but justice is often misunderstood as involving violence and/or vengeance (as human's think of it). Is this what we see in Christ's life and character? Or do we see justice as explained here:





I don't see what this has to do with the point I made. This is the point I made, to which you are responding here:



How does what you're saying relate to this point?

No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.



On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?



When Christ was urged to destroy the Samaritans, how did He respond? This statement is really odd:



The misguided first century Jews needed to trust Jesus' teaching that OT was not "violent"? You think that they perceived these events like I do?



You said the blood sacrifices led the people to thing God was bloodthirsty. I asked you why you think this. You responded by saying that the people thought that God was pleased merely by offering sacrifices. I don't see why you would think this meant the people viewed God as bloodthirsty. Why wouldn't it mean that they viewed that God was pleased by their offering sacrifices? Not all sacrifices involved blood. What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture?



So you're saying that a god who would require merely the sacrifice of one's own children was preferred to One who required the heavier sacrifice of cattle? So you believe the Hebrews viewed cattle as more valuable than their children? And that's why the preferred Molech?



Wouldn't this mean this god was requiring a greater sacrifice? But above you said they turned to foreign gods which required less sacrifice than theirs did.



Catholicism has rites which enable the practitioner to continue in sin, while soothing the conscience. The true religion of Christ involves a doing away with sin. People will choose religions systems, which have a yoke which is heavy, over the yoke of Christ, which is light.




The contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed. I've made this point repeatedly.



Same comment.



What a person perceives is colored by their mind-set, their world view, their paradigm, etc. No inspired writer perceived things as clearly as Christ did, and none could reveal God's character as clearly as He.



No, this isn't what I meant, or mean.



This involves the action being done, not simply who is doing it. For example, consider the case of God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What actually happened was God permitted the serpents who were already there to harm the Israelites, which action He had been actively preventing until that point. So the problem was not with who was doing the action (clearly it was the snakes), but with what action was taking place (God was permitting them to attack the Israelites, as opposed to sending the snakes to attack them).



You're saying that the notion of God being said to do something which He only permitted to be done, in terms of Satan being permitted to cause destruction, applies only to the episode in Job? That is, at no other time did this occur?



I've got no idea what your point here is. You wrote:



Isn't this patently obvious? Who doesn't believe this to be the case? Why would you characterize my pointing out how obvious this is as



I've always viewed this as obvious, and think anyone would, and don't know anyone who doesn't, and have no idea why you would think my pointing this out would be a switch of views, let alone worthy of an insult.

Do you have no concept of how insulting your writing is? Do you do this on purpose, or out of ignorance?

If you're going to accuse me of something ugly, please have the common decency of at least substantiating your ugly claim with some morsel of evidence. Where have I switched a view?

I've been consistently saying the same things over and over again.



From GC 614:



This is bringing out the same points I have been. This is the context of GC 614.2.

Regarding the issue, what EGW points out is that Satan has induced people to view when bad things happen to people that this is a punishment from God, as opposed to an action originating from him (Satan), or a consequence of sin. Given that sin has bad consequences, it is not necessary for God to impose artificial bad consequences of His own. It's sufficient for Him to allow the bad consequences already inherent in a sinful world to effect any desired judgments.



You wrote:



That's an awfully long sentence, by the way.

You said that if something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action. Consider the first part of this:

If something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it.

Now if God was the agency involved, then of course God permitted it, because the agency would be Himself in this case. In other words, what your saying doesn't make sense. You say, "even if a different agency was employed," when it only makes sense that a different agency was employed.



So when it says God killed Saul, God did that. And when God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, God did that. And when God "took away" from Job, God did that. And when God sent strong delusion against those who love not the truth, God did that too.

So whenever God acts indirectly, you see this as God acting directly? That seems to be what you're saying.



Generally? When would it not be considered as such?

(More later)

I have no idea what your answers are to my questions. Please elaborate. Thank you.