I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.


The 28 fundamental beliefs are an expression of the character and kingdom of God. I assume you agree. If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs. To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.


I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.


I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?


I have learned studying with you there is no such thing as a ridiculous question. I have no idea what you believe; hence, the questions which seem ridiculous. Above you wrote, “There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God.” Do you believe hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God? I’m sorry if the question seems ridiculous. As you know, there are plenty of people who believe they are equal in the eyes of God. If so, then the comparison is legitimate. If not, it isn’t.


How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?


Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

1. When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?

2. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

3. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?

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. And yet you seem to think she believed Jesus did not cause fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Isn’t it obvious to you, based on all the quotes I posted above, that she clearly, plainly said it was Jesus who employed the fire that burned N&A alive? If not, where does she specifically say otherwise?


In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it. It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do. To answer your questions:

1. 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? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.

3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”

What is it you aren't understanding? I've answered the questions twice now. Please give some feedback.

That would be rather hard to hear.



There are an expression of what Seventh-day Adventists believe to be essential points of faith (or, at least, a group of people designated to perform such a task for the group as a whole).



Only in a secondary sense. This wasn't the purpose of the list of beliefs.



This logic is not valid. If A is a type of X, it does not follow that to get a clear picture of X, you must necessarily understand A, which is what you are asserting.

For example, Clemente was a composer in the Classical era. It doesn't follow that to understand Classical music, one must understand Clemente.



I've already pointed out the weak link in this argument.

Here's a valid argument:

1.All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.Therefore understanding the life and character of His Son is sufficient to understanding God's character.



Please respond to my response, and ask me questions about that.



I don't think it matters what I believe about this incident to understand what I believe. I believe the following:

1.All that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.God is often portrayed in inspiration as doing that which He permits.
3.God in the OT acted similarly (actually identically) to how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh, when the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
4.Jesus Christ revealed what He heard and saw in the OT in His life, character, and teachings. If we perceive some disconnect between the two (i.e., between some incident in the OT involving behavior on the part of God) and Jesus Christ's life/teaching/character, we should defer to the revelation of Jesus Christ.
5.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.
6.Satan is hard at work seeking to vest God with his own attributes of character, and to make it appear that God's principles of government are like his.
7.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to effect an judgments desires simply by withdrawing that protection. There is no need for God to do otherwise.

I've been saying all along that I disagree with the road you insist on taking, which is to examiner Old Testament incidents and ask questions about this. You've been doing this for years. I've answered hundreds, if not thousands, of these questions, all the time under protest. I've spent a thousand times longer discussing this issue according to how you think it should be studied as opposed to how I think it should.



What you asked is an example of one. What could you have been thinking when you asked it? There is no conceivable way that you could think that I think that God views hunting an animal as equal to killing a human being. I'd have to be a fanatic of PETA or something like that to have a view like this. In our years of studying, and thousands of posts, I've not written anything to give you the slightest inkling that I would have such a thought. It would be like me asking you if you think God has big blue elephant ears.



Well you should! We've been studying this issue for years, and I've been repeating the same things over and over and over again. You should, at a very minimum, at least know that I believe these things I've been repeating over and over and over again, don't you think?



This would be a ridiculous question to ask of any Christian, don't you think? Really, can you give any scenario under which not just I, but any person on this forum, could conceivably believe that God views hunting animals as equal to killing humans?

Jesus Christ fished. You know that don't you? If God viewed hunting animals as equal to killing humans, Jesus Christ wouldn't have fished, would He? Well, since you think Christ killed "billions" of humans, maybe *you* could think God sees these as equal, but I certainly couldn't, could I?



Do you think God has big blue elephant ears?



I can't think of a single Christian who believes this, not one. Nor can I conceive of such a thing being possible.



Legitimate because why? Because the "plenty of people" you know are humans? Do you know any one on this forum that believes this?

I've mentioned Jones, Waggoner, George Fifield, and Ty Gibson as writers whose thoughts have resonated with me. Do you know any fans of these writers who believes this?

Or any fans of Ellen White?



It's analogous.



This doesn't address my question. I haven't made the argument if the Sabbath needs to be kept, then Sabbath-breakers should be killed.



Have you considered the story of the father/hunter?



Why didn't He explain the truth about polygamy?



Where did He explain the truth in the OT about slavery or polygamy or divorce?



I haven't made any general comments about capital punishment.

[Your “Reply” Posting is incorrect here. Your are replying to yourself]



Why didn’t you answer it before; -i.e., 3 reminders ago, since its initial May 16 posting (4 days ago)??



Just to be clear, was is your undergraduate major that was in Theology?



I don’t get how one can complete coursework and not graduate. When I was at Andrews (1997-2000) the policy was that to audit a class, the person still had to pay to credit fees. So did you complete this coursework on your own, i.e., buying the syllabus and textbooks and doing the work on your own, or did you attend the seminary classes, do all the “coursework” (as implied by “completed”), but did not graduate?

Also was this completed coursework formally graded? There is indeed the possibility that one can complete all a courses’ work and not graduate because that completed work was not acceptable for passing and earning a degree. (Perhaps it can even be possible to take a next course without having passed the previous one(s). E.g., while I was studying Electrical Engineering, (before going to Andrews and switching to Theology), I completed and passed mathematics classes up through Calculus III and Differential Equations (including the derived “Physics for Engineers”), however I never passed, though I “completed”, my first semester Calculus I class. As long as your willing to pay for these classes, the people at the SDA Seminary may object, but ultimately its all is up to you how you go about completing your education.)

Also what was that graduate degree course? (E.g., MA in Religion).



Did you “complete” all of the Seminary courses in (NT) Greek and Biblical Hebrew?



Well then the issue is that we have a completely different understanding of the word “intend”. I lexically understand it to mean: “Have in mind as a purpose; Design or destine; Mean or intend to express or convey; Denote or connote”. By saying: “What God had actually intended in the OT is what was revealed” to mean what was done and recorded in the OT record. I see you understanding as being false.

A simple example, someone could see me swimming at the beach with another person and then see me suddenly knock another person out with a punch to the face and call police claiming I was criminally trying to hurt them, i.e., assault them, when the fact of the matter was that this person was suddenly caught in a rip current, was beginning to uncontrollably panic, refusing to heed my urgent advice and calm down, and since they were much bigger than I, the only way I could quickly rescue them before they began to drift away was by knocking them out cold. So my action here was indeed forceful, even seemingly violent, however my intention was to save their life. And that was really the only way to do this, especially in the crucial timely way, lest furthermore, not only they drown, but they also cause me to drown if I tried to rescue them while they were panicked.

Similarly, succinctly said, God’s judgements in the Bible are to effectuate a timely judgement that serves, as object lessons, to save other people’s lives, on top of the one being judged/punished, if mercy can be applied to their situation. If also, e.g., they chose to swim in that section of waters knowing, through many warning sign posts, the dangers of rip currents, then I cannot be faulted for not swimming in after them and rescuing them, even if I could have saved them.

So as I said. “What” was revealed in the OT was clear. The why was not. E.g., it is not seen, as it Biblical can, that the Plagues of Egypt was a deliberately intended full process of deserved judgement on Egypt and that the slaying of the first born was to avenge the many wrongful deaths caused to, and inflicted upon, of Israel by Egypt during the years of slavery. So here the “perception” of people not seeing this is wrong (indeed seeing something else that cannot be exegetically supported by the Bible’s account of what transpired here), but what took place (God slew the Egyptian firstborn) is clearly known by anyone who reads the text, especially if reading it in the Hebrew (or even OT LXX), as could the Jews people living in Christ’s time.



Since you say “Right” here, then you agree with my expressed understanding that what God “said or done” can be distinctly/differently perceived than/from what He had actually “intended”. That does not seem to agree with your prior statement. What was “revealed” in the OT, especially for those living in Christ’s day, is what is recorded in the text of the OT. What is “perceived” is something distinct and is what is mentally thought about what is “revealed”. In many ways, God did not detailedly reveal His intentions during the OT era. His people really had to accept him in faith then. During the NT era, many of these intentions, as also seen with the SOP, came to be revealed. Yet those further revelations, do not change the substance of what was concretely revealed in the OT record. Just the derived perception of what the intent/purpose/design was to be corrected wherever applicable/necessary.



I am speaking of the concrete text Jesus and other around Him read from. Seeing the intents of God is a different things that reading what was stated.

The fact that Jesus Spiritually saw many things that other did not see was not because He was sinless, but because He remained in constant and unbroken communion with God’s Spirit. This, as virtually, as by product, helped Him to remain sinless, however, that unbroken communion with God’s Spirit allowed Him to continue to receive insightful light from Heaven. He also aimed and succeeded to do God’s will and for such, more Heavenly light was continually given to Him.

This Biblical principle could work with anyone who, like Jesus aims to both do God’s will and remain obedient to His Spirit. Indeed we see that God told Solomon that he would be the wisest and most knowledgeable person who ever lived (1 Kgs 3:12; 1 Chr 1:11, 12). However Solomon sinful and “foolish” life made this promise not possible to be fulfilled, which is why I see that the Incarnate Jesus, (who did not have any extraordinarily given Spiritual advantage or power over any other man), could say the ‘one greater than Solomon, (i.e. in terms of wisdom and knowledge) is here. (Matt 12:42).

Jesus achieved His great wisdom and knowledge by merely being obedient in all ways to God’s will and to the voice of the Holy Spirit. He was not given a better understanding of the Holy Spirit merely because He was sinless, but merely additional insightful light from God as He was faithful in obeying, using and disseminating, when applicable the prior given light from God. Many fail in this regard by being disobedient and misusing the previous manifestation of this gift of God (cf. e.g, TM 399.1; 507.1)



The facts of your prior claims in regards to those cited examples are clear that you are, contrary to the Bible’s and SOP’s testimony, “seeing” that: ‘God did not actively do the destruction judgements of the “Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram.’ So that factually is “impose your own view for Christ’s” and claiming that because of this view, as you say ‘which was Christ’s own’, the accounts of these OT episodes should not be understood as they read in either the Bible and SOP. So e.g., ‘it was a volcano [for which there is not geological evidence of it existence], (and moreover, one that was always supposed to erupt on that very day), and not God, that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.



I did. The sequitur and logical premise, from what you claim/believe “Christ revealed [from] what He heard and saw” was that the OT accounts were not accurately expressed. So you e.g., believe that Jesus saw a volcano for Sodom and Gomorrah as He read Gen 19:24.



Based on the comprehensive facts involved in your view, your argument was correctly identified. As I detailedly pointed out before in Post #133280, your view in themselves are quite acceptable, indeed as they are cited almost verbatim from the SOP, but the meaning and/or extent to which you claim they have and should apply is overeachingly unbiblical. In other words your are understanding them incorrectly and claiming things for them that neither EGW, nor Jesus intended.



I clearly see that Christ revealed, in at least principles, the same Character of the OT God and so e.g., in the face of blatant hypocrisy (Luke 1-48), He similarly wanted to effectuate immediate destruction through Hell Fire (Luke 12:49, 50), but because of a greater purpose/good, He refrained from executing such a destruction then. The same thing occurred twice with God in the OT with Israel in the wilderness (Exod 32), and then on the borders of Canaan (Num 14), and it was only for the greater purpose/good as pointed out by Moses, of how this would seem in the eyes/mind of other nations, that God relented from that all but one, then all but 3, destruction. A smaller and more pointed judgement was then decided. Just as the smaller and more pointed judgement of the destruction of Jerusalem was done by God/Jesus instead of the Hell Fire one.



This continuous claim of yours has been exegetically disproven to only have occurred in the episode of Job. Indeed your prime 7 examples have long been exegetically debunked. Deal with that current state of exegetical affairs.



Then for this “many”, cite 7 more, other than your already debunked ones of course.



Like I said, these have all been exegetically debunked. You just have chosen not to respond to the Biblical/exegetical disproving/debunking statements.



That is indeed therefore an unsubstantiated, invalid and vacuous claim.



Only in the episode of Job did the unknowing Job, as faithfully recorded by Moses, say in Job 1:21, that it was God who had taken away. However Moses had already clearly related that it was Satan who had done the destruction. So there is no ‘unknown’ or ‘not pointedly identified agent’ here.

The other examples says and show (i.e., in the SOP) that there was a Divine hand/agency involved in doing the act of destruction/judgement.



You have not cited a valid Biblical situation where this should apply. And as you say here, in the episode of Job, the agency was already clearly identified by Moses. So there is no need to assume anything in this, actually, would be lone supporting example.



The Bible was exegetically clear that God was acting through an agent to do this. You are the one who is not understanding this.



As I said before, I see that you are here overstating what EGW said. You claim that it means that God did not act here, but EGW does not say that. God removing His protective hand is the same as Him acting to effectuate this judgement. Indeed in 1SP 314.2 EGW has no problem stating exactly what the Bible emphatically says in regards to ‘God forcefully acting’ here to effectuate this death. And if EGW’s statement was here differing from what the Bible, (which I do not see that she does), the what the Bible exegetically, and thus accurately, said should be upheld as the correct view of this event.



And when God judiciously decides to allow one of these many previously averted dangers to harm people, it is therefore an act of His. Only when the Devil is acting to do a destruction is God or His Angels not actively involved in it. And when God gives Satan the permission to do as He will, without any restraints or limitations, then God is not at all involved in judgement, or actually, that specific (final) part of a judgement that God had actually initiated and started to executed (e.g, as in the Destruction of Jerusalem and the 7 Last Plagues). Other than those two, I do not see a judgement in the Bible where God has given/will give this authority to Satan.



The Bible shows that this judgement is in perfect harmony with the aspect of Justice in God’s character. In fact the use of serpents was in order to serve as an object lesson to Israel that God was the one who was responsible for their safety. That is why God did not sent a judgement of ‘fire from Heaven’ here, or the earth opening up, as this crucial lesson would not have been learned by Israel. As EGW says:





As also seen in that PP 428.3 quote, that judgement was done by God in an attempt to lead Israel to “return to Him with repentance and humiliation”. So it was a “necessary means” for God and indeed one calculatedly used to this end by Him.



I don’t see how this is true since one would then have to blindly take your word for it. Indeed even in the light of an SOP account corroborating the Biblical testimony. Again as an examples, the Bible and Sop say that it was God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. but you want people to rather believe that it was a naturally erupting volcano. Clearly your view requires one to ignore what the Bible and also the SOP say, and, as with the volcano, trust the wisdom and supposition of uninspired sources.

You also actually don’t have valid Biblical proofs/examples for your claimed principles



From particularly the SOP we can read of the way Jesus explained the OT to His various audiences and thus made them “capable of being perceived”.

-Luke 17:26-30 = Flood and S&G destruction
-Luke 21:20, 22 (=Matt 24:15|Mark 13:14) = Isa 61:2; cf. 63:1-6
-Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13

[By the way, you have not answered the question: “Where in the world are you reading: “Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax."”???”]



Talk about, what is psychologically known as a “projection.” As I had already pointed out from my answers to your prime 7 examples, there is no point to even get from those examples. You are the one who has been avoiding answering my statements that have debunked your supposed corroborating examples for your view. So you indeed are just haphazardly trying to reword the Bible to fit your view (e.g, S&G’s “volcano”).



It already is clear to me that you avoid addressing things that oppose your view for which you have no plausible response, and that you ignore such statements, also in the Bible and SOP. Well it seems that this also applies to what you say. I.e., you limit your view to what your statements mean to you and not to what they logically/sequiturly/Biblically fully, actually entail/imply. So of course, in this way, you can defensively and actually, half-truthfully, ‘deny not saying something.’ However, truth is not limited to what you understand, want to understand, and/or can understand. I deal with all pertinent and contributive facts involved. Feel free to join this logical and scientific realm of reality at any time.



I repeatedly have. You have just ignored them and then, or amnesically in order to, later make such a claim of ‘citing anything specific here’. Indeed not “here” but many times before. Look it up! Why do people always have to repeat themselves with/for you. That is not normal human behavior except, in regards to the “forgetter” in medical cases of amnesia and/or psychological mental blanking/blocks. If you seriously want to have a discussion then responsibly try making, on your own, mental and/or written notes of things people have said. Others, at least, I, am not your personal secretary.



That’s what your view, with its spurious, ‘if we don’t see Jesus doing something then it did not occur in the OT’ tenet, implies/entails



Because your quoting of EGW’s “revelation of God’s character” mission of Christ does not mean, as you impose on those statements ,that: ‘if we don’t see Jesus doing something then it did not occur in the OT’. Case in point, where did someone in the Gospels offer strange fire before God (or Jesus) as with Nadab and Abihu??



Read the cited text!



Only in your most fanciful fantasy. Open your Bible and read it!



Really... “Just watch me!!” [You’d probably have to be Canadian to get the full implication of this quote here.]



“Pointless”??? Only according to you. And... that’s just you’re (manufactured) “problem.” What the Word of God says is not lessened in any way simply because you refuse to read it in your Bible. You just can’t be rightmindedly serious, in this regards!!??? I can see that how this serves as the perfect, self-justifying excuse for an ‘never-in-sight|never-in-mind’ “ostrich move” for you.



You should have looked up and read that cited text. Then you would have “seen” something. Oh yeah... you probably did not want to see any contradicting thing. Talk about the childish “shutting the eyes and stopping of one’s ears, with mantra, self-justified, “I can’t see anything” repetitions” (= Isa 6:9ff; cf. Acts 7:54, 57)



Perhaps EGW overstated/misstated her “whole purpose” because it is Biblically clear that the revelation of God’s character was only a part of Christ’s mission. It was a most significant part, yet just a part. His “Baptism of Blood” in dying for the sins of the world was another part. (Cf. Luke 12:49, 50) Hence the actual need for Christ’s coming. If Israel did not have a need to understand God’s character due to the piled on misconceptions by men, and not because of the OT’s written record, then Jesus would still have to come and die to make the Atonement for the sins of the world.

Teaching doctrinal truths, in regards to the Kingdom of God and its conversion from the OT Covenant to the NT Covenant. That was limited by the people’s readiness and receptivity. As I had commented on earlier, that is what John 16:12-15 reveals (cf. Matt 13:58/Mark 6:5).



I think one simple, explanation-asking question here would have sufficed as quotes are also used for/in other ways, such as to coin an expression, as I was doing here.



Great! That’s not what I had in mind. My “whole accomplishing” involves ‘the accomplishing of all of the above stated aspects of Christ mission: Character Revelation, Doctrinal Teaching and (anti-typical) Sacrificial Atonement.

I therefore Biblically do not see EGW’s view as completely accurate here.



That’s just for one part. He also had to Speak/Teach and be “Baptized in Blood” (= Die) to fulfill the other two.



Because on the one hand, as I fully see it, indeed as seen in your comment below, you are, in your view, by implication conflating what the OT revelation itself (i.e., the OT in its written form) actually was, with what men had come to think it was. On the other hand, this “OT revelation” already included the elements of the New Covenant “Gospel” that Paul was going to more fully preach. Indeed Paul repeatedly used to OT to preach His New Covenant message.



You are here conflatingly applying what man think to what God had revealed in the OT. Again, God’s use of force for judgement, or to win a war/battle is not “violence.” And God, who clearly says “vengeance is mine” (Lev 26:25; Num 31:1-3; Deut 32:35 [=Rom 12:19, Heb 10:30], 41, 43; Judge 11:36; Isa 34:8; 35:4; 47:3; 59:17; 61:2; 63:1-6; Jer 20:12; 46:10; 50:15; 50:28; 51:6, 11; Psa 18:47; 94:1; Ezek 24:8; 25:12-17; Mic 5:15; cf. Exod 15:1-21) justly exacts retributive justice (= vengeance Jer 11:20; 51:36) on those who have caused damaged to Him and/or His people.



As Luke 18:7, 8; 21:22=(Isa 61:2; 63:1-6); cf. 2 Thess 1:7, 8 show, Jesus didn’t have your unbiblical problem with ‘Divine vengeance’.

I form my Theological View by what God said and accurately revealed through these inspired men, including Jesus Himself.



That text is actually Zech 7:9, 10; and for many exegetical reasons the NASB has the more accurate translation here. Most significantly, the word “mercy” in the NKJV is actually “lovingkindness” (and thus not “judicial mercy”). True, justice, as God has said, shown/legislated and done, involves exacting due retribution which can simply be in the form of paying a fine and/or for actual damages. And verse 9 & 10 is not an ‘explanation of justice’. It is a distinct and self-contained single and stipulation. The NASB’s better translation bring this out better.

Did you involve any exegesis here in choosing the NKJV over the NASB or did you just choose what you saw best support your view??!



Simple: (A) I was completing my statement that “the Character of God inclusively includes Justice.”

(B) The revelation of God’s Justice is part of what Jesus revealed and established in righteousness for judicious measures that God’s people had to execute themselves.

[Your “Reply” Posting is incorrect here again. Your are again replying to yourself. It can be a great time waster to someone not familiar with this thread sequence.]



It substantively is besides the point for the substantiating reasons that went on to state. The OT revelation was perfect in itself. The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it. I am not going down that slippery slope!



Seriously??? Well then, simply said, because these OT writers would copiously preface their statements with qualifiers along the lines of: ‘The Lord said’; by Jesus’ full endorsement of the OT as well as other NT writers, never engaging to correct its accounts, and passages like 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20. I’ll go by these: “Thus says the Lord” than by anything man may fancifully suppose.



A simple exegetical Biblical study here clearly shows that Jesus’ rebuking answer was in the light of the fact that the Gospel had deliberately not been preached, as it duly, fully, should be, throughout Samaria (cf. Matt 10:5; Acts 1:8; cf. Matt 1:22-24); (perhaps only in Sychar (John 4:4, 5, 28, 39-42)). So calling fire down from Heaven to destroy these probably Gospel unaware Samaritans of Luke 9:52 who were indeed only surfacely rejecting Christ because He was traveling towards Jerusalem (vs. 53) was in keeping with the OT God who did not execute a destruction until relatively sufficient “saving/sparing” light had first be properly given. So that action would indeed be against God’s Spirit, indeed including the OT God.

In the episode of Elijah (2 Kgs 1:1-16) that the disciples were seeking to use as a basis Amaziah, the son of Ahab, was acting idolatrously and thus clearly in full light, especially after the reform of Ahab. So when he, being vexed as Elijah’s original condemnatory and intercepting answer sent an army contingent to effectively force Ahab to come to him and, by implication, make a favorable prophetic pronouncement at the risk of his life, (as if it worked that way) Elijah was fully in accordance with God’s Spirit to twice call down fire upon the army contingent that came to him, innately threateningly ordering him to follow them in the name of the (already condemned) king. Evidently Amaziah haughtily thought that God’s prophet could only say something valid/binding upon him when he had first called upon “his services.” Also by calling Elijah “man of God”, the army commanders showed that they fully knew who Elijah was. Indeed, as God responded to Elijah’s request, it was all in perfect harmony with the Spirit of God.

On the other hand these Samaritans were not acting in the light of such knowledge and also not pointedly against Jesus with a general or personal knowledge that He was God’s Messiah. So a fire judgement here would-be an undeserved judgement for, moreoverly an unaware of wrong, -something that God never does. (cf. Jon 4:1,2, 4, 9-11).



Expressional “typo.” I actually meant that: ‘like these misguided first century Jews, you need to trust the wisdom and knowledge Jesus. And in regards to pointedly to you that is to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT God was not “violent” in doing those judgement. Indeed Jesus never spoke anything against those OT actions.



In the texts I cited, the shedding of blood was often, (and that incontrovertibly, synonymously) disgusteldy spoken of by God in trying to show the people that this did not please/appease Him as they thought. Indeed during feasts like the Passover, blood flowed from the Temple in streams.



Indeed because all sacrifices involved the shedding of blood. An animal “offering” was not a “sacrifice”. And just like one ‘cannot make an omelet without breaking an egg’, an animal was not, and cannot be, “sacrificed” without first being killed and thus shedding its blood. Sacrificial animals were not (oxymoronically) “sacrificed alive”.



What the Bible teaches about/for an animal sacrifice. The question actually is what do you think???



I don’t see what ‘heaviness’/weight has to do with it. The value of a creature was not a matter of its weight. Thus children were technically more valuable than a cattle, and so, I see that in the minds of people who obviously had a ‘my god knows best view’ a God that required the extreme sacrifice of a child would be seen as being ready/willing to do much more for its worshipper than the God of Israel who require an animal.

Economically speaking, offering a child, which actually would be done ca. 1 per year vs. the panoply of sacrifices, and other offerings, that were require by the God of Israel could be seen a less costly given that all these animals would economically cost much more than a newborn child. Let alone the cost of not having to care for this newborn for next 20 years and virtually the rest of its life through the due “living inheritance” of farmland.



When the economic realities are taken into account, it could easily be seen, as today, that sacrificing a newborn child instead of spending money and wealth on the child, and also on many livestock sacrifices and various wealth offerings every year for years, was a much better “religious deal.” That indeed is the underlying economic reason for abortions, endorsed even by professed Christians, including the SDA Church in regards to “elective” abortions. (I.e., For SDA’s: it is better to have an abortion for a woman that will not be “psychologically” be able to deal with that child, than to let it be born and take it, or give it into adoption or raise it in an orphanage.



Understood. I get that derived view of yours here now.



So then why are you (exegetically) ignoring and/or rewording what has been revealed. The facts here show that this has not been the point you have been making. As I said before, you may think you are, with such benign assertions/statement of principles, but in actual practice that is not what you are doing, therefore, at the very least, not what your view of your claim actually, concretely means when applied by you.



Well then: same answer.



They did not have to merely write what they perceived. In many ways like it was seen with EGW, what they wrote from solely what they had perceived, was based upon the many various direct statements and revelations of God in the OT. An a historical account is not a perception. And Jesus did not contradict anything that these Biblical writers had written. As I said earlier, I only see Moses making a further clarification of what Job had not fully perceived as the only partially applicable incident for this claim of yours. Yet Moses Himself did that “further specifying”. Indeed this shows how faithful he was to record things exactly as they were revealed and/or told to him, as he could easily have edited Job’s statement in Job 1:21.



As I substantiated with your own words, that is what, at the very least, was straightforwardly understood by what you had said.



As I straightforwardly/logically see it, this is just the secondary meaning to your statement.



No. The Bible, not contradicted by EGW’s “protection withdrawal” statement, says that God forcefully made the serpents go in the midst of the people, and with “forced interest”. Responsibly deal with those exegetical facts, instead of ignoring them.



Which is why ‘not preventing’ it any more is an act of His, and this scientifically would involve him putting a threatened fear of the people in these serpents even causing them in this way to go in the midst of the camp. However God may have distinctly done this drawing act.



Clearly... but not in how you are understanding this “doing”. The doing was an active act of God.



That was just the means for God to do this act of judgement. God actually “forcefully” made them do it.



Right.



I don’t see any other. Cite others if you can, and like I said, not the prime 7 you have cited which have been exegetically disproven/debunked.



You prior points had been that Bible writers, in this case Moses and Job was wrong in Job 1:21 in saying that ‘God was “doing” while we know that God was not “doing”. Your point here has always been to support your view that Bible writers understood such things wrongly so this is an example where Jesus’ revelation later help us to see that God was not ‘doing’ as it was indicated in the Bible there, but had only permitted. You never attributed this notion correctness to Moses or even Job themselves. That is what I did in my reply and then you ensued by claiming that this is what you actually always believed, when in fact your claims had been that both Moses and Job were completely wrong here, without any notion of permitting here.



No... Furthermore and pertinently, not to Israel. Many times why they persisted in sin was because they did not see a destruction, loss or damage as being either from God Himself and/or if done by a foreign entity/agency, as a judgement permitted by God. That is e.g., why they refused to surrender to Babylon as God had commanded through Jeremiah, hence 3 subsequent destructive campaigns; and also the actionable reason why Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. The same spirit existed in the time of EGW with the Sanitarium and Review and Herald Publishing house fires. Indeed those people, along the implicated lines of your view, merely saw these judgement as something natural, normal and/or man-made and not at all from God in any way/part.

That is also something that Jesus had to design in order for it to be clearly realized by the Jewish leaders of his day.



For the reasons sated above.

And, while this was obvious to “these Bible writers” which included the many prophetic/inspired people who God would raise up to point out/emphasize this Divine origin, not everyone in God’s own people throughout Biblical History) had/has already understood this’. So it is not ‘obvious to everyone,’ and that even with people today. And that is indeed the effectively/ultimately “no fault” mindset that Bible writers had to constantly speak against.



Because that is not what you were “obviously” saying about Job’s statement before. You were just saying he was plain wrong in saying God was doing when, outsiders, and that people today, knew that it was involving God permittance. When I said it was Moses, and even Job, who had that notion in mind, you now claimed that this was pointedly always your view.



As usual Pointing out your misdoings is not an insult. And it was just building upon the previous sly switching you had done as pointed out in a previous post and that you just did not answer. I assume that you did read it though. So it stands as factually shown that you had acted slyly there. Why do you expect that I should just accept such things from you?? I always have been reacting to your quite disrespectful action, however you just can’t see/believe/admit/accept that you can’t ever do any wrong and so whoever matter-of-factly points out your trespasses and wrong is just being “uncivilized” and “insulting”. You indifferently think way too highly of yourself.



Why is pointing out that you are acting slyly be ignorant. Take the time, however long it takes, to make truthful statements, and to answer especially such factually pointed out “slyness”. Otherwise, your really have no credit, nor could/should be given any benefit of the doubt. Indeed you could have answered those prior posts prior to answering this later ones. But your actually disrespectful non-answers made worse by the repeating of your there disproven, but later repeated claims, are supposed to be silently accepted by me, as also seen in your dealings with others. Seems indeed clear to me that you have a problem with pride, on top of mindless/indifferent guilefulness, as seen with your spurious “no time” excuses and selective answering practices. You clearly have time for what you want to answer. I.e., what you think you can answer.



What the problem here... By citing your previous statement I did not do this ‘common decency evidentiary substantiation’??? You clearly saw this cited “morsel of evidence” here. If you don’t think it is, then that is a completely different story. I think that it supported and supports my accusation against you. As also done in the prior cases of your view switching “slyness”. (And do look them up for yourself. I am not your personal secretary. I stated them once, you make a note of it and/or retrace them yourself.)



As quoted above between what you had said in Post #132613 and what you said in Post #133594



Not with this ‘intrinsic correct/corrected view’ sense.



You are confusing the issues/statements here. In GC 614.2 EGW is not saying that the OT judgements that she relates ‘were done by an executioner other than God/His Angels as spoken of as a secondary executionary possibility in GC 35-37.’ She is speaking of God’s power to do such judgements, and that against either Israel or foreign peoples. She is just now saying that Evil Angels also have this power when God allows them to exercise it. Indeed she is only seeing this type of Satan done judgement during the 7 Last Plagues. (The Bible however indicates that this will only be during the last of those Plagues.) And so she is seeing the same means of judgement execution that was seen for the utter destruction f Jerusalem as also being applicable in those 7 Last Plague (again actually only during the 7th).

Indeed if EGW was blanketly applying the secondary method of judgement execution, i.e., either when God does not want to control how things turn out and/or not have mercy or do a destruction on a people that Satan surely will not accept to destroy himself as they were in his devoted service, then she would have made in those GC 614.2 events the kind of substitutions for “natural events” that you are seeking to blanketly make.



[No comment by your here??]



I see that you have confused my point with your own added ‘obvious application’ which actually is not even being needed to be mentioned. Indeed I did not even think of it, as it is not logically valid, but circularly non-rationale. I.e., If God is actively doing something, it cannot even be logically said that He is “permitting” it, since he is doing. That also here implies unfair/undeserved action especially as it is being done “despite” one self.

I was only focusing on the logical circumstance when the agency is not seen/concretely known by the “patient” to be God and/or is a foreign entity. In such cases, the “patient” or Bible writer, especially when a faithful believer in God, as Job was, will defaulty see God as permitting it, despite not actually knowing for sure, even at all.



You are seriously still thinking and asking/making that question/statement. As I already pointed out, the Bible exegetically clearly says, in using a Hiphil, that God was indirectly involved in this, using an agency to do this killing. Probably a commissioned angel.



Again you need to engage Biblical exegesis. The Bible is clear that God did this, and that here “forcefully and directly”. EGW may have missed this point, though she does quote the Bible’s “God sent” in her writings, yet her ‘protection withdrawal’ no way contradicts this. Also God wanted to do an object lesson here and thus involve mercy and limits. So he surely was directly involved.



Moses had correctly revealed what Job did not know but had ultimately still rightly claimed.



Already discussed. Nothing more to add.



That’s not what the Bible is exegetically saying in all of those situations. Sometimes God acted directly, sometimes through an agency. It is clear on those agency distinctions.



Yes “generally.” Whether God directly does the destruction (Fire from heaven) or through a commissioned angel (the slaughter of the Assyrians, judgements for David’s sin) they both fall under the “general heading” of a “Divinely-done judgement” (I.e., through an Heavenly Being, whether God Himself or an Angel(s))....



.....vs. when done through/by an Earthly agency.



I’ve heard that many times before... We’ll see...

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

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. And yet you seem to think she believed Jesus did not cause fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Isn’t it obvious to you, based on all the quotes I posted above, that she clearly, plainly said it was Jesus who employed the fire that burned N&A alive? If not, where does she specifically say otherwise?


In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it. It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do. To answer your questions:

1. 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? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.

3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”

Good one. It would have also been obvious in the tone of his voice (for those listening but who could not see his face). What is your point?


Jesus said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” I hear you saying the truths Jesus did not share with the disciples did not lessen His revelation of God’s character. If this is what you believe, I strongly disagree. I believe “all truth” is essential to a full and complete understanding of the character and kingdom of God.


I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.


God always fulfills His “ideal will”. He never sits back and allows the chips to fall wherever they may helter-skelter. Keep in mind I’m talking about what God Himself chooses to do based on the time and circumstances in response to the choices FMAs make. That is, God never causes or permits anything to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that isn’t His will. To say otherwise suggests there are times when God causes or permits something to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that is evil or wrong or less than ideal (under the time and circumstances).

The fact Satan will influence Sunday-keepers in future to kill Sabbath-keepers is not an argument against the fact Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.


Thank you for succinctly summarizing your view of God. However, nothing you said about God actually addresses my questions about God. Again, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Nothing you’ve said about God thus far provides enough insight or information for me to deduce your answer to this question. I have in the past attempted to draw a conclusion based on what you’ve said about God (as it relates to this question) but with fatal results and strong disapproval from you.

By the way, there appears to be a contradiction between point 2 and points 3 and 4. For example, did the Gospels ever portray Jesus causing death and destruction that in reality He merely permitted others to do? I make this observation and ask this question because you say the Father behaved in the OT in the exact same way Jesus did in the Gospels and vice versa. But where in the Gospels did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people?


Again, I’m sorry you found the question so disturbing; but, thank you for answering it so emphatically. You leave no doubt in my mind what you believe about it. And, no, I don’t know of anyone who believes God views killing animals and humans as equal. I only wish you would answer the following question with as much emphasis and enthusiasm - Do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Also, I don’t see a legitimate comparison between Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people and the anti-hunting father commanding his pro-hunting son to kill animals humanely. Are you somehow hinting at the idea that Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


I don’t understand what you mean. Please elaborate. Thank you.


Your question seems to imply God isn’t in favor of executing Sabbath-breakers in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment. However, the passage quoted above makes it clear that He is. Also, the point begs the question, a question you have thus far refused to answer, namely, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


I have no idea what your answers are to the three questions above. Please elaborate. Thank you.

This is a question to you, asking for clarification. Actually two questions.



I don't know what you would want me to elaborate on here. I don't see what you wouldn't be understanding here.



This seems self-explanatory. What sense would it make for an evil person to restrain themselves in order not to displease God? Doesn't being evil presuppose that one is displeasing God?

Why would you think a question like this makes sense? Better yet, why would you ask such a question? What were you thinking when you asked it? If you write out what you were thinking, perhaps we could discuss that, as what you were thinking probably makes some sense.



This seems self-explanatory too. I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying here.



Ditto.



This seems very clear to me. Your question has a premise, with which I disagree. I pointed out the premise in question, and why I disagree with it.



The premise is that you speak of "death and destruction" which "Jesus deemed right and necessary." I disagree with your premise that Jesus Christ was so deeming.



I've tried to elaborate, but it's a bit difficult, as what I wrote seems very clear already to me. If you would write out what it is you're not understanding or have questions about, that could help.