No, I don't think the two different means of meting out punishment represent "contrasts" per se. "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." {GC 614.2} Regarding the plagues, she also wrote:


It is clear in these passages it is holy angels who will cause the death and destruction portrayed by the seven last plagues. Seems to me though you believe Ellen intended for us to interpret these kinds of passages to mean holy angels will permit evil angels to pour out the vials of God's wrath and that all they do is work to ensure they do not exceed the limits established by Jesus.

I've said quite a few times I don't think this matters, that looking at all these incidents one by one isn't fruitful. Regarding this one, either:

1.God actively set them on fire, as a punishment, because they worshiped Him in a way which He didn't approve of.

2.They couldn't abide God's physical presence, and burst into flames, in such a way as you perceive the wicked will be destroyed by Jesus' coming (i.e., your idea that sinful flesh cannot stand the radiant light of God's glory; I forget just how you put it).

3.Something unspecified happened, and God was presented as doing that which He permitted.

Consider this statement by EGW, for example:



This certainly looks like type 3. I don't know anyone who thinks that God it was God's direct purpose to destroy N&A by fire chiefly or solely because of their intemperance in the use of wine.



Often God is presented in inspiration as doing that which He permits. The whole point in my making the point is that since this is the case, the mere fact that God is presented as directly doing something does not mean that God is necessarily actively doing that thing He is presented as doing.



Here we get to the same point, again, that God is often presented as doing that which He permits. I would say that genocide is not God's ideal will. Do you disagree?



Since even you don't believe this is literal, unless you've changed your mind, it doesn't make sense that this statement of Jesus would lead you to believe that Jesus wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says.



I take this as "nowhere."

Given that the "whole purpose" of Jesus' earthly mission was the revelation of God, and nowhere did He even remotely do anything similar to A, we should be able to conclude, given that everything we can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ, that, at a minimum, A is not according to God's ideal will.



To respond succinctly, it looks to me that to have the viewpoint you are espousing, one would need an inconsistent view of Jesus' ministry, where He lived in one way, but taught another. But Ellen White wrote:



Let's look at this last part:



Given this, and given the fact that all we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ, plus that this was the purpose of His earthly mission, it's clear that simply by considering the life of Jesus Christ we can determine:

1.The truth.
2.His own character.
3.What He taught.

and by extrapolation, God's character.

For example:



Every lesson Christ gave throughout His life taught two things:

1.He does not destroy.
2.He improves everything He touches.

We have many examples of this. For example, in order for Lazarus to die, it was necessary for Christ to depart. This echoes the thought that sickness, suffering and death are the work of an antagonistic power.

To reiterate the above, there is a consistency between what Jesus lived and taught. What He taught, He was. So simply looking at what Jesus was is sufficient to know that truth about God.

I don't think this is a good approach, for reasons I've explained on numerous occasions.



How did Jesus treat the woman caught in adultery?



I disagree with the approach you are suggesting.

When Jesus Christ came, the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. It is by studying what He lived and taught during His mission that we arrive at the truth as to what God is like.

The difference in how we view things is in how we view God, and we view God differently because of the approach we take here (this isn't the only reason we view God differently, but it is a reason).

My belief is that we arrive at the truth about God by observing what Christ lived and taught, not by looking at OT incidents. Given this is my belief, why would I want to look at OT incidents? I don't believe this will get the job done.

How Jesus Christ treated the woman caught in adultery is a clear revelation of God's will in regards to the incidents you are asking about.



What explanation? Why does this statement need explanation? It seems very clear.



Then why make it? Why not just accept her statement?



Why? You seem to be totally contradicting yourself.

We have a clear statement, at least, it seems clear to me, that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. You bring up this statement by Jesus Christ, that there were things which He could not say to the disciples before He died because they could not bear them. I don't see what this statement has to do with anything. How does this statement shed any light on the fact that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son?

All I can see in what you're writing is that:

A.You disagree with what Ellen White wrote.
B.You are explaining why.

Your explanation runs like this:

1.Jesus said to His disciples that there were things He had to say to them which they could not bear.
2.Therefore Jesus Christ did not reveal all that they could know of God.
3.Therefore Ellen White's statement needs to be amended.

If this isn't your line of reasoning, then what is?

Also, I gave an explanation of why there is no contradiction here, by pointing out that Jesus' words had to do with His death, and that His revelation of God includes His death. So by referring to words stated *before* Christ's death, you're leaving out a key part of His revelation, which isn't fair.

You didn't respond to this.



I don't think an examination of incidents in the OT is the way to go about understanding God's character. I've explained why.



Why does this need to be mentioned?



What in the GC text gives you this idea?



What in the GC text gives you this idea? In actual fact, it wasn't Jesus' ideal will that they suffer or die at all. This was His permissive will.



"Permit" = permissive will.



We know why. The text tells us why. The Jews caused God to remove His protection.



There's no hint of this in the text. Why do you think what you are asserting is the case?

The difficulty I see with how you see things is the perspective, which looks to have God as responsible for what happened. It appears to me this is necessary to your view, because otherwise God wouldn't be "in control," which looks to be very important to you.

How I perceive things is how GC 35-37 reads; which is that God was caused to remove His protection, and Satan sought, and seeks, to hide his own work by blaming God for what he himself is doing. I see the whole GC boils down to Satan's attempt to misrepresent God's character as being his own. Satan needs to be in control, is concerned with his own glory, has a dark side, has hidden agendas, is severe and harsh, and not concerned with the interests of others. God, on the other hand, is none of these things, but completely selfless and humble. Because God is so un-like ourselves, we have great difficulty understanding Him and His purposes, ascribing things to Him which aren't there, because of how we ourselves would act if we were in His place.

In Jesus Christ, we see how God really is; how selfless, disinterested, harmless, and humble He is ("disinterested" means not concerned with His own interests).



My point was that the point of view we take in regards to this question influences what actions we may take now, and in the future.



You're looking for a simple answer to what's not a simple question. Say one were to ask if the father in the father/hunter story was commanding his son to hunt humanely, how would you answer that?



Really? Why not? If Jesus never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people during His earthly mission, the whole purpose of which was the revelation of God, why wouldn't this help you understand the answer to your question? It seems to me it should.



If Jesus didn't do so in the NT, why would you think He would do so in the Old?



I believe Jesus illustrated God's ideal will. See how He dealt with the woman caught in adultery.



Why not? It's an analogous situation.



I asked you above how you would answer the question if the father in the father/hunter story was commanding his son to hunt humanely. I'll see how you answer that.



Jesus' will was demonstrated in how He dealt with the woman caught in adultery. Regarding the "why not," consider the cases of polygamy, divorce, and slavery.



For the same reason He didn't do so for the cases of slavery, polygamy and divorce.



You still haven't answered my question (See above, first sentence).

M: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?

T: I pointed out to you that you didn't address my question, and you utter falsehoods, and continue not to address the question.



1.Throughout His ministry. For example, on the Sermon on the Mount. Also Jesus Christ's treatment of the woman caught in adultery. Also His response to the disciples urging Him to destroy the Samaritans.

2.To see God's ideal will, see Christ's treatment of the woman caught in adultery. Also please note that I've made no statements regarding capital punishment in general, just statements in regards to God's character and actions in regards to His using violence as a means of accomplishing His will.

Tom, thank you for the two responses above. Before I address them, however, I'll give you a chance to catch up:

134194
134196
134197

Bump for Tom.

More Biblical evidence/testimony that the Plagues of Egypt was a formal and compensatory/retributive judgement (i.e, both a criminal and civil procedure):

I have just found the answer to this previous question of mine... Exod 31:14, 15. Still the Num 15:32-36 episode occurred after this Law and both Moses and then God deliberated before enforcing this penalty. The reason manifestly is, based on the following verses in Num 15:37-41 because this person had apparently forgotten this penalty, and may have been doing this stick gathering out of an emergency need, not having properly prepared on “Friday”, and apparently to avert this nonetheless costly forgetfulness in the future, then here also instructed Israel through Moses to make ‘blue law-reminding tassels’ (cf. Deut 22:12).

Thus, as the death penalty for Sabbath Breaking was legislatively binding, then my two, thus now non-hypothetical comments in that Post #133586 is indeed the one that is Biblically valid.

NJK,

The Sabbath breaker in the wilderness who was stoned had not "forgotten" the Sabbath. Not at all.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting EGW “support.” I did not notice/know that she said this. However it is actually not “final”/definite. As stated in my post, I am paramountly trying to reconcile the Biblical fact of a deliberation by both Moses and then God on what should have been a clear cut and “sure” death sentence issue. To me this EGW statement may simply have been “with/according to her understanding” and not necessarily “by Divine commission/authority.” (Cf. in this post for explanation of this potentially applicable difference). I’ve seen several corrections by EGW for even such seemingly authoritative pronouncements.

Nonetheless, harmonizing the Biblical data and EGW, this “presumption” may have been from having forgotten to make the needed preparations the day before and so he “presumed” to go and gather this wood on that Sabbath. Or it may have been just after the sun had set on Friday evening and he “presumed” he could do this last chores/task despite the Sabbath time having already started.

As this may have been his cited excuse to Moses, that may be why Moses opted to consult God on this, nonetheless, Sabbath violation and God in turn would have deliberated on this, judicially deciding on the death penalty, even if merely for an object lesson reason. Interestingly enough, I don’t hear of another case like with at least that wilderness generation. (The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were similarly also destroyed for object lesson reasons, as seen by the fact that God has not repeated that judgement though the sin is still practised.

I see. So, EGW is right so long as she agrees with what you have already stated, and you are right once you have stated it, making her "presumptuous" from then on. It is just as she herself has said.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.