You must have some point in mind. Please make your point. Also, you could address the points I made in the post above yours.

I need to you answer the question so I can make the point and answer your other ponts.

When did Jesus order anyone to kill sabbath breakers while here in the flesh like He did with Moses and the guy caught gathering sticks?

This was an accommodation made for the same reason as the rules regarding divorce; i.e. "because of the hardness of your hearts."

Wait a minute here. Are you saying that God changed His mind between the OT and NT? Was Jesus saying, "Well, I know I told you this at Sinai, but forget about that. I have a new idea"?

Don't you think it's more likely that the problem was not what God commanded in the OT, but what the people thought He meant by it? And in the NT, Jesus is merely sweeping away the rubbish of human error, rather than retracting His own erroneous command?

The problem wasn't with God. God had to make certain accommodations, because of the hardness of their heart.



This is also true, in addition to God's making certain accommodations.



Let's consider Jesus' own words:



Ellen White comments:



As there had been wrong ideas in regards to marriage, so there were wrong ideas in regards to the treatment of man. "Eye for eye" was a necessary civil statute, but did not constitute God's plan for how we should treat one another. It, because of the hardness of man's heart, similar to the case for marriage, was a gracious concession on the part of God, but not His idea, which Jesus expressed:



We are children of our heavenly father not by applying the principle of "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth," but the principle of "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."

To get to the actual point of making a distinction between the Old and New Testament, your point is right on. The problem is not with the Old Testament, but with how people interpret it. God is greatly misunderstood, believed to act in ways totally out of character to what we see in Christ. Christ came to reveal the truth about God, and that truth is seen so clearly in Christ that it can be said:



Paul wrote that Jesus was the express image of the Father (Heb. 1:3), and John wrote that no one has seen God at any time, His only begotten Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what He is really like. (John 1:18).

A beautiful passage from "The Desire of Ages" echoing this theme says:



So, yes, Arnold, I agree with you that the problem is not the Old Testament, but how it has been misinterpreted. We are just as susceptible to misinterpreting it as the Jews were. Christ interpreted it perfectly, both in His words and life. His purpose was the revelation of God, and He succeeded to such an extent that EGW wrote that *all* (think of that, all!!) that man can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

Now I have been challenging MM to support his views about God from the life and character of Christ during His earthly ministry, which should be a reasonable thing to do if all that can be known about God really was revealed in the life and character of His Son. Not able to do so, MM goes to the Old Testament instead, and seems to me to be repeating the very misunderstandings that Jesus came to correct!

MM claims not to make a distinction between what Jesus says in the Old Testament, but if this were really true He should be able to find what he's looking for in the New Testament. If he can only find it in the Old, then obviously he's making a distinction. If he sees a difference, it's because he has a misconception of the old, and so should give preference to what Jesus said in the New, since His whole purpose was to correct the mistakes that men were making.

This is what I had in mind by my response. I probably should have written a more detailed response to MM, since what I wrote could be taken the wrong way.

Tom, if God ordered Moses to kill a sabbath breaker because of the hardness of his heart, what has changed? Our hearts are still hard, right? Nevertheless, there is no excuse for sinning. The breaking the sabbath was inexcusable. Killing him was right and righteous. God didn't order his death by compromising because of unusual circumstances. Killing sinners is right. Mercy and forgiveness is right, too.

TE: Not able to do so, MM goes to the Old Testament instead, and seems to me to be repeating the very misunderstandings that Jesus came to correct!

MM: Jesus' mission here in the flesh was not the same as it was in the OT, nor was it the same as it will be when He returns. Jesus came here in sinful flesh to show us how to love God and to obey His laws. He did not come to demonstrate how a judge metes out justice under a theocracy. Nor did He come to reward us according to our words and works.

Jesus' mission in the New Testament was the revelation of God. It was to "rectify mistakes" that people had.

According to EGW "all" (that is to say, everything) that man can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ's life and character during His earthly ministry.

If you look at the DA quote I cited (and the previous paragraph), it says that man was deceived by Satan's misrepresentations about God, and that Jesus came, not primarily to show us how to live (He certainly did do this, but this wasn't His primary mission) to reveal the truth about God, and so complete was His revelation that EGW says that "all" that man can "know about God" was revealed in the life and character of His Son.

Another way of putting this is that we do not need to go to the Old Testament to understand some aspect of God's character which we do not see revealed in Jesus Christ. If this were necessary, then EGW's statement that "all" that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son would be false.

I'm just acknowledging that I read this. I'll just comment on this one part:



Do you kill them first, and then forgive and have mercy on them? Or forgive and have mercy on them first, and then kill them?

Are you excusing God's order to kill the sabbath breaker?

Are you saying Jesus misrepresented God in the OT?