TE: What sin was this?

MM: The quote you are referring to makes it clear Lucifer's thoughts and feelings and tactics and strategy did not become sin until the moment he resolved to pursue his course at all hazards even though he was convinced it was wrong to do so.

TE: When you quote things from EGW with no comment, I can't respond, since I can't read your mind.


You say Jesus does not kill sinners. But here we find Him commanding Moses and the congregation to kill a man. Jesus didn't do this while here in the flesh, so why did He do it back then?

TE: It's particularly bad from to quote something by me, and then something by EGW with no comment. It's also bad form for you to ask me questions, and then answer them for me.


These quotes do not support what you asserted above. Who should we believe? You have a tendency to pass over certain comments and questions, I hope you don't do it again here. That's why I hazarded to answer for you that list of questions posted earlier on this thread. I'm trying to understand your position, but sometimes you make it difficult. I'm sorry if I offended you. I will try not to do it again.

I do not see Jesus excusing sin here. I see Him taking matters into His own hands and killing Uzzah. Jesus did no such thing while here, so why did He do it back then?

TE: What sin was this?

MM: The quote you are referring to makes it clear Lucifer's thoughts and feelings and tactics and strategy did not become sin until the moment he resolved to pursue his course at all hazards even though he was convinced it was wrong to do so.

I'm just asking what sin it was that Lucifer committed that he was given the opportunity to confess.

God's commanding something be done is not God's doing it Himself. This is another subject. It's certainly a reasonable question to ask why God would command something to be done that He wouldn't do Himself, but this is another subject.

I think "MM" would be the answer to your question.

Regarding the quotes not supporting what I asserted, how so? I'm not seeing that. There's nothing in what you quoted that I would read and think, "I don't believe that." You'll have to spell out for me what you have in mind.

[/quote]You have a tendency to pass over certain comments and questions, I hope you don't do it again here.[/quote]

! This is quite a request for you to make considering your thoroughness in responding to my questions and comments compared to mine in response to yours, but OK, I'll try to improve.



Not a good idea. A better idea would be just directing me to the questions.



Thank you. I appreciate that.

I think asking more open ended questions is a better way to understand another's positions, as opposed to a series of yes/no questions. Yes/no questions have presuppositions built into them, whereas an open ended question allows someone to describe their position in their own words.

If all that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus' life and character while here with us in the flesh, during the time in which the "whole purpose of His mission" was to reveal God to us that we might be set right with Him, then we need to be able to find the thing about God we are trying to ascertain THERE.

Jesus Christ came to "rectify errors". These errors were based on misunderstanding the Old Testament. If you are misunderstanding the Old Testament, and Jesus comes for the exact purpose of correcting your errors, so you can properly understand it, but you ignore His life and character and instead go back to the very errors He is trying to correct, I don't understand how this can work. How can Christ rectify errors in this scenario?

Rather than allowing the glorious light of Christ to illumine the misunderstanding, this seems like dimming the light of Christ by misunderstanding.

We're dealing with principles of interpretation here. What I am suggesting is that if all the we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of Christ while here in the flesh, then anything we think we know about God should be found there. That's simple logic. So allow me to ask you, where do you find in Christ's life and character while here in the flesh the idea you think you see in the Old Testament?

From "The Great Controversy" we read:



If the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work by representing what he does as something God is responsible for, don't you think it would be a good idea to consider that this may be exactly what is happening if we have an interpretation in mind where God is represented as visiting punishment? Otherwise, what is the point of her statement?

Here's a simpler answer to this same question. If all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and you state "Jesus did no such thing while here," then the logical conclusion is that what you are asserting you see happening is not what happened.

TE: I'm just asking what sin it was that Lucifer committed that he was given the opportunity to confess.

MM: He was given an opportunity to confess that it would be a sin to pursue his course further. It didn't become sin until he pursued it further.

---

TE: God's commanding something be done is not God's doing it Himself.

MM: What? I can hear it now, “Yes, I commanded Moses to kill him, but I am innocent.” Such a claim is laughable at court in downtown St. Louis.

---

TE: Jesus Christ came to "rectify errors". These errors were based on misunderstanding the Old Testament.

MM: Jesus showed Sister White the true understanding in the following quote. It explains why Jesus killed Uzzah. What error are you talking about?

PP 706
Upon Uzzah rested the greater guilt of presumption. Transgression of God's law had lessened his sense of its sacredness, and with unconfessed sins upon him he had, in face of the divine prohibition, presumed to touch the symbol of God's presence. God can accept no partial obedience, no lax way of treating His commandments. By the judgment upon Uzzah He designed to impress upon all Israel the importance of giving strict heed to His requirements. Thus the death of that one man, by leading the people to repentance, might prevent the necessity of inflicting judgments upon thousands. {PP 705.3}

Are you suggesting that Satan is the one who killed Uzzah, that Satan killed Uzzah against the will of God? If so, it implies Satan helped God teach the truth, to prevent people from sinning in the future, to deny Satan the opportunity to kill more people in the future.

---

MM: I do not see Jesus excusing sin here. I see Him taking matters into His own hands and killing Uzzah. Jesus did no such thing while here, so why did He do it back then?

TE: Here's a simpler answer to this same question. If all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, and you state "Jesus did no such thing while here," then the logical conclusion is that what you are asserting you see happening is not what happened.

MM: On one occasion, He did give people the opportunity to stone a woman, but He knew they wouldn’t do it. But why didn’t He take the time to tell everyone that killing sinners is wrong, that He never intended for them to think such a thing?

---

TE: Otherwise, what is the point of her statement?

MM: She was specifically addressing the destruction of the Jews. She wasn’t explaining all the other places where Jesus Himself killed sinners.