"1. How is this different than what you've been saying about Jesus killing sinners?"

I haven't been saying anything about Jesus killing sinners. Jesus doesn't kill sinners. Jesus restores. Satan destroys.



"2. Also, when did Jesus, while here, withdraw His protection and permit others to kill sinners?"

This is from GC 21, 22:



If Israel had responded to Jesus Christ, He would have "gathered them up" -- in other words, they would have been protected, safe. But they despised His protection, and were destroyed.

In the parable about building your house on the rock, as opposed to the sand, Christ taught this same truth. When we build upon the rock, we are protected, safe. But if we reject the rock, and build upon the sand, we will be destroyed.

Tom, if Sister White's comment (all that we can know about God ...) means Jesus destroys sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing evil angels to kill them, what about the story of David and Uriah? David ordered Joab to send Uriah into battle and then withdraw the troops leaving Uriah exposed to danger and death. Nathan accused David of killing Uriah with the sword of the Ammonites.

1. Does her comment include the meaning - "Jesus destroys sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing evil angels to kill them"?

2. Does the story of David and Uriah illustrate this point? If not, in what way is it different?

3. Again, when did Jesus, while here in the flesh, destroy sinners by withdrawing His protection and allowing others to kill them? The quote you posted above does not address this question.

This is a FOTAP question. Sister White's comment that all that we can need to know about God, or can know about God, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, means that Jesus Christ revealed, during His ministry on earth (the whole purpose of which, according to another statement, was the revelation of God) all that we need or can know about God. It doesn't mean that Jesus destroys sinners.

Jesus doesn't destroy. Satan destroys.



No, the story of David and Uriah don't illustrate the point. You're asking what's different. David sent Uriah out, for the person of getting him killed. David murdered Uriah. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? But God doesn't murder, right? So that's different.

Regarding the third question, if you consider the principles involved in the quote I provided, I think you should be able to see how it applies. Jesus said he would have protected Jerusalem as a hen protects her chicks. Jerusalem refused, and was destroyed. This is how God "destroys".

As Ellen White comments, Jesus is the restorer. Satan is the destroyer.

Tom, you quote her comment to prove Jesus never destroyed sinners in the OT, that He destroys sinners by simply withdrawing His protection and giving evil angels permission to destroy them.

If David killed Uriah by withdrawing protection, then Jesus kills sinners by withdrawing protection. It result is the same - withdrawing protection leads to death.

And, your quote does not prove Jesus killed sinners, while here in the flesh, by withdrawing His protection. Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after He went back to heaven.

So, my question remains - when did Jesus kill sinners, while here in the flesh, by withdrawing His protection? If you cannot provide a quote, then your theory doesn't stand (that Jesus did nothing different while here in the flesh than He did in the OT).

Could you quote something I've written please?



I quoted from Ellen White, who said that all that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (in context, she is speaking of while He was here in the flesh).

What is it you think my theory is? Why don't you quote something I've written? Perhaps I stated something unclearly. From what you're writing here, it sure sounds like you are attributing things to me I've never said. So quotes please! If I've misspoken, I'll correct it, but I don't recall ever having said what you're attributing to me here.

I don't want to take the time to search MSDAOL to find a statement from you. I would prefer it if you would simply state what you believe. If I've misunderstood your position, please restate it clearly. Thank you.

All along I've been saying that the quotes regarding the wrath and vengeance of an offended God mean there are times when the limits of God's mercy and forbearance are exceeded and He is forced to punish sinners in various ways in proportion to the crime and transgression.

You counter this observation by quoting Sister White's comments regarding Jesus' mission while here in the flesh. You reason that if all we can know about God was demonstrated by Jesus while here in the flesh that it means Christ never killed anyone in the OT because He never killed anyone in the NT. Did I misunderstand you? If so, please set the record straight. Thank you.

------------
I am reposting the following:

If David killed Uriah by withdrawing protection, then Jesus kills sinners by withdrawing protection. The result is the same - withdrawing protection leads to death.

And, your quote does not prove Jesus killed sinners, while here in the flesh, by withdrawing His protection. Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after He went back to heaven.

So, my question remains - when did Jesus kill sinners, while here in the flesh, by withdrawing His protection?

If you cannot provide a quote, then your theory doesn't stand (that Jesus did nothing different while here in the flesh than He did in the OT).

We're having a conversation. You don't have to do a search about something I've written in the past. Just pay attention to the conversation. For example, here's what you just wrote that I asked you substantiate:



I've not quoted her comment to establish any of these things, have I? If so, where?

If you're going to make the statement that so and so made a certain statement or argument, the onus is on *you* to be accurate.



My argument has been that if all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, this means that there is no information in the Old Testament which tells us something about God which is not revealed in the New. That's simple logic, right?

My point has been that for any event in the OT, there should be some corresponding event in Christ's life, or some teaching, which reveals whatever it is that is referenced in the OT in relation to knowing something about God.



This isn't a valid argument. You are arguing, if A does B by way of C, then D does E by way of C. It should be easy to see this isn't a valid argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Maybe D doesn't do E at all. Maybe D does E by some other way than C. There's no demonstrated causality between A's doing something and D's doing something.



Why does this matter? What point are you wishing to make?



Why are you expecting a proof for something I've not asserted?



I've never claimed that Jesus killed sinners while her in the flesh. I've repeatedly pointed this out to you.

He doesn't; He saves sinners. As He pointed out, when asked to kill, "You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of Man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." To Nicodemus Jesus said, "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

In pointing this out to you (that I've not been saying that Jesus kills sinners) I quoted from Ellen White who wrote, "Satan is destroyer. Christ is the restorer." You've passed over these statements I've made, and repeated the same thing that I've been saying that Jesus kills sinners in different ways.



Where did I say that Jesus did nothing different while here in the flesh than He did in the OT?

You asked me to correct you if you misstate what I've been trying to say, and to state it correctly. I stated my position above, but for your convenience, I'll repeat it here. The following has been my point:

If all that we can know about God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, this means that there is no information in the Old Testament which tells us something about God which is not revealed in the New. That's simple logic.

For any event in the OT, there should be some corresponding event in Christ's life, or some teaching, which reveals whatever it is that is referenced in the OT in relation to knowing something about God.

I remember that we have pointed out where Jesus thaught about the judgement of the wicked and their painfull demise (remember, they will be outside crying and gnashing teeth because they were thrown out), but you have disregarded it because it does not fit your view of God. As you wrote in the passage below, Jesus Himself told us that He came the first time to save the lost, but He also told us that He will come again and this time as a judge. He will judge the saints(saints as used by Paul) guiltless and He will judge the sinners guilty. He will administer to each a reward in accordance with their verdict. While you mention the first part, you (conveniently?) forget to mention the second part.

I think your memory may be faulty. Perhaps you could quote something I wrote?



I don't believe in Universalism, which is what it seems you are implying. I don't disagree that there were be a judgment. I just don't think the punishments are arbitrary or artificial or imposed, whichever word you prefer.

I believe the punishment for sin in the judgment is inherent in the judgment itself. The judgment involves the searching of the conscience, being made known of every wrong you have committed, becoming aware of what you missed out on in not going to heaven, being aware of the impact of your bad actions on others, aware of the impact upon God, and so forth. This punishment is real, and causes pain and suffering.

But this pain and suffering is not something imposed upon the wicked arbitrarily by God as a means to make them suffer for what they did. They do not suffer because God arbitrarily causes them pain by burning them with fire, supernaturally keeping them alive to do so. I'm not saying you necessarily believe this, but there are some who do.

Back to your recollection about having a conversation where I rejected something Jesus said about God because it didn't fit in with my view of God. That's a rather extraordinary thing to accuse one of, don't you think? Do you have any evidence to support that idea? I certainly reject how you have characterized my actions, and deny having done any such thing.

I've been arguing that God is like Jesus Christ, and that all that we can know of Him was revealed in His life and teachings. It would hardly be reasonable for me to argue this at the same time that I rejected His teachings. My whole point has been that we should consider His life and teachings, and use that as the basis for our beliefs about God (as opposed to taking what Jesus lived and taught, and *adding* that on top of what we see of God in the Old Testament).

My evidence is your introduction of the word "arbitary" into your post. I wrote: "He will administer to each a reward in accordance with their verdict". That you then feel a need to qualify between the rewards calling one set "arbitary" is clear enough I think.