The word for "heal" means "save." This is what Matthew quoted from:



Christ was able to save (or heal) because of bearing our griefs/sorrows/transgressions.

i understood that, thank you.

but matthew is still using only one very small part in the context of the healing Jesus was doing, at that moment, and applying only what applied at the moment, it would seem.

i understand that you see it in a certain light, but does that mean that others understandings are automatically wrong?

Here's something Waggoner wrote about it:



Whether people see things as I do, isn't the salient question, of course, but whether the things being seen are true or not. Obviously, if I'm wrong regarding a certain point, if others see things differently than I do, then that's good thing.

Regarding this particular point, I think Waggoner is correct, and I would, in general, given all that EGW has written in regards to him, be slow to disagree with him.

Anyway, aside from personalities, one should decide for oneself what is truth on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of what others think, no matter who they are. I've provided evidence for the point of view I believe is correct, and invite others to investigate it, and provide evidence for their point of view.

first, my brother, from everything i have read from egw regarding j and w had to do specifically with the faith of Jesus, righteousness by faith, not what i would call the peripherals.

second, she clearly stated they were not error-free.

third, i dont get we are to ever read anyone, excluding the bible, as error-free or give ourselves entirely to their understanding. i do read egw as if she were the bible, but that is about it.

i hold j and w in high regard, generally speaking. i have also appreciated some other authors you have quoted. but to say that their understanding is the understanding, or that my understanding of what i believe to be their understanding is accurate, is something else again.

i have read that (the glad tidings quote) the first time that you put it up. but one thing i have noticed at times, not all the time, but sometimes, is that i can read something the way ive been told it says, whereas if i back off it for a while and pray i see it in a completely different light.

the "wrath of God" may be a good illustration of that. another one is that i was taught that sodom and gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality-the bible teaches it was for a variety of reasons. praying to be cleansed of all tradition revealed that one. there are probably a multitude of views that have been changed in me from praying that simple prayer.

maybe if we got away from "right and wrong" on some issues, that are not the foundation and pillars of our beliefs......and see it as a difference of understanding.

regarding "evidence". i knew a lady years ago, who cleaned her house on saturdays. one saturday she got the distinct impression she shouldnt be doing that. she didnt understand it, and started to continue. again the impression came. she didnt clean house on the sabbath after that. now what "evidence" at that time could she have produced to anyone who asked her? i know of a few other similar circumstances.

but apart from that, i believe richard did present a valid piece of "evidence" in the sin being confessed over the sacrificial victim.

you presented what seemed to be "evidence" to you, but i dont see it as that. the subject seems worth exploring and praying about. after all, that is how great truths have been discovered, que no?

again, i dont see it as a "richard is right" and "you are wrong" anything. i see it as a valid point that would be nice to explore. it seems that we can become so positive in our understanding of anything that we may not be able to see the validity, or possibility, in anothers understanding.

Most everything Waggoner wrote on the subject fit together. There's not really much in the way of "peripherals;" at least, that's my impression (that is, I see the things Waggoner writes as tying together).



She didn't claim to be error-free herself. When she said they weren't error-free, the context was as a way of trying to get their detractors to pay attention to what they were saying, not as an excuse to downplay their importance; it was just the opposite!



A lot of people feel this way, although this wasn't Ellen White's perspective. However, if one wishes to read her "as if she were the bible," then this should include her endorsements of Jones and Waggoner, shouldn't it?



I've never claimed this, right? That is, that someone's understanding, whether mine, or Jones or Waggoner, or anyone else I've quoted, is "the" understanding. Even Scripture, Ellen White has told us, does not reflect the rhetoric or logic of God ("Logic" is pretty close to "understanding").

The best we can do is try to understanding things as best we can, and share things which have been a blessing to us to others. Because of this medium, discussions tend to be more contentious than they would if we were conversing in person. We don't have the luxury of hearing another's voice, or see their body language.

Regarding when Christ began bearing our sin, in my opinion there is a lot of evidence that it was before the cross. MM quoted some statements from the SOP saying that He bore them during the temptations in the wilderness. John 1:29 says, literally, "Behold the lamb of God who is bearing the sins of the world." Gal. 4:4 points out that Christ was born "under the law." Matt. 8:17 quotes Isa. 53:4, which speaks to Christ's bearing our iniquity. Here's another item of Waggoner's where he discusses this:



I've found these thoughts of Waggoner's to be a blessing. All I can do is share them. If you, or whoever, disagree with what Waggoner is saying, that's your prerogative, of course.

Regarding the fact that sinners confessed their sins over a lamb, I don't understand why this would imply that Christ was only bearing our sins at one specific point in time. This certainly doesn't appear to me to be as strong an argument as statements which state flat out that Christ was bearing our sin before Calvary.

In conclusion, my impression of you has been that you are an open-minded individual, willing to adjust your views when you become convinced you were wrong. I can assure you, by the grace of God, I'm the same way. My views have changed a great deal in the last 20 years, many times and in many ways. So I by no means have the point of view that my point of view must be correct. I'm simply presenting things which make sense to me. One of the great things about these forums is that people can question your views, causing one to rethink things, either adjusting positions or abandoning them altogether in favor of news ones.

you see everything as fitting together with waggoner. ok. i had mentioned both.



that is how you see it. ok. i didnt realize you would assume i was trying to downplay their importance given what i had stated about their message about the faith of Jesus, (egws words).



hmmmm, that seems to be how you are reading her re j and w. i notice they were both mentioned this time.



i was referring to myself but i can see that was not real clear.




in person and in the same room would have the advantage of being able to break and be in prayer together as the early pioneers did after the disappointment.



these references are quite convincing to you. i dont see them in the same light you do. not only that, we have this statement:



since one doesnt cancel out the other, how do all these statements work together, if we are understanding them correctly? personally, i have all the time in the world to wait and see how they fit together. in the end i may come to the same understanding as you have. but right now i dont see your references the same way you do.




how could Christ still be in the bosom of the Father in heaven-yet in judea and galilee-according to waggoner, and yet have left the bosom of the Father according to egw?





hmmmm, so theres no possibility that they are understood differently? or that one would like them to be reconciled with ones understanding of egw?

.....


im in agreement with much of your understanding, and differ in some other areas. i am glad that i am seen as open-minded, by at least you. this is something you seem to have studied out thoroughly. while i am aware that we have not had to carry the full weight or guilt of our sins-or it would crush us-i did also see that our sins were laid on Christ at the cross.

how these play out or reconcile i would like to see. but it isnt a salvational issue, so i can wait......