HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums & Chat Rooms
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested $20 or Higher Donations Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading
Donations accepted: Here
Shout Box

Newest Members
Fred88, Christian G, The Wanderer, aarjona, phineas
1289 Registered Users
Forum Stats
1289 Members
118 Forums
8527 Topics
182293 Posts

Max Online: 1283 @ 05/14/17 03:59 PM
Who's OnIine In
Chat Room #1?
Right Click Here & Select "Open in New Tab or Window" to Enter Chat Room #1 or Just Simply Click Here
Join the following presently in Chat Room #1:

Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

Top Posters (30 Days)
Gary K 113
Alchemy 67
The Wanderer 43
dedication 43
Elle 38
Nadi 34
kland 23
June
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
Featured Member
Registered: 07/16/16
Posts: 128
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Happy Sabbath To All!!
Springtime
Lessons from The Smallest Of Creatures
Who's Online
4 registered (Nadi, Daryl, dedication, 1 invisible), 336 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 96 of 105 < 1 2 ... 94 95 96 97 98 ... 104 105 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#133606 - 05/20/11 02:57 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: 1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M: I don’t think so.

T: Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.

Quote:
T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

M: I agree with Ellen’s view of it.

T: Good! She wrote: “It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ. We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.(DA 83)

M: She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.

T: None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission. Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?

The 28 fundamental beliefs are an expression of the character and kingdom of God. I assume you agree. If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs. To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

M: Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:
1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?
2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

T: Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.

Quote:
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?

I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?

Quote:
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?

T: Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this. You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it). Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make. There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.

I have learned studying with you there is no such thing as a ridiculous question. I have no idea what you believe; hence, the questions which seem ridiculous. Above you wrote, “There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God.” Do you believe hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God? I’m sorry if the question seems ridiculous. As you know, there are plenty of people who believe they are equal in the eyes of God. If so, then the comparison is legitimate. If not, it isn’t.

Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

1. When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?

2. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

3. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?
Top
#133607 - 05/20/11 03:52 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now? I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive. Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:

Quote:
"God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions."

"This was a transgression of God's express command, and his judgment speedily followed."

"For this sin, a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people."

"Nadab and Abihu were slain by the fire of God's wrath for their intemperance in the use of wine."

"Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin."

"By the offering of "strange fire," they disregarded God's command, and they were slain by His judgments."

"A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them."

"God visited them with His wrath; fire went forth from His presence and destroyed them."

"God forbade any manifestation of grief for Nadab and Abihu, even on the part of their nearest relatives, "lest ye die," he said, "and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled."

Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. And yet you seem to think she believed Jesus did not cause fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Isn’t it obvious to you, based on all the quotes I posted above, that she clearly, plainly said it was Jesus who employed the fire that burned N&A alive? If not, where does she specifically say otherwise?

Quote:
M: In fact, the following testimony presents a view very different than the one you are advocating:

Quote:
God is exact to mark iniquity. Sins of thoughtlessness, negligence, forgetfulness, and even ignorance, have been visited by some of the most wonderfully marked manifestations of his displeasure. Many who have suffered terrible punishment for their sins, might have pleaded as plausibly as do those of today who fall into similar errors, that they meant no harm, and some would even say that they thought they were doing God service; but the light shone on them, and they disregarded it. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7}

Let us look at some of the examples found in sacred history. Assisted by his sons, Aaron had offered the sacrifices that God required; and he lifted up his hands and blessed the people. All had been done as God commanded, and he accepted the sacrifice, and revealed his glory in a most remarkable manner; for fire came from the Lord, and consumed the offering upon the altar. The people looked upon this wonderful manifestation of divine power with awe and intense interest. They saw in it a token of his glory and his favor, and they raised a universal shout of praise and adoration, and fell on their faces, as if in the immediate presence of Jehovah. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 8}

As the prayers and praise of the people were ascending before God, two of the sons of Aaron took each his censer, and burned fragrant incense thereon, to arise as a sweet odor before God. But they had partaken too freely of wine, and used strange fire, contrary to the Lord's commandment. And the wrath of God was kindled against Nadab and Abihu for their disobedience, and a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people. By this judgment God designed to teach the people that they must approach him with reverence and awe, and in his own appointed manner. He is not pleased with partial obedience. It was not enough that in this solemn season of worship nearly everything was done as he commanded. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 9}

The Lord sent Samuel to King Saul with a special message. "Go," he said, "and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul was faithful and zealous in performing a part of his commission. He smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but he took the proposition of the people before the command of God, and spared Agag, the king, and "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 10}

The Lord commanded Saul to "utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." The Lord knew that this wicked nation would, if it were possible, blot out his people and his worship from the earth; and for this reason he had commanded that even the little children should be cut off. But Saul had spared the king, the most wicked and merciless of them all; one who had hated and destroyed the people of God, and whose influence had been strongest to promote idolatry. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 11}

Saul thought he had done all that was essential of that which the Lord commanded him to do. Perhaps he even flattered himself that he was more merciful than his Maker, as do some unbelievers in our day. He met Samuel with the salutation, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord." But when the prophet asked what meant the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen which he heard, Saul was obliged to confess that the people had taken of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord in Gilgal. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 12}

Did the Lord accept this justification of Saul's conduct? Was he pleased with this partial obedience, and willing to pass over the trifle that had been neglected out of so good a motive? Saul did what he thought was best, and would not the Lord commend such excellent judgment? No. Said Samuel, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 13}

These instances show how God looks upon his professed people when they obey part of his commandments while in other respects they follow a course of their own choosing. Let no one flatter himself that a part of God's requirements are nonessential. He has placed no command in his word that men may obey or disobey at will, and not suffer the consequences. If men choose any other path than that of strict obedience, they will find that "the end thereof are the ways of death."
{ST, July 17, 1884 par. 14}

M: You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.

T: Regarding Saul's purpose, we read: “This victory over the Amalekites was the most brilliant victory that Saul had ever gained, and it served to rekindle the pride of heart that was his greatest peril. The divine edict devoting the enemies of God to utter destruction was but partially fulfilled. Ambitious to heighten the honor of his triumphal return by the presence of a royal captive, Saul ventured to imitate the customs of the nations around him and spared Agag, the fierce and warlike king of the Amalekites. The people reserved for themselves the finest of the flocks, herds, and beasts of burden, excusing their sin on the ground that the cattle were reserved to be offered as sacrifices to the Lord. It was their purpose, however, to use these merely as a substitute, to save their own cattle. {CC 156.3} This points out that Saul's purpose was selfish and proud. To think that Saul's argument here was the same as mine would seem to indicate you're either misunderstanding Saul's argument or mine. Here is mine:

1.All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
3.Jesus Christ did not reveal God as One who uses force to get His way, or compelling power, or One who burns people alive to punish them for not doing His will.

Here's an issue I see with your way of thinking. You appear to believe that it's OK to kill people who are not doing God's will, if you believe God is telling you to do so. I think that's dangerous, especially given the fact that this is exactly what's going to happen during the last plagues (i.e., people will try to kill those whom they think are not doing God's will, and will think they are doing God's will by so doing). What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner?

In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it. It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do. To answer your questions:

1. What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.

3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”
Top
#133616 - 05/20/11 06:04 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man]
Tom Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 14795
Loc: Lawrence, Kansas
What is it you aren't understanding? I've answered the questions twice now. Please give some feedback.
_________________________
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Top
#133627 - 05/20/11 08:47 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
Tom Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 14795
Loc: Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
M: 1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M: I don’t think so.

T: Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

M:I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.


That would be rather hard to hear.

Quote:

Quote:
T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

M: I agree with Ellen’s view of it.

T: Good! She wrote: “It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ. We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.(DA 83)

M: She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.

T: None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission. Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?

M:The 28 fundamental beliefs are an expression of the character and kingdom of God.


There are an expression of what Seventh-day Adventists believe to be essential points of faith (or, at least, a group of people designated to perform such a task for the group as a whole).

Quote:
M:I assume you agree.


Only in a secondary sense. This wasn't the purpose of the list of beliefs.

Quote:
If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs.


This logic is not valid. If A is a type of X, it does not follow that to get a clear picture of X, you must necessarily understand A, which is what you are asserting.

For example, Clemente was a composer in the Classical era. It doesn't follow that to understand Classical music, one must understand Clemente.

Quote:
M:To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.


I've already pointed out the weak link in this argument.

Here's a valid argument:

1.All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.Therefore understanding the life and character of His Son is sufficient to understanding God's character.

Quote:

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

M: Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:
1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?
2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

T: Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.


Please respond to my response, and ask me questions about that.

Quote:
Quote:
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?

M:I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?


I don't think it matters what I believe about this incident to understand what I believe. I believe the following:

1.All that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.God is often portrayed in inspiration as doing that which He permits.
3.God in the OT acted similarly (actually identically) to how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh, when the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
4.Jesus Christ revealed what He heard and saw in the OT in His life, character, and teachings. If we perceive some disconnect between the two (i.e., between some incident in the OT involving behavior on the part of God) and Jesus Christ's life/teaching/character, we should defer to the revelation of Jesus Christ.
5.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.
6.Satan is hard at work seeking to vest God with his own attributes of character, and to make it appear that God's principles of government are like his.
7.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to effect an judgments desires simply by withdrawing that protection. There is no need for God to do otherwise.

I've been saying all along that I disagree with the road you insist on taking, which is to examiner Old Testament incidents and ask questions about this. You've been doing this for years. I've answered hundreds, if not thousands, of these questions, all the time under protest. I've spent a thousand times longer discussing this issue according to how you think it should be studied as opposed to how I think it should.

Quote:

Quote:
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?

T: Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this. You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it). Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make. There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.

M:I have learned studying with you there is no such thing as a ridiculous question.


What you asked is an example of one. What could you have been thinking when you asked it? There is no conceivable way that you could think that I think that God views hunting an animal as equal to killing a human being. I'd have to be a fanatic of PETA or something like that to have a view like this. In our years of studying, and thousands of posts, I've not written anything to give you the slightest inkling that I would have such a thought. It would be like me asking you if you think God has big blue elephant ears.

Quote:
M:I have no idea what you believe;


Well you should! We've been studying this issue for years, and I've been repeating the same things over and over and over again. You should, at a very minimum, at least know that I believe these things I've been repeating over and over and over again, don't you think?

Quote:
hence, the questions which seem ridiculous.


This would be a ridiculous question to ask of any Christian, don't you think? Really, can you give any scenario under which not just I, but any person on this forum, could conceivably believe that God views hunting animals as equal to killing humans?

Jesus Christ fished. You know that don't you? If God viewed hunting animals as equal to killing humans, Jesus Christ wouldn't have fished, would He? Well, since you think Christ killed "billions" of humans, maybe *you* could think God sees these as equal, but I certainly couldn't, could I?

Quote:
M:Above you wrote, “There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God.” Do you believe hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God? I’m sorry if the question seems ridiculous.


Do you think God has big blue elephant ears?

Quote:
M:As you know, there are plenty of people who believe they are equal in the eyes of God.


I can't think of a single Christian who believes this, not one. Nor can I conceive of such a thing being possible.

Quote:
M:If so, then the comparison is legitimate. If not, it isn’t.


Legitimate because why? Because the "plenty of people" you know are humans? Do you know any one on this forum that believes this?

I've mentioned Jones, Waggoner, George Fifield, and Ty Gibson as writers whose thoughts have resonated with me. Do you know any fans of these writers who believes this?

Or any fans of Ellen White?

Quote:
Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

M:How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?


It's analogous.

Quote:

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

M:Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}


This doesn't address my question. I haven't made the argument if the Sabbath needs to be kept, then Sabbath-breakers should be killed.

Quote:
M:1. When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death?


Have you considered the story of the father/hunter?

Quote:
Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?


Why didn't He explain the truth about polygamy?

Quote:
M:2. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?


Where did He explain the truth in the OT about slavery or polygamy or divorce?

Quote:
3. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?


I haven't made any general comments about capital punishment.
_________________________
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Top
#133637 - 05/21/11 11:25 AM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
[Your “Reply” Posting is incorrect here. Your are replying to yourself]

Quote:
NJK: (Again Tom, don’t forget to answer Post #133507)

Tom: I responded to the post you mentioned. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.


Why didn’t you answer it before; -i.e., 3 reminders ago, since its initial May 16 posting (4 days ago)??

Quote:
NJK: -Also, as it is also generally pertinent to this discussion, you have said (back in Post #131319) that you “majored in Theology, and studied several years at the seminary”. Did you graduate (i.e., obtain a degree)?

NJK: -And did you take (and complete) courses in Biblical Languages, namely Biblical Hebrew and NT Greek?

Tom: I graduated with honors in my undergraduate degree.


Just to be clear, was is your undergraduate major that was in Theology?

Originally Posted By: Tom
I completed the coursework for the graduate degree, but did not graduate.


I don’t get how one can complete coursework and not graduate. When I was at Andrews (1997-2000) the policy was that to audit a class, the person still had to pay to credit fees. So did you complete this coursework on your own, i.e., buying the syllabus and textbooks and doing the work on your own, or did you attend the seminary classes, do all the “coursework” (as implied by “completed”), but did not graduate?

Also was this completed coursework formally graded? There is indeed the possibility that one can complete all a courses’ work and not graduate because that completed work was not acceptable for passing and earning a degree. (Perhaps it can even be possible to take a next course without having passed the previous one(s). E.g., while I was studying Electrical Engineering, (before going to Andrews and switching to Theology), I completed and passed mathematics classes up through Calculus III and Differential Equations (including the derived “Physics for Engineers”), however I never passed, though I “completed”, my first semester Calculus I class. As long as your willing to pay for these classes, the people at the SDA Seminary may object, but ultimately its all is up to you how you go about completing your education.)

Also what was that graduate degree course? (E.g., MA in Religion).

Originally Posted By: Tom
I took Biblical languages. I have taken a lot more Greek than Hebrew (I had already studied classical Greek).


Did you “complete” all of the Seminary courses in (NT) Greek and Biblical Hebrew?

Quote:
Tom: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here.

Tom: Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others.

NJK: I have previously variously defended and substantiated in this thread that Jesus’s Revelation was in perfect harmony in all point with what God had actually intended in the OT.

Tom: That's not the issue. The problem is not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation, which was, and still is, different then Jesus Christ's.

NJK:I don’t from where you are making/justifying your objection here because what you stated: “not with what had been revealed in the OT, but with people's perception of that revelation” is exactly what I had expressed by saying “what God had actually intended in the OT”.

Tom: What God had actually intended in the OT is what was revealed. I pointed out that this is not the issue, but people's perception of this.


Well then the issue is that we have a completely different understanding of the word “intend”. I lexically understand it to mean: “Have in mind as a purpose; Design or destine; Mean or intend to express or convey; Denote or connote”. By saying: “What God had actually intended in the OT is what was revealed” to mean what was done and recorded in the OT record. I see you understanding as being false.

A simple example, someone could see me swimming at the beach with another person and then see me suddenly knock another person out with a punch to the face and call police claiming I was criminally trying to hurt them, i.e., assault them, when the fact of the matter was that this person was suddenly caught in a rip current, was beginning to uncontrollably panic, refusing to heed my urgent advice and calm down, and since they were much bigger than I, the only way I could quickly rescue them before they began to drift away was by knocking them out cold. So my action here was indeed forceful, even seemingly violent, however my intention was to save their life. And that was really the only way to do this, especially in the crucial timely way, lest furthermore, not only they drown, but they also cause me to drown if I tried to rescue them while they were panicked.

Similarly, succinctly said, God’s judgements in the Bible are to effectuate a timely judgement that serves, as object lessons, to save other people’s lives, on top of the one being judged/punished, if mercy can be applied to their situation. If also, e.g., they chose to swim in that section of waters knowing, through many warning sign posts, the dangers of rip currents, then I cannot be faulted for not swimming in after them and rescuing them, even if I could have saved them.

So as I said. “What” was revealed in the OT was clear. The why was not. E.g., it is not seen, as it Biblical can, that the Plagues of Egypt was a deliberately intended full process of deserved judgement on Egypt and that the slaying of the first born was to avenge the many wrongful deaths caused to, and inflicted upon, of Israel by Egypt during the years of slavery. So here the “perception” of people not seeing this is wrong (indeed seeing something else that cannot be exegetically supported by the Bible’s account of what transpired here), but what took place (God slew the Egyptian firstborn) is clearly known by anyone who reads the text, especially if reading it in the Hebrew (or even OT LXX), as could the Jews people living in Christ’s time.

Quote:
NJK: Because the OT People and also those in Christ’s times had a wrong perception of that revelation they therefore did not see nor understand what God had actually intended in what He had said or done.

Tom: Right, and still today people perceive the revelation incorrectly.


Since you say “Right” here, then you agree with my expressed understanding that what God “said or done” can be distinctly/differently perceived than/from what He had actually “intended”. That does not seem to agree with your prior statement. What was “revealed” in the OT, especially for those living in Christ’s day, is what is recorded in the text of the OT. What is “perceived” is something distinct and is what is mentally thought about what is “revealed”. In many ways, God did not detailedly reveal His intentions during the OT era. His people really had to accept him in faith then. During the NT era, many of these intentions, as also seen with the SOP, came to be revealed. Yet those further revelations, do not change the substance of what was concretely revealed in the OT record. Just the derived perception of what the intent/purpose/design was to be corrected wherever applicable/necessary.

Quote:
NJK: E.g., the Sabbath was not a day to selfishly not do any work, per se, but to variously, pervasively provide God’s rest to others, and as Jesus showed, by “doing good” and “save life” (Mark 3:4). So “work” was really what was done to selfishly gratify/convenience oneself, including not doing the feasible pre-Sabbath “preparations”. (In an applicable way, the Church today won’t engage in the actually feasible ‘“work” needed to save millions of lives’ and all in the Pharisaical sanctimony that ‘God’s Sabbath rest is “at the door”, so effectively, they fully subscribe to the Capitalist ‘live and let die’ tenet.)

T:So when we look at the OT, we see one thing, but when Jesus Christ looked at it, He saw another. What Jesus Christ saw is what He revealed. So, given that we see things different than Jesus Christ did, we should defer to what Jesus Christ saw. That's been the point I've been making.

NJK: In terms of substantive things, Jesus read and thus “saw” the same thing that anyone in his day could see.

Tom: They could have seen these things if they were as sinless as He, as insightful, and listened to and understood the Holy Spirit as He did.


I am speaking of the concrete text Jesus and other around Him read from. Seeing the intents of God is a different things that reading what was stated.

The fact that Jesus Spiritually saw many things that other did not see was not because He was sinless, but because He remained in constant and unbroken communion with God’s Spirit. This, as virtually, as by product, helped Him to remain sinless, however, that unbroken communion with God’s Spirit allowed Him to continue to receive insightful light from Heaven. He also aimed and succeeded to do God’s will and for such, more Heavenly light was continually given to Him.

This Biblical principle could work with anyone who, like Jesus aims to both do God’s will and remain obedient to His Spirit. Indeed we see that God told Solomon that he would be the wisest and most knowledgeable person who ever lived (1 Kgs 3:12; 1 Chr 1:11, 12). However Solomon sinful and “foolish” life made this promise not possible to be fulfilled, which is why I see that the Incarnate Jesus, (who did not have any extraordinarily given Spiritual advantage or power over any other man), could say the ‘one greater than Solomon, (i.e. in terms of wisdom and knowledge) is here. (Matt 12:42).

Jesus achieved His great wisdom and knowledge by merely being obedient in all ways to God’s will and to the voice of the Holy Spirit. He was not given a better understanding of the Holy Spirit merely because He was sinless, but merely additional insightful light from God as He was faithful in obeying, using and disseminating, when applicable the prior given light from God. Many fail in this regard by being disobedient and misusing the previous manifestation of this gift of God (cf. e.g, TM 399.1; 507.1)

Quote:
NJK: I see that you are here trying to impose your own view for Christ’s here and claim that e.g., He did not see God actively doing the Destructions and judgements of the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram, and all these other examples.

Tom: This is a good example of the principle I'm addressing. You're seeing something which isn't there (i.e., you see that I'm trying to impose my own view for Christ's here. What I'm actually doing is arguing that Christ's view is represented by His life and character).


The facts of your prior claims in regards to those cited examples are clear that you are, contrary to the Bible’s and SOP’s testimony, “seeing” that: ‘God did not actively do the destruction judgements of the “Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadad and Abihu, Dothan, Korah and Abiram.’ So that factually is “impose your own view for Christ’s” and claiming that because of this view, as you say ‘which was Christ’s own’, the accounts of these OT episodes should not be understood as they read in either the Bible and SOP. So e.g., ‘it was a volcano [for which there is not geological evidence of it existence], (and moreover, one that was always supposed to erupt on that very day), and not God, that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Quote:
NJK: That premise to me is completely irrational.

Tom: You're not identifying the premise correctly. The premise is that Christ revealed what He heard and saw.


I did. The sequitur and logical premise, from what you claim/believe “Christ revealed [from] what He heard and saw” was that the OT accounts were not accurately expressed. So you e.g., believe that Jesus saw a volcano for Sodom and Gomorrah as He read Gen 19:24.

Quote:
NJK: Jesus did not engage in restating these acts of God as if God had not actually done them as the OT record unequivocally states. Even EGW did not see this in her Revelations of these episode. It is circularly only your view that needs this to be the case with Jesus and EGW, despite the clear testimony to the contrary, including Christ’s applicable “jot and tittle’ statement.

Tom: This is again not identifying the argument correctly.


Based on the comprehensive facts involved in your view, your argument was correctly identified. As I detailedly pointed out before in Post #133280, your view in themselves are quite acceptable, indeed as they are cited almost verbatim from the SOP, but the meaning and/or extent to which you claim they have and should apply is overeachingly unbiblical. In other words your are understanding them incorrectly and claiming things for them that neither EGW, nor Jesus intended.

Originally Posted By: Tom
The argument is that Christ revealed that which He saw and heard of God in His study of the Scriptures. So the picture we see of God that Christ revealed is in harmony with how Christ perceived God to have acted. What did Christ reveal of God? That answers the question of what Christ perceived of God's character. That's one argument.


I clearly see that Christ revealed, in at least principles, the same Character of the OT God and so e.g., in the face of blatant hypocrisy (Luke 1-48), He similarly wanted to effectuate immediate destruction through Hell Fire (Luke 12:49, 50), but because of a greater purpose/good, He refrained from executing such a destruction then. The same thing occurred twice with God in the OT with Israel in the wilderness (Exod 32), and then on the borders of Canaan (Num 14), and it was only for the greater purpose/good as pointed out by Moses, of how this would seem in the eyes/mind of other nations, that God relented from that all but one, then all but 3, destruction. A smaller and more pointed judgement was then decided. Just as the smaller and more pointed judgement of the destruction of Jerusalem was done by God/Jesus instead of the Hell Fire one.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another argument is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits.


This continuous claim of yours has been exegetically disproven to only have occurred in the episode of Job. Indeed your prime 7 examples have long been exegetically debunked. Deal with that current state of exegetical affairs.

Originally Posted By: Tom
There are many examples of this in the writings of Ellen White.


Then for this “many”, cite 7 more, other than your already debunked ones of course.

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've already mentioned a few, including the destruction of Jerusalem, the serpents in the wilderness, those who love not the truth being sent delusions, and others.


Like I said, these have all been exegetically debunked. You just have chosen not to respond to the Biblical/exegetical disproving/debunking statements.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So, given that God is often presented as doing that which He permits,


That is indeed therefore an unsubstantiated, invalid and vacuous claim.

Originally Posted By: Tom
how do we know if the thing God is presented as doing is something He permitted as opposed to something He actively did?


Only in the episode of Job did the unknowing Job, as faithfully recorded by Moses, say in Job 1:21, that it was God who had taken away. However Moses had already clearly related that it was Satan who had done the destruction. So there is no ‘unknown’ or ‘not pointedly identified agent’ here.

The other examples says and show (i.e., in the SOP) that there was a Divine hand/agency involved in doing the act of destruction/judgement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
One way would be to simply assume this must be what happened, unless there is some other statement elsewhere which presents a different point of view.


You have not cited a valid Biblical situation where this should apply. And as you say here, in the episode of Job, the agency was already clearly identified by Moses. So there is no need to assume anything in this, actually, would be lone supporting example.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So if there were simply the statement that God slew Saul, without the details, it would be assumed that God actively killed Saul.


The Bible was exegetically clear that God was acting through an agent to do this. You are the one who is not understanding this.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Or, without the statement from the SOP, it would be assumed that God sent fiery serpents to harm the Israelites, as opposed to removing His protection.


As I said before, I see that you are here overstating what EGW said. You claim that it means that God did not act here, but EGW does not say that. God removing His protective hand is the same as Him acting to effectuate this judgement. Indeed in 1SP 314.2 EGW has no problem stating exactly what the Bible emphatically says in regards to ‘God forcefully acting’ here to effectuate this death. And if EGW’s statement was here differing from what the Bible, (which I do not see that she does), the what the Bible exegetically, and thus accurately, said should be upheld as the correct view of this event.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Another way is to perceive the principle involved, that there are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us,


And when God judiciously decides to allow one of these many previously averted dangers to harm people, it is therefore an act of His. Only when the Devil is acting to do a destruction is God or His Angels not actively involved in it. And when God gives Satan the permission to do as He will, without any restraints or limitations, then God is not at all involved in judgement, or actually, that specific (final) part of a judgement that God had actually initiated and started to executed (e.g, as in the Destruction of Jerusalem and the 7 Last Plagues). Other than those two, I do not see a judgement in the Bible where God has given/will give this authority to Satan.

Originally Posted By: Tom
and that it is both contrary to God's character to sent serpents to harm others,


The Bible shows that this judgement is in perfect harmony with the aspect of Justice in God’s character. In fact the use of serpents was in order to serve as an object lesson to Israel that God was the one who was responsible for their safety. That is why God did not sent a judgement of ‘fire from Heaven’ here, or the earth opening up, as this crucial lesson would not have been learned by Israel. As EGW says:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 428.3
If with all these tokens of His love the people still continued to complain, the Lord would withdraw His protection until they should be led to appreciate His merciful care, and return to Him with repentance and humiliation.


Originally Posted By: Tom
and unnecessary as a means by which God can effect judgments.


As also seen in that PP 428.3 quote, that judgement was done by God in an attempt to lead Israel to “return to Him with repentance and humiliation”. So it was a “necessary means” for God and indeed one calculatedly used to this end by Him.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Given an understanding of this principle, a corroborating statement from the SOP is unnecessary.


I don’t see how this is true since one would then have to blindly take your word for it. Indeed even in the light of an SOP account corroborating the Biblical testimony. Again as an examples, the Bible and Sop say that it was God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. but you want people to rather believe that it was a naturally erupting volcano. Clearly your view requires one to ignore what the Bible and also the SOP say, and, as with the volcano, trust the wisdom and supposition of uninspired sources.

You also actually don’t have valid Biblical proofs/examples for your claimed principles

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore, Christ’s non-contradicting ‘fulfilling of the OT’, just as with EGW OT episodes revelations, only confirmed and even made it more clear that God was indeed involved in those actions. Jesus, and also EGW, only made these revelations more “palpable”/understandable to their applicable generations.

Tom: What do you have in mind here? Especially the "palpable" part. What's an example of Jesus making a revelation of this type more "palpable"? Also, what EGW statement did you have in mind?


From particularly the SOP we can read of the way Jesus explained the OT to His various audiences and thus made them “capable of being perceived”.

-Luke 17:26-30 = Flood and S&G destruction
-Luke 21:20, 22 (=Matt 24:15|Mark 13:14) = Isa 61:2; cf. 63:1-6
-Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13

[By the way, you have not answered the question: “Where in the world are you reading: “Christ exclaimed, "My heart melts like wax."”???”]

Quote:
NJK: So it is you who is engaging in changing ‘jots and tittles’, even, redactively, whole phrases and statements of God. Your approach, however strongly/“blindly” you effectively think ‘Jesus also did this’ is just ‘a house built without deep, if any, foundations.’

Tom: I can't tell if you're missing the points I'm making entirely, or simply avoiding commenting on them, but you're not responding to points I've actually made. You're just responding to your own ideas regarding things I've said.


Talk about, what is psychologically known as a “projection.” As I had already pointed out from my answers to your prime 7 examples, there is no point to even get from those examples. You are the one who has been avoiding answering my statements that have debunked your supposed corroborating examples for your view. So you indeed are just haphazardly trying to reword the Bible to fit your view (e.g, S&G’s “volcano”).

Originally Posted By: Tom
This reminds me of when Huss, I think it was, was ordered to recant certain things he had supposedly taught, and his response was he couldn't recant things he had never said.


It already is clear to me that you avoid addressing things that oppose your view for which you have no plausible response, and that you ignore such statements, also in the Bible and SOP. Well it seems that this also applies to what you say. I.e., you limit your view to what your statements mean to you and not to what they logically/sequiturly/Biblically fully, actually entail/imply. So of course, in this way, you can defensively and actually, half-truthfully, ‘deny not saying something.’ However, truth is not limited to what you understand, want to understand, and/or can understand. I deal with all pertinent and contributive facts involved. Feel free to join this logical and scientific realm of reality at any time.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Also, you're citing anything specific here. If you're going to make an accusation like this, it would be good to quote something I've said. Otherwise it just becomes a pointless exchange of accusations and denials.


I repeatedly have. You have just ignored them and then, or amnesically in order to, later make such a claim of ‘citing anything specific here’. Indeed not “here” but many times before. Look it up! Why do people always have to repeat themselves with/for you. That is not normal human behavior except, in regards to the “forgetter” in medical cases of amnesia and/or psychological mental blanking/blocks. If you seriously want to have a discussion then responsibly try making, on your own, mental and/or written notes of things people have said. Others, at least, I, am not your personal secretary.

Quote:
NJK: There is also the fact that not everything that Jesus said and did was recorded, and also the realism that not everything could be candidly “redone” by Jesus in 3 years of public ministry, though the principle for all of these OT actions of God/Him were all represented and perfectly upheld.

Tom: Evidently the time that Jesus had was sufficient for Him to accomplish His mission.

NJK:Not necessarily, in terms of either ‘doing everything’, or your view-implied imposition ‘redoing/restating everything’.

Tom: ??? I don't know what you have in mind here. I haven't suggested Jesus Christ did either of these things.


That’s what your view, with its spurious, ‘if we don’t see Jesus doing something then it did not occur in the OT’ tenet, implies/entails

Originally Posted By: Tom
I quoted many paragraphs explaining what I had in mind, as well as commenting on them. Why not respond to that?


Because your quoting of EGW’s “revelation of God’s character” mission of Christ does not mean, as you impose on those statements ,that: ‘if we don’t see Jesus doing something then it did not occur in the OT’. Case in point, where did someone in the Gospels offer strange fire before God (or Jesus) as with Nadab and Abihu??

Quote:
NJK:Jesus had to deal with the reality of the state of readiness and receptivity of those He dealt with. (E.g., John 16:12-15).

Tom: Which is what?


Read the cited text!

Originally Posted By: Tom
Say what it was, or quote the text.


Only in your most fanciful fantasy. Open your Bible and read it!

Originally Posted By: Tom
Don't just cite a Scripture text you're not going to quote.


Really... “Just watch me!!” [You’d probably have to be Canadian to get the full implication of this quote here.]

Originally Posted By: Tom
That's pointless.


“Pointless”??? Only according to you. And... that’s just you’re (manufactured) “problem.” What the Word of God says is not lessened in any way simply because you refuse to read it in your Bible. You just can’t be rightmindedly serious, in this regards!!??? I can see that how this serves as the perfect, self-justifying excuse for an ‘never-in-sight|never-in-mind’ “ostrich move” for you.

Quote:
NJK: Indeed just like in this ongoing GC, as documentedly revealed especially for OT Israel, God’s plans and intentions can be temporarily, and even greatly, delayed, curtailed and frustrated by the way people come to react to it.

Tom: How does this relate to the point that Christ had enough time accomplish His mission? Really, I don't see why you would think you have any grounds of disagreeing with this claim. Do you really doubt that Christ had enough time to accomplish His mission?


You should have looked up and read that cited text. Then you would have “seen” something. Oh yeah... you probably did not want to see any contradicting thing. Talk about the childish “shutting the eyes and stopping of one’s ears, with mantra, self-justified, “I can’t see anything” repetitions” (= Isa 6:9ff; cf. Acts 7:54, 57)

Originally Posted By: Tom
As regards to what Christ's mission was, it was the revelation of God, which I stated and quoted from the SOP to support (who, in turn, quoted from John 17).

This is a very interesting quote. Note these points:

1.The whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was to set men right through the revelation of God.

2.When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men.

So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.


Perhaps EGW overstated/misstated her “whole purpose” because it is Biblically clear that the revelation of God’s character was only a part of Christ’s mission. It was a most significant part, yet just a part. His “Baptism of Blood” in dying for the sins of the world was another part. (Cf. Luke 12:49, 50) Hence the actual need for Christ’s coming. If Israel did not have a need to understand God’s character due to the piled on misconceptions by men, and not because of the OT’s written record, then Jesus would still have to come and die to make the Atonement for the sins of the world.

Teaching doctrinal truths, in regards to the Kingdom of God and its conversion from the OT Covenant to the NT Covenant. That was limited by the people’s readiness and receptivity. As I had commented on earlier, that is what John 16:12-15 reveals (cf. Matt 13:58/Mark 6:5).

Quote:
NJK: Christ did this “whole accomplishing”

Tom: "Whole accomplishing?" Why is this in double quotes? No one used this expression. That's an odd thing to do. I understand you use single quotes to indicate a paraphrase, but don't you use double quotes to refer to an exact statement? If not, what is their purpose?


I think one simple, explanation-asking question here would have sufficed as quotes are also used for/in other ways, such as to coin an expression, as I was doing here.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What Ellen White actually said was "whole purpose." The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God is what she wrote.


Great! That’s not what I had in mind. My “whole accomplishing” involves ‘the accomplishing of all of the above stated aspects of Christ mission: Character Revelation, Doctrinal Teaching and (anti-typical) Sacrificial Atonement.

I therefore Biblically do not see EGW’s view as completely accurate here.

Quote:
NJK: by furthering the standing OT revelation.

Tom: He accomplished His mission by living the life that He did.


That’s just for one part. He also had to Speak/Teach and be “Baptized in Blood” (= Die) to fulfill the other two.

Quote:
NJK (edited): And this “OT revelation” does not include the unbiblical “traditions” and “precepts of men” that Jewish leaders added to this “Word of God” (Matt 15:1-9). It does however include what had been not fully said (i.e, what Paul later referred to as “mysteries” = “hidden truths” (cf. in this post #132603, indeed the ‘mysteries of God’s Kingdom), and “misunderstood” by the people.

Tom: Why are you making this point?


Because on the one hand, as I fully see it, indeed as seen in your comment below, you are, in your view, by implication conflating what the OT revelation itself (i.e., the OT in its written form) actually was, with what men had come to think it was. On the other hand, this “OT revelation” already included the elements of the New Covenant “Gospel” that Paul was going to more fully preach. Indeed Paul repeatedly used to OT to preach His New Covenant message.

Quote:
NJK: Furthermore, the Character of God inclusively includes Justice, as indeed seen throughout the OT. So that was to also be involved in Christ whole/complete revelation.

Tom: Yes, but justice is often misunderstood as involving violence and/or vengeance (as human's think of it).


You are here conflatingly applying what man think to what God had revealed in the OT. Again, God’s use of force for judgement, or to win a war/battle is not “violence.” And God, who clearly says “vengeance is mine” (Lev 26:25; Num 31:1-3; Deut 32:35 [=Rom 12:19, Heb 10:30], 41, 43; Judge 11:36; Isa 34:8; 35:4; 47:3; 59:17; 61:2; 63:1-6; Jer 20:12; 46:10; 50:15; 50:28; 51:6, 11; Psa 18:47; 94:1; Ezek 24:8; 25:12-17; Mic 5:15; cf. Exod 15:1-21) justly exacts retributive justice (= vengeance Jer 11:20; 51:36) on those who have caused damaged to Him and/or His people.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Is this what we see in Christ's life and character?


As Luke 18:7, 8; 21:22=(Isa 61:2; 63:1-6); cf. 2 Thess 1:7, 8 show, Jesus didn’t have your unbiblical problem with ‘Divine vengeance’.

I form my Theological View by what God said and accurately revealed through these inspired men, including Jesus Himself.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Or do we see justice as explained here:

Originally Posted By: Bible
“Thus says the LORD of hosts:

‘ Execute true justice,
Show mercy and compassion
Everyone to his brother.
10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
The alien or the poor.
Let none of you plan evil in his heart
Against his brother.’ (Zech. 9:7;NJKV)


That text is actually Zech 7:9, 10; and for many exegetical reasons the NASB has the more accurate translation here. Most significantly, the word “mercy” in the NKJV is actually “lovingkindness” (and thus not “judicial mercy”). True, justice, as God has said, shown/legislated and done, involves exacting due retribution which can simply be in the form of paying a fine and/or for actual damages. And verse 9 & 10 is not an ‘explanation of justice’. It is a distinct and self-contained single and stipulation. The NASB’s better translation bring this out better.

Did you involve any exegesis here in choosing the NKJV over the NASB or did you just choose what you saw best support your view??!

Quote:
NJK: Christ’s revelation reforms in this regard involved the perfect righteousness that is to be involved when Justice/Judgement is done, as seen in the episode of the Woman caught in adultery. Indeed not too many, if any, can actually cast a first stone here.

Tom: I don't see what this has to do with the point I made. This is the point I made, to which you are responding here:

Originally Posted By: Tom
So Christ accomplished the revelation of the character of the Father to the world. If this had already been done, Christ would not have had to have come, since the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.


Tom: How does what you're saying relate to this point?


Simple: (A) I was completing my statement that “the Character of God inclusively includes Justice.”

(B) The revelation of God’s Justice is part of what Jesus revealed and established in righteousness for judicious measures that God’s people had to execute themselves.
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#133638 - 05/21/11 11:37 AM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
[Your “Reply” Posting is incorrect here again. Your are again replying to yourself. It can be a great time waster to someone not familiar with this thread sequence.]

Quote:
NJK: There is also the issue that I see that it is wrongly believed that Biblical writers themselves had a wrong view of the character of God while it seems evident to me that this statement speaks of how Israel in general came to view God.

Tom: They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ.

NJK: That is besides the point.

Tom: No it's not. The point is that the whole purpose of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, and that had this revelation already been accomplished, Christ need not have come. That's the context of the discussion. So that the Bible writers did not has a clear a view of God's character as Christ did is to the point.


It substantively is besides the point for the substantiating reasons that went on to state. The OT revelation was perfect in itself. The people’s added misconceptions are what need to be addressed and Christ added furthering and fulfilling revelations. The Inspired Bible writers got God’s revelation right. It was the people who misunderstood that revelation. And to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it. I am not going down that slippery slope!

Quote:
NJK: The revelation of these (OT) Bible writers, set out in writing under the inspiration of God’s Spirit was precisely what God wanted to be fully understood then. Later in Jesus Christ, God only ‘made more full’ what He had previously said, legislated and inspired. And again, as per the focus of this thread, this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of “historical” OT episodes, indeed as they are properly recorded. To make this apply to your view, you need to show statements from Christ which e.g., change the substantive/historical records of OT events. And again, the misperception of people in Christ day was not on what had occurred, but the wrong conclusion they drew from what had occurred.

Tom: On what do you base this assertion? How do you know there wasn't a misunderstanding as to what had occurred?


Seriously??? Well then, simply said, because these OT writers would copiously preface their statements with qualifiers along the lines of: ‘The Lord said’; by Jesus’ full endorsement of the OT as well as other NT writers, never engaging to correct its accounts, and passages like 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20. I’ll go by these: “Thus says the Lord” than by anything man may fancifully suppose.

Quote:
NJK: As in your case, you read of Nadab and Abihu being burnt alive by a Fire from God and you, effectively, wrongly conclude that this “would” show/mean that God is violent. The principles in Christ’s revelation, which profusely included the teaching of Hell Fire judgement by Him/God (e.g., sLuke 12: 49, 50; cf. Rev 20:14) and its “fiery” physical torment (e.g., Matt 10:28; Mark 9:42-50/Matt 18:7-11).

NJK: So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement, nor in doing them again in the NT Era through the end of this GC. God was rather quite Just and indeed, all things taken into proper consideration, Loving. Indeed many will be eternally saved because of these most strikingly, deserving, warning, ‘object lesson actions/judgement of God. (Cf. 2 Pet 2:5, 6).

Tom: When Christ was urged to destroy the Samaritans, how did He respond?


A simple exegetical Biblical study here clearly shows that Jesus’ rebuking answer was in the light of the fact that the Gospel had deliberately not been preached, as it duly, fully, should be, throughout Samaria (cf. Matt 10:5; Acts 1:8; cf. Matt 1:22-24); (perhaps only in Sychar (John 4:4, 5, 28, 39-42)). So calling fire down from Heaven to destroy these probably Gospel unaware Samaritans of Luke 9:52 who were indeed only surfacely rejecting Christ because He was traveling towards Jerusalem (vs. 53) was in keeping with the OT God who did not execute a destruction until relatively sufficient “saving/sparing” light had first be properly given. So that action would indeed be against God’s Spirit, indeed including the OT God.

In the episode of Elijah (2 Kgs 1:1-16) that the disciples were seeking to use as a basis Amaziah, the son of Ahab, was acting idolatrously and thus clearly in full light, especially after the reform of Ahab. So when he, being vexed as Elijah’s original condemnatory and intercepting answer sent an army contingent to effectively force Ahab to come to him and, by implication, make a favorable prophetic pronouncement at the risk of his life, (as if it worked that way) Elijah was fully in accordance with God’s Spirit to twice call down fire upon the army contingent that came to him, innately threateningly ordering him to follow them in the name of the (already condemned) king. Evidently Amaziah haughtily thought that God’s prophet could only say something valid/binding upon him when he had first called upon “his services.” Also by calling Elijah “man of God”, the army commanders showed that they fully knew who Elijah was. Indeed, as God responded to Elijah’s request, it was all in perfect harmony with the Spirit of God.

On the other hand these Samaritans were not acting in the light of such knowledge and also not pointedly against Jesus with a general or personal knowledge that He was God’s Messiah. So a fire judgement here would-be an undeserved judgement for, moreoverly an unaware of wrong, -something that God never does. (cf. Jon 4:1,2, 4, 9-11).

Originally Posted By: Tom
This statement is really odd:

Originally Posted By: NJK
So like these misguided first century Jews, you need to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT was not “violent” in doing those judgement...


The misguided first century Jews needed to trust Jesus' teaching that OT was not "violent"? You think that they perceived these events like I do?


Expressional “typo.” I actually meant that: ‘like these misguided first century Jews, you need to trust the wisdom and knowledge Jesus. And in regards to pointedly to you that is to allow/trust Jesus’ teaching and revelations that the OT God was not “violent” in doing those judgement. Indeed Jesus never spoke anything against those OT actions.

Quote:
NJK: E.g., there was a perfect typological law of blood sacrifices represent what God would have to do to redeem man for their sins, however the people understood this to mean that God was bloodthirsty.

Tom: Which people? Why do you think they thought that? I think they thought of the sacrifices in general very, very differently to how we, who have been very heavily influenced by Anselm, do.

NJK: By explicit and implicit implication, the people of God who thought that God was “pleased,” or ‘to be pleased,’ by merely offering sacrifices. Pointedly: Judah/Jerusalem (e.g., Isa 1:10-13a ff; Jer 20:6b): “Zion” (Psa 50:13, 14; 23; cf. Heb 13:16); ‘Israel’ (Mal 1:10; 1 Sam 15:20-22; cf. DA 509.1-2).

Tom: You said the blood sacrifices led the people to thing God was bloodthirsty. I asked you why you think this. You responded by saying that the people thought that God was pleased merely by offering sacrifices. I don't see why you would think this meant the people viewed God as bloodthirsty.


In the texts I cited, the shedding of blood was often, (and that incontrovertibly, synonymously) disgusteldy spoken of by God in trying to show the people that this did not please/appease Him as they thought. Indeed during feasts like the Passover, blood flowed from the Temple in streams.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why wouldn't it mean that they viewed that God was pleased by their offering sacrifices? ... Not all sacrifices involved blood.


Indeed because all sacrifices involved the shedding of blood. An animal “offering” was not a “sacrifice”. And just like one ‘cannot make an omelet without breaking an egg’, an animal was not, and cannot be, “sacrificed” without first being killed and thus shedding its blood. Sacrificial animals were not (oxymoronically) “sacrificed alive”.

Originally Posted By: Tom
What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture?


What the Bible teaches about/for an animal sacrifice. The question actually is what do you think???

Quote:
NJK: This is what probably led them to seek other gods who were not so (seemingly) death and blood “demanding” and/or even espouse gods like Molech who required child sacrifices.

Tom: You're saying they viewed Jehovah to be more bloodthirsty than Molech, who demanded child sacrifices, which is why they turned to Molech?

NJK: No actually. Molech was in a distinct ‘type of God’ context. I had said that Israel probably turned to some foreign gods which required no sacrifices compared to their own God. Indeed, as the same underlying principle is posited today, it was “economically” more logical to obey a god that e.g., did not require one to make sacrifices from quite valuable livestock. The same personal wealth amassing excuse is used by many people, e.g., in regards to tithing, or conversely going along with Capitalism vs. God’s socio-economic principles.

Tom: So you're saying that a god who would require merely the sacrifice of one's own children was preferred to One who required the heavier sacrifice of cattle? So you believe the Hebrews viewed cattle as more valuable than their children? And that's why the preferred Molech?


I don’t see what ‘heaviness’/weight has to do with it. The value of a creature was not a matter of its weight. Thus children were technically more valuable than a cattle, and so, I see that in the minds of people who obviously had a ‘my god knows best view’ a God that required the extreme sacrifice of a child would be seen as being ready/willing to do much more for its worshipper than the God of Israel who require an animal.

Economically speaking, offering a child, which actually would be done ca. 1 per year vs. the panoply of sacrifices, and other offerings, that were require by the God of Israel could be seen a less costly given that all these animals would economically cost much more than a newborn child. Let alone the cost of not having to care for this newborn for next 20 years and virtually the rest of its life through the due “living inheritance” of farmland.

Quote:
NJK: In regards to Molech, I meant that Israel, who had a wrong understanding that God was “bloodthirsty” and was merely pleased with the shedding of blood in sacrifice, probably thus surfacely saw Molech as being a “greater god” by requiring the “blood” of their own children.

Tom: Wouldn't this mean this god was requiring a greater sacrifice? But above you said they turned to foreign gods which required less sacrifice than theirs did.


When the economic realities are taken into account, it could easily be seen, as today, that sacrificing a newborn child instead of spending money and wealth on the child, and also on many livestock sacrifices and various wealth offerings every year for years, was a much better “religious deal.” That indeed is the underlying economic reason for abortions, endorsed even by professed Christians, including the SDA Church in regards to “elective” abortions. (I.e., For SDA’s: it is better to have an abortion for a woman that will not be “psychologically” be able to deal with that child, than to let it be born and take it, or give it into adoption or raise it in an orphanage.

Quote:
Tom: I think they more likely turned to Molech for reasons analogous to why people turn to Catholicism.

NJK: Do elaborate/explain. I don’t see the correlation. Catholic rituals don’t include child sacrifices, in fact no (actual) sacrifices at all.

Tom: Catholicism has rites which enable the practitioner to continue in sin, while soothing the conscience. The true religion of Christ involves a doing away with sin. People will choose religions systems, which have a yoke which is heavy, over the yoke of Christ, which is light.


Understood. I get that derived view of yours here now.

Quote:
NJK (edited): So the misunderstanding was in the mind of the people but not with the Biblical writer. Indeed God’s Spirit would not let such a misconception be recorded as Scripture/The Word of God.

Tom: Light is progressive. We need to bear in mind that at the time the OT was written, Christ had not yet come. The coming of Christ shed a great deal of light.

NJK: As this is all in relation to e.g., who actually did destructions in the OT, I see no Biblical, I.e., later OT, NT, SOP) evidence that contradict what had priorly revealed as taking place.

Tom: The contradiction is not with what had been previously been revealed, but with people's perceptions of what had been revealed. I've made this point repeatedly.


So then why are you (exegetically) ignoring and/or rewording what has been revealed. The facts here show that this has not been the point you have been making. As I said before, you may think you are, with such benign assertions/statement of principles, but in actual practice that is not what you are doing, therefore, at the very least, not what your view of your claim actually, concretely means when applied by you.

Quote:
NJK: Further revelations in such regards only confirmed, and that with greater details, what had been previously expressed by these Inspired Bible Writers.

Tom: Same comment.


Well then: same answer.

Quote:
NJK: The direct statements of God are not subject to such future enlightening as the Bible writers then just recorded what they had “heard”. This is synonymous with EGW’s “I was shown” revelations in which she many times heard direct statements from God. In fact, I see that the revelation of these OT writers were probably identical to the direct ones given to EGW in that they “heard” many of these statements in those divine visions and dreams and recorded it. They also may have more clearly “heard” the voice of God while fully awake/conscious and proceed to record verbatim, what they had heard/been told.

Tom: What a person perceives is colored by their mind-set, their world view, their paradigm, etc. No inspired writer perceived things as clearly as Christ did, and none could reveal God's character as clearly as He.


They did not have to merely write what they perceived. In many ways like it was seen with EGW, what they wrote from solely what they had perceived, was based upon the many various direct statements and revelations of God in the OT. An a historical account is not a perception. And Jesus did not contradict anything that these Biblical writers had written. As I said earlier, I only see Moses making a further clarification of what Job had not fully perceived as the only partially applicable incident for this claim of yours. Yet Moses Himself did that “further specifying”. Indeed this shows how faithful he was to record things exactly as they were revealed and/or told to him, as he could easily have edited Job’s statement in Job 1:21.

Quote:
NJK: You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understanding of who was doing an action in the Bible,

Tom: Actually I've never said this.

NJK: Perhaps not verbatim, but you have actually meant this.

Tom: No, this isn't what I meant, or mean.


As I substantiated with your own words, that is what, at the very least, was straightforwardly understood by what you had said.

Quote:
NJK: That is indeed what I understood by your repeat (though unsubstantiated) statement: that ‘the Bible often presents God doing that which He permits’ (e.g., the latest in Post #133509). Clearly that logically means to you that ‘these Bible writers had written that God had done something when He had actually only permitted it to be done, and that by someone/something else, moreover independent of His effectuating energy.’

Tom: This involves the action being done, not simply who is doing it.


As I straightforwardly/logically see it, this is just the secondary meaning to your statement.

Originally Posted By: Tom
For example, consider the case of God's sending fiery serpents upon the Israelites. What actually happened was God permitted the serpents who were already there to harm the Israelites,


No. The Bible, not contradicted by EGW’s “protection withdrawal” statement, says that God forcefully made the serpents go in the midst of the people, and with “forced interest”. Responsibly deal with those exegetical facts, instead of ignoring them.

Originally Posted By: Tom
which action He had been actively preventing until that point.


Which is why ‘not preventing’ it any more is an act of His, and this scientifically would involve him putting a threatened fear of the people in these serpents even causing them in this way to go in the midst of the camp. However God may have distinctly done this drawing act.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So the problem was not with who was doing the action (clearly it was the snakes),


Clearly... but not in how you are understanding this “doing”. The doing was an active act of God.

Originally Posted By: Tom
but with what action was taking place (God was permitting them to attack the Israelites, as opposed to sending the snakes to attack them).


That was just the means for God to do this act of judgement. God actually “forcefully” made them do it.

Quote:
NJK: and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job,

Tom: What is "that" here?

NJK: As I went on to (disprovingly) say (see below): “where God permitted Satan to do the destruction”, that “that” clearly refers to this notion of ‘God being said to do something which he had only permitted to be done’.

Tom: You're saying that the notion of God being said to do something which He only permitted to be done, in terms of Satan being permitted to cause destruction, applies only to the episode in Job?


Right.

Originally Posted By: Tom
That is, at no other time did this occur?


I don’t see any other. Cite others if you can, and like I said, not the prime 7 you have cited which have been exegetically disproven/debunked.

Quote:
NJK: where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,

Tom: Everybody has already understood this. God is omnipotent, which has always been understood, so that if something happens, it's because God permitted it.

NJK: Really|Seriously|Truthfully|Honestly, Tom!??? Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here???? If your really believe/always believed so, then why do you keep on insisting on citing Job 1:21 as ‘a mistake of understanding by Bible writers.’ E.g.:

Originally Posted By: Tom Post #132613
“God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example... It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.”


NJK: (Obviously you also did not at all mean in regards to “cause” that: ‘Satan “caused” and God actually physically “did”’.)

NJK: Indeed the truth was always that both Job and Moses knew exactly what they were talking about here when Job said, and then Moses later faithfully related, that Job 1:21 statement.

Tom: I've got no idea what your point here is.


You prior points had been that Bible writers, in this case Moses and Job was wrong in Job 1:21 in saying that ‘God was “doing” while we know that God was not “doing”. Your point here has always been to support your view that Bible writers understood such things wrongly so this is an example where Jesus’ revelation later help us to see that God was not ‘doing’ as it was indicated in the Bible there, but had only permitted. You never attributed this notion correctness to Moses or even Job themselves. That is what I did in my reply and then you ensued by claiming that this is what you actually always believed, when in fact your claims had been that both Moses and Job were completely wrong here, without any notion of permitting here.

Quote:
Tom: You wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it,


Tom: Isn't this patently obvious? Who doesn't believe this to be the case?


No... Furthermore and pertinently, not to Israel. Many times why they persisted in sin was because they did not see a destruction, loss or damage as being either from God Himself and/or if done by a foreign entity/agency, as a judgement permitted by God. That is e.g., why they refused to surrender to Babylon as God had commanded through Jeremiah, hence 3 subsequent destructive campaigns; and also the actionable reason why Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. The same spirit existed in the time of EGW with the Sanitarium and Review and Herald Publishing house fires. Indeed those people, along the implicated lines of your view, merely saw these judgement as something natural, normal and/or man-made and not at all from God in any way/part.

That is also something that Jesus had to design in order for it to be clearly realized by the Jewish leaders of his day.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why would you characterize my pointing out how obvious this is as


For the reasons sated above.

And, while this was obvious to “these Bible writers” which included the many prophetic/inspired people who God would raise up to point out/emphasize this Divine origin, not everyone in God’s own people throughout Biblical History) had/has already understood this’. So it is not ‘obvious to everyone,’ and that even with people today. And that is indeed the effectively/ultimately “no fault” mindset that Bible writers had to constantly speak against.

Quote:
NJK: Another sly, retroactive switch of views on your part here????

Tom: I've always viewed this as obvious, and think anyone would, and don't know anyone who doesn't, and have no idea why you would think my pointing this out would be a switch of views, let alone worthy of an insult.


Because that is not what you were “obviously” saying about Job’s statement before. You were just saying he was plain wrong in saying God was doing when, outsiders, and that people today, knew that it was involving God permittance. When I said it was Moses, and even Job, who had that notion in mind, you now claimed that this was pointedly always your view.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you have no concept of how insulting your writing is?


As usual Pointing out your misdoings is not an insult. And it was just building upon the previous sly switching you had done as pointed out in a previous post and that you just did not answer. I assume that you did read it though. So it stands as factually shown that you had acted slyly there. Why do you expect that I should just accept such things from you?? I always have been reacting to your quite disrespectful action, however you just can’t see/believe/admit/accept that you can’t ever do any wrong and so whoever matter-of-factly points out your trespasses and wrong is just being “uncivilized” and “insulting”. You indifferently think way too highly of yourself.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Do you do this on purpose, or out of ignorance?


Why is pointing out that you are acting slyly be ignorant. Take the time, however long it takes, to make truthful statements, and to answer especially such factually pointed out “slyness”. Otherwise, your really have no credit, nor could/should be given any benefit of the doubt. Indeed you could have answered those prior posts prior to answering this later ones. But your actually disrespectful non-answers made worse by the repeating of your there disproven, but later repeated claims, are supposed to be silently accepted by me, as also seen in your dealings with others. Seems indeed clear to me that you have a problem with pride, on top of mindless/indifferent guilefulness, as seen with your spurious “no time” excuses and selective answering practices. You clearly have time for what you want to answer. I.e., what you think you can answer.

Originally Posted By: Tom
If you're going to accuse me of something ugly, please have the common decency of at least substantiating your ugly claim with some morsel of evidence.


What the problem here... By citing your previous statement I did not do this ‘common decency evidentiary substantiation’??? You clearly saw this cited “morsel of evidence” here. If you don’t think it is, then that is a completely different story. I think that it supported and supports my accusation against you. As also done in the prior cases of your view switching “slyness”. (And do look them up for yourself. I am not your personal secretary. I stated them once, you make a note of it and/or retrace them yourself.)

Originally Posted By: Tom
Where have I switched a view?


As quoted above between what you had said in Post #132613 and what you said in Post #133594

Originally Posted By: Tom
I've been consistently saying the same things over and over again.


Not with this ‘intrinsic correct/corrected view’ sense.

Quote:
Tom: Here's the issue:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 471.1
It was generally believed by the Jews that sin is punished in this life. Every affliction was regarded as the penalty of some wrongdoing, either of the sufferer himself or of his parents. It is true that all suffering results from the transgression of God's law, but this truth had become perverted. Satan, the author of sin and all its results, had led men to look upon disease and death as proceeding from God,--as punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin. Hence one upon whom some great affliction or calamity had fallen had the additional burden of being regarded as a great sinner.


NJK: The issue here, without using the method of building a teaching on a single verse/passage, was that affliction and calamity were not always, and that arbitrarily, a judgement of God, but many times simply the natural results of sin and also disobedience to God’s laws which served to avert many of these adversities. Yet that does not isolatively mean that God never directly inflict the punishment of disease and death. As I see Biblically clearly it, when God needs to deservingly/judiciously effectuate such a punishment, and there is no immediate natural/organic consequence for the sin, He then either does it Himself, or commissions His Angels to do it, or stirs up foreign nations/powers, or even permits Satan and/or his angels, to do it. Indeed even EGW who made this DA 471.1 statement, did not see this as you do, as in e.g., GC 614.2.

Tom: From GC 614:

Originally Posted By: SOP
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected His mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old.


Tom: This is bringing out the same points I have been. This is the context of GC 614.2.

Tom: Regarding the issue, what EGW points out is that Satan has induced people to view when bad things happen to people that this is a punishment from God, as opposed to an action originating from him (Satan), or a consequence of sin. Given that sin has bad consequences, it is not necessary for God to impose artificial bad consequences of His own. It's sufficient for Him to allow the bad consequences already inherent in a sinful world to effect any desired judgments.


You are confusing the issues/statements here. In GC 614.2 EGW is not saying that the OT judgements that she relates ‘were done by an executioner other than God/His Angels as spoken of as a secondary executionary possibility in GC 35-37.’ She is speaking of God’s power to do such judgements, and that against either Israel or foreign peoples. She is just now saying that Evil Angels also have this power when God allows them to exercise it. Indeed she is only seeing this type of Satan done judgement during the 7 Last Plagues. (The Bible however indicates that this will only be during the last of those Plagues.) And so she is seeing the same means of judgement execution that was seen for the utter destruction f Jerusalem as also being applicable in those 7 Last Plague (again actually only during the 7th).

Indeed if EGW was blanketly applying the secondary method of judgement execution, i.e., either when God does not want to control how things turn out and/or not have mercy or do a destruction on a people that Satan surely will not accept to destroy himself as they were in his devoted service, then she would have made in those GC 614.2 events the kind of substitutions for “natural events” that you are seeking to blanketly make.

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Also by God legislating that some sins should be capital punished wile others were not, He Himself had clearly shown that not all sins would immediately result in a divinely ordained consequence of death.


[No comment by your here??]

Quote:
NJK: even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.

Tom: If the same agency was employed, which would be God, then, of course, it would be understood that God permitted the action.

NJK: I don’t get your point here.

Tom: You wrote:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
You also often say that OT people had an incorrect understand of who was doing an action in the Bible, and while that substantively only applies to the episode of Job, where God permitted Satan to do the destruction, these inspired Bible writers (Moses for the book of Job) actually rightly understood that if something was done against God’s people it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action.


Tom: That's an awfully long sentence, by the way.

Tom: You said that if something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it, even if a different agency was employed to carry out that action. Consider the first part of this:

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
If something was done against God’s people, it ultimately was because God had permitted it.


Tom: Now if God was the agency involved, then of course God permitted it, because the agency would be Himself in this case. In other words, what your saying doesn't make sense. You say, "even if a different agency was employed," when it only makes sense that a different agency was employed.


I see that you have confused my point with your own added ‘obvious application’ which actually is not even being needed to be mentioned. Indeed I did not even think of it, as it is not logically valid, but circularly non-rationale. I.e., If God is actively doing something, it cannot even be logically said that He is “permitting” it, since he is doing. That also here implies unfair/undeserved action especially as it is being done “despite” one self.

I was only focusing on the logical circumstance when the agency is not seen/concretely known by the “patient” to be God and/or is a foreign entity. In such cases, the “patient” or Bible writer, especially when a faithful believer in God, as Job was, will defaulty see God as permitting it, despite not actually knowing for sure, even at all.

Quote:
NJK: The Bible is indeed full of such ‘same Divine agency’ examples. Indeed I rationally see that when the Bible says/shows that God directly did something, then it not only means that ‘He permitted it’ but also that He did it.

Tom: So when it says God killed Saul, God did that.


You are seriously still thinking and asking/making that question/statement. As I already pointed out, the Bible exegetically clearly says, in using a Hiphil, that God was indirectly involved in this, using an agency to do this killing. Probably a commissioned angel.

Originally Posted By: Tom
And when God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, God did that.


Again you need to engage Biblical exegesis. The Bible is clear that God did this, and that here “forcefully and directly”. EGW may have missed this point, though she does quote the Bible’s “God sent” in her writings, yet her ‘protection withdrawal’ no way contradicts this. Also God wanted to do an object lesson here and thus involve mercy and limits. So he surely was directly involved.

Originally Posted By: Tom
And when God "took away" from Job, God did that.


Moses had correctly revealed what Job did not know but had ultimately still rightly claimed.

Originally Posted By: Tom
And when God sent strong delusion against those who love not the truth, God did that too.


Already discussed. Nothing more to add.

Originally Posted By: Tom
So whenever God acts indirectly, you see this as God acting directly? That seems to be what you're saying.


That’s not what the Bible is exegetically saying in all of those situations. Sometimes God acted directly, sometimes through an agency. It is clear on those agency distinctions.

Quote:
NJK: That is however slightly different in cases where the Bible says that God had commissioned an Angel to do the work of judgement. In such cases, God did not actually directly do the action. Still it is generally considered as a Divinely-done judgement.

Tom: Generally?


Yes “generally.” Whether God directly does the destruction (Fire from heaven) or through a commissioned angel (the slaughter of the Assyrians, judgements for David’s sin) they both fall under the “general heading” of a “Divinely-done judgement” (I.e., through an Heavenly Being, whether God Himself or an Angel(s))....

Originally Posted By: Tom
When would it not be considered as such?


.....vs. when done through/by an Earthly agency.

Originally Posted By: Tom
(More later)


I’ve heard that many times before... We’ll see...
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#133647 - 05/21/11 01:04 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?


What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.

Quote:
Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?


This can't be a serious question.

Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?


I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?

Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?


I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.

Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?


I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.

Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?


Again, I disagree with the premise here.

I have no idea what your answers are to my questions. Please elaborate. Thank you.
Top
#133648 - 05/21/11 01:07 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now? I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive. Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:

Quote:
"God consumed them by fire for their positive disregard of His express directions."

"This was a transgression of God's express command, and his judgment speedily followed."

"For this sin, a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people."

"Nadab and Abihu were slain by the fire of God's wrath for their intemperance in the use of wine."

"Fire from his presence destroyed them in their sin."

"By the offering of "strange fire," they disregarded God's command, and they were slain by His judgments."

"A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them."

"God visited them with His wrath; fire went forth from His presence and destroyed them."

"God forbade any manifestation of grief for Nadab and Abihu, even on the part of their nearest relatives, "lest ye die," he said, "and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled."

Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. And yet you seem to think she believed Jesus did not cause fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Isn’t it obvious to you, based on all the quotes I posted above, that she clearly, plainly said it was Jesus who employed the fire that burned N&A alive? If not, where does she specifically say otherwise?

Quote:
M: In fact, the following testimony presents a view very different than the one you are advocating:

Quote:
God is exact to mark iniquity. Sins of thoughtlessness, negligence, forgetfulness, and even ignorance, have been visited by some of the most wonderfully marked manifestations of his displeasure. Many who have suffered terrible punishment for their sins, might have pleaded as plausibly as do those of today who fall into similar errors, that they meant no harm, and some would even say that they thought they were doing God service; but the light shone on them, and they disregarded it. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 7}

Let us look at some of the examples found in sacred history. Assisted by his sons, Aaron had offered the sacrifices that God required; and he lifted up his hands and blessed the people. All had been done as God commanded, and he accepted the sacrifice, and revealed his glory in a most remarkable manner; for fire came from the Lord, and consumed the offering upon the altar. The people looked upon this wonderful manifestation of divine power with awe and intense interest. They saw in it a token of his glory and his favor, and they raised a universal shout of praise and adoration, and fell on their faces, as if in the immediate presence of Jehovah. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 8}

As the prayers and praise of the people were ascending before God, two of the sons of Aaron took each his censer, and burned fragrant incense thereon, to arise as a sweet odor before God. But they had partaken too freely of wine, and used strange fire, contrary to the Lord's commandment. And the wrath of God was kindled against Nadab and Abihu for their disobedience, and a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them in the sight of the people. By this judgment God designed to teach the people that they must approach him with reverence and awe, and in his own appointed manner. He is not pleased with partial obedience. It was not enough that in this solemn season of worship nearly everything was done as he commanded. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 9}

The Lord sent Samuel to King Saul with a special message. "Go," he said, "and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul was faithful and zealous in performing a part of his commission. He smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but he took the proposition of the people before the command of God, and spared Agag, the king, and "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 10}

The Lord commanded Saul to "utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." The Lord knew that this wicked nation would, if it were possible, blot out his people and his worship from the earth; and for this reason he had commanded that even the little children should be cut off. But Saul had spared the king, the most wicked and merciless of them all; one who had hated and destroyed the people of God, and whose influence had been strongest to promote idolatry. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 11}

Saul thought he had done all that was essential of that which the Lord commanded him to do. Perhaps he even flattered himself that he was more merciful than his Maker, as do some unbelievers in our day. He met Samuel with the salutation, "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord." But when the prophet asked what meant the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen which he heard, Saul was obliged to confess that the people had taken of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord in Gilgal. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 12}

Did the Lord accept this justification of Saul's conduct? Was he pleased with this partial obedience, and willing to pass over the trifle that had been neglected out of so good a motive? Saul did what he thought was best, and would not the Lord commend such excellent judgment? No. Said Samuel, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 13}

These instances show how God looks upon his professed people when they obey part of his commandments while in other respects they follow a course of their own choosing. Let no one flatter himself that a part of God's requirements are nonessential. He has placed no command in his word that men may obey or disobey at will, and not suffer the consequences. If men choose any other path than that of strict obedience, they will find that "the end thereof are the ways of death."
{ST, July 17, 1884 par. 14}

M: You seem to be making the same argument King Saul did, namely, that by sparing the life of Agag he was being merciful the way he imagined Jesus preferred. But Jesus punished him for being presumptuous.

T: Regarding Saul's purpose, we read: “This victory over the Amalekites was the most brilliant victory that Saul had ever gained, and it served to rekindle the pride of heart that was his greatest peril. The divine edict devoting the enemies of God to utter destruction was but partially fulfilled. Ambitious to heighten the honor of his triumphal return by the presence of a royal captive, Saul ventured to imitate the customs of the nations around him and spared Agag, the fierce and warlike king of the Amalekites. The people reserved for themselves the finest of the flocks, herds, and beasts of burden, excusing their sin on the ground that the cattle were reserved to be offered as sacrifices to the Lord. It was their purpose, however, to use these merely as a substitute, to save their own cattle. {CC 156.3} This points out that Saul's purpose was selfish and proud. To think that Saul's argument here was the same as mine would seem to indicate you're either misunderstanding Saul's argument or mine. Here is mine:

1.All that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ.
2.The whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
3.Jesus Christ did not reveal God as One who uses force to get His way, or compelling power, or One who burns people alive to punish them for not doing His will.

Here's an issue I see with your way of thinking. You appear to believe that it's OK to kill people who are not doing God's will, if you believe God is telling you to do so. I think that's dangerous, especially given the fact that this is exactly what's going to happen during the last plagues (i.e., people will try to kill those whom they think are not doing God's will, and will think they are doing God's will by so doing). What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner?

In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it. It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do. To answer your questions:

1. What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.

3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”
Top
#133650 - 05/21/11 02:31 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
1. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? No.
2. What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought? They would have been impressed the father was willing to help his son hunt humanely even though the father was not in favor of it.

T: Or they might have thought the son was doing the father's will by hunting.

M: I don’t think so.

T: Assuming they didn't already know the father's feelings in regards to hunting, it would certainly be a natural conclusion that the father was in favor of hunting, if they heard him giving counsel on how to hunt.

M:I doubt it. His distaste of hunting would have been written all over his face and demeanor.

T: That would be rather hard to hear.

Good one. It would have also been obvious in the tone of his voice (for those listening but who could not see his face). What is your point?

Quote:
T: If the best way is studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then how should other revelations be treated? I think this is an area of disagreement between the differing points of view here. Those who hold the point of view I hold generally believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ supersedes all other revelation, so that any other revelation should be made to harmonize with that one. Those who disagree tend to put the different revelations side by side, and have the other revelations in addition to the revelation of Jesus Christ, so we Jesus Christ's revelation plus others. This would mean that Jesus Christ's revelation was not full and complete, which looks to be an area of disagreement we have had.

M: I agree with Ellen’s view of it.

T: Good! She wrote: “It would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day in contemplation of the life of Christ. We should take it point by point, and let the imagination grasp each scene, especially the closing ones.(DA 83)

M: She wrote, “The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New.” “The Bible is . . . a complete revelation of the attributes and will of God in the person of Jesus Christ”. Again, it is impossible to establish the 28 fundamental beliefs based solely on what Jesus said and did while here in the flesh. His revelation of God is not limited to the Gospels.

T: None of this is germane to the points I've been making. I just made the same points in the post to NJK, right above this one, so I won't repeat the quotes involved, but basically the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, which was a work only He could do. Obviously if this work had already been done, He would not have had to have come, given this was the whole purpose of His mission. Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know, was revealed in the life and character of His Son, not that all the 28 fundamental beliefs were revealed in the life and character of His son. Why are you speaking of the 28 fundamental beliefs?

M: The 28 fundamental beliefs are an expression of the character and kingdom of God.

T: There are an expression of what Seventh-day Adventists believe to be essential points of faith (or, at least, a group of people designated to perform such a task for the group as a whole).

M:I assume you agree.

T: Only in a secondary sense. This wasn't the purpose of the list of beliefs.

M: If so, then to get a clear picture of God we must necessarily understand the 28 fundamental beliefs.

T: This logic is not valid. If A is a type of X, it does not follow that to get a clear picture of X, you must necessarily understand A, which is what you are asserting. For example, Clemente was a composer in the Classical era. It doesn't follow that to understand Classical music, one must understand Clemente.

M:To do this, we must view Jesus’ complete revelation of God including the OT and the NT and not limit ourselves to the Gospels.

T: I've already pointed out the weak link in this argument. Here's a valid argument:

1.All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.Therefore understanding the life and character of His Son is sufficient to understanding God's character.

Jesus said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” I hear you saying the truths Jesus did not share with the disciples did not lessen His revelation of God’s character. If this is what you believe, I strongly disagree. I believe “all truth” is essential to a full and complete understanding of the character and kingdom of God.

Quote:
M: Tom, I don’t understand how your response answers my questions. Here they are again:

1. Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death?

2. Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says: “And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.” “And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

T: Your first two questions I addressed in my response.

I have no idea what you believe. Please answer the two questions above in the simplest terms possible. Thank you.

Quote:
T: I think the issue is similar to other incidents where God's ideal is not that to which the counsel applies, such as polygamy and slavery. God had to deal with the people's mindset as it was. We see little glimpses of the people acting in harmony with God's will, and when this happened, there was no killing involved, but for the most part, it was a stubborn "stiff-necked" people God was dealing with, and we don't see His ideal will expressed. If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now? Is it just because we're not living in a theocracy? The question of killing law-breakers is an important issue coming up in the last days before Christ's second coming. We know that Satan will use this very argument against those who keep God's commandments, that they should be killed.

God always fulfills His “ideal will”. He never sits back and allows the chips to fall wherever they may helter-skelter. Keep in mind I’m talking about what God Himself chooses to do based on the time and circumstances in response to the choices FMAs make. That is, God never causes or permits anything to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that isn’t His will. To say otherwise suggests there are times when God causes or permits something to happen in response to the choices FMAs make that is evil or wrong or less than ideal (under the time and circumstances).

The fact Satan will influence Sunday-keepers in future to kill Sabbath-keepers is not an argument against the fact Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.

Quote:
3. Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

T: They are obviously not exactly the same thing. I obviously thought they were similar in character, right? Or else, I wouldn't have offered the story as an explanation, right?

M:I don’t even know if you believe Jesus did indeed command Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, so, how can I determine what you believe?

T: I don't think it matters what I believe about this incident to understand what I believe. I believe the following:

1.All that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
2.God is often portrayed in inspiration as doing that which He permits.
3.God in the OT acted similarly (actually identically) to how Jesus Christ acted while here in the flesh, when the whole purpose of His mission was the revelation of God.
4.Jesus Christ revealed what He heard and saw in the OT in His life, character, and teachings. If we perceive some disconnect between the two (i.e., between some incident in the OT involving behavior on the part of God) and Jesus Christ's life/teaching/character, we should defer to the revelation of Jesus Christ.
5.Force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Compelling power is found only under the government of the enemy.
6.Satan is hard at work seeking to vest God with his own attributes of character, and to make it appear that God's principles of government are like his.
7.There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. It is sufficient for God to effect an judgments desires simply by withdrawing that protection. There is no need for God to do otherwise.

I've been saying all along that I disagree with the road you insist on taking, which is to examiner Old Testament incidents and ask questions about this. You've been doing this for years. I've answered hundreds, if not thousands, of these questions, all the time under protest. I've spent a thousand times longer discussing this issue according to how you think it should be studied as opposed to how I think it should.

Thank you for succinctly summarizing your view of God. However, nothing you said about God actually addresses my questions about God. Again, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Nothing you’ve said about God thus far provides enough insight or information for me to deduce your answer to this question. I have in the past attempted to draw a conclusion based on what you’ve said about God (as it relates to this question) but with fatal results and strong disapproval from you.

By the way, there appears to be a contradiction between point 2 and points 3 and 4. For example, did the Gospels ever portray Jesus causing death and destruction that in reality He merely permitted others to do? I make this observation and ask this question because you say the Father behaved in the OT in the exact same way Jesus did in the Gospels and vice versa. But where in the Gospels did Jesus ever command godly people to kill ungodly people?

Quote:
4. Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God?

T: Why would you ask a question like this? It's ridiculous. You know the answer to this. You must have something else in mind, like, since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans (whatever your point it). Please don't ask questions like this. Just make whatever point you wish to make. There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God. You have got to be thinking, "Since hunting animals is not the same thing as killing humans in the eyes of God, it follows that (something)." Please just articulate what you're thinking.

M:I have learned studying with you there is no such thing as a ridiculous question.

T: What you asked is an example of one. What could you have been thinking when you asked it? There is no conceivable way that you could think that I think that God views hunting an animal as equal to killing a human being. I'd have to be a fanatic of PETA or something like that to have a view like this. In our years of studying, and thousands of posts, I've not written anything to give you the slightest inkling that I would have such a thought. It would be like me asking you if you think God has big blue elephant ears.

M:I have no idea what you believe . . .

T: Well you should! We've been studying this issue for years, and I've been repeating the same things over and over and over again. You should, at a very minimum, at least know that I believe these things I've been repeating over and over and over again, don't you think?

M: . . . hence, the questions which seem ridiculous.

T: This would be a ridiculous question to ask of any Christian, don't you think? Really, can you give any scenario under which not just I, but any person on this forum, could conceivably believe that God views hunting animals as equal to killing humans? Jesus Christ fished. You know that don't you? If God viewed hunting animals as equal to killing humans, Jesus Christ wouldn't have fished, would He? Well, since you think Christ killed "billions" of humans, maybe *you* could think God sees these as equal, but I certainly couldn't, could I?

M:Above you wrote, “There's no need to establish that hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God.” Do you believe hunting animals and killing humans are not equal in the eyes of God? I’m sorry if the question seems ridiculous.

T: Do you think God has big blue elephant ears?

M:As you know, there are plenty of people who believe they are equal in the eyes of God.

T: I can't think of a single Christian who believes this, not one. Nor can I conceive of such a thing being possible.

M:If so, then the comparison is legitimate. If not, it isn’t.

T: Legitimate because why? Because the "plenty of people" you know are humans? Do you know any one on this forum that believes this? I've mentioned Jones, Waggoner, George Fifield, and Ty Gibson as writers whose thoughts have resonated with me. Do you know any fans of these writers who believes this? Or any fans of Ellen White?

Again, I’m sorry you found the question so disturbing; but, thank you for answering it so emphatically. You leave no doubt in my mind what you believe about it. And, no, I don’t know of anyone who believes God views killing animals and humans as equal. I only wish you would answer the following question with as much emphasis and enthusiasm - Do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Also, I don’t see a legitimate comparison between Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people and the anti-hunting father commanding his pro-hunting son to kill animals humanely. Are you somehow hinting at the idea that Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

Quote:
5. Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

T: The father gave counsel to the son regarding how to hunt, but it was not his will that his son should hunt. Given he was going to hunt, the father commanded he should hunt humanely.

M:How does this compare to Jesus commanding godly people to kill ungodly people?

T: It's analogous.

I don’t understand what you mean. Please elaborate. Thank you.

Quote:
T: If we take the point of view that God is pleased to have Sabbath-breakers killed, why wouldn't we kill them now?

M:Interesting you bring this point up. Ellen wrote, “In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

T: This doesn't address my question. I haven't made the argument if the Sabbath needs to be kept, then Sabbath-breakers should be killed.

Your question seems to imply God isn’t in favor of executing Sabbath-breakers in accordance with the laws regulating and requiring capital punishment. However, the passage quoted above makes it clear that He is. 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?

Quote:
1. When Moses inquired of Jesus what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer, why did Jesus “command” him to stone them to death? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to explain things as you see them?

T: Have you considered the story of the father/hunter? Why didn't He explain the truth about polygamy?

2. Where in the OT did Jesus explain to the Jews things as you see them (as they relate to the title of this thread)?

T: Where did He explain the truth in the OT about slavery or polygamy or divorce?

3. Where in the NT did Jesus categorically condemn capital punishment?

T: I haven't made any general comments about capital punishment.

I have no idea what your answers are to the three questions above. Please elaborate. Thank you.
Top
#133738 - 05/23/11 07:25 PM Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man]
Tom Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 14795
Loc: Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: MM
T: You wrote as if God were responsible for the things you were speaking of. I addressed that by pointing out that it would be a huge mistake to view God as responsible, and cited texts to explain why.

M:1. Of course Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. That is, Jesus did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit. Do you agree?

T:What would a disagreement to this look like? That Jesus let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?


This is a question to you, asking for clarification. Actually two questions.

Quote:
Quote:
2. Do you agree Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting more death and destruction than He was willing to permit?

T:I believe that Jesus worked to prevent evil men and evil angels from inflicting death and destruction in general.


I don't know what you would want me to elaborate on here. I don't see what you wouldn't be understanding here.

Quote:
Quote:
M:Or, do you think evil men and evil angels willingly restrained themselves in order not to displease God and exceed Jesus’ limits?

T:This can't be a serious question.


This seems self-explanatory. What sense would it make for an evil person to restrain themselves in order not to displease God? Doesn't being evil presuppose that one is displeasing God?

Why would you think a question like this makes sense? Better yet, why would you ask such a question? What were you thinking when you asked it? If you write out what you were thinking, perhaps we could discuss that, as what you were thinking probably makes some sense.

Quote:
Quote:
3. Also, did evil men and evil angels do anything Jesus' wasn't willing to permit?

T:I don't see the sense in this one either. God is omnipotent, right? So anything that happens can only happen if He permits it to happen, isn't that right?


This seems self-explanatory too. I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying here.

Quote:
Quote:
4. Did Jesus force evil men and evil angels to inflict the death and destruction He deemed right and necessary?

T:I don't see any sense in this question either. No, of course not, to answer the question. First of all, the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. Secondly, Jesus would hardly force people to do something contrary to the principles of his government, like inflicting death and destruction; that's Satan's job. Satan is the destroyer, Christ is the restorer. So your question is asking if Jesus would use a principle contrary to the principles of His government to bring about more consequences also contrary to the principles of His government.


Ditto.

Quote:
Quote:
5. Were evil men and evil angels free to refuse to inflict the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary?

T:I don't agree with your premise here. Jesus doesn't deem death and destruction as right and necessary, but as evil, which it is.


This seems very clear to me. Your question has a premise, with which I disagree. I pointed out the premise in question, and why I disagree with it.

Quote:
Quote:
6. Who would have inflicted the death and destruction Jesus deemed right and necessary if the Roman soldiers and evil angels had refused to do it?

T:Again, I disagree with the premise here.


The premise is that you speak of "death and destruction" which "Jesus deemed right and necessary." I disagree with your premise that Jesus Christ was so deeming.

Quote:
M:I have no idea what your answers are to my questions. Please elaborate. Thank you.


I've tried to elaborate, but it's a bit difficult, as what I wrote seems very clear already to me. If you would write out what it is you're not understanding or have questions about, that could help.
_________________________
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Top
Page 96 of 105 < 1 2 ... 94 95 96 97 98 ... 104 105 >

Moderator:  asygo, dedication, Green Cochoa 
Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
(Not Refreshing Immediately)
Is the Investigative Judgement Biblical?
by dedication
Today at 04:44 AM
Protestants renounce Protestantism
by dedication
06/26/17 11:21 PM
Christian school told it must stop using specific scriptures
by Gary K
06/26/17 09:17 PM
A new Global Economic Restructure in 2012
by The Wanderer
06/26/17 05:26 PM
Rejection of the Testimonies Foretold.
by The Wanderer
06/25/17 01:54 AM
Daniel 9 and the 144,000
by kland
06/23/17 02:02 PM
The Euphrates & Kings of the North, South & East
by His child
06/19/17 06:17 AM
Ping kland
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:17 PM
The Political Pope
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:05 PM
Left wing financial lunacy
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:04 PM
Vandals alter road sign
by Gary K
06/16/17 03:39 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y
06/16/17 11:38 AM
There is more than one way to look at the economy!
by Gary K
06/15/17 12:25 AM
Is there a Biblical/Divine calendar?
by dedication
06/11/17 10:44 PM
When The Clouds Go By
by The Wanderer
06/11/17 03:12 PM
Real economic numbers for the US
by Gary K
06/08/17 02:50 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
What happens during the seventh seal? Revelation 8:1
by Alchemy
06/11/17 08:16 AM
Will Pope Francis I Apologize to Canadians?
by dedication
06/02/17 07:56 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter

Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com
WELCOME!
� 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.


"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!

Website Ranking