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
(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 a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Andrew, Trainor, ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield
1325 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,224
Posts196,101
Members1,325
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
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

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
kland 19
Rick H 15
asygo 8
Daryl 2
October
S M T W T F S
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 31
Member Spotlight
dedication
dedication
Canada
Posts: 6,662
Joined: April 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
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
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, 3 invisible), 2,066 guests, and 9 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 76 of 105 1 2 74 75 76 77 78 104 105
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #132764
04/18/11 06:15 PM
04/18/11 06:15 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,499
Midland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? What, or how, was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts?


As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.

No it doesn't. But let's pretend it does. The assumption is that you are more educated/learned than they were. How do we know that Tom isn't more educated/learned than you are? It appears to me that your view is very similar to the people under the papacy which you are calling uneducated/unlearned. How do we know that Tom's view of God isn't at a more educated/learned level than your view?

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #132769
04/18/11 06:48 PM
04/18/11 06:48 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Ellen made it clear we cannot grasp, understand, comprehend everything Jesus revealed about the character and kingdom of God. She wrote:

Quote:
The Word of God, like the character of its divine Author, presents mysteries that can never be fully comprehended by finite beings. {FLB 14.2}

And to all eternity men may be ever searching, ever learning, and yet they can never exhaust the treasures of His wisdom, His goodness, and His power. {FLB 14.3}

Christ will lead the redeemed ones beside the river of life, and will open to them that which while on this earth they could not understand. {FLB 14.6}

In the light that shines from the throne, mysteries will disappear, and the soul will be filled with astonishment at the simplicity of the things that were never before comprehended. {FLB 14.7}

How dark seem the dispensations of Providence! What necessity there is for implicit faith and trust in God's moral government! {6BC 1091.6}

That which the mind cannot now grasp, which is hard to be understood, will be explained. We shall see order in that which has seemed unexplainable; wisdom in everything withheld; goodness and gracious mercy in everything imparted. . . Controversies will be forever ended, and all difficulties will be solved. {6BC 1091.8}

T: Even in a sinless state, we would be incapable of knowing all there is to know about God. But that's not the point. The point is that everything that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ. The righteous will spend eternity plummeting the depths of what Jesus Christ revealed (not to mention, having the privilege of His continuing to reveal those same things throughout eternity).

M: You said, “The point is that everything that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ.” Do you realize that’s not what your favorite quote says? Here’s what it literally says – “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” Jesus Himself 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: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.”

T: This doesn't contradict what Ellen White wrote. Even though there were things Jesus Christ did not say to the disciples, it does not follow that He didn't reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God. I can't think of why you would think that this would follow. There's no logical dependency here. This should be easy to see. All that needs to be the case for Ellen White's statement to be true, and Jesus' as well, is that the things which Jesus refrained from telling the disciples were referring to aspects of God's character which Jesus Christ had revealed (or would reveal) elsewhere. And indeed, in regards to the context of the statement, what Jesus Christ could not reveal to the disciples by words, which they could not bear, *was* revealed to them by Christ when He died on the cross.

“All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” “Can know” refers to our limited ability to comprehend truth. Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life. Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.” Nevertheless, engrained prejudices, preconceived opinions, widespread misconceptions, and time and circumstances did not permit Jesus to explain and/or demonstrate everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God. The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said. More on this point at the end of this post.

Quote:
M: If you agree the quotes above make it clear we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God, do you also agree we are incapable of knowing everything there is to know about "his strange act"?

T: I'm sure we can learn more about it.

M: When the Bible describes God causing death and destruction, why doesn’t it plainly say, in the immediate context, “God caused the death and destruction herein described by withdrawing His protection and giving His enemies permission to do it”? For example, when fire flashed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive, why doesn’t it plainly say, in the immediate context, “God withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to kill them”?

T: Truth is progressive.

Where in the Bible does it progress to the point it says, in the immediate context – “The death and destruction herein described was caused by Jesus withdrawing His protection and giving His enemies permission to do it”? I realize Ellen says so concerning specific situations, which you believe must be applied to every situation, but where in the Bible is it plainly stated in the immediate context?

Also, how early in the biblical record did God articulate the withdraw-permit principle of punishment? The reason I’m asking is to understand why, if He explained it in the beginning, and the chosen people were already aware of it, why didn’t He remind them of it whenever circumstances forced Him to do it?

Surely it would have helped them avoid adding insult to injury by concluding God, rather than Satan, was directly responsible for causing death and destruction. Isn’t that what a loving, merciful, compassionate Lord and Savior would do? Why run the risk of being misunderstood when simply reminding them of the truth could prevent it?

Of course, if Jesus didn't say anything about it (the withdraw-permit principle of punishment) until much later on, then it stands to reason they had no idea early on God wasn't directly responsible for causing death and destruction. But then who can blame them for getting it wrong if God never explained it to them? They simply took God at His word when He told them He was going to cause death and destruction.

Quote:
M: By the way, if this is indeed what happened, did God give His enemies access to the most holy place? And, where did they obtain the fire they used to burn N&A alive?

T: This question doesn't make sense to me.

Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. In order for His enemies to do it, they would have had to been inside the most holy place when they employed fire to burn N&A alive. Well, come to think of it, I suppose it’s possible they could have figured out a way to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place without having to be physically inside the most holy place. Also, what kind of fire did God’s enemies use?

Quote:
M: While we’re at it, who were His enemies?

T: Those who hate God are God's enemies (but God is still their friend).

I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

Quote:
M: Why do you think saying we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God is the same thing as saying - "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son"?

T: Because these are different things. Don't you see that? I can explain it if you wish, but I think if you think it through, you should be able to see that these are different things.

M: I agree. They are different. But, as you can see, the question above was aimed at determining why you think otherwise. It’s obvious now, though, that you agree with me.

T: No, I disagree. You're original question wasn't well stated, and I misread it. Here's what you asked: “Why do you think saying we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God is the same thing as saying – ‘All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son?’” This isn't something I think because it's obviously false. That these are different things should be obvious to you, and it should be obvious to you that I wouldn't think these are the same. This is what I should have said. You're the one who was making the apparent argument that because we don't know everything about God in our sinful state the idea that all that we need to know of God or can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ must be false. I certainly never expressed this idea. You should be careful that you don't ask some question which has an assumed premise, and then, when the question is answered, pawn the assumed premise off on the one responding, as if that person had the original idea, rather than yourself. This isn't fair, and you have a tendency to do this, so I suggest being careful to guard against this.

I’m sorry you misread the question. Please know that it was an honest question. At any rate, I’m glad we agree “we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God” and “all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son" do not mean the same thing.

Quote:
M: Ellen wrote:

Quote:
Christ said to his disciples, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” [John 16:12.] As the result of their early education, their ideas upon many points were incorrect, and they were not then prepared to understand and receive some things which he would otherwise have taught them. {GW92 301.1}

On one occasion Christ told His disciples, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Their limited comprehension put a restraint on Him. He could not open to them the truths He longed to unfold; for while their hearts were closed to them, His unfolding of these truths would be labor lost. {1SM 109.1}

Jesus saw that they did not lay hold of the real meaning of His words. He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit should recall these sayings to their minds. And He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples. These also would be opened to them by the Spirit. {DA 670.3}

M: She plainly says Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. You seem to disagree.

T: No, she said the opposite. Of course I disagree, because your assertion is blatantly false. First of all, nowhere in the quotes you provided did she say, "Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh." This is simply misstating what she said! Secondly, she actually did say, "All that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." You disagree with this, which is fine, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't give you the right to assert that *she* disagreed with what she said!

Perhaps you overlooked the following: “He could not open to them the truths He longed to unfold. . . He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples.” “He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit” would introduce and explain the things Jesus did not, could not, reveal to them. As explained above, Jesus could only share with them truths they were capable of comprehending, truths they “needed to know” to experience rebirth.

Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God. When we take the Bible as a whole, rather than excluding the OT and NT, that is, rather than restricting our view of God to the four Gospels, we find that Jesus does indeed reveal everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #132770
04/18/11 06:57 PM
04/18/11 06:57 PM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle because 1) the Jews failed to trust Jesus to defeat their enemies in a godly way, and 2) the Jews expected Him to think and behave like a pagan god. Do you agree with my assessment of your view as it relates to the question above?

T: No, of course not. But surely you must know that.

M: Please elaborate.

T: Consider the story of the father/hunter. What was the father's will in regards to his son? What did the father do and say to his son? Could his words be misconstrued by someone overhearing the conversation? If you don't remember the story, I can refresh hour memory.

In the humane hunter illustration the father raised his son to abhor killing animals. Later on, when the son craved to kill animals, the father taught him how to kill animals in the most humane manner. Those who would have overheard the father teaching his son how to kill animals humanely would have heard him mingling pleading with his son not to do it and the son begging his father to let him do it. Or, are you assuming the father would not have mingled teaching his son how to hunt humanely with gently reminding him it is contrary to his will and wishes?

Now, let’s take two common stories from the Bible and apply the principle of the humane hunter. Story One: Fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Story Two: Elijah prayed twice for fire to consume two separate bands of fifty and twice “the fire of God came down from heaven” and burned them alive. Please apply the principles of the humane hunter to these two stories.

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

T: What are the principles laid out in GC 35-37? That's the important question. Did Jesus Christ teach and embody these principles? Yes, He did. Where we're disagreeing is in regards to what we think God is like. I believe God's character was revealed fully by Jesus Christ, and the best revelation was the cross. Rather than use force to get His way, Jesus Christ voluntarily submitted to torture and a horrible death from the very creatures He came to save. This is what God is like. Not just sometimes, but all the time. The principles explained in GC 35-37 are in harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed. Your perceptions of God's character appear to me to be schizophrenic. Some of the time, as it appears to me you see things, He exhibits the qualities Jesus Christ embodied on earth, especially at the cross, but other times He acts indistinguishably from Satan, leaving us with no means to know who is acting.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.

T: I explained the principles I felt your question was trying to get at. Your question was simply a yes/no question, of which a one-word answer wouldn't be very useful, I didn't feel. You've asked many questions similar to the above, and each time it appears to me the motivation is to argue why the SOP statement that "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is false. You've already stated categorically that it doesn't include "His strange act." Perhaps your question above is another manifestation of this same point. Well, we're simply in disagreement regarding this point. I think the statement that all we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ is 100% true, including "His strange act," or anything else regarding God's character that one can think of.

It is obvious Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. With this in mind I am compelled to ask – Why did the OT Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

I have no idea what your answer is to this question. I’m not even sure if you agree Jesus did so. Your continual reference to the humane hunter illustration implies you do, which suggests you believe Jesus did in fact command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle. If so, according to your view of God, doesn’t it mean Jesus commanded them to do something diametrically opposed to the will of God?

Quote:
2. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people through the execution of capital punishment?

T: You repeated yourself.

M: Why do you think so?

T: Because you asked the same question twice! Look at your post.

Here are the two questions I asked above:

Quote:
1. In the OT, why did Jesus command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in battle?

Why do you think these questions are a repetition of the one above? Do you believe killing enemy soldiers in battle and killing citizens through the execution of capital punishment are the same things?

Quote:
M: Was Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment?

T: What's your argument here? That since Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it therefore follows that it's not the case that all that we can know of God was revealed by Him? I can't think of why you would ask this question otherwise. Why not just set forth your argument?

M: You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.”

T: It's really confusing to read something like this. I didn't write this. You wrote this.

M: Is this your answer to the question above?

T: No.

No one in their right mind would argue Jesus, while here in the flesh, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.

Quote:
M: In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.

T: Ok, you disagree with Ellen White's statement. I agree with it, and disagree with you. I think you're misunderstanding what an attribute of God's character is. At "attribute" is “a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.” In regards to God's character, these would be things like "mercy, compassion, integrity" and so forth.

You are jumping to conclusions. Just because I believe Jesus, while here in the flesh, never commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, it doesn’t mean I believe He opposed capital punishment. He often spoke about it. “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when the Son of man shall come in his glory.”

Quote:
Exodus
22:20 He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Numbers
15:35 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.

Deuteronomy
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Joshua
10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

M: Seems to me you believe Jesus was reluctantly willing to command the kinds of things described in the passages above for as long as it would take Him to teach the Jews how to "turn the other cheek"? Is this what you believe?

T: I believe, as I've said so many times, that for us to properly interpret Scripture, we need to know God's character. I believe that the first order of business is to study the life and character of His Son, whose "whole purpose" was "the revelation of God." What is it that Jesus Christ revealed? What was Jesus Christ like? How did He treat His enemies? I don't believe that He acted any differently in the Old Testament than while here in the flesh. Do you?

M: Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at face value because . . . . If so, why not?

T: She also counseled us to compare Scripture with Scripture. She wrote a lot about how erroneous ideas can be obtained in regards to Scripture. She wrote a lot in regards to the importance of understanding God's character. I've stated many times that a proper understanding of God's character is paramount to properly understanding Scripture. Do you disagree with this? Assuming you don't, this begs the question of how we should obtain an knowledge of God's character. I believe the foundation must be Jesus Christ. Ellen White wrote it would be well for us to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ, taking each scene point by point, especially the last scenes. Why? So that we may understand God's character. Everything hinges on this point. This is what the whole Great Controversy is about.

Quote:
The most important aspect of faith is our mental picture of God...(O)ur actual picture of God, not our theoretical knowledge about God, most influences how we feel about Him. It's impossible to enjoy a genuinely passionate and loving relationship with God when our mental picture of Him doesn't inspire passionate love.

Our picture of God not only influences our emotional response to God, it strongly influences our understanding of everything else in our life. (Boyd; "Is God to Blame?" p. 21)

Also it strongly influences our understanding of Scripture.

I also believe a proper understanding of God's character, especially through the life and teachings of Jesus, is paramount to properly understanding the Bible, especially as it pertains to all the killing and destruction. The passages I posted above are too plainly worded to assume they mean something other than what they obviously mean. Jesus did indeed command the things described in those passages. There is no doubt about it. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise. The question is – Why did Jesus command such things? Why did a loving, merciful, compassionate Savior command godly people to kill ungodly people?

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #132771
04/18/11 10:22 PM
04/18/11 10:22 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
T: This doesn't contradict what Ellen White wrote. Even though there were things Jesus Christ did not say to the disciples, it does not follow that He didn't reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God. I can't think of why you would think that this would follow. There's no logical dependency here. This should be easy to see. All that needs to be the case for Ellen White's statement to be true, and Jesus' as well, is that the things which Jesus refrained from telling the disciples were referring to aspects of God's character which Jesus Christ had revealed (or would reveal) elsewhere. And indeed, in regards to the context of the statement, what Jesus Christ could not reveal to the disciples by words, which they could not bear, *was* revealed to them by Christ when He died on the cross.

M:“All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” “Can know” refers to our limited ability to comprehend truth.


The statement says that whatever man is able to know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ.

Quote:
Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life.


What she said is that "all" (not "only") that we a)need to know OR b)are able to know, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It wasn't a limiting statement, as "only" would make it, but a non-limiting statement.

You're basically reversing what she said.

Quote:
Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.”


Whatever we are capable of knowing is what Jesus Christ revealed.

Quote:
Nevertheless, engrained prejudices, preconceived opinions, widespread misconceptions, and time and circumstances did not permit Jesus to explain and/or demonstrate everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.


This is another way of stating something different than the EGW statement.

Quote:
The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God
This part is OK.

Quote:
and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said.


This you just made up. The statement doesn't say anything like this or about this.

Quote:
More on this point at the end of this post.


Ok.

You didn't deal with the point of logic I brought up. That is, this:

Quote:
All that needs to be the case for Ellen White's statement to be true, and Jesus' as well, is that the things which Jesus refrained from telling the disciples were referring to aspects of God's character which Jesus Christ had revealed (or would reveal) elsewhere.


Quote:
M: By the way, if this is indeed what happened, did God give His enemies access to the most holy place? And, where did they obtain the fire they used to burn N&A alive?

T: This question doesn't make sense to me.

M:Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. In order for His enemies to do it, they would have had to been inside the most holy place when they employed fire to burn N&A alive. Well, come to think of it, I suppose it’s possible they could have figured out a way to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place without having to be physically inside the most holy place. Also, what kind of fire did God’s enemies use?


GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

Quote:
M: While we’re at it, who were His enemies?

T: Those who hate God are God's enemies (but God is still their friend).

M:I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive.


Why do you think I said this?

Quote:
Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?


Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

Quote:
At any rate, I’m glad we agree “we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God” and “all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son" do not mean the same thing.


We're not capable in any state of knowing everything there is to know about God. Can we be glad to agree on this point as well?

Regarding the second point, when you say, "'all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son' do not mean the same thing," you mean the same thing as "it is not possible for man to know everything about God?" In which case you're echoing what I said?

Basically you asked a question implying these were related, and I said these are independent things, so that your question didn't really make sense. You're saying you agree with me on this point? If so, I'm glad we agree too.

Quote:
M: She plainly says Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. You seem to disagree.

T: No, she said the opposite. Of course I disagree, because your assertion is blatantly false. First of all, nowhere in the quotes you provided did she say, "Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh." This is simply misstating what she said! Secondly, she actually did say, "All that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." You disagree with this, which is fine, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't give you the right to assert that *she* disagreed with what she said!

M:Perhaps you overlooked the following: “He could not open to them the truths He longed to unfold. . . He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples.”


I've already explained why this doesn't contradict what she said.

Quote:
“He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit” would introduce and explain the things Jesus did not, could not, reveal to them. As explained above, Jesus could only share with them truths they were capable of comprehending, truths they “needed to know” to experience rebirth.


You keep changing things that were said. She didn't say "to experience rebirth" but simply "all that man needs to know, or can know."

At any rate, as I previously explained, the fact that there were things which Jesus could not reveal to them at that time does not imply that all that man can know of God was not revealed by Jesus Christ. This isn't a valid argument.

Quote:
Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh.


No, it doesn't mean this! Your assertion would only be true if the things which Jesus Christ couldn't tell them were things about God's character which He did not reveal elsewhere.

Quote:
This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.


Right! Jesus, during his earthly mission, revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God.

Quote:
When we take the Bible as a whole, rather than excluding the OT and NT, that is, rather than restricting our view of God to the four Gospels, we find that Jesus does indeed reveal everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.


This is your opinion, but not what Ellen White wrote. Looking at the context of her statement, it is clear that she is speaking of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh.

I disagree with the idea that to learn of God we should supplement what Jesus Christ taught with what other sources teach us, and then add them together to get a full or true or complete picture. I believe Jesus Christ *is* the full/complete/picture of God's character, and that it is His revelation only which enables us to rightly understand other lesser revelations of God.

I think this is a chief disagreement we have. I see Jesus Christ in human flesh as superior to all other revelations of God.


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.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132772
04/18/11 10:32 PM
04/18/11 10:32 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
#132770 looks like #132651 which I responded to in #132664.


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.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132774
04/19/11 01:32 AM
04/19/11 01:32 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Tom: I guess you are also selectively oblivious to this fact also, when I had repeated what you’d overlooked, you just outrightly ignored them yet again. What’s the point then?!!

-I don’t consider your peripheral questions comment as being worthy of a response

-And my endeavors to help save the lives of would be aborted infants is factually most worthwhile to me thus the inferior place of this discussion.

-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”


“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
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland] #132776
04/19/11 01:35 AM
04/19/11 01:35 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? What, or how, was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts?


As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.

No it doesn't. But let's pretend it does. The assumption is that you are more educated/learned than they were. How do we know that Tom isn't more educated/learned than you are? It appears to me that your view is very similar to the people under the papacy which you are calling uneducated/unlearned. How do we know that Tom's view of God isn't at a more educated/learned level than your view?

Quite predictable slant for a response kland, from you. I don’t have time for that either. Sorry. Can’t state the facts any other way or rewrite Church history to please you! You can deal with your own version of reality, including how you choose to view the exegetical facts I presented throughout this discussion.


“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
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #132777
04/19/11 02:30 AM
04/19/11 02:30 AM
Mountain Man  Offline OP
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
M: Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I apologize for the confusion. I now understand you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it. He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction. The choice is His. Nothing happens by chance or fate.

T: Chance and fate are two very different things. I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. Indeed, everything you wrote above after "I not understand you believe ..." should read "I not understand I believe ..." as you're just repeating things you believe, is what it looks to me. What *I* believe is that God has created beings with free will, and these often, on earth, unfortunately, have chosen to act contrary to God's will, and *that's* why bad things happen. And similarly for the unfaithful angelic beings.

M: Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His, that nothing happens by chance or fate (the “or” denotes a difference)?

T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His? Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction? Is Christ in control or is chance?

Quote:
M: As sovereign Lord and King, Jesus is ultimately in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

T: Satan and his followers are responsible in every way, including ultimately, for sin an all its results. God is entirely innocent. God is not in control of sinners.

M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

Do you believe God is not in control of sinners? If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it? As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan. Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.

Quote:
M: Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything.

T: This is a bad misstatement here, IMO. Let's say you have a child, but don't permit that child to stay out past 2:00am. Would it be fair for you to say that your child is not free to do as (s)he pleases?

Children are, of course, free to disobey their parents and stay out as late they please. However, there would be consequences after the fact. But in the case of evil angels, things are very much different. Jesus cannot afford to punish them after the fact, especially as it relates to hurting us or tempting us beyond Jesus’ established limits. He must impose limits on them and then work to enforce His limits to guarantee they do not ever, ever disobey. In this sense, evil angels are not free; indeed, they are very much shackled.

Quote:
M: It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control.

T: The big question is if God is innocent, as God has been accused, and the Great Controversy in effect for this purpose.

M: Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment.

T: Neither Scripture nor the SOP state that by choosing sin they choose capital punishment. Both state that if they choose sin they are choosing death. The SOP states that the inevitable result of sin is death. If evil comes about as a result of God's controlling actions, then He is not innocent of its happening.

Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did Jesus resurrected them.

Quote:
M: When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

T: I don't think it matters what the exact mechanism was. I believe the principles laid out in GC 35-37 were at work.

M: It matters if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude (from your perspective) Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.

T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?

Quote:
M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive. “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

Quote:
T: You've read Job. What does it say?

M: Ellen wrote [quotes omitted by Tom] Quotes like the ones posted above make it clear to me Jesus and holy angels work to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limitations imposed upon them.

T: This seems like an odd response. I ask you what Job said, and you respond by saying, "Ellen wrote." Is "Ellen" a pseudonym of Job's? As I've often said, if permitted, Satan would destroy all human beings, which would not leave a Great Controversy to be fought.

M: For this reason, Satan is not free to do as he pleases.

T: He is, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M: I hope you don’t mind me allowing Ellen to weigh in on the discussion. I trust her insights. Based on what I’ve read in the Bible and the SOP, I am convinced Satan is only as free as Jesus permits. Whatever he does is done by permission. All heaven, however, works to ensure he does not exceed the limitations Jesus imposes on evil men and angels.

T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases. Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.

Quote:
M: It is Jesus, not Satan, who ultimately establishes and enforces the degree of punishment meted out.

T: This is like saying it is Jesus, not Satan, who metes out and enforces the degree of punishment meted out when someone ignores the law of gravity. Sin causes misery, suffering, and death because of its nature. These things are what happen when one separates from God. It doesn't require an extra, unrelated, special action on the part of God for misery, suffering, and death to occur, but merely acting contrary to God's principles, and separating from Him, is sufficient. This is what "me first" does. "Me first" can not end up in anything other than misery, suffering, and death. These things are the fruit of Satan's government, of choosing his principles.

M: Yes, sinning results in unrest and unhappiness. But whether or not it results in death and destruction is entirely up to Jesus.

T: As stated, this is entirely untrue. The will of the sinner has to be given weight.

M: Yes, we manage the choices, but Jesus manages the consequences so far as things like death and destruction is concerned.

T: Again, poorly stated. This makes it sound like God is responsible for evil. Permitting an evil thing to occur is not the same as causing it. Again, the will of the sinner must be given weight.

M: For example, whether or not jumping off a cliff results in death is not up to gravity; instead, it’s up to Jesus.

T: Gravity plays a part. If a person is careless, and dies due to falling, it would be a terrible mistake to blame this on Jesus, or to suggest this was His will, or say anything which in any way would imply that He was to any degree in any way responsible.
M: If He intercedes, death does not occur; otherwise, it does. But this example does not speak to the issues concerning capital punishment. In the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty, there was no natural cause and effect law at work.

T: As you see things.

M: Sinning does not result in fire blazing out from the presence of God in holy places and burning sinners alive. Fire is not self-acting. Neither is gravity. The laws of nature act the way they do because Jesus acts the way He does, that is, nature is a weapon in the arsenal of Jesus and does whatever He wields it to do.

T: I can think of few statements that I disagree with more adamantly than this. The fact that the phrase "weapon in the arsenal of Jesus" enters your thinking I find unfortunate.

M: He employs nature to mete out capital punishment.

T: Same comment. I'm sorry you think this way.

M: But not always; sometimes He uses His enemies, evil men and angels, to punish impenitent sinners.

T: Same comment. I'm sorry you view Jesus Christ is this way, as one using using different weapons in his arsenal to destroy; as a destroyer.

“The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}

Quote:
M: It must irritate Satan to know he is not free to exercise his powers as he sees fit.

T: Satan is free to exercise his powers as he sees fit, to a great degree, or else there would be no Great Controversy. It's imperative that we understand that *all* the bad, all the evil, there is in the world, is the result of Satan, and none of it due to God. Satan gets irritated when his plans are thwarted, which is what happens when one chooses to follow God instead of him.

M: Amen! However, what qualifies as evil or bad?

T: Anything contrary to God's character qualifies. The law is a transcript of God's character. Also, Jesus Christ fully revealed the Father, so anything contrary to the revelation of Jesus Christ qualifies.

M: Was it evil or bad when fire blazed out from the presence of God in holy places and burned sinners alive?

T: Burning people alive is a bad thing.

M: Is death and destruction always deemed evil or bad?

T: Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Destruction and death are the results of sin, and hence, of Satan. I'm not sure if your question has a philosophical aspect to it. If a person has a terrible disease, death could be a blessing. Are you trying to get at this?

M: Or, are their times when it counts as divine justice and judgment? For example, when Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death, was it evil or bad?

T: We're going around in circles here. What I have said over and over again, dozens of times, is that to understand these event one must *first* (I emphasize "first" here, as in, before, or previous to) have a correct understanding of God's character. From my perspective, your misunderstanding the events because you're misunderstanding God's character. I believe you perceive the events in a way that in contrary to that which Jesus Christ revealed, and hence, even the questions you ask don't make sense. You and I completely disagree in regards to what's the cart and the horse here. What I think you think is that to correctly understand God's character, it's necessary to consider these events you're asking questions about in addition to considering the life and character of Jesus Christ, and then add these together, and this combination gives a correct understanding of God's character. What I'm saying is first Christ, then look at the other. As opposed to, look at Christ and the other events both at the same time.

We’ve tried doing it your way, Tom. However, the discussion died out. You ended your discourse on the character of God without explaining why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people. Is that the fruit of your view of God? If so, it comes woefully short of explaining some very difficult aspects of the Bible.

I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.

Quote:
M: Like a chained lion, try as he might, he cannot tear to shreds the prey just out of reach. “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3}

T: They are used as GC 35-37 explains.

M: I agree; always have. But the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews.

T: To assert this is to not read what GC 35-37 actually says, it seems very clear to me. For example: “The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. (GC 35) I'm not sure how she could have stated the reverse of what you are asserting more clearly than this.

M: Again, there was no natural cause and effect law at work. It was entirely arbitrary, imposed, meted out.

T: Same comment.

M: Sinning does not result in soldiers killing sinners, at least not in the same sense cancer results in tissue damage and death.

T: Again, if you actually read what GC 35-37 says, I don't see how one conclude the things you are concluding.

Again, Ellen wrote - “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} In what sense do you believe Jesus “used His enemies as instruments to punish” the Jews in 70 AD? By simply withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men and evil angels to kill them? If so, don’t you think expressing it the way she did in PC 136 is unnecessarily confusing? Would you ever express it in those terms?

Quote:
M: Also, is it a sin, evil, or bad when evil angels and soldiers kill impenitent sinners when God is using them as instruments to punish?

T: I think this is a FOTAP question (fallacy of the assumed premise).

No assumptions necessary. Ellen very clearly said – “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3} My question is valid. Unless, of course, we assume as you do we cannot take her at her word, that we must interpret her words to mean something other than what they plainly say.

Quote:
M: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh (as opposed to after He returned to heaven), choose to allow things like ungodly people being burned alive?

T: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)

M: You seem to be suggesting Jesus allowed ungodly people to be killed while He was here in the flesh. Who was killed?

T: In what Jesus said, He expressed that He was willing, desiring even, to protect Jerusalem as a chicken would protect its chicks. He was very sorry they did not permit Him to do so. This is the principle enunciated in GC 35-37.

M: I don’t understand how your response answers my question.

T: My answer describes the principle at work.

M: Is offering protection, while here in the flesh, from something that happened in 70 AD equivalent to Jesus allowing N&A and the two bands of fifty to be burned alive?

T: The same principles are at work. Your question should be if offering protection in the one case is equivalent to offering protection in the other, as this would be apples to apples, and I would respond "yes" to such a question.

M: Seems to me the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty and the death of Jews in 70 AD are similar in the sense Jesus, from your perspective, would have simply withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to cause the resulting death and destruction. If so, what protection was Jesus providing, until He withdrew it, in the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty? Does fire lie in wait until Jesus gives it permission to selectively burn sinners alive? If so, doesn’t it imply fire is self-acting? If not, who, then, employed the fire that killed them?

T: There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us. These include ourselves (our actions, health issues), others (angelic or human), and natural disasters, to name three that come to me quickly. What I see you doing is think of incidents where you don't see any way the principles of GC 35-37 could apply. But I, and I'm sure kland, can easily think of ways. I'm not sure what kland would think of would agree with what I think, but it wouldn't matter to either of us, because we're both convinced of the principles which we see always apply. This is what I mean when I say the exact mechanism doesn't matter, as long as the principles hold fast. We're convinced of the principles because we're convinced regarding God's character. What I've found most interesting in regards to this present post is that you appear to view what happened in the destruction very differently than I do. For example, you state that " the point is – It was Jesus who used evil angels and Roman soldiers as instruments to punish the impenitent Jews," when the point, as I see it, is that the Jews forged their own fetters, and that while many view God as punishing the impenitent Jews, it is the Great Deceiver who actually caused their destruction, hiding his own work by making others think it was God.

It appears to me you agree with the first sentence in my response above, namely, “Seems to me the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty and the death of Jews in 70 AD are similar in the sense Jesus, from your perspective, would have simply withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to cause the resulting death and destruction. “ Do you agree?

If so, what protection was Jesus providing, until He withdrew it, in the cases of N&A and the two bands of fifty? Does fire lie in wait until Jesus gives it permission to selectively burn sinners alive? If so, doesn’t it imply fire is self-acting? If not, who, then, employed the fire that killed them? Please take your time and answer these questions in detail. Thank you.

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #132778
04/19/11 05:24 AM
04/19/11 05:24 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
Tom: I guess you are also selectively oblivious to this fact also, when I had repeated what you’d overlooked, you just outrightly ignored them yet again. What’s the point then?!!

-I don’t consider your peripheral questions comment as being worthy of a response

-And my endeavors to help save the lives of would be aborted infants is factually most worthwhile to me thus the inferior place of this discussion.

-And...What’s that word that Jesus fittingly used throughout Matt 23....oh yeah “blind...”


If you feel you have better use of your time, why do you come here to hurl insults? You really don't see anything wrong here?


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.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132779
04/19/11 05:57 AM
04/19/11 05:57 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
T: I agree that nothing happens by fate. I disagree that nothing happens by chance. If Jesus, or God, permits something to occur which happens by chance, that doesn't mean that the thing permitted to occur did not happen by chance. I believe there are things which happen by chance. For example, tossing a fair coin is an example. By chance it will be heads or tails. Many such examples could be given.

M:Do you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it, that He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction, that the choice is His?


You're mixing too many things together here, and then asking a yes or no question. That's not cricket.

I think all evil is not the choice of Jesus Christ, and evil only occurs when beings choose to act contrary to His will.

Quote:
Or, do you believe chance dictates whether or not He is free to choose between preventing or permitting death and destruction?


Things happen by chance, if that's what you mean.

Quote:
Is Christ in control or is chance?


Things happen by chance, if that's what you're asking. Again, chance being in control isn't a logical construct.

Quote:
M: If God is not in control of sinners, who, then, is protecting them?

T: By "in control of" I assume you mean "controlling." Or do you mean something else? If by "in control of" you mean "protecting," then I may agree with what you mean, if not what you're saying. That is, I certainly agree that God is protecting sinners.

M:Do you believe God is not in control of sinners?


Not when they sin.

Quote:
If so, and I assume you do, what do you mean by it?


I mean that sinners, when they sin, choose to exercise their free will to act contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.

Quote:
As for me, I believe Jesus is, as sovereign Lord and King, ultimately in control of the outcome of the great controversy – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.


The Great Controversy is not a contest that can be decided by sovereignty; it's decided by evidence. God has been accused of certain things, things involving His character and the principles of His government. To make His case that He has been unjustly accused, God has chosen to allow things to play out, that His character may be seen in contrast with that of His accuser, as well as the principles of His government in contrast to the principles of his adversary's government.

Quote:
That is, sin does not determine how the GC will play out, neither do sinners, nor does Satan.


Sinners and Satan have a part, as do all sentient beings.

Quote:
Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.


No, this isn't the case. When a rapist chooses to rape, and that plays out in a rape victim being raped, that's not "entirely up to Jesus." You don't see the problem in asserting this?

Quote:
True, His options are limited. He isn’t free to manage the outcome irrespective of the choice. For example, Jesus wasn’t free to manage Judas’ choice to betray Him in a way that would result in him sitting on the right or left hand of Jesus in the New Jerusalem.


This doesn't seem to be a related point to the discussion.

Quote:

M: Yes, Satan is in control of what God permits, but he is not free to do as he pleases, otherwise, as you say, he would destroy everyone and everything.

T: This is a bad misstatement here, IMO. Let's say you have a child, but don't permit that child to stay out past 2:00am. Would it be fair for you to say that your child is not free to do as (s)he pleases?

M:Children are, of course, free to disobey their parents and stay out as late they please. However, there would be consequences after the fact. But in the case of evil angels, things are very much different. Jesus cannot afford to punish them after the fact, especially as it relates to hurting us or tempting us beyond Jesus’ established limits. He must impose limits on them and then work to enforce His limits to guarantee they do not ever, ever disobey. In this sense, evil angels are not free; indeed, they are very much shackled.


To state that evil angels never disobey Jesus Christ is not a fair accusation to make upon Christ. Of course they disobey Him, whenever they do evil. To think that evil angels are shackled so they only obey Christ's will is, I'm having difficulty coming up with words that aren't too strong here, I'll just say not fair to Christ. Also, it's not fair to them, as well, as, if they are not to a great extent free to do their will, then the Great Controversy is a sham. Finally, if they are not free to do their will, how do you explain the evil there is in the world?

Quote:

M: It’s not a question of whether or not God is innocent; it’s a question of whether or not He is in control.

T: The big question is if God is innocent, as God has been accused, and the Great Controversy in effect for this purpose.

M: Of course He is innocent. He created free moral agents. They are free to obey and live or disobey and die. If they choose to sin and rebel, they are, ultimately, choosing capital punishment.

T: Neither Scripture nor the SOP state that by choosing sin they choose capital punishment. Both state that if they choose sin they are choosing death. The SOP states that the inevitable result of sin is death. If evil comes about as a result of God's controlling actions, then He is not innocent of its happening.

M:Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment.


How do you know they didn't already exist? That is, that they weren't already a part of the culture of the Hebrews and their contemporaries?

Quote:
He commanded godly people like Moses to kill ungodly people. In final judgment, the radiant glory of God’s person and presence will cause the wicked to suffer in duration and intensity proportionate to their sinfulness. The presence of God’s radiant glory is required for the wicked to experience the emotional and physical suffering that ends in eternal death, otherwise, they would merely live and die as they did Jesus resurrected them.


I'm sorry you feel this way. DA 764 tells us that if God had allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, but it would not have been apparent that the inevitable result of sin is death. I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between sin and death. I think not seeing this connections leads to many errors, all of which portray God negatively.

Quote:
T: I assume you mean that from my perspective, the mechanism matters, if sincere seekers of truth wrongly conclude that Jesus employs fire to burn people alive. If this is what you mean, I still don't agree that the mechanism matters. I believe it's the principle that matters. A sincere seeker of truth, from my perspective, will not make conclusions about the mechanism involved which are not in harmony with God's character or the principles of His government, if he gets the principles right.

M:What would they conclude? Would it suffice them to know Jesus didn’t burn them alive? Thus satisfied it wouldn’t occur to them to care who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?


I don't think it matters much to one who is convinced in regards to God's character. For example, let's say someone is killed in your house by a fire. It's possible that your wife set them on fire and burned them alive. But you know your wife, and know she isn't capable of that sort of behavior. So how did the person die? Insofar as your wife's setting them on fire is concerned, you don't much care, because you know however the person died, it wasn't because your wife set them on fire.

Quote:
M: In the case of N&A, the fire blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. And, in the case of the two bands of fifty, fire rained down from God in heaven. To say Jesus simply withdrew His protection and permitted (you have yet to say who) to cause fire to burn them alive begs the question – Why were His enemies in the most holy places in heaven and earth?

T: I disagree that it begs this question.

M:Does it matter to you, Tom, where Jesus’ enemies were when He, according to you, permitted them to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burn them alive? It matters very much to me. That’s why I believe Jesus employed fire to burn them alive.


I addressed this just above, in the illustration about your wife setting people on fire.

Quote:
T: You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. Satan is free to do his will, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?

M:No, I disagree. Satan is not free to do as he pleases.


Then there's no Great Controversy. If God does His will, and Satan does God's will, there's no controversy at all; there's only God's will. If all that happens is God's will, that begs the question of what sort of God would will the sort of horror we see on this planet?

Quote:
Jesus is in control of the outcome of our choices. He doesn’t leave it up to Satan to decide how best to punish evildoers. True, in the case of Job, Jesus left it up to Satan to decide, within very strict perimeters, what to do. However, in the cases of the wicked, Jesus does not leave it up to Satan.


This seems a bit confused, in regards to the subject of discussion here. Are you talking about the final judgment? If not, none of this really makes sense. The punishment of the wicked isn't until the resurrection.

If you're talking about the final judgment, then it doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus Christ leaves their punishment up to Satan. That's just a red herring.

Quote:
“The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}


Scripture, and the SOP, often present God as doing that which He permits.

Quote:
T: We're going around in circles here. What I have said over and over again, dozens of times, is that to understand these event one must *first* (I emphasize "first" here, as in, before, or previous to) have a correct understanding of God's character. From my perspective, your misunderstanding the events because you're misunderstanding God's character. I believe you perceive the events in a way that in contrary to that which Jesus Christ revealed, and hence, even the questions you ask don't make sense. You and I completely disagree in regards to what's the cart and the horse here. What I think you think is that to correctly understand God's character, it's necessary to consider these events you're asking questions about in addition to considering the life and character of Jesus Christ, and then add these together, and this combination gives a correct understanding of God's character. What I'm saying is first Christ, then look at the other. As opposed to, look at Christ and the other events both at the same time.

M:We’ve tried doing it your way, Tom.


No, we never have. You've always injected your agenda into the discussion. My way would be to consider the character of Christ on its own merits. You just ask questions like, "How did Christ's character reveal why He did this or that thing that I think He did"?

Quote:
However, the discussion died out.


It never got started.

Quote:
You ended your discourse on the character of God without explaining why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people.


This was never my agenda; it was yours. "My way," as I stated, would be to examine the character of Christ on its own merits.

Quote:
Is that the fruit of your view of God? If so, it comes woefully short of explaining some very difficult aspects of the Bible.


Again, "my way" would be to examiner the character of Jesus Christ on its own merits. The "whole purpose" of His earthly mission was "the revelation of God," which was the only way men could be set right and kept right with God. I think this would be wonderful fruit, don't you?

Quote:
I’m curious, Tom, do you even believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? I cannot recall you ever answering this question. I get the impression you believe Moses misunderstood what Jesus told him. Please, Tom, don’t go off on a tangent here and ignore directly answering my question. I realize you haven’t said anything specifically about whether or not Moses misunderstood Jesus. So please, don’t use this comment as excuse to ignore answering my question. Please answer it. Thank you.


The best way I know to answer your question is with the story of the father of the hunter son. Did the father of the hunter son command his son to do the things he told him to do? What would neighbors who overheard their conversation have thought?

Also, do you think Moses knew God and His will as well as Jesus Christ did? Was it Moses' job to perfectly reveal the character of the Father? Isn't it true that God's character was misunderstood until Christ completed His job of revealing it? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that Moses' understanding of it was imperfect?

Can there be any better way of understanding God's character than to examine the life and teachings of Christ? (No, there can't be).

(More later)


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.
Page 76 of 105 1 2 74 75 76 77 78 104 105

Moderator  dedication, Rick H 

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
Fourth quarter, 2024, The Gospel of John
by asygo. 10/31/24 12:59 PM
A god whom his fathers knew not..
by Kevin H. 10/27/24 09:03 PM
Understanding the Battle of Armageddon
by Rick H. 10/25/24 08:25 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 10/23/24 11:55 AM
Profiles Of Jesus In Zecharia
by dedication. 10/15/24 12:56 AM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 10/14/24 12:13 PM
The October 7th Massacre and Zechariah 9 Prophecy
by dedication. 10/08/24 05:41 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by asygo. 10/31/24 07:32 PM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by kland. 10/30/24 12:20 PM
Understanding the 1290 & 1335 of Daniel 12?
by dedication. 10/29/24 01:14 AM
Dr Conrad Vine Banned
by Rick H. 10/25/24 08:01 PM
The 1260 Year Prophecy & The Roman Catholic Church
by dedication. 10/22/24 02:32 PM
What Should Be Our Response to the "Sunday Laws"?
by dedication. 10/13/24 01:08 AM
Are The Prophecies Important?
by dedication. 10/08/24 04:18 PM
The Beast and the Image Beast
by Rick H. 10/05/24 04:40 AM
A campaign against the church
by dedication. 10/03/24 11:50 PM
Why Is Papacy Uniting COVID/Climate Change
by kland. 10/03/24 12:06 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

Copyright 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!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1