"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Archie777]

A: By the way, why did Jesus "command" godly people like Moses to kill sinners? When the Jews inquired of God, because they were uncertain what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, why did Jesus "command" the Jews to stone them to death? Why didn't He take advantage of the situation and command the Jews to pardon and release the sinners?

R: Better yet, why don't we stone folks today? After all, God changes not....That will answer your question.

Please explain how you think this observation explains why Jesus commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: John, I am sorry to say but you are sounding too much like the theologians and you know what the Holy Spirit says about the theologians in M.H.442, don't you?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Please quote the lines I've written that sound to you like "theologians."

Quote:

skyblue888: ....You are not speaking the thing that is right before God.

sky, it is you who are not speaking the thing that is right before God. God has never revealed that the wicked will be the ones who kill the Devil. That is a false teaching if there ever was one. You cannot show any evidence for this view except as you use a verse in Ezekiel out of context. I'm wondering if there are others in the Seventh-day Adventist church who believe in that theory.

Quote:

The Lord tells us that the representation in Ezekiel 28 refers primarily to Lucifer but you, John, are quick to suggest that it refers secondarily to Lucifer.

I'm not saying anything here that virtually all Seventh-day Adventist Bible scholars and students wouldn't tell you. See, for instance, the SDA Bible Commentary on Ezekiel 28. I believe the same thing as you will find in its comments on this chapter. Of course the chapter has to do with Satan. That is not denied. What I'm denying is that every sentence and phrase has reference to Satan.

Ellen White is using "primarily" in a way that is different from the way it's used by those who are exegeting a text. She is using to mean "most important" or "foremost." I, on the other hand, am using it to refer to the most obvious meaning of the text, which is the king of Tyre. In a similar way, Prov. 8 is about wisdom, but it is also about Christ. People who don't keep this in mind as they study are liable to come to wrong conclusions about wisdom and about Christ.

Quote:

sky: And then you try to justify your claim by high sounding theology which is nothing more than mere human reasoning that serves only to darken the understanding.

Please point out the "high sounding theology" that does what you claim.

Quote:

sky: Sorry John but thats how you are coming across.

No problem.

Quote:

sky: This is not the first time either. You've been doing this for the longest time, as far as I can see.

That's such a general statement. It really needs to be more specific. Your claim as it reads could be about almost anything.

Quote:

sky: Please John, stop doing this!

For me to stop doing something, I have to be convinced by the evidence that I'm wrong. I don't believe I'm doing what you claim I'm doing, so I can't very well stop it. If you really feel that I am, I suggest that you present the evidence and not merely make claims and accusations.

It would be unfair for me to tell you to stop saying something you believe in, wouldn't it? And I wouldn't tell you to stop saying something you beleive in.

The best way to stop someone from "doing this" is to show from evidence and reasoning in the Bible that what they say is in error. You haven't done that so far.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Doug and Archie, ever wondered why in the garden of Gethsemane Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matt.26:52.

Was it not the same Jesus Christ who gave instructions to Israel as to how to use their swords to kill their enemies? Does not that strike you as odd? Why would He now tell Peter to put his sword in its place? What was Peter doing with a sword anyway if Christ did not believe in taking the sword?

"He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword." Rev.13:10.

Any clue at all? I believe the answer to this puzzle is the key to the question you asked about God giving command to Moses to kill the Sabbath breaker. It has been answered before but it won't hurt to go over it again.

Sky, first of all, I'd like to say thank you for taking the time and effort to word your post in a kind and tactful way. It's not always easy being kind and tactful. It takes time and effort. So again, thank you.

To answer your question, I think it has to do with timing. Jesus didn't come the first time to punish and destroy sinners, to execute justice and judgment. Not until the third coming will He "inflict punishment". and then He will not enlist the righteous. He execute justice and judgment Himself.

Sure, your welcome. I don't think it has to do with timing for Jesus was just as much a Saviour in Old Testament times as He is now. Jesus Christ was not out to kill anybody in the Old Testament any more than He was when He walked among men. Even after the 1,000 years He will not inflict punishment upon anyone. He will simply revealed to everyone what happened from the time Lucifer rebelled in Heaven and all the way down to His second coming. All will see that at no time did God stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression but that He has always left the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they had sown. It will be seen that the judgments of God never came directly out from Him upon the rebels but that the disobedient had placed themselves beyond His protection.

There will be hundreds of billions of people there, among them the most terrible of the nations, who, at the end of the day, when it is all said and done, will want to inflict punishment upon him whom they will blame for their being lost eternally and we may be sure that they will not want to miss that opportunity and the Lord, in righteousness, will not interfere. He will allow sin to take its natural course just as it will do at the time of the sixth plague when the lost shall blame the false shepherds for their being lost and they will tear them apart and burn them with fire.

sky

[Archie777]

Our posts get truncated all the time. So nothing new under the sun.

Sorry archie but I can't make much sense of your last post. You did not make yourself clear. What are you trying to say exactly?

You may be sure that Satan and his angels will suffer the full penalty of their sins and of the sins they have caused people to commit. During the thousand years they will suffer mental agony the like of which you and I cannot comprehend and that for a thousand years and at the end of that time they will have to face the fury of all the unsaved of all ages!!! In war fire is always involved. When you play with fire you always get burned. It is the same if you kill by the sword you must be killed by the sword. Sin will only follow its natural course and God will not interfere. Why is this so difficult to accept or understand?

"Evil shall slay the wicked." Psalm 34:21.

sky

Yes, posts are regularly truncated. In some cases it doesn't cause a problem. But in those cases when it does context is often crucial. My comment to Doug was intended to assure him I didn't think he was the one who left out the context.

I'm sorry the rest of my post was unclear to you. I'm not good at conveying my thoughts, and it's even worse in print. Perhaps Doug can help out?

[Archie777]

I don't think it has to do with timing for Jesus was just as much a Saviour in Old Testament times as He is now. Jesus Christ was not out to kill anybody in the Old Testament any more than He was when He walked among men. Even after the 1,000 years He will not inflict punishment upon anyone. He will simply revealed to everyone what happened from the time Lucifer rebelled in Heaven and all the way down to His second coming. All will see that at no time did God stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression but that He has always left the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they had sown. It will be seen that the judgments of God never came directly out from Him upon the rebels but that the disobedient had placed themselves beyond His protection.

There will be hundreds of billions of people there, among them the most terrible of the nations, who, at the end of the day, when it is all said and done, will want to inflict punishment upon him whom they will blame for their being lost eternally and we may be sure that they will not want to miss that opportunity and the Lord, in righteousness, will not interfere. He will allow sin to take its natural course just as it will do at the time of the sixth plague when the lost shall blame the false shepherds for their being lost and they will tear them apart and burn them with fire.

Thank you for sharing how you see things playing out. You are a gifted writer. It is easy to understand what you believe. I will try to remember it in future as we study together.

[John317]

.... What is important is that we accept what the Lord is saying. He is saying that the terrible of the nations will draw their swords against him, that they will thrust him through with their swords and that a fire will be brought forth from his midst.

Do you really beleive that a steel sword will kill or do harm to the Devil and to the fallen angels? They don't have physical bodies that could be hurt by human weapons.

Quote:

sky: .... After the 1,000 years, it will be the same scenario all over again except that this time the ministers will be Satan and his angels and they will be torn apart and beaten and burned with fire until it is all over with them. "Evil shall slay the wicked." Ps.34:21

Do you see justice in God's making Satan and the angels into human-like creatures for the purpose of being torn apart, beaten, and burned by angry criminals?

Who will then do the same to the criminals?

Where do you get these ideas? Ellen White certainly doesn't teach them. She didn't believe that humans would kill the devil.

Quote:

sky: If we can't accept the simplest declarations of Scripture, what can happen to our blind eyes?

If that is a simple teaching of the Bible-- that people who have been condemned to die will kill the Devil by sticking their swords in him-- all I can say is God help us. It is strange indeed that such a simple declaration is completely missed by virtually everyone.

Who else believes as you do on this topic?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Our posts get truncated all the time. So nothing new under the sun.

Sorry archie but I can't make much sense of your last post. You did not make yourself clear. What are you trying to say exactly?

You may be sure that Satan and his angels will suffer the full penalty of their sins and of the sins they have caused people to commit. During the thousand years they will suffer mental agony the like of which you and I cannot comprehend and that for a thousand years and at the end of that time they will have to face the fury of all the unsaved of all ages!!! In war fire is always involved. When you play with fire you always get burned. It is the same if you kill by the sword you must be killed by the sword. Sin will only follow its natural course and God will not interfere. Why is this so difficult to accept or understand?

"Evil shall slay the wicked." Psalm 34:21.

sky

Yes, posts are regularly truncated. In some cases it doesn't cause a problem. But in those cases when it does context is often crucial. My comment to Doug was intended to assure him I didn't think he was the one who left out the context.

I'm sorry the rest of my post was unclear to you. I'm not good at conveying my thoughts, and it's even worse in print. Perhaps Doug can help out?

I totally agree with you on that. My posts get truncated a lot and more often then not a wrong impression is left. I would say that if we quote bits and parts of posts we should make sure that the context of these bits and parts have not been chunked out. Thats the least we can do.

Appreciate your gentleness. You didn't say if you agreed with my reply or not. I'm sure you can rephrase your last post and make it a bit clearer for me. Thank you.

sky

[skyblue888]

Quote:

skyblue888: John, I am sorry to say but you are sounding too much like the theologians and you know what the Holy Spirit says about the theologians in M.H.442, don't you?

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Please quote the lines I've written that sound to you like "theologians."

Quote:

skyblue888: ....You are not speaking the thing that is right before God.

sky, it is you who are not speaking the thing that is right before God. God has never revealed that the wicked will be the ones who kill the Devil. That is a false teaching if there ever was one. You cannot show any evidence for this view except as you use a verse in Ezekiel out of context. I'm wondering if there are others in the Seventh-day Adventist church who believe in that theory.

Quote:

The Lord tells us that the representation in Ezekiel 28 refers primarily to Lucifer but you, John, are quick to suggest that it refers secondarily to Lucifer.

I'm not saying anything here that virtually all Seventh-day Adventist Bible scholars and students wouldn't tell you. See, for instance, the SDA Bible Commentary on Ezekiel 28. I believe the same thing as you will find in its comments on this chapter. Of course the chapter has to do with Satan. That is not denied. What I'm denying is that every sentence and phrase has reference to Satan.

Ellen White is using "primarily" in a way that is different from the way it's used by those who are exegeting a text. She is using to mean "most important" or "foremost." I, on the other hand, am using it to refer to the most obvious meaning of the text, which is the king of Tyre. In a similar way, Prov. 8 is about wisdom, but it is also about Christ. People who don't keep this in mind as they study are liable to come to wrong conclusions about wisdom and about Christ.

Quote:

sky: And then you try to justify your claim by high sounding theology which is nothing more than mere human reasoning that serves only to darken the understanding.

Please point out the "high sounding theology" that does what you claim.

Quote:

sky: Sorry John but thats how you are coming across.

No problem.

Quote:

sky: This is not the first time either. You've been doing this for the longest time, as far as I can see.

That's such a general statement. It really needs to be more specific. Your claim as it reads could be about almost anything.

Quote:

sky: Please John, stop doing this!

For me to stop doing something, I have to be convinced by the evidence that I'm wrong. I don't believe I'm doing what you claim I'm doing, so I can't very well stop it. If you really feel that I am, I suggest that you present the evidence and not merely make claims and accusations.

It would be unfair for me to tell you to stop saying something you believe in, wouldn't it? And I wouldn't tell you to stop saying something you beleive in.

The best way to stop someone from "doing this" is to show from evidence and reasoning in the Bible that what they say is in error. You haven't done that so far.

John, primarily means primarily, meaning that Ezekiel 28 is not so much about the king of Tyre per se but about Lucifer or Satan. It implies that everything in that chapter was written more with Satan in mind than the King of Tyre, just as when the Holy Spirit tells us that all that the prophets wrote about ancient Israel was written more for us than for them which means that when we read the book of Isaiah and Jeremiah, or any prophet for that matter, the primary application is for us Adventists and not Ancient Israel.

What I am asking you to stop doing is putting reason above revelation. You quote the Scriptures and the Testimonies a lot but instead of letting the Bible and the Testimonies be their own Interpreter, you tell us what you think they mean. Thats why I have said that it gives the impression that you are telling the Lord, Let me tell you how to teach Your message!

As for me I believe in what the Lord said we should do in order to arrive at the truth, comparing statement with statement and Scripture with Scripture and then make our conclusions based on revelation and not upon mere human reasoning, speculation, or supposition.

sky

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

.... What is important is that we accept what the Lord is saying. He is saying that the terrible of the nations will draw their swords against him, that they will thrust him through with their swords and that a fire will be brought forth from his midst.

Do you really beleive that a steel sword will kill or do harm to the Devil and to the fallen angels? They don't have physical bodies that could be hurt by human weapons.

Quote:

sky: .... After the 1,000 years, it will be the same scenario all over again except that this time the ministers will be Satan and his angels and they will be torn apart and beaten and burned with fire until it is all over with them. "Evil shall slay the wicked." Ps.34:21

Do you see justice in God's making Satan and the angels into human-like creatures for the purpose of being torn apart, beaten, and burned by angry criminals?

Who will then do the same to the criminals?

Where do you get these ideas? Ellen White certainly doesn't teach them. She didn't believe that humans would kill the devil.

Quote:

sky: If we can't accept the simplest declarations of Scripture, what can happen to our blind eyes?

If that is a simple teaching of the Bible-- that people who have been condemned to die will kill the Devil by sticking their swords in him-- all I can say is God help us. It is strange indeed that such a simple declaration is completely missed by virtually everyone.

Who else believes as you do on this topic?

Amen John, That sure isn't what Ellen White believed and taught. And the quote in the Bible that sky is referring to, doesn't spell it out like that either. Not even close. One has to make a giant leap of speculation and supposition in order to get there.

[John317]

Quote:

skyblue888: John, primary means primary, meaning that Ezekiel 28 is not so much about the king of Tyre per se but about Lucifer or Satan. It implies that everything in that chapter was written more with Satan in mind than the King of Tyre, just as when the Holy Spirit tells us that all that the prophets wrote about ancient Israel was written more for us than for them which means that when we read the book of Isaiah and Jeremiah, or any prophet for that matter, the primary application is for us Adventists and not Ancient Israel.

If you look at Ez. 27 and 28 you will see that it's about the king of Tyre. Satan is pictured UNDERNEATH OR BEHIND the figure of the king. It is in that sense that we say the primary reference is to the human king and that the secondary reference is to Satan. It is not a denial that the most important meaning (primary in that sense) has to do with Satan.

[doug yowell]

Sin does,however, cause the sinless and the innocent to suffer. "It's desire shall be for you..." Sin and sinners and the author of sin desire nothing more than to destroy everything good and establish sin as eternal. "Unless the Lord had shortened those days no flesh would be saved."Unless God ACTS it is clear that there would be nothing left of His good creation."One sinner destroys much good.""Because the SENTENCE against an evil work is not executed speedily,therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to evil."

[pnattmbtc]

But the context of those statements proves that Ellen White does not mean God never uses compelling power or exercises force under any circumstances.

[pnattmbtc]

John317: OK, I have no disagreement with what Ty is saying here (unless it's with something in parts of the book that I haven't even read yet), but I don't believe that it explains the fire that Revelation and the SOP speak of as coming down from God out of heaven and devouring the wicked.

I've had some of the same thoughts about those things as Ty is expressing, but I don't see it as in conflict with the Bible's teaching that God will destroy the wicked in real fire.

pnattmbtc: If what Ty writes is true, then the wicked will already have suffered proportionately for their sin, so there would be no need for an additional punishment on top of this.

J:OK, but it seems to me that Ellen White places their suffering in that way-- i.e., sorrow for losing out on eternal life, not sorrow for sin itself-- BEFORE the fire from God falls on them. Their "proportional suffering" has to do with punishment in fire, and Ellen White says this suffering is meted out to the wicked by Christ BEFORE the resurrection of the wicked. The portion is in accordance to their wicked deeds done in the body.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Another problem with this way of thinking: (i.e. "If you attached to this sin, I have no choice but to destroy you.") is it presupposes that sin is basically innocuous. There is nothing within sin which causes destruction of itself. That's why it's necessary that the Lord take direct action Himself.

But a little thought should show this is not the case, since sin is based on the principle of selfishness, which can do no other than lead to suffering, misery and death.

J:You are evidently forgetting or neglecting the fact that while sin is certainly destructive, sin itself will not make the individual suffer according to his deeds.

No, I've neither forgot nor neglected this, but explained how this would happen. This is also what Ty's post was referring to, which I pointed out. It is the revelation of sin which causes the proportional suffering, as Ty explained.

Quote:

It requires the 1000 years of judgment in heaven and then the coming of Christ to see that the wicked receive their reward for their wickedness. This is exactly what Ellen White says, and she has the full support of Scripture.

I disagree that this is what she is saying. The judgment *reveals* what will happen. It doesn't involve arbitrary assignments of sins to certain amounts of time to be burned. I've asked you about this quite a few times now, without a response. I'd really like to know your thought on the following.

As I understand your thinking, you think something like the following will happen. The righteous will examine the life of some person, and look at each and every sin, and for each sin, with a paper and pencil, or some recording device, determine for how long a person should be burned. So they see someone curse, and say, "Ohh, that's worth 10 seconds of fire!" or someone commits adultery "Ohh, that's a bad one! 20 minutes!" and so forth. This accurately represents your idea? They look at each sin, calculate the burning time, and then add it up, and say, "ok, Marsha should be burned for 2 days, 4 hours, 12 minutes and 5 seconds." (<== Please respond to this)

Quote:

If the wicked would suffer for their sins completely apart from God's judgment

You mean arbitrarily (i.e., non-organic/artificial/not connect to sin; determined by individual discretion, as described above, the part that says "Please respond to this") implied burning? You keep saying this, and this is what I most strongly disagree with. You have the idea that if God doesn't set people on fire then He's not involved in the judgment. There's no reason whatever to assume this is the case.

I can understand that you would read something in the Bible or the SOP, and come to the conclusion that God will burn people, and this is how the judgment happens. Fine, I get that. But why would you think that if God doesn't do this, that He's not judging? *That's* what doesn't make sense.

God could judge the wicked in some other way. If you're wrong about *how* God does this does not imply that you're wrong about *that* God does this.

Quote:

, there would be no need for the examination of record in order to decide the portion they must suffer.

Sure there would. That's the only way what the wicked will suffer could be determined, regardless of whether their punishment comes about how you think it will happen, or in some other way, such as what Ty laid out.

Quote:

And in that case, too, there would be no reason for Ellen White to say that Jesus metes out to the wicked the portion they must suffer.

Sure there would. It's not necessary to suppose that the process has to happen arbitrarily (i.e. non-organically, artificially, not connected to sin) for there to be a process of judgment involved. One can determine how the wicked will suffer, and see if this is just.

Quote:

This is the part you apparently object to: God determining how much the wicked will suffer.

No, not at all. I object to the idea that they suffer as a result of God's inflicting extreme physical pain by setting them on fire for the purpose of punishing them. There's no need whatsoever for this. None at all. God could cause the wicked to suffer as much as He wanted by simply prolonging their existence. As soon as each person suffered enough, He could let them die. He doesn't have to set them on fire to accomplish them.

I still don't understand how the concept of setting people on fire doesn't register with your conscience, that this is just wrong. This is a great mystery to me. The only think I can think of is that you turn off your conscience, because you think this is something that God will do, and since God can't do anything wrong, it must be right. A much simpler solution is that, yes, setting people on fire and torturing them really is wrong, really is immoral, and is not something that God would ever even consider doing, because God is good, so therefore whatever thinking is involved to lead you to the point to where you deduce that God will set people on fire to torture them must be wrong.

Quote:

Ellen White says the punishment varies in both intensity and time. This does not happen automatically, without any decison by Christ and the righteous. She wrote, "Jesus comes to see that the wicked receive their reward."

Jesus sees to this by revealing to them their sin, what God has done in their lives, what He did on earth, and so forth.

Quote:

A major point you are not taking into account is that the demands of justice must be met and the penalty of the law must be visited.

I've taken this into account. You again seem to have the idea that this can't happen unless God takes arbitrary (i.e. artificial/non-organic/not related to sin) action. I disagree with this premise. The idea that the demands of justice must be met and the penalty of the law must be visited <> God must set people on fire (<> means "not equal"). The penalty of the law is death, not being set on fire and tortured. The inevitable result of sin is death.

I've commented on this many times. I don't see how you can suggest I'm not taking this into account when I've commented on this so frequently.

Quote:

Sin by itself is incapable of causing this to occur, just as sin by itself is not capable of making the criminal suffer a certain amount for his crimes.

Well, sin "by itself" doesn't do anything, as sin isn't a sentient being which acts.

Quote:

It requires a court of law. Similarly the final punishment of the wicked requires the decision of Christ and the execution of this judgment by God Himself.

The execution of judgment by God Himself takes place at the Great White Throne. That is the judgment. God reveals the truth to each lost person, and this results in their proportionate suffering.

[skyblue888]

They are also given a view of the main events of the great controversy, and they all see what they have forfeited by their life of rebellion. So they suffer mentally during the time between the Great White Throne Judgment and the time when Satan attempts to lead them into an attack on the city of God.

But it is when Satan is attempting to rally the wicked to attack the city that they turn upon Him "with the fury of demons" (GC 672). It's at this point that the fire comes down on the wicked from God out of heaven. Some, she says, are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer many days.

_____________________________________

John, that does not necessarily mean that they will be devoured by fire the moment they turn upon Satan with the fury of demons, as if to say that after all the eternally lost of all ages won't get an opportunity to lay their hands on him. No. No. The Scriptures do state clearly that they will draw their swords against him and that they will defile him and that they will bring him down to the Pit. Ezekiel 28:6,-10.

Let me give you an example of what I mean, also taken from the Scriptures.

In Revelation 13:3 we read, "I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And the whole world marveled and followed the beast."

Now we all understand that this "deadly wound" refers to 1798 when General Berthier, under Napoleon, entered Rome and took the pope into captivity. From that time on the papacy lost her temporal power. That's the wound. But then it says that its deadly wound was healed. But we all know that this deadly wound has not yet been healed and will not be healed until the papacy has regained her supremacy, that is, her temporal power. The Jesuits are working hard behind the scenes to heal that wound but it is still something in the future.

When you read Rev.13:3 it looks like the wound was immediately healed, as if there was no lapse of time between when the deadly wound occurs and the healing of that wound.

It is the same with the verse you always use to prove your point that fire will immediately fall upon the wicked as soon as they turn upon Satan with the fury of demons.

They will not be devoured by fire at that moment. There is going to be a battle as Ezekiel the prophet describes it in chapter 28:6-10. There will be a lapse of time (the duration is not known to us) between when the terrible of the nations shall turn upon Satan and his angels and when they are completely destroyed by fire.

sky

[Robert]

You will notice that I didn't write the original post to you. It was written in response to what skyblue wrote. He wrote this:

So you were asking skyblue, "Is this also what Jack Sequeira believes"? No! It was to me....now you are covering up, which makes it worse.

[Robert]

What is wrong with asking this question, since you often study him and quote his books as an authority?

Your aim is to pit me against Sequeira....I've ask you to stop....Your nature is working overtime....

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

A: By the way, why did Jesus "command" godly people like Moses to kill sinners? When the Jews inquired of God, because they were uncertain what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, why did Jesus "command" the Jews to stone them to death? Why didn't He take advantage of the situation and command the Jews to pardon and release the sinners?

R: Better yet, why don't we stone folks today? After all, God changes not....That will answer your question.

Please explain how you think this observation explains why Jesus commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners.

Moses was a sinner...He should have killed himself then....You fail to see the big picture....I've explained it before, but you couldn't comprehend it....

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

J:Do you agree with sky's understanding that wicked humans will destroy Satan and one another?

Not completely. I think the wicked will have already suffered their proportionate punishment, along the lines that Ty laid out, so I think that's been taken care of. If something happened like there was a huge nuclear explosion that instantely wiped everybody out, that seems possible. I'm not saying this is what I think will happen, but that seems to me like a possibility that wouldn't contradict the things that Ty mentioned or the passages (DA 764, GC 535-535;541-542) mentioned before. I don't think the wicked fighting amongst each could be responsible for the proportionate suffering.

[skyblue888]

pnatt, have you not studied the scenario that will take place at the time of the sixth plague? The lost will turn on the false shepherds and tear them apart and burn them with fire as it is written. After the 1,000 years, the same scenario will be repeated except on a larger scale.

The sixth plague is the drying up of the River Euphrates, that is, the drying up of support. It is written that the "waters" upon which the prostitute sits will be dried up. The symbolic name for these waters is Euphrates. As we all know these "waters" represent all the people of the world who will be giving their support to the papacy until the fifth plague, that is, when they are made to see that they have been deceived. Then they will turn against the false shepherds and it is said that they will tear them apart and burn them with fire and they will also turn on each other. Often in the Old testament times we read of powerful armies preparing for battle against the Israelites. These armies were suddenly thrown into confusion and the soldiers turned on each other believing they were fighting the enemy. At those times, the Lord fought for them in righteousness. The Lord gave them up to the control of evil spirits since they had filled up their cup of iniquity.

The wicked will turn upon Satan after the 1,000 years but they will also, in the confusion, turn on each other. So this battle will last for several days and fire will erupt from below and from above to devoure them all. But that fire will not get the better of them at the start of that battle. And that fire will not come directly out from the Lord any more than the fiery serpents did or strong delusions do.

sky

[Robert]

When the Jews inquired of God, because they were uncertain what to do in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, why did Jesus "command" the Jews to stone them to death? Why didn't He take advantage of the situation and command the Jews to pardon and release the sinners?

This is easy, but to the legalistic it is hard to understand...but I'll try!

First of all the Scripture doesn't state he was a blasphemer. Let's look at the facts:

Numbers 15:32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses

Did that "blasphemer" addition come from EGW? If so, she's adding and you are too!

Well, I can explain this....First let's go to Gal 3:10

For as many as are of the works of the law [salvation partially or fully by law] are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.

When Paul wrote this what OT Scripture did he have in mind? Go to Deut 28:15 ....if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

But before we go into this let me quote Ellen for you. Why? She's right here:

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” [Gal 3:10]

The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.”[Gal 3:10] Deut. 27:26.

The Jews, while in captivity, had become first class legalists. How so? All...did you get that? All pagan religions are based in mankind saving himself both by appeasing an angry god and through some sort of works program.

More later....

[pnattmbtc]

Some people believe Jesus will, during final judgment, gradually cease supernaturally preventing resurrected sinners and evil angels from succumbing to the natural cause and effect consequence of sinning. As a result they will gradually suffer and die according to their sinfulness.

Can you name one person who believes this?

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: John317

What is wrong with asking this question, since you often study him and quote his books as an authority?

Your aim is to pit me against Sequeira....I've ask you to stop....Your nature is working overtime....

Who's nature is working overtime? How is John asking you about Serequel any different from you asking him or me about Ellen White?

[Robert]

Who's nature is working overtime? How is John asking you about Serequel [can't spell?] any different from you asking him ... about Ellen White?

1] This is between me and John.

2] I don't ask him about EGW

[Robert]

The Jews, while in captivity, had become first class legalists. How so? All...did you get that? All pagan religions are based in mankind saving himself both by appeasing an angry god and through some sort of works program.

In order to break the Jews form their legalistic way, God entered the OC with them.

Now why would God enter a covenant with the Jews when He knew they couldn't obey? Because, as Jack Sequeira correctly points out, they didn't know.

Under law what is the results of any sin? Death! Hence, as EGW notes, The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live: “If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev. 18:5); but “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.”[Gal 3:10]

Only a proud, legalistic, egotistical people would enter such an agreement. Instead of accepting the righteousness of God by faith, they sought to earn heaven through law.

But instead of renouncing their self-righteous ways (as did Job) they proudly set their faces like stone and forged ahead. What was the result under law?

A son gets drunk and lips his parents. What happens? He gets stoned, but not with pot ...with rocks...

A man gathers some firewood....That was work, so he got stoned too.