An Appeal To SDA's On This Site

[Musicman1228]

Rich4truth and John317,

I want back and looked at both passages in John 21:15 and Rev.19:7-8 and I was right in one case and wrong in the other. In John 21:15 they ARE two separate words for lamb (Strong's 721) and sheep (Strong's 4263). In Rev. 19:7-8 they are the same, "lamb" (Strong's 721). My mistake, and I apologize. Doing this kind of heavy research can get confusing. But from my stand point it actually works out better for my case. How, you ask? If both are from the same Greek root word then they both have the same meaning in context, would you not agree? So they either both mean Lamb as in Jesus Christ (that which is most commonly held) or both literally mean "diminutive lamb" or "lambkin".

I know that lambkin does not mean kin of the lamb in the literal sense and I know I didn't mean for you to take it that way, so you can put that one to rest. I was trying to show that there are kinsmen of the Lamb as seen in Rev.12:17 and relate that to the word "lambkin" or little lambs in Rev.19:7-8. Where do these siblings that are born of the same mother as is Jesus Christ fit into the picture of atonement? One place is the 'souls under the Alter' of the 5th seal. Are they not saints? Does it not say in Rev. 19:7-8 that the white robe given to the bride is given them by the righteous acts of the saints? Who then are these saint? If it is Jesus' robe of righteousness that covers the bride then why does it say "saints" here?

In Ex. 12:5 the term lamb describes either a sheep or a goat:

Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats,

Either a young sheep or a young goat can be called a lamb. So what I am looking at is the fact that in order to act as a fitting sacrifice the lamb (Strong's 4263-either a sheep or a goat) must be a full grown male a year old and without blemish, or they must be the siblings (Strong's 721) of the full grown male lamb who are the little lambs or lambkin. One is a picture of Jesus Christ as the eldest brother and of His younger siblings.

My purpose in using the passage beginning in John 21:15 is to show that Jesus used two distinct words as symbols to describe who He wanted Peter to feed; lambs and sheep.

My only point in showing this is that in Rev. 19:7-8 that 'saints' as in holy ones ARE the same as the 'lamb' (Strong's 721) used two times earlier in the passage because 'saints' points back to the word 'lamb'.

John, the Greek word for "His" here is Strong's 846-autos (and in spite of what you said earlier) can be either a singular or plural personal pronoun such as 'his' or 'their'. I looked that up carefully, no mistakes this time. How it is used depends on how the translator views the context. If a translator is biased in one way they will of course use the word in a way appropriate to their bias. It does not mean that their bias is correct. The context is that the saints supply the robe for the bride. 'Saints' is plural therefore going backward in the passage to establish context 'lamb' could mean 'lambs' (plural).

I am not telling anyone what they must believe, I would never do that. I am just proposing a way of understanding the two atonements that affect salvation for two separate entities, which are 1) the Kingdom of Heaven, and 2) the nations that become a part of the Kingdom of Heaven during the great tribulation. The Sanctuary Service as described in the Old Testament speaks of two separate atonements, one for the priests, and one for the people. Rev. 11:1,2 show two separate atonements; one for the Kingdom of Heaven (inner court) and one for the nations (outer court).

I can clearly see that the Passover Lamb (male lamb one year old and unblemished) is only for the first born sons of the Kingdom of Heaven (the first fruits of the Kingdom). On the Day of Atonement a full grown male sheep (not a lamb) is sacrificed for the priests, then later the goat of the Lord is sacrificed for the people of Israel (the Kingdom of Heaven), and the goat of Removal has the sins of the Kingdom placed on it and it is then led out into the wilderness WHERE IT IS RELEASE WITHOUT BEING KILLED. There is nowhere that I have been able to find in Scripture where Atonement is made for the sins of the world. The Passover lamb is not killed for the sins of the world. Neither the male sheep for the priests or the goat of the Lord for the Kingdom is killed for the sins of the world. So who takes care of the sins of the world, which is the Bride? From my standpoint it must be the saints. (Remember, the saints are not the bride, they are the bridesmaids (5 wise) or groomsmen (Faithful and wise servant and fellow servants).

And who are the saints? Who is it that will be sacrificed on the Alter in the outer court for the world (the Bride)? Could it be that they are the Faithful and Wise Servant and his fellow servants in Matt.24:42-51, and the five wise bridesmaids in Matt.25:1-13? These make up the Kingdom of Heaven before the beginning of the great tribulation. These are they that are "sealed and perfectly united before we entered it (the great tribulation)". The are perfectly righteous which is why the are sealed. It appears to me that their death has something to do with the salvation of the people of the nations that will enter the Kingdom of Heaven during the great tribulation. And as I said before I believe that this Kingdom of Heaven prepares the bride for the bridegroom during the great tribulation and is the SDA church. I may be stupid but this does make sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to you right now that's all right, I don't blame you. What you do with this material is between you and the Holy Spirit. Just don't dismiss it out of hand because you have a problem with me. I don't need that level of responsibility. Make up your own mind and I will be satisfied with that.

God bless us all as we search to find the truth.

[Richard Holbrook]

I'll have to respond tommorrow. It's past 3:00am here on the east coast.

[oldsailor29]

Born of the same mother as Jesus Christ?

The accepted mystery is that Jesus, although born of Mary, had no beginning. He has always been. He is the creator. And only the death of the creator can atone for sins of the created. One created being cannot atone for the sins of another created being.

Wages of sin = death. The gift of God is eternal life. That part is real. The rest is symbolic. The real atonement was finished at the cross. The symbols continued in our minds, for the applications of the death. Symbols represent that which is real, so the only reality which can be represented as atoning sacrifice is the death of Jesus.

If we are slaughtered for our belief in Jesus, then we ourselves are martyrs, and we have followed the example of Jesus, but we are not atoning sacrifices. Atonement has already been made.

We don't need to sacrifice more lambs for atonement. What we need to try to understand is how the death of the creator can atone for our sins. This is what The rest of the sacrificial service is trying to explain to us.

Some people do not even understand the lack of the time element in the sacrifice of Jesus. Some people think that the death of Jesus only covered past sins, and all sins afterward have to covered by something else. Don't be deceived by this type of deception. Learn to think in infinite terms, without consideration of time. Remember, Jesus stands outside of time and space, and operates outside of time and space. From His perspective, all of our time is the same. And His sacrificial death was infinite, covering all time and space, and beyond.

The great controversy portion of time and space is only a small part of it. Only a small portion of created time and only a small portion of created space are used during the conflict of the ages. Satan would like to think he is important, but he is not. He is just another created being, like Adam. He had a beginning, just like we did. He is just a small finite speck, smaller than a grain of sand in the desert or washed up on the shore. When we decide to compare ourselves to a divine being, I think we should consider that we have a lot more in common with finite Satan than we do with infinite Jesus. And we should ask ourselves, is Satan going to atone for any sin? If not, then neither is any human. It is only the infinite one who can make the infinite sacrifice.

[wayfinder]

Leviticus 10:16-18 But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned up! So he was angry with Aaron's surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying, "Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD. "Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded."

Eze 44:19 "When they go out into the outer court, into the outer court to the people, they shall put off their garments in which they have been ministering and lay them in the holy chambers; then they shall put on other garments so that they will not transmit holiness to the people with their garments.

If the blood of the sin offering was not taken into the sanctuary and placed on the horns of the golden alter then requirement was that the priests were to eat the sacrifice, why, to bear away the guilt of the congregation and make atonement for them. If the blood was taken into the sanctuary then the sacrifice was burned. Why do you think that Moses is making such a big deal about this point, because it is important to the atonement process. Aaron was afraid of losing two more sons because of errors in their priestly practices.

Also notice the Ezekiel text, where God stipulates that the linen garments would "transmit" holiness to the people if the priests were to enter the outer court still wearing them.

[Musicman1228]

(9) When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.   (10) They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”   (11) Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been. Rev.6:9-11.

[As SDA's we know that these 'souls' are not actually crying out in voice, they are dead. This is the same as Able's blood crying out from the grown in Genesis; it is a metaphor that allows God to comment on why this occurred, or question why this has occurred.]

Questions:

At what time or during what time period are/were the people killed who's souls are under the alter?

For what reason were they killed?

What gives them the reason and authority to call out for judgment and vengeance for their deaths on 'those who dwell (are alive) on the earth'?

Does their blood being placed under the alter have significance to 'those who dwell (are alive) on the earth'?

Does their blood being placed under the alter reflect on their own state of being at the time of their death?

What is the location (where) of the the alter that their blood is under?

If they are regular martyrs then why is their blood under the alter?

For what reason are they given (issued) white robes?

Why is there a specific number of their fellow servants (brothers and sisters) that must be killed as they are? Is there a quota?

These are just a few of the questions that prompted the idea that there are two atonements. There is also the Passover and the Day of Atonement; two different festivals - why?

There are three groups of people for which atonement must be made:

The Group / The Title / The Name / The Sacrifice

1. The Priests = first fruits (144,000) = the Chosen = Passover/Lamb.

2. Kingdom of Heaven = the People = the Called = Day of Atonement/Goat of the Lord.

3. Nations = Mixed Multitude = the Faithful = ?.

Each of these groups has a clearly defined Title, Name and Sacrifice, except for group #3. For this group there is no clearly defined sacrifice. God is specific in mentioning the kind of Sacrifice for groups #1 and #2, but not for #3. Why?

[John317]

Rich4truth and John317,

I want back and looked at both passages in John 21:15 and Rev.19:7-8 and I was right in one case and wrong in the other. In John 21:15 they ARE two separate words for lamb (Strong's 721) and sheep (Strong's 4263).

The word, probation, (diminutive of probaton) is used only in John 21: 16, 17, and there means "a little sheep." Most translations simply have "sheep." (See Thayers Greek-English Lexicon, p. 537, under "probation.")

So the difference is that in John 21: 15, Jesus used the word for "lambs," and in verses 16 and 17, Jesus used the word signifying "little sheep." Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines it as "lamb." The same source defines probaton as "sheep," p. 709.

Notice that in John 10: 15, Jesus lays down His life for the probaton (sheep).

Bottom Line: Neither of these words is ever translated, nor do they ever signify, "siblings of the lamb."

Outside of the Bible, the same word, probation, is often used without the diminutive sense. It is also used interchangeably with probaton.

Strongs # 4263, probaton, occurs only one time in Revelation, at 18: 13.

When used outside the NT, it refers to any four-footed animals, especially to small cattle, goats, and sheep, as opposed to large cattle. In the NT, it only refers to sheep.

In Matt. 26: 31, probaton refers to followers of any master. (Compare Mark 14: 27.) In John 10: 7, it refers to the followers of Christ.

Altogether, probaton is used a total of 39 times in the NT.

[John317]

In John 21:15 they ARE two separate words for lamb (Strong's 721) and sheep (Strong's 4263). In Rev. 19:7-8 they are the same, "lamb" (Strong's 721). .... If both are from the same Greek root word then they both have the same meaning in context, would you not agree? So they either both mean Lamb as in Jesus Christ (that which is most commonly held) or both literally mean "diminutive lamb" or "lambkin".

It's safe to say that in John 21: 16, 17, the word probata is plural and signifies "lambs," "little lambs" or "small sheep." In John 10: 15, Jesus speaks of laying down His life for His probaton (sheep).

In Rev. 19: 7, 9, the words, tou arniou, may also be translated, "lamb, little lamb, small sheep." The main idea is that Jesus is the Lamb of God, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that takes away the sins of the world. John 1: 29. Jesus' followers have no part in taking away the sins of the world. That is wholly the work of the Lamb, Jesus Christ.

In Kenneth Cox's evangelistic video on the prophecies of Revelation, he understands Rev. 5: 6 to signify, "A little pet lamb."

[oldsailor29]

Rev. 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed. And there were sealed 144,000 ... And I beheld and saw a great multitude which no man could number.

John heard the number, then beheld and saw. This happens several times in Revelation. John hears, then he sees what he has heard.

The 144,000 and the great multitude are the same. First he hears the number, then he sees the multitude.

And these of course are the martyrs. The martyrs are recognized as such because they are wearing the white robes which they have been given to wear. They are coming out of the great tribulation as martyrs.

As for the location of the altar. Where can we go to hide from God? Ps.139:7-13 God is everywhere and beyond. And wherever God is, His altar is there also. So the OT concept of souls of the dead being in Sheol does not mean they are not under the alter of God at the same time.

Everything in the sanctuary service which is analogous to atonement or atoning sacrifice is symbolic of Jesus Christ. There is no other atoning sacrifice but Him.

[John317]

John, the Greek word for "His" here is Strong's 846-autos (and in spite of what you said earlier) can be either a singular or plural personal pronoun such as 'his' or 'their'.

What you don't understand is that Strongs # 846 gives you many personal pronouns, including the plural. But "autou" is not plural. "autou" is singular ONLY. For instance, you mention Strongs #846 as "autos" whereas the word we are discussing is not "autos" but "autou."

"autos" is nominative masculine singular (indicating subject) while "autou" is genitive (i.e., possessive) masculine singular.

"autwn" is "their", the third person genitive plural. That is the word the writer would have used if he wanted to say "their wife."

"autos" may be translated as "himself" (Mark 12: 37). When joined to the first person pronoun, "ego," autos may be translated as "myself" (Acts 10: 26).

My point is that these personal pronouns are different words and are not translated the same way. Their correct translation depends on rules of grammar and translation, not on how we feel or what we want them to say.

There is not a single time in the entire NT where autou should be translated as a plural "their."

If you know of any verse where "autou" is translated "their," please point it out.

Your problem is that you do not know enough Greek to tell the difference between the personal pronouns. See some of them below.

Quote:

I looked that up carefully, no mistakes this time.

How do you know? Do you know the difference between the personal pronouns "autou" or "autos" or "auton" or "autwn" or "auth" or "auto" or "auths" or "authn" or "autous" or "autas" or "auta" or "autois" or "autai" or "autw," etc. ?

Quote:

How it is used depends on how the translator views the context.

This is not true. But again, if you believe it is, give an example in the NT where the word "autou" is translated as "their".

Quote:

If a translator is biased in one way they will of course use the word in a way appropriate to their bias. It does not mean that their bias is correct.

Musicman, this is exactly what you are doing. You are throwing rules of grammar to the wind and going by your bias. You want it to be "their" and therefore you make it "their." That is despite the fact that the word is masculine singular and as such is ALWAYS translated "his."

It would be like telling people that "his" means "their." Everyone can see the difference. "His" refers to a single person. "Their" refers to two or more people.

Quote:

The context is that the saints supply the robe for the bride. 'Saints' is plural therefore going backward in the passage to establish context 'lamb' could mean 'lambs' (plural).

The bottom line is that "saints" [twn hagiwn] is plural, whereas both "the Lamb" [tou arniou] and "His wife" [h gunh autou] are singular.

There is no condition under which it would be acceptable to change a masculine singular personal pronoun, "his," to a plural pronoun, "their."

You're attempting to mix apples and oranges.

[wayfinder]

oldsailor: I thought we were told to hide in the cross not the altar. You make great leaps of faith and assumptions.

(Revelation 6:9-11) This is the opening of the sixth seal, it is quite clear that those who are under the altar have been killed by those who are still alive, because of the response of the altar:

Revelation 16:4-7 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: "You are just in these judgments, you who are and who were, the Holy One, because you have so judged; for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve." And I heard the altar respond: "Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and just are your judgments."

Those who shed the blood of those under the altar are given blood to drink (third bowl of wrath). We are not told that God resurrects those who shed the blood of the martyrs to receive the judgment of the third bowl of wrath. Also it is my understanding that the seals are not opened until the Lamb receives the scroll with the seven seals. This event happened after the time of the martyrs was over.

As far as the 144,000 are concerned, they are separated from the 12 tribes of spritual Israel (kingdom of heaven). The numberless multitude come from every nation, tribe, people and language, the two groups mentioned don't even come from the same place. It is also clear that the 144,000 are sealed before the great tribulatio and the numberless multitude come out of the great tribulation.

See Revelation 7

[Musicman1228]

Oldsailor,

I beg your pardon but the 144,000 and the great multitude ARE NOT the same. The 144,000 is a specific, defined number coming out of the Kingdom of Heaven. The great multitude are called 'numberless' (and undefined number) and come out of every nation, tribe, tongue and people. Saying that they are the same is saying that God does not know His numbers.

John saw the number of the 144,000, and 'then' (meaning coming after) saw the great multitude.

So you see no significance to the fact that their blood is placed under the alter? Here is a reminder; only the blood of the Lamb slain for the sins of the camp of Israel was taken into the Golden Alter inside the Holy Place. This indicates the blood of Jesus Christ shed for the Kingdom of Heaven. His blood WAS NOT shed for the kingdom of the world-the nations. The ONLY place that the blood of the souls under the alter could possibly be would be under the Bronze Alter in the outer court. So why would these souls be under this alter if they were not sacrificed for something. What was it they were sacrificed for?

Rev.11:2 says that the outer court is for the nations. If these souls are under the alter in the outer court, and if they are sacrifices, then they must be sacrifices for those that the outer court was given over too, that is, the nations. The Golden Alter is in the Temple in Heaven.

Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them.   (3) And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne,   (4) and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.   (5) Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake. Rev.8:2-5.

The Golden Censer is filled with incense and then ignited by the continual fire on the Golden Alter. The continual fire on the Golden Alter in Heaven is extinguished indicating that the judgment of the Kingdom of Heaven is over. Then the Golden Censer is CAST TO EARTH. The earth is the Bronze Alter and indicates that judgment has moved to the nations. This indicates to me that the souls under the Alter are sacrificed for the nations.

This does not occur until the Censer is cast down to earth, which happens shortly before the first of the 7 trumpets sounds. This event has not happened yet because we have not experience the events contiguous with the Censer being cast down; thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and a world wide earthquake.

It is very easy and most convenient to ignore the symbols that you don't understand or see significance in. These souls are there FOR A REASON. It is up to us using our intellect, knowledge, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to come to an understanding of the meaning of these symbols.

Again, you can believe what you want if it makes you happy. But just because you believe something to be true does not make it true in fact.

[John317]

the Greek word for "His" here is Strong's 846-autos (and in spite of what you said earlier) can be either a singular or plural personal pronoun such as 'his' or 'their'. I looked that up carefully, no mistakes this time.

Please give a NT text where the singular "autou" [of him, his] is translated as the plural,"their."

[John317]

you can believe what you want if it makes you happy. But just because you believe something to be true does not make it true in fact.

This is true, but all sides of an issue and question need to understand this. We need to make sure our Christian beliefs and faith are based on solid and valid evidence in the Bible and not on wishful thinking.

[wayfinder]

Or faith?

[John317]

Yes, faith. Faith and belief and confidence and trust and reliance are all one: pistis. The same word is used for "doctrine." Check out Romans 1: 5; Jude 3, 20.

Be sure to look also at Matt. 9: 2, 22, 29.

[wayfinder]

Yes, the same word, although as I see it, trust and faith convey different expected outcomes.

Faith is hopeful expectation not based on past performance. This is best demonstrated by Pauls statement in Romans 4:3,4, which comes from Genesis 15:6. The point Paul makes is that Abraham did nothing more than believe.

Trust is expectation based on past performance. This is demonstrated by Gods past performance and knowing that God never changes.

Isa 42:9

"Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim {them} to you."

God is telling us, look at my performance in the past and you will trust in what I reveal about the future.

Ps 9:10

And those who know Your name will put their trust in You, For You, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek You.

You can have blind faith, but not blind trust.

[Richard Holbrook]

Where do these siblings that are born of the same mother as is Jesus Christ fit into the picture of atonement?

[Dr. Rich]

Rich4Truth, Please check what Jesus said about John the Baptist in John 1--He said that John was the greatest prophet born of a woman--so that is total and complete proof that Jesus' Mother was the Holy Spirit- the same as the woman of Rev. 12. You can't argue this can you?

[Musicman1228]

According to my reading of the evidence in Scripture Mary was the host mother of Jesus until His physical birth and then she became His surrogate/caretaker until He came of age.

Rev.12 states that the Woman (sign in the heavens) that was clothed with the sun, standing on the moon with a twelve starred crown on her head gave birth to Jesus Christ. Now unless you have Catholic church leanings this cannot be Mary. This Woman also gives birth to other offspring (v.17), which means that these 'other offspring' are the siblings (brothers and sisters) of Jesus Christ. The identifier for this is that they 'keep the Commandments of God, and hold to the testimony (words) of Jesus Christ (their eldest Brother)". Since none of us were born of Mary at the end of the first century B.C.E. in Bethlehem, Judea, then this Woman of Rev.12 must be the only other mother that we could conceivably be given birth by (other than our own natural birth mothers), and that would have to be the Holy Spirit. Ref. John 3:3,5.

[Richard Holbrook]

Rich4Truth, Please check what Jesus said about John the Baptist in John 1--He said that John was the greatest prophet born of a woman--so that is total and complete proof that Jesus' Mother was the Holy Spirit- the same as the woman of Rev. 12. You can't argue this can you?

Born of a woman yes, He took on Humanity. John was talking about Mary. As far as the woman in Rev. goes, I guess you would have folks believe the Holy Spirit needed to flee into the wilderness to keep from being killed by Satan. And that the Holy Spirit needed to be fed.

[Dr. Rich]

WHAT? Jesus was talking! He said this of John. You are totally misunderstanding here--go back and read it and the words of Jesus talking about John is clear! Therefore Jesus could NOT have been born of a human woman--His Mother was the Holy Spirit.

[Musicman1228]

If the spiritual Mother of Jesus was not the Holy Spirit then we are all lost, because the only way was become born again into the Kingdom of Heaven is by the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

That is said in Luke 7: 28. Compare Gal. 4: 4.

Jesus was a prophet but He was not merely a prophet but the King of Kings, and the Savior of the world, even God Himself. His existence did not begin with a birth on this earth.

Jesus only had one mother, and that was a human mother, Mary, wife of Joseph.

[Richard Holbrook]

The Bible says Mary was his mother

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

This text makes the Holy Spirit his father. Read the text. It calls Mary the mother and Joseph was not the father.

[oldsailor29]

oldsailor: I thought we were told to hide in the cross not the altar. You make great leaps of faith and assumptions.