Dr. Rich Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 WHAT? Are you serious John317? Then tell me why Jesus never EVER called Mary "mother". He always called her "woman". I can't believe my eyes reading this from you after all of the evidence provided by Jesus Himself! Please don't let your so called 'faith' be a stumbling block. Quote
Richard Holbrook Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Jesus only had one mother, and that was a human mother, Mary, wife of Joseph. Excactly Quote
Musicman1228 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 The 144,000 is a literal number defining a literal group of people. Rev.14:1-5 defines them further by saying that they are on Mt. Zion (in Heaven?) and it is only they that can learn the new song that they are given. This cannot be the numberless multitude because they are seen standing around the sea of Glass in front of the Throne of God. This describes two different events, therefore two different classes of people. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2009 Moderators Posted July 27, 2009 WHAT? Are you serious John317? Then tell me why Jesus never EVER called Mary "mother". Are you saying that you would only believe she was His mother if you read that He called her "mother"? Do you have any record of Jesus calling Joseph "step-father"? If not, how do you know Joseph was Jesus' step-father? Bible calls Mary "His mother." Matt. 2: 11, 13, 14, 20, 21; John 2: 3, 5. Also Scripture says that when Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, she called Mary, "the mother of my Lord." Finally Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that Jesus was "born of a woman." Gal. 4: 4. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Dr. Rich Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Well John, if you say so--but I will stick with what Jesus said and taught. Quote
Richard Holbrook Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Well John, if you say so--but I will stick with what Jesus said and taught. John dosn't say so, the Bible does. Even the part you claim to believe. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2009 Moderators Posted July 27, 2009 Please don't let your so called 'faith' be a stumbling block. Please explain. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Richard Holbrook Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 The Bible calls Mary "His mother." Matt. 2: 11, 13, 14, 20, 21; John 2: 3, 5. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2009 Moderators Posted July 27, 2009 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'. Dr. Rich, Musicman, or Wayfinder, Please give a NT text where the singular "autou" [of him, his] is translated as the plural,"their." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2009 Moderators Posted July 27, 2009 Well John, if you say so--but I will stick with what Jesus said and taught. What did Jesus say and teach in this regard? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
oldsailor29 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 The belief that the 144,000 is a literal number is not one which is held by SDAs. I think it is a belief of dispensationalists. Quote Prs God, frm whm blssngs flw http://www.zoelifestyle.com/jmccall
Stewart (SDA) Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 In connection with the thought about "mothers", I do not question the literal motherhood of Mary, but in a spiritual sense, I sometimes wonder what Paul is saying in Galatians when he says, "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (4:26) In what sense is New Jerusalem the mother of us all? i.e. the mother of all Christians? No need to go off on a tangent with this one, but if anyone does have a brief explanation, I would be interested. ________ Stewart. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Oldsailor, it is with all of the SDAs that I know of. Just as the 12 gates are literal. There is a very good reason it is real if you understand spiritual math. There is not enough room here to get you up to date on this but you can search for it on the internet. And John, I already wrote about what Jesus said about it. He said that John the B was the greatest prophet born of a woman so that would make Jesus born of the Holy Spirit just as those found in Rev. 12:17 And thanks Stewart, lets see if someone can explain what Paul wrote. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2009 Moderators Posted July 27, 2009 .... in a spiritual sense, I sometimes wonder what Paul is saying in Galatians when he says, "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (4:26) In what sense is New Jerusalem the mother of us all? i.e. the mother of all Christians? .... if anyone does have a brief explanation, I would be interested. The New Translation of Gal. 4: 24 makes it clear: Quote: These women [Hagar and Sarah] represent God's two covenants: the first covenant was given at Mount Sinai, resulting in the birth of children who would become slaves to the Law. This covenant is represented by Hagar. Now, 'Hagar' means Mount Sinai in Arabia, which corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she along with her children are in slavery to the Law. By contrast, the Jerusalem that is above is represented by Sarah, the free woman. She is our mother. For it is written, 'Be filled with joy, you who are barren and have never given birth....' verse 28. You, dear Christian friends, are children of promise, like Isaac. At that time the son born by human decision persecuted the one born by the power of the Spirit. So it is now. ....... Verse 31. So then, dear Christian friends, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. 5:1. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free! So stand firm and do not let yourselves be burdened down again with the yoke of slavery. Spiritually speaking, Sarah is our mother if we are believers in Christ, because, like Isaac, we are children of promise. We are sons of the free woman. It is like Galatians 3: 29 says, "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendant, and you inherit the promise God gave to Him." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
oldsailor29 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 The belief that the 144,000 is a literal number is not one which is held by SDAs. I think it is a belief of dispensationalists. Quote Prs God, frm whm blssngs flw http://www.zoelifestyle.com/jmccall
Richard Holbrook Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Thanks for posting that link oldsailor. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Oldsailor, LOL, thanks, but I did not fall out of the tree yesterday. This stuff is old and the BRI is a total laugh! this is just another institute to keep people believing lies! Nope, they are completely wrong! I will keep following the teachings of Jesus and in Him only. Good luck with following the teaching of others. Quote
oldsailor29 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 The belief that the 144,000 is a literal number is not one which is held by SDAs. I think it is a belief of dispensationalists. Quote Prs God, frm whm blssngs flw http://www.zoelifestyle.com/jmccall
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2009 Moderators Posted July 27, 2009 Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Woody Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Quote: I believe the theology of the BRI reflects that which is held by the majority of SDAs. I believe it is only a very small minority of SDAs who accept dispensationalist teachings. Yes, oldsailor ... I think that would be correct. Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Â
oldsailor29 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Originally Posted By: oldsailor29 What do you think of Doug Batchelor's understanding of the 144, 000 as compared with the BRI's views? http://worship7777777.org/144000.html [/quote'] I think Doug Batchelor (Amazing Facts) is likely the best systematic Bible study scholar we have. His studies are excellent answers to questions from people who believe the Bible is inerrant, and they are very good answers in general. The reason I like the BRI scholarship is because it borders on exegetical study, moving away from systematic study a little bit. Of course there are some SDAs who are excellent exegetes, but as far as I know there are no SDA committees or institutes who are dedicated to exegetical studies. But I do like Doug Batchelor's views on the subject. He makes several predictions of things which he says will happen in the future, and those types of things seem to turn out differently than expected most of the time, but he could be right about the literalness of the numbers. Right now I am inclined to accept both the BRI's and Doug Batchelor's interpretations as possibly true. I don't think I would accept much interpretation outside of those two organizations. They are organizations whose individuals are people of God, and I expect to see all of them in heaven. Quote Prs God, frm whm blssngs flw http://www.zoelifestyle.com/jmccall
Musicman1228 Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 BRI - Bathroom Readers Institute? Doug Batchelor's views on anything-who cares. For the most part he just parrots SDA catechism. It is my belief that he is doing what he is doing for the money; take a look at his suits. But lest you believe I am singling him out; no one at the top of the Adventist denomination is living only on ministerial salary. There is big money there and at the top of the Adventist Health system. Quote
Twilight Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 BRI - Bathroom Readers Institute? Doug Batchelor's views on anything-who cares. For the most part he just parrots SDA catechism. It is my belief that he is doing what he is doing for the money; take a look at his suits. But lest you believe I am singling him out; no one at the top of the Adventist denomination is living only on ministerial salary. There is big money there and at the top of the Adventist Health system. A Christian is not supposed to "gossip". Quote The best wisdom is always second hand...
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2009 Moderators Posted July 27, 2009 Right now I am inclined to accept both the BRI's and Doug Batchelor's interpretations as possibly true. I don't think I would accept much interpretation outside of those two organizations. They are organizations whose individuals are people of God, and I expect to see all of them in heaven. I'm of the same opinion. I study both. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2009 Moderators Posted July 27, 2009 Jesus taught that we should do undo others as we would have them do to us. I care about Doug Batchelor & always enjoy listening to him. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.