Mother of Jesus?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The word "ἕως" according to "Strong's":

"... a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s). ..."
It has a range of meaning that deals with time, whether limited or unlimited.

In Matthew 5:25, it means 'during' (meaning 'limited in scope'), or "whiles"

Mat 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.​

Thus 'during the time a person is "in the way with" another. After the time allowed, it is too late.

In John 16:24, it means 'up to this point in time' or 'until now (presently)' (something was 'continually occuring until the time specified'), or "Hitherto":

Joh 16:24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.​

Thus 'up to this point in time', the Disciples hadn't asked in Jesus' name, but afterward they would (Acts 3:6, 7:59, 16:18, 22:16, &c).

The context dictates the use. Other passages separate from the immediate context do not dictate it's use. In 2 Samuel 6:23, the word (H5704, "עד", or so called lxx, "ἕως") is in the context of "the day of her (Michal) death", which obvious context means she had 0 (no) children at all, during the time in which she could have had children. The death was the limiting factor. The difference between this and Matthew 1, is that Michal had no children unto the day of her death, while Mary was still very much alive after having Jesus, and Joseph "knew her not until" after that timeframe, she being his lawful "wife", whom he "took unto" himself to be 'one flesh' (which is the context of the marriage of Joseph and Mary).

Romanism has to imagine that Mary is somehow like Michal, but the type is all wrong. Michal was 'put aside' by David, Mary was not put away by Joseph (Matthew 1:19-25).

Deu 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.​

Likewise, with Moses. The limiting factor of the word used (H5704, "עד", or so called lxx, "ἕως") is even to the present time (which it is still the present time, it is always the present time with us, though not with those of the past who have perished). Yet, if a person reads the NT, and understands from the Gospels, Romans and Jude, there is a reason no one knows where the grave of Moses is. In the first place, God Himself buried Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5-6), and it was God who resurrected him (Jude 1:9; Romans 5:14) and took him to Heaven and glorified him (Luke 9:31; 2 Peter 1:17). Thus there is no grave of Moses any longer. What has this to do with Mary and the passage of Matthew 1? Nothing.

It can even be used in matters of limiting distance (spacial, rather than time (chronlogically)), a boundary, see Luke 24:50; Acts 11:19,22, "as far as Bethany", "as far as Phenice and Cyprus", "as far as Antioch".

Consider 1 John 2:9:

1Jn 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.​

The time is limited in this, meaning 'up to the present', so long as the 'condition' exists, but the very moment that the person no longer hates his brother, the "until" no longer bounds the time, and the person is no longer in darkness, but is in the light.

The same way with Matthew 1:25. There was a bound set, so long as Mary was pregnant with Jesus, Joseph "knew (have marital relations with) her (Mary) not" "till" Jesus was born, after which, the condition changed, and Joseph and Mary were free to engage in that most intimate of the expression of love in marriage and the bed was undefiled (pure/holy).

Many more such examples can be provided. Now, consider the context of the other words associated with it in Matthew 1.

Notice the words "took unto him".
Notice the words "thy [Joseph's] wife", "his [Joseph's] wife".
Notice the words "knew her".
Blah, blah, blah . . .
READ
post #200.
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Blah, blah, blah . . .
READ
post #200.
Already addressed, as I have already read it, but you do not seem to have read my thorough response to the Romish usurpation of Christ Jesus -

Post 146 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 147 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 148 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 149 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 151 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 152 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 153 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 154 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 155 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 156 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 186 - Mother of Jesus?

It would help if persons responding in this thread do not "ignore" the evidence from someone that offers counter to their own erroneous aprioric belief.
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
There is only one person in all humanity of whom God has one picture, and in whom there is a perfect conformity between what He wanted her to be and what she is, and that is His Own Mother. The model and the copy are perfect. As Eden was the Paradise of Creation, Mary is the Paradise of the Incarnation. The closer one gets to the fire, the greater the heat; the closer one is to God, the greater the purity. But since no one was ever closer to God than the woman whose human portals He threw open to walk this earth, then no one could have been more pure than she. We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ. The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood. It may be objected: ‘Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her.’ But He needed her, whether we do or not. God, Who made the sun, also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. All its light is reflected from the sun. The Blessed Mother reflects her Divine Son; without Him, she is nothing. With Him, she is the Mother of Men. (Ven. Archbishop Fulton Sheen, The World’s First Love, 1952)
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Finally - in the Book of Revelation, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19:
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ARK OF HIS COVENANT could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1):
A great sign appeared in the sky, A WOMAN clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says:
SHE WAS WITH CHILD and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
I have placed this before, but you seem to not read what I write, so I will give it again, in the hopes you might yet see:

https://archive.org/download/revelation-12-the-great-controversy/Revelation 12 – The Great Controversy.pptx

https://archive.org/download/michae...Revelation compared, 7 Branch Candlestick.pdf

I thought that those in the Romish faith were to study the doctrines of others, so that they might know how to defeat them, but I do not see you doing this here. I rather see, an 'ignoring' (without knowledge) here.

•1. Is the woman still pregnant (with child) in Rev. 12:1-2,5?

•2. Is the “great red Dragon” also “in heaven” ready to devour the ‘man child’ as soon as He is born in Rev. 12:3-5, and if so, is the devil in Heaven right now with this ‘Mary’ then?

•3. Does the Bible (KJB) anywhere say that ‘Mary’, whether dead or alive, was ‘assumed’ bodily into Heaven?

•4. Is the context or Rev. 12:1-2 in pre-AD (Anno Domini) times?

•5. Is the context of Rev. 11:15-19 in post BC (Before Christ) times, even at the end of time, during the 7th trumpet (Rev. 11:15), wherein the 7 last plagues are mentioned (Rev. 11:18, ‘thy wrath is come’)?
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
1. Mary is called “Mother of the Lord” (Lk 1:43) and the “Mother of Jesus” (Jn 2:1), thus she is the Mother of God, since Jesus Christ is true God, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity (see also Is 7:14; Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35; Gal 4:4).
*
2. Our own mothers did not have any part in the production of our souls, which was the work of God alone. Yet we would not say she was the “mother of my body,” and not “my mother.” Likewise, Mary, under the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, communicated, as mothers do, to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature of the same substance as her own. From this unfathomable privilege flows her surpassing dignity and excellence. If Mary were not a truly human mother, then Jesus Christ is not a truly human Person, and both the Incarnation and Jesus Christ’s Human Nature would be in peril.
*
3. The Founders of Protestantism held firmly to this title for Mary, on the same grounds (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Bullinger).

The Blessed Virgin Mary: Biblical & Catholic Overview | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...
*
3. The Founders of Protestantism held firmly to this title for Mary, on the same grounds (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Bullinger).

The Blessed Virgin Mary: Biblical & Catholic Overview | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)
God is the first Protestant -

Jer_11:7 For I earnestly protested unto your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice.​

One of the reasons I am not a Luther-an, or a Calvin-ist, or Zwingli-an, or Melanchthon-ite, or Bullinger-ian, is because a 'protestant' is not a follower of such men, but follows what is written in the word of God, the Holy Scriptures (KJB). The leaders of such 'reformers' (attempting to reform Babylon itself; Revelation 2:21) are not the goal, nor the end to achieve, but were only guides out of the corrupt system that is identified in Daniel & Revelation , &c. Thus to say, "Well, Martin Luther said ...", is no more weighty with a true protestant, than, "Well, the Pope said ..." (meaning, it has 0 weight).

They had some wonderful truth recovered from the 'dunghill of decretals' (Luther), as buried in the endless paganism that is the Romish belief and practice, but they did not have the full light of truth, but were able to go out so far (Revelation 18:4). Others had to carry on from there. The question is often asked by Romish prelates and theologians why do the "Protestants" of today not generally use the phrase "Mother of God", or the even more Greek "theotokos", even when their 'founders' (like Luther), used it? It is because of what I stated. A true protestant, is not a follower of such men, but protests all error, and proclaims all truth. They obey God, the original protestant, and are like Him.
 
Last edited:

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Funny how you whine about "ad hominem" - then you use an asinine term like "Romanists".

More SDA hypocrisy . . .
The terms "Romanist", "Romish", are not an ad hominem against any person. It is a descriptor of said person. It would be like saying that a person is 'ignorant' (without knowledge) on a subject. It is not an ad hominem to say such, but is simply a descriptor of said person. It is like saying that a person is 'white/black/brown/Asian/Lithuanian/Georgian/Texan, &c'. They are not ad hominem's either, but simply descriptors.

Is James using an Ad hominem?

Jas_3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
Is Luke using an Ad hominem?

Act_19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.​
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Already addressed, as I have already read it, but you do not seem to have read my thorough response to the Romish usurpation of Christ Jesus -

Post 146 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 147 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 148 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 149 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 151 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 152 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 153 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 154 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 155 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 156 - Mother of Jesus?

Post 186 - Mother of Jesus?

It would help if persons responding in this thread do not "ignore" the evidence from someone that offers counter to their own erroneous aprioric belief.
Yes, I read your "evidence". However - other than being a listing of verses pertaining to the Ark - and several other irrelevant verses - NONE of it disproves the fact that Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark.

YOU are proposing the Jesus is the fulfillment of the Ark - but the Ark WASN'T God. Jesus IS.
The Ark was a vessel that carried the symbols of God's power.
Mary is the vessel that actually carried GOD Himself - in a FULLER way than anybody will EVER carry God within them because she was the ONLY one chosen to conceive in her womb and give birth to the God-Man (Theanthropos).

Many of the verses I presented that show her as being the fulfillment of the Ark are almost verbatim examples of the OT verses that show the type that was the Ark.
God doesn't make mistakes - NOR is He a victim of "coincidence".
To ignore these glaring textual proofs is nothing more than spiritual pride based on your hatred of the Catholic church - and nothing else.:

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have placed this before, but you seem to not read what I write, so I will give it again, in the hopes you might yet see:

https://archive.org/download/revelation-12-the-great-controversy/Revelation 12 – The Great Controversy.pptx

https://archive.org/download/michael-the-archangel-x-6-appendix-6-daniel-the-revelation-compared-7-branch-candlestick/Michael the archangel [X6] - Appendix 6 – Daniel & the Revelation compared, 7 Branch Candlestick.pdf

I thought that those in the Romish faith were to study the doctrines of others, so that they might know how to defeat them, but I do not see you doing this here. I rather see, an 'ignoring' (without knowledge) here.

•1. Is the woman still pregnant (with child) in Rev. 12:1-2,5?

•2. Is the “great red Dragon” also “in heaven” ready to devour the ‘man child’ as soon as He is born in Rev. 12:3-5, and if so, is the devil in Heaven right now with this ‘Mary’ then?

•3. Does the Bible (KJB) anywhere say that ‘Mary’, whether dead or alive, was ‘assumed’ bodily into Heaven?

•4. Is the context or Rev. 12:1-2 in pre-AD (Anno Domini) times?

•5. Is the context of Rev. 11:15-19 in post BC (Before Christ) times, even at the end of time, during the 7th trumpet (Rev. 11:15), wherein the 7 last plagues are mentioned (Rev. 11:18, ‘thy wrath is come’)?
The fact that you DON'T understand the allegorical and symbolic language of Revelation speaks to your overall ignorance of Scripture.

A few verses later, it ALSO talks about Satan and his angels being kicked out of Heaven as a pseudo-futuristic event - even thought this ALREADY happened (Rev. 12:7-9).

STUDY your Bible - don't just quote it . . .
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The fact that you DON'T understand the allegorical and symbolic language of Revelation speaks to your overall ignorance of Scripture.

A few verses later, it ALSO talks about Satan and his angels being kicked out of Heaven as a pseudo-futuristic event - even thought this ALREADY happened (Rev. 12:7-9).

STUDY your Bible - don't just quote it . . .
You need to study your bible,,,, NO I take that back, you need to study the "BIBLE", for YOUR Bible is lying to you. Satan and his angels being kicked out of Heaven as a pseudo-futuristic event - even thought this ALREADY happened (Rev. 12:7-9).
are you kidding? Revelation chapter 12 is in symbolism of the birth of Christ. which can be found in Matthews chapter 2.

BreadOfLife, take note: Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."Hebrews 5:13 "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe."Hebrews 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."


Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You need to study your bible,,,, NO I take that back, you need to study the "BIBLE", for YOUR Bible is lying to you. Satan and his angels being kicked out of Heaven as a pseudo-futuristic event - even thought this ALREADY happened (Rev. 12:7-9).
are you kidding? Revelation chapter 12 is in symbolism of the birth of Christ. which can be found in Matthews chapter 2.

BreadOfLife, take note: Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."Hebrews 5:13 "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe."Hebrews 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."


Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
This is typical of your how you force yourself into conversations without ANY understanding or knowledge of what is being spoken of.

My reference to Rev. 12:7-9 as a "pseudo" futuristic even was in direct response to the claim by @ReChoired that the Woman in Rev. 12 couldn't be Mary because the Devil was present in Heaven at the time of the birth of the son of the Woman.

Revelation is NOT a chronological record - but a SYMBOLIC representation of things that HAVE happened and things that WILL happen.
As usual - you failed because you allowed your anti-Catholic bias control your emotions.

My advice to YOU is - pay attention or butt out . . .
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I thought this was an open forum?

Revelation is NOT a chronological record - but a SYMBOLIC representation of things that HAVE happened and things that WILL happen.
did not the birth of Christ "HAD" happen? .... :eek: oh welll don't worry I want respond to your post.... :p

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As far as the phrase "right hand of God" - I feel it is metaphorical; Jesus sits at the place of honor, God is Spirit - God the Father does not literally have a RIGHT HAND, a MOUTH, NOSTRILS, an ARM that he has bared to the heathen - there are many anthropomorphic descriptions of God which are not literal, imo.

Also, Jesus was STANDING when Stephen saw Him, as Stephen was being stoned.
That is not what scripture says and is actually spiritualism (satanic). The Father is not a perfume, not an aethereal essence pervading the universe.

Mat_6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Luk_11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.​

He, the Father, is a "Person", even His person (Job 13:8; Hebrews 1:3), of which Jesus (the Son) is the "express image" of.

As for the rest, see "His person" (Job 13:8); "form of God" (Philippians 2:6), "shape" (John 5:37), "image" (Genesis 1:26,27; Hebrews 1:3), "likeness" (Genesis 1:26,27), "being" (Acts 17:28), has a very real movable "Throne" on which He sits (Daniel 7:9-10; Revelation 4-5, &c), has "the hair of his head like the pure wool" (Daniel 7:9), "whose garment was white as snow" (Daniel 7:9), has a "right hand" (Revelation 5:1; Acts 7:55-56), able to be looked upon, "to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone" (Revelation 4:2), having His own "nature" (Galatians 4:8).

See also "back parts" (Exodus 33:23), and even a "divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), see also "under his feet" (Exodus 24:20).

The angels are also called 'spirits' and "persons" ("fellows"; Hebrews 1:9), "young man" (Mark 16:5; Daniel 9:21; &c), and yet have real celestial (Heavenly) "bodies" with unfallen angelic "flesh" (1 Corinthians 15:35-58; Jude 1:7, Genesis 17-19, &c) an unfallen heavenly "nature" (Hebrews 2:16), where as we have bodies terrestrial (dust).

The Son is also a "person" (Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 2:10; Matthew 27:24; Deuteronomy 27:25; &c).

So is the Holy Ghost (John 14:16; &c)

Mankind are also called 'spirits' (1 Peter 3:19; Hebrews 12:23) and yet are real tangible beings, with bodies (made of dust).

Philippians 2:6; Daniel 3:25; Genesis 18:4, 19:2; Exodus 24:10-11; Psalms 18:9; John 5:37; Exodus 33:23,20,22; Daniel 7:9-10,13; Ezekiel 1:1,8,26-28; Acts 7:55-56; Psalms 24:1-10; John 20:17; 1 Peter 3:22; Matthew 18:10; Revelation 1:13-20, 2:1, 4:1-11, 5:1-14; Hebrews 1:13; Colossians 1:3-6; Numbers 12:8; Isaiah 45:23, 48:3; Revelation 3:16; Psalms 89:34; Psalms 104:33, 146:2; Acts 17:28; Genesis 1:26-27; Colossians 1:15; &c.​

"... PERSONALITY OF GOD

MAN was made in the image of God. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." Gen.i,26,27. See also chap.ix,6; 1Cor.xi,7. Those who deny the personality of God, say that "image" here does not mean physical form, but moral image, and they make this the grand starting point to prove the immortality of all men. The argument stands thus: First, man was made in God's moral image. Second, God is an immortal being. Third, therefore all men are immortal. But this mode of reasoning would also prove man omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and thus clothe mortal man with all the attributes of the deity. Let us try it: First, man was made in God's moral image. Second, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Third, therefore, man is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. That which proves too much, proves nothing to the point, therefore the position that the image of God means his moral image, cannot be sustained. As proof that God is a person, read his own words to Moses: "And the Lord said, Behold there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock; and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by. And I will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my [2] back parts; but my face shall not be seen." Ex.xxxiii,21-23. See also chap.xxiv,9-11. Here God tells Moses that he shall see his form. To say that God made it appear to Moses that he saw his form, when he has no form, is charging God with adding to falsehood a sort of juggling deception upon his servant Moses. {1861 JW, PERGO 1.1}

But the skeptic thinks he sees a contradiction between verse 11, which says that the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, and verse 20, which states that Moses could not see his face. But let Num.xii,5-8 remove the difficulty. "And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words. If there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently." {1861 JW, PERGO 2.1}

The great and dreadful God came down, wrapped in a cloud of glory. This cloud could be seen, but not the face which possesses more dazzling brightness than a thousand suns. Under these circumstances Moses was permitted to draw near and converse with God face to face, or mouth to mouth, even apparently. {1861 JW, PERGO 2.2}

Says the prophet Daniel, "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hairs of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire." Chap.vii,9. "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him, and [3] there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom." Verses 13, 14. {1861 JW, PERGO 2.3}

Here is a sublime description of the action of two personages; viz, God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ. Deny their personality, and there is not a distinct idea in these quotations from Daniel. In connection with this quotation read the apostle's declaration that the Son was in the express image of his Father's person. "God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." Heb.i,1-3. {1861 JW, PERGO 3.1}

We here add the testimony of Christ. "And the Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." John v,37. See also Phil.ii,6. To say that the Father has not a personal shape, seems the most pointed contradiction of plain scripture terms.

OBJECTION. - "God is a Spirit." John iv,24. {1861 JW, PERGO 3.2}

ANSWER. - Angels are also spirits [Ps.civ,4], yet those that visited Abram and Lot, lay down, ate, and took hold of Lot's hand. They were spirit beings. So is God a Spirit being. {1861 JW, PERGO 3.3}

OBJ. - God is everywhere. Proof. Ps.cxxxix,1-8. He is as much in every place as in any one place. {1861 JW, PERGO 3.4}

ANS. - 1. God is everywhere by virtue of his omniscience, as will be seen by the very words of David referred to above. Verses 1-6. "O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a [4] word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thy hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. It is high; I cannot attain unto it." {1861 JW, PERGO 3.5}

2. God is everywhere by virtue of his Spirit, which is his representative, and is manifested wherever he pleases, as will be seen by the very words the objector claims, referred to above. Verses 7-10. "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." {1861 JW, PERGO 4.1}
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As far as the phrase "right hand of God" - I feel it is metaphorical; Jesus sits at the place of honor, God is Spirit - God the Father does not literally have a RIGHT HAND, a MOUTH, NOSTRILS, an ARM that he has bared to the heathen - there are many anthropomorphic descriptions of God which are not literal, imo.

Also, Jesus was STANDING when Stephen saw Him, as Stephen was being stoned.
That is not what scripture says and is actually spiritualism (satanic). The Father is not a perfume, not an aethereal essence pervading the universe. Continuing:

"... God is in heaven. This we are taught in the Lord's prayer. "Our Father which art in heaven." Matt.vi,9; Luke xi,2. But if God is as much in every place as he is in any one place, then heaven is also as much in every place as it is in any one place, and the idea of going to heaven is all a mistake. We are all in heaven; and the Lord's prayer, according to this foggy theology simply means, Our Father which art everywhere, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as it is everywhere. {1861 JW, PERGO 4.2}

Again, Bible readers have believed that Enoch and Elijah were really taken up to God in heaven. But if God and heaven be as much in every place as in any one place, this is all a mistake. They were not translated. And all that is said about the chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and the attending whirlwind to take Elijah up into heaven, was a useless parade. They only evaporated, and a misty vapor passed through the entire universe. This is all of Enoch and Elijah that the mind can possibly grasp, admitting that God and heaven are [5] no more in any one place than in every place. But it is said of Elijah that he "went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2Kings ii,11. And of Enoch it is said that he "walked with God, and was not, for God took him." Gen.v,24. {1861 JW, PERGO 4.3}

Jesus is said to be on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb.i,3. "So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." Mark xvi,19. But if heaven be everywhere, and God everywhere, then Christ's ascension up to heaven, at the Father's right hand, simply means that he went everywhere! He was only taken up where the cloud hid him from the gaze of his disciples, and then evaporated and went everywhere! So that instead of the lovely Jesus, so beautifully described in both Testaments, we have only a sort of essence dispersed through the entire universe. And in harmony with this rarified theology, Christ's second advent, or his return, would be the condensation of this essence to some locality, say the mount of Olivet! Christ arose from the dead with a physical form. "He is not here," said the angel, "for he is risen as he said." Matt.xxviii,6. {1861 JW, PERGO 5.1}

"And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail! And they came and held him by the feet, and they worshiped him." Verse 9. {1861 JW, PERGO 5.2}

"Behold my hands and my feet," said Jesus to those who stood in doubt of his resurrection, "that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honey-comb, and he took it and did eat before them." Luke xxiv,39-43. {1861 JW, PERGO 5.3} [6]

After Jesus addressed his disciples on the mount of Olivet, he was taken up from them, and a cloud received him out of their sight. "And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel, which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Acts i,9-11. J. W. {1861 JW, PERGO 6.1}

IMMATERIALITY

THIS is but another name for nonentity. It is the negative of all things and beings - of all existence. There is not one particle of proof to be advanced to establish its existence. It has no way to manifest itself to any intelligence in heaven or on earth. Neither God, angels, nor men could possibly conceive of such a substance, being, or thing. It possesses no property or power by which to make itself manifest to any intelligent being in the universe. Reason and analogy never scan it, or even conceive of it. Revelation never reveals it, nor do any of our senses witness its existence. It cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled, even by the strongest organs, or the most acute sensibilities. It is neither liquid nor solid, soft nor hard - it can neither extend nor contract. In short, it can exert no influence whatever - it can neither act nor be acted upon. And even if it does exist, it can be of no possible use. It possesses no one, desirable property, faculty, or use, yet, strange to say, immateriality is the modern Christian's God, his anticipated heaven, his immortal self - his all! {1861 JW, PERGO 6.2}

O sectarianism! O atheism!! O annihilation!!! [7]

who can perceive the nice shades of difference between the one and the other? They seem alike, all but in name. The atheist has no God. The sectarian has a God without body or parts. Who can define the difference? For our part we do not perceive a difference of a single hair; they both claim to be the negative of all things which exist - and both are equally powerless and unknown. {1861 JW, PERGO 6.3}

The atheist has no after life, or conscious existence beyond the grave. The sectarian has one, but it is immaterial, like his God; and without body or parts. Here again both are negative, and both arrive at the same point. Their faith and hope amount to the same; only it is expressed by different terms. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.1}

Again, the atheist has no heaven in eternity. The sectarian has one, but it is immaterial in all its properties, and is therefore the negative of all riches and substances. Here again they are equal, and arrive at the same point. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.2}

As we do not envy them the possession of all they claim, we will now leave them in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the same, and proceed to examine the portion still left for the despised materialist to enjoy. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.3}

What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.4}

What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like his Father, being "the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person." He is a material intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.5}

What are men? They are the offspring of Adam. They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such a degree as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of Jesus Christ, [8] and to possess immortal flesh and bones. Thus perfected, they will possess the material universe, that is, the earth, as their "everlasting inheritance." With these hopes and prospects before us, we say to the Christian world who hold to immateriality, that they are welcome to their God - their life - their heaven, and their all. They claim nothing but that which we throw away; and we claim nothing but that which they throw away. Therefore, there is no ground for quarrel or contention between us. {1861 JW, PERGO 7.6}

We choose all substance - what remains
The mystical sectarian gains;
All that each claims, each shall possess,
Nor grudge each other's happiness.

An immaterial God they choose,
For such a God we have no use;
An immaterial heaven and hell,
In such a heaven we cannot dwell.

We claim the earth, the air, and sky,
And all the starry worlds on high;
Gold, silver, ore, and precious stones,
And bodies made of flesh and bones.

Such is our hope, our heaven, our all,
When once redeemed from Adam's fall;
All things are ours, and we shall be,
The Lord's to all eternity. {1861 JW, PERGO 8.1} ..." - Personality of God, by James Springer White, 1861, pages 1.1 - 8.1
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is typical of your how you force yourself into conversations without ANY understanding or knowledge of what is being spoken of.

My reference to Rev. 12:7-9 as a "pseudo" futuristic even was in direct response to the claim by @ReChoired that the Woman in Rev. 12 couldn't be Mary because the Devil was present in Heaven at the time of the birth of the son of the Woman.

Revelation is NOT a chronological record - but a SYMBOLIC representation of things that HAVE happened and things that WILL happen.
As usual - you failed because you allowed your anti-Catholic bias control your emotions.

My advice to YOU is - pay attention or butt out . . .
Two questions:

Where (locationally according to the context) is the woman pregnant ('being (present tense) with child') and going to be giving birth?

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.​

Where (locationally according to the context) is the Dragon in the same context, going to devour the child as soon as it was born?
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The fact that you DON'T understand the allegorical and symbolic language of Revelation speaks to your overall ignorance of Scripture.

A few verses later, it ALSO talks about Satan and his angels being kicked out of Heaven as a pseudo-futuristic event - even thought this ALREADY happened (Rev. 12:7-9).

STUDY your Bible - don't just quote it . . .
Actually, not really. It was symbolic (Revelation 1:1) of what happened in the days of Jesus Christ (Revelation 12:10; Romans 5:6), using the type of the past, to show what was taking place then.

https://archive.org/download/revela...sy/Revelation 12 – The Great Controversy.pptx

See the DOMINION sermon -


https://archive.org/download/dominion_202005/Dominion.pptx

All of the texts are provided.

The "kingdom of God" is "within":

Luk_17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.​

The battle re-told in Revelation 12, is in perfect chronological order (using a past type, the original fall of Lucifer, to explain an anti-type that was then taking place during the period of Jesus, and the Gospel).

Jesus said:

Luk 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Luk 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.​

Satan and the devils were being cast out of the heart's of mankind. The Kingdom of God was expanding.

The original fall of Lucifer was replaying itself out in the hearts of man.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I thought this was an open forum?
It IS.
However - don't force yourself into a conversation unless you understand what is being talked about.
did not the birth of Christ "HAD" happen? .... oh welll don't worry I want respond to your post....
Once again - you're not understanding what I said.

Revelation
is not a timely chronological record. Some things are spoken of as being contemporaneous with other events - when in reality, they weren't. That was my WHOLE point . . .