Evidence for God from Science

Mary is the mother of God incarnates BODY, not his soul or conscious. If i get my leg bitten off by a shark, did a little bit of Brigham go away? even if my brain got shot, and i became mentally handicapped, did a lil bit of Brigham get blown away? no, my Soul and Mind are who i am, not my physical Body or Brain. So Mary was the mother of the SHELL that GOD was in. Thats how i think of it. God bless!


-Brigham

bizzt wrote:

Iggy wrote:ok, mary is not the mother of God, she gave birth to jesus... if your into the oneness thing i can see how one might thing that she's the mother of God. She's not a goddess. i dont think praying to her is rite, or praying to the saints for that matter. they cant really help ya and treating them as a god cant be a good thing.

Hey No problem... But she is If Jesus is God and Mary is his Mother then pure deductions say Mary is the Mother of God. Get me

Technically speaking Mary is the mother of the 'Son of man'. Calling her the "mother of God" Serves only to confuse imho. Not to mention, if one took this to literally mean mother of God opens a pandora's box of misconception.

Mary is part of God's creation, and was used by God to be the vessel by which the Saviour, Christ Jesus would be brought to this earth.

I would say the "rapture" or catching up of the saints happends as it says in 1 Corinthians 15:

1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
1Co 15:55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"


When you are going through Revelation looking for this event, here is a hint. It's the time when the dead are raised, as both this passage and 1 Thes 4 state. The only possibilities are Revelation 20:4 or 20:12 (which is another debate)

So, since 1 Corinthians 15 also gives a timeline of events, including the resurrection. It has led me to the Amillenial position:

1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

When is the absolute last enemy defeated? At the "rapture" (re-read verses 51-55 again). There can't be any more enemies after this point. There can't be a tribulation because there would be more enemies to defeat. This is why the Amil position believes that the 1,000 (symbolic of a long period of time, being the Church age) period when Christ is reigning is now. If the 1,000 years takes place after the "rapture", then the last enemy is not yet defeated (there is still a rebellion at the end of the 1,000 years).
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

So Jesus is said to be reigning now until all His enemies are under his feet, that happends when the last enemy is defeated, at the "Rapture".

Sean,

Just wanted to commend you on the above post. I am an ardent pre-trib, premil., dispensationalist myself, but I can recognize a good argument when I see one. That's one of the first truly Scriptural arguments I've seen in support of your position.

As for why I disagree, there are two reasons:

1) I don't think "the last trump" Paul is referring to is the "last trump" as referred to in Christ's Revelation to John. Bear in mind the the Corinthian epistles were written before the Revelation, so it is a mistake to read that into Paul's statement. Paul would have been using the word in its common usage . . . for him (not aware of a series of seven trumpets), it was a reference to a battle cry or announcement. In other words, it would be the trumpet call that announced the advent of "the Day of the Lord." The battle, so to speak, would soon begin, and the tribulation would soon be falling on the earth. At that time, the church will be taken out of the way.

2) While I agree that death is the last enemy defeated, I think we have to take that in an absolute sense. The Bible tells us explicitly when death is defeated: Rev. 20:14. This is during the Great White Throne Judgement, which is at the end of this age and which ushers in the New Creation.

Still, I do appreciate that you are using biblical texts to support your position rather than simply claiming allegory! For the record, what is your take on 2 Thess. 2:6-7? Who is "the one who now holds it back" and how does that play into your eschatology?

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Sean,

Just wanted to commend you on the above post. I am an ardent pre-trib, premil., dispensationalist myself, but I can recognize a good argument when I see one. That's one of the first truly Scriptural arguments I've seen in support of your position.

As for why I disagree, there are two reasons:

1) I don't think "the last trump" Paul is referring to is the "last trump" as referred to in Christ's Revelation to John. Bear in mind the the Corinthian epistles were written before the Revelation, so it is a mistake to read that into Paul's statement. Paul would have been using the word in its common usage . . . for him (not aware of a series of seven trumpets), it was a reference to a battle cry or announcement. In other words, it would be the trumpet call that announced the advent of "the Day of the Lord." The battle, so to speak, would soon begin, and the tribulation would soon be falling on the earth. At that time, the church will be taken out of the way.

I don't understand, since I agree with you. The last trump the Paul speaks of is not those of the book of Revelation, my point was to show that the only resurrection passage in Revelation is Revelation 20. So the rapture cannot happen before the resurrection of the dead. Since Jesus and Paul taught one resurrection of both the Just and the unjust happening at the same time, there is only one option. The "rapture" passages are the event described in Revelation 20:13. (Or Revelation 20:3-4)

Jac3510 wrote: 2) While I agree that death is the last enemy defeated, I think we have to take that in an absolute sense. The Bible tells us explicitly when death is defeated: Rev. 20:14. This is during the Great White Throne Judgement, which is at the end of this age and which ushers in the New Creation.

Still, I do appreciate that you are using biblical texts to support your position rather than simply claiming allegory! For the record, what is your take on 2 Thess. 2:6-7? Who is "the one who now holds it back" and how does that play into your eschatology?

God bless

I also agree with point #2. This is when death is defeated, putting he Rapture at the end of the world.

Here is another example: 2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

There is no earth left! It's GWT judgement time.

Another example of this same event:

2Th 1:5 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering--
2Th 1:6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you,
2Th 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels
2Th 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
2Th 1:10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

This is the same event described here:
Rev 20:9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them,

This is the rapture. Good for Saints, bad for unbelievers.

As far as 2 Thes 2:6-7,
There are more than one possibility, honestly it hard to figure out because Paul wouldn't say what it was. Why did he not say? It seems like he could have gotten into trouble for saying, hence it's why he said that they know. But why not put it in writing if the people he was writing to already knew? I think it's because he thought the restainer was Rome. He could not say this or he would be in deep trouble. If it's the Holy Spirit, he could have just stated it.

Why Rome? The litte horn (if to be identified with the man of sin) of Daniel, states that he will rise out of the fourth beast (Rome). Rome had to fall before the little horn rise, so Rome had to fall first, therefore it's "restaining" the man of sin. The Papacy rose out of the ashes of Rome, the Papacy is a different beast, one with eyes like a man. The Roman Papacy tried to change God's times and laws, and said they had the authority:

Dan 7:25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

One pope said: “ have power to change times, to abrogate (change) laws, and to dispense
with all things, even the precepts of Christ.”

The Roman Church killed anyone who claimed to be a Christian but would not submit to it's own authority.

Now, If you ask if I beleive this, maybe, It fits like a glove. I'm just undecided since it is not explicit. It's a deduction

I believe the Rapture happens before the tribulation too and the word Rapture means "caught up" as was pointed out earlier. However the way I understand Revelation death's end doesn't happen until the end of the book. It is cast into the lake of fire. But not until the end of the 1007 year period that follows the Rapture.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

bizzt wrote:

Iggy wrote:ok, mary is not the mother of God, she gave birth to jesus... if your into the oneness thing i can see how one might thing that she's the mother of God. She's not a goddess. i dont think praying to her is rite, or praying to the saints for that matter. they cant really help ya and treating them as a god cant be a good thing.

Hey No problem... But she is If Jesus is God and Mary is his Mother then pure deductions say Mary is the Mother of God. Get me

Technically speaking Mary is the mother of the 'Son of man'. Calling her the "mother of God" Serves only to confuse imho. Not to mention, if one took this to literally mean mother of God opens a pandora's box of misconception.

Mary is part of God's creation, and was used by God to be the vessel by which the Saviour, Christ Jesus would be brought to this earth.

I am not going to Argue the Point but will leave it at this

Luk 1:42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Luk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?

I won't argue either, but leave you with this.

The Bible is abundantly clear on the role of Mary in the divine scheme of things. The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary ascended into heaven. Nor does the Bible ever use the expression “mother of God.” The expression, in fact, carries with it misleading baggage. It leaves the impression that Mary somehow is being credited with originating Jesus or bringing Him into existence—ludicrous notions at best (cf. John 1:1; Colossians 1:16-17). A fair representation of Scripture would recognize the need to provide clarification by using different wording (e.g., Mary was the mother of Jesus in His incarnate form). In reality, Mary's body merely served as a host. Matthew worded it this way: “[T]hat which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). Someone has gotten “way off track” by overemphasizing the role of Mary—thus giving rise to Mariolatry (the worship of Mary) among Catholics. Using the expression “mother of God” is, therefore, an example of decontextualization. The meaning of the phrase “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) has been greatly expanded, thereby causing the expression to convey more meaning than the Holy Spirit intended.

The Bible likewise does not give Mary any special status above others. It is acknowledged that she was selected to be the female through whom the Holy Spirit implanted the seed that brought forth the Lord (Luke 1:26-38). It is true that Mary's relative, Elizabeth, referred to her as “blessed” (Luke 1:42). And it is true that Mary, herself, felt that “henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). But notice that nothing is attributed to Mary that is not attributed to many, many other followers of God in Bible history. Many people, in fact, have been “blessed.”

linky

that's another things "christians" love to do... label people!!! i'm not a "trinitarian" or anything! i love how this "religion" takes the bible and interprits it in their own way to mean what they want. this is why your "religion" is in a downward spiral! you guys like to jump on people and try to make em look stupid if they dont agree with you...

Ignoring the label, Iggy . . . what do you believe about the Deity of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit as it relates to the Shema?

IRQ Conflict wrote:I won't argue either, but leave you with this.

The Bible is abundantly clear on the role of Mary in the divine scheme of things. The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary ascended into heaven. Nor does the Bible ever use the expression “mother of God.” The expression, in fact, carries with it misleading baggage. It leaves the impression that Mary somehow is being credited with originating Jesus or bringing Him into existence—ludicrous notions at best (cf. John 1:1; Colossians 1:16-17). A fair representation of Scripture would recognize the need to provide clarification by using different wording (e.g., Mary was the mother of Jesus in His incarnate form). In reality, Mary's body merely served as a host. Matthew worded it this way: “[T]hat which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). Someone has gotten “way off track” by overemphasizing the role of Mary—thus giving rise to Mariolatry (the worship of Mary) among Catholics. Using the expression “mother of God” is, therefore, an example of decontextualization. The meaning of the phrase “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) has been greatly expanded, thereby causing the expression to convey more meaning than the Holy Spirit intended.

The Bible likewise does not give Mary any special status above others. It is acknowledged that she was selected to be the female through whom the Holy Spirit implanted the seed that brought forth the Lord (Luke 1:26-38). It is true that Mary's relative, Elizabeth, referred to her as “blessed” (Luke 1:42). And it is true that Mary, herself, felt that “henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). But notice that nothing is attributed to Mary that is not attributed to many, many other followers of God in Bible history. Many people, in fact, have been “blessed.”

linky

Your a Good Man (man right?)

However Mary was also Singled out... So God reserved something Extraordinary for her. Now I am not really going anywhere with this statement but it is quite odd that a Woman especially in that Time is singled out and is called Blessed and will be called blessed for Generations...

bizzt wrote:
(man right?)

You got it sir! Sir right? ;P My name is Kirk, pleased to type you

However Mary was also Singled out... So God reserved something Extraordinary for her. Now I am not really going anywhere with this statement but it is quite odd that a Woman especially in that Time is singled out and is called Blessed and will be called blessed for Generations...

You know, I whole heartedly agree with you. If God thought that highly of the lady, she must have been something else, I am very jealous of Joseph hehe.

My only issue with the 'mother of God' thing is the confusion it produces in the Christian world. Satan will use anything to confuse Gods people. The catholics in particular are guilty of 'deifying' her. And thats just not kosher (pun intended).

IRQ Conflict wrote:

bizzt wrote:
(man right?)

You got it sir! Sir right? ;P My name is Kirk, pleased to type you

However Mary was also Singled out... So God reserved something Extraordinary for her. Now I am not really going anywhere with this statement but it is quite odd that a Woman especially in that Time is singled out and is called Blessed and will be called blessed for Generations...

You know, I whole heartedly agree with you. If God thought that highly of the lady, she must have been something else, I am very jealous of Joseph hehe.

My only issue with the 'mother of God' thing is the confusion it produces in the Christian world. Satan will use anything to confuse Gods people. The catholics in particular are guilty of 'deifying' her. And thats just not kosher (pun intended).

Name is Tim

Yes I agree about the Confusion. We both know what we mean about being the "Mother of God" but also being the Mother of Jesus she had a very special relationship to her Son that no one else had. As well as Joseph being his Earthly Father had a special Relationship as well... Just a thought to think about

waynes world wrote:I believe the Rapture happens before the tribulation too and the word Rapture means "caught up" as was pointed out earlier. However the way I understand Revelation death's end doesn't happen until the end of the book. It is cast into the lake of fire. But not until the end of the 1007 year period that follows the Rapture.

I don't see how the rapture can come and then there is another 1007 years of death when Paul says in 1 Cor 15:25-26 that the last enemy is death and death is defeated at the "catching up" which is after the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:51-55).

I mean, maybe there is a pre-trib rapture. But how would we know that if the Bible doesn't say there will be a rapture before a 7 year tribulation? I can't find it anyway.

Sean, you would agree that unsaved people will die after the rapture, right? After all, that's what the "second death" is all about, and Rev. 20:14, as we've already talked about, makes it clear that death is the last thing thrown into the Lake of Fire.

So, whether the Rapture happens at the beginning of the tribulation or the end, we still have death after the Rapture, and since Rev. 20:14 explicitly says that death is destroyed . . .

What do you take the Restrainer to be referring to in 2 Thess. 2:3?