ARME 14: Wimberely, TX - Feb 2013

<p>Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/">BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)</a> license.</p>

ARME Bible Camp

Martin Kim

Ivor Myers

The Mock Trial

The Superior Court of the state of Texas County of Hays is now in session the Honorable Dave Stewart judge presiding Please be seated Turn off your cell phones On is it on now, okay.

I understand, BJ, that we have a case before us of a group of Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists.

And I understand they're on trial for their faith today.

I understand Seventh-day Adventists claim to be Christians, claim to follow the Bible as their rule of faith, And yet it seems like their doctrines are so strange, you might even say peculiar, and seem to be so out of step with the rest of mainstream Christianity.

So we have a group of prosecutors who would like to challenge this group of Seventh-day Adventist Christians on their faith to see if it can truly be defended from what the parties have stipulated to as our rule book, not a penal code, but the Bible is the rule book today.

So the way this is going to work, we could go ahead and have, are the prosecutors ready to ask your questions?

Each of the prosecutors are gonna ask a question and we're seeking volunteers who think they can answer the question.

And once someone answers the question to the satisfaction of the prosecutor, that question will be done.

If the first witness does not answer it to their satisfaction, a second witness will have an opportunity to answer the question and that will be it.

This is not who wants to be a millionaire.

There are no lifelines, there are no calls, there are no shouting out from the audience.

The person at the witness stand is the only 1 that answers the questions.

But you have an opportunity to volunteer to do that.

The problem is they build these courtrooms that's built by the lowest bidder, but we'll do our best.

Seventh-day Adventists have long derived their prophetic identity from the figure of the woman and her children represented in Revelation chapter 12 and verse 17.

And specifically, this imagery in Revelation 12 begins with the figure of this woman whom they identify as the true church.

What's ironic, however, is that unquestionably, the child that is mentioned in verse 5 is Jesus.

I think even Seventh-day Adventists would agree with that.

And yet the figure of the woman that gives birth to this child clearly is a symbol of the Virgin Mary, who we know in scripture is the 1 that gave birth to Jesus.

And if this was true, it would undermine and it would really cast great doubt upon the idea that Seventh-day Adventists can identify themselves as the remnant mentioned in verse 17.

And so this morning, your honor, I'd like to see some evidence contrary to that, if there be any.

All right, is there a witness who would like to come forward to answer this question?

How can Seventh-day Adventists claim that the woman in Revelation 12 is none other than the Virgin Mary?

Do we have someone that's willing to come answer the question?

Well we don't believe that it is the Virgin Mary, we believe it's a representative of the church.

That it's the Raymond church, the church represents God's people, pure people that's waiting on the Lord.

My question is, it's clear that this woman gives birth to Jesus, verse 5, even Seventh Day Adventist would acknowledge is a symbol or is the description of Jesus.

And so if the woman gives birth to Jesus, is this not the Virgin Mary?

She does give birth, that is the Virgin Mary that gives birth to Jesus, yes.

And so it represents the church, the Virgin Mary having the baby, and the word coming forth, and it's just like different dispensations at time, period.

So are you saying it does represent the Virgin Mary and the church.

Well, because you have the Virgin Mary at that time period that she had Jesus, and then it's just a time period take place, and then the church in a different period, and it becomes the Raymond Church at the end.

Is there another witness that would like to take a shot at this question?

While it is true that the Mary did give birth, but if you look in the context of Revelation chapter 12 verse 1, this woman that we're speaking about is clothed with the sun, she's clothed with the moon.

It says the moon is under her feet and upon her head a crown of 12 stars.

So looking at that verse and looking at Virgin Mary, if it's speaking of literal Virgin Mary, how, can you explain to me how she would be clothed with the sun?

How would she be the moon under her feet?

So obviously, when you look at the verse, and the woman, it's talking in symbolic language.

And so, which the son represents the son of righteousness, Jesus Christ.

So she was clothed, the woman is clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

So if you look at just the context, it's obviously symbolism because the literal mother of Jesus is not clothed with the Son or she's neither did she stand on the moon.

Is there any other evidence that it's symbolic?

Is there any other evidence in the chapter that indicates that this woman is symbolic?

Is there any other passage in this chapter that would indicate that it could not be a literal?

And even if it's symbolic, how do we know it's not Mary?

Back to Menu

The Mock Trial

Transcript

Parent Conference

Sponsor

Recorded

Related

The Mock Trial

1h

Ellen White Under Fire

1h 3m

Plenary

The Storm Is Here

1h 22m

The Shaking

48m

EGW vs WWW

57m

Apologetics

In Defense of Ellen White

1h

Revelation Made Simple

17. Prophetic Movement at End Time

1h 3m

The Godhead- Part 3

1h

Prophecy Seminar

The Mark of the Beast

43m

How to Make Appeals and Gain Decisions for Christ- Part 2

1h 13m

To Know and Be Known

God Still Speaks

58m

Daniel 12 and the 1335 with Q&A

1h 28m

Sound Doctrine