The Manchild Ministry 45 Minutes

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

DKB's view:

There are possibly 5 dispensations of progressive revelation.
OT still relevant because only ceremonial law is superseded
We are saved via obedient faith, not by grace alone
Church is recipient of some of the promises to Abraham
Jews and gentiles make up the church and both will be saved by the Apostolic doctrine during the tribulation.
The restoration of national Israel in 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy.
Current advances in technology make the mark of the beast, one world Gov't possible

Now I understand why Bro Baxter was a speaker at GC.

DKB critics to Bro Baxter's interpretations:

“In Daniel 7, we find a vision of four ruling nations represented by a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a terrible, indescribable beast. What are the identities of these nations? In recent centuries, Great Britain has been commonly represented by a lion and Russia by a bear, so some commentators use those associations to interpret Daniel 7. Since Germany manufactures Leopard tanks, some conclude that the leopard nation is Germany.
This interpretation does not correspond to the historical context of Daniel. What could the ancient writer and readers have understood? Why is a modern Western perspective the most accurate way to interpret these symbols? The national symbol of India features three lions, the flag of Sri Lanka features a lion, and the snow leopard is the national symbol of Kyrgyzstan (a former Soviet republic). Why not consider these symbols? Why should a line of tanks characterize a nation? Germany was well known for its Tiger tanks, so should we consider it to be a tiger nation instead? Since the United States produces the Cobra attack helicopter, should we consider it to be a cobra nation? If so, this would contradict an attempt by the same commentators to symbolize the U.S. by the eagle’s wings of Daniel 7:4

Excerpt From: David K. Bernard. “Understanding God’s Word.”

So no, DKB doesn't agree with Baxter. He even openly criticized him in a Book read by all UPCI ministers.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by coksiw

DKB critics to Bro Baxter's interpretations:

“In Daniel 7, we find a vision of four ruling nations represented by a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a terrible, indescribable beast. What are the identities of these nations? In recent centuries, Great Britain has been commonly represented by a lion and Russia by a bear, so some commentators use those associations to interpret Daniel 7. Since Germany manufactures Leopard tanks, some conclude that the leopard nation is Germany.
This interpretation does not correspond to the historical context of Daniel. What could the ancient writer and readers have understood? Why is a modern Western perspective the most accurate way to interpret these symbols? The national symbol of India features three lions, the flag of Sri Lanka features a lion, and the snow leopard is the national symbol of Kyrgyzstan (a former Soviet republic). Why not consider these symbols? Why should a line of tanks characterize a nation? Germany was well known for its Tiger tanks, so should we consider it to be a tiger nation instead? Since the United States produces the Cobra attack helicopter, should we consider it to be a cobra nation? If so, this would contradict an attempt by the same commentators to symbolize the U.S. by the eagle’s wings of Daniel 7:4

Excerpt From: David K. Bernard. “Understanding God’s Word.”

Grammatical Historical hermanutics

Very good!

[Bowas]

So. Are we all in agreement this "manchild" was the gospel of Jesus Christ coming forth from the woman, the church, and specifically during the first century when the enemy tried so hard to kill the gospel of Jesus by persecuting the church.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Bowas

So. Are we all in agreement this "manchild" was the gospel of Jesus Christ coming forth from the woman, the church, and specifically during the first century when the enemy tried so hard to kill the gospel of Jesus by persecuting the church.

That’s going to be difficult.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Bowas

So. Are we all in agreement this "manchild" was the gospel of Jesus Christ coming forth from the woman, the church, and specifically during the first century when the enemy tried so hard to kill the gospel of Jesus by persecuting the church.

No we do not agree. The manchild is a corporate HE not an it. And if you watched my video you would have seen the time frame given for the vision was NOT the first century.

But since Preterists start with a wrong premise that Revelation already happened in century 1 its hard for them to see anything different.

So you dont think the enemy (devil) is trying hard to kill the gospel today?

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

No we do not agree. The manchild is a corporate HE not an it. And if you watched my video you would have seen the time frame given for the vision was NOT the first century.

But since Preterists start with a wrong premise that Revelation already happened in century 1 its hard for them to see anything different.

So you dont think the enemy (devil) is trying hard to kill the gospel today?

The only premise I start with is the time statements of Revelation, of " the time is at hand," shortly come to past," which so many whistle past those verses so as not to notice them.

I didn't say the enemy isn't trying to kill the gospel of Jesus today, but you seem to be trying to force it's intended meaning to those the book was addressed to, and make it be for you today?

No. The setting in Revelation 12 was directed to the Christians and the gospel of Jesus during that time, but God protected her in the wilderness when she left Jerusalem during the siege by the gentiles.

[Michael The Disciple]

The only premise I start with is the time statements of Revelation, of " the time is at hand," shortly come to past," which so many whistle past those verses so as not to notice them.

Many today whistle right by the very answer to the time statements.

2 Peter 3

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The Holy Spirit tempers objections to why his coming doesnt fit in our schedule. From his view point 3000 years could pass and it would only be 3 DAYS TO HIM. So his ways are not our ways and he will be justified in all his sayings.

I didn't say the enemy isn't trying to kill the gospel of Jesus today, but you seem to be trying to force it's intended meaning to those the book was addressed to, and make it be for you today?

I take the words of Jesus as spirit and life. Who gets to pick and choose what part of Jesus words are for them as contrast to us? Is ANY of the Bible for us today? After all NONE OF IT was addressed to anyone alive today.

No. The setting in Revelation 12 was directed to the Christians and the gospel of Jesus during that time, but God protected her in the wilderness when she left Jerusalem during the siege by the gentiles.

But what about the time frame of THIS context?

Rev 12:5-6

5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

The manchild is caught up to the throne! So you contend the gospel was caught up to the throne? Yet in the FOLLOWING VERSE the vision shows the woman (Church) fleeing to the wilderness.

You have Jesus ascending and then some 40 years later the Church fleeing. The context implies this happens as soon as the child is caught up to Heaven.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Bowas

So. Are we all in agreement this "manchild" was the gospel of Jesus Christ coming forth from the woman, the church, and specifically during the first century when the enemy tried so hard to kill the gospel of Jesus by persecuting the church.

The son birthed by the woman (Israel) is Christ. In Christ is the gospel, the ministry, the whole church and kingdom of God.

Just as Christ stands for or represents the gospel, the kingdom, the people of God, everlasting life, etc, so too all those things can be included as being part of that which is signified by the son. But the son is actually, literally, and specifically a direct representation of Christ, the "seed of the woman".

Christ ascended in the first century, so the vision of His first coming and triumphant ascension to the throne is a first century event. But it has ongoing eternal effects and results.

The rest of the vision describes things that occur AFTER His ascension, therefore the fulfillments of those things are likewise post-ascension. That they are signified as occurring pretty much immediately after the ascension indicates the fulfillments begin upon His ascension, thereby ruling out the futurist interpretation which places them all into the indefinite future.

What remains then is to answer the question "Does the whole vision take place within the first century, or does it extend beyond the first century?"

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The son birthed by the woman (Israel) is Christ. In Christ is the gospel, the ministry, the whole church and kingdom of God.

Just as Christ stands for or represents the gospel, the kingdom, the people of God, everlasting life, etc, so too all those things can be included as being part of that which is signified by the son. But the son is actually, literally, and specifically a direct representation of Christ, the "seed of the woman".

Christ ascended in the first century, so the vision of His first coming and triumphant ascension to the throne is a first century event. But it has ongoing eternal effects and results.

The rest of the vision describes things that occur AFTER His ascension, therefore the fulfillments of those things are likewise post-ascension. That they are signified as occurring pretty much immediately after the ascension indicates the fulfillments begin upon His ascension, thereby ruling out the futurist interpretation which places them all into the indefinite future.

What remains then is to answer the question "Does the whole vision take place within the first century, or does it extend beyond the first century?"

Nothing in it would indicate it was directed to any, other than to whom/when it was addressed. The early Church, the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fleeing of Jerusalem during the 3.5 years of the siege by the Gentiles.

It fits perfectly within the time frame it says it was for.

To remove its fulfillment beyond that time, does a disservice to the point of the book, and remove its fulfillment to who would need to know, and mostly to preserve a predetermined interpretation.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Bowas

Nothing in it would indicate it was directed to any, other than to whom/when it was addressed.

Which was originally to seven assemblies located in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), and from there to all of God's churches. Not sure exactly how "who was it addressed to" bears on the question of "Was chapter 12 fulfilled completely within the first century, or not?" though. Please explain?

The early Church, the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fleeing of Jerusalem during the 3.5 years of the siege by the Gentiles.

Not sure what these statements are supposed to be saying. In regards to "the 3.5 years of the siege by the gentiles", I will repost my statements on the subject from here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...5&postcount=99

Titus besieged Jerusalem just before the Feast of Unleavened Bread (spring), AD 70, 4783 of the Julian Period (Roman) calendar. He breached the Wall of Antonia in July and the Romans entered the city. In August, the Romans burnt the Temple, set up their ensigns on its eastern (main) gate, made sacrifices, and proclaimed Titus as Imperator. The final routs were completed by September 8 (on the Sabbath, incidentally). The city was ordered razed to its foundations and flattened, and ploughed over, according to Roman custom.

The siege and battle of Jerusalem lasted about 6 and a half months. It was then placed under the custody of the Tenth Legion.

There was no "42 month siege" of Jerusalem.

It fits perfectly within the time frame it says it was for.

What is that time frame? Please explain.

To remove its fulfillment beyond that time, does a disservice to the point of the book, and remove its fulfillment to who would need to know, and mostly to preserve a predetermined interpretation.

Please explain how and why anyone is removing its fulfillment beyond that time, and how and why that would be disservice to the point of the book? And, who is the "who would need to know" you speak of? And what predetermined interpretation are you speaking of? Hopefully not futurism, because I already showed that approach was ruled out.