The Manchild Ministry 45 Minutes

[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.

[Michael The Disciple]

In your view who are THEY......that feed the woman?

Rev. 12:6

And 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.

In mine it is the manchild. The corporate end time overcomers.

[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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Oh I see, you were referring to the Wesleyan Holiness movement from the Methodist. I didn’t know they were dispensationalist. Do you have a reference for me to check out?

When I read “OP” Original Poster came to mind , so I didn’t get that part originally.

Gotcha. So I think we are on the same page then.

I was a Assembly of God minister before and I had Seminary training with them. So I was taught a lot about Dispensationalism. I had forgotten most of it. It was like 20+ years ago. I didn’t even contrast it with my new OP beliefs when I converted. Then, when doing the UPCI general license training, I remember barely Bernard putting some doubts about Dispensationalism in my head. But what actually put a nail in the coffin was a few posts exchange with you in a thread while back about this topic. I really appreciate your contributions in the forum .

[Evang.Benincasa]

Mike, I didn't know you believed that God couldn't tell time. Let's see, He speaks to His creation, then tells them that a day and night is no longer 24 hours? But that a day 12 hours in God's time is 1,000 years? Therefore His creation can now build whopping theories concerning eschatology based on a 1,000 year DAY doctrine? Well, don't feel bad, you have plenty of company. Mostly Talmudic Rabbinicals and Hindus. They just do a better job, since their vedic writings revolve around their 4,320,000 long time span within each age. Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga, and Kali Yuga. But enough of all that garbage. Let's see, here we have Peter a devout Judean who is quoting Psalm 90:4. But let's examine what Peter is talking about, which leads him to quote Psalm 90:4.

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and 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."

Mike, those scoffers Peter is referring to aren't backsliding Christians. They are religious Judeans who didn't believe that Jesus was their christ. Walking after their own lust isn't referring to not attending a church service, or going to the bar room, or smoking cigarettes. It is referring to the Judeans denouncing Jesus as being the Christ, and making the statement that a christ will NEVER come. Meaning the FIRST ADVENT. Not a second coming, but the first appearance. Scoffers were at the foot of the cross telling Jesus if He was the Christ that He should save Himself. That is what the popular belief among the Judeans who were not Christians and would NEVER be Christians. They didn't believe a christ was ever going to show up. 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. The fathers, meaning the patriarchs of the Judeans and the Israelites. The Genesis, since the beginning, everything was exactly as it always had been. Christs showed up, people flocked to them, and those christs didn't last. This is what Peter is dealing with.

For 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: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But 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.

What ungodly men? Mike? The ones who were scoffing and doubting there would ever be a christ. One thing very interesting here. Peter talks about the flood, and how God dealt with the ungodly wiping them out with a flood. I know some people have a crazy idea that God would then engulf the earth with flames burning not only it but the entire solar system. Interesting, but false. God speaking of His covenant makes this statement to His creation...never again will the waters become a flood to DESTROY ALL LIFE. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth. I know, I know, you will say..."but God is saying He will never again destroy with flood waters, doesn't mean He can't destroy with a deluge of fire?" Well, the key word in the verse is destroy. Not flood, but the promise's focus is on destruction of ALL life. That's like a spouse taking their fist and breaking their beloved's nose. The spouse regrets the act of violence and says how they would no longer strike the other with a fist. Only two years later to beat them with a stick? Understand? Peter is telling Judeans who understood their own history that the same God would burn up the "elements" with a fervent heat, those elements aren't all life on a planet or the heaven where God dwells, or the solar system. Because after all, aren't the stars supposed to fall out of the sky? The Moon turn to blood, and the sun extinguished? The solar system rolled up like a scroll Revelation 6:14, Isaiah 34:4. No, it is all poetic language which the Judean fully understood since childhood. You don't understand it, and to the early Judeans you are more like a cargo cult who create a religious belief out of that which they don't understand.

So, 2 Peter 3:8 isn't talking about how long things take to happen. Peter wasn't telling people in his time that the scoffers in their time were correct. That God was going to take over 2,000 years to get everything accomplished. Isn't that what they were doing? Complaining that everything was talking too long? That since the fathers fell asleep since Genesis!!! OK, let's look, "Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up."

Everything in those verses are about SPEED, how we never see or notice how fast God performs. For us He is taking to long. For the scoffers they gave up believing that a christ would ever appear. But the promises of God are yea and amen. In Psalm 39:5 Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah. God is eternal, we don't notice how fast He works. Here the psalmist says that his life is passes quickly, not a 1,000, or two thousands years and still counting! The scoffers whole point is that God was talking too long. At the time of the first century was the time when Christ would appear. “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." Simeon understood the Word of the Lord, and understood that he would behold the Christ and the appointed time. He and Ana were waiting there because they knew the time. In Luke 2:38 Ana understood she had found the redemption of Israel. But those who Peter calls scoffers, didn't believe the christ would ever come. Psalm 90 is speaking about how fast God takes care of things. Not that He cannot tell time, or He forgot that He made a day literally 12 hours and a night 12 hours.

[Evang.Benincasa]

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Oh I see, you were referring to the Wesleyan Holiness movement from the Methodist. I didn’t know they were dispensationalist. Do you have a reference for me to check out?

Currently rounding up some resources. In the meantime, here is a Ph.D. thesis on the history of eschatology in the Assemblies of God. Enjoy!

https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal...g_PhD_2019.pdf

[Amanah]

Good thread! I'm enjoying reading everyone's posts.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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?




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.

What is that time frame? Please explain.



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.

You are right, When I used the word "siege," I was not referring to the actual attack, but from the time they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the gentiles, they fled, and were protected in the wilderness by God, as a hen protects her young.

It seems you added a word that seems to remove to whom it was written to to remove it from them, and that word you wrote is "originally." I say it was written to them and for them, even though we can learn from it, and certain aspects we can glean from, but it wasn't to us.


I do believe Rev 12 was fulfilled in the first century, and is a depiction, using symbolic language, of the struggles, attacks and victory of the first century church.

The church, (the true Israel) fled Jerusalem and was protected for 3.5 years, while Jerusalem was ravaged and went through her destruction.



The "time frame" is pretty much limited to what is written, "shortly come to pass," "the time is at hand," and other such limiting declarations.

To remove it from to whom it was addressed, and to when it says it was for, we need clear proof, and not speculation, but we must take it and understand it as they did, the ones it was addressed to.

That is how I see it.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Bowas

You are right, but added added a word that seems to remove to whom it was written to to remove it from them, and that word you wrote is "originally." I say it was written to them and for them.

I do believe Rev 12 was fulfilled in the first century, and is a depiction, using symbolic language, of the struggles, attacks and victory of the first century church.

The church, (the true Israel) fled Jerusalem and was protected for 3.5 years, while Jerusalem was ravaged and went through her destruction.

When I used the word "siege," I was not referring to the actual attack, but from the time they saw Jerusalem surrounded by the gentiles, they fled, and were protected in the wilderness by God, as a hen protects her young.

The "time frame" is pretty much limited to what is written, "shortly come to pass," "the time is at hand," and other such limiting declarations.

To remove it from to whom it was addressed, we need clear proof, and not speculation, but we must take it and understand it as they did, the ones it was addressed to.

That is how I see it.

I couldn’t agree with you anymore with the bold sentence. That was one of reasons why I started to study the “rapture” of the church. The timeline seemed to be way off, as it was written a long time ago.

Daniel 8:26 KJVS
[26] And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

Compared to

Revelation 22:10 KJVS
[10] And he saith unto me, seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.


From what I understand there is 670 +/- years from Daniel to the book or Revelation.

Daniel was told to seal up the vision for the time was not yet. Which we understand on this side of history, that was correct. Now, we have the angel instructing John to send out the visions, for the time is at hand. Yet, were still waiting 2000 +/- years later?