who is he

[iamlamad]

12 hours ago, noblenut said:

" ..."

WILLIAM L wrote, 

Rev. 1:19 Write the things which you have seen [past], and the things which are [present], and the things which will take place after these [future].  Most people insert ONLY in this verse in their thinking. God was VERY free to include some history with His future - and He did.

“The things seen” (by John up to that point) are told in Rev. 1:9-20. “The things which are” – that is, that were taking place at the time of John’s visions – are told in Rev. 2-3, when Jesus tells each of the 7 churches, “I know your works.” Then, beginning in Rev. 4:1, we find:

Rev. 4:1 After this I looked and beheld a door standing open in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me, saying, Come up here, and I will show thee things which must take place after these [things].

Again people insert ONLY here too, but John did not write ONLY. God was free to show John things of the past with future events - and HE DID! For example, Rev. 12: 1-5 is about Jesus and how the devil used King Herod to try and kill Jesus as a young child. 

Everything John was shown from Rev. 4:1 onward is future from – “after” – his day.

This comment is MYTH. The writer imagines an ONLY written in the above verses. The truth is, the vision of chapter 4 is a vision of the past - John was looking into the throne room during the time Jesus was still on earth. This is proven by Jesus NOT SEEN at the right hand of the Father, where we have a dozen verses telling us that is where He should have been. Truth? There was 32 years of time when Jesus was NOT at the right hand of the Father: He was on earth. Readers take careful note: Jesus did NOT WRITE  "only" things in the future.

This includes everything in chapter 12. The birth and ascent of the Manchild that John saw in Rev. 12:5 are future; although the birth and ascent of Jesus was of the same pattern and type.  This comment too is MYTH. The first five verses here  are about how the dragon tried to kill Jesus using King Herod. They are HISTORY today and were HISTORY to John. 

Jesus himself tells us who the Manchild shall be:  Sorry, but JESUS is the manchild born of Israel.

Rev. 2:26-27 The one overcoming, and the one keeping my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall shepherd/pastor them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to pieces:as I also have received from my Father. True, because it is scripture: but verses 1-5 is about JESUS: He was born of a virgin, the church was not.

Rev. 12:5 She bore a Manchild, who is about to shepherd/pastor all nations with a rod of iron. "She" is the virgin represented by VIRGO.  JESUS was born of a virgin.

Rev. 12:7-11 then reveals that this Manchild, a collective body, the elect-of-the-elect overcomers, will participate in the casting down of Satan and his angels out of heaven: MYTH: that is the job of Michael. I think He would laugh at your suggestion!

Rev. 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the Dragon [Satan]… Right, Michael and the angels, NOT SAINTS!

11 And they overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their souls unto death. This is a NEW thought not related to the war in heaven. During the rest of the week the saints will overcome the Beast by the blood of the Lamb; they will lose their head but not their salvation

The “they” of verse 11 cannot refer to any non-human angels, only to men, that is, to those ascended overcomers of the Manchild(ren) cleansed and empowered by the blood of Jesus. Yes, to saints, but this verse is not related to the war in heaven.

William L in blue, my comments in black

Edited May 29, 2019 by iamlamad

[iamlamad]

On 5/28/2019 at 2:49 AM, noblenut said:

as an infant, save from satan by the angel? u better study english again, because what u say is not in the text

Noblenut, I think YOU need to read more closely!

[iamlamad]

On 5/27/2019 at 11:06 PM, Willa said:

Jesus is the One Who had been caught up to heaven.   He will return and rule for 1000 years with a rod of iron.  In John 1 we read the the Word was with God the Father and the Word was God Jesus v.12 and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jesus).  

Rev 12:17  And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This refers to the Church

Only the "remnant" or "rest" refers to the church, and then ONLY to those who were left behind at the rapture; which is why John used "remnant."

The "woman" is referencing ISRAEL.

[nobleseed]

13 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Only the "remnant" or "rest" refers to the church, and then ONLY to those who were left behind at the rapture; which is why John used "remnant."

The "woman" is referencing ISRAEL.

where is the context for this in the rest of scripture, u say something is somethings else and wat is written is not as it says, when has the birth of a child a reference to something else, was the virgin birth symbolic or the birth of isaac figurative, show me the text that says the woman is israel and her infant the church or Jesus

Edited May 30, 2019 by noblenut

[nobleseed]

15 hours ago, iamlamad said:

The child was Jesus. He came from the woman, who represents Israel. The dragon tried to kill Jesus while he was a young boy.

show me the gospel that says Jesus was rescued as an infant from satan by the angel and taken to heaven and Gods throne

Edited May 30, 2019 by noblenut

[iamlamad]

6 hours ago, noblenut said:

where is the context for this in the rest of scripture, u say something is somethings else and wat is written is not as it says, when has the birth of a child a reference to something else, was the virgin birth symbolic or the birth of isaac figurative, show me the text that says the woman is israel and her infant the church or Jesus

What does "remnant" mean? It is a some amount out of a whole that is remaining.  Of the Greek word, Strong's has:
 

remaining, the rest

the rest of any number or class under consideration

with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number

the rest of the things that remain

Rev 12:17  And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

There is no other place in scripture that I know of, that talks of the seed of Israel. However, when we read that they testify of Jesus Christ, we know they are Christian believers. John is telling us there is only a remnant left. Keep in mind, this is chapter 12 and John has not yet arrived at the time the False Prophet has arrived in Jerusalem, so the image and mark have not yet been created, so the days of great tribulation are still in the future. Therefore no one should even imaging the remnant is because the Antichrist Beast has killed them. No, the ONLY reason why there is only a remnant left is simple: it is after the rapture. The rapture took out the main load, and left only a remnant. 

Need another verse? How about the parable of the virgins: only 50% made it in. There are millions today that call themselves "Christian" but have never been taught that they must be born again. Many of these will be left behind. Only born again people will qualify for the rapture, and of those, only born again people who are living for Him. I have made nothing up here: JOHN wrote it, not me. 

I wonder, do you ever read commentaries? Where in the Old does it speak of a rod of iron?

 Psa 2:7  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Psa 2:8  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Psa 2:9  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

When most people read Rev. 12:1, I think they think of the constellation Virgo. God put Virgo in the sky to represent the Virgin from which came the Messiah. When they read of the 12 stars for her crown, they think of the 12 tribes of Israel.  The Virgin was a Jewish girl, a descendant of Jacob. When people read 12:2, the virgin pregnant, who wouldn't think of Mary about to give birth to the Messiah?  When people read verse 4, the dragon about to devour the young child as soon as He was born, who (that knows the story of King Herod) would NOT remember how King Herod killed every child under 2 years old, in an attempt to kill the Messiah? 

Verse 5 is screaming out at us, JESUS the Messiah, who is to rule with a rod of Iron. He was born of a virgin, and destined to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords - the very reason King Herod tried to kill Him. Some people argue that in verse 5, the Greek for "caught up" - Harpazo - does not fit. I think that is "nitpicking." It CAN fit Jesus ascending up to heaven 

Question: did the church  or was the church born of a virgin? That is silly! Of course not. 

As my last argument, Jesus TAUGHT me this chapter. Concerning these first five verses, He said:  "I chose to show John how the Dragon tried to kill me as a young child. Those first 5 verses were a 'history lesson' for John."

I would much prefer to trust the words of the Head of the Church, over someone's imagination or human reasoning. Make no mistake, Chapter 12 is about God introducing John to the Dragon, and in particular, what the Dragon will be doing in the last half of the week. The first five verses are written as a parenthesis, having nothing to do with the midpoint of the week, but having much to do with the Dragon.

[iamlamad]

4 hours ago, noblenut said:

show me the gospel that says Jesus was rescued as an infant from satan by the angel and taken to heaven and Gods throne

I don't know where you get "an angel" out of this passage. You know the story. An ANGEL warned Joseph in a dream to flee to Egypt That is how He escaped from King Herod.  Look, this is the entire life of Christ on earth in ONE VERSE: don't expect details! 

[R. Hartono]

 

[OldCoot]

And I side with the dual application idea.  In many places of the OT, there is a special tie in regarding labor pains, birth pains, etc and the start of the Day of the Lord.  Yeshua is the head, but the redeemed make up the body as expounded on in the NT.  

Also, this child is taken to the throne once it is born.  And the woman (Israel) did not flee after the ascension of Yeshua to be preserved for 3.5 years described in Revelation 12 that occurs after this birth of the child.

Many have applied the following to 1948 Israel.....

Isaiah 66:7-8 (NKJV) “Before she was in labor, she gave birth;
Before her pain came,
She delivered a male child.
8 Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?
Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day?
Or shall a nation be born at once?
For as soon as Zion was in labor,
She gave birth to her children.

but I see it having a different application.  Zion is a name given Jerusalem. Zion was not included in Israel until 1967, so it did not give birth to the modern state of Israel.   Zion was where the church of Yeshua was conceived by the Holy Spirit at Shavuot, just like Yeshua was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit.  Peter calls the redeemed church of Yeshua a holy nation.    And this association with birth pains comes across in Jeremiah in a passage clearly associated with the end times and Jacob (Israel)....

Jeremiah 30:5-7 (NKJV) “For thus says the Lord:
‘We have heard a voice of trembling,
Of fear, and not of peace.
6 Ask now, and see,
Whether a man is ever in labor with child?
So why do I see every man with his hands on his loins
Like a woman in labor,
And all faces turned pale?
7 Alas! For that day is great,
So that none is like it;
And it is the time of Jacob's trouble,
But he shall be saved out of it.

Just the description of things in Revelation 12 suggests a parenthetical pause from the other event descriptions of Revelation to fill in some back drop and tie things in with the rest of scripture.  I very well could be wrong in this analysis of who the child is in Revelation 12, however the rest of scripture seems to support the idea.

Edited June 1, 2019 by OldCoot

[WilliamL]

On 5/29/2019 at 11:00 AM, iamlamad said:

The "woman" is referencing ISRAEL.

Israel did not give birth to Jesus. A single woman did.

When you make the woman a metaphor for a nation, but make her child a single man, you make a joke of the Scriptures. Anything can mean anything.

Either the woman is a collective spirit (for example, Israel), giving birth to another collective spirit (for example, the Church, or part of it) -- or else the woman is a single person, and her child is a single person. Make up your mind; you can't have it both ways.