Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Man Child In Revelation 12


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
97 replies to this topic

#1 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 10:41 AM

This was written by Adanac a while ago, about the man of sin:

From the context it seems that the man of sin is an imposter, someone pretending to be Christ. The word "revealed" is "apocalypsed" and I believe he has his apocalypse in Revelation 12 where he is described as a man-child, or as Paul puts in 2 Cor 11 "another Jesus", who appears to be Christ but it turns out he is not. I date Rev 12 as the rise of Constantine and the beginning of the Catholic Church headed by the Vicar of Christ, or as that title means the one who takes Christ's place.


I thought the child is Revelation 12 was in fact the real Christ, not a fake one. The only references I can find about someone ruling with an iron rod, is Psalm 2:9, talking of Christ, and Revelation 2:9/19:15.

I thought the Dragon was the devil, the tempter. And that the birth of the son is not actually Christ's literal birth, but his baptism, and the devour bit the temptations in the desert, and the rest of his life. He then ascends to heaven and during his death and resurrection, he (Michael=Jesus imo) hurls the dragon from heaven, or as it is otherwise called, condemned sin.

Ok, where did I go wrong?

Edited by Flappie, 20 May 2004 - 10:42 AM.

"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#2 Guest_chairete_*

Guest_chairete_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 May 2004 - 10:56 AM

A key point to remember with the interpretation of Revelation is that falsehood imitates truth. So similar language is used to describe the bride (the true church) and the prostitute (the false church); the beasts can be seen as a parody of the four living creatures; the mark of the beast in the forehead as a corruption of the Father's name in the forehead, etc.

I haven't got Revelation 12 sorted, but I think this principle is very relevant to this chapter.

#3 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:03 AM

Tne description of events in Revelation 12 doesn't look very much like Christ's life, does it?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#4 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:05 AM

I believe the 2 women are described the same, because, well, they are the same, she's just fallen away. Something that started good was corrupted.
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#5 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:08 AM

Ok, so who is this child that will rule all the nations with an iron rod, that's with God?
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#6 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:11 AM

Ok, so who is this child that will rule all the nations with an iron rod, that's with God?

Check Revelation 2. :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#7 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:16 AM

The person that has denied and conquered satan, and done Christ's will to the end. (End being Christ's return)

So, erm, the saints that will rule with Christ.

Edited by Flappie, 20 May 2004 - 11:21 AM.

"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#8 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:34 AM

The person that has denied and conquered satan, and done Christ's will to the end. (End being Christ's return)

So, erm, the saints that will rule with Christ.

Yes, that's what it means in Revelation 2. It does not necessarily mean this in Revelation 12.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#9 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:45 AM

Ok, Psalm 2 is talking about Christ ruling
Revelation 2 is talking about the saints ruling with Christ (those that have Christ as their King)
Revelation 19 is talking about erm.. not sure actually, but think Christ.

So, is it all that strange to assume Revelation 12 is talking about Christ as well, seeing all the other verses are?
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#10 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:50 AM

Ok, Psalm 2 is talking about Christ ruling
Revelation 2 is talking about the saints ruling with Christ (those that have Christ as their King)
Revelation 19 is talking about erm.. not sure actually, but think Christ.

You can already see that the phrase doesn't refer to Christ in every case (it's Christ in Psalm 2, but not in Revelation 2). So you need to identify the unifying feature, you need to ask what the symbol actually represents, so you can understand why it is used in different contexts to refer to different subjects. This is a first principle of polyvalent symbolism.

So, is it all that strange to assume Revelation 12 is talking about Christ as well, seeing all the other verses are?


But they aren't, that's the point.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#11 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 11:55 AM

Here Flappie, try these:


Micah 4:
13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.

Daniel 10:
6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

Revelation 1:
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Revelation 2:
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.


So what do brass and iron represent?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#12 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:10 PM

Erm...

The saints are still subordinate to Christ, and they will rule with an iron rod because their king does that. The saints here are promised that they will rule also, but because Christ is their king, it is still Christ that's ruling with the iron rod there.

Unless you want to seperate the rule of the saints from the rule of Christ.

Symbol seems to represent a complete ruling, which is done in a strict manner, always done by or on behalf of Christ.
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#13 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:12 PM

Here Flappie, try these:


Micah 4:
13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.

Daniel 10:
6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

Revelation 1:
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Revelation 2:
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.


So what do brass and iron represent?

Strong materials that will cause a lot of destruction.
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#14 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:14 PM

Erm...

The saints are still subordinate to Christ, and they will rule with an iron rod because their king does that. The saints here are promised that they will rule also, but because Christ is their king, it is still Christ that's ruling with the iron rod there.

Unless you want to seperate the rule of the saints from the rule of Christ.

Symbol seems to represent a complete ruling, which is done in a strict manner, always done by or on behalf of Christ.

The saints are said to rule with a rod of iron, end of story. We don't have to get into complicated guesses about Christ ruling on behalf of his Father (who doesn't actually rule), and then the saints ruling on behalf of Christ (who is either ruling or subcontracting). The saints are said to rule with a rod of iron, simple.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#15 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:15 PM

Strong materials that will cause a lot of destruction.

Strong materials in any given context - they don't even have to cause destruction (see other places where they're used). So you've grasped the principle of polyvalency. :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#16 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:20 PM

The saints are said to rule with a rod of iron, end of story. We don't have to get into complicated guesses about Christ ruling on behalf of his Father (who doesn't actually rule), and then the saints ruling on behalf of Christ (who is either ruling or subcontracting). The saints are said to rule with a rod of iron, simple.

Ok, fine, but then you'd agree with:

Symbol seems to represent a complete ruling, which is done in a strict manner.

Or not?
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#17 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:27 PM

The saints are said to rule with a rod of iron, end of story.  We don't have to get into complicated guesses about Christ ruling on behalf of his Father (who doesn't actually rule), and then the saints ruling on behalf of Christ (who is either ruling or subcontracting).  The saints are said to rule with a rod of iron, simple.

Ok, fine, but then you'd agree with:

Symbol seems to represent a complete ruling, which is done in a strict manner.

Or not?

Yes definitely, that is palpably the sense in every case. After all, Revelation 2 is quoting from Psalm 2, and applying it to the saints, not to Christ. :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#18 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:35 PM

So, the child in Revelation 12 are those that will be the immortal saints?
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#19 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:37 PM

So, the child in Revelation 12 are those that will be the immortal saints?

The man child in Revelation 12 is someone who rules in a certain way. That's all we can tell from the symbol.

Now you tell me if the context looks like it's the saints or Christ. When was the last time you were taken up to heaven to be with God after you were born and chased by a dragon?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#20 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:49 PM

I wasn't, Christ was.
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#21 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:51 PM

I wasn't, Christ was.

Where's that head smacking smiley when you need it? :popcorn:

No he wasn't. :clap2:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#22 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 12:59 PM

My Bible tell me that the devil tried to tempt/destroy (devour) Christ just after his baptism, and that he was taking up to God's throne.

So, who's the child then, apart from someone who will rule with a big stick?
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#23 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 01:04 PM

My Bible tell me that the devil tried to tempt/destroy (devour) Christ just after his baptism, and that he was taking up to God's throne.

Firstly, Christ was tempted after his baptism, not directly after his birth.

Secondly, Christ was not taken up to heaven to save him from Herod or from the tempter (if anyone took Christ up to heaven at that time, it was the tempter).

Thirdly, when Christ did ascend to heaven, he was probably a little old to be called a child.

So, who's the child then, apart from someone who will rule with a big stick?


The context and co-texts will have to determine this. But there is no doubt that the description of events here is modelled on the early life of Christ, just as other passages are modelled on other Biblical narratives (the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, and the Babylonian captivity are constantly reoccurring narratives, for example).
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#24 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 01:15 PM

So, the dragon takes the child into heaven, and gets kicked down again by Micheal? (The dragon that is)


Is my idea of the Dragon and Micheal wrong as well?

Edited by Flappie, 20 May 2004 - 01:17 PM.

"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#25 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 01:17 PM

So, the dragon takes the child into heaven, and gets kicked down again by Micheal?

The dragon does not take the child into heaven. The child is taken up to God to get it away from the dragon. The dragon was already in heaven to start with. The dragon is then kicked out by Michael.

Is my idea of the Dragon and Micheal wrong as well?


What's your idea? :coffee:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#26 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 01:19 PM

Is my idea of the Dragon and Micheal wrong as well?


What's your idea? :coffee:

Check first post, 2nd paragraph after the quote.

I thought the Dragon was the devil, the tempter.
[...]
He (Michael=Jesus imo) hurls the dragon from heaven, or as it is otherwise called, condemned sin.
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#27 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 01:23 PM

The Woman of Rev 12

In scripture the faithful are always portrayed as chaste virgins, whereas the unfaithful are always portrayed as harlots.

The Faithful

Matthew 25 - "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom."

2 Corinthians 11:2 - "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

2 Kings 19:20-21 - "Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria I have heard. This is the word that the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee." (See also Isaiah 37:22)

In other words, "unspotted from the world".

The Unfaithful

The unfaithful are considered harlots.

Ezekiel 16:28 - "Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied."

Ezekiel 23:19 - "Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt."

Revelation 17:1-2 - "And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication."

In other words, "that woman Jezebel" who "teaches and seduces my servants to commit fornication".

Identifying Characteristics

Is the woman in Revelation 12 faithful or unfaithful? She has some very telling characteristics, but the key one is that she is pregnant. This alone removes her from being the "chaste virgin to Christ."

It is clear that she is not the True Ecclesia of God. Since the rest of scripture portrays the harlots as being apostates, we must conclude with scripture that this woman is the apostate Ecclesia of the time.

Note also that if the woman is the true ecclesia, how does she give birth to the man-child if the man-child is Christ? Christ gave birth to the ecclesia, not the other way around.

The Heavens in Revelation

As pointed out very adequately in Eureka, the heavens as used in prophetic scripture represents are the political (ruling) environment. When woman is pictured in Revelation 12 as being "in heaven", she is in the political realm. When the man-child is pictured as caught up to heaven, it again is referring to the ruling environment.

Edited by Cdelph, 20 May 2004 - 01:37 PM.

Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#28 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 01:32 PM

Is my idea of the Dragon and Micheal wrong as well?


What's your idea? :coffee:

Check first post, 2nd paragraph after the quote.

I thought the Dragon was the devil, the tempter.
[...]
He (Michael=Jesus imo) hurls the dragon from heaven, or as it is otherwise called, condemned sin.

The dragon can be considered the power of sin manifested politically. The dragon is used in the Old Testament as a symbol of national Israel's literal foes - men opposed to God and His son Israel.

Have you considered the dragon in Revelation 12 in the light of Daniel 7? :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#29 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 01:32 PM

I thought the Dragon was the devil, the tempter.
[...]
He (Michael=Jesus imo) hurls the dragon from heaven, or as it is otherwise called, condemned sin.

If Christ is Michael, how can he be the man child? :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics

#30 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 20 May 2004 - 01:48 PM

A key point to remember with the interpretation of Revelation is that falsehood imitates truth. So similar language is used to describe the bride (the true church) and the prostitute (the false church); the beasts can be seen as a parody of the four living creatures; the mark of the beast in the forehead as a corruption of the Father's name in the forehead, etc.

I haven't got Revelation 12 sorted, but I think this principle is very relevant to this chapter.

You're thinking of this. :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/htm/beliefs/basf.htm" target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Apologetics




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users