See this muslim dey show himself

We are taking our time never mind, the OP is hiding from the truth, do not think we do not know who the child is.

Pastor AIO: So the man child that rules the nations with a rod of iron is not Jesus! Okay, maybe it is the church. Check out this interpretation:

The woman is Israel. She (judaism) gives birth to Christianity. she has to flee to the desert (ie Israel gets scattered). The Child goes on to rule the world with a rod of Iron, ie The Church goes on to become the state religion of Rome which is the ruler of the known world at that time. The church of the Roman empire is therefore to be identified as the child.

DevotedOne: Bismillaah ir Rahmaan ir Rahiim In The Name of Allah, The All Compassionate, The All Merciful. As salaamu alaykum, The Peace Be Upon You Everyone.


Hmmmmm... I thought that these were the end times. So, you all have a lot of time eh? I stopped playing a long time ago.


plappville


Peace. DevotedOne

Pastor AIO: Maybe the child is Islam. I'll come back with the back up arguments later.

i.chuka:

Since its a heavenly vision(Rev12:1),the woman is entirely of heaven.neither Mary/ the nation of Israel have this position.
2.After the woman bore the man-child,she fled into the wilderness.if we likened this woman to the nation of Israel and the child been Christ who was caught up to the throne,it does not correspond with the actual facts.long before Christ ascended the nation of Israel was gone....its impossible for the woman to be a reference to the nation of Israel.there is even less of a basis to refer to her as a Mary.
4.after the man-child was caught up unto God,there was a proclamations in heaven(Rev12:10).we know that this has not yet been accomplished.Ephesains6 tells us that the church on earth must still battle with the rulers,authorities and forces of evil from the heavenlies.since this portion of scripture has not yet occurred,its impossible for it to be a reference to the time of Jesus..........

seriallink:



Sorry to disappoint you brah, Revelation 1:19 doesn't agree with your past prophecies & second birth of Christ analysis. I do not agree either.

Did you bother going through the links I posted? I bet, they aren't important to you because even if we argue for a billion years, you'll never accept the truth. You are not a truth seeker, all you are trying to do is defend your mary's 'Queen of Heaven' title which is unscriptural.

You only want to hear that the man-child is Christ so that you can conclude that the woman is Mary. So, there is no point arguing with you over this issue. Shikena

obadiah777: oh you are looking for a specific passage that says the woman is israel ? well dunno if i can find any but the 12 stars represent the 12 tribes of israel.

rev 12 did not say she wasnt harmed. it says she fled into the wilderness. i am sure you dont expect them to go into specifics about who survived and who got killed. those who survived ran into the wilderness. stop splitting hairs lol

DevotedOne: Bismillaah ir Rahmaan ir Rahiim In The Name of Allah, The All Compassionate, The All Merciful. As salaamu alaykum, The Peace Be Upon You Everyone.


Who Is The Child? The one whom strives for the anointing; the initiated Christ (Logos). I would suppose that the following books are not one hundred percent accurate, but they're notable the best of their kind, that's available today: ~ Page 154 of this book begins Revelation 12;

The Apocalypse Unsealed

Sermon on the Mount


Man - unregenerate


The Regenerate Man



Salaam/Peace. DevotedOne

plappville:

We are talking about the Holy City of God, the Tabernacle of God and Heavenly Jerusalem, is literally heaven on earth.

It is referred to in several scrituresIsaiah 52:1, Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 11:10, 12:22-24, reve 21)and more.

Hebrews 13:14
14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.


The new Jerusalem.

i.chuka:
^^The Woman in Gen3(Eve) is a shadow of the Woman in Revelation12.
Both have nothing to do with the nation of Israel,Mary and our Lord Jesus directly.

i.chuka:

Since its a heavenly vision(Rev12:1),the woman is entirely of heaven.neither Mary/the nation of Israel have this position.

2.After the woman bore the man-child,she fled into the wilderness.if we likened this woman to the nation of Israel and the child been Christ who was caught up to the throne,it does not correspond with the actual facts.long before Christ ascended the nation of Israel was gone....its impossible for the woman to be a reference to the nation of Israel.there is even less of a basis to refer to her as a Mary.

4.after the man-child was caught up unto God,there was a proclamations in heaven(Rev12:10).we know that this has not yet been accomplished.Ephesains6 tells us that the church on earth must still battle with the rulers,authorities and forces of evil from the heavenlies.since this portion of scripture has not yet occurred,its impossible for it to be a reference to the time of Jesus..........

Ihedinobi:

Nope. Will explain later. Gotta run right now. But this is wrong.

Pastor AIO: Maybe the child is Islam. I'll come back with the back up arguments later.

Ubenedictus: so the city of God that is yet to come gave birth to a male child who would rule with a rode of iron?
Please shed more light!

plappville:

My brother why looking at one scripture and then conclude? because you see rule with a rod of iron you just believe, oh no this can't fit any but Christ only
of course you are right, but you didnt dig deeper. Christ made it clear by himself here;

He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he (the over-comer) shall rule them (the nations) with a rod of iron (Rev. 2.26-27) Do you no know?

Ubenedictus: what about scripture ref. to show us that the "overcomer" is caught up to the throne of God. Besides d post u quoted doesnt have a "conclusion" i said "pls shed more light" does that sound like a conclusion?
Ok, the point u are making is that d city of God yet to come gave birth to an overcomer who was caught up to God's throne (i'm waiting 4 d remaining ref.)
thanks

Ihedinobi: Just read some of the comments (mostly on the first and last page). Not certain I fit here. But I already committed to explaining so I will with as much brevity as courtesy can allow and retreat to the sidelines.

Like i.chuka said, the man-child is representative of a group. He was not entirely right though in the "destroying the works of Satan before the second coming of Christ" part.

The group is also called "firstfruits". They aren't necessarily more special than every other Christian. They're just those who pursue Christ relentlessly regardless the cost. They are the "servant found doing as his master commanded" when He returns. They're the ones who "loved not their lives to the end". Members of this group are the full maturity of what Christianity is in potential.

Every Christian is born (speaking of the New Birth, of course) with the vast potential of Christ. But not all will actualize it. Some will waste it, some will invest it with enormous profits in return. According to the returns will be the reward. And the reward in view is the Throne of God.

Even the "least of the saints" belongs by right of birth in that Throne. But exercise of that right will vary according to maturity. And, like I have said, not all Christians will reach full maturity. A great many will not care about it, but the relatively few will and these few are those who will exercise all the rights of the Throne of which we speak. These few are represented by the man-child, the hundred and forty-four thousand (a symbolic number) on Mount Zion (another prophetic symbol) with the Lamb.

This man-child is the reason the Church has been on earth since Jesus went back to the Father. The Church is here to produce "him". Once she has and "he" has been caught up to God, the time of the end will come into glaring view and Satan will go berserk. The rest of the Church hang around to ripen under the onslaught of the "man of lawlessness".

When they have, the earth will be reaped again and the days of wrath will follow.

I don't see any need to go on and I might have exceeded substantially the "brevity" I had in mind. Summary: the woman is "the assembly of called-out ones" a.k.a the heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of all Christians; the man-child is the group of full-grown, "matured" Christians, those who kept their lamps burning; the "rest of her descendants" (AMP) are the well, er, foolish (not my word o, Jesus's) Christians who played truant during school.

Ubenedictus: this sounds a lot more consistent in interpretation.
It has problems though, rev 12:17 says "the the dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear the testimony of Jesus.... That doesnt tally with your idea that the other ones are "foolish christians".

Ihedinobi:

Actually it does, the five foolish virgins were no less virgins for their foolishness.

Ubenedictus: hahaha.

Ubenedictus:
You have shown or tried to show why the woman isnt israel or mary nor is d child Jesus.
Since u have presented an arguement 4 what the child and the woman isnt, can you please tell who they are?

obadiah777: FOR EXAMPLE, A FEW DAYS AGO A VERSE WAS QUOTED REVELATION 12 VS 5 And 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.

NATURALLY PEOPLE GAVE DIFFERENT ANSWERS AS TO WHOM THE MAN-CHILD WAS. THEY WERE COMING OUT OF THEIR OWN VAIN OPINIONS. BUT IF THEY HAD GONE PRECEPT FOR PRECEPT IN THE BIBLE ( OF COURSE THIS IS DIFFICULT AND REQUIRES KNOWING THE ENTIRE BIBLE ), THEN THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND OUT WHO THE MAN CHILD WAS

REVELATION 19 VS 5 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS

THE COMMON THREAD IN THE PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT BEING >>> HE SHALL RULE ALL NATIONS WITH A ROD OF IRON. and with that we know the man child is the king of kings and lord of lords >>>>CHRIST

Pastor AIO:

https://www.nairaland.com/1106564/does-each-bible-text-fixed

obadiah777: HEHE THANKS PASTOR AIO FOR MERGING BOTH POINTS AND BRINGING IT TO A RESOUNDING CONCLUSION

Pastor AIO:

I was actually developing some alternative interpretation then I saw your post. I couldn't continue any further after that. However I am sure that there are some die-hards that will continue to contest in order to safeguard their own agendas.

Their own agendas? Well all the running around that we have been doing is merely about one simple fact. Nothing to do with the Man Child at all, but rather his mother. Once you've established that the Roman Catholic church is an Evil, Pagan cult that wrongly worships (or honours) Mary, then that will affect the way you interpret the passage. It would appear that the passage has an elevated view of the mother of the Manchild. If the manchild is Christ then that means that Mary is being elevated in the bible. That just won't do.

I thank God for this thread cos it serves as a good example of the common ailment amongst christians of biblical Eisegesis.

seriallink: @Pastor AIO & Buzugee,

Infact this thread was created to justify Mary's worship & her 'Queen of Heaven' title. It wasn't created to seek truth! Thank God you guys saw it! *Smh*

obadiah777: YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR TUNE HAVENT YOU MR 'IT CANT BE JESUS' SERIOUSLY THOUGH, I DID NOT EVEN KNOW THERE WAS A HIDDEN MOTIVE BEHIND IT. I JUST THOUGHT SOMEONE WAS GENUINELY CURIOUS ABOUT THE QUESTION. I TRY NOT TO READ PEOPLES MOTIVES AND JUST APPROACH QUESTIONS 'AS IS '

Pastor AIO:

My interest is in the 'it can't be Jesus' impulse. Why so vehemently against it being Jesus? I think we can learn a lot about ourselves and the ways we reason if we consider this.

Is interpretation possible without context? There is always a context. Therefore the context (of which an agenda is part of the context) comes first and then the necessary interpretations follow it.

Why were many adamant that the manchild cannot be Jesus?

Is it because it didn't sound like Jesus in anyway? Or is it because it missed certain key criteria? Or is there a hidden motive behind it?