[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Bowas

3.5 years, time, times and half a time, 1260 days is all the same, and we find the Church (woman) fled Jerusalem during the Gentile surrounding of Jerusalem, and according to scripture, she was protected for 3.5 years.

But Jerusalem was encompassed about with armies, as Jesus prophesied in the Olivet prophecy, in 70AD. So I'm missing where the 3 other years are, historically?

If the woman is the church/new covenant Israel, who are the "they" that will nourish her in the wilderness (Rev 12:6)?

The Book was beneficial to the ones it was addressed to, as it was telling them of what was about to befall that region.

Asia Minor?

Why do I believe Rev 12 was written for the first century? Quite simply, the book is written to them of things that would be fulfilled during that time, the time of the end.

Why would you think it was not for them then, the ones it was addressed to?

I never said it wasn't for them to whom it was written. I think you are confusing me with futurists? I'm asking what makes you conclude it was FULFILLED in the first century only? It seems you base that on the a priori assumption that it concerned events in the first century only, so from there you draw the conclusion "it was historically fulfilled in the first century only". As opposed to saying "What are the historical data?" first and then drawing a conclusion as to whether the data supports a first century only fulfillment. Which to me is a bit backwards?

Not sure how you derive the Kingdom of God was confined to the first century church, as I never suggested that, however, that is when it did arrive.

If "at hand" necessarily means "in that immediate time frame, completed within the generation to whom the time statement is made" - which seems to be your argument for the Revelation - then it logically means the kingdom of God was likewise restricted to that immediate time frame and to those to whom it was addressed. Applying that promise of the Kingdom to yourself and our day is like applying Rev 12 to yourself and our day. See?

As far as, if I understand Revelation as they did, the ones it was written to, I cannot say I understand it fully as they did, but I am trying, but I do not find any credible scripture to suggest they thought it was referring to people or places thousands of miles and thousands of years removed. No. It is simply not there.

Again, sounds like you are confusing me with Mike or the other guy? But in any event, it sounds like your hermeneutic is "Prophecy only applies to the immediate initial audience", is that correct?

So with that fact, the "manchild ministry" is not some super Christian ministry as some try to make it, but was birthed from the woman, with is the church.

Yeah I think you got me confused with Mike.

There are two women in Revelation. One a harlot, one a virgin. One Old Jerusalem, the other New Jerusalem. One the old Covenant, the other the New Covenant.

I have always maintained just that.