The Manchild Ministry 45 Minutes

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by coksiw

DKB critics to Bro Baxter's interpretations:

“In Daniel 7, we find a vision of four ruling nations represented by a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a terrible, indescribable beast. What are the identities of these nations? In recent centuries, Great Britain has been commonly represented by a lion and Russia by a bear, so some commentators use those associations to interpret Daniel 7. Since Germany manufactures Leopard tanks, some conclude that the leopard nation is Germany.
This interpretation does not correspond to the historical context of Daniel. What could the ancient writer and readers have understood? Why is a modern Western perspective the most accurate way to interpret these symbols? The national symbol of India features three lions, the flag of Sri Lanka features a lion, and the snow leopard is the national symbol of Kyrgyzstan (a former Soviet republic). Why not consider these symbols? Why should a line of tanks characterize a nation? Germany was well known for its Tiger tanks, so should we consider it to be a tiger nation instead? Since the United States produces the Cobra attack helicopter, should we consider it to be a cobra nation? If so, this would contradict an attempt by the same commentators to symbolize the U.S. by the eagle’s wings of Daniel 7:4

Excerpt From: David K. Bernard. “Understanding God’s Word.”

Grammatical Historical hermanutics

Very good!

[Bowas]

So. Are we all in agreement this "manchild" was the gospel of Jesus Christ coming forth from the woman, the church, and specifically during the first century when the enemy tried so hard to kill the gospel of Jesus by persecuting the church.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Bowas

So. Are we all in agreement this "manchild" was the gospel of Jesus Christ coming forth from the woman, the church, and specifically during the first century when the enemy tried so hard to kill the gospel of Jesus by persecuting the church.

That’s going to be difficult.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Bowas

So. Are we all in agreement this "manchild" was the gospel of Jesus Christ coming forth from the woman, the church, and specifically during the first century when the enemy tried so hard to kill the gospel of Jesus by persecuting the church.

No we do not agree. The manchild is a corporate HE not an it. And if you watched my video you would have seen the time frame given for the vision was NOT the first century.

But since Preterists start with a wrong premise that Revelation already happened in century 1 its hard for them to see anything different.

So you dont think the enemy (devil) is trying hard to kill the gospel today?

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

No we do not agree. The manchild is a corporate HE not an it. And if you watched my video you would have seen the time frame given for the vision was NOT the first century.

But since Preterists start with a wrong premise that Revelation already happened in century 1 its hard for them to see anything different.

So you dont think the enemy (devil) is trying hard to kill the gospel today?

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.

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?

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Bowas

So. Are we all in agreement this "manchild" was the gospel of Jesus Christ coming forth from the woman, the church, and specifically during the first century when the enemy tried so hard to kill the gospel of Jesus by persecuting the church.

The son birthed by the woman (Israel) is Christ. In Christ is the gospel, the ministry, the whole church and kingdom of God.

Just as Christ stands for or represents the gospel, the kingdom, the people of God, everlasting life, etc, so too all those things can be included as being part of that which is signified by the son. But the son is actually, literally, and specifically a direct representation of Christ, the "seed of the woman".

Christ ascended in the first century, so the vision of His first coming and triumphant ascension to the throne is a first century event. But it has ongoing eternal effects and results.

The rest of the vision describes things that occur AFTER His ascension, therefore the fulfillments of those things are likewise post-ascension. That they are signified as occurring pretty much immediately after the ascension indicates the fulfillments begin upon His ascension, thereby ruling out the futurist interpretation which places them all into the indefinite future.

What remains then is to answer the question "Does the whole vision take place within the first century, or does it extend beyond the first century?"

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I think it is about your personal experience and perception. I don't think most Pentecostals teachers believe in strict dispensationalism. Maybe a modified one, or they dropped it all together.

Regarding Wesleyan, I thought they believed in Covenant Theology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley...enant_theology



There is also a confusion of terminology and misunderstanding as well. Some think Calvin was a dispensationalist with two dispensations, even though he died way before Darby started the whole thing. So, now everything can be a "dispensation", anything that smells like it.

I said nothing about Methodism. I don't think you understand or have a clear view of the history I am referencing.

Also, I specifically stated "All OPs modify their dispensationalism", so I think you somehow failed to accurately read what I actually said.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Meaning in the spiritual realm, he doesn’t have flesh and bones. Yet, as he was a natural man while on this earth he did indeed have flesh, bones, and blood. He resurrected that same natural body as a testimony of the words he had spoken.

I feel you aren't understanding what I'm saying, or aren't reading what I'm saying. I also feel your account of the reason Christ's resurrection is (according to your statements) fundamentally and materially different from ours is seriously lacking and basically makes no sense.

The first fruit of a barley crop is barley, not wheat.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I said nothing about Methodism. I don't think you understand or have a clear view of the history I am referencing.

Also, I specifically stated "All OPs modify their dispensationalism", so I think you somehow failed to accurately read what I actually said.

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 .

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The son birthed by the woman (Israel) is Christ. In Christ is the gospel, the ministry, the whole church and kingdom of God.

Just as Christ stands for or represents the gospel, the kingdom, the people of God, everlasting life, etc, so too all those things can be included as being part of that which is signified by the son. But the son is actually, literally, and specifically a direct representation of Christ, the "seed of the woman".

Christ ascended in the first century, so the vision of His first coming and triumphant ascension to the throne is a first century event. But it has ongoing eternal effects and results.

The rest of the vision describes things that occur AFTER His ascension, therefore the fulfillments of those things are likewise post-ascension. That they are signified as occurring pretty much immediately after the ascension indicates the fulfillments begin upon His ascension, thereby ruling out the futurist interpretation which places them all into the indefinite future.

What remains then is to answer the question "Does the whole vision take place within the first century, or does it extend beyond the first century?"

Nothing in it would indicate it was directed to any, other than to whom/when it was addressed. The early Church, the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fleeing of Jerusalem during the 3.5 years of the siege by the Gentiles.

It fits perfectly within the time frame it says it was for.

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.