Cross Reference
New member
Get on your mark, get set, . . . Go!!
The classic interpretation is Jesus but I'm sure you'll get some interesting answers.
Christ Jesus
Can I trust you to read the account and then speak of you think it is?
How so when Jesus was not so caught up in such a fashion? <that is just for starters>
I have read the account as you have. I favour Jesus but the nation of Israel is an interpretation I've heard many times. What's your take on this CR?
Pete
(Acts 13:33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Rev 12:5 doesn't refer to Jesus being born on earth, it refers to Jesus being "born" when God the Father raised Him from the dead.
Rev 2
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
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.
Rev 12
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.
For starters: Why would you favor Jesus after reading the timeline in the account between vs 4 and vs 6? What does the 3 1/2 yrs represent?
"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up [immediately vs 4] unto God, and to his throne." Revelation 12:5 (KJV)
Well, the prophets, in this case John, sometimes saw events as one that were separated by many years. I suppose that Isaiah would be the classic example:
Pete ��
Please, spare me your religious point of view. I am not interested in debating using less than facts presented from relevant scripture. Thank you.
The man child was Christ Jesus.
Acts 13:33 confirms it.
I am not interested about what the prophets saw. This is all after their time. John was not a prophet in this. I am interested in your understanding based upon what you read.
The woman; the man-child; the timeline, and anything else relevant, et al . . . which is plenty written here that can easily be understood unless you want to again let your religion get the way. . . .in which I'm done replying to you.
Rev 2
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
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.
Rev 12
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.
I'm trying to get over to you a principle of interpretation to apply to the verses you quote. Why is it that anything you can't understand or disagree with you dismiss as "religion"?
If you don't want to reply, don't.
Rev 2:26-27 is not speaking of the man child (Christ Jesus)