Mike,

I believe we have something to work with!

Your statement: “This is one of the most baffling puzzles of all time” is probably right on the mark. The mystery of this woman, (or “secrecy” as you put it) is most profound as are the reasons for it being so. If the Church got hold of this today it would revolutionize everything. But it’s time is not yet.

Prophecy must be rightly interpreted AND rightly timed. If either one is in error, the entire prophecy will be rendered inaccurate. This should not be surprising to anyone but it gets abused all the time.

Start with my post #5. It concerns a few of the rules of interpetation. When the rules are rightly applied, the veil begins to recede rather easily. When the rules are ignored, the veil becomes darker and heavier than intended. Spend some time on that post and see if you can understand it. If you have some questions about it, let me know and I’ll work with you. But this is the starting point. Rules are objective and unchanging. The Spirit is subjective and can be easily misread. To accuratley interpret prophecy, both the objective AND subjective must be satisfied. Lay down everything you know until you understand more of these rules and in no time, the day will begin to dawn.

I’m leaving now to go attend the funeral of a dear brother in Christ.

Shalom

Commentary by Scott
Posted on: 8/20/2009 16:21 pm

Scott,
Obviously I have missed something. I will go back and reread. I’ve got heart. Just try to be patient. I am still open minded. I’m just trying to call it like I see it so far.. I have very few conclusions. Just suspects in my outline. Hey you can’t blame me. This is one of the most baffling puzzles of all time. Despite my eventual decisions, they even must be proven or disproven with time.
My love for God is more than trying to figure out this wonderful mystery. Even if I never figure this out, I always have Him. I am investing effort out of sheer curiousity. I will not invest my eternal soul on a cold case in a way that maddens me. I would hope this journey brings me closer to God.
If I feel I am crossing that line, I will excuse myself.

Commentary by Mike
Posted on: 8/20/2009 15:40 pm

Mike,

You may have 3 very honest problems, but your problems do not lie with my position; rather they lie with your sloth. You don’t know my position because you have not examined it. The nature of your questions prove so. If this sounds arrogant to you, I apologize; it is not intended to be. However, I’m not going to run around in circles with anyone who’s just playing around with matters so important. If you just want someone to tickle your ears, you won’t have any trouble finding them. They will find you. It takes no work at all.

If you are not playing, then prove it.., do the homework.

Commentary by Scott
Posted on: 8/20/2009 13:57 pm

Scott,

Silly, I Know, but I have 3 very honest problems with your position with this being the church and overcomers. First, it is no state secret that Gods children overcome and live on. If your idea was true it would not make sense for God to raise Revelation 12 to such top secret status. Something else is going on here. Second, believers and nonbelievers have been overcome and have overcame since the beginning. Nothing changes there either. Lastly, believers resemble more of an endangered species than they do people that give birth.

Fozman, Yes i remember running across that mother goddess explanation. Not sure on my thoughts there so i will pause on that for now. Will get back on that one. Why do I think it could represent the Jews and not the 12 apostle? The apostles died. They do not exist here anymore. And because everything that happens in the war is centered around the Jews. Oh and I did google “woman in travail”. I found a lot of references in the old and new testament. Check out Micah chapter 5. If you still don’t think rev 12 isn’t about the Jewish people then tear it up and get back with me.

This site is so awesome!

Commentary by Mike
Posted on: 8/20/2009 13:21 pm

Sorry Mike,

It occurs to me from your reply that you are not willing to do the work. This is typical of someone who pursues these matters with their head only and not their heart also. You won’t learn these things from an “outline”. They will take months and years of study. My earlier posts, if you care to examine them, are as succinct as anything can be about prophetic interpretation and 12:1 and 12:5 in particular. The questions in your post #133 border on being silly. You have evidently already drawn some erroneous conclusions and now, based upon them, are speculating erroneously on other matters as well. You are laying a poor foundation.

Perhaps I’m wrong about you. I hope so. But now you have jumped into the fray and are about to be introduced to the “last trump” and how will you navigate?

Commentary by Scott
Posted on: 8/20/2009 11:58 am

Mike,

What makes you think that the crown on the woman of Rev 12 represents Abraham, Sarah, and their descendants? I’ve seen this “thinking” on some web-sites. Unfortunately, I could not find the reasoning, scripture, or data that would substantiate the thought. For all we know, the 12 stars could represent the 12 apostles. I personally think it is used by God to identify this woman as a type of Ishtar. The data/history supports the idea this — this figure was common in the temples that surrounded the apostle John during his day. God compared Israel to Ishtar at the height of their perversion when they chased after this same “mother-goddess.” The label was that of the great prostitute. It could be that history is repeating itself whereas the church is now perverted to the point that God compares her to the same image. And today’s church is.

I believe I laid out a rather clear and systematic explanation of these icons and figures; founded upon scripture and historic data. I cannot think of any other process that would produce a more accurate discerning. You are welcome to examine what I put down; that is, if you can navigate around the “iron sharpening iron” elements. I encourage you to put my work through the biggest meat grinder you can find. I always encourage people to test what I present; the main reason so that any discrepancies I may have missed might be brought to light. I also inevitably get other tidbits and ideas to grind myself – often finding info I never had before.

Sad to say, the controversies that often manifest in these forums do offend people. This is to be expected since most of us have invested our faith, efforts, and allegiance to our positions. Any challenge naturally tweaks our sensibility. But as I see it, Jesus offended many with what he said. That is to say, “offense” is something that will never be avoided.

I’m just looking for someone to work over my ideas and expose any compromises.

Have at it.

Commentary by Fozman
Posted on: 8/20/2009 07:24 am

Christina,

Your free speech was never impeded by anyone, nor mocked. . . . and it still isn’t.

On the other hand, your ideas & convictions are subject to question on this blog, as are mine. That is the purpose of these blogs . . . . to dialogue, to test others convictions/ideas, to debate, to agree, to disagree.

I would love to agree with you about this alleged prophet, however, grant me the right to test this individual for authenticity. That is a responsibility the Lord commands (not suggests) on all “students of scripture.” Need I quote the many passages?

And my job would be easier if I could even find a hint that the person even exists. Yet, I have tried three times on Google with no results . . . . and you have not provided me with any evidence even with the many weeks since we started this dialogue. In addition, the systematic reasoning I used to substantiate my position was once again ignored.

If I be guilty of being a fool, it is because I ran after similar imaginations for years; never investigating and never questioning. I paid a great price on many levels in many ways as the result of this foolishness. I’d hope you’d learn from my mistakes and avoid the same outcome.

However, if you heaven bound to embrace such fabrications without even looking, be it far from me to get in your way. Unfortunately, failure to approach this carefully will guarantee you a long and painful learning curve, possibly worse than mine.

Please don’t wait for God to have to send you another “fool” or jerk to attempt to get your attention.

Commentary by Fozman
Posted on: 8/20/2009 06:41 am

The reason I ask is because it was difficult to continue reading at the hours I can do so. A brief summary would help a lot more. We agree she is not Mary. But why is she the church or the manchild for that matter? It just feels a little far fetched right now. Obviously God is calling for the church to be ready, but he was so specific about the different kinds of people. Even the church divisions. Doesn’t it bother you at all that “the church” is giving birth? The reason I say this is because even the church will be under the authority of satan for a time (WWIII). And it looks to me that God wills it so. So how could the church give birth to anything when God is the hand that rocks the cradle and when it is either raptured or under the gun? and what does the church give birh to?

Commentary by Mike
Posted on: 8/20/2009 03:52 am

Mike,
I am more than willing, I’ve already done so. If you REALLY want to know, read my postings from #3 to #34. There is nothing in your “basic conclusions” that is not addressed there. Then, if you have a question, I’d be delighted to engage it.

Commentary by Scott
Posted on: 8/20/2009 03:29 am

So your emphasis is that she is the church. Ok I am good with that. I am not exactly a novice, but I am open minded on this subject. Scott, I commend you for your efforts in assisting me with my search. I believe it was fozman who asked (something like this) which church? There are seven. The true church? Maybe, but then how do you explain the crown that represents Abraham Sarah and their descendants?

As far as my conclusion, I don’t have one. Only ideas I am investigating. However, I grew up with a detective as a father and some investivative training rubbed off. I could be wrong about my basic conclusions. That is ok. I want to be proven wrong so if you would be so kind as to remind me why she is the church I would love to reevaluate that. Are you as willing?

Commentary by Mike
Posted on: 8/20/2009 03:03 am