[Drake]

Unreg "The woman in Rev 12:1-5, is Israel. If you say that this woman is the church, you have a BIG problem, because the church is a VIRGIN BRIDE (2Cor 11:2) and this woman in Rev. is “pregnant”. Rev 12, is a “summary of Israel” that started in Gen 3:15, where we see the term: “her seed” or “seed of the woman”, meaning the woman has seed or gives birth. A “mother-Son” relationship and NOT a “Bridegroom-bride” relationship, because Israel gives birth to the child who is Jesus which is confirmed in Rev 12: 2,5 (read verses). The male child in verse 5, is Jesus and NOT “the stronger part of the church” which is W. Lee’s wrong interpretation.

Your argument here about the VIRGIN BRIDE giving birth is not a problem unless you also think Mary being a virgin and giving birth to Jesus is a problem. Your argument is a moral one not a biblically based one.

Unreg "Why is W. Lee’s interpretation wrong? Because as I explained in detail in my original post, W. Lee’s teaching does NOT have Israelology in his teaching (83% of the Bible is related to Israel), as a result of that, his Eschatology (33% is Prophecy in the Bible) is wrong and as a result of that, his Ecclesiology (result of NOT knowing Israeology) is also wrong. When you lack understanding or completely ignore, Israelology you will do exactly what W. Lee did in his teaching: "

When you put on the "83% of the Bible is related to Israel" glasses they become filters in your understanding and hermeneutics. Your starting point will then lead you into other misunderstandings and errors. For instance, if you believe that the woman of Revelation 12 is Israel and only Israel then you will have to conclude that the man child is Jesus and only Jesus. However, in so doing you will also have great difficulty with the timeline. To start off with Revelation 1:1 says clearly that the signs show the things that must take place. Revelation 12:1 shows the woman is a great sign, therefore it is a future event based from the time of the writing in the latter half of the first century, not before Christ was born as you assert. This is an error on your part because you have donned Israelology glasses that filter the complete biblical revelation.

If the man child is only Jesus then then you will also have trouble reconciling the Dragon being cast to the earth to devour the baby Jesus in the manger, the reason for the Dragon and one third of the angels being cast to earth, and why it takes Satan and one third of his angels to engage in infanticide in a failed attempt to wipe out Jesus. Also, you would have to violate the timeline of the future war in heaven v7-9 while leaving the obvious future event of the woman fleeing to the wilderness in v6 in place unless you want to bring that forward too prior to the birth of Jesus in which case you will have to explain where in history Israel fled into the wilderness and was nourished by God for a thousand two hundred and sixty days.

A third example of the trouble you will have reconciling the woman as Israel only and the man child as Jesus only is found in verse 5. To maintain the position you hold will require you to ignore the meaning of the word used for "caught up" which roots are based in selection and to pluck. Jesus resurrection and ascension do not use this word.

Unreg "it does NOT differentiate Israel from the church, it applies what is for Israel to the church (read his Life Studies, ex.Jer 31:31), making a big salad with Israel and the church."

I am not aware of anywhere where Brother Lee teaches replacement theology. However, in reference to Jerusalem 31:31 speaking of the new covenant of course the church is living in the new covenant. That was for Israel too but they obviously are not living in it unless they become believers like any other christian in this age of grace. As a nation, they will live in the new covenant in the coming Kingdom once the Lord returns and establishes it in the future and the nation repents and receives Him as the Messiah on that glorious day (Revelation 1:7).

In summary Unreg. First, let me say I appreciate your posts. They are focused on the teachings and you challenge them forcefully. That is commendable and a welcome addition to this forum.

Having said that your teachings on Revelation 12 are lacking. Just saying the woman is Israel because 83% of the Bible is related to Israel......even if that were proven valid perhaps this is part of the 17% that includes something more. The timeline in Revelation 12 (the birth of the manchild, the Dragon and one third of the angels cast to earth, the war in heaven, the plucking up of the man child, the wilderness experience of the woman, etc.) simply falls apart with your interpretation and the meaning of actual words must be ignored such as "caught up" when referring to the manchild.

Thanks
Drake