The Man Child / The Very Elect

[whirlwind]

Also in Persian :

Another interpretation of the name is that that it is of Persian origin meaning "little boy"

.......................man child or "little boy" :yes

I do enjoy learning these things. However I think I would rather call my child "little boy" or "man child" than....MORDECAI. :crazy Of course, most of my life it has been "form over function." If it looks pretty (or in this case sounds pretty)...even if not very functional or useful it's okay. I sure have changed in the past few years. Growing older has it's really good points :yes and I wouldn't go back for anything.

 

[Benoni]

Amen. Well said. There is only one way to read the Bible thought the Spirit of Christ which is the narrow way with no preconceived bias. The broad way is religion. God speaks thought people notsystems. We put far too much faith in the traditions of men and ignore that very divine part of God with in us; the only sourse of truth where the Bible declares can lead and guide us into all truth.

Originally posted by Cornelius
Why do other people not see this, when it is written so clearly ?

Very true. It's amazing isn't it? But when you think about it, who reads the Bible anymore (I mean - REALLY reads - thoroughly - with full attention)? It's so much easier to let someone else do the work, and read some biased, dumbed down church newsletter or quarterly (made as simple as possible in order to "sell it"). Likewise, it's much easier to pop in a tape or CD of a favorite preacher, or watch them on TV. I've been wondering this same thing for decades, and that is the only reason I can think of. There is no other explanation, because it can't possibly be missed if it is actually read. They're just making it more difficult on themselves, because the Bible is so easy if the leaven is simply tossed into the dumpster and they start fresh. The Word is not SUPPOSED to be confusing, it's meant to be easy. The only time confusion and difficulty arises is when a pre-conceived idea is in conflict with the words you are reading from the pages.

 

[Cornelius]

I'm game if you are. :yes

Its a good idea to open a thread about the White Horse Rider. He too is the man child although popular theology has changed Him into the villain because few know anything about the man child at all.

Goodness, the antichrist on a WHITE horse. White is not the color of evil.

 

[Vic C.]

I'm game if you are. :yes

Its a good idea to open a thread about the White Horse Rider. He too is the man child although popular theology has changed Him into the villain because few know anything about the man child at all.

Goodness, the antichrist on a WHITE horse. White is not the color of evil.

Whoa! I agree, to a point. The interpretation before futurism took hold has the rainbow (or bow) represented a covenant, as it did after the Flood and the rider of the first white horse could either be Jesus as He ushered in the New Covenant. More likely it may represent the Ekklesia as it went forth to spread the Good News of the New Covenant and "conquer" new souls for Christ.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... hapter=006
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... hapter=010

 

[whirlwind]

I'm game if you are. :yes

Its a good idea to open a thread about the White Horse Rider. He too is the man child although popular theology has changed Him into the villain because few know anything about the man child at all.

Goodness, the antichrist on a WHITE horse. White is not the color of evil.

White is the color if you're the great deceiver. I think most see the rider today as the opposite of the villain for popular theology has him as Christ and...they are wrong. :yes

 

[Vic C.]

I lean more toward a historical approach. I'm not looking for a one person, future antichrist because I have the 70th. week (and Daniel 9) right where it should be; in the past and all about the Messiah and nothing about an antichrist. Actually, it's not a very popular belief, so I feel I'm not playing "follow the leader". ;)

 

[Cornelius]

As I said, it would make a good study in a separate thread
The White horse rider, is an issue on its own, because , as I am sure you know, we are not really clearly told who he is, so its OK to disagree on his identity So I will start a thread and we can say why we think, we think, he is what we think he is. I think that makes sense :crazy

 

[Vic C.]

C, when you do, I will merge these posts into the new thread. :yes

 

[Vic C.]

Never mind, Osgiliath did it. :D

So, totopic

 

[Osgiliath]

I've already started a thread on this subject. It's underway as we speak.

 

[Cornelius]

Good, this thread has very much established who the Man-child is . While we are talking about the White Horse Rider in your thread O, I am also starting one one how the man child comes about.