Apologetics help, please! Mary's "Omnipotence'

[bene7]

Daniel Marsh:

Hi Bene, how many dimensions does heaven have?

I have no idea.

How many dimensions limitations does eternity have?

I have no idea.

Back to my can one sin in heaven? why would they want to? When in heaven they have dumped their sin nature, but they remember what earth was like. They now know what the pure love of God is like. Why would one want to go back? Being in heaven they would know God more fully than we do on earth and be more inline with God’s desires and will. If they can not hear us, nor see us ( which is what I believe ) then it is possible that guardian angels when they go to heaven on a daily basis ( see sons of god in Job ) then it is possible that those angels tell those who have gone before us in heaven about our daily lives. And, thus they would pray. My point is, I think the prayer of anyone in heaven would be strong from this perspective. I do not think that those in heaven have the limits of time that we have on earth – thus the long line of angels waiting to speak to Mary is not subject to the rules of waiting in line on earth.

And all of this teaching on “guardian angels” is based on what Divine source?

Because a saint in heaven is not limited to time, does that also mean his/her power is not limited, either? In other words, he/she has become omnipotent? They actually now possess a divine attribute?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[hurst]

bene7:

… And all of this teaching on “guardian angels” is based on what Divine source?

Among other sources, Scripture supports it. Here are just a few verses among them:

Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?

DRV Psalm 90:11 For he hath given his angels charge over thee; to keep thee in all thy ways. 12 In their hands they shall bear thee up: lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Matthew 18:10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

bene7:

Because a saint in heaven is not limited to time, does that also mean his/her power is not limited, either? In other words, he/she has become omnipotent?

We can truly say that even saints are “all-powerful with God”. But contrary to unbibilical Protestant belief, those in heaven do not all have the same level of glory or reward (though all share the same reward of eternal life). [cf. Matt 16:27, 1 Cor 3:8, 2 Cor 9:6, John 14:2, etc.]

Contrary to Protestant belief, the Church teaches that those with more “merit” have more success with obtaining grace from God.

James 5:16 … For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

2 Tim 4:8 As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming.

etc.

bene7:

They actually now possess a divine attribute?

In heaven we will all possess God Himself, though not in the same degree. God renders to us there according to our conduct here.

hurst

 

[Todd_Easton]

bene7:

First of all it wasn’t Jesus who said it, it was John the Baptist.

Oops. I apologize; you are correct; it was John the Baptist who said it. Sorry about the misidentification. Nevertheless, are we to deny the truth of John’s assertion? No. God can raise up children of Abraham from stones; He is omnipotent after all. So, as I stated, there was no absolute necessity for Jesus to be born of a woman, of Mary, but God could have simply raised Jesus up from stones. So, why did God choose to have Jesus born of a woman, of Mary? Your explanation is unsatisfactory; it does not account for all the facts.

The explanation I offered is also confirmed by second-century Christians, the spiritual grandchildren of the Apostles, such as Justin Martyr, who converted to Christianity as an adult about A.D. 130, and Irenaeus of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle:
Mankind’s Fall involved the disobedience of both a man and a woman who was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, Adam and Eve, and Mankind’s Redemption involved the obedience of both a man and a woman who was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, his mother, Jesus and Mary.

In Romans chapter five it is recorded by Paul, under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that “through one man” (not one man and one woman) “sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (i.e., in Adam, Romans 5:12-21). In these verses two Representative men, Adam and Christ, are contrasted: Condemnation and Death by Adam to all men in him; Justification and Life by Christ to all men in Him.

According to the Spirit (who Authored the Scriptures), by ONE MAN’S act of rebellion (Adam) came divine condemnation (a legal term) and the reign of sin and death; and by ONE MAN’S act of obedience (Christ) came justification (a legal term), eternal life and the reign of GRACE (Rom. 5:21). Hence, as I stated in my previous post, Mary was the mother of Jesus because (as it is clearly revealed) the sole, divine purpose of God was that the Son be born into this world as a man, that as sin reigned (as king) in death through the one man, “even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life” through the one Man: “Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 5:21).

St. Paul’s discussion in Romans 5 of Jesus as the antithesis of Adam can only be considered a summary of the Fall and the Redemption. Otherwise, St. Paul contradicts himself and Genesis. In Romans 5:12, Paul says: “sin came into the world through one man” but we all know from the story of the Fall in Genesis 3:6 that Eve sinned first, that sin entered the world through Eve, a woman, or as St. Paul says elsewhere:14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:14)

So, St. Paul’s remarks in Romans 5 must be considered a summary where only the principal actor of the Fall and of the Redemption, Adam and Jesus, are mentioned and their respective leading ladies, Eve and Mary, are implied. St. Paul must have meant that sin entered the world through both Adam and Eve, but only mentions Adam because he was the principal actor. This implies that St. Paul meant that life came through both Jesus and Mary but only mentions Jesus because He was the principal actor. Of course, Jesus’ contribution to bringing life was infinite because He is both God and man and Mary’s contribution to bringing life was only finite because she is only human, a creature. Nevertheless, both deserve recognition for their respective contribution.

 

[Todd_Easton]

bene7:

If you read the text carefully you’ll see that John saw a great “sign in heaven.” It wasn’t the woman herself who was in heaven.

In fact, it is the Son to whom she gives birth (not the woman) that is caught up to God and to His throne. The woman doesn’t follow Him into heaven but instead flees to the wilderness where she’s nourished by God for three and a half years (this scene is earthly, not heavenly). Based on an O.T. description found in Joseph’s dream, the woman is not Mary but national Israel. Jacob himself understood this description as meaning himself and his family, the progenitors of national Israel (see Gen. 37:9-11). It all fits in perfectly with the O.T. prophecies which speak of the persecution of Israel during the last half of the 70th week of Daniel (the dreaded “Day of the Lord”), the Tribulation period which is yet future. Jesus Himself makes reference to this future time of persecution for national Israel in Matt. 24:15-21.

The woman giving birth in Rev. 12 is symbolic for the Messiah coming into this world through national Israel (cf. Jn. 4:22). The fulfillment of many O.T. prophecies. Based on ALL that is presented in the text, the woman can refer to Mary only by way of allusion, but not directly.

I read the text carefully and the sign in heaven is “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown fo twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1). Are not the sun, moon and stars in heaven? How else do you think that she could be clothed with them is she were not also in heaven?

Verses 2-17 simply describe the woman’s life on earth before she appeared in heaven.

Since, the male child who is born of the woman in Revelation 12 is an individual man (Jesus Christ), there is absolutely no reason to believe that the woman who gives birth to him is anything but an individual woman, Mary, the mother of Jesus. If the woman was representative of something else, would not John have explicitly said so as he did of the other “woman” in Revelation 17-18 where he numerous times calls her “the great city”.

The crown of twelve stars on Mary’s head could just as easily signify Mary’s queen-mothership in the the Kingdom of her Son, Jesus Christ, where the twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the Church of the Twelve Apostles.

 

[Todd_Easton]

bene7:

Does the saint (Mary) answer the prayer, or does God?

Both the saint and God answer the prayer; God is the cause of the answered prayer and the saint is the instrument of the answered prayer. The saint does not answer the prayer by any power of his own but by the power of God working through him, just as when the Apostles healed the sick and raised the dead in the New Testament.

 

[bene7]

Todd Easton:

I read the text carefully and the sign in heaven is “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown fo twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1). Are not the sun, moon and stars in heaven? How else do you think that she could be clothed with them is she were not also in heaven?

No, the sun, moon and stars are a part of this created universe. They’re not “in heaven.” The fact that it says the woman is clothed with them should clue you to the fact that symbolism is being expressed here.

Verses 2-17 simply describe the woman’s life on earth before she appeared in heaven.

Not according to what’s revealed about Mary in the historical, synoptic, Gospel accounts.

If the woman was representative of something else, would not John have explicitly said so as he did of the other “woman” in Revelation 17-18 where he numerous times calls her “the great city”.

As the woman in Rev. 17-18 symbolizes a false religion and a corrupt economic system, so in Rev. 12 that woman represents national Israel.

The crown of twelve stars on Mary’s head could just as easily signify Mary’s queen-mothership in the the Kingdom of her Son, Jesus Christ, where the twelve stars represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the Church of the Twelve Apostles.

The fact that the same description of the woman revealed in Rev. 12 is found also in Gen. 37:9-11 I think is far more significant. We see Scripture interpreting Scripture (Gen. and Rev. have the same Author). Joseph saw the sun, moon and eleven stars bowing down to him, and Jacob readily understood this symbolism as meaning his family. Scripture no where speaks of Mary’s “queen-mothership” in heaven, so rather than interpret this passage with a non-Biblical notion, it would be far more accurate to stick to what Scripture itself offers. The twelve stars being the twelves tribes of Israel, and the woman being the nation of Israel that brought forth the Messiah. And it is the nation of Israel that is persecuted by Satan in the latter days, not Mary (Rev. 12:12-13).

You still avoid the fact that the text says absolutely nothing about the woman also following the Son she bore up to the God and to His throne. No where in Rev. 12 is the woman seen in heaven itself or reigning with the Son on His Father’s throne. After the Son is caught up to God’s throne the woman flees to the wilderness, not heaven. So how could the crown on the woman’s head represent Mary’s “queen-mothership” in heaven? Obviously the woman in Rev. 12 is not the exalted, Catholic Mary

So, St. Paul’s remarks in Romans 5 must be considered a summary where only the principal actor of the Fall and of the Redemption, Adam and Jesus, are mentioned and their respective leading ladies, Eve and Mary, are implied. St. Paul must have meant that sin entered the world through both Adam and Eve, but only mentions Adam because he was the principal actor.

Your whole theory is shattered by the fact that Paul explicitly and constantly uses the word “ONE:” “…through ONE man sin entered into world;” “…for by the transgression of the ONE the many died” "…much more by the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the ONE Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many." So it is throughout the whole passage. They are two Representative men, two federal headships. Through the ONE condemnation and death reigns in him, and in him all are “made sinners.” Through the Other reigns righteousness and life to all who are “in Him,” and all are “made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). You wilfully avoid what the text explicitly states for the sake of your own doctrine.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

Proof? But just for the sake of argument, because a “saint’s” will is in accordance with God’s, does that render the saint him/herself omnipotent? Does he/she now possess the divine attribute of omnipotence? Does the saint (Mary) answer the prayer, or does God?

Blessings,]
Bene

Proof? I was merely answering your question. Do you not remember asking the question, “Javelin, does Catholicism teach you that Mary herself fulfills the prayer request, or God?” This was the answer your question. So, are you asking for proof that Catholicism teaches this or are you asking for proof that what Catholicism teaches is correct? Stay with the flow of the thread there brother.

Nor did I ever state that “because a “saint’s” will is in accordance with God’s…render(S) the saint him/herself *omnipotent”. *It was not meant as a defense of the doctrine. It was just stating what Catholics believe in the correct form, which you did not know.

Finally, I hesitate to even go here with you. I could give you strong evidence to support this doctrine, just like a Christian can give an atheist strong evidence to the existence of God. However, the preponderance of evidence does not equal an absolute proof. There is still a degree of faith that is required. Further, because you are a proponent of sola scriptura, the proper place to start would be to understand that while everything we need for our salvation may be in Scripture, it is not necessarily explicit. I could give you historical, Biblical (both typology and explicit statements), and common sensical arguments, but you would just reject them. Just like you rejected the plain as day arguments on justification. This is simply because you are dead set on disproving Catholicism and have no desire to see things as they actually are. If you really want to learn why Catholics believe this doctrine, I would be more than happy to explain. However, if you are only asking so that you can show me I’m wrong, I have no interest in that discussion. It serves no purpose. Your call.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

.As the woman in Rev. 17-18 symbolizes a false religion and a corrupt economic system, so in Rev. 12 that woman represents national Israel.
Blessings,
Bene

Typical sola scriptura exegesis. Pick and choose what serves your view out of the Scripture and leave the rest. So, the son in Rev 12 is Jesus, the dragon is Satan (both literal people), but the woman is not a literal person. Hmmmmmm…seems a bit self-serving in that interpretation. Make no mistake, the woman can represent the national Israel, but that is the lowest of the interpretations. Scripture is polyvalant (spelling?), and we must always seek to look at it literally first. If you are going to say that both the child and the dragon are literal people, you must believe that the woman is a literal person to remain consistent in your exegesis. To say anything else is self-serving and not true to the text. You would have to be reading in your assumption (and let’s be honest; your assumption is that the woman could NEVER be Mary because that might take the emphasis away from Christ) into the text. On the other hand, when we interpret the son as the OT called the “eldest son”, we could say that the son also symbolizes Israel as the eldest brother to the rest of the nations. From this perspective, we could also say that the woman is the nation if Israel of old. One could make the argument that the woman symbolizes the Church. One could make arguments that the dragon symbolizes evil, etc. The point being, we can see that there is some symbolism indeed in Rev 12. However, if we are going to interpret it literally, we can’t just go half-way. That is self-serving. If the other two figures are literal, so is the woman. There is only one mother of Jesus, and that is Mary. To say anything else is, well…yep, self-serving.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

.As the woman in Rev. 17-18 symbolizes a false religion and a corrupt economic system, so in Rev. 12 that woman represents national Israel.The fact that the same description of the woman revealed in Rev. 12 is found also in Gen. 37:9-11 I think is far more significant. We see Scripture interpreting Scripture (Gen. and Rev. have the same Author). Joseph saw the sun, moon and eleven stars bowing down to him, and Jacob readily understood this symbolism as meaning his family. Scripture no where speaks of Mary’s “queen-mothership” in heaven, so rather than interpret this passage with a non-Biblical notion, it would be far more accurate to stick to what Scripture itself offers. The twelve stars being the twelves tribes of Israel, and the woman being the nation of Israel that brought forth the Messiah. And it is the nation of Israel that is persecuted by Satan in the latter days, not Mary (Rev. 12:12-13).

Again Bene, you are debating sola scriptura, not Mary. He gave you Biblical verses. You cannot obligate him to argue from your position, because he does not accept your position as valid. If I want to prove Marian doctrines, I don’t have to do it by Scripture alone. That’s your belief, not our’s. Again, Scripture does contain evidence of Marian doctrines, but most of them are implicit. You are arguing that they aren’t in Scripture because they aren’t explicit. That is a poor argument. If we were to accept that, the Christian Church would be Arian right now. Go and debate sola scriptura, and then come back and talk about Mary. Otherwise, stop trying to hold him to your standards. Attempt to understand the Catholic position before you condemn it.

 

[Redbandito]

Bene, your whole understanding of the “woman” is flawed. For starters. Look at Rev 12 in context. Remember that chapters and verses are artificial. They were added to make the text more readable, but they weren’t originally there. Look at Rev 11:19 which states, “19Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.” It is in this context we see Rev 12:1, which states, “1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Thus, IN CONTEXT, the woman must be seen as appearing from heaven. Either you are missing it, or intentionally ignoring it, but it is very clear.

Remember that this woman is paralleled with two things here: 1) A Queen 2) The Ark of the Covenant. How do we arrive at these conclusions? Simply. First, the 12 stars do represent the twelve tribes of Israel. I agree with you on that. That just happens to make my case more than your’s. The twelve stars appear in a what? A CROWN! What does a crown symbolize? ROYALTY! Since this crown belongs to a woman, it is safe to assume that this woman is a queen, not a king. What is this woman queen over? The twelve tribes of Israel! Since she is in Heaven, we can assume that she rules over the “twelve tribes” from Heaven. Simple concept really, and it doesn’t take any real crazy twisting of the text. It just looks to the simplest and most literal interpretation and takes it at face value. Again, in the work we did in the above post, we know that the woman must be a literal person, if the child and the dragon are both literal. Thus, who is the “woman” that is the mother of the “child”? Well, if the child is Jesus, this woman must be MARY!

At this point, we must rely on our knowledge of the OT. We must flip back to Gen 3, which states, " 15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your seed a] and hers;
he will crush **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen 3;&version=31;#fen-NIV-71b”)] your head,
and you will strike his heel."
From the very beginning we see the prophecy that is fulfilled in Rev 12. We see a woman who shares enmity with her seed against the serpent and his seed. Well, we know that this can’t be referring to Eve for two very significant reasons. First, because this woman shares the same enmity from the serpent and his seed as her son has. If we are to say that the child is Jesus, we must admit that this enmity is perfect and complete. We know that Eve just sinned, thus it cannot refer to her. Thus Cahotlics believe in the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary. But I digress. Secondly though, we see the term, “seed” applied here. Well, women don’t provide the “seed”. The man does. Thus, this can ONLY be referring to the virgin birth. Again, this refers to Mary and Jesus.

We see John pick up on this when Jesus clearly states, “4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.” 5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (Jn 2:4-5). Again, he picks up on it in John 19, "“Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. Notice that Jesus plays on words here. When referring to Mary, Jesus brings up images of the prophetical “woman”. When talking to John he gives him his own mother. Thus, seeing how John picks up on this use of language in his gospels, it comes as no surprise that we see John expand on it in Revelation.

Continued…

 

[Redbandito]

Next, we must look at the OT again. Jesus was not accultural. Jesus was a Jew! Thus, we look to the Jews for how they did things. In the kingdom of David, we notice that the queen was not a wife of the king. The king could have many women. Thus, the mother was known as queen. Seeing how Jesus is KING, and Mary is His MOTHER, it is no surprise that a Catholic would refer to Mary as Queen Mother. This is how a Jew would have understood it at the time. You don’t, because you seek to put 21st century American culture onto the Bible. Since Jesus is King of the New Israel, or New Jerusalem, we can properly understand Mary to be the Queen Mother of the New Jerusalem. Fits right in with her crown of 12 stars, which represents the twelve tribes. We see Mary attempting to exercise her role as Queen Mother at the Wedding Feast at Cana (Jn 2) where she is advocating on behalf of her sons kingdom. We also see Jesus responding positively by initiating His earthly ministry upon Mary’s request. Not that Jesus depended on it, but He certainly took her role into account.

Now, you can disagree with this interpretation of the Bible, but you cannot deny that a literal interpretation of the Bible has not been sought here. This is where the historical view comes into play. The earliest patristic texts regarding the Eve-Mary parallel begin in the later half of the Second Century. St. Justin, the Martyr, (+165) in his work, Dialogue with Trypho, states that, “Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent …in the same way it had originated.” And St Irenaeus (120-200) continued the paradigm by noting, “And so the knot of Eve’s disobedience received its unloosing through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a virgin bound by incredulity, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by faith.” Again, Tertullian (160-240) wrote, “For unto Eve, as yet a virgin, had crept the word which was the framer of death; equally into a virgin was to be introduced the Word of God which was the builder-up of life.” Thus, historically the Catholic understanding of these verses is supported.

As far as the Ark of the Covenant argument, we start with Rev 11-12 again. Notice that the sign was the lightning and thunder and that the Ark or “the woman” appear. That is because the “Ark” is the “woman”. Whereas the OT Ark contained the manna, the staff of Aaron, and the Word of God, the NT Ark contained the "Bread from Heaven, the one true priest, and the living Word. Luke seems to pick up on this as he parallels 2 Samuel 6 with Luke 1. Again, Athanasius wrote, “O Ark of the new covenant, clad on all sides with purity in place of gold; the one in whom is found the golden vase with its true manna, that is the flesh in which lies the God-head.” (St. Anthanasius, 4th century A.D.) [4] Thus, we see early theologians supporting the modern Catholic view of these Scriptures. There is much more, but for the sake of time, I’ll stop here.

Continued…

 

[Redbandito]

Oh, and one more thing. The very guys you claim to respect and rely on so much for your views on justification have this to say on the matter.

Luther stated, "One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but THROUGH HER to God." (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

"The VENERATION of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. "(Sermon, September 1, 1522)

Luther also believed in Mary’s Immaculate Conception. “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” December ?] 1527; from Hartmann Grisar, S.J., *Luther, *authorised translation from the German by E.M. Lamond; edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, first edition, 1915, Vol. IV [of 6], p. 238; taken from the German Werke, Erlangen, 1826-1868, edited by J.G. Plochmann and J.A. Irmischer, 2nd ed. edited by L. Enders, Frankfurt, 1862 ff., 67 volumes; citation from 152, p. 58)
"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. "(Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522) Which brings up the point of the tranlastion of kekaritomene. It is a perfect participle. Which means it is complete and the completion took place in the past, and extends to the future. Luther understood this concept and argued it via sola scriptura, so why don’t you?

Finally, Luther stated, "Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!” You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her . . . He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary." (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).

Calvin and Zwingli also made strong arguments for the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, devotion to her, and even her immaculate conception. These are the major branches of the Reformation from which all Protestants originated. Again, they arrived at these conclustions through sola scriptura, so where do you get your ideas?

Now you can deny this interpretation, but at this point, the burden of proof is on you, as you are up against the overwhelming combination of Biblical and historical evidence.

 

[Todd_Easton]

bene7:

As the woman in Rev. 17-18 symbolizes a false religion and a corrupt economic system, so in Rev. 12 that woman represents national Israel.

There is no question that the woman of Rev 17-18 is not a real woman but repesents something else. I think a better case can be made that the woman in Rev 17-18 symbolizes apostate Jerusalem, the great city on mountains, whose political and religious leaders and citizens for the most part adulterously abandoned the true God, declaring “We have no king but Ceasar,” the beast (the false religion and a corrupt economic system of the pagan Roman Empire), which would eventually destroy the once great city, “where their Lord was crucified.” (Rev 11:8)

Be that as it may, the woman of Rev. 12 cannot, as you say, represent “national Israel” because “the rest of her offspring” are “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus,” i.e., Christians, which is hardly a description of national Israel.

However, the woman of Rev 12 can be the Queen-mother of Israel, the mother of the King of Israel, the mother of Jesus Christ, Mary, the mother of Christians. (John 19:27) The symbolism taken from Gen 37 of the sun, moon, and stars and the symbolism taken from Rev 1 of stars, indicate the woman’s queenship over Israel and the Church, as the stars in Jesus’s hand (Rev 1) indicate his Lordship over the seven churches.

Again, you have provided no explicit Scriptural support within Revelation of your contention that the woman of Rev. 12 represents anything other but a real woman, Mary.

You still avoid the fact that the text says absolutely nothing about the woman also following the Son she bore up to the God and to His throne. No where in Rev. 12 is the woman seen in heaven itself or reigning with the Son on His Father’s throne. After the Son is caught up to God’s throne the woman flees to the wilderness, not heaven.

Rev 11:19 says that the Ark of the Covenant appeared in heaven. Mary is the true and living Ark of the Covenant for it was Mary who carried the true and living Word of God, the true bread from heaven, and our great and eternal high priest, Jesus Christ, within her womb for nine months. The next verse, Rev 12:1 then goes on to describe Mary’s exaltation in heaven, symbolically clothed with the sun, moon and stars. Rev 12:2-17 describe Mary’s earthly life before she was taken to heaven. Scripture and history are otherwise silent about Mary’s earthly life after Pentecost. I have heard that false rumors were spread around that Mary did not conceive as a virgin but from an adulterous relationship with a Roman soldier; this could be the attack upon her by Satan described in Rev 12. I have heard that St. John the Apostle took Mary to Ephesus; this could be the flight to the wilderness described in Rev 12.

Your whole theory is shattered by the fact that Paul explicitly and constantly uses the word “ONE:” “…through ONE man sin entered into world;” “…for by the transgression of the ONE the many died” "…much more by the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the ONE Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many." So it is throughout the whole passage. They are two Representative men, two federal headships. Through the ONE condemnation and death reigns in him, and in him all are “made sinners.” Through the Other reigns righteousness and life to all who are “in Him,” and all are “made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). You wilfully avoid what the text explicitly states for the sake of your own doctrine.

I have already addressed this issue in my previous post. Your interpretion of Romans 5 fails to take into account that Eve sinned first, that sin actually entered the world through Eve. Unless Eve is somehow included in St. Paul’s definition of Adam in Romans 5, he is contradicting Scripture. St. Paul cannot contradict Scripture so Eve is somehow included in St. Paul’s definition of Adam in Romans 5, which give us reason to believe that someone else (Mary) may somehow be included in St. Paul’s definition of Jesus in Romans 5. Which would support my opinion and the explicit opinion of Christians from at least the second-century that Mankind fell through the disobedience of Adam and Eve and Mankind was restored through the obedience of Jesus and Mary and because of their faithfulness, Jesus is now exalted as King of kings and Lord of lords and Mary is exalted as Queen-mother of queen-mothers and Lady of ladies…

 

[bene7]

To Todd Easton & Red Bandito:

Calling Mary the “Ark of His convenant” is a Catholic interpretation but not found in any Apostolic teachings in the N.T. You guys still have to deal with the FACT that the woman in Rev. 12 is never seen in heaven. She does not follow her Son into heaven when He is caught up to God and to His throne. INSTEAD it is stated (symbolically) that two wings of the great eagle are given to her in order that she might fly into the wilderness. That’s not heaven, guys! Nope, no heavenly throne for her. The fact that she wears a crown does not mean she is a literal queen. But having a crown means she does rule. In the future Millennial Kingdom, when the Messiah, to whom she gave birth, returns to rule the nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5; cf. Rev. 19:15), according to many, many O.T. prophecies regarding His Kingdom rule, national Israel will enjoy an exalted, prominate position amongst all the nations on earth at that time (example: Is. 60; Jer. 3:15-18; 23:5-8; 33:15-26; Zech. 8:22-23; 14:8-9, 16). Why? Because Israel’s Messiah/King will be ruling this earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years.

You guys fail to understand Rev. 12 because you fail to understand Biblical prophecy.

Rev. 11 says God’s ark of His covenant appeared in the Temple in heaven, but the woman in Rev. 12 never goes there.

Sorry guys!

Blessings,
Bene

Oh yeah, Red, thanks for all the quotes from Luther, but don’t forget Luther was a Roman Catholic. Protestantism eventually dropped the Marian doctrines because of their lack of Biblical (Apostolic) support, it had nothing to do with Luther. Luther dropped Rome’s doctrine of justification by faith plus works because it, too, had no Biblical (Apostolic) support.

 

[Redbandito]

To Todd Easton & Red Bandito:

Calling Mary the “Ark of His convenant” is a Catholic interpretation but not found in any Apostolic teachings in the N.T. You guys still have to deal with the FACT that the woman in Rev. 12 is never seen in heaven. She does not follow her Son into heaven when He is caught up to God and to His throne. INSTEAD it is stated (symbolically) that two wings of the great eagle are given to her in order that she might fly into the wilderness. That’s not heaven, guys! Nope, no heavenly throne for her. The fact that she wears a crown does not mean she is a literal queen. But having a crown means she does rule. In the future Millennial Kingdom, when the Messiah, to whom she gave birth, returns to rule the nations with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5; cf. Rev. 19:15), according to many, many O.T. prophecies regarding His Kingdom rule, national Israel will enjoy an exalted, prominate position amongst all the nations on earth at that time (example: Is. 60; Jer. 3:15-18; 23:5-8; 33:15-26; Zech. 8:22-23; 14:8-9, 16). Why? Because Israel’s Messiah/King will be ruling this earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years.

LOL! Bene, you are incredible man. I do wonder if you actually believe half of the stuff you post, or if God sent you as a test to my patience. Look man, you obviously did not read the whole of my responses to you. You’re right to say this is the “Catholic interpretation”. Nothing wrong with that. Your’s is the “Bene” interpretation. What’s the difference? I base mine on an objective authority guided by the Holy Spirit, and you base your interpretation on your own “authority” supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit. Funny how the One true God seems to be leading us in different directions.

And I did deal with the supposed “FACT” that the woman was “never seen in Heaven”. You either did not read my post, or you ignored it. Either way, I wonder why you consistently fail to respond to the parts of posts that present your argument the most problems. Is it because you can’t? It sure looks that way. You like to shift the focus, or ignore certain responses like this is a timed debate, in order to never have to deal with the things your position just CAN’T.

And as for your interpretation of a literal “national Israel” being ruled for 1000 years, let’s just say I disagree. Let’s just leave it at the fact that your ideas of a premillenial pretrib rapture are widely refuted by Protestants and Catholics alike. Needless to say that this heretical view of Scripture is only a couple hundred years old, and has no business on this thread. You are reading your theology into these Scriptures and you are using your preconceived theology on the rapture to interpret Rev 12’s “woman”. I have caught you in this many times. I expect more from you. You are veryt intelligent, and you obviously are interested in expanding God’s kingdom. We know that the end does not justify the means. Thus, with that being said, you should be able to discuss this without resorting to some of these less than honest debate tactics. I’m not calling you dishonest. I doubt that you were aware you were doing. But you are now. Please work on this. And again, Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura. You fell into assuming sola scriptura when you stated, “but not found in any Apostolic teachings in the N.T.” You need to go prove sola scriptura on another thread before you can use it against me in a debate here. Just for the record again, Catholics hold to ALL the Apostolic teachings, not just the one’s that are explicit in Scripture (1 Thess 2:13, 2 Thess 2:15). And finally on this subject, I did show you why it was safe to assume my interpretation. You have not shown me why I am wrong. You have said I am wrong, but have only given me your opinion. I gave you Jewish culture, Biblical typology, explicit Scriptural references, and the historical interpretation of both Catholics and Protestants. You gave me your opinion to offset that. I hate to say it, but that is typical sola scriptura arrogance, and is the reason you can’t let yourself admit you are wrong.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

You guys fail to understand Rev. 12 because you fail to understand Biblical prophecy.

Rev. 11 says God’s ark of His covenant appeared in the Temple in heaven, but the woman in Rev. 12 never goes there.

Sorry guys!

Blessings,
Bene

Oh yeah, Red, thanks for all the quotes from Luther, but don’t forget Luther was a Roman Catholic. Protestantism eventually dropped the Marian doctrines because of their lack of Biblical (Apostolic) support, it had nothing to do with Luther. Luther dropped Rome’s doctrine of justification by faith plus works because it, too, had no Biblical (Apostolic) support.

No problem, but go debate sola scriptura elsewhere bene. Nobody is falling for that here. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli NEVER dropped there beliefs, even after the formal split from the Church. So again, if they arrive at these through sola scriptura, why do the radical reformists such as yourself not see what is blatantly obvious to the rest of Christendom? (BTW, it is mainly American Protestants that have the objections) And I do understand Biblical prophecy. It is you who obviously don’t. Remember, you can throw out accussations like that all day, but they don’t advance the argument. You must PROVE it, which you clearly have not. Since we have been discussing things on our two or three threads, two evangelicals that have been following us on these threads have decided to convert to Catholicism (one a revert). Maybe you’re not making your points as strongly as you think.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eliza10:

Please help me with some good thoughts on addressing a sincere (though somwhat militant) question of an Evandgelical who wants to know why several saints (like Liguori and also Bonadventrue) refer to Our Lady as “omnipotent”, all powerful to save sinners and all powerful to obtain pardon. Liguoiri said, “At the command of Mary, all obey, even God”.

These are hard sayings for a Protestant!

As Newman pointed out, some things said by Catholics can only be explained by being explained away. This is one of them.​

“I will have nothing to do with statements,** which can only be explained, by being explained away**. I do not, however, speak of these statements, as they are found in their authors, for I know nothing of the originals, and cannot believe that they have meant what you say; but I take them as they lie in your pages. Were any of them the sayings of Saints in ecstasy, I should know they had a good meaning; still I should not repeat them myself; but I am looking at them, not as spoken by the tongues of Angels, but according to that literal sense which they bear in the mouths of English men and English women. And, as spoken by man to man, in England, in the nineteenth century, I consider them calculated to prejudice inquirers, to frighten the unlearned, to unsettle consciences, to provoke blasphemy, and to work the loss of souls.”

He is very fair-minded - and justly severe.

newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/section5.html

• see all of section 5 - his criticisms begin at paragraph 6. The above quotation is from the end of paragraph 8.

If Catholics don’t want to be misunderstood, they should avoid foolish terminlogy like this - it’s impossible to blame Protestants for finding such talk a stumbling-bock or worse. Newman’s attitude is all too rare - there is something about Marian devotion which seems to encourage excesses of the kind discussed. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eliza10:

Please help me with some good thoughts on addressing a sincere (though somwhat militant) question of an Evandgelical who wants to know why several saints (like Liguori and also Bonadventrue) refer to Our Lady as “omnipotent”, all powerful to save sinners and all powerful to obtain pardon. Liguoiri said, “At the command of Mary, all obey, even God”.

These are hard sayings for a Protestant!

St. Alphonsus Liguori was mistaken - he was influenced by a centuries-old idea, but one that is wrong.​

 

[tjmiller]

Jesus said that whatever we ask in His name shall be done.

That is omnipotence - what the Church calls “supplicant omnipotence”. This is the omnipotence with which our Glorious Queen is omnipotent. And she IS omnipotent, of that have no doubt. We can become supplicantly omnipotent, too. All that is required is uniformity with the will of God.

St. Alphonsus is a Doctor of the Church - I am surprised that putatively orthodox Catholics have so difficult a time understanding his orthodox teachings in an orthodox way. You do our Lady no credit thereby.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

tjmiller:

Jesus said that whatever we ask in His name shall be done. That is omnipotence - what the Church calls “supplicant omnipotence”. This is the omnipotence with which our Glorious Queen is omnipotent. And she IS omnipotent, of that have no doubt. We can become supplicantly omnipotent, too. All that is required is uniformity with the will of God. St. Alphonsus is a Doctor of the Church - I am surprised that putatively orthodox Catholics have so difficult a time understanding his orthodox teachings in an orthodox way. You do our Lady no credit thereby.

St. Alfonsus is a Doctor - that does not make him infallible. The same applies to Augustine, Aquinas, and others: being a Doctor gives status, but does not imply absence of the possibilty of error, nor absence of error. As Newman points out in his “Apologia…”:​

."Mélanges Théol**a thing which in fact has already occurred

emphasis in original]

If a Doctor can be mistaken in a matter of morals - as in the instance of which the conclusion is quoted - a Doctor may (or may not) be in error on other matters. There is nothing disrespectful in saying this. ##