Catholics, what is the Protestant response to Revelation 12?

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

Actually, I did point you to Revelation 12…verse 1 is the key; there, Mary is described physically: she has feet and a head with a crown.

Everyone else in heaven is pure spirit…only Jesus and Mary are described physically.

Is this a coincidence?

I think you’re going beyond what is written. Mary (so far as I know) never stood on the moon, was never clothed with the sun, and never wore a crown of stars. Furthermore, the Church claims she had no pain in childbirth, but the woman in Rev 12:1 obviously did. I would also suggest that since there is no reference to Mary in this verse in the earliest commentary I could find suggests it was not taught by the early Church.

MarcoPolo:

What I am saying is that John, who wrote Revelation, was given Mary as his mother at the foot of the Cross at which time Mary was called “woman” to John. It is understandable for Jesus to refer to another woman as “woman” like the woman at the well…but He refers to His own mother as “woman”? John addressed His own mother as “woman” in John 2 as well at the Cana wedding. This is a pattern seen in the writings of John.

And how does this mean that John saw Mary in this vision? Remember, John is recording what he was shown. It seems to me that if God (who is the author of Scripture) showed Mary (or her image), then John would have recorded that (perhaps along the line of “a woman like the blessed virgin mother…”). The thing is, John was being shown images, not actual people (even though some of these images are clearly identifiable with specific beings).

MarcoPolo:

I can’t reconcile what you are saying with “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. And the woman fled into the wilderness…” Both Israel and Mary match this profile right down to the fleeing part, except Mary much more explicitly brings forth the child.

So are you saying that Mary is (as it were) the “embodiment” of the Old Testament Church? I could agree to that (complete with imperfections). However, it still is no indication that Mary was bodily assumed.
Nicholas II:

St Irenaeus: “Just as the former—that is, Eve—was seduced by the words of an angel so that she turned away from God by disobeying his word, so the latter—Mary—received the good news from an angel’s announcement in such a way as to give birth to God by obeying his word; and as the former was seduced so that she disobeyed God, the latter let herself be convinced to obey God, and so the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And as the human race was subjected to death by a virgin, it was liberated by a Virgin; a virgin’s disobedience was thus counterbalanced by a Virgin’s obedience…” (Adv. Haer., V, 19, 1).

I apologize. I thought you had indicated that somehow the woman of Rev 12 was seen as Eve. Apparently, you meant that Eve and Mary had been contrasted, which I don’t deny. Thanks for the citation!

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The following is a complete copy and paste from pugiofidei.com:

N.B. Oecumenius is a 6th century Greek Father, one of the earliest witnesses to the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12.

The incarnation of the Lord, by which the world was subjected and made his own, became the occasion for the raising [of the Antichrist] and the endeavors of Satan. For this is why the Antichrist will be raised up: so that he may again cause the world to revolt against Christ, and persuade it to turn around and desert to Satan. Since again the Lord’s physical conception and birth marked the beginning of his incarnation, the vision has brought into some order and sequence the events which it is going to explain, by starting its explanation from the physical conception of Christ, and by depicting for us the Mother of God. For why does he say, And a portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet? He is speaking of the mother of our Savior, as I have said. Naturally the vision describes her as being in heaven and not on earth, as pure in soul and body, as equal to an angel, as a citizen of heaven, as one who came to effect the incarnation of God who dwells in heaven (“for,” he says, “heaven is my throne” [Isa 66:1]), and as one who has nothing in common with the world and the evils in it, but wholly sublime, wholly worthy of heaven, even through she sprang from our mortal nature and being. For the Virgin is of the same substance as we are. The unholy doctrine of Eutyches, that the Virgin is of a miraculously different substance from us, together with his other docetic doctrines, must be banished from the divine courts.

What is the meaning of the saying that she is clothed with the sun, and has the moon under her feet? …*n order to show in the vision that even when the Lord was conceived, he was the protector of his own mother and of all creation, the vision said that he clothed the woman. In the same way the divine angel said to the holy Virgin, “The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). Overshadowing, protecting, and clothing all have the same meaning.

He says, And on her head, a crown of twelve stars. For the Virgin is crowned with the twelve apostles who proclaim the Christ while she is proclaimed together with him. He says, She was with child, and she cried out in her birth-pangs, in anguish for delivery. Yet Isaiah says about her, “before the woman in labor gives birth, and before the toil of labor begins, she fled and brought forth a male child” (Isa 66:7). Gregory [of Nyssa], also, in the thirteenth chapter of his Interpretation of the Song of Songs talks of the Lord “whose conception is without intercourse, and whose birth is undefiled.” So the birth was free from pain. Therefore, if, according to such a great prophet and the teacher of the church, the Virgin has escaped the pain of childbirth, how does she here cry out in her birth-pangs, in anguish for delivery? Does this not contradict what was said? Certainly not. For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit, who spoke through both. But in the present passage you should understand the crying out and being in anguish in this way: until the divine angel told Joseph about her, that the conception was from the Holy Spirit, the Virgin was naturally despondent, blushing before her betrothed, and thinking that he might somehow suspect that she was in labor from a furtive marriage. Her despondency and grief he called, according to the principles of metaphor, crying and anguish; and this is not surprising. For even when blessed Moses spiritually met God and was losing heart–for he saw Israel in the desert being encircled by the sea and by enemies–God said to him, “Why do you cry to me?” (Ex 14:15) So also now the vision calls the sorrowful disposition of the Virgin’s mind and heart “crying out.” But you, who took away the despondency of the undefiled handmaid and your human mother, my lady mistress, the holy Mother of God, by your ineffable birth, do away with my sins, too, for to you is due glory for ever. Amen.

(Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, trans. John H. Suggit [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006] pp. 107-109.)*

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Irenaeus also claimed that Jesus was 50 years old when He was crucified, and that this was taught by the apostles. Do you believe Irenaeus is infallible? It would be helpful if you could give the specific citation you are referring to.

This is an obvious reference taken from James Whites site, its true Irenaeus did say that, but its also true he was not saying Jesus was literally 50, remember James White is not infallible either, in fact he occasionally has tried to distort the Church Fathers to be more Reformed Baptist and not Catholic, and if i recall correctly tried to make some of the Church Fathers to be sola scriptura!

The rebuttal and what St Irenaus was REALLY sayingis here bringyou.to/apologetics/a38.htm Basically he was saying Jesus went thru the ages of man in his physically 30 years

it reveals the massive anticatholic blunder

 

[Cachonga]

BerhaneSelassie:

The following is a complete copy and paste from pugiofidei.com:

N.B. Oecumenius is a 6th century Greek Father, one of the earliest witnesses to the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12.

There is no question that the idea that this was Mary developed over time (a few centuries after the writting of the book). However, as I have mentioned before, I have found an earlier commentary (by Victorinus (martyred around 303 - see here), more than 200 years before the commentary by Oecumenius) that only mentions Mary once, and that is in Chapter 4 where he tells us that the genealogy of Jesus, as found in the gospel of Matthew, is Mary’s. The point of this is that this “tradition” has not been the “constant teaching of the Church for 2,000 years”. I would suggest that since she is not mentioned at all in the work by Victorinus, then this was not a teaching of the early Church, and most definitely not an apostolic (“sacred”) tradition.

This is an obvious reference taken from James Whites site, its true Irenaeus did say that, but its also true he was not saying Jesus was literally 50, remember James White is not infallible either, in fact he occasionally has tried to distort the Church Fathers to be more Reformed Baptist and not Catholic, and if i recall correctly tried to make some of the Church Fathers to be sola scriptura!

I would remind you that the topic is “What is the Protestant response to Revelation 12?” I mentioned Irenaeus to show that the ECF’s are not infallible (something I hope we can all agree on), and should be examined carefully (especially the context in which they are being used). I believe what I said, not because Dr. White made the argument, but because I looked up the work and read it for myself (all of Ad. Her. II, not just quotes). I will not go into this further, as it is off the topic, however, I will take a close look at the rebuttal offered to see how accurately Mr. Bonocore represents Irenaeus.

Finally, I realize that “anticatholic” is a favorite term for a lot of RC apologists, but it contributes nothing to the discussion (suppose I labeled you as an “antiprotestant”?). Such labels are counter productive and border on (and sometimes go boldly into) ad hominem.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

No, MR White (he went to a self accredited institution, and the bible says “do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher” ) did blunder, the Early Church did not have many commentaries on Revelation at least that survived, Victorinus was a rather strange Church Father, he probably just barely made the cut, since he rejected some of the NT canon we have today, St Jerome even said his writing style was weird, but as far as Revelation 12 this does not mean he did not think of it, his interpretation is not incompatible with Catholicism as the women can be interpreted as a number of things ie the Church, Israel, Mary, since Mary is the prefigurement of the Church as a sinless, Virgin Mother, who was the spouse of God (Holy Spirit). Regardless, the Book was controversial and the Church was dealing with other problems, not the end of the world, so many did not comment on Revelation, so its unfair to say it was not believed early on.

St Victorinius did have a Mariology that did contrast her with Eve for example:

Who, then, that is taught in the law of God, who that is filled with the Holy Spirit, does not see in his heart, that on the same day on which the dragon seduced Eve, the angel Gabriel brought the glad tidings to the Virgin Mary; that on the same day the Holy Spirit overflowed the Virgin Mary, on which He made light;–Creation of the World

 

[Randy_Carson]

Finally, I realize that “anticatholic” is a favorite term for a lot of RC apologists, but it contributes nothing to the discussion (suppose I labeled you as an “antiprotestant”?). Such labels are counter productive and border on (and sometimes go boldly into) ad hominem.

There are some people to whom the label is fairly applied. James White is one of them.

Why not do a little research into James White and his relationship with his sister, Patti Bonds, who is Catholic?

socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/patty-bonds-responds-to-her-brother_13.html

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Finally, I realize that “anticatholic” is a favorite term for a lot of RC apologists, but it contributes nothing to the discussion (suppose I labeled you as an “antiprotestant”?). Such labels are counter productive and border on (and sometimes go boldly into) ad hominem.

No, James White uses petty charged archaic language when referring to Catholics, he rarely says “catholics” he typically calls them followers of “Mother Rome” or “the Church of Rome” or even Romanists.

IF you do a google search on his site you see he uses “anti-calvinist” a lot (atleast 10 pages of results)

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/james-white-outdoes-all-with-his-anti.html

JAmes White does the SAME thing we are doing (calling him anticatholic), by calling his opponents “anti-Calvinist”

Yes I did read and see what James White said about his sister, he basically calls her a liar, tries to deny she was reformed baptist, even though she said James picked out her church, since he didnt want her going to his.

So I asked James what other church he would suggest I attend. He suggested I attend Northwest Community Church, because, as he stated, most of the elder board was Calvinist. In other words, they were Reformed, and he knew that I had been looking for a good Reformed Church, because James’s instruction to me had led me to become an adherent of the 1689 Confession he held to. So, after leading us to the Reformed Baptist position, James recommended that I attend Northwest Community Church because he felt I would be “more compatible there” than at the Southern Baptist Church I had been attending. I spent several years at Northwest Community Church, until my conversion to the Catholic Church in 2001.

abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/2009/04/out-of-darkness-cross-i-carry.html

James White does use ad hominem, last year he compared his opponents to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers

here is a link jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/08/james-white-has.html

 

[Cachonga]

And so the thread is reduced to ad hominem name-calling . As I said, I believe what I said about Irenaeus because I read it for myself, not because James White made the claim. I do not believe in the infallibilty of James White any more than I believe in the infallibilty of the pope.
(BTW - BerhaneSelassie, I understand why you don’t want to acknowledge James White’s doctorate. I have the same aversion to calling to a priest “father”.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

And so the thread is reduced to ad hominem name-calling . As I said, I believe what I said about Irenaeus because I read it for myself, not because James White made the claim. I do not believe in the infallibilty of James White any more than I believe in the infallibilty of the pope.
(BTW - BerhaneSelassie, I understand why you don’t want to acknowledge James White’s doctorate. I have the same aversion to calling to a priest “father”.)

The “Doctorate” of James White

Did you notice the part of his biography that mentions his “doctorate” from a non-accredited school?

Education
B.A. Bible (Major in Biology, minor in Greek), Grand Canyon College, 1985.
M.A. Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989
Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995
Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

At columbiaseminary.edu/aboutus/accreditation.html, I read the following from the President Rick “Josh” Walston’s statement on the “accreditation issue”:

“Columbia Evangelical Seminary is not accredited. However, as stated above, if you do not absolutely need a degree from an accredited school, why spend the extra money [emphasis mine] earning one when a degree from a non-accredited school may serve your purposes just as well?”

I understand distance learning. I also understand “not accredited”.

I guess one reason people should “spend the extra money” is to establish legitimate credibility in the eyes of the academic community.

WHITE’S SCHOLARSHIP PROBLEMS—AND A MYSTERIOUS PH.D.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1sb3.asp

 

[Cachonga]

More ad hominem. Why not start a new thread dedicated to bashing James White and let this thread stay on topic?

 

[sdtouchton]

Regarding Rev. 12, remember that the Apocalypse (or Book of Revelation) is apocalyptic literature unique to the first century. Thus, it is full of symbolism which has multiple meanings. Therefore, it is common for one symbol to represent more than one thing. The woman clothed with the sun is the Virgin Mary, and so the verse should be principally interpreted as such. This is demonstrated by Rev. 12:17, where the devil goes to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who bear testimony to Jesus. This makes Mary the mother of all Christians.

Since Mary is the mother of the Church, we can say that the woman, on a secondary level, represents the Church, which is the New Israel. This is why John writes about her pangs of travail, which are symbolic for those who are being formed in the Church of Jesus Christ. So, this literature provides us multiple meanings, but there is generally a principal meaning and a secondary meaning; in this case, the woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same “woman” who God said would crush the head of the serpent in Gen. 3:15. Because she is such a danger to satan, satan tried to kill her even after the Savior was born (Rev. 12:13).

Grace be with you.

 

[Cachonga]

sdtouchton:

Regarding Rev. 12, remember that the Apocalypse (or Book of Revelation) is apocalyptic literature unique to the first century. Thus, it is full of symbolism which has multiple meanings. Therefore, it is common for one symbol to represent more than one thing. The woman clothed with the sun is the Virgin Mary, and so the verse should be principally interpreted as such. This is demonstrated by Rev. 12:17, where the devil goes to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who bear testimony to Jesus. This makes Mary the mother of all Christians.

This is certainly the common answer from Catholics today. I do not deny that there can be multiple meanings to these verses, and it could be argued that this is Mary. However, as I pointed out, the earliest commentary I could find on this does not mention Mary at all (at least, not in Chapter 12), which indicates to me that this was not the view of the early Church. Furthermore, even granting that it COULD be Mary, this still does not indicate she was bodily assumed. (BTW - thanks for bringing this back on topic!)

 

[adriancombe]

This is certainly the common answer from Catholics today. I do not deny that there can be multiple meanings to these verses, and it could be argued that this is Mary. However, as I pointed out, the earliest commentary I could find on this does not mention Mary at all (at least, not in Chapter 12), which indicates to me that this was not the view of the early Church. Furthermore, even granting that it COULD be Mary, this still does not indicate she was bodily assumed. (BTW - thanks for bringing this back on topic!)

Or, perhaps the long lack of commentary specifying Mary as the Woman has a similar cause to other teachings that were not defined until later centuries. To wit, maybe it was so obvious who the Mother of the Messiah was that in the earliest times there was no need to spell it out.

 

[SemperReformada]

Actually, I did point you to Revelation 12…verse 1 is the key; there, Mary is described physically: she has feet and a head with a crown.

Everyone else in heaven is pure spirit…only Jesus and Mary are described physically.

Is this a coincidence?

Seems like Mary and Jesus aren’t the only ones described physically

Revelation 11:16 (New International Version)
16And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

And so the thread is reduced to ad hominem name-calling . As I said, I believe what I said about Irenaeus because I read it for myself, not because James White made the claim. I do not believe in the infallibilty of James White any more than I believe in the infallibilty of the pope.
(BTW - BerhaneSelassie, I understand why you don’t want to acknowledge James White’s doctorate. I have the same aversion to calling to a priest “father”.)

Yet you called Mr White “Dr”. Besides, I was joking about that, since religious figures were called “Father” and “Teacher/Doctor” in the bible. I am only opposed to calling him doctor because he practically went to a self accredited school.

Revelation like many books of the bible is highly symbolic and you can have multple interpretations of one verse and stil be valid. Jews quotes a Proverb where God’s word is like sparks that are made…(one strike makes many sparks) Victorinius was provide ONE of the sparks (ie interpretations).

Its okay, I really see people admit to mistakes anyway, even though Bonocore shows he is wrong. The whole “ad hominem” thing came up because you brought up a claim by White that was wrong, where White wanted to try to denigrate Catholic tradition.

Irenaus was simple saying Christ in His years on Earth **RECAPITULATED **the whole life of a man

 

[Cachonga]

adriancombe:

Or, perhaps the long lack of commentary specifying Mary as the Woman has a similar cause to other teachings that were not defined until later centuries. To wit, maybe it was so obvious who the Mother of the Messiah was that in the earliest times there was no need to spell it out.

I don’t think that there has never been a question as to who the mother of Jesus was. But what is the purpose of a commentary? Isn’t it created so that others can learn the accepted interpretation of what is being commented on (whether Scripture or something else)? In the case of Scripture, wouldn’t a commentary reflect the orthodox interpretation of the day? I may have missed it, but did the commentary by Oecumenius mention that the woman of Rev 12 was also considered to be the Old Testament Church? If not, then would you suggest that it was because THAT interpretation was OBVIOUS?

BerhaneSelassie:

Revelation like many books of the bible is highly symbolic and you can have multple interpretations of one verse and stil be valid. Jews quotes a Proverb where God’s word is like sparks that are made…(one strike makes many sparks) Victorinius was provide ONE of the sparks (ie interpretations).

I agree with you on this point. However, I am still unconvinced that this in any way indicates that Mary was bodily assumed.

In regard to Irenaeus, I never mentioned James White. Furthermore, I explained that I read for myself what Irenaeus had written (all of Ad Her II, not just selected quotes), and was convinced that what I said was correct. I suggest we drop this and stick with the topic.

 

[adriancombe]

I don’t think that there has never been a question as to who the mother of Jesus was. But what is the purpose of a commentary? Isn’t it created so that others can learn the accepted interpretation of what is being commented on (whether Scripture or something else)? In the case of Scripture, wouldn’t a commentary reflect the orthodox interpretation of the day? I may have missed it, but did the commentary by Oecumenius mention that the woman of Rev 12 was also considered to be the Old Testament Church? If not, then would you suggest that it was because THAT interpretation was OBVIOUS?

I would not rule out a priori that more than one sense of Scripture is obvious to a given age, group or individual.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

In regards to Revelation 12, St Epiphanius of Salamis wrote IN THE YEAR AD. 377, that:

“it is possible that this was fulfilled in Mary. I do not assert this definitely, however, nor do I say that she remained immortal, but I also will not say definately that she died. For the Scripture goes far beyond the human mind, and has left this point undecided because of the surpassing dignity of that vessel…”–Panarion 78:11, St Epiphanius AD 377, also found in PG 42:737

This book is not found in its whole online, there is a translation of it on google books but this page cannot be seen: books.google.com/books?id=brxgNsxJKkUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=vessel&f=false (pg. 609)

I lifted this quote from On the dormition of Mary: early patristic homilies, By Brian Daley

I looked on White’s site and on of his writers recognizes this is one of the earliest references to Mary being the women on Revelation 12, this is funny since I remember a debate years ago with Sungenis where White was like “Did anyone in the first millenium interpret Revelation 12 as Mary?” Sungenis did not really know the answer, but the answer is a clear yes. Their site seems to acknowledge Tychonius may have written Mary was the woman first, though he was a Donatist heretic

 

[Cachonga]

BerhaneSelassie:

In regards to Revelation 12, St Epiphanius of Salamis wrote IN THE YEAR AD. 377, that:

It’s difficult to examine the context of an excerpt. However, I will point out that 1) this still does not predate the commentary by Victorinus; 2) you “forgot” to highlight the word “possible” in the excerpt; 3) he doesn’t say ANYTHING that we haven’t already agreed on (at least in principle); 4) he doesn’t give any indication that Mary was bodily assumed. I would add that if the earliest reference to Mary as the woman of Rev 12 comes from any heretic (Donatist or otherwise), that doesn’t speak well of this particular interpretation (though I won’t press this due to a lack of specific citations).

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Thank you all, for answering my questions.