CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[kaycee]

Pixie isn’t pulling “the old Switcheroo,” she is referring to the plain words of Scripture: “Then the dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on **the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.” (Rev. 12:17). **

How is it “the Old Switcheroo” to accept at face value what the Bible says? Mary is the mother of Jesus, to Whom she gave birth, and also the mother of all of us who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. It’s right there verse 17 in black and white.

So were not born of God by Holy Spirit, were born of Mary?

Does Mary actually have wings as well?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

O’ I see - so you intepret “she bore a male child of” in Rev 12:1-5 literally but you interpret “the rest of her offspring” in Rev allegorically?

First of all, it is not MY personal private interpretation. It is the interpretation that has been taught in the Church for 2000 years. How old is your interpretation? Secondly, it literally says, “those who have kept the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Nothing allegorical there. When Jesus was about to give up His life on the cross, he told the disciple whom he loved, “Behold your mother.” She didn’t have to give birth to that disciple to become his mother.

You know I’m usually okay with poetic licence but it would appear this is just plain isogetical instrumentation of the Scriptures in order to fit ones pre-conceptions.

What preconceptions would those be? Which came first, the Church or the Bible? Wanna start a thread about it?

The Bible isn’t a jello mold but the very Word of God from which we (if we read it for all it is worth) yeilds great truths, astonishing truths. Perhaps someone else might buy in but the ol’ switcheroo doesn’t really work for me Pixie.

Well it’s a good thing I didn’t do any switching around of anything, then.

 

[Gamera]

So were not born of God by Holy Spirit, were born of Mary?

Huh? When did I ever, ever say that we are not born of God by the Holy Spirit? Where on earth did you get that from?

Does Mary actually have wings as well?

Does the Church have wings? Does Israel have wings? No? So they’ve got no better claim to be the woman of Revelation 12, correct? If you think the woman of Revelation 12 is the Church or Israel, please explain the wings.

But if Mary was assumed into heaven — taken bodily up into heaven — that just might match the image of “being given wings,” right?

In any event, Revelation 12:17 TELLS us that the woman’s offspring are those who obey God’s commandments and testify to Jesus. No interpretation is involved: the verse expresses it plainly.

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;2631575]The “other offspring” as the verse plainly says, are “those who have kept the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” - in other words, YOU as a Christian are mentioned here as the offspring of Mary.

I looked this word “offspring” which is also translated “chilren” or “seed”. This word denotes immediate descendants, children (Matt. 22:24, 25; Mark 12:19–22; Luke 20:28).
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4690). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
As it has been mentioned before, if you take the route that Rev 12:1 is Mary then the catholic church is wrong that Mary did not have other children.

(Talk about making the Bible relevant for someone personally!) It’s quite logical, really. When we become adopted into the Heavenly Family, God is our Father, Jesus is our Brother, Mary is our Mother. I fully accepted this truth LONG before I had any inkling that God would make me Catholic. In fact, I was defending this teaching to another non-Catholic while** in the same breath** saying, “Now, I’m not about to become Catholic, but…” And God just LAUGHED and called me Home to Rome.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I looked this word “offspring” which is also translated “chilren” or “seed”. This word denotes immediate descendants, children (Matt. 22:24, 25; Mark 12:19–22; Luke 20:28).
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4690). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
As it has been mentioned before, if you take the route that Rev 12:1 is Mary then the catholic church is wrong that Mary did not have other children.

I disagree. Mary did not give birth to other children, but we who call God our Father and Jesus our Brother are amiss if we do not also call Mary our Mother. His Mother is my Mother.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<John Chapter 2 verse 1-5

John 19:26-30

In the Gospel of John, he called Mary woman like in the verse which I quoted.>>

Actually, it’s the DIMINUTIVE of GYN that was used. And even in English, diminutives are used to express affection.

<<Since Revelation 12:1 was also written by John, he identify the woman in Revelation 12:1 as Mary. We know this to be true because the male child whom she gave birth to is Jesus Christ. You cannot deny that mere fact.>>

Except that the Woman of Revelation "cried out in travail of childbirth. According to the Eastern Churches, the Virgin suffered NO pain of childbirth.

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;2631899]I disagree. Mary did not give birth to other children,

The problem with this claim is that it goes against so many scriptures. Take for example Matt 13:55—which says “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? When brothers or sisters is used in this way it means actual blood brothers and sisters.

but we who call God our Father and Jesus our Brother are amiss if we do not also call Mary our Mother. His Mother is my Mother.

It does not follow that the mother of Jesus is your mother anymore than your mother is my mother. The scriptures also never refer to Mary as the mother of believers. Never.

 

[montanaman]

The problem with this claim is that it goes against so many scriptures. Take for example Matt 13:55—which says “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? When brothers or sisters is used in this way it means actual blood brothers and sisters.

It does not follow that the mother of Jesus is your mother anymore than your mother is my mother. The scriptures also never refer to Mary as the mother of believers. Never.

From Scott Hahn’s “Hail, Holy Queen:”

Tradition tells us that she is the same person whom Jesus calls “woman” in John’s gospel, the reprise of the person Adam calls “woman” in the garden of Eden. Like the beginning of John’s gospel, this episode of the Apocalypse repeatedly evokes the Protoevangelium of Genesis. The first clue is that John–here, as in the gospel–never reveals this person’s name; he refers to her only by the name Adam gave to Eve in the garden: she is “woman.” Later in the same chapter of the Apocalypse, we learn also that, like Eve–who was “mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20)–the woman of John’s vision is mother not only to the “male child” but also to “the rest of her offspring,” further identified as “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev 12:17). Her offspring, then, are all those who have new life in Jesus Christ. The New Eve, then, fulfills the promise of the old to be, more perfectly, the mother of all the living.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The problem with this claim is that it goes against so many scriptures. Take for example Matt 13:55—which says “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? When brothers or sisters is used in this way it means actual blood brothers and sisters.

I think this is going OT, but I disagree with you here. It doesn’t have to mean blood brothers and sisters at all. There are many examples of the word “brother” not meaning “children of the same parents” in Scripture.

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Another excellent look at this is in this post.

It does not follow that the mother of Jesus is your mother anymore than your mother is my mother. The scriptures also never refer to Mary as the mother of believers. Never.

The Scriptures also never refer to God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy spirit as the Holy Trinity, but I’m sure you believe in the Trinity, don’t you?
It’s simple logic, especially if you look at Rev 12:17 in light of John 19:26:

John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying “behold your mother.” Jesus did not say “John, behold your mother” because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.

Rev. 12:17 - The “woman’s” (Mary’s) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God’s covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.

 

[justasking4]

From Scott Hahn’s “Hail, Holy Queen:”

Tradition tells us that she is the same person whom Jesus calls “woman” in John’s gospel, the reprise of the person Adam calls “woman” in the garden of Eden. Like the beginning of John’s gospel, this episode of the Apocalypse repeatedly evokes the Protoevangelium of Genesis. The first clue is that John–here, as in the gospel–never reveals this person’s name; he refers to her only by the name Adam gave to Eve in the garden: she is “woman.” Later in the same chapter of the Apocalypse, we learn also that, like Eve–who was “mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20)–the woman of John’s vision is mother not only to the “male child” but also to “the rest of her offspring,” further identified as “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev 12:17). Her offspring, then, are all those who have new life in Jesus Christ. The New Eve, then, fulfills the promise of the old to be, more perfectly, the mother of all the living.

Interesting interpretation but it has no basis in scripture. For one the scriptures never ever refer to Mary as the “new Eve”. As far as i know it was unknown for centuries.

 

[zemi]

Interesting interpretation but it has no basis in scripture. For one the scriptures never ever refer to Mary as the “new Eve”. As far as i know it was unknown for centuries.

Can you write me in points as I asked you elsewhere your criteria for holding a theological belief in something? List them, please.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Interesting interpretation but it has no basis in scripture. For one the scriptures never ever refer to Mary as the “new Eve”. As far as i know it was unknown for centuries.

You’re operating under the belief that it must have a basis in Scripture to be true. How then, did Christians before 382 AD (when the New Testament canon was determined) know what to believe? You say Mary’s being the new Eve isn’t found in Scripture, but neither is the word “Trinity.” Peter and Paul never used that word, but they believed it!

Here’s a link to a chart (really the whole website is chock full of good information, I suggest you spend some time reading there) that explains why Catholics believe Mary is the New Eve.

On that same page is this invitation that I extend to all non-Catholics reading this thread:

I would like to invite you to pray to Jesus. Most Christians would agree that it is completely safe to pray to Jesus about anything. I would like to invite you to pray to Jesus about Mary. Simply ask Jesus to show you the truth about his mother. Ask Him to direct your thinking about her. Ask Jesus if his mother is alive with Him. Ask Him if Mary is praying for us. Just pray to Jesus about her. Try this every night for six weeks. I am thoroughly convinced that He will bring you to the truth about his mother.

 

[justasking4]

I think this is going OT, but I disagree with you here. It doesn’t have to mean blood brothers and sisters at all. There are many examples of the word “brother” not meaning “children of the same parents” in Scripture.

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

The Scriptures also never refer to God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy spirit as the Holy Trinity, but I’m sure you believe in the Trinity, don’t you?
It’s simple logic, especially if you look at Rev 12:17 in light of John 19:26:

John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying “behold your mother.” Jesus did not say “John, behold your mother” because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.

Rev. 12:17 - The “woman’s” (Mary’s) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God’s covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.

What do you make of Galatians 1:19- which reads-But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.? This is also the same word in Luke 3:1.
This particular claim of the catholic church in regards to Mary being a ever virgin is one of the clearest examples of a church that tries to twist the scriptures fit a particular doctrine. What is even more amazing is that nothing is gained in the least by making her a “ever virgin” but actually goes against not only that which is natural between husband and wife, but aginst one of the primary functions of marriage is to have children. The scriptures concur on this also. “Blessed is the man who is blessed with children”. Psalm 127:3-5. Our salvation and growth in Christ is not in the least impacted by how many children she had.

 

[montanaman]

Interesting interpretation but it has no basis in scripture. For one the scriptures never ever refer to Mary as the “new Eve”. As far as i know it was unknown for centuries.

Then don’t believe it. Since your standard is your own interpretation of scripture, you should have no problem with another’s interpretation of scripture. We see it quite clearly, so…shrug

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;2632087]You’re operating under the belief that it must have a basis in Scripture to be true. How then, did Christians before 382 AD (when the New Testament canon was determined) know what to believe?

What they beleived in 382 is irrelevant. We know what the scriptures teach because we have them. We can study the scriptures and see.

You say Mary’s being the new Eve isn’t found in Scripture, but neither is the word “Trinity.” Peter and Paul
never used that word, but they believed it!

Just because a particular word like Trinity is not found in the scriptures doesn’t mean its not true. We have plenty of passages that demonstrate the truth of the Trinity. What passages in scripture can you point to that says Mary is the New Eve?

Here’s a link to a chart (really the whole website is chock full of good information, I suggest you spend some time reading there) that explains why Catholics believe Mary is the New Eve.

On that same page is this invitation that I extend to all non-Catholics reading this thread:

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Interesting interpretation but it has no basis in scripture. For one the scriptures never ever refer to Mary as the “new Eve”. As far as i know it was unknown for centuries.>>

It is not necessary for something to “have a basis in scripture,” as the Church was functioning in all her fulness before ONE WORD of the NT was written down.

The Church existed before the Bible, and the books of the Bible were chosen because they agreed with the teaching of the Church, not vice versa.

Catholics nor Orthodox nor the Non-Chalcedonians have claimed to be bound by “sola scriptura” and do not subscribe to this.

 

[RobHom]

sorry guys for being a little “upfront”, but i am a Protestant attending a catholic school. i hear that catholics teach that “mary assended body and soul to heaven before she died”.

Not a problem. Its a fair question. Yes it is taught that The Blessed Virgin Mary is in Heaven…Body & Soul.

hmmmm, where do catholics get this idea from? i mean, as far as i am concerned, the Bible never mentions this. and, isnt that the only source of christian knowledge?

These teachings are brought forth from the writings and historical accounts that date back many, many centuries.

There are people who may think that the Bible is the only source of Christian knowledge, however…because of that way of thinking they have denied themselves and others of much understanding and knowledge of God.

Don’t you think its rather “ludicrous” to even think that God stopped “inspiring” men or even women and the Bible was the “last word” on everything?

at the moment, i totally disagree with this teaching. but, no one at school has been able to argue their beliefs to me (they all thought it was taught in the bible). please, i am open to debate, i want to know the reasons why catholics believe this so that i am not simply blindly denying this teaching.

All you have to do is be open minded, read the links that the others here have posted…and accept the fact that you cannot lock GOD and His ability to inspire us to write His words or His message…even to this day.

I believe it, have always believed it, and always will believe it. I have no need to “argue it”…because, by the same token, I do not believe the Bible is the “final answer”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi Manny,
Great name or handle by the way! Are you a Red Sox Fan?

I’m a Yankee Fan, and Met’s fan.

So, I guess I didn’t realize you were a literalist and were interpreting Revelation 12 literally. I’m not sure as a Roman Catholic, however, you really want to go down that path of logic. For by associative principle you identify Mary as the woman of Rev 12:5 then you must also identify Mary as the woman of Revelation 12:13-17 or completely destroy the unity of context in Rev 12 altogether. But as long as you are okay with identifying Mary as the woman “of” Revelation chapter 12 then it should follow that one should be able to use your hypothesis to solidify the “yes” position that Mary definitely did give birth to other children as Jesus had bloodline siblings from her.

The Catholic Church has not official declared that Mary is the woman in Rev 12:1. However, many Catholic theologians have acknowledges could be Mary. I, however, believe that the woman is Mary. I also believe the woman also symbolizes the Church. Though I find the woman as Israel as unsupported.

I can point out the reasons why the woman in Rev 12:1 is Church. She have other offsprings who give testimony to Jesus. The Church being the Bride of the Lamb has members who Christians. They are symbolically are children of the woman, who gave birth to the Son of God. However, the Church did not give birth to Jesus. This is where Mary fits in because it is she who conceived Jesus in her womb.

I do believe that the woman is the Church and Mary, and I stand firm with that.

We then can utilize your thesis in order to win over the hearts and minds of all those affirming the negative as to this forum’s thread on, “Did Jesus have Siblings?”
Revelation 12:13-17 Continued.
The (Same) Woman Persecuted
Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Just wanted you to be aware of the road you are headed down if you exegete 12:5 in that manner.

May God Bless, pat

In Catholic theology, we recognized that since Jesus is our brother in baptism, we too acknowledge Mary as our spiritual mother based on John 19:25-26. Since Jesus gave John, His Mother, and His Beloved Disciple John to Mary.

I’m very much aware that the Catholic Church teaches and I don’t think she would deceived me. Otherwise, Jesus Christ broke his promise to us and His Church.

You are entitle with your interpretation and I respect that. I just don’t see how the woman in Rev 12:1 isn’t Mary. You have to deny that the male child whom she conceived is not Jesus to make that case.

I believe the male child to be Jesus on the premise that this child will rule all nations with an iron rod.

Jesus did not have siblings. He is our spiritual brother because through our baptism. There are many times in Scripture which the Apostles addresses each of them as brothers and sisters. Even in their greetings.

We Catholics interpret Revelation 12:1 in both literal and symbolic terms. None of which are incorrect.

 

[Bible_Student]

First of all, it is not MY personal private interpretation. It is the interpretation that has been taught in the Church for 2000 years. How old is your interpretation?

Hi Pixie,
Are you sure this really been the interpretation of the Church for 2000 years? because I’m very sure that many here would like to see that claim backed up with your early sources of documentation for it, say starting (as you say) from 7 AD.
Tell you what Pixie, I’ll go ahead (after church that is) and pull up the exegetical works of the Fathers on Revelation that I believe back up that “the mother” is “the church” and you pull up yours backing up Mary is the mother of Rev 12 and the mother of us all. Let’s just work within the boundaries of the first 400 years only, please. Perhaps then we may be able to properly expound this in plain site for everyone’s benefit, rather than get into a “he said, she said”, which never does much to diseminate truth.

In Christ, pat

 

[VociMike]

Hi Voci,
It’s obvious you didn’t read the entire post. Do you not yourself believe in the dual nature of Jesus Christ? That He was both God and man?

You know quite well what Catholics believe in that regard, so I won’t bother to answer, other than to say your implication makes no sense to me.