If Mary was the mother of God...

[jlhargus]

MD: If that’s the case then the sinless Christ, the incarnate Son Himself, could not have come into this sinful world at all and live amongst sinful men. John writes concerning the sinless Christ, God Himself:1 John 1:1 "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life–"Then He Himself could NEVER be touched, even outside the womb. But that’s not the case, is it?

JL: Sinful men may have touched Him, but sin NEVER touched Him? Mary had no other children, you can read the old line when you were Tanner for that info. What are you trying to change the topic a thrid time? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5352634#post5352634

MD: It’s a sad thing when men think having children makes a woman impure. Mary went on and had other children with Joseph - according to the Scriptures.

JL: Yes that is sad, having children doesn’t make a woman impure, and the Church doesn’t teach it does.

MD: Well, you should know that my isn’t “Kevin.”

JL: Oh yes, yes of course, I should have said Tanner as no one here knows Kevin.

MD: Well, then according to you this would have to directly refer to Mary in heaven. But let’s see if it actually does.

JL: I’m waiting.

MD: You all do every time you call Mary the “ark of the N.C.” Think, my friend, think!

JL: Show me? I have no idea what you mean.

MD: AGAIN, the N.C. was not inaugurated UNTIL His sacrificial death and the shedding of His blood. Prior to that event there was no N.C.

JL: Who said otherwise, we all know when the NC came into effect, after the death of the testator.

MD: It was not being carried in an “ark” for nine months.

JL: Yet that BLOOD formed in the womb of Mary and carried for nine months was that same shed BLOOD of the NC.

MD: Maybe you should join our “so-called” Bible studies.

JL: So you admit being Calvary Chapel Vineyard Outreach? I have seen, over the past five years, enough of your posts, under different names, to know the errors of your bible studies. As anyone who reads your posts clearly sees.

MD: It’s implied nowhere in Scripture. The word “Trinity” codifies what the Scriptures actually reveal: that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Each revealed as Persons: Three Person, one God.

JL: Thie Trinity IS implied, where does scripture say God in three persons? Hind sight is 20/20 to bad you were not there they could have just asked you.

MD: But as for the N.C., Scripture reveals that it did not begin until the DEATH of Christ, not when He was conceived in the womb.

JL: Where did I post the NC begin when Christ was conceived? Your words not mine.

 

[jlhargus]

MD: If you read the account of the “wonder” (better translated “sign”) carefully, you see that the “woman” there NEVER enters heaven. It’s the man child to whom she gives birth that is “caught up to God and to His throne” (Rev. 12:5). After that event the “woman” flees into the wilderness to be nourished for three and a half years (vs. 6). And when the dragon is thrown down to the earth, he persecutes the woman who gave birth to the man child that was caught up to God.(vs. 13). Both the dragon and the woman are ON EARTH. The woman in this chapter is national Israel and the heavenly “sign” tells of her persecution by the Antichrist in the latter days of this age. It’s in reference to the time of the “Day of the Lord” as revealed by the ancient Hebrew prophets in the O.T., the time of “Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7).

JL: Wonder or sign no difference. You need to understand apocalyptic prophecy is condensed into many events and times. If you notice, the man is a CHILD. Christ was not taken into heaven as a CHILD, but a grown MAN. Actually he fled into Egypt with Mary as a child. By the way was Israel a virgin or harlot when Christ was born?

The literal meaning is a person Mary and the symbolic meaning of the woman is the Church, fleeing into the desert from anti-Christ.

Also Gn3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Christ always refered to his mother as, woman. In Revelations again we have the woman,

Rv11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ARK of HIS TESTAMENT and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. [Rv12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven A WOMAN clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.]

MD: You Catholics like to use Rev. 12 as a proof text of Mary’s assumption into heaven. But as you can see, the woman in that heavenly “sign” is NEVER seen in heaven. Only the man child she births is caught up to God and to His throne. The “woman” remain on earth and her “offspring” is persecuted (vs. 17).

JL: The child is a person=Christ and collective, symbolic of the Davidic Kingdom. The woman is a person=Mary and a collective, symbolic of the Church Old and New Covenant people of God. The great dragon is a person=Satan and a collective, symbolic of empires, kingdoms, governments and organizations that oppress the people of God through the ages. The Old Testament Ark held the 10 commandments, Arons’s Staff, manna. New Testament Ark Mary held Word made flesh, High Priest, Bread of Life.

As far as the child being snatched up to God, why are you not that literal when it comes to the woman being a person, since you see the child and the dragon as persons. You are flip floping changing interpretation in mid-stream. If you want to be literal, Christ was not snatched up to God, he ascended and HE WAS NOT A CHILD but a full grown resurrected adult.

The child is both person and symbol, The woman is both person and symbol, the dragon is both person and symbol. The 1,260 days refer to the symbolic meaning of the woman, as the Church, in the time of Anti-Christ, or if you prefer Israel, but not natural Israel, which was a harlot at that time, but the new regenerated spiritual Israel, which is the Church. First comes the natural then the spiritual. Israel in Christ’s time was not a faithful.

 

[jlhargus]

MD: Here’s what Scripture says:
Rom 5:12 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–” (i.e., in Adam).
Nor does Scripture state that original sin is contracted at conception. The sinful estate of all men is mystically connected, federally, to their identity with Adam and at the time he sinned in the Garden. The Son incarnated, took on humanity, but He is not connected to Adam and His fallen race; He is Himself revealed to be another Adam with a posterity of His own of men made (imputed) righteous “in Him” (Rom. 5:12-21).

---

JL: Original sin is a LACK of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[moondweller]

JL: Oh yes, yes of course, I should have said Tanner as no one here knows Kevin.

Nope. Wrong again.

JL: So you admit being Calvary Chapel Vineyard Outreach? I have seen, over the past five years, enough of your posts, under different names, to know the errors of your bible studies. As anyone who reads your posts clearly sees.

Nope. I am not a part of, nor ever was, associated with Calvary Chapel or the Vineyard. Sorry, my friend. Care to try for a third strike? Oh, that’s right, you already did.

If you notice, the man is a CHILD. Christ was not taken into heaven as a CHILD, but a grown MAN.

So then you don’t believe this is referring to Christ? If not, then who? What “child” was caught up to God’s throne and is with the glorified, risen Christ (Heb. 1:3b)?

Actually he fled into Egypt with Mary as a child.

No, it says the woman herself fled into the wilderness, not Egypt. Joseph did not take Mary into the wilderness.

By the way was Israel a virgin or harlot when Christ was born?

Where does it say in Rev. 12 that the “woman” was a virgin?

Did I not asked you to read the “sign” carefully? An accurate exegesis does not read into the Scriptures that which is not there.

 

[moondweller]

“Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot.”

Moondweller, may I respectfully inquire as to where you get your ideas from?

The Scriptures.

On what authority do you speak?

I don’t claim any authority. Do you?

You seem to misunderstand so many things. It it intentional that you can’t or don’t or won’t grasp the many answers that have been given in these posts?

I don’t misunderstand what is said; believe me, I fully understand. I just don’t agree with some of the things stated.

You seem to have some odd ideas IMHO.

And you’re certainly free to have a humble opinion.

May I inquire as to what the letters are that appear by your ‘religion’ statement on your profile?

BAC? It means “born again Christian.”

You seem to have a way of jumping into each point and coming up with another sort of explanation, I’m not sure where that comes from?

Because it comes from the Scriptures, not “Tradition.”

Has someone taught you these ideas?

I’ve studied several theological works of great men of the faith.

You say you teach Bible studies? How can this be? Where have you studied to be authorized to teach others the Bible?

I was formally educated in a seminary.

You seem to rely only upon the interpretation that you have of the Bible.

M.T., I’ve studied both Catholic theology and Protestant. Have you personally studied any?

You seem to have no concept of that teachings that were laid down in the years following Jesus’ mission on Earth, those that are written, recorded and taught orally and preached with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Taught orally? Why would you think that which was taught “orally” would be any different than that which the Holy Spirit preserved for subsequent generations in Holy Writ? The same way He’s done it since Moses? Christ Himself challenged the Jewish traditions of His day with what was written in the Scriptures.

Are your teachings discerned by the power of the Spirit? Can it be possible that you have some higher authority and the 2000 years of discernment done by the Catholic Church?

There is no higher authority than the theopneustos Scriptures.

Who did Jesus give the authority to preach to?

His Apostles. And what they preached and taught was preserved for us in Holy Writ.

What promises did Jesus make that the teachings would be supported?

None that I know of. He did say the gates of Hades will not overpower the church He would build, but that doesn’t mean false teachers wouldn’t teach false doctrines and be supported within Christendom. In fact, Peter warns of just such a thing (2 Pet. 2:1) as does Paul (Acts.
20:29-30).

Continued to next post:

 

[Roy5]

One thing always has disturbed me. St. Paul wrote many letters to the early Christians, dealing with many doctrinal matters.

However, he does not once mention Mary.

If God intended Mary to be given the veneration she now receives within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, I would have thought that St. Paul would at least have made reference to her and not omitted her entirely.

 In fact, between the birth stories of Jesus and the crucifixion scene at Calvary, I believe Mary is only mentioned twice in the gospels. In both instances Jesus even can seem a bit dismissive of her. See Luke 8:21 and John 2:4 for example. She was not with the women who came to the empty tomb on that first Easter.

 Yes, we are to call her blessed among women, but this does not necessarily require such veneration as we find in the church today. There seems to be evidence that the cult of Mary grew, fed by certain 'scriptures' that we not viewed reliable enough to be included in the canon. For example. Anna and Joachim are not found anywhere in either Catholic or Protestant Bibles. There may have been major pagan influences, too, coming from competing religions that worshipped goddesses.

 

[moondweller]

Have you personally ever felt the power and the grace that comes from prayer that honors the Blessed Mother of Jesus, God Incarnate… The Word made Flesh? Mary, Mother of God in the form of Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

I do not ever pray to Mary. I follow the instruction given by Christ Himself in Scripture that I am to pray directly to the Father in His name. Can you show me where Christ instructs us to pray to Mary?

Your arguments have no power to them. You go around and around and yet you say nothing with meaning. IMHO.

That is certainly your “humble” opinion.

I’m sorry but I’ve tried to read your posts and get something out of them, yet I can not.

I too am sorry.

When I can feel the indwelling affirmation of the Holy Spirit regarding the teachings of the Church, I believe this to be the power of discernment, one of the gifts of the Spirit.

Personal “feelings” are the gauge by which we test all doctrines, right?

Can you say that your beliefs have the power of the Spirit behind them?

Which beliefs are you referring to? Those that make me feel good?

Can you be filled with the Holy Spirit and yet be so closed to so much that has been presented to you here?

Yes. If what has been presented here states contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture?

IMO your postings seem to want for a proof, a scientific backing for you to be able to believe. Am I wrong on that?

I require that all Christian teaching correlate with the clear teachings of Scripture for me to embrace them.

Do you have a sense of the Mysteries of God?

A sense? You mean a “feeling?” The Scriptures reveal several “mysteries.” Mary being the “mother of God” is not one of them.

What is your bottom line beef with the statement that Mary is the Mother of God?

Theotokos literally means God-bearer. It was originally meant to affirm the deity of the One the woman bore, not the motherhood of the woman. Not to open a door for men to exalt her far beyond what the Scriptures reveal of her (which is very little).

Have you ever prayed for the understanding of that statement to be revealed to you?

What I am to know is revealed in Scripture. I pray to understand the Scriptures.

Do you believe in the concept of the Trinity?

You said you read my posts. If so, you know the answer. Why ask? But the answer is yes.

At what point does ‘proof’ trump ‘Faith’? “Blessed at they that have NOT seen and yet believe.”

True christian faith is not a blind leap. It’s based on Divine Revelation.

What do we have to gain if we were to suddenly believe your point of view and say, OK Mary isn’t the mother of God??

A closer reality to the Mary revealed in Scripture.

Have you ever experienced what there is to gain by acknowledging the position of Holiness that we give to Mary? Have you ever had a relationship with Mary?

I am not instructed in the Scriptures to seek a relationship with Mary. Can you show me where Christ or any of the Apostles taught such a thing?

not sure about the moon thing.

It has to do with the street/hill I live on. Hence, “Moondweller.” Mystery solved.

Maybe you can find a way to convince me of your authority and correctness.

You’ll have to become very familiar with the Scriptures.

Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of Our Blessed Mother be with you… and the Power of the Holy Spirit.

I have no “mother” in the faith. But I’ll take the other two. Thank you.

For you: May you “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity,” Amen. (2 Pet. 3:18)

PS, and please no more cut and paste of Scripture as answers… that’s not an explanation.

I never post Scripture without an explanation. I only post the Scriptures that confirm my point.

 

[iluvburpees]

Of course it matters !. If the child is given unto her, then she is not the source of the child, but merely a bearer.

Right…so, since God gave Mary the Child, she is not a Mother. But when God gives the rest of our women children, they are Mothers?

If I hire a servant, I am the master of that servent regardless of the fact that I did not “produce” him. Heck, maybe the servent is even thirty years older than I am. Does that make it impossible for me to be master over the servant?

"But how can a child “predate’ His Mother?!” Guess what, nothing is impossible with God. Stop trying to explain away what He did. Read the Bible that you so strongly claim to be the only source of Truth.

 

[Dokimas]

One thing always has disturbed me. St. Paul wrote many letters to the early Christians, dealing with many doctrinal matters.

However, he does not once mention Mary.

If God intended Mary to be given the veneration she now receives within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, I would have thought that St. Paul would at least have made reference to her and not omitted her entirely.

 In fact, between the birth stories of Jesus and the crucifixion scene at Calvary, I believe Mary is only mentioned twice in the gospels. In both instances Jesus even can seem a bit dismissive of her. See Luke 8:21 and John 2:4 for example. She was not with the women who came to the empty tomb on that first Easter.

 Yes, we are to call her blessed among women, but this does not necessarily require such veneration as we find in the church today.

Makes sense to me.

 

[LilyM]

Right…so, since God gave Mary the Child, she is not a Mother. But when God gives the rest of our women children, they are Mothers?

If I hire a servant, I am the master of that servent regardless of the fact that I did not “produce” him. Heck, maybe the servent is even thirty years older than I am. Does that make it impossible for me to be master over the servant?

"But how can a child “predate’ His Mother?!” Guess what, nothing is impossible with God. Stop trying to explain away what He did. Read the Bible that you so strongly claim to be the only source of Truth.

Amen! If Christ by His earthly life and death could save generations who lived and died millennia before His incarnation, and He did, then clearly adhering to a strict chronological sequence of events isn’t an issue with Him. In fact chronology is just one of the many laws of nature He broke even when on earth in human form. “Before Abraham was, I am” being the prime example.

 

[jlhargus]

MD: Nope. Wrong again.Nope. I am not a part of, nor ever was, associated with Calvary Chapel or the Vineyard. Sorry, my friend. Care to try for a third strike? Oh, that’s right, you already did.

JL: You may have left CCV, but I have no doubt who you are.

MD: So then you don’t believe this is referring to Christ?

JL: Show me where I said otherwise? I said it was Christ, but NOT as a child, Christ did not go into heaven as a child. Had he done so we would still be in our sins.

MD: If not, then who? What "child" was caught up to God’s throne and** is with the glorified, risen Christ** (Heb. 1:3b)?

JL: A child of God about 33 years old, who was a full grown adult man and risen from the dead, Jesus Christ, not a small child. You will have to tell all of us, "What “child” was caught up to God’s throne and **IS WITH **with THE glorified, RISEN CHRIST". I’m not aware of this OTHER CHILD. An accurate exegesis does not read into the Scriptures that which is not there.

MD: No, it says the woman herself fled into the wilderness, not Egypt. Joseph did not take Mary into the wilderness.Where does it say in Rev. 12 that the “woman” was a virgin?

JL Well if she was NOT a virgin then her child could not have been Christ. That would blow your whole theory.

MD: Did I not asked you to read the “sign” carefully? An accurate exegesis does not read into the Scriptures that which is not there.

JL: I see you are making excuses, typical of you, tell me what is the difference between wonder and sign? How would sign, as opposed to wonder, change anything in the text?

 

[moondweller]

MD: Nope. Wrong again.Nope. I am not a part of, nor ever was, associated with Calvary Chapel or the Vineyard. Sorry, my friend. Care to try for a third strike? Oh, that’s right, you already did.

JL: You may have left CCV, but I have no doubt who you are.

I don’t take lightly that you call me a liar.

MD: So then you don’t believe this is referring to Christ?

JL: Show me where I said otherwise? I said it was Christ, but NOT as a child, Christ did not go into heaven as a child. Had he done so we would still be in our sins.

Then your previous point made no sense. You’re just back paddling now.

MD: Where does it say in Rev. 12 that the “woman” was a virgin?

JL Well if she was NOT a virgin then her child could not have been Christ. That would blow your whole theory.

It doesn’t say the woman was a virgin. The reason being is the woman is not Mary but national Israel. The sign is a prophecy concerning that nation - not Mary. The “woman” described in the “sign” is NEVER seen in heaven. Her child is caught up to the throne of God, but she is NOT. The events connected with her all happen on earth. The “sign” is not at all about Mary. It alludes to her, being the Jewish virgin who conceived and gave birth. But the “woman” (not described as a virgin) in the “sign” is national Israel. As Jesus said, “…salvation is from the Jews.” Jesus Himself being a Jew, born in that nation.

MD: Did I not asked you to read the “sign” carefully? An accurate exegesis does not read into the Scriptures that which is not there.

JL: I see you are making excuses, typical of you,

Excuses? Typical?

tell me what is the difference between wonder and sign? How would sign, as opposed to wonder, change anything in the text?

It doesn’t change anything in the text but a “sign” assigns to it a purpose; not just something to look at with wonder. The “sign” served a prophetic purpose - a prophecy concerning national Israel in the latter days of this age. Just prior to the second advent of her Messiah and King who was caught up to the throne of God.

 

[adstrinity]

One thing always has disturbed me. St. Paul wrote many letters to the early Christians, dealing with many doctrinal matters.

However, he does not once mention Mary.

If God intended Mary to be given the veneration she now receives within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, I would have thought that St. Paul would at least have made reference to her and not omitted her entirely.

In fact, between the birth stories of Jesus and the crucifixion scene at Calvary, I believe Mary is only mentioned twice in the gospels. In both instances Jesus even can seem a bit dismissive of her. See Luke 8:21 and John 2:4 for example. She was not with the women who came to the empty tomb on that first Easter.

Yes, we are to call her blessed among women, but this does not necessarily require such veneration as we find in the church today. There seems to be evidence that the cult of Mary grew, fed by certain ‘scriptures’ that we not viewed reliable enough to be included in the canon. For example. Anna and Joachim are not found anywhere in either Catholic or Protestant Bibles. There may have been major pagan influences, too, coming from competing religions that worshipped goddesses.

St. Paul was correcting errors. People loved Jesus’ Mother so St. Paul didn’t need to tell people to love and respect & honour Her.

It’s funny you mention that She was not with the women who came to the empty tomb on Easter. Some believe that the reason She didn’t is because Her Son went to Her. This makes sense and it can be inferred from the Bible (i.e., the tomb was rolled away & empty…where was Jesus?). She raised Him, was ALWAYS there for Him, nurtured Him, is in the Bible whenever Jesus is ministering; She would have been anxiously grieving and probably starving Herself, up all night because of Her loss. She didn’t go to Jesus, because, again, like the first time, God came to Her. He visited His Mother before He allowed anybody else to see Him.

St. John was with St. Peter en route to the tomb. Jesus would have time to slip into the house and have some privacy with His Mother to comfort Her and, like all things, let Her experience the graces of God first.

 

[moondweller]

Amen! If Christ by His earthly life and death could save generations who lived and died millennia before His incarnation, and He did, then clearly adhering to a strict chronological sequence of events isn’t an issue with Him.

It isn’t in regards to the sins of the world being imputed to Him while on the cross. But the finite cannot give “birth” to the Infinite.

In fact chronology is just one of the many laws of nature He broke even when on earth in human form. “Before Abraham was, I am” being the prime example.

The incarnation didn’t break any law of chronology. The Son wasn’t human before He took on humanity. “I am” refers to His Divine nature, His eternality. There’s no law of chronology being broken here. At a certain point IN TIME the Son took on humanity (not before, not after), being born into our time/space continuum. It was an historical, one time, event.

 

[moondweller]

It’s funny you mention that She was not with the women who came to the empty tomb on Easter. Some believe that the reason She didn’t is because Her Son went to Her.

Proof?

This makes sense and it can be inferred from the Bible (i.e., the tomb was rolled away & empty…where was Jesus?). She raised Him, was ALWAYS there for Him, nurtured Him, is in the Bible whenever Jesus is ministering; She would have been anxiously grieving and probably starving Herself, up all night because of Her loss. She didn’t go to Jesus, because, again, like the first time, God came to Her. He visited His Mother before He allowed anybody else to see Him.

Proof?

If you accept this type of reasoning then do you accept what the “new-agers” claim of Him? That between the ages of 12 and 30 He traveled to the far east and studied under Hindu gurus. Of course you couldn’t deny it since you accept other nonbiblical, speculative accounts about Him. One man’s account is as good as another’s.

St. John was with St. Peter en route to the tomb. Jesus would have time to slip into the house and have some privacy with His Mother to comfort Her and, like all things, let Her experience the graces of God first.

Yet Scripture testifies to no such encounter. But it does tell us, specifically, all the others He did appear to - but this encounter with Mary we must trust to mere speculation.

 

[KathleenGee]

I haven’t read much of the posts, but see the same-o, same-o…I came to Mary as a Catholic living among Latin European Catholics, and all I can say is what a tragedy to those who do not venerate Mary. Our American culture has always been anti-Catholic, alot of it coming from our separated brethren. The problem causes catholics to become apologetical or not want to offfend or cause confusion by our devotions and our love of Mary.

If only more American women would turn to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, to fulfill their identity as women, we would not have the pornographic reputation we have in the world. We would not have the jihadists putting us now on their millenial radar screen to be our enemy for the next thousands of years.

People cannot denounce our devotion to Mary without knowing how the earliest Christians venerated Mary, Christ’s mother…We and the Orthodox have honored her for 1,500 years since Christianity’s beginning.

So you cannot look at the Bible alone without divorcing yourself from your Christian ancestors…divorce, divorce, divorce.

Don’t divorce the sacred Word of God from those have gone before you 1500 years ago, who are now in heaven who honored her, who with Mary, are praying for you and your salvation…

Afterall, heaven watches us, including Mary, with a thousand eyes, a phrase from Scripture.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

Dear MD,

Thank you for answering my questions.

I see now the limitations as to why we do not understand one another.

May the Fullness of the Love of Jesus Christ and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit be with you.

I leave you in Peace.

 

[jlhargus]

MD: So then you don’t believe this is referring to Christ?

JL: Show me where I said otherwise? I said it was Christ, but NOT as a child, Christ did not go into heaven as a child. Had he done so we would still be in our sins.

MD: Then your previous point made no sense. You’re just back paddling now.

JL: I see you have no answer, so you make an excuse. I see you didn’t SHOW ME, did you?. Show me now, were I am back paddling, you wont of course because YOU CAN’T. You revert to your usual ploy when you can’t answer. I made it easier for you to show me, the following is my previous post:

The child is a person=Christ and collective, symbolic of the Davidic Kingdom. The woman is a person=Mary and a collective, symbolic of the Church Old and New Covenant people of God. The great dragon is a person=Satan and a collective, symbolic of empires, kingdoms, governments and organizations that oppress the people of God through the ages. The Old Testament Ark held the 10 commandments, Arons’s Staff, manna. New Testament Ark Mary held Word made flesh, High Priest, Bread of Life.

As far as the child being snatched up to God, why are you not that literal when it comes to the woman being a person, since you see the child and the dragon as persons. You are flip floping changing interpretation in mid-stream. If you want to be literal, Christ was not snatched up to God, he ascended and HE WAS NOT A CHILD but a full grown resurrected adult.

The child is both person and symbol, The woman is both person and symbol, the dragon is both person and symbol. The 1,260 days refer to the symbolic meaning of the woman, as the Church, in the time of Anti-Christ, or if you prefer Israel, but not natural Israel, which was a harlot at that time, but the new regenerated spiritual Israel, which is the Church. First comes the natural then the spiritual. Israel in Christ’s time was not a faithful. Here is the link to that post #358; forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6848968&postcount=358

 

[jlhargus]

MD: Where does it say in Rev. 12 that the “woman” was a virgin?

JL Well if she was NOT a virgin then her child could not have been Christ. That would blow your whole theory.

MD: It doesn’t say the woman was a virgin. The reason being is the woman is not Mary but national Israel. The sign is a prophecy concerning that nation - not Mary. The “woman” described in the “sign” is NEVER seen in heaven. Her child is caught up to the throne of God, but she is NOT. The events connected with her all happen on earth. The “sign” is not at all about Mary. It alludes to her, being the Jewish virgin who conceived and gave birth. But the “woman” (not described as a virgin) in the “sign” is national Israel. As Jesus said, “…salvation is from the Jews.” Jesus Himself being a Jew, born in that nation.

JL: So you admit Israel was not a virgin at Christ’s birth, you have blown your whole theory. Christ was BORN OF A VIRGIN. Do you EVER really read scripture? [Rv12:1 And **THERE APPEARD a great wonder IN HEAVEN; A WOMAN clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared ANOTHER WONDER IN HEAVEN; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.] What church let’s you teach bible study?

MD: Did I not asked you to read the “sign” carefully? An accurate exegesis does not read into the Scriptures that which is not there.

JL: tell me what is the difference between wonder and sign? How would sign, as opposed to wonder, change anything in the text?

MD: It doesn’t change anything in the text but a “sign” assigns to it a purpose; not just something to look at with wonder. The “sign” served a prophetic purpose - a prophecy concerning national Israel in the latter days of this age. Just prior to the second advent of her Messiah and King who was caught up to the throne of God.

JL: As you say, It doesn’t change anything. The child is both person and symbol, The woman is both person and symbol, the dragon is both person and symbol. The 1,260 days refer to the symbolic meaning of the woman, as the Church, in the time of Anti-Christ, or if you prefer Israel, but not natural Israel, which was a harlot at that time, but the new regenerated spiritual Israel, which is the Church. First comes the natural then the spiritual. Israel in Christ’s time was not a faithful.

 

[moondweller]

JL: So you admit Israel was not a virgin at Christ’s birth, you have blown your whole theory. Christ was BORN OF A VIRGIN. Do you EVER really read scripture?

Nations aren’t (literally) “virgins.” Do you ever really read my posts? Here’s my answer again:It (the sign) doesn’t say the woman was a virgin. The reason being is the woman is not Mary but national Israel. The sign is a prophecy concerning that nation - not Mary. The “woman” described in the “sign” is NEVER seen in heaven. Her child is caught up to the throne of God, but she is NOT. The events connected with her all happen on earth. The “sign” is not at all about Mary. It alludes to her, being the Jewish virgin who conceived and gave birth. But the “woman” (not described as a virgin) in the “sign” is national Israel. As Jesus said, “…salvation is from the Jews.” Jesus Himself being a Jew, born in that nation.

JL: As you say, It doesn’t change anything. The child is both person and symbol, The woman is both person and symbol, the dragon is both person and symbol. The 1,260 days refer to the symbolic meaning of the woman, as the Church, in the time of Anti-Christ, or if you prefer Israel, but not natural Israel, which was a harlot at that time, but the new regenerated spiritual Israel, which is the Church. First comes the natural then the spiritual. Israel in Christ’s time was not a faithful.

Yes, the sign is symbolic, as many prophecies are. But NONE of this prophecy refers directly to Mary. At the end of the age there will be a believing remnant of Jews which are ushered into Christ’s earthly, Millennial Kingdom which He sets up on earth at His second advent. They make up what Paul states as, “all Israel” that is “saved” in Rom. 11:25-29. Christ at that time establishes the N.C. with national Israel (read Jer. 31:31-40; cf. Is. 54:1-8; Eze. 16:60-63).

None of this has to do with the church which Christ is presently building during this age. She will be taken up to be with her Lord prior to these events. She will return with Him at the end of the age. The church is not Israel and Israel is not the church - according to a literal rendering of the Scriptures.