Revelation 12

[Mannyfit75]

I wonder if we should close this thread.

 

[newbie1234]

Just read something that gave me the best laugh I’ve had in ages - Munificentissimus Deus, the very document proclaiming the dogma of Mary’s Assumption, quotes Revelation 12 in support of it - of course they don’t specifically state that John is referring to the glorified Mary in that chapter at all :nope: :nope: :yup: and they quoted it there for no particular reason

The woman in rev12 is the nation of Israel. twelve stars are the 12 tribes. the 1260 days are the 3 1/2 years of the beginning of the tribulation. Rev is a prophetic book written after the first coming of Jesus. The fleeing into egypt by mary was 1 ad. Rev was written in 95ad. This verse is not historical it is prophetic. So how could this verse be refering to something that happened 94yrs before it was written?

 

[newbie1234]

Agreed, although the goal posts do seem to get shifted every now and then.

So this is actually the face of mary?

 

[newbie1234]

Oh puh-leeze, do you really need written notes to tell you what is hardly an enormous stretch - the woman who gives birth to ***a ***ruler (clearly not multiple people, therefore not exactly corresponding neither to Israel of old nor the Church nor God’s people in general), whose child (not children!) the devil wants to destroy, who flees into the desert … the parallels with Mary fall into the bleeding obvious category.

verse12:5 says the child was caught up to God and His throne
verse 12:6 then the woman fled into the wilderness
So The wilderness part is after Jesus’ resurection.
Mary fled to egypt before the resurection just after Jesus was born.
So the woman in rev 12 cannot be Mary.
Does that clarify anything

:

 

[LilyM]

The woman in rev12 is the nation of Israel. twelve stars are the 12 tribes. the 1260 days are the 3 1/2 years of the beginning of the tribulation. Rev is a prophetic book written after the first coming of Jesus. The fleeing into egypt by mary was 1 ad. Rev was written in 95ad. This verse is not historical it is prophetic. So how could this verse be refering to something that happened 94yrs before it was written?

Quite beside the point - the poster was saying the CHURCH doesn’t teach that it’s Mary in Rev 12 - and it most certainly does!

And of course passages can be both historical and prophetic - yet again you have to get out of this either-or mentality of yours. I mean if John is referring to the nation of Israel then the fleeing into the wilderness can equally be referring to the Babylonian exile or Moses leading them out of Egypt as any other event in Israel’s existence.

 

[newbie1234]

**Of course I read my replies. I get a bit of a rush from reading what I say. **

(Edited by Moderator. Stick to facts…ALL of you!)

Noone here has a problem with Protestants? Then they just say all the nasty stuff for fun? When the Catholics get bored, the poop gets flowin’ and it lands on the Protestants huh?They say we’re going to hell (and I’ve read that and responded to it ON THIS SITE).

Of course it’s an anti-catholic website! I’m arguing AGAINST something that was said. Just so you know I never took it off topic…I responded to something that was said. How many anti-Protestant websites have you guys linked us to? If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Stop dishing it out if you can’t take it.

I am not falling back into any way. Don’t think you know me and can diagnose any of my “ways”. And yes, I’ll attack your words. I have already. (Edited by Moderator). No, most of us move onto other issues because we are bored with explaining ourselves over and over again. I am not convinced that Fatima was from God. It has no scriptural basis; the Bible doesn’t tell us there will be visions of Mary. Due to this fact, I am not obligated to BELIEVE it was Mary and God is perfectly fine with that. Good day.

I just had a similar thread. I told them the truth about the aparitions all over the world and where they are coming from.
Brother, they cannot see the truth although it is staring them right in the face. I was brutally honest and I was mocked and persecuted. I had 850 posts in three days. the thread was actually split from this thread but I explained myself clearly and gave the best gospel message I could. That is all we can do brother. God bless you for caring for their souls.

 

[newbie1234]

Quite beside the point - the poster was saying the CHURCH doesn’t teach that it’s Mary in Rev 12 - and it most certainly does!

And of course passages can be both historical and prophetic - yet again you have to get out of this either-or mentality of yours. I mean if John is referring to the nation of Israel then the fleeing into the wilderness can equally be referring to the Babylonian exile or Moses leading them out of Egypt as any other event in Israel’s existence.

Both babylonian exile and moses would be past history.
modern escatology believes the Jews will flee Israel during the first 3 1/2 years of the upcoming tribulation to fulfill this prophecy.

 

[LilyM]

Both babylonian exile and moses would be past history.
modern escatology believes the Jews will flee Israel during the first 3 1/2 years of the upcoming tribulation to fulfill this prophecy.

And you’re an expert in ‘modern escatology’ now that you can make this sweeping and unsupported generalisation eh?

Just like you ‘know’ that Mary had children after Jesus huh?

 

[newbie1234]

And you’re an expert in ‘modern escatology’ now that you can make this sweeping and unsupported generalisation eh?

Just like you ‘know’ that Mary had children after Jesus huh?

I study escatology I’m no expert. We are waiting for the 70th
week of the Daniel proph to be fulfilled.That will be the 7 yr tribulation that is described in REV. Up to 1948 there was no Nation of Israel so everyone was interpreting rev and saying it was the church and all sorts of things. Since 1948 and the zionist return back to the land from exile, now it makes sense that the woman is Israel. The nation of Israel are the chosen people to bring forth the Messiah to be the Savior of the world. Praise be to God!
Zech14:5 another prophecy that describes Israel fleeing during the tribulation

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, the CC does not admit that Mary is the one spoke of in REV 12 and you are well aware of that.

Can you cite that from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, an official document perhaps?

The priests who I know, as well as some Cardinals, and even Popes say that the woman clothed with the sun is Mary, they also believe it is the Church, and Israel.

Though official the Church is silent on the issue who the woman is in Rev 12.

martin, if you really want to know. I would ask one of the Apologist Staff here on Catholic Answers Forum, or call them. Ask them does the Catholic Church officially teach that the woman in Rev 12 is Mary?

I will tell you that most will say its not official taught but it can be interpreted that way.

. If I’m wrong, then it doesn’t matter because the women in Rev 12 is the Israel, the Church, and Mary.

 

[newbie1234]

Can you cite that from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, an official document perhaps.

The priests who I know, as well as some Cardinals, and even Popes say that the woman clothed with the sun is Mary, they also believe it is the Church, and Israel.

Even EWTN agrees. Though official the Church is silent on the issue who the woman is.

If you really want to know. I would ask one of the Apologist Staff here on Catholic Answers Forum, or call them. Ask them does the Catholic Church official teach that the woman in Rev 12 is Mary?

I will tell you that most will say yes. If I’m wrong, then it doesn’t matter because the women in Rev 12 is the Israel, the Church, and Mary.

Hey manny
The woman cannot be the church because the Messiah was not born from the church. Conversely, the church WAS born from the Messiah. So it wouldn’t make sense that it is the church.

 

[newbie1234]

And you’re an expert in ‘modern escatology’ now that you can make this sweeping and unsupported generalisation eh?

Just like you ‘know’ that Mary had children after Jesus huh?

And you know she didn’t huh!
I know of a man called James the brother of Jesus.
Luke 8:19-21 also supports this

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hey manny
The woman cannot be the church because the Messiah was not born from the church. Conversely, the church WAS born from the Messiah. So it wouldn’t make sense that it is the church.

Rev 12:17: 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.

The offspring are Christians, who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to the Jesus. The Christians make up the Body of the Church, so the woman is also the Church.

Don’t you agree the Christians keep the commandments of God? and Bear testimony to Jesus? Aren’t Christians the followers of Christ?

 

[newbie1234]

Rev 12:17: 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.

The offspring are Christians, who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to the Jesus. The Christians make up the Body of the Church, so the woman is also the Church.

Don’t you agree the Christians keep the commandments of God? and Bear testimony to Jesus? Aren’t Christians the follower of Christ?

So you are saying rev12:2 the church bore the Child Jesus.
Jesus the Savior was born from the Catholic church which wasn’t formed till years after the Savior was born. How can this be possible? How can Jesus be born from the Catholic Church?
It is not possible and you know it.
But it is entirely possible that the dragon in12:17 can make war with the believing remnant of the nation of Israel.

 

[Mannyfit75]

And you know she didn’t huh!
I know of a man called James the brother of Jesus.
Luke 8:19-21 also supports this

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.” The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

((more coming))

 

[Mannyfit75]

No Word for Cousin

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Fundamentalist Arguments

Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Holy Family

Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family, and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child. The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we expect its members to act as would members of an average family.

The circumstances demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a “novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.

So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4:9).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

Source: catholic.com/library/brethren_of_the_lord.asp

 

[LilyM]

So you are saying rev12:2 the church bore the Child Jesus.
Jesus the Savior was born from the Catholic church which wasn’t formed till years after the Savior was born. How can this be possible? How can Jesus be born from the Catholic Church?
It is not possible and you know it.
But it is entirely possible that the dragon in12:17 can make war with the believing remnant of the nation of Israel.

So - you’re saying the land or the nation of Israel literally give birth to the child Jesus. That’s not possible either, for a piece of land to give birth to a person??

 

[newbie1234]

So - you’re saying the land or the nation of Israel literally give birth to the child Jesus. That’s not possible either, for a piece of land to give birth to a person??

The nation of israel is not land or dirt or mountains or lakes. The nation of israel is the group of people that are the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from whom the Messiah will be born. Does that clarify?