Revelation 12

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Summary:

The woman is the Church in a future time.

The male child is a Pope in a future time.
The male child still points to Jesus, as revealed in the 2nd Psalm. God speaks in this Psalm:
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, "You are my son; today I am your father. Only ask it of me, and I will make your inheritance the nations, your possession the ends of the earth. With an iron rod you shall shepherd them, like a clay pot you will shatter them."
 
I, too, always had problems with the verbage here, “caught up”, for like you, it seems to imply the child did not ascend under his own power. But then I looked at the Gospels and at Acts and was struck with the terms they used for Jesus’ Ascension:

Mark 16:19, " So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God."

Luke 24:51, " As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven."

Acts 1:9, “*** When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up***, and a cloud took him from their sight.”

Acts 1:11, “***Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven ***will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.”

In seems like the child’s ascent into heaven corresponds with the way Jesus’ Ascension is described.
Good points, many interpreters see those verses as follows:

Mark 16:19: “…was received up to heaven…”

Acts: 1:9 “…and a cloud received Him…”

Acts 1:11 “…who was received up from you…”

Now, even if we say that those verses are equal, we still cannot get around my other points and the fact that Revelation 4:1 places all subsequent chapters in the future. Since at the point of 4:1 Jesus was already born, and since all other chapters come after His birth, and since Jesus never left the earth as child, my argument still holds true.

The essential point is Jesus never left the earth as a child.
 
The male child still points to Jesus, as revealed in the 2nd Psalm. God speaks in this Psalm:
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, "You are my son; today I am your father. Only ask it of me, and I will make your inheritance the nations, your possession the ends of the earth. With an iron rod you shall shepherd them, like a clay pot you will shatter them."
Jesus can bee seen symbolically, but not literally imo. Not if we read the entire chapter and all of Revelation. If we want to proof text and yank passages, then we can make the Bible say what “we want” it to say.
 
Figurative speech and symbolic images are the literal sense of Revelation. We haven’t even begun to dig into the other three main ways you can take Scripture, with this book.

I mean, sheesh, look how long it took me to talk about one verse, and that was just scratching the surface of all the allusions and layers of meaning. I could have gone on much longer about stomping on moon goddesses, the significance of sublunary vs. superlunary in Greek/Roman scientific thought, and all kinds of other stuff.

But in a lot of ways, too, the most important way for Christians to read the Bible is in its interactive mode – the verses that suddenly seem to “pop up” into our notice, and mean something to our own specific lives. And those are usually not verses about abstruse points of doctrine, but rather about loving one another, or cleaning up our acts.

Still, I think it’s valid to realize that one reason the Lord inspired John to write about a woman clothed in the sun, standing on the moon, and crowned with stars, was so that I could draw the Woman as a female astronaut in a reflective spacesuit. 😃
 
Good points, many interpreters see those verses as follows:

Mark 16:19: “…was received up to heaven…”

Acts: 1:9 “…and a cloud received Him…”

Acts 1:11 “…who was received up from you…”

Now, even if we say that those verses are equal, we still cannot get around my other points and the fact that Revelation 4:1 places all subsequent chapters in the future. Since at the point of 4:1 Jesus was already born, and since all other chapters come after His birth, and since Jesus never left the earth as child, my argument still holds true.

The essential point is Jesus never left the earth as a child.
So we travel through this highly symbolic book, and then we get bogged down in literalism? The fact that the child remains a child could be shown this way to prove that Jesus was King of Kings even at birth. John doesn’t have to thrust time on these events to show the child growing up before He ascends into heaven.

Look at the Dragon. How many times is it thrown out of heaven in Revelation? Two? Three? Does that mean Satan was in heaven after he was thrown out one time? What would that do to all of our teachings on how only things perfect and pure can enter heaven?

Do not let a One Directional time line influence your interpretation of Revelation!!!
 
Jesus can bee seen symbolically, but not literally imo. Not if we read the entire chapter and all of Revelation. If we want to proof text and yank passages, then we can make the Bible say what “we want” it to say.
And this dis-proves my theory? Everyone recognizes Psalm 2 to be Messianic, even the Jews do. If you show me other’s in the Bible who will rule the world with a rod of iron, I’ll accept your “proof text and passage yanking” interpretation of my words. But just five passages ago, you were using the words “caught up” to proof text AGAINST the child being Jesus.
 
So we travel through this highly symbolic book, and then we get bogged down in literalism? The fact that the child remains a child could be shown this way to prove that Jesus was King of Kings even at birth. John doesn’t have to thrust time on these events to show the child growing up before He ascends into heaven.

Look at the Dragon. How many times is it thrown out of heaven in Revelation? Two? Three? Does that mean Satan was in heaven after he was thrown out one time? What would that do to all of our teachings on how only things perfect and pure can enter heaven?

Do not let a One Directional time line influence your interpretation of Revelation!!!
I do not think the book is nearly as symbolic as you likely do. I think the book speaks of real events in time in chronological order to the very end of the world and Christ’s return.

We can discuss any given point, just post a starting point and we’ll go from there. 🙂

I think Christians have made a convoluted mess of Revelation over the years–I think it is fairly straight forward reading of the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the world .
 
And this dis-proves my theory? Everyone recognizes Psalm 2 to be Messianic, even the Jews do. If you show me other’s in the Bible who will rule the world with a rod of iron, I’ll accept your “proof text and passage yanking” interpretation of my words. But just five passages ago, you were using the words “caught up” to proof text AGAINST the child being Jesus.
I agreed that Psalm 2 is Mesianic, never said it isn’t. The very definition of veing a Vicar is to rule in place of another. The Pope rules with a rod of iron for Christ.
 
Still, I think it’s valid to realize that one reason the Lord inspired John to write about a woman clothed in the sun, standing on the moon, and crowned with stars, was so that I could draw the Woman as a female astronaut in a reflective spacesuit. 😃
By George, I think you’re on to something, there!!!

Seriously, Mintaka, your words are well thought out and appreciated, even if I haven’t commented on (I’ve seen you on several thread recently).

I’d like to suggest to you the website www.deepinscripture.com. Like you, Marcus Grodi (of “Coming Home” fame) digs into a single line of Scripture and produces an hour long dialog on just that single line of Scripture. It’s fascinating to listen to him and his guests as they delve “Deep into Scripture”. I think you’ll enjoy it!

Downloads his Archives and enjoy!
 
notworthy,

Btw, I mean no offense with anything I post, and these are merely my opinions and can be tossed aside like a dead bug. 🙂 My views mean nothing to anyone but me…just sharing what I think.
 
Figurative speech and symbolic images are the literal sense of Revelation. We haven’t even begun to dig into the other three main ways you can take Scripture, with this book.

I mean, sheesh, look how long it took me to talk about one verse, and that was just scratching the surface of all the allusions and layers of meaning. I could have gone on much longer about stomping on moon goddesses, the significance of sublunary vs. superlunary in Greek/Roman scientific thought, and all kinds of other stuff.

But in a lot of ways, too, the most important way for Christians to read the Bible is in its interactive mode – the verses that suddenly seem to “pop up” into our notice, and mean something to our own specific lives. And those are usually not verses about abstruse points of doctrine, but rather about loving one another, or cleaning up our acts.

Still, I think it’s valid to realize that one reason the Lord inspired John to write about a woman clothed in the sun, standing on the moon, and crowned with stars, was so that I could draw the Woman as a female astronaut in a reflective spacesuit. 😃
Yes, and you did a fine job of articulating yor view. I just feel there is too much spitting in the wind with the book of Revelation/Apocalypse. I do not think it requires nearly the “to China” type digging that many feel is required. I think the visions had to be spoken of in symbolic language in order to protect the early Church, yet that symbolic language does not contain ten literal interpretations, it contains one imo.
 
notworthy,

Btw, I mean no offense with anything I post, and these are merely my opinions and can be tossed aside like a dead bug. 🙂 My views mean nothing to anyone but me…just sharing what I think.
I’m not angry or offended. I appreciate the sharing of our views. If I sound offended or miffed, my sincere apologies.

I very rarely take other people’s comments so seriously as to take offense to. If other’s don’t like my opinions, that’s their problem, not mine. I don’t mind them correcting me or disagreeing, because they (and of course, you) are just as entitled to their own opinions.

Besides, if someone gets offensive with me, I usually try to take it off-line instead of detracting from the thread.

Peace and God Bless to you!!!
 
I’m not angry or offended. I appreciate the sharing of our views. If I sound offended or miffed, my sincere apologies.

I very rarely take other people’s comments so seriously as to take offense to. If other’s don’t like my opinions, that’s their problem, not mine. I don’t mind them correcting me or disagreeing, because they (and of course, you) are just as entitled to their own opinions.

Besides, if someone gets offensive with me, I usually try to take it off-line instead of detracting from the thread.

Peace and God Bless to you!!!
Okay, got it. Tanx. 🙂
 
I think the visions had to be spoken of in symbolic language in order to protect the early Church, yet that symbolic language does not contain ten literal interpretations, it contains one imo.
Do you feel that prophecies can have more than one fulfillment?
For instance at the end of Matthew, isn’t Jesus speaking of the destruction of the Temple AND the end times?

In Isaiah 7:14, isn’t the prophecy fulfilled both in the time of Ahaz and in the Birth of Christ?
 
Do you feel that prophecies can have more than one fulfillment?
For instance at the end of Matthew, isn’t Jesus speaking of the destruction of the Temple AND the end times?

In Isaiah 7:14, isn’t the prophecy fulfilled both in the time of Ahaz and in the Birth of Christ?
Yes to a point. I think the end of Matthew has two separate discourses about end times, the first being the destruction of the Temple and the sack of the city, the second is the end of time when Christ returns–yet the passages make that clear imo.
 
Some say this is Mary some say Israel, as promised to NW I have a strong opinion on this and would like to see where others stand on this.
I believe this is Israel, because Roman Catholicism
teaches that Mary was without original sin. (I disagree) We know that pain, suffering and death came into the world because of Adam’s sin. Does not the Bible say the pain of childbirth is a result of original sin “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16)”

If Mary was free from original sin, she would not have suffered during the birth of Christ. Did not Pope Alexander
say that Mary had given birth to Christ without pain?
**
Mary conceived without detriment to her virginity, gave birth to her Son without pain, and departed hence without being subject to corruption.”

**The women inRevelation 12 was in great distress: she “cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.”
 
I believe this is Israel, because Roman Catholicism
teaches that Mary was without original sin. (I disagree) We know that pain, suffering and death came into the world because of Adam’s sin. Does not the Bible say the pain of childbirth is a result of original sin “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16)”

If Mary was free from original sin, she would not have suffered during the birth of Christ. Did not Pope Alexander
say that Mary had given birth to Christ without pain?
**
Mary conceived without detriment to her virginity, gave birth to her Son without pain, and departed hence without being subject to corruption.”

**The women inRevelation 12 was in great distress: she “cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.”
I have never seen how the woman could be Israel.
 
  1. And martin, you yourself have been preaching of all the symbolism of Revelation (which pretty much is the consensus on interpreting this book), and yet you take the pains of childbirth literally?
I am all about symbollism, I am saying if you wish to take it literal then you must consider whether Mary sinned visa vi child birth pains
 
I am all about symbollism, I am saying if you wish to take it literal then you must consider whether Mary sinned visa vi child birth pains
And if you take Mary’s knowledge that Jesus would have to suffer and die in order to save Israel, this great wailing could be symbolic of the suffering she knew she would face in following the Suffering Servant.
 
It’s not really convoluted. It’s just taking advantage of what was already out there. I mean, if John wanted to say, “I saw the Church having a baby” or “I saw Mary having a baby” or even “I saw Humanity having a baby, and that baby was Christ/the pope/my unworthy self”, he easily could have done so. He chose to be mysterious and non-specific in order to encourage us to think about this in terms of mystery and scriptural allusion – and it gives the message more universality.

It’s pretty much the difference between a poet saying, “I gave my love a red, red rose” and “I gave Jeanie McCrimmon, age 17 1/2 last Thursday, a rose of the variety Xy, with a tone value of Z.” Being non-specific is a message in itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top