Revelation 12

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mintaka said:
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.
Click to expand...
These points help define where we disagree and why we see it differently. I think John wrote the way he did because the early Church needed to be very cryptic for its own safety. I also think God did not want the thread of history revealed too before the appropriate time.
 
Tom317 said:
I have never seen how the woman could be Israel.
Click to expand...
1)No expert but the the Women is Isreal who brought out of her or gve birth to Christ.

2)The Red Dragon is Satan who took a thrid of the angels with him when he was thrown out of Heaven.

Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
 
NotWorthy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I dont think “caught up” is the proper term here, In greek caught up is usually described with the term harpazo, forcefully removed…ie 1 thes 4 16-18. ( you know where they describe the rapture) 😃
 
Also note in Genesis 37:9-11 Very similar to description that Joseph gave of his father Jacob (Israel) and his mother and their children. The tewelve stars being the twelve tribes of Israel.

1,260 days, it is referring to the future time called the Tribulation period.
 
julebenn said:
1)No expert but the the Women is Isreal who brought out of her or gve birth to Christ.

2)The Red Dragon is Satan who took a thrid of the angels with him when he was thrown out of Heaven.

Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
Click to expand...
In a general sense the word “heaven” in the Apocalypse means the Church, though in a rare few cases it speaks of the abode in which God abides. The angels refer to Bishops and Priests. With that as a foundation:

I believe the woman is the Church at a future time, though imo it is not very far distant, perhaps even very close at hand.

The dragon is satan, who has spent all of these years trying to tear down the Lord’s Church, and in that time (future) he has managed to pull a terrible number of clergy (angels), from their place in the Church and they have fallen into grave sin. The battle we see described tells us that the good angels (Bishops and Priests) and fighting against the bad angels (Bishops and Priests) and the battleground is not the heaven in which God dwells, rather it is right here on earth within the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Tom317 said:
These points help define where we disagree and why we see it differently. I think John wrote the way he did because the early Church needed to be very cryptic for its own safety. I also think God did not want the thread of history revealed too before the appropriate time.
Click to expand...
Then why was John the only one who felt this need? The others certainly wrote less cryptically.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I dont think “caught up” is the proper term here, In greek caught up is usually described with the term harpazo, forcefully removed…ie 1 thes 4 16-18. ( you know where they describe the rapture) 😃
Click to expand...
What?!? Oh yeah, you mean, of course, Christ’s Second Coming. His Parousia! The Day of Judgement!

I’m sure that was just a minor oversight on your part there, Simon. 😃
 
NotWorthy said:
Then why was John the only one who felt this need? The others certainly wrote less cryptically.
Click to expand...
Of course not being God I can only guess. I would say simply that Revelation contains the entire history of the Church and the Holy Spirit guided John to write its text in such a cryptic manner in order to not allow the Church to know what is coming next until the time is right. That coupled with the fact that John was writing about events that would come in the near and distant future, he had to write it in a way that would not be easy for the Romans to unravel.
 
NotWorthy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Spotty patchwork for accepting your theory don’t you think?
 
Not to mention the fact that John wrote the Apocalypse in a form commonly known at that time, and that also shows up in Daniel and several other Apocalyptic writings.

Gracie
 
NotWorthy said:
I don’t know. I haven’t written much Apocalyptic Literature in my lifetime. 🙂
I’m just offering up ideas.
Click to expand...
John,
I was just trying to make the point that using Rev 12, for even the most basic of mariology could be at the very least cloudy and maybe even ranging in the decietful area. And truly should be avoided, if this typology is one that is necessary for understanding mariology then in my POV the stand just got weaker. Am I making sense without being offensive?
He is worthy too be sought!!!
Simon
 
Do you have a problem with Paul using Melchizedek as a type of Jesus?

There is nothing wrong with using typology, and using it extensively. Christians have apparently been doing so since Jesus opened this method to them on the road to Emmaus, or really soon afterwards. It’s not the only way to interpret scripture, but it’s a useful and fun tool.

Scripture is not meant to be read with one and only one meaning. In fact, it was part of God’s Cunning Plan from the very beginning that the Scriptures should be capable of saying different things to us at different times, or at least of unveiling different shades and implications and metaphors whenever needed. If you try to force Scripture into one shape, it’ll just slip out of your hands like a wet bar of soap.

OTOH, you do have a perfect right to say that you don’t really see or buy or understand a certain interpretation or image or type.
 
Mintaka said:
Do you have a problem with Paul using Melchizedek as a type of Jesus?

There is nothing wrong with using typology, and using it extensively. Christians have apparently been doing so since Jesus opened this method to them on the road to Emmaus, or really soon afterwards. It’s not the only way to interpret scripture, but it’s a useful and fun tool.

Scripture is not meant to be read with one and only one meaning. In fact, it was part of God’s Cunning Plan from the very beginning that the Scriptures should be capable of saying different things to us at different times, or at least of unveiling different shades and implications and metaphors whenever needed. If you try to force Scripture into one shape, it’ll just slip out of your hands like a wet bar of soap.

OTOH, you do have a perfect right to say that you don’t really see or buy or understand a certain interpretation or image or type.
Click to expand...
Mary as rev 12 has holes from every angle… If it is used for teaching then what happens to the one whom believes, but then studies and realizes its really not her and couldn’t be?
People will question all the teachings from that person.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
John,
I was just trying to make the point that using Rev 12, for even the most basic of mariology could be at the very least cloudy and maybe even ranging in the decietful area. And truly should be avoided, if this typology is one that is necessary for understanding mariology then in my POV the stand just got weaker. Am I making sense without being offensive?
He is worthy too be sought!!!
Simon
Click to expand...
Simon, of course you, while of course you’re not. Now am I making sense.

You’ve seen the files I"ve sent you. The Rev. 12 is simply another piece of the puzzle. Certainly not the only link in the chain.
 
NotWorthy said:
Simon, of course you, while of course you’re not. Now am I making sense.

You’ve seen the files I"ve sent you. The Rev. 12 is simply another piece of the puzzle. Certainly not the only link in the chain.
Click to expand...
Seems like it should not be a part of that puzzle. Common sense says it is not Mary.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
So we choose to take it literal? Then based on Pope Alexander and Genesis birth pangs, Mary sinned?
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. When interpreting Revelation as literal or symbolic, it either/or, not both/and.

I wasn’t aware that the authors of Daniel and Revelation were not allowed to use a literal scenario and then overlay symbolism over it.

Man, I’ve got a lot to learn!:rolleyes:

P.S. No, wait! The Church teaches that these authors DID exactly that. Whew, I feel better, now.
 
NotWorthy said:
Oh, I see. When interpreting Revelation as literal or symbolic, it either/or, not both/and.

I wasn’t aware that the authors of Daniel and Revelation were not allowed to use a literal scenario and then overlay symbolism over it.

Man, I’ve got a lot to learn!:rolleyes:

P.S. No, wait! The Church teaches that these authors DID exactly that. Whew, I feel better, now.
Click to expand...
You make good points, which is why I posted my interpretation earlier…it acknowledges that Revelation describes literal scenarios in symbolic labguage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top