Revelation 12

[KathleenElsie]

So we choose to take it literal? Then based on Pope Alexander and Genesis birth pangs, Mary sinned?

No Mary did not sin nor was she born into sin or of sin. See I spent years listening to the arguements and still can go back to the fall in Genesis Both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims

Genesis ch3 vs 16

DOUAY-RHEIMS
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and they conceptions. In sorrow shall thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

The KJV also says multiply in fact it says “greatly multiply”. So it stands to reason that childbirth was never painless (remember something large comes out of something small ) But after the fall in Eden the pain was made worse.

So yes The Apocalypse of St John the Apostle can be referring to Mary. For Mary was not immune to all the pain of childbirth only those pains greatly multiplied due to original sin.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

No Mary did not sin nor was she born into sin or of sin. See I spent years listening to the arguements and still can go back to the fall in Genesis Both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims

Genesis ch3 vs 16

DOUAY-RHEIMS
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and they conceptions. In sorrow shall thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

The KJV also says multiply in fact it says “greatly multiply”. So it stands to reason that childbirth was never painless (remember something large comes out of something small ) But after the fall in Eden the pain was made worse.

So yes The Apocalypse of St John the Apostle can be referring to Mary. For Mary was not immune to all the pain of childbirth only those pains greatly multiplied due to original sin.

How do you justify your popes comments?

 

[KathleenElsie]

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!

P.S. No, wait! The Church teaches that these authors DID exactly that. Whew, I feel better, now.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

How do you justify your popes comments?

Pope Alexander III stated explicitly 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.”

 

[mikeledes]

Pope Alexander III stated explicitly 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.”

This has been the predominant view in the Church for centuries. Revelation 12 has many levels of meaning, so neither Catholics nor Protestants can be dogmatic about it.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[KathleenElsie]

Pope Alexander III stated explicitly 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.”

If you can find me a writing of the Pope himself I will be glad to read it. But the only place that this is stated with “authority” that I could find was on a site called JUSTFOR CATHOLICS that is a site that is used by evangelicals to argue with and convert Catholics.

Officail teachings from Holy Mother Church would be nice.

 

[NotWorthy]

Pope Alexander III stated explicitly 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.”

Pope Alexander III could have said this, and he could be wrong.

Unless he was speaking as a Pope AND from the chair of Peter, “Ex Cathedra”, his words are not necessarily binding on the faithful.

I’m not saying he was wrong, I’m just saying “just because a Pope said this, doesn’t make it necessarily true”. If you have questions on that statement, it would be best put into another thread.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

By testing scripture with scripture… I found only one of the three items collaborated.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, **which is the mother of us all. **

 

[NotWorthy]

By testing scripture with scripture… I found only one of the three items collaborated.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, **which is the mother of us all. **

So the woman is heaven?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So the woman is heaven?

Israel

 

[6glargento]

Israel

this passage when read in context is taking about heaven or the new jerusalam, since it says “the jerusalam which is above.” as contrasted with the jerusalam on earth.

*“Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar.
Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children.
But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother.”(galations 4:24-26) *

i really do not see any correlation between this passage and revelation 12:1

 

[NotWorthy]

this passage when read in context is taking about heaven or the new jerusalam, since it says “the jerusalam which is above.” as contrasted with the jerusalam on earth.

“Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar.
Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children.
But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother.”(galations 4:24-26)

i really do not see any correlation between this passage and revelation 12:1

I’ve also heard that these two Israel’s refer to the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Of course, the New Covenant is the Church. And Mary, the mother of us all is a Type of the Church, So Galations would tend to agree with this as well, WITHOUT robbing Revelation 12:1 of it’s correlation to Mary.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here’s some other stuff I dug up on this topic. This comes from the Agape Bible Study.

*“She was pregnant, and in labor, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth.” *The literal translation reads in the Greek exactly like the description of Mary in Matthew 1:18, 23 : *“she was found to be with child…” *Which is repeated in the quote of this prophecy from Isaiah 7:14.

Now we should also mention that this verse images Mary not only as mother of Christ but as our mother, the Church, who labors to give birth to Covenant believers. It has always been a tradition of the Church that when Jesus was born it was like light passing through glass, as St. Thomas Aquinas described the Virgin birth. Mary’s virginity remained in tact and there was no pain. In John’s description the woman is *“crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth.” * Those words are echoed in Isaiah 26:17 which describes the Old Covenant Church’s struggle to secure salvation for believers: *“As a pregnant woman near her time of delivery writhes and cries out in her pangs, so have we been, Yahweh, in your eyes: we have been pregnant, we have writhed, but we have given birth only to wind: we have not given salvation to the earth…” * Throughout her existence Israel, as the Old Covenant Church was waiting for the Messiah. From the Covenant with Abraham when a holy couple was selected the be the family from which the “holy seed”/Messiah would come, to slavery in Egypt, through the Exodus experience and the establishment of the Church at Sinai, to the Kingdom of David, the Exile in Babylon and the return, to the suffering under the Greeks and Romans, Israel was laboring to give birth to the Messiah…a birth that will yield salvation for the entire world! Mary, a daughter of the Old Covenant Church, is the perfect symbol of the Church laboring to give birth to Messiah-Jesus.
And in the midst of that struggle she is *“crying aloud.” *This verb *krazo, *used in the present tense, indicated prolonged suffering. This verb has special significance in Scripture where it is generally used for oath swearing, or the solemn proclamation of God’s divine revelation, or for God’s servants speaking out against opposition to God’s plan (see Matt.27:50; Mark 3:11; 5:7; 9:24; 10:48; 15:13; John 1:15; 7:28; 12:13, 44; Acts 19:28, 32, 34; Romans 9:27; Gal, 4:6; James 5:4; and Rev. 6:10; 7:2,10; 10:3; 14:15; 18:2, 18-19; 19:17). This time the crying aloud is prophetic. It is the essence of all prophetic revelation -to bear witness to the Christ (John 5:39, 45-46; Luke 24:25-27; Acts 3:24; 13:27) and the Church’s official declaration of the Word of God, the prophecy she cried out as she labored down through the centuries to give birth.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

The coronation refers to Revelation where the “Woman clothed with sum… crown of 12 stars…”
Scholars agree that this description is of the Mother of God, and also could represent the Church herself.

SCHOLARS DO NOT AGREE!
Please! Your church does not even recognise rev.12 as Mary…They may use it to promote her image but they do not go as far as interpretting. Sheesh, read my REV. 12 thread

Give me the respect of at least sharing what your church actually teaches if your going to try to share your faith.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I like to add on my own final thread. The Assumption of Mary is clearly in revelations. “A woman appeared in the heaven.” That woman is Mary. She is in Heaven body and soul… so how did she get there? God took her up in the heaven.

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

 

[MrS]

SCHOLARS DO NOT AGREE!
Please! Your church does not even recognise rev.12 as Mary…They may use it to promote her image but they do not go as far as interpretting. Sheesh, read my REV. 12 thread

Give me the respect of at least sharing what your church actually teaches if your going to try to share your faith.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif

okay, let me reverse that… credible Catholic scholars recognize Rev 12 as the Church Herself… and also as Mary

smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb095&pp=ZN

 

[myfavoritmartin]

okay, let me reverse that… credible Catholic scholars recognize Rev 12 as the Church Herself… and also as Mary

Thanks for reversing your comment!
Most of the scholars you speak of are the guys that are here! CAF
Even the catholic NAB says it symbolizes Gods people; old and new testament!. Nothing bout Mary

 

[LilyM]

Thanks for reversing your comment!
Most of the scholars you speak of are the guys that are here! CAF
Even the catholic NAB says it symbolizes Gods people; old and new testament!. Nothing bout Mary

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.

 

[MrS]

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.

God opens one’s eyes in God’s time… be patient with this poster…

 

[LilyM]

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

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