G
guanophore
Guest
Howe did He “tell men what books were inspired” exactly?
Actually, no. No 'assumptions" are made with regard to Apostolic teaching. The Church teaches what was given to her by Jesus, and the Apostles.
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
I’ve asked that a little while back - received no answer (because there isn’t really one outside of the Catholic Church)
L
LuvHim
Guest
Str-r-r-r-r-r-r-retch:nope:
S
SORROWS
Guest
Instead of that lame response give an intelligent reason why?
L
LuvHim
Guest
You cannot even say who this woman is - let alone that it implies the assumption of Mary.
L
LilyM
Guest
The woman is the mother of the male child who is the Devil’s (dragon’s) enemy. Who else would the child be but Christ? Who else would the woman then be but Mary?
L
LuvHim
Guest
Revelation 12:1 NKJV 1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: **a woman **clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, **she cried out in labor and in pain **to give birth.
12:1 sign. A symbol pointing to something else. This is the first of 7 signs in the last half of Revelation. Cf. v. 3; 13:13,14; 15:1; 16:14; 19:20. a woman. Not an actual woman, but a symbolic representation of Israel, pictured in the OT as the wife of God (Is. 54:5,6; Jer. 3:6–8; 31:32; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 2:16). Three other symbolic women appear in Revelation: 1) Jezebel, who represents paganism (2:20); 2) the scarlet woman (17:3–6), symbolizing the apostate church; and 3) the wife of the Lamb (19:7), symbolizing the true church. That this woman does not represent the church is clear from the context. clothed with the sun … moon under her feet … twelve stars. Cf. Gen. 37:9–11. Being clothed with the sun speaks of the glory, dignity, and exalted status of Israel, the people of promise who will be saved and given a kingdom. The picture of the moon under her feet possibly describes God’s covenant relationship with Israel, since new moons were associated with worship (1 Chr. 23:31; 2 Chr. 2:4; 8:13; Ezra 3:5; Ps. 81:3). **The 12 stars **represent the 12 tribes of Israel.
12:2 cried out … in pain. Israel, often pictured as a mother giving birth (cf. Is. 26:17,18; 54:1; 66:7–12; Hos. 13:13; Mic. 4:10; 5:2,3; Matt. 24:8), had agonized and suffered for centuries, longing for the Messiah to come and destroy Satan, sin, and death, and usher in the kingdom.
L
LilyM
Guest
What so there were no real churches in Laodicea, Sardis and so on?
And Christ’s ‘sign’ of Jonah, he being in the belly of the whale three days and nights, means that this didn’t ACTUALLY happen to him as a real event?
It was ONLY a story intended as a symbol rather than being something real and actual? And God’s ‘sign’ of a rainbow for Noah means that there’s no such thing as an actual rainbow? Piffle.
Signs can be real things in and of themselves. You’ve gone so far (Edited) ‘interpreting’ this passage that you ignore the plain common sense of it.
L
Linkowski
Guest
- much misunderstanding
L
LuvHim
Guest
I’ll say! :yup:
L
LilyM
Guest
Hey Link - long time no see
I was responding to our friend LuvHim here. He (she?) declared that the sign of the woman in Revelation 12 couldn’t possibly be Mary because it had to mean Israel and Israel alone (as if it couldn’t be lots of other things too).
For no apparent reason, LH asserts that a sign only ever means something other than what appears on its surface - only ever points to something different than itself. I’m just pointing out a few ‘signs’ (like the Churches in Revelation which point to different epochs in history and the ‘sign’ of Jonah and the whale) that were real in and of themselves as well as pointing to other things.
Hope that’s clear as mud for you :whacky:
M
Mordocai
Guest
ive often wondered, in response to those who believe the assumption of Mary is a made-up doctrine,
if it is made up, to what end did and purpose was it made up?
its actually counter productive to gaining membership in the Church, promulgating it doesn’t seem to help since so many people seem to want to misunderstand it and attack it and not take the time to really hear the Catholic side, it doesn’t do anything really to just make it up all a sudden. women weren’t regarded with nearly as much respect as now, and so to honor Mary with a made up doctrine like the assumption doesn’t really aid the male side of it…
i really can not come up with any reason for anyone to make that up. unless of course it is a true doctrine and is God’s Will that it be handed down through Tradition.
so i pose a simple question
if it IS made up, who made it up, and why? what purpose did they have in making it up, and how did they even COME UP WITH the idea in the first place? what led them to that conclusion even?
look at it this way…
a protestant will claim that Mary is barely mentioned in the Bible.
while that isn’t necessarily true (understanding typology is necessary, but its beside the point here) we’ll go with it.
if the Bible is ALL Christians EVER used, and Mary is barely in the Bible, WHO the heck could have even thought of the doctrine in the first place?
it would be akin to saying that Elizabeth was without sin or something because she held the precursor within her.
so bare with me here
if Sola Scriptura is true, HOW could it POSSIBLY have led to ANYTHING like the assumption or immaculate conception doctrines?
i suppose a person could say “well it was the Catholics who claimed it was in Tradition, but they made it up”
well at what point did Tradition all of a sudden become a factor?
if sola scriptura is true, HOW did ANYONE ever come up with Sacred Tradition?
here’s the final point
if sola scriptura is true, then ALL CHRISTIANS, ALL CHRISTIANS, i mean ALL CHRISTIANS, must have known it was true and therefore knew that every other Christian knew it was true. right? ok, so then why would anyone even DARE to say “the bible is not sufficient and there is Sacred Tradition and an infallible protection on teaching is needed to interpret God’s infallible word”? come to think of it, i dont recall ever reading about any Catholic in the first few centuries havening to debate anyone saying “the bible alone is not all you need”
there’s no debates about that, because everyone understand Sacred Scripture and Tradition work together. correct me if im wrong, but sola scriptura wasnt even put forth till the reformation, no? if it were a true doctrine, wouldn’t God have been able to make it a bit more popular?
if Sola Scriptura is true, everyone would have known it, even the heretics, and if a heretic is trying to gain followers, he wouldnt be making up a new form of God’s Word to take in already dedicated sola scriptura adherents. they would have laughed at him (or them) right off the bat, because, if sola scriptura were true, everyone would have known it
yes?
and so, back to Mary, if sola scriptura is true, how did the assumption ever come about? what purpose did anyone have it “making it up” if that is the case?
if all Christians adhered to sola scriptura, no one ever would have dared claim another vehicle of God’s Word (Sacred Tradition)
this is why mormonism and jehova’s witnesses and others like them do not have many adherents, they claim extra biblical revelations. but, then how the heck the Catholic Church become so popular? which is the only Church to actually fulfill Christ’s command to preach to all nations (no other Church has done it, so only Catholicism has done Christ’s Will in that regard, think about that, that’s huge)
for some strange reason (if you are a protestant) this Catholic Church is resilient, and while we all know it’s false (if you are a protestant) it is perplexing that it hasn’t destroyed itself yet, and it keeps growing, claiming these really radical things which, if they’re not true, dont help AT ALL to promulgate Catholicism in anyway (claiming infallibility is not popular among human beings ya know)
but for some reason, the Catholic Church still stands, the gates of hell have not prevailed, and it continues to grow.
only the power of God could sustain such a “ridiculous” Church for 2000 years.
just some things to think about
God Bless
Mordocai
if it is made up, to what end did and purpose was it made up?
its actually counter productive to gaining membership in the Church, promulgating it doesn’t seem to help since so many people seem to want to misunderstand it and attack it and not take the time to really hear the Catholic side, it doesn’t do anything really to just make it up all a sudden. women weren’t regarded with nearly as much respect as now, and so to honor Mary with a made up doctrine like the assumption doesn’t really aid the male side of it…
i really can not come up with any reason for anyone to make that up. unless of course it is a true doctrine and is God’s Will that it be handed down through Tradition.
so i pose a simple question
if it IS made up, who made it up, and why? what purpose did they have in making it up, and how did they even COME UP WITH the idea in the first place? what led them to that conclusion even?
look at it this way…
a protestant will claim that Mary is barely mentioned in the Bible.
while that isn’t necessarily true (understanding typology is necessary, but its beside the point here) we’ll go with it.
if the Bible is ALL Christians EVER used, and Mary is barely in the Bible, WHO the heck could have even thought of the doctrine in the first place?
it would be akin to saying that Elizabeth was without sin or something because she held the precursor within her.
so bare with me here
if Sola Scriptura is true, HOW could it POSSIBLY have led to ANYTHING like the assumption or immaculate conception doctrines?
i suppose a person could say “well it was the Catholics who claimed it was in Tradition, but they made it up”
well at what point did Tradition all of a sudden become a factor?
if sola scriptura is true, HOW did ANYONE ever come up with Sacred Tradition?
here’s the final point
if sola scriptura is true, then ALL CHRISTIANS, ALL CHRISTIANS, i mean ALL CHRISTIANS, must have known it was true and therefore knew that every other Christian knew it was true. right? ok, so then why would anyone even DARE to say “the bible is not sufficient and there is Sacred Tradition and an infallible protection on teaching is needed to interpret God’s infallible word”? come to think of it, i dont recall ever reading about any Catholic in the first few centuries havening to debate anyone saying “the bible alone is not all you need”
there’s no debates about that, because everyone understand Sacred Scripture and Tradition work together. correct me if im wrong, but sola scriptura wasnt even put forth till the reformation, no? if it were a true doctrine, wouldn’t God have been able to make it a bit more popular?
if Sola Scriptura is true, everyone would have known it, even the heretics, and if a heretic is trying to gain followers, he wouldnt be making up a new form of God’s Word to take in already dedicated sola scriptura adherents. they would have laughed at him (or them) right off the bat, because, if sola scriptura were true, everyone would have known it
yes?
and so, back to Mary, if sola scriptura is true, how did the assumption ever come about? what purpose did anyone have it “making it up” if that is the case?
if all Christians adhered to sola scriptura, no one ever would have dared claim another vehicle of God’s Word (Sacred Tradition)
this is why mormonism and jehova’s witnesses and others like them do not have many adherents, they claim extra biblical revelations. but, then how the heck the Catholic Church become so popular? which is the only Church to actually fulfill Christ’s command to preach to all nations (no other Church has done it, so only Catholicism has done Christ’s Will in that regard, think about that, that’s huge)
for some strange reason (if you are a protestant) this Catholic Church is resilient, and while we all know it’s false (if you are a protestant) it is perplexing that it hasn’t destroyed itself yet, and it keeps growing, claiming these really radical things which, if they’re not true, dont help AT ALL to promulgate Catholicism in anyway (claiming infallibility is not popular among human beings ya know)
but for some reason, the Catholic Church still stands, the gates of hell have not prevailed, and it continues to grow.
only the power of God could sustain such a “ridiculous” Church for 2000 years.
just some things to think about
God Bless
Mordocai
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Revelation 12:1-5
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.
Issiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall** give you a sign**. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
The woman is Mary.
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.
Issiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall** give you a sign**. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
The woman is Mary.
R
revmarty
Guest
Hello G, sorry i have note responded sooner I have been busy ministering the true gospel and setting at the liberty the captives in the name of our lord and saviour Jesus, Amen
R
revmarty
Guest
the women is Israel, not Mary. Israel brought for the Child that was Jesus and Mary played a tremedous part in all this, Amen
search for the truth were it can be found…
L
LilyM
Guest
And Mary didn’t bring forth the child that was Jesus??
The woman can certainly mean more than one thing, and does represent Israel, but to be sure the woman is Mary as well.
G
guanophore
Guest
Thank you for the scholarly info LuvHim, but it is against the forum rules to cut and paste without giving the reference where you got the info.
The sign in this passage can represent Israel, the Church (who also gives birth to the Son in the world) and also Mary, who literally gave birth to the Son.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Who literally gave birth to Jesus? What is her name? Who is the Mother of Jesus?
If you say that Israel brought forth Jesus by Israel not Mary then you put yourself at odds with this interpretation of Revelation.
Jesus was brought forth by Israel’s daughter, Mary. In a literal sense, the woman who gave birth to Jesus is Mary, so the woman in Rev 12 is Mary.
You cannot deny that Mary give birth to Jesus.
G
guanophore
Guest
Are you making implication here that “true gospel” is not found here in the forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
revmarty, it seems that you know neither the scripture, nor the power of God. The power that was given to the church was not given to it by itself, but by Jesus Himself. This is what He meant when He passed on the Keys to Peter, and when He told HIs apostles they had the power to bind and loose.
I do agree, if we both read the same passage, and both come up with a different understanding of it one of us is probably lacking in understanding. However, given the current discussion here (about the identity of the heavenly woman in Revelation with the crown of 12 stars), clearly two people can come up with a different, yet equally supportable conclusion of the same passage. A good case can be made for each conclusion that the sign is Israel, Mary, and the Church.
Quote:
Furthermore, none of the teachings of the Church contradict the Word of God, because the Catholic Church produced the Scriptures which you are erroneously interpreting.
I understand you to say that the Catholic understanding of the scripture is “dirty” and “tainted”, and that your opinon is that the HS is speaking about the Catholic church being in the position to deceive people as a result of this dirty and tainted set of spectacles. Do I understand your point correctly?
Quote:
By the way, you would do well to go read the forum rules. Posting anticatholic websites and propaganda is against the forum rules, and will result in sanctions, up to and including being banned. If you wish to pander heresies, you will have to find some other venue. This forum is for people who are honestly interested in understanding Catholic teaching, not for the promotion of error about that teaching.
It is for people to learn about the teaching of the Catholic Church. You seem to have already made up your mind before coming in that truth cannot be found in the CC, and are directing people elsewhere to find the “true gospel”. Proseletyzing is not allowed here either.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, but it is also true that Israel gave birth to the savior, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman “salvation is of the Jews”. It is also true that Jesus commanded us all in the great commission to go forth and make disciples of all nations…baptizing them (rebirth) so the Church can also “give birth” to Christ in the world.
- Status