The assumption of Mary

[Kinsman]

jimmy:

This idea that original sin is passed through the father is not true. There is no biblical support for it. Rom 5;12

Rom. 5:12 states that sin came into this world through one MAN, which caused death to spread to all men because ALL SINNED… The Greek here is not “all have sinned,” speaking of personal sins, but ALL men sinned because all men are born IN ADAM, our Federal head. Adam, by his sin made all men sinners (Rom. 5:19). That’s original sin. When Adam sinned, we sinned. See Heb. 7:4-10 as an example of this Federal principle.

Jesus was born of a virgin that he not be of Adam’s race, “made sinners” in him. That’s the whole point of the virgin birth - not to exalt a woman to “Queen” status in heaven. The virgin birth is about Christ, the believer’s new Federal head, not Mary.

Actually many Orthodox believe that Mary was kept from sin also.

Yes, a belief devoid of any Scriptural support. Formed from the sentiments of men and their misguided devotion to Mary, not divine revelation.

The reason for the virgin birth was because Jesus is God, he is not the son of any man. Mary was concieved by the Holy Spirit.

Well, that’s not the reason for the virgin birth “because Jesus is God.” There is a utilitarian purpose for it as I have stated above. But He is called “Son of man” in the Gospel accounts. This too is a Messianic title (see Dan. 7:13).

 

[mrS4ntA]

Kinsman:

Rom. 5:12 states that sin came into this world through one MAN, which caused death to spread to all men because ALL SINNED… The Greek here is not “all have sinned,” speaking of personal sins, but ALL men sinned because all men are born IN ADAM, our Federal head. Adam, by his sin made all men sinners (Rom. 5:19). That’s original sin. When Adam sinned, we sinned. See Heb. 7:4-10 as an example of this Federal principle.

Jesus was born of a virgin that he not be of Adam’s race, “made sinners” in him. That’s the whole point of the virgin birth - not to exalt a woman to “Queen” status in heaven. The virgin birth is about Christ, the believer’s new Federal head, not Mary.

Actually, no, that’s not how we see Original Sin.

A sin of a father cannot be blamed on his children – for if you assert this, all the children of the Jewish mob who shouted, “let His blood be upon us nad our children” would be damned to hell? well, no.

By sinning Adam severed his ties with God, turning away from Him. Man’s nature became fallen – intellect and mind darkened, pride increases. It’s easier for us to refuse God than to choose Him. Even more easier that there’s also the devil and his minions to tempt us, taking advantage of our fallen nature.

So, no, “when Adam sinned we sinned” is not true – at least not according to us. And it is evident, too, in the Scriptures that it is possible for man to avoid evils, the book of Job is an example.

Oh, and one more flaw in your argument… What makes you claim that by a virgin birth (i.e. without a biological father) Jesus is not of Adam? He is certainly said in the Scripture “son of David” You’re not assuming that men begot men only? A man is a son of Adam as much as he is a son of Eve. So what if Jesus inherited his genes from Mary? Mary didn’t get her genes from Eve alone. She got it from Adam, too. So yes, Jesus being God-Man, is a “son of Adam.”

 

[Pax]

Kinsman:

You see, Pax, you’re no better than I am with condescending remarks such as this, stating that I am willfully closed to the Holy Spirit working in my life, and any reality of truth.

Kinsman,

It is obvious that I have offended you and for that I sincerely apologize. My poorly worded statement was read and understood in a way that I did not intend.

I did not mean to say that you are willfully closed to the Holy Spirit working in your life, and any reality of truth. I would say that your enthusiasm for your spiritual and theological beliefs is evidence to the contrary. I believe that you are one of my brothers in Christ. We are separated brothers, but we are brothers in Christ. You could not believe in God or that Jesus is the source of our salvation if it were not for the grace of God and the Holy Spirit working in your life.

Obviously, my clumsy expressions were easily taken and understood in the fashion you read it. That is not your fault but is, instead, mine. My quote *“Let me suggest that you honestly reflect on all of the material given you so far. Open your heart to the Holy Spirit with the true intention of being open to the truth no matter where it leads you. I could be very wrong, but I sense that you turn off to evidence simply because it is supportive of Catholic teaching.” * is problematic and needs some clarification. I believe that you are open to the Holy Spirit, and that you are most likely a prayerful and worshipful person. I meant to suggest only that you pray specifically for an open heart concerning the material that has been submitted to you on this thread. It is my belief that when we pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and an open heart on specific things that we can indeed gain insights that we would not otherwise have.

I know from scripture and experience that it is only the Holy Spirit that converts our hearts and softens our wills. None of us can convince or convert anyone in matters of religious belief. I would have better luck changing a clump of bananas into a rainbow. All we do as apologists is lay the ground work that might prepare the intellect with the preliminary information someone needs to see at least a flicker of light. When our wills and hearts are open to the Holy Spirit we then have the living truth working within us. This applies to all of us. I merely put this in the conversation, however poorly, to try to get you to open up to the possibility that what we have given you is the truth.

So far, I have no reason to believe that you are open to Catholic teaching on Mary. I sense, perhaps unfairly, that your mind has been made up for a very long time and that you will not change it no matter how much evidence we provide. As a brother in Christ, I suggest that we both say a prayer to the Holy Spirit so that, at the very least, what we do share is respected and that which we differ on is properly understood.

Pax

 

[Kinsman]

mrS4ntA:

Actually, no, that’s not how we see Original Sin.A sin of a father cannot be blamed on his children – for if you assert this, all the children of the Jewish mob who shouted, “let His blood be upon us nad our children” would be damned to hell? well, no.

This line of argument is non sequitur. Those men who made up the Jewish mob were not “federal heads.” They were not representatives of the human race as Adam was. Romans 5:12-21 is very clear on this. In fact, to not understand this Biblical principle one cannot fully understand who Christ is and all that he accomplished on our behalf.

Paul actually states that Adam was a type of Christ, *“a type of Him who was to come” *(vs. 14b). As Adam was the Federal Representative of the human race, so Jesus Christ, the “Last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45) is the Federal Head of all who believe in Him for salvation. Those who are His.

Paul describes the effects of the one act of these two men on whom they represent. Adam: death, condemnation and judgment. Christ: righteousness, justification and life.

Adam:
“So then as through ONE transgression there resulted condemnation to ALL MEN” (vs. 18a).

“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were MADE SINNERS” (vs. 19).

Christ:
"…through the one act of righteousness (the cross of Christ) *there resulted justification of life to all men" *(vs. 18a, note: this is qualified in vs. 17 to refer to all who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. Paul is not talking universalism in reference to Christ as he does in reference to Adam).

“through the obedience of the one the many were MADE RIGHTEOUS” (vs. 19b).

By sinning Adam severed his ties with God, turning away from Him. Man’s nature became fallen

It is true that Adam passes down to his descendents a fallen nature. But Rom. 5:12-21 is not talking about our fallen nature received from Adam, but our being made guilty by his one act of transgression. We were so connected to the first Adam that we did not have to wait to be born, or to have a sinful nature; but when Adam, our representative acted, we acted. You see, "condemnation" is a forensic term, it belongs in the court, not the birth chamber. Being in Adam we’re ALL condemned. We all die because Adam sinned.

But Jesus Christ is the “Last Adam,” the new Federal Head for all who believe in Him - "justified" and “made righteous.” This, brother, is GRACE, this is the good news of the Gospel.

TITUS 3:4-7 “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

So the relevant question is, are you in Adam, or are you in Christ, the "Last Adam?" The believer’s new Federal Head. If in Christ then you have been MADE righteous, justified and inherit the free gift of eternal life in Him.

 

[jimmy]

Kinsman:

Rom. 5:12 states that sin came into this world through one MAN, which caused death to spread to all men because ALL SINNED… The Greek here is not “all have sinned,” speaking of personal sins, but ALL men sinned because all men are born IN ADAM, our Federal head. Adam, by his sin made all men sinners (Rom. 5:19). That’s original sin. When Adam sinned, we sinned. See Heb. 7:4-10 as an example of this Federal principle.

You are adding to the line. Your statement earlier was that orginal sin is passed on by the man and not by the woman through the generations. No where does it say this or even allude to it. It does not matter what the Greek is, you are adding to the bible. It does not matter if he had a human father. What makes him a part of Adams race is that he was born of someone that is part of Adams race. You can also trace a line back to Adam through Mary.

Jesus was born of a virgin that he not be of Adam’s race, “made sinners” in him. That’s the whole point of the virgin birth - not to exalt a woman to “Queen” status in heaven. The virgin birth is about Christ, the believer’s new Federal head, not Mary. Yes, a belief devoid of any Scriptural support. Formed from the sentiments of men and their misguided devotion to Mary, not divine revelation. Well, that’s not the reason for the virgin birth “because Jesus is God.” There is a utilitarian purpose for it as I have stated above. But He is called “Son of man” in the Gospel accounts. This too is a Messianic title (see Dan. 7:13).

This is not a biblical idea either. The only backup for this idea is the idea above this one, which is totally false. There is no misguided devotion of Mary on our part, there is only a lack of devotion on your part. So now your saying that God is a lier, he says that Jesus is a son of man but he really is not. The doctrines of Mary are firmly rooted in scripture, you just refuse to accept the scripture.

 

[Kinsman]

mrS4ntA:

So, no, “when Adam sinned we sinned” is not true

Yet, according to God’s written Word, it’s very true. In fact, none of us die because we’ve sinned. We die because we’re in Adam. Tragic as this may sound, it’s true. The only man who ever died because he sinned was Adam. We, his posterity, die because we’re in Adam. It doesn’t require personal sin for us to die (demonstrated by infant mortality). As Paul states elsewhere: "For as in Adam all die…" But finishes with, *“so also in Christ all shall be MADE ALIVE” *(1 Cor. 15:22).

Mary was born of natural birth, therefore she died, being in Adam. But she was also in Christ, having believed in Him, and will therefore be bodily resurrected along with all who have physically died IN CHRIST.

For this reason Jesus, the “Last Adam,” confidently states, “Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (Jn. 5:24).

The true believer is no longer in Adam, made a sinner, but IN CHRIST, made righteous.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Kinsman:

Yet, according to God’s written Word, it’s very true. In fact, none of us die because we’ve sinned. We die because we’re in Adam. Tragic as this may sound, it’s true. The only man who ever died because he sinned was Adam. We, his posterity, die because we’re in Adam. It doesn’t require personal sin for us to die (demonstrated by infant mortality). As Paul states elsewhere: "For as in Adam all die…" But finishes with, *“so also in Christ all shall be MADE ALIVE” *(1 Cor. 15:22).

Mary was born of natural birth, therefore she died, being in Adam. But she was also in Christ, having believed in Him, and will therefore be bodily resurrected along with all who have physically died IN CHRIST.

For this reason Jesus, the “Last Adam,” confidently states, “Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (Jn. 5:24).

The true believer is no longer in Adam, made a sinner, but IN CHRIST, made righteous.

uh huh… so?

this just re-inforce my statement! This is the stain, or the consequence, of Original Sin. This doesn’t mean we sin because of Adam’s Original Sin…

 

[Kinsman]

Pax:

I did not mean to say that you are willfully closed to the Holy Spirit working in your life, and any reality of truth. I would say that your enthusiasm for your spiritual and theological beliefs is evidence to the contrary. I believe that you are one of my brothers in Christ. We are separated brothers, but we are brothers in Christ. You could not believe in God or that Jesus is the source of our salvation if it were not for the grace of God and the Holy Spirit working in your life.

Thank you for the clarification of your statement. I can see that I did read it wrongly, mistaking it to be intended as a personal and general judgment of my faith and walk with Christ. Although in many ways we are divided theologically, and I can sense a spirit of gentleness about you which I enjoy. Debates can sometimes bring out the worst in people, but you are an example of how that does not have to be the case. Thank you!

My main endeavor when engaging in a debate is to try to keep on topic and avoid falling into ad hominem statements. Many (if not the majority) enter into debates knowing little about their own theological stance and even less about their opponent’s. Consequently the content of the debate cannot endure and it quickly spirals down to flinging personal insults at one another. This should not be. In a debate environment it is fair to attack (intelligently) a person’s theological stance, but never the person himself. We don’t know each other.

So I thank you for your exemplary, gentle mannerism and your determination to approach people with respect, despite the theological conflict caused by the debate both have agreed to enter into.

I know from scripture and experience that it is only the Holy Spirit that converts our hearts and softens our wills. None of us can convince or convert anyone in matters of religious belief. I would have better luck changing a clump of bananas into a rainbow.

You’re a wise man, my friend. I am not new to the debating scene myself and I have yet to publicly “convert” an opponent. I have had some monitoring on the side lines get in touch with me privately, desiring to have a more Biblically based faith, but never my immediate opponent. And this being a Roman Catholic forum, for certain the odds are GREATLY not in my favor.

So far, I have no reason to believe that you are open to Catholic teaching on Mary. I sense, perhaps unfairly, that your mind has been made up for a very long time and that you will not change it no matter how much evidence we provide.

I am a “Biblicist” but am well acquainted with the extrabiblical, Marian doctrines, as well as other Roman Catholic teachings I believe are false, being based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture. But it is erroneous indeed to say that I remain rigid no matter how much “evidence” is provided. I remain fixed in my convictions mainly because of the abundant lack of evidence, especially regarding the Marian doctrines.

May our debates always be done with respect toward the other person, and as you say, leave the “conversion” efforts to the Holy Spirit. That takes the pressure off both sides from becoming too personally involved

 

[MattG]

The devil is prophesied to have enmity placed between himself and the woman and their respective descendants. The descendant of the woman will defeat(crush the heads) those of the devil. The only one who can defeat the devil is Jesus, the descendant of the woman named Mary, who had enmity with the devil(sinlessness). People who sin do not have enmity with the devil. Jesus calls his Mother “woman” twice: at Cana and when she is at the foot of the Cross; at the beginning and the end of his mission. Genesis 3:15 is the first time as God describes the end for Satan.

In addition, it can hardly be imagined that Mary’s Son, could be out done in the Honoring department; It’s one of the Ten Commandments: Ex 20:12 and Deut 5:16. Not allowing His Mother’s body to see the corruption of the grave would be one way to honor her.

 

[Mathetes007]

New_Life:

There is much more to be said about this: I recommend the following article: The Assumption of Mary by William Webster. I believe this demonstrates how badly Rome has erred in her teaching.

Theologians, like Ott, do not speak for the Church. Although Ott did a fairly good job in his “Fundamentals,” not all theologians and scholars agree with all of his opinions. The Church does not guarantee that every Catholic author is always correct. This is true of any church. The Church speaks for herself in her official documents not from writings of individual Catholics.

I put little stock in what William Webster says about the Assumption or any other topic. There are sufficient rebuttals to his claims and assertions particularly with his misuse of Patristic citations on the web americancatholictruthsociety.com/webster/. His citation of Tertullian implying that he believed in sola scriptura only further confirms this. You can research what Tertullian believed for yourself. He was a heretical Montanist. This group believed that further revelation was being given by God through new prophets (the first great prophet of Montanism was “Montanus” hence the sect’s name). Mr. Webster, not surprisingly, contradicts himself in another writing regarding Tertullian’s view on Tradition (of course Tertullian’s view of Tradition fluctuates at Webster’s command depending on the topic and point at hand):

“It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition that is preserved in the Church in oral form.”

 

[Pax]

Kinsman,

In prior posts you have made a number of statements about Catholics exalting Mary above others and that we are wrong to do so. One of the things we contend is that it is not we that exalt Mary. True, we show honor and respect, and we do believe that her intercession on our behalf “availeth” more than even the most just person that my pray on our behalf on earth. It is God that has exalted Mary. God chose the Blessed Virgin and prepared her in her mother’s womb, just as he had carefully instructed Moses on the design and building of the OT Ark of the Covenant.

We know from scripture that it is God that exalts, we merely appreciate that which he has wrought.

In scripture we see examples of God “exalting” as He wills in the following verses:

1 Sam 2:7
The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts.

1 Sam 2:10
The Lord will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed.

2 Sam 22:49-51
who brought me out from my enemies; thou didst exalt me above my adversaries, thou didst deliver me from men of violence. “For this I will extol thee, O Lord, among the nations, and sing praises to thy name. Great triumphs he gives to his king, and shows steadfast love to his anointed, to David, and his descendants forever.” (please note, this exalting is forever)

Matt 22:10
whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

2 Cor 11:7
Did I commit a sin in abasing myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel without cost to you?

James 1:7-10
For that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord. Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like the flower of the grass he will pass away.

James 4:10
Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you.

1 Peter 5:6
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you.

Then again, in Luke 1:48-52 (Mary’s Magnificat) we read. “For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree;”

It seems pretty clear that God exalts as he wills and that he certainly exalted the Blessed Virgin. Our view of Mary is scriptural and shows a deep appreciation and joy for what the Lord has done. She is the mother of Jesus and not simply a “vessel.”

Scripture provides us with the material we need to see the truth of Catholic teaching in scripture, and we really appreciate it, and understand it when we relate to it through our knowledge of human relationships. Parents love their children and children love their parents. There is a bond of incredible strength and intimacy in these relationships. Jesus and Mary had, no doubt, the most beautiful and precious of this kind of relationship. They are forever, son and mother. Jesus is the most perfect vision of human and divine love in one person. Jesus loves his mother. Jesus, in our view, has done mighty and wondrous things for his mother. God has done these things because it is fitting. Jesus at his conception would not be in a sinful womb. It makes no sense to think otherwise. While scripture does not absolutely prove it to you, it does not deny it either. Instead, scripture gives us this divinely inspired and designed set of scenes that leads us unto this truth.

There is nothing wrong with our view. Instead it is the most Godly view. It praises and glorifies God beyond all other competing beliefs, and it is the most fitting view of what must be in light of who Jesus truly is.

 

[Mathetes007]

"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God."Rom. 3:23.

Why does this not apply to Mary?

In regards to the word “all” or any word for that matter in Scripture, its meaning is determined by context, usage, other pertinent passages, and the meaning received by the Church that wrote it. Let’s see what happens when you apply your own rules to other Scriptures:

“As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

If we allow the word “all” to mean “all” without exception in this passage, then we will have to throw out Hebrews from the canon of Scripture because it contradicts 1 Corinthians and states that “Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death” (Hebrews 11:5; see also 7:1-3). Furthermore, Enoch was a descendant of Adam (Jude 1:14; Genesis 5:1-24).

Even more important is that the great Apostle Paul is basing his case, found in Romans chapter 2-3, on Psalms 14 and Psalms 53. And guess what? The Psalms distiguish between two categories of people. God separates between the atheistic “evildoers” and “my people” also “the generation of righteous” (Psalm 14:1, 4, 5 and Psalm 53:1, 4). Surely Paul is not taking Scripture out of context is he?

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

OK, can you show even one reference in Scripture where He is called a “son of Adam?” That’s the whole point of the virgin birth…that He not be connected to Adam’s sinful race. Yes, He’s fully man and fully God, the theanthopic man (God-Man), but He’s no son of Adam.

Jesus is never called “son of Adam” in Scripture? Recall that the phrase “son of man” in Hebrew is literally “son of Adam” (Adam and man are the same word in Hebrew) which is used of Jesus at Daniel 7:13. You have correctly indicated that this is a “messianic” title. (This title is used preponderantly in the Old Testament for the Prophet Ezequiel throughout his own Book.) But what does “messianic” mean? Does it mean that the statement is false? Absolutely not! “Messianic” means of or pertaining to the Messiah. For example, we say that Isaiah 7:14 is a “messianic” prophecy. Does that mean that Jesus was not born of a young maiden? Absolutely not! This title corresponds to the other messianic title of Jesus “Son of God.” However, we know that simply because it’s messianic doesn’t mean that Jesus is not the Son of God. Therefore Scripture does state that the Messiah is the “son of Adam.”

This phrase was carried over into the Greek Scriptures as ho huios tou anthropou and was used no less than 81 times of Jesus Christ. The Lord is also called “son of David” (Luke 1:32; Romans 1:3; Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15, etc.). Jesus is both Lord and Son of David (Matthew 22:42-45). Note that Jesus contrasts being both Lord and Son of David; both are equally true. He is not Lord just by title.

 

[Mathetes007]

Can the “Woman” of Revelation 12 be “national” Israel? Let’s analyze this a little further.

John, while writing to the seven Churches, clearly and cleverly introduces some of the characters (a harlot [2:20] and a false prophet [2:14] and Satan and his synagogue of false Jews [2:9, 10, 13; 3:9]) that he will discuss later in his Revelation which are at work affecting the Churches to whom he is communicating with. That John writes to seven Churches may be an allusion to the universal Church since the number seven represents totality however this is not certain. As we shall see, John seems to see the non-Christian Jews as a harlot. In contradistinction, those that entered the new covenant with God are said to be the true Israelites regardless of national descent (Romans 9:6-13).

Revelation 17:5 refers to the mother of all harlots which in Revelation 17:18 is revealed as “the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth.” She is also referred to as “Babylon” in Revelation 17:5. What is this great city?

It is interesting to note that in Revelation, Jerusalem alone is identified as “the great city” wherein the Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8). Additionally, John states that Jerusalem is called allegorically “Sodom” and “Egypt.” By being called “Sodom” and “Egypt,” Jerusalem is already being painted in a very negative light. These two were enemies of the people of God. The Old Testament Prophets, as well as John here in Revelation, referred to Israel as Sodom because of the spiritual state in which it had fallen (Isaiah 1:1, 10; 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 16:44–58). Therefore, it should come as no surprise when John uses “Babylon,” another enemy of Israel, in reference to Jerusalem.

Scripture recognized the former primacy of Jerusalem having dominion over the nations and kings because God was its sure defense (Psalm 48:1-8; Isaiah 2:2; Lamentations 1:1; 2:15; Micah 4:1-4; Matthew 5:35). God placed Jerusalem as the great wife, but she played the harlot. Jeremiah refers to Jerusalem as “great among the nations” and “a princess among the cities” yet indicts her for adultery (Lamentations 1:1, 2). Jeremiah also refers to Jerusalem as the “great city” again when condemning it for forsaking the Lord and turning to other gods (Jeremiah 22:8, 9).

The adultery spoken of by the prophets referred not only to Israel turning from God to false gods, but also to covenant unfaithfulness in general, in essence a spiritual betrayal. Again and again, in biblical prophecy, Israel almost exclusively is the harlot (Ezekiel 16:15, 17, 28, 35, 41; 23:1–21, 44; Isaiah 1:21; 57:3; Jeremiah 2:20; 3:1; 13:27; Hosea 2:2–5; 4:12, 15, 18; 5:4; 9:1; Micah 1:7). Such a betrayal exists only because of the covenantal union Israel had with God; one cannot commit adultery against God if one is not married to God. Throughout the Old Testament, only Israel is the covenant breaking harlot. [The only two exceptions are found in Isaiah 23:15-18 and Nahum 3:4, 5 of two cities outside of Israel. These passages speak of Tyre and Nineveh respectively; both of which were at one time in covenant with God (for Tyre see 1 Kings 5:1–12; 9:13; Amos 1:9 and for Nineveh see Jonah 3:5–10).]

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

Along these lines, John states regarding Babylon the harlot that she must repay “double for her deeds” (Revelation 18:6). This is language found only of Israel in the Old Testament (Isaiah 40:2; 61:7; Jeremiah 16:18; 17:18). Other similarities are found in the writing on the woman’s forehead (compare Revelation 17:5 with Jeremiah 3:3 pertaining to Israel).

Another clue we have that the great city, Babylon, is Jerusalem comes from Revelation 16:19. Here the “great city” is contrasted to the cities of the “nations.” It should be noted that the alternate translation for this passage is “the cities of the Gentiles.” Therefore, it would appear that Babylon is not a city from among the Gentile nations. The great city is said to be split into 3 parts. This was prophetically announced by Ezekiel of the coming fate of Israel in particular the city of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 5:1-5).

In Revelation 14:20, most commentators will acknowledge that the city being spoken of by John is Jerusalem due to the grapes/vine imagery used throughout the Old Testament for Israel. Yet this city is a reference to “Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion” (Revelation 14:8).

Another give away is found in the harlots clothing. She is said to be “arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls…” (Revelation 17:4; 18:16). This description is identical to the Greek wording found in the Septuagint’s description of the high priest’s garments (Exod 25:3–7; 28:5–9, 28:15–20, 35:6; 36:9–12; 36:15–21 LXX). John is making a direct link to the Jewish priestly system of which Jerusalem is the most natural referent. It is also interesting to note that Josephus, the Jewish historian, states that a “Babylonian curtain” embroidered with fine linen in blue, scarlet, and purple covered the temple gate (The Jewish War 5.5.4).

In Revelation 18:24, Babylon is said to be responsible for all the blood shed of the prophets and saints and all who have been slain upon the earth. This corresponds perfectly with Jesus’ description of Jerusalem (see Matthew 23:34, 35 and Luke 11:50, 51). For only Jerusalem can be said to be responsible for the death of the Old Testament prophets.

Revelation 17:16 describes the fate of the harlot. The beast that she rode turned on her. Ezekiel when speaking of apostate Jerusalem uses very similar language to describe her outcome (23:25-29, 47). Earlier in his work, he says as much of faithless Israel (16:37-41). OT prophecy indicates that the judgment against Israel for her unfaithfulness will be stripping her naked and making her desolate (Hosea 2:3; Jeremiah 10:25; 41:22 LXX; Micah 3:3). Accordingly, Jesus also spoke of the desolation of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37, 38; Luke 13:34, 35; see also Jeremiah 22:5).

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

Due to the reference to “seven hills” in Revelation 17:9, many have speculated that the city refers to Rome. However, the Greek word translated as hills in this passage is translated as mountains in every other occurrence in the Book of Revelation. The word lexically can go either way. If we translate this passage as “seven mountains,” then a connection to Jerusalem is made. There were other Jewish Apocalyptic works that were written prior to John’s Revelation. There were also others that followed after John. Some believe that John used imagery from 1 Enoch, an earlier work than Revelation which Jews were familiar with, in which the seer encounters Michael, the city-paradise of God, the tree of life, and the establishment of the throne of God upon a mountain when He descends to the earth at the end of time (chapters 24-25). In this work, the “seven dignified mountains” are the backdrop to the New Jerusalem (1 Enoch 24:2). Another apocalyptic work, 4 Ezra, also makes the same connection with Jerusalem and the “seven great mountains” (4 Ezra 2:19).

Since God has put away the adulterous and apostate Jerusalem known as Babylon, He has another Bride which John calls…surprise…the “new Jerusalem” (Revelation 21:2). Paul makes a similar parallel in Galatians 4:21-26 regarding the two covenants.

In summary, the harlot is apostate Jerusalem that rejected the Messiah. She rode the beast, Rome, and used its authority to crucify its own God and Lord. She further used the beast to persecute the saints and commit sins. She compromised with pagan Rome to rid her land of Jesus the Christ. Since the harlot is Jerusalem, and Jerusalem is the capital of “national” Israel, “national” Israel cannot therefore be the woman of Revelation 12. Note that in contrast to the whore and synagogue of false Jews, the Woman is said to be protected by God, that her children keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus (Revelation 12:17). Non-Christian Jews do not bear testimony to Jesus but in fact unequivocally reject Him as Messiah, including His teachings, and His followers.

 

[Deacon_Tony560]

The feast of The Assumption of Mary is my next scheduled homily. Thank you all for doing my homework for me.

Deacon Tony

 

[Pax]

Matheses007,

That was a well done set of posts

 

[ATexasCatholic]

homer:

Does this give you the right to invent things? There is not a single proof about Mary being assumpted.
So by your logic i can invent anything and tell you that it is one of the things not mentioned in the Bible and therefore it will be true! It doesn’t make any sens.

Two more points. First, the Bible contains the essential informations that we need because God will not give us a Bible missing stuff that are essential to the way we most practice Christianity.
Second, i am sure that if Mary did get assumpted, it would have been mentioned in the Bible for sure! Think about it.

Which bible are you talking about? The Catholic Bible that was pieced together some time after the Gospels were written from some but not all the writings from that time or the bible that Luther and Calvin took books out and rewrote certain parts to fit his theology.

 

[Kinsman]

Mathetes007:

Jesus is never called “son of Adam” in Scripture? Recall that the phrase “son of man” in Hebrew is literally “son of Adam” (Adam and man are the same word in Hebrew) which is used of Jesus at Daniel 7:13. You have correctly indicated that this is a “messianic” title. (This title is used preponderantly in the Old Testament for the Prophet Ezequiel throughout his own Book.) But what does “messianic” mean? Does it mean that the statement is false? Absolutely not!

I gave no indication that it was “false.” Daniel 7:13-14 reads*, “I kept looking in the night visions, and behold with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming… and to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom…everlasting…will not be destroyed”* This is why the title is Messianic. It does not mean He is a direct descendent of Adam, of Adam’s sinful race. Mary was, but Jesus was/is not. That’s what the virgin birth is about, folks. A whole new humanity, engrafted on to the old by the virgin birth. A whole new identity for all true believers, no longer in Adam (of the garden), but now IN CHRIST, the “Last Adam,” “made righteous” (read Rom. 5 12-21, cf Rom. 6).

This is a very difficult Biblical truth for Roman Catholics to comprehend because of the meritorious nature of your religion.
Yet, Biblically, it is a major theme throughout the Pauline Epistles.