M
Mannyfit75
Guest
You mean the passage concerning Satan persuing the woman’s offspring? Yes, its happening now. We are living in the End of Days… The only thing that has not happen is the Second Coming…
- Status
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
But that is what I am saying, this woman appeared in heaven, it does not say one thing about if this woman died a natural death and came to heaven or if this person was assumed. It says she appeared, not HOW she got there.
I do not use the word rapture…its not in the Bible.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Pains has been use several times in the Bible. I would describe the pains as the Simeon’s prophecy to Mary. “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.”
I believe saints in heaven do have feelings and are concern for their brothers and sisters still confronting the trials on earth by being tempted to sin…
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
That belief that people are presently crying could be biblicial because God wipes away the tears, which indicates they have been crying.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
We are in the Age of End of Days, when Jesus spoke about his Second Coming, no one knows when he is coming. I don’t know that day nor the hour. I do like to note that the Bible itself say we are living in End Times…
1 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. 2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, 3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, 4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: 5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. See 2 Timothy Chapter 3:1-5.
This is happening now. But if you wish to discuss this, we have to open a new thread.
C
ChangingHeart
Guest
Please read what I wrote. I agree STRONGLY that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. I also agree STRONGLY with the Glorious Assumption. I just don’t see where you get the notion that Revelation 12 suggests that the woman in Revelation 12 was assumed into Heaven, and how you could possibly expect any Protestant to accept the doctrine of the Glorious Assumption based strictly on that chapter.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
In the Final Hour, the days, they will cease from crying.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
No, I am not interested. It would be conjecture. People have been rotten since Adam’s sin.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
My bad.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
This may be the very first time we agree on anything. It was bound to happen some time.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
So far. I have to get going soon. I’ll chat with you later. I enjoy our discussion. I hope our discussion will bring some understanding of Catholicism. I do hope I bring into light some of the issues you may have. I know you will disagree and you are free to do so.
I do like to note that I don’t know everything. I do know what the Church teaches.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Me personally, I think her assumption very clearly fits into the Scriptural patterns even if it’s not explicitly stated in the Scriptures.Thank you everyone. Problem is, did I make a mistake by saying it is scriptural although I was aware it wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible. I thought I’d kick-start the discussion using Rev. 12 as the basis of it being scriptural but like one of yous said they won’t understand it if they do not accept the Church’s teaching.
I think I made a big mistake by saying carelessly that it is scriptural. Anyway, you’ve all being of great help. I’ve checked out the links and your comments and I guess I’m quite ready to handle this with him. I’ll be posting more Qs here if I hit the brickwall again.
This is how I view many Catholic teachings-- Scripture and Tradition as guided by the Magisterium by the Holy Spirit.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
That was a good link Manny. Thank you.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
No. We don’t.
The revelation is polyvalent in nature, as it has many symbols which overlap meanings. For example, the “woman” is, at various times Eve, Israel, the Church, and Mary. Sometimes the meanings overlap. Sometimes they are distinct and only refer to one of the symbols at a time. In all, howeve,r they do converge to point toward the victory found in Christ.
For example, sometimes the “woman” is drawing on imagery which explicitly talks of Eve, with “that old serpent” in the Apocalypse pointing backward toward this verse in Genesis 3:1…
Sometimes the “woman” in the Apocalypse is drawing on imagery which explicitly talks of the nation of Israel. This goes back to Genesis 37:9…
Sometimes the “woman” in the Apocalypse is drawing on imagery which explicitely talks of the suffering that we Christians will bear as we “labour” to bring Christ into the world, especially in the context of the Bride of Christ. This spiritual language of labour pains goes back to passages like Galatians 4:19-20 for example…
And, even in the general sense, the whole of creation, according to Romans 8:22, has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Finally, sometimes the “woman” in the Apocalypse is drawing on imagery which explicitely talks of Mary and her Son. As Mannyfit75 has clearly pointed out to you already, the only one who can literally physically qualify in regards to the identity of the one who gave birth to the man-child is Mary…
Matthew 1:18:
Mary’s pain, in this regard, appears to be referencing Simeon’s prophecies regarding the soul more than physical labor pains…
Luke 2:34-36:
I think Mary’s pain, in this regard, is similar to the spiritual language used by Paul in Galatians 4:19-20 already noted above.
Does that make things clearer?
Keep in mind too that the Apocalypse is probably not the best book to start with when trying to understand doctrines of faith. Having said that, I do believe that a proper understanding of the Apocalypse, once previous books and doctrines have been examined and understood, can certainly benefit greatly too…
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Mr. Nihilo
I read your post and I do see how the woman could represent many things. But the meat of this disagreement is the assumption. There is nothing about the word “appeared” which indicates HOW she appeared. It does not prove or even hint at an assumption in this verse.
As far as Revelation having doctrines of faith, I hesitate to exclude it as such although several of my brethren do. Based upon Bullinger’s work, many of them do not feel that Revelation is for the church persay.
I happen to not agree with their particular view.
I read your post and I do see how the woman could represent many things. But the meat of this disagreement is the assumption. There is nothing about the word “appeared” which indicates HOW she appeared. It does not prove or even hint at an assumption in this verse.
As far as Revelation having doctrines of faith, I hesitate to exclude it as such although several of my brethren do. Based upon Bullinger’s work, many of them do not feel that Revelation is for the church persay.
I happen to not agree with their particular view.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
From the Catholic perspective, the Ark of the Covenant in the Apocalypse is a reference to Mary.
Revelation 11:19:
This, in Catholic thought, comes back to Psalm 132:7-9…
Certainly, the resting place of the saints is in heaven, which is where the Apocalypse states the ark of the covenant resides.
From here, you would have to investigate the parallels between the Ark of the Covenant as recorded within the Hebrew Scriptures (a specially prepared man-made vessal that did indeed contain God’s glory), and the Ark of the New Covenant within the Christian Scriptures (a specially prepared human virgin woman that did indeed contain God’s glory).
As Patrick Madrid notes in the article cited above, the Mary/ark imagery appears in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament’s description of the ark and the New Testament’s discussion of Mary’s role.
Steve Ray’s more detailed list can be found here.
In Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.” Then, immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven, we read: **“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child” **
The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rev. 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.
Me personally, I think this Mary/ark parallel may have been what the author of Hebrews 9:3-5 was refering too when he said, “But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.”
I have no proof of this Mary/ark parallel being the next topic that the author of Hebrews wanted to discuss in more detail. It is only a speculation on my part.
But it does seem to fit into the reasons why this idea appeared so early in Christian thought among the church fathers (and why they often call Mary the New Ark – i.e., of the Covenant).
St. John tells us (1:14) “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” If one translates the Greek into Hebrew the word “dwelt” would be “shakhan,” possibly from the same root as “Shekhinah,” the Presence of God that rested upon the Holy Ark. John is saying quite forthrightly that Jesus is that Divine Presence, but no longer resting on an Ark of wood, He “pitched His tent among us” in the Womb of a living woman of flesh and blood.
We don’t exclude it either.
We just urge great caution when trying to understand its message.
K
Kimella
Guest
Great post Mr Ex Nihilo.
The Bible being the absolute truth is still confusing me. Some n-C quoted 1Jn 5:6, 2Tim 3:15-16, Jn 17:17, Heb 4:12. How are these verses related to Bible as absolute truth?
I’m about to post my argument to him but I need some clarification before I can confidently proceed. After all the Church is the pillar and support of the truth, I can’t interpret well without your help.
Is it ok if I copied and pasted ur discussion on my post with that guy? I actually directed him to this website but he wouldn’t listen.
Just how are those verses related to our argument and then I might take it on from there.
The Bible being the absolute truth is still confusing me. Some n-C quoted 1Jn 5:6, 2Tim 3:15-16, Jn 17:17, Heb 4:12. How are these verses related to Bible as absolute truth?
I’m about to post my argument to him but I need some clarification before I can confidently proceed. After all the Church is the pillar and support of the truth, I can’t interpret well without your help.
Is it ok if I copied and pasted ur discussion on my post with that guy? I actually directed him to this website but he wouldn’t listen.
Just how are those verses related to our argument and then I might take it on from there.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I think you should thank Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, and Steve Ray actually. It was reading some of these very online sources that removed some barriers from my understanding and allowed the Holy Spirit to guide me into the Catholic faith.Great post Mr Ex Nihilo.
The Bible being the absolute truth is still confusing me. Some n-C quoted 1Jn 5:6, 2Tim 3:15-16, Jn 17:17, Heb 4:12. How are these verses related to Bible as absolute truth?
I’m about to post my argument to him but I need some clarification before I can confidently proceed. After all the Church is the pillar and support of the truth, I can’t interpret well without your help.
Is it ok if I copied and pasted ur discussion on my post with that guy? I actually directed him to this website but he wouldn’t listen.
Just how are those verses related to our argument and then I might take it on from there.
Nonetheless, if the people you’re debating with are arguing for a sola scriptura perspective, there are many sources here at Catholic answers which can be used to refute this position. I’ve started my own thread discussing many thoughts I’ve had when coming Lutheranism to the fullness of Catholicism. Sola Scriptura was major stumbling block for me until I asked myself some self-evident and necessary questions pertaining the the central claim of sola scriptura. This was around 7-8 years ago. My own conclusion was placed here.
Indeed, if any of their their arguments rely on any of these abc’s noted above to understand the Scriptures, then they are proving for themselves that the Scriptures’ meaning are not as self-evident as they claim. They really are doing nothing more than claiming to uphold the sole reliable means to interpret the Scriptures correctly-- without ever actually historically proving why their reasons are more clear than ours.
C
ChangingHeart
Guest
These are very easily debunked. I’ll start with 2 Timothy 3:15-16, since that is the classic part of the Bible that Protestants like to twist around in their futile and pathetic attempt to support the Sola-Scriptura heresy that Martin Luther introduced into “Christianity.” (Of course, in reality, following Sola-Scriptura is a perversion of Christianity, but I digress) A few things on that verse.Great post Mr Ex Nihilo.
The Bible being the absolute truth is still confusing me. Some n-C quoted 1Jn 5:6, 2Tim 3:15-16, Jn 17:17, Heb 4:12. How are these verses related to Bible as absolute truth?
I’m about to post my argument to him but I need some clarification before I can confidently proceed. After all the Church is the pillar and support of the truth, I can’t interpret well without your help.
Is it ok if I copied and pasted ur discussion on my post with that guy? I actually directed him to this website but he wouldn’t listen.
Just how are those verses related to our argument and then I might take it on from there.
- That does not claim that Scripture is the SOLE RULE OF FAITH anywhere.
- It refers primarily, possibly entirely to the Old Testament. At the time it was written, the New Testament canon hadn’t even been formed yet, nor had the New Testament been written in completion. The official canonization of the New Testament wouldn’t happen until the late 300s, and the letter needed to make sense to Timothy at the time he received it.
- If all of Scripture is inspired, why does HIS(your Protestant friend’s) Bible eliminate 7 Old Testament books? Why does he call them, “The Apocrypha,” meaning “uninspired,” or, “of man?” Don’t let him even think of claiming that the Catholic Church added them at the Council of Trent. Protestant false teaching and historical ignorance is so severe, that certain Protestant circles will make that false claim to try to justify Protestantism eliminating 7 Old Testament books. Historically, those books have always been a part of the Catholic Old Testament Canon. Martin Luther(who had no authority), demoted them, because 2 Maccabees supports the doctrine of purgatory.
As for John 17:17 and Hebrews 4:12, your friend has brought a false Protestant teaching into his interpretation of those verses, rather than taking, from the verses, what their meaning is. He is approaching those Scriptures under the false impression that the phrase “Word of God,” is synonymous with “Bible.” That is a common Protestant error. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that uses the phrase, “Word of God,” synonymously with Bible. Actually, that false use of synonyms ironically pre-supposes the faulty doctrine of Sola-Scriptura. The Word of God in some places refers to Jesus(John 1:1) , but God’s word is not limited to Scripture only.
Now, let’s take both of the aforementioned verses, even looking at them through the eyes of that Protestant heresy. Ironically, they STILL don’t support the doctrine. John 17:17 would then essentially read, “The Bible is truth.” Of course, again we would run into the problem of the New Testament not having been yet developed at the time those words were spoken, but even more significantly, it would still NOT read, “The Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” It also nowhere would state that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. As far as Hebrews 4:12, again, even if we were to misinterpret “God’s Word,” as being synonymous with “Bible,” it STILL does not suggest that the Bible is the Sole rule of faith.
So, your friend’s argument really holds no water, whatsoever.
Your friend didn’t mention it, but some Protestants will also try to twist Revelation 22:18-19, out of context to support Sola-Scriptura.
If your friend tries that, explain that those words only apply to the Book of Revelation, because if it applied to the entire Bible, then the entire New Testament would have been invalidated at the time Revelation was canonized, on the grounds that it would have been adding something new to Scripture.
I hope this helps. If you need further help, please let us know. Realize that unless your friend’s heart is open to the Catholic faith, he is not going to see it no matter how blatantly you hit him over the head with it. Realize also, however, that you have God and the truth on YOUR side, and if God is with you, who can be against you?
- Status