The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[StTommyMore]

You know I should thank MD.

So many of you here are so knowledgeable about the faith and you answer so well that anyone happening on this thread could learn a lot.

I have.

We have to remember that even though we may never convince those we are debating of the Truth, there are an untold number of “lurkers” that simply read what is being said. It is those people that must be the focus of our debates, and not our opponents.

 

[Philthy]

In such a case, the word “saved” would be totally inappropriate. “Spared” would be the appropriate word. If she was “spared” from original sin and then lived a sinless life, then she was not ever in need of a Savior. But she herself testified to the contrary in theopneustos Scripture.

I dont think the term saved would be “totally inappropriate” at all. On the contrary, I think you are grasping at straws and fairly weak ones at that. Being spared of something does not obviate having been saved from it as well.

Blessings!

 

[moondweller]

I dont think the term saved would be “totally inappropriate” at all. On the contrary, I think you are grasping at straws and fairly weak ones at that. Being spared of something does not obviate having been saved from it as well.It certainly does. You simply refuse to accept the difference. IOW, you refuse to believe it.

Notice, “accept” here is in reference to “believing” the truth which is told to you. It has nothing to do with one giving his “consent” to the truth. The “truth” here is not based on your “consent.” Likewise, Mary did not give her “consent” to the things spoken to her by Gabriel, but “believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord” (Lk. 1:45).

“Saved” in the Biblical sense always means to bring someone out of the desperate situation he/she is presently in. When Jesus healed someone and said “your faith has saved you,” that person was “saved” out from the infirmity that had presently inflicted him. In the same way when one is “saved by grace through faith” in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ he/she is brought out from their present, dire state of sin and Divine condemnation. Having been saved out from their previous sinful estate through faith in Christ, according to the Scriptures, they are then spared any future Divine judgment leading to condemnation (Jn. 3:17-18; 5:24; Rom. 8:1). But one is not “spared” future judgment until one is first saved from the sinful estate they were in.

Can you show me one place where Jesus “saved” someone “from” a sickness they never had? Where it is taught that through His sacrificial work on the cross men are “saved” out from the sinful estate which was never theirs in the first place? Such a concept of “saved” is not found in the Scriptures. Mary called the Lord her Savior.

No, Phil, I’m not grasping at straws.

 

[paul_c]

It certainly does. You simply refuse to accept the difference. IOW, you refuse to believe it.

Notice, “accept” here is in reference to “believing” the truth which is told to you. It has nothing to do with one giving his “consent” to the truth. The “truth” here is not based on your “consent.” Likewise, Mary did not give her “consent” to the things spoken to her by Gabriel, but “believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord” (Lk. 1:45).

“Saved” in the Biblical sense always means to bring someone out of the desperate situation he/she is presently in. When Jesus healed someone and said “your faith has saved you,” that person was “saved” out from the infirmity that had presently inflicted him. In the same way when one is “saved by grace through faith” in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ he/she is brought out from their present, dire state of sin and Divine condemnation. Having been saved out from their previous sinful estate through faith in Christ, according to the Scriptures, they are then spared any future Divine judgment leading to condemnation (Jn. 3:17-18; 5:24; Rom. 8:1). But one is not “spared” future judgment until one is first saved from the sinful estate they were in.

Can you show me one place where Jesus “saved” someone “from” a sickness they never had? Where it is taught that through His sacrificial work on the cross men are “saved” out from the sinful estate which was never theirs in the first place? Such a concept of “saved” is not found in the Scriptures. Mary called the Lord her Savior.

No, Phil, I’m not grasping at straws.

Actually, Moondweller. Mary’s response is not " I believe what you said" or " I understand what you said". It is " Let it be done to me according to your word". That is the difference between simple acknowledgement (which is what you propose) and accepting what was to be done (which Catholics see as saying " yes" to God…

As for being Mary’s savior, be consistent. You don’t believe in works alone saving you but you require belief that Jesus died to open heaven for us. That is the context underwhich Mary needed a savior. Your current argument suggests that faith is not required but that if you lead a sinless life you go to heaven without need of a savior.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In such a case, the word “saved” would be totally inappropriate. “Spared” would be the appropriate word. If she was “spared” from original sin and then lived a sinless life, then she was not ever in need of a Savior. But she herself testified to the contrary in theopneustos Scripture.

Rubbish and you know it. Mary was saved by God and she knew it. She was saved before falling into a pit…she was not saved by being pulled out of it. You’re playing word games because we can’t be forced down a path you need us to go in order to make your points. Sorry we aren’t playing by your rules.

To the contrary. Rom. 3:23 doesn’t state “…all HAVE sinned.” But rather, according to the Greek, "…ALL SINNED (aorist, not perfect tense, i.e., in Adam) and (continually, present tense) fall short of the glory of God."It’s a non-issue here. ALL men were “made sinners” by ONE act of ONE man (Rom. 5:19). You may not like it, but that’s Divine revelation. You may not even believe it, nonetheless, that’s Divine Revelation.He knew That “…ALL sinned (in Adam) and (continually)* fall short of the glory of God*.” His statement would include Mary. NOWHERE in Scripture does Paul or any other writer teach otherwise.

Oh…sorry…I must have dozed off reading the same errors repeated again. First, if all HAVE sinned (caps, italicized and underlined), then Jesus inherits the same sinful nature since He is FULLY (bold added) man. Or possibly, just possibly, God (who is able to do all things) was able to protect Mary from participating in the sin of Adam. Sheesh.

But look, let’s consider a few other points, okay?

Suppose for a moment that the Catholic Church never mentioned Mary. EVER.

You’d still have to deal with the fact that the Christian Church from the first century onward featured Catholic distinctives such as a hierarchical priesthood, apostolic succession, infant baptism, belief in the real presence in the eucharist and what is now referred to as transubstantiation, auricular confession, etc, etc.

YOU may be more obsessed with Mary than we are, but you’re missing the forest for the tree. Jesus founded one Church, and that Church still exists; it’s the Catholic Church.

Your separation from His body, His bride, is displeasing to Him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I dunno…maybe this article is significant.

***ERRANT AORIST ******INTERPRETERS ***
*CHARLES R. SMITH *

**The thesis of this essay is that exegesis and theology have been ****plagued by the tendency of Greek scholars and students to make their field of knowledge more esoteric, recondite, and occult than is actually the case. There is an innate human inclination to attempt to impress people with the hidden secrets which only the truly initiated can rightly understand or explain. Nowhere is this more evident than in the plethora of arcane labels assigned to the aorist tense in its supposed classifications and significations. Important theological distinctions are often based on the tense and presented with all the authority that voice or pen can muster. It is here proposed that the aorist tense (like many other grammatical features) should be “de-mythologized” and simply recognized for what it is–the standard verbal aspect employed for naming or labeling an act or event. As such, apart from its indications of time relationships, it is exegetically insignificant: (1) It does not necessarily refer to past time; (2) It neither identifies nor views action as punctiliar; (3) It does not indicate once- for-all action; (4) It does not designate the kind of action; (5) It is not the opposite of a present, imperfect, or perfect; (6) It does not occur *in classes or kinds; and, (7) It may describe any action or event. ***

+++

(from p. 215):

*Biblical examples *
Again, all the biblical examples previously cited are also applicable under this heading. In addition, none of the following refer to once-for-all actions.

“They loved not their lives unto death” (hgaphsen, Rev 12:11).
“What you heard from the beginning” (hkousate, I John 2:24).
“Trade until I come” (pragmateusasqe, Luke 19:13).
“Jesus. . . went about doing good” (dihlqen, Acts 10:38).
“The promise which He promised us [many times], life eternal” (ephggeilato, I John 2:25).
“Five times I received thirty-nine stripes” (elabon) . . . three times I was beaten with rods (errabdisqhn) . . . three times I was shipwrecked" (enauaghsa, 2 Cor 11:24-25).
“For all [seven] had her” (esxon, Matt 22:28).
“Holy Father, keep them, in your name” (thrhson, John 17:11).
"They lived and reigned a thousand years (ezhsan and ebasileu- sen, Rev 20:4).
“All the time in which Jesus went in and went out among us” (eishlqen and echlqen, Acts 1:21).
“Wherefore that field is called ‘Field of Blood’ until this day” (eklhqh, Matt 27:8).
“For all have sinned and fall short” (hmarton, Rom 3:23).

Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (Fall 1981) 205-26.

[Copyright © 1981 Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;

digitally prepared for use at Gordon College]

faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/New_Testament_Greek/Text/Smith-Aorist-GTJ.pdf

 

[moondweller]

Actually, Moondweller. Mary’s response is not " I believe what you said" or " I understand what you said". It is " Let it be done to me according to your word". That is the difference between simple acknowledgement (which is what you propose) and accepting what was to be done (which Catholics see as saying " yes" to God…

Here’s what Mary said to Gabriel:Luke 1:38 And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her."Notice how she identifies herself: “the bondslave of the Lord…” “Consent” is not required of a slave by a master. Hers was a response of belief in the words the Lord spoke to her:Luke 1:45 “And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”"There you have it, my friend. There is no other source from which we can draw.

As for being Mary’s savior, be consistent. You don’t believe in works alone saving you but you require belief that Jesus died to open heaven for us. That is the context underwhich Mary needed a savior. Your current argument suggests that faith is not required but that if you lead a sinless life you go to heaven without need of a savior.

I don’t know from where you got all this. Certainly not from my post.

The FACT that Mary knew the Lord as her SAVIOR proves she was conscious of her sinful estate. If she was “immaculately” conceived and lived a sinless life (as men have asserted, contrary to Scripture) there would have been no consciousness in her of the need of a Savior. But Mary certainly did.Luke 1:47 “And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” :doh2:

 

[roelblomsma]

What is Catholicism without Mary? IOW, is there a Catholic faith without Mary?

Take a look at Revelation 12. Many calvinists deny that Mary is a queen in Heaven. Yet Revelation 12 states:

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

Also Jesus implied that Mary is mother to as all:

John 19:27 -Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home].

Furthermore, God chose her to bear His son. It would be a bit silly, after all this, to deny Mary’s place in heaven. Of course she does not replace or stand on the same level of God. But she is in Heaven and therefor we can pray to her. And as a person with a bit of logical reason, it is easy to see that Mary should be praised.

 

[Pax]

MD in Christ,

On the issue of the word “consent”…please be advised that you have been utterly disaffirmed, confuted, refuted, debunked, and discredited. I could come up with many other synonyms describing the state of your argument and opinion on this issue but those should suffice.

Likewise, let’s look again at synonyms for “consent”.

The following is taken from Roget’s Thesaurus online(that way you can look at my source electronically):

consent

verb

1. To respond affirmatively; receive with agreement or compliance: accede, accept, acquiesce, agree,** assent**, nod, subscribe, yes. See agree
2. To give one’s consent to: allow, approbate, approve, authorize, endorse, let, permit, sanction. Informal: OK. See allow

noun

1. The act or process of accepting: acceptance, acquiescence, agreement, assent, nod, yes. Informal: OK. See accept
2. The approving of an action, especially when done by one in authority: allowance, approbation, approval, authorization, endorsement, leave2, license, permission, permit, sanction. Informal: OK. See allow

Now please do the right thing and concede the point.

Likewise, be noble and answer my question:

Can you have the gospel of Luke without Mary? (that’s at least the fourth time I’ve asked.)

God bless.

 

[Pax]

I dunno…maybe this article is significant.

***ERRANT AORIST ******INTERPRETERS ***
*CHARLES R. SMITH *

…
…
…

Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (Fall 1981) 205-26.

[Copyright © 1981 Grace Theological Seminary; cited with permission;

digitally prepared for use at Gordon College]

faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/New_Testament_Greek/Text/Smith-Aorist-GTJ.pdf

Randy,

Thanks for that article!

 

[jericho777]

Take a look at Revelation 12. Many calvinists deny that Mary is a queen in Heaven. Yet Revelation 12 states:

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

Also Jesus implied that Mary is mother to as all:

John 19:27 -Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home].

Furthermore, God chose her to bear His son. It would be a bit silly, after all this, to deny Mary’s place in heaven. Of course she does not replace or stand on the same level of God. But she is in Heaven and therefor we can pray to her. And as a person with a bit of logical reason, it is easy to see that Mary should be praised.

There are many more people than that. People who hold the bible higher than traditions do not see Mary as Queen of Heaven.

The woman is Israel; the 12 stars are the twelve tribes of Israel. In mid tribulation Satan will try to destroy Israel. But God will preserve Israel from the wrath of Satan 3 ½ years.

Jesus was giving His mother to the care of the apostle because His siblings were incapable of that duty.

You are very correct God did choose Mary as He did the apostles and prophets. He also chose all those who will believe in Him. We are His workmanship! The Word of God and logical reason will show only God is worthy of praise.

St Thomas Aquinas: “Only a sinner needs a Savior, and Mary must have been a sinner because she stated “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”

 

[Pax]

There are many more people than that. People who hold the bible higher than traditions do not see Mary as Queen of Heaven.

The woman is Israel; the 12 stars are the twelve tribes of Israel. In mid tribulation Satan will try to destroy Israel. But God will preserve Israel from the wrath of Satan 3 ½ years.

Jesus was giving His mother to the care of the apostle because His siblings were incapable of that duty.
…
…

Jericho777 in Christ,

You are correct in stating that the woman represents Israel, but that is only part of what Revelation 12 is referring to. Please be advised that the Book of Revelation and all other apocalyptic literature within scripture usually has more than one layer of meaning. The reference to the woman is a great example of this in that the woman actually refers to Israel, to the Church, and to Mary. Interestingly enough, Revelation 12 doesn’t fit anyone of them perfectly and that helps make it clear that it refers to more than just one thing.

The crown of twelve stars can, indeed, refer to the twelve tribes of Israel, but they can be interpreted as a sign of perfection or completion which is certainly the work of Christ within his mother.

The crown of twelve stars is not something I use to support the interpretation of Israel. Here is one problem of why it is imperfect. Simply ask the question: Why would the “twelve tribes” of the nation of Israel be a crown on top of Israel if the woman represents the nation of Israel? The twelve tribes were part of the nation of Israel rather than a crown upon the nation of Israel. Applying it according to the objects you’re using would make more sense if the nationhood of Israel were the crown on the twelve tribes especially since Judah was the only one that remained faithful. National Israel from a religious standpoint is non-existent.

Another thing to remember is that the great portent is described as a person/woman with clothing(i.e. the sun), a crown on her head, and the moon under her feet. This is the description of an individual with physical attributes. This is reinforced further by the fact that Rev 12 speaks of two other individual persons that we clearly recognize. Those two are the dragon/satan, and the son of the woman, Jesus. There is a clear connection in this passage that is recognized by most biblical scholars and that connection is found in Genesis and the garden where we have three individuals. In that account we see Eve, the serpent/satan, and God. The serpent makes war on the woman/Eve and her children post the fall, and Satan attempts to make war on Mary and her offspring post redemption by Jesus.

I can go on with more on this subject, but I think you can see what I’m getting at.

Now…it would be important for you to provide scriptural proof that the claimed siblings of Jesus were incapable of taking care of Mary, and thus prove that this is the reason that Jesus gave Mary to John and him to her. The Catholic position makes a lot more sense.

God bless.

 

[jericho777]

Jericho777 in Christ,

You are correct in stating that the woman represents Israel, but that is only part of what Revelation 12 is referring to. Please be advised that the Book of Revelation and all other apocalyptic literature within scripture usually has more than one layer of meaning. The reference to the woman is a great example of this in that the woman actually refers to Israel, to the Church, and to Mary. Interestingly enough, Revelation 12 doesn’t fit anyone of them perfectly and that helps make it clear that it refers to more than just one thing.

The crown of twelve stars can, indeed, refer to the twelve tribes of Israel, but they can be interpreted as a sign of perfection or completion which is certainly the work of Christ within his mother.

The crown of twelve stars is not something I use to support the interpretation of Israel. Here is one problem of why it is imperfect. Simply ask the question: Why would the “twelve tribes” of the nation of Israel be a crown on top of Israel if the woman represents the nation of Israel? The twelve tribes were part of the nation of Israel rather than a crown upon the nation of Israel. Applying it according to the objects you’re using would make more sense if the nationhood of Israel were the crown on the twelve tribes especially since Judah was the only one that remained faithful. National Israel from a religious standpoint is non-existent.

Another thing to remember is that the great portent is described as a person/woman with clothing(i.e. the sun), a crown on her head, and the moon under her feet. This is the description of an individual with physical attributes. This is reinforced further by the fact that Rev 12 speaks of two other individual persons that we clearly recognize. Those two are the dragon/satan, and the son of the woman, Jesus. There is a clear connection in this passage that is recognized by most biblical scholars and that connection is found in Genesis and the garden where we have three individuals. In that account we see Eve, the serpent/satan, and God. The serpent makes war on the woman/Eve and her children post the fall, and Satan attempts to make war on Mary and her offspring post redemption by Jesus.

I can go on with more on this subject, but I think you can see what I’m getting at.

Now…it would be important for you to provide scriptural proof that the claimed siblings of Jesus were incapable of taking care of Mary, and thus prove that this is the reason that Jesus gave Mary to John and him to her. The Catholic position makes a lot more sense.

God bless.

Hi Pax, The male Child is in heaven but the woman is still on the earth and is pursued by satan. The woman is given full protection by God for 3 ½ years during the great tribulation a future event. While in Gen 3:15 it is the Seed of the woman (Jesus) will crush the head of the serpent. But this woman is pursued by the serpent into the desert. The differences between the two are greater than the similarities.

So then according to what you said the woman in Gen 3:15 is Eve so then it must also be Eve in Rev12? Or Mary had 12 children?
I see a lot of holes in your supposition.

Scripture doesn’t give any explanation why Jesus gave His mother to John.

 

[StTommyMore]

Hi Pax, The male Child is in heaven but the woman is still on the earth and is pursued by satan. The woman is given full protection by God for 3 ½ years during the great tribulation a future event. While in Gen 3:15 it is the Seed of the woman (Jesus) will crush the head of the serpent. But this woman is pursued by the serpent into the desert. The differences between the two are greater than the similarities.

So then according to what you said the woman in Gen 3:15 is Eve so then it must also be Eve in Rev12? Or Mary had 12 children?
I see a lot of holes in your supposition.

Scripture doesn’t give any explanation why Jesus gave His mother to John.

Herein lies your confusion: Scripture, as a general rule, should not be taken at face value, particularly when reading the Apocalyptic literature. Revelation is a non-linear book, full of all kinds of images that are difficult to interpret. Part of the difficulty come sin the multiple layers of imagery. It can be argued that St. John’s Revelation is about the end times, AND about 1st century persecution, AND, believe it or not, about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Is the woman Mary? Yes! But she is also Israel, and she is also the Church. As for why is this woman Mary, it is simple: she gives birth to the Messiah. If the Messiah is an individual, and the dragon is an individual, then does it not stand to reason that the woman is an individual? She is Mary insofar is she gives birth to the Messiah. She is the Church insofar as she suffers persecution. In Catholic exegesis, many times we take a “both/and” approach, rather than an “either/or”.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Actually, Moondweller. Mary’s response is not " I believe what you said" or " I understand what you said". It is " Let it be done to me according to your word". That is the difference between simple acknowledgement (which is what you propose) and accepting what was to be done (which Catholics see as saying " yes" to God

Moondweller, She was humble of spirit, which is typical of the very holy. Whether she describes her self as the handmaid of the lord or not, she still consented with the statement : " May it be done to me according to your word."

Quote:
As for being Mary’s savior, be consistent. You don’t believe in works alone saving you but you require belief that Jesus died to open heaven for us. That is the context underwhich Mary needed a savior. Your current argument suggests that faith is not required but that if you lead a sinless life you go to heaven without need of a savior.

You are making one of your famous leaps. Why did she need to have sinned to have consciousness in her need of a savior? Why does sin make you more aware of anything? I would argue that the converse is true. Because she was holy and inspired, she could see that more than sinlessness was required to get to heaven.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The FACT that Mary knew the Lord as her SAVIOR proves she was conscious of her sinful estate. If she was “immaculately” conceived and lived a sinless life (as men have asserted, contrary to Scripture) there would have been no consciousness in her of the need of a Savior. But Mary certainly did.
Luke 1:47 “And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”

Rubbish.

Someone can know with certainty that they have been saved from disaster before it befell them. IOW, a friend can call on the phone and say, “There’s a tornado headed toward your farm…seek shelter immediately!” The friend “saves” the recipient from being killed before the disaster strikes.

Mary knew she had been “saved” by God from ever falling into sin. Her humility also precluded her from thinking of herself as more than a servant of God.

Mary’s words do not “prove she was conscious of her sinful estate [sic].” It proves she was conscious of the fact that God had preserved her from the sin that others are heir to.

 

[Pax]

Hi Pax, The male Child is in heaven but the woman is still on the earth and is pursued by satan. The woman is given full protection by God for 3 ½ years during the great tribulation a future event. While in Gen 3:15 it is the Seed of the woman (Jesus) will crush the head of the serpent. But this woman is pursued by the serpent into the desert. The differences between the two are greater than the similarities.

So then according to what you said the woman in Gen 3:15 is Eve so then it must also be Eve in Rev12? Or Mary had 12 children?
I see a lot of holes in your supposition.

Scripture doesn’t give any explanation why Jesus gave His mother to John.

jericho777 in Christ,

Please take what is given to you in the manner in which it is given, and try not to add to the scripture. The twelve stars do not represent children. The twelve stars refer to fullness or fulfillment, just as that same numerology applies in the same way to the twelve tribes, the twelve apostles, the twelve foundations, the twelve gates, the twelve angels, etc. The male child is Jesus and Mary is clearly his mother. The other children are all Christians because we are all brothers and sisters of Jesus. Rev 12:17 makes all of that quite clear by saying the following:

Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

Clearly those that Satan makes war on are those that keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. That clearly refers to Christians and all Christians are brothers and sisters of the Lord. Jesus is the son of Mary and thus we are her children as well because we are brothers and sisters of the Lord. That is the meaning of “her offspring.”

Please keep in mind that the Book of Revelation and all apocalyptic literature not only has multiple layers, but also must be read in a “non-linear” fashion. If one attempts to read the book in a linear fashion nothing will make sense. Your line of thought concerning Mary being on earth and Jesus in heaven is simply a mistake in reading that chapter. The first thing that is indicated is that Mary is in heaven. Clearly, the nation of Israel is not in heaven, but many saints are. Yes, there will be a new heavenly Jerusalem, but that does not refer to national Israel.

John already mentions in previous chapters that Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. Notice nothing is linear, and John brings this out in verse 4 by saying:

the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth;

The child is Jesus and at that point of reference Jesus is on earth. Again, nothing is linear in apocalyptic writing. Clearly, King Herod attempted to do the bidding of Satan and attempted to kill Jesus shortly after he was born to the woman Mary. This all fits neatly together against all other theories. Likewise, my reference to Genesis is to demonstrate that the scene is similar and many scholars make direct comparisons between the two. The many important similarities establish important scriptural parallels for the beginning with man’s fall, and the ending with man’s redemption and the ultimate victory by Christ over Satan. The unmistakable parallels help point out to us an important clue about Rev 12 in that both narratives refer to 3 individuals. That helps us see why on one level that Mary is referred to in Rev 12 as the woman. You might also note that in the NT Mary is referred to by Jesus himself as “woman.” These are all beautiful and powerful clues to help us understand one of the three layers of meaning in Revelation 12.

I am not discounting the layers that refer to Israel and to the Church. Instead, I am merely pointing out that there is truth in the layer that refers to Mary as well. This is not an either or proposition. This refers to multiple meanings that emerge from the images when scripture is read as a whole from start to finish.

God bless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

Thanks for that article!

My pleasure. I don’t know Greek at all, but it’s amazing what Google will find if you look for it.

I’ll leave it to others to determine whether this article demolishes Moondweller’s “aorist” issues. For my part, I am satisfied that major translations (including the very biased NIV) do not support Moondweller’s theory and that no Protestant apologists that I am aware of have attempted to make the same argument.

IOW, he seems to think he has found the fatal flaw in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception…but I don’t find that he has any credible support even among professional anti-Catholics.

I’m sure he’ll correct me if he knows of any.

 

[jericho777]

Herein lies your confusion: Scripture, as a general rule, should not be taken at face value, particularly when reading the Apocalyptic literature. Revelation is a non-linear book, full of all kinds of images that are difficult to interpret. Part of the difficulty come sin the multiple layers of imagery. It can be argued that St. John’s Revelation is about the end times, AND about 1st century persecution, AND, believe it or not, about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Is the woman Mary? Yes! But she is also Israel, and she is also the Church. As for why is this woman Mary, it is simple: she gives birth to the Messiah. If the Messiah is an individual, and the dragon is an individual, then does it not stand to reason that the woman is an individual? She is Mary insofar is she gives birth to the Messiah. She is the Church insofar as she suffers persecution. In Catholic exegesis, many times we take a “both/and” approach, rather than an “either/or”.

Greetings StTommyMoore, Scripture can be confusing at times to interpret but that it doesn’t mean it’s impossible either. When these scriptures are looked at in the light of other prophetic scriptures their meaning is revealed.

As to this verse it is given a specific time frame, the beginning of the great tribulation which gives definition to its interpretation. Interpretation should not be what we can make it say but what it is really saying to us apart from our prejudices. According to your thought process the woman in Rev 12 could be Eve also.

 

[Randy_Carson]

THE WOMAN OF REVELATION 12
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

The article states in part:

Polyvalent symbolism, in which symbols have more than one meaning, also is part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).

The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).