This is a logical fallacy. Because a word is not mentioned, that does not mean it is not referred to. For example, the Sabbath is established at creation, but “Sabbath” is not seen in the text. Perhaps you would benefit form some Scripture classes. I know both John Paul the Great University in San Diego and Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH offer distance learning classes on basic theology.Can you show me where the word “Christians” is in Rev. 12?
Mary knew that He was Savior of the world from the Annunciation.And your “point” makes no sense at all. “For GOD so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” God, through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, is Mary’s Savior. As is the Child she bore (Acts 4:12). She eventually learned that truth.
Here’s the "Annunciation:"Luke 1:31-32 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."It tells of He being King, rightful heir to the Davidic throne (which is earthly) according to the Davidic Covenant. Based on this she knew Him to be the Messiah, but not Savior of the world. This she had to learn later through the Apostles to whom the gospel of grace was revealed (Eph. 3:5).Mary knew that He was Savior of the world from the Annunciation.
They’re JEWISH believers. They’re not the church (which was raptured). It all has to do with ISRAEL in the latter days, during the Tribulation period.Moondweller,
I have four arguments for you. One is from the Bible (this one is not so much an argument as it is to provide an answer to your question about where it says “Christians” in Revelations 12). One is purely syllogistic with a statement of the absurdity of your conclusion (this one is ALMOST irrefutable but I have answers to all the objections anyway). One is from your own argument that even you cannot refute (that is, unless you refute yourself). One is a correction of your perception of our belief and the argument is centered on Christ and cannot be reasonably refuted (although it can be unreasonably refuted).
That sounds like a good definition of Christians to me and I imagine others also. Those are her offspring. The Church can explain it. Can you? I wonder how you are going to conform it against the Church.
- Revelations 12:17 - …those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.
She is Theotokos: “God-bearer.” Not “Mother of God” or “God’s mother.” Again, literally, “God-bearer” puts the emphasis on the Child. “Mother of God” puts the emphasis on the woman. Resulting in all your extrabiblical Marian dogmas that developed (by men) down through the centuries. And for this reason I asked if there can be a Catholicism without the Mary those extrabiblical doctrines elevated.
- Gregg-bearer is also Gregg’s mother. Moondweller-bearer is also Moondweller’s mother. But when it comes to God-bearer, somehow she is not His mother? This makes no sense to anybody. Mary is mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Mary is NOT Mother of God? This makes absolutely no sense. Jesus is both divine AND human. He called Himself Son of God AND Son of Man. His divinity is INSEPARABLE from His humanity. What is so hard about this? Mary is Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Mary is Mother of God. This is irrefutable. Beat around the bush all you want but the bush will still be in the way.
Elizabeth was speaking of the Christ Child within Mary, the Messiah. Jesus was addressed as “lord” throughout the gospel accounts. Those people weren’t addressing Him as God. Mary, however, was exalting God, the Lord, her Savior. Keep it all in CONTEXT, my friend.
- You have refuted your own self from Luke when Elizabeth says, “…mother of my Lord”… You yourself said “Lord” is the same thing as “God”. You either believe this or refute yourself. Either way, Mary is of Mother of God.
There are Messianic Jews today. I personally know many Jewish believers. Christ Himself is a Jew. So is Mary. As are ALL the Apostles. But in Revelation 12 the rest of the woman’s (Israel’s) children who keep the testimony of Jesus are believing Jews at that time. Rev. 12 is about the nation of Israel in the latter days - the time of the great Tribulation. They’re “christians” in the broad sense, but they’re not part of the church Christ is presently building. When that prophetic scene takes place the church will have already been raptured. IOW, Rev. 12 has nothing to do with Christ’s church. Nor does it have anything to do with Mary. The woman in that chapter wearing the crown of twelve stars is national Israel.
- Are you seriously saying that those who bear witness to Jesus in Revelations 12 are Jewish? What Jew bears witnes to Jesus? If they did, then they would not be Jewish; they would be Christian.
I’ve answered ALL your objections within my cumulative posts. I shouldn’t have to repeat everything to you. Just go back and read them. .
- I challenge you to answer my objections in the previous post. I understand it is hard but you can at least try.
It is essential. That “woman” is never seen in heaven. The events that occur around her are earthly. The “woman” in that chapter represents national Israel in the latter days of this age - the great Tribulation period (Matt. 24:21ff). None of it has anything to do directly with Mary or the church Christ is presently building. The woman wearing a crown of 12 stars represents national Israel Rom. 11:25-29).Hey guys, so what about the fact that in Revelations, a woman bears a male child and is therafter brought to a place of wilderness on earth where God would protect her for 3.5 years? I still don’t understand this part. I do think it is essencial.
MD in Christ,Can you show me where the word “Christians” is in Rev. 12?
Mary’s use of the word “may” (lit. be it) is not giving consent. If consent, or permission, was being sought there, then it would have been Gabriel who would have first used the word “may” when confronting Mary. And then Mary would have responded with “yes you may.” That’s not what happened according to the text. You’re reading into the text that which is not there because you’re reading your Marian doctrine into the text.I have read this thread for 33+ pages now and I’m really kinda shocked at MoonDweller’s absolute distruction of the English language. I’m no Greek scholar, so I won’t get into all that, but I know what the text says in English, and that’s what I want to focus on. Let’s look at it one more time:
Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”
I want to focus on the word may in particular. This tends to be one of those tricky words in our languange, and it often gets confused with another one, can. From time to time you’ll hear someone ask, “Can I do this?” or “Can I have that?” this is wrong. When one is asking for permission ie consent one should use the word may. When one is given permission or consent after asking the proper question “May I do this?” the response is given as “Yes, you may.” This is important in following Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel. Let’s look at another way Mary could have said her statement, which absolutely shows that she is giving her consent to what the Angel is telling her. Mary could have said: “You may (or I will allow or I give my consent) do to me what you are saying” and it would mean the exact same thing. How can you say differently?
I don’t understand how one, Moondweller in particular, can look at that text have a basic knowledge of the English language and completely misunderstand it. After having read the thread, though, and seeing how he has said a number of non-Catholic Biblical scholars are wrong, it doesn’t exactly surprise me.
In Christ,
Shannon
Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16.MD in Christ,
You’re a born again Christian…Can you show me where the word “Christian” appears in the bible?
As has been said before to you in quite a few other replies to you, one does not have to specifically ask for something “May I have…?” for one to give consent. Take the case of a parent when this conversation happens:Mary’s use of the word “may” (lit. be it) is not giving consent. If consent, or permission, was being sought there, then it would have been Gabriel who would have first used the word “may” when confronting Mary. And then Mary would have responded with “yes you may.” That’s not what happened according to the text. You’re reading into the text that which is not there because you’re reading your Marian doctrine into the text.
The literal translation “be it unto me according to your word” is a faith response to what was spoken to her, or “told her” from the Lord (Lk. 1:45), not one of granting permission. She was not confronted by Gabriel with a question seeking a response of consent. But rather a response of faith. Mary responded according to faith in God’s Word which was spoken to her. Contrast this with Lk. 1:19-20).
If she “eventually learned that truth” then she clearly could not have been articulating it yet (in Luke 1) in the sense that you keep attempting to force upon it. Deal with it.And your “point” makes no sense at all. “For GOD so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” God, through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, is Mary’s Savior. As is the Child she bore (Acts 4:12). She eventually learned that truth.
A parallel …Hey guys, so what about the fact that in Revelations, a woman bears a male child and is therafter brought to a place of wilderness on earth where God would protect her for 3.5 years? I still don’t understand this part. I do think it is essencial.
MD in Christ,Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16.
Your example doesn’t fit the case at hand. If we were to go with your example then Gabriel would be the child and Mary the parent (the who has the “authority” to give consent). It’s totally nonsensical. Much less bad parenting.As has been said before to you in quite a few other replies to you, one does not have to specifically ask for something “May I have…?” for one to give consent. Take the case of a parent when this conversation happens:
Child-“I’m going to go outside to play.”
Parent-“You may go outside to play.”
The child didn’t ask, but made a statement telling the parent what was to be. The parent still has the authority to veto the child’s statement. If it were raining outside, the parent could have said “No, you may not go outside to play” In the above situation, the parent consented to what the child said, even though there was no consent initially sought. This is what is happening in the Gospel story. You are totally bucking rules of basic grammar to suit your own purpose, one I still haven’t completely figured out yet.
To have my question answered. Here’s what I posted earlier regarding my original question, but no one has answered it:“Pax wants to know if there can be a gospel of Luke without Mary. The answer is no. But the Mary in that gospel account (or any of them, for that matter) is not elevated to the position(s) of prominence (even preeminence) that your churchmen have ascribed to the Mary of Catholicism. This extrabiblically, elevated Mary is the Mary I want to know if Catholicism can do without. And that’s the context of the question you’ve all been dodging. You all knew very well what the question was.”So I will simply ask you, what was your purpose for creating this thread?