The Virgin Mary

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2758157]I have and I have no doubt that the male child is Jesus and knowing the fact the Mary gave birth to Jesus. I know the woman to be Mary. If you can find another woman who gave birth to Jesus, then I would not believe the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary.

Actually a better fit would be a symbolic representation of Israel. See Genesis 37:9-11 for example.

However, I have pointed time and time again that the male child is Jesus.

Do you deny the male child is Jesus, yes or no?

The child is Jesus.

If yes, then you have to acknowledge that the woman is Mary because the child is Jesus.

If no, then you have to show me that another woman gave birth to Jesus.

Revelations is a highly symbolic book that uses a lot metaphors to explain truth and future events. It uses a number of combinations of literal truths with metaphors. Thats what i think is taking place here.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually a better fit would be a symbolic representation of Israel. See Genesis 37:9-11 for example.

The child is Jesus.

Revelations is a highly symbolic book that uses a lot metaphors to explain truth and future events. It uses a number of combinations of literal truths with metaphors. Thats what i think is taking place here.

But you can’t deny the fact that the woman is Mary.

You just admitted the child is Jesus. Who gave birth to Jesus? Mary or someone else. Remember the male child was belongs to the woman clothed with the sun.

 

[Ginger2]

Manny, “If you can find another woman who gave birth to Jesus,”

Yes, I can. Israel. why do you think the Bible is so concise on geneology?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually a better fit would be a symbolic representation of Israel. See Genesis 37:9-11 for example.

The child is Jesus.

Revelations is a highly symbolic book that uses a lot metaphors to explain truth and future events. It uses a number of combinations of literal truths with metaphors. Thats what i think is taking place here.

You are avoiding the question. Is the woman Mary yes or no. You said the male child is Jesus. But you deny the woman to be Mary. Your logic is not making any sense.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ginger2:

Yes, I can. Israel. why do you think the Bible is so concise on geneology?

Symbollically yes but it fails on the literal interpretation of Revelation 12:1

Further explanation.

But did Israel give birth to Jesus Literally speaking? Let us for once interpret the passage in Revelation 12:1 as individuals.

The Dragon is Satan. No doubt.

The male child is no doubt Jesus.

The woman is Mary because of her giving birth to Jesus. Israel would be correct if it is interpreted symbolically. When you interpret this literally, Israel doesn’t fit the woman in Revelation 12:1.

Israel by the way is male because his original name is Jacob.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2758203]You are avoiding the question. Is the woman Mary yes or no.

No. It doesn’t fit well with the context of the passage.

You said the male child is Jesus. But you deny the woman to be Mary. Your logic is not making any sense.

Sometimes the scriptures use a number of different methods to say something. Mary is Jesus’ mother. There is no denying that. However in the context of this passage, it says things not about her i.e. fleeing into the wilderness for 1260 days, or clothed with the sun or a crown on her head etc. There is no mention of these things in the gospels. Rather it makes better sense to think of this as a metaphor for something else.

Do you have any catholic commentaries? I wonder what they say about this passage.

 

[apophasis]

Because at that point in the passage, after having given birth to Jesus, after having been exiled in Egypt, and after His crucifixion and ascension, which St. John describes using allegorical language, Mary is now giving birth in a spiritual manner to the Church, and the pain she is experiencing is the pain of the martyrs who died for the name of Christ.

Ah-ha. Another interesting Catholic, Marian juxtaposition with Christ. Jesus builds His church (Matt. 16:18), but Mary gives it birth.

 

[Ginger2]

5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.
6 The woman fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Look at the about verses. they are not in chronological order as Catholics would interpret them. If they are in chronological order, then the Catholic interpretation falls apart.

Also, verse 6 does not say the woman and child fled into the desert. Rather it says the woman herself fled. No where is there even a hint that anyone else was with the woman.

 

[rlg94086]

No. It doesn’t fit well with the context of the passage.

Sometimes the scriptures use a number of different methods to say something. Mary is Jesus’ mother. There is no denying that. However in the context of this passage, it says things not about her i.e. fleeing into the wilderness for 1260 days, or clothed with the sun or a crown on her head etc. **There is no mention of these things in the gospels. **Rather it makes better sense to think of this as a metaphor for something else.

Do you have any catholic commentaries? I wonder what they say about this passage.

That’s an interesting comment. So, nothing in Revelations is valid unless it is also mentioned in the gospels? Is that some sort of unwritten Protestant interpretation rule?

 

[Mannyfit75]

No. It doesn’t fit well with the context of the passage.

I’m sorry you don’t see it that way.

Sometimes the scriptures use a number of different methods to say something. Mary is Jesus’ mother. There is no denying that. However in the context of this passage, it says things not about her i.e. fleeing into the wilderness for 1260 days, or clothed with the sun or a crown on her head etc. There is no mention of these things in the gospels. Rather it makes better sense to think of this as a metaphor for something else.

I did ask *individually identify *the 3 major characters of the passage. I interpret the fleeing into the wilderness when Joseph and Mary fled Bethelem because King Herod wanted Jesus dead.

The clothed with the sun and crown of her head is her receiving her glorified state, which we ourselves will have upon the last day provided that we preserve in the end by living the Gospels. We too will be given crowns, as St. Paul states, St. James, and Peter states in the following passage:

2 Tim 4:8 - Paul says that there is laid up for him the crown of righteousness. The saints are crowned in heaven, and Mary is the greatest saint of all.

James 1:12 - those who endure will receive the crown of life which God has promised. Mary has received the crown of life by bringing eternal life to the world.

1 Peter 5:4 - when the chief Shepherd is manifested we will receive the unfading crown of glory

Do you have any catholic commentaries? I wonder what they say about this passage.

Yes I do. From EWTN. Fr. John Echert,

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum7&recnu=21&number=385115

 

[Mannyfit75]

That’s an interesting comment. So, nothing in Revelations is valid unless it is also mentioned in the gospels? Is that some sort of unwritten Protestant interpretation rule?

You and me both. Protestants demand us to give scriptural proof text about Mary’s Queenship. We give them Rev 12:1 and they just totally ignore it. They admit the male child is Jesus but deny the woman who gave birth to the male child as Mary.

It’s like someone telling me my mother isn’t my mother.

 

[Ginger2]

James 1:12 - those who endure will receive the crown of life which God has promised. Mary has received the crown of life by bringing eternal life to the world.

Maybe you would like to explain the above comment, Manny.

 

[Mannyfit75]

James 1:12 - those who endure will receive the crown of life which God has promised. Mary has received the crown of life by bringing eternal life to the world.

Maybe you would like to explain the above comment, Manny.

Sure if you are at least trying to understand our beliefs. Feel free to disagree.

Mary, is the first woman to accept the Will of the Father. She said, “Be it done unto me according to your word.” With those words, the Word became flesh and dwell amongst us. As you know Catholics believe Mary never sinned, and she was totally obedient to God. She was indeed righteous.

At the course of her life, she died willingly because she wanted to follow the example of her son. Jesus Christ. Jesus in turn rewarded his mother because of her faith. He raise her from the dead, and took her body into heaven. There she received the crown of glory. As we see in Revelation 12:1, we see a woman with a crown on her head.

When it is our turn and if we remain faithful and obedient to God just as Mary did. We took will be given a crown just as St. James states. The Magnificat even implies it.

52 He has put down the mighty from their throne, and has exalted the humble… Luke 1:52

You know well from Biblical history that Mary and Joseph grow up poor. They weren’t rich. When saints die, we will all received a crown. Mary is the one of them.

 

[Ginger2]

“Mary, is the first woman to accept the Will of the Father.”

Really! Every women before Mary rejected the will of God?

Please explain how Deborah rejected God’s will. And Zipphorah too. I am interested in your version.

And Hagar!

 

[Mannyfit75]

“Mary, is the first woman to accept the Will of the Father.”

Really! Every women before Mary rejected the will of God?

Please explain how Deborah rejected God’s will. And Zipphorah too. I am interested in your version.

And Hagar!

Let me rephrase this. Mary is the first Christian.

The women you mention weren’t perfect. Mary is the imbodiment of perfection. God’s creation made perfect, second only to Jesus.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Mary is the imbodiment of perfection. God’s creation made perfect, second only to Jesus.

Amen

 

[Mannyfit75]

Amen

before someone put my words out of context. Jesus wasn’t created. I know for a fact that Jesus is the ideal perfection for everyone. Since he is sinless. A spotless lamb. The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

 

[jmcrae]

(1) Are each of the writings on the walls dated?

They can tell when the graffitti was inscribed in the same way that they can date the Scriptures themselves - by the style of the writing, and by the tools used to do the writing.

(2) How do you know that they’re Apostolic in origin?

We know that the Apostles were the first preachers of the Church, right? So, when the people were copying down what they were hearing from the pulpit, it would have been the words of the Apostles themselves, or else their close associates.

(3) Do they actually quote the Apostles?So you’re suggesting that those “doctrinal preservation policemen” would have inspected the walls periodically and erased anything there that was not in conformity to Apostolic tradition?

In exactly the same way that you (or the officials who operate your church) remove any materials from your church that don’t conform to your idea of the truth. I doubt that any contradictory graffitti, or posters, or song sheets, or tracts, or other printed materials, stay for very long at your church.

Think about it seriously - how long would a “Hail Mary” prayer, regardless of what it was printed on, or graffittied into the pillars where the people kneel to pray - how long would it remain, at your church? (I’m guessing about 15 or 20 seconds longer than it takes for the janitor to notice that it’s there, right?)

 

[cranster]

There is no mention of these things in the gospels. Rather it makes better sense to think of this as a metaphor for something else.

:tsktsk: (Nothing more than your personal opinion which is irrelevant!) One minute you’re saying it doesn’t say it in the Bible then the next minute you say it isn’t in the Gospel. Which is it… does it need to be in the book of Revelation or in the Gospel? Both are in the Bible which is all important to you.

Do you have any catholic commentaries? I wonder what they say about this passage.

Yes here’s an excellent commentary taken from this site which has already been posted to this thread.

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).

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.

Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

 

[Good_Fella]

Are you aware that this was not the belief of the church for centuries? Have you read this passage carefully because there are a number of things in it that don’t apply to Mary?

What things don’t apply to Mary? Please elaborate so that we can become aware of these things.

If this was not the belief of the Church for centuries, it’s because the Book of Revelation did not attain the status of canon until the late fourth century under the pontificate of Pope Damasus 1. In the first three centuries some Church Fathers privately accepted the book, while others did not. In the fourth century, St. John Chrysostom argued against including the Apocalypse in the New Testament canon, because he thought the difficulties of interpreting the text would lead to its abuse. :yup: In fact, the Montanists relied heavily on the Apocalypse to promote their heresy. Meanwhile, the apochryphal ‘Apocalypse of Peter’ was rejected from the NT canon by the Catholic Church. Once the Book of Revelation aspired to canonicity, most Church doctors identified the woman in Revelation 12 primarily with Mary. The Church and Israel became more subsidiary in their significance to this sign in heaven. There are some Catholic scholars today who identify the woman primarily with the Church, but most of them regard the woman as being Mary, because Revelation 12 continues the theme of Genesis 3:15. Nowhere in Scripture are the Church and Israel called “woman”. The closest feminine appellations are “the Bride of Christ” and “Daughter of Zion”. But Mary is referred to as “woman” in Genesis 3 and by the author of the Apocalypse in his Gospel. Please note that Jesus reverently addressed his mother as “woman” after she had interceded on behalf of the wedding guests who had no wine and prior to our Lord’s first miracle on account of Mary’s solicitation. John portrays Jesus as the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve in this event. Many Catholic scholars believe this theme reaches its climax in Revelation 12.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella