Virgin Mary , The Great Sign

[memnoch_lover]

It all began after the fall of man. God gave us a sign in genesis of the defeat of the serpent(satan) and sin. God said " i will put enmity between you(serpent) and the woman, between her seed and yours, you(serpent)will strike his heel, and he will crush you head".This is what we call the first gospel, the protoevangelium.

The “woman” in protoevangelium is not Eve because protoevangelium refers to future events and also the “seed” is singular whereas Eve has more than one seeds among them cain and abel.

Prophet isaiah again spoke of the sign…he said " a sign is given by the Lord, a Virgin(woman) shall give birth to a son, the son is called emmanuel meaning God with us"
Again isaiah said " a son is given to us(implying that there is a woman who gave birth), he is called prince of peace… mighty God…father…etc

The appointed time for the fulfillment of the sign comes.

An angel came to Mary and said "Hail daugther of zion, God has favored you. You will bear a son…Mary said “i know no man”. the angel said, the Holy Spirit will overshadow you… the son will be called the Son of God…And so… the Word was with God the Word was God the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Indeed the Son of God is God with us(emmanuel) note: son of man is man, therefore Son of God is God at due time the Son of God choose to be born of a woman and became man therefore he is emmanuel.

Jesus confirmed that he is the “seed” while mary is the “woman”.why? jesus himself called his mother “woman” at the wedding in cana and also jesus called mary “woman” while jesus was on the cross.Jesus was therefore alluding to the “woman” in protoevangelium.

Here, the sign of the woman and her seed crushing the head of the serpent was definitely fulfilled at foot of the cross. Isaiah said(53:10) It is the Lord’s will that he(jesus) will suffer and his(jesus) death will bring forgiveness of sin. Jesus himself said speaking of his sacrificial death" drink this is my blood for the forgiveness of sin"therefore the death of Jesus was itself his crushing the head of the serpent.

From this we can say that those who oppose the sacrificial death of jesus or discredit it is contrary to the will of God(isaiah 53:10)

Lastly, revelation 12 speaks to us agin about a great sign,

Revelation 12 says…"a great sign appeared in the sky, a woman cloth with the sun with a moon under her feet and crowned with 12 stars. She is about to give birth.

a dragon also appeared in the sky ready to eat the son of the woman… but God protected the mother and the son.

the dragon(ancient serpent) was furious against the woman…The dragon made war against the sons of the woman those who believe in jesus."

(the last sentence tells us that those who belive in jesus are her sons too… this is the reason why we call Mary our Mother.)

 

[stillsearching]

memnoch_lover:

It all began after the fall of man. God gave us a sign in genesis of the defeat of the serpent(satan) and sin. God said " i will put enmity between you(serpent) and the woman, between her seed and yours, you(serpent)will strike his heel, and he will crush you head".This is what we call the first gospel, the protoevangelium.

The “woman” in protoevangelium is not Eve because protoevangelium refers to future events and also the “seed” is singular whereas Eve has more than one seeds among them cain and abel.

Prophet isaiah again spoke of the sign…he said " a sign is given by the Lord, a Virgin(woman) shall give birth to a son, the son is called emmanuel meaning God with us"
Again isaiah said " a son is given to us(implying that there is a woman who gave birth), he is called prince of peace… mighty God…father…etc

The appointed time for the fulfillment of the sign comes.

An angel came to Mary and said "Hail daugther of zion, God has favored you. You will bear a son…Mary said “i know no man”. the angel said, the Holy Spirit will overshadow you… the son will be called the Son of God…And so… the Word was with God the Word was God the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Indeed the Son of God is God with us(emmanuel) note: son of man is man, therefore Son of God is God at due time the Son of God choose to be born of a woman and became man therefore he is emmanuel.

Jesus confirmed that he is the “seed” while mary is the “woman”.why? jesus himself called his mother “woman” at the wedding in cana and also jesus called mary “woman” while jesus was on the cross.Jesus was therefore alluding to the “woman” in protoevangelium.

Here, the sign of the woman and her seed crushing the head of the serpent was definitely fulfilled at foot of the cross. Isaiah said(53:10) It is the Lord’s will that he(jesus) will suffer and his(jesus) death will bring forgiveness of sin. Jesus himself said speaking of his sacrificial death" drink this is my blood for the forgiveness of sin"therefore the death of Jesus was itself his crushing the head of the serpent.

From this we can say that those who oppose the sacrificial death of jesus or discredit it is contrary to the will of God(isaiah 53:10)

Lastly, revelation 12 speaks to us agin about a great sign,

Revelation 12 says…"a great sign appeared in the sky, a woman cloth with the sun with a moon under her feet and crowned with 12 stars. She is about to give birth.

a dragon also appeared in the sky ready to eat the son of the woman… but God protected the mother and the son.

the dragon(ancient serpent) was furious against the woman…The dragon made war against the sons of the woman those who believe in jesus."

(the last sentence tells us that those who belive in jesus are her sons too… this is the reason why we call Mary our Mother.)

Please look at your first paragraph. did you mean Genesis or Revelation?

 

[memnoch_lover]

my first paragrah refers to genesis. it is the pronouncement of God after adam and eve ate the fruit

 

[BrJimC]

The virgin Mary (pbuh) having a son without relations with a man certainly was a sign to mankind… Jesus (pbuh) is a greater sign to mankind in his birth and second coming… but Adam (pbuh) is the Greatest sign of all since he was created from the dust and not the DNA of any human being male or female.

 

[hawk]

BrJimC:

The virgin Mary (pbuh) having a son without relations with a man certainly was a sign to mankind… Jesus (pbuh) is a greater sign to mankind in his birth and second coming… but Adam (pbuh) is the Greatest sign of all since he was created from the dust and not the DNA of any human being male or female.

The sign is important. Though by itself it does not give credence to Jesus’ divinity.

Its important to realise that the reason for the belief that God will incarnate is the promise in the Old testament.

Jesus is simply the keeping of the promise to all mankind, by God.

After all creation is what God does, therefore by itself this is not some special work of God.

However the Lord being with us in the flesh, this is something special.

I can understand the objections muslims have to Allah being in creation. However as far as that goes, I am afraid that muslims themselves do not understand the role of and manner of Gods presence in their lives.

 

[BrJimC]

hawk:

I can understand the objections muslims have to Allah being in creation. However as far as that goes, I am afraid that muslims themselves do not understand the role of and manner of Gods presence in their lives.

Hawk, I think I have a solid foundation, having been a Roman Catholic and followed other Christian denoms etc… and accepting Islam.

In Islam… God is a personal God and requires us to have a personal relationship with Him… that is why we protrate ourselves on our faces during prayer.

The real issue that Muslims have with divinity of a human being is that God has always forbade this and said that this is not his nature… there is scripture to indicate this directly… although Im sure you will say that there is scripture to the contrary. Abraham if the source for our concept of monotheism. The ancient hebrews who observed the Torah, in accordance with Abrahamic monotheism, never misunderstood that God is One God with no partners etc… This has been declared to Muslims also.

I dont think that Muslims misunderstand the role and manner of God in their lives… since as a Christian (Catholic) I have always had the same concept as I am taught as a Muslim… unless you are saying something that I didnt understand in your post

 

[hawk]

BrJimC:

Hawk, I think I have a solid foundation, having been a Roman Catholic and followed other Christian denoms etc… and accepting Islam.

In Islam… God is a personal God and requires us to have a personal relationship with Him… that is why we protrate ourselves on our faces during prayer.

You are quite right

The real issue that Muslims have with divinity of a human being is that God has always forbade this and said that this is not his nature… there is scripture to indicate this directly… although Im sure you will say that there is scripture to the contrary. Abraham if the source for our concept of monotheism. The ancient hebrews who observed the Torah, in accordance with Abrahamic monotheism, never misunderstood that God is One God with no partners etc… This has been declared to Muslims also.

I thought Allah was the source of your beliefs.

Sorry I am just teasing you, brother.

It was a long and painful process, but I started where you ended, and ended where you began.

That is precisely the problem I have with islam, it does not account for revelations in the zabur.

I have yet to meet one muslim, who can explain the pslams of David to me, since they obviously refer to incarnation.

Or for that matter the idea of sacraficial repentance.

I dont think that Muslims misunderstand the role and manner of God in their lives… since as a Christian (Catholic) I have always had the same concept as I am taught as a Muslim… unless you are saying something that I didnt understand in your post

I know muslims believe that they are responsible for their own salvation.
Yet this is precisely what makes the concept wrong.

The truth is that it is impossible to wipe out a sin once it is commited, it will perpetuate sin after it. No amount of good will ever pay for that sin.

I think the subtelty of Christianity is what drew me to it.

Wa’salam

 

[BrJimC]

hawk:

I have yet to meet one muslim, who can explain the pslams of David to me, since they obviously refer to incarnation.

Or for that matter the idea of sacraficial repentance.

I know muslims believe that they are responsible for their own salvation.
Yet this is precisely what makes the concept wrong.

The truth is that it is impossible to wipe out a sin once it is commited, it will perpetuate sin after it. No amount of good will ever pay for that sin.

Wa’salam

Catholicism certainly does not allow for you to attain salvation soley on belief… you must have good works with belief… james 2:2

Islam doesnt teach soley that works will get you Jennah (Paradise). You must have belief in God and Mercy. You must make Tawbah (repentence), believe and follow up you bad deeds with good ones… its essentially the same concept, except there is no need for a mediator (through human sacrifice or a priest) God who forgives sins can forgive and wipe out sins… only He… nothing we do will wipe them out… but He has promised that if we make a sincere repentence, ask forgiveness and follow up our bad with good… then He will forgive and wipe out the sin.

As far as the Psalms… the book of Psalms you see in your bible is taken from the Hebrew Scriptures… it does not have a chain of isnad nor can it be proven to be authentic… in fact it is written in Chaldean Hebrew… which means that David did not write the book you see today since the Chaldean Hebrew was developed during the exile of Hebrews into Babylon (who were pagans and enthically Chaldean and spoke a different language). So, the Hebrews assimilated Chaldean language, culture and understandings from the pagans of Ancient Babylon.

BrJimC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BrJimC:

Catholicism certainly does not allow for you to attain salvation soley on belief… you must have good works with belief… james 2:2

Islam doesnt teach soley that works will get you Jennah (Paradise). You must have belief in God and Mercy. You must make Tawbah (repentence), believe and follow up you bad deeds with good ones… its essentially the same concept, except there is no need for a mediator (through human sacrifice or a priest) God who forgives sins can forgive and wipe out sins… only He… nothing we do will wipe them out… but He has promised that if we make a sincere repentence, ask forgiveness and follow up our bad with good… then He will forgive and wipe out the sin.

Jesus Christ has repented for us, as our Representative, Head, & Mediator - which how we are we are able to do so fruitfully. The repentance we cannot repent with as we need to, He repents with perfectly, on the Cross, once for all time; and in the Mass, which makes present that Single Perfect Offering of Himself once offered. That is what God does for us, and that is how much He loves us. And that is how He changes us.​

As far as the Psalms… the book of Psalms you see in your bible is taken from the Hebrew Scriptures… it does not have a chain of isnad nor can it be proven to be authentic… in fact it is written in Chaldean Hebrew…

“Chaldean”, when it does not refer to the native language of Babylonia, usually means what is now called Aramaic; which is a West Semitic language. Is Aramaic what you have in mind ? If so, Psalms is not written in Aramaic, but in Hebrew; like the rest of the Hebrew Bible, apart from some parts of Ezra and Daniel.​

There are some Babylonian names in the HB - “Nergal-sharezer”, “Nebuchadrezzar”, “Bel”, and others; but no books in Babylonian: not if we are talking about the Semitic language of Babylonia, which is called Akkadian. (Sumerian, which has so far not been connected with any other language, predates Akkadian by a few centuries; but apart from some loan-words seems to have had little discernible effect on Hebrew; the concensus seems to be that it ceased to be spoken (not, however, to be written) round about 1700 BC; long before the Book of Psalms was composed. ##

which means that David did not write the book you see today since the Chaldean Hebrew was developed during the exile of Hebrews into Babylon (who were pagans and enthically Chaldean and spoke a different language).

The Psalms are not easy to date - some may be as late as the Maccabean period. The important thing is the inspiration of the book - not its human authorship, which is secondary.​

earlyjewishwritings.com/psalms.html

theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1974/v31-3-bookreview9.htm

The Prophet Ezekiel was among the exiles - he was not a pagan. OTOH, it could certainly be said that Judah before the Exile had some ideas which would have been more at home in Babylonia. It was because of their pagan ways that they were exiled in the first place - and it was in Babylonia that they were prepared for the lesson of Second Isaiah, who prophesied some time after 538, that their God was utterly unique. Without men of the calibre of Ezekiel and Second Isaiah, they would very likely have become assimilated to their Babylonian neighbours - many of whom were themselves exiles from other kingdoms - and been absorbed into the general population. That they recovered from the disaster of the destruction of Jerusalem, is nothing less than astonishing. It was not their language, but their religion, that preserved their identity. ##

So, the Hebrews assimilated Chaldean language, culture and understandings from the pagans of Ancient Babylon.

BrJimC

Abraham came from Ur, which was a very important city; not least because it was a principal shrine of the moon-god Su’en (AKA Sin).​

Yet he is the one man in the OT who is called “friend of God”, and he is held to be the father of the followers of three related religions.

So, if his Babylonian background did not prevent his being the patriarch whom Jews, Christians & Muslims call their father - why should any Akkadianisms in the Psalms that there may be (& what are they, BTW ?) prevent its being sacred ? ##

 

[BrJimC]

Gottle… what your saying about the chldean language is not what the Jews taught me about the history of their Scripture… Chaldean was a language that was assimilated by Hebrew prior to aramaic even existing… and Aramaic was derived from that hebrew.

Can you clarify where this differs with your assertion?