Who is the woman in Rev.12?

[guanophore]

If you go through the Rev.carefully you will find that it goes strictly in a chronological order. All the visions are given in the order in which they will happen. No exception.

For some reason it seems very important for you to believe this. It is so important that you are willing to reject what the Church teaches about visions.

Most of the chapters are undoubtedly the continuation of the previous one and are about what happens next.The other chapters begins with the words"And “Then” etc.to dispel any doubt.

Certainly there should be no doubt that this is how the vision appeared to John. He followed the instructions to write what he saw.

As I already said this (whether it is Mary or not) need not be of much concern and does not affect our basic belief.

Is it your basic belief then, to depart from the Church teaching.

Lesson 3: looks like your definition of “vague” is flawed; what part of defining the canon of the bible you didn’t get?

Yes, along with her definition of prophesy and apocalyptic literature.

Except some limited aspects which can be kept in mind from the advice given to the 7 churches relevant at that time,what important lessons you have learned from Rev. which is not already there elsewhere in the Bible?”

It is sad to read such disdain for the Word of God.

 

[joseie]

I can only say that if you believe that all what is seen in the vision ,without any exception ,is not something which are yet to happen,you are going against the very concept of the Rev as stated in 1-1,and it is a very serious matter against God.You can allege that I am ignoring the Church’s teaching,if any,in the matter but it is far far a lesser evil than ignoring what is clearly stated in the Scripture,which you are doing…I again pray to God that good sense may be bestowed on you to realise the mistakes.

 

[guanophore]

You can allege that I am ignoring the Church’s teaching,if any,in the matter but it is far far a lesser evil than ignoring what is clearly stated in the Scripture,which you are doing

This statement reveals that you have split the Church and the Scripture, and espoused a Protestant attitude of Prima Scriptura. This is an heretical position.

The Scripture and the Church are always in harmony with one another. If it seems there is a disharmony, then it exists in the person reading not in the Divine Revelation.

It is a serious matter for a Catholic to reject the Teaching of the Church, in favor of their own interpretation of Scripture.

 

[joseie]

The sculpture in this matter is crystal clear. That is whether the vision is about things yet to come or not.The trouble which is self made arise if one clings to an erroneous assumption that the woman in ch12 is Mary.Otherwise as I said,the whole Rev.is written in a beautiful, chronological order one by one and in a manner easy to understand.
In this connection I draw your attention to Rev 22:18-19 which warns of the serious consequences falling upon those who unnecessarily add/omit any thing written in Rev.By trying to interpret a different meaning than what is clearly contained in 1-1,you appear to have committed this mischief.Also read Mathew 11:25 which says that the secrets of God’s kingdom are hidden from wise &prudent and revealed to little ones.Thus those who claim to be expert in interpretation of Scriptures can miss the crucial points which may be revealed to lesser mortals like me.

 

[guanophore]

The sculpture in this matter is crystal clear.

The reasoning process you have used is like a marble sculpture. I don’t think it is clear, though. Pretty opaque, I would say.

That is whether the vision is about things yet to come or not.

The vision does reveal things yet to come. In that process, it also reveals God’s perspective on things that have already occurred, and are presently occurring. All of these things are happening simultaneously.

The trouble which is self made arise if one clings to an erroneous assumption that the woman in ch12 is Mary.

No one here has clung to this, joseie, except you. And you have clung to it in an effort to prove that it is an “erroneous assumption”. In refusing to accept the possibility, you depart from the teachings of Holy Mother Church. This image is not to be excluded as referring to Mary.

Otherwise as I said,the whole Rev.is written in a beautiful, chronological order one by one and in a manner easy to understand.

I see that your private interpretation is more important to you than what the Church teaches. Scripture is clear about this too.

2 Peter 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

You have chosen to follow your own impulses, rather than what God has revealed to the Church.

By trying to interpret a different meaning than what is clearly contained in 1-1,you appear to have committed this mischief.

Understanding what is written is not the same as adding to, or subtracting from, the content.

Scripture is best understood in context, joseie. The context of the New Testament is the Catholic Church.

Also read Mathew 11:25 which says that the secrets of God’s kingdom are hidden from wise &prudent and revealed to little ones.Thus those who claim to be expert in interpretation of Scriptures can miss the crucial points which may be revealed to lesser mortals like me.

This reinforces that you believe your own private interpretation is more valid than what God has revealed to the Church. This is a solid Protestant approach.

 

[joseie]

1.You say that (what is said so clearly in Rev.1-1 )is not clear enough and pretty opaque for you. So my assumption is now confirmed.John 12:39-40 says:

“Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again:
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”
It appears that God exactly did this to you and so you don’t understand.
2.God has revealed nothing to church alone.What he has revealed is there in the Scriptures which is for everyone.But he has hidden things by hardening the hearts of certain people who therefore are unable to understand even if it is clear.Let God show mercy on them.I pray for such people also during the daily mass.

 

[guanophore]

.You say that (what is said so clearly in Rev.1-1 )is not clear enough and pretty opaque for you.

No, joseie, I said that your reason is this way. Your perceptions are different, not the Word of God.

So my assumption is now confirmed.John 12:39-40 says:

That is ok. I think it is best that no one fall into such heresies and disobedience of the faith. If those you want to convert reject your “different gospel” and you want to accuse them of being blind and hardened, that is not such a bad thing. It is a much more serious consequence for one to replace the teaching of the Church with one’s own private interpretation.

It appears that God exactly did this to you and so you don’t understand.

I understand what you are saying just fine, joseie, I just don’t accept it.

God has revealed nothing to church alone.What he has revealed is there in the Scriptures which is for everyone.

The revelation God has given to the Church is for the faithful. But the Scriptures were never meant to be understood apart from the faith that produced them. You are trying to substitute your own personal interpretation for that of the Church. This is a fine Protestant practice.

But he has hidden things by hardening the hearts of certain people who therefore are unable to understand even if it is clear.Let God show mercy on them.I pray for such people also during the daily mass.

I am glad that you are saying these prayers for yourself during Mass. I will pray the same for you, that you may find the humility to submit your private interpretation to the Church.

 

[Dlee]

If you go through the Rev.carefully you will find that it goes strictly in a chronological order. All the visions are given in the order in which they will happen. No exception.

Not true, Joseie. Revelation does not follow a linear timeline. For instance, the vision of the seven seals are retold in the vision of the seven trumpets and yet again in the vision of the seven bowls. These visions are the three sets of judgments. There are three judgments, not 21.

 

[guanophore]

Revelation does not follow a linear timeline.

Great observations, Dlee, but I don’t think Joseie is able to grasp this. There is a certain level of concrete thinking that is too cognitively inflexible to grasp it. This seems to be joined with an adamant refusal to accept the teaching of the Church on this matter.

 

[joseie]

OMG! From where did you get the idea that each of the 7 visions of the seals are only retold in the corresponding no.of the visions in trumpets and vials?This is exactly twisting,damaging and misinterpreting the otherwise plain and clear meaning of Rev.attracting the punishment mentioned in 22:18-19.
Just see the description of the first vision in each of the three sets .They are same? Entirely different ,brother!

“Revelation 6
1 And I saw that the Lamb had opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures, as it were the voice of thunder, saying: Come, and see.
2 And I saw: and behold a white horse, and he that sat on him had a bow, and there was a crown given him, and he went forth conquering that he might conquer.
3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature, saying: Come, and see.”

"And the seven angels, who had the seven trumpets, prepared themselves to sound the trumpet.

7 And the first angel sounded the trumpet, and there followed hail and fire, mingled with blood, and it was cast on the earth, and the third part of the earth was burnt up, and the third part of the trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
8 And the second angel sounded "

“Revelation 16
1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple, saying to the seven angels: Go, and pour out the seven vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth, and there fell a sore and grievous wound upon men, who had the character of the beast; and upon them that adored the image thereof.
3 And the second angel poured out his”

 

[Dlee]

You’re really not grasping what Revelation is about. Remember, it was written to the seven major churches during a time of great persecution, probably before 70 AD. Churches were already falling away from Christ’s teachings, they were lukewarm in their faith. John was exiled on an island for teaching Christ - he was speaking in words and phrases that any jew who knew the OT would know exactly what he was saying. Each judgment built on the other due to lack of turning from sin. I would suggest you check out Jeff Cavins’ Bible Study on Revelation.

 

[joseie]

May God bless

 

[guanophore]

I would suggest you check out Jeff Cavins’ Bible Study on Revelation.

This is a great reference. Unfortunately, I don’t think she wants a Catholic answer. She wants to convert Catholics to a Protestant view.

 

[joseie]

The problem with those whose eyes are blinded and heart is hardened is that,unless you identify a good women in the Scriptures as Mary,they will accuse you to be a Protestant.No matter for them even if such an identification is against the very context and against the clear and plain words of the Scriptures described therein.They will always try to twist and complicate the matter which is clearly due the work of evil spirit…May God have mercy on them.

 

[joseie]

Thanks CAF for remembering my BD!

 

[guanophore]

The problem with those whose eyes are blinded and heart is hardened is that,unless you identify a good women in the Scriptures as Mary,they will accuse you to be a Protestant.

Well, I never met anyone like this, so I would not know.

The Apostles and early church fathers recognized Mary as the New Eve (Mother of all living in Christ). This is why we recognize her in the book of Revelation.

What makes your position protestant is substituting your own private interpretation for that of the Church.

No matter for them even if such an identification is against the very context and against the clear and plain words of the Scriptures described therein.

It is against your personal perception, but not against anything the Catholic Church teaches.

The context of the New Testament, joseie, is the Catholic Church. The New Testament is written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. To interpret it “in context” means to interpret within the Catholic faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

They will always try to twist and complicate the matter which is clearly due the work of evil spirit

Protestants, such as yourself, mean well. It is not their intention to do the work of evil, but an earnest desire to understand that goes awry.

 

[joseie]

May God show mercy.

 

[Dlee]

But since Rev.gives the picture of things ‘shortly to come’ (Rev 1-1),will the description of the women fleeing to wilderness etc. fit Mary as we belive that she is already in heaven as the queen of heaven and earth.

Some of what is unveiled in Revelation has already happened - such as the destruction of the temple. Remember that God is not bound by time and Revelation was written to the seven churches who were being persecuted. The martyrs under the altar are those who were persecuted and died for witness of Christ (the fifth seal). The early church had already lost many of their priests.

 

[joseie]

1.Already happened ‘unveiled’??
2.Showing in the vision,those who were already persecuted and died means the vision shows past scenes also?Pl.note that what is shown is not the persecution scene,!!

 

[Dlee]

I’m sorry you fail understand and accept John’s vision in Revelation - what is and what is to take place hereafter (1:19). He sees the Lamb standing, as though he had been slain 5:6). This is Jesus. Revelation unveiled is past, present and future. This is the Catholic teaching. Why do you make light of it and not want to consider it?