Who is the woman in Revelations 12?

Major1 · Aug 27, 2019

packermann said:
There is a problem in seeing this as Israel. This passage sees the woman in heaven clothed in glory. But Israel has rejected Christ. It is hard to see how Israel would be given such a lofty position in heaven since Israel has rejected its Messiah. This would mean that all Jews would go to heaven apart from Christ.

Also, there are three characters in this passage - the male child, the serpent, and the woman. The first two are individuals, not groups. So it would be natural for the woman to be an individual person, too.

It is not a problem. Revelation is written in "PROLEPTIC" Greeak. In other words, it is written as if it has already happened.

While it is true that Mary gave birth to Jesus, it is also true that Jesus, the son of David from the tribe of Judah, came from Israel. In a sense, Israel gave birth—or brought forth—Christ Jesus.

Verse 5 says that the woman’s child was "a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne." Clearly, this is describing Jesus. Jesus ascended to heaven and will one day establish His kingdom on earth , and He will rule it with perfect judgment.

If you notice the text in verse 2 it says that she was “with child and she cried out being in labor and in pain.” This is a problem because according to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not inherit Original Sin.

CCC 491, “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

bbbbbbb · Aug 27, 2019

Major1 said:
It is not a problem. Revelation is written in "PROLEPTIC" Greeak. In other words, it is written as if it has already happened.

While it is true that Mary gave birth to Jesus, it is also true that Jesus, the son of David from the tribe of Judah, came from Israel. In a sense, Israel gave birth—or brought forth—Christ Jesus.

Verse 5 says that the woman’s child was "a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne." Clearly, this is describing Jesus. Jesus ascended to heaven and will one day establish His kingdom on earth , and He will rule it with perfect judgment.

If you notice the text in verse 2 it says that she was “with child and she cried out being in labor and in pain.” This is a problem because according to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not inherit Original Sin.

CCC 491, “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

Touche!

packermann · Aug 28, 2019

Major1 said:
It is not a problem. Revelation is written in "PROLEPTIC" Greeak. In other words, it is written as if it has already happened.

Sorry if this appears that I am flaunting my knowledge, but I cannot let this go. I was once a Protestant minister and I took a three-year program in studying New Testament Greek at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a known think-tank among Evangelicals . I never heard of "PROLEPTIC" Greeak. There three kinds of Greek - ancient, koine, and modern. The New Testament was written in koine, not "PROLEPTIC". The Apostle did not switch from koine Greek to "proleptic" Greek.

I am not saying that there was some proleptic nature in parts of Revelation, but this has nothing to do with a certain flavor of the Greek language. The context determines whether or not John talked of the future. There is nothing in the Greek language that determines this. John wrote both his Gospel (which he wrote as what has ALREADY happened) and Revelation in the same Greek language. What matters is context, not appealing to the Greek
.
In this context, however, it is not proleptic. This passasge has the woman giving birth to the male child, Jesus. Since Jesus was already born, obviously this could not have been something in the future. It also says that the male child went up to ancient of days, which means that Jesus ascended back to the Father. Again, this was something that already happened.
In fact everything aside from the woman makes more sense that it already happened. So the context would dictate that this woman also already happened.

Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

We Catholics take it figuratively. She did not suffer literal birth pangs because she was without sin. But, as Simeon in the Gospel of Luke prophesied, a sword will pierce her soul. Her soul was pierced from the very beginning, by knowing what her adorable Son would suffer. Her soul was pierced when she found out that Herod wanted to kill her baby, and they had to flee to Egypt to live with strangers in poverty. Her soul was pierced when her adorable Son was lost for THREE days when they went to Jerusalem (I would have gone crazy if that had happened to one of my daughters!). Her soul was pierced when she saw her adorable Son tortured and nailed to the cross. All through her life, she must have had terrible nightmares of what was going to happen to her dearest Child. She must have waken from her nightmares screaming! And every time she looked into her beloved face she remembered proleptically what was going to happen as if it already happened. This was her sufferings - more than what any mother had to endure. This was birth pangs.

But neither Protestants take the birth pangs literally. Since you take the woman to be Israel, how can the whole people of Israel literally suffer birth pangs? Since you do not take it as a literal birth then it could not be literal birth pangs. Obviously, you also take it figuratively.

Major1 · Aug 28, 2019

packermann said:
Sorry if this appears that I am flaunting my knowledge, but I cannot let this go. I was once a Protestant minister and I took a three-year program in studying New Testament Greek at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a known think-tank among Evangelicals . I never heard of "PROLEPTIC" Greeak. There three kinds of Greek - ancient, koine, and modern. The New Testament was written in koine, not "PROLEPTIC". The Apostle did not switch from koine Greek to "proleptic" Greek.

I am not saying that there was some proleptic nature in parts of Revelation, but this has nothing to do with a certain flavor of the Greek language. The context determines whether or not John talked of the future. There is nothing in the Greek language that determines this. John wrote both his Gospel (which he wrote as what has ALREADY happened) and Revelation in the same Greek language. What matters is context, not appealing to the Greek
.
In this context, however, it is not proleptic. This passasge has the woman giving birth to the male child, Jesus. Since Jesus was already born, obviously this could not have been something in the future. It also says that the male child went up to ancient of days, which means that Jesus ascended back to the Father. Again, this was something that already happened.
In fact everything aside from the woman makes more sense that it already happened. So the context would dictate that this woman also already happened.

We Catholics take it figuratively. She did not suffer literal birth pangs because she was without sin. But, as Simeon in the Gospel of Luke prophesied, a sword will pierce her soul. Her soul was pierced from the very beginning, by knowing what her adorable Son would suffer. Her soul was pierced when she found out that Herod wanted to kill her baby, and they had to flee to Egypt to live with strangers in poverty. Her soul was pierced when her adorable Son was lost for THREE days when they went to Jerusalem (I would have gone crazy if that had happened to one of my daughters!). Her soul was pierced when she saw her adorable Son tortured and nailed to the cross. All through her life, she must have had terrible nightmares of what was going to happen to her dearest Child. She must have waken from her nightmares screaming! And every time she looked into her beloved face she remembered proleptically what was going to happen as if it already happened. This was her sufferings - more than what any mother had to endure. This was birth pangs.

But neither Protestants take the birth pangs literally. Since you take the woman to be Israel, how can the whole people of Israel literally suffer birth pangs? Since you do not take it as a literal birth then it could not be literal birth pangs. Obviously, you also take it figuratively.

I applaud your educational endeavors. Maybe it is my fault for not saying it correctly. I went to a dictionary website to get the facts and it said...………..

prolepsis
[ proh-lep-sis ]
|
noun, plural pro·lep·ses [proh-lep-seez] .
Rhetoric. the anticipation of possible objections in order to answer them in advance.
the assigning of a person, event, etc., to a period earlier than the actual one; the representation of something in the future as if it already existed or had occurred; prochronism.
the use of a descriptive word in anticipation of its becoming applicable.
a fundamental conception or assumption in Epicureanism or Stoicism arising spontaneously in the mind without conscious reflection; thought provoked by sense perception.

Now as a Catholic you must have studied something that rules Mary out as the woman of Revalation 12.

If you’re not familiar with the concept of original sin, it is “the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants.”

Romans 5:12 says that Sin entered the world through Adam. He is the first man who committed sin, and that sin is reckoned to all people which is seen in 1 Corth. 15:22 and Romans 5:18.

This means that all descendants of Adam are under the effects of original sin. Part of the curse of the Fall that caused Original Sin is spoken of by God in Genesis 3.

Gen. 3:16, "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'”

Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Rev. 12:1-2 we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain.

What does that mean to you as a Catholic???????

It means that since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

eleos1954 · Aug 28, 2019

mathinspiration said:
Revelation 12 MSG;NIV - The Woman, Her Son, and the Dragon - A - Bible Gateway

Is it Mary or the church?

12:1-2 The Bible portrays the great controversy between Christ and Satan in terms of three characters: the Dragon, the Woman, and the Man Child. They are first introduced in Eden where the dragon won an initial engagement with the woman. Bitter conflict ensues between the serpent and the woman, between his seed, and her seed. Ultimate victory comes through a single Seed of the woman, who crushes the serpent’s head, at the same time suffering a deadly bite to the heel. Genesis 3:15. Chapter 12 of Revelation portrays the whole drama from its origin in heaven, to Satan’s attack on Jesus, through the persecutions of the Dark Ages, until the final conflict at the time of the end.

12:3-6 The “great red dragon” is identified in verse 9 as Satan. However, he routinely uses others to persecute, deceive and destroy. Genesis 3:1-13. The “seven heads of ten horns and seven crowns” represents the nations or governments which Satan has used to persecute God’s people. See also Daniel 7:7; Revelation 13:1-5; 17:3, 7-12. In verse 4 we see an attempt to destroy Jesus at His birth, and can identify the Pagan Rome system with the person of King Herod as the agency Satan is working through. Matthew 2:13-18. In verse 6 the dragon forces the woman to flee into the wilderness (during the dark ages) for 1,260 years, the time when the Papal Rome system is in power persecuting God’s faithful church. Even though he uses others as his agents, the dragon is Satan.

"In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire church. Paganism had given place to the papacy. The dragon had given to the beast ‘his power, and his seat, and great authority’ (Revelation 13:2). And now began the 1260 years of papal system oppression foretold in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation (Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5–7). . . . The accession of the papal Roman Church system to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power increased, the darkness deepened."

So, the persecuted woman in chapter 12 are those who remained faithful to Gods word (His church) and did not partake of the apostate pagan church system ... this gave birth to the reformation, and during the 1,260 years although much persecution took place ... other historical events happened that allowed the reformation to grow as well.

Go back and study the dark ages in depth ... the reformation and also the counter reformation. A lot to it ... but very informative.

Major1 · Aug 28, 2019

eleos1954 said:
12:1-2 The Bible portrays the great controversy between Christ and Satan in terms of three characters: the Dragon, the Woman, and the Man Child. They are first introduced in Eden where the dragon won an initial engagement with the woman. Bitter conflict ensues between the serpent and the woman, between his seed, and her seed. Ultimate victory comes through a single Seed of the woman, who crushes the serpent’s head, at the same time suffering a deadly bite to the heel. Genesis 3:15. Chapter 12 of Revelation portrays the whole drama from its origin in heaven, to Satan’s attack on Jesus, through the persecutions of the Dark Ages, until the final conflict at the time of the end.

12:3-6 The “great red dragon” is identified in verse 9 as Satan. However, he routinely uses others to persecute, deceive and destroy. Genesis 3:1-13. The “seven heads of ten horns and seven crowns” represents the nations or governments which Satan has used to persecute God’s people. See also Daniel 7:7; Revelation 13:1-5; 17:3, 7-12. In verse 4 we see an attempt to destroy Jesus at His birth, and can identify the Pagan Rome system with the person of King Herod as the agency Satan is working through. Matthew 2:13-18. In verse 6 the dragon forces the woman to flee into the wilderness (during the dark ages) for 1,260 years, the time when the Papal Rome system is in power persecuting God’s faithful church. Even though he uses others as his agents, the dragon is Satan.

"In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire church. Paganism had given place to the papacy. The dragon had given to the beast ‘his power, and his seat, and great authority’ (Revelation 13:2). And now began the 1260 years of papal system oppression foretold in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation (Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5–7). . . . The accession of the papal Roman Church system to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power increased, the darkness deepened."

So, the persecuted woman in chapter 12 are those who remained faithful to Gods word (His church) and did not partake of the apostate pagan church system ... this gave birth to the reformation, and during the 1,260 years although much persecution took place ... other historical events happened that allowed the reformation to grow as well.

Go back and study the dark ages in depth ... the reformation and also the counter reformation. A lot to it ... but very informative.

You said that...……...
"So, the persecuted woman in chapter 12 are those who remained faithful to Gods word (His church) and did not partake of the apostate pagan church system "

So then what you are saying is that a bunch of believers caused a great sign in heaven.

Those people shined as bright as the sun and they stood on the moon and they held 12 stars in their hand.

They somehow they gave birth to a baby boy.

Do you have ANY Scriptures at all which would suggest such a thing or is this from you imagination?

eleos1954 · Aug 28, 2019

Major1 said:
You said that...……...
"So, the persecuted woman in chapter 12 are those who remained faithful to Gods word (His church) and did not partake of the apostate pagan church system "

So then what you are saying is that a bunch of believers caused a great sign in heaven.

Those people shined as bright as the sun and they stood on the moon and they held 12 stars in their hand.

They somehow they gave birth to a baby boy.

Do you have ANY Scriptures at all which would suggest such a thing or is this from you imagination?

Read what I actually said .... Chapter 12 is recounting ... revisiting history in many cases ... in vision

the birth of Jesus ....
2She was pregnant and crying out in the pain and agony of giving birth.

lucifer and the 1/3 angels

3Then another sign appeared in heaven: a huge red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven royal crowns on his heads. 4His tail (lucifer) swept a third of the stars (1/3 fallen angels) from the sky, tossing them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her child as soon as He was born.

5And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter (Jesus). And her child was caught up to God and to His throne (Jesus sacrifice & resurrection). 6And the woman (remnant church - during the dark ages) fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place for her to be nourished for 1,260 days.

7Then a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon (lucifer), and the dragon (lucifer) and his angels fought back. 8But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels. 9And the great dragon was hurled down (cast out of heaven to the earth)—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
Isaiah 14:12

10And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying:

“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of His Christ. (Christ on His heavenly throne) this goes without saying

For the accuser (satan) of our brothers has been thrown down
he who accuses them day and night before our God.
Zechariah 3:1

11They (the remnant church) have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony.

And they did not love their lives
so as to shy away from death. (people who were martyred and did not compromise their faith in Jesus)
Revelation 6:9

12Therefore rejoice, O heavens,
and you who dwell in them! (because satan was cast out of heaven)

But woe to the earth and the sea;
with great fury the devil has come down to you,
knowing he has only a short time.” (Woe is the earth because satan was cast down to it)
Revelation 12:9

or is this from you imagination?

How about leaving smart aleck, personal remarks aside and discuss scripture? Is that possible?

Major1 · Aug 28, 2019

eleos1954 said:
Read what I actually said .... Chapter 12 is recounting ... revisiting history in many cases ... in vision

the birth of Jesus ....
2She was pregnant and crying out in the pain and agony of giving birth.

lucifer and the 1/3 angels

3Then another sign appeared in heaven: a huge red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven royal crowns on his heads. 4His tail (lucifer) swept a third of the stars (1/3 fallen angels) from the sky, tossing them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her child as soon as He was born.

5And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter (Jesus). And her child was caught up to God and to His throne (Jesus sacrifice & resurrection). 6And the woman (remnant church - during the dark ages) fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place for her to be nourished for 1,260 days.

7Then a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon (lucifer), and the dragon (lucifer) and his angels fought back. 8But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels. 9And the great dragon was hurled down (cast out of heaven to the earth)—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
Isaiah 14:12

10And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying:

“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of His Christ. (Christ on His heavenly throne) this goes without saying

For the accuser (satan) of our brothers has been thrown down
he who accuses them day and night before our God.
Zechariah 3:1

11They (the remnant church) have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony.

And they did not love their lives
so as to shy away from death. (people who were martyred and did not compromise their faith in Jesus)
Revelation 6:9

12Therefore rejoice, O heavens,
and you who dwell in them! (because satan was cast out of heaven)

But woe to the earth and the sea;
with great fury the devil has come down to you,
knowing he has only a short time.” (Woe is the earth because satan was cast down to it)
Revelation 12:9

How about leaving smart aleck, personal remarks aside and discuss scripture? Is that possible?

Yes, of course. My apologies.

There is absolutely nothing in Rev. 12:5 to indicate that the woman is the church and certainly nothing about the Dark Ages.

I think you are going to have to come up with some different Scriptures to prove that.

Jesus gave birth to the church my friend and not the other way around.

I can understand how the Catholic's think she is the woman, but there is no way the woman can be the church.

concretecamper · Aug 28, 2019

Considering chapters and verse were added later:

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

There is plenty of scriptural basis for Mary being the Ark of the New Covanent....including Revelation.

Just becasue in one sense the Woman can be Mary, it doesnt mean that the woman could signify something else.

If anyone here thinks they got Revelations figured out, you are kidding yourself.

Major1 · Aug 29, 2019

concretecamper said:
Considering chapters and verse were added later:

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

There is plenty of scriptural basis for Mary being the Ark of the New Covanent....including Revelation.

Just becasue in one sense the Woman can be Mary, it doesnt mean that the woman could signify something else.

If anyone here thinks they got Revelations figured out, you are kidding yourself.

Everyone is entitles to an opinion.

I can not help but notice that you did not respond or comment on the one thing that absolutly rejects Mary as the woman of Revelation 12.

Now as a Catholic you must have studied something that rules Mary out as the woman of Revalation 12.

If you’re not familiar with the concept of original sin, it is “the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants.”

Romans 5:12 says that Sin entered the world through Adam. He is the first man who committed sin, and that sin is reckoned to all people which is seen in 1 Corth. 15:22 and Romans 5:18.

This means that all descendants of Adam are under the effects of original sin. Part of the curse of the Fall that caused Original Sin is spoken of by God in Genesis 3.

Gen. 3:16, "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'”

Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Rev. 12:1-2 "we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain."

What does that mean to you as a Catholic???????

It means that since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

Do you want to take some time and go to some Catholic blogs and find an answer to this question, or do you just want to pretend it is not there????

packermann · Aug 29, 2019

packermann said:
Sorry if this appears that I am flaunting my knowledge, but I cannot let this go. I was once a Protestant minister and I took a three-year program in studying New Testament Greek at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a known think-tank among Evangelicals . I never heard of "PROLEPTIC Greeak (sic)". There three kinds of Greek - ancient, koine, and modern. The New Testament was written in koine, not "PROLEPTIC". The Apostle did not switch from koine Greek to "proleptic" Greek.

I am not saying that there was some proleptic nature in parts of Revelation, but this has nothing to do with a certain flavor of the Greek language. The context determines whether or not John talked of the future. There is nothing in the Greek language that determines this. John wrote both his Gospel (which he wrote as what has ALREADY happened) and Revelation in the same Greek language. What matters is context, not appealing to the Greek
.
In this context, however, it is not proleptic. This passasge has the woman giving birth to the male child, Jesus. Since Jesus was already born, obviously this could not have been something in the future. It also says that the male child went up to ancient of days, which means that Jesus ascended back to the Father. Again, this was something that already happened.
In fact everything aside from the woman makes more sense that it already happened. So the context would dictate that this woman also already happened.

We Catholics take it figuratively. She did not suffer literal birth pangs because she was without sin. But, as Simeon in the Gospel of Luke prophesied, a sword will pierce her soul. Her soul was pierced from the very beginning, by knowing what her adorable Son would suffer. Her soul was pierced when she found out that Herod wanted to kill her baby, and they had to flee to Egypt to live with strangers in poverty. Her soul was pierced when her adorable Son was lost for THREE days when they went to Jerusalem (I would have gone crazy if that had happened to one of my daughters!). Her soul was pierced when she saw her adorable Son tortured and nailed to the cross. All through her life, she must have had terrible nightmares of what was going to happen to her dearest Child. She must have waken from her nightmares screaming! And every time she looked into her beloved face she remembered proleptically what was going to happen as if it already happened. This was her sufferings - more than what any mother had to endure. This was birth pangs.

But neither Protestants take the birth pangs literally. Since you take the woman to be Israel, how can the whole people of Israel literally suffer birth pangs? Since you do not take it as a literal birth then it could not be literal birth pangs. Obviously, you also take it figuratively.

concretecamper · Aug 29, 2019

Major1 said:
Everyone is entitles to an opinion.

I can not help but notice that you did not respond or comment on the one thing that absolutly rejects Mary as the woman of Revelation 12.

Now as a Catholic you must have studied something that rules Mary out as the woman of Revalation 12.

If you’re not familiar with the concept of original sin, it is “the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants.”

Romans 5:12 says that Sin entered the world through Adam. He is the first man who committed sin, and that sin is reckoned to all people which is seen in 1 Corth. 15:22 and Romans 5:18.

This means that all descendants of Adam are under the effects of original sin. Part of the curse of the Fall that caused Original Sin is spoken of by God in Genesis 3.

Gen. 3:16, "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'”

Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Rev. 12:1-2 "we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain."

What does that mean to you as a Catholic???????

It means that since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

Do you want to take some time and go to some Catholic blogs and find an answer to this question, or do you just want to pretend it is not there????

I see you interpret the CCC as bad as you interpret scripture.

Major1 · Aug 30, 2019

concretecamper said:
I see you interpret the CCC as bad as you interpret scripture.

LOL!!! That is all you got????

Even when shown in the RCC OWN Catechisms, you deny what is right in front of YOU!

Actually I did not expect anything different that that.

And by the way......why not respond to the problem I flagged for all Catholic believers????

How is what I said a misinterpretation of the words in Gen. 3:16...…...
"To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'”
Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Rev. 12:1-2 "we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain."

What does that mean to you as a Catholic???????

It means that since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

Major1 · Aug 30, 2019

concretecamper said:
Considering chapters and verse were added later:

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

There is plenty of scriptural basis for Mary being the Ark of the New Covanent....including Revelation.

Just becasue in one sense the Woman can be Mary, it doesnt mean that the woman could signify something else.

If anyone here thinks they got Revelations figured out, you are kidding yourself.

NOPE! The ONLY basis for Mary being the woman of Revelation 12 is that a POPE said so hundreds of years ago.

The BIBLE truth however for those who read and study it, is that
The ‘Woman’ mentioned in Rev. 12 verse is not Mary, but is rather the nation of Israel.

Theologian John F. Walvoord explains how the backdrop of the Book of Genesis helps us come to this conclusion:

"The statement that [the woman] is clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet (12:1) is an allusion to Joseph’s dream in which he saw the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down to him (Gen. 37:9). The sun and the moon in this context refer to Jacob and Rachel, the forebearers of Israel.

The woman is also said to have a crown of twelve stars on her head (v. 1). In Joseph’s dream also the stars, or the sons of Israel, are intended with the twelfth star, including Joseph himself who was not in the dream as such. That a woman represents Israel is not unusual in the context of the Book of Revelation.

Indeed, another woman named Jezebel is portrayed as representing a false religion in Revelation 2:20. A harlot in Revelation 17 represents the apostate church of the end times. In similar fashion, the woman of Revelation 12 represents the nation of Israel.

Note also that the woman mentioned in Revelation 12 “fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she might be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days” (verse 6). There is certainly nothing in Mary’s life that remotely resembles what is described in this verse. In context, the verse refers to Israel in the prophetic future."
Is Mary my Mother? A look at Revelation 12

I will accept Dr. Walvrood's explination over yours every single time.

Major1 · Aug 30, 2019

Proverbs 12:23...…….
"Prudent people don't flaunt their knowledge; talkative fools broadcast their silliness. "

“Slipping into a pair of designer jeans or designer anythings can raise the insecure from the doldrums of nothingness to the fantasy level of ‘I’m somebody, and if you don’t believe me, just look at my label!’”—
Psychologist Chaytor D. Mason.

concretecamper · Aug 30, 2019

Major1 said:
LOL!!! That is all you got????
.

That's all I need. You are doing a fine job of displaying you ignorance of scripture AND His Church. Back to :sleep:

lol

packermann · Aug 30, 2019

Major1 said:
Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Revelation 12:1-2, we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain. Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

But what is the major part of curse of the fall? It is NOT the pain of childbirth. The major part of the curse is DEATH! So, according to you, anyone who experienced any of the curse of sin could not be sinless. But if that is true, then Jesus could not be sinless. He died on the cross. Does that mean that Jesus had Original Sin?

So the implication of your argument would not only prove that Mary was with sin but so was Jesus! And if Jesus was with sin then He could not have been God.

So your argument, if correct, would destroy all of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodoxy.

Now you can see that you are in disagreement with God's Word......Not me!

You only showed that he is in disagreement with YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of God's Word. You are confusing your interpretation of God's Word with God's Word itself. Half of all of Christianity would disagree with your interpretation. In fact, the overwhelming number of Christians since the time of Christ would have disagreed with your interpretation. Would there be at least a small possibility that your interpretation is wrong?

Major1 · Aug 31, 2019

packermann said:
But what is the major part of curse of the fall? It is NOT the pain of childbirth. The major part of the curse is DEATH! So, according to you, anyone who experienced any of the curse of sin could not be sinless. But if that is true, then Jesus could not be sinless. He died on the cross. Does that mean that Jesus had Original Sin?

So the implication of your argument would not only prove that Mary was with sin but so was Jesus! And if Jesus was with sin then He could not have been God.

So your argument, if correct, would destroy all of Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodoxy.

You only showed that he is in disagreement with YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of God's Word. You are confusing your interpretation of God's Word with God's Word itself. Half of all of Christianity would disagree with your interpretation. In fact, the overwhelming number of Christians since the time of Christ would have disagreed with your interpretation. Would there be at least a small possibility that your interpretation is wrong?

What the major part of the curse is has NO bearing on the question and comment I asked of Mary being in pain in childbirth.

You just threw up a smoke screen to avoid answering the question.

The truth is that Adam and Eve died SPIRITUALL the moment they ate the fruit. They lived another 960 years but they needed a Saviour hence Jesus coming to cloth them with skins of animals which He killed for them,,,,,,A SUBSTITUE.

You fail to understand that Jesus was not born of man and woman. He was incarnated by the Holy Spirit in a womb which was undefiled and as th

My argument has nothing to do with destroying Christianity BUT is does do a whole lot of damage to the Roman Catholic doctrine.

Again, the question in view was...…….

How is what I said a misinterpretation of the words in Gen. 3:16...…...
"To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'”

Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Rev. 12:1-2 "we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain."

What does that mean to you as a Catholic???????

It means that since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

Major1 · Aug 31, 2019

concretecamper said:
I see you interpret the CCC as bad as you interpret scripture.

How can copy and pasting the exact words be called "Interpretation".

Then...….why don't you address the problem I posed to you?

Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Rev. 12:1-2 "we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain."

What does that mean to you as a Catholic???????

It means that since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

concretecamper · Aug 31, 2019

Major1 said:
How can copy and pasting the exact words be called "Interpretation".

Then...….why don't you address the problem I posed to you?

Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Rev. 12:1-2 "we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain."

What does that mean to you as a Catholic???????

It means that since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

You can quote my same post again and again, we all are having fun watching you twist scripture and the CCC.

Who is the woman in Revelations 12?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Well-Known Member

God is Love

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Similar threads