Mary as mediatrix?

[MoNiCa4316]

oki i've read that passage several times and I don't see how it contradicts anything I believe or have said here

to address some of your points.. I AGREE that Revalation is prophetic and concerning the future from OUR point of view. What I was saying is that from God's point of view it's about eternity.

you said that there would be no need for Mary's intercession.. well it's true that there wouldn't be a need to ask "the Saints in heaven" to pray for us, because we will be there with them, we'll also be saints in heaven. (I don't know if we'll ever pray for one another, I simply don't know, and neither does anyone else)

But..Mary's role as Christ's Mother is eternal! She will always be the Queen Mother and thus her role of bringing us to Christ is also eternal.
Why? Because.. God did not give her the gift of His grace only to take it away from her later on. The Apostles are STILL Apostles in Heaven (as we can see in Revelation!! ), and Mary is no different..she'll keep her role as His Mother forever.

If I'll get to heaven, I won't have to approach Mary as someone who's "equal" to me, I'll approach her as the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Just as St. Peter would always be an Apostle.

 

[BAFRIEND]

TLF from post 287:
That was my point which you have been sidestepping.

You can't find the scriptures stating that Jesus is the Tree of Life or that the Cross is the Tree of Life, so you can't validly claim that is wrong to call Mary the Tree of Life too simply because the scriptures don't call her the Tree of Life.

She is not sidestepping anything. The fact here is that claims being made in this thread are far fetched and out there. Using hardly accepted arguements about scripture and then stating, "Oh, you can't debunk my personal interpretation of those scriptures means you are worng." Is faulty on the surface. Your defense of those interpretations are very ambiguous. If she defends what I believe is just common sense arguements about yoru interpretations then you accuse her of protestant personal interpretation of scripture while not acknowledging your own fringy interpretations.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Veritas,

If you truely want this thread closed, then you should report your OP with the request- with over 300 posts here, your request is going to be overlooked.

 

[kisstheson]

I don't really understand how the Tree of Life means omnipresence..

I'm saying the reason why Jesus can also be the tree of Life as well the river is because he is omnipresent. Why can't he be all those things? "he fills all things and all things are held together by the power of His word."

Mary heals the nations by bringing us to her Son!! that's why the Rosary is said to bring peace to the world.. because she brings peace by bringing us to Him. It's not Mary vs. Jesus.. it's Mary, leading us to Jesus.

You see, no one here is saying that Mary points to herself

I agree with you but some of the things you attributed to mary such as her being the Tree of Life in the book of revealtions is just plain false.



to be honest with you, I don't think it's a good idea to debate Revelation; what means what, try to explain every little thing.. the Revelation is highly symbolic, as we know, and very complex.

You were the one who brought up the verse from revekations and siad it was no big deal and asked me if I could see what your talking about.

It's enough to say that someday, we would see.

It seems to me that you are avoiding valid points that I made about mary not being the Tree of Life in revelations. why? The glory in that verse simply would go back to Jesus so I don't understand all the hemming and hawing here.

We all know that life comes from Jesus, so I really don't know what we're talking about anymore.. are you trying to prove to us that life comes from Jesus and that He heals? well sis, we already agree soo I think we're just going around in circles, each trying to find little bits of evidence for our positions in this argument.. frankly I'm kinda tired, because I think this is pointless. We already agree that life ultimately comes from Jesus, not from Mary.

the symbols in Revelation are there to help us understand the big picture.. that is their purpose. I don't think another purpose was ever intended for them (though I may be wrong, of course)

The big picture in revealtion is Jesus. You and TLF are the ones that brought up revealtions, not me.



What I meant is that eternity takes place outside of time, and "future" is within time. We're not in eternity yet, that's why it says "the future": that's from our point of view. From God's point of view, it's "now".

Please try to understand that we believe that Mary points us to Jesus! That's exactly what I've been saying all along. So if you're arguing that point, keep in mind there's no argument we already agree there.

However, since she leads us to Jesus, we DO go 'through' her..with her..whatever you like to call it.

I'm sorry if I sound frustrated.. I just think we're going around in circles here..

Not intending to go around in circles but I am pointing out what is a false statement...that Mary is the the Tree of Life in revelations. lets give credit where credit is due....to Jesus. Mary won't be offended.

 

[kisstheson]

oki i've read that passage several times and I don't see how it contradicts anything I believe or have said here

to address some of your points.. I AGREE that Revalation is prophetic and concerning the future from OUR point of view. What I was saying is that from God's point of view it's about eternity.

No...it from God's point of view and Jesus clearly tells his beloved John that its about the future. We will not need to go to Mary to bring us to Jesus. That's why she is not the Tree of Life.

you said that there would be no need for Mary's intercession.. well it's true that there wouldn't be a need to ask "the Saints in heaven" to pray for us, because we will be there with them, we'll also be saints in heaven. (I don't know if we'll ever pray for one another, I simply don't know, and neither does anyone else)

Why would we need to pray for one another with Jesus right there?

But..Mary's role as Christ's Mother is eternal! She will always be the Queen Mother and thus her role of bringing us to Christ is also eternal.
Why? Because.. God did not give her the gift of His grace only to take it away from her later on. The Apostles are STILL Apostles in Heaven (as we can see in Revelation!! ), and Mary is no different..she'll keep her role as His Mother forever.

You will be worshipping Jesus. You won't be focusing on Mary. Mary will be worshipping Jesus. Even Christ will give all things back to the Father.

If I'll get to heaven, I won't have to approach Mary as someone who's "equal" to me, I'll approach her as the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Just as St. Peter would always be an Apostle.

Never said you or I are equal to Mary.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Not intending to go around in circles but I am pointing out what is a false statement...that Mary is the the Tree of Life in revelations. lets give credit where credit is due....to Jesus. Or is Mary that important to you?

I'm sorry I will not reply to this. I find this comment hurtful, and I'm leaving this thread. (I'm not angry) I know you're trying to protect Jesus' glory and honour here, but I don't think that is very necessary, because no one here is trying to take it away from Him. NO ONE is trying to give credit to Mary that's due Jesus. I'm sure He honours your intention sis, but keep in mind that He understands my motive too. I believe that Mary glorifies God and when we honour her, we honour Him. Yes I love Jesus and I love Mary. I don't have to choose between them. She helped me in many ways over the past couple of months, and she has lead me closer to Christ, not further away. She is My Mother, and always will be.

okay I'm sorry. I should have left this thread a long time ago, and I see it was a mistake to remain here.. simply because all I did is encouraged argument. I don't like fighting with people, especially with other Christians, and most especially with Christians who are my friends. I consider you to be my friend sis. But I'm sorry I can't participate in this discussion anymore.

I'm going to say one last thing..

Please pray about all this and let God show you which way He wants you to go. I will pray too.

And also, I'm leaving all this Revelation stuff up to God. He knows what He meant, I do not. I will never pretend to understand that book. It's very complex. I'm just going to leave everything up to God, and trust Him to always lead the Church.

God bless

 

[BAFRIEND]

Not intending to go around in circles but I am pointing out what is a false statement...that Mary is the the Tree of Life in revelations. lets give credit where credit is due....to Jesus. Mary won't be offended.

You are supported by:

Then Jesus said to them, "I am the Bread of Life".
John 6:35

To be spirtually alive, we must get our nourishment from Jesus.

Why did Jesus not say, "My mother is the bread of life." ?

Because Jesus meant that He was the Bread of Life. Now why given that are we going to turn around and state that Mary is the tree of life when Jesus himself told us that he was the Bread of Life ?

 

[kisstheson]

She is not sidestepping anything. The fact here is that claims being made in this thread are far fetched and out there. Using hardly accepted arguements about scripture and then stating, "Oh, you can't debunk my personal interpretation of those scriptures means you are worng." Is faulty on the surface. Your defense of those interpretations are very ambiguous. If she defends what I believe is just common sense arguements about yoru interpretations then you accuse her of protestant personal interpretation of scripture while not acknowledging your own fringy interpretations.

Thanks! It got nothing to do with protestant thinking. Mary is a lot of things but she isn't the Tre of Life in revelations and the root of Jesse AND the Coredemptrix. Come on!

 

[BAFRIEND]

Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not cry! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David has overcome."

So if Jesus if obviously the Root of David it makes no sense to turn around and apply the Tree of Life to Mary. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I don't think this discussion is healthy because all we do is pick on each others' words. They're just words, for goodness sake!!! Isn't our faith more than a bunch of terminology?

no one's saying that Mary is the bread of life or gives life or that we're spiritually nourished by Mary, like by the Eucharist.

 

[kisstheson]

I'm sorry I will not reply to this. I find this comment hurtful, and I'm leaving this thread. (I'm not angry) I know you're trying to protect Jesus' glory and honour here, but I don't think that is very necessary, because no one here is trying to take it away from Him. NO ONE is trying to give credit to Mary that's due Jesus. I'm sure He honours your intention sis, but keep in mind that He understands my motive too. I believe that Mary glorifies God and when we honour her, we honour Him. Yes I love Jesus and I love Mary. I don't have to choose between them. She helped me in many ways over the past couple of months, and she has lead me closer to Christ, not further away. She is My Mother, and always will be.

okay I'm sorry. I should have left this thread a long time ago, and I see it was a mistake to remain here.. simply because all I did is encouraged argument. I don't like fighting with people, especially with other Christians, and most especially with Christians who are my friends. I consider you to be my friend sis. But I'm sorry I can't participate in this discussion anymore.

I'm going to say one last thing..

Please pray about all this and let God show you which way He wants you to go. I will pray too.

And also, I'm leaving all this Revelation stuff up to God. He knows what He meant, I do not. I will never pretend to understand that book. It's very complex. I'm just going to leave everything up to God, and trust Him to always lead the Church.

God bless

I'm your friend too. That's why I'm arguing. really...what's the big deal to admit that she simply is not the Tree of Life in the book of revelations? She will not be offended. That what I don't understand about some cathilocs and that's why some prots think "C's" worship Mary. Because clearly you guys don't want to yeild just that one verse to Jesus.

 

[thereselittleflower]

No the Book of revelations specifically says "I will show you what is to take place in the future."

The book of Revelation is a very difficult book to understand. It is highly symbolic making it difficult to understand in the language it was written in, let alone a translation into English.

What it actually says:

Rev 4:1¶After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
​

There is nothing here that says it is about some far off time in the future.

"must" is in the present tense

"be" is in the aorist tense which means it is without regard to time.

hereafter has the sense of immediacy, not some distant time in the future, millenia removed.

It is simply about the present time with the ultimate triumph of God over satan, good over evil, in mind.

Its about eternity in the future when all the saints are in Heaven.

There is nothing that suggests this actually.

In fact, verse one is a depiction of the Eternal Godhead from before the beginning of time, what we profess to believe - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

This is from eternity past extending through the present into the future.

Then verse 2 is about the present - what is happening presently and will continue to happen.

This is what the underlying theology and language tell us.

mary does not support Jesus in the future (your idea concerning the Tree of Life) She did so on earth but not in the future.

The premise that this is all about the future is something you have been given from pentacostalism. But it is incorrect.

The book of Revelation is not what the pentacostal churches have made it into.

So if this premise can be put aside then I think what I have been trying to say will make more sense.

Why would the Godhead need to plant Mary as the tree of life in the future? She points to christ and christ will fill all things. This has absolutely nothing nothing to do with mary.

Again, it is not about the future. That is an assumption you are bringing into this that the Church never did when it canonized it as one of the books of sacred scripture.

By many it was and continues to be understood to be symbolic of the time of John with an ultimate look towards the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

Think about it . . . .are there nations in eternity? Why would there be need for leaves for the healling of the nations when there are no nations to heal?

No. So verse two is about the present, our earth, where there are nations.

The nations will come directly to Jesus. there will no need to go through mary. (actually they don't need to ho through Mary to Him now), but especially in the future.

Wait a minute . . .are you saying that there are nations in the future? Do you believe in the 1000 year millenial reign of Christ taught in dispensationalism/pentacostalism or that there will be nations eternally on the earth as some teach?

So you see there is a conflict. please think about what I am saying. first off, the Book of Revelation is about the future.

There is a conflict because you are assuming what you have been taught about the book of Revelation is correct. That assumption must have valid foundation. As I said, I have deeply researched the foundationsn of such a belief system and found there is no valid foundation. It was then, and only then, I was actually delivered from it.

It is very difficult to know something is wrong but still have deepseated positive reactions to it that you can't control. It was only after I set myself to deeply researching it I was delivered from such reactions.

For instance, the number 666 doesn't phase me any more. Now, you may find you have an instantaneous, deeply seated negative reaction to it that can't even believe I posted it like I did above. I am going to assume you do though I could be wrong and if so please let me know.

If you are having such a visceral, immediate reaction, it is not because there is anything wrong with this number itself, it is because of how you were indoctrinated about it. The number is simply symbolic. It has no inherent evilness in and of itself. Outside of Revelation, it has no meaning whatsoever and in Revelation, its meaning is difficult to determine.

But if you reacted to it at all, then this means that how you view Revelation is being controled by others, by what they taught you, whether overtly or by implication.

Our attitudes about Mary can be shaped in the same way. I cannot remember hardly ever hearing anything negative about Mary and the Church, but I must have gotten my deeply negative reactions from somewhere. It slips in almost unconsciously, through conversations with others whom we respect, just the tone of voice, or the look in the eye, and volumnes are conveyed. It sinks deep into our subconscious and controls how we see what the Church says about Mary.

It is worse among those of us who have had pentacostal/fundamentalist charismatic ties in protestantism - it is harder to overcome these deeply seated ideas, this "programming" we have absorbed.

But all it does is present a false image of the Church to us, which prevents us from seeing the Church and what She teaches AS She is and AS She teaches it.


Until these false images in our mind are removed, we cannot see the Catholic Church for what She is. We simply see some distorted image that repels us in some way or the other. This process of removing these distorted images simply takes time - it can take years.

Monica you said, "I think it's talking about eternity, not future tense.. hmm.. Mary is already in eternity. It's true that all focus is on the Trinity BUT if you look at the passage...does it say that all the focus is on the Tree of Life? no.. soo..no conflict there..? There's no problem in mentioning Mary, because ..she glorifies God.. no competition.."

Does it say there is no focus on the Tree of Life? Why would it talk about the Tree of Life if we were not to give some attention to it? verse 2 spens more time talking about the Tree of Life than verse1 does about the Trinity.

And again, why does it talk about HER leaves?

There is no competition in Mary being symbolically referred to as the Tree of Life here either, for the fruit she offers us is her Son.

The Church teaches us that at every celebration of the Mass Mary is intimately joined in offering us her Son in the Eucharist.

This is what this verse symbolizes kisstheson . . .

 

[kisstheson]

I don't think this discussion is healthy because all we do is pick on each others' words. They're just words, for goodness sake!!! Isn't our faith more than a bunch of terminology?

no one's saying that Mary is the bread of life or gives life or that we're spiritually nourished by Mary, like by the Eucharist.

No monica..stating that mary is the tree of life, and all the other things I mentioned are not just words. Its error amd takes away from christ's glory. Mary herself would be offended especially because she points to her son and not to herself.

 

[Amylisa]

I haven't read all of this thread but this is one thought I have about the Tree of Life issue.
Mary is the "New Eve." Eve means, "Mother of all the living," right? In that sense, then, Tree of Life could be applied to Mary, in that she is the Mother of the Church. Life sprang from her womb because God put Jesus there. So in that sense I don't think applying Tree of Life to Mary would be far fetched at all.

We see through a glass darkly, all of us do. I wish people wouldn't get so upset around here sometimes! I don't come here much anymore cause even in OBOB there's a lot of debate.

I think there's many things in Revelations that could be applied to more than one meaning.

The whole issue with Mary is really one of faith when it comes down to it. Like everything else in Christianity!

 

[BAFRIEND]

I'm your friend too. That's why I'm arguing. really...what's the big deal to admit that she simply is not the Tree of Life in the book of revelations? She will not be offended. That what I don't understand about some cathilocs and that's why some prots think "C's" worship Mary. Because clearly you guys don't want to yeild just that one verse to Jesus.

I will also state that in my several years as a team member in RCIA, we lost a number of people due to what I would term as fringy abuse of converts that led to confusion and chaos.

When confronted the defense was always along the lines of divine enlightenment, sagism, metaphysical empowerment. God called converts can be pushed off the trail by these folks who always sugar coated their agressiveness with expressions like, "They were not being called" or "That was just where they were on their journey". But the behaviour of the sages and the extreme views left a deficit of blame on those who tried to enter the Church with the best and most innocent of intentions.

 

[kisstheson]

The book of Revelation is a very difficult book to understand. It is highly symbolic making it difficult to understand in the language it was written in, let alone a translation into English.

What it actually says:

Rev 4:1¶After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
​

There is nothing here that says it is about some far off time in the future.

"must" is in the present tense

"be" is in the aorist tense which means it is without regard to time.

hereafter has the sense of immediacy, not some distant time in the future, millenia removed.

It is simply about the present time with the ultimate triumph of God over satan, good over evil, in mind.




There is nothing that suggests this actually.

In fact, verse one is a depiction of the Eternal Godhead from before the beginning of time, what we profess to believe - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

This is from eternity past extending through the present into the future.

Then verse 2 is about the present - what is happening presently and will continue to happen.

This is what the underlying theology and language tell us.



The premise that this is all about the future is something you have been given from pentacostalism. But it is incorrect.

The book of Revelation is not what the pentacostal churches have made it into.

So if this premise can be put aside then I think what I have been trying to say will make more sense.



Again, it is not about the future. That is an assumption you are bringing into this that the Church never did when it canonized it as one of the books of sacred scripture.

By many it was and continues to be understood to be symbolic of the time of John with an ultimate look towards the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

Think about it . . . .are there nations in eternity? Why would there be need for leaves for the healling of the nations when there are no nations to heal?

No. So verse two is about the present, our earth, where there are nations.




Wait a minute . . .are you saying that there are nations in the future? Do you believe in the 1000 year millenial reign of Christ taught in dispensationalism/pentacostalism or that there will be nations eternally on the earth as some teach?



There is a conflict because you are assuming what you have been taught about the book of Revelation is correct. That assumption must have valid foundation. As I said, I have deeply researched the foundationsn of such a belief system and found there is no valid foundation. It was then, and only then, I was actually delivered from it.

It is very difficult to know something is wrong but still have deepseated positive reactions to it that you can't control. It was only after I set myself to deeply researching it I was delivered from such reactions.

For instance, the number 666 doesn't phase me any more. Now, you may find you have an instantaneous, deeply seated negative reaction to it that can't even believe I posted it like I did above. I am going to assume you do though I could be wrong and if so please let me know.

If you are having such a visceral, immediate reaction, it is not because there is anything wrong with this number itself, it is because of how you were indoctrinated about it. The number is simply symbolic. It has no inherent evilness in and of itself. Outside of Revelation, it has no meaning whatsoever and in Revelation, its meaning is difficult to determine.

But if you reacted to it at all, then this means that how you view Revelation is being controled by others, by what they taught you, whether overtly or by implication.

Our attitudes about Mary can be shaped in the same way. I cannot remember hardly ever hearing anything negative about Mary and the Church, but I must have gotten my deeply negative reactions from somewhere. It slips in almost unconsciously, through conversations with others whom we respect, just the tone of voice, or the look in the eye, and volumnes are conveyed. It sinks deep into our subconscious and controls how we see what the Church says about Mary.

It is worse among those of us who have had pentacostal/fundamentalist charismatic ties in protestantism - it is harder to overcome these deeply seated ideas, this "programming" we have absorbed.

But all it does is present a false image of the Church to us, which prevents us from seeing the Church and what She teaches AS She is and AS She teaches it.


Until these false images in our mind are removed, we cannot see the Catholic Church for what She is. We simply see some distorted image that repels us in some way or the other. This process of removing these distorted images simply takes time - it can take years.



Does it say there is no focus on the Tree of Life? Why would it talk about the Tree of Life if we were not to give some attention to it? verse 2 spens more time talking about the Tree of Life than verse1 does about the Trinity.

And again, why does it talk about HER leaves?

There is no competition in Mary being symbolically referred to as the Tree of Life here either, for the fruit she offers us is her Son.

The Church teaches us that at every celebration of the Mass Mary is intimately joined in offering us her Son in the Eucharist.

This is what this verse symbolizes kisstheson . . .

Oh my God..may Jesus have mercy. You practically make her a part of the Holy Trinity which is goddess worship. no wonder why some protestants think you worship her. Forget it. I can't take this. I am grieved by this. I mean is it that difficult to say that Jesus is the Tree of Life in Revelations? I wonder.

False imgaes my foot...programming? If that is what the church teaches I want nooo part of it.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I'm your friend too. That's why I'm arguing. really...what's the big deal to admit that she simply is not the Tree of Life in the book of revelations? She will not be offended. That what I don't understand about some cathilocs and that's why some prots think "C's" worship Mary. Because clearly you guys don't want to yeild just that one verse to Jesus.

Kisstheson, I can say the same thing to you. Jesus will not be offended if you say that Mary is the Tree of Life because she bore Him in her womb. Maybe if you said that she's the Tree of Life because life comes from her, He would be offended. But no one here is saying that, and that wouldn't be Catholic.. for example, TLF made it clear that she thinks life ultimately comes from God, and that Mary is the like moon, Jesus is like the sun, etc. Again, no one is saying that life has its origin in Mary!!

You make it sound here like we're taking something from Jesus and giving it to Mary, well that's not true at all. We're just thinking what that verse could mean.. if Jesus is the Lamb, and the Holy Spirit is the living water, then what is the Tree... we know that trees take their nourishment from water... in the same way, Mary, takes her nourishment from the water of life, which is the Holy Spirit, and thus she is full of grace..full of the Spirit..

you see the connection between the Holy Spirit and Mary and her being "full of grace"..

 

[Amylisa]

Regarding taking away from Christ's glory....

I have heard that a lot, and I think it's an incorrect statement.

Here's a good analogy I heard once.

Suppose there are 2 Kings.
One is seated on a glorious throne. Around this throne is a wonderful, beautiful Court. All the people there are dressed in their finest, to honor the one whose presence they are privileged to be in. Some people there have received special recognition and honor from the King, and all are celebrating his generous heart. The throne room itself is spectacular. And the glory of this King is so grand it spills down over his people that he rules over, those who occupy his kingdom.

The 2nd King also is seated upon a beautiful, royal throne. But there's nothing around him. Just a bare-walled chamber, with an empty, concrete floor. No decoration, no banners. No people. No celebration. None of his gracious honors bestowed upon his people, no sharing of celebration of his generosity and kindness. After all, we don't want to take away from hisglory!

But which King is the more glorious one?
The first one sure seems much more so to me.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I haven't read all of this thread but this is one thought I have about the Tree of Life issue.
Mary is the "New Eve." Eve means, "Mother of all the living," right? In that sense, then, Tree of Life could be applied to Mary, in that she is the Mother of the Church. Life sprang from her womb because God put Jesus there. So in that sense I don't think applying Tree of Life to Mary would be far fetched at all.

We see through a glass darkly, all of us do. I wish people wouldn't get so upset around here sometimes! I don't come here much anymore cause even in OBOB there's a lot of debate.

I think there's many things in Revelations that could be applied to more than one meaning.

The whole issue with Mary is really one of faith when it comes down to it. Like everything else in Christianity!

In Revaltions alot of things can be left to ambiguous interpretation for political gains.

That is why I used Revelations 5:5. It is hard to mistate that Jesus is the Lion of Judah who is then called the Root. So when that cannot be easily misapplied, then you have to turn around and ask who is being adressed as the Tree of Life ? It makes no sense that the author calls Jesus the Root and the Lion but then would want the meaning of Tree of Life to be appplied to anyone other than the Lord. Then in John we see that Jesus refers to himself as the Bread of Life. Where in the Gospel do we see Jesus bestow any such title towards Mary ?

 

[kisstheson]

I haven't read all of this thread but this is one thought I have about the Tree of Life issue.
Mary is the "New Eve." Eve means, "Mother of all the living," right? In that sense, then, Tree of Life could be applied to Mary, in that she is the Mother of the Church. Life sprang from her womb because God put Jesus there. So in that sense I don't think applying Tree of Life to Mary would be far fetched at all.

We see through a glass darkly, all of us do. I wish people wouldn't get so upset around here sometimes! I don't come here much anymore cause even in OBOB there's a lot of debate.

I think there's many things in Revelations that could be applied to more than one meaning.

The whole issue with Mary is really one of faith when it comes down to it. Like everything else in Christianity!

no..JESUS is the Tree of Life in the Book of revelations. man...I gotta get out of here...*runs for the door nearly in tears.*