Who is the woman in Revelations 12?

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You can quote my same post again and again, we all are having fun watching you twist scripture and the CCC.

You are having fun watching me twist Scriptures. LOL!!!!!!

I think you are without an answer to the Scriptures so you are just waiting on someone to help you. Why not go to a Catholic web site for some help????

Just to be clear......lets read the actual Scriptures you are saying I am twisting.

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.'”

Now is there any twisting there? What would it be I wonder?

So what we see actually is that part of the curse is pain in childbirth
.

Scripture says …."IN PAIN YOU SHALL BRING FORTH CHILDREN".

Now how did I actually twist that Scripture???

So then the Scriptures actually say that women will suffer during the birth process.

Now shall we go to and actually read Rev. 12:1-2 …...
"we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain."

Did I twist that Scripture".....No, of course not. You just read them didn't you.

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.

LOL! You are in a theological pickel and you do not know how to react! LOL!!!

I will be here when you figure this out. Oh....wait, you can not figure this out can you?
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,982.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
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.

I respectfully disagree. What is gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander. If Mary's pain in childbirth contradicts Mary being sinless then Jesus death on the cross contradicts that Jesus being sinless, since pain of childbirth and death are both the result of the curse.
The truth is that Adam and Eve died SPIRITUALL the moment they ate the fruit.
True, they died spiritually. But they also died physically, eventually. It matters not that it happened 960 years later. Brother in Christ, I know of no conservative theologian, Catholic or Protestant, who taught that physical death is not the result of the Fall. If you know of one, please cite him or her. If that is true, then that would mean that if Adam and Eve had never eaten the forbidden fruit that they would have still experienced physical death. That seems to me to be a novel teaching.

You fail to understand that Jesus was not born of man and woman.
Our Lord was born of a woman - "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4).

My argument has nothing to do with destroying Christianity BUT is does do a whole lot of damage to the Roman Catholic doctrine.
I realize that. If you were an atheist intending to destroy Christianity then I would not have used this as a counter-argument. But since you are a fellow Christian, I am pointing out that your argument would damage Christianity as a whole. It is the unintended consequence of your argument. I was hoping that, as a Christian, you not be willing to damage Roman Christian doctrine at the expense of damaging Christianity as a whole once you realized the implication of your argument.

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.

With all respect, you are confusing meaning with implication. Meaning is what the human author meant to say - over four thousand years ago. Implication is taking the meaning and applying it today. Meaning applies the historical-critical method onto the text. It looks at what was happening at the time that the text was written. Using the historical-critical method, I can safely say that Moses did NOT mean that Mary could not be suffering childbirth. In fact, I doubt that Moses knew of Mary and the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception or Original Sin, so Moses could not have addressed it.

The most you could say is that this passage has an implication to the doctrine of Mary. But implication is far more subjective than meaning. You cannot apply the historical-critical method to implication. It is very dangerous to confuse meaning, which is far more objective, with implication. Implication is what the text means TO ME. Mixing meaning with implication is very dangerous. People who are suseptible to cults often confuse the two.

The meaning is what it says. The meaning of the text is that Eve gave birth to children in pain because of the fall. Period. The implication of this is that all women up to now have given birth in pain. Now, the text never actually says that all women are effected. It only says that for Eve. Does it apply to all women? Probably, but the text does not say that. Determining implication requires more humility. It probably applies to all women giving birth, but, then again, it may not. Can the passage have implications for Mary? You would say "Yes" and I would humbly say "Probably not".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I respectfully disagree. What is gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander. If Mary's pain in childbirth contradicts Mary being sinless then Jesus death on the cross contradicts that Jesus being sinless, since pain of childbirth and death are both the result of the curse.

True, they died spiritually. But they also died physically, eventually. It matters not that it happened 960 years later. Brother in Christ, I know of no conservative theologian, Catholic or Protestant, who taught that physical death is not the result of the Fall. If you know of one, please cite him or her. If that is true, then that would mean that if Adam and Eve had never eaten the forbidden fruit that they would have still experienced physical death. That seems to me to be a novel teaching.


Our Lord was born of a woman - "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4).


I realize that. If you were an atheist intending to destroy Christianity then I would not have used this as a counter-argument. But since you are a fellow Christian, I am pointing out that your argument would damage Christianity as a whole. It is the unintended consequence of your argument. I was hoping that, as a Christian, you not be willing to damage Roman Christian doctrine at the expense of damaging Christianity as a whole once you realized the implication of your argument.



With all respect, you are confusing meaning with implication. Meaning is what the human author meant to say - over four thousand years ago. Implication is taking the meaning and applying it today. Meaning applies the historical-critical method onto the text. It looks at what was happening at the time that the text was written. Using the historical-critical method, I can safely say that Moses did NOT mean that Mary could not be suffering childbirth. In fact, I doubt that Moses knew of Mary and the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception or Original Sin, so Moses could not have addressed it.

The most you could say is that this passage has an implication to the doctrine of Mary. But implication is far more subjective than meaning. You cannot apply the historical-critical method to implication. It is very dangerous to confuse meaning, which is far more objective, with implication. Implication is what the text means TO ME. Mixing meaning with implication is very dangerous. People who are suseptible to cults often confuse the two.

The meaning is what it says. The meaning of the text is that Eve gave birth to children in pain because of the fall. Period. The implication of this is that all women up to now have given birth in pain. Now, the text never actually says that all women are effected. It only says that for Eve. Does it apply to all women? Probably, but the text does not say that. Determining implication requires more humility. It probably applies to all women giving birth, but, then again, it may not. Can the passage have implications for Mary? You would say "Yes" and I would humbly say "Probably not".

You are implying something I did not say my friend.

You said...……………..
"True, they died spiritually. But they also died physically, eventually. It matters not that it happened 960 years later. Brother in Christ, I know of no conservative theologian, Catholic or Protestant, who taught that physical death is not the result of the Fall."

I guess I did not say it clearly enough for you. They died Spiritually the moment they ate the fruit and needed a Saviour, HOWEVER THEY LIVED ANOTHER 960 YEARS BEFORE DIEING PHYSICALLY.

Adam and Eve fall under the heading of Federal Headship. When the curse was said to Eve it applied to all humans from that point going forward.

Now, are you aware of any woman who has given birth in past 6000 years that did NOT have child birth pains????

You then said...…………..
"Can the passage have implications for Mary? You would say "Yes" and I would humbly say "Probably not".

I respectfully disagree with you and I do not know of anyone with an open mind to learn and grow who would not say that this applies to Mary EXCEPT those who are entrenched in Catholic dogma. In that case it really does not matter what is shown from the Scriptures as those things will be rejected in favor of Catholic teachings.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,982.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Adam and Eve fall under the heading of Federal Headship. When the curse was said to Eve it applied to all humans from that point going forward.

This is all that the Bible says, that I am aware of, that mentions any woman giving childbirth with pain.

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Gen 3:16

You assume that this refers to all women since Eve. And you may be right. But that is not what this passage says. It only says that that Eve will give birth in pain. It says nothing about women after Eve.

Now, are you aware of any woman who has given birth in past 6000 years that did NOT have child birth pains????

Yes. A woman who goes through a Caesarian section does not experience children birth pains.

I respectfully disagree with you and I do not know of anyone with an open mind to learn and grow who would not say that this applies to Mary EXCEPT those who are entrenched in Catholic dogma. In that case it really does not matter what is shown from the Scriptures as those things will be rejected in favor of Catholic teachings.

Everyone has their presuppositions when they read their Bibles. Their presuppositions are based on what denomination they are with. For instance, John MacArthur wrote a book that one must accept Jesus as Savior AND Lord. Charles Ryrie accused MacArthur of preaching a false gospel. Now, they both are saying that they use the Bible as their sole source for truth, but each comes to different conclusions. Obviously, only one can be objectively looking at scripture and the other is holding to his presupposition over scripture. Or they both can be wrong. There is a long list of differences among Protestants - each accusing the other side that they are refusing to look at scripture because they are rejected in favor of the teachings in their own denomination. Here are a list of differences among Bible-only Protestant Christians: Predestination vs Free Will, Tongues vs No Tongues, Once-Saved-Always-Saved vs. Perseverance of the Saints, Eternal Security vs Free Will, Infant Baptism vs Believers-only Baptism, Real Presence in the Eucharist vs the Presence of Christ only being symbolically in the Eucharist. All these positions are boasted to be found from the Bible alone. All accuse the other of not looking at the Bible alone and of not keeping an open mind.

I am being honest. I will reject a scripture that contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church. But I am not actually rejecting scripture but an interpretation of scripture, even my own, that goes against my Catholic tradition. I call that humility. I know that if my own private interpretation, or anyone else's, goes against 2,000 years of Catholic tradition that it is far more likely that I am wrong than than Catholic tradition being wrong.

And you are doing the same thing. You just are not willing to admit it. And your church/denomination is, at most, 500 years old. Your denomination cannot even boast that it goes back all the way to Christ and His apostles. And you will reject any teaching that contradicts the teaching of your denomination. I challenge you to give me an example of a statement of faith taught by your church of which you disagree because you believe it goes against the Bible. My guess is that you cannot think of one, but maybe I am wrong. That is because you believe the tradition of your church over what you think scripture says. You do the same thing. We both hold our tradition over a personal interpretation of scripture. I am just honest to admit it.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is all that the Bible says, that I am aware of, that mentions any woman giving childbirth with pain.

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Gen 3:16

You assume that this refers to all women since Eve. And you may be right. But that is not what this passage says. It only says that that Eve will give birth in pain. It says nothing about women after Eve.



Yes. A woman who goes through a Caesarian section does not experience children birth pains.



Everyone has their presuppositions when they read their Bibles. Their presuppositions are based on what denomination they are with. For instance, John MacArthur wrote a book that one must accept Jesus as Savior AND Lord. Charles Ryrie accused MacArthur of preaching a false gospel. Now, they both are saying that they use the Bible as their sole source for truth, but each comes to different conclusions. Obviously, only one can be objectively looking at scripture and the other is holding to his presupposition over scripture. Or they both can be wrong. There is a long list of differences among Protestants - each accusing the other side that they are refusing to look at scripture because they are rejected in favor of the teachings in their own denomination. Here are a list of differences among Bible-only Protestant Christians: Predestination vs Free Will, Tongues vs No Tongues, Once-Saved-Always-Saved vs. Perseverance of the Saints, Eternal Security vs Free Will, Infant Baptism vs Believers-only Baptism, Real Presence in the Eucharist vs the Presence of Christ only being symbolically in the Eucharist. All these positions are boasted to be found from the Bible alone. All accuse the other of not looking at the Bible alone and of not keeping an open mind.

I am being honest. I will reject a scripture that contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church. But I am not actually rejecting scripture but an interpretation of scripture, even my own, that goes against my Catholic tradition. I call that humility. I know that if my own private interpretation, or anyone else's, goes against 2,000 years of Catholic tradition that it is far more likely that I am wrong than than Catholic tradition being wrong.

And you are doing the same thing. You just are not willing to admit it. And your church/denomination is, at most, 500 years old. Your denomination cannot even boast that it goes back all the way to Christ and His apostles. And you will reject any teaching that contradicts the teaching of your denomination. I challenge you to give me an example of a statement of faith taught by your church of which you disagree because you believe it goes against the Bible. My guess is that you cannot think of one, but maybe I am wrong. That is because you believe the tradition of your church over what you think scripture says. You do the same thing. We both hold our tradition over a personal interpretation of scripture. I am just honest to admit it.

I am sorry my friend but I can in no way agree with your efforts to answer the question posed about Mary in child birth pains.

I actually have NO private interpretation at all. The Scriptures are right there in front of us to read and understand. Really......if and when we stay away from denominational religion and interpretations we can actually learn and grow in knowledge.

As for cesarean birth......is that something you think all women went through even 6000 years ago. That comment is actually beneath your ability to explain it.

This thread has NOTHHING to do with any denomination of Christianity especially mine.
That is nothing more than a smoke screen to get the attention off of something you can not explain and will not accept the obvious which is the woman in Rev. 12 IS NOT MARY and it is impossible for it to be.

The ONLY reason you are arguing this at all is because you are a Catholic believer.

If you will look at the thread...….no one who is a Catholic is saying anything at all because they know there is NO valid answer to give.

Your answer is to suggest that the curse God placed upon Eve did not apply to all the other women in the world. Allow me to say this with all respect and Christian love, that is completely absurd!

If you will read the actual Scriptures instead of Catholic teachings, you will see It appears that, even before the fall, there would have been some pain in childbirth. God says, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth” (ESV), using a Hebrew word meaning “to increase.” The pain of childbirth would be more than before. The pain was amplified.

The pain in childbirth that Eve and all her daughters would experience involved more than the actual delivery of the baby. The phrase “painful labor” indicates that the whole process of childbirth, from conception to delivery, would include much difficulty.

There is no reason at all to think that This judgment from God was not meant to be one that every childbearing woman would experience. Pain in childbirth was placed on Eve and on every future mother. This pain serves as a universal reminder of God’s judgment for the sin Adam and Eve brought into the world.

If the curse of pain in childbirth does not apply to all women as you are suggesting....
explain 1 Samuel 4:19-21...……..
"And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered: and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her… ".

And then Psalm 48:6
"Fear took hold upon them there, and pain, as of a woman in travail.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not nearly as much fun as watching you twist and dodge his question.

It is Monday the 2nd and he still has not been able to answer it.

Wonder why????

Because he knows that it can not be answered by Catholic teachings of the Scripture!!!!
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
It is Monday the 2nd and he still has not been able to answer it.

Wonder why????

Because he knows that it can not be answered by Catholic teachings of the Scripture!!!!

Precisely. The Catholic view of the woman in Revelation, as you have consistently pointed out, denies their view of Mary. They simply cannot admit that Mary was an actual human being and not the demi-goddess which they have invented.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,982.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
I actually have NO private interpretation at all. The Scriptures are right there in front of us to read and understand. Really......if and when we stay away from denominational religion and interpretations we can actually learn and grow in knowledge...

As for cesarean birth......is that something you think all women went through even 6000 years ago. That comment is actually beneath your ability to explain it.

Of course not! I was responding to your question:

Now, are you aware of any woman who has given birth in past 6000 years that did NOT have child birth pains????

You did not ask if there are any woman who GAVE birth 6,000 year that did not have child birth pains. You did ask if there are any woman who HAS GIVEN birth 6,000 year that did not have child birth pains. The "has given" is in the present perfect tense. That means that the question covers the time from 6,000 year ago up to the present. So yes, at the present time there are women who do not have pain in childbirth. Click on Present Perfect | English Grammar | EF for more of an explanation of the present perfect.

This gets me to your first couple of sentences. You wrote that Scriptures are right there in front of us to read and understand. Friend, I am not trying to insult your intelligence, but I just showed that you have no understanding how the present perfect works even though you yourself used it. So what happens when your come across a Bible passage that uses a present perfect tense? How can you be so sure that you interpreted it correctly? This is not meant to insult you. I am sure you are more intelligent than the average person. But if you have problems with the use of a certain syntax then how can you trust your own interpretation of scripture when in goes against what the greatest minds of the most godly of people for the last two thousand years?

This thread has NOTHHING to do with any denomination of Christianity especially mine.
That is nothing more than a smoke screen to get the attention off of something you can not explain and will not accept the obvious which is the woman in Rev. 12 IS NOT MARY and it is impossible for it to be.

Actually, you started this conversation going in this direction, by accusing me that of rejecting the plain teaching scripture. Now, you KNOW that we Catholics believe that understanding the plain teaching of scripture is very difficult. So as soon as you bring that up I could not let it stand. If you do not want to talk about that then I suggest you stop talking about how we reject the plain teaching of scripture, because I will then always point out that not even Protestants can agree what the plain teaching of scripture is.

The ONLY reason you are arguing this at all is because you are a Catholic believer.

I agree. I certainly would not be arguing for Catholic tradition if I was Protestant. And you would not be arguing that it is easy to understand scripture if you were not Protestant.

If you will look at the thread...….no one who is a Catholic is saying anything at all because they know there is NO valid answer to give.

I haven't seen any Protestant say anything at all for quite a time except for you. Perhaps the other Catholics and Protestants are bored. Or maybe they just want to sit back and read. I cannot look into the hearts of others why they are silent now.

Your answer is to suggest that the curse God placed upon Eve did not apply to all the other women in the world. Allow me to say this with all respect and Christian love, that is completely absurd!

That is NOT my position. This is another reason why you should not trust your private interpretation of scripture against 2,000 years of tradition. If you cannot understand what I am saying then how can you understand a book written 2,000 years ago in dead languages?

I said the passage does not explicitly teach that all women suffer pain in child birth because of the Curse. I wrote that it is an implication that may or may not be true. But I never said that I do not believe it.

You seemed to forget that I believe that scripture is not the ONLY source for truth. Tradition and the magisterium are also sources for truth. So even though the Bible does not explicitly teach that a painful childbirth is part of the Curse, Catholic tradition does!


If you will read the actual Scriptures instead of Catholic teachings, you will see It appears that, even before the fall, there would have been some pain in childbirth. God says, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth” (ESV), using a Hebrew word meaning “to increase.” The pain of childbirth would be more than before. The pain was amplified.

Unless I read Catholic teaching I would have no basis at all to believe that painful childbirth is part of the Curse. We both agree because of the Catholic tradition - only you do not realize it. Your denomination teach this, and point to this verse as evidence. But this verse does not say it! Your denomination took this idea from the Catholic Church, and say they got it from the Bible.


If the curse of pain in childbirth does not apply to all women as you are suggesting....
explain 1 Samuel 4:19-21...……..
"And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered: and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her… ".

And then Psalm 48:6
"Fear took hold upon them there, and pain, as of a woman in travail.

These passages say nothing about the Curse, so how can these verses be used to prove that painful childbirth is because of the Curse? All they say is that painful childbirth exists. Why it exists these passages do not say. Now if you want to say "Since God said that Eve will in pain in childbirth and all other women since then have given birth in pain, I can assume that painful childbirth is the result of Eve's Curse" then I can accept that. But to say that any of these Bible passages actually say that there is a link between Eve's Curse and pain for all women giving birth then I would have to say that this is faulty interpretation of the Bible.

Major1, I did not realize how difficult it is to understand the Bible until I went to a Protestant seminary. There I studied biblical hermeutics, which is the art of interpreting the Bible. I studied Hebrew and Greek to understand the Bible. We went through each book in the Bible. I realized that this was really heavy stuff! No way can a regular layperson understand it like this! Did God expect each one of us to become Bible experts? I just could not believe that. Only the Catholic Church seems to have the answer. We not only need an infallible book, we need an infallible interpreter of that book. No matter how smart I am I not still not infallible. It is not a matter of how smart I am. It is a matter of how humble I am willing to be. Am I willing to humble myself to 2,000 years of tradition, or will I remain proud and insist that I or my church is right and all those Christians before me or my church is wrong! Will I be humble and admit that Christ said that the gates of death and hell will never prevail against His Church. This means that if I say that the Church has lost the gospel then I am saying that my Lord Jesus Christ has lied - for the gates of death and hell has indeed prevailed against His Church. May that never be said, at least not by me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 14, 2019
2,596
654
76
Tennessee
✟140,294.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
This is all that the Bible says, that I am aware of, that mentions any woman giving childbirth with pain.

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Gen 3:16

You assume that this refers to all women since Eve. And you may be right. But that is not what this passage says. It only says that that Eve will give birth in pain. It says nothing about women after Eve.



Yes. A woman who goes through a Caesarian section does not experience children birth pains.



Everyone has their presuppositions when they read their Bibles. Their presuppositions are based on what denomination they are with. For instance, John MacArthur wrote a book that one must accept Jesus as Savior AND Lord. Charles Ryrie accused MacArthur of preaching a false gospel. Now, they both are saying that they use the Bible as their sole source for truth, but each comes to different conclusions. Obviously, only one can be objectively looking at scripture and the other is holding to his presupposition over scripture. Or they both can be wrong. There is a long list of differences among Protestants - each accusing the other side that they are refusing to look at scripture because they are rejected in favor of the teachings in their own denomination. Here are a list of differences among Bible-only Protestant Christians: Predestination vs Free Will, Tongues vs No Tongues, Once-Saved-Always-Saved vs. Perseverance of the Saints, Eternal Security vs Free Will, Infant Baptism vs Believers-only Baptism, Real Presence in the Eucharist vs the Presence of Christ only being symbolically in the Eucharist. All these positions are boasted to be found from the Bible alone. All accuse the other of not looking at the Bible alone and of not keeping an open mind.

I am being honest. I will reject a scripture that contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church. But I am not actually rejecting scripture but an interpretation of scripture, even my own, that goes against my Catholic tradition. I call that humility. I know that if my own private interpretation, or anyone else's, goes against 2,000 years of Catholic tradition that it is far more likely that I am wrong than than Catholic tradition being wrong.

And you are doing the same thing. You just are not willing to admit it. And your church/denomination is, at most, 500 years old. Your denomination cannot even boast that it goes back all the way to Christ and His apostles. And you will reject any teaching that contradicts the teaching of your denomination. I challenge you to give me an example of a statement of faith taught by your church of which you disagree because you believe it goes against the Bible. My guess is that you cannot think of one, but maybe I am wrong. That is because you believe the tradition of your church over what you think scripture says. You do the same thing. We both hold our tradition over a personal interpretation of scripture. I am just honest to admit it.

All Scripture has only one true interpretation, and that is of the Author.

No Scripture says that Mary was sinless. It was the seed of the Father that made Jesus sinless, just as born again of the Spirit Christians cannot sin. 1 John 3:9
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,982.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
All Scripture has only one true interpretation, and that is of the Author.

No Scripture says that Mary was sinless. It was the seed of the Father that made Jesus sinless, just as born again of the Spirit Christians cannot sin. 1 John 3:9

That is not true. It can be inferred in Luke 1:28 ("Hail Mary, full of grace"). This phrase is only used on one other person, Jesus (John 1:14, He is "full of grace and truth"). Protestants define grace as undeserved favor with God. This is why the modern Protestant versions have translated Luke 1:28 as "highly favored one". But then John 1:14 would also be translated as "highly favored one" since it is basically the same Greek word. But that does not make sense when used on Jesus. The Catholics define grace as the divine activity or divine life of God. That makes more sense to me. Jesus is full of the divine life because He is God. And Mary is full of divine life because of God's mercy.

But what they have in common is the word "full". They do not just have grace. We are all saved by grace (Eph 2:8, 9). But none of us are FULL of grace, as Jesus and Mary were. They were so FULL of grace with there would be no room for sin.

A difference in the Greek word "full" between John 1:14 and Luke 1:28 is that the tense in the former is the simple past tense (Jesus is full of grace) and the latter is in the passive present perfect tense. Also the word "Mary" is not in the Greek text. So it would be best translated as "Hail, One who has been made full of grace". The passive present perfect means that there was an act done upon her in the past (by God) that made her in the present to be full of grace.

This was soley an act of God. And the good work done upon her will be done on each one of once we see Christ face to face. Then we will be filled with God's divine life.
 
Upvote 0

CharismaticLady

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 14, 2019
2,596
654
76
Tennessee
✟140,294.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
That is not true. It can be inferred in Luke 1:28 ("Hail Mary, full of grace"). This phrase is only used on one other person, Jesus (John 1:14, He is "full of grace and truth"). Protestants define grace as undeserved favor with God. This is why the modern Protestant versions have translated Luke 1:28 as "highly favored one". But then John 1:14 would also be translated as "highly favored one" since it is basically the same Greek word. But that does not make sense when used on Jesus. The Catholics define grace as the divine activity or divine life of God. That makes more sense to me. Jesus is full of the divine life because He is God. And Mary is full of divine life because of God's mercy.

But what they have in common is the word "full". They do not just have grace. We are all saved by grace (Eph 2:8, 9). But none of us are FULL of grace, as Jesus and Mary were. They were so FULL of grace with there would be no room for sin.

A difference in the Greek word "full" between John 1:14 and Luke 1:28 is that the tense in the former is the simple past tense (Jesus is full of grace) and the latter is in the passive present perfect tense. Also the word "Mary" is not in the Greek text. So it would be best translated as "Hail, One who has been made full of grace". The passive present perfect means that there was an act done upon her in the past (by God) that made her in the present to be full of grace.

This was soley an act of God. And the good work done upon her will be done on each one of once we see Christ face to face. Then we will be filled with God's divine life.

I must say your explanation is the most intelligent of any Catholic I've ever heard in my 72 years, though I still do not believe Mary was born without a sin nature like every other human being since Adam sinned, nor that it was necessary as Catholics theorize. That is not to say that she acted on it, or that it means Mary ever committed a sin of lawlessness. She was a virgin, and I imagine younger than young women today who get married. I just know that when we who are born with a sin nature, are born again of the Spirit, that we partake of the divine nature too. Did you know that? You don't have to be Mary or Jesus to cleansed of all sin and be sanctified and full of grace. It just requires receiving the seed of the Father. 1 John 3:9
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm enjoying the pillow talk ^_^

No your NOT!

It is all of us who read your responses who are LOL at your inability to admit the Catholic teaching of Rev. 12 is incorrect using their own theology.

The Catholic view of the woman in Revelation, that I have have consistently pointed out, denies the Catholic view of Mary. YOU simply cannot admit that Mary was an actual human being and not the demi-goddess which they have invented.

YES...…….it is just that simple my friend!!!!
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I must say your explanation is the most intelligent of any Catholic I've ever heard in my 72 years, though I still do not believe Mary was born without a sin nature like every other human being since Adam sinned, nor that it was necessary as Catholics theorize. That is not to say that she acted on it, or that it means Mary ever committed a sin of lawlessness. She was a virgin, and I imagine younger than young women today who get married. I just know that when we who are born with a sin nature, are born again of the Spirit, that we partake of the divine nature too. Did you know that? You don't have to be Mary or Jesus to cleansed of all sin and be sanctified and full of grace. It just requires receiving the seed of the Father. 1 John 3:9

And that is correct because we read in Romans 3:23...……..
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval".

To accept the Catholic teaching of Mary was sinless means that this verse and many others have to be removed from the Bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course not! I was responding to your question:

Now, are you aware of any woman who has given birth in past 6000 years that did NOT have child birth pains????

You did not ask if there are any woman who GAVE birth 6,000 year that did not have child birth pains. You did ask if there are any woman who HAS GIVEN birth 6,000 year that did not have child birth pains. The "has given" is in the present perfect tense. That means that the question covers the time from 6,000 year ago up to the present. So yes, at the present time there are women who do not have pain in childbirth. Click on Present Perfect | English Grammar | EF for more of an explanation of the present perfect.

This gets me to your first couple of sentences. You wrote that Scriptures are right there in front of us to read and understand. Friend, I am not trying to insult your intelligence, but I just showed that you have no understanding how the present perfect works even though you yourself used it. So what happens when your come across a Bible passage that uses a present perfect tense? How can you be so sure that you interpreted it correctly? This is not meant to insult you. I am sure you are more intelligent than the average person. But if you have problems with the use of a certain syntax then how can you trust your own interpretation of scripture when in goes against what the greatest minds of the most godly of people for the last two thousand years?



Actually, you started this conversation going in this direction, by accusing me that of rejecting the plain teaching scripture. Now, you KNOW that we Catholics believe that understanding the plain teaching of scripture is very difficult. So as soon as you bring that up I could not let it stand. If you do not want to talk about that then I suggest you stop talking about how we reject the plain teaching of scripture, because I will then always point out that not even Protestants can agree what the plain teaching of scripture is.



I agree. I certainly would not be arguing for Catholic tradition if I was Protestant. And you would not be arguing that it is easy to understand scripture if you were not Protestant.



I haven't seen any Protestant say anything at all for quite a time except for you. Perhaps the other Catholics and Protestants are bored. Or maybe they just want to sit back and read. I cannot look into the hearts of others why they are silent now.



That is NOT my position. This is another reason why you should not trust your private interpretation of scripture against 2,000 years of tradition. If you cannot understand what I am saying then how can you understand a book written 2,000 years ago in dead languages?

I said the passage does not explicitly teach that all women suffer pain in child birth because of the Curse. I wrote that it is an implication that may or may not be true. But I never said that I do not believe it.

You seemed to forget that I believe that scripture is not the ONLY source for truth. Tradition and the magisterium are also sources for truth. So even though the Bible does not explicitly teach that a painful childbirth is part of the Curse, Catholic tradition does!




Unless I read Catholic teaching I would have no basis at all to believe that painful childbirth is part of the Curse. We both agree because of the Catholic tradition - only you do not realize it. Your denomination teach this, and point to this verse as evidence. But this verse does not say it! Your denomination took this idea from the Catholic Church, and say they got it from the Bible.




These passages say nothing about the Curse, so how can these verses be used to prove that painful childbirth is because of the Curse? All they say is that painful childbirth exists. Why it exists these passages do not say. Now if you want to say "Since God said that Eve will in pain in childbirth and all other women since then have given birth in pain, I can assume that painful childbirth is the result of Eve's Curse" then I can accept that. But to say that any of these Bible passages actually say that there is a link between Eve's Curse and pain for all women giving birth then I would have to say that this is faulty interpretation of the Bible.

Major1, I did not realize how difficult it is to understand the Bible until I went to a Protestant seminary. There I studied biblical hermeutics, which is the art of interpreting the Bible. I studied Hebrew and Greek to understand the Bible. We went through each book in the Bible. I realized that this was really heavy stuff! No way can a regular layperson understand it like this! Did God expect each one of us to become Bible experts? I just could not believe that. Only the Catholic Church seems to have the answer. We not only need an infallible book, we need an infallible interpreter of that book. No matter how smart I am I not still not infallible. It is not a matter of how smart I am. It is a matter of how humble I am willing to be. Am I willing to humble myself to 2,000 years of tradition, or will I remain proud and insist that I or my church is right and all those Christians before me or my church is wrong! Will I be humble and admit that Christ said that the gates of death and hell will never prevail against His Church. This means that if I say that the Church has lost the gospel then I am saying that my Lord Jesus Christ has lied - for the gates of death and hell has indeed prevailed against His Church. May that never be said, at least not by me.

I have no intention of listing my educational credentials for you as that would be nothing but bragging. That is the fallacy of a computer screen. YOU can say pretty much anything you want to say and how is to challenge your comments on personal achievements. The most educated man in the world can still be wrong on Bible teachings m friend.

You stated...……..
"Now, you KNOW that we Catholics believe that understanding the plain teaching of scripture is very difficult. So as soon as you bring that up I could not let it stand. If you do not want to talk about that then I suggest you stop talking about how we reject the plain teaching of scripture, because I will then always point out that not even Protestants can agree what the plain teaching of scripture is."

I am actually stunned that you would tell me of your educational prowess and then say that the Catholic church teaches the truth of Gods Word.

That being YOUR conviction then I will ask you to list the BIBLE VALIDATION for the following Catholic teachings. I will even help you out and ask that you use 4 different translations such as the King James Bible or the ESV, or the NIV or Amplified Bible...…….

WHERE IN THE BIBLE DO WE FIND...………..

1.
Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works:
  1. CCC 2036, "The specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the creator, is necessary for salvation."
  2. CCC 2080, "The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law. It is made known to us by divine revelation and by human reason."
  3. CCC 2068, "so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments,".
2.
Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church:
  1. "For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation,," (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3)
3.
Penance is necessary for salvation:
  1. CCC 980, “This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn."
4.
Purgatory:
  1. CCC 1031, "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture."

5.
Indulgences:
  1. CCC 1471, "The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance. What is an indulgence? 'An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.' 'An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.' The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead."
That is only 5 teachings that you can respond to with your extensive educational ability.
I did not even list "The Immaculate Conception of Mary or the "Assumption of Mary".
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That is not true. It can be inferred in Luke 1:28 ("Hail Mary, full of grace"). This phrase is only used on one other person, Jesus (John 1:14, He is "full of grace and truth"). Protestants define grace as undeserved favor with God. This is why the modern Protestant versions have translated Luke 1:28 as "highly favored one". But then John 1:14 would also be translated as "highly favored one" since it is basically the same Greek word. But that does not make sense when used on Jesus. The Catholics define grace as the divine activity or divine life of God. That makes more sense to me. Jesus is full of the divine life because He is God. And Mary is full of divine life because of God's mercy.

But what they have in common is the word "full". They do not just have grace. We are all saved by grace (Eph 2:8, 9). But none of us are FULL of grace, as Jesus and Mary were. They were so FULL of grace with there would be no room for sin.

A difference in the Greek word "full" between John 1:14 and Luke 1:28 is that the tense in the former is the simple past tense (Jesus is full of grace) and the latter is in the passive present perfect tense. Also the word "Mary" is not in the Greek text. So it would be best translated as "Hail, One who has been made full of grace". The passive present perfect means that there was an act done upon her in the past (by God) that made her in the present to be full of grace.

This was soley an act of God. And the good work done upon her will be done on each one of once we see Christ face to face. Then we will be filled with God's divine life.

My congratulations on toeing the Catholic line of Bible interpretation. Too bad it is incorrect IMPO.

Luke 1:28...……..
"And the angel came in to her, and said, Hail, you that are highly favored, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women."

YOU have followed the RCC line and accepted "FULL OF GRACE" but, those words ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE are they?

The idea that one can read into this word meaning "object of grace/favor" any degree of sinlessness or perfection on the basis of a "perfect" verb form indicates a complete misunderstanding of what "perfect" means in grammatical terms. In verbs, it only means "completed action" – not sinlessness.

So then, To call this word a "hapax" in an attempt to bestow some sort of uniqueness on Mary is disingenuous.

In other words, the verb in question from Luke 1:28 has as its first or internal object "favor/grace" and as its second or true direct object "us". We get / have gotten favor/grace from God in Jesus Christ.

We know that here because the verse says so explicitly, but that is not any kind of surprise for anyone who understands that grace is favor, and specifically and importantly in the Bible it is God's favor.

His beneficence, good will, grace, kindliness, etc. directed our way because of our relationship with His Son. We are all said to have this grace in Ephesians 1:6 and there it is expressed by exactly the same verb as is used in Luke 1:28.
That doesn't mean, of course, that we never sin as that would mean all the Scriptures in the Bible that say "WE ARE ALL SINNERS would have to be removed from the Bible.

Then notice the ACTUAL WORDS in the Scriptures. The first thing to notice is that Mary was "Blessed art thou among women, NOT ABOVE ALL WOMEN."

Now please use your Hebrew concordance and according to the Hebrew idiom, you will see that it means....." thou art the happiest of all the women that ever lived.".

Then It must be observed, that this salutation gives no room for any pretence of paying adoration to the virgin; as having no appearance of a prayer, or of worship offered to her. Besides, with only a little Bible study you will se similar expressions are applied to others through out the Scriptures.

"Hail", is the salutation used by our Lord to the women after his resurrection: thou art highly favoured, or, hast found favour with God, is no more than was said of Noah, Moses, and David. The Lord is with thee, was said to Gideon in Judges 6:12.

You said......
"But none of us are FULL of grace, as Jesus and Mary were. They were so FULL of grace with there would be no room for sin."

That is purely a personal OPINION and it has not Bible truth whatsoever in it.

As to the translation "full of grace"......
while there is nothing to recommend the "full of" here, it's not really the translation that's the problem but rather what R.C. theology attempts to do with it and would no doubt attempt to do with any reasonable translation, namely, to make Mary sinless or special in some super-human way based upon this appellation.

Mary was special indeed, a true believer in a time of wide-spread apostasy, and obviously an exceptionally good one too, with whom the Lord was well-pleased indeed. But there is no indication that she was perfect, nor was there any need for her to be, for the only way to avoid the reception of a sin nature is to be virgin born as the sin nature is passed down through the male side.

It was the fact that Jesus was born without human male participation that produces a body free from sin, not any supposed sinlessness on Mary's part.
I reccoment to you this site to help your understnading........
Mary 'Full of Grace'?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
All Scripture has only one true interpretation, and that is of the Author.

No Scripture says that Mary was sinless. It was the seed of the Father that made Jesus sinless, just as born again of the Spirit Christians cannot sin. 1 John 3:9

Agreed. Because He was God in the flesh He was born without a sin nature which made it impossible for Him to sin even when tempted personally by Satan.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course not! I was responding to your question:

Now, are you aware of any woman who has given birth in past 6000 years that did NOT have child birth pains????

You did not ask if there are any woman who GAVE birth 6,000 year that did not have child birth pains. You did ask if there are any woman who HAS GIVEN birth 6,000 year that did not have child birth pains. The "has given" is in the present perfect tense. That means that the question covers the time from 6,000 year ago up to the present. So yes, at the present time there are women who do not have pain in childbirth. Click on Present Perfect | English Grammar | EF for more of an explanation of the present perfect.

This gets me to your first couple of sentences. You wrote that Scriptures are right there in front of us to read and understand. Friend, I am not trying to insult your intelligence, but I just showed that you have no understanding how the present perfect works even though you yourself used it. So what happens when your come across a Bible passage that uses a present perfect tense? How can you be so sure that you interpreted it correctly? This is not meant to insult you. I am sure you are more intelligent than the average person. But if you have problems with the use of a certain syntax then how can you trust your own interpretation of scripture when in goes against what the greatest minds of the most godly of people for the last two thousand years?



Actually, you started this conversation going in this direction, by accusing me that of rejecting the plain teaching scripture. Now, you KNOW that we Catholics believe that understanding the plain teaching of scripture is very difficult. So as soon as you bring that up I could not let it stand. If you do not want to talk about that then I suggest you stop talking about how we reject the plain teaching of scripture, because I will then always point out that not even Protestants can agree what the plain teaching of scripture is.



I agree. I certainly would not be arguing for Catholic tradition if I was Protestant. And you would not be arguing that it is easy to understand scripture if you were not Protestant.



I haven't seen any Protestant say anything at all for quite a time except for you. Perhaps the other Catholics and Protestants are bored. Or maybe they just want to sit back and read. I cannot look into the hearts of others why they are silent now.



That is NOT my position. This is another reason why you should not trust your private interpretation of scripture against 2,000 years of tradition. If you cannot understand what I am saying then how can you understand a book written 2,000 years ago in dead languages?

I said the passage does not explicitly teach that all women suffer pain in child birth because of the Curse. I wrote that it is an implication that may or may not be true. But I never said that I do not believe it.

You seemed to forget that I believe that scripture is not the ONLY source for truth. Tradition and the magisterium are also sources for truth. So even though the Bible does not explicitly teach that a painful childbirth is part of the Curse, Catholic tradition does!




Unless I read Catholic teaching I would have no basis at all to believe that painful childbirth is part of the Curse. We both agree because of the Catholic tradition - only you do not realize it. Your denomination teach this, and point to this verse as evidence. But this verse does not say it! Your denomination took this idea from the Catholic Church, and say they got it from the Bible.




These passages say nothing about the Curse, so how can these verses be used to prove that painful childbirth is because of the Curse? All they say is that painful childbirth exists. Why it exists these passages do not say. Now if you want to say "Since God said that Eve will in pain in childbirth and all other women since then have given birth in pain, I can assume that painful childbirth is the result of Eve's Curse" then I can accept that. But to say that any of these Bible passages actually say that there is a link between Eve's Curse and pain for all women giving birth then I would have to say that this is faulty interpretation of the Bible.

Major1, I did not realize how difficult it is to understand the Bible until I went to a Protestant seminary. There I studied biblical hermeutics, which is the art of interpreting the Bible. I studied Hebrew and Greek to understand the Bible. We went through each book in the Bible. I realized that this was really heavy stuff! No way can a regular layperson understand it like this! Did God expect each one of us to become Bible experts? I just could not believe that. Only the Catholic Church seems to have the answer. We not only need an infallible book, we need an infallible interpreter of that book. No matter how smart I am I not still not infallible. It is not a matter of how smart I am. It is a matter of how humble I am willing to be. Am I willing to humble myself to 2,000 years of tradition, or will I remain proud and insist that I or my church is right and all those Christians before me or my church is wrong! Will I be humble and admit that Christ said that the gates of death and hell will never prevail against His Church. This means that if I say that the Church has lost the gospel then I am saying that my Lord Jesus Christ has lied - for the gates of death and hell has indeed prevailed against His Church. May that never be said, at least not by me.

You said...………..
"Only the Catholic Church seems to have the answer. We not only need an infallible book, we need an infallible interpreter of that book. No matter how smart I am I not still not infallible. It is not a matter of how smart I am. It is a matter of how humble I am willing to be. Am I willing to humble myself to 2,000 years of tradition, or will I remain proud and insist that I or my church is right and all those Christians before me or my church is wrong! Will I be humble and admit that Christ said that the gates of death and hell will never prevail against His Church. This means that if I say that the Church has lost the gospel then I am saying that my Lord Jesus Christ has lied - for the gates of death and hell has indeed prevailed against His Church. May that never be said, at least not by me."

The first thought that came to my mind was...…...PRIDE.

I do not know if you are trying to brag on your accomplishments or intimidate those who read your comments.

May I say to you that neither of those effect me in any way. I am nothing but an old country boy who God has extremely blessed.

Since you have volunteered your knowledge in Hebrew and Greek, allow me to say in all respect to you...……..

Here is a definition of pride both from the Hebrew and the Greek...……...

From the Hebrew (OT):

– Various “ga’avah”, “ge’eh”, “gabah” and “rum” which mean majesty, pride haughtiness, exalted, highly exalted [1]

From the Greek (NT):

– Various “hubris”, “hubristic”, “tuphow”, and “phusiow” which mean excessive pride or self-confidence, arrogance, puffed up, conceited.

God bless you my friend.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,698
5,614
Utah
✟713,703.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.


Galatians 4:21-31
Ephesians 5:23-32
2 Corinthians 11:2
Revelation 19:7-8
Revelation 21:2


Jesus symbolizes His true church (daughter of Zion) as a pure woman and the false, apostate churches as a harlot. see 2 Corinthians 11:2 Ephesians 5:22, 23 and Isaiah 51:16

The Lords Word is highly symbolic ... especially the book of revelation.

John 16:25

"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father.

John 10:6

This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.

Revelation 21:9

Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

Revelation 19:7

Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready;

Ephesians

So that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Symbolism of the church being referred to as a woman, virgin, wife of Christ, is all over the bible.

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

Didn't say that He didn't ... what I'm saying is symbolically He often refers to the church as being a woman ... a pure woman, a virgin, bride, wife etc.

Revelation 19:7-8
l
Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

Again, like I said before ... is the book of Revelation reviews history as well as prophesying about the future.

So... the woman giving birth in Revelation is reviewing history ... the birth of Jesus.

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

We are not discussing catholic beliefs .. or .. any other "church" beliefs here ... we are discussing scripture ... aren't we?
 
Upvote 0