AgLiving06 said:

---

Matthew 12

46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

Jesus is using this in a different context. Just like when Paul mentions "our father, Isaac" in Romans. He doesn't mean God (just like Catholics have two different meanings of father for the priests and God)

jkag89 said:

---

We're going to make you a papist yet Derm.

---

Augustine is a real problem for me. Seems like whoever got the support of the state I. E. Constantine and Justinian, that is what became the verdict of the councils.

If Gregory of Nyssa's views had prevailed, I am all over it.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is an interpretive conclusion very well supported by the totality of the scriptures from Genesis through the OT and NT and seen the the Apocalypse of John.

Jesus was born of the spirit when he was begotten in the very beginning.

---

This seems to imply that the Spirit gave birth to Jesus and that Jesus is not co-eternal with God the Father and God the Spirit.

---

Not what I am implying at all. However, Jesus Jesus did not take on Flesh of man until the incarnation in Mary's womb.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He was born of the flesh when he entered our fallen world by taking on flesh through the Blessed Virgin Mary.

---

No disagreement here.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Despite being God Incarnate, he required John the Baptist to Baptize him in the Jordan and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove. If Jesus required baptism for himself, how much more do we need baptism. There is both a physical and Spiritual aspect to baptism.

---

I think there's a huge difference between Jesus permitting John to baptism Him and between Jesus requiring baptism.

Why did Jesus require baptism?

29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' 31 I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water." 32 John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' 34 I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."

---

Maybe require is a strong word but Matthew 3:14 tells us that John would have prevented it but Jesus said it was fitting for him to be Baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Therefore it was more than just a coincidence. Also, it was after Jesus' Baptism that the Spirit descended and remained upon him.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think one of the fundamental issues these threads always come back to is HOW we approach the Holy Scriptures. As Catholics we tend to approach them broadly and allow typology to help us connect the story and see the meaning being conveyed and help let the puzzle pieces come together. Protestants tend to use more of a proof-text approach where verses are quoted and referenced to build support for positions or make the case they are wanting to make.

---

A church's error (whether it's catholic or non-catholic) can be measured to the degree in which it deviates from the word of God.

---

What is the "Word of God"?
And WHO is able to be the judge of whom is deviating from it?

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Matthew 12

46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. 48 But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

Jesus is using this in a different context. Just like when Paul mentions "our father, Isaac" in Romans. He doesn't mean God (just like Catholics have two different meanings of father for the priests and God)

---

Oh...I just assumed if Thaddeus is going to take every verse out of context to try and justify his point, that I could do the same.

Edit to add that Thaddeus has made many typological arguments, which are the weakest types of arguments to make because you're purposefully ignoring the context of the passage to apply a secondary meaning.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

But what about all those siblings Jesus had?

---

I thought you guys said he didn't have any siblings.

---

These are the jokes OlAg. Seriously though...no one said Jesus didn't have siblings...it's just we don't believe they were Mary's children. They could be step brothers or cousins. The Greek term used to describe them in the original text is used for the same.

---

Doesn't matter to me if Jesus had half brothers, full brothers, or cousins. Really don't care either way as it's of zero importance to the Christ's sacrifice.

IMO. Common sense and human nature says, yeah, Jesus had full brothers. Also Matthew seems pretty clear on the issue " And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Pretty sure Jesus just wanted John to take care of his mother since she was most likely a widow; and "from that time on, this disciple took her into his home." Nothing else to it.

Implying that since Jesus gave his mother to one of his disciples, and since we all are all disciples, Jesus must have gave his mother to all of us, is quite the stretch.

And yet requiring us to have a "Mother" in order to be born again of Christ's sacrifice is pretty akin to saying Jesus couldnt get it done on his own and needed Mary's help. If he needed Mary's help either he's not truly God, or Mary is.

---

So to your first point...Jesus' statement was just extraneous? Why would that be included in Scripture if it wasn't part of the Word? Your last point doesn't make sense. The Church just recognizes the highly unique and special place Mary had in helping bring Christ into this world. God could have done it a number of ways...but he chose a very special person...who he made 'full of grace'. As a protestant, I didn't realize how much we downplayed Mary in scripture until I became Catholic. She was mentioned during Christmas plays, but other than that, she was just treated as another in a long list of people in the bible without any real meaning other than a footnote.

---

Who said it was extraneous. Clearly the author John thought it was pretty awesome that the Son of God chose him to care for his mom. I mean, if Jesus thought that much of me you better believe I'm writing that down.

And as someone who isn't Catholic the RCC's elevation of Mary is really off putting, extra biblical, and the main reason I am uncomfortable attending Mass.

Ugh. Got three but couldn't get anyone else in with bases loaded and no outs. Blah.

You, like St. Joseph, like St. Elizabeth, and like St. John, will be blessed if you will not be afraid to take Mary into your home. She is the daughter of God the Father, the mother of Jesus, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit. How can that be an evil thing? God chose her, after all, not the Catholic Church...

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Pretty sure Jesus just wanted John to take care of his mother since she was most likely a widow; and "from that time on, this disciple took her into his home." Nothing else to it.

Implying that since Jesus gave his mother to one of his disciples, and since we all are all disciples, Jesus must have gave his mother to all of us, is quite the stretch.

And yet requiring us to have a "Mother" in order to be born again of Christ's sacrifice is pretty akin to saying Jesus couldnt get it done on his own and needed Mary's help. If he needed Mary's help either he's not truly God, or Mary is.

---

So to your first point...Jesus' statement was just extraneous? Why would that be included in Scripture if it wasn't part of the Word? Your last point doesn't make sense. The Church just recognizes the highly unique and special place Mary had in helping bring Christ into this world. God could have done it a number of ways...but he chose a very special person...who he made 'full of grace'. As a protestant, I didn't realize how much we downplayed Mary in scripture until I became Catholic. She was mentioned during Christmas plays, but other than that, she was just treated as another in a long list of people in the bible without any real meaning other than a footnote.

---

Who said it was extraneous. Clearly the author John thought it was pretty awesome that the Son of God chose him to care for his mom. I mean, if Jesus thought that much of me you better believe I'm writing that down.

And as someone who isn't Catholic the RCC's elevation of Mary is really off putting, extra biblical, and the main reason I am uncomfortable attending Mass.

Ugh. Got three but couldn't get anyone else in with bases loaded and no outs. Blah.

---

Gotta check out an Lutheran (LCMS) church. All the history and liturgy with out the extra biblical nonsense.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

And as someone who isn't Catholic the RCC's elevation of Mary is really off putting, extra biblical, and the main reason I am uncomfortable attending Mass.

---

This type of sentiment makes me so sad at what has happened in Christianity over the past few hundred years. Instead of the Blessed Virgin Mary being seen as a/the key to bringing us closer to Christ, Protestants see Mary as a distraction and tend to denigrate the Mother of our Lord and Savior to basically just the uterus God ended up using to get here. It's offensive to Catholic and Orthodox ears, and it truly breaks our hearts.

As for the "extra-Biblical" part it brings us back to how we approach Biblical interpretation. If you properly understand WHO Mary is you will find her everywhere in the the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Everything Catholics believe about Mary can be supported either explicitly or implicitly from Scripture, and is evident in Christian belief and practice for 2,000 years. Unfortunately, the Protestants tradition of Scriptural interpretation rely's almost entirely on proof-texts gathered together to cite and support their theology. This is approach is completely foreign to Christians pre-Reformation.

Even Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed and defended Mary as the Mother of God, her perpetual virginity, her Holiness and her Immaculate Conception. It is not the RCC's elevation of Mary but rather it was God's. He chose to do this for her, not the RCC.

Finally, if you want to dive deep into any one of the dogmas of the RCC on Mary I am willing to engage and support it from Scripture (in the Catholic/Orthodox tradition of Biblical interpretation). My only request is that you chose ONE dogma and we stay focused on that one dogma.

1. Mary, the Mother of God
2. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
3. The Immaculate Conception of Mary
4. The Assumption of Mary

Edit to add: Mary should not be a stumbling block for anyone, but rather she is our mother leading us down the path of righteousness, introducing us to and directing us to her Son - and she welcomes us home.

---

Holy Strawman dude.

There is a large chasm between honoring Mary as the mother of God and what Rome has done

Your "dogma" 2-4 will vary in acceptance, Zobel can confirm, but I believe even the Orthodox only accept 1 and 2. I'm not sure anybody other than Rome accepts 3 or 4.

As a Lutheran, I'm inclined to accept 1 and 2, but 3 and 4 are just extra-biblical nonsense that do not rely on Scripture at all but typological inferences and not the clear passages of Scripture.

Is Mary mentioned once in the epistles? You'd think if she was that important she'd be talked about. I guess there is Galatians 4:4 but she isn't even mentioned by name. Not an epistle but she is referenced in Rev 12:1.

...And specifically in Revelation 12:17...

AgLiving06 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Pretty sure Jesus just wanted John to take care of his mother since she was most likely a widow; and "from that time on, this disciple took her into his home." Nothing else to it.

Implying that since Jesus gave his mother to one of his disciples, and since we all are all disciples, Jesus must have gave his mother to all of us, is quite the stretch.

And yet requiring us to have a "Mother" in order to be born again of Christ's sacrifice is pretty akin to saying Jesus couldnt get it done on his own and needed Mary's help. If he needed Mary's help either he's not truly God, or Mary is.

---

So to your first point...Jesus' statement was just extraneous? Why would that be included in Scripture if it wasn't part of the Word? Your last point doesn't make sense. The Church just recognizes the highly unique and special place Mary had in helping bring Christ into this world. God could have done it a number of ways...but he chose a very special person...who he made 'full of grace'. As a protestant, I didn't realize how much we downplayed Mary in scripture until I became Catholic. She was mentioned during Christmas plays, but other than that, she was just treated as another in a long list of people in the bible without any real meaning other than a footnote.

---

Who said it was extraneous. Clearly the author John thought it was pretty awesome that the Son of God chose him to care for his mom. I mean, if Jesus thought that much of me you better believe I'm writing that down.

And as someone who isn't Catholic the RCC's elevation of Mary is really off putting, extra biblical, and the main reason I am uncomfortable attending Mass.

Ugh. Got three but couldn't get anyone else in with bases loaded and no outs. Blah.

---

Gotta check out a Lutheran (LCMS) church. All the history and liturgy with out the extra biblical nonsense.

---

Not a fan of high church in general. Never enjoyed it and always seemed to go against the general concept behind the Son of Carpenter.

The best church services I've ever been to have been outside…. Some singing, prayer, communion, a little scripture, and fellowship.

Zero pomp. Zero circumstance.

How is offering to dive deep in defense of my faith a strawman? I literally quoted what he said which is very common in general in modern, Protestant thought and what posters here say regularly about Mary. That she had a special role but otherwise she's pretty ordinary and anyone else could have done it too.

So I take your vote would be to focus on #3 or #4.

For what it's worth I think the Orthodox (Zobel correct me if I'm wrong) and Catholics are pretty much in agreement on what the dogmas teach, but the Orthodox don't find the need to define it so precisely and make is a dogma for the believer. The dormition or falling asleep of Mary goes back to very early days in the Church. The underlying belief is pretty much the same.

Catholics are in a Covenant Relationship with Jesus (the New Covenant). In a covenant relationship, like marriage, my family is now my wife's family, and vice versa. So to say that taking Mary as our spiritual mother is extra-biblical is exactly backwards, because, in a Covenant Relationship, you get the mother of the bridegroom (Jesus) as your mother in law...

" It's much easier to convert polytheistic pagans to Christianity if you can they can just switch their allegiance from one woman god to another. Hence the need to elevate Mary to a position of 1b."

+++

The old switch-a-roo! Silly pagans are so gullible don't you think?

lobopride said:

---

Is Mary mentioned once in the epistles? You'd think if she was that important she'd be talked about. I guess there is Galatians 4:4 but she isn't even mentioned by name. Not an epistle but she is referenced in Rev 12:1.

---

No reason to concede Rev.12 to Rome. It's a jumbled mess to make that claim.

First, since Mary lived and likely died while with John, it makes no sense to allegorize her as "woman." It also makes less sense to speak of a literal women and then immediately allegorize the rest of the chapter (which is what Rome has to do). Instead, it makes better sense to see it as all allegory back to the OT.

But lets look at Revelation:

Rev 12:1 "12 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."


We have the luxury of the NT writings, but for John's readers, they would have looked to the OT for understanding and we have a very clear passage referencing the sun and the moon.

Genesis 37:
"9 Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me." 10 But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?" 11 And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind."

It makes versed 5 and 6 also make more sense:

5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.

And then to jump ahead, verse 17:

"17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea."

This now becomes about the offspring of Israel or the Church itself.

Faithful Ag said:

---

How is offering to dive deep in defense of my faith a strawman? I literally quoted what he said which is very common in general in modern, Protestant thought and what posters here say regularly about Mary. That she had a special role but otherwise she's pretty ordinary and anyone else could have done it too.

So I take your vote would be to focus on #3 or #4.

For what it's worth I think the Orthodox (Zobel correct me if I'm wrong) and Catholics are pretty much in agreement on what the dogmas teach, but the Orthodox don't find the need to define it so precisely and make is a dogma for the believer. The dormition or falling asleep of Mary goes back to very early days in the Church. The underlying belief is pretty much the same.

---

The strawman was this:

"Protestants see Mary as a distraction and tend to denigrate the Mother of our Lord and Savior to basically just the uterus God ended up using to get here. It's offensive to Catholic and Orthodox ears, and it truly breaks our hearts."

Rome Pop apologists love to make these wide ranging claims against the "generic" protestant and they simply aren't true.

As you point out, Lutherans, Calvinists (and we can include at a minimum Anglicans) all show honor to Mary as the Theotokos...but as I said, it's a chasm between where Rome has taken Mary and and any other group, including the Orthodox.

Quote:

---

As for the "extra-Biblical" part it brings us back to how we approach Biblical interpretation. If you properly understand WHO Mary is you will find her everywhere in the the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Everything Catholics believe about Mary can be supported either explicitly or implicitly from Scripture, and is evident in Christian belief and practice for 2,000 years. Unfortunately, the Protestants tradition of Scriptural interpretation rely's almost entirely on proof-texts gathered together to cite and support their theology. This is approach is completely foreign to Christians pre-Reformation.

---

There's also great irony in this. Most Christians, and Paul specifically, exhorted followers to search the Scriptures for Jesus. You would have us search for Mary, which is not something commanded by the Scripture and leads to what Thaddeus does which is entirely typological in nature. You would destroy the meaning of Scripture if it means finding another instance that might fit a preconceived narrative.

AgLiving06 said:

---

lobopride said:

---

Is Mary mentioned once in the epistles? You'd think if she was that important she'd be talked about. I guess there is Galatians 4:4 but she isn't even mentioned by name. Not an epistle but she is referenced in Rev 12:1.

---

No reason to concede Rev.12 to Rome. It's a jumbled mess to make that claim.

First, since Mary lived and likely died while with John, it makes no sense to allegorize her as "woman." It also makes less sense to speak of a literal women and then immediately allegorize the rest of the chapter (which is what Rome has to do). Instead, it makes better sense to see it as all allegory back to the OT.

But lets look at Revelation:

Rev 12:1 "12 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."


We have the luxury of the NT writings, but for John's readers, they would have looked to the OT for understanding and we have a very clear passage referencing the sun and the moon.

Genesis 37:
"9 Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me." 10 But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?" 11 And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind."

It makes versed 5 and 6 also make more sense:

5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.

And then to jump ahead, verse 17:

"17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea."

This now becomes about the offspring of Israel or the Church itself.

---

I will have to come back and provide a more thorough response later when I have time but chalk this up as an example of proof-texting your way through scriptures using chapter and verse. Back up just a little bit more in Revelation into the 11th chapter and then read it without the chapter break and what do you see?

Quote:

---

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.

---

Mary is the Woman God first spoke about it Genesis 3 who would have enmity between her and the devil, and her offspring and his. She is the true and literal Arc of the Covenant, she is the Queen Mother, etc, etc, etc.

Mary and the teachings of the Church about her are completely Biblical.

All throughout the old Testament, Israel is referred to as a harlot. Pretty sure Revelation 12 isn't talking about a harlot defeating satan. The Woman of Genesis 3:15 (Jesus always called His mother Woman) is The Woman who defeats satan in Revelation 12, and specifically in Revelation 12:17 God says that we are her children if we obey the commandments and bear testimony that Jesus is the Christ. Since Mary has a crown of 12 stars on her head, she is also a stand in for the Church of Jesus Christ, with the 12 apostles of the New Testament...

Quote:

---

So you take issue that I may have been overly broad in my characterization of Protestants, but then you accuse me of being willing to destroy the meaning of Scripture if it fits my narrative?? I have said and done nothing to deserve that type of accusation and it was uncalled for and uncharitable.

The daylight between what the Orthodox hold and Catholics hold is minimal at best and is more of an issue with how we define (or don't) the effects of original sin. The Orthodox believe Mary to be without having committed sin. The East (Orthodox) tend to avoid trying to define and articulate the mysteries of the faith, while the west (Rome) tend to try and articulate the mysteries with more of a legalistic/definitional approach. What is actually held by the Orthodox and Catholics about Mary is of the same essence. This cannot be said for the vast majority of Protestants I am afraid.

---

First, Yes I take issue with your overly broad claims because you will find that it is not true for the majority of Protestantism. That would be no different than me making a claim about Rome that is untrue and claiming it as truth.

Second, a typological argument proceeds to say that was is written is not the true meaning of the passage and instead we need to find that hidden meaning. When you rely on these kinds of arguments, you are saying that that the clear meaning of the passage is no longer relevant and instead we need to search for the hidden meaning and in that, you open the Scriptures up to anybody interpreting what that hidden meaning might be. It's an extremely dangerous argument type that shouldn't be used unless there are sufficient clear passages to justify the typology. Which doesn't exists with this Revelation passage.

Differences on Mary are quite a bit different. As far as I know, the East does not claim she was immaculately conceived nor that she was assumed into heaven (well they would say after she died she was assumed). Both which would not meet the dogmatic standards of Rome.

Quote:

---

Adding the one verse doesn't change the manipulation you have to do to the verses to achieve your desired outcome.

You have to ignore the direct parallel verses that I applied and take the approach that the entire passage is allegory, except for the woman.

---

I don't have to ignore anything and we can accept both. It is you who are taking an exclusionary approach and trying to limit the meaning of Scripture to your preconceived ideas and theology. My position is not either/or but rather Catholic position is a both/and approach.

Let's look at the "parallel verses" from your previous post and then address your latter post:

Quote:

---

No reason to concede Rev.12 to Rome. It's a jumbled mess to make that claim.

First, since Mary lived and likely died while with John, it makes no sense to allegorize her as "woman." It also makes less sense to speak of a literal women and then immediately allegorize the rest of the chapter (which is what Rome has to do). Instead, it makes better sense to see it as all allegory back to the OT.

---

First, where do you get that Mary died while with John? Is this something extra-Biblical that you are coming to the table with that informs your interpretive lens? Regardless of if/when/where/and with whom Mary may have died, it has zero bearing on WHO MARY IS.

Why do we allegorize Mary as the Woman? It begins in Genesis 3 when God declared HE will place enmity between the woman (MARY) and the devil, and also of her seed/offspring (JESUS):

"14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

The WOMAN of Revelation is the WOMAN of GENESIS and the MOTHER of Jesus, Mary.

Quote:

---

But lets look at Revelation:
Rev 12:1 "12 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."

We have the luxury of the NT writings, but for John's readers, they would have looked to the OT for understanding and we have a very clear passage referencing the sun and the moon.

---

Before skipping ahead to the sun and the moon, lets first acknowledge the WOMAN and the OT scriptures for understanding WHO the woman IS.

Quote:

---

Genesis 37:
"9 Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, "Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me." 10 But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?" 11 And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the saying in mind."

---

To this I say Amen. Joseph, like Adam, was a type of Christ.

Quote:

---

It makes versed 5 and 6 also make more sense:

5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.

---

WHO gave birth to this male child who was to rule all the nations with a rod of iron (Jesus)?

Quote:

---

And then to jump ahead, verse 17:

"17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea."

This now becomes about the offspring of Israel or the Church itself.

---

Amen. Now tell me again WHO is this Woman and who are the rest of her offspring? The Catholic view is that the Woman is the Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, and the rest of her offspring are therefore the children of God which is why she is OUR Blessed Mother and the Queen of Heaven.

It all fits together beautiful to the INclusion of what you have put forward. It is not an either/or proposition.

Quote:

---

But lets play the game.

Are you confirming that Mary was literally clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet?

---

Can you show me where I have claimed that every word of the Apocalypse of John is to be read and understood only and entirely literally?

Are you excluding the possibility of the WOMAN clothed with the sun as referring to Mary in any way whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Are you confirming that Mary felt normal child pain during birth? Typically Rome doesn't support that due to their claim of her sinlessness.

---

Again, you are attempting to force a literal interpretation where none should be expected or forced. I like to think that the birth pains and agony that the Woman in Revelation experienced were those endured when Mary's heart was being pierced by the sword of sorrows at the foot of the cross foretold in the Temple.

Quote:

---

Are you going to claim that even though the gospels give us the journey Mary and Joseph took, that we are now to believe she fled to the wilderness, yet no gospel claims that?

---

Mary did flee to Egypt, and she went to the wilderness to visit Elizabeth, but again, why are you trying to force Revelation to be taken so literally?

Quote:

---

Are you confirming she had other children? Or since you've already claimed her as ever virgin, you'll have to change the meaning of that?

---

Are you saying that the only children being referenced here in Revelation are only the biological children of this mother? If so, I guess we are talking about at most 10 or 12 people?
No, Mary did not give birth to anyone other than Jesus. However, Mary is the mother of all of God's Children.

Quote:

---

Are you confirming Mary was given wings of the great eagle so she could fly?

---

. I don't know that I can speak to this one. Maybe this is in reference to her assumption into Heaven?

Quote:

---

Seems like a pretty interesting tale of the earth coming to the aid of Mary and swallowing the river that the dragon poured from his mouth. Can you point to the Gospel verses for that?

---

Again, the precise meaning of this one might elude me but it might have something to do all of us participating in the body of Christ and the Spiritual warfare and battle against evil?

Quote:

---

I ask most of those not because I expect you to affirm any of them, but to show the lengths you are going to have to go to claim one word as literal, yet the rest of the passage as meaning entirely different things than what is said.

---

I have never claimed to need to interpret any of these verses with precision and only literally.



ETA: formatting

PabloSerna said:

---

" It's much easier to convert polytheistic pagans to Christianity if you can they can just switch their allegiance from one woman god to another. Hence the need to elevate Mary to a position of 1b."

+++

The old switch-a-roo! Silly pagans are so gullible don't you think?

---

Well, I would imagine your average run of the mill uneducated second and third century European had the IQ of a water buffalo. So yeah.

Same reason Easter and Christmas are celebrated when they are celebrated…. Eggs and rabbits and fir trees. All the Early church's version of 'follow the money'.

Quote:

---

First, Yes I take issue with your overly broad claims because you will find that it is not true for the majority of Protestantism. That would be no different than me making a claim about Rome that is untrue and claiming it as truth.

---

You personally attacked me by accusing me of destroying scripture in support of a narrative. That is a very different thing than generalizing beliefs widely held by large swaths of Protestants, if not a majority.

Quote:

---

Second, a typological argument proceeds to say that was is written is not the true meaning of the passage and instead we need to find that hidden meaning. When you rely on these kinds of arguments, you are saying that that the clear meaning of the passage is no longer relevant and instead we need to search for the hidden meaning and in that, you open the Scriptures up to anybody interpreting what that hidden meaning might be. It's an extremely dangerous argument type that shouldn't be used unless there are sufficient clear passages to justify the typology. Which doesn't exists with this Revelation passage.

---

. This is simply not true. You are mischaracterizing how typology works and what typology is. Nobody is claiming that the clear meaning a passage is no longer relevant in search of hidden meanings. Verses do not lose their meaning and are not replaced by hidden meanings. Typology adds depth and clarity but is does not replace or supplant the meanings of other verses.

"Typology in Christian theology and biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types prefiguring or superseded by antitypes in the New Testament."

The Apocalypse of John is allegorical and draws heavily on typology. It is everywhere and the fact that you don't see it with regard to Mary in Revelation is perplexing. It could not be more obvious.

Quote:

---

Differences on Mary are quite a bit different. As far as I know, the East does not claim she was immaculately conceived nor that she was assumed into heaven (well they would say after she died she was assumed). Both which would not meet the dogmatic standards of Rome.

---

The East believes all of the following about Mary:
* Mary was the Mother of God (Theotokos)
* Mary was without personal sin
* Mary was a perpetual virgin
* Mary was assumed into Heaven following her Dormition (falling asleep)

The main area of difference between the Orthodox and Catholics has to do with the effects of the fall and Original Sin, and therefore the Orthodox would not affirm that Mary was conceived without sin but would affirm that Mary never committed personal sin. (Zobel can correct me if I am wrong)

Quote:

---

First, where do you get that Mary died while with John? Is this something extra-Biblical that you are coming to the table with that informs your interpretive lens? Regardless of if/when/where/and with whom Mary may have died, it has zero bearing on WHO MARY IS.

---

Extra-biblical? No

We know that Jesus entrusted Mary to in John 19 and I think we can agree he wouldn't have taken that responsibility lightly. Further he's on Patmos decades later and no mention of her that I'm aware of, so we can make a basic assumption she's not there.

Just to head off your counterargument, John gives zero indication that Mary was assumed into heaven, which might be something worth noting.

Quote:

---

Why do we allegorize Mary as the Woman? It begins in Genesis 3 when God declared HE will place enmity between the woman (MARY) and the devil, and also of her seed/offspring (JESUS):

"14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

---

This is really not a good argument because you do something similar to Thaddeus and look for feminine words and say "see Mary!"

But lets dig into this because, as always, when proof-texting, we should not be afraid of the surrounding verses.

You start with verse 14, but lets see what verse 13 says:

"13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."


God's reference to woman is in a direct conversation with this woman. It's not an abstract reference, but we are left with a question, why does God call her woman and not Eve? Verse 20 answers that "20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

So the usage of the word woman by God is not allegorical, but the literal proper name for the woman who would become Eve.

Does that parallel to John in Revelation? Not in any reasonable way. Mary's name is known and there's no reason to hide it behind two things in back to back verses.

In fact, I think it would be most fair to say that when the NT references a generic woman or bride, it is in reference to the Church (certainly in Paul's case).

Quote:

---

Before skipping ahead to the sun and the moon, lets first acknowledge the WOMAN and the OT scriptures for understanding WHO the woman IS.

---

No problem. How many times do we see the generic "woman" used as a direct reference to Eve, after she was named Eve? (I don't actually know the answer here, but assume it's minimal to none).

Quote:

---

To this I say Amen. Joseph, like Adam, was a type of Christ.

---

Yet this is not about Joseph, and in fact, as you have pointed out, Joesph is replaced by a woman. So unless you're argument is Mary is also a type of Christ, then it's not her, but the readers of his letter would certainly know that this is a call back to the 12 tribes of Israel.

Quote:

---

WHO gave birth to this male child who was to rule all the nations with a rod of iron (Jesus)?

---

Quote:

---

Can you show me where I have claimed that every word of the Apocalypse of John is to be read and understood only and entirely literally?

---

I put these back to back because I already made it clear that you would have to do this.

What you're asking us to do is go verse by verse, switching back and forth between literal and allegorical, without John giving any hint that we should take that approach.

Speaking of which, who is the lamb's bride in Rev 21? Obviously since it says bride, we must interpret that as an actual woman right? (intended as sarcasm).

The rest of your responses are more or less repeats of "we can't take it literal because it wouldn't make sense in relation to our view of Mary."

So if I summarize your defense of the Roman Catholic view

11:19 - Mary is the literal ark, but the next words are all allegorical
12:1 - Mary is also literally the woman (odd she's 2 different things back to back), but everything else is allegorical
12:2-12 - allegorical
12:13 - Mary is the literal one who gave birth to a Child, but the dragon is definitely allegorical
12:14-16 - allegorical
12:17 - dragon is allegorical, then we switch to a woman who is definitely Mary, but then immediately switch back to allegorical because she was a virgin and didn't have literal children. Definitely not confusing for John's readers.

So you agree with the East that Mary died (in the care of John)?

https://www.goarch.org/dormition
"At the time of her death, the disciples of our Lord who were preaching throughout the world returned to Jerusalem to see the Theotokos. Except for the Apostle Thomas, all of them including the Apostle Paul were gathered together at her bedside. At the moment of her death, Jesus Christ himself descended and carried her soul into heaven."

https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2017/08/15/102302-the-dormition-of-our-most-holy-lady-the-mother-of-god-and-ever-v
"Saint Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, told the holy Byzantine Empress Pulcheria: "Although there is no account of the circumstances of Her death in Holy Scripture, we know about them from the most ancient and credible Tradition." This tradition was gathered and expounded in the Church History of Nikphros Callistus during the fourteenth century."

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Dormition
"The Dormition (Falling Asleep) of the Theotokos is one of the Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church, celebrated on August 15. The Feast of the Dormition, which is also sometimes called the Assumption, commemorates the death, resurrection and glorification of Christ's mother. It proclaims that Mary has been "assumed" by God into the heavenly kingdom of Christ in the fullness of her spiritual and bodily existence."

http://ww1.antiochian.org/feast-dormition-theotokos
"According to the Orthodox Tradition, the Virgin Mary lived after Pentecost in the house of the Apostle John in Jerusalem. As the Mother of the Lord, she became the source of encouragement and help for the Apostles and all Christians.
Three days before her death, the Archangel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary and revealed to her the date of her departure into eternal life. Immediately, the Theotokos returned to her home and prepared herself for this event through fasting and prayer.
On the day of her repose, even though the apostles were scattered throughout the world, they were miraculously transported to be at her side. Exceptionally, the Apostle Thomas did not arrive on time to bid his final farewell to the Theotokos."

This prot interrupted Mass to blaspheme Mary...

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/self-appointed-preacher-disrupts-holy-mass

What Protestant group does he associate with?

I can't find any affiliation and best I can find is he runs a "home church."

Don't know...Could be a Lone Ranger type...