Thaddeus73 said:

---

This prot interrupted Mass to blaspheme Mary...

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

---

Can Mary really be blasphemed? She's not a member of the Trinity.

AgLiving06 said:

---

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.

---

Orthodox are lock step on all of those. Common Christian belief until American Protestantism got involved. Just because you were taught it doesn't mean you are right. I'll go with what The Church has never wavered from for 2000 years.

Quote:

---

. John gives us zero indication that Mary died, but remind me who wrote Revelation? Wasn't it John who wrote the following in Scripture?

---

Correct, John gives no indication...but we know that when Elijah went to heaven it was noted. When Lazarus was raised from the dead, it was noted. But when the Mother of Jesus, supposedly is assumed into heaven, not worth even a footnote?

You can continue to argue from silence, but there's just zero Scriptural evidence to support anything supernatural happening here, and we shouldn't default to the supernatural just because we want that.

Quote:

---

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth."

The fact that you refuse to even consider the possibility that this woman could be Mary is baffling.

---

I've considered it, but it makes no sense in the context.

First, you've never dealt with John goes out of his way to reference a very specific event in the OT. You are asking me and everyone to ignore that.

Second, you're interpretation makes no sense? Is Mary the Ark? Is Mary the woman? both?

Third, We have zero reason to believe that John is being literal here in his interpretation and his descriptor of the woman does nothing to support it.

So your entire argument comes down to there being the word woman and you forcing it to be a specific woman. A woman with wings, a woman with the sun and moon at her feet. A woman that went through a multitude of events that are never attributed to Mary.

Presumably we could rewrite John to say this:

19 Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant Mary was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.

1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman Mary clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

Of course, we've already seen you won't claim she was literally clothes with the sun and moon. You wont' claim she had a literal garland of 12 stars on her head, and you won't claim, she cried out in labor and in pain.

But I guess if we ignore everything in these passages, we could possibly get to your interpretation.

Quote:

---

I think the lens of your interpretive tradition is blinding you here with regard to the Woman, and respectfully you are not really understanding how typology works. Typology does not replace people or render the OT types meaningless but the OT type helps us see and understand the NT fulfillment - which is always greater..

---

I'll just repeat your words back to you

I think the lens of your interpretive tradition is blinding you here with regard to the Woman.

Quote:

---

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.

---

Now you're just mixing and matching concepts and it's actually quite concerning. Verse 15 is not specific to Mary, but Jesus, but as you already pointed out, you'll "search the Scriptures for Mary," apparently even if that means replacing Jesus.

The promise God makes is to the woman. The woman in this context is Eve. We know that Eve does not have her name yet. We know that God is speaking specifically to the serpent, apparently in with the woman/Eve there.

Her offspring is not Mary, but Jesus. It's also interesting that in verse 15, God is not speaking to the woman, but the serpent. So you would have us say that God is telling the serpent that Mary is prophesied.

So once again, you ask us to ignore the context and quite literally ignore that woman is the correct and proper name for Eve at that point in the Bible.

Quote:

---

Fast forward to the wedding at Cana and the foot of the Cross and you will see at the beginning and end of his public ministry Jesus calls his Blessed Mother by her title, Woman. Jesus was not rebuking Mary in calling her Woman but rather he was pointing all of us to WHO his mother was and was elevating her for all of us to see.

---

I wondered how long it would be until you tried to use this one. Jesus is speaking directly to his mother. It's entirely clear who he is speaking to.

But again, if you want to play this particular card, then the obvious rebuttal is Matthew 12:

46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and 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."

If your desire is to simply proof-text references than I get to do the same.

Quote:

---

You put these back to back but you failed to answer the question I asked:
Rev 12:5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."
WHO gave birth here?

---

Who gave birth there? Israel in fulfillment of what God promised Eve and the Serpent. From the tribes of Israel was born the Savior of the world. It's not a difficult concept, and when you remember that John has been pointing us to the 12 tribes the entire time, it makes complete sense.

Answer me this. Is Jesus the literal Son of David? Is he the literal Lion of Judah? Is Jesus a literal lamb?

Quote:

---

Why do you keep saying this? You brought up this literal vs allegorical issue and you are attempting to force me to do something that is not necessary or required for me to do. Perhaps this makes sense to you but it does not to me. It is non-sensical.

---

Of course it's required of you.

For your interpretation to make any sense, you're arguing we need to be both literal and allegorical from verse to verse, and sometimes from word to word. It's up to you to provide justification that we should take this claim serious. So far your defense is that "woman" cannot be anything other than a tangible person.

Yet when John, in the same book, uses bride, we know he's not talking about a tangible bride. How odd.

My claim is far more straightforward. It's all allegorical and John makes this clear in 12:1 how these verses should be understood.

Quote:

---

The Arc of the Covenant was the dwelling place of God on earth in the OT.

---

Correct! and through the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, God is now open to all of Israel! You are so close to seeing that you do not need to force Mary into this discussion.

Quote:

---

The Apocalypse of John is an allegorical work but it contains and conveys real truths and tells the story of Salvation history with some vivid imagery . Unfortunately, the chapter breaks added around the 11th century were sometimes placed poorly and influence how Bibles are read and this is one of those cases. What John describes when he sees into the Temple in Heaven was the Arc of his Covenant - a Woman with a crown of 12 stars.

---

Grasping at straws?

Once gain, lets look at 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. "

We get a direct comparison. It's not even debatable to be honest.
We do get 1 difference though. Instead of 11 tribes bowing to Joseph, we see that all 12 tribes, the 12 tribes of Israel are represented.

Quote:

---

You accused me of being willing to destroy the meaning of scripture to advance my narrative. It appears to me that you are the one twisting yourself into a pretzel, not me

---

This of course is not true. Your entire exegesis involves say "see it says woman, so it must be literal." You've not addressed any aspect of the verses because it's so problematic for you. Even in your attempted rebuttal, you stop at verse 12:1 and the reason is clear. Your interpretation cannot handle those verses and so they are ignored.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

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.

---

Orthodox are lock step on all of those. Common Christian belief until American Protestantism got involved. Just because you were taught it doesn't mean you are right. I'll go with what The Church has never wavered from for 2000 years.

---

The one thing about Roman Catholics is they are consistent in their arguments.

So lets pose a question.

Did the Church never waiver for 2000 years as you claim, or is Newman right and its all doctrinal development, which is to say that many of the doctrines you now hold, were not held in the past, but were "developed."

You don't get to have it both ways.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

John gives us zero indication that Mary died, but remind me who wrote Revelation? Wasn't it John who wrote the following in Scripture?

---

Correct, John gives no indication...but we know that when Elijah went to heaven it was noted. When Lazarus was raised from the dead, it was noted. But when the Mother of Jesus, supposedly is assumed into heaven, not worth even a footnote? You can continue to argue from silence, but there's just zero Scriptural evidence to support anything supernatural happening here, and we shouldn't default to the supernatural just because we want that.

---

During the life of the Apostles the Church was highly persecuted and the focus was on spreading the message of Jesus Christ. Peter asked to be crucified updside down in part because he did not feel worthy to die in the manner of Jesus, but also in part because he did not want to confuse the message of Jesus by becoming another "savior" like him. I have no doubt that the Apostles understood the WHO Mary was and what role she has in Salvation History, and John may have been the only Apostle left alive when Mary was taken up to Heaven. By this time his Gospel was already written, but he wrote his Apocalypse toward the end of his life and he did speak of Mary, the Woman, in his vision.

The fact that you cannot see the obvious parallel between The Woman, Her Child, and Satan as seen in both Genesis and Revelation is apparently not something I can help you with. It could not be made more apparent. Let me also say this one more time just so we are clear. The Apocalypse of John (Revelation) is a work that is not intended to be taken literally word for word. Additionally, many things alluded to by John in this writing have multiple meanings with layers upon layers upon layers of theology built in. Therefore something he wrote, perhaps some of the details, are intended to help us find more depth, meaning, and understanding from what he is revealing to us. It is a BOTH / AND, not and EITHER / OR. You seem to be excluding or discounting obvious or possible meanings in favor of what you want to include. I am not.

I accept Genesis 37 as something John was wanting to bring forward because it helps us glean more meaning and provides another layer. However, Genesis 37 is not the primary image John is seeking to conjure up in the readers mind. There is no contradiction in my position, but that fact that you REJECT Genesis 3:15 as an obvious reference is dumbfounding to me. In BOTH Genesis 3 and in Revelation 12 you have a Woman who gives birth, a seed and a baby (Jesus), and the Serpent (Devil). God tells us they will do battle in Genesis and in Revelation you have a war being waged.

Quote:

---

11 And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?
12 And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

---

I know this may be difficult to see because it most likely goes against everything you have been taught by your Protestant, Biblical tradition, however, what I am trying to help you see something the Church has always taught and understood from the earliest days.

Quote:

---

Presumably we could rewrite John to say this:
19 Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant Mary was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail.
1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman Mary clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.
Of course, we've already seen you won't claim she was literally clothes with the sun and moon. You won't claim she had a literal garland of 12 stars on her head, and you won't claim, she cried out in labor and in pain. But I guess if we ignore everything in these passages, we could possibly get to your interpretation.

---

YES. Yes, John could have written it that way because that is what he is telling us, but then the reader would not have been drawn back to Genesis and the other scriptures in the same way as we are when he uses her Title, Woman, instead. If he had used "Mary" in place of "Woman" we would have lost depth and intrigue and layers of imagery. You are reading these verses through a modern day lens vs. reading these verses like a first century Jew.

In his vision the Woman was clothed with the Sun and moon and had a crown of 12 stars, and yes that is how I envision Mary seated at the right hand of her Son as Queen of Heaven. Yes, I can accept Mary crying out in pain as the church is being born through the death of her son, Jesus, on the cross when her heart is being pierced as Simeon prophesied it would be.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.

---

Now you're just mixing and matching concepts and it's actually quite concerning. Verse 15 is not specific to Mary, but Jesus, but as you already pointed out, you'll "search the Scriptures for Mary," apparently even if that means replacing Jesus. The promise God makes is to the woman. The woman in this context is Eve. We know that Eve does not have her name yet. We know that God is speaking specifically to the serpent, apparently in with the woman/Eve there. Her offspring is not Mary, but Jesus. It's also interesting that in verse 15, God is not speaking to the woman, but the serpent. So you would have us say that God is telling the serpent that Mary is prophesied.

So once again, you ask us to ignore the context and quite literally ignore that woman is the correct and proper name for Eve at that point in the Bible.

---

For roughly 2,000 years the Church has recognized and taught that Mary is the New Eve, as Jesus is the New Adam. I am not making this stuff up or mixing and matching concepts. Nothing I am saying is novel and nothing is replacing Jesus. Let's break this down.

In Genesis 3 you have the helper who was taken from the flesh of the man and she was good and she was called The Woman. Then she ate of the fruit and they fell into sin, and she was essentially stripped of her title Woman, and she was then given the name Eve. If you look closely what is being said you will see that God is placing enmity between the Serpent (Devil) and The Woman in verse 15 and then also between her "seed". Men have the seed, not the Women. Something is different here. The Church has always held that the "seed" of the Woman is a prophesy about the Virgin Birth (God will provide) and the offspring is Jesus. The Woman in this context is NOT Eve but rather is The Woman who would one day give birth to the one who would overcome death. So YES, God is telling the Serpent that Mary will deliver the Savior into the world and all will be restored.

How would you explain what the "Seed" of The Woman as applied to Eve would mean? How did that play out? Do we see Cain and Abel (the seed of Adam not Eve) crush Satan?

Quote:

---

Genesis 3
12 And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. 14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. 16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. 17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. 18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. 20 And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living. 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

---

Think about the Bareans for a moment when they were searching the Scriptures what were they searching and how could they have been convinced? It was a major piece of the puzzle for them to search the OT and find the key to unlocking the puzzle of Genesis 3, and the other prophesies about the Virgin Birth.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Fast forward to the wedding at Cana and the foot of the Cross and you will see at the beginning and end of his public ministry Jesus calls his Blessed Mother by her title, Woman. Jesus was not rebuking Mary in calling her Woman but rather he was pointing all of us to WHO his mother was and was elevating her for all of us to see.

---

I wondered how long it would be until you tried to use this one. Jesus is speaking directly to his mother. It's entirely clear who he is speaking to. But again, if you want to play this particular card, then the obvious rebuttal is Matthew 12:
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and 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."

If your desire is to simply proof-text references than I get to do the same.

---

Brother, I am not trying to one-up you here or play Bible verse ping-pong and I am not trying to "win". I am just trying to open eyes to what many do not see because the Bible was not intended to be read and understood through proof-texts. Keep reading in Matthew 12 because Jesus was not denigrating his mother. He was elevating her in this verse because Mary, more than anyone in history, did the will of the Father. To have it mean what you are implying would cause Jesus to have sinned by dishonoring his mother which clearly Jesus would not have done.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You put these back to back but you failed to answer the question I asked:
Rev 12:5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."
WHO gave birth here?

---

Who gave birth there? Israel in fulfillment of what God promised Eve and the Serpent. From the tribes of Israel was born the Savior of the world. It's not a difficult concept, and when you remember that John has been pointing us to the 12 tribes the entire time, it makes complete sense.
Answer me this. Is Jesus the literal Son of David? Is he the literal Lion of Judah? Is Jesus a literal lamb?

---

So WHO is the ONE who GAVE BIRTH? Israel is a nation and cannot collectively give birth to a person. Israel could in a sense give birth through one of its members but there was an actual human being that literally gave birth. WHO IS THAT PERSON? Why do you refuse to say what is blatantly obvious?

Yes, Jesus fulfills all of those titles and many more. He is the Son of David through his lineage. He is the Lion of Judah. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why do you keep saying this? You brought up this literal vs allegorical issue and you are attempting to force me to do something that is not necessary or required for me to do. Perhaps this makes sense to you but it does not to me. It is non-sensical.

---

Of course it's required of you.
For your interpretation to make any sense, you're arguing we need to be both literal and allegorical from verse to verse, and sometimes from word to word. It's up to you to provide justification that we should take this claim serious. So far your defense is that "woman" cannot be anything other than a tangible person.
Yet when John, in the same book, uses bride, we know he's not talking about a tangible bride. How odd.
My claim is far more straightforward. It's all allegorical and John makes this clear in 12:1 how these verses should be understood.

---

You continue to miss the forest for the trees. I am not arguing anything from verse to verse switching back and forth between literal and allegorical. You keep claiming that is what I am doing but it simply isn't so. You are the one not allowing things to represent multiple layers and deeper meanings. The crown of 12 stars does allude to the brothers of Joseph, and to the 12 tribes of Israel, and to the 12 Apostles, and to Mary's place as the Queen Mother of Jesus, and the Queen of Heaven. It is all of the above and probably much, much more. But you deny that The Woman in Revelation has any relationship or reference to Mary whatsoever. You refuse to acknowledge that The Woman giving birth to the child ruler in Revelation could in some sense be alluding the Mother of Jesus Mary. It is ridiculous. You have all of your marbles in Genesis 37 and Joseph's dream. You are missing the bigger story line here.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The Arc of the Covenant was the dwelling place of God on earth in the OT.

---

Correct! and through the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, God is now open to all of Israel! You are so close to seeing that you do not need to force Mary into this discussion.

---

Okay. But MARY WAS THE DWELLING PLACE OF GOD ON EARTH. JESUS LITERALLY LIVED INSIDE HER WOMB. It was physically through the womb of Mary, The living Arc of God on earth, that the God-Man Jesus entered our world. I am not forcing Mary into the discussion. God did that Himself because of WHO he, God, set Mary apart to be.



I honestly don't know what to tell you other than my position on these verses has been held by and taught universally by the Apostolic Churche(s) for 2,000 years. Mary is the New Eve. Mary is the Arc of the Covenant. Mary is the Mother of God. Mary is The Woman of Revelation and the Queen of Heaven.



Edit to add this discussion on Mary:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3224950/replies/60107144#60107144

Quote:

---

During the life of the Apostles the Church was highly persecuted and the focus was on spreading the message of Jesus Christ. Peter asked to be crucified updside down in part because he did not feel worthy to die in the manner of Jesus, but also in part because he did not want to confuse the message of Jesus by becoming another "savior" like him. I have no doubt that the Apostles understood the WHO Mary was and what role she has in Salvation History, and John may have been the only Apostle left alive when Mary was taken up to Heaven. By this time his Gospel was already written, but he wrote his Apocalypse toward the end of his life and he did speak of Mary, the Woman, in his vision.

---

Only time int he life of the church that Jews or Christians were persecuted right?

Couple things:

1. Your theory on Mary being assumed to heaven is extra-biblical. It's that simple. There's no words of Scripture to support it. All you can do is point to the Roman Catholic Church, but that's circular.

2. Are you now admitting that John did not write this with mary in mind? That it was something else, but he just didn't realize it was actually supposed to be Mary until Rome came along? Interesting

Quote:

---

The fact that you cannot see the obvious parallel between The Woman, Her Child, and Satan as seen in both Genesis and Revelation is apparently not something I can help you with. It could not be made more apparent. Let me also say this one more time just so we are clear. The Apocalypse of John (Revelation) is a work that is not intended to be taken literally word for word. Additionally, many things alluded to by John in this writing have multiple meanings with layers upon layers upon layers of theology built in. Therefore something he wrote, perhaps some of the details, are intended to help us find more depth, meaning, and understanding from what he is revealing to us. It is a BOTH / AND, not and EITHER / OR. You seem to be excluding or discounting obvious or possible meanings in favor of what you want to include. I am not.

---

If you want me to see the "obvious" parallel, then lets agree to these truths and biblical verses to support these truths wouldn't hurt:

1. Mary felt pain and cried out during birth
2. Mary had wings and flew to the wilderness
3. Mary was clothed in the sun and the moon
4. A dragon literally stood before Mary

It should be easy enough for you to agree to all of these. They are directly in the passage.

Quote:

---

I accept Genesis 37 as something John was wanting to bring forward because it helps us glean more meaning and provides another layer. However, Genesis 37 is not the primary image John is seeking to conjure up in the readers mind. There is no contradiction in my position, but that fact that you REJECT Genesis 3:15 as an obvious reference is dumbfounding to me. In BOTH Genesis 3 and in Revelation 12 you have a Woman who gives birth, a seed and a baby (Jesus), and the Serpent (Devil). God tells us they will do battle in Genesis and in Revelation you have a war being waged.

---

As something just to bring forward? That would have been a red flashing light to the Jews who would have memorized the Genesis account. What they also would have memorized is the talk of Israel in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 2). They would have known exactly what John was talking about. But you know who almost nobody would have met? Mary.

Quote:

---

I know this may be difficult to see because it most likely goes against everything you have been taught by your Protestant, Biblical tradition, however, what I am trying to help you see something the Church has always taught and understood from the earliest days.

---

Facts not in evidence. You've not proved this at all.

Further, I'll just turn this claim around on you as well and said that your Roman Catholicism tradition has made it difficult for you to see that Rome was never the whole church and their beliefs are not the same in all aspects of the Christian Church.

Quote:

---

YES. Yes, John could have written it that way because that is what he is telling us, but then the reader would not have been drawn back to Genesis and the other scriptures in the same way as we are when he uses her Title, Woman, instead. If he had used "Mary" in place of "Woman" we would have lost depth and intrigue and layers of imagery. You are reading these verses through a modern day lens vs. reading these verses like a first century Jew.

---

It would literally have made no sense to utilize Mary in two different forms in back to back situations. Even worse, to not quote mary and assume people would know. It's illogical.

Mary being the new Eve has literally nothing to do with this verse. Mary can still be the new Eve and this verse be correctly not about her.

Quote:

---

Brother, I am not trying to one-up you here or play Bible verse ping-pong and I am not trying to "win". I am just trying to open eyes to what many do not see because the Bible was not intended to be read and understood through proof-texts. Keep reading in Matthew 12 because Jesus was not denigrating his mother. He was elevating her in this verse because Mary, more than anyone in history, did the will of the Father. To have it mean what you are implying would cause Jesus to have sinned by dishonoring his mother which clearly Jesus would not have done.

---

Certainly you are trying to one up and win. If you're going to proof text poorly, then I'll respond with counters. it's that simple.

Also, that's the only use of mother in Matthew 12 as it ends right there.

Quote:

---

So WHO is the ONE who GAVE BIRTH? Israel is a nation and cannot collectively give birth to a person. Israel could in a sense give birth through one of its members but there was an actual human being that literally gave birth. WHO IS THAT PERSON? Why do you refuse to say what is blatantly obvious?

---

Israel. I am quite content to have the entire passage be allegorical because of the call backs to the OT and Israel itself.

Quote:

---

Okay. But MARY WAS THE DWELLING PLACE OF GOD ON EARTH. JESUS LITERALLY LIVED INSIDE HER WOMB. It was physically through the womb of Mary, The living Arc of God on earth, that the God-Man Jesus entered our world. I am not forcing Mary into the discussion. God did that Himself because of WHO he, God, set Mary apart to be.

---

Except the reference to the ark has zero mention of any of this.

Verse 11:19 happens"19 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 then we are told a great sign appeared in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun and moon.

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.

There's no reason for anybody to read those 2 verses back to back and claim that the ark is the sign.

Quote:

---

Couple things:

1. Your theory on Mary being assumed to heaven is extra-biblical. It's that simple. There's no words of Scripture to support it. All you can do is point to the Roman Catholic Church, but that's circular.

2. Are you now admitting that John did not write this with mary in mind? That it was something else, but he just didn't realize it was actually supposed to be Mary until Rome came along? Interesting

---

1. Mary being assumed into Heaven is the historical view of the Apostolic Churches including both the East and West. The vast majority of Christians over the past 2,000 years have held this view making yours is the minority. While there is Biblical support for Mary's assumption, I honestly would not expect you to be able to see it given you cannot even see Mary in Revelation 12 (which is perplexing to me). Maybe I will spend some time and energy on a "Mary, The Arc of the Covenant" which might help make the connection.

2. I don't follow your point #2. The Beloved Disciple John, who cared for the Blessed Mother as commanded by Jesus from the Cross, absolutely had Mary in mind when he wrote his Apocalypse. Of that I am certain. Zero doubt. Furthermore, Rome "came along" during the lives of the Apostles. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome so I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The fact that you cannot see the obvious parallel between The Woman, Her Child, and Satan as seen in both Genesis and Revelation is apparently not something I can help you with. It could not be made more apparent. Let me also say this one more time just so we are clear. The Apocalypse of John (Revelation) is a work that is not intended to be taken literally word for word. Additionally, many things alluded to by John in this writing have multiple meanings with layers upon layers upon layers of theology built in. Therefore something he wrote, perhaps some of the details, are intended to help us find more depth, meaning, and understanding from what he is revealing to us. It is a BOTH / AND, not and EITHER / OR. You seem to be excluding or discounting obvious or possible meanings in favor of what you want to include. I am not.

---

If you want me to see the "obvious" parallel, then lets agree to these truths and biblical verses to support these truths wouldn't hurt:

1. Mary felt pain and cried out
2. Mary had wings and flew to the wilderness
3. Mary was clothed in the sun and the moon
4. A dragon literally stood before Mary

It should be easy enough for you to agree to all of these. They are directly in the passage.

---

Again, we seem to be having a communication and comprehension issue because I have told you repeatedly that Revelation is not something that was intended to be read and taken literally. John is using vivid imagery to reveal his revelation to the reader. You persist in trying to force a strictly literal interpretation of Revelation and everything it contains. Revelation, like the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, need some interpretation. The meaning is there but not necessarily in the simple text.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I accept Genesis 37 as something John was wanting to bring forward because it helps us glean more meaning and provides another layer. However, Genesis 37 is not the primary image John is seeking to conjure up in the readers mind. There is no contradiction in my position, but that fact that you REJECT Genesis 3:15 as an obvious reference is dumbfounding to me. In BOTH Genesis 3 and in Revelation 12 you have a Woman who gives birth, a seed and a baby (Jesus), and the Serpent (Devil). God tells us they will do battle in Genesis and in Revelation you have a war being waged.

---

As something just to bring forward? That would have been a red flashing light to the Jews who would have memorized the Genesis account. What they also would have memorized is the talk of Israel in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 2). They would have known exactly what John was talking about. But you know who almost nobody would have met? Mary.

---

The Jews might not have met Mary, but every single one of them knew about "The Woman" and the fall, and Eve, and the prophesy of the Virgin Birth, and the Arc of the Covenant, and the Queen Mother of the Dividic Kingdom, etc. You are actually making the case above for why John chose to use "Woman" instead of Mary.

The PRIMARY thing the Jews would have seen was the Woman, the Male Son, and the Serpent from Gen 3. The sun, moon, and stars of Gen 37 are supporting details important details but supporting.

Quote:

---

Facts not in evidence. You've not proved this at all.
Further, I'll just turn this claim around on you as well and said that your Roman Catholicism tradition has made it difficult for you to see that Rome was never the whole church and their beliefs are not the same in all aspects of the Christian Church.

---

The Eastern Orthodox Churches (including the Coptic, Oriental, and Ethiopian Churches), the Catholic Church, and the witness of the early Church Fathers overwhelmingly if not unanimously - attest to Mary as the New Eve. You can "turn it around" all you like but it does not change what the Apostolic Churches have believed and taught for the past 2,000 years. Facts are in Evidence.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

YES. Yes, John could have written it that way because that is what he is telling us, but then the reader would not have been drawn back to Genesis and the other scriptures in the same way as we are when he uses her Title, Woman, instead. If he had used "Mary" in place of "Woman" we would have lost depth and intrigue and layers of imagery. You are reading these verses through a modern day lens vs. reading these verses like a first century Jew.

---

It would literally have made no sense to utilize Mary in two different forms in back to back situations. Even worse, to not quote mary and assume people would know. It's illogical.
Mary being the new Eve has literally nothing to do with this verse. Mary can still be the new Eve and this verse be correctly not about her.

---

It makes perfect sense because Mary is the Arc of the Covenant AND Mary is the New Eve (The Woman). Some things were that obvious to Jews in the first century, but we don't necessarily see those things through our modern eyes. We are not Jewish, and we are 2,000 years removed so it would be quite easy for us to completely miss what they might not even think needed to be noted.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So WHO is the ONE who GAVE BIRTH? Israel is a nation and cannot collectively give birth to a person. Israel could in a sense give birth through one of its members but there was an actual human being that literally gave birth. WHO IS THAT PERSON? Why do you refuse to say what is blatantly obvious?

---

Israel. I am quite content to have the entire passage be allegorical because of the call backs to the OT and Israel itself.

---

So the WOMAN giving birth is Israel to the EXCLUSION of Mary? There is no correlation whatsoever to the woman giving birth and Mary? Nada? The Woman can only be Israel? That is your position?8

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Faithful Ag: The Arc of the Covenant was the dwelling place of God on earth in the OT.

---

AgLiving06: Correct! and through the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, God is now open to all of Israel! You are so close to seeing that you do not need to force Mary into this discussion.

---

Faithful Ag: Okay. But MARY WAS THE DWELLING PLACE OF GOD ON EARTH. JESUS LITERALLY LIVED INSIDE HER WOMB. It was physically through the womb of Mary, The living Arc of God on earth, that the God-Man Jesus entered our world. I am not forcing Mary into the discussion. God did that Himself because of WHO he, God, set Mary apart to be.

---

AgLiving06: Except the reference to the ark has zero mention of any of this.

Verse 11:19 happens"19 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 then we are told a great sign appeared in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun and moon.
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.
There's no reason for anybody to read those 2 verses back to back and claim that the ark is the sign.

---

Mary's Title according to Jesus was "Woman".

Mary's function was to be the God-Bearer. Mary's womb was quite literally the Tabernacle of God. Mary is the Arc of the Covenant because Mary was overshadowed by the Glory Cloud, and God dwelt in her, literally he dwelt inside of her. The Jews did not need this to be explained to them. They didn't need it to be mentioned because it was obvious. It would probably have insulted their intelligence.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

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."

---

So Matthew must be read to mean she had no children nor did she have sex before Christ was born but then must have had them after? Or could it just have meant that she had no children/sex before Christ...but says nothing about after that.
If I said I had never really knew what its like to be a parent before my first child, do you assume that means I have other children since?

James and Jude are half brothers of Jesus. From what I've read the word studies performed means brother not cousin like some have said. So either they came from Joseph from a previous wife or they came from Mary after Jesus. We can't know so to pretend we can is silly

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

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."

---

So Matthew must be read to mean she had no children nor did she have sex before Christ was born but then must have had them after? Or could it just have meant that she had no children/sex before Christ...but says nothing about after that.
If I said I had never really knew what it's like to be a parent before my first child, do you assume that means I have other children since?

---

The whole point of this verse is so the reader is assured that Joseph cannot be the father of Jesus and remains confident in the virgin birth of Jesus. Literally that's it.

Edit: I'm not saying Mary couldn't have remained a virgin. It's possible, but not likely, that the references to Jesus brothers could be cousins or Joseph's sons. But telling me I must believe Marian doctrine in order to become a card carrying member of your church keeps me from wanting to be a member of your church. At the end of the day your church, your rules.

Mary took a vow of Virginity, and according to Numbers 30, if Joseph didn't object, she got to remain a Virgin. That is why she told Gabriel - "How can this be, since I do NOT KNOW MAN.

The so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus were not born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. We can know that from the Bible. Furthermore we can know that from the lips of Jesus himself because he responds and refers to the "so-called" brothers and sisters by a term that quite literally means blood-relative of a different mother (according to William Albrecht).

Good commentary here from Dr. Brant Pitre on the subject:
https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/the-brothers-of-jesus-a-fresh-look-at-the-evidence


Matthew 13
When Jesus had finished his parables, he went away from there, and coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this? And they took offense at him.

Matthew 27
There were also many women there [i.e. at the cross], looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Magdalene [number one], and Mary the mother of James and Joseph [number two], and [number three,] the mother of the sons of Zebedee.


John 19
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Excerpt from Dr. Pitre:
"So John, again, is giving a slightly different account of the crucifixion. He's highlighting some of the same people, but he's giving us a little more information. So he tells us that the Virgin Mary, number one, was present at the foot of the cross. We know this from John's Gospel. Second though, it also tells us that Mary's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, was present at the cross. Now this is very significant, because this Mary, who's called the sister of the Virgin Mary, can be correlated with the other Mary in the Gospel of Matthew, who was called the mother of James and Joseph. In other words, we have even more evidence of who the other Mary is. She's identified as, not the wife of Joseph, but the wife of another man name Clopas, and this would of course make Joseph and James, the two sons of Mary, the so-called brothers of Jesus, the children of Mary and her husband Clopas, this other Mary and this, as of yet unknown man, Clopas.

Why did St. John take Mary into his home if Jesus had blood brothers?

Quote:

---

1. Mary being assumed into Heaven is the historical view of the Apostolic Churches including both the East and West. The vast majority of Christians over the past 2,000 years have held this view making yours is the minority. While there is Biblical support for Mary's assumption, I honestly would not expect you to be able to see it given you cannot even see Mary in Revelation 12 (which is perplexing to me). Maybe I will spend some time and energy on a "Mary, The Arc of the Covenant" which might help make the connection.

---

And for much of the life of the Church, there was a belief that the earth was the center of the universe. You used a lot of words to try and dance around the simple reality that it's extra-biblical. Additionally, I'm not sure I'd be ready to concede that Mary being assumed was "the historic view of the church."

Quote:

---

2. I don't follow your point #2. The Beloved Disciple John, who cared for the Blessed Mother as commanded by Jesus from the Cross, absolutely had Mary in mind when he wrote his Apocalypse. Of that I am certain. Zero doubt. Furthermore, Rome "came along" during the live

---

Your response was that John might not have enough known he was writing about Mary. John of course would have known Mary, yet felt no need to clarify, when he could have. So to your point, maybe John didn't write about Mary, but she's being read in after the fact...

Quote:

---

Again, we seem to be having a communication and comprehension issue because I have told you repeatedly that Revelation is not something that was intended to be read and taken literally. John is using vivid imagery to reveal his revelation to the reader. You persist in trying to force a strictly literal interpretation of Revelation and everything it contains. Revelation, like the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, need some interpretation. The meaning is there but not necessarily in the simple text.

---

No we are not having a communication issue.

The problem we are having is that you want the Woman in this story to be Mary, yet you do not want any of the attributes that are associated with this woman to be directly tied to Mary because it becomes problematic for you.

You don't get to say that "this woman is "Mary" but all the attributes associated to her aren't really those attributes. At that point you're just layering your presuppositions onto the text to force the text to fit what you want it to say.

If the woman is Mary in this, then the attributes given to her stand. If you can't affirm that, maybe its time to reconsider your presuppositions.

Quote:

---

The Jews might not have met Mary, but every single one of them knew about "The Woman" and the fall, and Eve, and the prophesy of the Virgin Birth, and the Arc of the Covenant, and the Queen Mother of the Dividic Kingdom, etc. You are actually making the case above for why John chose to use "Woman" instead of Mary.

The PRIMARY thing the Jews would have seen was the Woman, the Male Son, and the Serpent from Gen 3. The sun, moon, and stars of Gen 37 are supporting details important details but supporting.

---

Exactly. The PRIMARY thing would have been references to the OT (not just Genesis). You reading a typological understanding into is meh. Many people read typological things into passages. Not great for doctrine, but to each their own.

Quote:

---

The Eastern Orthodox Churches (including the Coptic, Oriental, and Ethiopian Churches), the Catholic Church, and the witness of the early Church Fathers overwhelmingly if not unanimously - attest to Mary as the New Eve. You can "turn it around" all you like but it does not change what the Apostolic Churches have believed and taught for the past 2,000 years. Facts are in Evidence.

---

This is another non-answer. You claimed that "you're teaching what the Church has always taught." Yet you never actually proved any of it.

BTW, it's worth nothing that you've denigrated Protestantism several times like Protestantism just ignores the history of the Church. That's a false assumption on your part. I'm Lutheran and we have no problem looking to the Church Fathers and seeing their traditions. What is abundantly clear is that the early church is not the post-Trent Roman Catholic Church, or the EOdox or Lutheranism or other groups.

Quote:

---

It makes perfect sense because Mary is the Arc of the Covenant AND Mary is the New Eve (The Woman). Some things were that obvious to Jews in the first century, but we don't necessarily see those things through our modern eyes. We are not Jewish, and we are 2,000 years removed so it would be quite easy for us to completely miss what they might not even think needed to be noted.

---

You aren't reading the text.

The text is clear that two different events take place.

1. The ark of the covenant is seen within the temple
2. Then, after that point, A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman

Not even John tries to join these two together, yet you do. It's really interesting.

Quote:

---

So the WOMAN giving birth is Israel to the EXCLUSION of Mary? There is no correlation whatsoever to the woman giving birth and Mary? Nada? The Woman can only be Israel? That is your position?

---

I have no clue what you're trying to say here?

John in chapter 21, calls new Jerusalem "a bride adorned for her husband." Should we be trying to figure out who the literal bride is?

Quote:

---

Mary's Title according to Jesus was "Woman".

Mary's function was to be the God-Bearer. Mary's womb was quite literally the Tabernacle of God. Mary is the Arc of the Covenant because Mary was overshadowed by the Glory Cloud, and God dwelt in her, literally he dwelt inside of her. The Jews did not need this to be explained to them. They didn't need it to be mentioned because it was obvious. It would probably have insulted their intelligence.

---

Again...if your desire is recognize and honor Mary for what she did. Yes and amen. The Bible is clear she is the Theotokos. She deserves that honor.

That is very different than attempting to read her into every context where you can kinda force her into a situation, but it involves manipulation to achieve it. When that happens, your just pushing your presuppositions and not letting the text itself speak.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Mary took a vow of Virginity, and according to Numbers 30, if Joseph didn't object, she got to remain a Virgin. That is why she told Gabriel - "How can this be, since I do NOT KNOW MAN.

---

It's a reach to assume Mary undertook that vow. The Bible certainly doesn't say that at all. Of course she didn't yet "know a man", she was an unmarried Jewish woman.

Again Mary isn't telling Gabriel that because she was informing him that she had taken a vow, she's incredulous about being pregnant becuase she's a virgin.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Why did St. John take Mary into his home if Jesus had blood brothers?

---

Dunno. I guess I'll ask him when I see him.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Mary took a vow of Virginity, and according to Numbers 30, if Joseph didn't object, she got to remain a Virgin. That is why she told Gabriel - "How can this be, since I do NOT KNOW MAN.

---

It's a reach to assume Mary undertook that vow. The Bible certainly doesn't say that at all. Of course she didn't yet "know a man", she was an unmarried Jewish woman.

Again Mary isn't telling Gabriel that because she was informing him that she had taken a vow, she's incredulous about being pregnant becuase she's a virgin.

---

The thing with extra-biblical traditions, especially at the lay level. You can more or less claim whatever you want and since it's extra-biblical you can kind of just shrug your shoulders and say "whatever."

Whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus doesn't impact my salvation. It's not clear in the Bible. What I know is it doesn't impact my salvation and so its fun to speculate, but that's all it is.

It's crucial to me, since scripture trumps all personal opinions....Mary IS the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and according to scripture, she does not know man....

From St. Jerome's Vulgate....

Luke 1: 34
dixit autem Maria ad angelum quomodo fiet istud quoniam virum non cognosco

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Future tense- How SHALL this be done...

"I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." -- John Wesley

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." -- Huldrych Zwingli

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." -- Martin Luther

Thaddeus73 said:

---

It's crucial to me, since scripture trumps all personal opinions....Mary IS the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and according to scripture, she does not know man....
.

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's a reach to assume Mary undertook that vow. The Bible certainly doesn't say that at all. Of course she didn't yet "know a man", she was an unmarried Jewish woman.

Again Mary isn't telling Gabriel that because she was informing him that she had taken a vow, she's incredulous about being pregnant becuase she's a virgin.

---

If what you say is true, then she would have said, oh yes, when Joseph and I have a baby. And BTW, she wasn't pregnant when Gabriel appeared to her.

Everything that is a "stretch" for prots is intuitively obvious to Catholics, and is only a "stretch" because to agree with it would mean you would have to agree with 2000 years of Church teaching, and Luther, BTW...

---

Luther's thoughts are only important to Luther and I guess Lutherans. Neither of which am I.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Mary took a vow of Virginity, and according to Numbers 30, if Joseph didn't object, she got to remain a Virgin. That is why she told Gabriel - "How can this be, since I do NOT KNOW MAN.

---

It's a reach to assume Mary undertook that vow. The Bible certainly doesn't say that at all. Of course she didn't yet "know a man", she was an unmarried Jewish woman.

Again Mary isn't telling Gabriel that because she was informing him that she had taken a vow, she's incredulous about being pregnant becuase she's a virgin.

---

The thing with extra-biblical traditions, especially at the lay level. You can more or less claim whatever you want and since it's extra-biblical you can kind of just shrug your shoulders and say "whatever."

Whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus doesn't impact my salvation. It's not clear in the Bible. What I know is it doesn't impact my salvation and so its fun to speculate, but that's all it is.

---

I completely agree that it's possible that Mary remained a Virgin, it's also possible she was assumed into heaven. The problem I have is requiring belief in these things and the need to bring Mary to this state of Co-Redemptrix.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's a reach to assume Mary undertook that vow. The Bible certainly doesn't say that at all. Of course she didn't yet "know a man", she was an unmarried Jewish woman.

Again Mary isn't telling Gabriel that because she was informing him that she had taken a vow, she's incredulous about being pregnant becuase she's a virgin.

---

If what you say is true, then she would have said, oh yes, when Joseph and I have a baby. And BTW, she wasn't pregnant when Gabriel appeared to her.

Everything that is a "stretch" for prots is intuitively obvious to Catholics, and is only a "stretch" because to agree with it would mean you would have to agree with 2000 years of Church teaching, and Luther, BTW...

---

Luther's thoughts are only important to Luther and I guess Lutherans. Neither of which am I.

---

I am Lutheran and I'll say this...Luther's thoughts can be just as valuable as many other church teachers in the insights and teachings they bring. However, he's not infallible and like everything else, they should be tested against Scripture.

So while we (Lutherans) see a lot of Scriptural truth in the things he said, we don't take his words as gospel.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

. John gives us zero indication that Mary died, but remind me who wrote Revelation? Wasn't it John who wrote the following in Scripture?

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth."

The fact that you refuse to even consider the possibility that this woman could be Mary is baffling.

Quote:

---

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 let's 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).

---

I think the lens of your interpretive tradition is blinding you here with regard to the Woman, and respectfully you are not really understanding how typology works. Typology does not replace people or render the OT types meaningless but the OT type helps us see and understand the NT fulfillment - which is always greater.

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.

Fast forward to the wedding at Cana and the foot of the Cross and you will see at the beginning and end of his public ministry Jesus calls his Blessed Mother by her title, Woman. Jesus was not rebuking Mary in calling her Woman but rather he was pointing all of us to WHO his mother was and was elevating her for all of us to see.

Quote:

---

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).

---

BINGO. You are correct that it was minimal to none, but what you get wrong is that this was the "generic woman" when instead it was the Proper TITLE of Woman. I think prior to the fall there are 11 references to Eve as Woman and zero after the fall. There are 2 times Mary is called woman and both were by Jesus. The first when she invited him to perform his first miracle at the Wedding at Cana (unlike Eve who invited Adam into the fall at the tree of death) and the second time at the completion of his ministry while hanging on the tree of life.

Quote:

---

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.

---

The fact that Joseph was replaced by a woman means nothing with regard to Mary and does not detract from the 12 tribes either. Again, this is where you err in your attempts at typology.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You put these back to back but you failed to answer the question I asked:
Rev 12:5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."
WHO gave birth here?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Why do you keep saying this? You brought up this literal vs allegorical issue and you are attempting to force me to do something that is not necessary or required for me to do. Perhaps this makes sense to you but it does not to me. It is non-sensical.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

11:19 - Mary is the literal ark, but the next words are all allegorical

---

The Arc of the Covenant was the dwelling place of God on earth in the OT. The Glory cloud overshadowed the Arc when God was present in the Arc. In the NT Mary was overshadowed by the same Glory Cloud when she conceived Jesus and God literally dwelt in her whom. "He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos."

Quote:

---

12:1 - Mary is also literally the woman (odd she's 2 different things back to back), but everything else is allegorical

---

Yes. Mary is literally ALL OF THE ABOVE. That's the whole point! Mary is/was literally the dwelling place of God on earth, and the one who gave Christ his humanity. Mary is also the Woman of Genesis, the new Eve, who God declared would have enmity with the devil, as would her offspring the new Adam.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Brother, you are grasping at straws here. Let's break it down.

The Apocalypse of John is an allegorical work but it contains and conveys real truths and tells the story of Salvation history with some vivid imagery . Unfortunately, the chapter breaks added around the 11th century were sometimes placed poorly and influence how Bibles are read and this is one of those cases. What John describes when he sees into the Temple in Heaven was the Arc of his Covenant - a Woman with a crown of 12 stars.

So Revelation 12 tells the story of Salvation History. You have 3 main characters. The Woman, her Son, and the Dragon. Virtually all scholars would agree that the Son who is to rule all the nations with an iron scepter is speaking of Jesus. Additionally, the red dragon represents Satan who is trying to devour the child, Jesus. So who is the WOMAN who gave birth? There is a singular son (Jesus), a singular dragon (Satan), and a singular WOMAN (??).

To say the WOMAN, the mother of this child, can be anything to the EXCLUSION of Mary - and that in no way would it make sense for this woman to be alluding to Mary - that's a stretch to say the least. In some sense could the woman with the crown of 12 stars represent Israel? Sure, we can accept that. But to claim that the woman of Revelation 12 is NOT Mary, and in no way is alluding to Mary, is simply an untenable position.

I don't need to jump back and forth from literal to allegory to literal in order to support this position. It's pretty clear if you understand who the major players here are.

Finally, the "rest of her offspring" at the end of Rev 12 is clearly speaking of Christians as the Children of God who keep the commandments of God. You are trying too hard here in bringing up Mary's virginity and trying to make an issue where no issue exists.

You accused me of being willing to destroy the meaning of scripture to advance my narrative. It appears to me that you are the one twisting yourself into a pretzel, not me.

---

Great post.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

It's crucial to me, since scripture trumps all personal opinions....Mary IS the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and according to scripture, she does not know man....
.

---

---

I think some clarification is needed here...This phrase of 'Mary as spouse of the Holy Spirit' (I've only heard it as 'the Holy Spirit being the spouse of Mary') has historically only been symbolic to represent Mary's commitment to God and also that she remained a virgin. Its not meant to be literal

I wasn't taking any offense with the comment on Mary, but the bolded statement.

AgLiving06 said:

---

I wasn't taking any offense with the comment on Mary, but the bolded statement.

---

Okay. Sorry.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

It's crucial to me, since scripture trumps all personal opinions....Mary IS the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and according to scripture, she does not know man....
.

---

---

I think some clarification is needed here...This phrase of 'Mary as spouse of the Holy Spirit' (I've only heard it as 'the Holy Spirit being the spouse of Mary') has historically only been symbolic to represent Mary's commitment to God and also that she remained a virgin. Its not meant to be literal

---

I have heard in reference to her unique relationship with the Holy Trinity
Daughter of the Father
Mother of the Son and
Spouse of the Holy Spirit
According to some mystics this is a preferred title of Our Lady
nothing dogmatic but certainly is giving her due respect to her role in salvation history

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.

---

Bingo! This what I learned in "Inquiry" class.

Mary is the new Eden (God lived in both places)...

Mary is the first Christian...

Mary is the first Evangelist....

Mary is the new Eve...

Mary is the Queen of Heaven...

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Mary is the conduit for all Grace (Jesus) in the world.

Mary says to do WHATEVER Jesus tells you.

Mary says that "All generations WILL CALL ME BLESSED."

After Jesus, she is the most important person in the bible, the living tabernacle of the living God.

Case closed...