Catholics and being born again...

12,230 Views | 174 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by CrackerJackAg
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

We going to do this once again?

It's your argument that:

1. Mary cried out in pain from the birth of Jesus?
2. She was clothes in the sun with the moon under her feet?
3. At Jesus birth, there was a literal dragon standing before her?
NO, this is NOT my argument. This has never been my argument - and the position you keep trying to force me into is not required for Mary to be the Woman giving birth. Your fixation with this literal vs. figurative requirement and applying that to Apocalyptic scripture is dumbfounding to me. You have done this multiple times where you are telling me what position I must be arguing and the ramifications of the position you have given me and then just declare I am wrong because tradition is bad. This is called a straw-man.

I could do the same thing to you because in Joesph's dream there were only 11 stars but in Revelation there are 12 stars so clearly your position does not follow - but I won't do that because I can accept there is some imagery being drawn from Genesis 37, and at the same time see the Woman is clearly alluding to Mary at least in some (more obvious and significant) ways. John's apocalyptic writing has layers upon layers upon layers of imagery where many things have multiple meanings. To EXCLUDE Mary as being part of that imagery in Revelation 12 is borderline heretical.

AgLiving06 said:

and so forth.

As before, you want to argue that this one word is literal, but everything else is figurative because of what your unwritten tradition has claimed as truth.

Let's not forget the lack of historical evidences for the claim and what you are left with is an unwritten tradition that doesn't align with Scripture or history.
Sorry, brother but you are totally missing the boat with your thought process to the point I honestly can't even understand what you are trying to make me argue with your whole literal/figurative jumping back and forth stuff. I've addressed it earlier in this thread but it is absolutely ridiculous.

It is your position that Revelation 12 is drawing from Genesis 37 and Joesph's dream because of the sun and the moon, and that Rev 12 is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER alluding to Mary - who actually gives birth to a male child who will conquer sin and rule all the nations. If I have not stated your position accurately please correct me, but if this is indeed your position as you have stated then it is completely untenable.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:



Quote:

Why? Paul is not even referencing this verse. It's a non sequitur. Seed, offspring, and descendants are used hundreds if not thousands of times in the Bible.
In Galations St Paul reads closely the promise to Abraham. He notes "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say "and to seeds" as of many but "and to your seed" as of One, who is Christ."

As I noted before, this point cannot be made in the Hebrew from this word alone, because the plural in Hebrew is the same as the plural in English - seed / seed is ambiguous as to whether you are talking about one, or many. Just like fish or deer. But St Paul looks at the Greek, and in the Greek the plural is not the same as the singular. They are different words. So he rightly notes that this promise is not to many, but to one.

The Greek word in Genesis 3:15 is singular, not plural. This promise cannot be to many, but to one.

This pattern of translation is consistent in the Hebrew, though. When zera is about many offspring, i.e., posterity, the pronouns are always plural, but when it denotes a specific descendent the syntax of the surrounding words is singular (Gen 4:25, 2 Sam 7:12-15, Gen 21:13, Gen 38:9, 1 Sam 1;11, Isaiah 41:8). And the Greek follows these in the use of singular and plural.

Aside from the plural/singular syntax you also get the gendering in Greek - when seed is singular, the pronouns are masculine even though "seed" is neuter. The singular "he" that crushes the head is referring back to the same singular offspring. Otherwise you have the strange reading where we talk about a "they" and the next sentence introduce a new "he" who is otherwise unreferenced. This is clear enough from the whole passage in the Hebrew, but in the Greek it grammatically can not be read any other way. Seed here is one person.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this and I appreciate the sincere response. Genesis 3:15 really is a fascinating study and is likely one of the most profound verses in all of the Bible. I pray for nothing but wisdom and discernment comes from this discussion for all parties as led by the Holy Spirit.

I've taken some time to really look into the hermeneutics and syntax associated with the verse. I completely understand what you are saying. However, you are stopping well short of what the verse is actually implying.

I can agree with you completely that in Genesis 3:15 it is a specific reference to a singular, seed, sperma, and this is proven by looking at the pronouns being used. Although in Hebrew, the word like in english can be in reference to a collective or singular, the way it is translated in Greek is singular. Logically its determined by looking at the syntax of the sentence. For example:

Quote:

17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 22:17.



You can see in this verse alone, offspring is being used as a collective and singular.


Let's reexamine Paul's comments in Galations 3:16. As always, verses have to be taken in the context, at the very least, of the passage and surrounding passages. If you read further in the passage, you will see Paul affirms my argument completely and undeniably.

Quote:

16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ga 3:16.



Quote:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ga 3:2829.


Heirs (plural) according to promise (God's covenant with Abraham)? But how can this be? Paul literally just said in verse 16 the offspring of Abraham is to be interpreted definitively singular.

Paul is speaking to the Galatians about the law, how God's covenant with Abraham is not usurped by the law or nullified, how Abraham is a demonstration of being saved by faith, and how Christ essentially replaced the curse under the law so that gentiles are included in "the blessings of all nations" prophecy.

Paul is referencing the central concept of Christianity. Faith in Jesus is how we obtain our salvation. As believers apart of the overall Church, we are the bride of Christ (Eph 5:22-32, Revelations 18 and 19). What does Paul say about marriage?
Quote:


31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Eph 5:3132.


This little tidbit from Paul is a huge nugget and now completely explains what he means in Galatians 3:29 above. We are one with Christ! It is Christ (singular) and the Body of Christ or believers (collective, plural). As he said, the mystery is indeed profound because it is about so much more than marriage between a man and a woman.

This is why I said earlier that you are trying to tease something apart that is intrinsically linked. It doesn't matter that the syntax of Genesis 3:15 refers to the singular. It's referring to all of us as believers, the Church, the body of Christ, and Christ.

Paul proves it several times as indicated which is a direct reference to prophecy in Genesis 3.

The Church will have enmity with satan.
Ephesians 6:12-16
Quote:


12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.....16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one;
Romans 16:20
Quote:

20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Then of course this doesn't even cover the logical fallacies that would be created by your viewpoint. The seed of the serpent is clearly not singular. The curse was placed on all mankind (plural).

The overall point is this. If you choose to interpret Genesis 3:15 rigidly singular, you are completely missing the purpose of what God is trying to tell you. Paul lays it all out there for us, but this is why verses cannot be taken out of context. Like I said, God is not trying to trick us.


Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In Verse 15 God is speaking to the serpent and the consequences of the relationship between the serpent (Devil/sin) and the Woman (Mary), and then the same enmity between the devil and HER offspring. We as humans, fallen men, do not have enmity between us and the devil/sin. That is the battle we fight every day and often lose and need forgiveness. You do see that the offspring being foretold is Jesus Christ, which means the Woman in the same verse would be his mother, Mary. Mary's desire is to do the will of God, and his perfectly aligned with her son.
Bob_Ag said:
Paul says otherwise.
Can you be more specific here? Paul says a lot of things.
See my reply above your post and my reply just now to Zobel. Paul clearly tells us in scripture we have enmity with satan.


Quote:

Quote:

Bob_Ag said:
Yes God is addressing Eve in verse 16, just like he was in verse 15.
In Verse 15 God was addressing the Serpent, not the Woman. God Spoke of the Woman and of her offspring. The offspring with enmity that will crush the head of the Serpent is Jesus, the New Adam, which he completed through the Cross and his Glorious Resurrection. The Woman who will give birth to Jesus, her offspring, is Mary, the New Eve. Notice in the garden how Eve becomes the mother of the living and Adam and Eve are then given clothes, and in contrast at the foot of the Cross Mary is revealed as the mother of the Church while Jesus was stripped naked on the Cross? Eve was taken from the flesh of Adam. Jesus took on his flesh from Mary, and Jesus gives that flesh to all of us on the Cross and in the Eucharist. The parallels are not accidental. Jesus calls our attention to this when he calls his mother by her title and reveals who she is, the Woman.
I said he is addressing Eve which doesn't have to mean direct conversation.

Oxford dictionary: think about and begin to deal with (an issue or problem).

I use this definition and I said it the way I did because God is literally, through Eve, about to address curse on mankind and uses anticipatory language to foreshadow the resolution (see my post to Zobel above).

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
While on it's face it would appear God was just talking about the Woman generally, Jesus helps us understand what this verse was foreshadowing when he bestows the title of Woman on his mother at the wedding in Cana and again at the foot of the Cross. The church has always recognized this as a type of Mary in Genesis.
Bob_Ag said:
That's great, but are you really arguing that God is not bestowing a curse on womanhood here?
The consequences of sin is death. Punishment was handed down by God to Women, Men, and to the Serpent. Jesus, born of the Woman, the New Eve, the Arc of His Covenant, the Theotokos, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God and the Mother of all Christians, overcame death through his Cross and Resurrection.

That is what I am arguing.
Once again, the use of this verse as support for Mariological dogma is weak at best. As I explained above, the verse is not just referring to Christ in the singular and therefore makes the woman not a direct or at the least, sole reference to "woman". As I've said, Mary is a part of the story, but this interpretation of the verse is really overextended.

Remember, we are not having an either or kind of argument. You're saying the woman is Mary, and solely Mary. I'm saying the woman includes Mary which is biblically supported in the way offspring, seed, descendant vernacular is used in the Bible. Your position is not supported directly by scripture, it can only be inferred.
To be honest, I've read a lot of scholarly articles on Genesis 3 and support for your position is limited at best.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Look, you're taking something simple and making it complicated. In the Greek, it is singular neuter, but the following pronoun is masculine and singular. This is like saying "I will put enmity between this person and you; he will crush your head..." In Hebrew, it is ambiguous as to single and plural but masculine, and the following pronoun is masculine and singular. This is like saying "I will put enmity between them (male) and you; he will crush your head..."

In both cases, the pronoun "he" is referring back to seed. We can't make seed plural without changing "he" to "they". When the passage was translated to Greek they correctly translated it singular.

Just like St Paul says - it does not say "between your seeds" as of many but "between your seed" as of one. It is literally the same issue, with the same word, with the same following pronoun usage. Since you agree that this is singular, I don't know why you make a long detour about interpretation and then argue with yourself.
Quote:

I can agree with you completely that in Genesis 3:15 it is a specific reference to a singular, seed, sperma, and this is proven by looking at the pronouns being used.
...
If you choose to interpret Genesis 3:15 rigidly singular, you are completely missing the purpose of what God is trying to tell you.
I'd say that if you take something that is literally singular and build a long interpretation about why it should be interpreted as plural, you're reading something into the text that isn't there. The verse is singular - God is not trying to trick us with His Word, right?


////
Quote:

Heirs (plural) according to promise (God's covenant with Abraham)? But how can this be? Paul literally just said in verse 16 the offspring of Abraham is to be interpreted definitively singular.
This isn't as complicated a question to answer as you suggest. There is one Heir, who is Christ. St Paul is reading this as an Israelite, and in that case the oldest son inherits everything and is responsible for dividing the inheritance (cf Luke 12:13). Christ is the Unique Son - this is a closer sense of "only begotten" - in the same way that Isaac was the unique son in the antetype as St Paul explores a few passages later (Gal 4:28).

The promises are uniquely Christ's, and He alone is the "Heir of all things" (Heb 1:2). He is "the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15) who has "the nations as (His) inheritance, the ends of the earth as (His) possession" (Ps 2:8), because "all the nations are (His) inheritance." (Ps 82:8). We have no share in these promises, none. They are His, and His alone.

But - the beautiful word here - "when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons...So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God." (Gal 4:4-5,7). The if-then here is a pivot of grace - we merit nothing in ourselves.

Therefore we inherit through Christ. He inherits everything, and chooses freely to share with us as co-heirs. We are baptized and receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and "the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, also heirs: heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs of Christ." (Romans 8:16-17).

So no, we don't need to do damage to the text of Genesis 3:15 to understand unity in Christ, or inheritance with Christ. In fact I would argue that attempting to make those verses plural as promises to us rather than singular as promises to Christ diminishes from the grace that we receive that makes us co-heirs, although we are but unworthy servants (Luke 17:10).
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am saying The Woman in Gen 3:15 is ultimately about Mary, but not to the exclusion of everything or everyone else. To your point there can be multiple meanings or applications but Mary is the ultimate fulfillment of what is being said by God.

Think about it this way - Christ is the offspring (singular) and Jesus only has one mother, Mary (singular). Whatever pertains to Christ must be equally applied to Mary in this context when looking at Gen 3:15. Does this exclude everything else? No. But to recognize Christ as the offspring but not Mary as the mother (woman) doesn't follow.


Edit to add: I don't see where Paul speaks of having enmity, hatred and total opposition, in the way foretold by God. Maybe I am missing something there but maybe you could provide a little more clarity specific to that? Thanks.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

NO, this is NOT my argument. This has never been my argument - and the position you keep trying to force me into is not required for Mary to be the Woman giving birth. Your fixation with this literal vs. figurative requirement and applying that to Apocalyptic scripture is dumbfounding to me. You have done this multiple times where you are telling me what position I must be arguing and the ramifications of the position you have given me and then just declare I am wrong because tradition is bad. This is called a straw-man.

I know it's not your argument, but I use it to show the absolute mess of your attempted argument. You want to claim that because it says woman, it MUST Be an actual woman, yet because of your unwritten tradition (and nothing more), you have to immediately reject everything that describes the woman as figurative because you have conflict between the written and unwritten. That's the problem that every Sola Scriptura person inherently realizes with your unwritten traditions. Unwritten traditions supercede written by necessity.

Quote:

I could do the same thing to you because in Joesph's dream there were only 11 stars but in Revelation there are 12 stars so clearly your position does not follow - but I won't do that because I can accept there is some imagery being drawn from Genesis 37, and at the same time see the Woman is clearly alluding to Mary at least in some (more obvious and significant) ways. John's apocalyptic writing has layers upon layers upon layers of imagery where many things have multiple meanings. To EXCLUDE Mary as being part of that imagery in Revelation 12 is borderline heretical.

I suspect John wanted you to make this exact connection. Joseph's dream saw him saving all of his family, and the creation of Israel, and John wants you to think of that exact story to see the 12 tribes and make the connection of the birth of Israel with the birth of the Christian Church through the 12 apostles.

It's absolutely silly to claim it's heretical to not see Mary in Revelation 12. It's actually kind of shocking to see you through that word around to be honest.

Quote:

Sorry, brother but you are totally missing the boat with your thought process to the point I honestly can't even understand what you are trying to make me argue with your whole literal/figurative jumping back and forth stuff. I've addressed it earlier in this thread but it is absolutely ridiculous.

It's not and why I continue to point out at the top the dance you have to do, not to align with the written Scripture, but to align with the unwritten traditions. You make this verse about Mary, but then have to figure out a way around every other sentence. That "should" cause you to pause and wonder why you're having to do that.

Quote:

It is your position that Revelation 12 is drawing from Genesis 37 and Joesph's dream because of the sun and the moon, and that Rev 12 is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER alluding to Mary - who actually gives birth to a male child who will conquer sin and rule all the nations. If I have not stated your position accurately please correct me, but if this is indeed your position as you have stated then it is completely untenable.


My position is that Revelation 12 is mostly likely talking of Israel and/or the Christian Church. That's the view best supported within the text itself. John is paralleling the establishment of Israel via Joseph's dream so that we see the continuity of the establishment of the Christian Church. It does not require the literal/figurative dance you are attempting and aligns with John's consistent reference to the OT as the basis for this book.

If you desire to make a typological argument, as you've attempted, you're free to do so (I won't call you a heretic), but as I already pointed out, typological arguments acknowledge the text isn't on your side and so you're relying on a hidden meaning to justify your position.

It's also consistent with the historic view of the Church.

Hippolytus of Rome (2nd-3rd Century) wrote the following: Schaff Link

"60. Now, concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus: "And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man-child, who is to rule all the nations: and the child was caught up unto God and to His throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath the place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And then when the dragon saw it, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast (out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast) out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the saints of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus."

61. By the woman then clothed with the sun," he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the "moon under her feet" he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, "upon her head a crown of twelve stars," refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, "she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered," mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. "And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." "And the dragon," he says, "saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks concealment in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: "And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings.""
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Therefore we inherit through Christ. He inherits everything, and chooses freely to share with us as co-heirs. We are baptized and receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and "the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, also heirs: heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs of Christ." (Romans 8:16-17).

So no, we don't need to do damage to the text of Genesis 3:15 to understand unity in Christ, or inheritance with Christ. In fact I would argue that attempting to make those verses plural as promises to us rather than singular as promises to Christ diminishes from the grace that we receive that makes us co-heirs, although we are but unworthy servants (Luke 17:10).

Your second paragraph is just an incorrect inference. Nothing is taking anything away from the righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Do women have seed? Does the serpent have seed, as in, is he procreating on earth? No, these are metaphorical concepts. The devils progeny is evil, sin, rebelliousness from God, his evil spiritual Allie's cast down with him, etc. it is the antithesis to the progeny of Christ who are born again and united in Him as the Body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:22 (ESV): For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Hebrews 2:14 (ESV): 14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, … 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.

You are just hung up one aspect of the verse in that it's referencing the climax of the story, but that doesn't omit the story.

Consider the sentence:
Edward the I was king of England in 1296. He attacked the Scottish rebel army in the first war for Scottish independence.

The pronoun is singular as is the noun, but it's clearly in reference to king and his subjects/army. In the same way the serpents seed is in reference to the devils kingdom of death on earth. The devils seed is clearly not singular and because the devil is the one being destroyed, his seed is clearly in reference to a higher allegorical framework. In the same way, the seed of the woman is clearly in reference to Christ and the Body of Christ.

Now I'm not saying anyone but Christ is responsible for the final defeat of Satan. However, you just can't ignore the divine story of spiritual progeny that occurs immediately after the curse and leads to Christ's great crescendo. As I've posted and even you posted in your own scriptural references, Paul affirms this several times in his gospels to the gentiles.


Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faithful Ag said:

I am saying The Woman in Gen 3:15 is ultimately about Mary, but not to the exclusion of everything or everyone else. To your point there can be multiple meanings or applications but Mary is the ultimate fulfillment of what is being said by God.

Think about it this way - Christ is the offspring (singular) and Jesus only has one mother, Mary (singular). Whatever pertains to Christ must be equally applied to Mary in this context when looking at Gen 3:15. Does this exclude everything else? No. But to recognize Christ as the offspring but not Mary as the mother (woman) doesn't follow.


Edit to add: I don't see where Paul speaks of having enmity, hatred and total opposition, in the way foretold by God. Maybe I am missing something there but maybe you could provide a little more clarity specific to that? Thanks.


Good morning Faithful Ag. I think your points are fair. I wouldn't necessarily say I disagree, I just think it's limited in scope.

I'll try to clarify more on the enmity thing when I get back to my laptop.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
By this interpretation you could also say we are the one to crush the head of the serpent and he bruises our heel.

No, I'm sorry. Christ did that. In your example it would be like king Edward single-handedly defeating his enemies. Edward needed an army, Christ trod the wine press by Himself. It is His victory alone, and we receive the benefits by grace.

Anyway, not much else to say. It's weird you were getting on me about semantics, and spend so much effort to be right about something being plural which you now agree is singular. Though I suppose with the whole conversation in view the reason is to be able to deny this verse refers to Christ in particular so we can also say it does not refer to Mary in particular.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Faithful Ag said:


NO, this is NOT my argument. This has never been my argument - and the position you keep trying to force me into is not required for Mary to be the Woman giving birth. Your fixation with this literal vs. figurative requirement and applying that to Apocalyptic scripture is dumbfounding to me. You have done this multiple times where you are telling me what position I must be arguing and the ramifications of the position you have given me and then just declare I am wrong because tradition is bad. This is called a straw-man.
I know it's not your argument, but I use it to show the absolute mess of your attempted argument. You want to claim that because it says woman, it MUST Be an actual woman, yet because of your unwritten tradition (and nothing more), you have to immediately reject everything that describes the woman as figurative because you have conflict between the written and unwritten. That's the problem that every Sola Scriptura person inherently realizes with your unwritten traditions. Unwritten traditions supercede written by necessity.
Unbelievable. So here you are admitting to creating a straw-man argument knowing it is not my position, and then you immediately ADD a new claim and a new straw-man argument to replace the first one? You are not doing anything to support your own position by falsely stating mine and then attacking what you invented.

As I have repeatedly and consistently stated, the Woman in Revelation represents more than just Mary - but Mary is absolutely and undeniably represented in the Woman. You are denying that the Woman represents Mary in any way whatsoever, despite the fact that you see her actual son, Jesus, in the child being born.

I guess that would be a good point to clarify. Do you see the male child being born to rule all the nations with a rod of iron in Revelation 12 as Jesus?

AgLiving06 said:

Faithful Ag said:


I could do the same thing to you because in Joesph's dream there were only 11 stars but in Revelation there are 12 stars so clearly your position does not follow - but I won't do that because I can accept there is some imagery being drawn from Genesis 37, and at the same time see the Woman is clearly alluding to Mary at least in some (more obvious and significant) ways. John's apocalyptic writing has layers upon layers upon layers of imagery where many things have multiple meanings. To EXCLUDE Mary as being part of that imagery in Revelation 12 is borderline heretical.
I suspect John wanted you to make this exact connection. Joseph's dream saw him saving all of his family, and the creation of Israel, and John wants you to think of that exact story to see the 12 tribes and make the connection of the birth of Israel with the birth of the Christian Church through the 12 apostles.

It's absolutely silly to claim it's heretical to not see Mary in Revelation 12. It's actually kind of shocking to see you through that word around to be honest.
I can agree that John wants us to make the connection that the crown of 12 stars represents the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles. No conflict there. But you DENY that the woman giving birth also represents Mary - through whom the male child and Savior of the world was actually born. It is BOTH/and not either/or. Your position excludes Mary altogether, which is not tenable, and yes I would argue is borderline heretical (not you personally but the position).

AgLiving06 said:

Faithful Ag said:


Sorry, brother but you are totally missing the boat with your thought process to the point I honestly can't even understand what you are trying to make me argue with your whole literal/figurative jumping back and forth stuff. I've addressed it earlier in this thread but it is absolutely ridiculous.
It's not and why I continue to point out at the top the dance you have to do, not to align with the written Scripture, but to align with the unwritten traditions. You make this verse about Mary, but then have to figure out a way around every other sentence. That "should" cause you to pause and wonder why you're having to do that.
I am not dancing. There is no dancing that I need to do, no matter how hard you try. My position aligns beautifully and perfectly with both the written Scripture and Sacred Tradition and without conflict.

AgLiving06 said:

Faithful Ag said:


It is your position that Revelation 12 is drawing from Genesis 37 and Joesph's dream because of the sun and the moon, and that Rev 12 is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER alluding to Mary - who actually gives birth to a male child who will conquer sin and rule all the nations. If I have not stated your position accurately please correct me, but if this is indeed your position as you have stated then it is completely untenable.
My position is that Revelation 12 is mostly likely talking of Israel and/or the Christian Church. That's the view best supported within the text itself. John is paralleling the establishment of Israel via Joseph's dream so that we see the continuity of the establishment of the Christian Church. It does not require the literal/figurative dance you are attempting and aligns with John's consistent reference to the OT as the basis for this book.

If you desire to make a typological argument, as you've attempted, you're free to do so (I won't call you a heretic), but as I already pointed out, typological arguments acknowledge the text isn't on your side and so you're relying on a hidden meaning to justify your position.

It's also consistent with the historic view of the Church.

Hippolytus of Rome (2nd-3rd Century) wrote the following: Schaff Link

"60. Now, concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus: "And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man-child, who is to rule all the nations: and the child was caught up unto God and to His throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath the place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And then when the dragon saw it, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast (out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast) out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the saints of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus."

61. By the woman then clothed with the sun," he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the "moon under her feet" he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, "upon her head a crown of twelve stars," refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, "she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered," mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. "And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." "And the dragon," he says, "saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks concealment in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: "And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings.""

As Catholics, we affirm this completely. The Woman does represent the Church, and the 12 stars represent the 12 Tribes and 12 Apostles, BUT the Woman is also Mary who gives birth to Jesus Christ and therefore Mary is the Mother of the Church.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus, who is God.
therefore:
Mary is the Mother of God.
Jesus is the King of Heaven and Earth.
therefore:
Mary is the Queen Mother of the King, Jesus.
Mary is the Mother of the Church.
Mary is the Queen Mother of Heaven.
Mary is the Woman in Revelation, with her crown of 12 stars.

Everything stated by Hippolytus of Rome above is perfectly consistent with my position that Mary is represented in the Woman. Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be explicitly stated to be known and understood. It is your position EXCLUDING the possibility or interpretation that Mary is (or could be) represented in the Woman, while mine INCLUDES Israel, the Church, and Mary. It does not require Sacred Tradition as a guide to see a woman giving birth to a male child who will do battle with a dragon and see Mary giving birth to Jesus to do battle with Satan. It's pretty obvious imagery.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The only thing that's weird is you keep insinuating I'm removing Christ from the verse. I challenge you to quote where I said that. I said it's about Christ which has oneness with the body of Christ (John 17). That's Jesus speaking.

The funny thing is you keep glossing over the seed of the serpent and the fact that we are referring to seed of a woman which does not biologically exist. Those are context clues that are flying right over your head. For some reason you think there is some mutually exclusive language going on here whereas it is inclusive based on scriptural evidence. Nowhere did I refute Christ as the finale or fulfillment of prophecy. I refuted the Mariological dogma that's being inferred in the verse and for some reason you've been arguing with me that I'm refuting Christ's role. Just because I don't believe the woman is Mary specifically is not mutually exclusive of Christ in the verse. Why you think that I have no idea.

The king Edward analogy is not a metaphor for the situation, it's a demonstration of syntax that you can't seem to grasp.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Since you seem to be struggling with the way I'm interpreting the verse, let me just lay it out there.

For reference, here is the verse again,

Quote:

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 3:15.
God is speaking to the serpent and at the same time addressing the woman who is Eve. The serpent was just cursed and he and his minions have now been thrown down from the heavens unto earth. Now Eve, who is matriarchal mother of all humans, has just introduced sin unto mankind and which tainted the seed of Adam which will now be the progenitor of death. God is indicating from now on there will be hostility between her and the serpent, who is now the mechanism for the spiritual seed of life to begin and the serpent is the mechanism for evil. God is introducing the dichotomy of the New Testament (those who believe and those who do not) at the beginning of the curse. In almost paradoxical fashion God is talking about a woman, who do not possess seed, as opposed to the man, who does. This is for sure Messianic language about the coming of Christ through a virgin mother Mary. It is also God addressing one of his first children, whom probably had the largest case of shame in the history of mankind, and is letting her know that although you brought sin into the world, He is going to outwit the devil and also use the woman's lineage to bring redemption for all and conquer the devil in his own kingdom. God's wrath is perfectly just, but he is also perfectly loving. This is consummated in the second half of the verse and coincidentally the second coming of Jesus.

No please refute how I'm trying to omit Christ from the verse?

The weirdest thing about this, you, an Orthodox Christian, is struggling with a typological interpretation of the verse.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I didn't say you were trying to remove Christ. I said you're trying to pluralize a singular.

That verse refers to Christ uniquely, because it is singular. He is the "he" and the "seed" singular. Again, in the Greek it is explicitly, literally, and exclusively singular.

The rest of this is just torturing this to death.

And no, this verse is not spoken to the woman, it is spoken to the serpent. You've said several times that this was spoken to Eve, but it is not correct. 14-15 are spoken to the serpent, 16 is spoken to the woman.

This has become a moving target. The original problem you had with this was that it was about Mary. Your exact words were "this connection to Mary is illogical" and "somehow you want us to believe that verse 15 takes a sharp right turn and is really referring to Mary?" and "it is so clearly and obviously referring to Eve and all of her descendants" and "verse 15 is not about referencing Mary (Woman is referring to Eve and her offspring that leads to Christ..."

I told you that this is seed singular and you said "You do understand the term can literally mean the singular and plural at the same time? It can mean one offspring or many offsprings." I pointed out this is a coincidence of the structure of singular / plural in Hebrew and English, but it is explicitly singular in Greek, and grammatically singular by the pronoun "he" in Hebrew.

Then you replied "the verse and the passage is literally about all of us" because "the fact the very same word is used 204 times in the Old Testament and the overwhelming majority are PLURAL in usage."

We finally settle the singular / plural question where you "agree...completely that in Genesis 3:15 it is a specific reference to a singular, seed, sperma, and this is proven by looking at the pronouns being used."

<< the discussion should have ended here >>

However, now rather than take the literal words on the page as singular and learn from them you introduced a whole new argument that because we are co-heirs in Christ, this is actually about us, and you now say we shouldn't "interpret Genesis 3:15 rigidly [as] singular." Unfortunately, as it is singular, if we choose to interpret it incorrectly as plural that would be a bad choice. And unnecessary to make the point you're making theologically about co-heirs, I might add.

Then, to make things much worse, now you say "these are metaphorical concepts". What? Is Christ a metaphor? Was He not born of a woman when the time came (Gal 4:4)?

And then you come back to a new grammatical argument that even though the verse is singular, and even though the victory is through Christ alone, and even though this is a unilateral act on His part that required nothing from us, "the seed of the woman is clearly in reference to Christ and the Body of Christ."


Followed by "seed of a woman which does not biologically exist" and "women do not possess seed" ...Seed means offspring, women have offspring. For example, "by faith also Sarah, herself barren, received power for the conception of offspring (seed)" (Heb 11:11). Does Christ not biologically exist?

And last but not least, I didn't say you're omitting Christ. I said you're adding to the prophecy to somehow include us. Not that we aren't included, but that we're not included here. We are included by adoption, later. This is not some trivial point - Christ did all this while we were enemies of God, alone, out of love. If you want to say something like, by adoption we reject satan and so change from being enemies of God (Romans 5:10) and become enemies of satan and friends of Christ, sure. Of course. But the enmity of the Seed happened while we were enemies of God, not of the serpent!

////

I'm not "struggling with the way you're interpreting the verse," I'm saying you have decided that this is not about Mary and are now doing everything you can to avoid coming to that conclusion, and by doing so you are winding up in all sorts of contradictory, fractal, and opposite errors.

Working our way back up, now - hopefully to just close this. The seed of a woman can of course biologically exist - Isaac is the seed of Sarah. And Christ absolutely was the human, biological son of Mary because He is fully God and fully Man, theanthropos. As Gen 3:15 is singular and the promise there is singular, Christ acted unilaterally and won the victory alone - "I have trod the winepress alone, and no one from the nations was with Me". The verse has no need of metaphorical concept when the literal reading absolutely happened and was made clear in Christ's victory. So the verse is not about all of us, literally or otherwise. And therefore rather than referring to Eve and all of her descendants, it is referring uniquely to Christ, and therefore the Woman should be read as Mary. Not to the exclusion of Eve, but Mary as the culmination of Woman, the New Woman, the New Mother. Which, going back to the original premise, is exactly how St John presents her to us.

QED.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Edit to add: I don't see where Paul speaks of having enmity, hatred and total opposition, in the way foretold by God. Maybe I am missing something there but maybe you could provide a little more clarity specific to that? Thanks.

First I think Ephesians 6 is a pretty good illustration that our battle on this earth is against evil and the evil one. Its referencing a person essentially soldiering up.

The Bible also specifically tells us to 'hate evil'.


Quote:

Psalm 97:10
O you who love the Lord, hate evil! He preserves the lives of his saints; he delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 8:13
The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.

Psalm 119:104
Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.

Jude 1:23
Save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.


I don't think its any kind of great logical leap to assume that if we are to hate evil, then that likely creates hostility between us and the evil one.

The Apostle John also illustrates this relationship in a way that harkens back to Genesis 3:15:

Quote:

1 John 3:9
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.
You cannot abide in God an be an unrepentant sinner. If you are to love God, then you must hate sin as God does.

Hope that helps!
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

This is not some trivial point - Christ did all this while we were enemies of God, alone, out of love. If you want to say something like, by adoption we reject satan and so change from being enemies of God (Romans 5:10) and become enemies of satan and friends of Christ, sure. Of course. But the enmity of the Seed happened while we were enemies of God, not of the serpent!

Watch yourself, this is not biblical.


Quote:

4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jas 4:4.

Unbelievers are enemies of God as they are in opposition. We, as believers, are in Christ. We can't be in Christ and an enemy of God at the same time. You're twisting scripture and I strongly caution against it.


Quote:

And no, this verse is not spoken to the woman, it is spoken to the serpent. You've said several times that this was spoken to Eve, but it is not correct. 14-15 are spoken to the serpent, 16 is spoken to the woman.

There is one enmity with the woman and the other is with the seed. Eve is in fact being addressed in verse 15.
Oxford Dictionary for Addressed: think about and begin to deal with (an issue or problem).

Quote:

Working our way back up, now - hopefully to just close this. The seed of a woman can of course biologically exist - Isaac is the seed of Sarah. And Christ absolutely was the human, biological son of Mary because He is fully God and fully Man, theanthropos. As Gen 3:15 is singular and the promise there is singular, Christ acted unilaterally and won the victory alone - "I have trod the winepress alone, and no one from the nations was with Me". The verse has no need of metaphorical concept when the literal reading absolutely happened and was made clear in Christ's victory. So the verse is not about all of us, literally or otherwise. And therefore rather than referring to Eve and all of her descendants, it is referring uniquely to Christ, and therefore the Woman should be read as Mary. Not to the exclusion of Eve, but Mary as the culmination of Woman, the New Woman, the New Mother. Which, going back to the original premise, is exactly how St John presents her to us.

So you are just going to gloss over half of the verse?
The serpent is the devil. The seed of the devil is not a literal singular being or person. The seed of the devil is multiple.

In the words of Jesus Christ:

Quote:

You Are of Your Father the Devil
39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Fathereven God." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jn 8:3947.

I don't know how to make this point any more clear to you. Jesus, in his own words, is telling you the seed of the serpent are those who are not of faith.
If the seed of the serpent is not a literal singular person despite using the same SYNTAX, it stands to reason that the seed of the woman is referring to not just Christ, but those also that are in enmity with the devil and his seed on earth today.
Quote:


12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Re 12:12.

It's in the Bible right in front of your face.

I don't know how to make this concept any more clear to you. It's all over scripture.

Why you think this interpretation in any way adds to prophecy is just lunacy. No one is saying Christ...and the Church...defeated the devil and deliver the Kingdom of God. Paul is telling you in Galations 3:16 and then in 3:28-29. There is the singular seed of Abraham (3:16) that "blesses all the nations", or seeds of Abraham (3:29). Paul is telling you these concepts are harmonious. with each other.

THEY ARE NOT TO THE OPPOSITION OF EACH OTHER NOR ARE THEY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.




Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shrug, whatever man. Good luck.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Shrug, whatever man. Good luck.
Peace to you. We may not agree, but lets be reconciled to each other as brethren in Christ.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Unbelievable. So here you are admitting to creating a straw-man argument knowing it is not my position, and then you immediately ADD a new claim and a new straw-man argument to replace the first one? You are not doing anything to support your own position by falsely stating mine and then attacking what you invented.

I'm not creating a strawman, but showing the incoherency of your argument. It is your argument that this verse is about Mary, yet none of the descriptors are about her. My argument has been simple from the start, for which you've never rebutted or attempted to rebut.

Quote:

As I have repeatedly and consistently stated, the Woman in Revelation represents more than just Mary - but Mary is absolutely and undeniably represented in the Woman. You are denying that the Woman represents Mary in any way whatsoever, despite the fact that you see her actual son, Jesus, in the child being born.

As I have said before, if you want to claim some typological argument, sure, but it's not doctrine and not heretical (just a reminder something you wanted to accuse me of). Typological arguments are the weakest of all arguments because, as you've shown, you have to read a new interpretation into the verse itself.

Quote:

I can agree that John wants us to make the connection that the crown of 12 stars represents the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles. No conflict there. But you DENY that the woman giving birth also represents Mary - through whom the male child and Savior of the world was actually born. It is BOTH/and not either/or. Your position excludes Mary altogether, which is not tenable, and yes I would argue is borderline heretical (not you personally but the position).

Good. Then if we can agree that John wants us to think of the OT, then we are agreeing that's the primary and proper reading of the verse. End of story. If you want to read other, you're not adding or creating doctrine, but putting a typological argument which don't particularly mean much, as long as you don't make that your primary argument.

Quote:

I am not dancing. There is no dancing that I need to do, no matter how hard you try. My position aligns beautifully and perfectly with both the written Scripture and Sacred Tradition and without conflict.

As you've already admitted, this isn't the case. You just acknowledged that John wants us to make the connection to the Joseph dream. Now you're suggesting we must support a secondary typological argument that is incoherent. The woman is Mary, but nothing describing the woman is applicable to Mary, so those are figurative.

It has nothing to do with Scripture, but your unwritten traditions being forced on the text. If you at least made the claim that Mary did suffer birth pains or that the devil tried to attack Mary/Jesus as they were born, that would be more coherent, but your argument is Woman = Mary, everything else is figurative. It's incoherent.

Quote:

As Catholics, we affirm this completely. The Woman does represent the Church, and the 12 stars represent the 12 Tribes and 12 Apostles, BUT the Woman is also Mary who gives birth to Jesus Christ and therefore Mary is the Mother of the Church.

I have to admit, I'm kinda speechless on this. I'll just I'll keep pointing out how incoherent this is.

Quote:

Everything stated by Hippolytus of Rome above is perfectly consistent with my position that Mary is represented in the Woman. Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be explicitly stated to be known and understood. It is your position EXCLUDING the possibility or interpretation that Mary is (or could be) represented in the Woman, while mine INCLUDES Israel, the Church, and Mary. It does not require Sacred Tradition as a guide to see a woman giving birth to a male child who will do battle with a dragon and see Mary giving birth to Jesus to do battle with Satan. It's pretty obvious imagery.

Good. Now we can get to the meat of your argument. Not only is your argument built on incoherency, it's now evolved to an an argument from silence.

Your claiming that even though Hippolytus makes it clear he thinks this passage is about the Church, since he doesn't say it's not Mary, it can be Mary. He also didn't say the woman wasn't an alien, so maybe she's an alien (because it's always aliens...I'm joking).

Arguments from silence, like typological arguments are among the weakest form of argumentation because you're acknowledging that the writer doesn't support your position, but since he doesn't explicitly exclude it, then maybe. The obvious challenge to your claim is that if Hippolytus (or anybody) truly believed these verses were about Mary, why stay silent? What I would suspect is the real answer is that this concept of inserting Mary into texts like these never crossed their mind.

This is the problem with unwritten traditions. As they develop, they have to be forced back into Scripture and so you end up with these kind of arguments. The Fathers spoke on what they spoke. In this case, we have zero reason to believe that Hippolytus believed this verse was about Mary and so to try and force it on him through silence does him a disservice.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You conveniently cut out and ignored the bolded question below in your response:
Faithful Ag said:

Unbelievable. So here you are admitting to creating a straw-man argument knowing it is not my position, and then you immediately ADD a new claim and a new straw-man argument to replace the first one? You are not doing anything to support your own position by falsely stating mine and then attacking what you invented.

As I have repeatedly and consistently stated, the Woman in Revelation represents more than just Mary - but Mary is absolutely and undeniably represented in the Woman. You are denying that the Woman represents Mary in any way whatsoever, despite the fact that you see her actual son, Jesus, in the child being born.

I guess that would be a good point to clarify. Do you see the male child being born to rule all the nations with a rod of iron in Revelation 12 as Jesus?

If this child is not Jesus, who is it?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This passage doesn't have a universal interpretation in the fathers. Some like St Epiphanius and Oekumenios show early dates (4th and 6th century) witnesses for the view that she represents the Theotokos. Others, like Victorinus and Hippolytus, Gregory the Great, Caesarius of Arles, and Methodios viewed her as the Church. St Andrew of Caesarea gives a kind of noncommital summary, but agrees most with St Methodios. And then mid-fifth century St Quodvultdeus identifies her as Mary who is herself a figure of the Church, along with Cassiodore in the 6th century and Ambrose Autpertus in the 8th.

None of the fathers provide any consistent interpretation across the chapter, much less the book, between various details. Sometimes one agrees with the other on one detail and disagree on another.

The most common interpretation seems to be that it is the Church. Given that Mary is read as a type of the Church so frequently throughout the fathers, I don't see why this is a problem either way.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

This passage doesn't have a universal interpretation in the fathers. Some like St Epiphanius and Oekumenios show early dates (4th and 6th century) witnesses for the view that she represents the Theotokos. Others, like Victorinus and Hippolytus, Gregory the Great, Caesarius of Arles, and Methodios viewed her as the Church. St Andrew of Caesarea gives a kind of noncommital summary, but agrees most with St Methodios. And then mid-fifth century St Quodvultdeus identifies her as Mary who is herself a figure of the Church, along with Cassiodore in the 6th century and Ambrose Autpertus in the 8th.

None of the fathers provide any consistent interpretation across the chapter, much less the book, between various details. Sometimes one agrees with the other on one detail and disagree on another.

The most common interpretation seems to be that it is the Church. Given that Mary is read as a type of the Church so frequently throughout the fathers, I don't see why this is a problem either way.

If I had to guess, Mary gets read into these kinds of verses after the Nestorian controversy as a way to elevate her status as the Theotokos in response to Nestorian use of Christokos.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Faithful Ag said:

You conveniently cut out and ignored the bolded question below in your response:
Faithful Ag said:

Unbelievable. So here you are admitting to creating a straw-man argument knowing it is not my position, and then you immediately ADD a new claim and a new straw-man argument to replace the first one? You are not doing anything to support your own position by falsely stating mine and then attacking what you invented.

As I have repeatedly and consistently stated, the Woman in Revelation represents more than just Mary - but Mary is absolutely and undeniably represented in the Woman. You are denying that the Woman represents Mary in any way whatsoever, despite the fact that you see her actual son, Jesus, in the child being born.

I guess that would be a good point to clarify. Do you see the male child being born to rule all the nations with a rod of iron in Revelation 12 as Jesus?

If this child is not Jesus, who is it?

Again, you'll need to decide how literal or figurative you want to take these.

I'll quote from Hippolytus:

"And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Faithful Ag said:

You conveniently cut out and ignored the bolded question below in your response:
Faithful Ag said:

Unbelievable. So here you are admitting to creating a straw-man argument knowing it is not my position, and then you immediately ADD a new claim and a new straw-man argument to replace the first one? You are not doing anything to support your own position by falsely stating mine and then attacking what you invented.

As I have repeatedly and consistently stated, the Woman in Revelation represents more than just Mary - but Mary is absolutely and undeniably represented in the Woman. You are denying that the Woman represents Mary in any way whatsoever, despite the fact that you see her actual son, Jesus, in the child being born.

I guess that would be a good point to clarify. Do you see the male child being born to rule all the nations with a rod of iron in Revelation 12 as Jesus?

If this child is not Jesus, who is it?

Again, you'll need to decide how literal or figurative you want to take these.

I'll quote from Hippolytus:

"And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."

I am asking about YOUR view (not how literal of figurative my view is). It is a simple question:

Does AgLiving06 see the male child being born to rule all the nations with a rod of iron in Revelation 12 as Jesus Christ?

If the answer is NOT Christ, then who is the male child?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Nah, Epiphanius said it was a common view about 50 years before that, and Quodvoltdeus was contemporary / just as well.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think the difference is how we view what having enmity with satan/sin really means. I understand enmity to mean complete separation or total opposition, pure hatred and zero cooperation. We can strive for enmity with Satan, but the reality is each and every one of us has given into sin at one point in our live or another. Most of us fall into sin daily as we struggle to avoid sin or the near occasion of sin. In each of these moments we cooperate with satan and we do not have enmity in those moments.

Yes, we all strive for enmity - and we all hate sin and satan, but when we are weak we do give in to sin. The enmity God speaks of in Gen 3:15 is total, complete, without even the slightest cooperation. We know Jesus NEVER gave into sin and had total opposition satan at all times. The woman is promised this same enmity or complete opposition.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Faithful Ag said:

AgLiving06 said:

Faithful Ag said:

You conveniently cut out and ignored the bolded question below in your response:
Faithful Ag said:

Unbelievable. So here you are admitting to creating a straw-man argument knowing it is not my position, and then you immediately ADD a new claim and a new straw-man argument to replace the first one? You are not doing anything to support your own position by falsely stating mine and then attacking what you invented.

As I have repeatedly and consistently stated, the Woman in Revelation represents more than just Mary - but Mary is absolutely and undeniably represented in the Woman. You are denying that the Woman represents Mary in any way whatsoever, despite the fact that you see her actual son, Jesus, in the child being born.

I guess that would be a good point to clarify. Do you see the male child being born to rule all the nations with a rod of iron in Revelation 12 as Jesus?

If this child is not Jesus, who is it?

Again, you'll need to decide how literal or figurative you want to take these.

I'll quote from Hippolytus:

"And she brought forth," he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;" by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, "her child was caught up unto God and to His throne," signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."

I am asking about YOUR view (not how literal of figurative my view is). It is a simple question:

Does AgLiving06 see the male child being born to rule all the nations with a rod of iron in Revelation 12 as Jesus Christ?

If the answer is NOT Christ, then who is the male child?

I think the entire Scriptures, including this verse point to Jesus.

And as Hippolytus points out, we do that through the proclamation of Jesus.

Btw...Paul makes a similar parallel in Galatians 4:26 - But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

There's nothing wrong with the parallel....

Unless of course you want to concede that Mary felt pain during child birth and so forth...


Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

This passage doesn't have a universal interpretation in the fathers. Some like St Epiphanius and Oekumenios show early dates (4th and 6th century) witnesses for the view that she represents the Theotokos. Others, like Victorinus and Hippolytus, Gregory the Great, Caesarius of Arles, and Methodios viewed her as the Church. St Andrew of Caesarea gives a kind of noncommital summary, but agrees most with St Methodios. And then mid-fifth century St Quodvultdeus identifies her as Mary who is herself a figure of the Church, along with Cassiodore in the 6th century and Ambrose Autpertus in the 8th.

None of the fathers provide any consistent interpretation across the chapter, much less the book, between various details. Sometimes one agrees with the other on one detail and disagree on another.

The most common interpretation seems to be that it is the Church. Given that Mary is read as a type of the Church so frequently throughout the fathers, I don't see why this is a problem either way.
Can you expound on this?
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faithful Ag said:

I think the difference is how we view what having enmity with satan/sin really means. I understand enmity to mean complete separation or total opposition, pure hatred and zero cooperation. We can strive for enmity with Satan, but the reality is each and every one of us has given into sin at one point in our live or another. Most of us fall into sin daily as we struggle to avoid sin or the near occasion of sin. In each of these moments we cooperate with satan and we do not have enmity in those moments.

Yes, we all strive for enmity - and we all hate sin and satan, but when we are weak we do give in to sin. The enmity God speaks of in Gen 3:15 is total, complete, without even the slightest cooperation. We know Jesus NEVER gave into sin and had total opposition satan at all times. The woman is promised this same enmity or complete opposition.
You have to look at the etymology of the word. Enmity has the same root as enemy. It is an antonym to amity or, to love, or in reference to friendship. The Greek word for enemy, or its plural, is used all over the Bible in reference to satan "the enemy".


Quote:

Echthroi () is a Greek plural meaning "The Enemy" (literally "enemies"). The singular form of the word, Echthros (), is used in many versions and translations of the Bible for "enemy".

Wikipedia.

And remember, the devil is a deceiver and preys on our weaknesses. For true believers, its not like we want to sin or give in to temptation.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In patristic interpretation Mary is seen as a type of the Church. Meaning, a model or image or pattern of the Church with regard to behavior. They also frequently use example as substitute one for the other, understanding features of one through the other, especially eschatologically.

For example St Ambrose "she is betrothed, but she is a virgin because she is a type of the Church which is immaculate but a bride: a virgin, she conceived us by the Spirit; a virgin, she gave birth to us without pain."

It's the same as the passage here in St Andrew's commentary - the Church gives birth to Christians, little Christ's, like Mary gave birth to Christ.

In Orthodox iconography and hymnography this is everywhere.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

In patristic interpretation Mary is seen as a type of the Church. Meaning, a model or image or pattern of the Church with regard to behavior. They also frequently use example as substitute one for the other, understanding features of one through the other, especially eschatologically.

For example St Ambrose "she is betrothed, but she is a virgin because she is a type of the Church which is immaculate but a bride: a virgin, she conceived us by the Spirit; a virgin, she gave birth to us without pain."

It's the same as the passage here in St Andrew's commentary - the Church gives birth to Christians, little Christ's, like Mary gave birth to Christ.

In Orthodox iconography and hymnography this is everywhere.


Interesting, thanks.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

In patristic interpretation Mary is seen as a type of the Church. Meaning, a model or image or pattern of the Church with regard to behavior. They also frequently use example as substitute one for the other, understanding features of one through the other, especially eschatologically.

For example St Ambrose "she is betrothed, but she is a virgin because she is a type of the Church which is immaculate but a bride: a virgin, she conceived us by the Spirit; a virgin, she gave birth to us without pain."

It's the same as the passage here in St Andrew's commentary - the Church gives birth to Christians, little Christ's, like Mary gave birth to Christ.

In Orthodox iconography and hymnography this is everywhere.

The Andrew commentary is pretty close to where I think I'd land.

John wrote this with the primary purpose of people seeing the parallel between the creation of Israel and the Church. If someone wants to make a secondary analogy to Mary in some sort of typological method, that's not unreasonable.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob_Ag said:

Faithful Ag said:

I think the difference is how we view what having enmity with satan/sin really means. I understand enmity to mean complete separation or total opposition, pure hatred and zero cooperation. We can strive for enmity with Satan, but the reality is each and every one of us has given into sin at one point in our live or another. Most of us fall into sin daily as we struggle to avoid sin or the near occasion of sin. In each of these moments we cooperate with satan and we do not have enmity in those moments.

Yes, we all strive for enmity - and we all hate sin and satan, but when we are weak we do give in to sin. The enmity God speaks of in Gen 3:15 is total, complete, without even the slightest cooperation. We know Jesus NEVER gave into sin and had total opposition satan at all times. The woman is promised this same enmity or complete opposition.
You have to look at the etymology of the word. Enmity has the same root as enemy. It is an antonym to amity or, to love, or in reference to friendship. The Greek word for enemy, or its plural, is used all over the Bible in reference to satan "the enemy".


Quote:

Echthroi () is a Greek plural meaning "The Enemy" (literally "enemies"). The singular form of the word, Echthros (), is used in many versions and translations of the Bible for "enemy".

Wikipedia.

And remember, the devil is a deceiver and preys on our weaknesses. For true believers, its not like we want to sin or give in to temptation.
I agree - but when we are deceived and/or knowingly choose to commit sin whose side are we on in that moment? When we sin we are separating ourselves from Christ, from his will, and from truth and what is good and instead we are putting ourselves on the side of Satan. In those moments we do not have enmity with the devil, despite what we know is good. This is what repentance is all about. It is not something we only do once in our lives but something we must do continuously as we strive to become saints and turn back toward Christ.

The enmity God speaks of in Gen 3:15 is a constant, permanent enmity.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Zobel said:

In patristic interpretation Mary is seen as a type of the Church. Meaning, a model or image or pattern of the Church with regard to behavior. They also frequently use example as substitute one for the other, understanding features of one through the other, especially eschatologically.

For example St Ambrose "she is betrothed, but she is a virgin because she is a type of the Church which is immaculate but a bride: a virgin, she conceived us by the Spirit; a virgin, she gave birth to us without pain."

It's the same as the passage here in St Andrew's commentary - the Church gives birth to Christians, little Christ's, like Mary gave birth to Christ.

In Orthodox iconography and hymnography this is everywhere.

The Andrew commentary is pretty close to where I think I'd land.

John wrote this with the primary purpose of people seeing the parallel between the creation of Israel and the Church. If someone wants to make a secondary analogy to Mary in some sort of typological method, that's not unreasonable.

Unless you are reading Revelation 12 that is. Because the woman giving birth to a male child could not possibly represent the church AND Mary. That would be the most ridiculous symbolism imaginable and is completely unreasonable.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, St Andrew of Caesarea viewed the child as the Christian Roman Empire.

Like I said, there isn't really a broad consensus here. And that's ok. If anything the consensus is on the woman in rev 12 as the church.
CrackerJackAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.