Mary : the Ark of the Covenant (long)

10,852 Views | 168 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by Thaddeus73
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too. Jesus came to destroy religious legalism that is literally the point of the New Covenant. It's a bizarre twist that the RCC portends to be the original church founded by Christ himself….
My friend I think you are a little off base here. You're not called a heretic for following the scriptures, and it is almost certain that you have plenty of protestant brethren who call you heretic for one belief or another. You, too, follow multi-generational traditions and heritage, which is why you have the interpretative tradition you have.

And - I think since we're talking sacrilege - it is a much greater problem to say the Messiah came to destroy religious legalism. That is NOT the point of the New Covenant. The scriptures tell us why He came - to destroy the works of the devil, to take away sins, to let us become the righteousness of God, to do away with sins by the sacrifice of Himself, to redeem us from our empty way of life we inherited from our forefathers (i.e., paganism), to be the covering sacrifice for our sins and for the sins of the whole world, to become like us in every way so that He may become our merciful and faithful high priest to make a covering for the sins of the people, to destroy death and the one who has the power of death, to give us life in abundance, to save the world, to not condemn the world but to save it, to give us victory, to condemn sin in the flesh, to grant us adoptions as sons, to die for us. I think this is a really serious matter.

One might say that Luther or the Swiss Reformer's purpose was to save you from Latin legalism. But Jesus Christ did not come to save you from Pharisaical teaching. St Paul never stopped being a Pharisee. Christ calls the Pharisees hypocrites, but affirms what they teach in many cases.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Having a heretical view does not make you a heretic. It means you believe something in error on some spiritual matter or other. That is probably true about each and every one of us.

What makes you a heretic is schism. The word comes from the word to choose, but means in usage of the scriptures something like faction or party, or sect...or denomination. The very act of separating yourself on grounds of x y or z theological point is schism and is heresy. Who is a "heretic" just depends on which side of that line you're looking from.

By refusing the Eucharist from the hands of an RCC priest, you are separating yourself from them and that is in and of itself an act of heresy - you are calling them heretics. Likewise for all the other protestant sects you separate yourself from.

So let's not clutch pearls here.
AgPrognosticator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Having a heretical view does not make you a heretic. It means you believe something in error on some spiritual matter or other. That is probably true about each and every one of us.

What makes you a heretic is schism. The word comes from the word to choose, but means in usage of the scriptures something like faction or party, or sect...or denomination. The very act of separating yourself on grounds of x y or z theological point is schism and is heresy. Who is a "heretic" just depends on which side of that line you're looking from.

By refusing the Eucharist from the hands of an RCC priest, you are separating yourself from them and that is in and of itself an act of heresy - you are calling them heretics. Likewise for all the other protestant sects you separate yourself from.

So let's not clutch pearls here.
That's where we fundamentally disagree. I do not consider anyone a heretic because I don't believe in dogma. Specifically, as I've stated number times, I believe Jesus came to establish the New Covenant - a promise of redemption by God to people as individuals rather than as a nation and on the basis of God's grace rather than a person's adherence to the law.

There are believers and nonbelievers -- that's it.

10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgPrognosticator said:

Zobel said:

Having a heretical view does not make you a heretic. It means you believe something in error on some spiritual matter or other. That is probably true about each and every one of us.

What makes you a heretic is schism. The word comes from the word to choose, but means in usage of the scriptures something like faction or party, or sect...or denomination. The very act of separating yourself on grounds of x y or z theological point is schism and is heresy. Who is a "heretic" just depends on which side of that line you're looking from.

By refusing the Eucharist from the hands of an RCC priest, you are separating yourself from them and that is in and of itself an act of heresy - you are calling them heretics. Likewise for all the other protestant sects you separate yourself from.

So let's not clutch pearls here.
That's where we fundamentally disagree. I do not consider anyone a heretic because I don't believe in dogma.

There are believers and nonbelievers -- that's it.


I think I agree with both to a certain extent.

I think it boils down to the fact that any true believer is still going to be in error in one area of their faith or another. None of us have this thing nailed down perfectly.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

That's where we fundamentally disagree. I do not consider anyone a heretic because I don't believe in dogma. Specifically, as I've stated number times, I believe Jesus came to establish the New Covenant - a promise of redemption by God to people as individuals rather than as a nation and on the basis of God's grace rather than a person's adherence to the law.

There are believers and nonbelievers -- that's it.
Well, unfortunately that is not what the scriptures say. If you are going to set up the (false) dichotomy of individual vs nation the scriptures fall on the side of nation:

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." As St Paul says, we gentiles have been grafted in to become All Israel, not on the basis of our blood OR on the basis of the Torah in and of itself but on the basis of faithfulness to Christ, who is the heir of the promises made to Abraham. And the New Covenant itself is that He will our God, and we will be His people.

And, if we're going to set up a similar false dichotomy between grace and the Torah, I have to say that the scriptures will fall on the side of the Torah. For grace and truth are given, but those manifest in faithfulness, which is contrary to sin. The Torah is given by Christ Himself - He is the Lawgiver - and nowhere does He negate it or reject it, nowhere do St Paul or any of the other NT authors reject it. The Torah reveals sin, so the person who goes on sinning against the Torah is truly sinning, and practicing lawlessness, which is demonic and anti-Christ. St John - who so beautifully spoke to the supremacy of Christ to Moses - says simply:
Quote:

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 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. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
St Paul says - "What then should we say? Should we continue in sin so that grace may increase? Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer?" But echoing St John - "The Torah brings awareness of sin."

The person who is redeemed will follow Christ, and will follow the Torah, because in fact the fundamental promise of the New Covenant is that He will put His Torah in our hearts and inscribe them into our minds. "This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their hearts and inscribe them on their minds." St Paul says this Torah is not written on tablets of stone, but on the tablets of human hearts.

The New Covenant has a Torah or Law, and a teaching (which is what torah literally means), and a way of life (which is what nomos literally means and what lex meant when the scriptures were first translated into Latin). It has a high priest. It has prayers and offerings. The people of God are the people who follow this way of life, and you are faithful to Christ in that you follow this way of life, or Torah, or nomos, teaching, however you want to describe it.

Similarly those who do not follow this way of life do not know God. St John says If we do not practice righteousness, we do not know God - and that loving our brother is righteousness. Similarly, St Paul says that he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Torah. To that end, St Paul says, Christ Jesus is the telos, the end or the purpose or the fulfilment or culmination of the Torah.

And so we cannot merely say that "believers" and "nonbelievers" are some kind of category, because the scriptures absolutely do not say that. In fact it says the demons believe, so we must include them in the former group. If you use the same Greek word pistis (belief, faith) and translate it as the faithful and faithless, then yes - those are the two categories of people. But our faithfulness, like Abrahams, is revealed in our actions. This also is what the scriptures say, including the word of the Lord. We will be judged, for good or for evil, for condemnation or everlasting life, based on what we have done.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

Quote:

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.
I think the quote from Sprouts is a good take on the nature of the divide, however I completely reject his premise that we are heretical in what we do. It is these sorts of attacks that are more harmful than helpful to the discussion. It is quite difficult to engage in honest discussion with someone who is attacking your beliefs right out of the gate without first seeking to understand. These sorts of attacks are something that Catholics face from evangelicals regularly. What I am hoping to do is simply show that there is more support for the belief than the typical Protestant is aware of or willing to consider. I am glad this has given you a new appreciation for our Blessed Mother.

Quote:

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.
This is where your interpretive tradition and approach to scripture is problematic in my view. Where does the Bible clearly teach that everything we are to know and believe is to be clearly articulated in the text of scripture? Furthermore, the Apostles and early church were focused on spreading the Gospel of Jesus and faced a hostile environment including martyrdom. A first century Jew did not need the beliefs about Mary to be specifically addressed because a first century Jew understood inherently who Mary was because of who her son was. In their own way they were absolutely making this connection abundantly clear for their readers (St. Luke). To the modern reader 2,000 years removed and separated from the guidance of the apostolic Church these truths are too easily lost. It is not your fault but is the result of your interpretive tradition and approach to scripture. You simply have not been introduced to Mary properly, and in fact you have grown up in the faith with some underlying hostility toward our Blessed Mother, although you may have been completely unaware. Unfortunately, the tension and negative connotations toward Mary are baked in for the typical evangelical Christian.

Finally, with regard to the "one mediator between God and Man" comment. What would you call Mary? Mary was quite literally THE mediator between God and Man? She was fully human and not Divine, but her offspring was literally God who took his flesh and blood from Mary and became fully man in the womb of Mary. If she was not the mediator between God and man I don't know what a mediation means. Now this does not mean that Mary accomplished for us what Christ accomplished on the cross and through his glorious resurrection, but it was literally through Mary that God became man and accessible to us.

10andBOUNCE said said:


Where can you point to in scripture that blatantly and directly calls Mary pure? Other than conflicting translations in Luke 1 "full of grace." You have to approach this from outside the RCC and not regurgitating Catholic Catechisms.
Again, where in scripture are we told that scripture will blatantly and directly provide us with a proof text verse for anything? Where does the idea for this expectation come from?

This is your interpretive tradition causing you great difficulty and serving as a stumbling block to your understanding. I realize this is difficult to hear, to see, and to grasp; however, you are expecting scripture to do something scripture was never intended to do.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
By the way, I sensed that you were genuinely interested in learning and understanding more on this subject which is why I decided to put this OP together. I appreciate your sincerity and how you have approached this conversation with charity.

Edit to add: Same goes to you DermDoc. You are always civil and charitable.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faithful Ag said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Finally, with regard to the "one mediator between God and Man" comment. What would you call Mary? Mary was quite literally THE mediator between God and Man? She was fully human and not Divine, but her offspring was literally God who took his flesh and blood from Mary and became fully man in the womb of Mary. If she was not the mediator between God and man I don't know what a mediation means. Now this does not mean that Mary accomplished for us what Christ accomplished on the cross and through his glorious resurrection, but it was literally through Mary that God became man and accessible to us.

I appreciate the response - I think you have pretty much answered it in a way I do understand, and at this point will have to agree to disagree as we will again point back to the authority of scripture. And I understand the bewilderment on the other side of that coin with some of the interesting questions that have been posed here and elsewhere. I don't think I am smart enough in my own journey to be able to adequately answer some of it, but it has motivated me to really study it for my own edification.

As far as the mediator...I don't really know if you're just playing semantics or what.
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
-1 Timothy 2:5
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Psalm 45:9 in no way is definitive about Mary currently being at Jesus right hand.


Who is the Queen then in Psalm 45? (See Revelation 12)...
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My statement was geared towards the idea that you can't just read Psalm 45 and be like, "oh yeah, that Queen is Mary." From what I have gathered, it needs to be proved by other text and Catholic/historical tradition.

As opposed to 1 Peter 3 where it is fairly clear the picture of Jesus at the right hand of the Father without needing to bounce that off other sources.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah mediator is a pretty specific thing. There is one mediator. At the same time we see people interceding with God in the scriptures, including the saints in heaven and angels. So there is one mediator between God and man, but there are many between the living and heaven. We act as intercessors all the time in prayer.

The only gap to hop over then is that as the queen mother, she has a particular role in intercession with her Son.

But again - I don't think this is a deal (or should not be) with regard to salvation or a reason to break communion. It's just a thing.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Revelation 12 clearly shows that Mary is Queen. In the Davidic Kingdom, the mother of the King was always the Queen, because the King had so many wives. And since Jesus is the final King in the Davidic kingdom, then that means that Mary, his mother, has to be the Queen Mother.

Queen Bathsheeba sat on a throne near her son King Solomon's right hand. Revelation 12:17 says that we are Mary's children if we obey the commandments and bear testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgPrognosticator said:

dermdoc said:

AgPrognosticator said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Quote:

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.




Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.


You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.


Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.




As a Protestant, I'm pretty sure you just got called a heretic by a Catholic, DermDoc.

Also, do you realize that under Catholic dogma, you are, by definition, a heretic?

Your friends might be too nice to say it to your face, but it's their religious pretext, whether you like it or not.

The irony of course, is that under the definitions proposed by many Rome and the EO, we can rightly call them heretics as well.

Protestants don't because we tend to be more charitable in our behavior, but it's always worth pointing out.

And just so it's clear that the historical view that there was uniformity within Christianity before the Reformation, here's Chrysostom:

Homily XXXIII on Acts xv. 13, 15:

"There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: 211 which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule."


AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thaddeus73 said:

Quote:

Psalm 45:9 in no way is definitive about Mary currently being at Jesus right hand.


Who is the Queen then in Psalm 45? (See Revelation 12)...

Yawn...Revelation 12 is not about Mary.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

Faithful Ag said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Finally, with regard to the "one mediator between God and Man" comment. What would you call Mary? Mary was quite literally THE mediator between God and Man? She was fully human and not Divine, but her offspring was literally God who took his flesh and blood from Mary and became fully man in the womb of Mary. If she was not the mediator between God and man I don't know what a mediation means. Now this does not mean that Mary accomplished for us what Christ accomplished on the cross and through his glorious resurrection, but it was literally through Mary that God became man and accessible to us.

I appreciate the response - I think you have pretty much answered it in a way I do understand, and at this point will have to agree to disagree as we will again point back to the authority of scripture. And I understand the bewilderment on the other side of that coin with some of the interesting questions that have been posed here and elsewhere. I don't think I am smart enough in my own journey to be able to adequately answer some of it, but it has motivated me to really study it for my own edification.

As far as the mediator...I don't really know if you're just playing semantics or what.
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
-1 Timothy 2:5
Fair enough. I truly hope this has been helpful and that you will continue to pursue as much as you can about our Blessed Mother, and what the apostolic Church has always believed about her. I've enjoyed the dialog with you. The question I would pose to you going back to "the authority of scripture" is what does that really mean to you and in practice what does that look like? I have relied almost entirely on scripture to support the Orthodox/Catholic view of Mary being the Ark and the Queen Mother. To me it seems you are relying on your interpretation of scripture being authoritative (or that of your Reformed tradition). Scripture is not silent and in contrast scripture is quite revealing about Mary. It seems to me that you are only looking for scripture to speak in a very "blatant and direct" proof-text chapter and verse format, and the reality is these writings were not written with that type of audience in mind.

It is unfortunate that we cannot read the scriptures in their original text (language) and we cannot understand the scriptures with the knowledge and insight of a first century Jew. We are 2,000 years removed from the first Christians who were writing the letters that would become the New Testament. Those writings came from various authors writing to various church communities to address various issues, using various writing styles and genres, and they were collected and compiled over many years and after the writers had already fallen asleep in Christ. By the time these writings were being translated into new languages the translators were working off of copies of copies of copies of copies and all faithfully done by hand over the course of many years and centuries. I think we must be honest with ourselves when it comes to our ability to properly interpret and understand the meaning of scripture, and we must humble ourselves and acknowledge our obvious limitations. The Church is what Christ founded, and he chose men to lead his Church and through this Church the deposit of faith has come to us all guided by the Holy Ghost. It is though these same men and this same Church that the New Testament scriptures were breathed into existence. God did not abandon this Church, nor did he replace it, but rather he guided it and still guides it today. There is a reason why the Orthodox and Catholic faiths are so closely aligned in our beliefs about the Christian faith which are evidenced by our understanding and view of the Theotokos, Mary.


On the last point about being the mediator and 1Tim 2:5 yes, I understand that we are saved entirely by the grace of God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and Jesus is the one mediator between God and men. No argument there. However, just as Eve was made from the side (flesh) of Adam, and just as sin entered this world through the disobedience of Eve: so too would the faith and obedience of Mary bring salvation, Jesus, into the world through the womb (flesh) of Mary.

Mary was God's chosen mediator throughout all mankind and through whom Jesus humbled himself and took on flesh from his mother and he became man and entered our sinful world. Jesus is our mediator to God made possible through his death and resurrection.

I appreciate the sincere and thoughtful dialog with you, and look forward to more in the future.



LGBFJB
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

AgPrognosticator said:

dermdoc said:

AgPrognosticator said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Quote:

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.




Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.


You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.


Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.




As a Protestant, I'm pretty sure you just got called a heretic by a Catholic, DermDoc.

Also, do you realize that under Catholic dogma, you are, by definition, a heretic?

Your friends might be too nice to say it to your face, but it's their religious pretext, whether you like it or not.

The irony of course, is that under the definitions proposed by many Rome and the EO, we can rightly call them heretics as well.

Protestants don't because we tend to be more charitable in our behavior, but it's always worth pointing out.

And just so it's clear that the historical view that there was uniformity within Christianity before the Reformation, here's Chrysostom:

Homily XXXIII on Acts xv. 13, 15:

"There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: 211 which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule."





And now, for the rest of the story:


"But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c)if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and ye interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?" And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? "And how should I be able (to decide)," says he, "I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me forthwith a teacher." If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. Let us ask whether he has decided () against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact784 he will assuredly affirm, for of course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (enquire about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will say, "Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the uncreated God." Good. If then he find this in the other parties (), but among us the contrary, what argument need we? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fight (against this truth), and who not"

I don't see this as some sort of permission to all simply disagree. There were some disagreements, but unity was the focus of this passage. We, unfortunately, don't have nearly as much unity.

And I won't speak for you, but to act as if Protestants don't call Catholics (or I assume EO) heretics is laughable. My first girlfriend told me to my face that her parents thought all Catholics go to hell. The first Baptist sermon I listened to included a comment that Catholics aren't Christian. Charitable and uncharitable exist in every denomination. Yet again your bias shows.

ETA: Chrysostom was immediately post Arian heresy. The defeat of Arianism is, in my opinion, a phenomenal defeat of sola scriptura and the individual interpretations that follow that line of thinking.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

AgLiving06 said:

AgPrognosticator said:

dermdoc said:

AgPrognosticator said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Quote:

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.




Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.


You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.


Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.




As a Protestant, I'm pretty sure you just got called a heretic by a Catholic, DermDoc.

Also, do you realize that under Catholic dogma, you are, by definition, a heretic?

Your friends might be too nice to say it to your face, but it's their religious pretext, whether you like it or not.

The irony of course, is that under the definitions proposed by many Rome and the EO, we can rightly call them heretics as well.

Protestants don't because we tend to be more charitable in our behavior, but it's always worth pointing out.

And just so it's clear that the historical view that there was uniformity within Christianity before the Reformation, here's Chrysostom:

Homily XXXIII on Acts xv. 13, 15:

"There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: 211 which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule."





And now, for the rest of the story:


"But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c)if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and ye interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?" And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? "And how should I be able (to decide)," says he, "I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me forthwith a teacher." If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. Let us ask whether he has decided () against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact784 he will assuredly affirm, for of course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (enquire about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will say, "Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the uncreated God." Good. If then he find this in the other parties (), but among us the contrary, what argument need we? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fight (against this truth), and who not"

I don't see this as some sort of permission to all simply disagree. There were some disagreements, but unity was the focus of this passage. We, unfortunately, don't have nearly as much unity.

And I won't speak for you, but to act as if Protestants don't call Catholics (or I assume EO) heretics is laughable. My first girlfriend told me to my face that her parents thought all Catholics go to hell. The first Baptist sermon I listened to included a comment that Catholics aren't Christian. Charitable and uncharitable exist in every denomination. Yet again your bias shows.

ETA: Chrysostom was immediately post Arian heresy. The defeat of Arianism is, in my opinion, a phenomenal defeat of sola scriptura and the individual interpretations that follow that line of thinking.

You really believe we don't have as much unity as during the time of Chrysostom?

Chrysostom who died in 407, which meant he was dead before the third ecumenical council.

Nestorianism, pelagianism, even much of the modern understanding of Jesus Himself came either at or after his life.

The reality is that the things we debate over weren't even glimmers of a thought and they only are now because so much else has been resolved.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Even so, I bet nestorians and Arians in praxis looked a whole lot more like small-o orthodox Christians then than liberal evangelicals look like Orthodox Christians today.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Straw man much?

Who here is defending "liberal evangelicals?"

Do you think it's productive to the conversation to randomly throw out something you know is not relevant?

But I'll help you out...I think it's a fair argument that much of the liberal groups (ELCA, UMC, Whatever the liberal baptist groups are, etc) may not even be Christian given their stances....but that's a whole other conversation.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You said hey here's how we're actually more similar than they were, and I say hey here's how we're less similar. Calm down.
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Revelation 12 is all about Mary...

12 [a]And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thaddeus73 said:

Revelation 12 is all about Mary...

12 [a]And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Yawn...We gonna do this again?

So your claiming:

1. Mary cried out in pain giving birth to Jesus?
2. Mary was clothes with the sun and the moon under her feet?
3. Mary wore a crown of 12 stars?
4. A dragon stood before Mary as she was given birth to Jesus?

Of course you aren't because you know that would be nonsense. It's important to note how you want one word to be literal, but everything else to be figurative. We of course have a multitude of verses referring to the Church in a feminine tone (including just a few chapters later in Revelation 19).

The historical Church has understood this verse to be about the Jews or the Church. Revelation relies heavily on the OT and it would make no sense

John is almost certainly paralleling to Genesis 37, and the creation of God's people. The majority of Church Fathers agree with that, and it takes centuries upon centuries before any thought of it being about Mary comes in.

Revelation 12 is actually a great example of how Rome ignores church history to force it's own ideas onto the Scripture.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

The Banned said:

AgLiving06 said:

AgPrognosticator said:

dermdoc said:

AgPrognosticator said:

dermdoc said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Quote:

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.




Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.


You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.


Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.




As a Protestant, I'm pretty sure you just got called a heretic by a Catholic, DermDoc.

Also, do you realize that under Catholic dogma, you are, by definition, a heretic?

Your friends might be too nice to say it to your face, but it's their religious pretext, whether you like it or not.

The irony of course, is that under the definitions proposed by many Rome and the EO, we can rightly call them heretics as well.

Protestants don't because we tend to be more charitable in our behavior, but it's always worth pointing out.

And just so it's clear that the historical view that there was uniformity within Christianity before the Reformation, here's Chrysostom:

Homily XXXIII on Acts xv. 13, 15:

"There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: 211 which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" (b) No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule."





And now, for the rest of the story:


"But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c)if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and ye interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?" And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? "And how should I be able (to decide)," says he, "I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me forthwith a teacher." If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. Let us ask whether he has decided () against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact784 he will assuredly affirm, for of course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (enquire about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will say, "Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the uncreated God." Good. If then he find this in the other parties (), but among us the contrary, what argument need we? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fight (against this truth), and who not"

I don't see this as some sort of permission to all simply disagree. There were some disagreements, but unity was the focus of this passage. We, unfortunately, don't have nearly as much unity.

And I won't speak for you, but to act as if Protestants don't call Catholics (or I assume EO) heretics is laughable. My first girlfriend told me to my face that her parents thought all Catholics go to hell. The first Baptist sermon I listened to included a comment that Catholics aren't Christian. Charitable and uncharitable exist in every denomination. Yet again your bias shows.

ETA: Chrysostom was immediately post Arian heresy. The defeat of Arianism is, in my opinion, a phenomenal defeat of sola scriptura and the individual interpretations that follow that line of thinking.

You really believe we don't have as much unity as during the time of Chrysostom?

Chrysostom who died in 407, which meant he was dead before the third ecumenical council.

Nestorianism, pelagianism, even much of the modern understanding of Jesus Himself came either at or after his life.

The reality is that the things we debate over weren't even glimmers of a thought and they only are now because so much else has been resolved.



Fair enough. I should have been more specific.

While there were all sort of heresies and divisions in the church, it was IN the church. Yes there were a few groups that split off early, but 95%+ were unified enough to keep working out their differences via the council process. At least until the great schism. Even then, there was continued dialogue, and from my understanding, near reunification in the 1450s.

Now we have people on all sides accusing the other of heresy or idolatry or legalism or whatever else we can find to throw out there. Only now we have no process to follow with which we can potentially reunite. With a new denomination every other week and those denominations being even less systematic in their beliefs means we would now have to reunify on hundreds, if not thousands of differences instead of the two primary issues that caused the Catholic and EO split. How can it possibly happen? It's going to take a major act of God to get us all back on the same team.

In the same sermon from Chrysostom when talking about determining which doctrine to follow:

Then how is it they do not see it at a glance? Many things are the cause of this: both preconceived opinion, and human causes (). The others, say you, say the same thing about us. How? For are we separated from the Church? Have we our heresiarchs? Are we called after men as one of them has Marcion, another Manichus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)?


First we had Protestants, named for their opposition to the church. Then we had Lutherans, Calvinists and Zwinglians. Sects named for their leader. Wesleyans come later. Now with the generic names and differing opinions inside of denominations, it's like millions of denominations because every man can just start his own church tomorrow if he disagrees with something being taught and plant his flag on "that's how I read the Bible" (and yes, I know this is not every Protestants view of sola scriptura but it's the prevailing view I run into, both in real life and on this board). So no, I do not think we are more united from a structural standpoint. But I will grant that outside of a few denominations, we are more united on the nature of Jesus
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Thaddeus73 said:

Revelation 12 is all about Mary...

12 [a]And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Yawn...We gonna do this again?

So your claiming:

1. Mary cried out in pain giving birth to Jesus?
2. Mary was clothes with the sun and the moon under her feet?
3. Mary wore a crown of 12 stars?
4. A dragon stood before Mary as she was given birth to Jesus?

Of course you aren't because you know that would be nonsense. It's important to note how you want one word to be literal, but everything else to be figurative. We of course have a multitude of verses referring to the Church in a feminine tone (including just a few chapters later in Revelation 19).

The historical Church has understood this verse to be about the Jews or the Church. Revelation relies heavily on the OT and it would make no sense

John is almost certainly paralleling to Genesis 37, and the creation of God's people. The majority of Church Fathers agree with that, and it takes centuries upon centuries before any thought of it being about Mary comes in.

Revelation 12 is actually a great example of how Rome ignores church history to force it's own ideas onto the Scripture.

He didn't "claim" any of that. He quotes scripture that makes obvious connections through apocalyptic imagery. This imagery has multiple meanings, and yes, one of those meanings has to do with a male child who is Jesus, a dragon who is Satan, and the woman giving birth to the male child who is Jesus, his mother - MARY.

I am not going to engage with you on this (or any other topic) because you have not shown yourself to be a sincere and charitable poster willing to consider or dialog respectfully. But yes, all 4 of those points can be and are allusions and references to our blessed mother.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Faithful Ag said:

AgLiving06 said:

Thaddeus73 said:

Revelation 12 is all about Mary...

12 [a]And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Yawn...We gonna do this again?

So your claiming:

1. Mary cried out in pain giving birth to Jesus?
2. Mary was clothes with the sun and the moon under her feet?
3. Mary wore a crown of 12 stars?
4. A dragon stood before Mary as she was given birth to Jesus?

Of course you aren't because you know that would be nonsense. It's important to note how you want one word to be literal, but everything else to be figurative. We of course have a multitude of verses referring to the Church in a feminine tone (including just a few chapters later in Revelation 19).

The historical Church has understood this verse to be about the Jews or the Church. Revelation relies heavily on the OT and it would make no sense

John is almost certainly paralleling to Genesis 37, and the creation of God's people. The majority of Church Fathers agree with that, and it takes centuries upon centuries before any thought of it being about Mary comes in.

Revelation 12 is actually a great example of how Rome ignores church history to force it's own ideas onto the Scripture.

He didn't "claim" any of that. He quotes scripture that makes obvious connections through apocalyptic imagery. This imagery has multiple meanings, and yes, one of those meanings has to do with a male child who is Jesus, a dragon who is Satan, and the woman giving birth to the male child who is Jesus, his mother - MARY.

I am not going to engage with you on this (or any other topic) because you have not shown yourself to be a sincere and charitable poster willing to consider or dialog respectfully. But yes, all 4 of those points can be and are allusions and references to our blessed mother.

Just a reminder, it's your side that called me a heretic among other things. I've shown charity and goodwill in my posts.

However, what nobody should be willing to do, is allow a claim to be made that doesn't stand up to scrutiny and this is the biggest problem with Rome. You guys want to claim to represent the historic Christian church, yet several have repeated claims that aren't built on a historical belief, but instead is a modern accretion. And to be clear, that would be productive in advancing the conversation. If you wanted to say that Rome makes this claim and you believe it because Rome makes it, and much of the church has disagreed with that assessment, even that would be sufficient.

But in this case, and this is not the first time with this particular, a claim is made that they know they can't defend. If it is "obvious" that Revelation 12 is specifically about a woman, then you should be willing to accept the descriptors of the woman, but we know that doesn't happen. Likewise, in Revelation 19, you won't see the "Bride of the lamb" as a literal woman marrying a lamb.

It's this over emphasis to find Mary throughout the Scriptures that causes Rome to try and force fit her in to random spots, where, on an honest reading doesn't fit.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How old does the first mention need to be to be considered historic?
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

How old does the first mention need to be to be considered historic?

Honestly, it all depends on what you want to claim.

If you want to claim to being "the historic church" you better be going back to the earliest writers. If you want to claim accretion (which is perfectly acceptable), you can more or less pick what you want.

That's my pushback against some here. I'll be honest and say that you're more reasonable to talk with. Others who, without any evidence or justification, claim something as if it's been definitively taught have less credibility.

As long as we are all transparent.

------------------------------------
But to your question, here's what I see when I look at Revelation 12:1:

This is from the "Ancient Christian Commentaries volume 29" of the multi-volume set. The formatting was rough and I did my best to clean it up to be readable. I googled for the dates for all the authors.

The evidence seems pretty consistent that the early commentaries saw Revelation 12 as about the Church. The implication

THE CHURCH IS ADORNED WITH HEAVENLY GLORY. HIPPOLYTUS (170-235):
By the "woman 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 [the church] 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.
ON THE ANTICHRIST 61.

THE ANCIENT SAINTS WILL RISE. VICTORINUS OF PETOVIUM (250-304):
This is the ancient church of the fathers and the prophets and the holy apostles. For they experience the groans and torments of their desire until that which was long since promised was fulfilled out of their own people and according to their own flesh. That [the woman] was "clothed with the sun" signifies the hope of the resurrection and the promise of glory. The "moon" refers to the fall of the bodies of the saints on account of their irreversible debt to death which can never fail. For just as the life of people is diminished and so again is increased, so also the hope of the sleeping is never utterly extinguished, as some think, but in their darkness they will have light as of the moon. The "crown of twelve stars" indicates the [crown] of the fathers " from whom the spirit' was to assume flesh, according to the birth of the flesh.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 12.1."

THE CHURCH LABORS TO BRING FORTH A PERFECT NEW BIRTH. METHODIUS (?? - 311):
The woman who "appeared in heaven . . . clothed with the sun" and crowned with "twelve stars," having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, . . . a power by herself distinct from her children, whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power mentioned by the prophet which the Spirit urges to give light, crying to her: "Arise, shine; for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you. For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon you, and his glory shall be seen upon you. And the Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. Lift up your eyes round about, and see; all your children gather themselves together, they come to you: your sons shall come from far, and your daughters shall be nursed at your side." '" It is the church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters. She rejoices receiving the light which never goes down, and clothed with the brightness of the Word as with a robe. For with what other more precious or honorable ornament was it becoming that the queen should be adorned, to be led as a Bride to the Lord, when she had received a garment of light, and therefore was called by the Father? Come, then, let us go forward in our discourse, and look on this marvelous woman as on virgins prepared for a marriage, pure and undefiled, perfect and radiating a permanent beauty, wanting nothing of the brightness of light. Instead of a dress, she is clothed with light itself. And instead of precious stones, her head is adorned with shining stars. For instead of the clothing which we have, she had light; and for gold and brilliant stones, she had stars. But not stars such as those which are set in the invisible heaven, but better and more resplendent, so that our own may rather be considered as their images and likenesses.

Now the statement that she stands on the moon, I think, denotes the faith of those who are cleansed from corruption by baptism, because the light of the moon has more resemblance to tepid water, and all moist
substance depends on the moon. The church, then, stands on our faith and adoption, under the figure of the moon, until the fullness of the Gentiles come in," laboring and bringing forth natural people as spiritual people; for which reason she is also a mother. For just as a woman receiving the unformed seed of her husband, within a certain time brings forth a perfect child, in the same way, one should say, the church conceives those who flee to the Word, and, shaping them according to the likeness and form of Christ, after a certain time produce them as citizens of that blessed state. Thus it is necessary that she should stand on the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it. And in this way the power which she has in connection with the laver is called the moon, because the regenerate shine being renewed with a new ray, that is, a new light. Hence, also, they are by a descriptive term called "newly-enlightened," the moon [church] always showing forth anew to them the spiritual full moon, namely, the period and the memorial of the passion," until the glory and the perfect light of the great day will appear.
SYMPOSIUM 8.5-6.~"

THE CHURCH OF THE HERETICS IS NOT GLORIFIED BY CHRIST'S PRESENCE. Tycontus (~380):
"And a great sign was seen in heaven." We now see that which has occurred in the church, God has taken form in man. "A woman," it says, "clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet." We have already noted that a genus may divide into many species. For what [in one passage] is heaven, here signifies the temple placed in heaven. In the woman he indicates the church who in the purification of baptism puts on Christ, the I as the apostle Paul testifies, "As many as were "sun of righteousness, baptized into Christ have put on Christ."** However, in this passage the moon is described as placed under the feet of the woman and so indicates the church of the heretics that the "sun of righteousness," that is, Christ, does not allow to be illumined by his presence. Yet, since everything which is found in the Scriptures concerning the church may be interpreted in a twofold way, we can also interpret the moon in a good sense and compare it with the church. As it is written in the psalms, "Once I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His seed shall endure forever. His throne [will endure] as the sun before me and as a full moon forever. The witness in the skies is sure." And again, "Bright as the sun and fair as the moon in her beauty." " "And on her head a crown of twelve stars." He is indicating the twelve apostles whom Christ placed as a crown over the twelve tribes of Israel upon the head of his church and adorned her with spiritual gems.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 12.1."

THE CHURCH OVERCOMES ALL THAT Is MUTABLE. PRIMASIUS (~560):
This is what now appears in the church, namely, that by the operation of the Holy Spirit the human nature is joined to the Wisdom of God and that from the two the selfsame Christ becomes the mediator of God and humanity and is so proclaimed and believed. As he himself said, "Destroy this temple, and in 3! and the Evangelist said, "He was speaking of three days I will raise it up, the temple of his body." ** "A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet." It is frequently said that a genus is divided into many species which are the same thing. For what was heaven itself is now a temple in heaven and now is the woman clothed with the sun and having the moon under her feet. Namely, this is the church who has put on Chris and on account of her love is trampling upon every mutable thing. For [the church] is not enraptured by these changeable things who, clinging to the immoveable good, says truthfully, "But for me it is good to be near to God." ** From this fact comes those expressions which we read concerning 4 and again, "as the full the church, "fair as the moon, bright as the sun, moon forever, and the witness in the heaven is true." *' He aptly says that the church is a sojourner, for after the human birth of Christ we see many false opinions expressed by heretics. For concerning this temple the heresiarchs, falsifying as they willed, taught variously, Valentinus saying one thing and Bardesanes another, Apollinaris yet another and Nestorius another, Eutyches another and Timothy Aelurus another. It was as though truth sprang from the earth and controversies followed. And from all of this the orthodox and faithful acquired their reward, while by evil ideas concerning the incarnation of Christ, the heretics incurred the punishment of eternal damnation.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 12.1.

What this book shows, is the first interpretation for this being about Mary shows up around 1000 AD

THE MOTHER OF GOD PORTRAYED AS A CITIZEN OF HEAVEN. OECUMENIUS (990):
The vision intends to describe more completely to us the circumstances concerning the antichrist. . . . However, since the incarnation of the Lord, which made the world his possession and subjected it, provided a pretext for Satan to raise this one up and to choose him [as his instrument]for the antichrist will be raised to cause the world again to fall from Christ and to persuade it to desert to Satanand since moreover his fleshly conception
and birth was the beginning of the incarnation of the Lord, the vision gives a certain order and sequence to the material that it is going to discuss and begins the discussion from the fleshly conception of the Lord by portraying for us the mother of God. What does he say? "And a sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon was under her feet." As we Said, it is speaking about the mother of our Savior. The vision appropriately depicts her as in heaven and not on the earth, for she is pure in soul and body, equal to an angel and a citizen of heaven. She possesses God who rests in heaven"for heaven is my throne," it saysyet she is flesh, although she has nothing in common with the earth nor is there any evil in her. Rather, she is exalted, wholly worthy of heaven, even though she possesses our own human nature and substance. For the Virgin is consubstantial with us. Let the impious teaching of Eutyches, which makes the fanciful claim that the Virgin is of another substance than we, be excluded from the belief of the holy courts together with his other opinions. And what does it mean that she was clothed with the sun and the moon was under her feet? The holy prophet, Habakkuk, prophesied concerning the Lord, saying, "The sun was lifted up, and the moon stood still in its place for light," gospel, the "sun of righteousness. calling Christ our Savior, or at least the proclamation of the *7 When he was exalted and increased, the moonthat is, the law of Moses"stood still" and no longer received any addition. For after the appearance of Christ, it no longer received proselytes from the nations as before but endured diminution and cessation. You will, therefore, observe this with me, that also the holy Virgin is covered by the spiritual sun. For this is what the prophet calls the Lord when concerning Israel he says, "Fire fell upon them, and they did not see the sun."** But the moon, that is, the worship and citizenship according to
the law, being subdued and become much less than itself, is under her feet, for it has been conquered by the brightness of the gospel. And rightly does he call the things of the law by the word moon, for they have been given light by the sun, that is, Christ, just as the physical moon is given its light by the physical sun. The point would have been better made had it said not that the woman was clothed with the sun but that the woman enclothed the sun, which was enclosed in her womb. However, that the vision might show that the Lord, who was being carried in the womb, was the shelter of his own mother and the whole creation, it says that he was enclothing the woman. Indeed, the holy angel said something similar to the holy Virgin: "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."~ For to overshadow is to protect, and to enclothe is the same according to power.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE
------------------------

I did take the time to also google trying to find other fathers who were early writers who may have supported the idea of Revelation 12 being about Mary

It seems the very first person to propose the idea was Quodvultdeus in the 5th century. I couldn't find his writings to see what the context is. What I could find suggest it may be have been a "types and shadows" book vs true interpretation.

Epiphanius is another one mentioned. I can't find his source documents, but while some said he did support it, there's also this which leads me to believe he at minimum was presenting ideas, but didn't necessarily believe them:

Against the Antidicomarians - Section 78:

If any think <I> am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures and neither find Mary's death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried--even though John surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men's minds into consternation. For I dare not say--though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin In one passage Simeon says of her, "And a sword shall piece through thine own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." And elsewhere the Revelation of John says, "And the dragon hastened after the woman who had born the man child, and she was given the wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her." Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died. For scripture went beyond man's understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she did, I don't know, and [even] if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought! Who will choose, from self-inflicted insanity, to cast a blasphemous suspicion [on her], raise his voice, give free rein to his tongue, flap his mouth with evil intent, invent insults instead of hymns and glory, hurl abuse at the holy Virgin, and deny honor to the precious Vessel? (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide [2d ed.; trans. Frank Williams; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2013], 624-25)
-----------
So my takeaway, is that the most common interpretation is that the woman is seen at the Church (whether it be some combination of the Jews/Gentiles/Christians/people of God). It's the earliest and most prevalent view.

Is there a minority view that this could be about Mary? Sure. It develops later and really only picks up steam once the Pope establishes it's authority in the West.

Does this view find support in the earliest Church Fathers? No we can't say that.
Does the view eventually start to show up? Sure, from a typological perspective, anybody can see some of the parallels.
---------------

And that is where I land on it. The most straight forward interpretation is this is about the Church and the parallels to the OT are too obvious to ignore. Given how much of Revelation is based on the OT, it's the most consistent interpretation.

Could you draw some loose interpretation to Mary and potentially a secondary or third meaning? Sure, but to try and make a doctrinal point based off of that is really bad theology.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well thought out, with very valid points. I'm going to take come time to chew on this. The woman as the church definitely makes a ton of sense to me, and clearly had plenty of ancient backers. Thank you for sharing this.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I believe the dating of Oikumenios in the above is wrong.

Quodvultdeus (+454) combined the ecclesiastical and mariological views to identify the woman as Mary, who is a figure of the church in the mid fifth century. This dual typological view was also held by Cassiodore (+583) and Ambrose Autpertus (+760).

So there is witness to both views going back to ancient times indeed.

Since in the church tradition - hymnography and iconography - the Theotokos is frequently used as a type of the church I see no conflict.

I do note that St Andrew of Caesarea - whos interpretation is essentially what removed the skepticism over Revelation in the east and prompted its acceptance - says "some had understood this woman entirely to be the Theotokos...but the great Methodios took to be the holy Church" (emphasis mine) and he indicates his support for this view. However, I would say that the error is saying she is entirely the Theotokos, over and against her as the church.

I'm in the "porque no los dos" camp.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let me first tell you that I appreciate your most recent post, and the tone you took with it and the fact that you took the time to layout and support your own position. You spoke affirmatively about what you think and believe, and did not attempt to put words or claims into the mouths of others. This creates an openness to dialog. One of my frustrations in attempting to engage with you in the past is your tendency to tell others what they are claiming and/or attempting to force people to defend positions or strawmen arguments that they never put forward in the first place (see a couple posts before).

I would like to better understand how you read this quote below because to me this seems to support Mary in revelation imagery, at least in some ways. It has always been a "BOTH AND" approach and view for the dual/polyvalent symbolism and imagery found in Revelation. I may have poor reading comprehension but when I read the below I do not see a denial of the symbolism applying to Mary.

AgLiving06 said:

THE CHURCH LABORS TO BRING FORTH A PERFECT NEW BIRTH. METHODIUS (?? - 311):

The woman who "appeared in heaven . . . clothed with the sun" and crowned with "twelve stars," having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, . . . a power by herself distinct from her children, whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power mentioned by the prophet which the Spirit urges to give light, crying to her: "Arise, shine; for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you. For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon you, and his glory shall be seen upon you. And the Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. Lift up your eyes round about, and see; all your children gather themselves together, they come to you: your sons shall come from far, and your daughters shall be nursed at your side." '" It is the church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters. She rejoices receiving the light which never goes down, and clothed with the brightness of the Word as with a robe. For with what other more precious or honorable ornament was it becoming that the queen should be adorned, to be led as a Bride to the Lord, when she had received a garment of light, and therefore was called by the Father? Come, then, let us go forward in our discourse, and look on this marvelous woman as on virgins prepared for a marriage, pure and undefiled, perfect and radiating a permanent beauty, wanting nothing of the brightness of light. Instead of a dress, she is clothed with light itself. And instead of precious stones, her head is adorned with shining stars. For instead of the clothing which we have, she had light; and for gold and brilliant stones, she had stars. But not stars such as those which are set in the invisible heaven, but better and more resplendent, so that our own may rather be considered as their images and likenesses.

Does the woman symbolize the Church? Yes. Mary? Yes. It's both.

Do the 12 stars represent the 12 tribes? Yes. The 12 Apostles? Yes. Mary's crown? Yes. It can be all of those at the same time. One does not exclude the other.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:




A blue star isn't enough
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

I believe the dating of Oikumenios in the above is wrong.

Quodvultdeus (+454) combined the ecclesiastical and mariological views to identify the woman as Mary, who is a figure of the church in the mid fifth century. This dual typological view was also held by Cassiodore (+583) and Ambrose Autpertus (+760).

So there is witness to both views going back to ancient times indeed.

Since in the church tradition - hymnography and iconography - the Theotokos is frequently used as a type of the church I see no conflict.

I do note that St Andrew of Caesarea - whos interpretation is essentially what removed the skepticism over Revelation in the east and prompted its acceptance - says "some had understood this woman entirely to be the Theotokos...but the great Methodios took to be the holy Church" (emphasis mine) and he indicates his support for this view. However, I would say that the error is saying she is entirely the Theotokos, over and against her as the church.

I'm in the "porque no los dos" camp.

Believe you have the wrong person with Oikumenios. Best I can tell this is Oecumenius who is 9th centry based on wikipedia.
-------
Your view simply supports that we don't see much before the 5th century.

If I had to guess, the Marian legends grow in response to Nestorianism. The timing fits that in response to Nestorius the responses began to grow in the opposite direction. It's why you don't see it in the earliest writers, but only after Nestorius.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.