Response to Rev. 12


#1

As I promised, here is my response to your explication of Rev. 12.

You stated… in this thread forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=136845&page=2

Like you who do not believe Mary assumed. I have shown you by historical evidence and Biblical evidence that Mary assumed. Look at the writings I wrote about the Rev 12.

I won’t go into quoting your entire 2,000 word dissertation… but I will start with stating my position.

The woman clothed with the sun is the early Apostolic Church (the church comprising of the 12 Apostles). This is identified by the 12 stars around her head. She (the early church) is depicted by a woman because the work of a woman is to produce offspring… which is what the Apostles did, they made converts and started churches.

The offspring (or the remnant of the seed) of the Apostles was the first churches and the first converts made by those Apostles… and the converts made by them… and so on, to the present day.

Satan desired to attack the early church which was comprised of the Apostles… but couldn’t because he wasn’t allowed to by God… so the only thing left for Satan to do was to attack their offspring.

Here are the contradictions I see with your position…

You claim that the woman of Rev. 12 is Mary. But Rev. 12:17 clearly states that the remnant of her seed are those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ, and keep the commandments of God.

Since we cannot possibly be physical children of Mary, this portion of scripture must be speaking of “spiritual” offspring and not literal. In this sense, we all who are saved are called the children of God, and are all called “brethren” of Christ (Mark 3:34; Luke 8:21; Matt. 23:8), but it would be quite a stretch to say that we are born of Mary. In fact, you can’t say that… Mary was only a physical mother who gave birth to Jesus… she had no part in any of our physical births, and she had no part in our spiritual births. The Holy Spirit is the person of the trinity who gives new life.

The second contradiction comes in Rev. 12:5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.”

To attribute this reference of a woman to “Mary” is a shallow interpretation. The “man child” is said to “rule all nations with a rod of iron”. Now, we know that to rule anyone with a rod of iron would be to rule by force like a dictator. But, we as Christians are not called to rule the world by force… or to overtake the world by force (although some so-called Christians have done so in the name of Christ).

We as New Testament Christians are only called to preach the gospel in order the further the kingdom of God… which in Christ’s own words… “is not of this world” (John 18:36).

The reference to Rev. 12:5 can only be a spiritual reference to Rev. 2:26 and only refers to… again… the “seed” of the woman, or, the whole of Christians. This ruling of the nations with a rod of iron could mean one of two things… the Millennial Reign where we will sit as judges under Christ, or that we (christians) will advance in the takover of holy land metaphorically by preaching the gospel and winning others to Christ… as was illustrated by the Old Testament battles of Israel.

Thirdly, this man child of Rev. 12:5 is said to be “caught up” to God and His throne. Christ was not “caught up”… He ascended because He IS God. But, we as Christians will be “caught up” to God, which alludes to rising up to a more glorious state and condition… which can only refer to a “rapture” of believers.

In this light, the “man child” which was born of the woman can only be the early church(es) born of the Apostles… which were sent to give birth (metaphorically) to others of like kind.

BA


#2

First of all you need to edit this thread because it directing towards a CAF member. I learn that when I received a message from a Moderator. So please take my name out of your thread.

Since we cannot possibly be physical children of Mary, this portion of scripture must be speaking of “spiritual” offspring and not literal. In this sense, we all who are saved are called the children of God, and are all called “brethren” of Christ (Mark 3:34; Luke 8:21; Matt. 23:8), but it would be quite a stretch to say that we are born of Mary. In fact, you can’t say that… Mary was only a physical mother who gave birth to Jesus… she had no part in any of our physical births, and she had no part in our spiritual births. The Holy Spirit is the person of the trinity who gives new life.


#3

To understand the entire Book of Revelation, one must interpret it in both literal and symbolic terms. Of course, we cannot be physical children of Mary. We are spiritual children of Mary.

I will paraphrase the words of Paul in his writings. Paul said that we are brothers in Christ through our baptism. We aren’t physical the brother or sister of the Lord, but he is our brother, Lord, and King. Since through our baptism we are become his brother and sister, we become the children of Mary. So there is no contradiction.

The second contradiction comes in Rev. 12:5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.”

To attribute this reference of a woman to “Mary” is a shallow interpretation. The “man child” is said to “rule all nations with a rod of iron”. Now, we know that to rule anyone with a rod of iron would be to rule by force like a dictator. But, we as Christians are not called to rule the world by force… or to overtake the world by force (although some so-called Christians have done so in the name of Christ).

There is an error in your intepretation. So you claim that Jesus is not the male child? If you claim it isn’t, then how is the child caught up unto God, and to his throne. This clearly describe the Ascension of the Lord into heaven and taken up to his Throne at the Right Hand of the Father. So you just ignore that part of the passage.

We as New Testament Christians are only called to preach the gospel in order the further the kingdom of God… which in Christ’s own words… “is not of this world” (John 18:36).

Yes we are called the preached. For over 2,000 yrs the Catholic Church Christianized Europe. Though this topic has nothing to do with Rev 12. So let’s stick with that.

The reference to Rev. 12:5 can only be a spiritual reference to Rev. 2:26 and only refers to… again… the “seed” of the woman, or, the whole of Christians. This ruling of the nations with a rod of iron could mean one of two things… the Millennial Reign where we will sit as judges under Christ, or that we (christians) will advance in the takover of holy land metaphorically by preaching the gospel and winning others to Christ… as was illustrated by the Old Testament battles of Israel.

Rev 2:26 refers to, Power over the nations"… This shews, that the saints, who are with Christ our Lord in heaven, receive power from him to preside over nations and provinces, as patrons; and shall come with him at the end of the world to execute his will against those who have not kept his commandments.


#4

Thirdly, this man child of Rev. 12:5 is said to be “caught up” to God and His throne. Christ was not “caught up”… He ascended because He IS God. But, we as Christians will be “caught up” to God, which alludes to rising up to a more glorious state and condition… which can only refer to a “rapture” of believers.

In this light, the “man child” which was born of the woman can only be the early church(es) born of the Apostles… which were sent to give birth (metaphorically) to others of like kind.

BA

Are you even reading this in the time and context of the time it was written by John? Jesus did ascended into heaven. The Rapture theology itself is a concept created by John Darby in the 1800s.

The “Rapture” refers to a passage in First Thessalonians, chapter 4, which talks about Christians being “caught up” in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Many Christians believe, and the “Left Behind” books promote, that this being “caught up” to meet the Lord will occur before the Great Tribulation which is headed our way in the near future. Christians will simply vanish, meet Jesus somewhere in the air, and then return with Him to Heaven to await the end of time


#5

But notice, in verse 17, Paul says that “…we who are alive, who are left,” shall be caught up. Remember that…those who are “left” get caught up to meet the Lord.

The “Left Behind” books get their name from a passage in Luke 17 and a similar passage in Matthew 24 which talk about the coming of the Lord being like the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Matthew 24 puts it this way: “As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man…they ate, they drank, they married and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Then two men will be in the field, one is taken and one is left. Two women grinding at the mill, one is taken one is left.”

“See,” Rapture enthusiasts say, “One is taken, one is left…the Rapture! Jesus takes the Christians and leaves behind non-Christians!” Two problems with that interpretation: First, Jesus’ coming is being compared to the days of Noah and the days of Lot. After the flood, who was left? Noah and his family…the good guys…the bad guys were taken! After Sodom and Gomorrah went up in smoke, who was left? Lot and his daughters…the good guys…the bad guys were taken! Second, remember 1 Thessalonians? It says that those who are “left” get to meet Jesus in the air. The good guys are left behind to meet Jesus.

In other words, you want to be left behind so that you can get caught up in the clouds to meet Jesus in the air and accompany Him back to earth at His 2nd and final coming. There will be no Rapture like the one the Left Behind books talk about…that view is not scriptural.

John did say the child was caught up, he could have easily write ascend which would make no difference. Either way the Child was taken into heaven. If the Church is the child how can it be the throne since the Church itself appears Bride of the Lamb Rev 19:7

The Child is Jesus it is not the Church.


#6

It fulfills the ruling of Jesus
Psalm 2:9
With an **iron rod **you shall shepherd them, like a clay pot you will shatter them."

Who could shatter whom? Jesus shatter Satan.

This in turn means that when it says “Was caught up to God”, it refers to Christ’s ascension. It is not you.

Mary wasn’t just giving birth to Jesus as a man but as God.


#7

BA, you say that the woman in Rev 12 is the “early Church”, well, many Protestant Christians (in fact most of those that I have talked to) say it is not the CHurch, but IT IS ISRAEL. Why should I take your interpretation over that of the other Christian. What makes your interpretation better than their?, specially on the book of Revelation that has so many different interpretations. You have the preterists, the historicists and the futurists, and many more in the middle.

I rather stick to the interpretation that is done in the light of Sacred Tradition given to us by the Christ and the Apostles, because this is the information that is needed so that you are not a untaught person when you read scripture and you don’t end up “distorting scripture to your own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

That is right… All Christians are Mary’s children as Christ himself gave Mary to all Christians as our Mother (John 19:26-27)

TO say that MARY is our MOTHER, it is not saying that WE ARE BORN of her (be it physically or spiritually), as much as an adoptive mother is not saying that her adoptive child was born of her (either physically or spiritually). Nonetheless, she is still his mother, his adoptive mother, obviously, but his mother nonetheless.

It is not a requisite for someone to be your father or mother, to be born of that person (physically or spiritually). A parent is someone that cares for you and loves you, that is the only requisite. Obviously God, as Christ said it Himself, it our Greatest father in all the sense, because not only he cares for us and loves us but we are born of HIM unto salvation.

So please don’t be trying to put requisites, out of your own convenience, where there shouldn’t be any.

We are, as you know, adoptive children of God, as the only TRUE SON OF GOD is JESUS CHRIST. We are adoptive Children of Mary, because CHRIST gave her to us as our MOTHER. Apostolic Christians (i.e., Catholic and orthodox) believe this with all their heart, as John received Mary as our mother in representation of the whole Church (as John was the only apostle present in the crucifixion) from Christ himself:

"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home]. Jhn 19:26-27

Most protestant scholars know that something important is occurring here, it is not something trivial, but they cannot put their finger on it. Catholics, on the other hand, understand this very well!!!

CAN’T you see it is not TALKING about us.

CAN’T you see it is TALKING ABOUT Christ!? that is the one who will rule, that is the CHILD she brought forth, as she is the MOTHER of Christ. Notice it is TALKING about a THRONE in HEAVEN (“caught up unto God and unto his Throne”)… WHat man has a throne in HEAVEN? no other that Jesus Christ.

NO, the man in Rev 12:5 is CHRIST. Mary’s SON.

No offense, but you are really stretching your interpretations. There is NO WAY that you can arrive at that CONCLUSION definitively.

Again, you are stretching your interpretations, as CHRIST, when he ascended, HE WENT to the FATHER, thus he was CAUGHT UP by the desire and love of wanting to go to the father. So he truly was Caught up UNTO God. Now, IT does not, say, obviously, that he was CAUGHT UP BY GOD… but UNTO GOD…

When we are rapture AFTER the tribulation, we will be caught up by Christ!

Many blessings,

E.C.


#8

I noticed your signature with the word sword in it. What is that supposed to mean? :wink:


#9

There are many responses to this thread (as I suspected there would be)… so please be patient with me as we take the debate one point at a time.

I predicted that response, which is the reason I pointed out that we CANNOT be the physical children of Mary… and it is a stretch of interpretation to say that we are spiritual children. We are not children of Mary, you really should re-read my post.

I will paraphrase the words of Paul in his writings. Paul said that we are brothers in Christ through our baptism. We aren’t physical the brother or sister of the Lord, but he is our brother, Lord, and King. Since through our baptism we are become his brother and sister, we become the children of Mary. So there is no contradiction.

She cannot be our Mother, if we were not begotten by her. By your interpretation we would only be adopted children of Mary, and the Bible makes no such claim… only that we were adopted by God Himself. Your claim comes dangerously close to deifying Mary.

There is an error in your intepretation. So you claim that Jesus is not the male child? If you claim it isn’t, then how is the child caught up unto God, and to his throne. This clearly describe the Ascension of the Lord into heaven and taken up to his Throne at the Right Hand of the Father. So you just ignore that part of the passage.

I predicted your response here also. Which is why I explained myself in detail. Jesus was not “caught up”… He is God, He didn’t need to be caught up… but He of His own power, ascended into heaven. We, on the other hand will require someone else to “catch us up”, as we don’t have the power of ourselves to “ascend” into heaven.

Yes we are called the preached. For over 2,000 yrs the Catholic Church Christianized Europe. Though this topic has nothing to do with Rev 12. So let’s stick with that.

This does have something to do with the topic, as the “woman” of Rev. 12 begat the man child by preaching the word… and the man child of verse 5 who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron is begotten of her… this “man child” is the “body of Christ” who makes war with the nations in a metaphorical sense as is illustrated by Old Testament Israel, only in the New Testament we war not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places. The nations referred to in verse 5 are individual people in our present day.

Rev 2:26 refers to, Power over the nations"… This shews, that the saints, who are with Christ our Lord in heaven, receive power from him to preside over nations and provinces, as patrons; and shall come with him at the end of the world to execute his will against those who have not kept his commandments.

Yes, I did say that one interpretation of verse 5 could refer to Rev. 2:26 as we rule as judges over the nations during the Millennial reign. But I think a more appropriate explication would reveal a reference to our present day duty to preach the gospel.

BA


#10

Gideon’s sword, was a small band of 300 men that defeated the host of Midian… ironically, they didn’t use a sword. They used trumpets and clay pots… hense the trumpet in the header of all the pages on my website.

The same idea goes for my website. I and the people who write for my website, are a small group of people… but are powerful against the hosts of people whom we oppose so long as the Lord is with us.

I thought the word “Sword” in the name would also be appropriate as we fight using the “sword” of the word… powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword; dividing asunder even the soul and the spirit.

The forums I called the “sword” forums because it is designed for debate on theology and doctrine… which we would be using the “sword” of the word to fight our battles.

BA


#11

Let’s not open up the “rapture” can of worms just yet. I would love to debate you on this topic on another thread.

You have a lot to say, and I appreciate that. But take it one step at a time. Long posts that stray off topic are hard to read and force me to ignore most of them in order to keep the debate going in a linear fashion.

Build your case methodically, don’t dump all your points at once. Just some suggestions.

BA


#12

Sounds like a good group you get there. If you fight battles against Satan, then it is a good fight.

The reason I asked you this is to refer you back to the Iron Rod. If you use the word “sword” to fight battles without the real sword, then why did you think the One using the Iron Rod can’t be Jesus Himself? but you think of it as a dictator. What make you to be differed?

As I also mentioned from previous reply:
It fulfills the ruling of Jesus
Psalm 2:9
With an iron rod you shall shepherd them, like a clay pot you will shatter them."


#13

Exactly! The iron rod is alluding to an act of subduing a people. Now, we don’t subdue people by force like a dictator would do… but we do subdue people by compelling them to convert by the preaching of the word.

Jesus does not now rule by a rod of iron… He even reproved Peter for using his sword against Jesus’ captors. We don’t battle flesh and blood, but our battle is a spiritual one… against those powers who hold others in captivity by blinding their spiritual eyes to the truth.

The truth is our weapon. What I am doing here is “subduing the nations” by preaching the truth to you… you are a nation, and by the power of God… just like the nation of Israel, I am here fighting a battle for a people… Not to advance a theocracy, or a theonomy… but to advance the kingdom of heaven, which is on a spiritual plane.

BA


#14

I shall discuss this with you tomorrow for it is very late here.

God bless.

As they say in Mass.

Dominus Vobiscum!


#15

Talk to you tomorrow.

BA


#16

YOu sound very much contradicted yourself from one reply to the next. So, yes, the person in the Rev is Jesus Himself.


#17

The Bible identifies the Messiah with a rod of iron.

Consider the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2:

1Why do the nations rage[a]
and the peoples plot in vain?
2The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
3"Let us burst their bonds apart
and cast away their cords from us."

4He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord holds them in derision.
5Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
6"As for me, I have set my King
on Zion, my holy hill."

7I will tell of the decree:
The LORD said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
8Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
9You shall break** them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
**

Also consider Revelation 19:

[quote]11Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True

, and** in righteousness he judges **and makes war. 12His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13He is clothed in a robe dipped in[d] blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
[/quote]


#18

Jesus also referred to His body as the body that would be given to be crucified… but the New Testament also refers to Christians as the body of Christ.

I’m not specifically saying that is the reason we can say the Church is symbolized as a man child in Rev. 12… but it does prove that to refer to the physical bodily flesh of Christ does not always refer to Christ.

You all do it with the Eucharist every day.

BA


#19

Here is something else for Catholics to chew on.

Certain teachings such as the Mass, Post Millennial Dispensationism, Preterism (just to name a few) all rely on the “symbolic” and “prophetic” nature in which the book of Revelation was written. In fact, the book of Revelation has been referred to as “symbolic” in it’s entirety.

How is it justified then, that Rev. 12 is taken out of the context of the book of Revelation… and interpreted “literally” to describe Mary and her physical son Jesus.

If that is the case, any other portion of Revelation can also be interpreted literally… in which case, preterism and subsequently, post-millennialism can be refuted quite easily.

BA


#20

Yes, it contains symbolic meanings. Babylon is a code name for Rome in those days. It can also be interpret literal.

Here is how Catholic interpret Scripture by John Martnigoni.

Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.