Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One half will believe... follow the False Prophet, the Pope who will follow Pope Benedict XVI
TheWarningSecondComing.com ^

Posted on 04/13/2012 4:35:34 PM PDT by stpio

Maybe this is the "May 31st" that the 5th Marian Dogma will be proclaimed? We'll see. Pray for the Holy Father.

Remember, co-...means with.

http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/

~ ~ ~

message to Maria of Divine Mercy (Ireland))

Virgin Mary: The time for me to crush the serpent is drawing nearer

Friday, April 13th, 2012 @ 05:57 pm

I am your beloved Mother, Queen of the Earth. I am the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus who came in the flesh.

My child, the time for the triumph of My Immaculate Heart is close.

The time for me to crush the serpent is drawing nearer. But until the day when Satan and his demons are cast into the wilderness, much confusion will erupt on earth.

For believers in my Son, it will be a time of torment. They will be pulled into two different directions by the Catholic Church.

One half will believe, out of duty, the need to follow the False Prophet, the Pope who will follow Pope Benedict XVI

He, the beast, is dressed like a lamb but is not from my Father, God the Most High, and will fool poor souls including priests, bishops and cardinals.

Many will follow him and believe him to be sent by God to rule over His Church on earth.

Sadly, many souls will follow his teachings which will be insulting to My Father.

Others, filled with the Holy Spirit and given the graces of discernment because of their humble souls, will know instantly, that an imposter sits in the Church in Rome.

The new FALSE pope is already scheming, even before he ascends to the throne of the Seat of Peter, to denounce the teachings of my Son. Then he will denounce me, the Blessed Mother of God, and ridicule my role as Co-Redemptrix.

My child, your role is going to become even harder than before. For many of my children are very confused. The insults you face every day, the torments you endure on behalf of my Son, will increase.

Never be afraid to tell the world [u]the truth[/u] my child.

You are being made stronger as a result of the physical and mental suffering you accept on behalf of my Son in order to save souls.

Every effort, especially by one division in the Catholic Church, will be made to dismiss my messages given to you.

Your obedience and loyalty to me and my beloved Son will be tested as never before. This may lead you to pull away but, should this happen, it will not last long.

Pray, my child, for all of God’s children who, through no fault of their own, are being pulled into the final battle for souls.

All of this must come to pass for it is contained in my Father’s Book.

All the angels in Heaven protect you, my child, in this somewhat lonely mission.

Always remember how important prayer is.

Pray, pray, pray for without prayer, especially the recital of my Holy Rosary, Satan can pull you away from the Holy Word of my Precious Son.

Remember also the importance of fasting for it keeps the deceiver at bay.

Without regular prayer, my children, will find it hard to remain close to my Son.

Never fear the future children for once you remain close to my Son you will be protected

And given the necessary graces to prepare your souls and those of your families for the New Era of Peace foretold so long ago.

Your beloved Mother

Queen of the Earth

Mother of Salvation


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last
To: stpio
How come the “woman” battles with the serpent in Revelation, Chapter 12? Why doesn’t it say “It” or the masculine “He”, why aren’t we reading the serpent battles the “man” Jesus?

Again, that Woman loses the battle...She doesn't crush the head of Satan...

The serpent battles the Nation of Israel, the Woman...And not only that; you have a ringside seat to watch the battle...The Woman, Israel is about to take on the serpent...Keep your eyes on the News...

101 posted on 04/15/2012 9:03:12 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

The woman said to be clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and twelve stars are symbols drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which Joseph ”dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” (Genesis 37:9)

The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, and the stars representing his brothers, the patriarchs of Israel, all of which bow down to him. Thus Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5)

The Old Testament’s prophets also referred to Israel as a “woman” (Is. 54:5-6; Jer. 4:31; Micah 4:9-10).

Which position is what their own stamped notes in their own official American bible states:

[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12.


102 posted on 04/15/2012 10:47:22 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“How come the “woman” battles with the serpent in Revelation, Chapter 12? Why doesn’t it say “It” or the masculine “He”, why aren’t we reading the serpent battles the “man” Jesus?

“Again, that Woman loses the battle...She doesn’t crush the head of Satan...

The serpent battles the Nation of Israel, the Woman...And not only that; you have a ringside seat to watch the battle...The Woman, Israel is about to take on the serpent...Keep your eyes on the News””...

~ ~ ~

Iscool, the “woman” wins the battle.

Sharing again, sometimes, a Scripture verse stands for more than one thing. Above all meanings the “woman” in Revelation 12 is Mary. Why do you think Our Lord addresses His mother as “woman” in the Gospel?

You are ignoring this fact and claiming the “’woman” is
Israel not Mary. An example, private interpretation of Scripture is heresy. You have no authority. The Church canonized Scripture, God gave the authority to interpret Scripture to the Church. Makes sense. Read the footnotes of the Douay-Rheims Bible, they are help to understand the correct interpretation,...from the Church.

http://www.drbo.org/

There is not one verse in the Bible that conflicts with another if you go by the Church, her interpretation of Scripture.

Revelation 12:13
And when the DRAGON saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the WOMAN, who brought forth the man child:

How did Israel or the Church give birth to Christ? Again, they didn’t Mary did. Reply to verse Rev 12:13.


103 posted on 04/15/2012 12:26:11 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Amen, while the official Roman Catholic Bible for America translates this,

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”

The official American Catholic Bible, while while briefly explaining that one view is that Mary is to be the one who crushes, states in its notes,

“The snake was identified with the devil (Wis 2:24; Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seemed implied in the verse. Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3


104 posted on 04/15/2012 12:29:01 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

The Latin Vulgate, the first Bible says “she” not “He” or “It.”

The scripture was not initially written in Latin...

Everything is by God’s power, His Will, no on disagrees. It is by Christ’s power that Mary crushes the head of the serpent. If you say no, you have to explain...

“In the first part of the chapter you guys claim that the Woman is Mary...Mary then ran away and hid in the wilderness...No crushing Satan there...

And now all of a sudden the same Woman is the last of the chapter is the Roman Catholic Church”...

~ ~ ~
Iscool,

Yes, the original writings were not in Latin, they were
translated into Latin by St. Jerome because Latin was the
common language of the time.

You’re not understanding Iscool. There can be more than
one meaning for a verse but above all, predominately “Mary”
is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15, the same “woman” Our Lord
speaks of in the Gospel in addressing His mother and Mary
is the “woman” in Revelation 12.

John describes the New Ark of the Covenant in Heaven in the
last verse of Revelation, Chapter 11. Who would that be,
it is Mary. John is preparing you for the first verse in Chapter 12.

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

Mary is in Heaven with her Son. Israel isn’t in Heaven
with Our Lord. Replace Israel in verse 12:1:

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A ISRAEL clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

Doesn’t fit, Mary is the predominate meaning of the “woman.” The changes made to translations of Genesis 3:15 from the original, the Vulgate...saying “He” and “It” are wrong.


105 posted on 04/15/2012 12:48:48 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"NOW is the time to break out the popcorn.

Waiting for the post to be revealed with bated breath."

LOL. Yes...still waiting.

106 posted on 04/15/2012 1:00:42 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"Col 2:15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

Thank you for posting these passages. The clarity of Scripture is arresting. What possesses anyone to cling to anything other than the precious Lamb provided by God?

107 posted on 04/15/2012 1:04:34 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; metmom; boatbums; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix; wmfights; Forest Keeper; ..

As very few verses of Scripture have been “infallibly” defined by Rome, the RC has great liberty to interpret Scripture to support her traditions of men, and some are more “Catholic” than her scholars, such as those who adamantly insistent that the women of Rv. 12 must be Mary, and which is consistent with the hyper exaltation given to the Catholic Mary (versus the holy humble handmaid of the Lord in Scripture).

These lay apologists will sometimes demand stamped material from Rome, but when it does not support their absolutism with its rejection that the women can be the people of God, Israel (which best fits the typology and Rm. 9:5) and then the church, they will reject it as well.

Having shown what the NAB states in support of the people of God being the women, the conservative Catholic Haydock comments,

Ver. 1. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church of Christ, shining with the light of faith, under the protection of the sun of justice, Jesus Christ. The moon, the Church, hath all changeable things of this world under her feet, the affections of the faithful being raised above them all. -— A woman: the Church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady[the Virgin Mary].

The Church is clothed with the sun, that is, with Christ: she hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet; and the twelve stars with which she is crowned, are the twelve apostles: she is in labour and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions. (Challoner) -— Under the figure of a woman and of a dragon, are represented the various attempts of Satan to undermine the Church. -— On her head....twelve stars, her doctrine being delivered by the twelve apostles and their successors. (Witham)

Ver. 2. With child, &c., to signify that the Church, even in the time of persecutions, brought forth children to Christ. (Witham) -— It likewise signifies the difficulties which obstructed the first propagation of Christianity. (Pastorini)

Ver. 3. Another wonder in heaven; that is, in the Church of Christ, though revealed to St. John, in the visions, as if they were seen in heaven. -— A great red dragon; a fiery dragon, with seven heads and ten horns; i.e. many heads and many horns. By the dragon is generally understood the devil, (see ver. 7 and 9) and by the heads and horns, kings and princes, who act under him, persecuting the servants of God. (Witham) -— Dragon, &c. the devil; and by the seven heads and ten horns, are meant those princes and governors who persecute the Church of Christ. (Calmet)

Ver. 6. The woman fled into the wilderness. The Church, in the times of persecutions, must be content to serve God in a private manner; - http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id298.html

Also, http://www.the-highway.com/matt24_Woodrow4.html

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Mary.html#Revelation

“The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation” [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)]. - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/revelation-12.html

cf. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3213


108 posted on 04/15/2012 1:19:10 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

You can post all the links you want, it is obvious many non-Catholic Christians are anti-Mary. Luther wasn’t but
the anti-Marian comes from the revolt to distance non-Catholic Christianity from the faith, Roman Catholicism.

I keep asking and you and others will not reply, the Church and Israel are secondary, the “woman” in Genesis and the “woman” in Revelation, Chapter 12 is Mary.

Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Church didn’t and neither
did Israel. Now please answer concerning Revelation 12:13.

John is speaking of Mary, the royal person (the mother of the son is Queen in Scripture) of Revelation 12:1, preparing you in the last verse of Chapter 11, Revelation 11:19. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven. She carried God inside her.

Rev 11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.


109 posted on 04/15/2012 2:23:05 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: stpio

Please put prejudice aside and look at Our Lord’s words.
Why does Our Lord repeatedly call Mary “woman” in the
Gospel? His last words, He used “woman” in addressing His mother from the Cross.

Mary is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and in Revelation, Chapter
12.

God knows the whole plan, from beginning to end.


110 posted on 04/15/2012 2:30:43 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Excellent points as usual. Thx for the pings.


111 posted on 04/15/2012 3:27:18 PM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: stpio; Iscool; metmom; boatbums; caww

"You can post all the links you want..." - and more texts than that - from RC sources that refute your assertion that "the Church and Israel are secondary, the “woman” in Genesis and the “woman” in Revelation, Chapter 12 is Mary", but you assert the church cannot be the primary application. Even the as for the notes of the Douay-Rheims Bible, which you affirm helps to understand the correct interpretation from the Church (though that is not your official American Bible), gives “The church of God” as the primary interpretation!

So here you are, arguing Scripture as a private Catholic apologist, while other and more credentialed RCs disagree with you (and sometimes with each other), while Scripture is not your supreme authority, but is a means to an end of submission to Rome, and whose Traditions do not depend upon the weight of scriptural warrant.

As for your interpretation of Rv. 12, that John is speaking of Mary, and the Ark of the covenant (which some RCs see the Church as being), that is simply your interpretation, rather than Christ, who is the One the apostles so often taught was the fulfillment of typology, and not Mary, who is overall rather marginal in the gospels.


And as explained,

The woman said to be clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and twelve stars are symbols drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which Joseph ”dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” (Genesis 37:9)

The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, and the stars representing his brothers, the patriarchs of Israel, all of which bow down to him. Thus Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5)

The Old Testament’s prophets also referred to Israel as a “woman” (Is. 54:5-6; Jer. 4:31; Micah 4:9-10).

In addition, the women gave birth in pain, something RCs disallow of Mary, and some even disallow that she broke her hymen. Which is just one of the numerous exceptions which they must prove, but fail to do, though the practice of the Holy Spirit is to make such manifest, as instead such Marian claims are from Tradition, not Scripture.


Furthermore, as regards the parroted "You have no authority. The Church canonized Scripture, God gave the authority to interpret Scripture to the Church" mantra, (post 103) the reality is that such was the premise of the Jewish leaders in demanding, like Roman Catholics, of a certain itinerant preacher,

By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk. 11:27-33)

The preachers did not have the sanction of the historical heavyweights, who, unlike Rome, had clearly stated authority, (Mt. 23:2), but like Rome, presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation based on Divine promises and historical decent above that which Scripture afforded them, and thus like Rome, they also presumed to teach the mere "tradition of the elders" as doctrine.

And thus they objected to John the Baptist saying God could raise up children to Abraham from stones, (Mt. 3:9) and of the Christ of whom he preached, and who called them "blind guides."

So why would seekers of Truth follow this itinerant preacher from Nazareth who turned over the tables of power? How did He establish His claims?

The answer is that, in contrast to the powers that be, the Lord Jesus established His claims on Scripture, in word and in the manifest power of God it affirms being given to the Truth, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

And Scripture is abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims.

And the most critical aspect of this basis of authority is that the of the gospel of grace, and manifest regeneration by repentant faith in it, and which kind of living effectual faith the church relies upon for its members and for storming the gates of Hell.

And which affirms that the church is that of the living God, (1Tim. 1:15) versus the self declaration of its institutionalized counterpart, "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. " (1 Cori. 4:20) and by "manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)


As for the "we gave you the Bible=only we have authority to interpret it" (stewardship=assured infallibility) polemic, besides Rome not having an infallible, indisputable canon until the year Luther died — over 1400 year after the last book was written — that also nukes the church, as unlike the church of Rome, Scripture specifically affirms Israel was the instrument and steward of Holy Writ;

and that most of the Divine Writing were established as Scripture before there ever was a church in Rome, and that Truth was preserved with an assuredly infallible magisterium, contrary to the premise Rome presumes to justify herself.

And like as God can raise up children to Abraham from stones, so He can raise up stones who, like Peter, effectually confess the Lord Jesus, and continue to build His church of the regenerated, even when the outwardly is more form than substance. And i need more of the latter myself.

112 posted on 04/15/2012 4:03:38 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...

What you said.

Amen!


113 posted on 04/15/2012 4:11:07 PM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: stpio

Correction, in next to last paragraph, read “withOUT an assuredly infallible magisterium, contrary to the premise Rome presumes to justify herself.”


114 posted on 04/15/2012 4:12:54 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: metmom

A speed reading mom!


115 posted on 04/15/2012 4:14:12 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: stpio; Iscool; metmom; boatbums; RnMomof7; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix

You posted to yourself, which is fitting as you again assert that we are acting out of prejudice, yet it is you who reject the majority of RC authorities who have no problem seeing the women as the church (Israel was the people of God first), while your interpretation has no more official authority than that of another lay RC apologist.

You are also placing undo emphasis on the word “woman,” which John also used to refer to other women, including the Samaritan women, (Jn. 4:21) and the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:10), and Mary Magdalene (Jn. 20:15) and the adulterous women of Rev. 17.Which is unlikely to be an individual.


116 posted on 04/15/2012 4:35:00 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Yep...Amen to that...


117 posted on 04/15/2012 4:57:11 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: stpio
God knows the whole plan, from beginning to end.

But you don't.

Do you think this is Mary, also?

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.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

118 posted on 04/15/2012 5:05:43 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

“You posted to yourself, which is fitting as you again assert that we are acting out of prejudice, yet it is you who reject the majority of RC authorities who have no problem seeing the women as the church (Israel was the people of God first), while your interpretation has no more official authority than that of another lay RC apologist.

You are also placing undo emphasis on the word “woman,” which John also used to refer to other women, including the Samaritan women, (Jn. 4:21) and the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:10), and Mary Magdalene (Jn. 20:15) and the adulterous women of Rev. 17.Which is unlikely to be an individual.”

~ ~ ~

Okay, I should of typed To: All. So snippy daniel.

You are biased, the Church teaches it is Mary above other meanings which can be the Church but the Church is secondary according to your “the majority of RC authorities.” Actually, it’s all of them. Why are you supporting in your words, the “RC authorities” as you say on this subject when you reject Catholicism and the Real presence? What happened to their authority (Apostolic authority) in regards to the Eucharist?

And your very weak, it is weak, argument of too much importance on the word “woman”...stick to the subject and verses, the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and the “woman” in Revelation 12. Count how many times “woman” is written in Revelation 12. I believe it is eight times.

It was an “individual” who brought forth an individual, the “man child”, Jesus Christ. It wasn’t the Church or the nation of Israel so it is “likely” the “woman” is Mary.

This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to
why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”

You have got to come to the truth, Mary is Queen of Heaven
and earth, the reason the description of the “woman” in Revelation 12:1 sounds royal.

It wasn’t you specifically who rejected Mary, it was some
of the men who rejected the Church in the 16th century and after.

4th time I ask about Revelation 12:13.


119 posted on 04/15/2012 5:10:52 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: metmom; stpio
It’s not Mary who is going to crush the serpent’s head, it’s Jesus.

Correct. Also, the passage in Genesis isn't talking about Mary at all - the one whom God puts at "enmity" between the serpent (Satan). It, like the passage in Revelation which speaks of the woman in labor that Satan (the dragon) pursues into the wilderness, is speaking of Israel. Jesus comes from the Jews and Satan has ALWAYS been at enmity with them. His design is always to thwart God's plan of redemption.

120 posted on 04/15/2012 5:17:26 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Iscool; metmom; boatbums; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix; wmfights; ...

The woman of Revelation is Israel.


121 posted on 04/15/2012 5:19:40 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
A little research into the pages of the OT will confirm to any honest researcher that the Woman of Revelation 12 is the Nation of Israel, not the Catholic religion...

100% agree! The woman referred to in Genesis as being at "enmity" with Satan is also Israel. Mary, though she admirably acted in faith and obedience to God's plan, was NOT pursued and persecuted by the devil, her and Joseph's trip to Egypt notwithstanding. Satan has ALWAYS sought to thwart the plans of God by trying to annihilate Israel. He failed and will continue to do so. Iran is just Satan's latest pawn to be at enmity with Israel.

122 posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:52 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; stpio; metmom; caww; boatbums; smvoice; RnMomof7; daniel1212; Quix

That’s exactly right Iscool. When people begin to realize and accept that prophecy will begin to make sense to them.

A good site can be found here: http://endtimepilgrim.org/woman.htm

And here: http://www.lightofmashiach.org/woman.html


123 posted on 04/15/2012 5:35:32 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
The woman of Revelation is Israel..

Absolutely it is.

This should be a BIG CLUE to those who are hung up on Mary. This is not Mary...

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

124 posted on 04/15/2012 6:03:57 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
The woman of Revelation is Israel.

I believe so as well. Good posts by so many making this quite clear....

And..NO..Mary certainly isn't....in fact she has no role at those times other than when she comes back to earth with us.

Her role in the coming of Christ was finished after she gave birth to Jesus Christ.

125 posted on 04/15/2012 6:41:30 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

Comment #126 Removed by Moderator

To: stpio; Iscool; metmom; boatbums; RnMomof7; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix
You are biased, the Church teaches it is Mary above other meanings which can be the Church but the Church is secondary according to your “the majority of RC authorities.

All the authorities i have sourced have the church as the primary meaning, contrary to you, including the notes in both your Bibles, and the Haydock commentary, etc. besides church “fathers.”

Why are you supporting in your words, the “RC authorities” as you say on this subject when you reject Catholicism and the Real presence?

I appeal to them for your sake, as you are supposed to be consistent with your church which you want us to submit to, but you oppose them in giving the church as the primary interpretation while the fact that we agree with Rome on Scripturally supported teachings such as the Deity of Christ does not mean we recognize hr claimed authority. We also affirm things which the Pharisees believed, but reject others. Hope you understand this.

Count how many times “woman” is written in Revelation 12. I believe it is eight times.

That is irrelevant; who is refers to is the issue, and your argument was that the Lord's repeated calling Mary “woman” in the Gospel meant that the women in Rv 12 is, but the fact which i showed was that the Lord called other females “woman as well (and only called Mary that twice in the gospels as i recall). Here, in case you do not believe me.

"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. " (John 4:9)

"And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. " (Luke 13:12)

"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? " (John 8:10)

"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou?... " (John 20:15)

It was an “individual” who brought forth an individual, the “man child”, Jesus Christ. It wasn’t the Church or the nation of Israel so it is “likely” the “woman” is Mary.

So it was not Israel. The Holy Spirit disagrees:

"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. " (Romans 9:4-5)

And

This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”

(Rev 12:13) "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child."

That is easy, Israel as the people of God brought forth Christ, Mary being an Israelite, and to which nation the sun and moon typology fits, and the church became the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which the devil is the adversary of, as Peter says. (1Pt. 5:8)

However the book of revelation and this chapter spans more than the first century, unless you think most of all revelation is past, and the wilderness in Scripture is often a place of testing, and “a time, and times, and half a time easily refers to the Tribulation period spoken of in Mt. 24, in which wilderness the Lord shall protect His faithful from “the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth," (Rv. 3:10) the flood of persecution, though martyrdom will follow for many.

It is likely during this time that the natural branches, Israel after the flesh, will be granted repentance and come to faith, whether you believe that or not, and “so all Israel shall be saved,” (Rm. 11:26) thus the theme of Israel continues.

What is certain is that Scripture records no specific persecution of Mary after she brought forth the Christ, and of fleeing into the wilderness at that time much less her being the almost almighty Queen of Heaven and other aspects of extraBiblical Catholic hyper exaltation.

As for the the Lord continually addressing Mary as the “woman,” like your hyper exaltation of Mary, that is an exaggeration, as He only did that two times to my knowledge: Jn. 2:4; 19:26.

Thus you are wrong if you think that Mary is the primary interpretation of all Catholic authorities,

or that appealing to Roman sources means we sanction her claimed authority,

or that the nation of Israel did not bring forth Christ,

or that Mary fled into the wilderness after she brought forth the Christ,

or that the Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman,” while the typology best fits Israel, and by extension the church,

or that the “Lord keeps addressing Mary as the woman” is not misleading, or that this address was unique.

Meanwhile, it is over zealous Roman Catholics who insist the women must primarily mean Mary, and accuse all who will not accept that as being biased, and cannot allow even their own Catholic sources to disagree with them, while this is the Rome they seek to convert us to on the basis of surety of doctrine. And in which Scripture is not their supreme authority, nor it warrant necessary for all their teachings, regardless of their attempted use of it.

127 posted on 04/15/2012 8:18:47 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: stpio

Her message of April 9, 2012 states: “The Era of Peace I spoke about in Fatima has been forgotten. This Era of Peace will take place AFTER the Second Coming of My Son and will last 1,000 years.”

I know the prophetic evidence better than most pertaining to the great era of peace, I believe 100% this “prophecy” of April 9 is simply UNTRUE, and that the era of peace occurs before the Antichrist’s reign and therefore BEFORE the Second coming.

For my own reasons, I do not care to defend my position on this unless provoked. So believe whatever.


The prophecies unmistakably speak of a Pope chosen by God. He is the “successor” of the Pope that flees Rome. He is the one charged with feeding the sheep(petrus romanus). If a false visionary plants the seeds of doubts against him and even contribute to some of his persecution, they will have to explain themselves to God, not to me.


As for the false Pope, mentioned in prophecy:
He is a Muslim.

(I believe he arrives after the Good Pope and after the great era of peace.)

Saint Hildegard revealed that he is Muslim.

According to the “Vatican Insider” St. Hildegard will be made a doctor of the Church this October by the Pope.

The La Salette prophecy of Antichrist having military victories at the age of 12 was first spoken to St. Hildegard.

St. Hildegard’s prophecy of that FALSE Pope: “one of the remaining Mohammadans will be converted, become a priest bishop and cardinal, and when the new pope is elected this cardinal will kill the pope before he is crowned, through jealousy, wishing to be pope himself; then when the other cardinals elect the next pope, this cardinal will proclaim himself Anti-pope, and two-thirds of the Christians will go with him.”


128 posted on 04/15/2012 9:07:25 PM PDT by pf707
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: pf707

“Her message of April 9, 2012 states: “The Era of Peace I spoke about in Fatima has been forgotten. This Era of Peace will take place AFTER the Second Coming of My Son and will last 1,000 years.”

I know the prophetic evidence better than most pertaining to the great era of peace, I believe 100% this “prophecy” of April 9 is simply UNTRUE, and that the era of peace occurs BEFORE the Antichrist’s reign and therefore BEFORE the Second coming.

For my own reasons, I do not care to defend my position on this unless provoked. So believe whatever.”

~ ~ ~

I’ll say it again, I do no know yet if Maria of Divine Mercy
is true or not but some of things stated in this message
are true. They line up with other prophecy and Scripture.

My emphasis, my “position” is pro-private revelation, both
the approved and yet to be approved. I believe Heaven
speaks to us every day through the prophetic. Read and believe the messages if you wish. They are a help and in the list, after the Apostles, comes the prophets.

I disagree with you on the time of the Era of Peace, this is
the millenial spiritual reign of Christ AFTER the anti-Christ and the Great Tribulation and to follow, the Chastisement. The Era of Peace is the 7th Day.

When Our Lord speaks of the second coming in Maria’s messages, He is referring to His middle coming which is
spiritual too. The “second coming” is not the Final Judgement when Our Lord will come in His person.

The heresy of millenarinism is the belief, Jesus is returning physically to reign on the earth again.

take care,

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.


129 posted on 04/16/2012 12:36:06 AM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

You are biased, the Church teaches it is Mary above other meanings which can be the Church but the Church is secondary according to your “the majority of RC authorities.

“All the authorities i have sourced have the church as the primary meaning, contrary to you, including the notes in both your Bibles, and the HAYDOCK commentary, etc. besides church “fathers.”

~ ~ ~
daniel,

You wrote a ton in reply, this will take forever. You say you cite “Catholic authorities” while you deny the same authorties, all of them profess the Eucharist is true.

How come you go with them “supposedly” concerning who
the “woman” is but reject their authority as far as the Eucharist? You’re the one being inconsistent.

Unless, correct me if I am wrong, you do believe in the Eucharist? Do you?

Haydock as your source, Haydock, was a devout Protestant, of course he would protest the “woman” is Mary.


130 posted on 04/16/2012 12:59:31 AM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Count how many times “woman” is written in Revelation 12. I believe it is eight times.

“That is irrelevant; who is refers to is the issue, and your argument was that the Lord’s repeated calling Mary “woman” in the Gospel meant that the women in Rv 12 is, but the fact which i showed was that the Lord called other females “woman as well (and only called Mary that twice in the gospels as i recall). Here, in case you do not believe me.”

~ ~ ~

The term “woman” is not relavent, what, it’s the whole point!! You have translations that changed the wording from the original. Instead of reference to the “woman” saying she, they bring in two terms, “He” or can you imagine “It.”

The “woman”, is reference to a female and is written eight times in Revelation Chapter 12. This is ridiculous to have to repeat. The masculine or “it” are not there.

Our Lord’s words aren’t my argument, they’re fact. I don’t care if he called other women “woman”, Jesus addressed His mother twice as “woman” at Cana and in His dying words from the Cross. No where in Scripture does a son call His mother “woman.” Our Lord must have a reason for doing this, try to figure it out.


131 posted on 04/16/2012 1:28:01 AM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Iscool; metmom; boatbums; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix; wmfights; ...
As very few verses of Scripture have been “infallibly” defined by Rome, the RC has great liberty to interpret Scripture to support her traditions of men, and some are more “Catholic” than her scholars, such as those who adamantly insistent that the women of Rv. 12 must be Mary, and which is consistent with the hyper exaltation given to the Catholic Mary (versus the holy humble handmaid of the Lord in Scripture).

This Maryolatry and it's diminishing of Jesus Christ is probably the path the Devil uses to manipulate RC's into blindly following the false prophet. I think the title to this thread is probably correct in that the false prophet will a Pope. I don't believe the Pope will be the Antichrist as many believed. I think that belief was a result of all the persecution and atrocities the RCC has committed over prior centuries.

In any of these discussions we always end up looking at why one group is more susceptible to manipulation by the Devil then another. It's clear to me that RC's will be easily manipulated into following the false prophet because they look to their church for the direction of their faith and leave interpretation in the hands of their hierarchy.

132 posted on 04/16/2012 8:37:28 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Well put.

Much agree.

Thx Thx


133 posted on 04/16/2012 9:04:01 AM PDT by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: stpio; metmom; boatbums; RnMomof7; Iscool; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix

How come you go with them “supposedly” concerning who the “woman” is but reject their authority as far as the Eucharist?

How come you cannot understand my reply and instead ask the same question? I see that you have only been here less than a month, and that you evidence a lack of familiarity in apologetical debate, but this is elementary. Referencing your opponents own sources in order to show that the other party is opposed by the particular camp that he advocates, or even in affirming some truth he hopes they will accept, is a standard and justifiable practice, but such does not infer agreement with all such say. When Paul quoted a pagan poet (Acts 11:28) he was doing the former but not the latter. And when you reference Luther or Roman Catholic apologists quote certain Protestants as agreeing with them then that does not mean they affirm all that they say.

Haydock as your source, Haydock, was a devout Protestant, of course he would protest the “woman” is Mary.

Haydock was not my own only source, nor is your reasoning sound, but here again is your problem. If you determine Truth on the basis of Scriptural warrant then you are an evangelical and not a Catholic, for their real authority is not Scripture, but what their church says Truth is, under the premise of perpetual assured infallibility.

While you can attempt to debate Rv. 12 on the basis of Scriptural warrant, yet as a Catholic that is only your private interpretation, unless that is what your church officially teaches. But a problem here is that what one Catholic considers “official” or as representing official doctrine can vary (all stamped material, all encyclicals, all of Trent, all that the catechism teaches, etc.) as well as what it means (Lumen Gentium, etc.) depending on whether they agree with it. (And while infallible decrees require implicit assent of faith, whether a declaration is infallible can be open to interpretation, as well as what they precisely mean).

And thus you reject your own stamped notes in your own official Bible, as well as other weightier authorities than you, and while many other conservative Catholics esteem Haydock as supporting true Catholic teaching, you reject him under the specious reasoning that he was once a Protestant!. On this basis you must also dismiss no less a Catholic as the Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, a prime supporter of papal infallibility!

The fact is that it is not whether a Catholic source is conservative or liberal that determines your sanction, but whether they concur with you, while i can invoke such based on their own merits, or as showing the inconsistency of your supreme authority.

In addition, as regards the latter there is no unanimity in this among Catholic sources on this,

as said, the approved notes of the official Roman Catholic Bible (NAB) for America states

► “[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster. *

[12:2] Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Gn 3:16; cf. Is 66:7–14)...[12:6] God protects the persecuted church in the desert, the traditional Old Testament place of refuge for the afflicted, according to the typology of the Exodus; see note on Rev 11:2...

[12:17] Although the church is protected by God’s special providence (Rev 12:16), the individual Christian is to expect persecution and suffering.” http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/12

Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. In his book, “What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John,” (Nihil obstat and Imprimatur), Richards writes:

The vision proper, then, begins with the figure of a Woman clothed with the sun and the stars. We think naturally enough of our Lady, to whom this description has traditionally been applied. After all, we say, of whom else could John be thinking when he speaks of the mother of the Messiah? However it is clear from the rest of the chapter that this interpretation will stand only if the verse is isolated: what follows has very little relevance to our Lady. Nor is it any honor to Mary to apply any and every text to her without thought....

And as explained here,

► Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications. In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (vv. 6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.” — D’Argon J-L. “The Apocalypse.” The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy [Pontifical Biblical Commission (1972); president of the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature (1976-7) and the Society of New Testament Studies (1986-7)] (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969)

Thus while we have shown from Scripture (our supreme authority) why the typology and the women best represents Israel and thus the persecuted Israel of God, not the virgin mother Mary, you must not only show that it is Mary but if you will argue for submission to Rome then you must establish that this is the primary interpretation of your church, and that the Catholic sources which oppose that are censored as being wrong, but which you have not done. You want to convert us to Rome but it fails to officially support you here, and reject any who oppose you.

But of course, you assert that “The smoke of Satan has infiltrated the Vatican per Pope Paul VI” and defend propagating unapproved private revelations, resulting in censure from your own, while attacking another Catholic “prophet.” Quite a church you are promoting.

134 posted on 04/16/2012 11:16:15 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: stpio; metmom; boatbums; RnMomof7; Iscool; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix

The term “woman” is not relavent, what, it’s the whole point!!

Please try to follow the argument. I did not say “woman” was not relevant, else i would not have provided how it is used, but i was referring to the weight you place upon how often it is used in Rv. 12, which is irrelevant, that is not determinative of who is represents.

The “woman”, is reference to a female and is written eight times in Revelation Chapter 12. This is ridiculous to have to repeat. The masculine or “it” are not there.

Of course the reference is to a female, for as pointed out, Israel was referred to as female, (Is. 54:1-6; Jer. 3:20; Ezek.16:8-14; Hosea 2:19-20) And the church is also referred to as female, and both fit the descriptions more than Mary, of whom nothing is said about her being crowned (the giving of which to the saints does not occur will the Lord's return: 2Tim. 4:8; Rv. 11:8)

For again, in Joseph’s dream, (Gn 37:9-11) “the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” The sun represented Jacob (Israel) and the moon Rachel, of which Jacob said, “Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” The 12 stars on the woman’s head represents the 12 patriarchs, “and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rm. 9:5) And which was and will be persecuted, but God keeps her through it. This view is more fully articulated here: http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/Revelation12Woman.pdf

Thus while you attack us as being biased, regardless of the evidence we bring forth, and assert that we need to submit to the teaching of Rome, yet you are so committed to your view that you cannot objectively allow any other, even though your own church that you promote does not infallibly define it!

135 posted on 04/16/2012 11:16:52 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"I see that you have only been here less than a month, and that you evidence a lack of familiarity in apologetical debate,..."

Do you really see this as a debate in which there can be winners or losers? If the truth of theology is to be determined not by the truth, but by the skill or numbers of the participants than the truth will be the loser.

Isn't this more accurately an argument, not in the modern "quarrel" sense, but in the sense of a classic Thomistic or Platonic argument, as a collective endeavor from different perspectives to ultimately reveal the truth?

It is neither a debate or an argument when you begin with the premise that you win until proven wrong and then establish yourself as the judge. Most would call that bloviation. If you are truly interested in revealing the truth I would request that you state that, and not proving yourself right as your objective.

136 posted on 04/16/2012 12:10:27 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

You write a book in reply each time daniel, enough already, the fact is you are wrong friend. St. Jerome knew what he was translating. The Bible is inerrant. You can’t justify the Protestant changes to Scripture. You are not to add or take away says the Bible.

This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”

(Rev 12:13) “And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman WHICH brought forth the man child.”

Daniel said:
“That is easy, Israel as the people of God brought forth Christ, Mary being an Israelite, and to which nation the sun and moon typology fits, and the church became the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which the devil is the adversary of, as Peter says. (1Pt. 5:8)”

~ ~ ~

Israel did not bring forth Christ just because you say it. Israel is a nation not a “woman.” The “woman WHO (it doesn’t say WHICH, another change in a Bible translation) brought forth the man child, Our Lord is His mother. You’re forgetting or rejecting again, Mary is the devil’s adversary. God speaks to the devil in Rev 14 and then in verse 15 God states ~ I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:...

The church did not become the “Israel of God”, this is the New Covenant. Christ’s Church (singular) is the Roman Catholic Church. Protestantism rejected and broke away from the Church.


137 posted on 04/16/2012 2:05:52 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

“This should be a BIG CLUE to those who are hung up on Mary. This is not Mary...

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”

~ ~ ~

Please don’t continue with your rejection of Mary. Mary is first, she is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and the “woman”
in Revelation, Chapter 12. The secondary meaning of the “woman” is referred to in the above verse, the “woman” represents the faithful, the Church.

God protects His children during persecution. There will
be a places of refuge during the Great Tribulation, it will be a time like the early Church when Christians are killed. Actually, by then, you’ll be Roman Catholic. The choice will have been lovingly presented to you by God. He respects our free will so remember and say “yes” when God asks you personally.


138 posted on 04/16/2012 2:22:10 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

“As very few verses of Scripture have been “infallibly” defined by Rome, the RC has great liberty to interpret Scripture to support her traditions of men, and some are more “Catholic” than her scholars, such as those who adamantly insistent that the women of Rv. 12 must be Mary, and which is consistent with the hyper exaltation given to the Catholic Mary (versus the holy humble handmaid of the Lord in Scripture).”...

~ ~ ~

You do not understand Daniel, #1. you follow a heresy, private interpretation of Scripture. The Church canonized Scripture and it follows, God gave her the same authority to interpret it. The words of Genesis 3:15 in the first Bible were altered drastically because of the rejection of Mary. Go look at the difference again between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims.

2. Argue forever and it looks like you are friend. The prophecy given Anna Marie is being fulfilled, the awful rejection of Mary because of the revolters. You reject
Mary’s place in our Redemption and I pray not, you will
reject the 5th Marian Dogma.

Do you not see, Satan laughs, he was given knowledge of
Mary’s role at the fall and his pride, he could not stand
it. Who is doing the same?

You can change, love the mother, love the Son.

Your comment above, there must be a library full
of books written, why we need an authority, why the
Protestant heresies bring you to error and the
loss of grace. Sharing a quote to help you, read the last two sentences for sure...

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

“The Protestant may want to assert that not having original Biblical manuscripts is immaterial, as God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication down through the centuries. (24) However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that by maintaining God’s providence with regard to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of faith. In other words, if one cannot find passages in the Bible which patently state that God will protect the transmission of manuscripts, then the belief is not to be held. The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no such claim.

The second problem is that if you can maintain that God safeguarded the written transmission of His Word, then you can also rightly maintain that He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15] and the twofold form of God’s one revelation). After all, the preaching of the Gospel began as an oral tradition (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Rom. 10:17). It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing – becoming Sacred Scripture – and it was later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative. Once you can maintain that God safeguarded the oral transmission of His teaching, you have demonstrated the basis for Sacred Tradition and have already begun supporting the Catholic position.”

search...from the writing, 21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura by Jon Peters


139 posted on 04/16/2012 3:13:22 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

“As very few verses of Scripture have been “infallibly” defined by Rome, the RC has great liberty to interpret Scripture to support her traditions of men, and some are more “Catholic” than her scholars, such as those who adamantly insistent that the women of Rv. 12 must be Mary, and which is consistent with the hyper exaltation given to the Catholic Mary (versus the holy humble handmaid of the Lord in Scripture).”...

~ ~ ~

You do not understand Daniel, #1. you follow a heresy, private interpretation of Scripture. The Church canonized Scripture and it follows, God gave her the same authority to interpret it. The words of Genesis 3:15 in the first Bible were altered drastically because of the rejection of Mary. Go look at the difference again between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims.

2. Argue forever and it looks like you are friend. The prophecy given Anna Marie is being fulfilled, the awful rejection of Mary because of the revolters. You reject
Mary’s place in our Redemption and I pray not, you will
reject the 5th Marian Dogma.

Do you not see, Satan laughs, he was given knowledge of
Mary’s role at the fall and his pride, he could not stand
it. Who is doing the same?

You can change, love the mother, love the Son.

Your comment above, there must be a library full
of books written, why we need an authority, why the
Protestant heresies bring you to error and the
loss of grace. Sharing a quote to help you, read the last two sentences for sure...

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

“The Protestant may want to assert that not having original Biblical manuscripts is immaterial, as God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication down through the centuries. (24) However, there are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that by maintaining God’s providence with regard to copying, a person claims something which is not written in Scripture, and therefore, by the very definition of Sola Scriptura, cannot serve as a rule of faith. In other words, if one cannot find passages in the Bible which patently state that God will protect the transmission of manuscripts, then the belief is not to be held. The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no such claim.

The second problem is that if you can maintain that God safeguarded the written transmission of His Word, then you can also rightly maintain that He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15] and the twofold form of God’s one revelation). After all, the preaching of the Gospel began as an oral tradition (cf. Luke 1:1-4 and Rom. 10:17). It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing – becoming Sacred Scripture – and it was later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative. Once you can maintain that God safeguarded the oral transmission of His teaching, you have demonstrated the basis for Sacred Tradition and have already begun supporting the Catholic position.”

search...from the writing, 21 reasons to reject Sola Scriptura by Jon Peters


140 posted on 04/16/2012 3:13:51 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: All

Catholic apologist John Salza answers the Question...

Who is the woman in Revelation 12?

Q: - Dear John Salza, I have a question about Rev. 12:1-2. In scripture catholic website about the blessed virgin mary, you talk about the woman being Mary, but it also symbolizes Israel and the church. In the New American Standard, (which I was reading during adoration!) it refers to Gen 37:9 - Joseph telling this dream to his brothers (you probably already know it), thus symbolizing Israel being the stars and moon. My question is how do you say to a protestant, or a new catholic (such as myself), that it refers to 3 things at once. Is the main focus on Mary, the church, or Israel? Do you have any more insight about this subject? I look forward to a response. Thank you very much. God Bless you.

A: J. Salza - John, thank you for your email. First, if you are reading the New American Bible, I must advise you that some of the translations and footnote explanations are quite problematic. They are infected with liberal ideology and in many cases are even heretical. It is truly a shame that the US bishops approved this Bible for publication. You should set it aside and instead use the Douay-Rheims translation, or the RSV-CE.

Regarding Rev. 12, remember that the Apocalypse (or Book of Revelation) is apocalyptic literature unique to the first century. Thus, it is full of symbolism which has multiple meanings. Therefore, it is common for one symbol to represent more than one thing. The woman clothed with the sun is the Virgin Mary, and so the verse should be principally interpreted as such. This is demonstrated by Rev. 12:17, where the devil goes to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who bear testimony to Jesus. This makes Mary the mother of all Christians.

Since Mary is the mother of the Church, we can say that the woman, on a secondary level, represents the Church, which is the New Israel. This is why John writes about her pangs of travail, which are symbolic for those who are being formed in the Church of Jesus Christ. So, this literature provides us multiple meanings, but there is generally a PRINCIPLE meaning and a SECONDARY meaning; in this case, the woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same “woman” who God said would crush the head of the serpent in Gen. 3:15. Because she is such a danger to satan, satan tried to kill her even after the Savior was born (Rev. 12:13).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/


141 posted on 04/16/2012 6:20:53 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; stpio; daniel1212
Did the fact that you failed to ping the one who is really doing all the "begin(ing) with the premise that you win until proven wrong and then establish yourself as the judge. Most would call that bloviation. If you are truly interested in revealing the truth I would request that you state that, and not proving yourself right as your objective." miss your normally careful eye?

What I have been reading of Daniel1212's posts is he's trying to get across the perspective that stpio is the one who is doing the bloviating by insisting "bias" is the reason why others are not agreeing with him. When Daniel repeatedly tried to explain why he referenced Catholic sources - to show stpio was not reinforced by the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism to his claims - he got more of the same. I see Daniel's explanation about the point of why he would use such sources as a kindness rather than a self-assured debater whipping up on a newbie.

Rather than present yourself as the arbiter of what is or is not a debate vs. argument, why not weigh in on the topic of conversation?

142 posted on 04/16/2012 8:02:26 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"Rather than present yourself as the arbiter of what is or is not a debate vs. argument, why not weigh in on the topic of conversation?"

I do not wish to participate in any debate or contest. If we fail to find and serve the truth there are no winners.

143 posted on 04/16/2012 8:29:41 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; daniel1212; stpio
I do not wish to participate in any debate or contest. If we fail to find and serve the truth there are no winners.

But you'll come on the thread and castigate the non-Catholic for something that he really was right about?

Putting aside the thread topic about some "prophet" prognosticating about the demise of half of the Roman Catholic Church "faithful" in the maybe near future, do you at least agree with Daniel's point that the thread originator does NOT have the official sanctions to buttress his interpretation of the identity of the "woman" in Revelation 12? That really WAS Daniel's main point, you know.

144 posted on 04/16/2012 9:25:12 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: stpio
So, this literature provides us multiple meanings, but there is generally a PRINCIPLE meaning and a SECONDARY meaning; in this case, the woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same “woman” who God said would crush the head of the serpent in Gen. 3:15. Because she is such a danger to satan, satan tried to kill her even after the Savior was born (Rev. 12:13).

You expect everyone to bow down to what "John Salza" says is the truth? Is he part of the hierarchy of the Magesterium? Is he a Bishop? Does he have the authority to criticize the American Bishops who approved the NAB? How is John Salza any more an authority on what is the truth than any other Christian? How is what John Salza says about Revelation 12 any more true than church Fathers Hippolytus, Methodius, Victorinus and others? They did not agree with John Salza.

Have you forgotten that the Old Testament and especially Genesis was originally written in HEBREW? Jerome was NOT fluent in Hebrew when he began his translation into Latin. Shouldn't the Hebrew version of Genesis 3:15 be correct? You have already been shown that the pronoun "she" is NOT used. So why do you insist that "she shall crush your head" is the only correct translation and accuse those who disagree with you of heresy? That's an awfully big swath you must paint to include even church fathers and prominent RC theologians into that category.

I suspect that the main reason you hold so tightly to your preferred version of Genesis 3:15 is so you can segue into the false assertion that Revelation 12 is ALSO speaking of Mary. You would again be bumping heads with others of your religious persuasion and even the magesterium who have NOT come down on an either/or decision for that section just as they have failed to provide any semblance of an exhaustive commentary for the Bible. After 2000 years, even!

If you would like to read a well-researched essay on that chapter of Revelation and see how it ties into the entire body of prophetic Scripture, please read http://www.biblrytr.com/revelation11.htm. Or, not. Just reserve your condemnations of heresy to those actual dogmas your church has officially defined. All else is personal/private interpretations...you know, what you guys always accuse "us" of doing.

145 posted on 04/16/2012 10:13:39 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

“You expect everyone to bow down to what “John Salza” says is the truth? Is he part of the hierarchy of the Magesterium? Is he a Bishop? Does he have the authority to criticize the American Bishops who approved the NAB?”

~ ~ ~

boatbums, you don’t bow down to any authority. Protestantism is inconsistent in belief, everyone is their own authority. You are talking out of two sides of your mouth brother. In your next quote you are mocking Catholic authority. Which is it?

~ ~ ~

“You would again be bumping heads with others of your religious persuasion and even the magesterium who have NOT come down on an either/or decision for that section just as they have failed to provide any semblance of an exhaustive commentary for the Bible. After 2000 years, even!”

“Have you forgotten that the Old Testament and especially Genesis was originally written in HEBREW? Jerome was NOT fluent in Hebrew when he began his translation into Latin. Shouldn’t the Hebrew version of Genesis 3:15 be correct? You have already been shown that the pronoun “she” is NOT used.”

~ ~ ~

St. Jerome got it WRONG? Okay, what part of Scripture is correct? King James and his fellas corrected Jerome twelve centuries later, I don’t think so.

If non-Catholic Christians showed a devotion for Mary or honored her as Our Lord desires, we could discuss, it is the complete opposite. Can’t you see, you’re in the same boat as the serpent, the evil one hated the thought a human person would be a part of our Redemption. You can change though, speak to Mary in prayer. She is your mother too.

Two examples of Protestant changes posted showed “He shall” and “It shall”, no way, that’s not feminine. The KJV’s
Rev 3:15 is drastically changed. You find changes as Salza said even in some modern Catholic Bibles. Go with the original, if you can’t read Latin, you will have look at the English translation of the Latin Vulgate. http://www.drbo.org/

verse and footnote ~

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

[15] She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.


146 posted on 04/16/2012 11:55:14 PM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"But you'll come on the thread and castigate the non-Catholic for something that he really was right about?"

The denominational status of Daniel had nothing to do with my comments. I only took exception to framing the discussion or argument as a debate.

"do you at least agree with Daniel's point that the thread originator does NOT have the official sanctions to buttress his interpretation of the identity of the "woman" in Revelation 12?

This underscores my point about this being a classical argument and not a debate. I am not going to get into scoring a debate or even acknowledging that there are winners or losers. Far better theologians than anyone in this forum have argued this point ad naseum and yet there is no consensus.

I will say that appeals to authority are dangerous argument tactics for all sides, especially when the question regards a higher authority. Nor can reason be completely relied on in these arguments.

Faith requires we trust in the authority of God as the cause of our belief even when it presents us with difficulties. As Blessed John Henry Newman said; “Faith is not a conclusion from premises, but an act of the will following on the conviction that to believe is a duty”. Intellect, education, and reason can assist, but they cannot substitute for faith. We ultimately must choose to believe.

This is where we all as Christians need to look to the cross. Saint Paul tells us in his epistles that the Cross was seen as a scandal to the Jews and as folly to the Greeks. It was an insult and repulsive to the Romans. To Archbishop Fulton Sheen the cross was an absurdity. “It is the vertical symbol of life contradicted by the horizontal symbol of death.” The Archbishop then completed his thought with the essence of Catholicism and Christianity when he went on to say; “It is absurd until Jesus is superimposed upon it.”

Christianity requires that, in faith, we hold a number of opposing ideas at the same time; God and Man, Mother and Virgin, Sacrament and Sacrifice, Sinner and Saint, death and eternal life, mystery and reason, the secular and the spiritual, faith and understanding, rationalism and fideism, free will and submission. Without Faith these contradictions form an absurdity. For too many these absurdities form an obstacle to conversion and remain absurdities until we superimpose Jesus upon them.

It is how we attempt to reconcile these absurdities that causes us to splinter and scatter. All of the Christian heresies and the denominational differences have arisen from this challenge. The challenge to us is not to "win" any debate but to find and share God's truth without acting contrary to His truth.

“Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” – John 20:30

147 posted on 04/17/2012 9:50:17 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Thank you for posting the link. I don't have a lot of time lately for the extended discussions but I do enjoy reading the articles at the links when I have time.
148 posted on 04/17/2012 10:54:03 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: stpio; daniel1212; Iscool
Please put prejudice aside and look at Our Lord’s words. Why does Our Lord repeatedly call Mary “woman” in the Gospel?

Jesus also addresses others as "woman" in the Gospels. Special meaning....?

His last words, He used “woman” in addressing His mother from the Cross.


Really?
John 20:15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away."

And Mary Magdalene?

Mary is the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and in Revelation, Chapter 12.

And who or what is the "woman" in Revelation 17?

149 posted on 04/17/2012 11:26:21 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: stpio; daniel1212
This is why no will discuss Revelation 12:13 or reply to why Our Lord keeps addressing Mary as the “woman.”

Jesus does not address His mother as 'the' "woman". Rather, as "woman" as he more frequently addresses more women as He does throughout His ministry.

150 posted on 04/17/2012 11:36:38 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson