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
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.
Excellent points as usual. Thx for the pings.
The woman of Revelation is Israel.
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.
“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
“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