Replies

“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.

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.