“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
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/
The words of Genesis 3:15 in the first Bible were altered drastically because of the rejection of Mary.
I have posted before the NAB rendering of this, which is of the church you want to convert us to, while you are at odds with your own official Bible:
KJV: Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
DRB: Gen 3:15 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.
NAB: 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.
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
Meanwhile, do a search on the word (hû' / hı̂y') used for “it” in “it shall bruise thy head and find out how many times it is translated as “she” versus “he” or “it” and i think you find out who is changing the Bible to fit their doctrine.
The Church canonized Scripture and it follows, God gave her the same authority to interpret it.
Why do you simply reiterate an assertion as if that made it true, and ignore my refutation of it? As said, it took Rome over 1400 years to finally provide an indisputable canon, as the weight of Scripture is not critical for her doctrines. And in addition, even being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ does not make such the assured infallible interpreters of it, and if it did then the church would have needed to submit to those who sat in the seat of Moses in all that it taught.
...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
That is a straw man SS, as this does not require explicit texts to constitute Scriptural teaching, and the preservation of the Word of God is promised in principle, in which God preservation is promised, and the “the word of the Lord/God” normally was subsequently written, and as Scripture alone is the only transcendent and material revelation that is wholly inspired of God then it is the assured word of God, versus amorphous oral tradition, which is not codified, and by nature is supremely subject to undetectable corruption, and must be subject to examination by Scripture.
He safeguarded its oral transmission as well (recall 2 Thessalonians 2:14 [15]
That is not speaking about eons-old mysterious nebulous oral tradition, but something that was know, and could have been written, as was the norm for truth called “the word of the Lord/God.”
And Paul upheld Scripture as the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, which it is abundantly evidenced to be, and it manner was to “reason out of the Scriptures,” and his preaching was proven thereby. (Acts 17:2).
And unlike Rome, Paul was manifestly Divinely inspired preacher and writer, yet preachers today can call their hearers to obey their oral words, as substantiated by Scripture.
It was not until later on that some of the oral tradition was committed to writing
Much of Scripture was first oral, but Scripture is the part of tradition that is the assured word of God, being established as being so due to its heavenly qualities, like as a true man of God is, even if not affirmed by men as he should be. To make oral tradition by decree is contrary to how Scripture was established, most of which took place b there was a church in Rome, and to make it equal to it is to essentially add to the canon, and makes the magisterium like inspired writers, even if they deny being on that level.
The prophecy given Anna Marie is being fulfilled, the awful rejection of Mary because of the revolters.
You have already been reproved by your own on this, and blithely dismiss evidence to the contrary in order to promote your own ideas, and i have lots to do. May God grant you grace unto repentance. (2Tim 2:25)