Because Revelation 12 is not about Mary. It is about Israel and Christ. Mary is not the mother of all believers. Again, catholicism assigns something to Mary not accorded by Scripture.
you don't grasp the variations of devotional genres through the centuries;
I grasp when the rcc approves of various writings as being free from error that have been written through the centuries. If they are free from error it strongly suggests it is catholic doctrine.
you ignore archaeological evidence (inscibed over the bones of martyrs in the catacomb walls, lovingly embellishing ancient sites like the House Church at Dura Europos) showing devotion to Mary from the earliest centuries of Chrstianity;
I googled the House Church and find nothing to support the catholic claim this shows Mary. The scholars are in doubt as to exactly who this depicts. http://www.catholictranscript.org/news/news/local-news/4470-yale-gallery-may-hold-oldest-image-of-mary.html
If, as the article suggests, this is Mary at a well when the angel appears it is appealing to the Protoevangelium of James.
However, this would contradict Luke's narrative of 1:28 (NASB), "and coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." which suggests the meeting happened inside. Not at a well. And you complain I don't "have a sense of context"!
you're completely in the dark about the difference between a dogma, a speculation and a theologoumenon (a mere theological opinion);
I know this. The rcc has not refuted this writing nor cited it as error. IIRC, various popes have embraced it.
In the Glories of Mary by Alphonsus de Liguor, a catholic bishop, (page 129) we have this:
Hence St. Ephrem says: Thou art the only advocate of sinners, and of those who are deprived of every help; and he thus salutes her: Hail! refuge and retreat of sinners, to whom alone they can flee with confidence.
As noted earlier this is a contradiction of scripture to which you cannot offer rebuttal as the popes have embraced this doctrine.
Well, mrs d...it's been fun as always.
I'm off the read about the follies of the dnc. Good luck with the corn. btw....love cream corn and fresh field peas!
Rather than try to defend such a rash assertion, I think it would be better to acknowledge that many Biblical prophecies and images, and especially in Revelation, are polysemous. In Revelation 12, the Great Sign of the Mother in the sky, is referring the Mary the Mother of the Messiah (primary meaning, since her motherhood, and the identity of her newborn Infant as Messiah, are both clearly referenced)) AND Israel/Daughter Zion, AND the Church founded by Christ (secondary or derivative, dependent upon the primary.) These three meanings frequently overlap, and never more profoundly than here at Rev. 12.
"Free of error" in this case --- the mystical writings --- means only that the parts that touch on doctrine, can be interpreted in a sound and orthodox way, RARELY as literal doctrinal formula (VERY RARE in mystical writings!)--- or as an illustration by analogy, or by allegory, or by imagery, or by way of a conditional truth (e.g. IF 'this' happens, then 'that' will happen.)
There are some outright errors in the writings of some mystics. These are not endorsed by the Church. Even if the mystic in question is a canonized saint, that does not mean all their writings are perfect in all respects! Some of them are too ambiguous to yield a judgment of their accuracy. (Ambiguity is a characteristic of any Bible passages too, as we have seen.
(E.g. how many people were at the foot of the Cross?)
(E.g. "And what the LORD doth require of thee: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." What does "only" mean in this passage? You don't have to believe in Christ?")
E.g. "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24) What???)
"Free of error" does not mean that that it is part of the Deposit of Faith, comprising the truths that were handed on to us by he Apostles. No "new truths" of this sort have emerged "de novo," nor could they emerge, after the Apostolic Age, which closed at about the end of the First Century AD.
The picture is of a woman at a well. Sort of off toward the corner there is a raised and very faded figure of (probably)_ an angel ---"probably" an angel, since the figure is raised as if in mid-air; and there's a faded line showing something like starburst occurring in or on the woman.
The art experts say it *could* be the Samaritan woman at the well, but not likely, since such pictures usually center on Christ talking to her, which is not shown at all.
Since the faded figure is probably an angel, and since something is happening within the woman (starburst) another view --- and this is only a point of view --- is that it is the Annunciation, the angel is Gabriel, and the woman is Mary showing he (symbolically) conceiving Christ within her.
Scripture says the angel came "in" to speak to Mary, while some interpret to mean she must have been inside her house. Others translate this is "came INTO her presence." Of the 24 variant translations listed at Bible Hub, they are about equally divided between coming "in" and not mentioning "in" at all.
So I don't think it can be determined whether this passage is saying the angel came into her house or just into her presence. Not only that, bu Jewish law considers your courtyard to be part of your house --- this is important for hakachic regulations which say you can take only so many steps outside of your "house" on the Sabbath. So if Mary had a well in her courtyard, she would still be considered (by Jewish law) to be in her house, and the angel could come in to her (at the well) without implying that the well was located in the middle of her living-room :o) ..
All this is secondary. Whether or not Mary was portrayed on the mural at Dura Europos, she was certainly addressed as well as pictured on the underground tufa walls at, e.g. the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome. Being pictured is a form of dulia-- simple honor, neither more nor less.
This WAS going to be a short kite!
or As when a suit, courting his beloved, says "You are my ONLY love," he manifestly does not mean that he doesn't love his father and mother, or that he doesn't love God. He's just trying to express an exalted view of this beloved woman. No reasonable person would think otherwise.
Similarly, no Christian--- and no scholar, looking over the whole corpus of Ephrem's work --- could reasonably conclude that Ephrem thought Mary was the literal, sole advocate of sinners. That would take him clear out of Christianity; whereas his poetic work is, in fact, highly Christocentric.
I myself am, in fact, an advocate for sinners. I pray for sinners daily. And this is the ONLY way that Mary, as a human persona d as a disciple of Christ, can "advocate" for sinners: by commending them to Christ.
Back to the beans. Adieu.