Is noticing no scriptural emphasis whatsoever, or even the mention, of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, by name in the epistles, interpreting or just plain obvious?
To say that the first part of Rev. chap 12 is showing the ‘woman’ to be Mary, has to be labeled ‘interpreting’. Since you put such faith in select theologians, perhaps you can link me to what they say about the ‘woman’ going thru the three and one half years of great tribulation. I believe that Rev. 12 harmonizes with ‘theologian’ Daniel’s prophecy for the nation of Israel.
**...St. Polycarp was likely a disciple of the Apostle John..”
‘likely’?
A good measure would be: Who not just knew one or more of the apostles, but taught the Word exactly as they taught it. If anybody teaches one thing differently than the apostles then they are not reliable sources.
Apollos was mighty in the scriptures, instructed in the way of the Lord, and fervent in the spirit, yet some lowly tentmakers by the names of Aquila and Priscilla expounded to him the way of God more perfectly.
Here’s the deal: Aquila and Priscilla had been born again, They had been baptised in the name of the Lord and had received the Holy Ghost. In other words, they had received the same ‘upper room’ experience as those in Acts chapter 2, which was the beginning of the Church. Peter referred to that beginning, when telling the believing Jews in Jerusalem of the Holy Ghost being poured out on the gentile household of Cornelius (How did Peter know it was genuine? He heard them speak with tongues).
After many years of knowing Christian ‘tradition’, and listening to educated preachers (that seemed to avoid the book of Acts), a lowly witness showed us the Word. My wife and I obeyed Acts 2:38 and received our own ‘upper room’ experience, receiving the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues.
That which I had previously mocked became my surprising new life.
Zuriel:
And I only notice “Zuriel” giving his/her interpretation of scripture. And to that I say, well you can believe what you wrote, but I dont’t and will not ever.
I will go with the theological interpretation of Sacred Scripture given by the Church Fathers. And as for Polycarp being a likely disciple of St. John, I was being diplomatic. St. Irenaeus [See Adverse Heresies III, 3], who herd Polycarp speak is the one who attests that St. Polycarp was indeed a disciple of St. John.
Why is St. Ireneaus and his writings and interpretations more relevant to me, than your views. Well, despite the obvious, he was among the great theologians of the 2nd century and wrote tirelessly against the various Gnostic Heretics of his time and thus is recognized by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church as an orthodox Church Father whose writings reflect orthodox Apostolic Tradition.