“indication” is not the same as “credence”. It was wrong for me to say there was “no indication”, because there were things that led reasonable people to use those scriptures in the way they are being used.
However, in my opinion there is no credence to that use.
Maybe you disagree with that distinction, but I felt it was worthwhile enough to acknowledge that my earlier statement was inaccurate (I should have done so more directly).
It is clear the child is meant to be a figure of Jesus, since the text says the child will be the ruler of all. But the child is not Jesus, as in the story the child is taken to heaven, not crucified on earth. It’s imagery, not an historical document.
If you try to make it historical, you can say that because the woman has a crown, she has to be a queen, and because the child is Jesus, it must be Mary. But then you have Mary’s Son taken from her at birth, and Mary taken into the wilderness for 42 months, and then there’s all of her offspring.
Now, while I believe Mary had offspring, the “offspring” in Revelations most certainly are not HER children.
Of course, I don’t think even the Catholics believe that Mary was chased by a dragon, or was given wings to fly to the desert.
In the end, in the story, having tried to drown the woman but having failed, “the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”
I reject the idea that you can take a passage of scripture, interpret parts of it as being factual history, while other parts within the same story are clearly imagery, not meant to be taken literally.
So I reject the notion that the “woman” is Mary, that the child is Jesus, that Mary is a queen because she has a crown, but that her child was NOT taken to heaven, she was not chased by a dragon, she did not sprout wings, and she did not spend 42 months in the desert.
And believe me, everything I just said is in NO way getting into detail. The detailed analysis of Revelation 12 would take more knowledge than I possess, and more words than I could reasonably write in a day, or a week.
There are chapters in books that don’t deal with this in sufficient detail.
This is an inference on your part. The text says no such thing.
Now, while I believe Mary had offspring, the “offspring†in Revelations most certainly are not HER children.
Catholic teaching makes us all her children.
Of course, I don’t think even the Catholics believe that Mary was chased by a dragon, or was given wings to fly to the desert.
What part of "Mary is the woman of Revelation 12" are you not getting?
I reject the idea that you can take a passage of scripture, interpret parts of it as being factual history, while other parts within the same story are clearly imagery, not meant to be taken literally.
Too bad. The book of Daniel isn't going anywhere. You reject this at your own peril.
And believe me, everything I just said is in NO way getting into detail. The detailed analysis of Revelation 12 would take more knowledge than I possess, and more words than I could reasonably write in a day, or a week.
Unfortunately, you seem to think a detailed analysis is equal to an authoritative analysis.
They are not.
I can only point out to you the wisdom of Ronald Reagan: it's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it just that they know so much that isn't so.