Posted on 01/31/2020 9:07:54 AM PST by Salvation
I have correctly stated what Roman Catholics claim about Revelation 12:1. You cannot refute that.
I have also correctly stated what Roman Catholics claim about Geneses 3:15. You cannot refute that either.
*****
The faithful can be called "children of the Church" and Mary herself has been honored with the name "Mother of Christians," because she is Christ's mother and we are all members of the Body of Christ.
Mary is NOT the mother of all Christians.
There is no Scriptural support for this. None.
It's more of the idolatry of the worship of Mary that Rome elevates her to this non-biblical position.
Also because we are like the Beloved Disciple at the foot of the Cross, where Jesus gave His Mother a "Son" and gave the Church His mother.
IF the Roman Catholic understood the Greek of the text they claim for this they would understand this was a private matter between Jesus, John and Mary.
26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household. John 19:26-27 NASB
Christ gave Mary to John to be in his household.
The Greek word used here, idios conveys the meaning of: 2398 ídios (a primitive word, NAS dictionary) – properly, uniquely one's own, peculiar to the individual. 2398 /ídios ("uniquely one's own") is "stronger than the simple possessive pronoun ('own'). This emphatic adjective means 'private, personal' " (WS, 222).https://biblehub.com/greek/2398.htm
The lack of knowledge of the Greek hinders the Roman Catholic and causes them to stumble into error on this passage....among others.
IF He was giving Mary to the church He would have said so.
Roman Catholicism reads a great deal into the texts that isn't there to support their Mariolatry.
It has caused great error and has mislead many.
Very beautifully said, Mrs. Don-o.
If anybody is interested, you might want to try this article https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-woman-of-revelation-12 where the author uses the term "polyvalent" or "fusion" symbols (I called them "multivalent") but it means the same thing: a symbol with plural layers and plural applications.
The whole idea of symbolism is essential to grasp when you look a prophetic and apocalyptic writings like Revelation and portions of Ezekiel and Daniel.
How many years have we been at this, ealgeone? Tell us what YOU think. Please?
The use of allegory in Rome's theology allows the reader to "see" practically anything in Scripture they want to see.
This has lead too so much bad and false theology.
The problem with the Revelation passage is the Roman Catholic changes the subject of the sentence mid-stream. There is no sound hermeneutic or grammer that allows that.
Your "multivalent" approach to Scripture allows practically any understanding of a passage the reader wants.
As I've noted before....if Mary is in Revelation 12:1 she has to be in Rev 12:2. If this is the case the RC position on the Immaculate conception is in error based on what I noted about Genesis 3:16.
This is why I say IF one reads the Scripture in CONTEXT, these kind of errors will be minimized.
*****
How many years have we been at this, ealgeone? Tell us what YOU think. Please?
Obviously not long enough! I've told you what I think the passages mean and they're not what Rome espouses.
What you "think" "Rome" says: (((seven-syllable sigh)))))_--
Did you look at this article?
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-woman-of-revelation-12
Have a good evening, ealgeone.
I found it very lacking and in error.
From the article:
Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion).
This is based in part on the Protoevangelium of James IIRC...a book that was never accepted or considered for the canon. IIRC it is a book that was to be rejected. Origen dubbed it a book of dubious origin.
*****
Although a number of church councils condemned it as an inauthentic writing of the New Testament, this did little to diminish its popularity. Pope Innocent I condemned this Gospel of James in his third epistle ad Exuperium in 405 AD, and the so-called Gelasian Decree also excluded it as canonical around 500 AD.[13] Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, rejects the Protevangelium of James teaching that midwives were present at Christ's birth, and invokes Jerome as contending that the words of the canonical gospels show that Mary was both mother and midwife, that she wrapped up the child with swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger. And thus concludes, "These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings."[14]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James
*****
This error filled book also suggests the following:
And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth -- a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-roberts.html
Jesus just showed up. He didn't pass through the birth canal. That's Gnostic teaching....not Scriptural.
****
Luke records a normal birth.
No mysterious light.
No not passing through the birth canal.
No mention of a lack of labor pains or labor for that matter.
Luke was a doctor. He would know how a child was born.
Scripture is very good about noting the unusual circumstances of events. In the case of the birth of Christ, there are none noted in regards to the actual birth of Christ.
IF Roman Catholics kept Scripture as their source of Truth, and not the writings of rejected infancy novels they would avoid this type of error.
Boy, ain't THAT the truth.
Dittos!
Show me what I wrote in error on this topic.
No one to talk to in your caucus threads I see. Gotta come out into the real world.
You’re my #1 poster.
Thanks for the bumps.
Not in your caucus threads.
You’re one of the primary reasons they’re caucused.
The catholic caucus minimizes lies about the Church from the prots.
Also Jesus is our ark not Mary
Can't handle the Truth I see.
I've never posted a caucus thread as I can defend what I believe against all comers.
Good thing Paul wasn't a Roman Catholic like you or he'd caucused his writings! LOL!
+1
You rarely post any threads of your own.
And of the threads others post, your posts are primarily to the catholic themed threads.
Your hatred of the One, True Church is obvious.
Only insecure fools laugh at their own comments.
Weak.
I'm all for the Truth.
It's the lies about the Catholic Church that I try to minimize.
I’ve told zero lies about Rome. I’ve stated facts. When I mention the brown scapular you move to have the comments either deleted or the thread pulled. You simply cannot handle the Truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.