Revelation; The Woman in Heaven

Originally posted by soleprobe
The fact that Mary was a virgin is proof that it wasn't the type of "conception" you are referring to.

No, it's only proof there was no human male involved.
If you're thinking in terms of what amounts to the planting of an embryo, making Mary simply a kind of "host-mother", that would not have been called "conception".

Originally posted by DISRAELI
No, it's only proof there was no human male involved.

So if there was no human male involved there was no human sperm involved. Human sperm is necessary to impregnate a human woman.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
If you're thinking in terms of what amounts to the planting of an embryo, making Mary simply a kind of "host-mother", that would not have been called "conception".

That’s why I said it was a divine conception. The Holy Spirit (God) and the Father (God) are solely responsible for the divine conception:

“…for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”

Mary had nothing to do with the conception, it was clearly stated that it is “of the Holy Spirit”

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you…”

Again the Holy Spirit and “the power of the Highest”… not the power of Mary… this was a miraculous divine conception. And who was divinely conceived?

“In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God… All things were made through Him… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”

The same God whom through all things were created, the same God who visited Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was the one who became flesh… Mary was just the blessed carrier.

Christ showed this to everyone when He was told His mother (Mary) and brothers were looking for Him by saying in response

“ ‘Who is My mother and who are My brothers?’ “And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said,” ‘Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.’”

And He also made it very clear to the Pharisees at the risk of getting stoned when He said,

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him

Now if you want to believe that Jesus was half Mary and half God there is little more I can say.

reply to post by soleprobe

Let's look at this from the theological angle, because that's what concerns me.
"He had to be made like his brethren in every respect" as Hebrews says. "Since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature"- Hebrews ch 2 v14.
The point is that Christ needed to be fully human- as well as divine- so that we could benefit from what happened on the cross. That has been standard theological teaching since Paul's time.
Now then, being without human father is one thing, but if he has no human mother either, there is no humanity in him at all. Simply being planted within a human womb doesn't make him human. That is no good to us, for Atonement purposes. So I think you will find that the teaching that he "took flesh from" Mary is the orthodox one.

Originally posted by soleprobe
Now if you want to believe that Jesus was half Mary and half God there is little more I can say.

Please allow me to quote from the Athanasian Creed, because I think it vindicates me, as far as standard theology is concerned;

"We believe... that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before all worlds;
And Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world"

Of the substance of his mother- that is what I have been saying.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Let's look at this from the theological angle, because that's what concerns me.
"He had to be made like his brethren in every respect" as Hebrews says. "Since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature"- Hebrews ch 2 v14.

Yes… He partook of the same nature, He was God in the flesh… but it wasn’t the first time. He was also flesh when he dined with Abraham. He was flesh when He wrestled with Jacob. And if He were to manifest Himself to those who obey Him today, as He did shortly after His resurrection, He can appear in the flesh. But to qualify as the perfect sacrifice He had to be conceived in the flesh to grow and learn as any child.

Observe… if you’re going to ignore His own words when He clearly states that “before Abraham was I AM” then you just pointed out the problem with theology. Theology has nothing to do with Christ because theologians don’t listen to what He says nor do they obey Him.

That’s why Christ said,

“I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes,

And again Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read, ‘ Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise’?”

Do you think the theologian understands the words of Christ I just posted above? If he did he would quit the study of theology immediately. God didn’t make it so that only theologians could be saved. In fact I would ignore ALL theological angles because theologians only create a thick barrier of conceit before God. ALL spiritual knowledge comes from God by obedience to the living God NOT solely by the interpretation of the scriptures.

reply to post by soleprobe

I stand by the above quotation from the Athanasian Creed.

The trouble is that what you are suggesting is not "conception". You are calling it conception, but it isn't.
What you're putting forward, in fact, is a modern version of the Docetic heresy (ie that the humanity of Christ had no reality).

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by soleprobe

 

I stand by the above quotation from the Athanasian Creed.

I stand under the Living God
.........................................

reply to post by soleprobe


I must repeat, though, the standard Christian position, that Christ needed to be born of a human mother in a true birth in order to be human in a true sense.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
We are told;
That the child is born.
That the child is male.
That he is to "rule the nations with a rod of iron"
And, finally, that he is then "caught up to God and to his throne".

Anyone who knows the gospels can recognise the basic outline of the story. The reference to the "rod of iron" comes from one of the psalms, where it belongs to an anointed king about whom the Lord has just said "You are my son, today I have begotten you."- Psalm 2 v7.
We can hardly identify the child as anyone other than Christ himself.

This chapter is very relevant at the Christmas season, as a reminder about the significance of the birth of Christ;
That this is the same child who is ultimately to "rule the nations".
In essence, the Nativity, and the narrative of Revelation, are telling the same story.

There is now an Index, covering all these Revelation threads, at this location;

Index of Revelation threads

This thread is numbered as #22 in the "order of chapters" list and Biblical reference index.

John, the beloved Apostle prepares you with the previous verse. The final verse in Chapter 11 of Revelation.

Revelation 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Things are made greater in the New Covenant, the Old Covenant prepares us for the New Covenant. Mary is
the Ark of the New Covenant. She carried God inside her.

Mary is the "woman" in Revelation 12:1.

Jesus Himself, prepares you. From the cross He addressed Mary as the "woman" and in other places in the Gospel, at the wedding of Cana. God sees all the plan and shares it with us, Mary is very very important, Mary is spoken of in the beginning, in Genesis, she is the "woman" in verse 3:15 and she is the "woman" at the end of Scripture, in the Book of Revelation.

Originally posted by soleprobe

Originally posted by DISRAELI
No, it's only proof there was no human male involved.

So if there was no human male involved there was no human sperm involved. Human sperm is necessary to impregnate a human woman.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
If you're thinking in terms of what amounts to the planting of an embryo, making Mary simply a kind of "host-mother", that would not have been called "conception".

That’s why I said it was a divine conception. The Holy Spirit (God) and the Father (God) are solely responsible for the divine conception:

“…for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”

Mary had nothing to do with the conception, it was clearly stated that it is “of the Holy Spirit”

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you…”

Again the Holy Spirit and “the power of the Highest”… not the power of Mary… this was a miraculous divine conception. And who was divinely conceived?

“In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God… All things were made through Him… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”

The same God whom through all things were created, the same God who visited Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was the one who became flesh… Mary was just the blessed carrier.

Christ showed this to everyone when He was told His mother (Mary) and brothers were looking for Him by saying in response

“ ‘Who is My mother and who are My brothers?’ “And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said,” ‘Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.’”

And He also made it very clear to the Pharisees at the risk of getting stoned when He said,

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him

Now if you want to believe that Jesus was half Mary and half God there is little more I can say.

This verse is used constantly to put down Our Lord's mother. No where will you ever find Our Lord putting
down His mother, ever.

The verse is misinterpreted.

Mary was Jesus' first disciple. What human person has done the will of God the Father more perfectly than
Our Lord's mother? God the Father's first greeting for Mary were the words brought to Mary by the
archangel, the words were "Hail full of grace." "Grace" is God's presence. Mary is full of God. God makes
this very clear. Mary is special, she is an exception and we all know the reason why.

God makes exceptions because He can, we see in Scripture.


Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

reply to post by colbe

My problem with identifying the woman in ch12 as an individual is the flight into the wilderness, which is the kind of thing that happens to symbolic figures.
This woman is evidently the counterpart of the woman in ch17, who is a symbolic figure.
These two women, between them, divide up some of the characteristics of the woman at the end of Jeremiah ch4, the scarlet-clothed harlot in travail from childbirth, who is again a symbolic figure.
That's why I was inclined to see them as figures representing the faithful and unfaithful versions of God's people.
See also one of my threads on the Harlot;
Harlot Babylon; The other woman

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe

 

My problem with identifying the woman in ch12 as an individual is the flight into the wilderness, which is the kind of thing that happens to symbolic figures.
This woman is evidently the counterpart of the woman in ch17, who is a symbolic figure.
These two women, between them, divide up some of the characteristics of the woman at the end of Jeremiah ch4, the scarlet-clothed harlot in travail from childbirth, who is again a symbolic figure.
That's why I was inclined to see them as figures representing the faithful and unfaithful versions of God's people.
See also one of my threads on the Harlot;
Harlot Babylon; The other woman

edit on 17-8-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Hello Disra,

I like ATS, people are kind to each other here even though we might not see things the same way.

I can say there maybe lessor meanings for the "woman" in Revelation. One being the Church or the "woman" representing Israel BUT above all, the "woman" is Mary. In Chapter 12, we know who Jesus is and who
Satan is and they are singular, why then is not the "woman?" She is. It is Mary. Why would John in the
very verse previous to 12:1 speak of the "ark of the Covenant" in the Heavens? Everyone accepts, acknowledges the ark of the New Covenant is Our Lord's mother.

I know I am repeating but one can't ignore Our Lord contiuously referring to His dear mother as "woman." in
the Gospel.

I happen to see today there was another NDE witness from a non-Catholic Christian, she saw Our Lord's mother in Heaven. I shall post it. The person who saw Mary was a devout Christian, a Baptist.

This wonderful lady saw angels and Mary in Heaven.

A personal, I have read but I could be wrong, I don't know about the angels in Heaven but our GUARDIAN ANGELS watching over us are male.

This was the headline article at Spirit daily today but this evening, it joins the collection of other faith articles
on the page.

www.spiritdaily.com...

Originally posted by colbe
I can say there maybe lessor meanings for the "woman" in Revelation. One being the Church or the "woman" representing Israel BUT above all, the "woman" is Mary.

In which of those meanings does the woman escape into the wilderness in v6 and vv14-16? I think that whole episode makes much more sense under the "church" meaning.
Incidentally, in my threads I interpret ch12 as a "flashback" scene- I see the events in ch15 as the real sequel of the events of ch11. So in my interpretation ch12 v1 is not really "the next thing that happens" after ch11 v19- although, of course, the two verses are still in conjunction in the way the book is structured.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe

 

My problem with identifying the woman in ch12 as an individual is the flight into the wilderness, which is the kind of thing that happens to symbolic figures. ...

Harlot Babylon; The other woman

edit on 17-8-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

I don't understand DISRAELI, how "is the flight into the wilderness" involve symbolic figures? It is going
to happen. You can read in the prophetic, the world is very close to it happening. We see in the "news" too
certain things prophesied like companies making the "mark", I remember one company named Digital Angel.

Our Guardian angels are real so will the terrible persecution coming.

God does things a certain way, we read of examples. During great persecution, God protects His people. These end of times, the same thing is going to happen. Evil is going to come to "chip" you or haul you away to the camps. Before this happens, in faith and saying first, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we ask our Guardian Angels to guide us and our families to the "wilderness", the places of God's protection, the refuges. Evil will not see us. That's what the verse 12:14...refers to. We see here the lessor meaning of the "woman" the faithful will be guided to the refuges.

Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:14
And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Our Guardian angels are going to guide us, in the Old Testament, a reference.

Exodus 23:20
Behold I will send my angel, who shall go before thee, and keep thee in thy journey, and bring thee into the place that I have prepared.

Originally posted by colbe
I don't understand DISRAELI, how "is the flight into the wilderness" involve symbolic figures? It is going
to happen. That's what the verse 12:14...refers to. We see here the lessor meaning of the "woman" the faithful will be guided to the refuges.

In other words, you agree with me that the woman in flight into the wilderness represents God's faithful people. That is exactly what I meant by saying that she was a symbolic figure.
As distinct from the literal individual Mary.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by colbe
I don't understand DISRAELI, how "is the flight into the wilderness" involve symbolic figures? It is going
to happen. That's what the verse 12:14...refers to. We see here the lessor meaning of the "woman" the faithful will be guided to the refuges.

In other words, you agree with me that the woman in flight into the wilderness represents God's faithful people. That is exactly what I meant by saying that she was a symbolic figure.
As distinct from the literal individual Mary.

Disra,

Hi, now I think I understand what you mean by "symbolic figure." The "woman" in verse 12:14 "represents" the
lessor meaning of the "woman" in Revelation Chapter 12. Yes, which is...are "God's faithful people."

I shared in an earlier post the "woman" in Revelation, chapter 12 can have more than one meaning. The top, the main meaning would be the "woman" is Mary, Our Lord's mother. Revelation 12:1 is speaking of the Queen of Heaven
and Earth. The description in 12:1 is royal and we know via the Old Testament, the mother of the king is
queen.

~~~ ~ ~~~

"I can say there maybe lessor meanings for the "woman" in Revelation. One being the Church or the "woman" representing Israel BUT above all, the "woman" is Mary. In Chapter 12, we know who Jesus is and who
Satan is and they are singular, why then is not the "woman?" She is. It is Mary. Why would John in the
very verse previous to 12:1 speak of the "ark of the Covenant" in the Heavens? Everyone accepts, acknowledges the ark of the New Covenant is Our Lord's mother."

reply to post by colbe

We agree that the woman at the end of ch12 represents God's faithful people.
But the woman at the end of ch12 is the same woman as the one at the beginning of ch12. QED.

You argue from the verbal coincidence that Jesus calls his mother "Woman". But;
a) In John ch20 v15 Jesus addresses Mary Magdalene as "Woman". So this verbal coinicidence leads back to Mary Magdalene just as easily as it leads back to Mary the mother of Jesus.
b) The harlot in ch 17 is called "a woman". So this verbal coincidence leads forward to the woman in ch17 just as easily as it leads forward to the woman in ch12.
Be wary of reading too much into verbal coincidences. It is on the same basis that some of the more trivial critics on ATS argue that Jesus must be the same as Lucifer, because they're both called "morning star". (You may as well say that Jesus is the same person as Herod because they're both called "king").