![\"Mary30\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/Mary30.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nThis was on a\u00a0public Facebook discussion thread<\/a>\u00a0on a friend\u2019s Facebook page, underneath mention of a\u00a0review of the above book of mine<\/a>\u00a0by Devin Rose.\u00a0Greg Still\u00a0<\/a>describes himself as a \u201c\u201dskeptical Pentecostal\u201d and is a former Catholic. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Angels came down many times in the OT and a couple of times in the NT. Should we then say that Moroni visited Joseph Smith?<\/span><\/p>\n Certainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it \u2013 for it would have occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to \u201cvenerate\u201d her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it? But, no. Catholic apologists take a few words that Jesus spoke to John on the cross, \u201cbehold thy mother\u201d, and add to it a dumpster-full of tradition.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Briefly: the Bible does mention\u00a0the \u201cwoman clothed with the sun\u201d in heaven (Rev. 12:1). Her child is clearly Jesus (Rev 12:5). It\u2019s not\u00a0rocket science to figure out that this is Mary, and that she is portrayed in quite a glorious state in heaven. If you want more Catholic perspectives on this (and Mary as mediatrix and intercessor and spiritual mother), see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page<\/a><\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n \u200eCertainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it<\/span>.<\/p>\n By Protestant reasoning, \u201ccertainly, if\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0were true, the Bible would have mentioned something about\u00a0it<\/i>\u201c. But it never does, which is the\u00a0topic of my book. That doesn\u2019t stop Protestants from making an entirely non-biblical, anti-biblical concept the very foundation and bedrock and pillar of their authority structure. They do it anyway. Then, having done that, they demand that we adopt the same illogical reasoning with regard to Catholic distinctives like Mary\u2019s Assumption.<\/span><\/p>\n We never claimed that absolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in Scripture, precisely because the Bible never teaches this. That is\u00a0your<\/i>\u00a0game, and thus your burden to defend, not ours.<\/p>\n Your statement above is classic. You believe this firmly, yet the Bible never states such a thing. Thus, you supposedly appeal to the Bible itself with a completely non-biblical idea that can\u2019t be found there. Then you try to bind Catholics to this silly notion: so now you are arbitrarily applying an arbitrary tradition of men to us, as if we have to play by those rules . . . We think logically and biblically, so no dice!<\/p>\n It is true that commentators generally understand the whole passage as applying literally to the Church, and that\u00a0part of the verses is better suited to the Church than to Mary. But it must be kept in mind that Mary is both a figure of the Church, and its most prominent member. What is said of the Church, is in its own way true of Mary. Hence the passage of the Apocalypse (12:5-6) does not refer to Mary merely by way of accommodation [108], but applies to her in a truly literal sense which appears to be partly limited to her, and partly extended to the whole Church. Mary\u2019s relation to the Church is well summed up in the expression \u201ccollum corporis mystici\u201d applied to Our Lady by St. Bernardin of Siena. [109]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Cardinal Newman [110] considers two difficulties against the foregoing interpretation of the vision of the woman and child: first, it is said to be poorly supported by the Fathers; secondly, it is an anachronism to ascribe such a picture of the Madonna to the apostolic age.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n ___<\/span> Yes; in past treatments of the topic I have taken the view that the passage has a dual application: to Mary and the Church (and Mary as a figure of the Church). That is quite common in Scripture. I did this in my first book, which was completed 16 years ago this month, so that is nothing new with me.<\/span><\/p>\n However, the part specifically about giving birth to the child (who is Christ)\u00a0must\u00a0<\/i>be about Mary, I contend, if it is about Christ, because Jesus was not a product of the Church, since He preceded it and initiated it. Therefore, that part is specifically talking about Mary. The Bible never uses a terminology of Jesus being a \u201cchild\u201d (Rev 12:5) of the Church. He is the child of God the Father (His Divine Nature) and of Mary (as a person with both a Divine and human nature). The Church is \u201cof Christ\u201d; Christ is not \u201cof the Church\u201d; let alone its \u201cchild.\u201d Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.<\/p>\n Your interpretation of \u201cmale child\u201d is incoherent. \u201cRule all nations with a rod of iron\u201d is clearly hearkening back to the messianic passage Psalm 2:7-9, which is again reflected in Rev 19:15 (absolutely about Jesus). It\u2019s true that there is a secondary application along your lines in Rev 2:27, but you still have to deal with the phrase \u201ccaught up to God and to his throne\u201d (Rev 12:5; RSV). That can\u2019t mean \u201cthe twelve thrones\u201d referred to in Matt 19:18 (cf. Lk 22:30; Rev 4:4; 11:16) because it says \u201chis<\/i><\/b>\u00a0[i.e.,\u00a0God\u2019s<\/i>] throne.\u201d Only Jesus is connected directly with that, because He is God.<\/p>\n And so we see Jesus (unlike any created men) sitting on God\u2019s throne (Matt 19:28; 25:31; Heb 1:8; Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).<\/p>\n Therefore, this proves that Rev 12:5 is referring to Jesus alone, and thus, His mother in this particular passage must be Mary, since it cannot be the Church, per the reasoning above. Other parts of the entire passage also have an application to the Church, as the Catholic Church continues to teach today.<\/p>\n You want to bring up Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. Bad choice, since he was my main theological influence in becoming a Catholic; I\u2019ve had a large web page<\/a> about him for 15 years, and a 448-page book of his quotations <\/a>coming out in a few weeks (I mentioned it this very day on my Facebook page). In my first book,\u00a0A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(p. 200), I cited his words from 1875 (\u201cLetter to Pusey\u201d):<\/p>\n What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image, unless there had existed a blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the \u2018man-child\u2019 spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not \u2018the Woman\u2019 an allusion to his mother?<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Revelation 12:17 is no problem since it can either be an instance of the dual meaning of \u201cChurch\u201d or Mary as a spiritual mother in a different sense (tying into the same John at the cross receiving Mary as his \u201cmother\u201d). We accept the dual application. It is you who are denying the Marian application, which doesn\u2019t fly in light of the exegesis and cross-referencing that I have shown you.<\/p>\n And if it is Mary in this passage (as well as the Church), then we have an indication of both her veneration and glorification in heaven, akin to the Assumption (whereas you claimed there was nothing in Scripture\u00a0at all\u00a0<\/i>about it: as if the Assumption were solely an arbitrary tradition of men, like\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is :-). \u201cCertainly, if Mary had been assumed, the Bible would have mentioned something about it \u2013 for it would have\u00a0<\/span>occurred during the apostolic era. And if the Apostles wanted the saints to \u201cvenerate\u201d her, they would have mentioned SOMETHING about it?\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n BUT if there is a MAJOR DOCTRINE of the church, then the scriptures must surely say SOMETHING about it.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span> ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Assumption of the Virgin (1626), by \u00a0Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] (5-28-12)*** This was on a\u00a0public Facebook discussion thread\u00a0on a friend\u2019s Facebook page, underneath mention of a\u00a0review of the above book of mine\u00a0by Devin Rose.\u00a0Greg Still\u00a0describes himself as a \u201c\u201dskeptical Pentecostal\u201d and is a former Catholic. His words will be in\u00a0blue. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":5575,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[1507,503,2356,1862,504,1876],"class_list":["post-5573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blessed-virgin-mary","tag-assumption-of-mary","tag-marian-doctrine","tag-mariology","tag-revelation-12","tag-virgin-mary","tag-woman-crowned-with-12-stars"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nFrom the\u00a0Catholic Encyclopedia<\/i>:
\n<\/span><\/div>\n
I note that Cardinal Newman recognizes that the Madonna figure is an \u201canachronism\u201d to the apostolic age. That is, the apostles never regarded Mary as a \u201cMadonna\u201d.<\/span>
______________<\/span>
I do not have a copy of the Confraternity version with me at present, but I do distinctly recall reading the footnotes of it regarding Rev 12. The writer said that the application to Mary was \u201cuseful\u201d but that the Woman represented the church.<\/span>
____________<\/span>
Personally I think the Woman represents the Church at the last age, and the \u201cmanchild\u201d represents a certain group within her who, like Christ and with Christ, will rule the world with a rod of iron.<\/span>
The fact that the woman has \u201cother children\u201d indicates that this is not speaking of a \u201cVirgin Mary\u201d. (Rev 12:17<\/span>)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nExactly! And precisely as\u00a0I\u00a0<\/i>argue . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>
\nI never said \u201cabsolutely everything has to be explicitly laid out in scripture\u201d. This is a straw man.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>
\nIs that so? You stated:
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span>Yes, and I showed that it\u00a0does<\/i>: by analogy (Enoch, Elijah, and Paul\u2019s experience in the second heaven), and the data of Revelation 12, just discussed. Therefore I have demonstrated\u00a0\u201cSOMETHING about it.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0You just disagree (on inadequate grounds). I showed\u00a0implicit<\/i>\u00a0grounds, which is what you want, since you deny that you require\u00a0explicit\u00a0<\/i>grounds. Therefore, I succeeded in my task, according to your challenge. I provided what you asked for. It continues to be the case, on the other hand, that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is entirely absent from the Bible and massively contradicted in it at every turn. So you hang by your own false premise, whereas we are not harmed at all by it because we reject it as unscriptural in the first place.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n