DeoOmnisGloria.com

Hello again Jay,

It is interesting to note that the NAB includes this commentary in the footnote to Rev 12:1:

"The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13-17); cf Isaiah 50:1; 66:7; Jeremiah 50:12. [...]"

If she was "the primary symbol" mightn't the USCCB have have even mentioned her?

There's a big problem with taking verse 6 as referring to the Egyptian exile. It occurs after "her child was caught up to God and His throne". If the child is Christ, this is a clear reference to the Ascension, and the events are in the wrong order. On the other hand, if the mother is the OT/NT church, then verse 6 has some reference to the diaspora or possibly some other future event, and things are in the correct order. What in your mind does not align in the interpretation that woman represents God's people?

As for multiple meanings. How many meanings should we search for before we are satisfied? Bear in mind I'm not talking about multiple applications but multiple meanings that allegedly were in John's mind when he wrote. Why stop at two?

This is one of my favorite images from the whole Bible. Have you read about the connection with the end of chapter 11? When you take out the chapter and verse divisions, I think it adds a lot to how we can see this as the Blessed Virgin.

All

Jimmy Akin writes about the fusion/polyvalency of the imagery in Rev 12.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

In Love

when we were one

Kaff wrote:
As for multiple meanings. How many meanings should we search for before we are satisfied? Bear in mind I'm not talking about multiple applications but multiple meanings that allegedly were in John's mind when he wrote. Why stop at two?

Multiple meanings which fit a bible passage occur quite frequently even on topics where Catholics and Protestants agree. To search out more meaning on a passage is a worthy quest for both Catholics and Protestants.

For example, take the phrase "Rachel is weeping for she has no children" can be interpreted as a reference to her early infertility (especially compared to Leah), or as a reference to Pharoah ordering the babies in Egypt killed, or as a reference to Herod ordering the babies in Bethlehem killed. Now we use the phrase to refer to the abortion holocaust.

Take as another example Jesus saying, concerning Moses giving permission for divorce, "in the beginning it was not so". For almost two thousand years Christians understood this only to mean that divorce was forbidden for Christians.

Pope John Paul II saw in the words of Our Lord something we had all missed because we were satisfied with our one true interpretation instead of looking for other interpretations which were also true. He also saw in this passage an invitation to reflect upon the nature of man, woman, and marriage based on the early chapters of Genesis.

The Pope shared these reflections with us first in his sermons but also published them under "Theology of the Body". While I accept as infallibly true, the previous teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - these new ideas of the Pope are revolutionary and bring a previously undiscovered richness to the faith that we can only begin to appreciate in this life.

The day we stop searching for more meaning in the Bible is the day our faith needs a serious overhaul - this may be why Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council. Perhaps we were too sure that we had finished when in fact we had only just begun.

Thanks for your reply, Marsh.

> Multiple meanings which fit a bible passage occur quite frequently even on topics where Catholics and Protestants agree. To search out more meaning on a passage is a worthy quest for both Catholics and Protestants.

Again, I’m trying to separate what the author intended to say, from any personal interaction we might have with the text. We might for example re-apply Rachel’s weeping to apply to the slaughter of unborn innocents as a parallel, but Luke was clearly not talking about 21 c. abortion law and neither was Jeremiah.

It is absolutely true that we might miss a nuance of a meaning in the original text and skilled exegetes provide a valuable service to the church when they call our attention to those nuances. But that is different from what Jay above is trying to do: collapse the woman of Rev 12 down to a “primary” person, Mary, just as he collapsed the “child” to Jesus and the “dragon” to Satan. But, I’m saying, this hasn’t always been the perspective of the church through the ages. I’m saying, while the interpretation of “Mary” doesn’t seem to square with the text; “God’s faithful” does for reasons I pointed out above. So I point this out, and the response is, well it can mean two (or more) things at once. Well how can I tell the difference between a “polyvalent” interpretation and someone trying to sneak in interpretations that simply don’t fit the text?

I mean, what if I was to say, the dragon in John's vision is Satan, sure, but it is also, polyvalently, Wal*Mart Corporation? Would that be safe, appropriate, and honest to John's intent?

Kaff

I think you make common sense points but your untrustworthy view of the church's allegories makes me wonder why should you trust your own interpretation. Why anyone should trust anyones interpretation...

Which leads us down our well worn path of did Christ leave us with infinite interpretations via unlimited minds? Or did he wish for a single mind and a single church 1 Cor 1:10?

I prefer to believe that he didn't leave us in a morass where two brothers blog and try to outblog while the unconverted look on in dismay. I prefer to believe that there is as promised a "pillar and foundation of truth." I prefer to believe that we have been shown how to determine the truth...through councils (Acts 15)...and not via further mental gymnastics and infinite opinion leading to infinite minds---infinite denominations.

In Love

when we were one

I'm really fascinated by Sheen's quote: Scripture is not fond of allegories.

In hindsight, I'm tempted to say that's obvious - but I never really noticed that before. Granted, the Bible often uses highly symbolic language (the Lion of Judah, the right arm of the Lord, a man after God's heart, the Rod of Jesse). It also often uses parable (sower, good Samaritan, foolish virgins, talents) to illustrate teaching.

But allegory in the strict sense of describing real events and actions with fictitious parallels seems both rare and almost always explained in order to make sure the message was received. The tale of two prostitutes in Ezekiel and the man with many sheep stealing a poor man's only sheep in Samuel both come with an explicit explanation (with the powerful effect of having someone pass judgement on a situation before revealing that they are judging their own actions).

The only example which comes to mind where an allegory is not explained is Jotham's story to Abimelech over the murder of their brothers.

Can others think of established examples of scriptural allegories? (in the strict sense of describing real events and actions with fictitious parallels)

Keep in mind I do not wish to dismiss any allegorical interpretations of scripture - and I do not think this was Sheen's point. Rather, a passage which contains only allegorical interpretaion seems rather rare in scripture and we must wonder if maybe we've missed something when we see the allegory but nothing else.

Greetings again to you WWWO,

>Why anyone should trust anyone’s interpretation [?]

You can evaluate my interpretation the same way you evaluate Jay’s or anybody else’s. With reason, common sense, and an evaluation of the facts at hand. I don’t ask you to trust my authority on anything—I don’t have any authority over you or anyone else here. But I do ask you to evaluate my claims. For example, if I claim that the woman of Rev 12 can’t be Mary because of some such reason, you can tell me my facts are wrong, or I’m misreading the text, or making poor use of logic. In fact I challenge you to do so, it will make us both stronger.

>I prefer to believe that we have been shown how to determine the truth...through councils (Acts 15)...and not via further mental gymnastics and infinite opinion leading to infinite minds---infinite denominations.

Oh, so a council has made an infallible and final proclamation regarding the identify of the woman of Rev 12, and all non-Marian interpretations of that scripture have now been anathematized? I think you overstate your case if you think you can appeal to councils to resolve this question. Besides, if you look at Jay’s original post you find phrases like these (my emphasis)

“I think there is enough evidence” … “this isn’t a perfect interpretation” … “I believe the evidence strongly suggests”

In other words, Jay took a view of the facts at hand and made subjective value judgments to arrive at an interpretation he believes is defensible. Jay is allowed to apply reason to a passage, but I am not, because when I read scripture I’m guilty of “mental gymnastics” which lead to “infinite denominations”, even when I reach the exact same conclusion reached by the Roman Catholic authors of the NAB comments. Incredible!

Kaff

I don't think I made myself clear enough. Acts 15 demonstrates that when we diverge in scriptural interpretation it is the church (via council) which decides on the truth. From that decision we do not have further splintering. (If the church sides with your view so be it... my view so be it) What cannot be tolerated is splintering. Let us say my view is rejected by the council... am I then to start my own church? Is that what we read from Acts 15? From 1 Cor 1 :10 or Eph 4:5?

If we (religious narcissists) were to disagree with the opinion of the church fine work on it through prayer. But to launch one's own church from one's own opinion... well there you have the problem I noted above... Does scripture support this position of denominational relativism of infinite opinion?

Further you have me lost... you nicely quote the NAB launching this thread. But in your last post you note "the woman of Rev can't be Mary..." "I reached the same conclusion that the NAB reached incredible!" Show me again how the NAB says the woman of Rev 12 can't be Mary?

In Love

when we were one

Hi WWWO,

Thanks, first of all, for your patience and even tone in responding.

Second, you are correct to point out that the NAB does not prohibit a Marian interpretation. It simply doesn't comment on a Marian interpretation at all. I would describe my position as saying Rev 12 is not primarily about Mary either, and my description of the reason quoted above is why I think that. Now, I don't know what was going through the NAB commenter's heads so I can't say we thought through it in exactly the same way. But I think it is fair to say that we both agree that the primary interpretation is non-Marian.

Third, I doubt that a church has ever split due solely to an interpretation of Rev 12, nor was I advocating this. (Although I will concede that if it ever HAS happened it was probably Baptists!) The New Testament speaks often of reasons to separate, and they're not over scripture nit-picking but over much more serious matters, such as fidelity to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe if you find yourself part of any religious organization that does not lead people to Christ through His atoning blood, you have an obligation to separate from it, no matter what lineage it might claim.

I'll be out of touch for a while (big vacation with family) so have fun, guys. God's grace be upon you.

Good discussion...I would simply like to add the commentary from the Navarre Bible since I believe it is directly related to this discussion.

The figure of the woman reminds us of the Church, the people of God. Israel took refuge in the wilderness to escape from Pharaoh, and the Church does the same after the victory of Christ. The wilderness stands for solitude and intimate union with God. In the wilderness God took personal care of his people, setting them free from their enemies (cf. Ex 17:8-16) and nourishing them with quail and manna (cf. Ex 16:1-36). The Church is given similar protection against the powers of hell (cf. Mt 16:18) and Christ nourishes it with his body and his word all the while it makes its pilgrimage through the ages; it has a hard time (like Israel in the wilderness) but there will be an end to it: it will take one thousand two hundred and sixty days (cf. notes on 11:3).

Although the woman, in this verse, seems to refer directly to the Church, she also in some way stands for the particular woman who gave birth to the Messiah, the Blessed Virgin. As no other creature has done, Mary has enjoyed a very unique type of union with God and very special protection from the powers of evil, death included. Thus, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, "in the meantime [which the Church makes its pilgrim way on earth], the Mother of Jesus in glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come (cf. 2 Pet 3:10), a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim people of God" (Lumen gentium, 68).

No one disputes that the Child born of the "woman" is Christ, so I believe it is perfectly justified to say that while this "woman" can and does represent the Church, she likewise can and does represent Mary since, in a literal sense, she is the "woman" who actually gave birth to Jesus Christ.

St. John had firsthand knowledge, he knew "who" Mary was. It is important to remember that Mary was entrusted to his keeping (cf. Jn 19:26-27). Therefore, as historians have suggested, it is reasonable that Mary remained with John until she was assumed into heaven. St. John spent "quality time" with the Mother of God.

With this in mind, is it fair to say that St. John failed to recognize any correlation between Mary and the "woman" in his vision? And yes, it was a vision, distinctly different from the other books of the New Testament. It wasn't so much St. John's intent, but rather what God revealed to St. John, that dictated what he wrote. St. John was simply the messenger, writing down what he witnessed and heard.

So is it "reasonable" to say that St. John would acknowledge some correlation between Mary and the "woman clothed with the sun"? Absolutely.

In Christ,
Joe

Hi, i think some of you might remember me.

The woman in Revelation 12 represents the church or the remnant people of God. These are the people who will be left in the last days before Jesus' return.

It says in Verse 2 that she was "pained to be delivered". Correct me if I am wrong, but Mary did not feel pain when she gave birth to Jesus.

You said, "The term “Woman” is used throughout Scripture to refer to Mary: Genesis 3:15, Galatians 4:4, John 2:1-11, and John 19:25-27 (note the last two, along with Revelation, were written by the Apostle John)"

In Genesis, the entire time God is talking about Adam, Eve, and the serpent. In this Verse, when God is talking about the woman, he is talking about EVE, and there is no reference to Mary. It would be quite random to to reference Eve in Genesis 3:13, Mary in 3:15, and then Eve again in verse 16. He was talking of Eve the entire time.

Galatians 4:4, come on...This is focusing solely on Jesus and only makes the reference to Mary as woman to show that Jesus was not only divine, but human.

John 2:1-11 and John 19:25-27 are different. It refer to Mary as woman but only AFTER it shows you exactly which person it's talking about. In that verse it was Mary it was talking about, but that does not mean the same for Revelation 12.

Sorry, this isn't a complete response, I will be adding to it later. :)

David-

I believe the Woman in Revelation represents the New Eve. St. Jerome wrote: "Death through Eve, Life through Mary."

God bless,
Linda

Linda, thanks for the great quote.

Even though Saint Paul says that it was through Adam that death entered the world, men have a habit of pointing out that Eve played a major though not final role in bringing death to the world. Men should, like Saint Jerome, be equally quick to point out that Mary played a major though not final role in restoring life to the world.

Where does it say in the bible that there is a new eve? or the phrase "life through Mary"? That's a doctrine of man, never said by God. And also, how come there is not much said about Mary in the gospels?

David

Where in the bible does it say that the bible is the "only" source of doctrine. Note there are passages that say it is good for teaching but where is it said it is the sole arbiter of truth...This is a doctrine of man never said by God. And also, how come there is not much said about David as the pillar and foundation of truth in the gospels?

In Love

when we were one

The woman clothed with the sun is my mother and her spirit is the same spirit as the virgin mary. She has had a vision from God to write books about the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Well she has. The Final Unveiling, The Brides Letters to the Churches, and Clothed with the Sun. Although she will not say, I know her spirit is the Woman.

Ethan

We have to be careful with personal interpretation of scripture. From personal interpretation leads to fragmentation of the church. It is the church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. From the church we see approved interpretation (Acts 15).

2 Peter 1:20- 2:2 speaks of the above warning by Peter.

In Love

when we were one

Just a quick cat-call from the bleachers: just for argument's sake, I'd like to suggest maybe a sophomoric idea, that the Woman--while representing both Eve and Mary, I believe--also represents a particular aspect of God (his "feminine" aspect, if you will), among other things.

In short--and I realize how flaky this sounds--there's something in that Woman that suggests the feminine nature of God, that has been striving through human history to give birth to the genuine humanity that He is after. It isn't too far off base, I think, to suggest that there is a "bigness," almost an abstractness about that Woman, that makes Her all-inclusive. If you look at her for the first time, it is as if she IS the human travail summed up in a nut-shell: she is that womb out of which all good things come, adorned with the very celestial order that her "man-child" son will rule (if he can successfully side-step the dragon). I believe the man-child is, again, both Christ and you and I (in Christ). The history of our entire cosmos is summed up there pretty succinctly, pretty powerfully, I think. Salvation history is precisely this situation: all the good things that God has ever brought forth he has brought forth almost in the literal teeth of the dragon; our origin (the Woman), our pedigree so to speak, is clearly a queen and cannot be brought down, though she may have to go into hiding (thus our world is not so clearly a good thing as it would be if she were not temporarily veiled from us); and in the meantime, while the wars are fought, the dragon gets to temporarily knock some things in the celestial kingdom about until he is subdued.

The Woman is certainly Mary and Eve and the Church, but this is also certainly that inner war through which we all have to realize our own birth into the kingdom of heaven. I feel certain that, for all that the Woman has to do, it is no megalomania for me to think that she is God who is "paining" to be delivered of the man I was created to be, and whether I like or not, I am born into war, with a dragon looking over my spiritual birth and hoping to take me down at the first possible chance. And no one gets out of the dragon's grasp without fighting and running. The kingdom of heaven, so they say, is within you. So, I suspect, are Michael and the dragon warring over me, the Woman trying to give birth to me through Christ (or trying to give birth to Christ in me), etc. I'm not explaining it very well but you see what I mean.

Tobias

Hey Guys,

I am not a Roman Catholic (but Evangelical Christian), but my understanding of Rev 12 has revolved around Israel, the Church and Mary, based on personal subjective understanding and scholarly work done by others. Apparently, it seems that early church fathers thought that in addition to the above three, the woman also referred to Eve. Here's something I found at Catholic.com and hopefully that helps.

THE WOMAN OF REVELATION 12

By James Akin

This Rock
Volume 8, Number 5
May 1997
"And a great portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. . . . [S]he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. . . . Then the dragon was angry with the Woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev. 12:1–2, 5, 17).

There is a lot of debate about what the symbol of this Woman represents. Different aspects of the symbol point to different possible meanings for it.

Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.

The vision contains "fusion imagery," in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).

Similarly, the priest-elders John sees around the throne (4:4) are numbered twenty-four because they are a fusion of the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus, a symbolism which occurs at the end of the book (21:12–14), where New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs.

The beast from the sea in chapter 13 is a fusion of elements from the all four of the beasts the prophet Daniel saw emerge from the sea in chapter 7 of his book.

Polyvalent symbolism, in which symbols have more than one meaning, also is part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).

The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, "the rest of her offspring" are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.

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). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

Up Front
By Karl Keating
Letters
Dragnet
NO APOLOGY FROM THE NEW APOLOGISTS
By KARL KEATING
CATHOLIC WOMEN – A CASE OF OPPRESION?
By JOANNA BOGLE
THE CHURCH OF NICAEA AND CONSTANTINOPLE
By K. D. WHITEHEAD
Raisin' Saints
TV or Not TV
By Leslie Ryland
Conversion Story
Because He Loves Me
By Michelle L. Arnold
A Private Version of Hell
By Michelle L. Arnold
Classic Apologetics
No Divorce "Except for Fornication?"
By Hubert J. Richards
Fathers Know Best
Infant Baptism
Chapter & Verse
The Woman of Revelation 12
By James Akin
Quick Questions
Subscribe
Permissions

Interesting discussion. How could the woman represent the church, as this would mean that the church was seen to be giving birth to its founder. Then this means that the church and its chosen leader are a product of human imagination.

How could it be Mary the mother of Jesus, this seems feasible in verse 5, where she could be seen as a type of faithful Israel, but elsewhere the picture does not fit the facts.

I endorse the observation that the sun, moon and 12 stars together refer to Israel in a prophetic sense, as in Joseph's dream about his family.

I a symbolic sense we see only two women depicted in this writing, one here, who turns out to be the bride who has made herself ready, and she is connected to / the mother of/ those who have held to the testimony of Jesus. The other is the prostitute who has had a share in persecuting those who bear the testimony to Jesus (Rev 17:6) This woman is in opposition to Jesus but many have been deceived by her because of the deceptive glamour of her behaviour. There is much to think about here.

this woman isat war with bablylondon the great, or vice versa . she is a natural country type who lived as woman to experience truth, her thwarted childbirth was because in babylondon in end times having a normal family life was difficult and her friends life and experience resembled many women she fought the devil who sought to pervert the natural need for her child,she is like eve, and the floods are here because of her now.the stars were knocked from her head her son will lead with a rod of iron??sound like jesus?the dragon stood infront of her before the child was born to eatit child abuse? abortion? anyway the city took and god restored babylondon the great was commiting adultery with other nations and she hid from it because she was loyal, no one would buy cattle sheep pay her back double for what she has done to you says all so the seed are within the babylondon kingdom! quite planly being destroyed!

Something I found interesting. Revelation 12:6 says that "the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days", which means 1260 days. If you apply the same logic found in Numbers 14:34 “each day for a year”, then you will find that this passage actually means 1260 years.

How is this relevant?

The woman cannot be Mary because none of the descriptions accurately depict what happened to her. The woman’s actions and experiences do parallel the church, however. The church at first is made up of people who are good and follow God’s commandments, as seen in Revelation 12:17.

Now I will explain how the 1260 years comes into play. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476, and the ruins of their empire left 10 kingdoms. However, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Heruli (3 of the 10 kingdoms) fell in 538. If you look at Revelation 13:1, it shows a beast “having seven heads” but with “ten crowns”. Historically this is accurate because there were 10 kingdoms at first, but 3 fell, leaving 3 extra crowns. So now it is 538, and there are 7 kingdoms left.

1260 years later brings us to 1798. What happened in this year you ask?

Revelation 13:2-3 “The dragon gave him [the beast] his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast”

In 1798, Napoleon took Pope Pius VI prisoner and held him captive until his death. This is the “deadly wound” that revelation is talking about. Right after the pope was captured, however, another pope was put in his place, Pope Pius VII, which is how his wound was healed.

I may have gone off on a little tangent but, the woman cannot be Mary because she was not alive during any of these events, and she has nothing to do with any of them. The beast is the Pope and the woman is the remnant of God’s people.

Let me see if I have this right...
1. Every Pope is a head of the beast.
2. The beast has seven heads.

Therefore...
We have only had seven Popes!

So out of the 265 apart from Pius VI and VII, that leaves only five Popes. And I thought that the sedevacantists were stringent in their criteria for a valid Pope.

Though I am now curious as to whether Beast's condemnation against contraception is:

1. an abomination that the world, in its holiness, has avoided through widescale use of contraceptives. I guess the beast isn't very good at getting people to adopt abomination.

2. a clever deception on the part of the beast to appear holy thus leading a whole 4% of the population to unwittingly worshipping it. I guess the beast isn't very good at fooling the faithful.

WWWO, take note that claiming some sort of doctrinal unity in the Roman Catholic Church is the height of arrogance. Please display more humility by asserting that it is the beast of the Apocalypse. Or better yet, become like Napoleon Bonaparte, the champion of God's people, by taking over Europe and renouncing Christianity.

Michael O, all sarcasm aside, is there any "Sola Scriptura" criteria by which an outsider can determine if David's teachings on the beast to be officially Christian or not? Those sorts of "remnant teachings" were quite popular before the "liberalization" of Protestantism and justified the splintering of Protestant denominations quite neatly. After all, a sufficiently large denomination could hardly be called a remnant.

I believe I am the woman in Revelation 12. I divorced an evil man who wanted me to take the Mark of the Beast in 1997. He said woudn't it be great not to have to carry a purse and instead have all your information stored in a computer chip in your hand. I thought about this and said this is weird. I soon knew that I must divorce this evil man. He stole my children from me who keep the commandments of God. I recently was baptized in the name of Jesus. After months searching for my husband, God finally sent him to me. He acts just like Noah. I never knew such a man existed. We follow all the commandments of God from the KJV. We know we are living in the end times. God is protecting me and providing for me, without financial support from the evil dictator I was married to. I will see my beautiful children again in heaven. God gave me two wings like an eagle so I could soar. In Revelation 12, he is referring to my twins. They are the wings of the eagle that God is referring to. I am willing to die for Jesus Christ and will not except the Mark of the Beast. It says in Matthew to deny your family (children) to follow his will. I didnot lose the battle in court fighting for my children. My evil ex-husband, will not get to spend eternity with God's children. He is only using them for a tax write-off. Everybody hates me and my husband. In the Bible it says you will be hated for his names sake and that we are. They hate that we donot drink with them or commit adultery.

Karen

Good to hear u are alive thru this turmoil. A quick question though: where in the bible does it say the mark of the beast is a computer chip?

In Love

wwwo

In the end the lamb is married to the new heaven and the people are in christ.

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

So it doesnt seem correct to me to make the woman of revelation to be the church, but jerusalem. The 12 stars represent the tribes of israel perhaps? Let us also consider how satan mocks god. Jerusalem is gods nation and babylon is satans.

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

I think REV 17:4-5 was intended to be a mockery of the comming heaven on earth

Rev 21:18 And the building of the wall of it was [of] jasper: and the city [was] pure gold, like unto clear glass.

Rev 21:19 And the foundations of the wall of the city [were] garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;

Rev 21:20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.

Rev 21:21 And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

See how satan tries to top god then god goes one over that. I also like how there are twelve gates in the new heaven, perhaps the woman is the physical jerusalem and Rev 21:21 describes the new jerusalem with gods glory. Its even better than the original.

The meaning is simple. Everyone is wrong. From the time of Jerusaleum destruction until Constantine, the true followers of Christ were persecuted, until the unholy merging of pagan secular practice with the sacred. The evil one sought to make Jesus a liar by destroying the teachers, and ending the true church. From the time of the merging until the publication of the Bible in the modern form in 1610, it is 1260 years. The true church was virtually destroyed in Europe and even today remains sceptical to any holy teachings. But in the time of the merging the Holy Spirit came to teach and save the L'nu people from destruction. A teaching was delivered which transformed the whole society and instructions were given that these teachings must remain secret and disguised. Four fourteen generations the L'nu became the living testimony of the salvation teaching they received. This was the teaching, ' every true human is granted three spirits by the Creator. Each spirit has a function and each may be used whenever a need arises or is felt. The names of the spirts are "safe journey", "wise counsel" and "full provision". The first spirit is used to talk directly with the Holy Spirit. Life is a sacred pilgrimage and anywhere or any time a true human requires assurance, protection and comfort one must use the spirit to ask fo the Great Spirit. No intercessor is required. The second spirit is for peace. The L'nu were informed that they will be required to live in community with one another so the spirit is required that whenever a need is to be met, that the spirit will obligate the helper to obtain the best possible counsel before action is taken. The thrid spirit is a gaurentee that everything that is required is available free and fully on the lands that Creator has granted to the L'nu. They need not travel to find anything outside the territory. The symbol for the three spirits is three crosses. When the settler arrived from Europe they arrived on our land and when they arrived were surprised to learn we were known as 'the Cross people'. These three teachings we had perfected by the time of settler arrival fleeing persecution for religious freedom. They arrived with one cross, but did not know peaceful coexistence and provision in the new land. So the L'nu taught them and created a new humanity with them based upon compassion. In 1610 the L'nu became Catholic and baptised, one thousand two hundred and sixty years after the revelation. When the jesuits arrived, they didn't bring the testimony of Christ, this we already had, they brought knowledge of Satan, which the L'nu did not know. In this way the teachings were hidden from the devil who works through mans religion. It is a society transformed by the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Christ that6 this Revelation addresses. This is the wilderness and this is why the devil is left on a far shoreline from where the Spirit went and came to us. When we were told that Jesus said " I am the way, the truth and the life" the L'nu said same here. The way is the 'safe journey', the truth is the 'wise counsel', and the life is the spirit of 'full provision'. At the time of the teachings from Christ around 350ad, the L'nu suffered great losses due to serious prolonged droughts and faced imminenet ruination. It is the Holy Spirit that saved us and gave us life and purpose. To prepare for the arrival of the settler fourteen generations into the future. Then after seven more generations we will require restoration. We were given two prophecies from Christ. The first prepares the groundwork for the new society and the other was sent into the wilderness to be hidden un til the time of maturity arises, which is now in the twenty first generation from the teachings. Since the Devil became aware of our way, in 1610, we've lost and sacrificed everything we have even unto our own destruction. This is a duty we were given for the gratitude of salvation. But look at western society as our charge before God. We have his word, His testimony, prophecy and history as proof. We have suffered unvbelievable persecution but we hold to the promise that we will never again face destruction. It is a better promise than assimilation, which is the flood of settlers sent our way and which stole and occupied all Indian lands. The land swallowed up the settler and made room for everyone. before Christ left us to teach other tribes, he made His image seated holding a lamb and agoat in a sacred unity stone and said that at the time of maturity, people will want to know waht I look like. He made it. He made us. He saved us. He loves us. So when considering Revelation 12, interpret it broadly and do not be so egocentric and selfcentered. We knew God before religion...kevin

Welcome Kevin

Interesting story you weave but what are your historical references to your claims.

Have you read the writings of the Christians from the last apostles to the time of Constantine that were persecuted? I would recommend a book by Evangelical Baptist Rod Bennett called "Four Witnesses." He had broadly similar views to yours about these early years and has the evidence in these writings.

In Love

when we were one

Post a comment