Revelation 12

[Laudate_Dominum]

I am convinced that the primary sense of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 is that it refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

My hope is that there are people on phatmass who disagree and would be willing to offer cogent arguments for their own position.

I go so far as to suggest that Rev 12 is a sort of biblical "proof text" for such things as Our Lady's assumption, queenship and spiritual maternity. I realize such a conclusion is controversial even within modern Catholic biblical scholarship. Nonetheless, I'm quite confident that I'm right.

Well, anyone wanna give it a go?

[MC Just]

Yes it is the Blessed Virgin Mary and the crescent moon under her feet is the same crescent moon of islam. Meaning The Virgin Mary and the Church will conquer islam. Sorry a little off topic but, that's my interpretation of the moon. Our Lady of guadelupe so fits the description.

Edited December 3, 2005 by MC Just

[MC Just]

i have heard that the woman is the church. I have also heard that the woman is judaism.

[toledo_jesus]

I have heard that Revelation is an allegory of the political situation of the Church at the time of its writing...

[Laudate_Dominum]

There is truth to both those views. But they aren't the whole story, just a narrow view. And usually the Judaism thing usually means like a faithful remnant of Israel. The eschatological community and jazz. hehe. I'll get into all this stuff once my unknown adversary appears.

[PadreSantiago]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Dec 3 2005, 10:11 AM']Yes it is the Blessed Virgin Mary and the crescent moon under her feet is the same crescent moon of islam. Meaning The Virgin Mary and the Church will conquer islam.
[right][snapback]809506[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Good luck with that, conquering the islams....lol

I mean you do realize that you worship the same god right? Mc Just are you one of those people that thinks god is going to smite people for choosing the wrong religion?

Edited December 3, 2005 by PadreSantiago

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='PadreSantiago' date='Dec 3 2005, 09:42 AM']Good luck with that, conquering the islams....lol
[right][snapback]809535[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
hehehe.

I hope you aren't going to argue that Bush is the woman of Rev 12.

just a dumb joke.

[PadreSantiago]

mawahaha of course not because I think bush is the anti-christ

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='PadreSantiago' date='Dec 3 2005, 09:45 AM']mawahaha of course not because I think bush is the anti-christ
[right][snapback]809539[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Maybe he's a Jesuit double-agent, and 9/11, the war in Iraq, etc. was orchestrated by the Vatican as phase one of a master plan to bring about a new inquisition and a one world government. Stay tuned for the ground breaking comic book.

[PadreSantiago]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 3 2005, 10:55 AM']Maybe he's a Jesuit double-agent, and 9/11, the war in Iraq, etc. was orchestrated by the Vatican as phase one of a master plan to bring about a new inquisition and a one world government. Stay tuned for the ground breaking comic book.
[right][snapback]809547[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

haha close! Maybe if you replace the vatican with Karl Rove and Johnsonville brat Cheney all of a sudden it doesn't seem so far fetched. George bush sr. sure did like to talk about his "new world order"

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='PadreSantiago' date='Dec 3 2005, 10:12 AM']haha close!  Maybe if you replace the vatican with Karl Rove and Johnsonville brat Cheney all of a sudden it doesn't seem so far fetched.  George bush sr.  sure did like to talk about his "new world order"
[right][snapback]809559[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
this guy on the street handed me a DVD that was putting forth a theory like that. it was very poorly done though so it didn't strike me as very convincing.

[PadreSantiago]

truthfully I don't think Bush is all that evil he's just really really really really really really really really really really really really stupid he's just a puppet. Karl Rove and Johnsonville brat Cheney are running the show regardless of who you think was behind 911. Personally I find it hard to believe these people hijacked planes with box cutters and no one tried to stop them and the government didn't just shoot the planes down.

[Cre8d4Youth]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 3 2005, 09:04 AM']I am convinced that the primary sense of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 is that it refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

My hope is that there are people on phatmass who disagree and would be willing to offer cogent arguments for their own position.

I go so far as to suggest that Rev 12 is a sort of biblical "proof text" for such things as Our Lady's assumption, queenship and spiritual maternity. I realize such a conclusion is controversial even within modern Catholic biblical scholarship. Nonetheless, I'm quite confident that I'm right.

Well, anyone wanna give it a go?
[right][snapback]809504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Man, there is so much I want to write on this LD, but I have to get to work, I hopefully will be able to post tonight when I get home. I agree (sorry, can't argue with you too much LOL) but I have a couple other insights you might find interesting and I'd like your input on! TTYL!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Cre8d4Youth' date='Dec 3 2005, 01:13 PM']Man, there is so much I want to write on this LD, but I have to get to work, I hopefully will be able to post tonight when I get home.  I agree (sorry, can't argue with you too much LOL) but I have a couple other insights you might find interesting and I'd like your input on!  TTYL!
[right][snapback]809760[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
sweet. I can't wait.

[scardella]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 3 2005, 09:04 AM']Well, anyone wanna give it a go?
[right][snapback]809504[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, not really. Every argument that I can think of is too easily refuted. The only effective argument I can see is to make the interpretation irrelevant.

If you claimed that, for any given piece of scripture, there was one and only one correct interpretation, then you'd have an awful hard time being taken seriously. You'd effectively be saying that there is only one correct "sense" of scripture, and that would certainly be limiting God and seems to be in conflict w/ Scripture itself. Additionally, there are many purely human books which often have multiple layers of meaning contained within.

The claim I've heard most often is that the woman is Israel or the faithful remnant. We see a lot of this imagery in the OT. However, see above. Even from an elementary reading, Mary fits being "woman" much easier and more naturally than a nation. The narrative is also a good symbolism of Herod's attempt to destroy Jesus in His infancy and His triumph over the devil, sin and death in the end.

Anyway, that's about all I can handle right now. Dang cold!

[Laudate_Dominum]

I've devoted an excessive amount of time over the years to this one pericope, and since I am at the point where it is rare and most difficult to find an argument of any kind that I have not already encountered and dealt with, I am quite confident in my conclusions. I also have a few tid bits which are the fruit of my own research which I have not seen brought to light in any work of Biblical scholarship which treats of these passages. I am also quite familiar with the history of the interpretation of this narrative.

But remember, I claim that the Marian interpretation is the primary sense, not the exclusive meaning of the text.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The woman in Rev. 12 looks like Our Lady of Guadalupe. Check into that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

There are many reasons why I've been sort of obsessed with this narrative.
It basically crowns my entire understanding of Lucan and Johannine Theology, and really the Gospel in general. I realize this is odd, but I don't consider Luke's gospel to be a synoptic in the usual sense. I have studied common thematic and structural elements between the Johannine and Lucan writings and I view Luke-Acts as a sort of bridge between the synoptics and the Johannine writings. I argue for the validity of using Lucan material to discover the meaning of Johannine themes and concepts, and vice versa. Perhaps the most controversial and least substantial move I make (and for the record its not a crucial point) is to argue for a Lucan priority. Or more precisely, the priority of Luke I & II and its importance principally as an interpretive key for understanding the rest of Luke and Acts and as a set of thematic keys for grasping further the Theology of John, insofar as the themes can be shown to derive from shared source material. I reject Q theory (and similar theories) and prefer exploring a hypothetical oral tradition above positing imaginary Gospels.

Anyway, I'm totally rambling so I'll be quiet now.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='scardella' date='Dec 3 2005, 02:01 PM']No, not really.  Every argument that I can think of is too easily refuted.  The only effective argument I can see is to make the interpretation irrelevant. 
[right][snapback]809803[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I suppose the principle I would refer to in this case is that of, does the approach/interpretation shed interpretive light on other related passages? This is the mark of a good (or "better") interpretation or approach. And I believe that my interpretation fulfills this requirement to a most remarkable degree.

My main problem right now is the sheer size and scope of the information I would like to present in order to substantiate my position. But I really feel that the message board medium is entirely inadequate. It could easily fill 800 pages.

[Theoketos]

Holy Lord how awesome you are!

I am writing a paper on this right now. I absolutely agree. I am one my 15 page of the paper and cannot stop writting about.

LD have you ever read Rahner's [i]Our Lady and the Church[/i]? He devotes a whole chapter on the subject of Revelation 12.

I disagree with Raymond Brown, but agree with Fuilette and Potterie on the subject

I also like to point out to that the Ark seen in the Pervious Verse is clearly related to the woman in the next verse.