Revelation 12

[MichaelFilo]

All I can say is my NAB and all it's footnoting disagree with you LD. And all I can say is, the NAB is the product of Ecumenism. So, the remenant philosophy sounds like the footnotes, so yes. The woman is the church, first the old testament church, then the new testament church. Whats my defense? The NAB, and it's protestant food notes. It's the official bible of the Catholic Church in the United States.

I'm sorry, thats the end of my little thing on why you are wrong; because my bible tells me so.

God bless,
Mikey

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Dec 3 2005, 08:18 PM']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.
[right][snapback]810089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's awesome! And yes, while I find much of Rahner's stuff (I haven't read a ton) to be distasteful, I actually like that particular book.
And while I consider myself to be doing something entirely different from the project of Raymond Brown, I was able to glean a great deal of insight from his work, particularly from Birth of the Messiah. And Potterie is a big source for my Rev 12 stuff, although a lot of my ideas hinge on a view of the Gospels that is kind of "different".

I'd love to read that paper whenever you finish.

So far all I have is outlines and notebooks filled with random scraps. I think its going to be a long time before I actually set out to write anything coherent. But its great fun to work on this project anyway.

My biggest set back is that I have a rather large bibliography of texts and articles that I MUST read that don't happen to have ever been translated into English. I can muddle my way through Italian, but I'll need to master French and German before I can really complete my research. In reality, I really feel that I am just beginning.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Dec 3 2005, 10:57 PM']All I can say is my NAB and all it's footnoting disagree with you LD. And all I can say is, the NAB is the product of Ecumenism. So, the remenant philosophy sounds like the footnotes, so yes. The woman is the church, first the old testament church, then the new testament church. Whats my defense? The NAB, and it's protestant food notes. It's the official bible of the Catholic Church in the United States.

I'm sorry, thats the end of my little thing on why you are wrong; because my bible tells me so.

God bless,
Mikey
[right][snapback]810189[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Haha! Yeah, I do realize that my views are odd in comparison with contemporary Biblical scholarship. But I still believe my approach is methodologically sound and that my conclusions are solid. We'll see I suppose.
Oh, and in my lowly opinion, the NAB is carp.

[Aloysius]

i'm pretty sure Mikey was being sarcastic, i dont think he likes the NAB(S) footnotes either

anyway, you're finding lots of agreement on phatmass :

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 4 2005, 03:30 AM']i'm pretty sure Mikey was being sarcastic, i dont think he likes the NAB(S) footnotes either

anyway, you're finding lots of agreement on phatmass :
[right][snapback]810353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm thinking of maybe emailing some protestant and liberal Catholic Biblical scholars so I can duke it out with them.
I just want to refine my position before I set out to write something about it.

I discussed my views last year with a pretty well known Catholic Biblical scholar (a modernist by training, but he's not over the top) and a very well known Catholic Theologian, and they were both impressed and extremely encouraging. At least I know I'm not way off.

Actually its kind of funny because the very well known Catholic Theologian came out with a new book about 6 months after our conversation and there was a part of it that was clearly influenced by our discussion. I thought that was really awesome.

[Aloysius]

sweet.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thanks Al. I just have this crazy dream of being a real Theologian someday so it was really neat.

[phatcatholic]

what do you mean by the "primary sense" of the verse? fill in the blank: a particular understanding of a verse would be its primary sense because _____ . it is the one intended by the author? it fits the context of the passage? what?

i may be interested in debating this, but i need to know how you answer these questions first. it may also turn out that i agree with you, in which case there would not be much of a debate, unless i chose to play devil's advocate, which i think i could probably do

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 4 2005, 09:05 AM']what do you mean by the "primary sense" of the verse? fill in the blank: a particular understanding of a verse would be its primary sense because _____ . it is the one intended by the author? it fits the context of the passage? what?

i may be interested in debating this, but i need to know how you answer these questions first. it may also turn out that i agree with you, in which case there would not be much of a debate, unless i chose to play devil's advocate, which i think i could probably do
[right][snapback]810507[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Precisely what I mean by that would take a bit of explaining.
I'm not working within the old school exegetical paradigm which interprets Scripture according to primarily three senses (literal, allegorical and anagogical), but rather according to modern hermeneutics. I hold that the literal sense, as in "the author’s original intention", in the case of the woman of Revelation 12, is polyvalent. I believe the symbol can be shown to have more than one referent, which is no doubt common for symbols of personification in this genre.
In all actuality, my understanding of the nature of this type of symbolism makes the question of the "primary sense" or "primary referent" pretty much useless because it introduces a tension that is in my opinion idiomatically foreign (unless we're talking about a relationship). However, in the pertinent scholarship this question inevitably seems to be raised for reasons that I consider to be particular to modern scholarships epistemological character. Thus for me the question is more a matter of method and interpretive application than a mind-reading of the authors intent. The importance of the question is revealed, I'd say, when one attempts to derive a biblical Mariology. When speaking of the symbol in itself, the question is superfluous.

Does this answer your question to some degree?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I should also say that given the recent history of the interpretation of this passage I think it is a good move to stress the Marian sense of the woman. It has been denied or downplayed even in Catholic scholarship and is almost a laughable proposition in many circles. This is troubling for many reasons and I believe it is simply false.

[Laudate_Dominum]

To elaborate on the post before last:
I hold that the symbols of personification in Rev 12 have both individual and collective senses. One might argue that in verse x, it is the corporate sense exclusively that applies, and then assert that if the majority of the applied occurrences of the symbol are best understood in a collective sense, this is therefore the "primary sense". This is the perspective that I consider to be idiomatically foreign as it conceives of the symbol in analytic terms rather than synthetic.
The question of "primary sense" for me has more to do with the nature of the symbolism in general. I argue that with these types of symbols the individual sense always has a logical and conceptual priority. So if we speak of the Church as the body of Christ, or Israel as "Abraham", this is meaningfully significant because we first know something about Christ or Abraham. And the significance of employing this type of symbolism rests upon the conceptually prior individual sense. Because we know something about Abraham, Abraham did x-y-z, and that Abraham was such and such, the symbol as a totality has its foundational meaning. In this light the fact that the application of the symbol might jump from individual to collective in particular verses becomes incidental to identifying a “primary sense”.
But still, I would say the whole question can be a bit superfluous since the point is a convergence in totality, not a disparate collection.

[Paphnutius]

Just a quick note on Mikey's post: My RSV edition by Scepter printing also portrays the woman as first Israel and then the Church, but goes on to say that Mary must be included in the woman.

I have a question for you LD since you have done an extensive amount of work on this. The war in heaven seems out of place. It appears that the dragon was cast down after the birth of the Messiah. I am seeking understanding here for this has always caused me to pause when reading this.

Also if there can be a strong case made for Mary in this interpretation (which I wholeheartedly agree with) do you think that the labor pangs mentioned would be grounds for saying that Mary suffered normal labor pains during the birth of Christ? I recongize that when dealing with such a genre as this, one must be careful about making strict parallels, but I was curious on what your take on this might be.

One last question for now I promise, what is the meaning of the number of days that the woman hid (1260)?

[Church Punk]

Just to comment on this in corrolation to Mary's visit to Fatima, at the Beatification of Jacina and Franseco (the 2 Fatima seer's) Pope John Paul II made a connection between the appirations at Fatima and Rev. 12.

He stated that a Lady clothed in the Sun appeared to the 3 children at Fatima.

Sr. Lucy also made this connection and going futher stating that the devil is in the mood to engage in a decisive battle against the Virgin Mary.

After reading Rev. 12 the reader is left with the sense that the Child spoken of that the Woman bares is none other than Jesus. He is to rule with justice ect.

I would like to here any arguments as well on this topic.

[phatcatholic]

sean..................maybe i'm ignorant (actually, i [i]surely[/i] am), but i still did not gather from your posts what you understand the "primary sense" of a verse to be.

fill in the blank:

the primary sense of a scripture verse is ______

thanks,
nick

[Cre8d4Youth]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 4 2005, 10:33 AM']Just a quick note on Mikey's post: My RSV edition by Scepter printing also portrays the woman as first Israel and then the Church, but goes on to say that Mary must be included in the woman.

I have a question for you LD since you have done an extensive amount of work on this. The war in heaven seems out of place. It appears that the dragon was cast down after the birth of the Messiah. I am seeking understanding here for this has always caused me to pause when reading this.

Also if there can be a strong case made for Mary in this interpretation (which I wholeheartedly agree with) do you think that the labor pangs mentioned would be grounds for saying that Mary suffered normal labor pains during the birth of Christ? I recongize that when dealing with such a genre as this, one must be careful about making strict parallels, but I was curious on what your take on this might be.

One last question for now I promise, what is the meaning of the number of days that the woman hid (1260)?
[right][snapback]810557[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, obviously I didn't get back to post like I wanted right away...oh the joys of working in a toy store at Christmas!

I see what you mean about the war in heaven. But my question has always been, do we know when the war actually took place. Is it past history yet? I've often wondered if Lucifer waged war in the past (before Genesis) would he still have been in heaven to speak to God on the matter of Job? I wonder if the actual war is yet to come?? Seeing as Lucifer is not all knowing, he'd see our stance as nothing more than an enemy preparing for what he is inevitably planning. Just thoughts though.

And LD, it seems as though my "insights" are being touched on by quite a few ppl. LOL Here I was a little methodist boy reading Revelation over and over again because it was FAAAARRR more interesting than the drudgery of the hour long sermons when I was growing up. I learned early on that many of the tellings in the Bible have multiple layers. The face, or obvious layer (by the way, these are my own terms...nothing professional or scholarly here!), the "behind the scenes" spiritual layer, and the "how do I apply to my life" layer.
I love the Christmas narrative in Luke. I know that one year as the pastor rambled on into the midnight hour, I turned to Revelation 12. I found it interesting that this chapter seemed to me the Christmas story from the "heaven side" of things. The side we couldn't see. For years I thought that'd I'd read too much into it as everyone in my church circles thought that the woman couldn't possibly be Mary. Save for my own mother. She said it seemed a real possibility.
Anyway, there's my insight. Although it doesn't seem as insightful since y'all seemed to have picked up on it anway! LOL

As far as the 1260 days, wasn't that the time Mary Joseph and Jesus spent in Egypt? 3 1.2 years? Or am I being too literal in interpretation? I know the popular theory is that that is the time of the end of the Great Tribulation (In premillinial eschalogical circles anyway, not most Catholic ones) where Christ is said to supernatureally protect His ppl of the New Covenant and those Jews that will accept Him as Lord. But...*shrug* dunno.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 5 2005, 05:14 AM']sean..................maybe i'm ignorant (actually, i [i]surely[/i] am), but i still did not gather from your posts what you understand the "primary sense" of a verse to be.

fill in the blank:

the primary sense of a scripture verse is ______

thanks,
nick
[right][snapback]811594[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It depends on what you're talking about. I tried to explain what I was talking about in the context of the passage in question. I didn't mean literal sense or something like that, I meant the primary sense of a particular polyvalent symbol, meaning the sense which has conceptual priority. This is only important to me in the context of exegetical method.

But it's not enough to simply say that the primary sense is the individual sense and that this is Mary, because different people mean different things by the word "Mary". Some would automatically import the doctrinal development of the last 2000 years. I would say that the primary sense is "the woman" as a theme of personification throughout Scripture and to explain this sense would first require a pretty vast and elaborate survey of a great deal of Biblical material.

[phatcatholic]

in your first post, you said: "[i]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[/i]." but since i have ried to discover what you mean by "primary sense" it seems as though you have said that the phrase "primary sense" is inadequate to describe the meaning that you apply to the woman.

some quotes of yours that don't make sense to me. i took all the parts from your three posts that generally say the same thing and put them together, so that i don't have to repeat myself:


[quote]In all actuality, my understanding of the nature of this type of symbolism makes the question of the "primary sense" or "primary referent" pretty much useless because it introduces a tension that is in my opinion idiomatically foreign (unless we're talking about a relationship). [. . .] When speaking of the symbol in itself, the question is superfluous. [. . .] But still, I would say the whole question can be a bit superfluous since the point is a convergence in totality, not a disparate collection. [/quote]
then why are we even talking about it?


[quote]The importance of the question is revealed, I'd say, when one attempts to derive a biblical Mariology[/quote]
so, the primary sense is that sense which is most in accord with everything else the bible says about a particular subject?


[quote]I should also say that given the recent history of the interpretation of this passage I think it is a good move to stress the Marian sense of the woman. It has been denied or downplayed even in Catholic scholarship and is almost a laughable proposition in many circles. This is troubling for many reasons and I believe it is simply false[/quote]
fine, but that still doesn't help me with a general understanding of what the "primary sense" of a verse is (not just this verse, any verse). in order for someone to debate this w/ you, they have to assert that some other meaning for the woman is the "primary sense" of rev. 12. but, t hey can't do this until they know what the qualifications are for a particular understanding to be the primary sense of a verse.


[quote]I hold that the symbols of personification in Rev 12 have both individual and collective senses. One might argue that in verse x, it is the corporate sense exclusively that applies, and then assert that if the majority of the applied occurrences of the symbol are best understood in a collective sense, this is therefore the "primary sense". This is the perspective that I consider to be idiomatically foreign as it conceives of the symbol in analytic terms rather than synthetic. [. . .] But it's not enough to simply say that the primary sense is the individual sense and that this is Mary, because different people mean different things by the word "Mary".[/quote]
okay, so we've established what the "primary sense" is [i]not[/i], which is helpful.


[quote]The question of "primary sense" for me has more to do with the nature of the symbolism in general. I argue that with these types of symbols the individual sense always has a logical and conceptual priority. [. . .] I didn't mean literal sense or something like that, I meant the primary sense of a particular polyvalent symbol, meaning the sense which has conceptual priority. [/quote]
so the primary sense is the sense that has the most logical and conceptual priority?


[quote]Because we know something about Abraham, Abraham did x-y-z, and that Abraham was such and such, the symbol as a totality has its foundational meaning. In this light the fact that the application of the symbol might jump from individual to collective in particular verses becomes incidental to identifying a “primary sense”.[/quote]
this doesn't make sense to me. sorry

see why i'm confused? does anyone else know what he's talking about?

in dire need of formal biblical and theological training,
phatcatholic

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cre8d4Youth' date='Dec 5 2005, 01:22 PM']As far as the 1260 days, wasn't that the time Mary Joseph and Jesus spent in Egypt? 3 1.2 years? [/quote]
Thanks for the reply. That never crossed my mind.

I wonder if LD is going to answer my question about th labor pangs of Mary if he reads this as primarily referring to her.

I suppose I could sum up my position as thus: The woman represents first as Israel bearing the savior (Christ came from that people and the line of David) and then becoming the Church afterwards and is persecuted. One must, however, include Mary in one's interpritation (rather strongly I think),for Mary is the personification of the Church on many levels and there are too many parallels here to be simply overlooked. That is my 2 cents.