Mary's Virginity And Sinlessness

[Dave]

[quote]but Mary had other kids.

The Bible says so.

she WASN'T a virgin all her life.[/quote]

The Bible says no such thing. It refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters, but in that language, there was no separate word for cousin, and so the word for brother often meant cousin.


[quote]and she WAS born under the law, under sin, like everyone else.[/quote]

That still doesn't say that Mary wasn't sinless.

[quote]she WAS blessed among women...that IS in the Bible, and I'm not doubting that.

but she IS NOT the mother of God. [/quote]

Are you saying Mary just gave birth to Christ's human nature? No. Mothers don't give birth to human natures. They give birth to [b]persons[/b]. Jesus is God -- the 2nd person of the Trinity. And Mary gave birth to Him; therefore, she's the Mother of God.

Now give me some scriptures that you think prove your point regarding the things I've brought up.

Edited March 8, 2004 by Dave

[dUSt]

I call Adam, Brother Adam, but he's not my brother.

[willguy]

[quote]but she IS NOT the mother of God. [/quote]

You're gonna have to argue against the Holy Spirit on that one:

[i]When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and [b]Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice[/b] and said, "Most lessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the [b]mother of my Lord[/b] should come unto me?"[/i] Luke 1:41-43

Martin Luther (yes, the Martin Luther) sums it up quite well when he wrote "God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother . . . She is the true mother of God and bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs . . . just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone." BTW, he wrote that after he had been excomunicated by the Church. (source: [url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM[/url] )

[Dave]

bump

[the lumberjack]

here's my two cents...which I hope don't get tossed back...hehehe

when John fell before the angel that was his guide in Revelation, he was going to worship the angel for what he (John) has seen... what did the angel say?

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

here's the definition of worship...

[quote]in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

1) to the Jewish high priests
2) to God
3) to Christ
4) to heavenly beings[/quote]

and yes, we were instructed to pray for ONE ANOTHER...not to ask people that are dead to this world that have moved on.

and if Mary IS in fact the Mother of God...then why is she not mentioned ANYWHERE in Revelation?

or in the rest of the Bible for that matter?

[Dave]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 15 2004, 01:50 PM'] when John fell before the angel that was his guide in Revelation, he was going to worship the angel for what he (John) has seen... what did the angel say?

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.







[/quote]
Yes, John intended to worship the angel, but we don't worship Mary.

[quote]and yes, we were instructed to pray for ONE ANOTHER...not to ask people that are dead to this world that have moved on.[/quote]

Where does it say that they can't hear us?

[quote]and if Mary IS in fact the Mother of God...then why is she not mentioned ANYWHERE in Revelation?  [/quote]

What, pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Actually, she IS mentioned, although not by name. She's the woman clothed with the sun mentioned there.

[quote]or in the rest of the Bible for that matter?[/quote]

So what? What difference does that make?

You're forgetting that the Church came well before the Bible, not vice versa.

[Jake Huether]

[quote]and if Mary IS in fact the Mother of God...then why is she not mentioned ANYWHERE in Revelation? [/quote]


She is actually talked about throughout the entire Bible from begining to end.


"I will put enmity between you and the WOMAN..." Genisis.


The Ark of the Covenant forshadows Mary's role (bearing within her the Word, the Bread of Heaven).

Clearly the Gospels. The Word of God says that "all generations will call me [Mary] blessed".

Revelations?? "A woman Clothed with the sun and a crown of twelve Stars on her head."

Those are just off the top of my head. I can research it for you if you'd like?

[mulls]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Mar 15 2004, 02:00 PM']

Clearly the Gospels. The Word of God says that "all generations will call me [Mary] blessed".

[/quote]
she was right. i certainly call her blessed. doesn't make me want to pray to/through her.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='mulls' date='Mar 15 2004, 12:27 PM'] she was right. i certainly call her blessed. doesn't make me want to pray to/through her. [/quote]
You're right. I was just defending the point that Mary is mentioned in the Bible.

I'll ask Mary to touch your heart, and bring you to her - who will bring you EVEN closer to her Son.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 15 2004, 12:50 PM'] and if Mary IS in fact the Mother of God...then why is she not mentioned ANYWHERE in Revelation?

or in the rest of the Bible for that matter? [/quote]
Since presenting a full view of Mary in the Bible would take many volumes, I would like to limit my scope to a few major themes and focus mainly on Luke I & II as a reference point just for the sake of simplicity and direction. I can only be very brief since this could easily become a 250 page post because the topic is so rich.

The Ark of the Covenant in the OT was much more than a gold box that was carted around. It was the locus of God's presence in Israel and was the sign of the Covenant. It contained the manna, the staff of Aaron and the tablets of the Law. This symbolizes Christ as priest, prophet and king. Christ fulfilled the law, the prophets, the OT priesthood, and the kingship of Israel. The Ark was also an efficacious symbol (quasi-sacrament) of God's power in Israel. Thus the Israelites took the Ark into battle and everything. It was also holy and untouchable. It was placed in the Holy of Holies when the temple was build because it was this locus of God's presence in Israel. The Fathers have seen in the Ark a symbol of Mary and have related various aspects of it to aspects of Mary. For example the pure gold and untouchableness of the Ark were symbols of Mary's undefiled virginity and sinlessless. We could talk about the significance of the Ark all day. It's place in Jewish worship, spirituality, etc.. But suffice it to say it's place was central. It's relation to the Covenant is also essential to understand for understanding how Mary related the the fulfillment of this OT typology.

In the New Testament there are many indications of Our Lady as the fulfillment of the Ark. She is the Ark of the new Covenant. Since we are focusing on Luke I & II let's see what is there.
The first thing that jumps out is the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit upon Mary, which is announced by Gabriel. The Greek word is the same as the LXX word which described the Spirit of God which filled the Holy of Holies and which overshadowed the old Ark. And Mary received within herself the Christ who IS the New Covenant which fulfills what the contents of the old Ark symbolized.
The second indication is in the visitation where Mary comes to visit Elizabeth and it says that Elizabeth "cried out in a loud voice", the word used here is another rare Greek word which appears in the Greek Old Testament very few times, and always in reference to the liturgical worship which centered around the Ark. This is actually a liturgical term which could even be translated as "intoned". Keep in mind that Luke I & II are written in septuagint style Greek so this rare words are clear allusions to the Old Testament.
Next we have the textual parallels with 2 Samuel chapter 6. This chapter is an account of King David bringing the Ark to the hill country of Judea to the house of Obededom where it remained for three months. The Ark was met with rejoicing and shouting, and David leaping for joy. And on that day when the Ark arrived Daving exclaimed "How is it that the Ark of the Lord should come to me?" There are at least eight clear parallels between this and the visitation where Mary went with haste to the hill country of Judea, to the house of Zechariah, where she remained for three months. When she arrived she was met with rejoicing, crying out and the babe in Elizabeth's womb leaped for joy. Also Elizabether exclaimed "who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?"
When one really appreciates the significance of the Ark in the OT and ponders the meaning of how this is fulfilled in Mary one reaches some pretty amazing conclusions regarding this handmaid of the Lord.
The main implications that I see are based upon the fulfillment in Christ (the symbol of the Manna, Staff & Tablets), the Shekinah or glory cloud aspect, the Ark as the center of worship and as a physical point of mediation between God and Israel, and especially the fact that Mary is a person, more than a mere box. She is in fact Christ's mother which gives a tremendous depth to this fulfillment. The essence of it is Mary's role in the mystery of the covenant. This is revealed in other ways in other parts of the Bible, for example John's Gospel (Cana & Mary at calvary), and Rev 12 (which also employs Ark symbolism among other things). I will not present my conclusions in full form because I do not have room to adequately substantiate everything, but I will at least say it is nothing less than what the Church teaches about Our Lady.


Another rich typology contained in Luke I & II is what is called the Daughter Zion typology. It is largely overlooked in contemporary scholarship and is not considered that important but I believe it is central for reasons outside the scope of this post. I will only be very brief and point out that in the OT (esp. Isiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, etc..) there are Messianic prophecies known as the Daughter Zion prophecies which tend to have a similar form. They begin with something like, "rejoice, O Daughter of Zion, for the Lord your God is in your midst.." and continue on with Messianic prophecy. The form of Gabriel's Annuniciation to Mary matches the form of the Daughter Zion prophecies. This indicates on the one hand that these prophesies are fulfilled with the words of Gabriel which announce the Messianic expectation as being fulfilled at that time. The prophets words were a foreshadowing of the Annuniciation. Gabriel called Mary Kecharitomene, which I believe captures the essence of Daughter of Zion and points beyond it. Basically Mary is being presented in Luke I & II as representing not just the perfect embodiment of the virtues of what it means to be Israel, she is presented as a certain personification of Israel. She stands in as Israel proper, and the language used throughout the narrative suggests the concept of "corporate personality" which is part of Hebrew thought. There are allusions and types in Luke I & II which further support this (themes and structure in the Magnificat, allusions to Abraham to which this concept of corporate personality applies, Simeon, Judith, etc..). Also I submit that this understanding of what Luke I & II presents about Our Lady is an interpretive key to understanding certain passages in a deeper way (for example Simeon's prophecy). Anyway, this is a more nuanced and complex issue that I merely wanted to allude to and not really get into in depth. It also ties in with themes in John's writings and sheds light upon them. The thematic parallels between John-Rev & Luke-Acts are many so it's no surprise that this aspect of Luke I & II would mesh well with John. Anyway, my conclusions (without having offered all the evidence) have to do with Mary as the Mother of the Church ans the "prototype and perfection" of the people of God. Again, situated in a unique role in the mystery of the Covenant.


The next major theme I wanted to indicate is that of Mary as Queen. Kingdoms in the near east often had a queen mother who reigned along side the King. This was true of the kingdom of Israel. There are many reasons for this, especially the fact that the kings had many wives and it was better for dynastic succession and all of that to have a queen mother. There are other reasons as well. There are passages in the OT that indicate the queen mother and you can find information about it in any book that describes the history and structure of the ancient kingdoms of Israel. (See 1 Kings 2:17, 1:11-37, 15:13; 2 Kings 10:13; 2 Chron 22:10; Ps 45:9; Neh 2:6).
But simply Christ fulfills the Davidic Kingship and His mother is the "Gebirah" or Queen Mother. Besides the fact that this is just a pretty simple deduction, and is something normal, there are Biblical indications. To briefly summarize the indications of Luke I & II, I would point out that the Annunciation has a clear royal motif, it is the coming of the King of Israel and the way Gabriel addresses Mary indicates this theme. In fact it is the annuniciation of the royal messianic king (Lk 1:32-33) and Gabriel's greeting indicates that Mary is truly a part of this, she is the Mother of the King. Also at the Visitation Elizabeth's words subtly allude to this fact. For example the expression "mother of my Lord" which was addressed to Mary is actually the common semitic phrase for addressing the Queen Mother. There are other supports outside of Luke I & II (Matthew 1; Cana; Rev; etc..), but this post is just a tiny taste of whats out there as I mentioned before.
The implications of this are pretty obvious so I need not get into that. What is less obvious is the implications when one puts the three themes I have presented so far together. A vibrant pictures of Mary in the New Covenant and in the life of the Church begins to emerge.


Another theme that is important to mention because it ties a lot of things together, is that of Mary as the New Eve. The Biblical background is the protoevangelium of Gensis ("I will put enmity between you and the women..."). Also the concept of recapitulation and fulfillment that is a theme of the Gospel and a heavily Pauline concept. The basis then is the parallel between Luke I & II and Genesis I & II. The earliest Fathers of the Church, some of whom learned the Faith directly from an Apostle, give eloquent testimony to this doctrine. I posted quotes from Papias, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in past threads on Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate so I would refer a person to those posts for more details. There are other indications of this theme too. The women who foreshadow Mary throughout the OT, the head crushing incidents, Magnificat connections, etc.. Outside of Luke I & II there are other indications, especially in John who elucidates many of the themes in Luke's Gospels.
I consider this doctrine (which is so deeply rooted in the earliest Fathers) as the central category which brings into focus the meaning of the preceding topics I brought up.
All of the doctrines of Our Lady that the Church teaches are summed up in these Biblical themes (and there is much, much more), these are those seeds of doctrine which the Fathers talk about and which the Church says are the basis of all doctrinal development.

If anyone would like to add to this post please do. I have only attempted a crude and brief sketch and almost don't want to post it because I feel like it falls so short of doing justice to these topics. Also for the protestants, remember that Catholic doctrine is not deduced from Scripture but is part of a deposit of Faith which is inseperable from the life of the Church. (Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Magisterium), so the Catholic doctrines do not rest upon Scriptural proofs per se because there is a relation between these three things (Scrip.Trad&Mag) which form a holistic deposit of Faith. But still it can be useful and enlightening to see the ways that these revealed truths are contained, in very rich and profound ways, in the Scriptures.

God bless.

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Mar 15 2004, 02:14 PM'] Thus the Israelites took the Ark into battle and everything. [/quote]
I actually meant "why isn't she mentioned any more throughout the New Testament after the gospels..." and if you wanna bring up the fact that Israel brought the Ark into battle....do you recall what happened when they DID bring into battle, defying what the Lord told them NOT to do?

and the woman clothed in the sun in Revelation? thats not Mary...nothing in those scriptures even points to it being Mary...it in no way would even elude to it being Mary.

Why would Mary have the Crown of 12 Stars? that passage is an illustration of Israel...and yes, the child born IS Christ...but the persecution of the woman more than clearly makes it visible that the woman is the remainder of the 12 tribes of Israel left in the Great Tribulation...being persectued by the Dragon...aka the devil.

here's the breakdown of chapter 12 from blueletterbible.org:

[quote]v.1-2 The "woman" is the nation Israel. She wears a crown of twelve stars, symbolizing the twelve tribes and reminiscent of Joseph's dream (Genesis 37:9).

v.3 The "dragon" is Satan, that old serpent.

v.5 The "man child" of Israel could be the 144,000 who will be taken to heaven in the middle of the Tribulation. When we next see the 144,000, they are in heaven before God's throne (Chapter 14:3). Most scholars agree that the "man child" is Jesus Christ.

v.6 When the image of the beast is set up in the temple, Israel will flee to the city of Petra.

v.9 Isaiah 14:12-17.

v.10 Satan is the one who accuses us before God.

v.11 The victory over Satan is won through the blood of Christ.

v.14 Isaiah 16:1 tells of Sela (Petra) as the refuge for the Jews. "A time, and times, and half a time" is three and one-half years.

v.15 The "flood" is an army.[/quote]

[Jake Huether]

Yes, Catholics know all that you are saying LJ.

But Scriptures have many levels of meanings. It is according to your interpritation that it is just that one.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 15 2004, 02:57 PM'] I actually meant "why isn't she mentioned any more throughout the New Testament after the gospels..." [/quote]
Mary is all over the place in the Bible, though the Bible does not give a full account of Mariology. Christ is the focus of the Bible, but Mary is always there in the background. And it's quality that matters anyway, not quantity. The few verses that do speak of Our Lady are very rich and deep.

[quote]and if you wanna bring up the fact that Israel brought the Ark into battle....do you recall what happened when they DID bring into battle, defying what the Lord told them NOT to do?[/quote]
That seems to totally miss the point. Are you implying the Ark was not central and important? My goodness. Honestly, I don't think this statement touches upon the issues at all.

[quote]and the woman clothed in the sun in Revelation?  thats not Mary...nothing in those scriptures even points to it being Mary...it in no way would even elude to it being Mary.[/quote]
How do you know it's not Mary? Nothing even points to it being Mary?? Really? Actually many scholars and exigetes believe it is Mary. Although it's hard to find two scholars who totally agree on this Scripture because it is so complex and rich with different elements and OT allusions. It would take a large book to explain the passages and analyze all it's elements and figure it all out. There are books out there that do this. For example, "The Woman Clothed with the Sun" by Bernard Le Frois.
Anyway, among the clear OT references in this passage are the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15), Isa 7:14 which is also a prophecy about Christ and Our Lady, the Song of Songs, the fall of Jericho, Isa 66, Dan 7, 10, Micah, etc.. One would have to do a detailed analysis of the various layers in the text (prophetical, apocalypic, Johannine, etc.) to arrive at any kind of substantiated claims about the meaning of the text.
As a kind of short, apologetics answer I would just say that the "woman who gives birth to the child who will rule with an iron rod", is clearly Mary. The child who rules with the iron rod is the messiah, based on the OT usage of that. The woman who was destined to give birth to that messiah was Mary. The complexity with the passage has to do with the fact that it uses symbolic language with different layers of meaning. The woman clothed with the sun in fact represents Israel, the Church, and Mary. But I would argue that the Marian sense is the primary sense. Remember that based on Biblical categories Mary is in fact the personification and model of the Church and of faithful Israel, so it is even more appropriate in this light that this image would have all three of these senses. Anyway, you are flat out wrong in saying that nothing alludes to Mary in the passage, and this is not what many Scriptre scholars say, even protestant ones.

[quote]Why would Mary have the Crown of 12 Stars?  that passage is an illustration of Israel...and yes, the child born IS Christ...but the persecution of the woman more than clearly makes it visible that the woman is the remainder of the 12 tribes of Israel left in the Great Tribulation...being persectued by the Dragon...aka the devil.  [/quote] The crown of twelve stars means many things. Mainly her queenship and her exalted role in the Church and as the Virgin Daughter of Israel. I'm not sure where you're getting your interpretation but it doesn't sound very reasonable to say the least.

[quote]v.1-2 The "woman" is the nation Israel. She wears a crown of twelve stars, symbolizing the twelve tribes and reminiscent of Joseph's dream (Genesis 37:9). [/quote] This is true, but it's not the whole story. There is much more going on in the passage. The woman is also the Church, and Mary, who is, as I've said many time because I believe it's a key concept, the prototype and perfection of the Church.

[quote]v.3 The "dragon" is Satan, that old serpent. [/quote]
True dat.

[quote]v.5 The "man child" of Israel could be the 144,000 who will be taken to heaven in the middle of the Tribulation. When we next see the 144,000, they are in heaven before God's throne (Chapter 14:3). Most scholars agree that the "man child" is Jesus Christ. [/quote]
The last line is true, in fact one would be hard pressed to find a serious scholar who did not think that the child was Jesus Christ, especially considering what I pointed out a moment ago. The verse indicates that the "male child" is the Messiah. Last time I checked Jesus was the Messiah, not the 144,000.

The rest of the points don't really apply to the issue so I see no need to respond to them.

Thanks for your research lumberjack, keep it coming.

God bless.

Edited March 15, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[the lumberjack]

[quote]Are you implying the Ark was not central and important? My goodness. Honestly, I don't think this statement touches upon the issues at all.[/quote]

when did I say the Ark wasn't important? you pointed out that the Ark meant this and the Ark meant that...and I didn't argue those points...but when you said that the Jews brought the Ark into battle, you forgot to put the consequences of that SIN on their behalf. they took something that was meant for the communion with God, and tried to use it for their own gain...and thats why they lost the ark for so long.

[quote]How do you know it's not Mary? Nothing even points to it being Mary?? Really? Actually many scholars and exigetes believe it is Mary. Although it's hard to find two scholars who totally agree on this Scripture because it is so complex and rich with different elements and OT allusions.[/quote]

look at what the scripture says...it says that she wears a crown of twelve stars...to make any assumption that Mary was anything more than a BLESSED vessel of God that was used to accomplish HIS will, is out of line with what this scripture says... this is clearly the remnant of Jews that are left in the Great Tribulation...as it says in VERSE 17..."the remnant of her seed"
and in verse 17:
[quote]This may be a reference to Israel (or specifically, believing Jews?) and Gentiles (the rest of her offspring)[/quote]

[quote] Israel (or Zion or Jerusalem) is often represented as a woman (Isaiah 54:1-6; Jeremiah 3:20; Ezekiel 16:8-14; Hosea 2:19-20)[/quote]

the following link is to a pretty cool outline...that I took some of what I've written.
[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1079392291-2838.html"]http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1...92291-2838.html[/url]

[quote]As a kind of short, apologetics answer I would just say that the "woman who gives birth to the child who will rule with an iron rod", is clearly Mary. The child who rules with the iron rod is the messiah, based on the OT usage of that. The woman who was destined to give birth to that messiah was Mary. The complexity with the passage has to do with the fact that it uses symbolic language with different layers of meaning.[/quote]

I agree that the child born is Christ...but you don't know that the woman being spoken of is Mary...just like I don't know that we will be raptured tomorrow...or the day after...or if we'll just live it out to be old crotchety fluffy air extractions with carpal tunnel from typing too much on the net.

[quote]The woman clothed with the sun in fact represents Israel, the Church, and Mary. But I would argue that the Marian sense is the primary sense. Remember that based on Biblical categories Mary is in fact the personification and model of the Church and of faithful Israel, so it is even more appropriate in this light that this image would have all three of these senses.  Anyway, you are flat out wrong in saying that nothing alludes to Mary in the passage, and this is not what many Scriptre scholars say, even protestant ones.[/quote]

its more of a stretch to say it represents Mary... and yeah, its been a while since I read and study Revelation all the way thru...so I was probly a bit off to say that it couldn't allude to it...but I would still say that its Israel....the Daughter of Zion.

[quote]The crown of twelve stars means many things. Mainly her queenship and her exalted role in the Church and as the Virgin Daughter of Israel. I'm not sure where you're getting your interpretation but it doesn't sound very reasonable to say the least.[/quote]

give me a list of the "many" things it could mean...and a Scripture that lists her as the Virgin Daughter of Israel, God needs no queen or queen mother... He alone is on THE throne, with Christ reigning at His right hand. as far as reasonable, doesn't Joseph's dream pretty much sum it all up in Genesis 37:9-11 as to what the crown of 12 stars is?

and if Mary IS somewhere in the book of Revelation, why is she NOT listed as present at the Supper of the Lamb?

[quote]This is true, but it's not the whole story. There is much more going on in the passage. The woman is also the Church, and Mary, who is, as I've said many time because I believe it's a key concept, the prototype and perfection of the Church.[/quote]

go back to the link, if you haven't already, and look at the outline...its helped me A LOT...though like we've both said, the book of Revelation is a BIG book...big in too many ways for our puny minds to ever fully understand...at least in THIS lifetime.

[quote]The last line is true, in fact one would be hard pressed to find a serious scholar who did not think that the child was Jesus Christ, especially considering what [b]WE[/b] pointed out a moment ago. The verse indicates that the "male child" is the Messiah. Last time I checked Jesus was the Messiah, not the 144,000.[/quote]

true dat!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 15 2004, 05:39 PM'] ... [/quote]
lumberjack,

thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am very tired so I will only reply a little, your post deserves a full reply so I will write more tomorrow if I can.


[quote]when did I say the Ark wasn't important? you pointed out that the Ark meant this and the Ark meant that...and I didn't argue those points...but when you said that the Jews brought the Ark into battle, you forgot to put the consequences of that SIN on their behalf. they took something that was meant for the communion with God, and tried to use it for their own gain...and thats why they lost the ark for so long.[/quote]
I didn't mention the consequences of that SIN because that's not the account I had in mind. It's beside the point anyway. The power of the Ark is clear from that story too because the Ark was slaying the philistines after they stole it and the Israelites got a victory anyway because the phils came back to return the Ark and gave them gold and stuff.
But anyway, I had in mind Jericho where God told them to march with the Ark around Jericho and all that. This is alluded to at the end of Rev 11 and is part of the context of Rev 12.
Also remember verses like "The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken." This shows the centrality of the Ark. But I suppose we do not dispute on that anyway.

[quote]look at what the scripture says...it says that she wears a crown of twelve stars...to make any assumption that Mary was anything more than a BLESSED vessel of God that was used to accomplish HIS will, is out of line with what this scripture says... this is clearly the remnant of Jews that are left in the Great Tribulation...as it says in VERSE 17..."the remnant of her seed" 
and in verse 17:  [/quote]
Please substantiate your claims lumberjack. I would be more than happy to discuss the exegetical basis of my claims in more detail later (tired & lazy right now). I will at least say that verse 17 is irrelevant to this discussion anyway because it's not central to the Marian sense. Also the Greek word there is loipos which almost always means "the rest" or "the others" and not remnant. Its just saying that the adversary started attacking "the rest of the woman's offspring", those other than the male child who rules... I will admit that in apocalyptic literature the word loipos sometimes carries the connotation of a remnant, hence the translation is conceivable, but it would still be the irregular, second choice in translation and I think since the common usage of loipos fits the context there is no need to use "remnant". But I also don't think it's that big of a deal and doesn't really affect the issues at hand so if you would argue in favor of remnant I won't hold you back.
Also Mary is more than a mere vessel for God. She is truly His Mother, that really says a lot when you think about it. Anyway, I will elucidate the text further to show more where I am coming from... too sleepy right now..

[quote]I agree that the child born is Christ...but you don't know that the woman being spoken of is Mary...[/quote]
I can assure you that I have a host of reasons behind my position even just on the exegetical level (not getting into the fact that I'm Catholic and accept Tradition). I believe the Marian sense is obvious and intended by the author and that there is a strong case for this in the texts themselves. Please actually give arguments why it can't be Mary since she is obviously the woman who bore Christ.

[quote]its more of a stretch to say it represents Mary... and yeah, its been a while since I read and study Revelation all the way thru...so I was probly a bit off to say that it couldn't allude to it...but I would still say that its Israel....the Daughter of Zion.[/quote]
I disagree. The three main players in the drama are a woman, a dragon and a male child. The male child is an individual, the dragon is an individual, it seems natural to understand the woman as an individual. Fortunately the genre is such that the symbols can have a simultaneous multiplicity of meaning. The book of Daniel is the closest counterpart in terms of the way images are used. Using an image with different simultaneous meanings (both individual and collective) is common to the book of Daniel, and to Revelation. There is a lot of information that needs to be covered to explain everything.. I would like to do this as best I can.
And I agree, there is a sense where the woman is Israel, and the Daughter of Zion. Mary is the personification of Israel and the fulfillment of the Daughter of Zion so it's no big surprise that this image of Mary would include those dimensions.


[quote]give me a list of the "many" things it could mean...and a Scripture that lists her as the Virgin Daughter of Israel, God needs no queen or queen mother... He alone is on THE throne, with Christ reigning at His right hand. as far as reasonable, doesn't Joseph's dream pretty much sum it all up in Genesis 37:9-11 as to what the crown of 12 stars is?[/quote]
alright... well, why don't I give you a list of the best things it could mean. or what scholarship seems to indicate is actually the literal metaphorical sense of the passage. The twelve stars represent the twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve tribes of Israel as well as the Apostles who were made the foundation of Christ's everlasting kingdom, these were the twelve Apostles which are the foundation of the New Israel of God. The crown symbolizes Queenship obviously. And the fact that her crown is this symbol of the 12 tribes and 12 Apostles indicates that she has authority, or reigns as queen over this kingdom. And you are correct that Joseph's dream is related. It confirms this interpretation because his dream of the sun, moon and stars symbolized the fact that he would be given great power and authority, when he became second in command of Pharoah's kingdom. So this image of Our Lady symbolizes that she has a great royal office and power in God's kingdom. Also consider that God has given authority to the Apostles and all that. We reign with Christ to some extent. Kingdoms are hierarchical. Think of dukes, princes, viziers, queens and all that. God's kingdom has different offices too. This does not take away from Christ's power. Everything is based upon the king so you can't say the authority of a baron takes away from the king. It's dependent upon it because the king is still higher and could get rid of the baron, but also because if the king is over thrown his nobility are at the new kings mercy anyway. The new king could strip him of his power. Anyway, the fact that Mary is a queen doesn't take away from God and Jesus, it proclaims God's Awesomeness because He has lifted up the lowly and bestowed such unimaginable gifts upon those who love Him. First and foremost His Mama.

Oh, the Daughter Zion thing.. I already indicated the basic foundation is in Luke I and the prophets. I'll present an example or two real quick...
There are what are called "Daughter Zion" prophecies in the OT prophets. These are prophecies uttered to Israel in a personified form as the Daughter Zion. These prophecies all share a distinct form. For example see: Zeph 3:14-17; Zech 2:10-13; Zech 9:9, etc.. and compare with Lk 1:28-32. The comparison is much more evident and striking when comparing the original Greek NT with the LXX Greek OT which Luke I & II are stylized after. I would identify the five basic characteristics of these prophecies as follows:
1. Greek NT & LXX: Chaire (Rejoice!)
2. Do not fear
3. The Lord God (Yahweh) is in the midst of Israel (or in your midst)
4. God as King
5. God as Saviour
[quote]Example:
Lk 1:28 = "Rejoice! (Chaire), Kecharitomene (full of grace, highly favored one).
Zeph 3:14 = "Rejoice O daughter of Zion"
Lk 1:28 = "The Lord is with you"
Zeph 3:15 = "The Lord is in your midst"
Lk 1:30 = "Do not be afraid Mary"
Zeph 3:16 = "Do not fear, O Zion"
Lk 1:32-33 = "throne of his father David...he will reign..forever...of his kingdom there will be no end."
Zeph 3:15 = "the King of Israel..."[/quote]
The main thing about this typology is not the textual parallels but the thematic significance. The annunciation was the fullfilment of these messianic prophecies. To the Jews of the time of Christ these prophecies were of central importance and to the first Christians Mary represented the Daughter of Zion. "In her, an individual person, the vocation of Zion-Jerusalem and of all Israel as the People of the Covenant matured in an exemplary fashion."
There is really too much to discuss regarding this so I'd rather stick to something with a more narrow scope. This issue would involve getting into areas I'd rather not discuss through posts if you know what I mean. I hope you don't mind (I know I'm the one who brought it up).

[quote]and if Mary IS somewhere in the book of Revelation, why is she NOT listed as present at the Supper of the Lamb?[/quote]
I'm not sure. But I know that the placement of the woman clothed with the sun is very significant. It would be nice if she was just listed, would make out debate simpler anyhow. But I'm sure God made the book of Revelation all cryptic and mysterious for a reason.
I do think there are other symbols of Mary in Rev, chapter 12 is just the clearest one.

And as I mentioned before, I haven't said everything I want to say yet so don't think I'm not fully engaging your post, I'll come back to it next time I'm on.

God bless you brother.

[Jake Huether]

Mary was present at the Lambs Supper in spirit.

But I suppose this can't be proven using Scripture... so what's the use? Just thought I'd through that out and see what happens.

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack,

Here is another installment as promised. I'm going to be brief because I just wrote a long reply and accidentally pressed something that refreshed the page and it erased everything I wrote so I'm kind of discouraged.
Anyway.. what were we talking about again...

That article you linked to, David Guzik's study guide to Rev 12, was pretty good. Thanks for posting that. I must say, however, that I disagree with Mr. Guzik's conclusions for a number of reasons. First I will point out what I consider to be the fundamental flaw of his approach.
Mr. Guzik's conclusion is that the woman represents Israel, and while I too believe there is a sense where this is true, he says that this is the exclusive sense. The problem I have with this is that it assumes an either/or mentality which is foreign to the semitic mentality and to the literary genre. This is a very common pitfall in the history of the interpretation of this passage so I don't hold it against him. If he encounters a passage that seems to exlude the ecclesiological sense (woman as the Church) he says, "therefore it can't be the Church". If he comes to a passage that seems hard to reconcile with the Marian sense he says, "therefore it can't be Mary". But with this mentality it can't be Israel either for several reasons, for example OT Israel can never be said to have given birth to both Christ and the sons of God who are Christ's members. One does not become a son of God in Christ through Judaism or the Synagogue, but by Baptism. And by becoming a member of Christ, one by no means became a member of Israel. Paul went to great lengths making this point. The old law is impotent compared to the Law of Grace. And there is neither Jew or Greek, etc.. Also saying the woman is only Israel makes the the Old better than the New..
Anyway, there are unresolved tensions when one absolutizes any of the dimensions of this symbol. The semitic mind would not have any problem with this symbol and would not have a problem with it's different layers of meaning.

Here are some foundational categories for understanding the symbolism here, which will break us out of this either/or dichotomy. I will quote from scholarly sources so you know I'm not just making this up.
Three things to be familiar with are "fusion imagery", "polyvalent symbolism" and the concept of "corporate personality".
[quote][u]fusion imagery[/u]:
For example, the living creatures he sees in chapter 4 are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel and the seraphim seen in Isaiah. The priest-elders he sees in that chapter are most likely 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, in chapter 21, where the heavenly city of New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs of Israel.

[u]polyvalent symbolism[/u]:
symbols which have more than one referent--are also 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 (Rev. 17:10).[/quote]
Corporate personality is the more important concept to discuss with regard to this passage.
[quote]"The commingling of the collective and the individual is proper to the Hebrew mentality, in particular with regard to visions of the future... One can readily grant that modern thought would not have devised such a mode of expression... It is a rich and fruitful concept which the Old Testament provides us with, and its proper milieu is the Hebrew mentality itself." - J. Coppens, [i]Le Protevangile[/i]

"Corporate personality allows that the whole group, including its past, present and future members might function as a single individual through any one of those members conceived as representative of it." - W. Robinson, [i]The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality[/i][/quote]
Various aspects of this conception are:
[quote]a. The unity of its extension both into the past and into the future.
b. Characteristic "realism", which distinguishes it from "personification", and makes the group a real entity actualized in its members. It is neither a literary personification nor merely an ideal.
c. Fluidity of reference, facilitating rapid and unmarked transitions from the one to the many and from the many to the one. Thus... it is easy to understand how the nation can be represented by some outstanding figure belonging to it.
- From [i]The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality[/i][/quote]
Corporate personality is a more specific category. An even more basic concept which enters into semitic thought especially in prophetic and apocalyptic writings is "totality conception". Totality conception means that the Hebrew thinks in totalities. In the individual he sees the whole species manifesting itself. Hence, he can think of the individual and of the species at one and the same time, and the same word or concept can be used to express both.
Consider the "law of participation" in regard to this way of thinking.
[quote]The law of participation means "that things, beings and phenomena can be at once themselves and something other than themselves. This identification permits the primitive mind to think at the same time of the individual in the collective and the collective in the individual." - [i]"The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality"[/i]

"It is a fact that the primitive thinks in a concrete, synthetic way and not in an abstract, analytical manner as we are accustomed to. He is not a friend of many distinctions. He does identify himself with his tribe, not in a materialistic way, but in a way that reminds us of the corporate personality of the Hebrews." - W. Koppers, [i]Primitive Man and his World Picture[/i][/quote]
Brief examples:
[quote]
"And Laban overtook Jacob" (Gen 31:25)
"How fair are your tents, O Jacob" (Num 24:5)
"Is not Esau Jacob's brither? says the Lord. Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau; I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert" (Mal 1:2)
Jacob's name is changed to Israel (Gen 32:28), and the entire people goes by the name of Israel. Judah stands for the Patriarch and also for the tribe which sprang from him, etc..
"Blessed be the Lord the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." (Gen 9:26)
"He [Ishmael] shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and ever man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Gen 16:12)
"Judah your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down before you... The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs." (Gen 49:8,10)
These indicate the se of the Greek word "sperma" (seed, offspring-- as in Rev 12), designating simultaneously an individual and a collective.
Abraham's offspring in Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:7; 22:18; 24:7, etc.. is a collective, which St. Paul without difficulty speaks of as an individual (Gal 3:16).
The "son of man" in Ps 8:5 is mankind in general, understood to the tenor of the psalm; yet the same passage is understood of the individual Christ Himself in Heb 2:6-8.
St. Paul's diverse use of the word "Christ" is in line with this. Sometimes he is referring to the personal Christ (Rom 5:6), but very frequently to the collective Christ (1 Cor 12:12; Rom 12:4; Col 3:10; etc.).

Symbolism can see the nation represented in a typical individual:
"Go, take to yourself a harlot wife and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord... Go again, love a woman who is beloved of a paramour and is an adulteress; even as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods." (Hosea 1:2; 3:1)

In Daniel (which is very close in style to Revelation) there are images which intermingle and fluctuate between individual and collective. This is an example of "totality conception", for in each case the collective is being identified with its foremost representative, the king. Not only does the collective manifest itself in the "typical character" but in a concrete typical individual who embodies the collective in himself.

Thus, under the image of the golden head of the statue (Dan 2:36-38) collective Babylon is not personified, but represented concetely in Nabuchadnezzar who is the typical embodiment of everything Babylonian. The people of the saints of the most high are not personified (Dan 7:27), but portrayed in their supreme representative, the Messiah, under the figure of the son of man. (Dan 7:13)

"In certain instances and in special circumstances, the personality of the people is entirely concentrated in the person of an individual. Above all, in the king, the chief, the representative of the people, and then especially when he takes the place of the people in such a culminating act as religious cult. Then he is not only a representative in the modern sense of the word, but the entire people is in him and [i]he is the people[/i]. - S. Mowinckei[/quote]
The same concrete manner of portraying a collective runs thoughout the Apocalypse.
[quote]John writes to the seven Churches (Ap. 2-3). Why just seven? Why omit important centers along the same commercial route, such as Hierapolis, Tralles, Magnesia? Because seven symbolizes totality [and I would add, covenant]. John writes to all the Churches, the whole Church [evident from the plural 'churches' at the end of each letter, and from the constant use of seven in the Apocalypse as the universal (Catholic ) number]. But the collective Church is not personified. Rather, it is portrayed concetely in seven individual representative Churches, and both the collective and the individual are signified by the image of the seven lamp-stands [hence the letters are intended for the individual Churches as well as for the entire Church]. - J. Bonsirven, [i]Apoc.[/i]

"The harlot is another collective. She is "the great city which has dominion over the kings of hte earth" (17:18); not merely pagan Rome, but the sum-total of all such world-centers inimical to God, taken collectively.
The beast with the seven heads is another example. It is the image of collective Antichrist, which is portrayed concretely in the individual, personal Antichrist. The seven heads, symbolize the totality of world powers inimical to God. There again, under one image, a collectivity is portrayed in an individal world-power, that of the pagan Roman empire contemporary with the Seer... Coming to chapter twelve of the Apocalypse, two similar instances are at hand. Several times it has been shown that the male offspring of the woman represents both an individual and a collective. The male offspring is Christ, the Messiah, as embodying in Himself the entire mystical Christ. In the personal Christ as the typical individual, the entire mystic Christ finds its perfect expression. The same holds good for the symbol of the dragon. It is identified with Satan, yet Satan as embodying in himself all the rebellious hordes of hell, bent on domination or destruction."

"The peculiarity of apocalyptic images is that they fluctuate in their meaning between an individual and a collective; Semitic totality conception is prone, moreover, to size up the individual in its representative capacity, and to portray concretely the collective in a typical person or individual [who embodies the collective]." - Bernard Le Frois[/quote]

I'm not making assertions or drawing conclusions at this point (although the obvious implications are quite interesting). I've just wanted to introduce a concept into the discussion before getting into more specific exegetical matters.

Edited March 16, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Mar 16 2004, 09:14 AM'] Mary was present at the Lambs Supper in spirit.

But I suppose this can't be proven using Scripture... so what's the use?  Just thought I'd through that out and see what happens. [/quote]
Actually Mary is the Bride at the Lamb's Supper. Obviously the Church is Bride, but Mary is the preeminent member, the archtype, mother, and perfection of the Church. She is the representative member and the personification of the Church.
Just as I believe the primary sense of the "woman" image used by John is Mary and that the Church is also contained in this image through totality conception and corporate personality, I also believe that Mary is implied in a secondary sense in the image of the Bride, and that this image is sometimes used in an individual sense which alludes to the Marian sense. Eg. "The Spirit and the Bride say 'come'."
And I believe this is substantiated by correlaries with John's Gospel, particularly his very nuanced and rich account of Jesus and Mary at the wedding feast at Cana, which is a type of the Lamb's Supper in Revelation. Also Mary at the foot of the Cross. Also the unity of the "woman" throughout Scripture.... man this is kind of frustrating because there is so much to say and so little space.
Anyway, Gen 3:15 -> Cana -> Calvary -> Rev 12 -> Song of Songs, all fit together through allusions and parallels and provide a framework suggestive of the "woman", who is the New Eve, the Mother of All the Living, who became Mother of the Church at the foot of the Cross and who is shown in the battle with the adversary in Rev 12, etc, etc.. and "who is this who comes forth as the dawn, fair as the moon, radiant as the sun, terrible as an army poised for battle" and other things suggestive of the Bride of the Canticles give the image of Mary presented especially in Luke and John as not only Mother and New Eve, but Virgin and Bride and also presents her in relation to the Banquent motif in Scripture which is fulfilled in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. There are also numerous typologies in the OT, such as in the Psalms and prophets which are suggestive of Our Lady's role at the Wedding Feast.

Anyway, I hope we don't get off track because I would like to eventually develop some conclusions and come to some understanding with lumberjack on the issue of Revelation 12.

God bless us all, every one.

peace.

Edited March 16, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[the lumberjack]

first off brother, I want to say that iron does truly sharpen iron and I am thankful to be able to have these discussions with you...God bless.

[quote]I will at least say that verse 17 is irrelevant to this discussion anyway because it's not central to the Marian sense.[/quote]

if you say that this chapter is reffering to Mary, and yet say that one verse DOES NOT apply to the Marian sense, then how can the chapter apply at all if verse 17 is making reference to the same woman of the whole chapter?

[quote]Also the Greek word there is loipos which almost always means "the rest" or "the others" and not remnant. Its just saying that the adversary started attacking "the rest of the woman's offspring", those other than the male child who rules... I will admit that in apocalyptic literature the word loipos sometimes carries the connotation of a remnant, hence the translation is conceivable, but it would still be the irregular, second choice in translation and I think since the common usage of loipos fits the context there is no need to use "remnant". But I also don't think it's that big of a deal and doesn't really affect the issues at hand so if you would argue in favor of remnant I won't hold you back.

Also Mary is more than a mere vessel for God. She is truly His Mother, that really says a lot when you think about it. Anyway, I will elucidate the text further to show more where I am coming from... too sleepy right now..
[/quote]

if it doesn't mean remnant, which it probly is reffering to the rest of Israel (and possibly the church...but MAYBE ,and as you can see, thats a BIG maybe, not), then why would it say, the rest of her seed? Mary was a Jew, born a Jew, under the law, lived the life of a Jew, under the law, and died a Jew...

but it was JESUS who talked to Jews, and Samaritans, and the like, reaching out to the people of the world. Christ came to the earth and establish His church thru His apostles, who then took the message to the world and started churches...and it was then that the outreach started to the world...Mary had nothing to do with it. She may have given birth to the Messiah, but she took no message to the gentiles of Collose (SP?), Ephesus, Phillipi, or any of the other places that churches were established in praise of the Almight Living God we serve, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ...

that is why I call her blessed, but not the queen of the church or the queen of anything...she was a Jew that lived a Jewish life, and was saved by Jesus Christ the Messiah, not Jesus her son...who did give her up as His mother on the cross.

"WOMAN (not mother), behold your son..."

[quote]I disagree. The three main players in the drama are a woman, a dragon and a male child. The male child is an individual, the dragon is an individual, it seems natural to understand the woman as an individual.[/quote]

wait, I thought you said that the woman represented 3 things...not just one...? and I agree that the woman is an individual...the nation of Israel...

[quote]The twelve stars represent the twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve tribes of Israel as well as the Apostles who were made the foundation of Christ's everlasting kingdom, these were the twelve Apostles which are the foundation of the New Israel of God.[/quote]

I'll give you the first 12, which in turn is the second 12...but the 12 apostles? they MIGHT be at the table of the 24 elders...because we really don't know who IS, but they aren't mentioned at all in Revelation...at least not in the sense of anything prophetic... so to say that the crown represents the 12 apostles, just because they are 12, is in itself a stretch... New Israel? we aren't a replacement Israel...if thats what you're saying...the Lord's children are still His chosen, who He still has GREAT works to accomplish in and thru...

[quote]The crown symbolizes Queenship obviously. And the fact that her crown is this symbol of the 12 tribes and 12 Apostles indicates that she has authority, or reigns as queen over this kingdom. And you are correct that Joseph's dream is related. It confirms this interpretation because his dream of the sun, moon and stars symbolized the fact that he would be given great power and authority, when he became second in command of Pharoah's kingdom. So this image of Our Lady symbolizes that she has a great royal office and power in God's kingdom. Also consider that God has given authority to the Apostles and all that. We reign with Christ to some extent. Anyway, the fact that Mary is a queen doesn't take away from God and Jesus, it proclaims God's Awesomeness because He has lifted up the lowly and bestowed such unimaginable gifts upon those who love Him. First and foremost His Mama.[/quote]

I agree with you about the way kingdom's are set up...but the kingdom's you speak of are earthly kingdoms...God is God alone on the Throne. The Triune God. He has need of no queen. And Joseph's dream just points out the fact that the crown of 12 stars are the 12 tribes of Israel...

Mary was given no authority by Christ. She was never commissioned, or appointed to anything...she was never exhalted by Christ... He never called her anything she was not worthy of.

Matthew 12:47-50 and Mark 3:33-35 both concur...

[quote]47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.[/quote]

[quote]I can assure you that I have a host of reasons behind my position even just on the exegetical level (not getting into the fact that I'm Catholic and accept Tradition). I believe the Marian sense is obvious and intended by the author and that there is a strong case for this in the texts themselves. Please actually give arguments why it can't be Mary since she is obviously the woman who bore Christ.

And I agree, there is a sense where the woman is Israel, and the Daughter of Zion. Mary is the personification of Israel and the fulfillment of the Daughter of Zion so it's no big surprise that this image of Mary would include those dimensions.[/quote]

I agree when you say that Mary is the woman that bore Christ...but I don't agree with the statement of her being the one in this passage of scripture...she is LITERALLY the one that bore Christ...but she is not SYMBOLICALLY the one giving birth to the man child in Revelation 12. Isn't Christ "the Son of David" and "the Lion of the Tribe of Judah"? if so, then one would imagine that God is trying to say that out of Israel shall come the king...the messiah. and Mary was a Jew, right? of one of the tribes of Israel, right?

[quote]I'm not sure. But I know that the placement of the woman clothed with the sun is very significant. It would be nice if she was just listed, would make out debate simpler anyhow. But I'm sure God made the book of Revelation all cryptic and mysterious for a reason.
I do think there are other symbols of Mary in Rev, chapter 12 is just the clearest one.[/quote]

in my ever expanding and mind-draining search for wisdom...I come along text that is both mind-opening and baffling to my small mind. this is some more of it on this topic...which I hope you really like.

[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1079467267-2955.html"]http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1...67267-2955.html[/url]

I'll take a look at your other postS later...I got some stuff to do here.

God bless.

Edited March 16, 2004 by the lumberjack

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack.

thanks for the reply. I think if you read my more recent posts some of the points in your post will be answered. I will read the article in the link you gave later on (it's kind of long), and will try to write a worthy response to your post.

God bless.

P.S. This is fun!