Glycolysis:

I ask you again ;
HOW DOES MARY RELATES TO REVELATION 12 VS 2 ?

Glycolysis:

The same way Jesus did not come to the world through the genetic components of Mary !
Jesus don't have the genes of Mary,the ovums of Mary was not involved in Jesus formation,the same way her blood in her circulatory system did not make contact with that of Jesus..
Yea,the circulatory system of the mother & that of child don't come in contact during foetal development,if it does the blood pressure will be too high for that baby,& could lead to complications.
Hence,the process of diffusion & osmosis in necessary for the child during development..
The key relationship between the child & the mother is the exchange of nutrients from the mother to the child & waste products from the child to the mother through the placenta with the aid of the umbilical cord from the child....

From the above,if we are to go with you views,then Jesus don't even have a mother on earth !
And that is true...
Jesus NEVER referred to Mary as his mother because Jesus don't have any gene of Mary in him ..
Jesus understood these...not even the blood of Mary flows in Him.

UNLESS YOU & I WILL GO TO A TOPIC THAT YOU WILL NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH & THAT BLEW UP THE WHOLE BELIEVE YOU EVER KNEW ABOUT MARY & THE LORD JESUS CHRIST !

Luke1: 41-43
41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Elizabeth filled with the Holy Ghost , called Mary Mother of the Lord.
And dare speak against the Holy Ghost, saying Mary is not the Mother of Jesus. What spirit is disturbing you?


If you don't accept a simple passage like Luke 1:41-43 . It would be a wonder for you to accept Rev 12, that is full of symbols

For

Glycolysis:

The way catholics interpret Bible verses in shocking !
Very very shocking that you wonder if these people don't even understand that bible can be studied & understood ,without allowing any pope or church fathers do the interpretation for you..
Many souls have lost it under these denomination

Why will I want to interpret the bible on my own, is scriptures now open to personal interpretation?


No sir, I would rather interpret the scripture in the spirit in which they are written in, they are documents addressed to the church, I have the witness of the early Christians as to how the early Christians understood what the apostles wrote and thought, I also know how it has been interpreted all through antiquity and I know how the church continues to interpret it today.

That same church that Jesus and his apostles taught and established both with words and letter, that same church that has been teaching the gospel through the centuries, that same church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth which Christ promised to be with for all age.

Why will I hold your personal interpretation above the consistent understanding of the Christian church from all antiquity..?. The Bible says know from whom you have learned... I'll take the consistent witness of the church before your personal interpretation any day anytime.

solite3:
I understand that the end view is not Israel but the church. also remember God has not forgotten his people, he will fulfill his promise which he made.

the bible always refers to the church is the wife of Christ not the mother of Christ because it was the church was made from Christ and will be united with Christ but child came from the woman.
so it cannot be the church neither is it mary but israel.

that is why mosesalex is correct that the passage has more than one interpretation but you guys were more interested in contradicting him than thinking.

The text can point to the old Israel bringing forth the Messiah admist great hardship... But if you look closely it is also about the church the new Israel as the mother of believers especially at the end...the old Israel has been superseded by the church. The early Christian church were happy to use either interpretation because both are derived from the passage along with a third interpretation which is actually the literal interpretation.

The Woman all through out scripture according to Jesus, Paul in gal 4:4, God in gen 3:15, the young woman that conceives in Isaiah, all is literally Mary who gives birth to one son who is to rule the entire world and who ascended to God's right hand... That is the third interpretation of the passage and the early church understood it in the sense that Mary is a figure of the church and the church is a type of Israel so that in on vision all coincides.


But again, you are Protestants and prefer to reason like aborted children who thinks it is a virtue to reject all those that came before them and think Jesus lied when he promised to be with the church all ages.

Ubenedictus:
that is why mosesalex is correct that the passage has more than one interpretation but you guys were more interested in contradicting him than thinking.

that passage does not have mutiple interpretation.

The text can point to the old Israel bringing forth the Messiah admist great hardship... But if you look closely it is also about the church the new Israel as the mother of believers especially at the end...the old Israel has been superseded by the church. The early Christian church were happy to use either interpretation because both are derived from the passage along with a third interpretation which is actually the literal interpretation.

the church did not superseded Israel, which early church? Paul never taught that.

Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

these and many more verses proves that the church never replaced israel.

The Woman all through out scripture according to Jesus, Paul in gal 4:4, God in gen 3:15, the young woman that conceives in Isaiah, all is literally Mary who gives birth to one son who is to rule the entire world and who ascended to God's right hand... That is the third interpretation of the passage and the early church understood it in the sense that Mary is a figure of the church and the church is a type of Israel so that in on vision all coincides.

it has already been settled that that passage did not refer to mary.

Mary is the figure of the church in what way? Mary had no promenence in the bible apart from giving birth to christ, I wonder where all these fables came out from.

the church and Israel have their proper place no one can replace the other.

But again, you are Protestants and prefer to reason like aborted children who thinks it is a virtue to reject all those that came before them and think Jesus lied when he promised to be with the church all ages.

hence the Roman Catholic Church carried out one of the most gruesome killings of christians.
By the way who told you the church is Roman catholic church.

the church at Jerusalem remains the first church.
Roman catholic church was organized by the Roman government to be used against Christianity, the ecumenical movement and other effort made by the Vatican to unite other denominations are all deception and a headway to the one world religion.
Roman Catholic Church is the church of the antichrist.

solite3:
that passage does not have mutiple interpretation.

then you must be the only Christian who believe the earthly lsrael is the mother to all who believe in Jesus


For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the MOTHER of us all. Gal 4:25-26
.
Then Paul tell us about the Jerusalem in heb

you are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels [which surrounds and protects it], to the general assembly and church of the firstborn” (vs. 22-23).



The mother of believer is not Hagar who is Israel, the mother of belivers is Sarah which is the church that much is very clear.

the church did not superseded Israel, which early church? Paul never taught that.

go back and read Galatians 4 from 22, the old Israel from Sinai is Hagar it has been superseded by the Sarah the new Israel which is the church.

it has already been settled that that passage did not refer to mary.

Mary is the figure of the church in what way? Mary had no promenence in the bible apart from giving birth to christ, I wonder where all these fables came out from.

then you must read the Bible without understanding, the church is a mother to all believer who form Jesus' body mystically and mary gave birth to that same body physically now glorified, she is a figure of the church.

the church and Israel have their proper place no one can replace the other.

and Israel is certainly not the mother of believers

hence the Roman Catholic Church carried out one of the most gruesome killings of christians.

this statement must be born out of ignorance, do you have an idea how many Catholics you Protestants murdered just to perpetuate your heresy. In England alone not to add other kingdoms.

If you think that Protestants were saints during the so called Reformation then you were either brainwashed or just plain ignorant, because there were blood on both sides.

By the way who told you the church is Roman catholic church.

the church at Jerusalem remains the first church.
Roman catholic church was organized by the Roman government to be used against Christianity, the ecumenical movement and other effort made by the Vatican to unite other denominations are all deception and a headway to the one world religion.
Roman Catholic Church is the church of the antichrist.

you can go to Jerusalem and ask the patriarch of Jerusalem and he will tell you that Christianity spread out of Jerusalem to Antioch and then Rome and that since the apostles Peter and Paul died and taught in Rome, Rome had the primacy among all the churches from the 1 st century downwards. So yes the Catholic church is the early church.

Glycolysis:
Nice write up...
But if we are to go with the view that the woman is mary,don't it defile the believe of the immaculate conception of mary believed dearly by the Roman catholics ?

Let's go to to verse 2 of that revelation 12;

"And she being with child cried,travailing in birth ,& pained to be delivered "

So,as you can see from that verse,the woman was in pain to be delivered ,but thier is a believe among the catholics that Mary was born without sins ( the immaculate conception of Mary) ,therefore she would not experience or did not experience the pain of child birth ..

I will bring up more "pictures" as we proceeds on these..


What do you think sir ?

If we are to go with the view of the woman being the Israel;then that verse will make more meaning to that verse 2.
Bible has it that the Israelites has always being tormented,subjected to all kind of pains & suffering,hoping for the delivery of the messiah they have heard of prophesied by the prophets..

Jesus was delivered as an isrealite,which you & I were told....or know.

What do YOU think on these as well ?

Again, if we are to go with the church of God as the woman,don't the church of God,which are usually referred to as Christians, start after the birth of Christ ?
The woman cannot be the "church of God" because the true church of God actually started during/after the missionary works of Jesus Christ, which are the true believers we see today .

What do YOU think on these too ?

AND NO,IF CAN'T BE THREE,EVEN IF THIER SEEM TO BE A SIMILARITIES....THIER IS A SUBTLE DIFFERENCES THAT MAKES ONE FITS THE REVELATION 12 ,100%...

Good morning ......

not really, Jesus was immaculately conceived yet he experienced pain and died, his mum been immaculately conceived does not mean she didn't experience pain.

Ubenedictus:
not really, Jesus was immaculately conceived yet he experienced pain and died, his mum been immaculately conceived does not mean she didn't experience pain.

I'm done arguing on religious issues...
Believe whatever you want to believe.
Take care..



Good afternoon.

Glycolysis:

I'm done arguing on religious issues...
Believe whatever you want to believe.
Take care..



Good afternoon.

take care

She is mother God

She is the mother God

Ubenedictus:
then you must be the only Christian who believe the earthly lsrael is the mother to all who believe in Jesus


For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the MOTHER of us all. Gal 4:25-26
.
Then Paul tell us about the Jerusalem in heb

you are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels [which surrounds and protects it], to the general assembly and church of the firstborn” (vs. 22-23).



The mother of believer is not Hagar who is Israel, the mother of belivers is Sarah which is the church that much is very clear.

who says the mother of believers is Israel? neither is Sarah the mother of believers, I don't know where you got that from.

Jerusalem that is in heaven is not a person neither is it the church but the the city where God lives.

go back and read Galatians 4 from 22, the old Israel from Sinai is Hagar it has been superseded by the Sarah the new Israel which is the church.

Israel was never replaced



Romans 11:1
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Sarah is not the new Israel where do you get such error? the new Israel is the church but it never replaced israel. At the fullness of time israel will surely fulfill her purpose.

then you must read the Bible without understanding, the church is a mother to all believer who form Jesus' body mystically and mary gave birth to that same body physically now glorified, she is a figure of the church.

and Israel is certainly not the mother of believers

none of what you wrote disproved the fact of what I wrote. the woman in revelation 12 is Israel, she will fulfill her purpose after the church has left this earth under the antichrist government those people who are described in revelation 12 are Jews that will bear witness for Christ during the antichrist rule.

this statement must be born out of ignorance, do you have an idea how many Catholics you Protestants murdered just to perpetuate your heresy. In England alone not to add other kingdoms.

If you think that Protestants were saints during the so called Reformation then you were either brainwashed or just plain ignorant, because there were blood on both sides.

you can go to Jerusalem and ask the patriarch of Jerusalem and he will tell you that Christianity spread out of Jerusalem to Antioch and then Rome and that since the apostles Peter and Paul died and taught in Rome, Rome had the primacy among all the churches from the 1 st century downwards. So yes the Catholic church is the early church.

in other words you agree that the Roman Catholic Church killed christians, the so called mother church was persecuting christians simply because they did not agree with the papal rule? Rcc is filled with blood and God will avenge for his people.

the early church never killed or persecuted any man even when they could easily have done so but they surrendered themselves to be persecuted and killed because they were for Christ but for RCC what do you have? because that religion just like Islam is not of God.

solite3:
who says the mother of believers is Israel? neither is Sarah the mother of believers, I don't know where you got that from.

Jerusalem that is in heaven is not a person neither is it the church but the the city where God lives.


Israel was never replaced



Romans 11:1
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Sarah is not the new Israel where do you get such error? the new Israel is the church but it never replaced israel. At the fullness of time israel will surely fulfill her purpose.




none of what you wrote disproved the fact of what I wrote. the woman in revelation 12 is Israel, she will fulfill her purpose after the church has left this earth under the antichrist government those people who are described in revelation 12 are Jews that will bear witness for Christ during the antichrist rule.




in other words you agree that the Roman Catholic Church killed christians, the so called mother church was persecuting christians simply because they did not agree with the papal rule? Rcc is filled with blood and God will avenge for his people.

the early church never killed or persecuted any man even when they could easily have done so but they surrendered themselves to be persecuted and killed because they were for Christ but for RCC what do you have? because that religion just like Islam is not of God.

1 the heavenly Jerusalem is not a physical place,

solite3:
who says the mother of believers is Israel? neither is Sarah the mother of believers, I don't know where you got that from.

Jerusalem that is in heaven is not a person neither is it the church but the the city where God lives.


Israel was never replaced



Romans 11:1
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Sarah is not the new Israel where do you get such error? the new Israel is the church but it never replaced israel. At the fullness of time israel will surely fulfill her purpose.




none of what you wrote disproved the fact of what I wrote. the woman in revelation 12 is Israel, she will fulfill her purpose after the church has left this earth under the antichrist government those people who are described in revelation 12 are Jews that will bear witness for Christ during the antichrist rule.




in other words you agree that the Roman Catholic Church killed christians, the so called mother church was persecuting christians simply because they did not agree with the papal rule? Rcc is filled with blood and God will avenge for his people.

the early church never killed or persecuted any man even when they could easily have done so but they surrendered themselves to be persecuted and killed because they were for Christ but for RCC what do you have? because that religion just like Islam is not of God.

the heavenly Jerusalem is not a physical place it is a spiritual reality, a people, comprising of the church on earth and in heaven.

Hebrew 12:22
unto the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable
company of angels [which surrounds and protects it], to the
general assembly and church of the firstborn to the church of the firstborn, whose names are
written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of
all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to
Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the
sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood
of Abel.



sorry dear, the old Israel has been cut off and the church grafted in, the church is heir to the promises made to the old Israel.


Galatians 3:16
16 Now a the promises were made b to Abraham and to his
offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to
many, but referring to one, c “And to your offspring,” who is
Christ.

at the fullness of time Israel will be saved but today it is the church.

RM 10&11, RM 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery,
brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited:
Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full
number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way
all Israel will be saved.


as for the allegory of Hagar and Sarah, go and argue with the Bible, because it clearly says that the old covenant aka old Israel is Hagar and the new covenant aka the church is Sarah.


the mother of all who believe is not Israel, it is the church.


lastly the church didn't murder anyone, people who committed crimes where tried, the state imputed and carried out sentences.