It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revelation; The Woman in Heaven

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
Calling someone pure is not calling them a God.

I called the Immaculate Heart "another god", within the meaning of the first commandment, because it is so blatantly the object of a veneration which amounts to worship. All the energy that you're putting into promoting this message rather proves my point.

We have already agreed a couple of weeks ago that the "woman" figure at the end of ch12 represents God's people.
But the woman at the beginning of ch12 is the same woman that appears at the end of the chapter.
Therefore the woman at the beginning of ch12 represents God's people.
Quod erat demonstrandum. What could be simpler?

Also the woman in ch12 is fairly obviously the counterpart of the woman in ch17, who is clearly a representative figure rather than an individual. I have already pointed out that these two women are the two halves of the "woman" in Jeremiah ch4 vv30-31, who represents Jerusalem. She is a Harlot who is in the middle of giving birth- the woman in ch17 has inherited the first point, the woman of ch12 has inherited the second.
Thus the two women of Revelation both represent God's people. One is the faithful version, the other is the unfaithful version.



edit on 15-9-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by colbe
Calling someone pure is not calling them a God.

I called the Immaculate Heart "another god", within the meaning of the first commandment, because it is so blatantly the object of a veneration which amounts to worship. All the energy that you're putting into promoting this message rather proves my point.

We have already agreed a couple of weeks ago that the "woman" figure at the end of ch12 represents God's people.
But the woman at the beginning of ch12 is the same woman that appears at the end of the chapter.
Therefore the woman at the beginning of ch12 represents God's people.
Quod erat demonstrandum. What could be simpler?

Also the woman in ch12 is fairly obviously the counterpart of the woman in ch17, who is clearly a representative figure rather than an individual. I have already pointed out that these two women are the two halves of the "woman" in Jeremiah ch4 vv30-31, who represents Jerusalem. She is a Harlot who is in the middle of giving birth- the woman in ch17 has inherited the first point, the woman of ch12 has inherited the second.
Thus the two women of Revelation both represent God's people. One is the faithful version, the other is the unfaithful version.



edit on 15-9-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


DISREALI,

I said from the beginning, the person constantly referred to as the "woman" in Scripture is Our Lord's mother.
Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth is the "woman" with the crown of twelve stars in Revelation 12:1. John
described Mary in his last sentence in Chapter 11. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant in Heaven.

A lessor meaning can be the Church, God's people. No more rehashing for me. Take care. To end, about your first comment, veneration and worship do not mean the same thing.


blessings,



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
I said from the beginning, the person constantly referred to as the "woman" in Scripture is Our Lord's mother.
Mary,

Yes, and I answered you from the beginning, giving reasons, which you have not dealt with. See my previous post.The woman at the beginning of ch12 is the same woman as the one at the end of the chapter, and so forth.


Queen of Heaven and Earth is the "woman" with the crown of twelve stars in Revelation 12:1. John
described Mary in his last sentence in Chapter 11. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant in Heaven.

In fact ch12 v1 does not follow on directly from the end of ch11, because chs 12&13 are a "flashback" sequence. They take the story back to a period before the opening of the first chapter- including, obviously, the birth of Christ. In the actual sequence of events, the real sequel to ch11 v19 is ch 15v1. If we're watching these events unfold, the appearance of the seven angels with golden bowls is really the next thing that happens after the seventh trumpet. The seventh trumpet is blown to announce their coming.


veneration and worship do not mean the same thing.

All the "promotion" of Mary in the Cathiolic church, including your own, is sufficient evidence that she is being elevated as an object of worship. Try giving up doing it. You can't? Well, that proves my point.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Check out this video...its about elenin and the symbolic nature of revelations as well the signs and wonders of astonomy and the zodiac in the next few months. Im not christian but I am a student of the bible. I dont believe everything this guy says but the first couple of minutes has good info...
www.youtube.com...#/watch?v=Oa2DgcTzcGE



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BroketheWall
 

Thank you for that contribution, I suppose.
I won't be watching that video, I'm afraid, because I don't watch videos. They are a time-intensive and therefore inefficient way of commmunicating information. I prefer to get my information from written text, which means I can read through it quickly and then have time available for checking out other sources of information.
By the way, if you want anyone else to watch the video, you will need to amend the link.

It is probably a mistake to invest much interest in Elenin. All of us will know in a couple of weeks, it seems fairly certain, that the Elenin hype had nothing in it.
In this series I've been treating Revelation as a sequential narrative, told in symbolic terms, without involving the signs of the zodiac at all, and I think that yields a better interpretation.




edit on 16-9-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Dalke07
 

Thank you for that link.
I note your thread, but I think your theory about the "sign in heaven" involves a couple of mistaken assumptions.

One is that the "sign" is something predicted to be seen by the world at large. I don't think that's what John means.Rather it is something that John himself sees during the course of his visions. In just the same way he sees the great throne in heaven in ch4, and he sees the great Harlot in ch17. "Seeing" these things is the way that he receives the message, but there's no suggestion of any expectation that the world in general will see things of that shape.

Also you assume that the "sign in heaven" is a prediction for the future, something that we can expect, and I think that's a mistake as well. The next thing that happens in ch12 is the birth of Christ, and this is an event in the past, not the future. In fact the best way to understand ch12 is as part of a "flashback" sequence, which takes the story back to a period before the beginning of the first chapter. As in the case of movie "flashbacks", the purpose of it is to explain the background to the main narrative.

The key to understanding Revelation is to take the story as a whole, rather than selecting small fragments and trying to interpret them on their own. I strongly recommend reading through the rest of my series, You will find an index to them at this location;

Revelation Index


edit on 16-9-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


As above so below.

Basically what that means is, is the woman in heaven takes on 2 meanings, she has a symbolic reference to whats going on on earth, as well as having a symbolic reference as to whats happening in heaven. IE;

A governing body on earth.

A sentient being in heaven.

It would also imply that the symbolic meaning of the 2 are similar in function probably? Mybe it could also mean that their jobs serve the same propose. At least along these lines.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Thanks for the replies. I thought of this thread again. To share, a Youtube, it's 11 minutes long. Take the time to watch. Mary...as we read of her in Scripture.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
A foreshadowing in Scripture of who Mary is...there are three:

Mary is the "New Eve."

Mary is the "Ark of the New Covenant"

Mary is "Queen"

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Just to clarify;
Nothing in the OP is intended to suggest any particular prophetic significance in the year 2012 or the date 21/12/2012



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


My response to the claims made about the year 2012 was that I could see no prophetic significance in the date.
This position seems to have been vindicated.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I thought the woman with the twelve stars around her head was originally Semiramis queen of Babylon. Always she wears the 'blue' colour of later character Mary, of the same blue colour of the name Europa wearing the same blue colour as in The European Uniion with the blue colour and the twelve stars.
Semiramis is Europa, is Mary, is the mother of God or Tammuz or Jesus whatever name each age gives 'her' of the ancient religion. No?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Elliot
 

Since John is following on from the Old testament tradition, and part of that religious culture, that would be the main source of his ideas, as outlined in the OP.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 
John's ideas would be the same 'root' as ALL religion, the ancient past traditions that have never died and continue to 'rule' the world to this day. Only the names of the characters in these traditions have been changed, otherwise all is as before. Where do you think the 'Old Testament' traditions took their stories from?

Historically speaking, the Old Testament tradition is relatively new when compared to humanity's long existence on Earth.


edit on 12-6-2013 by Elliot because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2013 by Elliot because: grammar



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Disraeli,

No where in Scripture does a son call his mother "woman." Why does Our Lord refer to His mother as "woman" in the Gospel?

Jesus is God, He knows the beginning and the end. God's been preparing the faithful, even in the Old Testament to understand, Mary has a special place in our Redemption. You read it in Genesis and in Revelation. Our Lord's mother is the "woman" in Genesis 3:15 and the "woman" in Revelation 12:1.

Some verses in Scripture have more than one meaning. The "woman" in Revelation could be the Church or Israel BUT above those two, the "woman" is Mary. Read further in Rev 12, it is Mary who gives birth to the man child. There you have the explanation for Our Lord's repeatedly using "woman" in speaking to His mother.

The KJV changes Genesis 3:15 so much, they end up calling Our Lord "it." Here, read from the English translation of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate Douay-Rheims www.drbo.org...


Genesis 3:15
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

a) The individual Mary did not go through the events described at the end of the chapter.
This is a symbolic figure.

b) The Vulgate is NOT the first Bible.
The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the first Bible.
Get rid of your blinkers and learn to take a wider viewpoint.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
And the woman with the twelve stars around her head is just Semiramis, Isis, Europa, Mary etc.
To see who 'someone' really is you need to stand well back from the 'big picture' and get as much history on this symbolic character as possible. With your nose up against the picture you can only see what is right in front of you. Stand back from the times the 'bible' was put together. Look as far back as you can find information for and suddenly the picture is quite different. Not necessarily 'bad' but certainly different and far more informative. Finding out of 'truths' is never easy but things slot into place and make more sense. Otherwise you are just picking up single pieces of the jigsaw and trying to work out the full picture from that...........impossible to do!



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I read your post with interest.

I would like to ask about your point concerning the 'oppression by Babylon'

The ancient world and linking it to the bible has always fascinated me. I am sure somewhere I read a point, I was certainly not taught at school or Church and that was, that the reason the Jews were carried off to Babylon and Jerusalem was sacked was simply because they refused to pay their tribute to the owner of the land Jerusalem was placed in e.g. the King of Babylon. The King tried to collect his tribute for the first year and they refused. When refused a second time. He simply called with his army, killed the Jewish king and family etc and took the people off to repay the debt. At a later date they were politely asked to leave Babylon and hence their globe trotting.

I imagine any King who is owed tribute for people settling on his territory would only, in those days, tolerate such an insult to his authority once (if at all). So their getting a second chance was their lot.

The Jews had fled Egypt so they had no country of their own to settle in that would not have belonged to some king or other. I do find it strange that their God did not bother to deal with the Babylonians as he must have know that they held the claim to that land he considered his to give to them. From the way the world was run then, the King would certainly eject strangers who did not pay tribute for occupation.

Its just a small point, but Babylon has such a metaphorical and literal meaning to biblical writings that only seem to take into account one perspective, i.e.basically that of the tax dodger and have made that perspective into literal holy bible teachings.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 

The weak point in that argument is the assumption that Babylon was "the owner of the land".
Only in the sense that any invader and conquerer "owns" the land he has conquered.
In the empire building of the ancient world, there is a fine moral line between "demanding tribute" and "demanding protection money".
According to legend, a pirate being interrogated by Alexander the Great once made the same point.

The Israeites were established in Palestine long before the Babylonian kingdom had any power in that area.

No, the Jewish mistake was political, not moral.
They were stuck between two bullying super-powers (Babylon and Egypt), like the Poles stuck between Hitler and Stalin.
They chose to believe that the weaker power (Egypt) would protect them against the stronger power.
Disastrous miscalculation.
Jeramiah's advice for them to give in to Babylon was sensible and pragmatic.

edit on 13-6-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join