Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Revelation; The Woman in Heaven

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
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.






Laz,

I didn't mention, isn't interesting anti-Marian people accept who Satan is and the child in Revelation 12
but refuse to acknowledge the "woman" is an individual.

Explain, why Our Lord repeatedly calls His mother "woman?" Even from the Cross?

Mary is the only person who brought forth the man child.

The Queen in the OT is the mother of the King. The "woman" in Revelation 12:1 sounds pretty royal.

Of course, the original writings would be the first. Not all of them were put into Scripture, someone
had to decide of the original writings which were divinely inspired. He did. Pope Damasus by his
God given authority.

St. Jerome translated the writings chosen for the Canon. The the Latin Vulgate, Latin, the common
language of the time.

The Bible was compiled in 383 A.D.

Protestantism came along to reject the faith, October 31, 1517. Protestants new authority after rejecting
the faith and the authority of the Church, is the Bible. But, but...the Bible is a Catholic book. Everyone knows
this... except maybe, people brought up to be anti-Catholic. Read history. A famous Protestant converted
to the faith said? "To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant."

When Jesus shows you He wants you to become Roman Catholic, I think you will say yes. Alleluia.



God bless you,




posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 




I don't agree with you, I find your answer a bit simplistic. What happened to Jerusalem was not a simple act of land grabbing. It was the killing of a King and his family and the enslavement of people.

I don't think one can look at these ancient kingdoms such as that of Babylon as being primitive in that they were disorganised, uncivilised, ignorant and just simply land grabbing bullies. These people had treaties regarding land ownership, a huge 'civil service of overseers producing extremely informative records. They traded, built fantastic cities had education, art and a well established culture. I think we can quite reasonably establish that the King of Babylon knew precisely where his land boundaries were and who paid him tribute.

All land in that part of the world was claimed by some ruler and Kingdom. Another example of this was the reports sent to the Pharaoh from the outposts of his land by his force of Overseers'. He was concerned with every group of people and especially tax collecting. That was one of the most important means of financing your kingdom and ensuring your power, apart from trade arrangements, marriages etc.

I do feel that the more we excavate and find as well as compare this information and especally the literature from other Middle Eastern countries as well as those books deliberately not included in the bible we are slowly getting a real picture of that time and also from other perspectives. I suspect we are all very kind to ourselves when we write our people's history and often prefer to omit facts that are uncomfortable for us.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


DISRAELI,

The woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary. John prepares you, introduces the "woman" in the last verse of Chapter 11.

If Mary isn't in Heaven, none of us have chance (humor).

Mary, Our Lord's mother is the Ark of the New Covenant. She carried God inside her. The Ark of the New Covenant is in Heaven.


Rev 11:19
And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Here are the verses where Jesus addresses His mother as "woman." As I said, no where in Scripture does a son
call his mother "woman." Hmmmm....

Mary is the "woman" in Genesis 3:15 and the "woman" in Revelation Chapter 12

+ + +

The first instance, where Our Lord does so at the wedding at Cana (John 2:4).

The other instance where he does so is when Mary sees him being crucified:

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman [gunai], behold, your son!” [John 19:26].


p.s. Satan was given the knowledge of the plan of redemption. Oh, how hated a mere human person would
play a major part. Satan despises Mary. It is the Trinity's plan that Mary crush the head of the serpent.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 

Your're thinking in terms of modern states with stable boundaries, and that's not the case here.
Read the history of the centuries immediately before the fall of Jerusalem, and you will realise just how accurate the term "land-grabbing" really is.
The first great power controlling that area was Egypt (but that was by right of conquest, so it was no more a "moral" claim than any other conquest).
Then the Israelites established themselves in the power vacuum that resulted when Egyptian power receded.
Later they came under the pressure from the east, especially from Syria.
But these lesser powers were overshadowed when the power of the Assyrians began expanding.
It was the Assyrians who moved in from tne north and took the northern kingdom of Israel into exile (722 B.C.), before moving on to besiege Jerusalem.
A century later, various victims of Assyrian power, including the Babylonians and the Jews, banded together and rebelled, and the result was the destruction of Ninevah (612 B.C.)
Now you tell me; where, in all that, does Babylon gain any legal or moral claim to demand tribute from Jerusalem?

"Tribute", in those days, was the international equivalent of protection money.
It is like one of your neighbours knocking at your front door and telling you "If you pay me a large amount of money each week, I can make sure nobody breaks in all your windows".
You may see a connection between not paying the money and having your windows broken, and decide to pay the money, but would you call that a legitimate tax?
Or would you call it a submission to the threat of force?
"Tribute" is the same thing. "If you pay me a huge sum of gold every year, I can make sure nobody comes with a large army and seizes captives from your city".

And the sophistication of the civil service is beside the point.
The organisation of the Nazi state was highy elaborate, but you don't think that gave Hitler a legitimate right to seize whatever he wanted from France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark...
Or do you?



PS I've just noticed the phrase "writing our people's history". Perhaps I should point out that I'm not Jewish., so that inference is not valid.
edit on 13-6-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Referring to your first reply to me I think you will find that the Babylonians in Mesopotania were established around 2500 BC. That area had been lived in for thousands of years dating b ack to the Sumerians. The Israelites didn't reach Canaan until some 1400 BC so they came much later. Referring to your second reply where you mention land grabbing - was it not under Joshua that the Israelites slaughtered the people already living in Canaan and land-grabbed their land. The only difference was that they did not simply murder their respective Kings, they murdered every man, woman and child. They took no slaves. Difficult to take the moral high ground on that point I feel.

I also did not for one minute consider you as Jewish or make a judgement as to exactly what religious persuasion you believe. That surely is something that is deeply personal.

I am on this thread out of interest. I think Revelation is uncomfortably close to some things that are slowly starting to happen today and I would like to know more about it. Its also why I tend to think long and hard about biblical claims, man's moral issues and combine it all with historical facts that came be established.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shiloh7
Referring to your first reply to me I think you will find that the Babylonians in Mesopotania were established around 2500 BC.

The word "Babylonians" has more than one meaning in history.
Firstly, it might relate to the inhabitants of the specific city Babylon. In the early days of Mesopotamia, as I'm sure you know, all the cities were autonomous.
Secondly,it is used more loosely to describe the people of lower Mesopotamia, who were sometimes united, and sometimes not, into unitary kingdoms.
Thirdly, the kingdom ruled by Nebuchadnezzar, sometimes labelled the "Neo-Babylonian" empire, which only came into existence in the turmoil surrounding the break-up of the Assyrian power. That region had previously been an Assyrian province.
In that sense, it is true to say that the Babylonian kingdom did not exist when the Israeiltes made their settlements.

The other point I was making is that being established in Mesopotamia has nothing to do with making claims over Palestine. My meaning in the earlier post was that the Israelites were settled in Palestine long before the Babylonians had any power in Palestine.
You suggested that the israelites entered land already "owned" by Babylon. That is not the case. The Israelites were there first, by many centuries.
So, I repeat, there was no event in the previous centuries which gave the Babylonians any legal or moral claim to tribute from Jerusalem. You cannot put your finger on one. The claim was based exclusively on the use of force.
This does not amount to claiming any "moral high ground" for the Israelite claim. AlI I'm doing is refuting the idea that the Babylonians had a better one.

I must have misinterpreted your remark that "we are sometimes kind to ourselves when we are writing the history of our people". At first glance, this looked like a suggestion that I was being kind to the Jews because they were my own people. Since I made the tactical mistake of naming myself after a British Prime Minister, this suggestion has come up from time to time, so i thought I should nip it in the bud.

If you are interested in Revelation, you may like to know that this is one of a series systematically covering the whole book.
The series is indexed at this location;
Revelation- Index thread

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



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Get rid of your blinkers and learn to take a wider viewpoint.


This is very good advice.I'd suggest you take it however I'm positive you won't.The problem with all your writings on Revelation is they are based on a faulty premise so none of it is true.

Revelation is written in symbols (metaphors -words.... signs- numbers) NONE of it is prophetic or predictive of past,present or future historical events.You are reading your own interpretation derived from your carnal mind by extrapolating from the Prophets what is not written.This is exactly what John meant when he said DO NOT add or diminish from THIS book.I don't believe you are doing this with malice or bad intent however it doesn't make you any less than 100% incorrect.

The scriptures are not a cypher to be decoded.They are what "IS".ALL of the book of Revelation is about one thing only.
"The witness of Yahoshua(Yahweh is salvation) IS the spirit of prophecy"

.It is NOT the cataclysmic end of the world in a literal Great Tribulation of the forces of "evil"Satan" against God that culminates in God destroying all the "unbelievers and punishing them in hell for eternity(the false doctrine of hell is absolute blasphemy of the highest order).

The characters mentioned in Revelation don't have counterparts in this passion play.The women is not Mary or ANY woman..it is a metaphor just as "the Jerusalem above(represented by Sarah) is not the literal "Mother" of all it's an allegory....yes THAT was history but as Paul said it is NOT to be extrapolated into a personal interpretation to have a parallel prophecy in history. You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God when you write such foolishness.

I'm not here to berate you but to write the Truth in sincerity.All you have written of the book of Revelation is incorrect ...very incorrect.It has NOTHING to do with the book of Revelation it is a fantasy "war between your ears"in your carnal mind...your Armageddon.

The creator God is sovereign and 100% in control of everything ...He is the cause of ALL effects.Satan is not the ruler of this world (age) that is blasphemy also.Salvation is an infinite process for ALL humankind not just those that "think" they are special and chosen.No one can do ONE thing about their salvation....NOTHING ..it can't be added to or taken away from.Everything else is man acting upon the stage of history in a drama as drama queen "conspirtist" Chicken Littles believing the "sky is falling" while it is only their nightmares sweats while they are fast asleep in the valley of the shadow of death...that is NOT the gospel of the Kingdom of God...the kingdom of God COMES WITHOUT observation(for quantum physicist ...this is the double slit experiment) it is neither here nor there BUT it is IN your (everyone's) midst... NOW .

The letter of the Law kills the spirit is life.Paul knew this better than anyone.Born of the tribe of Benjamin a pharisee circumcised on the 8th day "perfected" in the law..COUNTED it ALL dung in comparison to Yahoshua (Yahweh is salvation)!!!He saw the utter futility to "shoehorning" the scriptures into "belief".It was all a schoolmaster ..when he was a child he thought as a child but when he was a man he has put away his childish ways..one day so will you and see the foolishness of all these childish writings...but not until God wants you to.This is Gods world and everything in it and EVERYTHING that happens.To believe anything less is to believe nothing...


edit on 13-6-2013 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-6-2013 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
Here are the verses where Jesus addresses His mother as "woman." As I said, no where in Scripture does a son
call his mother "woman." Hmmmm....

Mary is the "woman" in Genesis 3:15 and the "woman" in Revelation Chapter 12

+ + +

The first instance, where Our Lord does so at the wedding at Cana (John 2:4).

The other instance where he does so is when Mary sees him being crucified:

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman [gunai], behold, your son!” [John 19:26].


p.s. Satan was given the knowledge of the plan of redemption. Oh, how hated a mere human person would
play a major part. Satan despises Mary. It is the Trinity's plan that Mary crush the head of the serpent.




No comments? Do you not wonder, why does Our Lord keep calling His mother "woman?" Another question, why does the "woman" in Rev 12:1 sound so royal? Recall, in the Old Covenant, the mother of the King is Queen. Jesus is our King so....

It is a shame, King James' translators changed a word in 1Kings 2:19, they changed the word THRONE to "SEAT." A QUEEN sits on a throne. In the first Bible, you will find that verse in 3Kings 2:19. Here, check the ENGLISH translation of the first Bible, Latin was the common language of time. The first Bible was St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

www.drbo.org...

Jesus is helping you understand, reminding you of Genesis 3:15. We are all one big family, we play a part in our redemption and Mary has a major part in our Redemption. The verses in Rev 12 refer to Mary above any other secondary meaning. And there is so much more, all the oral revelation of God (tradition) and ongoing in prophecy about Mary. Do not listen to anti-Marian folks. I hope it happens, MO, I wish that everyone, all the world will actually SEE Mary besides God personally revealing to you interiorly who Mary is...

You will fall in love with Mary when God shows you.


KJV Bible:
1 Kings 2:19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
VIRGO! She gives birth to all the planets and the sun in september, then the 3 wise men, Orions belt, present the xmass sun, gifts!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Need to say first that I had forgotten that the King of Jerusalem was not killed but blinded and carted off in chains it was his sons that were killed in front of him.

Josiah's son Jeroiakim had, relying on the assistance of Eqypt the other main power-broker in the area, renounced his allegiance to Babylonia so up popped Nebuchadnezzar in 597BC. With an allegiance comes protection paid for by taxes. But in 586 Zedehiah, whom had taken the Oath of Fealty to the Babylonian Sovereign again played up with other smaller groups and again Nebuchadnezzar arrived and is covered in Ezek xvii 13.

Concerning Revelation which has always intrigued me especially as there appears to be a description of a white haired man with piercing eyes. I seem to remember that this description of a newly born son put Noah into a spin
as he was not white haired with piercing eyes.

It was supposedly written nearly 65 years after Christ's death which as various people like to wonder if it was John the Divine, the deciple of Christ, one should remember he would have had to have been past his 90's which is very old for that era.

Those who don't concur with it being the same John and name him John of Patmos, also broach the idea that part or all was written under the influence of hallucinogenic plants found on that island. That is not so far fetched simply because with all cultures the Shaman and many visionaries/holy men used drugs for religious purpose. Incense is used today to aid religious ceremonies etc. I simply don't know what he used or whom he was but can only go on what I have seen and read.

I would very much like to know where he got the idea of no mark, no cash.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shiloh7
Concerning Revelation which has always intrigued me especially as there appears to be a description of a white haired man with piercing eyes. I seem to remember that this description of a newly born son put Noah into a spin
as he was not white haired with piercing eyes.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
Noah would not have read any description in Revelation, since he was born several centuries too early.
If you mean the vision in ch1, I refer you to my thread on the subject;
Revelation; Fear Not


the idea that part or all was written under the influence of hallucinogenic plants found on that island.

That popular theory is shallow and unnecessary.
I refer you to my series of threads on Revelation, indexed at this location;
Revelation; Project complete
The series goes through the book systematically and demonstrates, amongst other things, that nearly all the imagery is recycling either the images or the ideas found in the Old Testament.
So it's just a question of using that insight to understand the ideas which the images are trying to convey.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Thank you for referring me to your other writings etc. However, I have read a lot of other books not included with the bible for numerous reasons. Am also aware that Noah built the ark some considerable time before Jesus walked on the earth - as I imagine most people are. I also know that the first part of Genesis is adapted from four different ancient 'pagan' books - Adapa and the Serpent is one that is food for considerable thought because it makes one realize how much was borrowed and 'adapted' by the Israelites from cultures order and better educated than their own humble beginnings. There are three others out there, equally fascinating relating to Genesis and I will quietly leave you to research them if you wish.

Up till about 300 AD the 2 books of Enoch were considered very important and then suddenly, they were no longer acceptable and faded into obscurity. If you read them, you will easily see why. There is a lot of reading out there that is fascinating and merits being considered whether one rejects certain scripts or accepts their information.

I find it weird that concerning religious belief or one's spiritual beliefs, most people never actually research such an important part of their lives. Its one of the only parts of everyday life that we blindly accept and, often from some of the most peculiar individuals that, under any other circumstances, one would never ask advice from. Are you comfortable with men wearing fish head immitation hats, frocks and carrying shepherd crooks when they have no sheep - I am not mocking, just observing.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 

Do you have any observations to make pertaining to the book of Revelation?



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Its sometime since I read Revelation but firstly I have heard and read a number of different views on this last book of the Bible and I am still curious as to why it actually is in the bible at all, considering what books have been left out.

My first observation is the description of the white haired man, in the long robes with the piercing eyes. As the bible is set in the Middle East and there are no races there with white hair and piercing eyes I am curious as to whom this description refers to. I cannot offhand think of even a distant trading race that that description of a man would match. I don't think we are referring to an elderly man with grey/white hair here.

Second description is how did John, sitting on Patmos have any comprehension of not being able to buy or sell without the 'mark'? There was no civilisation at that time that would have had either that kind of need to control commerce or the inclination not to use currency or barter.

A minor point which I cannot remember without reading through Revelation again is that somewhere in the bible there is a reference to folding space. Again its a concept that is curious and out of time there. If its not in Revelation then ignore this point.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shiloh7
My first observation is the description of the white haired man, in the long robes with the piercing eyes.

As I said before, you are referring to the vision in ch1, and I would refer you again to my "Fear Not" thread where the details of the vision are fully explained.
The short answer is that these details you mention are taken straight out of the vision in Daniel ch7.
Which demonstrates my point, that this imagery is mainly recycling the imagery of the Old Testament.


Second description is how did John, sitting on Patmos have any comprehension of not being able to buy or sell without the 'mark'? There was no civilisation at that time that would have had either that kind of need to control commerce or the inclination not to use currency or barter.

Again, I would want to refer you to my relevant thread on that topic
Revelation. The mark of the Beast

The short answer to your puzzle is that the "mark" has nothing to do with controlling commerce. That's a modern interpretation which has become fashionable, but it completely misses the point.
The purpose of the "mark", as described in the text, is to identify those who are willing to worship the "Beast" and reject the Biblical God. Credit cards and bar-codes and dollar bills and other things connected with commerce just don't do this. Nobody gets a credit card on the basis of "You can only have this if you're willing to reject the Biblical God", and so there's no reason for God to be angry with them.

The answer is much simpler. "Not being allowed to buy or sell" is about being boycotted, refused entry to the market-place. Just as the Jews were subjected to boycotts in Nazi Germany. That is how the Beast punishes those who are recalcitrant
The idea of boycotting needs no great level of sophistication, as demonstrated by the fact that it was perfected by the Irish.

I refer you to the "Mark" thread for the rest of the argument.

In a late chapter of Revelation, it is said that heaven and earth "flee away"; that is, they disappear and cease to exist.
Anyone trying to make "folding space" out of that is being very imaginative.

edit on 22-6-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join