Mary and Salvation

nice avatar though, and I like the babe with the tray of beer, although I prefer cola, or cranberry juice..

I wonder if I'll get banned here too, maybe when there's more than a dozen members. I'm banned from Pascelli's forum, or whatever his name is, and Cathinfo, and Fisheaters, and Angelqueen, and Catholic Answers, and ChristianForums, and a whole bunch of other places. I've even been de-activated by Facebook a couple of times, LMAO...

I don't play well with others.

Tell me about Our Lady. What does She mean to you, and your salvation?

If you mean Mary she's the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is my salvation.

How do you feel about Her title as Co-Redemptrix, and the Mother of God?

she's not

Why not?

Jesus is the only Redeemer

Acts 4, 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

Dominion,

I'm banned from Pascelli's forum, or whatever his name is, and Cathinfo, and Fisheaters, and Angelqueen, and Catholic Answers, and ChristianForums, and a whole bunch of other places. I've even been de-activated by Facebook a couple of times, LMAO...

I don't play well with others.

That's quite a track record. I'm impressed.

I've been at it a while.

Before I proceed, can you define the terms "Co-Redemptrix", and "Mother of God"? Since you deny both titles as applied to Our Lady, I want to make sure that you're not simply setting up a straw man, i.e., that you know in fact what these terms mean. Fair enough?

Since you already know that I'm Catholic, would it be fair for me to ask what church you attend, if any? I like to have all the cards on the table.

HolyRussia wrote:Dominion,

I'm banned from Pascelli's forum, or whatever his name is, and Cathinfo, and Fisheaters, and Angelqueen, and Catholic Answers, and ChristianForums, and a whole bunch of other places. I've even been de-activated by Facebook a couple of times, LMAO...

I don't play well with others.

That's quite a track record. I'm impressed.

Welcome to the forum, HolyRussia. Nice avatar! I actually have a lot of devotion to Blessed Leonid Feodorov. Are you a Greek Catholic?

The Protoevangelium (The First Good News):

Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius.
Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. (Genesis 3:15, The Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome)

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. (Genesis 3:15, Douay-Rheims translation)

Dominion, who is “the woman” of Genesis 3:15?

I would also be interested in what denomination you belong to or if you are non-denominational. If non, then do you have a “Lord’s Supper” or some type thing each week, monthly or yearly.

Also curious as to why you are on all these Traditionalist websites. Just because it’s not typical for Protestants to be on these. I understand the Catholic Answers type websites. How did you happen to get involved in these others. I’m even unusual on these sites, since I’m not a Traditionalist or Feeneyite (although as my friends here know, I have become Feeneyite-ish lol) I’ve learned a lot from these good people. So I was wondering what your interest is here.

Like Jim said, if you don’t want to share any of this, I understand.

Jim asked you also about Mary being the Mother of God. You didn’t mention why you don’t believe that. I know there are many Protestants who do believe that truth. Why don’t you?

Catholics also believe that Christ is the ONLY Redeemer. There are some things I would like to say to you about this topic, but perhaps Jim wants to talk to you one on one without anyone else getting involved. (If it’s OK for me to say something, Jim, let me know.)

So I will only add a personal witness that is tangential to this topic. It is not meant to explain or defend the Co-Redemptrix belief. Not meant as a theological point.

When I was growing up, I did not have a devotion to Our Lady. While I would pray the Hail Mary, I didn’t really pray that much to her. Not that I had anything against her, but no devotion either. I loved her, but paid her no mind. Kind of like when a child takes a mother for granted. It may be because my own mother (good woman that she is) had some issues and wasn’t that maternal, and I didn’t really understand a mother’s love then. I heard Mother Angelica say that when she was younger she didn’t feel especially close to God the Father, because her father had abandoned her as a child.

I do clearly remember when I was about 7-10 yrs old sometimes having trouble sleeping and being scared and then I would think of Mary and Jesus and I felt better and went to sleep. I have no idea what it was I thought about them. lol Just that the thought of them comforted me.

Anyway, I remember when I was even a teenager not understanding when I’d hear people talk about how much Mary suffered. I got that He was her Son and that it was painful to lose Him, but I thought, it was Jesus who died on the cross. He was the one who suffered. Why did some people compare her pain to His?
Then when I was 26, my son was born. When he was about one, I walked into the room while he was napping. And I was overcome with the thought of what Mary suffered. How the “sword pierced her own heart,” as in Luke. I realized then that emotionally it is more painful for a mother to watch her child be maligned, spit upon, unjustly accused, beaten, whipped and crucified. To watch him die, wishing you could take his place. In fact, except for one thing, I would think that she suffered MORE than Him. And that is that Our Lord had to take upon Himself all the sins of the whole world that day. All the ugliness and evil and disgust and pain and suffering. And to take it on, when He had not an ounce of it in Himself, because He was so pure. That would have been unbearable for anyone else, but Christ. So I began to love Mary more for her own suffering and Christian witness and model.

I’m 51 now. About 18 years ago, I went through a bad time in my life. And I doubted God and did not feel Jesus close to me. (I had always felt Him right by my side since I could remember. I remember standing in the grotto at Lourdes at age 6 praying to Jesus and feeling close to Him and I remember that wasn’t the first time.) I prayed all the harder, on my knees, many tears, beseeching God, “I believe Lord, help my unbelief.” The only time I felt peace was at Mass.

So some months later when I got over my doubts, I felt close again to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but I still felt distant from Jesus. I hope that makes sense. Like I had been mad at Him for what I thought was Him abandoning me. (Later I saw He helped me through with His grace.)

I had heard that Mary is a shortcut to Jesus. So I began praying to her every day to help draw me closer to her Son. Like someone said, if Jesus came through Mary to get to us, then we could go through Mary to get to Him.

Well, in just a couple weeks, not only did I feel close to Jesus again, I felt closer than ever before.

By their fruits you shall know them. And the fact is that ANYONE (no matter how close they already are to Jesus) will be drawn closer to Jesus if they pray to His mother. That is just the way it is. We could explain it all theologically and come up with some answers to it. But in the end, we humans cannot understand fully why it happens, but it ALWAYS happens. Anyone who sincerely asks for Mary’s help, will receive it and be drawn closer to Christ, not farther from Him.

God bless you and everyone here.


Edited to change 15 years to 18 years ago. Time goes by fast. And edited several times to play with the colors. Hard to find one easy to read to highlight some lines. The bold doesn't show up well in white against the gray.

Keep talking, Elisa. This is a FORUM.

Looking back at one of my previous replies, I'd like to limit the discussion at this point to the Marian title, the Mother of God, since it is an official title the Church uses, and the other title is not (yet).

So, my question to Dominion still stands. Can you offer a definition of the title "Mother of God" to ensure we are on the same page?

Also, to be as transparent as possible, are you affiliated with any particular denomination or church?

Dominion wrote:nice avatar though, and I like the babe with the tray of beer, although I prefer cola, or cranberry juice..

I wonder if I'll get banned here too, maybe when there's more than a dozen members. I'm banned from Pascelli's forum, or whatever his name is, and Cathinfo, and Fisheaters, and Angelqueen, and Catholic Answers, and ChristianForums, and a whole bunch of other places. I've even been de-activated by Facebook a couple of times, LMAO...

I don't play well with others.

You'll probably not get banned from here so easily. Most likely you'll be unable to refute the truth and you'll just walk away. But I hope you stay around long enough for this to happen.

BTW Good to see you here. Welcome.

MRyan wrote:The Protoevangelium (The First Good News):

Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius.
Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. (Genesis 3:15, The Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome)

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. (Genesis 3:15, Douay-Rheims translation)

Dominion, who is “the woman” of Genesis 3:15?

Apparently this website has a corrupted version of Douay-Rheims as well:

http://drb.scripturetext.com/genesis/3.htm

It's "He shall crush thy head, you shall lie in wait for his heel."

The woman referred to is Eve, and her seed would eventually be Christ, who would triumph over the serpent.

Rasha,

Thank you for the welcome.

Are you a Greek Catholic?

No.

As Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, 'mother of God' as an honorary title, maaaaaybe, but 'Co-redemptrix': no.

Dominion wrote:As Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, 'mother of God' as an honorary title, maaaaaybe, but 'Co-redemptrix': no.

More than just honorary, she was Mother of God in fact. Many Protestants share this belief. You might share it fully as well. None of us think God came from her or that she is the mother of God the Father, the Creator. He created her.

She is the daughter of God the Father.
She is the mother of God the Son.
She is the spouse of God the Holy Spirit.

Theotokos/Mother of God is an ancient belief from the first couple centuries of the Church. (along with New Eve and Ark of the New Covenant)

She held Jesus in her womb and gave birth to Him and nursed Him and loved Him intimately. She was the first human person that God had intimate contact with. She and St. Joseph were the first to look upon the face of God. In the Old Testament we see Moses being told to remove his sandals in God’s presence. We see that no one could look upon the face of God and live. Even Moses only saw the back of God as He walked by.

As you recognize, Jesus’ human nature and Divine nature are never separated. So Mary was the mother of the Divine Person Jesus Christ. Mother of God.

Or as St. Elizabeth said in Luke’s Gospel (while she was inspired by the Holy Spirit), “how is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Mother of Our Lord, too.

Dominion,

Co-Redemptrix (like Jim said) is not defined yet by the Church. So there is still a mystery and uncertainly as to the details of the belief, which makes it difficult to explain.

Like I said earlier, Christ is our ONLY Redeemer, our only Savior.

The trick to understanding this belief is in understanding the prefix “co.” While we sometimes use it to mean equal, such as co-Presidents or equal members of a Co-op, it often simply means someone or something that assists or is a party to something. Not an equal. That is what the belief about Mary means.

Mary COoperated with God’s grace by her fiat, her “yes.” Mary COoperated in God’s salvation plan. She was the first Christian, the quintessential Christian, our model of obedience. But naturally, she was not ever equal to God.

We needed Christ/God as our Savior. God did not need Mary to save us. He could have saved us another way, not even becoming man. But He CHOSE to save us by using her cooperation. He entered the world through her specifically, having first planned and carefully created her with His grace to be His perfect vessel and assistant throughout His life and death. She loved Him and had a unique and intimate relationship with Him, unlike any Christian since. To the point that He used her and her sacrificial suffering for our salavation. (“And a sword shall pierce even your own soul--to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed." Luke 2:35)

Because He CHOSE to be fully human and if one simply appears on Earth without a mother, not “born of woman,” then a piece of the human experience is missing. Even a mother who dies in childbirth still held the child in her womb for 9 months and the child knows he had a mother.

And having a mother and dying for our sins meant that His mother would suffer greatly. Being born to save us meant she would suffer, according to His plan.

God didn’t have to save us as He did or be fully human. This was His salvation plan that He CHOSE and we recognize the truth that Mary was necessary to the plan He CHOSE. Both the grace she was given and her cooperation were necessary.

She assisted in mankind’s redemption. Co-Redemptrix.

She was not His robot and He did not force her. She was graced and holy.

Suffering holds great power; even though we wouldn’t choose it, we accept it as His will sometimes.

Paul said in Colossians 1:24:
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,”

Not that Christ’s sacrifice lacked anything, but we can join our pain to His afflictions at Calvary. God is outside of time and space. And love, especially a love that suffers, can transcend all things.

We are the body of Christ. As Christians we are to share in His suffering.
Romans 8:17:
“Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

God used the sacrificial suffering of Our Blessed Mother, His beloved mother, to assist in His salvation plan for us. And she willingly participated. She deeply loves Him and she loves us.

God bless you and everyone here.

Dominion wrote:

MRyan wrote:The Protoevangelium (The First Good News):

Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius.
Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. (Genesis 3:15, The Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome)

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. (Genesis 3:15, Douay-Rheims translation)

Dominion, who is “the woman” of Genesis 3:15?

Apparently this website has a corrupted version of Douay-Rheims as well:

http://drb.scripturetext.com/genesis/3.htm

It's "He shall crush thy head, you shall lie in wait for his heel."

The woman referred to is Eve, and her seed would eventually be Christ, who would triumph over the serpent.

Depends on who you ask whether it is a corruption or not.

Gen 3:15. "She shall crush." Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head. (Challoner) --- The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire.


The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin Mary.

We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that "it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure." We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, than in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine.

Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent's head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) "We crush," says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, "the serpent's head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power." The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)

Dominion wrote:
Apparently this website has a corrupted version of Douay-Rheims as well:

http://drb.scripturetext.com/genesis/3.htm

It's "He shall crush thy head, you shall lie in wait for his heel."

The woman referred to is Eve, and her seed would eventually be Christ, who would triumph over the serpent.

Really, and the woman referred to is definitively not the New Eve, who, by her seed, Jesus Christ, shall crush the serpent's head?

So how do we approach this? How can the living authority of the Catholic Church compete with the individual authority of Protestants, whose interpretations of Genesis 3:15 (the infallible word of God) may very well represent corrupted translations from non-authorized codices such as the Septuagint (the source of Dominion’s citation), which was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Alexandrian Greek by a group of Hellinistic Jews between 250 and 100 BC?

About the alleged “corrupted” Latin Vulgate (of which the Douay-Rheims is a faithful English translation), the true Church (at the Council of Trent), declared:

“by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church … held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers” (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, The Fourth Session, April, 1546; Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books)

So we have a “living authority” that cannot compete with the individual living authority of Protestants. Unfortunately, not a few liberal Catholic “scholars”, like the Protestants, also seem to think that they know more than St. Jerome about the nuances of these ancient languages, even if he was 1500 years closer to them.

Will our Protestant guest tell us that the Holy Ghost inspires each and every Protestant with the gift of absolute certitude in knowing that the translation they rely on (which are not consistent), and even the sense they understand it, represents the inspired word of God?

It always comes down to a question of authority, doesn’t it? Catholics, however, have a living and infallible teaching authority that assures them of the integrity of inspired Scripture that the Church presents to the Faithful under the umbrella of the divine assistance.

Speaking of the Living Magisterium, and to Duckbill’s challenge (“Depends on who you ask whether it is a corruption or not”) to Dominion’s charge of “corruption” against the Douay-Rheims (and the Latin Vulgate), let’s ask the Church and discover the true sense of Genesis 3:15, the sense Dominion rejects:

Ineffabilis Deus; Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854

Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind -- words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed" [Gen. 3:15] -- taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14] (Quo circa sicut Christus Dei hominumque mediator, humana assumpta natura, delens quod adversus nos erat chirographum decretia, illud cruci triumphator affixit; sic Sanctissima Virgo, Arctissimo et indissolubili vinculo cum eo conjuncta, una cum illo et per illum, sempiternas contra venenosum serpentem inimicitias exercens, ac de ipso plenissime triumphans, illus caput immaculato pede contrivit.)

And:

Munificentissimus Deus, Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius XII on Nov. 1, 1950

39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Our Blessed Mother, the Mother of God, the New Eve; is most intimately associated with her seed, our Lord Jesus Christ, in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death (“She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel”) which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Amen to that.

To add to what MRyan has said. "Her seed" points to the Virgin birth. Since women don't have "seed" they are referred to in the metaphorical sense as "earth". Men have "seed." So it points to the Savior not having a biological father only a biological mother.

The problem I have with Protestants is they don't take the Bible literally.

I'm not a Protestant. My Bible is the Confraternity Edition of the New Catholic Version of The Holy Bible, 1961 revision, printed in 1965 in New York City and given to my parents that same year as a wedding gift. It's the Challoner Bible, complete with footnotes, indexes, and introductions to each book, including this one at the beginning of the New Testament:

There can be no graver crime than the least corruption of that eternal truth which Christ has brought us. The Church is, therefore, watchful over Holy Scripture; and not only over its message, but likewise over its written transmission.



Well that was then. Now I guess anything goes. If the Biblios Douay-Rheims is corrupted in that passage from Genesis, and it's obvious why that is, then I have to wonder what else they've done to it.

I'm having technical trouble quoting.

Duckbill you make a very good point that Dominion cannot overlook. This is the ONLY time in the entire Bible that a woman is said to have “seed.” Because Jesus is the ONLY child born who did not have a father’s seed. His entire DNA came from Mary.

So it shouldn’t matter to Dominion or anyone else in these discussions whether the correct translation is “he” or “she” shall crush the serpent. What matters is that as you and Mike correctly point out, “the woman is Mary.” She is both Eve and her descendent the New Eve. As the early Church called her. What is Biblically and theologically sound is that Eve’s descendent, the New Eve (born pure and a virgin, like Eve. But one’s “no” to God brought on the downfall of mankind, while the other’s “yes” to God brought on its salvation.) had a child who crushed the serpent. So Mary was a party to crushing that serpent.

I am comfortable with either translation. It doesn’t matter to the point Mike and Duckbill are making. “The woman” of the Bible is Mary. Both in the beginning of the Bible in Genesis and at the end of the Bible in Revelation chapter 12 where “the woman” clothed with the sun has a child who “the ancient serpent” (Revelation specifically harkens back to Genesis’ serpent) tries to devour but who is snatched up to God.

And this is right after Revelation 11:19 that talks about the Ark of the Covenant. Mary being the New Ark and the woman who had this child. The Old Ark hadn't been mentioned since the time it went missing after the Babylonians destroyed the Temple 500 years earlier. There were no chapters and verses in the Bible when it was written (that came 1,000 years ago), so this Ark sentence flowed into the woman sentence.

Perfect symmetry in the Bible. Beginning and end. Same with St. John’s Gospel. He NEVER refers to Mary by name. She is “the mother of Jesus.” And in his Gospel at the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry at Cana and at the end of His earthly ministry on the cross, Jesus respectfully calls Mary “woman.” Again, perfect symmetry in the Bible.


Revelation 12:1-5,17:

"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. . . .
The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it. . . .
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the REST OF HER OFFSPRING, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus."


Clearly this woman is Mary and it says that we (those who bear witness to Jesus) are the 'REST OF HER OFFSPRING."

Dominion wrote:I'm not a Protestant. My Bible is the Confraternity Edition of the New Catholic Version of The Holy Bible, 1961 revision, printed in 1965 in New York City and given to my parents that same year as a wedding gift. It's the Challoner Bible, complete with footnotes, indexes, and introductions to each book, including this one at the beginning of the New Testament:

There can be no graver crime than the least corruption of that eternal truth which Christ has brought us. The Church is, therefore, watchful over Holy Scripture; and not only over its message, but likewise over its written transmission.



Well that was then. Now I guess anything goes. If the Biblios Douay-Rheims is corrupted in that passage from Genesis, and it's obvious why that is, then I have to wonder what else they've done to it.

So you are not a protestant and you have a Catholic Bible from your parents......hmmm... That doesn't help much. What religion are you a believer in? O r are you an atheist. It will help to know this if this dialog is to be fruitful.

As for the Bible having problems with translation. I accept the Douay-Rheims as an excellent translation into English.
But if you are familiar with Catholics, we consider scripture very important but the Church has the final say on the interpretation, so what you have brought up is....well...." So what?" As Elisa has pointed out either reading doesn't effect Catholics much.

There has been a tendency to try to create bridges to protestants by accepting certain translations in Catholic bibles (unwise at times eg:"Hail, full of grace" to "hi, highly favored" in Lk.) The D/R has 4 books of kings while the Protestants have two kings and two books of Samuel (even though Samuel seems to have died before the second book , if I recall correctly). Protestants number stuff different like Psalms too. Many Catholic bibles have taken up the 2 Samuels and Psalms count etc...as a concession for dialog not a concession in doctrine.

Elisa I don't agree with any of your conclusions. The woman in Genesis is obviously Eve, since there wasn't anybody else except Adam. The woman clothed with the sun in Apocalypse is Israel, not Mary. The dragon that fought in the sky was the Luftwaffe.

Dominion,

“Luftwaffe?” Obviously you aren’t taking these discussions seriously. Even you must believe that the dragon is the ancient serpent from Genesis because Revelation 12 actually says it is: “The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world.”

Revelation is an example of apocryphal writing. Which means that it can mean several things on several levels all at the same time. Yes, the Church has always said that “the woman” of Revelation means Israel and that it means the Church also. But from its earliest days the Church has always taught the PLAIN MEANING of the text that “the woman” was Mary, the mother of the child who would rule all nations and who the serpent couldn’t devour. Anyone who is not open to this possible meaning isn’t being an honest or serious student of the Bible; it is clear and it simply cannot be dismissed. And don't trust anyone who says that Revelation passages can mean only one thing and that they have the whole book all figured out. Like Mother Angelica once said, "run from that person."

As for the woman in Genesis being Eve, yes, on one level it is Eve and her descendant the New Eve, as I already said. But the text says, “will” meaning future tense. So it is not simply Eve it was talking about. And Eve didn’t have seed. This passage is God speaking on 2 levels. To Eve talking about the direct consequences of her sin (pain in childbirth, toil, the snake biting her heel) and to all mankind who inherit the consequences of her and Adam’s sin and God’s promise of future salvation and the woman’s “seed” crushing the serpent. What relates to all mankind is Jesus crushing the serpent for our salvation. So the mother of this “seed," Jesus, is the New Eve, Mary.

I don’t even know if you are taking these conversations seriously, but I’ve answered you just in case or just in case someone else is reading here who could benefit from them.

Because when you say you don’t agree with any of my conclusions, it’s hard to know what you are talking about. I had several long posts to you with several points and conclusions, as did Duckbill and Mike.

You can’t just say you don’t agree without any backup, Scripture, early Church history or proof of your position. Not if you want your opinions to be taken seriously.

God bless you.

Yes, the Luftwaffe. Dragons always symbolize armies, as far back as in Daniel. The big red dragon that came up from the sea was the Japanese and the war in the Pacific. The beast with the seven heads and ten horns is a metaphor of global military conquest and tyranny. The seven heads were seven countries: Babylon, Persia, Media, Greece, Syria/Egypt, Rome and Germany. The head struck with the wound of the sword and smote unto death but rose again with its deadly wound healed was Germany. It was caused for the image of the beast to have life and to both speak and cause people to be killed, and this was television and the Nazi propaganda. The beast caused for everyone to have a mark in their right hand or forehead, and this is a symbol of obedience or belief. The right hand is the actions, choice or authority of a man, and the forehead is the mind, or belief. It wasn't a physical mark, nor did it ever need to be. The Apocalypse is John's vision of the future, much of which has already happened. The horsemen of War and Strife, periods of approximately 70 years each, have already come and gone, and now comes Famine and then Pestilence.

I sort of looked through your other posts but to be honest they're too long and are only more of the same previously defeated arguments. Also, the purple writing doesn't show up very well.

Dominion, could you define what you mean by "Israel"?

....the Luftwaffe? Really? You write off Elisa's replies with little more than a wave, and yet you calmly come out with the Luftwaffe comment as though you're ordering pancakes at an IHOP.

Yes really. Israel the country. Elisa is still proceeding from the false premise that the 'she will crush your head...lie in wait for her heel' is not a corruption of the text, which it is. Somebody said 'so what?'. Is that the response I'd get if I mentioned 1 Corinthians 14, 34? So what?



Interesting. What's IHOP? We don't have that here.

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire, and them that had overcome the beast, and his image, and the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having the harps of God...



Stalingrad.

So the dragon is both the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) and Japan? Little confusing, but OK.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think St. John says that the dragon is the ancient serpent from Genesis/Satan if it’s not the ancient serpent/Satan?

Second curiosity on my part (I will probably regret asking) what did St. Michael the Archangel have to do with fighting the Germans and the Japanese in World War II?

And again (since you didn’t read my posts), I said I have no problem with either interpretation (he or she), I don’t know which translation is the corruption and neither does anyone else for sure 100%, including you. It doesn’t matter to me because it doesn’t matter to the point we are making. The point is the woman being Mary, the New Eve. Whether the serpent would be crushed in future either by her through her seed or simply by her seed, the end result is the same. She played a key part in it either way.

Finally, the things I said are not my opinions, they are the teaching of the Church. They were on several related topics and NONE of these arguments have EVER been defeated. Ignored (as you have done) or twisted, but NEVER DEFEATED. If you think they can be defeated, then by all means tell us specifically.

Because you haven’t really said anything at all. We have silence on any refutation of the New Eve and Mother of God being more than an honorary title and Co-Redemptrix. The World War II interpretation is not convincing at all, but at least you responded to Revelation 12. Although you never showed how the woman of Revelation cannot possibly be Mary and can only be World War II and Israel.

Which is fine. Because I still have a lot of things to do before Christmas and I don’t have much time. I don’t know if you are sincere in wanting to discuss these things and I can’t for the life of me imagine why you would be on this Catholic website. Maybe you are sincere, but I have to tell you from the little you have written here, I am a little worried about what you’ve been taught. It reminds me of some books I read in high school about the end times and Israel and Revelation, like Hal Lindsay stuff. I ask you to be careful and rethink this stuff and ask the Lord again sincerely from your heart for guidance and discernment.

Sorry about the purple. I wanted to highlight some things for people who skim for lack of time, but the bold doesn’t work in white against the gray and the other colors I tried seem blurry to me and harder to read. I miss simple black text against white. I tried brown after your comment and I think it is best. So I'll go with that. Thanks for telling me about the purple. If you are at all sincere about these topics, I went back and changed the purple on my other posts.

Good night all and may God bless each of you and your families.

If I don’t get a chance to come on again, have a very blessed and Merry Christmas.
Love,
Elisa

Dominion wrote:Yes really. Israel the country. Elisa is still proceeding from the false premise that the 'she will crush your head...lie in wait for her heel' is not a corruption of the text, which it is. Somebody said 'so what?'. Is that the response I'd get if I mentioned 1 Corinthians 14, 34? So what?



Interesting. What's IHOP? We don't have that here.

Dominion, how do you know the entire Bible is not a corruption of the text? What would be the authority that you would appeal to for your answer? Others here have already pointed out the reasoning behind what you feel is a false premise. I have nothing to add at this time, nor do I think it would make a difference to you.

Now, with regards to "Israel", the country founded in 1948 -- what is its significance in terms of our salvation? I'll hazard a guess: You believe it fulfills Old Testament prophesy and . . . what else exactly?


IHOP = International House of Pancakes. Those charlatans are not very international apparently. Thank you for helping me to expose the ruse. They are the synagogue of satan referred to in the Apocalypse.

I have a copy of the King James Bible too, some Mormons gave it to me so I have it. I've looked through it but of course it's missing 6 books from the Old Testament. I read William Tynedale's Revelations on a website. His didn't have all the books either, I was hoping it would have Daniel but it didn't The differences in Revelations are negligible in Tynedales, but the KJV wasn't as readable.

Whether it's 'him' or 'her' is like night and day, it's a pretty important discrepancy, this particular passage in Genesis by no coincidence claimed in support of dogma. I don't have my scanner hooked up or I'd prove that my 1961 Challoner Rheims Douay says 'him' not 'her'. It wouldn't make any sense if it was 'her'. Anyhow, one or the other is wrong so there goes that 'infallibility'..

Good morning, Dominion and everyone here, on this beautiful Christmas Eve morning.

Dominion, the Bible is not infallible, it is inerrant. Protestants say it’s infallible, but that implies that the Bible can decide doctrine on its own. It doesn’t. The teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Church, using the inerrant Bible decide truth.

While we believe the Bible itself, the written Word of God is inerrant, breathed from the Holy Spirit, in its original Greek and Hebrew, Bible translations are never claimed to be inerrant or infallible. The Church has only claimed infallibility on the Bible canon, list of Scriptural books, decided in the 4th century and still our canon today. (Which I am pleased to see you share with us. Something I’ve never heard of any Protestant or nondenominational. I am very curious as to what your actual beliefs are. You say you are not Protestant. Are you nondenominational still holding some Catholic beliefs? Or do you still consider yourself a Catholic, but don’t believe all the doctrine? Are you agnostic?)

So the Church published the Vulgate, but never said the translation was infallible. Only the list of books that were allowed to be read at all Christian Masses was infallible. This is the list in Catholic Bibles. And a few copies of the Vulgate had one or two non canonical books inserted between the Old and New testament or in the appendix. But again, they were not considered Scriptural by the Church. (I think it was the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 or 4 Esdras.)

The Church has an official translation it uses, such as the Septuagint for the Old Testament, but never claimed any translation was infallible.

Merry Christmas to you and to everyone here.
God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

The beast is a symbol of global military conquest and tyranny. The seven heads were seven countries, the last one being Germany. This head had the wound of the sword yet lived. Germany was defeated in WWI but rose again as Nazi Germany. Germany was the seventh head. The name of Imperial Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm was 'Deutsches Reich'. This is the name of the beast. Using the German alphabet, which has 30 letters, the numbers of the letters in 'Deutsches Reich' add up to 6. World War I began when Germany attacked Russia on August 1, 1914. This date adds up to 6 and was a Saturday, the 6th day of the week.

As far as I know I am the first to solve this riddle. It means that John really did see the future, and that there really is a God.

Happy Boxing Day

Dominion wrote:The beast is a symbol of global military conquest and tyranny. The seven heads were seven countries, the last one being Germany. This head had the wound of the sword yet lived. Germany was defeated in WWI but rose again as Nazi Germany. Germany was the seventh head. The name of Imperial Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm was 'Deutsches Reich'. This is the name of the beast. Using the German alphabet, which has 30 letters, the numbers of the letters in 'Deutsches Reich' add up to 6. World War I began when Germany attacked Russia on August 1, 1914. This date adds up to 6 and was a Saturday, the 6th day of the week.

As far as I know I am the first to solve this riddle. It means that John really did see the future, and that there really is a God.

Happy Boxing Day

Hmmm... Saturday is the 7th day of the week Sunday being the first.

You're not that dumb, don't assume I am either. Sunday is universally accepted as the Sabbath, therefore the seventh day. The order of days on the calendar is immaterial.

Dominion wrote:You're not that dumb, don't assume I am either. Sunday is universally accepted as the Sabbath, therefore the seventh day. The order of days on the calendar is immaterial.

Seems like the majority of the Christian world considers Sunday the first day:
"The international standard ISO 8601 for Representation of dates and times states that Monday is the first day of the week. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition Sunday has been considered as the first day of the week. In European countries calendars almost always show Monday as the first day of the week.[6] There are also countries where both types of calendar can be found, which causes trouble for computer software that attempts to determine a user's calendrical preferences based purely on their location.

A number of languages appear to reflect Sunday's status as the first day of the week. In Greek, the names of the days Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday ("Δευτέρα, "Τρίτη,", "Τετάρτη," and "Πέμπτη") mean "second," "third", "fourth", and "fifth," respectively. This suggests that Sunday was once counted as "Πρώτη," that is, "first." The current Greek name for Sunday, Κυριακή, means "Lord's Day". Similarly in Vietnamese, the working days in the week are named as: "Thứ Hai" (second), "Thứ Ba" (third), "Thứ Tư" (fourth), "Thứ Năm" (fifth), "Thứ Sáu" (sixth), "Thứ Bảy" (seventh). Sunday is called "Chủ Nhật," a corrupted form of "Chúa Nhật" meaning "Lord's Day." Some colloquial text in the south of Vietnam and from the church may still use the old form to mean Sunday.

A similar system of naming days of the week occurs in Portuguese. Monday is "segunda-feira," which means "second day," also showing Sunday ("domingo") to be counted as the first day. Modern Latin uses "feria secunda" for Monday.

In the Maltese language, due to its Siculo-Arabic origin, Sunday is called "Il-Ħadd," a corruption of "wieħed" meaning "one." Monday is "It-Tnejn" meaning "two." Similarly Tuesday is "It-Tlieta" (three), Wednesday is "L-Erbgħa" (four) and Thursday is "Il-Ħamis" (five).

In Armenian, Monday is (Erkushabti)literally meaning 2nd day of the week, Tuesday (Erekshabti) 3rd day, Wednesday (Chorekshabti) 4th day, Thursday (Hingshabti) 5th day. Saturday is (Shabat) coming from the word Sabbath or Shabbath in Jewish, And "Kiraki" coming from the word "Krak" meaning "fire" is Sunday, "Krak" describing the sun by fire. The Apostle John also refers to the "Lord's Day" ("kuriake hemera") in Rev. 1:10. "Kuriake," meaning "Lord's," later became the Greek and Armenian word for Sunday.

Slavic languages implicitly number Monday as day number one, not two. For example, Polish has "wtorek" (2nd) for Tuesday, "czwartek" (4th) for Thursday and "piątek" (5th) for Friday. Although "Monday" in Polish is "poniedziałek", which means "a day after Sunday (Niedziela)". Hungarian péntek (Friday) is a Slavic loanword, so the correlation with "five" is not evident to Hungarian speakers."https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sunday

Seems like only the Slavic countries changed but the others kept Sunday as the first of the week.
It is the secular society that has taken Sunday from the first day of the week to the last, by ISO in 1988.

LOL, you gotta be kidding me. The Sabbath is the seventh day. Sunday is the Sabbath. Saturday is the sixth day, the day before the Sabbath. Duh.

Dominion wrote:LOL, you gotta be kidding me. The Sabbath is the seventh day. Sunday is the Sabbath. Saturday is the sixth day, the day before the Sabbath. Duh.

By what authority do you say it is the 7th day? Could you back up your statement?

All right then Duckbill, what day is Saturday?

OMFLOLL, I can't believe i just asked what day is Saturday!! LOLLL, sad.

Dominion,

DB is absolutely correct. Christians since the time the Apostles have called Sunday the first day of the week and called it the Sabbath. Not only the early Church Fathers, but the New Testament itself (St. Luke and St. Paul) calls it “the first day of the week.” That is the Word of God. Not our words. That you choose to call the Christian Sabbath the 7th day is up to you. But don’t mock DB or any other Christian who follows God's Word and doesn’t feel your words equal to God’s. We don’t make this stuff up on our own like you seem to.

You say, “as far as I know I am the first to solve this riddle.”

That is Gnosticism. Christianity is not Gnostic. The Lord God publicly revealed what mankind needed to know and this public revelation is found in His Church and His Holy Scriptures since the time of the Apostles to today. No more public revelation since the time of the Apostles.

What you believe in seems to be your own pride that you have some keen intellect and God has chosen you to figure this whole thing out on your own and give you some secret knowledge. That is Gnosticism. It is not Christian.

The Bible says "the Lord’s Day," the Christian Sabbath, is “first day of the week.” The Christian Church during the time of the Apostles by God’s authority changed the Sabbath day to the day Christ rose, “the first day of the week,” the day after the Jewish Sabbath, the seventh day.

A different Sabbath day doesn’t change what day of the week it is called. God rested on the 7th day, the Jewish Sabbath day, and God rose from the dead on the first day, the Christian Sabbath day. Old Covenant and New Covenant. Jesus said, “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” God made the first day of the week for the Christian Sabbath.

You are entitled to your beliefs. I feel no personal call to dissuade you from them. But maybe a little less attitude to our friend Duckbill is in order. DB is right and has patiently engaged you in conversation. God bless him/her.

And may the Lord God bless you and help you.

Apocalypse 13, 18 Here is wisdom. He who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man; and its number is six hundred and sixty-six.

The number of the beast is the number of a man. This means that the beast's number is calculated as is a man's number. A man's number consists of three digits; the first is the number of the letters in his name added together and the digits added together until arriving at a single digit. The other two numbers are his date of birth reduced to a single digit, and the day of the week of his birthday.

The beast is not a man. The beast is a symbol of a country imposing tyranny through war over the whole world, or nearly the whole world. Seven countries have done that throughout history since Daniel. These were Babylon, Persia, Media, Greece, Egypt/Syria, Rome, and Germany. Each of the seven heads represents one of these countries. An angel said to John in Apocalypse 17, 10 that five had fallen, one is and the other had not yet come. The one that existed at the time was Rome. The one to come was Germany. This was the head that had the wound of the sword and was killed but rose again with its deadly wound healed.

Germany started World War 1 on August 1, 1914. On this date Germany became the beast. The digits of this date add up to 6 and it was a Saturday, the 6th day. The official name of Germany in German was Deutsches Reich. The letters of this name, using the 30-letter German alphabet, add up to 6. 'Deutsches Reich' is therefore the name of the beast, 'born' on August 1, 1914. This is the answer to the riddle of the 666.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Reich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_alphabet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914

Germany rose again restored and re-armed to launch World War 2. This beast made everyone worship the first beast, the glorious military heritage of the Fatherland. This nationalism was perhaps more effective motivation than the personalities of the Kaiser or Hitler, but swearing allegiance to either Germany or Hitler was to put it or him before God. This is what is meant by the mark of the beast in Apocalypse 13, 16,17. The forehead represents the mind, or belief; the right hand represents the will or the choice, the authority of a man. If Hitler couldn't make everyone believe in his fascism then he could still make them obey.

In Apocalypse 13, 15 it says that it was permitted that life should be given to the image of the beast that it could both speak and cause for people to be killed who wouldn't worship the beast. This was the advent of motion pictures and the Nazi propaganda films. People went along with it all, and anyone who wouldn't was an enemy of the state. The things that the Nazis did should make it obvious that this was the beast's dark kingdom.

The events depicted in Revelations, when one understands the meaning of the various symbols, corresponds to the first and second world wars, the restoration of Israel, the cold war, and apparently the second coming of Christ is still to come.

In light of this number of the beast turning out to be real, it is fair to say that John really could see the future almost 2000 years ago and that this is proof of God.