Anonymous: I notice that you left untouched
the last paragraph of Gerry Soliman’s post. Don’t get me wrong, I mean why?
What about Revelations 11:19 to
12:1 wherein the Ark was seen in Heaven and the continuing verses in chapter 12
notes a woman who gave birth to the Savior? It doesn't follow. In
Revelations 12:2 the woman cried out in pain while giving birth. Birth
pains is the punishment of Eve's sin (Genesis 3:16). To say that the
woman in Revelations 12 is Mary, it jeopardizes the Immaculate Conception where
Mary is said to be free from sin. Historically, the woman in
Revelations 12 is interpreted as the people of God.
Yes.
I did it with purpose – to show how some people doesn't want to accept the truth.
[Mr.
Soliman’s words are in Red]
In
fact, this is not new; Mr. Soliman already raised this question to Atty. Mars,
a well known Catholic Apologist. On Atty. Mars’ blog comments section dated November
4, 2009, Mr. Soliman wrote:
“Your article here identifies
Mary as the woman in Revelations 12:1ff. I would like to ask if this in
any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished
Eve by increasing her birth pains.”
Here’s
an excerpt from Atty. Mars’ response:
Now
let’s turn to Mr. Soliman’s question. He said: “I would
like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?
As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.”
The
real concern of Mr. Soliman, based on his question, is to debunk the dogma of
the Immaculate Conception. Of course, we know that in Genesis 3:16, God cursed
the fallen Eve with the words: “I will greatly
increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” So,
Mr. Soliman’s point really is: if Mary is free from original sin, then she
should be free from child-bearing pains; but, if the woman in Revelation 12 is
Mary, why did she cry out in pain as she was about to give birth? (Rev. 12:2).
To
answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the
dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t
interpret it literally. In his comment in my blog article, Mr. Soliman said, “I
don't interpret it literally …” to which I replied that “there are points of
agreement already between his position and ours.”
I
hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally.
And so do we. From this point of agreement, I shall explain why, from the
Catholic view, Revelation 12:2 does not affect the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception.
We
Catholics do recognize the fact that, as stated in Revelation 12:2, there are
indeed “labor pains.” But what are these labor pains? Author John McHugh who
sees Mary not as the primary ‘woman’ of Revelation 12 but still sees her as the
woman in a secondary manner, notes:
“The woman, we read was ‘in
anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here
translated ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek
verb here translated ‘in anguish’ is never once used in the Septuagint, the New
Testament, the apocrypha, the papyri or the Fathers to denote the pains of
physical birth; and this is all the more remarkable when one remembers the
scene of a painful birth is alluded to in these writings. The word can perhaps best be rendered as ‘going through torment or
torture’, and it is therefore a very surprising verb to encounter when one
recalls the radiant description of the woman in 12:1” [John McHugh, The Mother
of Jesus in the New Testament (Doubleday & Company, Inc.: Garden City, NY,
1975) p.411].
Indeed,
Revelation 12:2 does not show that the woman is experiencing physical labor
pains, and if the author of the Apocalypse had wanted to say so, he would have
certainly used such language. Instead, here it seems that the Seer of Patmos is
speaking of a double birth. The pain the woman is suffering here is not
indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her
Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.
Catholic
Biblical exegete Fr. Stefano Manelli, explains –
“The pains of childbirth of the “woman”
seem to constitute a particular problem, if they are referred to the virginal
childbirth of Mary at Bethlehem. If instead, they are referred to the
childbirth of Mary on Calvary, where she is constituted “truly the mother of
the members of Christ”, as St. Augustine affirms (quoted by Lumen Gentium, no.
53), then we too can understand with other exegetes, among them D. Squillaci,
that to our Lady “is to be ascribed a double childbirth: one natural and
virginal, by which without pain or injury of any kind, she begot the Son of God
the physical Christ: the other spiritual, by means of which on Calvary, uniting
her sufferings to those of the Redeemer, she begot the Mystical Body of Christ.
According to R. Laurentin, the difficulty
over the pains of childbirth on the part of the “woman” of Revelation can be
eliminated by a comparison:
“In Apoc. 5:6 Christ appears in heaven in
the form of an immolated lamb (cf. Jn 19:36). The sufferings of the woman who
also appears in heaven in Apoc 12:2, stands in relation to the immolation of
the celestial Lamb. Thus, in the 12th chapter of Apocalypse, the reference is
not to the childbirth at Bethlehem, but to the words of Christ on the cross:
“Son, behold your Mother” (Jn 19:26). It is a question of the spiritual
motherhood of Mary and of the compassion with which the Mother of Jesus shares
in the sufferings of the immolated Lamb. Jn 12:9 and Apoc 12 are therefore, in
strict relation to one another. In each passage Mary’s motherhood in relation
to the disciples entails a context of suffering (Jn. 19:25; Apoc 12:2)”
[Stefano Manelli,FFI, All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed (New Bedford,
Massachusetts: Academy of the Immaculate, 1995), pp. 356-357].
Expounding
on this, a Catholic apologist explains –
“Thus, here John is speaking about a
different type of suffering. Thus, for example, in Gal 4:19, Paul was in birth
pains until Christ was formed within his readers. Also, Rom. 8:22 shows ‘All
creation has been groaning in travail together until now.’ When speaking about
Lot who was the only righteous one in Sodom and Gomorra, it says that ‘he was
vexed by his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds). Thus, the
suffering can be spiritual. So how does this relate to Mary? Mary gives birth
to Christ, and his sufferings on Calvary. Well, there was a a prophecy given by
Simeon, in Luke 2:34-35 that speaks to this very issue, as brought up in Rev.
12:2:
34 and Simeon blessed them
and said to Mary his mother,
"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and
for a sign that is spoken against 35 (and
a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many
hearts may be revealed."
So Mary underwent the spiritual suffering
at Calvary. Her soul was pierced when she saw her Son die on the cross. There
is a richness in Luke 2:34-35, which shows how Mary suffered. But not only on
the cross. John McHugh notes that the traditional classical interpretation in
Catholic thought is that the sword signifies the suffering felt by Mary as she
stood by the cross, watching the death-agony of her son. McHugh gives a lot of
evidence to say that the suffering of Mary speaks to much more than that (pages
104-112 of his book), but also in Lk. 2:35:
The ‘classical interpretation’ of Lk 2:35a
(that Mary was suffering watching the suffering of Christ on the cross) may
therefore be restated with this perspective of Luke in mind. ‘Thou thyself, O
Israel, shall feel a sword pass through they soul.’ Mary as an individual had
rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to
Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of
her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to
the world (cf. once more the Magnificat). Yet in the course of Jesus‘ public
life she had to watch the mounting opposition to her son, and knew that the
leaders of Israel were thereby turning against their saviour. Her mental
sufferings reached a climax on Calvary, but they had begun long before. And
even at the foot of the cross, she suffered a double agony. She watched the
physical torment and heard the mockery directed at Jesus, her son but in
addition she had the far greater sorrow of knowing that the appointed leaders
of God‘s chosen people had refused the message of salvation” [citing John
McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975), p. 111].
In
conclusion, the online Catholic apologist states –
Thus, this directly speaks to the issue of
Revelation 12. Now, we also saw in Revelation 12 that right after speaking
about her suffering in v. 2, it speaks to the dragon chasing the woman and the
child, seeking to devour them. Her child is caught up to the throne. Thus, it
speaks to his both resurrection and ascension into heaven. This is done after
the fact of her suffering. Thus, the suffering pointed to in Revelation 12:2
points exactly to the suffering that she entailed when seeing the rejection of
her Son, that reached its fulfillment on the cross. In addition to this, we see
her as the Spiritual mother of all of Christ’s children (Jn. 19:27, Rev.
12:17). Now, as Mary is still the only one who is Jesus’ mother, this shows a
double birth, both a physical birth of Christ, and a spiritual birth, where she
begets the children of Christ. That brings with it also a painful spiritual
childbirth, as we have seen in other passages which show spiritual suffering (2
Pet. 2:8, Gal. 4:19, Rom. 8:22)” (ibid).
[http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/08/woman-in-revelation-12-part-ii.html]
Now,
a simple analysis can be drawn:
Mr.
Soliman without presenting any counterargument on why he didn’t believe as such
and Instead of answering Atty. Mars’ rebuttal [that the phrase birth pain in Revelation 12:2 does
not imply physical labor pain as
mentioned in Genesis 3:16] and to propose new line of argument/s; he only repeats
what he says [his broken line] almost
three years now.
It reminds me of an Old Fashion style Bigotry!
Bigotry can be simplified here:
If the
answer is not A, he is correct and you are wrong;
If the
answer is not blue, he is correct and you are wrong;
He will not give you why he is
correct, for him he is correct and you are wrong.
"The mind of a bigot is
like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will
contract." -
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
By the way on his claim that
the woman in Revelation Chapter 12 is
referred to the people of God,
well I don’t argue with that because we Catholic see that as (a) Israel (b) The
Church and (c) Mary:
When the Book of Revelation speaks of the great sign of a Woman
appearing in heaven, she is understood to represent all Israel, indeed, the
whole Church. . . .
On the basis of the “corporate personality” model—in keeping
with biblical thought—the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the
Woman, on the one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time,
the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into
history [Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 2:222].
This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at
the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all
times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ
ever anew [Pope Benedict XVI General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us. [1John 2:18-19]
ReplyDelete[Mr. Soliman without presenting any counterargument on why he didn’t believe as such and Instead of answering Atty. Mars’ rebuttal [that the phrase birth pain in Revelation 12:2 does not imply physical labor pain as mentioned in Genesis 3:16] and to propose new line of argument/s; he only repeats what he says [his broken line] almost three years now.]
ReplyDeleteYou lie. He has a response: http://www.solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html
[You lie. He has a response: http://www.solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html]
ReplyDeleteI know he has a response, but what I am looking for is his COUNTERARGUMENT
[Mr. Soliman without presenting any COUNTERARGUMENT on why he didn’t believe as such and Instead of answering Atty. Mars’ rebuttal [that the phrase birth pain in Revelation 12:2 does not imply physical labor pain as mentioned in Genesis 3:16] and to propose new line of argument/s; he only repeats what he says [his broken line] almost three years now.]
on the issue of Birth Pain this is only he can say on that article you post:
"The interpretation is so far-fetched. For those who depict that the other verses surrounding it pertains to the birth of Christ (specially 12:5), they will find it hard to explain why the interpretations switch back and forth from the birth of Christ, to His suffering, and back to His birth again. What's the obvious reason? To avoid compromising the Immaculate Conception."
Did he gave a COUNTERARGUMENT? DUH!
Here's what COUNTERARGUMENT I was talking to.
ReplyDeleteCounter-argument:
Rebuttal which also serves as introduction and which would usually include the thesis statement
Supporting point #1
Supporting point #2
Supporting point #3
Supporting point #4
[there can be any number of supporting points]
Conclusion
Sir I am quite confuse, response is not a counterargument?
ReplyDeleteLet me help you (I will give here sample)
ReplyDeleteArgument: All square has only three corners [supporting point #1]
Non-Response: Blank [No letters/words/character]
Response: (a) Wrong (b) Non-Sense (c) I don’t want to give an answer for this (d) X (e) 8889779 (f) I don’t agree to him (g) ABCD (h) This is wrong [supporting point#1, #2,#3 and so on] and this is a conclusion.
As you can see, Non-Response is different from Response. But there are lots/various kind of response: a-h.
Now, Response (a) to (g) is a response BUT NOT A COUNTERARGUMENT. But RESPONSE (h) is different, it is a COUNTERARGUMENT.
All COUNTERARGUMENT IS A RESPONSE BUT NOT ALL RESPONSE IS COUNTERARGUMENT