More than a year ago I read an article written by Atty. Marwil Llasos which identifies the Woman of Revelations 12 as Mary. I asked him if the birth pains in verse two would in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception since God punished Eve with increased birth pains due to sin. For those who don't know the issue yet, Revelations 12 is quoted by Roman Catholic apologists to support, among others, the Marian doctrines of her Assumption and Coronation. The problem with the chapter is on verse two where the woman is found to be in labor pains while giving birth to a child. So if Roman Catholics interpret the woman as Mary, would it be at the expense of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Almost a year after that, Atty. Llasos responded to my question with an article (see here).
Before we go on with our response I would like to thank Atty. Llasos for his time and attention to my query. I would also like to apologize for not thanking him sooner and providing an immediate response.
I was only able to make short articles on how he contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical. A few months after that, Atty. Llasos responded to me including an accusation of intellectual dishonesty. For this article, we will divide my response into sections.
A. Birth Pains
To summarize Atty. Llasos response, the birth pains in verse two is not literal. Rather, it's Mary's suffering as she witnessed her Son suffering on Calvary:
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.
As I have argued before, there is no official interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary. Neither were there church fathers during that time ever interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary. Atty. Llasos hides behind the reason that, and we quote, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church (we'll get back to this statement later).
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.
Roman Catholics often times relate their interpretation of Revelations 12 with their interpretation of other verses. For example, in 12:1 the term woman (who is Mary for them) has something to do with the term woman in Genesis 3:15 thereby affirming that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy fulfilled in Mary. Another they relate 12:17 with John 19:26-27 to affirm Mary's spiritual motherhood. These are questionable interpretations connected to more questionable interpretations.
Furthermore, if they can interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as an individual woman, how come we don't see any effort to allude an individual woman for Revelations 17? It can't be done, or they just don't want to?
This is what happens when Roman Catholic traditions influence biblical interpretations. The woman of Revelations 12 has been interpreted historically as people of God. It is only when one is influenced by Roman tradition that an allusion to Mary becomes the product.
B. Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus
For someone who states "Father knows best" in some of his articles to note that Church Fathers believe the Marian doctrines and for someone who believes that, "a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself", Atty. Llasos obviously had a hard time proving that the Woman of Revelations 12 as Mary is known to the early Church Fathers.
The most that he can do is to quote Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus of the 5th to 6th century to prove that it is "well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church". It makes me ask: Do these two men represent the unanimous consent of the church fathers? Let's not forget the principle that Atty. Llasos quoted from his comrade, Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad:
Thus, the reason why the Fathers are always read not in isolation, but always in the context of the testimony of all the other Church Fathers. Where sufficient Church Fathers from the very first century of the Church down to the sunset of the Patristic age (c. 8th century) testify to the truthfulness of a certain teaching, then we may be certain that it is the authentic tradition handed down from the Apostles. To repeat: a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself, but an unbroken chain of testimonies from one Father to the next is not to be contradicted.
So where are the unanimous quotations from the 1st to 4th (if you prefer up to 8th) century church fathers, Atty. Llasos?
C. The Canon not finally settled before the 4th Century
Due to lack of evidence during the first 300 years of the church, Atty. Llasos made this amazing excuse:
Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that. And more importantly, there was no Christian canon of Scripture yet at that time! It is crazy for Gerry Soliman to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed!
This point of Mr. Soliman is a non-issue. As already stated, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church. How could there possibly be an interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary when the very inclusion of the Book of Revelation into the canon was itself being debated!
Granting that there was no final canon before the 4th century, is Atty. Llasos telling here no one believes that the Book of Revelations were inspired? I'm sure he doesn't mean that. Whatever happened to the so-called infallible church? Is there no infallible bishop who is able to recognize the writings of the apostle John after 70AD?
Has it occur to Atty. Llasos that there is at least one writer during the 2nd and 3rd century, Hippolytus, who identified the woman as the church:
“Now, concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus: “And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun ...By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist).
So if the canon is being debated, why are there people like Hippolytus who gave an identification of the woman?
D. Tim Perry and the World Evangelical Fellowship
Lately, Atty. Llasos has been quoting the works of Tim Perry (Mary for Evangelicals) to prove that there are Evangelicals who agrees with his view. Atty. Llasos states:
I could hear Gerry Soliman’s rebuttal: “But Tim Perry is ecumenical!” So what? He reads the same Bible as you do but how come he arrived at a different conclusion? That should give you more head ache.
Atty. Llasos might as well pit me against the Iglesia ni Cristo or some other cults who use the 66 book Bible. I could pit Atty. Llasos against Traditional Catholics but that wouldn't be honest. Here, Atty. Llasos commits the fallacy of treating Dr. Perry as someone who represents all Evangelicals, worse an authority for all Evangelicals.
He also quotes the writings of the members of the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) and some other Evangelicals who are in opposition to what I believe. Unfortunately, I can't verify as of the moment the writings of such Evangelicals as I don't have copies of it. It is possible that they were taken out of context, though I have yet to read their writings. But one thing is for sure, they don't represent all Evangelicals.
E. Intellectual Dishonesty
Most of the articles written by Atty. Llasos in response to me have ad hominem attacks. To the gullible, ad hominem attacks are enough to prove the opposition wrong.
Atty. Llasos and others accuse me of intellectual dishonesty for my article, Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical or Literal? He explains:
It is obvious from the context that I was explaining “birth pains” and not the identity of the apocalyptic “woman.”
He asserts that Fr. Abe is talking about the identity of the woman. In response, refer to the comments section here.
Fr. Abe posed a challenge:
It seems that Mr. Soliman is objecting to Atty. LLasos' position that the Woman in Rev. 12 is Mary, the Mother of Jesus. If that is the case will he please be so kind to give us the IDENTITY of THE WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN.
I am eager to see if HIS WOMAN suffered birth pangs while giving birth to the Male-Child 'destined' to rule all nations with a scepter of iron.
He challenged me to identify the woman who suffered birth pains. A short discussion occurred after that. Now look at the exegesis of Fr. Abe:
Second, in verse 18 [second line] your woman gave birth to THE WIND AND NOT TO THE MALE-CHILD DESTINED TO RULE THE WORLD WITH A SCEPTER OF IRON. He, he, he... While the Woman of Rev. 12 gave birth to a MALE CHILD... A HOLY CHILD WHO BELONGS TO GOD AND IS THE KING OF ALL.
The birth of your woman is an ILLUSION whether literal or symbolical. On the other hand, the birth delivered by The Woman Clothed with the Sun reflects the Messianic Hope brought forth by the Birth of JESUS. Definitely, that Male Child is the same with this one:
Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Is there any other Male-Child destined to rule the world with the sceptre of iron? Isn’t that Is. 9:6 is more appropriate for the child in Rev. 12:5 and both speaks of the Mother and Child announced by the Angel Gabriel?
This confirmed that Fr. Abe interprets the section of Revelations 12 as the birth of Christ. Now pay close attention to this statement of Fr. Abe:
So, it appears to me that your woman in Isaiah 26:16-18 doesn’t jibe with the Woman of Rev. 12. It doesn’t fit at all. Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah while the birth pain of your woman is caused by sinfulness.
In the response of Atty. Mars to my query, the birth pain symbolizes the suffering of Mary as she witnessed her Son crucified on the cross. Let's quote that again:
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.
But what we have read from Fr. Abe, it is a literal birth pain of Mary while giving birth to Jesus.
So when Fr. Abe said, "IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS," doesn't this mean the literal interpretation of the woman clothed with the sun includes the birth pains she experienced? One more time:
Fr. Abe: IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES
Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah
Atty. Llasos: we don’t interpret it literally
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.
Let the readers decide.
F. Unanswered Contradictions
We await on Atty. Llasos' response over the following contradictions:
1. Is Eliphaz good or bad? - versus Kapatas
2. Jesus, primary mediator or only mediator? - versus Fr. Abe Arganiosa
3. Bible version hopping - versus himself
Before we go on with our response I would like to thank Atty. Llasos for his time and attention to my query. I would also like to apologize for not thanking him sooner and providing an immediate response.
I was only able to make short articles on how he contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical. A few months after that, Atty. Llasos responded to me including an accusation of intellectual dishonesty. For this article, we will divide my response into sections.
A. Birth Pains
To summarize Atty. Llasos response, the birth pains in verse two is not literal. Rather, it's Mary's suffering as she witnessed her Son suffering on Calvary:
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.
As I have argued before, there is no official interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary. Neither were there church fathers during that time ever interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary. Atty. Llasos hides behind the reason that, and we quote, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church (we'll get back to this statement later).
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.
Roman Catholics often times relate their interpretation of Revelations 12 with their interpretation of other verses. For example, in 12:1 the term woman (who is Mary for them) has something to do with the term woman in Genesis 3:15 thereby affirming that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy fulfilled in Mary. Another they relate 12:17 with John 19:26-27 to affirm Mary's spiritual motherhood. These are questionable interpretations connected to more questionable interpretations.
Furthermore, if they can interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as an individual woman, how come we don't see any effort to allude an individual woman for Revelations 17? It can't be done, or they just don't want to?
This is what happens when Roman Catholic traditions influence biblical interpretations. The woman of Revelations 12 has been interpreted historically as people of God. It is only when one is influenced by Roman tradition that an allusion to Mary becomes the product.
B. Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus
For someone who states "Father knows best" in some of his articles to note that Church Fathers believe the Marian doctrines and for someone who believes that, "a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself", Atty. Llasos obviously had a hard time proving that the Woman of Revelations 12 as Mary is known to the early Church Fathers.
The most that he can do is to quote Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus of the 5th to 6th century to prove that it is "well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church". It makes me ask: Do these two men represent the unanimous consent of the church fathers? Let's not forget the principle that Atty. Llasos quoted from his comrade, Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad:
Thus, the reason why the Fathers are always read not in isolation, but always in the context of the testimony of all the other Church Fathers. Where sufficient Church Fathers from the very first century of the Church down to the sunset of the Patristic age (c. 8th century) testify to the truthfulness of a certain teaching, then we may be certain that it is the authentic tradition handed down from the Apostles. To repeat: a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself, but an unbroken chain of testimonies from one Father to the next is not to be contradicted.
So where are the unanimous quotations from the 1st to 4th (if you prefer up to 8th) century church fathers, Atty. Llasos?
C. The Canon not finally settled before the 4th Century
Due to lack of evidence during the first 300 years of the church, Atty. Llasos made this amazing excuse:
Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that. And more importantly, there was no Christian canon of Scripture yet at that time! It is crazy for Gerry Soliman to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed!
This point of Mr. Soliman is a non-issue. As already stated, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church. How could there possibly be an interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary when the very inclusion of the Book of Revelation into the canon was itself being debated!
Granting that there was no final canon before the 4th century, is Atty. Llasos telling here no one believes that the Book of Revelations were inspired? I'm sure he doesn't mean that. Whatever happened to the so-called infallible church? Is there no infallible bishop who is able to recognize the writings of the apostle John after 70AD?
Has it occur to Atty. Llasos that there is at least one writer during the 2nd and 3rd century, Hippolytus, who identified the woman as the church:
“Now, concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus: “And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun ...By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist).
So if the canon is being debated, why are there people like Hippolytus who gave an identification of the woman?
D. Tim Perry and the World Evangelical Fellowship
Lately, Atty. Llasos has been quoting the works of Tim Perry (Mary for Evangelicals) to prove that there are Evangelicals who agrees with his view. Atty. Llasos states:
I could hear Gerry Soliman’s rebuttal: “But Tim Perry is ecumenical!” So what? He reads the same Bible as you do but how come he arrived at a different conclusion? That should give you more head ache.
Atty. Llasos might as well pit me against the Iglesia ni Cristo or some other cults who use the 66 book Bible. I could pit Atty. Llasos against Traditional Catholics but that wouldn't be honest. Here, Atty. Llasos commits the fallacy of treating Dr. Perry as someone who represents all Evangelicals, worse an authority for all Evangelicals.
He also quotes the writings of the members of the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) and some other Evangelicals who are in opposition to what I believe. Unfortunately, I can't verify as of the moment the writings of such Evangelicals as I don't have copies of it. It is possible that they were taken out of context, though I have yet to read their writings. But one thing is for sure, they don't represent all Evangelicals.
E. Intellectual Dishonesty
Most of the articles written by Atty. Llasos in response to me have ad hominem attacks. To the gullible, ad hominem attacks are enough to prove the opposition wrong.
Atty. Llasos and others accuse me of intellectual dishonesty for my article, Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical or Literal? He explains:
It is obvious from the context that I was explaining “birth pains” and not the identity of the apocalyptic “woman.”
He asserts that Fr. Abe is talking about the identity of the woman. In response, refer to the comments section here.
Fr. Abe posed a challenge:
It seems that Mr. Soliman is objecting to Atty. LLasos' position that the Woman in Rev. 12 is Mary, the Mother of Jesus. If that is the case will he please be so kind to give us the IDENTITY of THE WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN.
I am eager to see if HIS WOMAN suffered birth pangs while giving birth to the Male-Child 'destined' to rule all nations with a scepter of iron.
He challenged me to identify the woman who suffered birth pains. A short discussion occurred after that. Now look at the exegesis of Fr. Abe:
Second, in verse 18 [second line] your woman gave birth to THE WIND AND NOT TO THE MALE-CHILD DESTINED TO RULE THE WORLD WITH A SCEPTER OF IRON. He, he, he... While the Woman of Rev. 12 gave birth to a MALE CHILD... A HOLY CHILD WHO BELONGS TO GOD AND IS THE KING OF ALL.
The birth of your woman is an ILLUSION whether literal or symbolical. On the other hand, the birth delivered by The Woman Clothed with the Sun reflects the Messianic Hope brought forth by the Birth of JESUS. Definitely, that Male Child is the same with this one:
Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Is there any other Male-Child destined to rule the world with the sceptre of iron? Isn’t that Is. 9:6 is more appropriate for the child in Rev. 12:5 and both speaks of the Mother and Child announced by the Angel Gabriel?
This confirmed that Fr. Abe interprets the section of Revelations 12 as the birth of Christ. Now pay close attention to this statement of Fr. Abe:
So, it appears to me that your woman in Isaiah 26:16-18 doesn’t jibe with the Woman of Rev. 12. It doesn’t fit at all. Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah while the birth pain of your woman is caused by sinfulness.
In the response of Atty. Mars to my query, the birth pain symbolizes the suffering of Mary as she witnessed her Son crucified on the cross. Let's quote that again:
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.
But what we have read from Fr. Abe, it is a literal birth pain of Mary while giving birth to Jesus.
So when Fr. Abe said, "IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS," doesn't this mean the literal interpretation of the woman clothed with the sun includes the birth pains she experienced? One more time:
Fr. Abe: IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES
Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah
Atty. Llasos: we don’t interpret it literally
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.
Let the readers decide.
F. Unanswered Contradictions
We await on Atty. Llasos' response over the following contradictions:
1. Is Eliphaz good or bad? - versus Kapatas
2. Jesus, primary mediator or only mediator? - versus Fr. Abe Arganiosa
3. Bible version hopping - versus himself
Hello, Gerry. I see you accept debate invitations. May I invite you to one please?
ReplyDeleteTopic: Is the ministerial priesthood Biblical?
Affirmative side: Gerry Soliman- Evangelical Christian
Negative side: Abraham V. Llera- Catholic
Opening statement: 2,000 words each side
First rebuttal: 2,000 words each side
Second rebuttal: 2,000 words each side
Cross examination 1,000 words each side of 5 questions
Closing statement 2,000 words each side
I'm sorry, Gerry, but I see nothing wrong with Marwil Llaso's explanations. Would you care to know why?
ReplyDeleteHi Abraham!
ReplyDelete[I see you accept debate invitations. May I invite you to one please?
Topic: Is the ministerial priesthood Biblical?]
Please excuse my limitations but what exactly do you mean by ministerial priesthood that we have in conflict? By the way, where would you be posting?
[I'm sorry, Gerry, but I see nothing wrong with Marwil Llaso's explanations. Would you care to know why?]
Feel free to state your mind.
Thanks.
Mr. Gerry,
ReplyDeleteThe woman St. John referred to in Revelations 12 has been interpreted by the infallible Catholic Church as both the Church and as Mary. Mary is the Mother of the Church. Since the entire book of Revelation is written in apocalyptic symbols, you have no way of knowing what the symbolism means except to accept the teaching of the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. It was written to the Church by a member of the Church, St. John the Apostle.
Anyway, Atty. Marwil Llaso is quite correct. Revelation was disputed right up to the end of the fourth century, when it was canonized by the Catholic Church.
It is ridiculous for someone 21 centuries later to be contesting the meaning of a symbolic writing when only the writer and those to whom it was written, know what it meant then and means today. So, the allegation that a symbolic writing disproves the doctrines of the Catholic Church is illogical.
Mr. Gerry, If you do believe and millions of the Protestants believe that your interpretations of the Bible are infallible or correct, then show us the proof. But I’m pretty sure, you can't prove it. Because your interpretation is only your own opinion, not a fact.
You know, an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the Apostles and their disciples) wrote the New Testament and the successors of the Apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon. If Scripture (the effect) is infallible, the Church (its cause) must also be infallible. Therefore, her (church) interpretation of her own writings is infallible.
And why do we have the book of Revelations today in our bible? Despite of the fact that it was disputed? The answer is simply because the Catholic Church says so.
Hi Milesawayman!
ReplyDeleteNo offense, but what you have written is a classic Roman Catholic argument. This was pretty obvious when you said, "the Catholic Church says so".
I'm not going to deal with Revelations 12 here as I am writing a response to Atty. Llasos' series of counterarguments and also I have a debate with Mr. Abraham Llera on Purgatory. So, you would have to wait. But I would like to pay attention to your adherence to what your church has told you.
Miles, whenever you say "the Catholic Chruch says so" do you take the time to analyze what she is feeding to you or do you just accept it unconditionally?
You claim that the church is infallible but how do you know that? What if another church comes along and say, "I am the infallible church and not the one in Rome," what do you do now? Making things difficult for you is that you are not infallible like me, and thus you have no certainty if your decision to side with Rome is correct.
So Miles, given the fact that you are not infallible, are you sure that you have identified the true church from among the other churches that interpret things for you?
The birth pangs as describe in Rev. 12: 2 has the relation with the giving birth of the people of God that comprises the New Jerusalem. Which in the old covenant the Israelites had been waiting for the coming of the Messiah since the time of Moses (Deut.18: 18-19)till the coming of the Messiah, for according to Jesus no one has come to the Father yet. It could be alluded to the House of David or the Bosom of Abraham whose souls (the elect) were still waiting for the Messiah so that they would be able to participate in the New Jerusalem together with the elects from different nations (Rev. 7: 9-10). A fullfillment of the prophesy in Isaiah 66: 8 that Zion will one day will have the birth of children.
ReplyDeleteBut the BVM here still is more and above than the House of David or the old Zion because from her were the blood and body of our Lord came from to atone for theirs and ours sins.
Gerry SAID:
ReplyDeleteNo offense, but what you have written is a classic Roman Catholic argument. This was pretty obvious when you said, "the Catholic Church says so".
My REPLY:
Since the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament, she knows what it means and you do not. Your opinion is just that -- another one among thousands of opinions.
Gerry SAID:
I'm not going to deal with Revelations 12 here as I am writing a response to Atty. Llasos' series of counterarguments and also I have a debate with Mr. Abraham Llera on Purgatory. So, you would have to wait. But I would like to pay attention to your adherence to what your church has told you.
Miles, whenever you say "the Catholic Chruch says so" do you take the time to analyze what she is feeding to you or do you just accept it unconditionally?
MY REPLY:
The Church is not "feeding me." She teaches me, which is one of the jobs given her by her founder, Jesus Christ.
Gerry SAID:
You claim that the church is infallible but how do you know that?
MY REPLY:
Because the New Testament says so, and the Catholic Church teaches that the NT is the Word of God, so I believe it. St. Paul wrote that the Church is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" 1 Tm 3:15. You don't believe that, even though you claim to be a "Bible-believer," but I do. St. Paul also said that the Church is the Bride of Christ and the very Body of Christ. I believe the NT. But you, sadly, do not. Christ said He would be with the Church ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD (Mt 28:20), and that He would send the Spirit to be with the Church ALWAYS, to guide her to all truth ALWAYS (Jn 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1, 15:28, and more).
And I know the Church is infallible because of the principle of causality: I've already written this on my previous post but you didn't seem to understand it. An effect cannot be greater than its cause. If the Scriptures (the effect) are infallible, the Catholic Church (the cause) must also be infallible. Get it? Either the Scriptures are not infallible and the Church is not infallible -- or -- the Church and her Scriptures are both infallible. That means she is preserved from teaching error in either doctrine or morals.
Protestants apparently believe the Bible fell out of the sky in the red-letter edition and God said: 'here's my word, figure out what it means for yourself.' Ludicrous. What good is an infallible book without an infallible interpreter and teacher? We know the answer to that! The result is thousands of Protestant denominations with thousands of interpretations.
To be continued on the next post...
continuation...
ReplyDeleteGerry SAID:
What if another church comes along and say, "I am the infallible church and not the one in Rome," what do you do now? Making things difficult for you is that you are not infallible like me, and thus you have no certainty if your decision to side with Rome is correct.
MY REPLY:
I have no fear of that. There is only one Church -- the infallible Catholic Church. All non-Catholic ecclesial communities think they are infallible in interpreting the Scriptures. Have you ever known or heard of a Church that admits, 'this is what we think the Bible means, but we could be wrong.' Nope. Not one. Not any one of the thousands of denominations that developed since the 16th century ever admits that. You, for example, hold that YOUR interpretation is correct, and that YOU can't be wrong. But you are. Any interpretation that is not in agreement with the teaching of the Catholic Church is wrong. Any writing that did not comport with the Church's teachings was excluded from the canon.
Gerry SAID:
So Miles, given the fact that you are not infallible, are you sure that you have identified the true church from among the other churches that interpret things for you?
MY REPLY:
Yes, I have identified the True Church. And I don't need to be infallible to recognize her. The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and can trace her history back in an unbroken continuum to Jesus and the Apostles. She is the Church written about in the NT. When she was nearly 400 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized 46 writings from the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia -- the Little Books -- the Bible.
Who founded your ecclesial community that you call 'church.' When? It was in or after the 16th century! And maybe the 20th century! It certainly wasn't founded by Christ!
Christ founded only one Church -- the Catholic Church. "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Church at Smyrna, A.D. 107. Ignatius' teacher and mentor, the Apostle John, died c. 100. This was written only 7 years after the death of the last Apostle.
Pax Christi,
milesawayman
--To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
What if another God comes along the way Mr. Soliman, what if another church to your liking
ReplyDeletecomes along the way Mr. Soliman. The buck has to stop somewhere Mr. Soliman. There has to he a reason why it stops there Mr. Soliman.
Teewee Diego
[Since the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament, she knows what it means and you do not. Your opinion is just that -- another one among thousands of opinions.]
ReplyDeleteSo you're following what she says without analyzing?
[The Church is not "feeding me." She teaches me, which is one of the jobs given her by her founder, Jesus Christ.]
Sorry but you didn't answer the question. Do you just accept what she teaches you without analyzing?
[Because the New Testament says so, and the Catholic Church teaches that the NT is the Word of God, so I believe it.]
Then you're arguing in circles. You said that it's your church wrote the NT but you also based your belief that the church is infallible because the NT says so.
[An effect cannot be greater than its cause. If the Scriptures (the effect) are infallible, the Catholic Church (the cause) must also be infallible. Get it? Either the Scriptures are not infallible and the Church is not infallible -- or -- the Church and her Scriptures are both infallible.]
Non-sequitir.
[Protestants apparently believe the Bible fell out of the sky in the red-letter edition and God said: 'here's my word, figure out what it means for yourself.' Ludicrous. What good is an infallible book without an infallible interpreter and teacher? We know the answer to that! The result is thousands of Protestant denominations with thousands of interpretations.]
We don't believe the Bible fell from the sky. We also don't believe that the church is infallible. God is infallible. Your problem is you merely picked a church and just accept whatever she says without thinking like a zombie.
Oh these thousands of denominations are your children because they follow the principle of infallible magisterium like yours.
[I have no fear of that. There is only one Church -- the infallible Catholic Church. All non-Catholic ecclesial communities think they are infallible in interpreting the Scriptures. Have you ever known or heard of a Church that admits, 'this is what we think the Bible means, but we could be wrong.' Nope. Not one. Not any one of the thousands of denominations that developed since the 16th century ever admits that. You, for example, hold that YOUR interpretation is correct, and that YOU can't be wrong. But you are. Any interpretation that is not in agreement with the teaching of the Catholic Church is wrong. Any writing that did not comport with the Church's teachings was excluded from the canon.]
ReplyDeleteWell obviously you started off with the fixed premise that the only true church is the church of Rome. If you're objective about it, you will have to subject her among the other churches that claims to be established by Christ. Obviously, you're biased here.
[Yes, I have identified the True Church. And I don't need to be infallible to recognize her. The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and can trace her history back in an unbroken continuum to Jesus and the Apostles. She is the Church written about in the NT. When she was nearly 400 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized 46 writings from the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia -- the Little Books -- the Bible.]
Well, you're being biased. You Catholics claim that since Protestants do not have an infallible interpreter we can't be sure if we're understanding the Bible correctly. But now you say you don't need to be infallible to determine the infallible church. Face it Miles, you're not taking an objective stance here. You are scrutinizing other churches based on the standards set by your own church but you don't scrutinize your own church. There is no objectivity in what you're doing.
[--To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.]
To be deep in Scriptures is never to becoming Roman Catholic
What if another God comes along the way Mr. Soliman, what if another church to your liking
ReplyDeletecomes along the way Mr. Soliman. The buck has to stop somewhere Mr. Soliman. There has to he a reason why it stops there Mr. Soliman.
Teewee Diego]
Yeah, it's stops at the Scriptures.
Mr. Gerry,
ReplyDeleteThe typical Protestant view is that the only reliable, infallible source of Divine Revelation is the Bible. That notion is not biblical (e.g., it is not found anywhere in the Bible) and therefore is self-contradictory. The idea that Scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice was first introduced in the 16th century by the Protestant Deformation. No Christian believed it before Martin Luther taught it. Protestants also hold that the individual Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the authoritative interpreter of the Bible. That, too, comes from Luther and the 16th century.
GERRY SAID:
So you're following what she says without analyzing?
MY REPLY:
I am following what the Church teaches because that's what the Apostles taught.
The Church who wrote the New Testament has known for 21 centuries what her own words mean. I don't need to analyze it. Protestants have split into more than 40,000 denominations with at least 40,000 conflicting and competing interpretations as a result of analyzing it.
GERRY SAID:
Sorry but you didn't answer the question. Do you just accept what she teaches you without analyzing?
MY REPLY:
The teaching of the Church is the teaching of the Apostles. The doctrines the Apostles taught the Church are the ones they learned from Christ who ordered them to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD" Mt 28:20 KJV. So Christ is still present in His Church. Do the teachings of Christ need to be analyzed?
Jesus did not say, "read this book and analyze it." Jesus didn't leave us a book -- He left us the Church as our teacher. The Church, under the guidance of the Spirit, gave us the book.
GERRY SAID:
Then you're arguing in circles. You said that it's your church wrote the NT but you also based your belief that the church is infallible because the NT says so.
MY REPLY:
The NT does not say the Church is infallible. It says she is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the TRUTH" 1 Tim 3:15. I know the Church is infallible because (1) she was founded by Christ to teach (Mt. 28:20); (2) Christ promised to remain with the Church "ALWAYS, UNTIL THE END OF TIME (Mt 28:20); (3) Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church ALWAYS (John 4:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-5; et al. (4) THE SCRIPTURES ARE INFALLIBLE. The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit, God Himself, who guides her is infallible. The Scriptures are infallible because they are "inspired" -- God breathed, written under the inspiration of the Spirit. The infallible Church says so.
To be continued on the next post...
continuation....
ReplyDeleteGERRY SAID:
Non-sequitir.
MY REPLY:
A non-sequitir is an inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises. But you are quite mistaken. The Principle of Causality is from Logic: An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
GERRY SAID:
We don't believe the Bible fell from the sky. We also don't believe that the church is infallible. God is infallible. Your problem is you merely picked a church and just accept whatever she says without thinking like a zombie.
MY REPLY:
But you do believe you have to figure the Bible out for yourselves. :) Where do you think we got the Bible?
It's not what the Church says -- it's what Christ says. "Who hears you, hears me . . .) Luke 10:16.
Again, it's a matter of logic -- If the Church is not infallible, the Scriptures are not infallible. And, if the Church was not infallible when she selected the contents of the Bible, you have no assurance that all the "inspired" (i.e., God-breathed) writings are in the Bible, or that all of the writings in the Bible are inspired. In other words, by your definition, it is not God's Word.
GERRY SAID:
Oh these thousands of denominations are your children because they follow the principle of infallible magisterium like yours.
MY REPLY:
Protestant denominations follow the principle of an infallible magisterium??? What is your source for that? The Protestant denoms follow the sola's: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. Those are the foundations of Protestantism as declared by the Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther. Protestant denoms have no magisterium.
GERRY SAID:
Well obviously you started off with the fixed premise that the only true church is the church of Rome. If you're objective about it, you will have to subject her among the other churches that claims to be established by Christ. Obviously, you're biased here.
MY REPLY:
What other Church was around at the time of Christ? Only the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old. There were no Protestants until the 16th century.
Christ fixed the premise. The Orthodox Churches were once part of the undivided Catholic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. They have a validly ordained clergy, are in Apostolic Succession, and have valid Sacraments (they call them Mysteries). The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be sister Churches and works toward reconciliation with them so the Church may again be one. Protestant churches, sadly, are in heresy, but their current members didn't participate in the 16th century rebellion so are not considered formal heretics.
To be continued on the next post...
continuation....
ReplyDeleteGERRY SAID:
Well, you're being biased. You Catholics claim that since Protestants do not have an infallible interpreter we can't be sure if we're understanding the Bible correctly. But now you say you don't need to be infallible to determine the infallible church. Face it Miles, you're not taking an objective stance here. You are scrutinizing other churches based on the standards set by your own church but you don't scrutinize your own church. There is no objectivity in what you're doing.
MY REPLY:
It doesn't take an infallible person to recognize an infallible Church.
I scrutinized the history of Christianity and found the Catholic Church.
There is only one Church -- one ekklesia -- and that is the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem. Other ecclesial
communities showed up in the 16th century. It's easy to know which one is God's True Church and which are man-made. The names of all the founders of Protestant and other non-Catholic organizations and the dates they were started is found in the historical record beginning in 1517 with the Lutherans. These come-lately organizations are from 16 to 21 centuries too late to be anything but man-made groups. They all are based on yet another interpretation of the same 66-book Bible cut by Martin Luther.
The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible like Protestant organizations do; rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church. The Church is the mother of the Bible.
GERRY SAID:
To be deep in Scriptures is never to becoming Roman Catholic
MY REPLY:
You remain out of the only Church Christ founded out of prejudice and ignorance, believing your own false interpretations of Scripture. If you studied the history and the doctrines of the early Church, the first Church, you would know that it was Catholic.
"And this one thing at least is certain . . . the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this" John Henry Newman, famous Anglican clergyman who set out to prove that the teachings of the Catholic Church were not true. He studied the history of early Christianity for three years, alone in the English countryside. He wrote a book: "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" from which this quote is taken. When he finished, he put down his pen, called a priest, and asked to be received into the Catholic Church.
My apologies for the late posting and reply, Miles. I had to prioritize some major stuffs. There's only one of me here but there's many of you.
ReplyDelete[The typical Protestant view is that the only reliable, infallible source of Divine Revelation is the Bible. That notion is not biblical (e.g., it is not found anywhere in the Bible) and therefore is self-contradictory. The idea that Scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice was first introduced in the 16th century by the Protestant Deformation. No Christian believed it before Martin Luther taught it. Protestants also hold that the individual Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the authoritative interpreter of the Bible. That, too, comes from Luther and the 16th century.]
Please read my article titled Questions from Readers on Sola Scriptura. You'll find my responses there.
[I am following what the Church teaches because that's what the Apostles taught.]
Yeah but in our present time there are a lot of churches who are claiming to be true. So are you sure you picked the right church?
[The Church who wrote the New Testament has known for 21 centuries what her own words mean. I don't need to analyze it.]
Oh, did your church ever released an official interpretation of all verses in the Bible?
[Protestants have split into more than 40,000 denominations with at least 40,000 conflicting and competing interpretations as a result of analyzing it.]
Now it's 40,000. Before you go on asserting the number of our denominations please note that you have over 200 denominations.
[The teaching of the Church is the teaching of the Apostles. The doctrines the Apostles taught the Church are the ones they learned from Christ who ordered them to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD" Mt 28:20 KJV. So Christ is still present in His Church. Do the teachings of Christ need to be analyzed?]
Yeah, when John told us to test every spirit so we have first to analyze it. There are lots of false prophets today and only the Scripture can prove them false.
[Jesus did not say, "read this book and analyze it." Jesus didn't leave us a book -- He left us the Church as our teacher. The Church, under the guidance of the Spirit, gave us the book.]
But there are counterfeit churches. He left us the Scriptures to scrutinize them.
[The NT does not say the Church is infallible. It says she is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the TRUTH" 1 Tim 3:15. I know the Church is infallible because (1) she was founded by Christ to teach (Mt. 28:20); (2) Christ promised to remain with the Church "ALWAYS, UNTIL THE END OF TIME (Mt 28:20); (3) Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church ALWAYS (John 4:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-5; et al. (4) THE SCRIPTURES ARE INFALLIBLE. The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit, God Himself, who guides her is infallible. The Scriptures are infallible because they are "inspired" -- God breathed, written under the inspiration of the Spirit. The infallible Church says so.]
You're still arguing in circles. You have no way of proving the truthfulness of the church but by Scripture. Yet you appeal to the church to say the Scriptures are true. Round and around we go!
[A non-sequitir is an inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises. But you are quite mistaken. The Principle of Causality is from Logic: An effect cannot be greater than its cause.]
ReplyDeleteReally? The Jews never claimed infallibility yet they were able to write the infallible Old Testament. I guess that blows your argument.
[But you do believe you have to figure the Bible out for yourselves. :) Where do you think we got the Bible?
It's not what the Church says -- it's what Christ says. "Who hears you, hears me . . .) Luke 10:16.
Again, it's a matter of logic -- If the Church is not infallible, the Scriptures are not infallible. And, if the Church was not infallible when she selected the contents of the Bible, you have no assurance that all the "inspired" (i.e., God-breathed) writings are in the Bible, or that all of the writings in the Bible are inspired. In other words, by your definition, it is not God's Word.]
That being the case, how does the Jews who were born 50 years before know that the book of Isaiah was Scripture?
[Protestant denominations follow the principle of an infallible magisterium??? What is your source for that? The Protestant denoms follow the sola's: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. Those are the foundations of Protestantism as declared by the Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther. Protestant denoms have no magisterium.]
Well thank you for clearing it out yourselves. The ADD, INC, Jehovah's Witnesses don't follow all 5 solas of the reformation. And don't these cults follow your system of infallible magisterium? Yes they do. The ADD has Soriano as their infallible interpreter. The JW's has Watchtower as their magisterium. The Mormons has 4 books as guide. These cults are following your church. They're not Protestants.
[What other Church was around at the time of Christ? Only the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old. There were no Protestants until the 16th century.
Christ fixed the premise. The Orthodox Churches were once part of the undivided Catholic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. They have a validly ordained clergy, are in Apostolic Succession, and have valid Sacraments (they call them Mysteries). The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be sister Churches and works toward reconciliation with them so the Church may again be one. Protestant churches, sadly, are in heresy, but their current members didn't participate in the 16th century rebellion so are not considered formal heretics.]
Most certainly it's not the Roman Catholic Church that is the one true church. It only claims to be 2,000 years old but it's only 1,700 years in existence. The early church never recognize the doctrines of the papacy, assumption, and coronation. Your church never had a complete and final Bible until 1546.
Oh and as to the Orthodox Church, if I go ask them they will tell you that it is you who broke up with them.
[It doesn't take an infallible person to recognize an infallible Church.]
ReplyDeleteWell that's a double standard.
[I scrutinized the history of Christianity and found the Catholic Church.]
Well how do you know that you made the right scrutiny?
[There is only one Church -- one ekklesia -- and that is the Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem. Other ecclesial
communities showed up in the 16th century. It's easy to know which one is God's True Church and which are man-made. The names of all the founders of Protestant and other non-Catholic organizations and the dates they were started is found in the historical record beginning in 1517 with the Lutherans. These come-lately organizations are from 16 to 21 centuries too late to be anything but man-made groups. They all are based on yet another interpretation of the same 66-book Bible cut by Martin Luther.
The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible like Protestant organizations do; rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church. The Church is the mother of the Bible.]
If that is so then why did you ever make the Bible? If the Bible came from the church what's the use of producing it when your members could just listen to her and not read the Scriptures anymore?
[You remain out of the only Church Christ founded out of prejudice and ignorance, believing your own false interpretations of Scripture. If you studied the history and the doctrines of the early Church, the first Church, you would know that it was Catholic.
"And this one thing at least is certain . . . the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this" John Henry Newman, famous Anglican clergyman who set out to prove that the teachings of the Catholic Church were not true. He studied the history of early Christianity for three years, alone in the English countryside. He wrote a book: "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" from which this quote is taken. When he finished, he put down his pen, called a priest, and asked to be received into the Catholic Church.]
Yeah and if you really read history objectively, you'll find out that your church committed horrible crimes against humanity such as the Inquisition. Your church had a series of fallible popes like Honorius. The early church fathers did not believe Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18. And so forth and so on...
Miles, maybe you read only that your priest want you to see. It's highly doubtful that you were objective.