The Immaculate Conception by Francisco Zurbara, c. 1628-30-
thanks father!
Presently.. I have research regarding the WOMAN in the said chapter of Revelation..
now im onfused if the WOman is ISRAEL..CHURCH..MARY.or EVE..
I am also confused regarding the man child..since some information from John does not fit to Jesus Christ.
i will just asked you again when i have finished my research..
thanks for the time po..
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
Please don't confuse ISRAEL, CHURCH AND MARY the Woman Clothed with the Sun refers to them all and to each of them.
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MAN-CHILD FITS JESUS VERY WELL:
* The Man-Child is King of Nations
* The Man-Child belongs to Heaven, He has a throne in Heaven.
THIS IS JESUS.
-
[Please don't confuse ISRAEL, CHURCH AND MARY the Woman Clothed with the Sun refers to them all and to each of them.]
yung BABAE sa revelations 12 ay nakadenote ng definite arcticlke and specified na ISA..
if i will consider it as multiple representations,
it will results to bias thinking..how about the man child..is it pertaining to one person?
how about the dragon?
these subjects i think are consistently pointing to one person or iisang katuparan ng hula or vision ni San Juan.
I feel upon reading the chapter and the other na nakita ni San Juan hindi maaring maging subjective sa paginterpret..WOMAN.MAN CHILD.DRAGON.are definite..other Subjects in revelations, if taken within context..should also be taken consistently..
if we will argue that Woman is sometimes MAry, because it has similarities with MAry..But some words are not pertaining Mary then we Will Assume the woman is Israel because may katangian na prang Israel..at minsan nmn IGlesia..
I think that is bias and subjective reading and
understanding of the Revelations of St. John..
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[yung BABAE sa revelations 12 ay nakadenote ng definite arcticlke and specified na ISA..]
THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE DENOTES NUMERICAL UNIQUENESS. ON THE OTHER HAND HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE MULTIPLE SIGNIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SUBJECT. FOR INSTANCE, THE WORD "THE MOTHER". IT REFERS NUMERICALLY TO ONE BUT IT DOES NOT NEGATE MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS: IT COULD BE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER, IT COULD BE LEGALLY REFERRING TO THE ADOPTIVE MOTHER, OR ANALOGICALLY TO THE NATION AS 'INANG BAYAN" OR MOTHER COUNTRY.
ALMOST ALL CHRISTIAN INTERPRETERS OF THE BIBLE RECOGNIZE THAT THE BIBLE HAS A LITERAL SENSE, SPIRITUAL SENSE, MORAL SENSE, ANALOGICAL SENSE, HISTORICAL SENSE, SYMBOLIC SENSE, ETC. SO DESPITE THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLE IT DOES NOT REMOVE THE FACT THAT THE TEXT CAN BE CORRECTLY INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT MANNERS.
[if i will consider it as multiple representations, it will results to bias thinking..]
WHERE IS THE BIAS THERE? IF YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT THE MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS YOU WILL FALL INTO NARROW-MINDEDNESS BECAUSE THE TEXT DOES NOT NARROW THE INTERPRETATIONS INTO ONE.
-
[how about the man child..is it pertaining to one person?]
THE CHILD IS UNIVERSALLY ACCLAIMED AS PERTAINING TO ONE PERSON BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE FOR IT. LITERALLY AND SYMBOLICALLY, SPIRITUALLY AND ANALOGICALLY THERE IS ONLY ONE REFERRED TO AS A MAN-CHILD WHO BECAME KING OF ALL NATIONS AND THAT IS THE LORD JESUS.
[how about the dragon?]
THE DRAGON IS NAMED IN REV 12:9 IT REFERS TO THE ANCIENT SERPENT WHOSE NAME IS SATAN. SYMBOLICALLY IT ALSO REFERS TO SIN, DEATH OR EVIL FORCES IN GENERAL.
[these subjects i think are consistently pointing to one person or iisang katuparan ng hula or vision ni San Juan.]
IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO ONE PERSON THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN IS NO OTHER THAN BUT MARY. BECAUSE ISRAEL IS A NATION NOT A PERSON. THEN THE CHURCH IS AN INSTITUTION NOT A PERSON. SO IF IT IS NOT MARY THEN WHO IS IT FOR YOU?
[I feel upon reading the chapter and the other na nakita ni San Juan hindi maaring maging subjective sa paginterpret..WOMAN.MAN CHILD.DRAGON.are definite..other Subjects in revelations, if taken within context..should also be taken consistently..]
THE PROBLEM WITH YOU IS THAT THE TERM WOMAN ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE IS NOT ONLY REFERRING TO A PERSON BUT ALSO TO ISRAEL AND TO THE CHURCH. THE PHRASE 'A WOMAN IN LABOR' IS ALSO USED FOR ISRAEL WHO IS REFERRED TO AS THE MOTHER ZION OR THE DAUGHTER ZION.
THE WORD WOMAN IS USED FOR MARY IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN WHEREIN JESUS CONTINUOUSLY CALLED HER 'WOMAN' BUT GOD ALSO LIKENED THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL TO THAT WOMAN:
Is 26:17 Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD.
Jer 4:31 For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.
[if we will argue that Woman is sometimes MAry, because it has similarities with MAry..]
I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGORICALLY IT REFERS ALSO TO ISRAEL WHICH IS THE 'DAUGHTER ZION' REFERRED TO BY GOD IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.
[But some words are not pertaining Mary then we Will Assume the woman is Israel because may katangian na prang Israel..at minsan nmn IGlesia..]
WHAT ARE THE WORDS THAT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO MARY? WILL YOU PLEASE CITE THEM?
[I think that is bias and subjective reading and understanding of the Revelations of St. John..]
IT IS YOU WHO IS BIAS AND SUBJECTIVE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO PUT BIASES IN YOUR WAY OF THINKING. I WAS TEACHING YOU THE MULTIPLE SENSES OF SCRIPTURES AND THEN YOU ERRONEOUSLY USED NUMERICAL STANDARD TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT. YOU ALSO ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED IT AS SOMETIMES MARY AND SOMETIMES ISRAEL OR CHURCH. IT IS NOT SOMETIMES. THE MULTIPLE INTERPRETATION IS EXISTING ALL AT ONCE. IT IS APPLYING TO THE TEXT A SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF INTERPRETING IT USING CRITICAL METHOD. IN EVERY SENTENCES WE MUST FIND THE LITERAL MEANING, ALLEGORICAL MEANING OR SYMBOLIC MEANING, ETC. FAILURE TO APPLY THESE THINGS WILL MAKE YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT NARROW AND SUPERFICIAL.
No comments:
Post a Comment