DEBUNKING AN EVANGELICAL APOLOGIST USING ISAIAH 26:16-18 IN DENYING MARY AS THE WOMAN OF REV. 12

The Immaculate Mother

Recently, Atty. Marwil Llasos posted about Mary, The Mother of the Church in his own Blog -- THE KNIGHT OF MARY. Therein, Bro. Mars touched the issue of The Woman Clothed with the Sun in Rev. 12:1. Then, Mr. Gerry Soliman who is an Evangelical Apologist commented which led to our friendly but striking exchange, short though it is. Here is the said exchange. Bro. Mars in Green, Mine in Blue and Mr. Soliman's in Red:

Gerry Soliman said...

Dear Sir:

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.

Thank you.

November 4, 2009 9:48 PM

Bro. Marwil N. Llasos said...

Your question is just on time! I am presently making a paper on the Woman of Revelation 12. Your concern will be inputed in the discussion. Please wait for it. I will post it here. Thank you for your comment.

November 5, 2009 12:45 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

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.

It seems that Mr. Soliman is a venerator of the sacred image of the FAKE Doctor, James White. That his sacred image is given a place of honor in his rather imageless blog.

Well, let us see who is the Woman Clothed with the Sun for Mr. Soliman.

Alright, sir. Will you please kindly tell us who she is?

November 5, 2009 4:26 AM

Gerry Soliman said...

Dear Fr. Abe,

Sorry for the late reply.

Your question is not just a matter of who or what is the woman in Revelations 12, but also whether this could be understood literally or not. I think you favor more the literal understanding which points you to the blessed Mary (correct me if I am wrong). On the otherhand, I don't interpret it literally thus, I can't give you a name.

Since I believe this chapter is symbolical, I identify the woman as the people of God. I guess I need not expound on that as your church may agree with me.

As to your curiosity of whether the people of God experienced birth pains, please read Isaiah 26:16-18.

November 7, 2009 9:19 PM

Bro. Marwil N. Llasos said...

I thank Mr. Gerald Soliman for the verses. These will be properly included and cited in the article I am writing on the Woman of Revelations 12.

This early, there are points of agreement already between his position and ours. However, there are also divergences. These will be expounded on the article I will post.

I am gathering enough materials both from Catholic and Evangelical sources.

November 9, 2009 2:49 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

Dear Gerry,

Thank you for your reply. O, never mind. I was not counting the days and the hours while waiting for your response. I understand that we are all busy. Bro. Mars is a lawyer, you are an accountant and I am a priest and educator.

I agree with Bro. Mars that in your response there are already points wherein we agree with one another and there are few that we don’t. This is his Blog so I have to wait for his article on Woman Clothed with the Sun before really going deep into our discussion. I will let the owner of the house direct the discussion for his guests.

Let me just comment a little bit to what you have written above:

[Your question is not just a matter of who or what is the woman in Revelations 12, but also whether this could be understood literally or not.]

Since you used the word ‘ALSO’ and instead of ‘ONLY’ it appears to me that you are not eliminating the WHO or WHAT IS THE WOMAN IN REV. 12. Am I right?

[I think you favor more the literal understanding which points you to the blessed Mary (correct me if I am wrong). On the otherhand, I don't interpret it literally thus, I can't give you a name.]

What do you mean by literal understanding? Because in our understanding the text could be interpreted symbolically yet it can still point to WHO and to WHAT. Well, as regards the WHO, you guessed it right. Indeed we refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Oh, thank you for calling her ‘blessed’... that is Biblical. She is also called virgin in the same Bible.

[Since I believe this chapter is symbolical, I identify the woman as the people of God. I guess I need not expound on that as your church may agree with me.]

The Chapter is symbolical and that is why the Catholic Church interprets it as symbolically referring to the Church or Zion which both represent the People of God, and she also teaches that it ALSO points to the Blessed Mary the Mother of Jesus, the King of Kings... the Greatest Enemy of Satan.

Since you pointed to the People of God as the Woman Clothed with the Sun, will you DENY that the same ALSO points to THE MOTHER OF THE MESSIAH? Are you willing to prove to us that Rev. 12 is NOT Mary the Mother of Jesus?

[As to your curiosity of whether the people of God experienced birth pains, please read Isaiah 26:16-18.]

Even though I agree with you that Rev 12:1 ALSO refers to the People of God I consider your text rather Funny. Please read the text carefully:

Isaiah 26:16-18 (New International Version)

16 LORD, they came to you in their distress; when you disciplined them, they could barely whisper a prayer.

17 As a woman with child and about to give birth writhes and cries out in her pain, so were we in your presence, O LORD.

18 We were with child, we writhed in pain, but we gave birth to wind. We have not brought salvation to the earth; we have not given birth to people of the world.

http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2009/10/mary-mother-of-church_30.html First, your woman suffers because DISCIPLINED BY GOD. He, he, he... The pain is caused by DISTRESS and by the fact that they [the pronoun used in the text is WE] cannot withstand the Almighty Presence of God in front of whom sinners are trembling in fear. In contrast THE WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN is not a woman in shame in front of God but the Woman honoured by God with the sun, the moon and stars. There is no iota of disciplining given to the Woman of Rev. 12. If there is please point it out to me. Where is the disciplining, the distress due to God’s presence in The Woman Clothed with the Sun?

The image and the symbolism employed by St. John to The Woman of Rev. 12 is that of THE HIGHLY FAVORED OF GOD [Lk 1:28]... ONE WHO IS BLESSED BY THE LORD BECAUSE SHE BELIEVED [Lk 1:45]; it reminds me of Joseph the dreamer who stated that he dreamed of the Sun, the Moon and the Stars bowing to him [Gen 37:9]. Why? Because Joseph is favoured by his father on earth and favoured by God in heaven.

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? Here:

Luke 1:30-33 (New International Version)

30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

The sinful woman gave birth to the wind... to hopeless dreams and to illusions but the Woman of Faith gave birth to the King of the World!

Third, your woman gives the impression that it trembles in front of God because of sin and shame, and of fear of punishment. The Woman Clothed with the Sun courageously shines in splendour in front of and in contrast with the Serpent-Dragon who is Satan. And Satan tried everything to touch her and hurt her and to destroy her... to no avail.

In our common parlance it means that the Devil did everything to lure that woman into sin but he failed. He was not able to touch her; he failed to hurt much more to destroy her because SHE IS PROTECTED BY GOD through MIRACULOUS MEANS. He, he, he...

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.

SINCE IN YOUR BLOG YOU SEEM TO BE TEACHING YOUR READERS HOW TO REFUTE THE CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS, THEN I HOPE YOU CAN DEFEND WITH ME YOUR ALLEGED LINK WITH THE WOMAN OF REV. 12 AND YOUR WOMAN OF IS. 26. MY POSITION IS THAT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT WOMEN, WHETHER LITERALLY OR SYMBOLICALLY.

It is interesting how a simple curiosity can lead to a deeper understanding of each of our position.

November 10, 2009 3:01 AM

Gerry Soliman said...

Dear Fr. Abe,

Thank you for the comments as well as stating your position on the issue.

As much as I would like to reply, I believe it would be better if I make an article about it. In fact, there are related issues which will be tackled in different articles. This means, and I am sorry to say, you would have to wait. What I have written here is limited. However, your concerns will be addressed.

Right now, just like Sir Mars, I am still gathering some info. That's why asked him if the birth pains would affect the Immaculate Conception dogma.

Best regards.

November 10, 2009 4:23 PM

* We await the so-called Article of Mr. Gerry Soliman. He appears to be a reasonable man. I'm eagerly awaiting how he can tie up what I perceived to be contradictions in his positions. For those who want to visit the Blog of Bro. Mars and see the exchange on its original state please check this:

http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2009/10/mary-mother-of-church_30.html