Revelation 12 and James Swan

Does Revelation 12 disprove the Immaculate Conception?

Absolutely not! We'll see just how it doesn't in this brief examination and two part series.

Written by William Albrecht


http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2009-01&catid=7

Click link, scroll to the bottom and follow along

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Revelation
• 12
• Assumption
• of
• Mary
• Immaculate
• Conception
• Apocalypse
• Catholic
• Legate
• William
• Albrecht
• James
• Swan
• AOMIN
• White

[thorbeckes]

Really? So why are you using Sola Scriptura to interpret Rev 12? As you said there is no infallible interpretation from the Catholic Church for Rev 12. So you use your own private interpretation. And that is Sola Scriptura. So you contradict yourself, and are caught in your own inconsist fallible use of Sloa Scriptura. You say Sola Sriptura is an untenable unbiblical practice, but you use it to interpret Rev 12. Circular reasoning won't work! An unconsistant argument is a failed argument.

[gnrhead]

I am not using SOLA SCRIPTURA to interpret anything. Sola Scriptura would in turn mean that I deny the existence of the AUTHORITY of tradition which I do not. What I am doing is exegeting a passage. Since you cannot listen to the fact that I do NOT do combox arguments, your next COMBOX post will get you a BAN. Sorry that you're too thick to understand.

[thorbeckes]

So you can not show me the infallible interpretation from the infallible Magisterium of Rome? And therefore resort to Sola Scriptura. Hmmm!

[gnrhead]

There is no infallible Interpretation of Magisterium of "Rome". I don't quite understand. You seemingly don't understand Catholic terminology. As such, Sola Scriptura is also an untenable unbiblical practice. If you have any further questions send them to my Youtube inbox. I ask kindly. I don't have time in combox debating, nor do I do combox debates. If you have a serious question, send it to my inbox and I will answer it as soon as I can. GOD BLESS!

[thorbeckes]

So please show me (post) the infallible teaching ( interpretation) from Rome on Rev 12.

[gnrhead]

Seemingly misunderstanding Catholic teaching is in your reportoire. Being a Catholic we are free to interpret just about ANY verse in the Bible as long as it's not opposed to the faith and those verses already defined formally. As such many verses have varying interpretations attached to them. GOD BLESS

[the13thof12]

So your refutation of Eric Svendsen is basically to call him stupid. That's marvellous.

[the13thof12]

A lot of problems with your presentation, but I thought it especially humerous that you took issue with the use of the word "Rome" to refer to the Catholic Church. Yes there are many rites, but they are all subject to the Roman Pontiff. So the term, as it is used, is appropriate.

[thorbeckes]

Funny how they try to defend this fairytale that Mary was assumed into heaven. When the early church fathers ( who they say is the Roman Catholic Church) for 700 years new nothing of this fairytale.

[gnrhead]

You are quite incorrect and maybe you should educate yourself on Catholic dogma. The Catholic Church FORBIDS any interpretation that does NOT coincide with that already INFALLIBLY declined. As such, my interpretation of this passage is NOT diametrically opposed to anything and rather supports the Pope's proclamation of the Ancient Church's declaration on the Assumption of Mary. I hope you can see how YOUR misunderstanding of Catholic teaching should be rectified. I can recommend a few books...