And what is there to support the claim that the twelve stars are the twelve tribes of Israel?
They can just as easily represent the twelve apostles. - Mungo
-- The support is that the representation of "12 stars meaning the 12 tribes" has already been used once in the O.T. in the scripture I provided (that you obviously didn't read). Conversely, there is nothing - either in the OT or NT - that supports the idea that those 12 starts represent the Apostles.
You deny that the child in Rev 12 is Jesus? - Mungo
------ Nope. I am pointing out that the reference of who gave birth to Jesus refers to Israel and not Mary.
I undestand why you would wish to ignore the Micah scripture, but the majority of the rest of the correlations you posted trying to connect it to the NT fall apart when you actually look at the NT scriptures you provided and find they have almost nothing at all to do with what is being said.
You also (understandably) ignored these:
------ Catholics say it must be Mary because she is giving birth to Jesus. However, Isaiah 66:7-10 depicts Jerusalem as a woman going into labor and delivering "a son."
------ In Rev 12:14 where it sayts the woman is being saved by being carried away on "eagles wings" away from Satan, in Exodus 19 God says to Moses: "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: [sup]4[/sup] ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself."
Again, talking about Israel, not Mary.
------ In Rev 2:15 it says that Satan is after the woman and spews out a flood of water after her. The earth then helps the woman by opening up the water.
True, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt, but there is no real context. The description, if applied to them, does not fit.
When was Mary specifically chased by Satan who sent his people against her and God protected her by causing the earth to open up and swallow them? Then answer: Never
HOWEVER, that description does fit Israel perfecly.
I understand you trying to deflect from Micah instead of actually addressing it.
Unfortunately, what you attempted to deflect with had nothing to do with it at all.
So again:
------If you wish to go the Catholic route, Micah 4:9-10 depicts Israel as a daughter going through labor pains.
Near the end of the chapter it details how God's plan was to have a "ruler out of Bethlehem." Now, of course Catholics jump and claim that is further proof, but if you read the chapter itself it says things like:
"Writhe in agony, O Daughter of Zion,
like a woman in labor,
for now you must leave the city
to camp in the open field.
You will go to Babylon;
there you will be rescued.
There the LORD will redeem you
out of the hand of your enemies."
Obviously, there is NO WAY that is about Mary and Jesus
"It’s obviously not talking about genetic offspring. This depicts Mary as the new Eve (or second Eve) just as Jesus is the new Adam (or second Adam)." - Mungo (commenting on Rev. 12:17
-- Rev. 12:17 says: "Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea."
Quite simply, your answer makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
.
They can just as easily represent the twelve apostles. - Mungo
-- The support is that the representation of "12 stars meaning the 12 tribes" has already been used once in the O.T. in the scripture I provided (that you obviously didn't read). Conversely, there is nothing - either in the OT or NT - that supports the idea that those 12 starts represent the Apostles.
You deny that the child in Rev 12 is Jesus? - Mungo
------ Nope. I am pointing out that the reference of who gave birth to Jesus refers to Israel and not Mary.
I undestand why you would wish to ignore the Micah scripture, but the majority of the rest of the correlations you posted trying to connect it to the NT fall apart when you actually look at the NT scriptures you provided and find they have almost nothing at all to do with what is being said.
You also (understandably) ignored these:
------ Catholics say it must be Mary because she is giving birth to Jesus. However, Isaiah 66:7-10 depicts Jerusalem as a woman going into labor and delivering "a son."
------ In Rev 12:14 where it sayts the woman is being saved by being carried away on "eagles wings" away from Satan, in Exodus 19 God says to Moses: "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: [sup]4[/sup] ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself."
Again, talking about Israel, not Mary.
------ In Rev 2:15 it says that Satan is after the woman and spews out a flood of water after her. The earth then helps the woman by opening up the water.
True, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt, but there is no real context. The description, if applied to them, does not fit.
When was Mary specifically chased by Satan who sent his people against her and God protected her by causing the earth to open up and swallow them? Then answer: Never
HOWEVER, that description does fit Israel perfecly.
I understand you trying to deflect from Micah instead of actually addressing it.
Unfortunately, what you attempted to deflect with had nothing to do with it at all.
So again:
------If you wish to go the Catholic route, Micah 4:9-10 depicts Israel as a daughter going through labor pains.
Near the end of the chapter it details how God's plan was to have a "ruler out of Bethlehem." Now, of course Catholics jump and claim that is further proof, but if you read the chapter itself it says things like:
"Writhe in agony, O Daughter of Zion,
like a woman in labor,
for now you must leave the city
to camp in the open field.
You will go to Babylon;
there you will be rescued.
There the LORD will redeem you
out of the hand of your enemies."
Obviously, there is NO WAY that is about Mary and Jesus
"It’s obviously not talking about genetic offspring. This depicts Mary as the new Eve (or second Eve) just as Jesus is the new Adam (or second Adam)." - Mungo (commenting on Rev. 12:17
-- Rev. 12:17 says: "Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea."
Quite simply, your answer makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
.