Lets first see what the scriptures mean here. What is the context?
First lets see what it teaches before we get to this.
Yes and it falls way short. Have you looked at the context in scripture where this word appears?
Are you aware that the scriptures never refer to Mary as being your mother or the mother of the church?
Come to THIS thread then for the Papacy, I’ll be there ok?
I have read your posts and the major flaw in all of them is that you are taking them out of context and trying to apply them to Mary. Your arguments also fail for the mere fact they never speak of Mary in this way. Are you aware that after the gospel accounts she is never again mentioned by name and when she is mentioned its always indirectly. This alone refutes the passages you try to use to support these claims about her.
If that is your defense, then it has failed. Do you have some catholic commentaries? If so, look up the passages you used in your defense and see if these scholars say what you are claiming about Mary.
Long extended comments are to easy to misread. Better to keep it short since most will tire of reading so much.
What i see you doing and a lot of catholics who defend the marian doctrines is that they read into the texts of scripture catholic theology. Better to study the texts in context in which they are written and derive the meaning from that rather than reading into the texts what is not there. Take for example Mary’s queenship. The only place you ever find such a concept would be in the NT. The NT never ever refers to her as a queen.
Please keep in mind that i’m not going out of my way to ignore you or anyone else. I’m probably the odd man out in this forummn and its like having a conversation with 20 people at once. Its easy to miss things. Throw in how much time it takes to respond as another issue.
It’s funny, you never told me what part I was taking out of context. You never told me where I went off. Perhaps you would do better to p(name removed by moderator)oint what exactly you think I take out of context. But I would argue it is you who take the Scripture out of context. I gave you a far analysis of John’s Gospel. It is obvious beyond a doubt how John wrote. I did not read anything into Scripture that doesn’t follow in the pattern of John’s writing.
I have Catholic Commentaries, and they agree with me. I wouldn’t be arguing with a Catholic over what Catholic scholars say.
Short comments are for people who don’t have any real argument. But for your sake, I will keep this comment short.
I believe John did say so. John knew Mary extremely well. He told use that we are the Woman’s children. Catholic scholars have always understood the woman in Revelation 12 to mean both the Church and Mary. These are not not mutually exclusive. We are told that this woman “gave birth to one who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron.” Who satisfies that position better than Mary?
Quite true. As to that, I do give you the benefit of the doubt.
Do any of the NT writers make the connection that you do with the OT scrriptures that shows that Mary was somehow a queen as Bethseba was?
How so? Can you give me a couple of examples from scripture?
What exactly is this “pattern” in John’s gospel that you are referring to?
As i’ve asked above: where do the NT writers use the relationship of David and his mother as a type of relationship between Jesus and Mary in the NT?
Thank you
Do you have a scripture reference for this?
i agree. However it does not follow that Mary would then be the “mother of these nations or even the church”. If that were the case, we would see such evidence in the scriptures. The fact is there is none for this kind of claim.
No doubt John uses the OT to make his case about Christ. Now show me specifically the claims you make about Mary are also explicitedly stated in this gospel?
See my questions for you above.
It is unnecessary to provide any such verses for two reasons.
)That may have been true when Israel was a kingdom but its not so in the NT period.
Yes. We need some kind of reference for this. Again there are no references in the NT that Mary was a queen. Those that knew her and were closes to her never make such a claim about her.
Not so. We certainly would need to see some evidence if He did indeed have children.
Not so. You are making a truth claim about her that must be supported and if it cannot be, then all you have is speculation without any facts.
Good point. Its not only that the OT scriptures don’t speak of the mother of the Messiah as a type of ark, but it is also true the NT writers never make any kind of connection to Mary in this regards either.
Huh? The writers of the NT never ever even hint at this kind of thing for Mary. That’s why it has no grounding in the scriptures but is a doctrine of men.
I don’t know. Why do you think?(Now I’d ask you why on Earth you think the literal gold box of the OT Ark would be in heaven?
The KINGDOM of heaven is still a kingdom, no? Thrones and all? Every bit as much as Israel was. Christ is ever and always the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. So of course Mary is Queen-Mother.
There are DOZENS of references for it - every single time that Christ refers to ‘my Kingdom’ or the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ (which is His kingdom of course) He is proclaiming Himself King. And thus by definition He is automatically conferring on Mary the position of Queen Mother.
You’re missing the point entirely. It is CERTAIN that He had a mother, we need no more evidence to prove that. It is equally certain that He is a King, as I’ve explained above. Automatically, then Mary his mother is Queen Mother.
No doctrine of men at all - it’s there plainly in Revelation 11:19: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant”. Note the context - very close indeed to the passage in Chapter 12 about the WOMAN - who is also in heaven!
The types are all there, given to you many times over by now, you just don’t acknowledge them as types of Mary. So could an elephant be right in front of you and you would not see it - if you’re blind or looking in the wrong direction
Justasking,
If this is true in regards to Mary, then why don’t we see any reference in the NT that Mary is a queen?
It does not follow nor do the Scriptures teach this. After the gospels she is never mentioned by name again and in only in indirect references. This idea of a queen mother is totally alien to the NT.
Huh? Are you aware that it was not until around the 8th century that Mary is connected with Revelations 12. Think about it. For 8 centuries the church does not know her queen.
Revelations is a book that uses more symbols than any other book in the scriptures. The ark would symbolize God’s presence.
If i’m blind then i’m in good company. The writers of the NT nor many of the church fathers did not see what you claim to see.The types are all there, given to you many times over by now, you just don’t acknowledge them as types of Mary. So could an elephant be right in front of you and you would not see it - if you’re blind or looking in the wrong direction
In what way?
As I said, EVERY reference to Christ as King is also a reference to Mary as Queen.
There is no need of specific references. Are there any references in the scripture to Jesus using the bathroom? No. Can we be certain that He did? Yes, if we use our God-given ability to think and reason and apply it to Scripture.
Wrong wrong wrong. There’s a prayer written around 250 AD to Mary - it says ‘We fly to your PATRONAGE most holy Mother of God’. Patronage (powerful help and protection) comes from the rich and noble, Queens and Princesses, not from humble nobodies. So all Christians certainly knew their Queen early on!
A symbol of God’s presence in Heaven where He is LITERALLY present in person??? When John SAYS literally that He’s present in person? Ridiculous.
And so am I - plenty of them also saw what we DO seeIf i’m blind then i’m in good company. The writers of the NT nor many of the church fathers did not see what you claim to see.
