Former Catholics - Mary worship

[rinnie]

Mary is the Mother of God.

To deny Mary is the Mother of God you would have to deny that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and then deny Jesus is indeed God.

Jesus said this is my body which will be given up for you. Jesus said unless you eat my body and my blood you have no life in you.

When he said this many walked away, Jesus said to Peter are you going to leave also. Peter said where would I go?

Jesus said this is a hard saying. Why did he not correct this saying, why did he say it was a hard saying if he did not mean it.

We as Catholics do not deny truth.

Our truth is as was taught by the Apostles.

The Truth of the RCC is this.

We do not deny Mary as the Mother of God who is Jesus Christ.
We do not deny Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[rinnie]

Ok, instead of twisting the issue to my presumed poor theological understanding etc, it would be beneficial to state your excellent biblical exegesis etc of the passage.
Just do that we see!

What good would it do for you to present your understanding or anyone else here to present their understanding we would be here all day. With thousands of understanding.

The point is on the day of Pentecost Christ came and gave the Apostles the gift of the Holy Spirit and promised the Holy Spirit to give them understanding to teach until the end of time.

If you want to preach and teach the truth you must be in line with the teachings of the Holy Spirit that only comes from the CC.

Either the CC has the gift of the Holy Spirit and it leads us in truth, as promised by Christ, or we have a have a Holy Spirit who causes chaos.

There is no gain to argue and fight over who is right. The Church is the pilar of all Truth, and the Holy Spirit is the teacher of it.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would be here until t he end of age leading the Church. And we have a Father who keeps his promises.

 

[marywarfield]

Jesus does not start with Mary, He was from the beginning. Jesus is incarnate, that is taking a human nature. Mary is not the mother of God. Our God is a Trinity, and when we say Mary is the mother of God, we err as God is not synonymous to Jesus.
By God, we are simply saying that Mary is the mother of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The line of believe is suspect.
During the last supper, Jesus said this is my body, then ate it. Thus he ate his body and drank his blood. Was his body in the bread by then?
The disciples also ate the bread and drank the wine while still with Jesus. Was Jesus in the bread and at the same time with them, or both?

Acts:1:14: These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Acts:2:46: And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Mary was in the company of the first Apostles, and they ate the Lord’s table together. If they perceived that Jesus was in the bread, it must have been a bitter reminder to Mary that she was eating her son every time.
The Apostles saw Jesus die and rise again, they could not have perceived that he was in the bread whereas they knew that he had ascended to heaven.

If its obvious, what would be the objective of it being put in the Revelation. Unless Jesus wanted to prove to the world that Mary is in heaven and is the queen of heaven. Otherwise, nothing else is deduced from the whole chapter.

However, some sections are intentionally omitted in this interpretation.
Rev:12:6: And the woman fled into the wilderness… for 1,260 days
Rev:12:14: And to the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

What is this wilderness place?
What is these 1,260 days?
Is the woman still at her place in the wilderness?
Does the woman has wings?

This is one of the latter doctrines that were adopted in the Catholic church among many others. The book of Acts narrates the deeds of the Apostles. As Mary was still alive, converts never considered her as their spiritual mother. They were baptized in the name of Jesus and were filled with the Holy Spirit. They looked unto Jesus, the beginner and finisher of their faith.

In the book of Revelation, there are names of 7 different churches.
Apostle Peter wrote to believers scattered in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. There were churches there.
Apostle Paul opened very many churches, and even wished to go to Spain and preach the Gospel there.

The objective is not about the number of churches as the the command of Jesus in Matt:28:19: is to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
The main Question is whether they uphold the teaching of Christ. The Bible is sufficient to make a believer know Christ and reach heaven.

You know something?

1.If the written Word was sufficient there would
be no need for Christ. The Jews HAD a written Word
from Him and hello- it was not sufficient. Lol.
2. If He wanted us to be Bible only He would
have been Bible only Himself and would have
said so and so would the Bible. He didn’t and it
doesn’t.

Bible only? Jesus is not impressed.

 

[rcwitness]

You know something?

1.If the written Word was sufficient there would
be no need for Christ. The Jews HAD a written Word
from Him and hello- it was not sufficient. Lol.
2. If He wanted us to be Bible only He would
have been Bible only Himself and would have
said so and so would the Bible. He didn’t and it
doesn’t.

Bible only? Jesus is not impressed.

The Written Word is sufficient.

But if that’s what a brother or sister in the faith is claiming is their sole authority. Jesus may hold them accountable to its every meaning. I certainly don’t claim to know that.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Rev. is clearly talking about Mary who is the queen mother of Jesus, who is the King of kings: “A great sign appeared in heaven; the imagery is clear: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head”.

I realize that this is also an allegorical statement.

Revelation 12:1-: And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;a women clothed with the sun ,and the moon under her feet,and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:"

“And she being with child cried travailing in birth,and pained to be delivered,”

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven ;and behold a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns,and seven crowns upon his head.”

joe371, Just wondering how you are so ‘clear’ in regards to this verse signifying the literal Mary .
I mean how have you( RC teachings) determined which part of these verses are to be understood literally and which, if any ,are meant to be taken ,as you say yourself :as ‘an allegorical statement’?

Obviously we would all agree that Satan is not a literal serpent (Genesis 3) any more than he is a literal ‘great red dragon’ but that both are aspects of his venomous and murderous intent an chief characteristics of his’ person’.

But since verse 3 refers to ’ another wonder in heaven ’ ( the dragon) then what makes the first wonder ( in heaven) in verse 1,‘the woman’ any more literal than ‘the dragon’ of verse3?

Especially since you would I presume,conclude both the sun and the moon which are said to be under her feet are not to be seen as actual or literal ;and the stars upon her symbolic crown you also would no doubt interpret the same.

Another pertinent point for me,is that in the same book and in Revelation 17 we see another woman .Likewise no doubt accept a symbolic content here as well,but why make this women to be symbolic and Rev 12 (women) literal?

As a former Roman Catholic I have previously in reference to this chapter stated that this women ( Rev 12) is seen ’ travailing in birth and pained to be delivered’. IN HEAVEN: not on earth where we all would agree Mary the mother of Jesus ,travailed,no doubt,to give birth.

 

[marywarfield]

The Written Word is sufficient.

But if that’s what a brother or sister in the faith is claiming is their sole authority. Jesus may hold them accountable to its every meaning. I certainly don’t claim to know that.

No. The Written Word MAY be sufficient with
appropriate interpretation.
However the written Word condones slavery.
So if that is we need…

 

[marywarfield]

Revelation 12:1-: And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;a women clothed with the sun ,and the moon under her feet,and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:"

“And she being with child cried travailing in birth,and pained to be delivered,”

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven ;and behold a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns,and seven crowns upon his head.”

joe371, Just wondering how you are so ‘clear’ in regards to this verse signifying the literal Mary .
I mean how have you( RC teachings) determined which part of these verses are to be understood literally and which, if any ,are meant to be taken ,as you say yourself :as ‘an allegorical statement’?

Obviously we would all agree that Satan is not a literal serpent (Genesis 3) any more than he is a literal ‘great red dragon’ but that both are aspects of his venomous and murderous intent an chief characteristics of his’ person’.

But since verse 3 refers to ’ another wonder in heaven ’ ( the dragon) then what makes the first wonder ( in heaven) in verse 1,‘the woman’ any more literal than ‘the dragon’ of verse3?

Especially since you would I presume,conclude both the sun and the moon which are said to be under her feet are not to be seen as actual or literal ;and the stars upon her symbolic crown you also would no doubt interpret the same.

Another pertinent point for me,is that in the same book and in Revelation 17 we see another woman .Likewise no doubt accept a symbolic content here as well,but why make this women to be symbolic and Rev 12 (women) literal?

As a former Roman Catholic I have previously in reference to this chapter stated that this women ( Rev 12) is seen ’ travailing in birth and pained to be delivered’. IN HEAVEN: not on earth where we all would agree Mary the mother of Jesus ,travailed,no doubt,to give birth.

And as an enlightened former RC you are going
to tell us who this woman is if she is on fact not
Mary?
Or explain why this is NOT Mary?

 

[Dorothy]

My understanding is that the Woman in Revelation is Mary, Israel, and the Church. I don’t know how to articulate that, but when it was explained to me it made sense.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

And as an enlightened former RC you are going
to tell us who this woman is if she is on fact not
Mary?
Or explain why this is NOT Mary?

Mary,as you no doubt would agree,only God can and does, enlighten ,and as we are here searching for the actual truths in respect to heavenly representations :this is only possible,I believe ,through revelation ,from no less a place ,than heaven too.I can only point to the scriptures where I believe some light is to be got.

As I have commented on this on another thread I’m sorry if I am seen by some to be repeating myself.

Galations 4:26 "But Jerusalem which is above is free ,which is the mother of us all’

As Mary the mother of Jesus was ( and is) of that number included under that motherhood which is ( in the above verse) said to be from ‘Jerusalem which is above’.
Then Mary is also is encompassed by the ‘representative’ ’ woman’ of Revelation 12 ,as are all the saints both OT and NT seen figuratively to be born of this same ’ women’.

Twelve stars - twelve tribes of the Old Testament seems to me to be compatible as does Joseph’s prophet dream in relation to his brethren bowing down before him as well the sun and moon ( his father and mother) made obeisance to their son Joseph also .(Genesis 37:5-10)

We all remember The words of Jesus to a certain person in regards being 'born a knew ',that is an heavenly ,not merely an earthly birth.This is without question absolutely necessary for one to see ( or be in) the ‘kingdom of God’.

Then although the promised seed through the line of Joseph( Jesus) is included in the spiritual women( Rev 12) who is seen travailing in child birth,‘the remnant of her seed’,must for me include all those born from above: in the NT.

If this was an actual Mary represented here,then you Mary would have to of necessity come over to my position that Joseph and Mary had other children ’ after the firstborn’.
For here it states ’ the remnant of ( the woman’s) seed.

Finally Paul in the above States ’ Jerusalem ’ a heavenly city is the ’ mother of us all"
How can a city bring forth life ?
Rev 21:2 " And I John saw the holy city ,new Jerusalem,coming down out of heaven,prepared as a bride for her husband"

 

[marywarfield]

Mary,as you no doubt would agree,only God can and does, enlighten ,and as we are here searching for the actual truths in respect to heavenly representations :this is only possible,I believe ,through revelation ,from no less a place ,than heaven too.I can only point to the scriptures where I believe some light is to be got.

As I have commented on this on another thread I’m sorry if I am seen by some to be repeating myself.

Galations 4:26 "But Jerusalem which is above is free ,which is the mother of us all’

As Mary the mother of Jesus was ( and is) of that number included under that motherhood which is ( in the above verse) said to be from ‘Jerusalem which is above’.
Then Mary is also is encompassed by the ‘representative’ ’ woman’ of Revelation 12 ,as are all the saints both OT and NT seen figuratively to be born of this same ’ women’.

Twelve stars - twelve tribes of the Old Testament seems to me to be compatible as does Joseph’s prophet dream in relation to his brethren bowing down before him as well the sun and moon ( his father and mother) made obeisance to their son Joseph also .(Genesis 37:5-10)

We all remember The words of Jesus to a certain person in regards being 'born a knew ',that is an heavenly ,not merely an earthly birth.This is without question absolutely necessary for one to see ( or be in) the ‘kingdom of God’.

Then although the promised seed through the line of Joseph( Jesus) is included in the spiritual women( Rev 12) who is seen travailing in child birth,‘the remnant of her seed’,must for me include all those born from above: in the NT.

If this was an actual Mary represented here,then you Mary would have to of necessity come over to my position that Joseph and Mary had other children ’ after the firstborn’.
For here it states ’ the remnant of ( the woman’s) seed.

Finally Paul in the above States ’ Jerusalem ’ a heavenly city is the ’ mother of us all"
How can a city bring forth life ?
Rev 21:2 " And I John saw the holy city ,new Jerusalem,coming down out of heaven,prepared as a bride for her husband"

Wow. Sorry you lost me completely here. Don’t see how
you arrived at the second to last paragraph at all. Totally
new one and I thought I’d heard them all.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

My understanding is that the Woman in Revelation is Mary, Israel, and the Church. I don’t know how to articulate that, but when it was explained to me it made sense.

Yes Dorothy this does make sense .Considering Joseph’s dream ’ twelve stars ’ ,feet clothed with" the sun and the moon" :Israel ;and as Mary also was a Jew : Mary is included .

’ and the dragon was wroth with the women ,and went to make war with the remnant of her seed,which keep the commandments of God ,and the testimony of Jesus Christ"(Rev 12:17)

This 'remnant ’ then is the NT ’ church.

Thank you Dorothy.
The problem however ,apart from those already stated that is, how is it ,from a Roman Catholic perspective,do we see the definite article used here ’ the ’ ‘woman ,’(singular ) being used ?
For me ,it can only possibly be if this same ‘woman’ ,if she is symbolically representing and encompasses all three,at the same time .And does by this explain the way God ,supernaturally has brought( and will yet do) all three ( Mary to be included in number of Israel) to birth. That is begotten ,in every age ,from above.(James 1:18)

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures”

 

[marywarfield]

Revelation 12:1-: And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;a women clothed with the sun ,and the moon under her feet,and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:"

“And she being with child cried travailing in birth,and pained to be delivered,”

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven ;and behold a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns,and seven crowns upon his head.”

joe371, Just wondering how you are so ‘clear’ in regards to this verse signifying the literal Mary .
I mean how have you( RC teachings) determined which part of these verses are to be understood literally and which, if any ,are meant to be taken ,as you say yourself :as ‘an allegorical statement’?

Obviously we would all agree that Satan is not a literal serpent (Genesis 3) any more than he is a literal ‘great red dragon’ but that both are aspects of his venomous and murderous intent an chief characteristics of his’ person’.

But since verse 3 refers to ’ another wonder in heaven ’ ( the dragon) then what makes the first wonder ( in heaven) in verse 1,‘the woman’ any more literal than ‘the dragon’ of verse3?

Especially since you would I presume,conclude both the sun and the moon which are said to be under her feet are not to be seen as actual or literal ;and the stars upon her symbolic crown you also would no doubt interpret the same.

Another pertinent point for me,is that in the same book and in Revelation 17 we see another woman .Likewise no doubt accept a symbolic content here as well,but why make this women to be symbolic and Rev 12 (women) literal?

As a former Roman Catholic I have previously in reference to this chapter stated that this women ( Rev 12) is seen ’ travailing in birth and pained to be delivered’. IN HEAVEN: not on earth where we all would agree Mary the mother of Jesus ,travailed,no doubt,to give birth.

Question.
Why do you say “the sun and moon under her feet”
is not literal?
The entire apocalypse is, unfortunately, quite real.
So how ate you determining which is literal and which
isn’t?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Question.
Why do you say “the sun and moon under her feet”
is not literal?
The entire apocalypse is, unfortunately, quite real.
So how ate you determining which is literal and which
isn’t?

As I originally stated Mary ,I didn’t think RC’s believed and thought Satan to be a literal ‘red dragon’ or for that matter ,the 'Harlot ,or the mother of harlots in Rev 17,was an actual woman who bred of her kind ,more of the same.
I think that Dorothy has more accurately summarised the Catholic view.which I am pretty sure equates the twelve stars ,the sun and the moon ,as the same figurative means ,by which the God of Joseph ,prophesies by means of his two dreams ,all Israel bowing down to him .( see Genesis 37) sheaves are used symbolically in the first dream.Eleven stars ,symbolically representing all his brothers : in the second dream.

Incidentally ,Joseph himself ,I believe, is being utilised as a figure (Gen 37) of the coming Christ ,chosen of God ,rejected of his brethren, and worshipped by all those of a truth ,who were ( in all ages ) the true ’ Israel of God’.(Galatians 6:16)

 

[Dorothy]

Yes Dorothy this does make sense .Considering Joseph’s dream ’ twelve stars ’ ,feet clothed with" the sun and the moon" :Israel ;and as Mary also was a Jew : Mary is included .

’ and the dragon was wroth with the women ,and went to make war with the remnant of her seed,which keep the commandments of God ,and the testimony of Jesus Christ"(Rev 12:17)

This 'remnant ’ then is the NT ’ church.

Thank you Dorothy.
The problem however ,apart from those already stated that is, how is it ,from a Roman Catholic perspective,do we see the definite article used here ’ the ’ ‘woman ,’(singular ) being used ?
For me ,it can only possibly be if this same ‘woman’ ,if she is symbolically representing and encompasses all three,at the same time .And does by this explain the way God ,supernaturally has brought( and will yet do) all three ( Mary to be included in number of Israel) to birth. That is begotten ,in every age ,from above.(James 1:18)

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures”

You may find this site interesting. It is under 7 minutes:

youtube.com/watch?v=9WCpEWbl-bU

 

[marywarfield]

As I originally stated Mary ,I didn’t think RC’s believed and thought Satan to be a literal ‘red dragon’ or for that matter ,the 'Harlot ,or the mother of harlots in Rev 17,was an actual woman who bred of her kind ,more of the same.
I think that Dorothy has more accurately summarised the Catholic view.which I am pretty sure equates the twelve stars ,the sun and the moon ,as the same figurative means ,by which the God of Joseph ,prophesies by means of his two dreams ,all Israel bowing down to him .( see Genesis 37) sheaves are used symbolically in the first dream.Eleven stars ,symbolically representing all his brothers : in the second dream.

Incidentally ,Joseph himself ,I believe, is being utilised as a figure (Gen 37) of the coming Christ ,chosen of God ,rejected of his brethren, and worshipped by all those of a truth ,who were ( in all ages ) the true ’ Israel of God’.(Galatians 6:16)

Without regard to Dorothy’s Catholic view which is correct
as we all know I would like you to explain how you got
to Revelation proving Mary had more children after
Jesus. That would require you to most usefully to your cause
interpret that seed, remnant line literally while claiming the
rest to be allegorical.

As far as dragons and Satan go- I’ve never seen either
one. So I can’t rightly state knowledge of what Satan
looks like. You reject dragon as literal so have you seen
Satan? Please describe his appearance.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Without regard to Dorothy’s Catholic view which is correct
as we all know I would like you to explain how you got
to Revelation proving Mary had more children after
Jesus. That would require you to most usefully to your cause
interpret that seed, remnant line literally while claiming the
rest to be allegorical.

As far as dragons and Satan go- I’ve never seen either
one. So I can’t rightly state knowledge of what Satan
looks like. You reject dragon as literal so have you seen
Satan? Please describe his appearance.

Mary As Catholic teachings would not entertain a literal dragon from Rev 12, I will just go to your first point and say thst my comment regarding Mary having other children, could only be proved by Rev 12, if I were a practicing Catholic.
Believing this woman(singular) to be the (singular) Mary, the mother of Jesus, in fact , here represented, I would also have to accept that 'remnant of her seed" the same ( singular) woman, which we have seen in verse 1, the remnant of her seed, Rev 12:17) I say would also include, this same lieral view of the woman and further children ( the remnant) which were begotten of her.

 

[YADA]

Ok, instead of twisting the issue to my presumed poor theological understanding etc, it would be beneficial to state your excellent biblical exegesis etc of the passage.
Just do that we see!

Cube2 - You said the Quote:
Originally Posted by Cube2 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
… Eunuchs of Jesus time were castrated men who could not experience the sexual emotions.

The Scripture passage reads Quote:
"Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Your response dictates that ALL eunuchs are those who have been made [by castration] eunuchs by others … and clearly - the passage does not support your claim …

Jesus states - clearly here that some people are born in a state that equates to being a eunuch … they are not physically made one by castration nor any other man imposed means … Jesus lists this as the first form of being a eunuch …

Jesus states that there are those who choose to live like eunuchs …and why does Jesus state that they choose to live like eunuchs? FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN … these are men who do not mutilate themselves - nor do they have others mutilate them - No - they choose to forego sexual relations in order to serve God with a single purpose - to serve God - body and soul … this is a great sacrifice … we commonly refer to them as consecrated virgins … you should read about the vows to the Lord in the book of Numbers … read some of the Essenes ‘rules’ found in the Dead Sea Scrolls … it is an ancient custom

They may be in a minority - but in truth - there are men and women within the history of the Hebrew peoples and Christianity who choose to serve God in a chaste state. They choose to live this way … Jesus speaks of them in the third example …

You only read, comprehend and spout the second case - eunuchs made so my mutilation …

I ask you - what does that say for your interpretation of scriptures?

What I see is that you - Cube2 - are allowed to cherry pick your passages - ignore those that are inconvenient and shout to the world that your interpretation is the only correct one …
Quote:
Exod:20:4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, …
Take this instruction to not make any craven image … you would say that verse makes statues sinful …

So - when the people became ill in the desert - what was Moses and Aaron instructed to build? What instructions were given to the people? and what was the result?

Quote or Describe for me what God instructed regarding the building of the Ark of the Covenant? Describe the Temple in Jerusalem please …

 

[joe371]

Revelation 12:1-: And there appeared a great wonder in heaven;a women clothed with the sun ,and the moon under her feet,and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:"

“And she being with child cried travailing in birth,and pained to be delivered,”

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven ;and behold a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns,and seven crowns upon his head.”

joe371, Just wondering how you are so ‘clear’ in regards to this verse signifying the literal Mary .
I mean how have you( RC teachings) determined which part of these verses are to be understood literally and which, if any ,are meant to be taken ,as you say yourself :as ‘an allegorical statement’?

Obviously we would all agree that Satan is not a literal serpent (Genesis 3) any more than he is a literal ‘great red dragon’ but that both are aspects of his venomous and murderous intent an chief characteristics of his’ person’.

But since verse 3 refers to ’ another wonder in heaven ’ ( the dragon) then what makes the first wonder ( in heaven) in verse 1,‘the woman’ any more literal than ‘the dragon’ of verse3?

Especially since you would I presume,conclude both the sun and the moon which are said to be under her feet are not to be seen as actual or literal ;and the stars upon her symbolic crown you also would no doubt interpret the same.

Another pertinent point for me,is that in the same book and in Revelation 17 we see another woman .Likewise no doubt accept a symbolic content here as well,but why make this women to be symbolic and Rev 12 (women) literal?

As a former Roman Catholic I have previously in reference to this chapter stated that this women ( Rev 12) is seen ’ travailing in birth and pained to be delivered’. IN HEAVEN: not on earth where we all would agree Mary the mother of Jesus ,travailed,no doubt,to give birth.

If John was not seeing a woman that must be Mary by virtue of the fact only Mary gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre" namely Jesus - then who did John see. Of course I believe that there are allegorical implications, just as the CC teaches, but the woman is clearly Mary just as the baby is Jesus: She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre."

The Catholic Church on Mary’s queen-ship: the queen-ship of Mary refers to Mary’s royal dignity as mother of the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, and it takes nothing away from Jesus’ own Kingship, but rather is a consequence of it. If you have no problem believing that Jesus is the King of kings, then you should have no problem believing that Mary is the mother queen.

That the kings in the ancestral line of Jesus had mothers for queens is all the more appropriate that Jesus would make his mother the queen according to the same pattern of his predecessors.

Mary’s royal dignity as queen mother is also evident in Revelation 12, the heavenly vision of the “woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1). The vision depicts the woman as queen of Heaven insofar as she is both a queenly and heavenly figure — the woman wears a crown of twelve stars and appears in the sky, in heavenly glory — clothed with the sun and with the moon beneath her feet i.e. the queen of the universe just as Jesus is the king of the universe. She is not queen based on anything she did; she derives her queen-ship from Jesus.

 

[joe371]

Cube2 Jesus does not start with Mary, He was from the beginning. Jesus is incarnate, that is taking a human nature. Mary is not the mother of God. Our God is a Trinity, and when we say Mary is the mother of God, we err as God is not synonymous to Jesus.
By God, we are simply saying that Mary is the mother of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Oh, this is where the confusion has entered. No, Mary is not the mother of the holy Trinity or the cause of God’s eternal existence; I just assumed we were on the same page.

Just curious: What gives you the right to tell me that I am wrong, I ask with respect? Did the HS guide you to believe that Jesus was not God when he walked the earth and therefore Mary was not the mother of God?

Mary is not the mother of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to God incarnate, who was both God and man; therefore Mary was, is the mother of God. If Jesus was not God when he was in Mary’s womb, and when he walked the earth, then I would agree with you; but that notion is silly.

 

[joe371]

QUOTE=Cube2Mary was in the company of the first Apostles, and they ate the Lord’s table together. If they perceived that Jesus was in the bread, it must have been a bitter reminder to Mary that she was eating her son every time. The Apostles saw Jesus die and rise again, they could not have perceived that he was in the bread whereas they knew that he had ascended to heaven

You don’t seem to understand what the CC teaches about the Eucharist. They did not believe that Jesus was in the bread. Upon the words of consecration the HS transforms mere bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood. You seem to insist - since Jesus ascended to heaven the HS could not transform bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood.

Regarding the Eucharist: do you believe that Jesus allowed idolatry (that is what it would be if you were right about the Eucharist) to exist in His church for 1500 years?

What is this wilderness place?

Her remaining time on earth prepared for her by God, away from the evil one.

What is these 1,260 days?

This kind of language is used in other places; It denotes a period of time.

Is the woman still at her place in the wilderness?

No. If she was she be a very old woman.

Does the woman has wings?

No, the woman has no wings.