Hail Holy Queen......

[MaggieOH]

ahimsaman72:

Here’s the text:

John 2

1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
   4. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
4. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
5. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
6. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

He did indeed do it reluctantly or else He wouldn’t have asked the question to her. If verse 4 did not exist I would agree with you. However, it does exist and your position that He did it willingly is false. He did it because He wanted to please her.

In fact, I would say that she did not have Christ’s mission on her mind. He said, “What have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.”. He didn’t want to go public with His ministry at this time, yet she *forces *Him into making this decision which was contrary to His plan.

How can you justify your assertion based on the evidence that Christ questioned her about it before actually performing the miracle???

If I said to my child - clean your room - and my child then said, “what does my room being dirty have to do with you?” I’d be pretty upset. My child questioned my command. It is the same principle here in John.

Peace…

On a basic level, I would say that you have not fully understood all that is happening in this one small motif in John’s Gospel. Like all faithful Protestants you follow the same line as James White and others who have no real ability to discern the Truth of what is really happening in the conversation between Jesus and Mary.

From the imperfect Protestant point of view, there is the claim that Jesus was speaking harshly to His mother, and that He was reluctant to perform any miracle. However, the balance of the Scripture gives us a very different interpretation.

This early part of John’s Gospel has been written as a reflection of the Creation story in Genesis. (I feel certain that this is not how Protestants view this part of the Gospel… sigh). The question that should come to mind here is: what is being revealed? What is happening here? Who are the bride and bridegroom? Please note the names of the bride and bridegroom are not mentioned in the Gospel. If one can see within this motif that Jesus is the bridegroom, then who is the bride? What if I substitute the word King - and ask who is the King? Then who would be the Queen?

Now let me get back to the many things that are happening in this one small motif in John’s Gospel. What is going on here? Jesus has been baptized by John and is ready to start His public mission. He has not as yet performed his first miracle. Who is the most fitting person for whom Jesus will perform the first miracle? Could it be that this one sentence that is taken as some kind of harsh statement is saying something very different? Perhaps what Jesus is saying is that the time has come when he has to take control of his life to start His public mission, and not that he does not want to perform the miracle.

It seems odd that Jesus would be allegedly harsh with his mother on the one hand, yet she is so confident that He will do as she asks that she turns to the servants and says: “Do as he tells you”.

Here is the next point within the motif that is worth examining. The words of Mary point to her Son, and those words “Do as He tells you” not only applies to the servants at the wedding feast but to all who claim to be servants of God. The Queen asks the King of kings for a favour; He listens and the favour is granted. What more can one expect from the Woman who is chosen to be the Queen for the King of kings.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

ahimsaman72:

My mindset is not as you say. God chose Mary to be the mother and caregiver for his son. Mary was favored among women. This is all Biblical and verifiable. She was obviously a special person.

How did she go from being “favored among women” to Queen status? That’s what I’m getting at here. And you haven’t shown me anything bridges that gap.

If any person in the line of David would have faltered. If they would have died without producing seed - you would have no King of Israel. Do you understand this? So, it is not only Mary that cooperated with God’s will. It was the many people through the ages that cooperated - knowingly or not.

Peace…

I am not sure whether you realize the errors in your statement above. I am not even certain that you know the Old Testament all that well considering some of the conclusions that are being made. I chose this portion of your post because of the lack of logic concerning cooperation with God - knowingly or not. The way that this statement comes out, it is as though you are saying that all of the forebears of both Joseph and Mary co-operated with God on the same level as Mary - at least that is how I am reading your comments here.

In order to understand Mary’s fiat (that is her yes to become the Mother of the Messiah) you need to have a full knowledge of the Book of Genesis, and especially the Fall in the Garden of Eden. This is the beginning of our Salvation history. Eve was tempted by Satan and she disobeyed God by giving into that temptation. Likewise Adam disobeyed God when he decided to take the fruit from Eve and eat it. God promised us the Messiah and the Woman who would crush the head of the seed of Satan (that is all the evil in the world). Jesus is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve. The fiat therefore is nothing that is ordinary because by agreeing to this request from God, Mary overturned the evil that was done by Eve through her complete obedience to God’s Will, just as Jesus overturned the sin of Adam.

Mary’s and Joseph’s ancestors were from the House of David, and there is nothing in the Scripture that says that they co-operated with God to keep the line going. In fact at the time of the Exile into Babylon the members of the House of David disappear from sight. It is not until we read the genealogies of Jesus that we know anything further about the descendants of king David.

The difference between Mary, as Mother of the Messiah, and all of the prophets who cooperated with God over the years is that Mary’s role could only end in sorrow because the Messiah (the Suffering Servant) came into the world to be the Lamb of God. Mary knew the passages of the Scripture that led to understanding who the Messiah will be, and she fully understood her undertaking. At least one prophet did not want to do the will of God, - in particular Jonah did not want to go to Ninevah - so one cannot argue that there was co-operation at this level. As for keeping the family going? Well, I do not think that I would classify that as co-operating with God on the same level. It is not as though an angel came to each of those ancestors and told them they were going to have children.

Maggie

 

[Mary3]

ahimsaman72:

But you are using mere philosophy to prove your point. There are no Scriptural evidences in your statement - only a grandious theory. You simply posit that an omnipotent God would not have simply a “human” mother be the mother of the Lord Jesus. But, wasn’t she human? If she wasn’t, what was she exactly??? I’m curious.

For such a dogma to be based on philosophy, theory and the saying of “those in authority” is simply not enough. There must be logic, Scriptural evidences and common sense.

Peace…

I am puzzled by your disdain for philosophy, but OK. Here is some “logic, Scriptural evidences and common sense” for why the Blessed Mother must have been a uniquely special human, worthy of our reverence.

Review Exodus chapters 35-40. These are the elaborate instructions that Moses was given about the construction of the tent to house the Ark of the Covenant. The instructions are quite detailed, describing who the artisans may be, what materials may be used, the colors of yarn to be used for the tent veil, specifications for the altar, the vestments and so on. What would this tent and this ark contain? The Word of God, inscribed on stones. The altar of sacrifice.

Here’s the logic and common sense part. If God took such great care to specify every detail of this place where His written Word would dwell, would He have been less particular about the dwelling of His Word in flesh? The Protestant position seems to be that Mary was some kind of disposable vessel, and that if she had refused Gabriel’s invitation, God would have found another girl.

The Catholic position is that God created His most perfect human masterpiece in Mary. This He did with no less precision than when He designed the tent of Moses. He did this not for Mary’s sake, but because she would be the Ark of the Incarnate Word, and the source of His human flesh. From her came forth the perfect, spotless Lamb of God. The Blessed Mother was uniquely privileged, chosen and prepared for that role.

P.S. Catholics also view the Bible as one continually developing story that concluded with Jesus and the lives of the Apostles. We believe you cannot dismiss the Old Testament as irrelevant to the New. Remember that the Scriptures referred to by St. Paul were the Old Testament…the New was not yet written.

 

[mayra_hart]

iam quoting from a fundamentalist, hopefully this will help explain the concept. it has truly help me as a catholic understand it;" queen of heaven" has its foundation firmly in scripture:" a great wondrous sign appeared in heaven:awoman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head"(rev12:1). although evangelicals may not agree that this passage speaks of mary, they should be willing to admit that this is a possible interpretation. an important clue is to be found in the next verse. “she was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth…she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will ruled all the nations with an iron scepter”(rev12:2–5). even evangelicals admit that the "male child"is jesus. i thought that the catholic interpretation of this passage was more honest with the text than the evangelical interpretation long before i considered catholicism as a personal alternative. mary is the ONLY WOMAN WHO EVER GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS. certainly no group of people can lay claim to being his mother. the title “queen of heaven” is certainly a logical conclusion from the text. a “crown of twelve stars” has to signify something. santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros…

 

[Church_Militant]

ahimsaman72:

What kind of thread do you want me to begin? What is the topic you would like to see? (See how cooperate I am?)

Peace…

Perhaps a discussion of the commonality that you seem to find in being a mix of Buddhist & Baptist…?http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage28/1.gif

 

[ahimsaman72]

MaggieOH:

actually the lame duck is the Protestant who denies Mary the honour that she deserves.

From the comments that you have made I take it that you have never studied theology (neither have I by the way), and that you do not understand the typology of the Scripture.

Not at a seminary, no. I have spent probably the past 15 years studying the Bible, reading commentaries, books, etc. I understand typology of Scripture. I still have not seen any evidence provided by you that says Mary is Queen of heaven besides your own thoughts.

This is not something that is put together in thousands of years. I do not know where such a comment is coming from.

Looking at the conclusions that you are making, I have a few questions that need answers:

1. Do you believe that Jesus fulfilled the Scripture?
2. If you believe that Jesus fulfilled the Scripture, then what prophecies were fulfilled?
3. Who is the ancestor of Jesus according to the prophet Isaiah?
4. Who is the son of Jesse?
5. To which Judaic tribe does Jesus belong?

I have more questions to ask but I think we better get answers for these questions before proceeding.

Maggie
Your questions will remain unanswered till I have more time to devote to giving you this information.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Isidore_AK:

Methinks this answers your own point…if Christ is the king in Heaven, then his mother (The Queen Mother) is accordingly the Queen of Heaven. Easy logic chain…

Methinks you missed the point.

His mother is/was a human. Christ was/is human and divine. There is no correlation between the earthly institution of a monarchy and the Godhead. It’s an easy logic chain if you want to build that bridge. However you and the others have still not given one shred of evidence from Scripture that declares Mary as Queen of heaven and that she should be prayed to or that she is an Advocate with the Father.

Please show me evidence.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic Tom:

Bang, there it is. Jesus is the heir to the Kingdom of David, FACT. Jesus’s kingdom is made clear in the bible that it is not of this world, FACT. If Mary is Jesus’s Mother, and he is King, she is Queen, FACT (you also need to understand how the hierarchy in kingdoms worked in their day). Evidence supporting this again, what I just described, Mary in revelation (which can have multiple interpretations but the most obvious is that being Mary in heaven with a crown). There is more, but that really is enough. This takes faith and logic. Someone earlier said that there must be Logic, Scriptural Evidence, and Common Sense as their criteria for Dogma…and given that criteria, I would say that it sure fits here…that and the testimony of the historical church who would surely have struck this down as a heresy if it was one.

Bang…you ran into a brick wall

You also need to understand you have no evidence besides your logic and philosophy that declares Mary as “Queen of heaven”. The woman in revelation with a crown is a poor proof text. I was the one that mentioned logic, Scriptural evidence and common sense.

Can you provide one shred of evidence that shows the Kingdom of Heaven is ruled as a monarchy as the Kingdom of Israel was?

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

MaggieOH:

The Old Testament is a precursor to the New Testament. We do not separate the Old Testament from the New Testament. One of the beautiful things we have in Scripture is what is known as typology. King David is a type of Christ. The Davidic Kingdom is a type of the Eucharistic Kingdom.

Jesus is a descendant of King David, therefore His Mother is the Queen of the Davidic and Eucharistic Kingdom.

Maggie

I understand typology. Types are meant to help us with concepts, not declare dogmas. They are meant to lead us to the truth, they are not the truth itself. Monarcy rule on earth has no relation to the Heavenly rule of God. Show me one piece of evidence that can validate your point.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

**"Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus" that there is taken directly from Lk 1:42

---

***Mary is the mother of God, Lk 1:43 “***And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord has come to me?”

---

***We all should respect Mary, Lk 1:48 “***Surely all generations will call me blessed”

I see that Mary is “blessed among women”. All generations will call her blessed. And I see her termed as “mother of my Lord”.

And your point is???

I never said we should disrespect her. I respect her. I do not consider her queen of heaven.

How do we go from her being the mother of the Lord to being queen of heaven ruling heaven alongside her son and God the Father. You can’t show me one shred of evidence to back such a claim.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Lisa4Catholics:

It is not neglected,we are in exile here,if we do not accept Christ as King here why would you think we would accept it anywhere else.Scripture does not hold all truths in the Bible that is stated in scripture.Jesus left the apostles and oral Tradition,by Christs authority.Scripture itself shows Mary being crowned you choose not to believe it,you choose to believe God zapped her and merely used her,and would not honor her for it.You ignore The Magnifiant",Revelations,Gabriel,Elizabeth.Why?It seems such a leap for you for God to Crown Mary Queen of Heaven.She is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit,The Mother of Jesus the Son,why is it such a problem to see it?That is just bizzare to me.God Bless

Even after I showed you the clear Scripture where from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ He said His kingdom is not of this world?

Scripture holds all truth necessary for salvation. There’s not one iota of information needed outside of Scripture to be right with God. Scripture shows nothing of the kind about Mary being crowned.

There’s an obscure, symbolic passage in Revelation that you use as a basis to build a foundation so important like the queenship of heaven - important enough that it is dogma and without believing - one goes against the Holy Church itself. It’s incredible to me that such an important - absolute truth would be hidden in a symbolic book of the Bible without such knowledge that people perish.

God can honor people without making them rulers beside His Son Jesus. He honored Moses, Abraham, Noah and many others and never gave any of them a rulership status like Catholics have given Mary.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

MaggieOH:

On a basic level, I would say that you have not fully understood all that is happening in this one small motif in John’s Gospel. Like all faithful Protestants you follow the same line as James White and others who have no real ability to discern the Truth of what is really happening in the conversation between Jesus and Mary.

From the imperfect Protestant point of view, there is the claim that Jesus was speaking harshly to His mother, and that He was reluctant to perform any miracle. However, the balance of the Scripture gives us a very different interpretation.

This early part of John’s Gospel has been written as a reflection of the Creation story in Genesis. (I feel certain that this is not how Protestants view this part of the Gospel… sigh). The question that should come to mind here is: what is being revealed? What is happening here? Who are the bride and bridegroom? Please note the names of the bride and bridegroom are not mentioned in the Gospel. If one can see within this motif that Jesus is the bridegroom, then who is the bride? What if I substitute the word King - and ask who is the King? Then who would be the Queen?

Now let me get back to the many things that are happening in this one small motif in John’s Gospel. What is going on here? Jesus has been baptized by John and is ready to start His public mission. He has not as yet performed his first miracle. Who is the most fitting person for whom Jesus will perform the first miracle? Could it be that this one sentence that is taken as some kind of harsh statement is saying something very different? Perhaps what Jesus is saying is that the time has come when he has to take control of his life to start His public mission, and not that he does not want to perform the miracle.

It seems odd that Jesus would be allegedly harsh with his mother on the one hand, yet she is so confident that He will do as she asks that she turns to the servants and says: “Do as he tells you”.

Here is the next point within the motif that is worth examining. The words of Mary point to her Son, and those words “Do as He tells you” not only applies to the servants at the wedding feast but to all who claim to be servants of God. The Queen asks the King of kings for a favour; He listens and the favour is granted. What more can one expect from the Woman who is chosen to be the Queen for the King of kings.

Maggie

Thanks for comparing me to James White .

Anyway, this has been taken so much out of context it’s not even funny. You have taken an event and taken great scholarly strides into making it something it is truly not. The question that should come to mind is - why don’t I take the passage for what it is without adding some quasi-spiritual insight that doesn’t belong.

I appreciate the insightful interpretation, however it is irresponsible to take such a position.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

MaggieOH:

I am not sure whether you realize the errors in your statement above. I am not even certain that you know the Old Testament all that well considering some of the conclusions that are being made. I chose this portion of your post because of the lack of logic concerning cooperation with God - knowingly or not. The way that this statement comes out, it is as though you are saying that all of the forebears of both Joseph and Mary co-operated with God on the same level as Mary - at least that is how I am reading your comments here.

I know the Old Testament very well. I’ve studied it all my life. Baptists have “Sunday School”.

In order to understand Mary’s fiat (that is her yes to become the Mother of the Messiah) you need to have a full knowledge of the Book of Genesis, and especially the Fall in the Garden of Eden. This is the beginning of our Salvation history. Eve was tempted by Satan and she disobeyed God by giving into that temptation. Likewise Adam disobeyed God when he decided to take the fruit from Eve and eat it. God promised us the Messiah and the Woman who would crush the head of the seed of Satan (that is all the evil in the world). Jesus is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve. The fiat therefore is nothing that is ordinary because by agreeing to this request from God, Mary overturned the evil that was done by Eve through her complete obedience to God’s Will, just as Jesus overturned the sin of Adam.

Mary’s and Joseph’s ancestors were from the House of David, and there is nothing in the Scripture that says that they co-operated with God to keep the line going. In fact at the time of the Exile into Babylon the members of the House of David disappear from sight. It is not until we read the genealogies of Jesus that we know anything further about the descendants of king David.

The difference between Mary, as Mother of the Messiah, and all of the prophets who cooperated with God over the years is that Mary’s role could only end in sorrow because the Messiah (the Suffering Servant) came into the world to be the Lamb of God. Mary knew the passages of the Scripture that led to understanding who the Messiah will be, and she fully understood her undertaking. At least one prophet did not want to do the will of God, - in particular Jonah did not want to go to Ninevah - so one cannot argue that there was co-operation at this level. As for keeping the family going? Well, I do not think that I would classify that as co-operating with God on the same level. It is not as though an angel came to each of those ancestors and told them they were going to have children.

Maggie

:whacky: I have read through the book of Genesis many times dear friend. I realize the story of the fall of mankind. Jesus is clearly portrayed as the new Adam. Please show me where Mary is the new Eve - thanks.

I Corinthians 15:45

1. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
2. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
3. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Can you show a similar passage regarding Eve?

Of course his ancestors cooperated - whether they knew it or not. The prophets called by God to declare His decrees half the time didn’t realize what their visions meant. Daniel is a good example. Do you think he really understood the implications and had a good understanding of the visions God gave him?

You see more human involvement in making God’s plan work. I see God planning and executing everything in accordance with his will. Who can go against the Lord?

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mary3:

I am puzzled by your disdain for philosophy, but OK. Here is some “logic, Scriptural evidences and common sense” for why the Blessed Mother must have been a uniquely special human, worthy of our reverence.

I love philosophy. I just don’t use it to prove a point. I use it as a tool to help me get to the point.

Review Exodus chapters 35-40. These are the elaborate instructions that Moses was given about the construction of the tent to house the Ark of the Covenant. The instructions are quite detailed, describing who the artisans may be, what materials may be used, the colors of yarn to be used for the tent veil, specifications for the altar, the vestments and so on. What would this tent and this ark contain? The Word of God, inscribed on stones. The altar of sacrifice.

Here’s the logic and common sense part. If God took such great care to specify every detail of this place where His written Word would dwell, would He have been less particular about the dwelling of His Word in flesh? The Protestant position seems to be that Mary was some kind of disposable vessel, and that if she had refused Gabriel’s invitation, God would have found another girl.

And what makes you think that God’s eternal plan would hinge on one human’s acceptance of His will? Please explain this kind of a position. God needs no one to fulfill His divine plan. If he can make a donkey speak, I don’t think it would be too much to choose another woman. Either there’s a low view of God/high view of man or high view of God/low view of man. I take the second.

The Catholic position is that God created His most perfect human masterpiece in Mary. This He did with no less precision than when He designed the tent of Moses. He did this not for Mary’s sake, but because she would be the Ark of the Incarnate Word, and the source of His human flesh. From her came forth the perfect, spotless Lamb of God. The Blessed Mother was uniquely privileged, chosen and prepared for that role.

I was under the impression that Jesus Christ was the perfect human masterpiece. This is the fallacy in this type of thinking. It never glorifies Christ. It glorifies another human. There’s no human alive now or has ever been that can compare to the perfect, sinless Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Being privileged, chosen and prepared does not equate to Queenship of heaven. Please give some shred of evidence beyond your logic and philosophy to support your position.

P.S. Catholics also view the Bible as one continually developing story that concluded with Jesus and the lives of the Apostles. We believe you cannot dismiss the Old Testament as irrelevant to the New. Remember that the Scriptures referred to by St. Paul were the Old Testament…the New was not yet written.

I also see the Bible as one continuous story woven through thousands of years and by over 40 authors divinely inspired by The God of the Universe. I don’t dismiss the OT at all. Much of the OT is verified in the NT. I love the OT.

Peace…

 

[Catholic_Tom]

Mary as Ark of the New Covenant

Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

 

[Catholic_Tom]

Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom

John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying “behold your mother.” Jesus did not say “John, behold your mother” because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse proves the meaning of John 19:26. The “woman’s” (Mary’s) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God’s covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.

John 2:3 - this is a very signifcant verse in Scripture. As our mother, Mary tells all of us to do whatever Jesus tells us. Further, Mary’s intercession at the marriage feast in Cana triggers Jesus’ ministry and a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb. This celebration unites all believers into one famiy through the marriage of divinity and humanity.

John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother’s request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.

Psalm 45:9 - the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.

1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

1 Kings 2:18 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King’s followers. She is the Queen Mother (or “Gebirah”). Mary is our eternal Gebirah.

1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

1 Kings 15:13 - the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel’s royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.

2 Chron. 22:10 - here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.

Neh. 2:6 - the Queen Mother sits beside the King. She is the primary intercessor before the King.

 

[Catholic_Tom]

Mary as the New Eve. There is no specific scripture to support that, but then again it’s not official dogma either. Just like the Trinity (which by the way is no where in scripture, it’s deduced by passages in scripture since scripture is materially sufficient and formally insufficient), it has the constant affirmation of all christians everywhere.

Mary is the New Eve and Most Blessed Among Women

“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).

“[T]hey blessed her, saying: O God of our fathers, bless this child, and give her an everlasting name to be named in all generations. And all the people said: So be it, so be it, amen. And he brought her to the chief priests; and they blessed her, saying: O God most high, look upon this child, and bless her with the utmost blessing, which shall be for ever.” *Protoevangelium of John, 6:2 (A.D. 150). *

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” *Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155). *

“[H]e was born of Mary the fair ewe.” *Melito de Sardo, Easter Homily (c. A.D. 177). *

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180). *

“For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove for Himself, like a bridegroom, in the sufferings of the cross, in order that by uniting His own power with our moral body, and by mixing the incorruptible with the corruptible, and the strong with the weak, He might save perishing man.”* Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and antiChrist, 4 (A.D. 200). *

 

[Catholic_Tom]

“But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother–pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood.” *Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:6 (A.D.202). *

“Accordingly, a virgin did conceive and bear ‘Emmanuel, God with us.’ This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that He might reform it with a new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the re-moral of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as man by a dispensation in which a virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labour, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul…For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil’s word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil’s word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin’s womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since his condemnation.” *Tertullian, Flesh of Christ, 17 (A.D. 212). *“And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.” *Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 10:17 (A.D. 244). *

 

[Catholic_Tom]

“Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God [Theotokos] bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 10:19 (A.D. 350). *"In what remains we have the appointment of the Father’s will. The Virgin, the birth, the Body, then the Cross, the death, the visit to the lower world; these things are our salvation. For the sake of mankind the Son of God was born of tile Virgin and of the Holy Ghost. In this process He ministered to Himself; by His own power–the power of God–which overshadowed her He sowed the beginning of His Body, and entered on the first stage of His life in the flesh. He did it that by His Incarnation He might take to Himself from the Virgin the fleshly nature, and that through this commingling there might come into being a hallowed Body of all humanity; that so through that Body which He was pleased to assume all mankind might be hid in Him, and He in return, through His unseen existence, be reproduced in all. Thus the invisible Image of God scorned not the shame which marks the beginnings of human life. He passed through every stage; through conception, birth, wailing, cradle and each successive humiliation. What worthy return can we make for so great a condescension? The One Only-begotten God, ineffably born of God, entered the Virgin’s womb and grew and took the frame of poor humanity. He Who upholds the universe, within Whom and through Whom are all things, was brought forth by common childbirth; He at Whose voice Archangels and Angels tremble, and heaven and earth and all the elements of this world are melted, was heard in childish wailing. The Invisible and Incomprehensible, Whom sight and feeling and touch cannot gauge, was wrapped in a cradle.” *Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 2:24-25 (A.D. 355). *

“And as the grace of the Triad is one, so also the Triad is indivisible. We can see this in regard to Saint Mary herself. The archangel Gabriel when sent to announce the coming of the Word upon her said, ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee’, knowing that the Spirit was in the Word. Wherefore he added: ‘and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.’” *Athanasius, To Serapion of Thmuis, III:6 (A.D. 360). *

“And when he had taken her, ‘he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word ‘till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man.” *John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew, 5:5 (A.D. 370). *

“It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fullness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life.” *Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 2 (A.D. 371). *

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; for there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother. Of these two fair ones, to whom are my children similar?” *Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns, 27:8 (ante A.D. 373). *

“Whoever honors the Lord also honors the holy [vessel]; who instead dishonors the holy vessel also dishonors his Master. Mary herself is that holy Virgin, that is, the holy vessel” *Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:21 (A.D. 377). *

“And if the God-bearing flesh was not ordained to be assumed of the lump of Adam, what need was there of the Holy Virgin?” *Basil, To the Sozopolitans, Epistle 261 (A.D. 377). *

 

[Catholic_Tom]

“The first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue.” *Ambrose, On Virginity, 2:15 (A.D. 377). *

“Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground.” *Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379). *

“If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead. If anyone should assert that He passed through the Virgin as through a channel, and was not at once divinely and humanly formed in her (divinely, because without the intervention of a man; humanly, because in accordance with the laws of gestation), he is in like manner godless.” *Gregory of Nazianzen, To Cledonius, Epistle 101 (A.D. 382). *

" ‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord–simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself…Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord." *Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 22:19,38 (A.D. 384). *“We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” *Augustine, Nature and Grace, 36:42 (A.D. 415). *

"Hail, Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice…through you, every faithful soul achieves salvation.” *Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11 at Ephesus (A.D. 431). *

“If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (theotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, ‘The Word was made flesh’ let him be anathema.” *Council of Ephesus [Cyril’s Epistle 17], Anathema I (A.D. 431).

“A Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains.” *Peter Chyrsologus, Sermon 117 (post A.D. 432). *“And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: ‘because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.’ The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained…For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself: that Spirit (I say) who had determined to raise the fallen, to restore the broken, and by overcoming the allurements of the flesh to bestow on us in abundant measure the power of chastity: in order that the virginity which in others cannot be retained in child-bearing, might be attained by them at their second birth.” *Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], in Sermon 22:2 (ante A.D. 461). *