mary, the eternal virgin?

[Dokimas]

Again with the colors? The last refuge of the TRULY desperate.
Now you’re saying that God DID chose Matthias?? Earlier, in Post #276, you said God DIDN’T choose him.

**You change your position more often that most **people change their clothes . . .

You can play semantic games all you want. The fact is - you said it was Peter’s prayer, implying it wasn’t the concensus of the Apostles.
You’re wrong yet again . . .

I’m sorry this is not clear to you. I’ve said that it is my opinion as I’ve looked at (read and studied) the Bible that God’s choice to replace Judas was Saul of Tarsus. FYI, this has been my position at least as long as I’ve posted on CAF. Any claims to the difference is either from mistaken interpretation of what I’ve said, not reading what I’ve said carefully or purposely misrepresenting what I’ve said.

I sure should have not been so specific. That was my mistake. However, I believe the discussion started with the idea that Peter got the ball rolling to replace Judas because he was the leader. That’s why I mentioned him as the person praying. YOU are CORRECT, they all prayed this. **THAT’S NOT **the point of this discussion. You’ve changed the focus, not to mention it’s off the topic of this thread.

 

[elvisman]

I’m sorry this is not clear to you. I’ve said that it is my opinion as I’ve looked at (read and studied) the Bible that God’s choice to replace Judas was Saul of Tarsus. FYI, this has been my position at least as long as I’ve posted on CAF. Any claims to the difference is either from mistaken interpretation of what I’ve said, not reading what I’ve said carefully or purposely misrepresenting what I’ve said.

I sure should have not been so specific. That was my mistake. However, I believe the discussion started with the idea that Peter got the ball rolling to replace Judas because he was the leader. That’s why I mentioned him as the person praying. YOU are CORRECT, they all prayed this. **THAT’S NOT **the point of this discussion. You’ve changed the focus, not to mention it’s off the topic of this thread.

So, let me get this straight. GOD’S choice to replace Judas was Saul of Tarsus (Paul) - BUT, Peter and the Apostles beat** him to the punch?? THAT’S your position? WOW!!!
That’s even wackier than your position didn’t choose Matthias back in Acts 1 when the text explicitly says he DID . . .**

---

Saul didn’t get knocked off his horse until** Acts 9****. Was God asleep for all those years or was he just lazy??**

Like I’ve always said: You have to do some pretty complicated Scriptural acrobatics to deny Catholic doctrines - like Apostolic Succession.

 

[Dokimas]

So, let me get this straight. GOD’S choice to replace Judas was Saul of Tarsus (Paul) - BUT, Peter and the Apostles beat** him to the punch?? THAT’S your position? WOW**!!!
That’s even wackier than your position didn’t choose Matthias back in Acts 1** when the text explicitly says he DID** . . .

---

Saul didn’t get knocked off his horse until** Acts 9****. Was God asleep for all those years or was he just lazy??**

**Like I’ve always said: You have to do some pretty complicated **Scriptural acrobatics to deny Catholic doctrines - like Apostolic Succession.

Keep up your condescending way. You’ll drive people away and make yourself of none effect.

If I wrote that to you you’d say that I was anti-catholic. I’d have to agree if that happened. Therefore, I must tell you you are anti-anyone who has an understanding different than you. It comes across hateful.

 

[elvisman]

Keep up your condescending way. You’ll drive people away and make yourself of none effect.

If I wrote that to you you’d say that I was anti-catholic. I’d have to agree if that happened. Therefore, I must tell you you are anti-anyone who has an understanding different than you. It comes across hateful.

I’m not anti-anybody.
What I am is anti-lies and anti-confusion. These Scripture passages are not as confusing as you make them.
**It boggles my mind that you can purport to “know better” than God.

 

[LilyM]

There you go again. God got His choice — Saul of Tarsus. Saul was chosen just like the original 12 - and that was NOT by casting lots.

 

[onenow1]

Exodus 3​

5 Then he said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”

From all eternity God held Mary in His Heart. The verse above clearly demonstrates the incorruptable Quality He wants for us . God being pure Love, graced Mary as no other creature since Adam and Eve. Below are the consequence of sin.

Genesis 3​

8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife{ hid themselves} from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Corruption of sin did not touch Mary,this is hardfor us to undestand mainly because we cannot do it without God’s help;and receive Him after confession of any mortal sin. Then we may receive Him in our bodies; as Mary did in her womb. Look at John 6: 53 When he asys you cannot have life in you.

As a side note Jesus became flesh so He could remain with us here on earth in the Eucharist. That’s why Paul says this.>1 Corinthians 11: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord

Peace and God Bless All
onenow1

 

[guanophore]

I wasn’t accusing him of being a heretic - but of speaking heresy. For example - if he espoused the belief that Jesus was not God but merely a Temple of God, I would have accused him of speaking in favor of the Nestorian Heresy.

Dokimas limits the power of God and IS therefore speaking heresy because ALL Christians must believe in God’s omnipotence.

You are right, of course. I sit corrected.
elvisman;6814646:

As for whether or not he* lied*

, the argument is strong against him because I gave hime the text Iwhich is undeniable) no less that 3 times and he STILL denies the truth.

Yes, I agree, but denial of the truth is not always equivalent to a deliberate attempt to deceived. It seems that he is honestly deceived himself, and sincerely believes that what he holds is the Truth. If he believes what he is saying, then it is a case of denial rather than lying. Granted, both are problematic and spiritually damaging, but denial is absent of malicious intent, where lying is not.

 

[mark_a]

I said the Holy Spirit did not inspire contradicting things. Two opposites can’t both be correct. However, they both could be incorrect, thus NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit at all.

I don’t understand how the opposing teachings that Mary is a perpetual virgin and the teaching that Mary is not currently a virgin could both be incorrect.

Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

Guan, you do a very poor job of it so you should stop. Why not just ask me questions so I can clear up for you your misunderstandings. What you do, telling us what I’ve meant, often boarders on false witnessing.

I will try to do better, but as has been pointed out to you, your answers are sometimes quite shallow, a little sarcastic, and not very helpful to elaborate.

What I am doing is following your train of thought as it appears in the post. I think you don’t realize the logical conclusion of some of your statements. For example, saying that God did not choose Matthias directly contradicts the text. When I ask myself, ‘what possible factors could be at work to make Dokimas’ understanding valid’, I reach the conclusions with which I responded.

I wasn’t speaking about interpreting Scripture but my post.

It is the same process. Humans interpret everything that comes through our five senses. To tell me “you do a poor job, so you should stop” is like telling me not to breathe. I don’t have any control over the fact that I interpret. I can adjust my perceptions if I have more information, which is why I am here at CAF.

BTW, if there’s as many interpretations as belly-buttons, are you saying you interpret the Bible for yourself?

Of course I do. It is impossible to read text and not interpret.

Wrong interpretation again. God didn’t fail. We fail at times. He does allow us to fail. Where sin abounds, grace does much more abound.

Ok, so that means that God is too weak to surmount our failings. He was unable to guide Peter and the other Apsotles into a right action at that event. Peters thick skull overpowered God’s ability to reveal to him that he was making a mistake.

And the HS was unable to have the event recorded in such a way as to make it clear that Peter made a mistake. Unlike other passages where Peter made mistakes, reference to a mistake here is entirely omitted. On the contrary, the text states “show us which of these you have chosen”, and the choice was enrolled as an Apostle, leading the reader to believe that God chose.

Two mistakes on God’s part here. Too weak to influence the Apostles to Truth, and too weak to document the mistake that was made. Poor God. He must have been having the flu that day.

Romans 5:20 “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.”

We are in agreement that God can use the mistakes of man, and that He can write straight with crooked lines. Where we do not agree is that the Apostles made a mistake here. Scripture no where even hints that Saul of Tarsus was God’s choice to replace Judas. This is a fabrication of your own making or one that you received from another’s imagination.

Isn’t it a miracle how God can use people and they get things correct? Wasn’t there MUCH deliberation before the final decision was made as to what letters would be cannonized?

Yes the canon was the result of Divine intervention, just like the selection of Matthias to replace Judas, and just like the perpetual virgnity of Mary. None of these things could have occurred apart from God’s grace.

Are you purposely misleading readers as to what I have said on this issue many times on CAF? God keeps ALL His promises, even the ones that tell us that when we stray, He will discipline. The problem IS NOT with God, but with you, the CC, every church and most of all, ME.

You are suggesting that our shortcomings are stronger than God.

This is what Elvis said:

[SIGN]Denial of a revealed truth - especially about God.
You have implied that he does not have the power to make decisions - that’s heresy.[/SIGN]

His post had NOTHING to do with the CC but with God. He beared false witness that I implied God does not have the power to make decisions.

Peter, the Apostles, and the disciples that were present were the CC as it existed at that time. You are saying that God failed to guide them into all Truth, as He promised. You are asserting that the CC made a mistake in choosing Matthias to succeed Judas, and that " God chose Paul to replace Judas".

Even though the text is clear that the choice was made by God, and revealed to the Apostles by the casting of lots, you deny that God was at work, and say that the CC made a 'mistake".

You continue to struggle getting what we say correct.

I think I am struggling a lot more with your allegations against the Church, and against God. It is mind boggling that you think God is weaker than human failings.

 It's quite unfair of you to interject the CC and the US Naval Academy discussion here because you have not posted all my comments so the readers will understand for themselves the points made.  Bad form on your part.

If anyone wants a link I am happy to provide. It is a clear example of your refusal to accep that God gave authority to the CC, and that He worked through that authority to preserve the faith. I see you are able to admit this as far as the canon is concerned, but for other beliefs that were held in equal value that you do not like, you reject it.

 

[guanophore]

It is you who, through using nice color, have changed the meaning of the prayer.

Can you explain this? How does using color change the meaning of the prayer?

Also, how does the meaning seem different to you?

I think what the done is give clarity to the text, because it helps you to see the part you were ignoring.

They chose two men and expected God to chose one of them by casting lots.

You left out some steps here, Doki.

12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away;
[13] and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
[SIGN][14] All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. [/SIGN]
[15] In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
[16] “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
[17] For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
[18] (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
[19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’
[21] So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
[23] And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.

After Jesus was taken up, the Church returned to the upper room and devoted themselves to prayer. AFTER the prayer, Peter stood up and shared what was revealed to him during the prayer and through the scriptures. He explained how the HS spoke to him through the scripture that Judas’ office was to be taken by another.

He gave the requirements, and explained that someone who met the requirements “must become with us a witness to His resurrection”.

So, according to your view, the prayer of the Church was useless, the scripture was useless, and the HS was not guiding Peter at all (you seem to think he did not pray, read scripture or attempt to discern God’s will).

Peter wasn’t one of those praying? If he was, did he disagree with the prayer? It was his prayer as well as all of them.

And according to your theory, the prayers of all of them were useless, as God was too weak to speak to their hearts and minds, even through the scriptures that they thought they received from Him.

. God got His choice — Saul of Tarsus. Saul was chosen just like the original 12 - and that was NOT by casting lots.

There is no doubt that Saul of Tarsus was chosen to be an Apostle by God, just like there were many Apostles before Saul. You are saying that the Church made a mistake choosing Matthias, but both were God’s choice, as well as all the other Apostles that were chosen. Who are you to say otherwise? Why not one of the other Apostles mentioned in the NT to be the replacement?

Thanks for sticking up for me.

You may be stubborn, but you are very sincere.

However there is one major correction ... I did not learn this from anyone that I'm aware of.  I read, studied, thought about these things.  It is wrong of you to blame anyone else for my understandings.

Ok. This is not the first time I have heard this heresy, so I was not sure if you concluded it on your own, or picked it up somewhere. One thing I am sure of, and that is that it originated with the Father of Lies.

The idea that Mary had other children came from the same place.

 

[guanophore]

I've said that it is my opinion as I've looked at (read and studied) the Bible that God's choice to replace Judas was Saul of Tarsus.  **FYI**, this has been my position at least as long as I've posted on CAF.

I sure should have not been so specific. That was my mistake. However, I believe the discussion started with the idea that Peter got the ball rolling to replace Judas because he was the leader. That’s why I mentioned him as the person praying. YOU are CORRECT, they all prayed this. **THAT’S NOT **the point of this discussion. You’ve changed the focus, not to mention it’s off the topic of this thread.

I think it is fine that you were specific. It is germaine to this thread because it is by the same authority you take this position with Saul or Tarsus as you deny the perpetual virginity of Jesus’ mother.

Your opinion, as you have looked at and studied the bible, supercedes what the HS has taught the church and preserved in her for 2000 years.

It boils down to preferring your own authority over that which God gave to the Church.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas;6814955:

Apart from whoever produced the **woefully inadequate scholarship **

it is that you’ve been reading. And any scholarship that leads you to think ‘adelphoi’ must mean uterine siblings and excludes, in the NT (even though it doesn’t in the OT), more distant biological relations, IS woefully inadequate in that regard at least.

I thought I made it clear. I read the Bible for myself, I think about it and study Scripture with Scripture and make conclusions for myself. Those unkind words of yours are directed ONLY to me.

It’s those kinds of personal attacks that makes you a person I’m not willing to learn much from.

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t understand how the opposing teachings that Mary is a perpetual virgin and the teaching that Mary is not currently a virgin could both be incorrect.

Thanks.

You are correct. I was speaking generally. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.

 

[Dokimas]

I will try to do better, but as has been pointed out to you, your answers are sometimes quite shallow, a little sarcastic, and not very helpful to elaborate.

What I am doing is following your train of thought as it appears in the post. I think you don’t realize the logical conclusion of some of your statements. For example, saying that God did not choose Matthias directly contradicts the text. When I ask myself, ‘what possible factors could be at work to make Dokimas’ understanding valid’, I reach the conclusions with which I responded.

It is the same process. Humans interpret everything that comes through our five senses. To tell me “you do a poor job, so you should stop” is like telling me not to breathe. I don’t have any control over the fact that I interpret. I can adjust my perceptions if I have more information, which is why I am here at CAF.

Of course I do. It is impossible to read text and not interpret.

Ok, so that means that God is too weak to surmount our failings. He was unable to guide Peter and the other Apsotles into a right action at that event. Peters thick skull overpowered God’s ability to reveal to him that he was making a mistake.

And the HS was unable to have the event recorded in such a way as to make it clear that Peter made a mistake. Unlike other passages where Peter made mistakes, reference to a mistake here is entirely omitted. On the contrary, the text states “show us which of these you have chosen”, and the choice was enrolled as an Apostle, leading the reader to believe that God chose.

Two mistakes on God’s part here. Too weak to influence the Apostles to Truth, and too weak to document the mistake that was made. Poor God. He must have been having the flu that day.

We are in agreement that God can use the mistakes of man, and that He can write straight with crooked lines. Where we do not agree is that the Apostles made a mistake here. Scripture no where even hints that Saul of Tarsus was God’s choice to replace Judas. This is a fabrication of your own making or one that you received from another’s imagination.

Yes the canon was the result of Divine intervention, just like the selection of Matthias to replace Judas, and just like the perpetual virgnity of Mary. None of these things could have occurred apart from God’s grace.

You are suggesting that our shortcomings are stronger than God.

Peter, the Apostles, and the disciples that were present were the CC as it existed at that time. You are saying that God failed to guide them into all Truth, as He promised. You are asserting that the CC made a mistake in choosing Matthias to succeed Judas, and that " God chose Paul to replace Judas".

Even though the text is clear that the choice was made by God, and revealed to the Apostles by the casting of lots, you deny that God was at work, and say that the CC made a 'mistake".

I think I am struggling a lot more with your allegations against the Church, and against God. It is mind boggling that you think God is weaker than human failings.

If anyone wants a link I am happy to provide. It is a clear example of your refusal to accep that God gave authority to the CC, and that He worked through that authority to preserve the faith. I see you are able to admit this as far as the canon is concerned, but for other beliefs that were held in equal value that you do not like, you reject it.

About your third or fourth comment was incorrect about what I was saying. I refuse to read any further or make any comments other than this one.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;6815473:

I thought I made it clear. I read the Bible for myself, I think about it and study Scripture with Scripture and make conclusions for myself. Those unkind words of yours are directed ONLY to me.

It’s those kinds of personal attacks that makes you a person I’m not willing to learn much from.

My genuine apologies.

I honestly thought you’d picked up the idea that ‘adelphoi’ means ‘uterine siblings’ from some Greek ‘scholar’ or other external source, and I was criticising the teaching. Not criticising you at all (one isn’t necessarily responsible for having had bad teachers).

But you don’t mean to say you formulate your ideas totally in isolation. The idea is nonsense.

You don’t just sit in a room with your bible and the Lord and nothing more, after all. You DO go to church, you DO hear preaching that expounds various scriptural interpretations that hadn’t occurred to you before but which you agree with and adopt, you discuss scripture (hopefully) with other people, with the same effect.

No man is an island, and no man’s thoughts are entirely his or her own.

 

[guanophore]

I thought I made it clear. I read the Bible for myself, I think about it and study Scripture with Scripture and make conclusions for myself. Those unkind words of yours are directed ONLY to me.

It’s those kinds of personal attacks that makes you a person I’m not willing to learn much from.

It is not a personal attack, Doki, but an observation on the facts. You are obviously not a bible scholar. Although you study with sincerity, your conclusions demonstrate a woeful inadequacy of textual and historical criticism. Bible scholars need to take many years of graduate level work in these areas, which apparently you have not had. It is not a commentary on your sincerity.

I think you have made it clear that you are not willing to learn much of anything at all here on CAF.

As we discussed on the other thread, the willingness to learn requires that one be open to other points of view. If you are so hurt when it is observed that your conclusions indicate a lack of scholarship, the hurt feelings can easily prevent you from being open to learning. All of us started with a woefully inadequate scholarship, don’t you think? Even my hero the amazing Father John Corapi started there.

About your third or fourth comment was incorrect about what I was saying. I refuse to read any further or make any comments other than this one.

Ok, but I want you to know that you have demonstrated why I do not ask you what you mean. When I am incorrect, instead of correcting my misunderstanding you get hurt, and “refuse to read further or many any comments”. This has been a pattern of yours for a long time now. You get angry when you are misunderstood, but you are not willing to address the misunderstanding.

I am taking your assertions to their logical conclusion. You don’t seem to agree with the conclusion. Maybe you should consider not making the assertion?

when you say “what was God supposed to do, stop the lots in thin air?”, you come across sounding like you believe God is too weak to take action.

 

[Doxiemom]

Yes and double yes!!! Prophecy does dictate as you say. It does not dictate Mary remain a virgin. A skeptic could say, “Even if she was celibate after the birth of Jesus, that doesn’t mean she didn’t have sex before Jesus was formed in her womb.”

To anyone who believes Bible prophecy, to believe she was a virgin until the birth of Jesus has NOTHING to do with whether or not she remained celibate. I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, yet do not believe Mary remained a virgin.

You say not everyone is satified being told she was a virgin. How did she prove it? A skeptic doesn’t believe Jesus was born to a virgin. You point doesn’t seem to hold up.

In reality, It makes no difference to me whether she remained virginal until her death. While I think she must have been quite some lady to be chosen to mother Him, if God saw no purpose for her to remain a virgin, so be it. Then His brothers and sisters could well have been His biolgical half-siblings. What was fine with the Creator is fine with me.

On the other hand, that skeptic , in God’s paticular way, if He so chose, could be shown that proof.

Her virginity was a sign to mankind that the King of the Jews had been born. I think it makes sense that that “sign”-her virginity- remain unviolated.

It has nothing to do with any maryism, queenship, co-redemptrix, all of which is unscriptural.

 

[guanophore]

In reality, It makes no difference to me whether she remained virginal until her death. While I think she must have been quite some lady to be chosen to mother Him, if God saw no purpose for her to remain a virgin, so be it. Then His brothers and sisters could well have been His biolgical half-siblings. What was fine with the Creator is fine with me.

On the other hand, that skeptic , in God’s paticular way, if He so chose, could be shown that proof.

Her virginity was a sign to mankind that the King of the Jews had been born. I think it makes sense that that “sign”-her virginity- remain unviolated.

It has nothing to do with any maryism, queenship, co-redemptrix, all of which is unscriptural.

Mary is considered a Queen because she is the Mother of the King.

Have you every noticed how Solomon treated his mother? Should the mother of the Son of God be treated with any less honor?

 

[elvisman]

Yes, I agree, but denial of the truth is not always equivalent to a deliberate attempt to deceived. It seems that he is honestly deceived himself, and sincerely believes that what he holds is the Truth. If he believes what he is saying, then it is a case of denial rather than lying. Granted, both are problematic and spiritually damaging, but denial is absent of malicious intent, where lying is not.

**I can see where you’re coming from. It may just be that he is living in denial. **

 

[elvisman]

It has nothing to do with any maryism, queenship, co-redemptrix, all of which is unscriptural.

REALLY? Let’s examine that claim.

**Mary, like Adam and Eve, is born without the stain of original sin by reason of the merits of Jesus Christ, who selected her from all women in history to be His mother. Just as Eve was named “the mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20), and Jesus is the new Adam, Mary becomes “the mother of all living in Christ”. - the New Eve. **

---

The charge that Mary’s Queenship is based on pagan religions and practices is made veryloosely** by people who have no understanding of the history of Israel. **

The Kingdom of Heaven is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom. We can see this from the references to Isaiah 22:20-22 when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

*In the Davidic Kingdom, the wife of the King was notthe Queen – but rather, his mother was elevated to that station. The title Gebirah (Gebira), ***meaning “Great Lady” or “Queen Mother” was a royal title and an office which was bestowed upon the mothers of the Kings of Israel but only to those in the line of David.

**Jesus Christ is the heir of David. He is the ****fulfillment **of the covenant promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7:16; 23:5, and repeated to Mary in Luke 1:26-36. Mary’s son rules from the Kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem. It is fitting that His mother should enjoy the same role that other Davidic Queen mothers enjoyed, that is the royal office of the heavenly Gebirah. It is in this sense that Catholics call her “the Queen of Heaven” and not in the pagan sense of that title as it is translated in English and found in Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17, 18, 19, & 25; which is a designation for an Egyptian goddess.

1 Kings 2:19-20** tells us: So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah; the king got up to meet her and bowed before her; he then sat down on his throne; a seat was brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down on his right.**

**“There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.” "Ask it, my mother," the king said to her, “for I will not refuse you.” **
Just as with the Davidic Kingdom, as Jesus is the King, Mary is the Queen Mother.