Queen of Heaven and Earth

[pablope]

Who is to say that I am right or wrong? No one specifically. Someone can consult the Scriptures to see whether I am right or wrong.

If there is no one to say you are right or wrong…then you are the one who would decide such matters?

Can you point out how Scriptures will decide whether you are right or wrong? How will Scriptures make that statement or decision on whether you are right or wrong?

Both JWs and Mormons would say that they were

 

[Todd977]

This seems anomalous to me, as I have never encountered such a high placement of Mary in any system of theology…
Any clarification would be abundantly appreciated.

I really didn’t understand the Catholic high placement of the Virgin Mary, second only to Jesus, either until I read what early Church Fathers, such as St Justin Martyr (155 A.D.) and St Irenaeus of Lyon (189 A.D.), wrote about her, comparing Mary to Eve, similar to the way that St Paul compared Jesus to Adam in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45. Then, it all started making sense.

I found the symmetry of what they said quite beautiful: In the beginning, a previously sinless man (Adam) and a previously sinless woman (Eve) disobey God and cause the fall of all humankind; later, in the fullness of time, a sinless man (Jesus) and a sinless woman (Mary) obey God and bring about the redemption of humankind. It seems to do justice to the important, secondary role played by Eve and Mary in the fall and redemption of humankind, respectively.

St Justin Martyr briefly compared Mary to Eve in his work, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 100. St Irenaeus of Lyon compared Mary to Eve in a slightly more detailed manner in his work, Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 22, paragraph 4; book 5, chapter 19, paragraph 1.

Familial relationships are important but doing the will of God is more important. See Matthew 12:50 and Luke 11:27-28. As I see it, the Virgin Mary was made queen, i.e., given the position of second-in-authority, in Jesus’ kingdom not simply because she was Jesus’ biological mother but even more because she was obedient to God’s will, especially in agreeing to become Jesus’ mother, and the consequences of her obedience were second only to Jesus’ in their importance to humankind, to heaven and earth.

Jesus is a divine person with a human nature. Though he has a human will as part of his human nature, his human will is completely subordinated to his divine will and he could never choose to be disobedient to God’s will. Even though it would take some 33 more years to be fully realized, once Jesus became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, our redemption was a foregone conclusion and no creature in heaven or on earth could have stopped it. God arranged everything so that, as far as the actions of mere humans was concerned, our redemption was solely dependent on Mary’s decision to do his will. Though she herself is not our Redeemer, her reply to the angel Gabriel, “Let it be done to me according to your word,” cleared the last remaining hurdle to our Redeemer’s entry into the world.

That there is a queen or at least some sort of hierarchy or varying degrees of authority in Jesus’ kingdom should not come as a big surprise. Jesus himself spoke of the great and the least in his kingdom and of those at his right hand and at his left. See Matthew 5:19; 20:23. Jesus also spoke about the Apostles sitting on twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28) His parable of the ten pounds, Luke 19:11-27, where the servant who traded the 10 pounds entrusted to him and made 5 more pounds for his master was given authority over 5 cities and the servant who traded the 10 pounds entrusted to him and made 10 more pounds for his master was given authority over 10 cities, also suggests that there is a hierarchy or varying degrees of authority in Jesus’ kingdom.

 

[tstor]

You are the one who actually thinks this can be Mary, but then not because of the woman suffering actual child birth pains. If this is the case.

Who do you think the woman is? What are the child birth pains and why?

No, no. I apologize for any confusion. I can see Mary in Revelation 12, but I do not see how Catholics can. The reason I say that is because you believe Mary was free from original sin, which would mean she would not experience birth pains (Genesis 3:16).

 

[tstor]

That works fine–if they agree with your interpretation of Scripture. What if they don’t? I must not be explaining the importance of authority very well. Authority does not lie in documents/writings. Authority lies with persons. Jesus didn’t give us writings to rely upon in matters of faith and morals–he gave us his Church. The Church preceded the official canon (list of books) of the NT (as well as the OT) by nearly 4 centuries. So, who did people consult in matters of faith and morals? It wasn’t the NT, although many spiritual writings were in circulation, some written by the Apostles and others written by various authors. It was the Church that preached and taught and decided all such matters. There was no one volume of writings for anyone to read. I highly recommend reading: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. Don’t be put off by the title or the modesty of the author, it’s really well-researched and nicely written with no anti-Protestant digs or polemics.

I have no doubt in my mind that people approached authoritative figures to learn. That does not mean the teachings they received are not in our Bibles now. I will take a look at the article after I clear some room off my reading list

As I wrote, anyone can claim anything, but can they prove it? No, they can’t. Ask them for proof–they won’t be able to supply anything except assertions, not facts.

JWs give attempts to quote the church fathers and historical scholars in their publications. Whether or not those quotes are accurate can be debated.

Strength is not the issue. It’s not about adding strength to your prayers or mine. It’s about uniting all our prayers as a single body for the benefit of all of us. I believe you are being a bit too academic rather than thinking in terms of faith and spiritual values. We don’t believe merely because the facts say so, we believe because Christ has revealed himself to us in his Incarnation. He asked that we pray for one another as an act of love and mercy towards others. We all benefit from employing such love and mercy–we need all we can get in a world that is increasingly rejecting such values.

I believe Christ has revealed himself in the incarnation because I believe it to be historically valid. He reveals himself through the Gospels and other Scriptures. Is this what you mean?

 

[tstor]

Who is more righteous than his saints in heaven? Did I ever assume that only the saints are righteous? Why must you twist my words?

The verse tells us about the prayer of “a righteous person.” Not the “most righteous people.” You are associating the “righteous person” James speaks of with the saints. I am asking why.

 

[tstor]

But, you know nothing about it? So, what cogent reasons do you have for rejecting apostolic succession except that you weren’t taught anything about it?

I know about it to some degree. I believe you have successfully caught one of the few times that I left out “as it stands.” I usually add the phrase “as it stands” to indicate that I have an open mind about a subject and that my understanding could be wrong.

As for Scripture being “God-breathed”, of course it is, but it’s not alone in that. Is Jesus not God? He breathed on the Apostles, when he gave them the authority to forgive or retain sins:

Jn. 20[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

I do not interpret this passage as you do. I always have taken the protestant understanding, which is presented by John Gill very well:
“God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God’s grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake…”

God’s Word is Christ (note the capital W), not a book. Jesus is the Father’s final Word to man. And what did Christ do? He established his Church to represent him, to preach, to baptize, to govern his people (as Moses did), to appoint successors (by the laying on of hands), etc. It’s all right there in Scripture. You only need to open your eyes to see it.

Are you familiar with the reformed view of the church?

 

[tstor]

Can you point out how Scriptures will decide whether you are right or wrong? How will Scriptures make that statement or decision on whether you are right or wrong?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The verse tells us about the prayer of “a righteous person.” Not the “most righteous people.” You are associating the “righteous person” James speaks of with the saints. I am asking why.

Are those in heaven not righteous?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Simple. The Bible tells us:
“As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.” (Acts 17:10-12)

The Scriptures in Paul’s day were the OT prophets.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

+++

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation

 

[Nicene]

I think the best approach is to first understand the difference between Catholic and Protestant theology. Catholics view sacred scripture typologically, vs proof texting, correlating new and old testaments. The apostles in the New Testament in fact teach typologically. With regard to Mary and the New Testament a good starting off point might be st. Iranseue: against heresies book 3 chapter 22. Understanding St. Paul in Romans uses the same typology for Adam being a type of Christ. Iranaeus was a disciple of, St polycarp disciple of John the apostle, writing against heresies around 180 ad.

Typologically he defends the understanding is Eve and Mary as st Paul does with Adam and Christ. I.e. Eve was the mother of all fallen mankind through her disobedience, Mary is the mother of us all through her obedience. Anyway good jumping into point and a very good read I would highly suggest.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[Michael_Francis]

The Scriptures in Paul’s day were the OT prophets.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

+++

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation

Above link is broken. Here is a working link to that article. Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

 

[Todd977]

No, no. I apologize for any confusion. I can see Mary in Revelation 12, but I do not see how Catholics can. The reason I say that is because you believe Mary was free from original sin, which would mean she would not experience birth pains (Genesis 3:16).

Genesis 3:16 does not say that Eve would have experienced no physical pain in childbearing had she not sinned but only that after she sinned her pain would be greatly multiplied. So, if Mary was like Eve before Eve had committed sin, then Mary may have experienced greatly diminished physical pain in childbearing. Something else to consider is that the pain in childbearing that the pregnant woman experienced in Revelation 12:2 may not have been physical but more mental like that experienced by St Paul: My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you! (Galatians 4:19)

 

[Duane1966]

I very clearly said that I am a former Unitarian.

Really? Here is what you said:

I have been a Unitarian since converting two years ago, so I had no desire to look into Catholicism or eastern Christianity.

This is the first time I have ever seen the word ***‘have’ ***not meaning currently. If you meant the past, why did you not use the word ’had’? If this is what clear means to you, then no wonder you say things are clear, where others say they aren’t.

Such as?

His debates with Pacwa, Windsor, and Armstrong. His writings on the Papacy and Marian doctrines…I can go on.

Are you suggesting that Scripture does not include the Greek Scriptures?

No. The Greek OT Scriptures is what Paul is referring to. Notice Paul says the Scriptures you have known since your youth. The only Scriptures Timothy could have known in his youth was the OT. NONE of the NT Scriptures had been written in Timothy’s youth.

You are right in saying that the canon was not there at that time, but are you suggesting Paul did not know he would write down Scripture?

Not suggesting that at all. But again, Paul says all scripture, not only.

Surely you cannot tell me those who adhere to sola scriptura neglect discussion of the church fathers. Many protestant scholars have written on this very topic.

And many Protestant scholars rip things out of context, or argue from silence.

Though, for the purpose of your request, allow me to provide a quote mine:

This is what I mean by ripping out of context. A good response can be found here: orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/search/label/Sola%20Scriptura. Halfway down the page you will find your quotes addressed. By the way, Clement of Alexandria thought many pagan writings were Scriptural.

Where do you see in the Bible that these oral statements were “god-breathed”? We know that Scripture was, but what of oral statements?

So when the Apostles were preaching before they had written anything down, you are saying their preaching wasn’t God-Breathed?

I was using it to complement the former teachings shown in the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek Scriptures I had previously quoted.

We agree that nothing can be added to the revelation that was handed down, Catholics just know that not all of revelation that was handed down was written down. More on this at the end.

This verse, along with the previously quoted, ties apostleship to the witnessing of Christ.

But does not show that authority cannot be passed on, which is what you said. If anything it shows that authority can be passed on. Are you trying to say that Christ set up a Church where the authority would only last while the Apostles were alive?

This is what I mean by an argument from silence As well, I have already addressed the verse you quoted from Paul.

Yes, but your address was unconvincing. Again, the bible clearly states to hold on to the Traditions taught orally as well as written. Yet you reject it. How can what is clear to so many people be obscure to you?

Scriptures were written “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” They were written “for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” They were written “so that you may know that you have eternal life.” So why do we need anything outside of Scripture?

Because without the lens of Sacred Tradition, which is wedded to the Sacred Scriptures (if you read St. Iranaeus further, you will see that is what he says), Sacred Scripture can only divide.

1.) Everything we have in Sacred Tradition has been handed down from the Apostles. Now if you say, how do we know nothing outside of the Apostles has been added? One could easily answer, since we have none of the original writings, how do we know nothing has been added or taken away from the Scriptures?

2.) Many people do not realize that what was handed to Moses on Mt. Sinai was only half written down. The Jews felt the written Torah, was impossible to comprehend without the Oral Torah, which was also given to Moses, but not written down until after the time of Christ. Yet this Oral Torah was just as important, and just as important as the written. Jesus does not condemn Sacred Tradition, only human.

3.) The Protestant Keith Mathison addressed the point why do denominations that adhere to sola scriptura seem to fracture at an alarming rate. You would think that it would bring unity. His answer was all of those denominations are practicing solo, not sola scriptura. It has been stated, even by some Protestant theologians, that essentially it is impossible to divide the two.

 

[Duane1966]

Allow me to clarify. I do not deny that the apostles appointed bishops to lead the church. I do deny the Catholic concept of such an event. I do not accept that there was a clear, undisputed, line of successors to the apostles. Consider the following examples:

And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.

How does this quote show succession is not clear? Clement is admonishing the Corinthian laity, basically for not listening to duly appointed bishops. This is exactly how the Catholic Church operated, and continues to operate now.

 

[Della]

I have no doubt in my mind that people approached authoritative figures to learn. That does not mean the teachings they received are not in our Bibles now. I will take a look at the article after I clear some room off my reading list

Your knowledge of Church history is woefully incomplete, my friend, if this is what you believe or were taught to believe. Most Protestants learn next to nothing about early Church history (or have it filtered through their ecclesial body’s assertions). So, all they can do is make assumption such as this–all to prop up Sola Scriptura, which is not a biblical principle, but a man made one. No one had to “approach authoritative figures” since the Apostles taught directly and appointed men to speak for them when they couldn’t be physically present. All this is in the NT.

JWs give attempts to quote the church fathers and historical scholars in their publications. Whether or not those quotes are accurate can be debated.

For a long time such groups completely ignored the Church Fathers until they were challenged to prove their claims to being the ancient Church. And yes, they take quotes out of context to try to prove their assertions, but they aren’t fooling anyone who has read and studied the CFs.

I believe Christ has revealed himself in the incarnation because I believe it to be historically valid. He reveals himself through the Gospels and other Scriptures. Is this what you mean?

About praying for one another? I don’t see any connection between what I wrote and your conclusions. No, I don’t mean that. I mean just what I wrote.

I do not interpret this passage as you do. I always have taken the protestant understanding, which is presented by John Gill very well:
“God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God’s grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake…”

No. This is not the correct interpretation. Not because I say so or even the Church says so (although I would and do believe how the Church interprets her own words–which is what the Scriptures are). I believe that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority and duty for forgive sins because he plainly says so. The Apostles assumed for themselves nothing more than what Christ authorized them to do.

John Gill is writing like a Pharisee or a Sadducee here, not as a Christian who believes Jesus is the Son of God who founded his Church, as Jesus very plainly stated that he did. He gave his authority to the Apostles, which he plainly does here and other places.

It doesn’t matter who interprets Scripture in any way he pleases. What matters is who has the authority to interpret Scripture. Who gave it to John Gill? No one. The Church interprets Scripture because it is her Scriptures–her writings, not John Gills, not yours or mine.

 

[Nicene]

Hi Della,
You’ve touched on one of the problems probably without realizing it. We view scripture through the eyes of the church fathers and how we actually lived it. They view scripture through, as in the example above, John gill or in the case of perplexed or any reborn, through the eyes of c.s. Lewis. It isn’t sola scriptura, it’s tradition, yet cognitive dissonance will never allow them to see or even admit it.

Cognitive dissonance is a really interesting phenomena.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[tstor]

I really didn’t understand the Catholic high placement of the Virgin Mary, second only to Jesus, either until I read what early Church Fathers, such as St Justin Martyr (155 A.D.) and St Irenaeus of Lyon (189 A.D.), wrote about her, comparing Mary to Eve, similar to the way that St Paul compared Jesus to Adam in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45. Then, it all started making sense.

I found the symmetry of what they said quite beautiful: In the beginning, a previously sinless man (Adam) and a previously sinless woman (Eve) disobey God and cause the fall of all humankind; later, in the fullness of time, a sinless man (Jesus) and a sinless woman (Mary) obey God and bring about the redemption of humankind. It seems to do justice to the important, secondary role played by Eve and Mary in the fall and redemption of humankind, respectively.

St Justin Martyr briefly compared Mary to Eve in his work, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 100. St Irenaeus of Lyon compared Mary to Eve in a slightly more detailed manner in his work, Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 22, paragraph 4; book 5, chapter 19, paragraph 1.

Familial relationships are important but doing the will of God is more important. See Matthew 12:50 and Luke 11:27-28. As I see it, the Virgin Mary was made queen, i.e., given the position of second-in-authority, in Jesus’ kingdom not simply because she was Jesus’ biological mother but even more because she was obedient to God’s will, especially in agreeing to become Jesus’ mother, and the consequences of her obedience were second only to Jesus’ in their importance to humankind, to heaven and earth.

Jesus is a divine person with a human nature. Though he has a human will as part of his human nature, his human will is completely subordinated to his divine will and he could never choose to be disobedient to God’s will. Even though it would take some 33 more years to be fully realized, once Jesus became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary, our redemption was a foregone conclusion and no creature in heaven or on earth could have stopped it. God arranged everything so that, as far as the actions of mere humans was concerned, our redemption was solely dependent on Mary’s decision to do his will. Though she herself is not our Redeemer, her reply to the angel Gabriel, “Let it be done to me according to your word,” cleared the last remaining hurdle to our Redeemer’s entry into the world.

That there is a queen or at least some sort of hierarchy or varying degrees of authority in Jesus’ kingdom should not come as a big surprise. Jesus himself spoke of the great and the least in his kingdom and of those at his right hand and at his left. See Matthew 5:19; 20:23. Jesus also spoke about the Apostles sitting on twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28) His parable of the ten pounds, Luke 19:11-27, where the servant who traded the 10 pounds entrusted to him and made 5 more pounds for his master was given authority over 5 cities and the servant who traded the 10 pounds entrusted to him and made 10 more pounds for his master was given authority over 10 cities, also suggests that there is a hierarchy or varying degrees of authority in Jesus’ kingdom.

This is a very well thought out and thorough response. I appreciate it. As it stands, I have no objections to what you have said.

 

[tstor]

Are those in heaven not righteous?

They are.

 

[tstor]

Genesis 3:16 does not say that Eve would have experienced no physical pain in childbearing had she not sinned but only that after she sinned her pain would be greatly multiplied. So, if Mary was like Eve before Eve had committed sin, then Mary may have experienced greatly diminished physical pain in childbearing. Something else to consider is that the pain in childbearing that the pregnant woman experienced in Revelation 12:2 may not have been physical but more mental like that experienced by St Paul: My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you! (Galatians 4:19)

No, the passage in Genesis does not say “multiplied.” If it did, then we could reasonably conclude that Eve had already been experiencing pain in childbirth. It simply states that the pain in giving birth will now be severe. You can interpret the passage in Revelation 12 as not referring to physical childbirth, but that neglects the very plain reading of the text.

 

[tstor]

Really? Here is what you said: This is the first time I have ever seen the word ***‘have’ ***not meaning currently. If you meant the past, why did you not use the word ’had’? If this is what clear means to you, then no wonder you say things are clear, where others say they aren’t.

Your misunderstanding comes from not reading more than one sentence. I encourage you to read the very next sentence after the one you just quoted:
“However, I have now accepted the trinity, not on the basis of Church history, but on the basis of Scripture alone.”

If you cannot read what I type in all of its entirety, then do not take the time to respond to it.

His debates with Pacwa, Windsor, and Armstrong. His writings on the Papacy and Marian doctrines…I can go on.

I gather that. I am asking for specific examples. Give an example of an objection you have.

No. The Greek OT Scriptures is what Paul is referring to. Notice Paul says the Scriptures you have known since your youth. The only Scriptures Timothy could have known in his youth was the OT. NONE of the NT Scriptures had been written in Timothy’s youth.

The immediate context is speaking about the OT, yes. However, that does not exclude what would eventually be added to Scripture. Namely, the New Testament.

Not suggesting that at all. But again, Paul says all scripture, not only.

I never claimed that Paul said “only.”

And many Protestant scholars rip things out of context, or argue from silence.
This is what I mean by ripping out of context.

Sure. Many Catholics do as well. Many Muslims do as well. Unless you are arguing that “all” rip the church father’s writings out of context, then this statement holds no real weight.

A good response can be found here: orthodox-apologetics.blogspot.com/search/label/Sola%20Scriptura. Halfway down the page you will find your quotes addressed. By the way, Clement of Alexandria thought many pagan writings were Scriptural.

Yes, I came across this website when I was doing research a couple of days ago. I am working on sifting through it.

So when the Apostles were preaching before they had written anything down, you are saying their preaching wasn’t God-Breathed?

Not at all.

But does not show that authority cannot be passed on, which is what you said. If anything it shows that authority can be passed on. Are you trying to say that Christ set up a Church where the authority would only last while the Apostles were alive?

Authority is in Scripture.

Yes, but your address was unconvincing. Again, the bible clearly states to hold on to the Traditions taught orally as well as written. Yet you reject it. How can what is clear to so many people be obscure to you?

No where does it say that the oral traditions are god-breathed. Show me where I can find a passage that declares this understanding. You cannot. As far as I am concerned, there are over 800 million people who do not agree with you on this very topic. So while it is clear to Catholics, it is far from clear to Protestants.