Queen of Heaven

[Tomster]

here is an interesting perspective for protestants. if sola scriptura is true, and everyone has the authority to interpret the bible for themselves by the power of the holy spirit, doesn’t this mean that if a catholic reads passages like revelation 12 and the old testament passeages about the queen mother, and from this comes to the conclusion that mary is the queen of heaven, musn’t the protestant conceed that this interpretation is at least potentially valid if the catholic claims to be lead by the holy spirit when coming to this interpretation?

Right on !

 

[AlmostCatholic]

The text does show that the woman of Revelation is Israel for sure

 

[Cat]

Daniel, I was born and raised evangelical Protestant. Harold Christenson and Gary Smalley were my pastors in the church where I grew up, and we regularly had guest speakers like Lutzer at our church. (I’m only saying this to give you a reference, so that you know what my “Bible study” background is.)

I converted to Catholicism in 2004, and I am very grateful to God for His leading.

I have a difficult time with your list of necessities for Bible study.

Surely you know that most Protestants do not have this kind of training. Even many Protestant pastors can’t claim that kind of background and education.

It is highly unlikely that most Protestants will ever acquire that kind of education. The knowledge that you listed will be acquired in an institute of higher education like a college (or local college course), and for many people, this simply isn’t practical.

Even to take courses like that on your own, in an independent home study, would be very difficult for many people, e.g., mothers with young babies and children. Besides, many people would require the assistance of an instructor to help them master these skills, especially the languages.

May I ask if I am totally misinterpreting your meaning? It sounds to me like you are saying that people who haven’t studied and mastered these skills have no business studying and interpreting the Scriptures.

Is that what your meaning is?

If not, what exactly are you saying?

I guess I don’t see your point. It seems to me that if people must have those skills in order to correctly interpret the Scriptures, then most Protestants have no business doing a Bible study and drawing conclusions.

And since most Protestants don’t have these skills, then most Protestant Bible teaching is error-filled.

Surely this isn’t what you are saying? It seems to go against the way Protestantism works in the practical world. In every Protestant church I have been associated with, the freedom to read and interpret the Scriptures is celebrated, and people are encouraged to study the Bible on their own.

Again, may I ask you to please spell out exactly what you are saying, and may I also ask you to please list the practical applications, as you see them, of your statement? I feel that I am surely totally misinterpreting what you are saying and reading into it that which you do not mean.

Thank you.

 

[Beyrak]

Again, may I ask you to please spell out exactly what you are saying, and may I also ask you to please list the practical applications, as you see them, of your statement? I feel that I am surely totally misinterpreting what you are saying and reading into it that which you do not mean.

Thank you.

It would seem to be quite simple. We are dealing with a very angry, defiant person who “apparently” has/thinks they have been hurt by the Church. He also seems to now be leaning eastern orthodox as he will not dare call himself a protestant.

He needs our prayers. And quite frankly, there are far worse places to go to worship than eastern orthodox.

 

[clmowry]

Yeah but their holy spirit can beat up your holy spirit nanananabooboo…

Chuck

here is an interesting perspective for protestants. if sola scriptura is true, and everyone has the authority to interpret the bible for themselves by the power of the holy spirit, doesn’t this mean that if a catholic reads passages like revelation 12 and the old testament passeages about the queen mother, and from this comes to the conclusion that mary is the queen of heaven, musn’t the protestant conceed that this interpretation is at least potentially valid if the catholic claims to be lead by the holy spirit when coming to this interpretation?

 

[Atemi]

Hello Almost,

The text does show that the woman of Revelation is Israel for sure, but says nothing about Mary, and never mentions her throughout.

This seems hypocritical. You demand to see a verse that Mary asks Jesus to do something, and you reject the principle because the specific words are never used.

Because “asking” implies a question is asked.

Mary never asked Jesus to do anything. There are observations, and maybe presumptions, but no requests.

To change inspired texts to fit our personal preferences is dangerous. You already know this.

Then you say that the woman in Revelation is Israel for sure when that is not literally in the text.

Actually, it is clear from the Genesis account.

I did not say something is in the text that is plainly not. That is the difference.

When a principle doesn’t go your way you demand literalism from the text.

Actually, someone saying that Mary asked Jesus for anything demanded literalism from the text. It is clearly shown that Mary asked Jesus nothing.

When the interpretation is not clear you demand that your interpretation is the valid one.

Saying Mary did not ask Jesus anything at Cana is not my interpretation. It is the reality. You will find no questions in any legit translation of the Scriptures.

Saying the woman of Rev 12 is Israel is not my interpretation, it is God’s. Please refer back to Joseph’s dream.

God interprets much of Revelation Himself, so we do not need as much (name removed by moderator)ut as it would seem.

I have to agree with the other debaters here that the Revelation’s woman does seem to be Mary and also Israel. This is how much of the Bible’s prophecy works.

The RCC teaches that Mary did not suffer labor when she delivered Christ. This goes against their own church’s teachings.

Also, Mary never fled into the wilderness, nor was there a flood that washed after her. Nothing in the text applies to Mary at all, as the text is clear that the imagery was a SIGN, not a real person.

The suffering servant in Isaiah can be interpreted as Israel, but it is fulfilled as Jesus. Jesus himself indicates that he is the fulfillment of Israel, e.g. “You will see angels ascending and descending on the son of man.”

There was only one Entity that was bruised for our iniquities and that was Jesus Christ…not Israel.

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah can never be correctly interpreted as Israel.

You are forwarding error as support for your position. That is not wise, IMV.

…

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Also, Mary never fled into the wilderness

What about the flight to Egypt?

Also, Mary never fled into the wildernessnor was there a flood that washed after her. Nothing in the text applies to Mary at all, as the text is clear that the imagery was a SIGN, not a real person.

True, but Revelation is a book of signs. Thus, these signs must be interpreted. And those signs say that the woman of Revelation is Mary.

 

[Atemi]

Also, Mary never fled into the wilderness

What about the flight to Egypt?

Have you read this text yet?

Revelation is clear that the “woman” fled after Christ was caught up to God’s throne.

Mary entered Egypt while Christ was here as a small child.

This is not Mary.

Also, Mary never fled into the wildernessnor was there a flood that washed after her. Nothing in the text applies to Mary at all, as the text is clear that the imagery was a SIGN, not a real person.

True, but Revelation is a book of signs. Thus, these signs must be interpreted.

God already did so.

And those signs say that the woman of Revelation is Mary.

Actually, not one sign given in the text points to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Not one.

Also, it is against RC teaching that Mary experienced labor pains while birthing Christ.

You cannot have it both ways.

You can take the RC’s teaching or you can have Mary as possibly the woman of Revelation…but you cannot have both.

…

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Atemi-
I am done having “conversations” with you.
God Bless.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Atemi-
This is my last “conversation” with you on this topic

Have you read this text yet?

To which are referring? The flight to Egypt or the Revelation passage? Because I have read both.

Also, it is against RC teaching that Mary experienced labor pains while birthing Christ.

It is? Really? To quote your favorite phrase “provide me with a citation”
The idea that Mary expereiced no labor pains is the opinion of some groups, but not all.

You can take the RC’s teaching or you can have Mary as possibly the woman of Revelation…but you cannot have both…

And that is the Church’s teaching, that Mary IS the woman in Revelation, so I am having my cake and eating to.

 

[Michael_Howard]

I think it’s important to keep in mind that this vision is threefold and not chronological, Isreal, the church and Mary are all elements inertwined in this vision. But we certainly know that Mary is part of this vision, if not could you please tell me which woman gave birth to a son of would rule the nations with an iron rod?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I think it’s important to keep in mind that this vision is threefold and not chronological, Isreal, the church and Mary are all elements inertwined in this vision. But we certainly know that Mary is part of this vision, if not could you please tell me which woman gave birth to a son of would rule the nations with an iron rod?

THANK YOU!!!
If it was not Mary who gave birth to the Son of Revelation (which I assume we all agree is Jesus The Christ) then who in the world was it?

 

[Michael_Howard]

Again the vision gets tricky because it’s not chronological and it points to Isreal, the church and Mary. But we can rule out the church as being the one who gave birth to Christ, it’s the other way around really. Some will say that Israel brought forth the Messiah, but that has some problems as well.

What is clear from scripture is that Mary gave birth to the one who would rule the nations with a rod of iron and there’s no getting around that. Mary really is the “crowing” of the church, the first disciple in perfect union with the Holy Spirit, a hope for all of us who struggle to overcome sin

She was “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit which is a rare term only used a few times in the Old Testament, once as the spirit of God fell on the ark, also in the story of Ruth “Boaz” overshadows her with his cloak. It’s an extremely intimate term, a marital term. She signifys for all of us the church what we can expect when we recieve our glorified bodies, she is a type of crown on the church and I believe that’s why John saw the vision as he did.

 

[Atemi]

**Have you read this text yet? **

To which are referring? The flight to Egypt or the Revelation passage? Because I have read both.

I am sorry then. I didn’t gather that from your earlier question.

**Also, it is against RC teaching that Mary experienced labor pains while birthing Christ. **

It is? Really? To quote your favorite phrase “provide me with a citation”
The idea that Mary expereiced no labor pains is the opinion of some groups, but not all.

It is part and parcel of the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (search “in partu”).

CCC 510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin”

“He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every*day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity.”

“To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent (Issued by order of Pope Pius V) catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed03.shtml

“Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah”
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

“the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character * of the birth” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 205).

Do you have any official RC citations that say that Mary did experienced labor pains when giving birth to Christ?

You can take the RC’s teaching or you can have Mary as possibly the woman of Revelation…but you cannot have both…

And that is the Church’s teaching, that Mary IS the woman in Revelation, so I am having my cake and eating to.

I know you want that cake so bad, but logic says otherwise.

…*

 

[Michael_Howard]

Again it’s important to undertsand that this vision is not chronological and you have several elements overlapping, Israel, the Church and Mary. You cannot rule Mary out of the vision as she is the woman who gave birth to the one who would rule the nations with a rod of Iron, the church did not give birth to the Messiah nor did Isreal of the old testament.

 

[maryj]

I am sorry then. I didn’t gather that from your earlier question.

It is part and parcel of the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (search “in partu”).

CCC 510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin”“He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every*day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity.”

“To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent (Issued by order of Pope Pius V) catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed03.shtml"Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah"

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

“the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character * of the birth” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 205).
Do you have any official RC citations that say that Mary did* experienced labor pains when giving birth to Christ?

I know you want that cake so bad, but logic says otherwise.

…

I am going to get involved only once with this “discussion” here goes…Nothing creative happens without pain. the greatest artists anguish to produce the best creations. Mothers suffer to create their babies and nourish them into adulthood. Not everyone can create a public work of art. but each person can produce an internal art work, a moral character. With the help of the Spirit, each one of us can shape an interior masterpiece-our personal art work. None of us can do it without pain.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, became one of the world’s greatest art works through her blessed Son. Pain marked each passage in this process. When she presented him in the temple, she heard Simeon predict that the heart of her motherhood would be pierced by a sword. To protect Jesus, she went into exile in Egypt. When he was twelve, she experience the panic of temporarily losing Jesus. On Good Friday, she met him on the way to Calvary, saw him nailed to the cross, experienced his death, held his dead body in her arms, and buried him in a grave.
Yet the pain of Mary was not a useless passion. It was a birth pang. The pain that began at Bethlehem became the joy of Easter and the ecstacy of Pentecost. The secular world believes it has a human right not to suffer. The woman of faith understood that pain is the price of creativity. It was not easy. It was a battle, a moral warfare. But by the power of God, the ultimate source of creativity, Jesus was born, the church was born, Christians were born. Birth Pains, I THINK SO!

 

[Axion]

Rev 12: 1: A great and wondrous **sign ** appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

A woman about to give birth is referred to as “a great and wondrous sign”. This is a parallel to the passage in Isaiah 7.14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el. The woman giving birth, who is a great sign in both passages. is Mary. In Revelation, she is shown crowned in heaven.

Rev 12: 3Then another sign appeared in heaven; an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.

Verse 9 tells us that this dragon is Satan. The stars in the sky are in revelation symbols of gods Angels. The third that the devil’s tail swept out of heaven are the rebel angels who followed Satan and became demons.

Rev 12.4…And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

The dragon (satan) is at enmity with the woman and her child. This refers back to the oldest reference to the Gospel in Scripture - the protogospel of Genesis 3.14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Here we find the same three protagonists as in Revelation 12: The woman, her seed (Jesus), and the serpent/dragon.
The dragon tries to slay the child. This is evidenced by Herod’s plot to slay the baby Jesus the moment He was born. The dragon fails, both then and later - at the crucifixion - and Jesus is taken up to heaven.

Rev 126 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
In terms of Mary. She twice had to flee persecution as recorded in Scripture. Once, soon after the birth of Jesus, escaping from Herod’s assassins, or else much later as recorded in Acts at the first persecution of Christians after Stephen’s death, when all Christians had to flee Jerusalem.

Rev12.13 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth.

The flood of water is an attack upon the woman by Satan. This is taken to be the flood of slanders and heresies that immediately rose up against all those connected with Jesus and the Church, These are certainly from Satan.

Mary has particularly been a subject of slander and attack, from those who said She was not a Virgin and that Jesus was illegitimate, those who denied the Incarnation or humanity of Jesus, and many who slander her to the present day.
This river of pollution is swallowed by the earth. This is a reference to Numbers 16.30-33 where those of the congregation of Israel, including Korah and some of the Levites, who were in opposition to God’s chosen, Moses, were swallowed by the earth. Again this shows the defeat of the rebels and heretics who slander those connected with Jesus.

Rev 17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.
The dragon makes war on the rest of the Woman’s offspring. The “other offspring” are taken to be the members of the Church. In terms of the Woman as Mary, this is also a confirmation of Mary’s spiritual motherhood of all Christians. Christians share in Mary’s motherhood through Jesus, both by being part of Jesus’s body, and as being adopted brethren of Jesus.

 

[maryj]

Axion, beautifully put. Thank You.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Axion, beautifully put. Thank You.

I concur!

 

[Tom317]

I believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven for one very simple reason:

The Church (given the power to bind and loose) has declared her so. I don’t need everything to be painted in black and white in the Bible–the Bible is but one and only one tool.