The "queen of heaven"

[gardenswithkids]

Remember:

1. The woman is a “sign”, were it Mary, would he not have told us that more explicitly. Neither is she called the queen of heaven. In Greek weddings the bride wears a crown, even if she isn’t a queen. So the Crown=Queen doesn’t necessarily follow.
2. Israel also gave birth to Jesus, he was in fact a descendant of Abraham through Jacob (aka Israel).
3. The earliest fathers interpreted the woman as the New Israel, the church, through whom Jesus the Christ comes to the world. The earliest know reference to the woman definitively as Mary is c. 500AD. Too late to be clearly apostolic in origin. (Church is symbolized as the bride of Christ [see note 1 above] and Greek brides wear crowns)
4. The symbology is identical to Joseph’s dream in Gen 37. Joseph prefigures Christ as the savior of Israel.
5. The theme of Revelation concerns persecution, tribulation and ultimate victory. It is a letter of assurance to all the believers that God is indeed in control.
6. Finally it is important to note, that this thread started as a question posed by PopeStPeter about the only biblical reference to the queen of heaven, and God’s displeasure with that practice.

Happy Easter, He Is Risen and shall come again.

Wishing you all God’s grace on this most wonderful of holy days.
cg99

He is risen indeed! (And we await in joyful hope for His return. )

point #1 The woman not only wore a crown, but the her son was destined to rule all nations–which indicates royalty. Mothers of kings and princes are called “queen.”

point #2, men don’t give birth. Men father children, but they don’t birth them. God promised Abraham in Genesis 17:6 that he’s be the father of a host of nations. Jacob was also a father. (Yet the nation of Israel is named for Jacob/Israel. Jesus came to us through the nation of Israel, and we sometimes use the femine for countries/nations.)

point #3, Yes the early Church fathers had great regard for the Church as Jesus Christ also comes to us through the Church. And yes, point of church=bride of Christ also noted. If the Church is the bride of Christ, that makes Mary the Church’s mother-in-law.

point #4, yes there is symbolism. I don’t deny that–never did.

point #5, yes God is in control and what you wrote. But the book of Revelation also tells about the heavenly worship in the New Jerusalem. Believe it or not, much of the language in the book of Revelation is the liturgical language of the Mass. Catholics recite from memory at every Mass prayers like the “Lamb of God” and the “Holy, Holy, Holy”. Jesus is called the “Lamb of God” about 28 times in the book of Rev. (If you interested, Scott Hahn wrote a book called The Lamb’s Supper, and your research on the early Church fathers should demostrate about their worship practices, which remarkably resemble the Catholic Mass.)

Yes, point #6 noted and I’d like to try to tie Jeremiah, Revelation and this thread together. Jeremiah shows that God was very angry with them for worshipping a pagan goddess. Note: their worship involved offering sacrifices and pouring out drink offerings. That is the Biblical definition of worship.

Some mistakenly think that sermons+songs+prayers=worship, but that’s not what the Bible calls worship. Catholics may honor Mary, but we don’t “worship her” in the sense of making sacrifices. At Catholic Mass, we worship *God alone *as we re-present the Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary—the One and Only sacrifice that is acceptable. We offer Jesus–the Lamb of God–to God the Almight Father, through Him (Jesus) with Him and in Him, in unity of the Holy Spirit and we give all glory and honor to God the Almighty Father, forever and ever. That is the worship of God in the Heavenly Jerusalem, the worship of God shown in the book of Revelation and the worship of God in the Catholic Mass.

 

[NotWorthy]

Colliric,
I am only reporting to you the testimony of the earliest church fathers, on the interpretation of Rev 12.

Those writing within a generation or two of the Aposlte John are presummed to have a more accurate idea of what John actually meant when he wrote it.

I’m not disputing the idea that the “queen of heaven” doctrine developed over time. In fact that is exactly my point. The “queen of heaven” = Mary is an innovation, not part of ancient Christian tradition.

Here’s a couple of thoughts that may be followed up on.

How much “testimony” was done on Revelations prior to its Canonization. I understand it was in serious doubt for most of the pre-nicene era.

A lot of Marian Doctrines weren’t developed until after the Church resolved the nature of Jesus issue. Could this have effected the “Queen of Heaven” issue.

Jeremiah is explicit in condemning those who honor the “queen of heaven”. At what point did God change his mind?

This is a clear mis-direction. You’re in danger of crossing the line between open, honest discussion and Catholic baiting.

Jeremiah is explicit in condemning the pagan worship of a “Queen of Heaven”. That’s totally different from the veneration of the Blessed Mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[cleargospel99]

This is a clear mis-direction. You’re in danger of crossing the line between open, honest discussion and Catholic baiting.

Jeremiah is explicit in condemning the pagan worship of a “Queen of Heaven”. That’s totally different from the veneration of the Blessed Mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Not at all, there is a clear distinction between honoring Mary for her very special role, and referring to her by the title “queen of heaven”. What is at issue is the use of that specific title, not the doctrines of Marian devotion per se. How is the “appropriateness” of that specific title, “queen of heaven” reconciled with the specific condemnation in Jeremiah?

BTW I didn’t start the thread, I apologize if my paraphrase oversimplified PopeStPeter’s original statement. There was no intention to offend.

 

[NotWorthy]

Not at all, there is a clear distinction between honoring Mary for her very special role, and referring to her by the title “queen of heaven”. What is at issue is the use of that specific title, not the doctrines of Marian devotion per se. How is the “appropriateness” of that specific title, “queen of heaven” reconciled with the specific condemnation in Jeremiah?

BTW I didn’t start the thread, I apologize if my paraphrase oversimplified PopeStPeter’s original statement. There was no intention to offend.

Jeremiah condemned those that burned incense to the a pagan guoddess, who happened to be called “queen of heaven” instead of to the Lord. Catholics do NOT do this. Our worship services are offered up first and foremost to the Lord.

If you weren’t Catholic baiting, them I’m sorry. But bear in mind, the only reason Catholics have for calling Mary “Queen of Heaven” come from the Bible:

1. The heavenly “woman” who is in Revelation.
2. The role of the Gebira in ancient Israel.

 

[guanophore]

Why, in light of God’s jealousy regarding His people’s undivided devotion to Him, does He not now mind His people adoring, venerating, praying and consecrating themsevles to Mary?

First of all, devotion to Mary is not worship, which belongs only to God. Secondly, Mary is united with Christ in His mission to bring salvation to the world. She has received Him in His entirety, body and soul. There is not a separation between the two, as your question seems to indicate. She is the eternal “yes” to God, and she is our model (do whatever He tells you).

 

[cleargospel99]

A lot of Marian Doctrines weren’t developed until after the Church resolved the nature of Jesus issue.

I think you are referring to the Council of Chalcedon 451AD. Would not this be evidence indicating that the title “queen of heaven” as it is understood today was neither an oral or written Apostolic tradition?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think you are referring to the Council of Chalcedon 451AD. Would not this be evidence indicating that the title “queen of heaven” as it is understood today was neither an oral or written Apostolic tradition?

Mary, whom all generations “shall call blessed.” (Luke 1:48) has a legitimate claim to the title of QUEEN OF HEAVEN . As Christians we acknowledge Christ as the king of heaven (Matt. 19:23-24). and a King of the the Davidic Royal line “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David”(Luke:1:32) The Sacred Scriptures specifically refer to Mary as the mother of Christ over 25 times. Next, we must note “The mother of the ruling monarch is known as the Queen Mother,” (World Book Encyclopedia 2000) So we see that “Queen Mother” refers to the mother (Mary) of a reigning monarch (The the Divine King, Jesus Christ).

The Queen Mother, "Gebi Rah" in Hebrew, was a distinct honor, and a tradition began by the son of David, Solomon. The Sacred Scriptures show in Ancient  Israel or Judah the mother of the designated heir enjoyed a special status. Nathan enlisted Bathsheba rather than Solomon in his plan to have Solomon confirmed as king (1 Kings 1:11-40). Queen mother was an official position in Israel and Judah. Great care was taken in preserving the names of the queen mothers (1 Kings 14:21; 15:2,13; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26). Asa’s removal of his mother from the office for idolatry (1 Kings 15:13) points to its official character. On her son’s death, Athaliah murdered her own grandsons, the legitimate heirs, in order to retain the power she had enjoyed as queen mother (2 Kings 11:1-2). The queen mother served as a trusted counsel for her son Prov. 31:1). In the Scriptures God heavily, heavily emphasized the queen mother's of the Davidic Royal line. In Scriptures over 25 times that after the introduction of the Jewish king, the queen mother is recognized Each Time. In all of these verses notice the words, "and his mother's name was". Notice what the king does for his mother, he stands to greet her, pays homage to her, and had a throne built for her at his right hand side.

So we see that Mary has a right to the title of "Queen of Heaven" but were does scripture say God say he will have a Queen?  in Psalms:45:9,12,17 we read:

Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the QUEEN in gold of Ophir…even the rich among the people SHALL INTREAT THY FAVOUR.I will make THY NAME TO BE REMEMBERED IN ALL GENERATIONS: therefore shall the people PRAISE THEE for ever and ever."

Her name remembered in all generations. Ring a bell? The prophecy comes to fulfillment in Luke 1:48: "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth ALL GENERATATIONS SHALL CALL ME blessed". In the Book of Revelation we read.

“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” (Rev. 12:1-2)
What kind of women wear crowns? Queens wear crowns, but this woman seems to be crowned with the 'highest jewels' of creation, the stars, with the sun itself as her royal robes

 

[Mannyfit75]

“Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.”(Rev. 12:17)

Satan could not get the woman (emnity Gen 3:16) so he went to fight her spiritual children, Christians, people who bear witness to Jesus the Christ. Even Martin Luther preached after his break with Rome on the Feast of the Visitation (July 2, 1532) –

“She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: ‘Here passes the woman who is raised FAR ABOVE all women, indeed above the WHOLE human race.’”

Five years later, preaching on the same feast day, Luther said –

“She was not filled with pride by this praise…this immense praise: ‘No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an EMPRESS or a QUEEN…blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!’” (LUTHER’S WORKS 36:208; 45:107 as cited in REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY by Fr. Mateo available from Catholic Answers)

 

[Mannyfit75]

GOD HEAVILY, HEAVILY (OVER 25 TIMES) EMPHASIZED THE QUEEN MOTHER IN THE LINE OF DAVIDIC KINGS:

1 Kings 2:19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand.

1 Kings 2:20 “Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay.” (note the intercession of the queen mother to the king) See also:

I Kings 14:21, 31; 15:2,10,13; 22:42;

II Kings 8:26; 12:1;14:2; 15:2, 33; 18:2; 21:1, 19; 22:1; 23:31, 36; 24:8, 12, 15, 18

2 Chronicles 12:13; 13:2; 20:31; 22:2

That’s a TON of scripture that has God recognizing the MOTHER of each king in the Davidic line, after showing that the queen mother takes a seat at the right hand of the king.

Source of all three threads:

catholicapologetics.net/dokimos14.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

I think you are referring to the Council of Chalcedon 451AD. Would not this be evidence indicating that the title “queen of heaven” as it is understood today was neither an oral or written Apostolic tradition?

It doesn’t confirm it or deny it. It probably had been taught by some, but it simply meant that this wasn’t fully understood til after Chalcedon (which, as you stated, is where Jesus’ nature was resolved - true God, true Man).

Catholics call this the developement of Doctrine. It doesn’t mean that we create new doctrine out of thin air; it simply means we come to understand something more fully over time. For instance, you’ll see the seeds of “transubstantiation” in the earliest Church Fathers’ writings, even if you don’t see the doctrine as clearly defined until 1000 years later.

I think a good example of this is Mary as “The New Eve”. The first known occurrence of this teaching is from Justin Martyr in 155AD (circa). But when he brings this up, it doesn’t meet with any criticism from other Church Fathers, instead it is meant with silence, at the very least.

If this had been a teaching which the ECF’s hadn’t heard of, or disagreed with, there would have been indications of much dispute among them. We saw this when ECF’s like Tertullian, who gave us much sound Church doctrine, went over the edge into heresy with some of his teachings. There was a veritable uproar from the other ECF’s.

 

[cleargospel99]

You must know that Apostolic teaching was not a matter of probability. They were explicit and emphatic about teaching the definitive truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

There were no secret teachings. They laid it all out there.

If a big ‘maybe’ is the best you can do. Then you have essentially admitted that the “queen of heaven” title was a tradition of men.
v/r
cg99

 

[NotWorthy]

You must know that Apostolic teaching was not a matter of probability. They were explicit and emphatic about teaching the definitive truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

There were no secret teachings. They laid it all out there.

If a big ‘maybe’ is the best you can do. Then you have essentially admitted that the “queen of heaven” title was a tradition of men.
v/r
cg99

If you can ignore the Old Testament Scriptures, then you can essentially say anything you want.

Did you ever wonder why the OT authors felt the need to show the Queen mother in the lineage of the kings of Judah and Israel?

Did you ever wonder why the Apostle John called Mary “Woman” so many times in his Gospel?

Did you ever wonder why the person in Revelation is called “woman”?

And don’t even get me started on how John also draws the connection between the woman in the OT, Eve, and the woman in the NT, Mary, the New Eve.

 

[cleargospel99]

If you can ignore the Old Testament Scriptures, then you can essentially say anything you want.

Did you ever wonder why the OT authors felt the need to show the Queen mother in the lineage of the kings of Judah and Israel?

Did you ever wonder why the Apostle John called Mary “Woman” so many times in his Gospel?

Did you ever wonder why the person in Revelation is called “woman”?

And don’t even get me started on how John also draws the connection between the woman in the OT, Eve, and the woman in the NT, Mary, the New Eve.

First we’ve already established that there exists no dogmatic definition regarding the woman in Rev 12. Furthermore, we have the earliest fathers identifying the woman as “the church”. Also, the OT is clear about the “queen of heaven”: She is not to be worshiped or adored.

All you have to offer is private speculation based on oblique references to obscure passages which don’t address the subject directly.

Were you on the OJ jury?

 

[NotWorthy]

First we’ve already established that there exists no dogmatic definition regarding the woman in Rev 12. Furthermore, we have the earliest fathers identifying the woman as “the church”. Also, the OT is clear about the “queen of heaven”: She is not to be worshiped or adored.

All you have to offer is private speculation based on oblique references to obscure passages which don’t address the subject directly.

Were you on the OJ jury?

When you start listening to the dogmatic definitions, then I’ll sit in on the OJ jury, OK?

When you start listening to the Early Church Fathers, then I’ll sit in on OJ, OK?

It is you that ignore the Gebirah. It is you that choose not to see the “woman” in John’s Gospel is the “woman” in Revelation.

I’ve explained my thougths on Revelation. I’m not claiming the any of the early ECF’s wrote about it, because for the first 390 years, the Church had serious doubts on the canonicity of Revelation. For the first 350 years, the Church had serious issues trying to resolve the True natures of Jesus.

She COULDN’T recognize Mary as Queen until she could resolve the Hypostatic Union. We wouldn’t want to put the cart before the horse, now would we?

 

[cleargospel99]

When you start listening to the dogmatic definitions, then I’ll sit in on the OJ jury, OK?

When you start listening to the Early Church Fathers, then I’ll sit in on OJ, OK?

It is you that ignore the Gebirah. It is you that choose not to see the “woman” in John’s Gospel is the “woman” in Revelation.

I’ve explained my thougths on Revelation. I’m not claiming the any of the early ECF’s wrote about it, because for the first 390 years, the Church had serious doubts on the canonicity of Revelation. For the first 350 years, the Church had serious issues trying to resolve the True natures of Jesus.

She COULDN’T recognize Mary as Queen until she could resolve the Hypostatic Union. We wouldn’t want to put the cart before the horse, now would we?

The difference is that I have posted documented facts, you have just engaged in speculation.

 

[NotWorthy]

The difference is that I have posted documented facts, you have just engaged in speculation.

Clear, Let me ask you a couple of simple questions.

Do you understand Aryanism?

Do you understand why Aryanism may affect whether Mary could be called:

a) Theotokos?
b) Queen of Heaven?

If you do, then I don’t see how you can think that I am just speculating or wonder if I served on the OJ trial… (Robert Blakes, maybe, but definately not OJ ).

 

[Randy_Carson]

First we’ve already established that there exists no dogmatic definition regarding the woman in Rev 12. Furthermore, we have the earliest fathers identifying the woman as “the church”. Also, the OT is clear about the “queen of heaven”: She is not to be worshiped or adored.

All you have to offer is private speculation based on oblique references to obscure passages which don’t address the subject directly.

Were you on the OJ jury?

MARY, QUEEN OF HEAVEN - PART ONE

The principle of the Queen Mother is demonstrated within the pages of the Old Testament:

When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand. (1 Kings 2:19)

Since Solomon had MANY wives, none of them would be queen. In fact, it was his mother that sat on the throne.

Jesus is also a king, and his mother, Mary, reigns with him in heaven as the Queen Mother.

For additional information, you might consider the following:

ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1931018243.01.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_SCLZZZZZZZ_V46693854_AA240_SH20.jpg

QUEEN MOTHER: A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF MARY’S QUEENSHIP. By Edward Sri (Emmaus Road Publishing, 827 North Fourth St., Steubenville, Ohio 43952, 2005), xvi + 216 pp. PB $14.95.

The purpose of Edward Sri’s study is to prove the queenship of Mary as explicitly revealed in the scriptures. Therefore, the bulk of his research centers around key texts from the Old and New Testaments.

In surveying the Old Testament, the author considers the importance of the queen mother within the Davidic kingdom. It was the king’s mother who ruled as queen, not the king’s wife. This is portrayed in the prophetic tradition, specifically as seen in Isaiah 7:14 and prototypically in Genesis 3:15. These passages, in considering both Testaments, are eventually associated with Israel’s messianic hopes. Thus, in the structure of the Davidic kingdom in Judah and Israel, the mother of the king and queenship and kingship were inseparably linked.

 

[Randy_Carson]

MARY, QUEEN OF HEAVEN - PART TWO

"From early times Christians have believed, and not without reason, that she of whom was born the Son of the Most High received privileges of grace above all other beings created by God. He “will reign in the house of Jacob forever,” “the Prince of Peace,” the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” And when Christians reflected upon the intimate connection that obtains between a mother and a son, they readily acknowledged the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God.

"Hence it is not surprising that the early writers of the Church called Mary “the Mother of the King” and “the Mother of the Lord,” basing their stand on the words of St. Gabriel the archangel, who foretold that the Son of Mary would reign forever, and on the words of Elizabeth who greeted her with reverence and called her “the Mother of my Lord.” Thereby they clearly signified that she derived a certain eminence and exalted station from the royal dignity of her Son.

“This royal dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is quite clearly indicated through direct assertion by those who call her ‘Lady,’ ‘Ruler’ and ‘Queen.’”

from Ad Caeli Reginam​

Origen (185-232 AD)

“Thou, my Lady.” (Hom. in S. Lucam, hom. VII; ed. Rauer, Origenes’ Werke, T. IX, p. 48 (ex catena Marcarii Chrysocephali). Cf. PG XIII, 1902 D.)

St. Ephrem (306-373 AD)

“Let Heaven sustain me in its embrace, because I am honored above it. For heaven was not Thy mother, but Thou hast made it Thy throne. How much more honorable and venerable than the throne of a king is her mother.” (St. Ephrem, Hymni de B. Maria, ed. Th. J. Lamy, t. II, Mechliniae, 1886, hymn. XIX, p. 624.)

“. . . Majestic and Heavenly Maid, Lady, Queen, protect and keep me under your wing lest Satan the sower of destruction glory over me, lest my wicked foe be victorious against me.” (Oratio ad Ssmam Dei Matrem; Opera omnia, Ed. Assemani, t. III (graece), Romae, 1747, pag. 546.)

St. Gregory Nazianzen (329-389 AD)

“the Mother of the King of the universe,” and the “Virgin Mother who brought forth the King of the whole world,” (S. Gregorius Naz., Poemata dogmatica, XVIII, v. 58; PG XXXVII, 485.)

Prudentius (348-413 AD)

“that she has brought forth God as man, and even as Supreme King.” (Prudentius, Dittochaeum, XXVII: PL LX, 102 A.)

St. Jerome** (320-420 AD)**

“We should realize that Mary means Lady in the Syrian Language.” (S. Hieronymus, Liber de nominibus hebraeis: PL XXIII, 886.)

St. Peter Chrysologus (406-450 AD)

“The Hebrew word ‘Mary’ means ‘Domina.’ The Angel therefore addresses her as ‘Lady’ to preclude all servile fear in the Lord’s Mother, who was born and was called ‘Lady’ by the authority and command of her own Son.” (S. Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 142, De Annuntiatione B.M.V.: PL LII, 579 C; cf. etiam 582 B; 584 A: “Regina totius exstitit castitatis.”)

Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantinople (?-535 AD)

“[We should pray that the unity of the Church may be preserved] by the grace of the holy and consubstantial Trinity and by the prayers of Mary, Our Lady, the holy and glorious Virgin and Mother of God." (Relatio Epiphanii Ep. Constantin.: PL LXII, 498 D.)

St. Ildephonsus of Toledo (?-667 AD)

“O my Lady, my Sovereign, You who rule over me, Mother of my Lord . . . Lady among handmaids, Queen among sisters.” (Ildefonsus Toletanus, De virginitate perpetua B.M.V.: PL XCVI, 58 A D.)

St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740 AD)

“Today He transports from her earthly dwelling, as Queen of the human race, His ever-Virgin Mother, from whose womb He, the living God, took on human form.” (S. Andreas Cretensis, Homilia II in Dormitionem Ssmae Deiparae: PG XCVII, 1079 B.)

“the Queen of the entire human race faithful to the exact meaning of her name, who is exalted above all things save only God himself.” (Homilia III in Dormitionem Ssmae Deiparae: PG XCVII, 1099 A.)

St. Germanus (c. 640-740 AD)

“Be enthroned, Lady, for it is fitting that you should sit in an exalted place since you are a Queen and glorious above all kings.” (S. Germanus, In Praesentationem Ssmae Deiparae, I: PG XCVIII, 303 A.)

“Queen of all of those who dwell on earth.” (In Praesentationem Ssmae Deiparae, n PG XCVIII, 315 C.)

St.** John Damascene (676-c. 760 AD)**

“Queen, ruler, and lady,” (S. Ioannes Damascenus, Homilia I in Dormitionem B.M.V.: P.G. XCVI, 719 A.)

“the Queen of every creature.” (De fide orthodoxa, I, IV, c. 14: PG XLIV, 1158 B.)

 

[colliric]

The difference is that I have posted documented facts, you have just engaged in speculation.

The problem with your interpretation cleargospel is that it ignores Revelations 11:19.

It also seems to seperate “The Gospel of St John the Devine” and “The Apocalypse of St John the Devine”…

The fact is they were written by the same author, This Author was charged by Christ with the honor of looking after his mother in another country, as Jerusalem was destroyed and pillaged by Rome(all of which was prophercised by St John in the book of Revelation). Christ did not simply treat his own mother indiffrently, he cared for and looked after her, and he knew her future was not in Jerusalem with the early Christians, who would face persecution, so he specifically sent her into the care of the only apostle who would live to nearly the end of the century. This cut off John and herself from the others, that would all go to early deaths as martyrs.

John lived with Mary in exile, where she would be spared by God the horrors of Jerusalem, where Satan was at play. Only John wrote about this because he was there to see it. The apostles were all open with all their teachings, but they did not always teach on the same subjects. The apostle John happened to be the only teacher on this subject, He goes it alone, simply because he was the only one there to see it.

 

[NotWorthy]

The difference is that I have posted documented facts, you have just engaged in speculation.

So you use an arguement of silence to prove your point? Do you really want to go there?

The ECF’s were silent on Sola Scritpura, Sola Fide, OSAS, the Rapture Theory, etc…

Have you really just disproved to yourself the heart(s) of Protestantism?