Queen of heaven

dóxatotheó · May 25, 2021

renniks said:
Which you didn't.

i did multiple times you never responded too any of it

renniks · May 25, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
i did multiple times you never responded too any of it

None of it ever says anywhere that Mary is the queen of heaven. That's just your claim.

dóxatotheó · May 25, 2021

renniks said:
None of it ever says anywhere that Mary is the queen of heaven. That's just your claim.

implicitly says that not explicitly says that i already told you the bible isnt always explicit and secondly if you can have a rebuttal to the verses than it would be a claim but you dont even have a rebuttal or explanation

dóxatotheó · May 25, 2021

renniks said:
There's no indication from scripture that Mary is a type of the ark. That's a total fabrication. And yes, she sinned. For example, she at one time believed Jesus was out of his mind.

"Then Jesus went home, and once again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples could not even eat. 21When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, “He is out of His mind.”
31Then Jesus’ mother and brothers came and stood outside. They sent someone in to summon Him, 32and a crowd was sitting around Him. “Look,” He was told, “Your mother and brothers are outside, asking for You.”…

I propose that ἐξέστη means “he has amazed” as opposed to the traditional sense of “he has gone mad.” Moreover, it is the crowd, not οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, who makes this claim about Jesus. This eases the exigency of locating the identity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ since we are no longer required to explain why either of these groups would claim Jesus’s insanity. This approach is strengthened by a literary pattern spanning Mark’s Gospel from the beginning until the passion narrative in which the crowd responds positively to Jesus, especially in contrast to religious leaders.The grammatically ambiguous text of Mark 3:21 has often puzzled interpreters. Scholars have primarily focused on the identity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ who go out to seize Jesus as the crowd forms a mob around his home. These also, according to the traditional translations of the passage, 1 claim that Jesus has gone out of his mind. Some identify this group as his disciples; 2 others claim it is his family οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ are not only the implied subject of the participle ἀκούσαντες, finite verb ἐξέρχοµαι, and the complementary infinitive κρατῆσαι, but also of the finite verb ἔλεγον. 4 On this assumption, the hermeneutical crux is to identify which group (his family or the disciples) misjudges the character of Jesus and makes the derogatory comment about him. Yet, little attention has been paid to the Greek word used to describe Jesus here. What does it mean to say that Jesus ἐξέστη? Many modern, scholarly translations of this verse have interpreted this verb as in some way referring to Jesus’s madness.5 In fact, this is the interpretation we generally find for this verb since the publication of the Vulgate, which translates it as in furorem versus est. Curiously, however, several scholars have noted that this is a unique meaning for this verb in the Gospels.6 Elsewhere in the Gospels and Acts we find that ἐξίστηµι has a more positive sense of mental “displacement,” that of “amazement” or “awe.” Surely, the preference for the negative meaning in modern translations is due to grammatical issues. After all, Mark does not provide an object for this verb. As such, it most likely carries an intransitive sense: among the possible meanings for this verb in the intransitive, the one that makes the most sense is that which translators since Jerome have adopted.the long-held consensus of translating ἐξέστη to refer to Jesus’s madness. Rather, I propose here that this verb carries the more positive and causative connotation of “he amazed.” Moreover, it is ὁ ὄχλος, not οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, who make this claim about Jesus. The role of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ is to go out to seize Jesus to protect him from the admiring crowd. This paper will attempt to redirect the debate about the identity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ since I will argue that it is not this group who makes this claim about Jesus and that the claim is not even negative. Thus, the concern over preserving the character of the disciples or Jesus’s family is in vain. Succinctly, I argue here for a reading of Mark 3:21b that may be translated: “And having heard, the ones near him [the disciples or his family] went out to take hold of him; for they [the crowd] were saying that he has amazed [us].” My argument hinges upon a number of factors. First, Mark uses ἐξίστηµι verbs intentionally throughout his Gospel to depict the reaction to Jesus’s miracles. In fact, the other Synoptic authors also utilize it in their Gospels. In Mark 3:21, then, ἐξέστη specifically refers to how Jesus has amazed the crowd with his miracles. Second, Mark’s linguistic context (i.e., both the Septuagint and the ancient GrecoRoman world) points to this as the more likely meaning. Third, my interpretation of Mark 3:21 parallels the texts of Matthew and Luke, which also include the more positive sense of this verb as a reaction of the crowd. Fourth, there are several other arguments, both within and outside of Mark’s Gospel, that support this reading. In sum, I will argue for a complete reframing of this passage’s translation and of the scholarly debate on this verse.In the narrative literature of the NT, ἐξίστηµι has a restricted semantic range. Almost unanimously, this verb connotes a positive, albeit disrupted, mental state. Commonly, this verb is translated as “astounded,” “amazed,” or “astonished” in popular translations like the NRSV, NASB, and NIV. The only exception is Mark 3:21, where these translations interpret ἐξέστη as: “he has gone out of his mind,” 10 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 4/1:6-31 (Winter 2017) “he has lost his senses,” and “he is out of his mind,” respectively. They see the semantic freight of this verb as resembling 2 Cor 5:13 where it certainly refers to a derogatory assertion about one’s mental state.8 Nevertheless, commentators have not focused enough on the way this verb is utilized within its specific genre, that is, NT narrative. Not only does ἐξίστηµι carry the more positive meaning throughout this larger body of literature, it does so within a specific context. This verb always (unless Mark 3:21 is the only exception) refers to the reaction of a group after a miraculous act.9 Except for Acts 8:11 where it refers to the crowd’s response to Simon the Magician, these miracles are of divine nature. The chart below lists the instances of ἐξίστηµι in NT narrative literature with their context and common translations.

reference to Mark 2:12 in 3:21 becomes stronger when we realize that both events take place in parallel settings. The healing of ch. 2 occurs at Jesus’s home (Mark 2:1) and with a crowd so large that “there was no longer room for them; not even in front of the door…” (2:2). In Mark 3:21, he refers to the crowd to claim that Jesus “has amazed” them before. Now this astonishment leads them to surround and fill his house again because they desire to see more of these miracles and the man who performs them. Scholars have yet to see this connection, which unlike most interpretations of this passage converges well with the data at hand in the Gospel.11 As we read Mark’s narrative synchronically while considering the crowd’s response up to Mark 3:21, this is the only possible meaning of ἐξίστηµι the reader would be accustomed to supply. Moreover, nowhere in Mark does the crowd respond negatively to Jesus’s miracles. The miracles of Mark 5:42 and 6:51 continue this literary pattern of positive reactions. We may also see that Mark intentionally uses this verb to describe a reaction to miracles because it contrasts with other similar words throughout his Gospel. For example, in Mark 5:20; 6:5; 10:32; 12:11; and 12:17, he employs θαυµάζω to describe reaction to Jesus’s teachings and other actions. In Mark 1:27, those present in the synagogue ἐθαµβήθησαν at both Jesus’s teaching and his exorcism of the man with the unclean spirit. Given that there are two objects of the crowd’s amazement, Mark assigns a different verb altogether to describe the reaction of the crowd. So, of the nine instances in Mark in which there is a response to an action or teaching of Jesus, the evidence suggests that the author intentionally presents a clear demarcation with his verbal usage to describe a similar response. It is most likely, then, that the response in 3:2 carries the same, positive connotation as the other instances of ἐξίστηµι. Mark, the earliest Gospel,12 sets the tone for the other Evangelists to utilize this literary pattern. Matthew only picks up on it once, but in an important place as we will see below. Luke, nevertheless, utilizes this form extensively in his Gospel and Acts as demonstrated in the chart above. What we have is a literary pattern utilized by the Evangelists, namely that Jesus’s miracles received a response that is consistently described with ἐξίστηµι. Interestingly, this use of ἐξίστηµι is rare in the ancient world. Barry Blackburn, who follows Gerd Theissen, notes that pre-Christian literature seldom marks a response to miracles, but when it does, θαυµάζω and ἐκπλήσσω are used.13 The most likely explanation for the NT’s connection of ἐξίστηµι to a positive reaction to a miracle is an underlying tradition that circulated throughout Christian communities. Since Jerome, one of the primary reasons ἐξέστη has been translated in the intransitive sense of madness is because no object is supplied for the verb. In fact, standard lexicons note that the transitive or causative sense of this verb often takes additional words.14 If we were to translate it as I propose, we would expect to find ἡµᾶς following the verb. But two factors suggest that an object is not needed. First, examples from other ancient Greek literature suggest that an object is not needed to complete the sense of the verb.15 This is not a typical grammatical construction, however, it does appear in literature beyond the “lower,” Koine Greek of Mark. Moreover, Daniel B. Wallace notes that transitive verbs will often omit the subject if it is implied due to Greek’s economical nature.16 So, in 3:21, Mark’s readers would infer the omitted object (i.e., the crowd¾recalling the crowd’s similar response to Jesus’s miracle in 2:12). Second, this is consistent with Mark’s usage elsewhere. In 14:16, after Jesus’s command to the disciples to prepare the Passover meal, Mark writes καὶ εὗρον καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς. How do we know what the disciples “found”? We must infer it from the previous context just as we must do in 3:21. My argument also requires that the crowd is the group making this claim about Jesus. Because this reading departs from the dominant translation since Jerome, it requires clarification regarding the subject of the verb. Scholars have intensely debated whether the implied subject is Jesus’s disciples or his family.17 They then link the subject of ἔλεγον to the nearby οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ. Since the structure of the passage is a typical Markan “sandwich” (i.e., when a recurring element appears at the beginning and end of a block of material) and since the family of Jesus is mentioned in 3:31, I read (with many others) οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ as referring to Jesus’s family.18 However, the proximity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ to ἔλεγον suggests that if this phrase does describe his family, they are the ones who make this claim about him.
Another option for the subject is ὁ ὄχλος in 3:20, which no scholar consulted has defended. 19 An obvious objection is that ὄχλος is singular while the verb is plural. However, since ὁ ὄχλος is a collective noun, subsequent verbs that take it as the subject may reflect this. Indeed, Wallace notes that this phenomenon often occurs as a subconscious action of the writer when the referent is nearby.20 In fact, Mark does just this in 3:32 when he writes καὶ ἐκάθητο περὶ αὐτὸν ὄχλος, καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· Ἰδοὺ ἡ µήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ζητοῦσίν σε. The proximity of this phenomenon with ὄχλος so near to 3:21 suggests that Mark does the same in the passage under examination. Another factor that has led interpreters to overlook ὁ ὄχλος as the subject of ἔλεγον is that they have read ἐξέστη as necessarily intransitive.21 If Mark had more clearly marked the object of ἐξέστη, we would be able to read the verb causatively and more readily make the connection to the crowd’s similar response in 2:12. Nevertheless, when we see Mark’s tendency to refer to ὁ ὄχλος as the implied subject of plural verbs in combination with his economic style of occasionally leaving off objects from transitive verbs, the interpretation of this passage becomes readily understandable. We no longer need to be caught up in the debate about whether Jesus’s disciples or his family make this unflattering claim about him, because neither does. Rather, it is the crowd that does so and the claim they make is, to the contrary, quite positive: the crowd declares their amazement at his miracles. This adds a new dimension to the long-running debate about the interpretation of this passage. So if you dont know linguistics please dont use verses against people of other denominations to attack the Theotokos this isnt proof she sinned, this is you trying to make her look bad with a debated scribal word translation

renniks · May 25, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
implicitly says that not explicitly says that i already told you the bible isnt always explicit and secondly if you can have a rebuttal to the verses than it would be a claim but you dont even have a rebuttal or explanation

A rebuttal to the verses that never even mention Mary?

renniks · May 25, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
I propose that ἐξέστη means “he has amazed” as opposed to the traditional sense of “he has gone mad.” Moreover, it is the crowd, not οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, who makes this claim about Jesus. This eases the exigency of locating the identity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ since we are no longer required to explain why either of these groups would claim Jesus’s insanity. This approach is strengthened by a literary pattern spanning Mark’s Gospel from the beginning until the passion narrative in which the crowd responds positively to Jesus, especially in contrast to religious leaders.The grammatically ambiguous text of Mark 3:21 has often puzzled interpreters. Scholars have primarily focused on the identity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ who go out to seize Jesus as the crowd forms a mob around his home. These also, according to the traditional translations of the passage, 1 claim that Jesus has gone out of his mind. Some identify this group as his disciples; 2 others claim it is his family οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ are not only the implied subject of the participle ἀκούσαντες, finite verb ἐξέρχοµαι, and the complementary infinitive κρατῆσαι, but also of the finite verb ἔλεγον. 4 On this assumption, the hermeneutical crux is to identify which group (his family or the disciples) misjudges the character of Jesus and makes the derogatory comment about him. Yet, little attention has been paid to the Greek word used to describe Jesus here. What does it mean to say that Jesus ἐξέστη? Many modern, scholarly translations of this verse have interpreted this verb as in some way referring to Jesus’s madness.5 In fact, this is the interpretation we generally find for this verb since the publication of the Vulgate, which translates it as in furorem versus est. Curiously, however, several scholars have noted that this is a unique meaning for this verb in the Gospels.6 Elsewhere in the Gospels and Acts we find that ἐξίστηµι has a more positive sense of mental “displacement,” that of “amazement” or “awe.” Surely, the preference for the negative meaning in modern translations is due to grammatical issues. After all, Mark does not provide an object for this verb. As such, it most likely carries an intransitive sense: among the possible meanings for this verb in the intransitive, the one that makes the most sense is that which translators since Jerome have adopted.the long-held consensus of translating ἐξέστη to refer to Jesus’s madness. Rather, I propose here that this verb carries the more positive and causative connotation of “he amazed.” Moreover, it is ὁ ὄχλος, not οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, who make this claim about Jesus. The role of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ is to go out to seize Jesus to protect him from the admiring crowd. This paper will attempt to redirect the debate about the identity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ since I will argue that it is not this group who makes this claim about Jesus and that the claim is not even negative. Thus, the concern over preserving the character of the disciples or Jesus’s family is in vain. Succinctly, I argue here for a reading of Mark 3:21b that may be translated: “And having heard, the ones near him [the disciples or his family] went out to take hold of him; for they [the crowd] were saying that he has amazed [us].” My argument hinges upon a number of factors. First, Mark uses ἐξίστηµι verbs intentionally throughout his Gospel to depict the reaction to Jesus’s miracles. In fact, the other Synoptic authors also utilize it in their Gospels. In Mark 3:21, then, ἐξέστη specifically refers to how Jesus has amazed the crowd with his miracles. Second, Mark’s linguistic context (i.e., both the Septuagint and the ancient GrecoRoman world) points to this as the more likely meaning. Third, my interpretation of Mark 3:21 parallels the texts of Matthew and Luke, which also include the more positive sense of this verb as a reaction of the crowd. Fourth, there are several other arguments, both within and outside of Mark’s Gospel, that support this reading. In sum, I will argue for a complete reframing of this passage’s translation and of the scholarly debate on this verse.In the narrative literature of the NT, ἐξίστηµι has a restricted semantic range. Almost unanimously, this verb connotes a positive, albeit disrupted, mental state. Commonly, this verb is translated as “astounded,” “amazed,” or “astonished” in popular translations like the NRSV, NASB, and NIV. The only exception is Mark 3:21, where these translations interpret ἐξέστη as: “he has gone out of his mind,” 10 | The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 4/1:6-31 (Winter 2017) “he has lost his senses,” and “he is out of his mind,” respectively. They see the semantic freight of this verb as resembling 2 Cor 5:13 where it certainly refers to a derogatory assertion about one’s mental state.8 Nevertheless, commentators have not focused enough on the way this verb is utilized within its specific genre, that is, NT narrative. Not only does ἐξίστηµι carry the more positive meaning throughout this larger body of literature, it does so within a specific context. This verb always (unless Mark 3:21 is the only exception) refers to the reaction of a group after a miraculous act.9 Except for Acts 8:11 where it refers to the crowd’s response to Simon the Magician, these miracles are of divine nature. The chart below lists the instances of ἐξίστηµι in NT narrative literature with their context and common translations.
View attachment 299661
View attachment 299662
reference to Mark 2:12 in 3:21 becomes stronger when we realize that both events take place in parallel settings. The healing of ch. 2 occurs at Jesus’s home (Mark 2:1) and with a crowd so large that “there was no longer room for them; not even in front of the door…” (2:2). In Mark 3:21, he refers to the crowd to claim that Jesus “has amazed” them before. Now this astonishment leads them to surround and fill his house again because they desire to see more of these miracles and the man who performs them. Scholars have yet to see this connection, which unlike most interpretations of this passage converges well with the data at hand in the Gospel.11 As we read Mark’s narrative synchronically while considering the crowd’s response up to Mark 3:21, this is the only possible meaning of ἐξίστηµι the reader would be accustomed to supply. Moreover, nowhere in Mark does the crowd respond negatively to Jesus’s miracles. The miracles of Mark 5:42 and 6:51 continue this literary pattern of positive reactions. We may also see that Mark intentionally uses this verb to describe a reaction to miracles because it contrasts with other similar words throughout his Gospel. For example, in Mark 5:20; 6:5; 10:32; 12:11; and 12:17, he employs θαυµάζω to describe reaction to Jesus’s teachings and other actions. In Mark 1:27, those present in the synagogue ἐθαµβήθησαν at both Jesus’s teaching and his exorcism of the man with the unclean spirit. Given that there are two objects of the crowd’s amazement, Mark assigns a different verb altogether to describe the reaction of the crowd. So, of the nine instances in Mark in which there is a response to an action or teaching of Jesus, the evidence suggests that the author intentionally presents a clear demarcation with his verbal usage to describe a similar response. It is most likely, then, that the response in 3:2 carries the same, positive connotation as the other instances of ἐξίστηµι. Mark, the earliest Gospel,12 sets the tone for the other Evangelists to utilize this literary pattern. Matthew only picks up on it once, but in an important place as we will see below. Luke, nevertheless, utilizes this form extensively in his Gospel and Acts as demonstrated in the chart above. What we have is a literary pattern utilized by the Evangelists, namely that Jesus’s miracles received a response that is consistently described with ἐξίστηµι. Interestingly, this use of ἐξίστηµι is rare in the ancient world. Barry Blackburn, who follows Gerd Theissen, notes that pre-Christian literature seldom marks a response to miracles, but when it does, θαυµάζω and ἐκπλήσσω are used.13 The most likely explanation for the NT’s connection of ἐξίστηµι to a positive reaction to a miracle is an underlying tradition that circulated throughout Christian communities. Since Jerome, one of the primary reasons ἐξέστη has been translated in the intransitive sense of madness is because no object is supplied for the verb. In fact, standard lexicons note that the transitive or causative sense of this verb often takes additional words.14 If we were to translate it as I propose, we would expect to find ἡµᾶς following the verb. But two factors suggest that an object is not needed. First, examples from other ancient Greek literature suggest that an object is not needed to complete the sense of the verb.15 This is not a typical grammatical construction, however, it does appear in literature beyond the “lower,” Koine Greek of Mark. Moreover, Daniel B. Wallace notes that transitive verbs will often omit the subject if it is implied due to Greek’s economical nature.16 So, in 3:21, Mark’s readers would infer the omitted object (i.e., the crowd¾recalling the crowd’s similar response to Jesus’s miracle in 2:12). Second, this is consistent with Mark’s usage elsewhere. In 14:16, after Jesus’s command to the disciples to prepare the Passover meal, Mark writes καὶ εὗρον καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς. How do we know what the disciples “found”? We must infer it from the previous context just as we must do in 3:21. My argument also requires that the crowd is the group making this claim about Jesus. Because this reading departs from the dominant translation since Jerome, it requires clarification regarding the subject of the verb. Scholars have intensely debated whether the implied subject is Jesus’s disciples or his family.17 They then link the subject of ἔλεγον to the nearby οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ. Since the structure of the passage is a typical Markan “sandwich” (i.e., when a recurring element appears at the beginning and end of a block of material) and since the family of Jesus is mentioned in 3:31, I read (with many others) οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ as referring to Jesus’s family.18 However, the proximity of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ to ἔλεγον suggests that if this phrase does describe his family, they are the ones who make this claim about him.
Another option for the subject is ὁ ὄχλος in 3:20, which no scholar consulted has defended. 19 An obvious objection is that ὄχλος is singular while the verb is plural. However, since ὁ ὄχλος is a collective noun, subsequent verbs that take it as the subject may reflect this. Indeed, Wallace notes that this phenomenon often occurs as a subconscious action of the writer when the referent is nearby.20 In fact, Mark does just this in 3:32 when he writes καὶ ἐκάθητο περὶ αὐτὸν ὄχλος, καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· Ἰδοὺ ἡ µήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ζητοῦσίν σε. The proximity of this phenomenon with ὄχλος so near to 3:21 suggests that Mark does the same in the passage under examination. Another factor that has led interpreters to overlook ὁ ὄχλος as the subject of ἔλεγον is that they have read ἐξέστη as necessarily intransitive.21 If Mark had more clearly marked the object of ἐξέστη, we would be able to read the verb causatively and more readily make the connection to the crowd’s similar response in 2:12. Nevertheless, when we see Mark’s tendency to refer to ὁ ὄχλος as the implied subject of plural verbs in combination with his economic style of occasionally leaving off objects from transitive verbs, the interpretation of this passage becomes readily understandable. We no longer need to be caught up in the debate about whether Jesus’s disciples or his family make this unflattering claim about him, because neither does. Rather, it is the crowd that does so and the claim they make is, to the contrary, quite positive: the crowd declares their amazement at his miracles. This adds a new dimension to the long-running debate about the interpretation of this passage. So if you dont know linguistics please dont use verses against people of other denominations to attack the Theotokos this isnt proof she sinned, this is you trying to make her look bad with a debated scribal word translation

Where did you copy and paste this from? You have to include references.
Again: "Then Jesus went home, and once again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples could not even eat. 21When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, “He is out of His mind.”
Nothing about the crowd saying it.

dóxatotheó · May 25, 2021

renniks said:
A rebuttal to the verses that never even mention Mary?

lol they literally implicitly do read the verses instead of being ignorant

dóxatotheó · May 25, 2021

renniks said:
Where did you copy and paste this from? You have to include references.
Again: "Then Jesus went home, and once again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples could not even eat. 21When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, “He is out of His mind.”
Nothing about the crowd saying it.

didnt read what i sent and this isnt a singular reference this is biblical scholarship and linguistics
and ig you can look at the many sources concerning this and i already responded to the verse you didnt read it all you said was i copy and pasted lol the first half is my writing and the bottom half is from scholars

you dont like to answer when you get refuted or responded to you requoted something i responded thats second hand ignorancy this is a one sided discussion actually read what i type instead of being completely fallacious when responded too cause i didnt even copy and paste the entire response to the verse the only part copy and pasted you can say is the bottom half after the graph
Sources for what i literally typed:In Mark 3:20-12, did Mary, the mother of Jesus suspect that he was crazy?
Was Jesus Insane? (His Own Family Thought So...)
Mark 3:21 Interlinear: and his friends having heard, went forth to lay hold on him, for they said that he was beside himself,

renniks · May 25, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
didnt read what i sent and this isnt a singular reference this is biblical scholarship and linguistics
and ig you can look at the many sources concerning this and i already responded to the verse you didnt read it all you said was i copy and pasted lol the first half is my writing and the bottom half is from scholars you dont like to answer when you get refuted or responded to you requoted something i responded thats second hand ignorancy this is a one sided discussion actually read what i type instead of being completely fallacious when responded too cause i didnt even copy and paste the entire response to the verse the only part copy and pasted you can say is the bottom half after the graph
Sources for what i literally typed:In Mark 3:20-12, did Mary, the mother of Jesus suspect that he was crazy?
Was Jesus Insane? (His Own Family Thought So...)
Mark 3:21 Interlinear: and his friends having heard, went forth to lay hold on him, for they said that he was beside himself,

You found someone on the internet to agree with you? What a surprise!
If we're going to bring it outside sources, other than the Bible, it just turns into a copy and paste war.

So it appears that the words" Queen of heaven" appear only two times in Scripture, and not in reference to Mary.

Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18). This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech.
The second passage that refers to the queen of heaven is Jeremiah 44:17-25, where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him.

The people reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy.

The idea of the “queen of heaven” as the consort to King of heaven is idolatrous and unbiblical.
Be careful who you worship. Mary is just a person.

dóxatotheó · May 25, 2021

renniks said:
You found someone on the internet to agree with you? What a surprise!
If we're going to bring it outside sources, other than the Bible, it just turns into a copy and paste war.

So it appears that the words" Queen of heaven" appear only two times in Scripture, and not in reference to Mary.

Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18). This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech.
The second passage that refers to the queen of heaven is Jeremiah 44:17-25, where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him.

The people reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy.

The idea of the “queen of heaven” as the consort to King of heaven is idolatrous and unbiblical.
Be careful who you worship. Mary is just a person.

do yk how many times protestant use this verse as a argumentt the queen of heaven person quoted in Jeremiah was worshipped and idolized the queen of heaven we talking about is a women that bare God and is the ark of the Covenant and is in a spiritual marriage with Christ since he was the king of the jews when he was alive and after and i already told you if you got no responses to anything i said this is a one sided discussion and idolizing is when people put a person over God or worship them or pray to them we do none of that so the idolizing critieria is fallen

renniks · May 25, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
do yk how many times protestant use this verse as a argumentt the queen of heaven person quoted in Jeremiah was worshipped and idolized the queen of heaven we talking about is a women that bare God and is the ark of the Covenant and is in a spiritual marriage with Christ since he was the king of the jews when he was alive and after and i already told you if you got no responses to anything i said this is a one sided discussion and idolizing is when people put a person over God or worship them or pray to them we do none of that so the idolizing critieria is fallen

Oh, I think you are wrong there. There's defiantly idolatry of Mary.
Again, Mary as the ark? Please! Total fabrication found nowhere in scripture.
If Mary was the queen of heaven and Jesus the king, that would make her his wife, not his mother. I've listened to Catholic prayers and the referees to Mary are disturbing. Jesus sure never encouraged praying that way. In fact, when someone blessed his Mother, he rebuked them.

Marilyn C · May 25, 2021

[QUOTE="dóxatotheó, post: 75974123, member: 434678" when do we come to that conclusion we would be in the grace of God so sex wont be needed or sin in general 1 Peter 2:1-4 females will be in heaven we arent gonna transform into different beings we would have glorified bodies instead like Christ had his body Glorified after his Resurrection so if you say something provide scripture cause every verse you used arent even relevant to your argument [/QUOTE]

Hi dox,

`For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.` (Rom. 8: 29)

`so as to create in Himself one new man.` (Eph. 2: 15)

`when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as he is.` (1 John 3: 2)

Male and female are of the earth. In heaven, our spiritual bodies will be `a new man,` of both male and female characteristics - gentleness, caring, compassion, nurturing, etc.. As you said there is no sex in heaven, thus no female bodies.

Marilyn.

dóxatotheó · May 25, 2021

renniks said:
Oh, I think you are wrong there. There's defiantly idolatry of Mary.
Again, Mary as the ark? Please! Total fabrication found nowhere in scripture.
If Mary was the queen of heaven and Jesus the king, that would make her his wife, not his mother. I've listened to Catholic prayers and the referees to Mary are disturbing. Jesus sure never encouraged praying that way. In fact, when someone blessed his Mother, he rebuked them.

IM NOT CATHOLIC we believe two different things on mary so your wasting your time bringing them up and we make it clear in our writings that we dont see mary no where equal to God and i already provided scripture for the ark you never responded your wasting my tie your very fallacious bro and im not wrong all i see is exquisite ignorance on you

dóxatotheó · May 25, 2021

Marilyn C said:
[QUOTE="dóxatotheó, post: 75974123, member: 434678" when do we come to that conclusion we would be in the grace of God so sex wont be needed or sin in general 1 Peter 2:1-4 females will be in heaven we arent gonna transform into different beings we would have glorified bodies instead like Christ had his body Glorified after his Resurrection so if you say something provide scripture cause every verse you used arent even relevant to your argument

Hi dox,

`For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.` (Rom. 8: 29)

`so as to create in Himself one new man.` (Eph. 2: 15)

`when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as he is.` (1 John 3: 2)

Male and female are of the earth. In heaven, our spiritual bodies will be `a new man,` of both male and female characteristics - gentleness, caring, compassion, nurturing, etc.. As you said there is no sex in heaven, thus no female bodies.

Marilyn.[/QUOTE]
stop creating conclusions on every notion of your arguments present scripture for everything you say you never once did females are more than just a vagina yk

renniks · May 25, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
IM NOT CATHOLIC we believe two different things on mary so your wasting your time bringing them up and we make it clear in our writings that we dont see mary no where equal to God and i already provided scripture for the ark you never responded your wasting my tie your very fallacious bro and im not wrong all i see is exquisite ignorance on you

Yes, don't waste your tie.
You never said what sect you are.

dóxatotheó · May 26, 2021

renniks said:
Yes, don't waste your tie.
You never said what sect you are.

im oo but that doesnt matter discussing a one sided discussion are pointless

renniks · May 26, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
im oo but that doesnt matter discussing a one sided discussion are pointless

You are double 0? Double 0 what? 007? 00 Buckshot?
00Grammer?

dóxatotheó · May 26, 2021

renniks said:
You are double 0? Double 0 what? 007? 00 Buckshot?
00Grammer?

OO= Oriental Orthodox

renniks · May 27, 2021

dóxatotheó said:
OO= Oriental Orthodox

Ok, thanks.

bbbbbbb · Jun 2, 2021

As I tell my friends, I am much more concerned about the things taught explicitly in scripture rather than those things that might be implied in scripture. When I have mastered loving my neighbor as myself I will move on to other things.

Queen of heaven

Orthodox Church Familia

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Church Familia

Orthodox Church Familia

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Church Familia

Orthodox Church Familia

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Church Familia

Well-Known Member

Pre-tribulation.

Orthodox Church Familia

Orthodox Church Familia

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Church Familia

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Church Familia

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads