Is Mary the "queen of heaven" mentioned in the Bible?

[Standing Up]

They are only not positive if you reject that the Jewish kingships are a typology of Christ.

In the examples of mothers of kings, there's no term about 'queen of heaven', except the negatives. It's a pagan identifier. We wouldn't say Christ is Jupiter would we and kneel in Jupiter's temple? Or would some?

 

[narnia59]

In the examples of mothers of kings, there's no term about 'queen of heaven', except the negatives. It's a pagan identifier. We wouldn't say Christ is Jupiter would we and kneel in Jupiter's temple? Or would some?

Scripture calls Christ the "king of kings" even though it was a "pagan" identifier. It refers to Christ as the "sun" even though it was a "pagan" identifer. God appears as fire, even though the concept of a 'fire' deity was pagan. God's voice is identified as thunder, even though the concept of a 'thunder' deity was pagan.

St. John used the pagan concept of logos and applied it to Christ.

Something being used by the pagans does not make it pagan! The pagans used circumcision as an initiation ritual. The pagans used oil for annointing. The pagans used water in initiation rituals. Misappropriated by pagans, used wrongly by pagans -- yes. But God does not cede to pagans that which they have wrongly used and call it theirs. Why do you? He takes back what is His, appropriates it rightly and uses it to His glory.

 

[Standing Up]

Scripture calls Christ the "king of kings" even though it was a "pagan" identifier. It refers to Christ as the "sun" even though it was a "pagan" identifer. God appears as fire, even though the concept of a 'fire' deity was pagan. God's voice is identified as thunder, even though the concept of a 'thunder' deity was pagan.

St. John used the pagan concept of logos and applied it to Christ.

Something being used by the pagans does not make it pagan! The pagans used circumcision as an initiation ritual. The pagans used oil for annointing. The pagans used water in initiation rituals. Misappropriated by pagans, used wrongly by pagans -- yes. But God does not cede to pagans that which they have wrongly used and call it theirs. Why do you? He takes back what is His, appropriates it rightly and uses it to His glory.

Different discussion.

The term 'queen of heaven' is obviously a source of concern for some. As brothers and sisters in the Lord who care about such things, I don't want to even give the appearance of evil. Why cause a brother/sister to stumble?

Peace-out.

 

[narnia59]

Different discussion.

The term 'queen of heaven' is obviously a source of concern for some. As brothers and sisters in the Lord who care about such things, I don't want to even give the appearance of evil. Why cause a brother/sister to stumble?

Peace-out.

I'm not sure how recognizing the role of the queen mother in the Jewish kingships should cause one to stumble. Or recognizing the Jewish kingships as a foreshadowing of the kingship of Christ. Or how recognizing his kingdom is not of this world, but rather of heaven.

The reality is that any truth can be distorted to give an appearance of evil. Unfortunately, avoiding anything that could be distorted by someone to appear as evil would leave one with, well, nothing.

And I could some up with a whole list of things that could be a concern for someone. Instrumental music. Rock music. Wine at communion. Sunday worship. Women in ministry. Speaking in tongues. Divorce and remarriage. People of another skin color. The list could be endless.

 

[lionroar0]

In the examples of mothers of kings, there's no term about 'queen of heaven', except the negatives. It's a pagan identifier. We wouldn't say Christ is Jupiter would we and kneel in Jupiter's temple? Or would some?

King of Kings is also a pagan identifier. We call Jesus King of Kings and kneel to him.
The cross is also a pagan identifier. Christians wear them so they must be pagan.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm not sure how recognizing the role of the queen mother in the Jewish kingships should cause one to stumble. Or recognizing the Jewish kingships as a foreshadowing of the kingship of Christ. Or how recognizing his kingdom is not of this world, but rather of heaven.

The reality is that any truth can be distorted to give an appearance of evil. Unfortunately, avoiding anything that could be distorted by someone to appear as evil would leave one with, well, nothing.

And I could some up with a whole list of things that could be a concern for someone. Instrumental music. Rock music. Wine at communion. Sunday worship. Women in ministry. Speaking in tongues. Divorce and remarriage. People of another skin color. The list could be endless.

All sorts of things.

King of Kings is also a pagan identifier. We call Jesus King of Kings and kneel to him.
The cross is also a pagan identifier. Christians wear them so they must be pagan.

Well yes, we do see those things. But what we don't see is Mary called the queen of heaven ala Jeremiah.

So, why do you folks care so much to title Mary--queen of heaven?

 

[Thekla]

No-one is calling her queen of heaven "a la Jeremiah"
You got the wrong god with that one, sir

 

[lionroar0]

No-one is calling her queen of heaven "a la Jeremiah"
You got the wrong god with that one, sir

And there we are...

No one is calling Jesus King of Kings a la persian king.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And there we are...

No one is calling Jesus King of Kings a la persian king.

Nobody is calling Jesus King of Kings except by His title given in scripture. If you have scripture which titles Mary as Queen of Heaven, please show it. Otherwise, one is left to conclude that the only use of that title is to be found in Jeremiah as the title of a pagan goddess which is a highly unflattering appellation to be given to Mary.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Nobody is calling Jesus King of Kings except by His title given in scripture. If you have scripture which titles Mary as Queen of Heaven, please show it. Otherwise, one is left to conclude that the only use of that title is to be found in Jeremiah as the title of a pagan goddess which is a highly unflattering appellation to be given to Mary.

Would you feel more comfortable if it were rendered, "queen mother in heaven"?

It would mean the same thing since the appellation is intended to speak of Christ's royal authority and power, not Mary's. In the same way that Mary being called Theotokos/Mother of God is a reference to her Son's divinity, not her own.

Do these also honor Mary? Of course, but why on God's green earth would we not respect the woman chosen of God to give birth to salvation of the universe?

The angel wasn't just being cordial when he called her "highly favored one", and the Evangelist doesn't include Elizabeth's declaration, "blessed are you among women" just for giggles.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Would you feel more comfortable if it were rendered, "queen mother in heaven"?

It would mean the same thing since the appellation is intended to speak of Christ's royal authority and power, not Mary's. In the same way that Mary being called Theotokos/Mother of God is a reference to her Son's divinity, not her own.

Do these also honor Mary? Of course, but why on God's green earth would we not respect the woman chosen of God to give birth to salvation of the universe?

The angel wasn't just being cordial when he called her "highly favored one", and the Evangelist doesn't include Elizabeth's declaration, "blessed are you among women" just for giggles.

-CryptoLutheran

I would have no problem calling any individual any name or title that is ascribed to them in scripture. Thus, I have no difficulty with Satan being call the Adversary. Mary is never called the Queen of Heaven (that is given to another goddess) nor the Queen Mother in Heaven, nor even the Theotokos, in the Bible. Nor is she called the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of the Sewer either. Sometimes those who exalt her to the level of deity or thereabouts seem to believe that those of us who don't actually would drag her through the sewers. Such is not the case at all.

 

[Tzaousios]

Mary is never called the Queen of Heaven (that is given to another goddess) nor the Queen Mother in Heaven, nor even the Theotokos, in the Bible. Nor is she called the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of the Sewer either.

Was this a Freudian slip? You should be more careful of that.

Sometimes those who exalt her to the level of deity or thereabouts seem to believe that those of us who don't actually would drag her through the sewers. Such is not the case at all.

Yes, but who exactly is "exalting her to the level of deity?"

 

[Standing Up]

Nobody is calling Jesus King of Kings except by His title given in scripture. If you have scripture which titles Mary as Queen of Heaven, please show it. Otherwise, one is left to conclude that the only use of that title is to be found in Jeremiah as the title of a pagan goddess which is a highly unflattering appellation to be given to Mary.

Good point. In fact we have just this situation when a group called Paul and Barnabas by their gods' names.

Acts 14:12-15 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
[Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

Men and women of like passions with you. Not exalted as some are wont to do.

So, bottom line, no Mary is not the 'queen of heaven' any more than Barnabas is Jupiter or Peter Dagon or James and John sons of Thor.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So no matter how theologically accurate or appropriate a title or term might be, if it's not mentioned explicitly in Scripture than it should be rejected?

We should therefore not call Christ "God the Son" even if it's true? Nor refer to Mary as Theotokos/Mother of God, even though it's true? We shouldn't call Jesus our Divine Teacher or Divine Master, since these titles cannot be found in the pages of Holy Writ then either?

That seems like a particularly strange way of doing things.

If truth is truth, then it is true--even if Scripture does not specifically spell it out.

If Jesus is God, and therefore God spent nine months in Mary's womb and she gave birth to Jesus-Who-is-God then she is the mother of God or Theotokos. If Jesus is King, then the King's mother is a queen (though I will agree with you that "Queen of Heaven" is not a title I'm particularly comfortable with in regards to the Holy and Blessed Virgin).

If such things are theologically true, based upon the teachings of Holy Scripture (that Jesus Christ is God and King and Lord) then these statements are true both biblically and theologically; then whether or not their actual verbatim use in the pages of Scripture seems somewhat moot or intentionally superfluous.

That "Queen of Heaven" was a term used for an ancient near eastern pagan goddess is also moot. Jesus Christ is called Lord (a term that was reserved for the "divine and august Caesar"), He is called the Son of God (the Roman emperors were referred to as sons of divinity, there were plenty of demigods who were regarded as children of pagan deities, Hercules for instance). And yet there is no trouble here in accepting these as truthful terms for Christ, because Jesus Christ is Lord, He is the Son of God, and whatever may have been claimed by pagans for their gods and demigods is rendered moot by the truth and power of the Gospel.

Again, "Queen of Heaven" isn't a title I personally use for Mary, but the theology seems pretty darned sound. The present arguments to the contrary seem abundantly weak and seem to come across more as vestigial anti-Catholic baggage from a bygone era rather than legitimate theological argumentation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jesus3:16]

In the Bible, there are no references as Mary being the Queen of Heaven or the Mother of God. (because she isn't)

In the Book of Jeremiah, it is refering to the Babylonian goddess, Ashtoreth.

People worshipping the Queen of Heaven angers God, so the same principle applies today.
Calling Mary the Queen of Heaven angers God. It's idolatry.

 

[Thekla]

In the Bible, there are no references as Mary being the Queen of Heaven or the Mother of God. (because she isn't)

In the Book of Jeremiah, it is refering to the Babylonian goddess, Ashtoreth.

People worshipping the Queen of Heaven angers God, so the same principle applies today.
Calling Mary the Queen of Heaven angers God. It's idolatry.

Elizabeth calls Mary the "mother of my Lord" (the term Lord is used for Christ God).

But I agree with you; I don't think any Christians worship a Babylonian goddess

 

[Jesus3:16]

Elizabeth calls Mary the "mother of my Lord" (the term Lord is used for Christ God).

But I agree with you; I don't think any Christians worship a Babylonian goddess

Ok. So Mary is the Mother of God? That means Mary created the eternal God, making her His mother?....NOPE.

Mary was just the vessel to bring God into the world as flesh (Jesus).

And if you worship Mary, you might as well be worshipping Ashteroth.

 

[Thekla]

Ok. So Mary is the Mother of God? That means Mary created the eternal God, making her His mother?....NOPE.

No, I didn't say that

I believe that Jesus Christ is the pre-eternal Logos, God the Son, incarnate. Mary assented to God (agreed) and conceived Him by the Holy Spirit.

Mary was just the vessel to bring God into the world as flesh (Jesus).

Can you find the description of Mary as "just a vessel" in Scripture for me ? Because my Scripture shows that she heard the word of God and kept it, thus agreeing ("let it be to me" she stated), and thus she cooperated (what Paul says we are to do, using the term synergy). She was not unwillingly "possessed"

And if you worship Mary, you might as well be worshipping Ashteroth.

I don't worship Mary.

 

[Jesus3:16]

No, I didn't say that

Can you find the description of Mary as "just a vessel" in Scripture for me ? Because my Scripture shows that she heard the word of God and kept it, thus agreeing ("let it be to me" she stated), and thus she cooperated (what Paul says we are to do, using the term synergy). She was not unwillingly "possessed"

It's true that Mary consented. Mary accepted the Holy Spirit to concieve Jesus, making her a vessal.

God needed to be born from flesh to come into the world so He needed a vessal to come forth from.

 

[Thekla]

It's true that Mary consented. Mary accepted the Holy Spirit to concieve Jesus, making her a vessal.

God needed to be born from flesh to come into the world so He needed a vessal to come forth from.

But where does it say in Scripture that she was a "vessel" ?

Did she contribute nothing to the humanity of Christ ?

Did she nurse Him ?

Or did He eat from the hand of angels ?