Is this statement about Mary blasphemous?

[shinbits]

Enjoy.

 

[Thekla]

And I will reply again, let me know if im unclear..., but the Son was always KING, implying she Mary) had to always be Queen....

I see; thank-you for clarifying. As I said before, Mary had a beginning in time. Thus she could not have always been queen. The pre-eternal Logos was 'when the fullness of time had come" Incarnated and "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4). It was not when Mary was a child that the term "queen" could be used to attest that Christ was King, but only after He was "born of woman", a woman, Mary.

...basically was Mary in Heaven, when He was King of Heaven... (not that He needed to be crowned because, he created the Heavens... Does Heaven need a queen?

Mary in no way can pre-date the pre-eternal. As before, the title queen is a witness to the identity of Jesus Christ ! But, we know that indeed God included the Incarnation in His plan before the existence of Mary; He did desire that the Incarnation was to occur, and for this to occur a woman is required - if we believe that it happened per the will of God.

Even for the era, they were using this description is an error, because it implies that Mary was always in Heaven...

No, it does not, as we all know that the Creator is above and before His creation.

or like you say (era and time).... When was He crowned King of Heaven, when He created it?

At the beginning of creation, the concept known as 'king' did not exist. It is a human term that we use - like the other terms we use. No term that we use can perfectly describe God, all terms fall short of His majesty, Hid glory, His essence. Even these terms are too small for God. But, we use them anyway, as - as humans - it is what we have.

 

[Thekla]

Those words are from Jesus. Do you think Jesus means that John is greater than himself?

Obviously, he means mere humans. And that includes Mary. So the statement that Mary is the "greatest human that ever lived", is theologically false. Just like the rest of this false Mary doctrine you all support.

I am not a "you all"; here we say "youse".


The term Christ uses is in the masculine - meaning "man" (not tmk applied to women, though if you have an example of its use with females, that would be cool); Luke records His statement as "there is no greater prophet born of woman than John ..." (7:28). This is the sense of the passage, actually.

Mary was not a prophet (Luke)
and not a man (Matthew)

 

[Thekla]

Where did He ask Mary?

She concurred with the announcement of Gabriel - the OT if full of those who "heard and did not keep".

I didn't nurse Him but I sure have nursed His other children. Taken them to an assembly to hear His word preached. Changed their diapers.

Me, too
but none of them were Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit has concieved in me the King of all Glory and eternal life. For it is not according to the flesh that any man will be recongized but according to the Spirit. We were not there as eye witnesses to Christ in the flesh.

Nor did we birth Him; Mary did both. There are none other in all eternity that have or will.

 

[boswd]

You guys got owned by the truth. Please just humble yourselves, and admit you're in error about Mary.

It is you who boast of too much pride.

 

[shinbits]

I am not a "you all"; here we say "youse".

okey dokey

The term Christ uses is in the masculine - it is a periphrastic for "man" (not tmk applied to women, though if you have an example of its use with females, that would be cool); Luke records His statement as "there is no greater prophet born of woman than John ..." (7:28). This is the sense of the passage, actually.

I'm sure even you know that masculine terms like this are default terms, that refer to all human beings. When the Bibles talks about punishing sinful men, do you think this excludes sinful women? No, it's merely a default term, that applies to all humans.

As far as "prophet", most translations don't include that word. Look at this link:

http://bible.cc/luke/7-28.htmhttp://bible.cc/luke/7-29.htm
^ Most don't have that, only a few. And there's a good reason:

The ones that do include the word can't mean only prophets. If it did, why then would Christ add the term "born of women"? The number of people born of women is...everyone. Furthermore, just one verse earlier, Jesus said John is "more than a prophet", indicating that John was an exceptional human being.

So that's why translating that passage without specifically refering to prophets is not only more accurate, but has been translated that way most often. Jesus said John is "more than a prophet", then went on to say that no one "born of women" was greater than he...which includes all humans, which means he's also greater than Mary.

That's why Biblical context is important, rather than just knowing isolated verses.

 

[addo]

Then you do not believe that Christ Resurrected on the third day and defeated death?

He didn't give His final blow yet. Proof?

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. ~1 Corinthians 15:26

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. ~Revelation 20:14
​

Death will be completely eliminated after all other Christ's enemies will be defeated. Death will be the last. And it happens after Jesus' second coming. Jesus didn't return yet. "every eye shall see him" (Revelation 1:7). I haven't seen when "He cometh with clouds" (Rev 1:7). Did you? I doubt it. Thus death hasn't disappeared yet. It's like in that video game, "Dragon Age: Origins": you have defeated the dragon, it can't do anything else, it is dying; but it's still there, you still have to give it the final blow. Christ will give death the final blow after the His second coming.

People on these forums disrespect her when they say these things:

1. Mary is dead.

Isn't she? Or, just to use an euphemism, I'll say: "isn't Mary asleep?"

2. Mary is not the mother of Christ God.
3. Mary is just another human woman on Earth and God would've picked somebody else out of the pool of humans to bore His Son.

I never said that so I won't comment.

4. Mary went on about her life after giving birth to Christ by having babies with Joseph (who was decades her senior and just her protector).

According to the Bible, it is wrong to not have sex if you're married (if you can, of course). Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Corinthians 7:3-5) Why would Mary keep Joseph "burning", as shown in verse 9? To say it openly: if Mary denied Joseph the right to have sex with him, then she did something un-Biblical. And why wouldn't Joseph want to give Jesus a family (with brothers and sisters)? Wouldn't that be beautiful? Wouldn't that increase Jesus' experience as a "normal" man?

Besides, what would be wrong with that after all? And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply (Genesis 1:28) It's a blessing, not a curse! Why would it be wrong? You are holding very much to the belief that it would be wrong for Mary to have other children apart from Jesus, or aren't you?

Probably others I can't recall at this moment. And in saying these hurtful things, one is disrespecting God, Who chose Her and loved and honored her.

I still cannot understand how is calling Mary "asleep" and saying she had other children (which is a blessing, btw) disrespectful.
___

Congrats, by the way. In one day you already wrote more that 29 pages on this thread .... and yesterday there were only 11.

 

[shinbits]

It is you who boast of too much pride.

It wasn't my words that owned you, though. If so, then I'd be prideful. It was Jesus' own words that refuted that statement.

 

[Thekla]

okey dokey


I'm sure even you know that masculine terms like this are default terms, that refer to all human beings. When the Bibles talks about punishing sinful men, do you think this excludes sinful women? No, it's merely a default term, that applies to all humans.

Yes, sometimes they are general, sometimes they are not. By using the comparative verse in Luke, the content of the statement is clarified and narrowed to its immediate application.

As far as "prophet", most translations don't include that word. Look at this link:

Luke 7:29 (All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John.
^ Most don't have that, only a few. And there's a good reason:

The ones that do include the word can't mean only prophets. If it did, why then would Christ add the term "born of women"? The number of people born of women is...everyone. Furthermore, just one verse earlier, Jesus said John is "more than a prophet", indicating that John was an exceptional human being.

Instead of having a Bible version discussion, note the previous verse/s in both Matthew's and Luke's description of the event. The discussion has already been narrowed to the prophetic role. Christ's statement is made within that context.

So that's why translating that passage without specifically refering to prophets is not only more accurate, but has been translated that way most often. Jesus said John is "more than a prophet", then went on to say that no one "born of women" was greater than he...which includes all humans, which means he's also greater than Mary.

But the broader context is indeed a discussion about a prophet:

For this is [he], of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

The use of prophet in the Lukan passage may be redundant, but the comparison is with prophets.

That's why Biblical context is important, rather than just knowing isolated verses.

I gave you the greater context for that reason, which supports the use of "prophet" in Luke and indeed points to the range of Christ's comparative - it is a narrow category.

 

[addo]

At the time the term was used, the mother of the king was referred to as the queen.

Thus, the term "queen of heaven" is a reference to the identity of Jesus Christ, who had myriads of angels as His servants. As Jesus Christ, who pre-existed the creation of the heavens as the pre-eternal Logos, as the second person of the Holy Trinity, as God, He is the King of heaven and earth. Paul attests that all is "re-capitulated" in Him; ie He has "headship/capit" of all things.

To call Mary queen of heaven is - in Semitic and eastern Christian terms - to identify Jesus Christ as King of Heaven, ie. the Son of God.

In more modern times, and in the west, this terminology is not understood and needs to be explained.

For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my ... mother. (Mark 3:35) That would make all Christians Queen of Heaven, wouldn't it?

I wonder what would have happened if Mary had said no to God. I guess people would be bowing down in front of some other woman's statue and praying to her instead of to Mary.

God knew Mary's response, that it would be "yes". Questioning what would have happened if Mary would've said "no" is useless. God knew her response before asking her, for God knows everything, doesn't He?

Jesus said in 7:28:

"I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John".

So what you said is fallacious.

Yet another fallacious statement from the supporters of this false Mary doctrine.

That doesn't exactly work out, for it says later: ...but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. (Luke 7:28). The question is: who is in this kingdom of Heaven? I'll let you guys find out on yourselves.

Hint: it is something to come (Matthew 6:10) and it may be within us (Luke 17:21)

 

[boswd]

It wasn't my words that owned you, though. If so, then I'd be prideful. It was Jesus' own words that refuted that statement.

Please your perverted interpretation of Christ's words don't count.

Owned? what are you 12?

You haven't roved anything, none of the Marion Doctrines contradict scripture. Just maybe you and your "church's" interpretation.

Again I should point out, the whole "If it aint in scripture then it didn't happen" is an extremely slippery slope.

 

[shinbits]

Yes, sometimes they are general, sometimes they are not. By using the comparative verse in Luke, the content of the statement is clarified and narrowed to its immediate application.



Instead of having a Bible version discussion, note the previous verse/s in both Matthew's and Luke's description of the event. The discussion has already been narrowed to the prophetic role. Christ's statement is made within that context.

But the broader context is indeed a discussion about a prophet:
The use of prophet in the Lukan passage may be redundant, but the comparison is with prophets.

I gave you the greater context for that reason, which supports the use of "prophet" in Luke and indeed points to the range of Christ's comparative - it is a narrow category.

Jesus' statement that John is "more than a prophet" earlier in that same chapter is the key. If Jesus just meant to compare John to other prophets, he would've said John is better than other prophets, not "more than a prophet." Saying John is "more" than a prophet means that Jesus wants us to think of him as something other than a great prophet: a great human being. That's why Jesus follows that up with what he said in 7:28:

"I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John".

^ And that's why MOST Bible translations leave out "prophet". Not just "most", but an overwhelming majority. It's not a coincidence. Thus, Jesus himself regards John as greater than Mary.

 

[shinbits]

That doesn't exactly work out, for it says later: ...but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. (Luke 7:28). The question is: who is in this kingdom of Heaven? I'll let you guys find out on yourselves.

Hint: it is something to come (Matthew 6:10) and it may be within us (Luke 17:21)

The overall point in this being brought up, is that Jesus regards John as a greater person than Mary.

 

[Thekla]

For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my ... mother. (Mark 3:35) That would make all Christians Queen of Heaven, wouldn't it?

Christ's comment refers to our adoption as children of God; Mary is included among those who are adopted, but that does not negate her particular role in the history of salvation.

As before, consider: you have written about God. Are your writings thus automatically part of the New Testament ?

The New Testament writings are once written and are the New Testament; they are unique. They are not added to, even when others do a similar thing (write about God, or record their experience of Christ). Likewise the Incarnation is unique, is not repeated nor added to.

God knew Mary's response, that it would be "yes". Questioning what would have happened if Mary would've said "no" is useless. God knew her response before asking her, for God knows everything, doesn't He?

I haven't questioned what would have happened if she said "no". Instead, there was only one in all of historical time that was asked. God is indeed all knowing; He knew who would be the "perfect fit" for this role, Mary.

That doesn't exactly work out, for it says later: ...but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. (Luke 7:28). The question is: who is in this kingdom of Heaven? I'll let you guys find out on yourselves.

Hint: it is something to come (Matthew 6:10) and it may be within us (Luke 17:21)

Indeed, that is said; but I'm not sure what significance you in particular see in that.

 

[Thekla]

Jesus' statement that John is "more than a prophet" earlier in that same chapter is the key. If Jesus just meant to compare John to other prophets, he would've said John is better than other prophets, not "more than a prophet." Saying John is "more" than a prophet means that Jesus wants us to think of him as something other than a great prophet: a great human being. That's why Jesus follows that up with what he said in 7:28:

"I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John".

^ And that's why MOST Bible translations leave out "prophet". Not just "most", but an overwhelming majority. It's not a coincidence. Thus, Jesus himself regards John as greater than Mary.

He is responding to the comparison being made of John and the prophets; to say he is greater than the prophets is a parallel to the comparative of 'prophets born of woman' - it acts as an emphatic.

 

[laconicstudent]

Theotokos Virgin rejoice, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the savior of our souls.

 

[shinbits]

He is responding to the comparison being made of John and the prophets; to say he is greater than the prophets is a parallel to the comparative of 'prophets born of woman' - it acts as an emphatic.

That's not what the Scripture says. Jesus isn't merely saying that John is greater than the prophets; he clearly says that John is "more" than a prophet, meaning don't even compare him to just prophets. That's why Jesus then uses the term "born of women", to include of all humankind, which Jesus says John is greater than.

And that, of course, includes Mary.

Why else would Christ inlcude "born of women"? Just to use pretty words? No, Jesus had a purpose in doing that. And that purpose was to compare John to all mankind, not just to other prophets.

 

[boswd]

I clearly told you I'm not discussing what "ain't" in Scripture. I'm discussing what IS in Scripture. In almost those exact words, no less. <staff edit>

And What IS in Scripture contradicts your Mary doctrine.

what you say and what you do apparently are two different things.

Where does Scripture say the mother of the King is no longer Queen.
Where does it say Mary was NOT bodily assumed into heaven.

so it basically comes down to is from your side "Its not IN Scripture"
which the irony is the last time you tried to use that about Christ being conceived it was directly pointed out in the scriptures only to have you try and spin it off as you were proven wrong. alas via scripture.

let's face it that has been your line of defense whether you want to admit to it or not. the "Show me in scripture" which translates to "if it aint there it didn't happen"

 

[Thekla]

That's not what the Scripture says. Jesus isn't merely saying that John is greater than the prophets; he clearly says that John is "more" than a prophet, meaning don't even compare him to just prophets. That's why Jesus then uses the term "born of women", to include of all humankind, which Jesus says John is greater than.

And that, of course, includes Mary.

The Matthew verse uses the term : egeiro, to rise up. The word (when it doesn't mean 'get up (from bed) and go out'), refers to what is done in public (related to the word for a public place, the agora). It is a specific kind of action, such as speaking in public; it refers to his public ministry which is prophetic (and includes baptism). Mary's role was carried out in private; she was not 'preaching' in public.

The comparative Christ uses refers to a particular role - it is not a generally applied comparative.

 

[addo]

The overall point in this being brought up, is that Jesus regards John as a greater person than Mary.

And if may I add, it is interesting to note what Jesus said in this situation:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:27-28 KJV)
​

Here a woman tried to elevate Mary above the crowd. Jesus says the average Christian (the ones that hear and keep the word of God) are equally blessed with Mary.

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. (Mark 3:31-35 KJV)
​

Now here was an opportunity for Christ to ascend Mary above the average Christian, but He says the contrary: she isn't above, but equal; because just like Mary is a mother for Jesus, in the same manner all that "do the will of God" are His mother. Just as a mother Mary is for Him is any Christian to Him as well.

There were to possibilities:

1. Jesus elevating Mary above the ordinary.
2. Another person elevating Mary above the ordinary.

Both situations happened and Jesus' response was the same. When He could have elevated her He said that every Christian is a mother for Him. When another person elevated her He said that all that do the will of the Father (i.e.: Christians) are just as blessed as she is. Thus we can say that if you elevate Mary to the status of "Queen of Heaven", all Christians are Queen of Heaven. If you descend her to the status of a filthy dog (dogs are an allegory for Gentiles, Christians aren't Gentiles), then all Christians are filthy dogs.

In other words, Mary is as blessed as Christians are. But yet, some, like the Roman Catholic Church, for example, have elevated Mary above the normal Christian. As an example, normal veneration of saints is "dulia", but Mary has hiperdulia. Isn't that elevating more than we should? Didn't Christ say that just as blessed as she is is any one that does the will of the Father?