Queen of Heaven

[MikeMcK]

Actually, Semiramis was first called the "Queen of Heaven." Semiramis was the mother of Nimrod, who he eventually married. When Nimrod died, Semiramis soon bore a child which she said was Nimrod re-incarnated. Others that used this title were Ishtar, Ashtoreth, Aphrodite, Venus and Diana. The phrase "Queen of Heaven" is mentioned exactly five times: five in the Bible is the number of death. These are the references.

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jer 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Jer 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

Jer 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?

Jer 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.

This is not a good title, guys.

Thank you. I was just about to quote these.

 

[MikeMcK]

If Mary is the mother of God, then was Jesus God before He created Mary?

And, for that matter, if this is true, how could Jesus have existed to create Mary in the first place?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

As I said and others have said, "Queen of Heaven," does not make Mary even close to being equal with God.

 

[PaladinValer]

Come now, this one is absurd.

Jesus existed before Abraham....did Mary?
Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.....is Mary?
He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.....is Mary?
He is the Son in eternity past...Mary is a woman, nothing more.

There is hardly any comparison.

Jesus didn't exist until He was born.

The Divine Son, however, has always been. Jesus is the Incarnation. Fallacy of Equivocation and therefore invalid.

 

[Axion]

Mary is shown crowned Queen in Heaven in Revelation 12.

Read it.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Mary is shown crowned Queen in Heaven in Revelation 12.

Read it.

It also shows her as Mother of all Christians.

 

[MikeMcK]

Mary is shown crowned Queen in Heaven in Revelation 12.

Read it.

Could you please be a little more specific? I've read this chapter three times and I still don't see it.

 

[MikeMcK]

It also shows her as Mother of all Christians.

Didn't see that, either.

 

[PaladinValer]

No, Jesus has been given titles that ARE in the bible.
The ones you give Mary are nowhere to be found in the text.
You say it is the appropriate title, our trusted apostles and our Lord do not.

I see nothing of the Trinity...I guess that means that dogma is bogus as well!

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. This and your post under it.

Please come up with a valid, logical, sound argument.

 

[Egghead]

I see nothing of the Trinity...I guess that means that dogma is bogus as well!

This is preposterous !

Read 1 John 5:7.
Read John 1.

Tell me when youre done with those 2 and we'll look for more CLEAR scripture on the matter.

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. This and your post under it.

Hardly.
Your whole presentation that Mary somehow became queen of heaven because the eternal God chose her as a vessal to be born in the flesh is just absurd.

If she were queen of a kingdom THEN she could pass on her throne to her son.
As it is she is nothing more than a woman called blessed.

Again, please show us where our beloved Christ or Paul stated this stuff or just admit you have nothing but tradition.

Please come up with a valid, logical, sound argument.

nice try

 

[PaladinValer]

This is preposterous !

Read 1 John 5:7.

The classic forgery? Not a part of the original Scripture, although definitely Holy Tradition.

Read John 1.

That deals with only Christ, making it Christological, not Trinitarian.

Tell me when youre done with those 2 and we'll look for more CLEAR scripture on the matter.

I'm finished, but you didn't prove anything.

Hardly.
Your whole presentation that Mary somehow became queen of heaven because the eternal God chose her as a vessal to be born in the flesh is just absurd.

You assume because it doesn't say it, it isn't true. That's a fallacy all right. Please give us a valid, sound, logical argument please.

If she were queen of a kingdom THEN she could pass on her throne to her son.
As it is she is nothing more than a woman called blessed.

She's queen through her Son however. Fallacy of False Dilemma.

Again, please show us where our beloved Christ or Paul stated this stuff or just admit you have nothing but tradition.

It has nothing to do with tradition, or Tradition. It has to do with pure logic.

nice try

At least I succeed.

 

[Egghead]

Mary is shown crowned Queen in Heaven in Revelation 12.

Read it.

interesting, why isnt she named there?


I suppose since you take this literally as one woman then you must also take this very literally...

And the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a river after the woman, so that he might cause her to be carried off by the river.
But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and drank up the river which the dragon had cast out of his mouth.
(Rev 12:15-16 EMTV)

Do you.....or do you just pick and choose what is literal metaphor ?


And AFTER Jesus is born, when did this happen to Mary?

And she gave birth to a Son, a male who would shepherd all the nations with an iron rod.
And her Child was caught up to God and to His throne.

Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place having been prepared by God, so that they may nourish her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
(Rev 12:5-6 EMTV)

And how about this?

Now when the dragon saw that he was cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child.
And the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly into the desert to her place, so that she might be nourished there for a time and times and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
(Rev 12:13-14 EMTV)

Mary with wings?

Somehow I think its all metaphor either for the church (Im not betting on this one) or possibly Isreal (12 stars=12 tribes possibly) who birthed Jesus.

We DO know that Satan has persecuted the Jewish nation since then, and even the church.
Im not so sure he did Mary after Jesus was born.

 

[Egghead]

The classic forgery? Not a part of the original Scripture, although definitely Holy Tradition.

defined by whom?
I have to wonder if the job was done properly now

That deals with only Christ, making it Christological, not Trinitarian.

Nice try guy.
I see youll stop at nothing to dismiss CLEAR scripture when it suits you.

Jesus IS God, that is a fact. And we can add 2 and 2 from clear scripture to see the whole picture.
Mary is not queen of heaven nor is she shown as such in any passage anywhere, not even by direct implication.

But we DO have John 1 stating that Jesus IS God and that is enough to back at least one aspect of what we call trinity. Whether you like it or not.

I'm finished, but you didn't prove anything.

Of course not
but to those who just read it without some doctrine to prove, it is very clear.

You assume because it doesn't say it, it isn't true. That's a fallacy all right. Please give us a valid, sound, logical argument please.

Wow.....and YOU assume trinity isnt taught in the text when we have John 1 showing plainly that Jesus IS God and then you casually dismiss the Johaninne comma put into the very scripture YOUR church canonized.

She's queen through her Son however. Fallacy of False Dilemma.

Please, leave the fancy titles out, they dont make this sound any more intelligent. Lets just stick to the facts here, ok?

We have plain scripture backing the trinity doctrine.
You have nothing clear to back this queen thing,

It has nothing to do with tradition, or Tradition. It has to do with pure logic.

Logic? Whose?

A Man-God comes to earth thru a human woman and you want to apply human logic to that?
Sorry, Mary passed on no sovereign position to Jesus.
She is not queen.
She is blessed.

At least I succeed.

From your pov Id say you think you do.
Youve yet to prove anything from the words of our Lord or His chosen apostles.

 

[PaladinValer]

interesting, why isnt she named there?

Was isn't Jesus specifically named in Isaiah 7:14?

I suppose since you take this literally as one woman then you must also take this very literally...

I do not recognize that translation, firstly.

In addition, you forget where that story comes from. It is an adaption of the story of Leto from Hellenic Paganism. The center figure is a woman, Leto, persued by the Serpent, trying to find a safe haven to bear his son, the god Apollo, son of Zeus. She finally finds such a place, and Apollo later grows up and destroys the Serpent.

Replace Zeus with God, Leto with Mary, and Apollo with Zeus. Rather convincing story. Non-literal to be sure, but very rich in symbolism.

Do you.....or do you just pick and choose what is literal metaphor ?

Depends on the source, doesn't it? Did you even realize the source of that particular passage? If not, then how could you possibly fully understand it?

And AFTER Jesus is born, when did this happen to Mary?

Who said it happened after? Or before? Read it logically and with faith; then you'll get the answers.

And how about this?

Point being?

Mary with wings?

Ever heard of symbolic allegory?

Somehow I think its all metaphor either for the church (Im not betting on this one) or possibly Isreal (12 stars=12 tribes possibly) who birthed Jesus.

It is these two, and it is Mary as well.

We DO know that Satan has persecuted the Jewish nation since then, and even the church.
Im not so sure he did Mary after Jesus was born.

Mary is the New Eve. I'm certain you can take it from there.

 

[Egghead]

Now lets prove trinity to everyone here since someone is so adamant its not clearly taught in the text.




Whose Son is Jesus?

Then those who were in the boat came and worshipped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God."
(Mat 14:33 EMTV)

Jesus is Gods Son.

Now, who made Mary prenant?

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this: After His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
(Mat 1:18 EMTV)

huh.
Pregnant by the Holy Spirit....yet called the 'Son of God''

Guess we can see that God and the Spirit ARE the One.

And we know from John 1 that Jesus IS God.

God is God.
Jesus is God
The Spirit is God.


sounds pretty clear to me.

 

[MikeMcK]

Was isn't Jesus specifically named in Isaiah 7:14?

Jesus is Immanuel.

 

[Egghead]

Was isn't Jesus specifically named in Isaiah 7:14?

Was Jesus alive in the flesh at the time?
Was Mary alive to be named ''queen of heaven"?

I do not recognize that translation, firstly.

Of course not.

In addition, you forget where that story comes from. It is an adaption of the story of Leto from Hellenic Paganism. The center figure is a woman, Leto, persued by the Serpent, trying to find a safe haven to bear his son, the god Apollo, son of Zeus. She finally finds such a place, and Apollo later grows up and destroys the Serpent.

Replace Zeus with God, Leto with Mary, and Apollo with Zeus. Rather convincing story. Non-literal to be sure, but very rich in symbolism.

So youre saying that John wrote something about some other gods then and passed it off as the words of YHWH?

Depends on the source, doesn't it?

obviously everything does.

Did you even realize the source of that particular passage? If not, then how could you possibly fully understand it?

Lets quit with the vagueness, ok?
If you have something more to offer, do so.

Who said it happened after? Or before? Read it logically and with faith; then you'll get the answers.

What Ill get is the wrong answer.
Theres no reason to make that woman anything more than ''Israel" of one sort or another.

Ever heard of symbolic allegory?

Ever heard of exegesis?

It is these two, and it is Mary as well.

Right

Mary is the New Eve. I'm certain you can take it from there.

Not without changing my religion, Id say.
Its surely not presented in the text.

 

[PaladinValer]

defined by whom?

Let's see...the first editions of the Vulgate don't have it....in fact, most early texts don't contain it. And the first times they do, it is a sidenote, not even a footnote, usually in Latin while the text is in Greek. Or that the sidenote is in Greek as well, but it was clearly translated from Latin.

Textual criticism is a great tool to possess, as St. Augustine of Hippo correctly argues.

I have to wonder if the job was done properly now

The forgery isn't wrong; it just doesn't really belong in there.

Nice try guy.
I see youll stop at nothing to dismiss CLEAR scripture when it suits you.

Where does it address the Holy Spirit? Or does your interesting new translation incert a forgery?

Jesus IS God, that is a fact. And we can add 2 and 2 from clear scripture to see the whole picture.

Trinity has the prefix "tri" in it. That means three. Father and Son is two, unless I cannot count anymore.

Mary is not queen of heaven nor is she shown as such in any passage anywhere, not even by direct implication.

Yes, there is direct implication. The fact that He is King, the Hebrew governmental custom is that the Queen is the Mother of the King, that both of them were Hebrew, and that Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is Queen. Pure, simple, sound logic. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.

But we DO have John 1 stating that Jesus IS God and that is enough to back at least one aspect of what we call trinity. Whether you like it or not.

That's a duality, not a triality; a Trinity.

Of course not but to those who just read it without some doctrine to prove, it is very clear.

That your arguments aren't logical?

Wow.....and YOU assume trinity isnt taught in the text when we have John 1 showing plainly that Jesus IS God and then you casually dismiss the Johaninne comma put into the very scripture YOUR church canonized.

1. I'm not Vatican Catholic. My icon should make that quite clear.
2. No such difference in Churches existed until the 3rd Ecumenical Council, and possibly arguably until 1054. There was but One Church.
3. Father and Son is two. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is Three.

Please, leave the fancy titles out, they dont make this sound any more intelligent. Lets just stick to the facts here, ok?

I am. You committed that fallacy. Please give an argument that doesn't violate it, please.

We have plain scripture backing the trinity doctrine.
You have nothing clear to back this queen thing,

Only because you do not seem to understand Hebrew governmental systems. Luckily, I do.

Logic? Whose?

Logic is logic.

A Man-God comes to earth thru a human woman and you want to apply human logic to that?

Logic is Logic. Straw Man too.

Sorry, Mary passed on no sovereign position to Jesus.

Fallacy of Straw Mand (also Asked and Answered)

From your pov Id say you think you do.

It is from the POV of God's ordained logic as well. Or is God not the source of all logic? Logos means Reason as much as it does mean Word.

Youve yet to prove anything from the words of our Lord or His chosen apostles.

Don't need to. The implications are already there. It simply takes Hebrew civics to see it.

 

[Illume]

Isn't Jesus a King after the likeness of David and the other Hebrew Kings?


Thus if Mary, the mother of the King isn't Queen then you aren't you denying that Jesus is truly a King after the likeness of David?

 

[PaladinValer]

Now lets prove trinity to everyone here since someone is so adamant its not clearly taught in the text.

No one suggested such. The problem is, you do not seem to understand the difference between a duality and a triality.

Whose Son is Jesus?

Jesus is Gods Son.

Now, who made Mary prenant?

The Holy Spirit, but that isn't addressed there, is it?

huh.

Pregnant by the Holy Spirit....yet called the 'Son of God''

Check the passage number. Does that say John 1? No.

Guess we can see that God and the Spirit ARE the One.

And we know from John 1 that Jesus IS God.

God is God.
Jesus is God
The Spirit is God.


sounds pretty clear to me.

Problem is, you claimed it through John 1. You made no hint about using another passage, just John 1. You've now shown that you cannot, so I thank you for proving me right for me.

Jesus is Immanuel.

That isn't His actual name, though, is it? Therefore, you've proven nothing.

Was Jesus alive in the flesh at the time?
Was Mary alive to be named ''queen of heaven"?

Not the point, so Straw Man.

And yes, Mary was alive. Or is Jesus a false Messiah because He failed to destroy death on the cross?

Of course not.

Avoiding the implied question. Give me information about it, please.

So youre saying that John wrote something about some other gods then and passed it off as the words of YHWH?

No. Read what I said. Do you see the word adaption? Like it or not, the Bible adapts quite a bit of Pagan stories and turns them around to help its readers understand the Truth. Quite an effective tool really. Why start new stories when existing ones do a great job all ready? Just switch a word here and there and whamo!; perfect lesson!

Lets quit with the vagueness, ok?
If you have something more to offer, do so.

That was hardly vague.

Ever heard of exegesis?

Obviously. I utilized it. It is called using one's metacognative knowledge.

Not without changing my religion, Id say.
Its surely not presented in the text.

You'll have to change your religion then.