Queen of heaven

[narnia59]

Ummmm. The Holy Spirit? If Christ needs a queen sitting at his right hand, who is sitting at God's left hand - His Queen? Who is God's Queen?

Ah, there are very few things to be compared with speculative theology.

I'm not sure what is so "speculative" when these facts are recorded in Scripture.

Fact #1 -- there are indeed two places reserved at the right and left hand of Christ, prepared by his Father:

Matthew 20:20-24 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Fact #2 -- Scripture does indeed tell us that there will be a queen at the right hand of Christ:

Psalm 45:6-9 6 Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; 7 you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows; 8 your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad; 9 daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.

Fact #3 -- Jesus is to assume the throne of his father David:

Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David

Fact #4 -- Those sitting on the throne of David had a queen, coincidentally also at their right hand, who was their mother.

1 Kings 2:19 -- So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right.

It wasn't just Bathsheba; the "queen mother" is mentioned through the Old Testament history of the Jewish kings -- 1 Kings 15:13, 2 Kings 10:13, 2 Chronicles 15:16, Jeremiah 13:18, Jeremiah 29:2.

Speculative? Not really. We know from Scripture that there will be someone sitting at the right hand of Christ who will be his queen, we know Christ will be sitting on the throne of David, and we know that the queens who sat at the right of the King in the line of David was the mother of the King. It's pretty clear.

But you reject what Scripture clearly teaches in this regard, so you must have an alternative answer based upon Scripture (not speculation) as to who will be the queen who sits at the right hand of Christ. I await your answer.

 

[prodromos]

Nowhere is there the slightest hint of any other human being, male or female, in the intimate presence of the Godhead. The closest that seems to happen is when the elders cast their crowns before the Lamb.

Apart from Matthew 20 and Mark 10

 

[jamiec]

Same question to you. Who do you propose is sitting at the right hand of Christ? He is clear that the Father has reserved two places, one at his right hand and one at his left (Matthew 20:23). So that position at the right hand of Christ is indeed ordained by God.

Psalm 45 is a messianic prophecy of the bridegroom king. "6 Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows; 8 your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad; 9 daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir."

So, we know from Scripture that someone will be sitting at the right hand of Christ in a reserved place pre-ordained by God. Psalm 45 tells us that it will be the queen. Jewish tradition tells us that honor of being queen belongs to the king's mother.

Since you do not seem to agree with that conclusion, I would like to hear who you propose who will be the queen standing at the right hand of Christ the King.

I think Psalm 45 and its meaning is sufficiently accounted for by the theory that it is a wedding song for Ahab of Israel and his bride Jezebel of Tyre. Or, failing them, some other pair of Israelite rulers. But it is not, at least according to its literal meaning, a prediction or prophecy of Christ.

It can be applied to the Messiah, but it does not follow that it was intended as a prophecy or prediction of the Messiah. Prediction is not the same thing as applicability. Psalm 45 seems to be drawn upon several times in the book of Revelation; if indeed the author of Revelation does draw upon it, that would show that by the end of the first century it was understood in at least parts of the Church as a messianic prediction.

The text of the Bible should always be taken literally, if one is to begin to understand what the text means. This is not in any way the same thing as taking the text of the Bible as giving a narrative of historical or real events.

The literal meaning of a text is that which was intended by the author in his own time and place. Unless the author of Psalm 45 intended Psalm 45 as a prediction or a prophecy, we are not taking it literally if we interpret it as a prediction or a prophecy.

 

[jamiec]

Is Mary the queen of heaven because Jesus id the king of the jaws and a king needs a queen or revelation 12 is symbolic for israel

I think Rev 12 has nothing to do with Mary and that the Woman in it is almost certainly a reference to Israel.

 

[narnia59]

I think Rev 12 has nothing to do with Mary and that the Woman in it is almost certainly a reference to Israel.

That would not be consistent with a Catholic interpretation of the image.

The image, like many in Scripture, can be sent as multivalent. There are varied interpretations that view the image as Israel, the Church, and Mary. And all of those have significance and value. But to ignore the most literal interpretation of the passage and to believe that a woman giving birth to what is obviously the Messiah has nothing to do with Mary would be inconsistent with how the Church views the passage. It is why that passage is part of the liturgy for the feast of the Assumption which directly associates it to Mary. I'm not sure how a Catholic can profess it has "nothing" to do with Mary.

Mary comes forth out of the nation of Israel to give birth to the Messiah. By her fiat, she is also the first to accept Christ. She is the bridge between the nation of Israel and the Church, and is central to that passage in Revelation even though it can definitely be an image that also reflects Israel and/or the Church.

 

[narnia59]

I think Psalm 45 and its meaning is sufficiently accounted for by the theory that it is a wedding song for Ahab of Israel and his bride Jezebel of Tyre. Or, failing them, some other pair of Israelite rulers. But it is not, at least according to its literal meaning, a prediction or prophecy of Christ.

It can be applied to the Messiah, but it does not follow that it was intended as a prophecy or prediction of the Messiah. Prediction is not the same thing as applicability. Psalm 45 seems to be drawn upon several times in the book of Revelation; if indeed the author of Revelation does draw upon it, that would show that by the end of the first century it was understood in at least parts of the Church as a messianic prediction.

The text of the Bible should always be taken literally, if one is to begin to understand what the text means. This is not in any way the same thing as taking the text of the Bible as giving a narrative of historical or real events.

The literal meaning of a text is that which was intended by the author in his own time and place. Unless the author of Psalm 45 intended Psalm 45 as a prediction or a prophecy, we are not taking it literally if we interpret it as a prediction or a prophecy.

The image is both a song for the Davidic king’s marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia and a prophecy about the Messiah to come. David is a "type" of Christ.

 

[Major1]

A king does not inherently need a queen. The practice of having the king's mother referred to as queen is incidental, and even if became a tradition it is not ordained from God. Only God in fact is the rightful king. Yet Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God, and so then is God as the Son. So Jesus would be rightful king. His mother Mary has no claim to godhood or the rightful kingship with that. There is only tradition that is not ordained from God that has Mary in what way she is remembered referred to as Queen of Heaven. Certainly in the Bible Queen of Heaven is mentioned in referrence to an idolatrous practice.

Correct.

In the Bible, the "Queen of Heaven" was first passage deals with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18).

This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech. The motivation of women to worship Ashtoreth stemmed from her reputation as a fertility goddess, and, as the bearing of children was greatly desired among women of that era, worship of this “queen of heaven” was rampant among pagan civilizations. Sadly, it became popular among the Israelites as well.

 

[Major1]

That would not be consistent with a Catholic interpretation of the image.

The image, like many in Scripture, can be sent as multivalent. There are varied interpretations that view the image as Israel, the Church, and Mary. And all of those have significance and value. But to ignore the most literal interpretation of the passage and to believe that a woman giving birth to what is obviously the Messiah has nothing to do with Mary would be inconsistent with how the Church views the passage. It is why that passage is part of the liturgy for the feast of the Assumption which directly associates it to Mary. I'm not sure how a Catholic can profess it has "nothing" to do with Mary.

Mary comes forth out of the nation of Israel to give birth to the Messiah. By her fiat, she is also the first to accept Christ. She is the bridge between the nation of Israel and the Church, and is central to that passage in Revelation even though it can definitely be an image that also reflects Israel and/or the Church.

Incorrect my dear friend.

Rev. 12:1-2.........12:1
"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered."

Fact established. The "woman" delivered in PAIN.
Right?
Now WHY does the woman suffer PAIN when delivering a baby?
Now we follow a few breadcrumbs......

Genesis 3:16 ......
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you."

PAIN in childbirth is Gods CURSE upon women, for ORIGINAL SIN ... before that, no pain, after that, PAIN IN CHILDBIRTH...right?

We know the woman in Revelation delivered IN TRAIL AND PAIN = the woman carries the CURSE of PAIN.

Now think and do not use Catholic thinking but the actual Scritures in front of you.....
Does Catholicism have as DOGMA, that Mary was SINLESS? Yes, she does, in a brand new Dogma the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, Mary was without SIN from Conception.

Therefore, she did NOT carry the CURSE from the Garden, right?
No curse = NO PAIN.
So, EITHER
The "woman" in Revelation is NOT Mary { and "she is not" she is the nation of Israel } OR she IS MARY, but the PAIN showed that the DOGMA of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS IN ERROR.
Pick one.

 

[narnia59]

Correct.

In the Bible, the "Queen of Heaven" was first passage deals with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18).

This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech. The motivation of women to worship Ashtoreth stemmed from her reputation as a fertility goddess, and, as the bearing of children was greatly desired among women of that era, worship of this “queen of heaven” was rampant among pagan civilizations. Sadly, it became popular among the Israelites as well.

The Bible does indeed record that there was a false goddess worshipped by a pagan culture known as the “queen of heaven.” However, the conclusion that because the Bible identifies there was a false goddess by this title eliminates the possibility that there is a legitimate queen of heaven doesn’t hold up. If we hold to that standard, we’d have to eliminate the Bible because other religions like Hinduism, Islam, the Mormons have “holy books” that are false. Or Jesus couldn’t be the authentic son of God because Zeus had Apollo, Isis and Osiris had Horus, etc. Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar (the pagan king of Babylon) “king of kings,” but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that there is a true “king of kings” who is Christ (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). The logic fails.

I will however, lay out for you the Biblical facts related to Mary being the legitimate queen of heaven, and ask you the same question I’ve asked of others, that nobody has yet to answer.

Fact #1 -- there are indeed two places reserved at the right and left hand of Christ, prepared by his Father:

Matthew 20:20-24 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Fact #2 -- Scripture does indeed tell us that there will be a queen at the right hand of Christ in the messianic prophecy found in Psalm 45:

Psalm 45:6-9 6 Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; 7 you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows; 8 your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad; 9 daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.

Fact #3 -- Jesus is to assume the throne of his father David:

Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David

Fact #4 -- Those sitting on the throne of David had a queen, coincidentally also at their right hand, who was their mother.

1 Kings 2:19 -- So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right.

It wasn't just Bathsheba; the "queen mother" is mentioned through the Old Testament history of the Jewish kings -- 1 Kings 15:13, 2 Kings 10:13, 2 Chronicles 15:16, Jeremiah 13:18, Jeremiah 29:2.

We know from Scripture that there will be someone who will be sitting at Christ’s right hand. The Catholics say it is Mary as she will be his queen, and Scripture leads us to that conclusion. You would reject that view. So, please tell me who you believe will be at the right hand of Christ in his kingdom, and the Scriptural evidence to support your view.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Therefore, she did NOT carry the CURSE from the Garden, right?
No curse = NO PAIN.

We call her Our Lady of Sorrows Because she gave her only Son for the sins of the World. That's a painful delivery.

 

[narnia59]

Incorrect my dear friend.

Rev. 12:1-2.........12:1
"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered."

Fact established. The "woman" delivered in PAIN.
Right?
Now WHY does the woman suffer PAIN when delivering a baby?
Now we follow a few breadcrumbs......

Genesis 3:16 ......
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you."

PAIN in childbirth is Gods CURSE upon women, for ORIGINAL SIN ... before that, no pain, after that, PAIN IN CHILDBIRTH...right?

We know the woman in Revelation delivered IN TRAIL AND PAIN = the woman carries the CURSE of PAIN.

Now think and do not use Catholic thinking but the actual Scritures in front of you.....
Does Catholicism have as DOGMA, that Mary was SINLESS? Yes, she does, in a brand new Dogma the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, Mary was without SIN from Conception.

Therefore, she did NOT carry the CURSE from the Garden, right?
No curse = NO PAIN.
So, EITHER
The "woman" in Revelation is NOT Mary { and "she is not" she is the nation of Israel } OR she IS MARY, but the PAIN showed that the DOGMA of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS IN ERROR.
Pick one.

Your logic is again flawed.

The consequence to Eve for her sin in Genesis 3 is often interpreted that she would experience pain in delivering children which she would not have before. That understanding depends on the translation. For example, the KJV doesn’t mention pain; it mentions bringing forth children “in sorrow.” Certainly the consequence of bringing children into a fallen world and its associated suffering has brought sorrow to all women throughout time. We cannot keep our children from experiencing the pain of a fallen world, and no physical labor pains can compare to that type of suffering. The translations that do mention pain refer to it as an “increase” of pain, not something that was previously intended to be painless.

Revelation 12 is certainly not a literal account of Christ's birth. We can be quite certain for example that Mary did not give birth while standing on the moon. So why would you view the labor pangs as being literal? Scripture has multiple examples of metaphorical birth pangs (Romans 8:22, Galatians 4:19, Jeremiah 13:21, Hosea 13:12-13, Micah 4:9-10). The suffering that Mary would have to endure because she was the mother of Jesus was foretold by Simeon when he told her that “a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 3:35).

Being sinless did not protect Christ from experiencing the consequences of a fallen world; he was put to death by sinful men. Nor did being sinless protect Mary from the suffering she would endure from standing by his side while he was being crucified. Trust me when I say that suffering was greater than any labor pains any woman may have ever experienced.

 

[Major1]

Your logic is again flawed.

The consequence to Eve for her sin in Genesis 3 is often interpreted that she would experience pain in delivering children which she would not have before. That understanding depends on the translation. For example, the KJV doesn’t mention pain; it mentions bringing forth children “in sorrow.” Certainly the consequence of bringing children into a fallen world and its associated suffering has brought sorrow to all women throughout time. We cannot keep our children from experiencing the pain of a fallen world, and no physical labor pains can compare to that type of suffering. The translations that do mention pain refer to it as an “increase” of pain, not something that was previously intended to be painless.

Revelation 12 is certainly not a literal account of Christ's birth. We can be quite certain for example that Mary did not give birth while standing on the moon. So why would you view the labor pangs as being literal? Scripture has multiple examples of metaphorical birth pangs (Romans 8:22, Galatians 4:19, Jeremiah 13:21, Hosea 13:12-13, Micah 4:9-10). The suffering that Mary would have to endure because she was the mother of Jesus was foretold by Simeon when he told her that “a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 3:35).

Being sinless did not protect Christ from experiencing the consequences of a fallen world; he was put to death by sinful men. Nor did being sinless protect Mary from the suffering she would endure from standing by his side while he was being crucified. Trust me when I say that suffering was greater than any labor pains any woman may have ever experienced.

Logic is not the issue. SHE HAD birth pain so then she was subject to original sin just like you and me.

That is the point!

Israel is the woman of Rev. 12 not Mary!

Apart from the question of the woman being, or not being, a reference to the Virgin Mary, it should be pointed out that the proximity, in Chapter 11, of the ark of the covenant provides no basis for an identification of the woman with that object. No suggestion of such a connection can be drawn from any statement in the text. Thus, there would be no exegetical reason to see Christ’s mother as a “new ark,” even if the woman in the following vision could be shown to refer to Mary.

 

[Major1]

We call her Our Lady of Sorrows Because she gave her only Son for the sins of the World. That's a painful delivery.

That is incorrect my friend. I know that as a good Catholic that is what you have been taught but it is neither Biblically or Historically true.

Mary had four other sons, Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon. Joseph was the father and Mary was the mother of those Four!

Matt. 12:46; 13:55
12:46 ......
"While Jesus was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and brothers came and stood outside, asking to speak to him.

13:55 .....
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary? And aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10
"After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days.

7:3 .......
"So Jesus’ brothers advised him, “Leave here and go to Judea so your disciples may see your miracles that you are performing. 5 (For not even his own brothers believed in him.) 10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.

It is amazing what we can learn when we actually READ the Bible!!!!!!!!

 

[narnia59]

Logic is not the issue. SHE HAD birth pain so then she was subject to original sin just like you and me.

That is the point!

Israel is the woman of Rev. 12 not Mary!

Apart from the question of the woman being, or not being, a reference to the Virgin Mary, it should be pointed out that the proximity, in Chapter 11, of the ark of the covenant provides no basis for an identification of the woman with that object. No suggestion of such a connection can be drawn from any statement in the text. Thus, there would be no exegetical reason to see Christ’s mother as a “new ark,” even if the woman in the following vision could be shown to refer to Mary.

Again, why do you view the birth pangs as being literal and not metaphorical? Being sinless in a fallen world does not conclude that one will not suffer.

How can there be no connetion between the ark of the covenant and the woman? The text literally says "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun"

The ark of the covenant had been lost for hundreds of years. All of a sudden it shows up in John's vision in the temple in heaven along with a woman and there's no connection between the two?

Israel can indeed be a valid interpretation of the image; that does not mean it has nothing to do with Mary. It is multivalent. Many argue it is an image of the Church. That can be vaid as well. Mary comes forth out of Israel and by her fiat becomes the first to say yes to Christ -- she is the bridge between Israel and the Church. There is no logic in eliminating her from the image.

 

[narnia59]

That is incorrect my friend. I know that as a good Catholic that is what you have been taught but it is neither Biblically or Historically true.

Mary had four other sons, Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon. Joseph was the father and Mary was the mother of those Four!

Matt. 12:46; 13:55
12:46 ......
"While Jesus was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and brothers came and stood outside, asking to speak to him.

13:55 .....
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary? And aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10
"After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days.

7:3 .......
"So Jesus’ brothers advised him, “Leave here and go to Judea so your disciples may see your miracles that you are performing. 5 (For not even his own brothers believed in him.) 10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.

It is amazing what we can learn when we actually READ the Bible!!!!!!!!

It's amazing what you can learn when you actually read the Bible in context and consider both the genre and culture.

The Greek word "adelphoi" does not imply biological brother. For example, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament it's used:

• to identify the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who is the son of his brother Haran (his nephew) – Genesis 14:14
• to identify the relationship between Laban and Jacob, who is the son of his sister Rebekah (his nephew) – Genesis 29:15
• to identify who the daughters of Eleazar are marrying – the sons of his brother Kish (their cousins) – 1 Chronicles 23:22

The Jewish culture of the time viewed "family" in a much broader sense that we do today. "Brothers' simply meant a broad family relationship and does not prove biological brotherhood. When people wanted to identify more specifically, they would use the "son of" clause to specify parentage. The Biblc never does that with either Joseph or Mary. It never says Mary gave birth to other children, nor does it ever identify any other child as being Mary's.

 

[Major1]

The Bible does indeed record that there was a false goddess worshipped by a pagan culture known as the “queen of heaven.” However, the conclusion that because the Bible identifies there was a false goddess by this title eliminates the possibility that there is a legitimate queen of heaven doesn’t hold up. If we hold to that standard, we’d have to eliminate the Bible because other religions like Hinduism, Islam, the Mormons have “holy books” that are false. Or Jesus couldn’t be the authentic son of God because Zeus had Apollo, Isis and Osiris had Horus, etc. Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar (the pagan king of Babylon) “king of kings,” but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that there is a true “king of kings” who is Christ (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). The logic fails.

I will however, lay out for you the Biblical facts related to Mary being the legitimate queen of heaven, and ask you the same question I’ve asked of others, that nobody has yet to answer.

Fact #1 -- there are indeed two places reserved at the right and left hand of Christ, prepared by his Father:

Matthew 20:20-24 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Fact #2 -- Scripture does indeed tell us that there will be a queen at the right hand of Christ in the messianic prophecy found in Psalm 45:

Psalm 45:6-9 6 Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; 7 you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows; 8 your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad; 9 daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.

Fact #3 -- Jesus is to assume the throne of his father David:

Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David

Fact #4 -- Those sitting on the throne of David had a queen, coincidentally also at their right hand, who was their mother.

1 Kings 2:19 -- So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right.

It wasn't just Bathsheba; the "queen mother" is mentioned through the Old Testament history of the Jewish kings -- 1 Kings 15:13, 2 Kings 10:13, 2 Chronicles 15:16, Jeremiah 13:18, Jeremiah 29:2.

We know from Scripture that there will be someone who will be sitting at Christ’s right hand. The Catholics say it is Mary as she will be his queen, and Scripture leads us to that conclusion. You would reject that view. So, please tell me who you believe will be at the right hand of Christ in his kingdom, and the Scriptural evidence to support your view.

NOPE....Psalms 45 does not say that a queen will be on Gods right hand in heaven.

Psalms 45 is a description of a marriage service. This song was written to be sung at the wedding of some Israelite king. IT HAS ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH MARY AS THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN!!!!!

Who sits at God's right hand??? READ THE BOOK!!!!

MARK 16:19 ......
"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he (Christ) was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God!!!

1 Kings 2:19 has nothing to do with Mary. Please show where you see the name MARY!

As for Matthew 20. You have missed the whole point of the mothers request.

Those disciples in the text mistakenly thought that the mark of greatness in Christ’s kingdom was to be in the highest positions of honor. If that were true, then Christ’s kingdom would be no different from the world’s kingdoms where prestige and power matter most. Is that what you are thinking??????????

The rest of the story FOR CORRECT CONTEXT is that This provides the background for what Christ said in vv.25-27......
“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.”



Jesus shows the disciples how radically different it is to be great in His kingdom. It is to be a servant. This gives us the first reason why we ought to be servants:

1. Being a Servant Is the Distinguishing Mark of Greatness in Christ’s Kingdom (vv.25-27)

Since we who are saved are now in Christ’s kingdom, our thinking about greatness has to change radically. We are not to be conformed to the world in our thinking anymore, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind (Romans 12:2).

What the world esteems most like riches, fame and power are of no value to us. They do not make us great at all. What would make us great in Christ’s kingdom are the things that the world despises most, like humility, weakness, giving, submission and selfless service: These are the things that matter most of all in Christ’s kingdom. The world rewards those who put themselves at the top. But the kingdom of Christ rewards those who put themselves at the bottom.

 

[Major1]

It's amazing what you can learn when you actually read the Bible in context and consider both the genre and culture.

The Greek word "adelphoi" does not imply biological brother. For example, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament it's used:

• to identify the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who is the son of his brother Haran (his nephew) – Genesis 14:14
• to identify the relationship between Laban and Jacob, who is the son of his sister Rebekah (his nephew) – Genesis 29:15
• to identify who the daughters of Eleazar are marrying – the sons of his brother Kish (their cousins) – 1 Chronicles 23:22

The Jewish culture of the time viewed "family" in a much broader sense that we do today. "Brothers' simply meant a broad family relationship and does not prove biological brotherhood. When people wanted to identify more specifically, they would use the "son of" clause to specify parentage. The Biblc never does that with either Joseph or Mary. It never says Mary gave birth to other children, nor does it ever identify any other child as being Mary's.

TOTALLY correct! TRY IT!

The Bible LITERALLY says Mary had 4 more SONS.

READ the Book...........

Mark 6:3 records people becoming angry with Jesus when He taught in His hometown. They rejected Him as a prophet and responded.............
“‘Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him.”

With just simple reading skills and common sense, dosen't This passage indicate that Mary had at least seven children, including Jesus. There were at least thirty years between the time of Jesus’ birth and this encounter, which allows plenty of time for other children to have joined the family as Jesus’ siblings.

John 2:12 gives us another hint as we answer the question of whether Mary had other children:..........
“After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples.”

The fact that the words brothers and disciples are both used means that John was not referring to “spiritual” brothers but to familial relationships.

The “brothers” and the “disciples” were different groups.

Matthew 12:46 records a time when Jesus’ mother and brothers came to speak with Him. Mother and brothers, used as a phrase, implies a familial relationship. Scripture gives us no reason to think these were not the biological children of Mary.

 

[Major1]

Again, why do you view the birth pangs as being literal and not metaphorical? Being sinless in a fallen world does not conclude that one will not suffer.

How can there be no connetion between the ark of the covenant and the woman? The text literally says "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun"

The ark of the covenant had been lost for hundreds of years. All of a sudden it shows up in John's vision in the temple in heaven along with a woman and there's no connection between the two?

Israel can indeed be a valid interpretation of the image; that does not mean it has nothing to do with Mary. It is multivalent. Many argue it is an image of the Church. That can be vaid as well. Mary comes forth out of Israel and by her fiat becomes the first to say yes to Christ -- she is the bridge between Israel and the Church. There is no logic in eliminating her from the image.

How can anyone reject The Ark of the Covenant with Mary in Rev. 12??

Because she IS NOT!

You as a Catholic seem to see Mary as some kind of fulfillment of the Old Testament ark, since Jesus was in her womb. That’s why Catholics call her the “Ark of the New Covenant.”

Allow me to ask you that If Mary is truly and fully the New Ark, then who did Uzzah represent? He was the one who touched the ark and died (2 Samuel 6:6-7). Had anyone touched Mary and died because of it?

That is an easy...simple answer.

Then, If Mary is the “new ark,” then can Catholics demonstrate that Mary was also captured and stolen by the Philistines, like the ark was in 1 Samuel 4:10-11?

And by the way.....who held up Mary (as the ark was) while the Jordan River parted (Joshua 3:14-17)?

Of course, you as a Catholic have been trained to respond with like......
“Not every single thing that happened to the ark has happened to Mary. Typology has its limits, you know. All types have a breaking point, and you can’t just pick and choose what you want in typology. It can be subject to abuse.”

That’s exactly the reason we need to be careful with Catholic typology! Types simply help us to see the big picture, but some will try to force something into being a “type,” when it was never intended to be. And this Catholic insistence that Mary is the New Covenant Ark is one of those abuses.

The same thought and logic applies to trying to FORCE the woman in Rev. 12 to be Mary.

 

[narnia59]

NOPE....Psalms 45 does not say that a queen will be on Gods right hand in heaven.

Psalms 45 is a description of a marriage service. This song was written to be sung at the wedding of some Israelite king. IT HAS ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH MARY AS THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN!!!!!

Who sits at God's right hand??? READ THE BOOK!!!!

I have "read the book." Many times. With multiple Bible commentaries from multiple denominational traditions.

Psalm 45 is both a song for the Davidic king’s marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia and a prophecy about the Messiah to come. David is a "type" of Christ. This is true of many psalms – they are referencing both a historical reality and a messianic prophecy.

MARK 16:19 ......
"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he (Christ) was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God!!!

1 Kings 2:19 has nothing to do with Mary. Please show where you see the name MARY!



As for Matthew 20. You have missed the whole point of the mothers request.

Those disciples in the text mistakenly thought that the mark of greatness in Christ’s kingdom was to be in the highest positions of honor. If that were true, then Christ’s kingdom would be no different from the world’s kingdoms where prestige and power matter most. Is that what you are thinking??????????

The rest of the story FOR CORRECT CONTEXT is that This provides the background for what Christ said in vv.25-27......
“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.”



Jesus shows the disciples how radically different it is to be great in His kingdom. It is to be a servant. This gives us the first reason why we ought to be servants:

1. Being a Servant Is the Distinguishing Mark of Greatness in Christ’s Kingdom (vv.25-27)

Since we who are saved are now in Christ’s kingdom, our thinking about greatness has to change radically. We are not to be conformed to the world in our thinking anymore, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind (Romans 12:2).

What the world esteems most like riches, fame and power are of no value to us. They do not make us great at all. What would make us great in Christ’s kingdom are the things that the world despises most, like humility, weakness, giving, submission and selfless service: These are the things that matter most of all in Christ’s kingdom. The world rewards those who put themselves at the top. But the kingdom of Christ rewards those who put themselves at the bottom.

Technically God doesn’t have a “right hand.” Christ sitting at the “right hand of God” is not a literal reference. Besides, he IS God; kind of hard to sit beside himself.

Christ on the other hand, does have a “right hand.” And yes, the point of what he tells them is they have to learn to be a “servant” if they want to be considered first in the kingdom. So absolutely agree with your statements about that.

It doesn’t change the fact that Christ didn’t say “don't be foolish, there will be nobody sitting at my right or left hand, all are ‘equal’ in my kingdom.” Instead, he validates that there are indeed two places of honor, and we can be certain they won’t be for people who were seeking self glory. But like others, you have refused to answer my question. If not Mary, who do you say will be sitting at the right hand of Christ? There is strong Scriptural evidence that it’s Mary because she is after all, the mother of the King. But since you are convinced it’s not her, it would seem that means you have to know who it is and how Scripture validates your choice. So, who do you say it is?

 

[narnia59]

TOTALLY correct! TRY IT!

The Bible LITERALLY says Mary had 4 more SONS.

READ the Book...........

Mark 6:3 records people becoming angry with Jesus when He taught in His hometown. They rejected Him as a prophet and responded.............
“‘Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him.”

With just simple reading skills and common sense, dosen't This passage indicate that Mary had at least seven children, including Jesus. There were at least thirty years between the time of Jesus’ birth and this encounter, which allows plenty of time for other children to have joined the family as Jesus’ siblings.

John 2:12 gives us another hint as we answer the question of whether Mary had other children:..........
“After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples.”

The fact that the words brothers and disciples are both used means that John was not referring to “spiritual” brothers but to familial relationships.

The “brothers” and the “disciples” were different groups.

Matthew 12:46 records a time when Jesus’ mother and brothers came to speak with Him. Mother and brothers, used as a phrase, implies a familial relationship. Scripture gives us no reason to think these were not the biological children of Mary.

Actually the only person in that passage identified as being Mary's son is Jesus.

James, Joseph, Judas and Simon are referred to as Jesus' "brothers." As I mentioned above, "brothers" had a much broader meaning in that culture than what we see today, and the same word is also used to identify nephews and cousins. So yes, these "brothers" have some kind of familial relationship to Jesus. But that does not tell you they are biological brothers, or children of Mary.

If by using "simple reading skills and common sense" you mean ignore the historical usage of the Greek word adelphoi, ignore the context and time in which it was written, then yes I guess you can assume those are children of Mary. But assumptions have little to do with the truth.