Queen of Heaven?

[chevyontheriver]

She was never called queen when David was alive as King or after he was deceased and still alive during Solomons reign, where is she even adressed as that.

She was NEVER David's queen. That's the point. A queen in that time and place was the mother of the king. She does not have to be called queen explicitly in the Bible. She functioned as a queen AND everybody knew the king's mother was the queen.

And as far as Mary goes she called herself the handmaid of the Lord.

And she was that too.

Where is the difference between masses being led to adress Mary as "the queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 44:7) and pouring out sacrifices to her in the same fashion, and the likes of those in Acts 14:12-18 who began to call Barnabas, Jupiter and Paul, Mercurius as the people there began to bring oxen and garlands to offer sacrifices to them too ?

Barnabas was not Jupiter. Paul was not Mercury. That was false and idolatrous. That's the difference. Jesus' mother is queen because He is King.

I just dont even see the title applying in either place but where I do find it its in some form of idolatrous worship. And in the examples posted it was like people love borrowing the titles which belong to the idolatrous and attach the same to those who belong to Christ.

Apples and oranges. Paul was never Mercury. Mary was Jesus' queen if Jesus was a King.

And that's not Mary's fault (who is called "the queen of heaven") or Barnabas fault (who is called Jupiter) or Paul's fault (who is called Mercurius) thats just typical ignorance of men who are shown beginning that sort of thing with holy men. Paul and Barnabas
could protest against in person (which they did) regarding these peoples vanities, but Mary isnt here to protest such things.

You SHOULD reject every 'queen of heaven' except the rightful one. You should reject every messiah except the rightful one. You are half way to getting it right about Mary just as the Jews were right to reject all of those messiahs. They just failed to recognize the real one when He came. They were only half right.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thank you for that reference, and I have seen that reasoning before. Have you read Mystical City of God by blessed Mary Agreda? It is Church approved and has a good explanation.
The Characteristics that argue against wisdom being Christ, are that she is portrayed as a woman. We know Christ is a man. She was with God at the beginning but it does not say that she was God. God knows us before we are born, as He said to Jeremiah before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Wisdom is a woman, and the wisest thing ever said was, “behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word”. This is opposed to the most foolish thing ever said, which is by Satan and the demons, “we will not serve”

This is solved by treating Wisdom as a type. In this way details of gender do not need to apply. If anything it is rational to see Jesus as the fulfillment of the typology of Wisdom.

 

[Fireinfolding]

She was NEVER David's queen. That's the point. A queen in that time and place was the mother of the king. She does not have to be called queen explicitly in the Bible. She functioned as a queen AND everybody knew the king's mother was the queen.

And she was that too.

Barnabas was not Jupiter. Paul was not Mercury. That was false and idolatrous. That's the difference. Jesus' mother is queen because He is King.

Apples and oranges. Paul was never Mercury. Mary was Jesus' queen if Jesus was a King.

You SHOULD reject every 'queen of heaven' except the rightful one. You should reject every messiah except the rightful one. You are half way to getting it right about Mary just as the Jews were right to reject all of those messiahs. They just failed to recognize the real one when He came. They were only half right.

I do believe Jesus in Luke 11:27-28 could very well be revealing to us a type of Church that would come on the scene going
a bit overobard in trying to virtue signal (so to speak) on behalf of the one (Mary) through whom he come into this world by.

A certain woman of the company which lifts her voice as certain might do today in similar fashion and she is made an example of
being met with the correction of Jesus Christ. Makes sense to me that this is the case. A picture of sorts (in a woman) of a certain church (that would come on the scene) even as says, "and it came to pass"... showing this particular woman praising Mary's motherhood role as it pertains to Jesus (as shown in her choice of words, "the womb of"and/or "the paps of" him) out of correct proportion (unlike Elizabeth). It was as if the "womb of him" and the "paps of him" hold her greater respect (as she pertains to the creation) in contrast to the creator (or the most blessed fruit of her womb) as Elizabeth got correct.

It just makes sense to me as to reason that little scene (or exchange) had an important place in scripture for us all.

She (as one woman) symbolically representing those who honour and bless the creature above their Creator.
It seemed important enough to be contained in the scripture which includes Jesus response to it. Obviously there was something off kilter in this woman's misplaced praise in respects to Mary (her motherhood parts are refernced more specifically) and that is where all her blessings of praise went to that she was made an example of in the scripture.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Not seeing anyone refer to Mary as a queen anywhere, the apostle Paul refers to her only as a woman made under the law, and she herself as the handmaid of the Lord.

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

I am going to have to believe Mary and Paul on this one.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Do you think Mary isnt mentioned in Paul's gospel because of the following here?

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda;
of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident:
for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Jesus Christ,

Hebrews 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him,
Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. (Acts 13:33 which had to be fulfilled)

Hebrews 5:6 As he saith also in another place,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

And as it pertains to this King and Priest Melchisedec (who was made like unto the Son of God) It says

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Which is interesting he is made like unto the Son of God to represent him in those things because Paul starts the gospel he preached at Jesus death (not his birth). He bypasses mentioning Mary his mother in what was first delivered to them concerning the gospel.

Paul writes,

1Cr 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

Paul starts at his death/burial and his resurrection bypassing his birth and any mention of Mary in his first of all of most importance as it pertains to the gospel.

So only after Jesus (who sprang out of Judah) died and was buried and God raising him up and in that day that he was begotten from the dead is what he has laid out. Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec who (as is written) was made like unto the Son of God saying here....

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

 

[chevyontheriver]

She (as one woman) symbolically representing those who honour and bless the creature above their Creator.
It seemed important enough to be contained in the scripture which includes Jesus response to it. Obviously there was something off kilter in this woman's misplaced praise in respects to Mary (her motherhood parts are refernced more specifically) and that is where all her blessings of praise went to that she was made an example of in the scripture.

The problem with all of this for you is that it is from Luke, the SAME Gospel that declares Mary is blessed and that all generations will call her blessed. So it doesn't mean what you surmise it does. Mary is indeed the one who treasures everything about Jesus in her heart. You mistake the hyperbole of Luke 11 for a put down of that woman AND of Mary. But it didn't put Mary down at all. It merely said that there was more to her than physically bearing and feeding Jesus. Which is what we already knew.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The problem with all of this for you is that it is from Luke, the SAME Gospel that declares Mary is blessed and that all generations will call her blessed. So it doesn't mean what you surmise it does. Mary is indeed the one who treasures everything about Jesus in her heart. You mistake the hyperbole of Luke 11 for a put down of that woman AND of Mary. But it didn't put Mary down at all. It merely said that there was more to her than physically bearing and feeding Jesus. Which is what we already knew.

Why would someone want to put Mary down, the correction was towards the woman with the messed up focus on "the womb" that did bear him and "the paps of" her (meaning Mary, the Lord's mother).

I call her blessed, and I agree with Elizabeth, blessed is the fruit of her womb (Jesus). Mary is not being corrected its that woman who I believe is a picture of someone worshiping the motherhood of Jesus in Mary as is often seen, as I typically call Mary on steriods. Not because Mary is taking them but rather some people pump them into her making her larger than a blessed servant of God.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not seeing anyone refer to Mary as a queen anywhere, the apostle Paul refers to her only as a woman made under the law, and she herself as the handmaid of the Lord.

One can be a queen, as the mother of Jesus would be, without an explicit naming of it in the New Testament. She is, after all, 'the mother of my Lord', which is to say the mother of the royal one. It's implicit, and overwhelmingly so. And so you can see it in the parallels to the Magnificat from the OT. All you need is a very good reference Bible to show where all of the lines of the Magnificat were in the OT. Conclusion is that she was royal. Catholics and the Orthodox get that right. Lots of others are so eager to be all Biblical that they miss what the Bible really says about Mary.

Solomon had how many wives? 700? How many of those would be queens? THAT is why the mother of the king was the queen. There could be only one such person and not up to 700.

 

[Fireinfolding]

One can be a queen, as the mother of Jesus would be, without an explicit naming of it in the New Testament. She is, after all, 'the mother of my Lord', which is to say the mother of the royal one. It's implicit, and overwhelmingly so. And so you can see it in the parallels to the Magnificat from the OT. All you need is a very good reference Bible to show where all of the lines of the Magnificat were in the OT. Conclusion is that she was royal. Catholics and the Orthodox get that right. Lots of others are so eager to be all Biblical that they miss what the Bible really says about Mary.

Solomon had how many wives? 700? How many of those would be queens? THAT is why the mother of the king was the queen. There could be only one such person and not up to 700.

The things that are among men dont necessarily apply in the same way when it comes to the Son of God, the one who created mankind, including Mary.

Jesus is a King and Priest after the order of Melchisedec and concerning him it says

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Paul begins his gospel at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and of Melchisedec who was made like unto the Son of God is inclusive of what applies to him being Without father, without mother, without descent.

She was mother of our Lord in the flesh but theres nothing about Mary at all except in the first chapter of the book of Acts where she is just named among those present there, and she isnt even name firstly but lastly. After that nothing at all. Paul doesnt even mention the virgin birth in his gospel in 1 Cr 15:1 but his death after which was resurrection which is being begotten there into his priesthood after the order of Melchisedec so its understandable given Hebrews 7:3 which mentions without father and mother and without descent as far as being made like uto Jesus Christ the Son of God. Theres no baby Jesus on the lap of Mary on his throne who is a Melchisedec queen type.

 

[PeterDona]

She was never called queen when David was alive as King or after he was deceased and still alive during Solomons reign, where is she even adressed as that.

as regards to Bathshebas role as queen, see 1 kings 2:19, or maybe this longer post Bathsheba, the mother of King Solomon (1 Kings 1:1-2:19)

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Gods word is the arbiter ..... It's not about earthly church systems ... it's about one's relationship with Jesus ... those in Him are His church.

What is a protestant?




Then become catholic.

They are opposing views (not a badge of honor) in regard to the Word of God and can not be fully united .... unless there is compromise .... protestants compromise, catholics do not .... they stick to their teachings no matter what.

So, it it is an agreement with the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not compromise... Either both are compromising or neither are, and they are in full agreement?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

This is solved by treating Wisdom as a type. In this way details of gender do not need to apply. If anything it is rational to see Jesus as the fulfillment of the typology of Wisdom.

Yes Jesus is the source. The first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega. He who was, who is and who is to come, the Almighty. The Father announces at His baptism and Transfiguration, “This My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.”
The wisdom in proverbs is not only described as a woman, but possessed by the Lord, conceived by the Lord and playing before the Lord, but not the Lord Himself. It is solved by seeing she is His Kecharitomene, His immaculate conception, the one fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array

 

[PeterDona]

She was mother of our Lord in the flesh but theres nothing about Mary at all except in the first chapter of the book of Acts where she is just named among those present there, and she isnt even name firstly but lastly. After that nothing at all. Paul doesnt even mention the virgin birth in his gospel in 1 Cr 15:1

So, while some err on the side of "too much Mary", others err on the side of "too little Mary"

 

[PeterDona]

One can be a queen, as the mother of Jesus would be, without an explicit naming of it in the New Testament. She is, after all, 'the mother of my Lord', which is to say the mother of the royal one. It's implicit, and overwhelmingly so. And so you can see it in the parallels to the Magnificat from the OT. All you need is a very good reference Bible to show where all of the lines of the Magnificat were in the OT. Conclusion is that she was royal. Catholics and the Orthodox get that right. Lots of others are so eager to be all Biblical that they miss what the Bible really says about Mary.

hm, you just opened up a thematic Bible study for me there

https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2529&context=marian_studies

Old Testament Background of the Magnificat
James T. Forestell

 

[chevyontheriver]

The things that are among men dont necessarily apply in the same way when it comes to the Son of God, the one who created mankind, including Mary.

In other words, you seem to say, the patterns of queenship in ancient Israel mean nothing to you. But the words of Scripture ARE the words of men while at the same time the words of God. Thus historical patterns are meaningful in understanding what the Bible means. Mary was Jesus' queen just as Bathsheba was Solomon's queen and just as all mothers of kings were queens. Not wives of kings but mothers of kings.

Jesus is a King and Priest after the order of Melchisedec and concerning him it says

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Paul begins his gospel at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and of Melchisedec who was made like unto the Son of God is inclusive of what applies to him being Without father, without mother, without descent.

She was mother of our Lord in the flesh but theres nothing about Mary at all except in the first chapter of the book of Acts where she is just named among those present there, and she isnt even name firstly but lastly. After that nothing at all. Paul doesnt even mention the virgin birth in his gospel in 1 Cr 15:1 but his death after which was resurrection which is being begotten there into his priesthood after the order of Melchisedec so its understandable given Hebrews 7:3 which mentions without father and mother and without descent as far as being made like uto Jesus Christ the Son of God. Theres no baby Jesus on the lap of Mary on his throne who is a Melchisedec queen type.

Here you reduce the Biblical understanding down to a few verses of Paul and the writer of Hebrews as if that is somehow a complete understanding in two verses. Those verses can be added to the fuller understanding of Jesus but cannot be used in negation to the whole rest of Scripture.

 

[Fireinfolding]

So, while some err on the side of "too much Mary", others err on the side of "too little Mary"

Where did Jesus make an example of someone doing that in the scripture?

 

[Fireinfolding]

In other words, you seem to say, the patterns of queenship in ancient Israel mean nothing to you. But the words of Scripture ARE the words of men while at the same time the words of God. Thus historical patterns are meaningful in understanding what the Bible means. Mary was Jesus' queen just as Bathsheba was Solomon's queen and just as all mothers of kings were queens. Not wives of kings but mothers of kings.

Here you reduce the Biblical understanding down to a few verses of Paul and the writer of Hebrews as if that is somehow a complete understanding in two verses. Those verses can be added to the fuller understanding of Jesus but cannot be used in negation to the whole rest of Scripture.

She is mentioned by name as being in a gathering in the first chapter of Acts and is never named again by the apostles. Scriptures say zero, nadda on anything further concerning her. Mary is not even included as any kind of importance in the very gospel Paul lays out in 1 Cr 15:1 Paul begins with Jesus death and his being begotten from the dead and not his birth.

 

[PeterDona]

Where did Jesus make an example of someone doing that in the scripture?

Are you making a pop quiz now?
I was making the point, that while you, you Fireinfolding, may justfully attack the excess, you are however erring on the side of "too little", when considering that there are really marian passages in Scripture. Passages concerned with Mary.

 

[PeterDona]

She is mentioned by name as being in a gathering in the first chapter of Acts and is never named again by the apostles. Scriptures say zero, nadda on anything further concerning her. Mary is not even included as any kind of importance in the very gospel Paul lays out in 1 Cr 15:1 Paul begins with Jesus death and his being begotten from the dead and not his birth.

And when composing his gospel years after the death of Mary, Luke did NOT open his gospel with a whole chapter on Mary, and John even later did NOT relate specific marian events like John 2:1-11 and John 19:26-27 in his gospel.

Do you see how others could feel that you are simply not seeing it, when it is right there in front of you?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Scripture shows us Mary saying,

Luke 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden:
for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

And from henceforth it begins, showing so much a few chapters up further

Luke 11:27 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.

Jesus responds to her displaced devotion to Mary's motherhood role in bring forth Christ

Luke 11:28 But he said,
Yea rather, blessed are they (plural) that hear the word of God, and keep it.

So Mary says" from henceforth all generations" shall call ME (singularly) blessed (as she indeed is) Even as it was her womb that bare Jesus Christ and as it was her paps which did give him suck (and of the same that "certain woman" did bless) because of this specifically)

Jesus didn't respond back with an Amen, You said it sister! (My mom just said people would call her blessed)

But he said, Yea rather blessed are THEY (plurally speaking) that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus is correcting the woman's focus from the singular vessel (as was Mary) who brought him forth and calling her blessed (in a singular sense) for the reasons the woman did so (which pertained to her motherhood in respects to himself, who was the fruit of her womb).


Jesus responds, "Yea rather blessed are" THEY" (in the plural sense and truest sense) in all of those that hear the word of God and keep it.

Jesus making the plural (they) equal in that blessedness which does not diminish Mary being blessed at all but rather raises up others to the status of being as equally blessed for being among those who hear the word of God and keep it.

Jessus does a very similar thing here also

Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Again, he makes them all the same, equal.