Queen of Heaven?

[boughtwithaprice]

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.

There is a reason for what you are saying, if you think about it. The primary virtue of a being that is subject to God is humility. Mary most likely oversaw and was consulted on the writing of the Gospels. She had the writers mention her only when necessary, and not anywhere would she allow herself to overshadow her Son.
There are details in the Gospels that the writers could not possibly have know had they not consulted with Mary.
The writers did not even know Jesus until thirty years after He was born. How are they to know intimate details of His birth, and the movements of His earthly mother and Father?
You could say Jesus, but that would require Him to violate His own humility. He did say that He came not to testify about Himself but of the One Who sent Me. It seems unlikely Jesus would talk about those intimate details of His life. They look more of what a mother would tell of her Son.
We do know that Mary lived with John after the Crucifixion, so she was close enough to assist John with his gospel. It is very likely that he talked with her while writing, as the Gospels do say that Mary hid all these things in her heart while they were happening. Was she not ever asked about them? Humility keeps her from having her name on them, as the humble says, He must increase and I must decrease and to God alone belongs the glory. Since Mary is immaculate, she possesses perfect humility by the grace of God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

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?

I am speaking after Acts after the death of Christ. We see the record the four gospels about the beginning

As Acts begins

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

And here in the first chapter of Acts is where Mary (after his ascension) is mentioned for the last time here in Acts 1:14

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

In Acts 1:1 is mentioned the former treatise he made to O Theophilus here it is in Luke 1:3

Luke 1:3-4 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Then Luke starts begins with Elizabeth/John and Mary/ the Lord there.

Paul still tells us the gospel by which they were saved starts with the death of Christ.

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

 

[Fireinfolding]

There is a reason for what you are saying, if you think about it. The primary virtue of a being that is subject to God is humility. Mary most likely oversaw and was consulted on the writing of the Gospels. She had the writers mention her only when necessary, and not anywhere would she allow herself to overshadow her Son.
There are details in the Gospels that the writers could not possibly have know had they not consulted with Mary.
The writers did not even know Jesus until thirty years after He was born. How are they to know intimate details of His birth, and the movements of His earthly mother and Father?
You could say Jesus, but that would require Him to violate His own humility. He did say that He came not to testify about Himself but of the One Who sent Me. It seems unlikely Jesus would talk about those intimate details of His life. They look more of what a mother would tell of her Son.
We do know that Mary lived with John after the Crucifixion, so she was close enough to assist John with his gospel. It is very likely that he talked with her while writing, as the Gospels do say that Mary hid all these things in her heart while they were happening. Was she not ever asked about them? Humility keeps her from having her name on them, as the humble says, He must increase and I must decrease and to God alone belongs the glory. Since Mary is immaculate, she possesses perfect humility by the grace of God.

You dont really believe the stuff you write do you?

 

[chevyontheriver]

She is mentioned by name as being in a gathering in the first chapter of Acts and is never named again by the apostles.

She is mentioned by name in Acts 1. She is mentioned by name at the crucifixion. She is given prominence in the Gospel of Luke, which was written after the events recorded in Acts happened. If she was a nobody that would not have happened. Particularly it would not have been bothered with to repeat Mary's words about all generations calling her blessed if she was a nothingburger.

Scriptures say zero, nadda on anything further concerning her.

So?

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.

Not Paul's point of emphasis. The words of Paul do not establish everything. In particular you cannot find a complete understanding of Mary in Sola Paul. That you try makes me wonder.

 

[Fireinfolding]

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.

What did the apostles write about Marys instruction for me?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You dont really believe the stuff you write do you?

That remark is uncalled for

 

[Fireinfolding]

She is mentioned by name in Acts 1. She is mentioned by name at the crucifixion. She is given prominence in the Gospel of Luke, which was written after the events recorded in Acts happened. If she was a nobody that would not have happened. Particularly it would not have been bothered with to repeat Mary's words about all generations calling her blessed if she was a nothingburger.

I already stated again and again she was mentioned by name in Acts 1 which was the last time after his ascension that she is named at all

There were many Mary's at his crucificxion.

You believe the crucifixion is before or after his ascension?

I am talking AFTER his ascension. Theres no mention of her again.

So?

Not Paul's point of emphasis. The words of Paul do not establish everything. In particular you cannot find a complete understanding of Mary in Sola Paul. That you try makes me wonder.

How convenient

 

[Fireinfolding]

You dont really believe the stuff you write do you?

And this is not?

Mary "had the writers mention her only when necessary"

And so what, God moved those who penned the scripture by Mary? Thats not even in scripture.

 

[PeterDona]

I am speaking after Acts after the death of Christ, we see the record the four gospels about the begining

Acts begins {...]

You know, I do know the scriptures somewhat. i have read through the Bible 3 times fully, and i have written (!) through the new testament once. However, I simply do not agree that you have a good point. And I have presented my argument. So over to you if you will accept it or not. Blessings.

 

[Fireinfolding]

You know, I do know the scriptures somewhat. i have read through the Bible 3 times fully, and i have written (!) through the new testament once. However, I simply do not agree that you have a good point. And I have presented my argument. So over to you if you will accept it or not. Blessings.

Mary is mentioned by name in Acts 1:14 correct? And Acts 1 begins


Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Until the day in which he was taken up,

Mary is never mentioned again by name after his ascension except in that very chapter that is the second adress after he had ascended.

Whats to disagree with?

 

[PeterDona]

I once had a pet theology that Mary was not called "the mother of Jesus" after the crucifiction. In effect making her only the mother of Jesus' earthly nature. And then came that uncomfortable Acts 1:14 verse

 

[Fireinfolding]

That remark is uncalled for

My reply didnt take to your post, I am responding here

And this is not?

Mary "had the writers mention her only when necessary"

And so what, God moved those who penned the scripture by Mary? Thats not even in scripture.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I once had a pet theology that Mary was not called "the mother of Jesus" after the crucifiction. In effect making her only the mother of Jesus' earthly nature. And then came that uncomfortable Acts 1:14 verse

Why wouldnt she be mentioned as the mother of the Lord Jesus even after the crucifix, she he come into the world by her. Heb 12:9 tells us we ourselves have fathers after the flesh, and Christ did not, he was made flesh and had a mother of his flesh even as we all have.

 

[PeterDona]

Mary is never mentioned again by name after his ascension except in that very chapter that is the second adress after he had ascended.

Hm, I can see that from your use of words, I would disagree with the use of the word "never". It indicates that at no time after AD33 is Mary mentioned. If you are simply referring to the chapters of the Bible, you should rather use the word "not".

But I perceived that the point you were wanting to get at, is better suited to the word "never". Which is, why I made the argument about the gospels of Luke and John which were composed much much later than AD33.

 

[PeterDona]

What did the apostles write about Marys instruction for me?

Hm, do you agree that the gospel of Luke could be seen as the gospel of the apostle Paul, since Luke was a member of Paul's team?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Hm, I can see that from your use of words, I would disagree with the use of the word "never". It indicates that at no time after AD33 is Mary mentioned. If you are simply referring to the chapters of the Bible, you should rather use the word "not".

But I perceived that the point you were wanting to get at, is better suited to the word "never". Which is, why I made the argument about the gospels of Luke and John which were composed much much later than AD33.

She is mentioned in John at the crucifix along with the other Mary's but that isnt after his ascension but at his death

And Luke writes both of these to Theophilus

His first treatise begins with Elizabeth and Mary

Luke 1:3-4 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from **the very first**, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

And the other to Theophilis here in Acts 1 (after his resurrection)

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
***Until*** the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

And this is the same Chapter Mary is named in after his ascension as is testified of a handful of verses later

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

That's it, after He ascended Mary is not mentioned by name again by the apsotles in any of the epistles

 

[Fireinfolding]

Hm, do you agree that the gospel of Luke could be seen as the gospel of the apostle Paul, since Luke was a member of Paul's team?

Paul acknowledges the following

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,

He doesn't even name her, she is mentioned as this woman made under the law, and she is part of the gospel story itself up to his death on a cross. Its just as some others after their part was played out some are mentioned no more, such as Mary.


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

His death and his being begotten from the dead is where Paul starts it, not his birth and being begotten of Mary (so to speak)

 

[PeterDona]

She is mentioned in John at the crucifix along with the other Mary's but that isnt after his ascension but at his death

And the gospel of John, written around year 100, 57 years after Marys death in the year 43 according to the sources we have. Why would John in any way waste his time to mention Mary?

Writing was expensive in those days. You wouldnt want to waste paper there. Here is a resource on the cost of writing The Cost of the Gospels and the Synoptic Problem – Jimmy Akin

 

[trophy33]

It is YOUR personal assurance that you are banned from attending a Catholic church. YOU are asking US for an official source that refutes something which doesn't exist, as an official document that no, you aren't banned from visiting a Catholic church. We also have no official document that space aliens are prohibited from visiting a Catholic church. Why have a document for something that isn't even a thing? But, of course, if space aliens appear they would be allowed to visit a Catholic church just like you would.

It's up to you to prove your position, or admit you were wrong, or maybe just quietly drop it and hope we all forget about it.

I am not interested in proving to you something I read some time ago when I was interested in this issue. I provided what I learned about it and thats all. Do not make it some kind of a court/tribunal process "prove it or admit you are wrong". Not interested.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but I do not see any proof I am, yet. After all that anathema, excommunication, cursing and persecution of protestants during the reformation, I do not think personal opinions of today's common Roman Catholics matter much, without some official sources.

And because protestants were even killed just for wanting the Bible in their native language, I somehow doubt they were meanwhile welcome to participate in the liturgy. If it changed so significantly, give me the source.

Also, there are barriers put in place: Should a non-Catholic Christian participate in a Catholic Mass? | GotQuestions.org

Just being able to quietly sit there like a tourist and watch the liturgy is not what I mean.

BTW, Catholics are not allowed by their own church to actively participate in a protestant service:
It is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

Some Clarity on Praying with Non-Catholics

Sometimes praying with non-Catholics is allowed, and sometimes, it's not. Here's where you can go to learn the difference.

www.catholic.com

 

[PeterDona]

He doesn't even name her, she is mentioned as this woman made under the law, and she is part of the gospel story itself up to his death on a cross. Its just as some others after their part was played out some are mentioned no more, such as Mary.

Another point which you probably have not yet seen, is that when Jesus calls Mary "woman", it is not a statement of disrespect, rather it refers back to Genesis 3:15. Mary is the woman whose seed shall crush the head of the serpent. So be careful when interpreting "woman" in NT. Also here (galatians 4:4) "woman" could well be a reference to that Genesis 3:15 woman.