Queen's Of Heaven

[FreddyCast]

FreddyCast, you said that Diana was given the title "Queen of Heaven"
any sources to back that up? or are we just expected to take your word for it?

Look up any pagan websites of Diana and you'll see that she is referred as "Queen of Heaven". Diana has also been conflated with Artemis and Cybele who have also been given other "divine titles" like "Mother of the Gods" and so forth. But for you to cherry pick this one thing from my argument only serves to ignore the main issue, which is that the title "Queen of Heaven" is in fact a pagan title given to many pagan goddesses and which the scriptures in Jeremiah warned us about as well.

God the Son didn't have a mother, but since condescending to become man 2000 or so years ago He became the son of Mary and she became His mother. She has been His mother ever since and ever will be

If we divide eternity into the period God didn't have a mother and the period God does have a mother, you end up with God having a mother for eternity/2 which funnily enough still equals eternity. Thus, since God is eternal, God has a mother.
Go figure

You are conflating two topics here.
Eternal existence and created beings living in eternity.
Mary by definition CANNOT be the Eternal mother of God, since there was a time when Mary did not exist.
Plus, your logic is pure nonsense, but let's go with your logic anyways.
By your logic i can say that because my dad and mom will live eternally in Heaven with me in God's presence, then that means that my dad is my eternal father and my mom is my eternal mother.
But Scripture mentions only ONE Eternal Father, and that is Yahweh. So your logic fails.
Also, Jesus clearly stated in Scripture that physical relationships mean nothing in Heaven. What matters is whether one does the will of God, for only those who do the will of God will be called Jesus' brother, sister, and mother. Hence Jesus denied special status to Mary over other Christians, and thus, she does not take priority in the Family of God.
Jesus also said in Scripture that in heaven we will be as the angels, not marrying nor being given into marriage and that the only relations we'll have in heaven between each other will be brother/sister relations.

Moreover, God the Son is Eternal, and thus, has no mother. However, God the Son became human through Mary's virginal conception and birth of Jesus. Thus, Mary is the EARTHLY mother of Jesus the GOD-MAN.
She is not the "Mother of God" in general because God is by nature an Eternal Triune being consisting of three persons. God has no mother!
Jesus the Second Person of the Trinity who became FULLY MAN has an EARTHLY mother.
Mary was nothing special (i.e. sinless from conception and lifelong), she was just another sinful human like you and I, and obediently chose to become the EARTHLY mother of Jesus the God-man.
Hence, Mary is not "Divine" nor the "Queen of Heaven" nor is she above all of God's creation. These are just man-made fantasies which originate from pagan goddesses and pagan goddess worship.

Oh... that is right.... Elizabeth called Mary the "earthly Mother of my Lord" and the Catholic Church removed "earthly".

Some Catholics will mistakenly argue that in Luke 1:43, Elizabeth called Mary the “mother of my Lord”, and therefore, Mary is called the “Mother of God”. This is false! First, the phrase “mother of my Lord” is not a supernatural title given to Mary. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is our Lord, but she is not the mother of Yahweh. Second, the Greek word for “Lord” (κύριος, kyrios) is “kü'-rē-os” and it’s meaning is “one who has supreme authority, to whom a person or thing belongs, about which one has power of deciding”. In other words, what Elizabeth was saying is that Mary was the “mother of my Master”. Third, The word “Lord” is to be distinguished from the Greek word “God” or “theos” meaning “deity and supreme Divinity”. As Thomas declared in John 20:28 “My Lord and my God”. Therefore, Elizabeth never said that Mary was the “Mother of God”, rather she said that Mary was the “mother of the One who is Sovereign over my life”, because Elizabeth was a servant of the Lord.

Again, let me repeat, The title "Lord" (Kurios, Adonai) refers to God's supreme AUTHORITY as MASTER of His creation, while the title "God" refers to His DIVINITY, that is to say, what makes God who He is (Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, etc.)
"Lord" refers to His Divine Authority, while "God" refers to who He is in Essence.
Hence, “mother of my Lord” does not equate to “mother of God”.

So, I end by saying that while Elizabeth said "mother of my Lord", Catholics came in and changed & added to God's word by proclaiming Mary as "divine mother of God". So you can blast me for the word "earthly", but you are in a far worse position for calling Mary "divine".

 

[Rhamiel]

Look up any pagan websites of Diana and you'll see that she is referred as "Queen of Heaven". Diana has also been conflated with Artemis and Cybele who have also been given other "divine titles" like "Mother of the Gods" and so forth. But for you to cherry pick this one thing from my argument only serves to ignore the main issue, which is that the title "Queen of Heaven" is in fact a pagan title given to many pagan goddesses and which the scriptures in Jeremiah warned us about as well.

I went to several websites, white goddess, goddess guide and Wikipedia, did not see Diana called Queen of Heaven

I just mean, if we can not trust you on particular details, why should we trust you on other things

you point out a lot of pagan goddesses are called Queen of Heaven
well a lot of pagan gods are called "lord"
so should we stop using the term Lord for Jesus Christ?

 

[FreddyCast]

I went to several websites, white goddess, goddess guide and Wikipedia, did not see Diana called Queen of Heaven

I just mean, if we can not trust you on particular details, why should we trust you on other things

you point out a lot of pagan goddesses are called Queen of Heaven
well a lot of pagan gods are called "lord"
so should we stop using the term Lord for Jesus Christ?

So even if I get one detail wrong, that's reason enough for you to ignore my whole argument? Well, if staying ignorant of the truth makes you feel better about believing in your man-made fantasies of your pagan Marian goddess, then so be it.

But if you want some websites just check these out:
witchesofthecraft . com/2012/01/12/the-goddess-diana/
goddessschool . com/projects/dianavan . html

And you are missing the whole point about Mary being claimed as "Queen of Heaven".
While many pagan gods are called lords, God's Word also says that Yahweh is the one and only Lord.
While many pagan demigods are called sons of god, God's Word also says that Jesus is the Son of God.
While many pagan goddesses are called "Queen of Heaven", God's Word NEVER claims that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven". That is a later pagan belief that infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church based solely on the assumption that Mary somehow has supernatural status on the bases of her being called "Mother of God", which is also a pagan title that the Scriptures NEVER places on Mary, but was rather attributed to her 400 years after Christ's death.

 

[SMA12]

So even if I get one detail wrong, that's reason enough for you to ignore my whole argument? Well, if staying ignorant of the truth makes you feel better about believing in your man-made fantasies of your pagan Marian goddess, then so be it.

But if you want some websites just check these out:
witchesofthecraft . com/2012/01/12/the-goddess-diana/
goddessschool . com/projects/dianavan . html

And you are missing the whole point about Mary being claimed as "Queen of Heaven".
While many pagan gods are called lords, God's Word also says that Yahweh is the one and only Lord.
While many pagan demigods are called sons of god, God's Word also says that Jesus is the Son of God.
While many pagan goddesses are called "Queen of Heaven", God's Word NEVER claims that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven". That is a later pagan belief that infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church based solely on the assumption that Mary somehow has supernatural status on the bases of her being called "Mother of God", which is also a pagan title that the Scriptures NEVER places on Mary, but was rather attributed to her 400 years after Christ's death.

So you admit pagan titles mean nothing compared to the Word of God, and we need not adjust what God has revealed to us because pagans happen to apply a similar title to one of their own gods?

You admit, then, that your whole argument is wrong because what pagans believe has no effect on what Christian believe-even if there is some coincidental overlap.

Now if you want to debate whether or not a Christian should believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven, that's fine. But, you can't argue its wrong just because pagans happen to have someone with a similar title. Unless you want to contradict yourself.

 

[FreddyCast]

So you admit pagan titles mean nothing compared to the Word of God, and we need not adjust what God has revealed to us because pagans happen to apply a similar title to one of their own gods?

You admit, then, that your whole argument is wrong because what pagans believe has no effect on what Christian believe-even if there is some coincidental overlap.

Now if you want to debate whether or not a Christian should believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven, that's fine. But, you can't argue its wrong just because pagans happen to have someone with a similar title. Unless you want to contradict yourself.

How did i contradict myself? Did you not pay attention to a word i said?
I just showed you that "Queen of Heaven" is EXCLUSIVELY a pagan title, that God's Word warned us of false gods going by that title in Jeremiah, and that that "Queen of Heaven" is NEVER applied to Mary.
Seriously, it's like you're ignoring half of what i say and reading only what you want to see.

 

[SMA12]

How did i contradict myself? Did you not pay attention to a word i said?
I just showed you that "Queen of Heaven" is EXCLUSIVELY a pagan title, that God's Word warned us of false gods going by that title in Jeremiah, and that that "Queen of Heaven" is NEVER applied to Mary.
Seriously, it's like you're ignoring half of what i say and reading only what you want to see.

It's exclusively a pagan title? No, it's a Christian title as well, Catholic to be specific.

But my point was that you are willing to ignore a pagan title in some cases and not in others. But it's nonsense to change a Christian belief because it coincidentally resembles a pagan belief. If you found out "Trinity" was a common name for a pagan God would you stop believing in the Holy Trinity?

Holy Trinity is never applied to God in Scripture either, but it has been reasonably attributed to God by reading Scripture. Same principle holds true for calling Mary the Queen of Heaven.

If you want to argue whether or not it really can be attributed to Mary by reading scripture- fine. But your argument that it is wrong because there happens to be a completely separate pagan belief that uses a similar title is an argument that holds no water.

 

[MrMoe]

I went to several websites, white goddess, goddess guide and Wikipedia, did not see Diana called Queen of Heaven

I just mean, if we can not trust you on particular details, why should we trust you on other things

Queen of Heaven | Goddesses of the Ancient World

Diana, Queen of Heaven

you point out a lot of pagan goddesses are called Queen of Heaven
well a lot of pagan gods are called "lord"
so should we stop using the term Lord for Jesus Christ?

Lord means a person who has authority, control , or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler. It describes Jesus very well.
A queen is a female ruler who's authority is second only to the king. Mary is never shown to have any kind of authority or influence as Jesus demonstrates in John 2:4

Holy Trinity is never applied to God in Scripture either, but it has been reasonably attributed to God by reading Scripture. Same principle holds true for calling Mary the Queen of Heaven.

The Holy Trinity is just a label given to describe the three different manifestations of God which is shown all over the bible,
on the other hand Mary is never shown to have any kind of authority or influence of a queen in the scriptures, so it's not the same principal. In fact Mary calls herself in Luke 1:38 the servant of the Lord.

"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be fulfilled." Then the angel left her. (NIV)

And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. (NASB)

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. (KJV)

Notice how the angel never corrects her. A servant/bondslave/handmaiden serves a queen and king.

I have also shown to you that the woman of revelation cannot be Mary. I'm not sure if you saw my response to your post about Mary being queen of heaven


If not then here's the link
http://www.christianforums.com/t7806644/

 

[FreddyCast]

It's exclusively a pagan title? No, it's a Christian title as well, Catholic to be specific.

But my point was that you are willing to ignore a pagan title in some cases and not in others. But it's nonsense to change a Christian belief because it coincidentally resembles a pagan belief. If you found out "Trinity" was a common name for a pagan God would you stop believing in the Holy Trinity?

Holy Trinity is never applied to God in Scripture either, but it has been reasonably attributed to God by reading Scripture. Same principle holds true for calling Mary the Queen of Heaven.

If you want to argue whether or not it really can be attributed to Mary by reading scripture- fine. But your argument that it is wrong because there happens to be a completely separate pagan belief that uses a similar title is an argument that holds no water.

"Queen of Heaven" is not a Christian title. Like I said, you don't find that title applied to anyone, not even Mary, except for a pagan goddess that God condemns in Jeremiah.
Just because The Vatican Church ignorantly adopts the title 1900 years later after Christ's death and forces it on Mary, does not make it Christian.

And Lord is not a pagan title, neither is son of God. In fact it's the pagan's that adopted these titles into their own false religions when people began to forget who Yahweh was as the first few chapters of Genesis testify. Therefore, I'm not ignoring anything. It's you who is misunderstanding the issue here. "Queen of Heaven" is a title that pagans themselves invented when they began to create their own false goddesses.
Yet Scripture clearly teaches us that their is only ONE God, and that is Yahweh.

As for the word "Trinity", that is not a title, that is a label to describe the doctrine of who and what God is in essence (three persons in One God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Yet Scripture already gives us a title to describe who and what he is, and that is "Godhead".

And you're are arguing a straw man. You're misrepresenting my argument. I never said that the title "Queen of Heaven" is wrong because other pagan faiths use it as well.
What I was arguing was that the title "Queen of Heaven" is wrong because ONLY PAGAN BELIEFS USE IT. The Scriptures never uses the title because Yahweh knew full well that anyone using the title "Queen of Heaven" was a false pagan goddess. And that's exactly how you blasphemously view Mary, whether you realize it or not.

But please do try to prove that "Queen of Heaven" is somehow applied to Mary in Scripture. Of course you never will, but I know it won't stop you from trying to justify your idolatry.

 

[Rhamiel]

What I was arguing was that the title "Queen of Heaven" is wrong because ONLY PAGAN BELIEFS USE IT.

wrong, I am a Christian and I use that title for the mother of Jesus

you also claimed that the this was started by pagans who infiltrated the christian church
I do not believe you, I think that this was started by Christians who love Mary and who love Jesus and who have an understanding of the davidic kingdom

 

[SMA12]

The Holy Trinity is just a label given to describe the three different manifestations of God which is shown all over the bible,
on the other hand Mary is never shown to have any kind of authority or influence of a queen in the scriptures, so it's not the same principal.

I disagree. Mary urges Jesus to perform His first miracle, though Jesus said that His hour had not come, He listened to Mary. Mary was given to John to be his Mother at the cross, and us Catholics believe given to all followers of Christ as our Mother. Mary had a place in the upper room with the Apostles when the Holy Spirit descended upon them. Not to mention the Angel Gabriel's greeting given to Mary and all generations calling her blessed. These along with all of the Biblical typology pointing to Mary as the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, and yes- the Queen of Christ's Kingdom, I believe shows Mary as quite influential.

In fact Mary calls herself in

Luke 1:38 the servant of the Lord.

"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be fulfilled." Then the angel left her. (NIV)

And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. (NASB)

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. (KJV)

Notice how the angel never corrects her. A servant/bondslave/handmaiden serves a queen and king.

In the Davidic Kingdom the the Queen served the King as well. The King had the ultimate authority, as does Christ. The Queen was at the service of the Kings authority, as we believe Mary is at the service of Christ's authority.

I do find an interesting parallel, at least from my perspective, that in the OT Davidic Kingdom we find the King, having the ultimate authority, honoring the Queen's request, and in the NT we find Jesus honoring Mary's request to perform Hid first miracle.

And do not forget when Mary said these things, she also said that "from hence forth all generations shall call me blessed."

I have also shown to you that the woman of revelation cannot be Mary. I'm not sure if you saw my response to your post about Mary being queen of heaven


If not then here's the link
http://www.christianforums.com/t7806644/

Yes I remember our discussion. I apologize for never getting around to answering the video. Perhaps I can respond with a video myself:

Revelation 12: Who Is the Woman Clothed with the Sun? - YouTube

And I must put my foot in my mouth in regards to a comment I made earlier. I said something along the lines of it being nonsense to think the woman was the Church. I rescind that comment and apologize

However, given that in Revelation a single symbol takes on multiple meanings, I find it hard to deny that Mary is at least one of the meanings of the symbol of the woman, along with her being a symbol of Israel and the Church.

God bless.

 

[FreddyCast]

wrong, I am a Christian and I use that title for the mother of Jesus

you also claimed that the this was started by pagans who infiltrated the christian church
I do not believe you, I think that this was started by Christians who love Mary and who love Jesus and who have an understanding of the davidic kingdom

No, i said the title "Queen of Heaven" infiltrated the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the Christian church.
It doesn't matter if you as a Catholic use the the title for Mary. It's not biblical and it's Idolatry in the eyes of Yahweh.
Your argument, just like all Catholic arguments when they attempt to justify their idolatry, is based solely on emotions. Just because Christians started calling Mary "Queen of Heaven" simply because they "loved" her, does not justify them elevating her to Godhood and ignoring Scripture which condemns such adoration of a sinful woman.

And as for the Davidic Kingdom argument. You cannot compare God's Heavenly kingdom to an earthly kingdom. God alone is Eternal and God alone is King of Kings, and he has no Eternal Queen.

Besides, the one time in Scripture where it shows a mother of a king bringing her petition to the King, the King himself DENIES HER REQUEST (1 Kings 2:17-25). But go ahead and use Solomon/Bathsheba as your type of Christ/Mary example, because the Solomon/Bathsheba example serves to go against your assertion that Christ would answer her mother's petitions as the Queen of Heaven.

 

[narnia59]

No, i said the title "Queen of Heaven" infiltrated the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the Christian church.
It doesn't matter if you as a Catholic use the the title for Mary. It's not biblical and it's Idolatry in the eyes of Yahweh.
Your argument, just like all Catholic arguments when they attempt to justify their idolatry, is based solely on emotions. Just because Christians started calling Mary "Queen of Heaven" simply because they "loved" her, does not justify them elevating her to Godhood and ignoring Scripture which condemns such adoration of a sinful woman.

And as for the Davidic Kingdom argument. You cannot compare God's Heavenly kingdom to an earthly kingdom. God alone is Eternal and God alone is King of Kings, and he has no Eternal Queen.

Besides, the one time in Scripture where it shows a mother of a king bringing her petition to the King, the King himself DENIES HER REQUEST (1 Kings 2:17-25). But go ahead and use Solomon/Bathsheba as your type of Christ/Mary example, because the Solomon/Bathsheba example serves to go against your assertion that Christ would answer her mother's petitions as the Queen of Heaven.

Actually Solomon first tells her that he will not refuse her anything that she requests. He bows to her, he pulls up a chair at his right side for her, and promises her that anything she requests, he will do. And then he ends up refusing her, in other words, he lies to her. The OT typologies fail the perfection of the NT realities ALWAYS.

Where this scene is fulfilled in the NT is the wedding at Cana, where Mary intercedes on the behalf of another and Christ, unlike Solomon, honors the request of his mother.

 

[FreddyCast]

Actually Solomon first tells her that he will not refuse her anything that she requests. He bows to her, he pulls up a chair at his right side for her, and promises her that anything she requests, he will do. And then he ends up refusing her, in other words, he lies to her. The OT typologies fail the perfection of the NT realities ALWAYS.

Where this scene is fulfilled in the NT is the wedding at Cana, where Mary intercedes on the behalf of another and Christ, unlike Solomon, honors the request of his mother.

Typical of Catholics when they see their arguments failing, they run to another and abandon the first. So I guess this means the OT typologies are useless in defending your false Marian doctrines. Good to know you finally agree with me.

But in any case, The Solomon/Bathsheba example is almost identical to the wedding at Cana example. Let me explain,

Bathsheba petitions to King Solomon on behalf of Adonijah who is trying to usurp and insult Solomon through his petition to marry Abishag, David's last wife, and thus, commit incest. King Solomon saw through the deception and killed Adonijah as the Law required of someone who wanted to commit incest. Point is, whether by deception or ignorance Bathsheba was petitioning for someone to commit sin. King Solomon, though he promised he would answer any of her requests, nonetheless had to uphold the Law and deny her request because he knew she was being used by Adonijah.
In the same manner, Mary was petitioning Jesus to provide the people at the wedding with more intoxicating wine, even though the people had already "become drunk" (John 2:10, NASB, NRSVCE). Hence, Mary was petitioning for people to commit sin. We know in Luke 21:34 that Jesus rebuked "drunkenness". Therefore, when Jesus heard Mary's petition He instead rebuked her saying "what have you to do with me?" (John 2:4). In other words, Jesus said "what do you have in common with me". But, instead of answering her petition for more intoxicating wine, he instead created "good wine", that is, wine that was unfermented and had not decayed, since intoxicating wine is one of the results of the corruption of sin in the world. As the steward of the wedding told the bridegroom, "you have kept the good wine until now".
Hence, Jesus in a way denied her petition.

 

[narnia59]

Typical of Catholics when they see their arguments failing, they run to another and abandon the first. So I guess this means the OT typologies are useless in defending your false Marian doctrines. Good to know you finally agree with me.

But in any case, The Solomon/Bathsheba example is almost identical to the wedding at Cana example. Let me explain,

Bathsheba petitions to King Solomon on behalf of Adonijah who is trying to usurp and insult Solomon through his petition to marry Abishag, David's last wife, and thus, commit incest. King Solomon saw through the deception and killed Adonijah as the Law required of someone who wanted to commit incest. Point is, whether by deception or ignorance Bathsheba was petitioning for someone to commit sin. King Solomon, though he promised he would answer any of her requests, nonetheless had to uphold the Law and deny her request because he knew she was being used by Adonijah.
In the same manner, Mary was petitioning Jesus to provide the people at the wedding with more intoxicating wine, even though the people had already "become drunk" (John 2:10, NASB, NRSVCE). Hence, Mary was petitioning for people to commit sin. We know in Luke 21:34 that Jesus rebuked "drunkenness". Therefore, when Jesus heard Mary's petition He instead rebuked her saying "what have you to do with me?" (John 2:4). In other words, Jesus said "what do you have in common with me". But, instead of answering her petition for more intoxicating wine, he instead created "good wine", that is, wine that was unfermented and had not decayed, since intoxicating wine is one of the results of the corruption of sin in the world. As the steward of the wedding told the bridegroom, "you have kept the good wine until now".
Hence, Jesus in a way denied her petition.

OT typologies are never useless. But the shadow is always imperfect whereas the fulfillment is perfect. Hence Solomon, the "son of David, the anointed one" lied to his mother. Christ, the "son of David, the anointed one" honors his mother, fulfilling God's commandment to do so perfectly.

If you believe a steward of the wedding would call unfermented wine the "good wine", then you are living in a land of make believe. And I'm content to leave you there. But the things people have to make up and the lengths they would go to are always interesting...

 

[concretecamper]

Therefore, when Jesus heard Mary's petition He instead rebuked her saying "what have you to do with me?" (John 2:4). In other words, Jesus said "what do you have in common with me".

To follow your reasoning, you have to believe that the demons rebuked Jesus.

John 2:4 - Jesus' question to Mary, "what have you to do with me?" does no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus' question illustrates the importance of Mary's role in the kingdom. Jesus' question is in reality an invitation to His mother to intercede on behalf of all believers and begin His ministry, and His Mother understands this. Mary thus immediately intercedes, Jesus obeys her, and performs the miracle which commenced His ministry of redemption.

Luke 8:28 - the demons tell Jesus the same thing, "what have you to do with us." The demons are not rebuking Jesus, for God would not allow it. Instead, the demons are acknowledging the power of Jesus by their question to Him.

 

[FreddyCast]

To follow your reasoning, you have to believe that the demons rebuked Jesus.

John 2:4 - Jesus' question to Mary, "what have you to do with me?" does no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus' question illustrates the importance of Mary's role in the kingdom. Jesus' question is in reality an invitation to His mother to intercede on behalf of all believers and begin His ministry, and His Mother understands this. Mary thus immediately intercedes, Jesus obeys her, and performs the miracle which commenced His ministry of redemption.

Luke 8:28 - the demons tell Jesus the same thing, "what have you to do with us." The demons are not rebuking Jesus, for God would not allow it. Instead, the demons are acknowledging the power of Jesus by their question to Him.

Actually, this question "What have you to do with me?" can both be used as a rebuke and as a question of curiosity when read in context.

For example, when you see a friend doing something wrong, you express your disapproval by saying "What are you doing?". But when you see a friend doing something weird, unexpected, or interesting, you ask in curiosity "What are you doing?".

So it depends on the manner in which the question is given in a certain situation. From the wedding at Cana, it was an expression of disapproval. From the encounter of a demon and Jesus, it was an expression of surprise. Always read within context.

 

[concretecamper]

Actually, this question "What have I to do with you?" can both be used as a rebuke and as a question of curiosity when read in context.

For example, when you see a friend doing something wrong, you express your disapproval by saying "What are you doing?". But when you see a friend doing something weird, unexpected, or interesting, you ask in curiosity "What are you doing?".

So it depends on the manner in which the question is given in a certain situation. From the wedding at Cana, it was an expression of disapproval. From the encounter of a demon and Jesus, it was an expression of surprise. Always read within context.

So was Christ doing something weird or wrong? In context.... both obeyed... cannot get around that with your word games.

 

[FreddyCast]

So was Christ doing something weird or wrong? In context.... both obeyed... cannot get around that with your word games.

From the perspective of the demons called Legion, it was weird that they would encounter the Son of God before their day of judgment. As Matthew 2:29 of the same event says, "Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

This is not a word game. This is common sense. It's how we communicate in our everyday lives.
Jesus did not obey his mother's petition as that would have made Jesus an accomplice to sin if he gave the people at Cana more intoxicating wine (which Jesus himself rebuked such drunken behavior in Luke 21:34), but Jesus did grant Legion's petition to leave the poor possessed man and enter the pigs.
So yeah, it's you who needs to stop playing with word games here and start getting some lessons in communication and expressions.

 

[concretecamper]

From the perspective of the demons called Legion, it was weird that they would encounter the Son of God before their day of judgment. As Matthew 2:29 of the same event says, "Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

This is not a word game. This is common sense. It's how we communicate in our everyday lives.
Jesus did not obey his mother's petition as that would have made Jesus an accomplice to sin if he gave the people at Cana more intoxicating wine (which Jesus himself rebuked such drunken behavior in Luke 21:34), but Jesus did grant Legion's petition to leave the poor possessed man and enter the pigs.
So yeah, it's you who needs to stop playing with word games here and start getting some lessons in communication and expressions.

Placing American English communication standards on Greek writing? if that what it takes to prove your point....I guess you gotta do it.

 

[SMA12]

From the perspective of the demons called Legion, it was weird that they would encounter the Son of God before their day of judgment. As Matthew 2:29 of the same event says, "Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

This is not a word game. This is common sense. It's how we communicate in our everyday lives.
Jesus did not obey his mother's petition as that would have made Jesus an accomplice to sin if he gave the people at Cana more intoxicating wine (which Jesus himself rebuked such drunken behavior in Luke 21:34), but Jesus did grant Legion's petition to leave the poor possessed man and enter the pigs.
So yeah, it's you who needs to stop playing with word games here and start getting some lessons in communication and expressions.

I will give you some credit- it takes creativity to come up with an interpretation in which Mary asks Jesus to perform a miracle, He does so, and claim He did not obey.

But just because its creative doesn't mean its right