User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:07:34 PM EDT
[#1]
crickets...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:14:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
crickets... Some of us have jobs, and can't spend all day posting or making theological arguments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:16:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Aquinas gave a great sermon on the Hail Mary/Ave Maria prayer. The whole thing is worth reading; like most Aquinas, it's extensively supported with Biblical references.
One point he makes is especially interesting though, the fact that in the Annunciation the Archangel makes a point of greeting the Blessed Mother with reverence, a unique occurrence in the Bible since in every other occasion it was the person who showed deference to God's (presumed) messenger. In the Annunciation though this is completely reversed, the Archangel opening the discourse by acknowledging the Blessed Mother's unique closeness to God: With respect to the first part, consider that in ancient times it was exceedingly great for an Angel to appear to men, or, that men might offer them reverence was held to be a great honor. Hence, to the honor of Abraham it is written that he received angelic guests and showed them reverence. That an Angel reverence a man, however, was never heard of until the Angel reverently greeted the Blessed Virgin, saying, "Hail."
That in ancient times the Angel did not reverence man, but rather man reverenced the Angel comes from the fact that the Angel is greater, and greater with respect to three things. First, with respect to dignity, since the Angel is a spiritual nature: "You make your Angels to be spirits, etc." (Ps. 103,4). Man, indeed, is corruptible by nature, for which reason Abraham said: "I am speaking to the Lord, I, who am but dust and ashes" (Gen 18,27). Second, with respect to their familiarity with GOD, for the Angel belongs to the household of GOD ('familiaris') inasmuch as he assists Him. "A thousand times a thousand minister to Him, and ten thousand myriads assist Him." (Dan 7,10). Man, though, is like a stranger, set off from GOD by sin: "I withdrew in flight" (Ps 54,8). Therefore, it was fitting that man should reverence the Angel as one on close and familiar terms with the king ('propinquum and familiarem regis'!). Third, the Angel took preeminence on account of the plenitude of the splendor of divine grace. The Angels, namely, participate in the light of divine grace itself in the very highest degree. "Is there any number to His armies upon whom His light does not arise?" (Job 25,3). And this is why they always appear with light. But men, even though they participate somewhat in the light of grace, do so only slightly and in obscurity. Consequently, it was unfitting that men be shown reverence until someone should be found in this (human) nature who exceeds the angels in these three points. And this was the Blessed Virgin. In order to indicate that she exceeded them in these three points the Angel wished to offer her reverence, saying "Hail." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:20:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay, so now by saying that since Jesus is King and Mary gave birth to him then Mary is a queen. But, a woman only becomes a queen when she marries a king. She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her. There is no other way to become a queen except to marry a king. Does a daughter of a king (princess) automatically become a queen when her mother dies? No, she does not become a queen until she is wed to a king. We see throughout the whole bible where God is on His throne with Jesus at His side. Why was Mary never depicted in these discriptions as being the queen? Why wasn't she described as being on the throne with the King? That would be a very big deal to have the complete picture of royalty, would it not? Rev. 3:21 "...just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne." Why didn't he say Mother and Father? He never does. Anytime Jesus speaks of heaven he only talks about his Father in heaven, he never says anything about a mother or queen. In your first paragraph, are you implying that Jesus is an illegitimate child? The "bastard" slur towards Christ is pretty common amongst some circles going back rather far. Also, Queens have never been as equal as a King and considered as a co-ruler. That's why the ruling King of England's wife will be a Queen but why Queen Elizabeth's husband is a Prince. Because if he had the title of "King" he'd be her superior. As Mary is a mortal person who required God's salvation she would obviously never be placed that as greater than or equal to God, but the title of Queen historically wouldn't require that. The Queen is under the authority and direction of the King, who is all important. That's all common sense. ETA: Oooo, now we're breaking out the Aquinas. I'll have to read that one myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:22:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Revelation 12:
Most concentrate on the first 6 verses. Lets look at verses 13-17 13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus. The rest of chapter 12 in revelation clearly shows that the woman is Israel, not Mary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:22:34 PM EDT
[#6]
And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads. On his horns were ten diadems and on his heads were blasphemous names.
The beast I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like a bear's, and his mouth was like a lion's mouth. The Dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. One of his heads appeared to be fatally wounded, but his fatal wound was healed. The whole world was amazed and then followed the beast. They worshipped the Dragon because he gave authority and power to the beast. And they worshipped the beast saying (or will say), "Who is like the beast? Who is able to wage war against him?" The Vision of John the Revelator and Disciple of Jesus Christ Revelation 13: 1-4 The Beast from the Sea: The Rise Of the One World Religious Ruler In The Earth |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:24:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of us have jobs, and can't spend all day posting or making theological arguments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
crickets... Some of us have jobs, and can't spend all day posting or making theological arguments. What makes you think that I am not employed? 
I am about to receive a stock dividend of 20,000 dollars by this time tomorrow which is no big deal.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:29:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In your first paragraph, are you implying that Jesus is an illegitimate child? The "bastard" slur towards Christ is pretty common amongst some circles going back rather far. Also, Queens have never been as equal as a King and considered as a co-ruler. That's why the ruling King of England's wife will be a Queen but why Queen Elizabeth's husband is a Prince. Because if he had the title of "King" he'd be her superior. As Mary is a mortal person who required God's salvation she would obviously never be placed that as greater than or equal to God, but the title of Queen historically wouldn't require that. The Queen is under the authority and direction of the King, who is all important. That's all common sense. ETA: Oooo, now we're breaking out the Aquinas. I'll have to read that one myself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Okay, so now by saying that since Jesus is King and Mary gave birth to him then Mary is a queen. But, a woman only becomes a queen when she marries a king. She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her. There is no other way to become a queen except to marry a king. Does a daughter of a king (princess) automatically become a queen when her mother dies? No, she does not become a queen until she is wed to a king. We see throughout the whole bible where God is on His throne with Jesus at His side. Why was Mary never depicted in these discriptions as being the queen? Why wasn't she described as being on the throne with the King? That would be a very big deal to have the complete picture of royalty, would it not? Rev. 3:21 "...just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne." Why didn't he say Mother and Father? He never does. Anytime Jesus speaks of heaven he only talks about his Father in heaven, he never says anything about a mother or queen. In your first paragraph, are you implying that Jesus is an illegitimate child? The "bastard" slur towards Christ is pretty common amongst some circles going back rather far. Also, Queens have never been as equal as a King and considered as a co-ruler. That's why the ruling King of England's wife will be a Queen but why Queen Elizabeth's husband is a Prince. Because if he had the title of "King" he'd be her superior. As Mary is a mortal person who required God's salvation she would obviously never be placed that as greater than or equal to God, but the title of Queen historically wouldn't require that. The Queen is under the authority and direction of the King, who is all important. That's all common sense. ETA: Oooo, now we're breaking out the Aquinas. I'll have to read that one myself. Your first statement is absurd. I don't think illigitamate comes into play here. You're now comparing apples to oranges. A virgin birth (which is spiritual obviously) to a birth out of wedlock. Your view on this is skewed I think. Your second statement is true except that you left out that everyone else is under her authority too, minus the king. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:30:20 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those words in quotations are all generic words that can have many different meanings. "Queen of Heaven" only has one meaning. Notice that it is capatalized in Jeremiah which means its a formal name or title. The phrase “the queen of heaven” appears in the Bible twice, both times in the book of Jeremiah. The first incident is in connection 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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. I didn't demand anything, I asked a question. 2. Why would it be okay to refer to Mary as "Queen of Heaven" when that term was used to describe a pagan goddess in Jeremiah? It doesn't make sense. 1. Because we're obviously walking the sola scriptura path, which is silly and not germaine. 2. Why not? Just because a word is used to describe one thing does not mean it can't be used to describe another. Did you read the document Bohr linked? After all, many nearby areas to Israel had Kings that they also considered God. Shall we not call Jesus a King because they used the term badly? There's also a simple logical explanation for Mary's title. Is Jesus a King? Is Jesus the King of Heaven? Jesus is the KING of Kings. Certainly there were bad kings and there were good kings. The term 'king' was used as an earthly title. 'King of Heaven' and 'King of Kings' was used to describe Jesus and no one else, ever. 'Queen of Heaven' was only used to describe the pagan goddess and no one else, ever (in the bible). Sola scriptura (scripture only) has nothing to do with this particular subject. Other, that is, than being the basis of your argument? Further, there were Pagan religions with "saviors" and "gods" and "altars" and what not as well. The above argument that a term used by Pagans is therefore unable to be used by Christians is not consistent. Those words in quotations are all generic words that can have many different meanings. "Queen of Heaven" only has one meaning. Notice that it is capatalized in Jeremiah which means its a formal name or title. The phrase “the queen of heaven” appears in the Bible twice, both times in the book of Jeremiah. The first incident is in connection 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 phrase "morning star" is in both the Old and New Testaments as well, and doesn't quite refer to the same people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:34:40 PM EDT
[#10]
LOL, the 'Baal worship' canard makes its appearance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:40:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your first statement is absurd. I don't think illigitamate comes into play here. You're now comparing apples to oranges. A virgin birth (which is spiritual obviously) to a birth out of wedlock. Your view on this is skewed I think. Your second statement is true except that you left out that everyone else is under her authority too, minus the king. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay, so now by saying that since Jesus is King and Mary gave birth to him then Mary is a queen. But, a woman only becomes a queen when she marries a king. She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her. There is no other way to become a queen except to marry a king. Does a daughter of a king (princess) automatically become a queen when her mother dies? No, she does not become a queen until she is wed to a king. We see throughout the whole bible where God is on His throne with Jesus at His side. Why was Mary never depicted in these discriptions as being the queen? Why wasn't she described as being on the throne with the King? That would be a very big deal to have the complete picture of royalty, would it not? Rev. 3:21 "...just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne." Why didn't he say Mother and Father? He never does. Anytime Jesus speaks of heaven he only talks about his Father in heaven, he never says anything about a mother or queen. In your first paragraph, are you implying that Jesus is an illegitimate child? The "bastard" slur towards Christ is pretty common amongst some circles going back rather far. Also, Queens have never been as equal as a King and considered as a co-ruler. That's why the ruling King of England's wife will be a Queen but why Queen Elizabeth's husband is a Prince. Because if he had the title of "King" he'd be her superior. As Mary is a mortal person who required God's salvation she would obviously never be placed that as greater than or equal to God, but the title of Queen historically wouldn't require that. The Queen is under the authority and direction of the King, who is all important. That's all common sense. ETA: Oooo, now we're breaking out the Aquinas. I'll have to read that one myself. Your first statement is absurd. I don't think illigitamate comes into play here. You're now comparing apples to oranges. A virgin birth (which is spiritual obviously) to a birth out of wedlock. Your view on this is skewed I think. Your second statement is true except that you left out that everyone else is under her authority too, minus the king. You said, "She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her." But Mary gave birth to a King. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:40:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL, the 'Baal worship' canard makes its appearance. LOL, Oh yeah, we almost forgot about the, "canard," thing also! 
Been a while.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:41:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Another point from the Aquinas sermon - by virtue of giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, she was closer to God than any other created being.
[The] Blessed Virgin excels the Angels in divine familiarity. The Angels designated this, saying "the Lord is with you," as if to say, "I proffer you reverence, because you are on more intimate terms with GOD than I am, for "the Lord is with you." The Lord, I say, the Father is in the very Son, Whom no Angel nor any other creature has. But "that which is to be born of you shall be called Holy, the Son of GOD" (Lk 1,35). The Lord, the Son, is present in her womb. "Shout and sing for joy, O dwelling, Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel" (Is 12,6). The Lord is with the Blessed Virgin in one way, and in another with the Angel. He is with her as a Son, but with the Angel as the latter's Lord. The Lord, the Holy Spirit, is with her as in His temple, when it is said: "the temple of GOD, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit," since she conceived by the Holy Spirit: "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee" (Lk 1,35).
Thus, the Blessed Virgin is more familiar with GOD than is the Angel, for with her is the Lord Father, the Lord Son and the Lord Holy Spirit, the entire Trinity. Concerning her is sung the verse: "noble repose of the entire Trinity." Which makes the honorific 'Queen of the Universe' or any of its variations entirely appropriate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:41:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you point where "Queen of Heaven" is used in the bible? Jeremiah 7:18. Jeremiah preached against the apostates who worshipped a queen of heaven for his entire ministry. Jeremiah 44:18-24 Ultimately the apostates blamed Jeremiah for what befell them. They thought they should have stuck with worshipping the queen of heaven. The story of Jeremiah ends with the queen of heaven worshippers dragging Jeremiah to Egypt against God's instructions and them all dying there with none of them returning to Israel, unlike those who obeyed and went to Babylon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:44:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another point from the Aquinas sermon - by virtue of giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, she was closer to God than any other created being. Which makes the honorific 'Queen of the Universe' or any of its variations entirely appropriate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another point from the Aquinas sermon - by virtue of giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, she was closer to God than any other created being. [The] Blessed Virgin excels the Angels in divine familiarity. The Angels designated this, saying "the Lord is with you," as if to say, "I proffer you reverence, because you are on more intimate terms with GOD than I am, for "the Lord is with you." The Lord, I say, the Father is in the very Son, Whom no Angel nor any other creature has. But "that which is to be born of you shall be called Holy, the Son of GOD" (Lk 1,35). The Lord, the Son, is present in her womb. "Shout and sing for joy, O dwelling, Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel" (Is 12,6). The Lord is with the Blessed Virgin in one way, and in another with the Angel. He is with her as a Son, but with the Angel as the latter's Lord. The Lord, the Holy Spirit, is with her as in His temple, when it is said: "the temple of GOD, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit," since she conceived by the Holy Spirit: "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee" (Lk 1,35).
Thus, the Blessed Virgin is more familiar with GOD than is the Angel, for with her is the Lord Father, the Lord Son and the Lord Holy Spirit, the entire Trinity. Concerning her is sung the verse: "noble repose of the entire Trinity." Which makes the honorific 'Queen of the Universe' or any of its variations entirely appropriate. I'm sorry. I'm not seeing any relevance here according to your point, which is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:48:02 PM EDT
[#16]
You know, it seems like some of you guys sure like to shotgun a lot of stuff out there and then make some very general claims about something or another to cover the material given...
 .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:49:11 PM EDT
[#17]
I think that most of you are just playin now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:49:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You said, "She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her." But Mary gave birth to a King. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay, so now by saying that since Jesus is King and Mary gave birth to him then Mary is a queen. But, a woman only becomes a queen when she marries a king. She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her. There is no other way to become a queen except to marry a king. Does a daughter of a king (princess) automatically become a queen when her mother dies? No, she does not become a queen until she is wed to a king. We see throughout the whole bible where God is on His throne with Jesus at His side. Why was Mary never depicted in these discriptions as being the queen? Why wasn't she described as being on the throne with the King? That would be a very big deal to have the complete picture of royalty, would it not? Rev. 3:21 "...just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne." Why didn't he say Mother and Father? He never does. Anytime Jesus speaks of heaven he only talks about his Father in heaven, he never says anything about a mother or queen. In your first paragraph, are you implying that Jesus is an illegitimate child? The "bastard" slur towards Christ is pretty common amongst some circles going back rather far. Also, Queens have never been as equal as a King and considered as a co-ruler. That's why the ruling King of England's wife will be a Queen but why Queen Elizabeth's husband is a Prince. Because if he had the title of "King" he'd be her superior. As Mary is a mortal person who required God's salvation she would obviously never be placed that as greater than or equal to God, but the title of Queen historically wouldn't require that. The Queen is under the authority and direction of the King, who is all important. That's all common sense. ETA: Oooo, now we're breaking out the Aquinas. I'll have to read that one myself. Your first statement is absurd. I don't think illigitamate comes into play here. You're now comparing apples to oranges. A virgin birth (which is spiritual obviously) to a birth out of wedlock. Your view on this is skewed I think. Your second statement is true except that you left out that everyone else is under her authority too, minus the king. You said, "She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her." But Mary gave birth to a King. I was talking in a worldly sense. So are you suggesting that Mary was married to God? If so, why did she marry Joseph? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:50:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. Its a mish-mosh of manichaenism, docetism and other dualist heresies. Although ancient philosophies, they certainly had their rebirth in the 'total depravity' crowd during the reformation. I've been listening to some CDs reviewing John Paul II's theology of the body audiences (The Gift - Christopher West, highly recommended). It became abundantly and rapidly clear that the humanity of Jesus is integral to our understanding of salvation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
yes, I can agree that she is the mother of Jesus, what I can't agree with is worshipping her, she was a normal woman with no special feets or deeds done on her own. In fact, I can only think of one reference to her after Jesus was born, anyone know which reference I am referring too? Who worships her? Never understood the fear people have of Mary. Everybody's supposed to consider her blessed after all. Yeah, the hidden premise behind the anti-Mary vitriol is a tacit rejection of Christ's humanity. In that sense there's something somewhat Gnostic to it, if not a complete and explicit rejection of Christ's humanity, at least the suggestion that His humanity was incidental to the salvific nature of His sacrifice. Which of course makes no sense since it was His humanity which suffered on the cross, His blood shed and His side pierced. I've been listening to some CDs reviewing John Paul II's theology of the body audiences (The Gift - Christopher West, highly recommended). It became abundantly and rapidly clear that the humanity of Jesus is integral to our understanding of salvation. The core premise behind the theology of Christ's humanity is that he was a genuine human individual and not simply an apparition in human form. Well, maternity plays a critical in role in the development of human individuality. On the nature side of the equation, a person inherits half of their genetic material and thus physical traits from their mother. And on the nurture side, the mother is by far the greatest influence any person has in his life. This is what makes all the Protestant arguments about how another woman could have been chosen so theologically incorrect (and, past a certain point, destructive). If Jesus had had another mother HE WOULD HAVE CEASED BEING JESUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:51:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know, it seems like some of you guys sure like to shotgun a lot of stuff out there and then make some very general claims about something or another to cover the material given... .We're not actively coordinating our posts. And there's a lot of material to cover. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:53:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was talking in a worldly sense. So are you suggesting that Mary was married to God? If so, why did she marry Joseph? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Okay, so now by saying that since Jesus is King and Mary gave birth to him then Mary is a queen. But, a woman only becomes a queen when she marries a king. She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her. There is no other way to become a queen except to marry a king. Does a daughter of a king (princess) automatically become a queen when her mother dies? No, she does not become a queen until she is wed to a king. We see throughout the whole bible where God is on His throne with Jesus at His side. Why was Mary never depicted in these discriptions as being the queen? Why wasn't she described as being on the throne with the King? That would be a very big deal to have the complete picture of royalty, would it not? Rev. 3:21 "...just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne." Why didn't he say Mother and Father? He never does. Anytime Jesus speaks of heaven he only talks about his Father in heaven, he never says anything about a mother or queen. In your first paragraph, are you implying that Jesus is an illegitimate child? The "bastard" slur towards Christ is pretty common amongst some circles going back rather far. Also, Queens have never been as equal as a King and considered as a co-ruler. That's why the ruling King of England's wife will be a Queen but why Queen Elizabeth's husband is a Prince. Because if he had the title of "King" he'd be her superior. As Mary is a mortal person who required God's salvation she would obviously never be placed that as greater than or equal to God, but the title of Queen historically wouldn't require that. The Queen is under the authority and direction of the King, who is all important. That's all common sense. ETA: Oooo, now we're breaking out the Aquinas. I'll have to read that one myself. Your first statement is absurd. I don't think illigitamate comes into play here. You're now comparing apples to oranges. A virgin birth (which is spiritual obviously) to a birth out of wedlock. Your view on this is skewed I think. Your second statement is true except that you left out that everyone else is under her authority too, minus the king. You said, "She can only give birth to a king if she is married to a king and that king impregnates her." But Mary gave birth to a King. I was talking in a worldly sense. So are you suggesting that Mary was married to God? If so, why did she marry Joseph? So, in time that God could bump off Joseph like King David had Uriah the Hittite knocked off? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:53:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry. I'm not seeing any relevance here according to your point, which is? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Another point from the Aquinas sermon - by virtue of giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, she was closer to God than any other created being. [The] Blessed Virgin excels the Angels in divine familiarity. The Angels designated this, saying "the Lord is with you," as if to say, "I proffer you reverence, because you are on more intimate terms with GOD than I am, for "the Lord is with you." The Lord, I say, the Father is in the very Son, Whom no Angel nor any other creature has. But "that which is to be born of you shall be called Holy, the Son of GOD" (Lk 1,35). The Lord, the Son, is present in her womb. "Shout and sing for joy, O dwelling, Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel" (Is 12,6). The Lord is with the Blessed Virgin in one way, and in another with the Angel. He is with her as a Son, but with the Angel as the latter's Lord. The Lord, the Holy Spirit, is with her as in His temple, when it is said: "the temple of GOD, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit," since she conceived by the Holy Spirit: "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee" (Lk 1,35).
Thus, the Blessed Virgin is more familiar with GOD than is the Angel, for with her is the Lord Father, the Lord Son and the Lord Holy Spirit, the entire Trinity. Concerning her is sung the verse: "noble repose of the entire Trinity." Which makes the honorific 'Queen of the Universe' or any of its variations entirely appropriate. I'm sorry. I'm not seeing any relevance here according to your point, which is? If you can't see how giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity makes it reasonable to refer to the person as the 'Queen of the Universe' you're either being obtuse or don't truly appreciate the theology behind Trinitarianism.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:54:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can't see how giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity makes it reasonable to refer to the person as the 'Queen of the Universe' you're either being obtuse or don't truly appreciate the theology behind Trinitarianism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Another point from the Aquinas sermon - by virtue of giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, she was closer to God than any other created being. [The] Blessed Virgin excels the Angels in divine familiarity. The Angels designated this, saying "the Lord is with you," as if to say, "I proffer you reverence, because you are on more intimate terms with GOD than I am, for "the Lord is with you." The Lord, I say, the Father is in the very Son, Whom no Angel nor any other creature has. But "that which is to be born of you shall be called Holy, the Son of GOD" (Lk 1,35). The Lord, the Son, is present in her womb. "Shout and sing for joy, O dwelling, Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel" (Is 12,6). The Lord is with the Blessed Virgin in one way, and in another with the Angel. He is with her as a Son, but with the Angel as the latter's Lord. The Lord, the Holy Spirit, is with her as in His temple, when it is said: "the temple of GOD, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit," since she conceived by the Holy Spirit: "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee" (Lk 1,35).
Thus, the Blessed Virgin is more familiar with GOD than is the Angel, for with her is the Lord Father, the Lord Son and the Lord Holy Spirit, the entire Trinity. Concerning her is sung the verse: "noble repose of the entire Trinity." Which makes the honorific 'Queen of the Universe' or any of its variations entirely appropriate. I'm sorry. I'm not seeing any relevance here according to your point, which is? If you can't see how giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity makes it reasonable to refer to the person as the 'Queen of the Universe' you're either being obtuse or don't truly appreciate the theology behind Trinitarianism. No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:58:33 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We're not actively coordinating our posts. And there's a lot of material to cover. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You know, it seems like some of you guys sure like to shotgun a lot of stuff out there and then make some very general claims about something or another to cover the material given... .We're not actively coordinating our posts. And there's a lot of material to cover. Yes and most of it non-relevant or material to Biblically Scriptural truths which have gotten pretty bloody at this point as it stands...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:00:35 PM EDT
[#25]
Anyways, ya'll can wallow around in this one without my further help.
Thanks. I'm out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:00:58 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes and most of it non-relevant or material to Biblically Scriptural truths which have gotten pretty bloody at this point as it stands...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, it seems like some of you guys sure like to shotgun a lot of stuff out there and then make some very general claims about something or another to cover the material given... .We're not actively coordinating our posts. And there's a lot of material to cover. Yes and most of it non-relevant or material to Biblically Scriptural truths which have gotten pretty bloody at this point as it stands...
Quoted:
Tagging for anti-Catholic vitriol disguised as passion for "scriptural truth." Quoting self for amusement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:06:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoting self for amusement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, it seems like some of you guys sure like to shotgun a lot of stuff out there and then make some very general claims about something or another to cover the material given... .We're not actively coordinating our posts. And there's a lot of material to cover. Yes and most of it non-relevant or material to Biblically Scriptural truths which have gotten pretty bloody at this point as it stands...
Quoted:
Tagging for anti-Catholic vitriol disguised as passion for "scriptural truth." Quoting self for amusement. The funniest thing is that there were tons of scriptural references in what was posted. I suspect that he'll be back though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:08:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The funniest thing is that there were tons of scriptural references in what was posted. I suspect that he'll be back though. The next thread, like the hundreds before it, will again start with wild accusations about deifying Mary, and not even an attempt to cite and discuss actual doctrine. Wash, rinse, repeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:15:29 PM EDT
[#29]
Personally, I prefer 'Queen of Creation' or 'Queen of the Universe' over 'Queen of Heaven'. Although heaven is part of creation so it's a semantic difference at best.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:23:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Are y'all going to ignore my post about the end of Revelation showing that the woman described in that chapter is Israel and not Mary?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:30:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Revelation 12
13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:31:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are y'all going to ignore my post about the end of Revelation showing that the woman described in that chapter is Israel and not Mary? I think the proper term is "agree to disagree." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:36:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the proper term is "agree to disagree." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are y'all going to ignore my post about the end of Revelation showing that the woman described in that chapter is Israel and not Mary? I think the proper term is "agree to disagree." Lets take verse 17. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war with the REST OF HER OFFSPRING-those who obey God's commands. The part in bold would mean that Mary had other offspring, or children. That doesn't line up with the catholic belief that Mary never had anymore kids, right? But in fact, the rest of her offspring is the Gentiles. What exactly do you disagree with this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:43:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lets take verse 17. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war with the REST OF HER OFFSPRING-those who obey God's commands. The part in bold would mean that Mary had other offspring, or children. That doesn't line up with the catholic belief that Mary never had anymore kids, right? But in fact, the rest of her offspring is the Gentiles. What exactly do you disagree with this? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are y'all going to ignore my post about the end of Revelation showing that the woman described in that chapter is Israel and not Mary? I think the proper term is "agree to disagree." Lets take verse 17. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war with the REST OF HER OFFSPRING-those who obey God's commands. The part in bold would mean that Mary had other offspring, or children. That doesn't line up with the catholic belief that Mary never had anymore kids, right? But in fact, the rest of her offspring is the Gentiles. What exactly do you disagree with this? You're willing to accept a metaphorical woman as Israel, but not metaphorical offspring as Christians? Do you now realize how inconsistent your willingness to jump from literal to figurative is, here? Mary as "Mother of all Nations" is also another one of those theological constructs within Catholicism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 5:55:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're willing to accept a metaphorical woman as Israel, but not metaphorical offspring as Christians? Do you now realize how inconsistent your willingness to jump from literal to figurative is, here? Mary as "Mother of all Nations" is also another one of those theological constructs within Catholicism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are y'all going to ignore my post about the end of Revelation showing that the woman described in that chapter is Israel and not Mary? I think the proper term is "agree to disagree." Lets take verse 17. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war with the REST OF HER OFFSPRING-those who obey God's commands. The part in bold would mean that Mary had other offspring, or children. That doesn't line up with the catholic belief that Mary never had anymore kids, right? But in fact, the rest of her offspring is the Gentiles. What exactly do you disagree with this? You're willing to accept a metaphorical woman as Israel, but not metaphorical offspring as Christians? Do you now realize how inconsistent your willingness to jump from literal to figurative is, here? Mary as "Mother of all Nations" is also another one of those theological constructs within Catholicism. If you're not Jew then you are what? Gentile. The dragon went to make war on the rest of her offspring, the Gentiles. He was already making war with her(Israel), so he then went to make war with the Gentiles. The offspring that keeps God's commandments are the Christian Gentiles. Now back to the "rest of her offspring" statement. How does that reconcile with the catholic belief that Mary had no other children. If Mary had no other children then this woman in Revelation 12 couldn't be her. If it is Mary, then Mary had other offspring. Besides that, the things that happened in verse 13-16 didn't happen to Mary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:02:31 PM EDT
[#36]
The rest of her offspring comment could easily apply to the Church as a whole. The Church is commonly referred to as The Body of Christ - I believe that's somewhere in scripture - and Mary is, by extension, Mother to the Church.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:09:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The rest of her offspring comment could easily apply to the Church as a whole. The Church is commonly referred to as The Body of Christ - I believe that's somewhere in scripture - and Mary is, by extension, Mother to the Church. So when did the things in verse 13-16 happen to Mary? The woman in the first of the chapter is the same until the end of the chapter, not that anyone is disputing that. I'm just trying to stay clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:29:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Ledslngr,
Regarding rev. 12, it's not either Mary or the church is the woman, it's both/and. No time right now to elaborate, but here's info from my study bible. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:35:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ledslngr, Regarding rev. 12, it's not either Mary or the church is the woman, it's both/and. No time right now to elaborate, but here's info from my study bible. Hope this helps.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm214/Inverness11/027be2fb-ca59-44e7-b6a8-f1c4aa39ef6e_zps7877bac9.jpg I never mentioned that it was the church, I said it was Israel. Can't be both Mary and Israel. One could connect Mary and the church as being one if they subscribe to that line of thinking, which I do not. The church is Christ's, not Mary's. ETA: your bible is a catholic bible so it will automatically divert to that line of thinking to back up that doctrine. My info is from independent study without any pre-conceived doctrines to make the passage fit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:36:01 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Personally, I prefer 'Queen of Creation' or 'Queen of the Universe' over 'Queen of Heaven'. Although heaven is part of creation so it's a semantic difference at best. Are you saying that Mary was around during creation? If so, how do you back that up with Scripture? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:38:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying that Mary was around during creation? If so, how do you back that up with Scripture? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Personally, I prefer 'Queen of Creation' or 'Queen of the Universe' over 'Queen of Heaven'. Although heaven is part of creation so it's a semantic difference at best. Are you saying that Mary was around during creation? If so, how do you back that up with Scripture? It was already explained quite concisely before in the thread. Quoted:
Another point from the Aquinas sermon - by virtue of giving birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, she was closer to God than any other created being. [The] Blessed Virgin excels the Angels in divine familiarity. The Angels designated this, saying "the Lord is with you," as if to say, "I proffer you reverence, because you are on more intimate terms with GOD than I am, for "the Lord is with you." The Lord, I say, the Father is in the very Son, Whom no Angel nor any other creature has. But "that which is to be born of you shall be called Holy, the Son of GOD" (Lk 1,35). The Lord, the Son, is present in her womb. "Shout and sing for joy, O dwelling, Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel" (Is 12,6). The Lord is with the Blessed Virgin in one way, and in another with the Angel. He is with her as a Son, but with the Angel as the latter's Lord. The Lord, the Holy Spirit, is with her as in His temple, when it is said: "the temple of GOD, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit," since she conceived by the Holy Spirit: "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee" (Lk 1,35).
Thus, the Blessed Virgin is more familiar with GOD than is the Angel, for with her is the Lord Father, the Lord Son and the Lord Holy Spirit, the entire Trinity. Concerning her is sung the verse: "noble repose of the entire Trinity." Which makes the honorific 'Queen of the Universe' or any of its variations entirely appropriate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:43:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Revelation
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: The woman represents Israel, and her child is Christ; the Messiah (12:5; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 66:7.8; Micah 5:2; Romans. 9:4,5) The woman is not the church, since the church did not bring forth Christ, But rather He brought forth the church. The sun reflects redeemed Israel's unique glory, brilliance and dignity because of her exulted status and shows her as God's chosen nation. The moon under her feet alludes to God's promise of dominion, and the crown of twelve stars pictures royalty and relates to the 12 tribes of Israel. Go to Genesis 37 verses 9 - 11 and read about the dream Joseph had about the sun, moon and 11 stars which were bowing down to Joseph. (who was the 12th) In this look toward heaven by John, we are taken to a different aspect of the battle that has gone on through all ages between Jesus and Satan. If Jesus is in warfare with Satan, then His people are in battle as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:46:47 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never mentioned that it was the church, I said it was Israel. Can't be both Mary and Israel. One could connect Mary and the church as being one if they subscribe to that line of thinking, which I do not. The church is Christ's, not Mary's. ETA: your bible is a catholic bible so it will automatically divert to that line of thinking to back up that doctrine. My info is from independent study without any pre-conceived doctrines to make the passage fit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ledslngr, Regarding rev. 12, it's not either Mary or the church is the woman, it's both/and. No time right now to elaborate, but here's info from my study bible. Hope this helps.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm214/Inverness11/027be2fb-ca59-44e7-b6a8-f1c4aa39ef6e_zps7877bac9.jpg I never mentioned that it was the church, I said it was Israel. Can't be both Mary and Israel. One could connect Mary and the church as being one if they subscribe to that line of thinking, which I do not. The church is Christ's, not Mary's. ETA: your bible is a catholic bible so it will automatically divert to that line of thinking to back up that doctrine. My info is from independent study without any pre-conceived doctrines to make the passage fit. Sorry, to me the words Church and Israel are interchangeable. Christianity is Israel. Yes the church is christ's. Mary is the mother of Christ, so....yeah. Yes it is a Catholic Bible. That's why I posted it. So you could learn a catholic view on this passage. Y u gotta be such a Catholic Hater?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:51:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, to me the words Church and Israel are interchangeable. Christianity is Israel. Yes the church is christ's. Mary is the mother of Christ, so....yeah. Yes it is a Catholic Bible. That's why I posted it. So you could learn a catholic view on this passage. Y u gotta be such a Catholic Hater?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ledslngr, Regarding rev. 12, it's not either Mary or the church is the woman, it's both/and. No time right now to elaborate, but here's info from my study bible. Hope this helps.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm214/Inverness11/027be2fb-ca59-44e7-b6a8-f1c4aa39ef6e_zps7877bac9.jpg I never mentioned that it was the church, I said it was Israel. Can't be both Mary and Israel. One could connect Mary and the church as being one if they subscribe to that line of thinking, which I do not. The church is Christ's, not Mary's. ETA: your bible is a catholic bible so it will automatically divert to that line of thinking to back up that doctrine. My info is from independent study without any pre-conceived doctrines to make the passage fit. Sorry, to me the words Church and Israel are interchangeable. Christianity is Israel. Yes the church is christ's. Mary is the mother of Christ, so....yeah. Yes it is a Catholic Bible. That's why I posted it. So you could learn a catholic view on this passage. Y u gotta be such a Catholic Hater?
I'm sorry, church and Israel are no where near interchangeable. That would mean the church was around before Christ established it. See my post above your post I just quoted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:52:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Revelation 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: The woman represents Israel, and her child is Christ; the Messiah (12:5; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 66:7.8; Micah 5:2; Romans. 9:4,5) The woman is not the church, since the church did not bring forth Christ, But rather He brought forth the church. The sun reflects redeemed Israel's unique glory, brilliance and dignity because of her exulted status and shows her as God's chosen nation. The moon under her feet alludes to God's promise of dominion, and the crown of twelve stars pictures royalty and relates to the 12 tribes of Israel. Go to Genesis 37 verses 9 - 11 and read about the dream Joseph had about the sun, moon and 11 stars which were bowing down to Joseph. (who was the 12th) In this look toward heaven by John, we are taken to a different aspect of the battle that has gone on through all ages between Jesus and Satan. If Jesus is in warfare with Satan, then His people are in battle as well. Amen! I really don't think we will sway them, due to how steeped they are in replacement theology, believing that the church replaced Israel. When the Bible clearly says that those who believe in the Messiah are grafted into Israel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 6:59:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amen! I really don't think we will sway them, due to how steeped they are in replacement theology, believing that the church replaced Israel. When the Bible clearly says that those who believe in the Messiah are grafted into Israel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Revelation 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: The woman represents Israel, and her child is Christ; the Messiah (12:5; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 66:7.8; Micah 5:2; Romans. 9:4,5) The woman is not the church, since the church did not bring forth Christ, But rather He brought forth the church. The sun reflects redeemed Israel's unique glory, brilliance and dignity because of her exulted status and shows her as God's chosen nation. The moon under her feet alludes to God's promise of dominion, and the crown of twelve stars pictures royalty and relates to the 12 tribes of Israel. Go to Genesis 37 verses 9 - 11 and read about the dream Joseph had about the sun, moon and 11 stars which were bowing down to Joseph. (who was the 12th) In this look toward heaven by John, we are taken to a different aspect of the battle that has gone on through all ages between Jesus and Satan. If Jesus is in warfare with Satan, then His people are in battle as well. Amen! I really don't think we will sway them, due to how steeped they are in replacement theology, believing that the church replaced Israel. When the Bible clearly says that those who believe in the Messiah are grafted into Israel. We have to take a step back and let the Holy Spirit lead us in study, He is the only true interpreter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 7:07:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Just throwing this out there in case anyone is interested in learning the truth about Our Blessed Mother.
http://www.audiosancto.org/categories/mariology.php O Clement, O Loving, O Sweet Virgin Mary. Pray for us O Holy Mother of God That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 7:10:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just throwing this out there in case anyone is interested in learning the truth about Our Blessed Mother. http://www.audiosancto.org/categories/mariology.php O Clement, O Loving, O Sweet Virgin Mary. Pray for us O Holy Mother of God That we may be made worth of the promises of Christ. Thanks for that! Going on a road trip this weekend and just downloaded a ton of their podcast sermons. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 7:58:53 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven't seen anyone deny that Christ was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: yes, I can agree that she is the mother of Jesus, what I can't agree with is worshipping her, she was a normal woman with no special feets or deeds done on her own. In fact, I can only think of one reference to her after Jesus was born, anyone know which reference I am referring too? Who worships her? Never understood the fear people have of Mary. Everybody's supposed to consider her blessed after all. Yeah, the hidden premise behind the anti-Mary vitriol is a tacit rejection of Christ's humanity. In that sense there's something somewhat Gnostic to it, if not a complete and explicit rejection of Christ's humanity, at least the suggestion that His humanity was incidental to the salvific nature of His sacrifice. Which of course makes no sense since it was His humanity which suffered on the cross, His blood shed and His side pierced. I've been listening to some CDs reviewing John Paul II's theology of the body audiences (The Gift - Christopher West, highly recommended). It became abundantly and rapidly clear that the humanity of Jesus is integral to our understanding of salvation. I haven't seen anyone deny that Christ was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. your quote 'because she gave birth to his earthly body? ' Sorry, but if Jesus 'was 100% man and 100% God at the same time' (your quote again), then she gave birth to both. That is dualism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 8:04:08 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry, church and Israel are no where near interchangeable. That would mean the church was around before Christ established it. See my post above your post I just quoted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ledslngr, Regarding rev. 12, it's not either Mary or the church is the woman, it's both/and. No time right now to elaborate, but here's info from my study bible. Hope this helps.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm214/Inverness11/027be2fb-ca59-44e7-b6a8-f1c4aa39ef6e_zps7877bac9.jpg I never mentioned that it was the church, I said it was Israel. Can't be both Mary and Israel. One could connect Mary and the church as being one if they subscribe to that line of thinking, which I do not. The church is Christ's, not Mary's. ETA: your bible is a catholic bible so it will automatically divert to that line of thinking to back up that doctrine. My info is from independent study without any pre-conceived doctrines to make the passage fit. Sorry, to me the words Church and Israel are interchangeable. Christianity is Israel. Yes the church is christ's. Mary is the mother of Christ, so....yeah. Yes it is a Catholic Bible. That's why I posted it. So you could learn a catholic view on this passage. Y u gotta be such a Catholic Hater?
I'm sorry, church and Israel are no where near interchangeable. That would mean the church was around before Christ established it. See my post above your post I just quoted. If Christ is eternal than so is his church. God revealed it as he chose. Unless you believe Moses and Elijah are in hell because they didn't follow Christ. After all, no one comes to the Father but through him. You insist on saying that time applies to the God that created time. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
