Just glancing through, the word "queen" is used by:

New Living Translation
ESV
Berean Standard
KJV
NKJV
NASB
NASB 1995
NASB 1977
Legacy Standard
Amplified
Christian Standard
Holman Christian Standard
American Standard
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Brenton Septuagint Translation
Douay-Rheims
English Revised Version
God's Word translation
Good News Translation
International Standard Version
JPS Tanakh
Literal Standard
Majority Standard
New Revised Standard
New Heart English
Webster's Bible Translation
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation

"Bride" by
NIV
Net Bible
Contemporary English Version

"Princess" is used by
New American Bible

The word in Hebrew is queen (segal). Oddly enough in the NIV translation of Nehemiah 2:6 where the exact same word is used, they translate it queen. Its almost as if the NIV is theologically motivated here. Shocker.

In the Greek OT which is typically what St Paul quotes from it is queen as well - explicitly so - basilissa. Maybe someone should go back in time and tell the Jews who translated it from Hebrew into Greek that they were wrong.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I would say just because you profess Christ may not actually mean you are saved, but I understand what you are saying. Yes, those who belong to Christ have the Holy Spirit, but not all are given the gift of teaching. We are probably entering circular reference territory here, but I would say I discern my teaching first from my real pastor, other teachers/pastors my pastor would endorse, and then ultimately I would use scripture as the ultimate guide in addition to the other 4 Solas.

---

And I believe that is what every Christian does. I know I do.

I believe clergy and theologians who have different interpretations of Scripture are Spirit filled also. And are given the gift of teaching.

To me, that is why the creeds are so important. Those to me are the Universal truths.

From the sources I use, this is the Hebrew word for queen in v9 of Psalm 45.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7694/esv/wlc/0-1/

It is only used before in Nehemiah 2 when it references Queen Esther, who was NOT the mother of Ahasuerus, but his wife. So in that instance Queen = Wife.

I don't see how they could comingle a Hebrew word that either meant wife or mother. Seems like it would cause issues.

I am not sure if I am translation shopping. Nehemiah 2 used this Hebrew word for "queen" but it was referring to Queen Esther, the wife. So I am not debating the word meaning "queen", but what "queen" actually means.

I just find it odd the the only two places this Hebrew word is used, Nehemiah uses it to describe the wife of the King, but the Psalmist would use it to describe the mother of Jesus?

I am looking forward to chiming in on Mary being the Queen Mother but need a few hours due to work.

I didn't mean to drop the NIV conveniently as my preferred translation, it isn't. Just as a reference point to another main stream protestant translation using the word "bride" as opposed to "queen."

I think you understand my confusion with the cultural implications that were talked about before - because kings had many wives - the queen would often sit on the throne. I agree. However if we are talking about Christ depicted in Psalm 45:9, I hardly would believe that "queen" would be used in a way in which would continue that tradition of acknowledging polygamy. One of the things we all know about Christ is how he would so often flip the cultural and societal norms on their faces. So again, my confusion is the reconciliation between "queen" as used in Nehemiah 2 in addition to the idea I just mentioned above.

At the end of the day, I would maybe appeal that Psalm 45:9 isn't obviously depicting Jesus and Mary. There is a bit of a theological journey you need to take to reach that conclusion.

Faithful Ag said:

---

I am looking forward to chiming in on Mary being the Queen Mother but need a few hours due to work.

---

Just not committed enough.

As a Protestant, I have never understood the misunderstanding of the Catholic and Orthodox view of Mary.

And why it bothers some so much.

Don't you think the very act of the virgin birth is exactly the kind of inversion you're looking for? Taking a virgin as queen mother and an unwedded virgin as consort/bride?

All saints in heaven are very much alive, and according to Jesus, never died...

John 11:25: Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life;[d] he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Why protestants think that the great cloud of witnesses is dead is truly strange..Some witnesses...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

All saints in heaven are very much alive, and according to Jesus, never died...

John 11:25: Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life;[d] he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Why protestants think that the great cloud of witnesses is dead is truly strange..Some witnesses...

---

The Protestants I know believe the cloud of witnesses are alive.

Some on this thread sure don't...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Some on this thread sure don't...

---

I must have missed a post about "cloud of witnesses" on this thread. This works both ways. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Zobel said:
Why? It's right out of the psalms.

---

10andBOUNCE said:
I understand what you mean, but I would hardly call that an obvious interpretation. It's definitely not in line with any protestant teaching I have been around.

---

I can appreciate that this is new to you, but this is second nature to Catholics and our Orthodox brothers. These ideas are not new, and have in fact been handed down in the faith going back to the very earliest Christians like St. Luke. The fact that this is foreign to your Protestant teaching should at least peak your curiosity IMO. Mary being the Theotokos, the new Eve, the Ark, a perpetual virgin, and the Queen Mother are beliefs that all Christians held up to and including the Reformers. I am just asking that you continue to investigate this, like the Bareans, to see if what we are showing you has merit. If/when you do see there is something to all of this, have the courage to keep searching. You will find yourself being drawn closer to Christ in the process.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Faithful Ag said:
Correct. Mary is the Queen Mother as is the custom of the Davidic Kings which is why we know she is in heaven and sits at her son's right hand.
It is scriptural and historical. Not provocative.

---

10andBOUNCE said:
I can at least follow what you all have been talking about regarding the ark (I don't agree with it but I at least follow the logic). This one seems a bit more out of left field for me.

Psalm 45:9 in no way is definitive about Mary currently being at Jesus right hand.

---

Hopefully the below will illuminate that the idea of Mary being the Queen mother is supported in other places and not only in Psalm 45. First let's look at what the Angel reveals to Mary at the Annunciation (Luke 1:30-33):

Quote:

---

"Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

---

So here the Angel of the Lord is announcing to Mary that her son will be the Messiah (the Christ). Jesus is the promised Davidic King - the one that all of Israel has been waiting to come deliver their people. Because her son is to be the King, Mary knew instantly that the Angel was telling her that she was to be the Queen Mother (which also helped Mary to understand the Angel's greeting). The House of David was ruled by the King, but the Queen Mother reigned alongside the King.

This Queen Mother can first be seen in 1 Kings 2:19-20 when King Solomon rose and then bowed to his mother, and then had a throne placed at his right hand for her. If you look at the reigns of virtually every Davidic King listed in the OT they include the name of the king's mother because she reigned as queen.
For an example look at

• 1 Kings 14:21; 15:1-2; 9-10 & 13;
• 2 Kings 8:25-26; 12:1; 14:1-2; 15:1-2, 32-33; 18:1-2; 21:1,19; 22:1; 23:31, 36; 24:7-8, 18.

Jeremiah 13:18 makes reference to the queen mother as well. The Queen Mother has the place of highest honor in the kingdom, shares in the authority of the King, and is a powerful intercessor to the King. We can see illusions to this as well at the wedding at Cana when Mary (Woman) asks Jesus to perform his first public miracle by turning water into wine.

The Gospel of Matthew continues the tradition of naming the Queen Mother in his genealogy by starting with David and ending with Joseph the husband of Mary.

And then there is always the beautiful imagery from what John the Beloved - to whom Jesus entrusted to care for his mother - writes in Revelation and he most assuredly had the Queen Mother in mind here:

Quote:

---

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple, and there were flashes of lightening, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. - - - And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. - - - Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus." (Rev 11:19 12:6, 17)

---

This is not exhaustive on the subject, but I hope this at least helps show that the Orthodox and Catholics are not just making stuff up about Mary. There is beautiful theology in our beliefs about Mary, but it's not about Mary it is about Christ. All of this might be difficult to see when your interpretive tradition is proof-texting chapter and verse. The Christians in the first 1,000+ years didn't even have chapters much less verses to reference, and sometimes I think proof-texting creates road blocks to our ability to see and understand what the scriptures are communicating.

Anyway, I love our Blessed Mother! And I pray that you will soften your heart toward her because there is nothing wrong in loving the mother of our Savior, and that is why Jesus gave her to all of us while hanging on the cross.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

From the sources I use, this is the Hebrew word for queen in v9 of Psalm 45.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7694/esv/wlc/0-1/

It is only used before in Nehemiah 2 when it references Queen Esther, who was NOT the mother of Ahasuerus, but his wife. So in that instance Queen = Wife.

I don't see how they could comingle a Hebrew word that either meant wife or mother. Seems like it would cause issues.

---

Ahasuerus was not a king in the House of David, although Esther was Jewish. The Queen Mother was unique to Davidic Kings only.

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

---

Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

Mary had inside her, for 9 months, the Bread of Life/The Word Made Flesh/the Eternal High priest.

The OT Ark of the Covenant had inside it the Manna/The Word of God in stone/the rod of Aaron, the symbol of the High priest.

Mary is always seen wearing blue...The OT Ark of the Covenant was covered in a blue cloth.

The Ark of the Covenant was pure and holy/Mary is pure and Holy (gratia plena)...

Where can you point to in scripture that blatantly and directly calls Mary pure? Other than conflicting translations in Luke 1 "full of grace." You have to approach this from outside the RCC and not regurgitating Catholic Catechisms.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

---

Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

---

You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too. Jesus came to destroy religious legalism that is literally the point of the New Covenant. It's a bizarre twist that the RCC portends to be the original church founded by Christ himself….

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Where can you point to in scripture that blatantly and directly calls Mary pure? Other than conflicting translations in Luke 1 "full of grace." You have to approach this from outside the RCC and not regurgitating Catholic Catechisms.

---

With all due respect, should you not do the same? Do you ever read any non Reformed theologians?

And I see no reason to accuse a brother in Christ of "regurgitating" a catechism when you are basically doing the same thing.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

---

Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

---

You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.

---

Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Where can you point to in scripture that blatantly and directly calls Mary pure? Other than conflicting translations in Luke 1 "full of grace." You have to approach this from outside the RCC and not regurgitating Catholic Catechisms.

---

With all due respect, should you not do the same? Do you ever read any non Reformed theologians?

And I see no reason to accuse a brother in Christ of "regurgitating" a catechism when you are basically doing the same thing.

---

Uhhh, he's asking the person to quote scripture. It don't see anything wrong with that.

The problem, as with many on the Protestant vs Catholic thread, is that each group has a vastly different view on the authoritative Word of God. Therefore, these issues will never really resolve.

Discussion for the sake of discussion is fine, but we should not expect the two camps to agree.

dermdoc said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

---

Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

---

You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.

---

Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.

---

I did. Less than a week ago. On this thread.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Where can you point to in scripture that blatantly and directly calls Mary pure? Other than conflicting translations in Luke 1 "full of grace." You have to approach this from outside the RCC and not regurgitating Catholic Catechisms.

---

With all due respect, should you not do the same? Do you ever read any non Reformed theologians?

And I see no reason to accuse a brother in Christ of "regurgitating" a catechism when you are basically doing the same thing.

---

I'm simply asking for scripture. I've spent most of my life in non-reformed environments. Both of my parents were raised RCC in Chicago. Neither can help me with these things either.

dermdoc said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

---

Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

---

You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.

---

Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.

---

As a Protestant, I'm pretty sure you just got called a heretic by a Catholic, DermDoc.

Also, do you realize that under Catholic dogma, you are, by definition, a heretic?

Your friends might be too nice to say it to your face, but it's their religious pretext, whether you like it or not.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

---

Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

---

You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.

---

Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.

---

As a Protestant, I'm pretty sure you just got called a heretic by a Catholic, DermDoc.

Also, do you realize that under Catholic dogma, you are, by definition, a heretic?

Your friends might be too nice to say it to your face, but it's their religious pretext, whether you like it or not.

---

I know quite a few Catholic priests and even two monks. We pray together and discuss theology. Have our differences but never have been called a heretic.
And for the record, I do not like the tone of the post you pulled up.

I am going away for a while at the prodding of the Spirit. This is not doing anyone any good in my opinion.

dermdoc said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgPrognosticator said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

---

Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

---

You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too.

---

Never have had a Catholic call me a heretic. Guess I need to get out more.

---

As a Protestant, I'm pretty sure you just got called a heretic by a Catholic, DermDoc.

Also, do you realize that under Catholic dogma, you are, by definition, a heretic?

Your friends might be too nice to say it to your face, but it's their religious pretext, whether you like it or not.

---

I know quite a few Catholic priests and even two monks. We pray together and discuss theology. Have our differences but never have been called a heretic.
And for the record, I do not like the tone of the post you pulled up.

I am going away for a while at the prodding of the Spirit. This is not doing anyone any good in my opinion.

---

I don't like the tone of it either. That's the point.

But to pretend you've never been called a heretic by a Catholic is essentially burying your head in the sand.

Will leave this last thought here
The fruits of the Spirit are love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, generosity, and self control.

Shalom

Quote:

---

Where can you point to in scripture that blatantly and directly calls Mary pure? Other than conflicting translations in Luke 1 "full of grace." You have to approach this from outside the RCC and not regurgitating Catholic Catechisms.

---

In the Latin Vulgate from St. Jerome, it clearly says "Ave gratia plena," or Hail (a royal greeting) Full of Grace. In the original Greek the term is kecharitomene, or "You who have been filled with grace." So, there is NO conflict, except in mistranslated protestant English bibles...

Also, the bible clearly tells us that a "bad tree cannot bear good fruit," and that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb. So, if Mary is sinful, then so is Jesus. If Jesus is pure, so it Mary. Jesus got his precious blood and holy flesh from....Mary...Case closed...

I've been thinking about this and for all the work you did, which is impressive, I'm left wondering the point of the argument?

First, as has been pointed out many times before, Revelation 12 being about Mary is a modern accretion and you just won't find historical support for it. Rome introduced this after the fact.

However, lets say I, or any Protestant concedes there are parallels between Mary and the Ark...Now what? From the same Scriptures we see, we know that acacia wood was used in quite a few things. Same with "pure gold." None of that is unique to the ark.

We know from Exodus, that both Acacia and Gold were used in not just the Ark, but in a multitude of things.

Acacia:
Table - Exodus 25:23
Boards - Exodus 26:15
Bars - Exodus 26:26
Pillars for the veil - Exodus 26:32
Pillar for curtains - Exodus 26:37
Bronze altar - Exodus 27:1

Pure Gold:
Table - Exodus 25:24
Lampstand - Exodus 25:31
Almond blossom bulb and flower - Exodus 25:36-39
Clasps - Exodus 26:6
Boarder overlay - Exodus 26:29
Rings - Exodus 26:29
Veil/Curtain rings - Exodus 26:32
Garments - Exodus 28 (many versus).
Altar of incense - Exodus 30:3

And so on and so forth.

So what should we draw from this? You tried to make an argument that the use acacia wood and pure gold were unique to just the ark, but we know they weren't. They were used in the construction of many things.

Of course, since you made the parallel, we need to note two other things:

1. The wood used in the ark wasn't denoted as unique or specially purified for the ark. If we parallel this to Mary, can we really claim she's unique, when the wood/gold was not unique?.
2. The ark is now lost. What should we take from that as a parallel to Mary.

So parallel Mary to the Ark. Ok. The resulting conclusions don't seem to lead to the eventual developments that Rome makes.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Quote:

---

"From the outside looking in you can't understand it, and from the inside out you can't explain it"

---

I truly do appreciate the discourse and taking of your time to explain some of these things.

I was checking out a sermon by Sproul regarding Mary's Fiat and thought this was interesting.

"Because of the maximalists' exaggeration and the heretical veneration Rome has given to Mary over the centuries, Protestants tend to flee so far in the other direction that we almost despise this one who was highly favored by the Lord, who was filled with the grace of God, and who was a model of submission to the authority of God Himself."

So at the very least it's likely given me a new appreciation for how very blessed Mary was.

End of the day, even if I were to give credence to all these connections in scripture, there still just seems to be a void of clear instructions from the early apostles and NT writers. You mentioned St Luke who penned his gospel and the book of Acts. Other than Chapter 1 in both, is Mary ever given further consideration? What about Paul who traveled with Luke and was likely influenced greatly? Seems like he would want to edify the churches and make it abundantly clear Mary's role as the queen of the church. He does not, from what I can tell and have been taught. Yet, there is only one mediator between God and man, clearly told to us by several NT writers.

---

Nice, thoughtful post. I like to emphasize our unifying beliefs rather than our divisive beliefs. We are all brothers/sisters in Christ.

---

You're right about this, BUT Catholic dogma also necessitates that protestants are heretics.

I think that's my beef. A bunch of men (not God) call us heretics for following the scripture. That in and of itself is sacrilege…but it will never get through to Catholics because of multi-generational legalistic traditions and heritage.

Sound familiar? That's who the Pharisees were too. Jesus came to destroy religious legalism that is literally the point of the New Covenant. It's a bizarre twist that the RCC portends to be the original church founded by Christ himself….

---

Herein lies the problem. Just like AgLiving. Up in arms, acting as if they are the only ones being called heretics. News flash: you just called he heretics too. 10am bounce is at least trying to find some middle ground. You are very focused on division. And every time someone asks a question that you have no answer for, you just ignore it.

This type of approach gets so old. Catholics are accused of worshipping Mary. We give reasons why we are not worshipping her, but here is all the historical evidence that shows she was genuinely special and set apart. It results in some form of "Jesus is the only one who saves", which we have never disputed.

I'll say again: your view of "a man and his Bible" is ahistorical, illogical, and privileged due to the fact that the vast majority of humans could never have afforded a Bible, and even if they could, would not be able to read it. Our faith is oral, with writings inspired by the Holy Spirit to make sure the church stays on the right path. All Christians from the beginning have relied on teachers and priests to understand our faith. How many times do you have to show an atheist how they read the Bible wrong? What makes you so special that you absolutely nailed it 100% while there are genuinely intelligent people (think the New Atheists) who read it completely wrong? The Bible sure didn't help the southern baptists from arguing chattel slavery was A OK. It's not helping many mainline Protestant churches fall in with the LGBT movement. It hasn't prevented a lot of church's from having women pastors.

Jesus never wrote a Bible. He never told His apostles to write the Bible. The Bible is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to us through the church He founded. Any other view is flatly ahistorical.