Just heard about the rosary....

And what is there to support the claim that the twelve stars are the twelve tribes of Israel?
They can just as easily represent the twelve apostles. - Mungo

-- The support is that the representation of "12 stars meaning the 12 tribes" has already been used once in the O.T. in the scripture I provided (that you obviously didn't read). Conversely, there is nothing - either in the OT or NT - that supports the idea that those 12 starts represent the Apostles.


You deny that the child in Rev 12 is Jesus? - Mungo

------ Nope. I am pointing out that the reference of who gave birth to Jesus refers to Israel and not Mary.

I undestand why you would wish to ignore the Micah scripture, but the majority of the rest of the correlations you posted trying to connect it to the NT fall apart when you actually look at the NT scriptures you provided and find they have almost nothing at all to do with what is being said.

You also (understandably) ignored these:

------ Catholics say it must be Mary because she is giving birth to Jesus. However, Isaiah 66:7-10 depicts Jerusalem as a woman going into labor and delivering "a son."

------ In Rev 12:14 where it sayts the woman is being saved by being carried away on "eagles wings" away from Satan, in Exodus 19 God says to Moses: "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: [sup]4[/sup] ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself."

Again, talking about Israel, not Mary.

------ In Rev 2:15 it says that Satan is after the woman and spews out a flood of water after her. The earth then helps the woman by opening up the water.
True, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt, but there is no real context. The description, if applied to them, does not fit.
When was Mary specifically chased by Satan who sent his people against her and God protected her by causing the earth to open up and swallow them? Then answer: Never
HOWEVER, that description does fit Israel perfecly.


I understand you trying to deflect from Micah instead of actually addressing it.
Unfortunately, what you attempted to deflect with had nothing to do with it at all.

So again:

------If you wish to go the Catholic route, Micah 4:9-10 depicts Israel as a daughter going through labor pains.
Near the end of the chapter it details how God's plan was to have a "ruler out of Bethlehem." Now, of course Catholics jump and claim that is further proof, but if you read the chapter itself it says things like:

"Writhe in agony, O Daughter of Zion,
like a woman in labor,
for now you must leave the city
to camp in the open field.
You will go to Babylon;
there you will be rescued.
There the LORD will redeem you
out of the hand of your enemies."

Obviously, there is NO WAY that is about Mary and Jesus



"It’s obviously not talking about genetic offspring. This depicts Mary as the new Eve (or second Eve) just as Jesus is the new Adam (or second Adam)." - Mungo (commenting on Rev. 12:17

-- Rev. 12:17 says: "Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea."

Quite simply, your answer makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.




.

 

Let’s get this bit settled first

Firstly you claim the woman is Israel and now you are claiming that the woman is Jerusalem. You are being inconsistent because you are trying to shoehorn in something that doesn’t fit.

There ios no need to go back to the Old Testament

You are totally ignoring that Mary gave birth to a son

Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son (Lk 1:31).

It is quite clear that the child in Rev 12 is Jesus.

Who is the mother of Jesus?

Who gave birth to Jesus?

But if you want to go back to the Old Testament, Matthew gives us the link:
All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son (Mt 1:22-23)

Is the virgin that Matthew is referring to Israel, or Jerusalem or Mary?

 

Hi Mungo,

You will see that Jacob understood the interpretation of Joseph's dream perfectly. We have no grounds to disagree.

Genesis 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. 10 And he told [it] to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What [is] this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?


Here is another star which might interest you, which is also significant of Israel - Exodus 4:22

Numbers 24:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh:
there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel...'

It's not inconsistent with the biblical revelation - which frequently uses 'Jerusalem' to represent Israel or Judah or the seat of temporal power.

Nor is it inconsistent with the understanding of the first Hebrew Christians. Paul makes a distinction between 'Jerusalem with is above' and 'Jerusalem which is below'. In both cases they refer to an 'Israel' - natural (below) and spiritual (above).


Galatians 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


You do truth no favours by trying to 'shoehorn' Mary into places in scripture which belong to God Himself. By focusing on Mary beyond the favoured role she was given in history, you make it harder for yourself to hear what God was really saying through His teachers.

 

Hi Dragonfly

I have no problem discussing your points above but first I want to settle the point I raised with Foreigner about who the child is and therefore who is the mother of the child.

I note that Foreigner has not replied yet.

Rev 12 three times makes the point that the woman gave birth to the male child (vs 2, 4 & 5), who must be identified as the Messiah – Jesus. This is the key feature of the woman, not the accoutrements of the stars and the sun. There is only one woman in the Bible who is identified as giving birth to the Messiah – Mary. The Nation Israel is never identified as giving birth to the Messiah.

This is not shoehorning Mary in. She is the only possibility.

The crown of stars and the clothing of the sun are external features of the woman. They tell us something about her, but do not identify her. She is identified by her giving birth to the Messiah.

The crown indicates she is a Queen.
What do the stars indicate?
They are part of the crown and therefore indicate something about her queenship.

Yes they could indicate the twelve patriarchs, and therefore by extension the 12 tribes of Israel. That would make her queen over Israel (which Mary is)

The stars could also indicate angels. We do not have to go back to the OT for this.
Rev 1:20 identifies angels as stars “the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches”
Rev 12:4 uses stars for angels.
Lucifer is called the Morning star (Is 14:12)
That would make her queen over the angels, which the mother of the Messiah would be as Queen of Heaven.

There is much more I could say but that is probably enough for now.

 

Seems to me that Mary is the mother of Jesus and Israel is the mother of Mary and God is the mother of us all - so does it really matter if we identify the women in Revelation? She could simply refer to a parental archetype.

 

Well, Paul says Jerusalem above (Sion) is the mother of us all (being all who believe), but your connecton of Israel to Mary is spot on.

Yes it does, especially if a) she's not Mary, 2) she's not Israel, 3) she's not Jerusalem above or below.

Again, you're on to something here, brother... but remember there is more than one parental archetype in scripture.

 

This is typical plucking a verse out of its context and thereby not understanding what Paul is saying.

Let’s go though it – Gal 4:21-31:
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.
23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.
24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married."
28 Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
30 But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Paul says in verse 24 that “this is an allegory” and this indicates that we are dealing with typology
Abraham is a type of Jesus, both gave total obedience to God (Gen 22:18-19 & Lk 22:42 respectively)
Sarah, the wife of Abraham, is the free born woman whose son (Isaac) was born through a promise.
The son of the freeborn woman, Isaac, is also a type of Christ (see Gen 22)

Sarah is a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus was born of her, just as Isaac was born of Sarah. Jesus was born of the free woman though a promise (Is 7:14 & Lk 1:35-38).

The “present Jerusalem” is equated to Hagar, the slave woman (verse 25)

The “Jerusalem above” is equated to Sarah, and therefore by typical association to Mary.

In verse 26 the “Jerusalem above” is referred to as “she”, and she is our mother. As Jerusalem above is equated to Sarah, the “she” refers to Sarah.

In verse 29, "him who was born according to the Spirit" can be none other than Jesus Christ (Luke 1:35-38).

In verse 31 Paul makes is quite clear that we are children of the free woman (Sarah in the OT and therefore Mary in the NT).

 

Hi Mungo,

Gal 4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.

is a reference to Ishmael and Isaac, typifying the conflict between flesh and Spirit in the believer. (Ishmael - Gen 16:16.)

Actually, we are children of Abraham, if we believe - not Mary. Paul does not use Mary to explain 'faith', either in Rom 4 or Gal 3.

The link with Abraham is deeper than denominational differences, as his origination as a Gentile before receiving the seal of circumcision, corresponds to the necessity of faith - whatever one's ethnic origin - for the heart to be circumcised with the circumcision of Christ.
Col 2:11.

Again, the importance Paul places on Sarah in Romans 9, is that the second child she bore - Isaac - was promised by God.

Mary was very important in bringing forth the child promised in Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

If you have not yet come across Phil Goble's defence of Mary's status in his address to readers of his translation of scripture for Orthodox Jews, I think you would enjoy it's academic precision: OJB Translator to Reader p vii - start at paragraph 3, please. But you will notice in the next reference, that Israel saw this child as theirs rather than hers.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Then there is this verse, which supports the picture of Jesus Christ as 'the everlasting Father' (Heb 12:9):

Hebrews 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me', (Heb

which is a quotation from

Isaiah 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me [are] for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

The thing I want you to reconsider, is that in Israel, descent was always determined by paternity, until Mary. She is the juncture in world history, with regard to man's relationship with God, when the reckoning of human descent relevant to God's purposes, ended with her son - because her son was God's Son. John 10:30. You will see Paul warning both Timothy and Titus against chasing down genealogies - because they are passe. The thing that now matters in Israel, is 'the adoption'.

Paul prays for

Romans 9:'... my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; 5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

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

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.​

I want to stop here and ask if you can see where Paul has laid the emphasis? To whom in the OT is he referring as 'the fathers'?

Why do they matter? How does Mary fit into this bigger picture?

 

Israel never rejected Christ at all, as it can not ! as this is totally impossible. as the facts are that not all in the tribe of Israel are an Israel, as they never were, even in the tribe of Israel. as every man in the tribe does not reach that position.

The dragon will devour anyone regardless.

 

Hi Deagonfly

It is Jesus who gives us Mary as our mother, making us her children when he told the beloved disciple, who represents all disciples "Behold your mother" (Jn 19:27)
And in Rev we are told that the woman (Mary) has other offspring (apart from Jesus) "those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus."

Also simple logic says that if Jesus is our brother, and Mary is his mother, the Mary is our mother too.

I want to go back to something you said earlier. I was going to leave it but I think it needs saying.

Modern Protestantism seems to have a big problem with understanding Mary and her role in our salvation. Their attitude seems to be that she was just a sweet girl whom God looked on kindly and borrowed from Joseph to bear His Son. After using her as a surrogate mother God returned her to Joseph for his use, making her the first example of surrogacy and polyandry in the Bible.

After this Mary seems to have been a bit of a nuisance, taking Jesus away from teaching in the Temple (age 12), pressuring him into performing his first miracle before he wanted to (at Cana), turning up and interrupting his teaching (Lk 8:19-21), and turning up at the crucifixion while he was dying to remind Jesus that she was now homeless.

This is so sad, and so wrong. It grossly misunderstands Mary and thereby misunderstands Jesus.

As The Orthodox priest George Florovsky said:
There is no room for the Mother of God in a "reduced Christology." Protestant theologians simply have nothing to say about her.

There is an old Catholic saying "Abandoning the Mother is one step from abandoning the Son".

Or as an George Florovsky put it “To ignore the Mother means to misinterpret the Son”.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote:
The key to understanding Mary is this: We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have for respecting her……

It was not so with the early reformers. They understood and honoured Mary.

Martin Luther
“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.” (Pelikan, J (ed), The Works of Martin Luther, Concordia: St. Louis, volume 10, III, p.313)

“Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.” (Pelikan, J, Op. Cit., Volume 51, 128-129.)

John Calvin
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honour.” (Calvin, J, Op. Cit., Volume 45, 348.)

“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.” (Calvin, J, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Edinburgh: St Andrew’s Press, 1972, p.32)

Ulrich Zwingli
“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.” (Stakemeier, E, in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K (ed), Rome, 1962, p.456.)

“It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother.” .” (Stakemeier, E, in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K (ed), Rome, 1962, p.456.)

“The more the honour and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honour given to Mary should grow.” (Zwingli, U, Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428..)

Quotations and references in blue from www.romanchristendom.blogspot.com

 

Hi Mungo,

Thank you for your post. I hope you will get used to my pre-occupation with restricting my claims to that of scripture, with regard to Mary.

When you say this:

you are showing the same kind of logic that Nicodemus used when he was trying to understand the term 'born again'. (John 3)


Our adoption in God's family, to which I referred in my previous post, is entirely dependant on God becoming our Father.

Now that you have shared those comments about Mary, with me, are you able to answer my eariler questions?

 

There is absolutely no parallel of my logic to that of Nicodemus.

How we are adopted into God's family is not relevant to the point I made about Jesus' words on the cross. We cannot be beloved disciples unless we are already in God's family. How we get there is not the point.

When we are in God's family we are bothers and sisters of Christ and we become children of Mary as Rev 12:17 tells us, and as logic tells us.


You seem to have ignored these points I made very much earlier.

Rev 12 three times makes the point that the woman gave birth to the male child (vs 2, 4 & 5), who must be identified as the Messiah – Jesus. This is the key feature of the woman, not the accoutrements of the stars and the sun. There is only one woman in the Bible who is identified as giving birth to the Messiah – Mary. The Nation Israel is never identified as giving birth to the Messiah.

This is not shoehorning Mary in. She is the only possibility.

The crown of stars and the clothing of the sun are external features of the woman. They tell us something about her, but do not identify her. She is identified by her giving birth to the Messiah.

The crown indicates she is a Queen.
What do the stars indicate?
They are part of the crown and therefore indicate something about her queenship.

Yes they could indicate the twelve patriarchs, and therefore by extension the 12 tribes of Israel. That would make her queen over Israel (which Mary is)

The stars could also indicate angels. We do not have to go back to the OT for this.
Rev 1:20 identifies angels as stars “the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches”
Rev 12:4 uses stars for angels.
Lucifer is called the Morning star (Is 14:12)
That would make her queen over the angels, which the mother of the Messiah would be as Queen of Heaven.

 

'cough' If I can just interject here:
To use Revelation in support of Mary being our mother is not firm ground upon which I would want to stand.

If you read through that chapter, NOWHERE is Mary's name mentioned. And while it fits your bill, it also fits some others! If you read the commentaries you will find some other alternate views that make perfect sense. You CANNOT take this verse and prop up the doctrine of Mary with it. It's written in Revelation, a prophecy of what is to come! Just because you can interpret it according to YOUR standards, doesn't mean that is the right interpretation.

If the woman is a queen, then what is the dragon? Cause he has seven crowns on his head!

As to her giving birth to the Messiah, once again, a leap of logic. No where does it say Messiah, or the Christ. It simply says a man-child. You've made to massive leaps of assumption: one, that the woman is Mary, two, that the child is the Messiah.

Now if we're going to take it literally (or just about), was Mary given wings of an eagle? was she running from a flood? was she swallowed by the earth? The last I remember reading of Mary, was that she was in the upper room with every other follower of Jesus, getting FILLED with the Holy Ghost!

Once again, there are MANY alternative interpretations for this verse, which are alot more sound theologically.

I rest my case.

 

I think Jim Fowler's treatment of Revelation 12:17 is pretty comprehensive and since we know that Mary was a sinner saved by grace and she had marital relations with her husband which resulted in at least 4 more sons, then it is easy to see that the Woman in Revelation 12:17 is definitely not Mary, but rather "Jerusalem Above".

The fact that the doctrine of Mary is a private interpretation is borne out in the fact that only one (1) institution on earth (RCC) believes she was sinless and assumed bodily into heaven. Millions of independent churches around the globe, don't believe this.

Here is Jim' insight into this.

In the heavenlies John saw "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (12:1). The identity of this woman has long been debated. Since she bore a male child (12:5) who is apparently the Messiah, Mary the physical mother of Jesus has often been the earthly identification given to the woman. This is particularly true in Roman Catholic interpretation with their undue emphasis on Mary. Others have identified the woman as Eve who was promised that she would have "enmity with the serpent" and her "seed would bruise the snake" (Gen. 3:14,15). Eve thought that she had borne "the manchild of Jehovah" (Gen. 4:1) when she gave birth to her first son, Cain. Others have identified the "woman" as the physical nation and race of Israel, since Jesus was born into their ethnic group as a Jew. Another opinion is that which identifies the "woman" as the Christian church. One variation of this latter view is the liberal idea that the birth and life of Jesus is but a "myth" that was spawned by the early religious community of Christians. Another variation is that which explains that it is through the activity of the church that the life of Jesus is given birth regeneratively in Christian people.

All of these interpretations, seem to be earth-based explanations which relate the symbol to events on earth, rather than "in heaven." Some more abstract interpretations identify the "woman" as God's creative activity which gives birth to the Messiah, or as God's perfect intent for man which gives birth to the need for a reconciling mediator. Although precise identification of the "woman" is not necessary to understand the picture-show being presented, it might be beneficial to consider the contrast of this "woman" and the "mystery of the woman" who is "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots" (17:4), the "woman who is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth" (17:18). If the "woman" who is the mother of religion is identified as a city, perhaps the heavenly Messianic maternity is also to be identified in a city or a community. What some have called the "Mother Zion" concept, might be what Paul was expressing when he wrote, "the Jerusalem above is our mother" (Gal. 4:26). The heavenly community, identified as the City of Peace, Jerusalem, can be understood to provide the spiritual maternity of the Messiah.

If we accept this latter interpretation of the "woman" as "Jerusalem above" in heaven, then it is easy to understand that she is "clothed with the sun" (12:1), in the garment of God's light. The "Jerusalem above" is a spiritual reality that is above physical phenomena, and therefore the "moon is under her feet" (12:1). Since the number twelve is representative of God's people, the woman is symbolized as having "a crown of twelve stars" (12:1), for the "Jerusalem above" is comprised of the totality of God's people.

The heavenly "woman" was pregnant "with child" (12:2). Isaiah uses similar imagery of physical Israel being pregnant, but they could not give birth to a deliverer, only "to wind" (Isa. 26:17,18). The "Jerusalem above" provides heavenly maternity for the Messiah, and does "give birth to a son" (12:5). "Zion travailed and brought forth a boy" (Isa. 66:7-9).

Many varied attempts have been made to link the birth of the male child (12:5) to physical and historical phenomena. The most obvious is the incarnation of Jesus Christ when "in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son, born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4); the "virgin bore a son" (Isa. 7:14); the Son of God "was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7). The resurrection of Jesus Christ is also referred to as a "birth" for by "life out of death" Jesus provides the availability of the "birth of life" for all mankind. Quoting the Messianic psalm (Ps. 2:7-9), Paul explained that by the resurrection God had "begotten His Son" (Acts 13:30-35). As the "first-born from the dead" (Col. 1:15; Rev. 1:5), Jesus allows for the regenerative birth of His life in Christians, "first-born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29), "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (I Peter 1:3). Paul also referred to his travailing "in labor until the life of Christ was formed in" the Galatian Christians (Gal. 4:19). Perhaps no historical event is being indicated by "the birth of the male child," but merely the general presentation of the life of Jesus Christ to the world by the heavenly community of the "Jerusalem above." On the other hand, perhaps all of the above explanations can serve as a comprehensive earthly counterpart to the woman giving birth.

Axehead

 

Classic Protestantism. The contortion you go through noft to accept the obvious.

The “male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod” is not Jesus but some merely the “general presentation of the life of Jesus Christ to the world”.

I think that makes my point earlier:

There is an old Catholic saying "Abandoning the Mother is one step from abandoning the Son".

Or as an George Florovsky [Orthodox priest] put it put it “To ignore the Mother means to misinterpret the Son”.

The dragon is Satan - it tells you that.

He doesn't have crowns on his head. Where did you get that poor translation?

The woman has a crown (stephanos), the same word used in (for example) Mt 27:29 - the crown (stephanon) of thorns; Rev 14:14 - the gold crown (stephanon) on the head of the son of man.

The dragon has seven diadems (diademata).

They are not massive leaps of deduction. They are logical deductions taking into account other scriptures.

The child is male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod, a reference top psalm 29 which is a Messianic prophecy.

Also consider Rev 19:11-15)
"Then I saw the heavens opened, and there was a white horse; its rider was (called) “Faithful and True.” He judges and wages war in righteousness. [sup]12[/sup]°His eyes were (like) a fiery flame, and on his head were many diadems. He had a name inscribed that no one knows except himself. He wore a cloak that had been dipped in blood, and his name was called the Word of God. The armies of heaven followed him, mounted on white horses and wearing clean white linen. Out of his mouth came a sharp sword to strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod"

What other male is destined to rule all the nations?

“Her child was caught up to God and his throne”

Who else was caught up to God and his throne.

Come on- get real

As to Mary, to demonstrate she is the Queen of Heaven it’s best not to start with Revelation but to arrive there as the final confirmation.

 

Well forgive me for my lack of research. So do tell, if the crown means that they are in a royal position, what were the locusts sent to torment humanity, as they all had crowns as well, with the same root word? Rev 9:7

I believe Axehead briefly touched on the promise given to mankind when they fell. I think that would make much more sense.
Gen 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Whose seed will the enmity be? Mary? No! Eve? Yes. And was Jesus in the bloodline of Eve? He sure was. Everyone was! And now we can fit in the messianic prophecy theory!

But if you really think about it, John was living AFTER Christ had come, so wouldn't it make sense, that if Revelations was about the future, that it wouldn't have happened yet?

"To demonstrate Mary as the Queen of Heaven. . . . " That sounds uncomfortably close to something Jeremiah had to address even before Mary was breathing.


Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
Jer 7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD; do they not provoke themselves, to the confusion of their own faces?

Who was this queen of heaven? Whoever she was, she was around BEFORE Mary, and she was NOT pleasing to God. Hint: where did the RCC get this idea of the queen of heaven, mother of God, etc from? It wasn't from the Scripture.

If Mary really was the queen of heaven, then why is she in the upper room with the apostles waiting for the Comforter? And how is it that God condemned the practices of his people to sacrifice to the queen of heaven?

There is none other besides the Lord God. Never has been, never will.

 

I am starting a new 7 day a week devotional called "Prayer Path to Jesus through Mary", which is prayed on a regular rosary.

 

Jesus in Mt 27:19 & Rev 14:14 wore what was described as a crown, as did the woman in Rev 12:1

John says the locusts wore what looked like crowns, not that they were crowns, just as he says the faces were like human faces, their teeth like lions teeth, chests like iron breastplates etc. It is obviously fantastical imagery, not that they actually had human faces, lions teeth, iron breastplates etc., or crowns.

And Mary is the New Eve just as Jesus in the New Adam.

Also bear in mind that John just calls her the woman.

Jesus called Mary “woman” at the Cross – In John’s gospel

Jesus called Mary “woman” at Cana – in John’s gospel.

Do you not think John is telling us something there?

IF Revelation is only about the future

There was no Queen of heaven before Mary.

Giving honour to the true Queen of Heaven is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago gave honour to a false queen of heaven, just as worshipping the one true God is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago worshipped false gods.

Because she had not yet been assumed into heaven. I would have thought that was obvious.

Giving honour to the true Queen of Heaven is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago gave honour to a false queen of heaven, just as worshipping the one true God is not wrong because some pagans 3,000 years ago worshipped false gods.

No other what besides the Lord God?

 

Hi Mungo,

One of the largest difficulties I'm finding in this discussion, is your willingness to give extra-biblical teaching at least as much, if not more, credence, than scripture itself. That is hugely problematic (to me), when considering whether to get involved in this thread.

Gz has already brought to your attention the biblical definition of queen of heaven and you don't seem to see that there really is a queen of heaven who was not the mother of Jesus Christ. I have no idea how you can rest with calling Mary 'queen of heaven', when the associations of the queen of heaven are so unhealthy.

No. The new Eve is the Church, who was born of water (the word) and blood. John 19:34, John 3:5, 6.

 

How can there be any other Queen of Heaven dragonfly.

I think Jesus mother was very mumble etc to be chosen as the mother of Christ and she is no doubt the servant of God as she was chosen to be Christ mother.

This was all very hard for me to understand as well dragonfly because of mainly due to my prot up bring and all the stupid things i was lead to believe the RCC push about Mary, this infuriated me no end and remember throwing catholic information books around, thinking of the audacity of such rubbish.

I would not like to be in Jesus presence, bagging his mother.

She is just like one of us, but for being great as all will call her blessed.