Hi Dragonfly
I’m sorry if what you call extra-biblical teaching is causing you a problem. As I’m sure you are aware Catholics do not accept the man made teaching of sola scriptura. This was a novelty introduced by the reformers. It has not been the praxis of the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church for 2,000 years. It was not the practice of the early Church. It not only has no biblical support but is contradicted by scripture. So I do not accept that I should restrict myself to this false practice.
Jeremiah gave no definition of “queen of heaven”. He condemned the practice of the women of the time honouring a false “queen of heaven".
Let me rephrase the point I was making.
IF Mary is the true Queen of Heaven, then giving her honour is not wrong because some people 3,000 years ago gave honour to a false Queen of heaven. I gave the comparison that worshipping the true God is not wrong because some people 3,000 years ago worshipped false gods.
Why do you think that point is not valid?
You may object that I have not proved that Mary is the true Queen of Heaven to which I respond that I was not trying to prove that. I was responding to the point about Jeremiah.
If you want me to through all the arguments that Mary is the Queen of Heaven then I will do so.
John 19:34 does indeed refer to the birth of the Church and in a corporate sense the Church is the New Eve. But Jesus is an individual and the New Eve is an individual – Mary. As in other examples in the Bible an individual can also represent a corporate body (e.g. Israel). We parallel Mary and Jesus because they are individuals (not that Mary is equal to Jesus).
The New Adam and the New Eve are like bookends in salvation history. Eve was made (“born”) from Adam just as the New Adam was born from the New Eve.
“for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God” (1Cor 11:12).
In this context we could say.
As Eve was made from Adam, so the New Adam is now born of the New Eve.
There are many arguments to show that Mary is the new Eve.
If you want to discuss either of these and for me to show the biblical arguments I am happy to do so, but I suggest we start with either Mary as Queen of Heaven or Mary as the New Eve. Both topics will have enough side issues of their own.
John 3:5,6 is about baptism and nothing to do with the New Eve.
Mungo
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.
I’m sorry if what you call extra-biblical teaching is causing you a problem. As I’m sure you are aware Catholics do not accept the man made teaching of sola scriptura. This was a novelty introduced by the reformers. It has not been the praxis of the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church for 2,000 years. It was not the practice of the early Church. It not only has no biblical support but is contradicted by scripture. So I do not accept that I should restrict myself to this false practice.
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.
Jeremiah gave no definition of “queen of heaven”. He condemned the practice of the women of the time honouring a false “queen of heaven".
Let me rephrase the point I was making.
IF Mary is the true Queen of Heaven, then giving her honour is not wrong because some people 3,000 years ago gave honour to a false Queen of heaven. I gave the comparison that worshipping the true God is not wrong because some people 3,000 years ago worshipped false gods.
Why do you think that point is not valid?
You may object that I have not proved that Mary is the true Queen of Heaven to which I respond that I was not trying to prove that. I was responding to the point about Jeremiah.
If you want me to through all the arguments that Mary is the Queen of Heaven then I will do so.
No. The new Eve is the Church, who was born of water (the word) and blood. John 19:34, John 3:5, 6.
John 19:34 does indeed refer to the birth of the Church and in a corporate sense the Church is the New Eve. But Jesus is an individual and the New Eve is an individual – Mary. As in other examples in the Bible an individual can also represent a corporate body (e.g. Israel). We parallel Mary and Jesus because they are individuals (not that Mary is equal to Jesus).
The New Adam and the New Eve are like bookends in salvation history. Eve was made (“born”) from Adam just as the New Adam was born from the New Eve.
“for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God” (1Cor 11:12).
In this context we could say.
As Eve was made from Adam, so the New Adam is now born of the New Eve.
There are many arguments to show that Mary is the new Eve.
If you want to discuss either of these and for me to show the biblical arguments I am happy to do so, but I suggest we start with either Mary as Queen of Heaven or Mary as the New Eve. Both topics will have enough side issues of their own.
John 3:5,6 is about baptism and nothing to do with the New Eve.
Mungo