The Goddess Man Has Made

[Raeneske]

Hi Raeneske,

I'm having problems with my broadband connection. It keeps going up and down. Sometimes does that at the weekend.

I tried to send some more comments earlier but couldn't get them through so I'm going to leave any more replies until tomorrow when it should be stable.

Mungo

May the Lord look after you, and yours, and bless the connection.

 

[Mungo]

Okay, you said this installment was set up by King Solomon, and you would like to know when Jesus abrogated that. Well, first, I would like to point out that it was set up by Solomon, not David. So, if it’s to be as David, then such an installment does not have to be recognized. I would also like to point out that you said that installment was because of the many wives they had. So, is Jesus going to have many wives and concubines as well, since it’s apparently after the Davidic kingdom? Is every single feature from David’s Kingdom going to be carried over into the new world? Of course not.

Nowhere does it say Jesus abrogated the Kingdoms laws in David’s time. But nowhere does it imply that every single rule of that earthly kingdom was going to be made rule in the heavenly kingdom either. Like you said, it may have things like the Davidic Kingdom, but nowhere does it imply that the king’s mother is an absolute feature that must be applied. As I will show you, although there is truth of the Queens importance in the past, as per the role of the mother, scripture does not say so much like that about the heavenly Kingdom.

I said that Jesus kingdom has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom, not just is like it.
Jesus sits on the throne of David (and Solomon). Solomon honoured his mother and had a throne brought for her. She sat on his right hand side - the position of honour and authority. It would not be unbiblical to believe that Jesus would do at least as much for his mother, unless you just don’t want to believe that, or think Jesus couldn’t do it or wouldn’t do that for his mother.
The fact is that the role of Queen Mother was adopted by Solomon and, as far as we know, all the kings of Judah until the deportation to Babylon.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Revelation 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Ephesians 5:31-32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

If the position of honor is the one received by the Queen, I must ask, does it not appear that the church of Christ is receiving that honor? We see that first we are espoused to our one husband, that husband being Christ. We are told that a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall join himself with his wife. Those two shall then become one flesh. They become joined together in marriage, the same way that joins together us with Christ. Now, if the position of honor is received by the queen, then take a look at the blessings the bride of Christ is to receive. To those that are faithful, we are granted to sit with Him at His throne. Is this not the same honor you spoke of that the Queen in Solomon’s day received? It does not imply only Mary, just Mary, but it implies the honor upon us, the bride of Christ. We are made to be kings with God and his Father.

If you are going to take that literally then it will be a very crowded throne, and a very big one. This is just a metaphor.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Is Jesus sitting on his own throne with his overcomers or is he sitting on his Father’s throne with his Father? Can’t you see this is just imagery.

Scripture also says that Jesus sat/stood at the right hand of the Father – Mt 22:44, Mt 26:64 (& similar in Mk), Mk 16:19, Lk 22:69, Acts 5:31, Acts 7:55 & 56, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1, Heb 1:13, Heb 8:1, Heb 10:12, 1Pet 3:22.

There are many thrones in heaven – Rev 4:4

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not denying the importance of the Queens in David’s day, anymore than I’m denying that Mary is blessed above all women. But I must say, while you build your argument, scripture shows that the case is otherwise. Scripture shows the bride of Christ, receiving such special honors, not just, only, Mary. There are facts in your argument about David’s Kingdom, and the role of the mother, but you are attributing that as a must within the Kingdom of God. As I have shown, such is not a must, because scripture points out otherwise.

Your logic is such that scripture shows that there was a Queen, the Queen was the mother of many kings, and therefore the Queen must be the mother of Jesus as well. But what it does not take into consideration is that nowhere does it imply that the Queen of the King must be his mother, though the Kingdom is like David, we have enough knowledge not to know it’s a full replica, in every aspect to everything David and Solomon did. It also does not take into consideration the fact that the honors you have spoken to have been bestowed upon the Queen, have been bestowed upon the church of Christ, and not just, only, His mother.

I gave you simple straightforward scriptures that show that in the Davidic kingdom the King’s mother was raised up to sit/stand at the right of the King, a place of honour and with some authority. That was started by Solomon and continued until the last King of Judah before Jesus. I see no reason in scripture to suggest that Jesus abandoned the practice.

As Jesus said when James and John asked to sit on his right and his left, “…to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." (Mk 10:40)

The place on Jesus right was prepared for Mary as the Gebirah

I also supported this position with reference to Rev 12:1, Psalm 45 and Lk 1:43.

If you want to squirm around trying to ignore all this because you just cannot bring yourself to believe that Mary could be the Queen of Heaven I cannot make you.

If you want to try to use some argument based on the imagery of millions of people (the bride of Christ) all sitting on Jesus’ throne at some time in the future, that is up to you.

Remember Revelation is a lot of imagery, not just literal descriptons Rev 21:2 uses the imagery of a bride of Christ for the new Jerusalem.

I gave you not imagery but solid scripture of the practices of the Kings of Judah.

There is one more thing you might like to ponder, and that is the important position of the queen mother in Jeremiah 13:18-20
“Say to the king and the queen mother: ‘Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. The cities of the Negeb are shut up, with none to open them; all Judah is taken into exile, wholly taken into exile. "Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?’”

Three points to note here.

Firstly Jeremiah is told to address both the king and queen mother. They are both to be punished by God.

Secondly both the king and queen mother are to come down from their thrones and to lose their crowns. They are both royalty in the kingdom.

Thirdly God says to them: “Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?”
They are both responsible for the flock, the sheep – i.e. the people that God entrusted to them. God had given the queen mother responsibilities for the people, not just the king. That does not mean that the queen mother was equal in authority to the king. The authority she had was derived from and under the king. She was still subject to him.

I believe that Mary, as Jesus' mother, is the Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of the King of Heaven, the Gebirah in the kingdom.
I believe I have given you solid scriptures for that belief.This is not some pagan belief but based on scripture.
Whether you accept it or not is up to you.

 

[Raeneske]

I said that Jesus kingdom has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom, not just is like it.
Jesus sits on the throne of David (and Solomon). Solomon honoured his mother and had a throne brought for her. She sat on his right hand side - the position of honour and authority. It would not be unbiblical to believe that Jesus would do at least as much for his mother, unless you just don’t want to believe that, or think Jesus couldn’t do it or wouldn’t do that for his mother.
The fact is that the role of Queen Mother was adopted by Solomon and, as far as we know, all the kings of Judah until the deportation to Babylon.


If you are going to take that literally then it will be a very crowded throne, and a very big one. This is just a metaphor.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Is Jesus sitting on his own throne with his overcomers or is he sitting on his Father’s throne with his Father? Can’t you see this is just imagery.

Scripture also says that Jesus sat/stood at the right hand of the Father – Mt 22:44, Mt 26:64 (& similar in Mk), Mk 16:19, Lk 22:69, Acts 5:31, Acts 7:55 & 56, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1, Heb 1:13, Heb 8:1, Heb 10:12, 1Pet 3:22.

There are many thrones in heaven – Rev 4:4



I gave you simple straightforward scriptures that show that in the Davidic kingdom the King’s mother was raised up to sit/stand at the right of the King, a place of honour and with some authority. That was started by Solomon and continued until the last King of Judah before Jesus. I see no reason in scripture to suggest that Jesus abandoned the practice.

As Jesus said when James and John asked to sit on his right and his left, “…to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." (Mk 10:40)

The place on Jesus right was prepared for Mary as the Gebirah

I also supported this position with reference to Rev 12:1, Psalm 45 and Lk 1:43.

If you want to squirm around trying to ignore all this because you just cannot bring yourself to believe that Mary could be the Queen of Heaven I cannot make you.

If you want to try to use some argument based on the imagery of millions of people (the bride of Christ) all sitting on Jesus’ throne at some time in the future, that is up to you.

Remember Revelation is a lot of imagery, not just literal descriptons Rev 21:2 uses the imagery of a bride of Christ for the new Jerusalem.

I gave you not imagery but solid scripture of the practices of the Kings of Judah.

There is one more thing you might like to ponder, and that is the important position of the queen mother in Jeremiah 13:18-20
“Say to the king and the queen mother: ‘Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. The cities of the Negeb are shut up, with none to open them; all Judah is taken into exile, wholly taken into exile. "Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?’”

Three points to note here.

Firstly Jeremiah is told to address both the king and queen mother. They are both to be punished by God.

Secondly both the king and queen mother are to come down from their thrones and to lose their crowns. They are both royalty in the kingdom.

Thirdly God says to them: “Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?”
They are both responsible for the flock, the sheep – i.e. the people that God entrusted to them. God had given the queen mother responsibilities for the people, not just the king. That does not mean that the queen mother was equal in authority to the king. The authority she had was derived from and under the king. She was still subject to him.

I believe that Mary, as Jesus' mother, is the Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of the King of Heaven, the Gebirah in the kingdom.
I believe I have given you solid scriptures for that belief.This is not some pagan belief but based on scripture.
Whether you accept it or not is up to you.

Okay, the problem is you believe that Jesus would at least do something like this for His mother, wouldn’t He? And as irrefutable as such an argument may be, that doesn’t mean that Jesus is doing something like that. Scriptures do not show Mary being established in a queenish way outside of the church of Christ.

I wasn’t stating literally sitting on the throne, all at the same time. That is a twist of my words, I’m not sure if you intended to do that. But I meant what I said, when I stated that Jesus will grant the church the rites which you seem to attributing to Mary. And yes, there are many thrones in Heaven. But what scripture does not say, is that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. That is where we are getting off the path laid out in scriptures.

You did give me scriptures where it showed the mother sitting on the throne with the king. That’s the truth, they did. But what you are saying Mary gets, the Title Queen of Heaven, is not what scripture says. Scripture shows that the bride of Christ is the one to receive queenish honors, in that she may sit with the Father, and will her Husband.

I understand you supported your theory, but unfortunately that’s not what scripture is saying. There are many theories in which people can support with scripture. That may seem all good and well, and they are earnestly trying to defend their doctrine. But what I showed in my other post, is that it’s not Mary, alone, by herself, who is receiving such a special honor in heaven. The Scriptures show that the Church of Christ is the one that receives queenish rites.

This is a Pagan belief Mungo. Just because you found a couple verses in scripture doesn’t mean that that is what scripture is actually teaching. There are so many doctrines that do the same. You can look at a couple protestant beliefs and go, “Okay that may say that, but that’s not what scripture is teaching”. In other words, their arguments may be built up well, but when searched scripture is not teaching that at all.

I hope this does not anger you, and that may be odd for some to say, but I honestly want you to understand that difference. That there is a line between what scripture actually teaches, and what a church may say that scripture teaches. I hope I’m being clear too, it may be a little confusing.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi kepha,

Sorry dragonfly, there is NOTHING in scripture that says any individual believer has authority to teach.

If you re-read what I wrote, which you quoted, you will see that I did not mention anything about the individual believer teaching.

And because what I believe is based on the word of God, it is not a pillar of sand, it is the Rock.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple,
and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:
for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. And we all know how important are the names of God, especially Jesus Christ's.

Philippians 2: '... he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ...'


Matthew 7:24 Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.

Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.


kepha, this searching of the scriptures - that is, of the Old Testament history, the law and the prophets - was happening contemporarily with Peter's ministry. Those hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ - the major fulfilment of those scriptures - believed unto salvation.


That was all they needed to do to be saved.


Nothing has changed. Peter himself said:


'But the word of the Lord endures for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached to you.' 1 Peter 1:25

 

[Mungo]

Okay, the problem is you believe that Jesus would at least do something like this for His mother, wouldn’t He? And as irrefutable as such an argument may be, that doesn’t mean that Jesus is doing something like that. Scriptures do not show Mary being established in a queenish way outside of the church of Christ.

No, you are charicaturing what I said.

I showed you the biblical justification for our belief that M ary is Queen of Heaven, as the mother of the Davidic King..

I wasn’t stating literally sitting on the throne, all at the same time. That is a twist of my words, I’m not sure if you intended to do that. But I meant what I said, when I stated that Jesus will grant the church the rites which you seem to attributing to Mary. And yes, there are many thrones in Heaven. But what scripture does not say, is that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. That is where we are getting off the path laid out in scriptures.

The path laid out by scripture clearly shows that the mother of the Davidic King is Queen.

You did give me scriptures where it showed the mother sitting on the throne with the king. That’s the truth, they did. But what you are saying Mary gets, the Title Queen of Heaven, is not what scripture says. Scripture shows that the bride of Christ is the one to receive queenish honors, in that she may sit with the Father, and will her Husband.

Scripture does not show that the bride of Christ receives "queenish honors". You have given 1 scripture that has any relevance and that not much (Rev 3:21)

This is a Pagan belief Mungo. Just because you found a couple verses in scripture doesn’t mean that that is what scripture is actually teaching. There are so many doctrines that do the same. You can look at a couple protestant beliefs and go, “Okay that may say that, but that’s not what scripture is teaching”. In other words, their arguments may be built up well, but when searched scripture is not teaching that at all.

This is not a Pagan belief. It is solidly based on scripture.

You may not accept my interpretations of scripture, and prefer your own but to dismiss it my belief as not scripture based and pagan, is quite frankly insulting.

I hope this does not anger you, and that may be odd for some to say, but I honestly want you to understand that difference. That there is a line between what scripture actually teaches, and what a church may say that scripture teaches. I hope I’m being clear too, it may be a little confusing.

What you are suggesting is that your personal interpretation of scripture is what scripture actually teaches, and that if anyone has a different interpretation it cannot what scripture is actually teaching. How arrogant is that?


I've given you what I conside to be a solid, scripture based argument, supported by many scriptures.

I see no point in going in circles on this.

 

[Raeneske]

No, you are charicaturing what I said.

I showed you the biblical justification for our belief that M ary is Queen of Heaven, as the mother of the Davidic King..





The path laid out by scripture clearly shows that the mother of the Davidic King is Queen.





Scripture does not show that the bride of Christ receives "queenish honors". You have given 1 scripture that has any relevance and that not much (Rev 3:21)





This is not a Pagan belief. It is solidly based on scripture.

You may not accept my interpretations of scripture, and prefer your own but to dismiss it my belief as not scripture based and pagan, is quite frankly insulting.





What you are suggesting is that your personal interpretation of scripture is what scripture actually teaches, and that if anyone has a different interpretation it cannot what scripture is actually teaching. How arrogant is that?


I've given you what I conside to be a solid, scripture based argument, supported by many scriptures.

I see no point in going in circles on this.

You showed me why you believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven, that much I understood. What have I to say against the mothers in the past? Nothing. What have I to say against this though? Quite a bit. You can call it a private interpretation all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that the scriptures do not attribute Mary to receiving queenish rites, it shows the Church of God to receive that. And no, the church of God is not the "Queen of Heaven", I refuse to go that far. There is no arrogance, I am simply stating a fact. You built your case, you gave your examples, but that is not what scripture is saying, or even alluding to about Mary. You have given me an argument, with scripture, that does not make the base of the argument to be found upon the solid Rock.

While I mean no insults, I do continue to call it a Pagan belief. Please search Queen of Heaven in scripture. Everytime it comes up, it comes up with a negative connotation. And then please realize that your church has admitted (I addressed it twice) that she blends paganism with her worship, but she prefers to say that she takes the pagan rites, and sanctifies them.

There is no point going circles. I have made my point, you have made yours.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi SIM,

Here is another thread which you might enjoy, discussing our differing views of Mary, Jesus' mother.


Blessings.

 

[Axehead]

It is interesting that all the Catholics who have frequented this site (I count 6), all have a testimony of previously being a non-Catholic Christian (as if that is suppose to mean anything to us). Have you noticed that they all come as apologists. Almost like a big tag-team. But, to be fair to my Catholic friends, I have seen non-Catholic members on Catholic Forum. I am actually glad they are here even thought they are not seeking. They have made it known that Protestantism is beneath them, nevertheless, I'm still glad they are here to proselytize us as it gives us a chance to speak to their posts.

 

[Mungo]

It is interesting that all the Catholics who have frequented this site (I count 6), all have a testimony of previously being a non-Catholic Christian (as if that is suppose to mean anything to us). Have you noticed that they all come as apologists. Almost like a big tag-team. But, to be fair to my Catholic friends, I have seen non-Catholic members on Catholic Forum. I am actually glad they are here even thought they are not seeking. They have made it known that Protestantism is beneath them, nevertheless, I'm still glad they are here to proselytize us as it gives us a chance to speak to their posts.

I don't know where you got that idea from.

I'm a "cradle" Catholic. I've never been a non-Catholic Christian.

 

[Axehead]

Thank you for that correction. Do we have more?

 

[Mungo]

What conclusion do you draw from your observation about Catholic's on this forum?

 

[Rex]

2 Tim 4:1-4 NKJV

What conclusion do you draw from your observation about Catholic's on this forum?

4 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[a] His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

It's taking place right now in Rome, again, 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

 

[Mungo]

2 Tim 4:1-4 NKJV


4 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[a] His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

It's taking place right now in Rome, again, 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

And how does that relate to the question I asked Axehead?