Mary the Queen of Heaven

[TER]

Scripture will interpret scripture,, And the Spirit of God will teach.

Yes.. I will take the words of the Lord over the teachings of men every time.

And where in scripture does it say that scripture will interpret scripture? No Jew ever thought that. And no Christian until the Reformation.

And there are many spirits which try to interpret the Scriptures for us. Most dangerously, the spirit of pride.

 

[lilymc]

The intentions might be good, but this thread is promoting something false. I added the bold:

The phrase “the queen of heaven” appears in the Bible twice, both times in the book of Jeremiah. The first incident is in connection with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18). This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech. The motivation of women to worship Ashtoreth stemmed from her reputation as a fertility goddess, and, as the bearing of children was greatly desired among women of that era, worship of this “queen of heaven” was rampant among pagan civilizations. Sadly, it became popular among the Israelites as well.

The second reference to the queen of heaven is found in Jeremiah 44:17-25, where Jeremiah is giving the people the word of the Lord which God has spoken to him. He reminds the people that their disobedience and idolatry has caused the Lord to be very angry with them and to punish them with calamity. Jeremiah warns them that greater punishments await them if they do not repent. They reply that they have no intentions of giving up their worship of idols, promising to continue pouring out drink offerings to the queen of heaven, Ashtoreth, and even going so far as to credit her with the peace and prosperity they once enjoyed because of God’s grace and mercy.

It is unclear where the idea that Ashtoreth was a “consort” of Jehovah originated, but it’s easy to see how the blending of paganism that exalts a goddess with the worship of the true King of heaven, Jehovah, can lead to the combining of God and Ashtoreth. And since Ashtoreth worship involved sexuality (fertility, procreation, temple prostitution), the resulting relationship, to the depraved mind, would naturally be one of a sexual nature. Clearly, the idea of the “queen of heaven” as the consort or paramour of the King of heaven is idolatrous and unbiblical.

There is no queen of heaven. There has never been a queen of heaven. There is most certainly a King of Heaven, the Lord of hosts, Jehovah. He alone rules in heaven. He does not share His rule or His throne or His authority with anyone. The idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the queen of heaven has no scriptural basis whatsoever, stemming instead from proclamations of priests and popes of the Roman Catholic Church. While Mary was certainly a godly young woman greatly blessed in that she was chosen to bear the Savior of the world, she was not in any way divine, nor was she sinless, nor is she to be worshipped, revered, venerated, or prayed to. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshipped (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-14). The holy angels refuse to be worshipped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same, "Worship God!" To offer worship, reverence, or veneration to anyone but God is nothing short of idolatry. Mary’s own words in her “Magnificat” (Luke 1:46-55) reveal that she never thought of herself as “immaculate” and deserving of veneration, but was instead relying on the grace of God for salvation: “And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Only sinners need a savior, and Mary recognized that need in herself.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself issued a mild rebuke to a woman who cried out to Him, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you" (Luke 11:27), replying to her, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." By doing so, He curtailed any tendency to elevate Mary as an object of worship. He could certainly have said, “Yes, blessed be the Queen of Heaven!” But He did not. He was affirming the same truth that the Bible affirms—there is no queen of heaven, and the only biblical references to the “queen of heaven” refer to the goddess of an idolatrous, false religion.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Queen-of-Heaven.html#ixzz3AaGg5VYn​

 

[TER]

Yes.. I will take the words of the Lord over the teachings of men every time.

No, as stated above, what you are doing is taking your interpretation of the words of The Lord over anyone else's. Is that the humility Christ talked about to enter into the Kingdom? Should the Ethiopian eunuch relied on his own interpretation? Should he have told Saint Philip his teacher that he's wrong? Do you think Saint Philip would've baptizing him then?

 

[pcosmar]

And there are many spirits which try to interpret the Scriptures for us. Most dangerously, the spirit of pride.

And I would say,,check yourself right there.

You are the one trying to put the word of fallible men above scripture..
I posted the words of Christ.

And you take offense and defend the words of men above the words of God.

Your argument is not with me.

 

[TER]

And I would say,,check yourself right there.

You are the one trying to put the word of fallible men above scripture..
I posted the words of Christ.

And you take offense and defend the words of men above the words of God.

Your argument is not with me.

Your argument is not with me either. It is with the saints and fathers of the Church which you seem to put yourself above in wisdom. You, a fallible man, make an interpretation which is at odds with the church fathers. Both you and the Church Fathers know to read the words of Christ. Why is it that you put yourself above them in interpretation? Are you less fallible then they? How is it that you know better then them? I know I am not, what makes you so sure ?

 

[pcosmar]

Your argument is not with me either. It is with the saints and fathers of the Church which you seem to put yourself above in wisdom. You, a fallible man, make an interpretation which is at odds with the church fathers. Both you and the Church Fathers know to read the words of Christ. Why is it that you put yourself above them in interpretation? Are you less fallible then they? How is it that you know better them? I know I am not, what makes you so sure ?

I make no such claims..
You are making a claim of something found NO WHERE in scripture.. And is only supported by a massive twisting of scripture to justify it.

I disagree with the whole idea. I simply disagree.

I place absolutely no weight or confidence on those who you take above scripture. None of them,, all the way back to the Counsel of Laodicea.
Though I am sure that the corruption was long before that.

 

[TER]

I make no such claims..
You are making a claim of something found NO WHERE in scripture.. And is only supported by a massive twisting of scripture to justify it.

I disagree with the whole idea. I simply disagree.

I place absolutely no weight or confidence on those who you take above scripture. None of them,, all the way back to the Counsel of Laodicea.
Though I am sure that the corruption was long before that.

Very well. At least we are clear now.

 

[TER]

I place absolutely no weight or confidence on those who you take above Scripture.

This does need a response though because it is a lie. I am not putting anyone over the Scriptures. I am putting the interpretation of the Scriptures of the church fathers over mine, not relying on my own interpretation knowing how limited my knowledge, wisdom, and experience is.

My question is why do you put so much confidence of your interpretation? My only guess is that you believe you are more illumined and less fallible than the church fathers. You can believe that but I still am not seeing why I should put your interpretation over theirs.

 

[pcosmar]

My question is why do you put so much confidence of your interpretation? .

And my answer would be from scripture,, and the words of Christ.

"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.…

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

And this I have posted in the past (in another thread)

For all in this thread,, and other threads of contention..

Never, Never, Never try to force scripture to fit your theology.

Let the Word reshape your theology. The writings of scholarly men,, the traditions of men can be misleading. They write from their understanding,, which may sometimes be helpful,and may also be misleading.

Let the Word and the Spirit teach you.

We all,, only see part of the picture and that dimly. myself included. But my experience is,, that God has corrected some of my misconceptions in the past. and I have had to readjust my thinking accordingly.

Meditate on the Word,, and not on the writings of others about the Word.

 

[TER]

Your response only more clearly demonstrates your self assurance and pride, under the cover of the Holy Spirit. So you had the Holy Spirit, and the saints and fathers of the Church did not? How are you so sure and confident in this? Are you a prophet we should heed and ignore what the Godbearing saints of the church have defended since the beginning? Why should I put your interpretation over the fathers?

 

[lilymc]

TER, you seem to be relying heavily on the words of the church fathers. I'm just curious, which church fathers stated that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" and the woman of Revelation 12?

Could you please post their names, and if possible, their exact quotes?

 

[TER]

TER, you seem to be relying heavily on the words of the church fathers. I'm just curious, which church fathers stated that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" and the woman of Revelation 12?

Could you please post their names, and if possible, their exact quotes?

I can when I get home.

Lilly, whose interpretation of the Holy Scriptures do you weigh heavily on apart from yourself?

 

[TER]

My point is this. If someone wants to say they weigh Calvin's or Luther's interpretation heavily, I can respect that even if I think they are mistaken. But for someone to tell me that they don't need a teacher or that the Holy Spirit is their guide even if the rest the history of the Church contradicts them, then I find a big problem with that. Pride does not open one's eyes or their hearts to the truth. Obedience and humility does.

 

[pcosmar]

Why should I put your interpretation over the fathers?

You can put faith in anything you like. It is your choice.

You can follow any spirits you choose. Follow any men you choose. you can pray to any angels or any other beast you choose.

I choose Jesus Christ. I never asked you to follow me.
I posted the words of scripture.

 

[TER]

You can put faith in anything you like. It is your choice.

You can follow any spirits you choose. Follow any men you choose. you can pray to any angels or any other beast you choose.

I choose Jesus Christ. I never asked you to follow me.
I posted the words of scripture.

You posted the words of scripture, but you follow your own interpretation of it. You want to conform Jesus and the Scriptures to your own theology, which is ironic since you are the one who has railed against that. You simply don't see it and I as a friend am trying to shake you out of that. It is your choice to make. I am trying to help you see how your choice may be more from a spirit of pride then you might realize.

Btw Peter, I am not trying to hurt you or saying that you are damned or condemned. I am being brutally honest with you. You put yourself above the saints and that is not a very spiritually helpful position to take.

 

[lilymc]

I can when I get home.

Lilly, whose interpretation of the Holy Scriptures do you weigh heavily on apart from yourself?

Thanks. Apart from studying the bible prayerfully and asking God for wisdom and revelation and discernment.... I like to read what the early Christian writers had to say, and what other people have to say - people who I feel have a solid understanding and knowledge of the bible. I read a lot of different bible commentaries, and I read what bible teachers, pastors, apologists, and other Christians have to say, if I can see that they are genuine, strong followers of Christ.

I don't put my trust in any one church, and I don't believe that merely having a title (like pope, priest or deacon or whatever) automatically makes one a trustworthy authority on the bible. I believe that many churches were infiltrated and that's why I think it's important that everyone studies the bible for themselves, of course with the guidance of the Holy Spirit... instead of relying too much on what any priest or church leader has to say.

 

[TER]

I appreciate your response. Then do you reject the ordained priesthood when the Scriptures, the Apostles, and the early Church established them as a vocation within the Church? Or the episcopate? Or the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist? Do you agree with the Nicene Creed? It says that there is one Church. The Scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers said the same thing as they were contending against the heresies of their own day. It is very easy to pick and choose from here and there, what is called cafeteria Christianity which has become a staple in the western world since the reformation since relativism and individualism has become the spirit of these times, but it was not always like that. People sought out the Church of the Apostles, and to become members of it and share in sacramental communion with the rest of the body of Christ, both in this world and those who have left it. Unity of faith and mind and spirit, conforming to the faith handed down in steadfastness. Do you think the early Christians would even recognize the doctrines and worship which is being done now in many churches? I am not saying that there is no benefit to these things, I am simply saying that there has indeed been one Church which can rightly claim to be that one, with the apostolic, historical, and liturgical proofs to back it up. Every saint and father of the Christian Church has confessed this, even those who were excommunicated on account of their heresies. One can choose which path they wish to take, but whether they believe or refuse to believe, there is indeed one Church which links directly to those saints of the New Testament and the early Church. Not only doctrinally and historically, but most importantly, in communion through the very same cup of the Holy Eucharist. I have chosen that Church. A person can choose otherwise, but they do lacking the fullness of the faith and real assurance made possible in the grace filled sacramental life of the Church. This is not saying that I have such grace and fullness above another, but that I have chosen the path which gives me the best chance. And my efforts here, as poor as they are, is to give this great news to those who haven't heard so that our joy might be full.

 

[lilymc]

I appreciate your response. Then do you reject the ordained priesthood when the Scriptures, the Apostles, and the early Church established them as a vocation within the Church? Or the episcopate? Or the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist? Do you agree with the Nicene Creed? It says that there is one Church. The Scriptures and the Apostolic Fathers said the same thing as they were contending against the heresies of their own day. It easy to pick and choose from here and there, what is called cafeteria Christianity which has become a staple in the western world since the reformation since relativism and individualism has become the spirit of these times, but it was not always like that. People sought out the Church and to become members of it and share in sacramental communion with the rest if the body of Christ, both in this world and those who have left it. Do you think the early Christians would even recognize the doctrines and worship which is being done now? I am not saying that there is no benefit to these things, I am simply saying that there has indeed been one Church which can rightly claim to be that one, with the apostolic, historical, and liturgical proofs to back it up. One can choose which path they which to take, but whether they believe or refuse to believe, there is indeed one Church which links directly to those saints of the New Testament and the early Church. Not only doctrinally and historically, but most importantly, in communion through the very same cup of the Holy Eucharist. I have chosen that Church. A person can choose otherwise, but the do lacking the fullness of the faith and real assurance made possible in the grace filled sacramental life of the Church.

I don't agree at all with "cafeteria christianity" or "buffet style religion." In fact, I disagree with that so much that I wrote a blog post about that last year.

I'm not sure how my reply - about taking the interpretations of others who are far more knowledgable and wise than me - into consideration... has anything to do with "cafeteria christianity." Cafeteria christianity (at least in my view) means a person who picks and chooses what to believe in the bible, rather than believing in the scriptures as a whole. That is an entirely different topic than what we were talking about.

When you say "there is indeed one Church" - were you talking about the Catholic church?

If so, I completely disagree, but it was not my intention to get into a debate on that. Besides, that's not really the topic of this thread.

 

[TER]

No, I mean the Orthodox Church.

Cafeteria Christianity includes ignoring certain verses of scriptures or applying innovative interpretations apart from the testimony handed down and confessed from the beginning, which is what many Protestant faiths do, starting with their very corpus of writings which lack original canonical books.

 

[lilymc]

No, I mean the Orthodox Church.

Cafeteria Christianity includes ignoring certain scriptures, which is what many Protestant faiths do, starting with their very corpus of writings which lack the original canonical books.

This is also getting off topic, but since you mentioned it, what books are in the Orthodox church bible that aren't in other bibles?

And just out of curiosity, what would you say (in a nutshell) are the main differences between the Orthodox church and - as you put it- Protestant faiths?

For the record, I don't belong to any denomination. I come from a Catholic background, but I wasn't a believer back then, or for most of my life. When I finally did become a Christian many years later, it was because God opened my eyes in a very direct and amazing way, it was just between God and me.

I believe that Christianity should be in its simplest form... not religious or "churchy" but walking with God daily, being fully surrendered, and doing what Jesus says to do....which, incidentally, is exactly what Mary said. (John 2:5)

When people start using words like "episcopate", "liturgical" etc, my eyes start to glaze over and frankly, I begin to lose interest. heh

But I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just being honest.