Christian Forums

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:37:43
I wonder how you are going to deal with the fact that there will be no 'sexes' in heaven...

I'm already dealing with it. I'm an old man. LOL. 

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:37:43
I wonder how you are going to deal with the fact that there will be no 'sexes' in heaven...

I wonder how they deal with the Church being the Bride of Christ the King, and ruling with him.

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:38:53
Did you know that in a sermon Martin Luther preached on July 2, 1532, the Feast of the Visitation, he said:

"She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must...have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: 'Here passes the woman who is raised far above all women, indeed above the whole human race.'" Five years later, preaching on the same feast day, Luther said, "She was not filled with pride by this praise...this immense praise: 'No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an empress or a queen...blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!'"(Luthers Works, 36:208, 45:107.)

Extra-Biblical, you are unable to make the argument from Scripture alone.

Besides, ole' Marty carried alot of theological junk with him out of the Roman Church. Its not his fault, at least he knew to leave.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:36:13
I figured you can't prove anything from Scriptures, all you can do is just copy and paste other peoples arguments and references to try and prove your point. Go look at the OP again, I said using only the Bible as a point of reference prove your case. So far you are without argument and have shown you cannot prove anything without relying on outside sources. Regardless if the outside source have a spattering of passages or not, its not the Scriptures or your argument.

I gave you a bunch of scriptures. I gave more scripture than there is to prove the Trinity. Heck, you probably believe you are saved by faith alone, even though there is only one place in the Bible with the phrase "faith alone", in in James 2:24, where it is rejected.

And yet for this issue, a truckload of verses isn't enough for you. Well, there it is.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:40:49
...you are unable to make the argument from Scripture alone....

I have demostrated from scripture that in the Davidic Kingdom, the mother of the king is the queen:

"So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, 'I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.' And the king said to her, 'Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you'" (1 Kgs. 2:19–20).

Scripture affirms that Christ is "son of David", in the line of David, and He is King. I also showed you Proverbs 31:1-9, how it summarizes the advice King Lemuel's mother gave him on how to govern. Included are warnings to the king against focusing on his harem and against excessive drinking, as well as an appeal that he care for the poor. I showed you the close link between the king and the queen mother can also be seen in Jeremiah 13:18. Jeremiah warns of the judgment to come on the monarchy and includes the queen mother: "Say to the king and to the queen mother: come down from your throne; From your heads fall your magnificent crowns.

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:26:31
I didn't even get to Revelation 12:1-5 yet: "A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head" Just like a queen.

WOMAN is a theme throughoout the Bible. The WOMAN would have emnity with Satan, as would her "seed", the woman being a "type" of Mary. And here we have the WOMAN with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

So now we see what Jesus really meant when He called Mary WOMAN at the wedding at Cana. Again, the typology all fits nicely like a glove.

Look again, in Rev 12:14 the woman is carried into the wilderness. Then in Rev 17:3 John is carried to the wilderness and guess who he sees, the same woman just alittle different then he remembers seeing her: "And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

So hows that for the type and anti-type.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:49:47

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:26:31
I didn't even get to Revelation 12:1-5 yet: "A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head" Just like a queen.

WOMAN is a theme throughoout the Bible. The WOMAN would have emnity with Satan, as would her "seed", the woman being a "type" of Mary. And here we have the WOMAN with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

So now we see what Jesus really meant when He called Mary WOMAN at the wedding at Cana. Again, the typology all fits nicely like a glove.

Look again, in Rev 12:14 the woman is carried into the wilderness. Then in Rev 17:3 John is carried to the wilderness and guess who he sees, the same woman just alittle different then he remembers seeing her: "   And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

So hows that for the type and anti-type.

If you understand scripture, you know it is Poly-Veilant. Do you know that term? It means one verse can have several meanings at different levels. Your reading is only one dimensional. The WOMAN can be Isreal, The Church, and Mary, all in different contexts.

This is beginning to bore me. Your reading of scripture is too rudimentary and simplistic. I have gone out of my way to answer your questions. It has become tiresome.

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:53:38Your reading of scripture is too rudimentary and simplistic.

2Cr 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:56:45

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:53:38Your reading of scripture is too rudimentary and simplistic.

2Cr 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

2 Peter 1:20
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

A warning against PERSONAL interpretations.

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:09:42

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:56:45

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:53:38Your reading of scripture is too rudimentary and simplistic.

2Cr 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

A warning against PERSONAL interpretations.

A warning you and your sect would do well to heed.

I believe that the Catholic Church believes she is the Queen of Heaven... I DO NOT believe that the WORD OF GOD backs that up in any way.

I think using "earthly" kingdoms to try to devise some order for Mary in Heaven is a joke, since Christ changed EVERYTHING about all of that when He came.  He changed all of the Old Testament obligations of blood and the traditions of man such as KINGS and such. 

His Kingdom will reign forever... a new Jerusalem, a NEW Heaven and Earth, and a King of Kings.... LORD OF LORDS... who will have no queen... but a bride who will rule and reign with him.

Since when in marriage, is the mom over the wife?  Show me where that is in any testament... in Genesis God commanded that marriage would be before even parents.

Jesus has a bride, that is us, the body, the blood bought saints of the living God... not His mother. 

Some word mixed in with perspective would be nice.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:11:02

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:09:42

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:56:45

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 16:53:38Your reading of scripture is too rudimentary and simplistic.

2Cr 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

2 Peter 3:16
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

A warning against PERSONAL interpretations.

A warning you and your sect would do well to heed.

Sects were invented with protestantism. I belong to Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and am in communion with the successor of Saint Peter, Servant of The Servants of God.

Would that be the same "successor of Saint Peter" who ignored the cries of sister Jane concerning the molesting of boys in the church by priests and who when confronted about it, told her that it was not his job to deal with it?  And then... the one and the same who relieved her of her vows as a nun when she brought it to the eye of the world anyway? 

I'd be ashamed.  I believe Saint Peter would be appalled.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:13:31
....I think using "earthly" kingdoms to try to devise some order for Mary in Heaven is a joke, since Christ changed EVERYTHING about all of that when He came.  He changed all of the Old Testament obligations of blood and the traditions of man such as KINGS and such....

....His Kingdom will reign forever... a new Jerusalem, a NEW Heaven and Earth, and a King of Kings.... LORD OF LORDS... who will have no queen... but a bride who will rule and reign with him.

Your statement conflicts itself. First you say "He changed all of the Old Testament obligations of blood and the traditions of man such as KINGS and such" and then you say "....His Kingdom will reign forever...". Well, is it a Kingdom or not? And does a King sit solitary all alone, or does he have a court? Apostles who will sit on twelve thrones? (I seem to remember that). You're another one with too simplistic a view of scripture. Christ PERFECTED the Old Testament types, He didn't do away with them.

Check the pattern.

The idea of a Jewish queen acting in a position of influence or authority is foreign to the Bible.  Hence the reason Judaism is considered a patriarchal religion.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:18:35
Would that be the same "successor of Saint Peter" who ignored the cries of sister Jane concerning the molesting of boys in the church by priests and who when confronted about it, told her that it was not his job to deal with it?  And then... the one and the same who relieved her of her vows as a nun when she brought it to the eye of the world anyway? 
I'd be ashamed.  I believe Saint Peter would be appalled.

Who the heck is sister Jane? And this Saint Peter who would be appalled, he is the same one that denied Christ three times and cut off a guys ear with a knife, right? So now, because the popes are not sinless (which they are not and neither are you) you use that as a reason to insult them? I suggest you look at the plank in you own eye before worrying about the splinter in the pope's eye.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:45
Check the pattern.

The idea of a Jewish queen acting in a position of influence or authority is foreign to the Bible.  Hence the reason Judaism is considered a patriarchal religion.

Proverbs 31:1-9 summarizes the advice King Lemuel's mother gave him on how to govern. Included are warnings to the king against focusing on his harem and against excessive drinking, as well as an appeal that he care for the poor. The close link between the king and the queen mother can also be seen in Jeremiah 13:18. Jeremiah warns of the judgment to come on the monarchy and includes the queen mother: "Say to the king and to the queen mother: come down from your throne; From your heads fall your magnificent crowns.

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:52

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:18:35
Would that be the same "successor of Saint Peter" who ignored the cries of sister Jane concerning the molesting of boys in the church by priests and who when confronted about it, told her that it was not his job to deal with it?  And then... the one and the same who relieved her of her vows as a nun when she brought it to the eye of the world anyway? 
I'd be ashamed.  I believe Saint Peter would be appalled.

Who the heck is sister Jane? And this Saint Peter who would be appalled, he is the same one that denied Christ three times and cut off a guys ear with a knife, right? So now, because the popes are not sinless (which they are not and neither are you) you use that as a reason to insult them? I suggest you look at the plank in you own eye before worrying about the splinter in the pope's eye.

You may want to check the history of your own church... Sister Jane Kelly...   The nun who first brought to light the molesting in the church, who was ignored and berated and finally put down for her standing against the chain of men who sought to shut her up.

Now... that is a woman of God.  Your Pope... I am impressed with him, not so much.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:45
Check the pattern.

The idea of a Jewish queen acting in a position of influence or authority is foreign to the Bible.  Hence the reason Judaism is considered a patriarchal religion.

(and the history teacher winces at this statement  )

Now Wycliffes, I am shocked.  You don't strike me as the naive type.  Never underestimate the power and influence of a woman...that is one thing history has certainly taught us.  What is the saying...."I wear the pants in my family...she just tells me which ones to put on..."

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:31:18

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:52

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:18:35
Would that be the same "successor of Saint Peter" who ignored the cries of sister Jane concerning the molesting of boys in the church by priests and who when confronted about it, told her that it was not his job to deal with it?  And then... the one and the same who relieved her of her vows as a nun when she brought it to the eye of the world anyway? 
I'd be ashamed.  I believe Saint Peter would be appalled.

Who the heck is sister Jane? And this Saint Peter who would be appalled, he is the same one that denied Christ three times and cut off a guys ear with a knife, right? So now, because the popes are not sinless (which they are not and neither are you) you use that as a reason to insult them? I suggest you look at the plank in you own eye before worrying about the splinter in the pope's eye.

You may want to check the history of your own church... Sister Jane Kelly...   The nun who first brought to light the molesting in the church, who was ignored and berated and finally put down for her standing against the chain of men who sought to shut her up.

Now... that is a woman of God.  Your Pope... I am impressed with him, not so much.

Never heard of her. Perhaps you could link me to a legitimate news article about her.

Even then, though, the fact that the pope is a sinner is irellevant to this discussion. I will stipulate that the pope is a sinner in case someone feels the need to mention it again.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:45
Check the pattern.

The idea of a Jewish queen acting in a position of influence or authority is foreign to the Bible.  Hence the reason Judaism is considered a patriarchal religion.

Read this please, since I know you are open to other points of view:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea2.asp

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:34:58

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:31:18

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:52

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:18:35
Would that be the same "successor of Saint Peter" who ignored the cries of sister Jane concerning the molesting of boys in the church by priests and who when confronted about it, told her that it was not his job to deal with it?  And then... the one and the same who relieved her of her vows as a nun when she brought it to the eye of the world anyway? 
I'd be ashamed.  I believe Saint Peter would be appalled.

Who the heck is sister Jane? And this Saint Peter who would be appalled, he is the same one that denied Christ three times and cut off a guys ear with a knife, right? So now, because the popes are not sinless (which they are not and neither are you) you use that as a reason to insult them? I suggest you look at the plank in you own eye before worrying about the splinter in the pope's eye.

You may want to check the history of your own church... Sister Jane Kelly...   The nun who first brought to light the molesting in the church, who was ignored and berated and finally put down for her standing against the chain of men who sought to shut her up.

Now... that is a woman of God.  Your Pope... I am impressed with him, not so much.

Never heard of her. Perhaps you could link me to a legitimate news article about her.

Even then, though, the fact that the pope is a sinner is irellevant to this discussion. I will stipulate that the pope is a sinner in case someone feels the need to mention it again.

Nope... But you can find her book or read her teachings if you just google it. Good luck. 

And HEY... you are the one who made the "BOLDED" statement about the successor of "Saint Peter" as though it had some magical power attached to it... not me. I knew all along they lived as abominations before the LORD.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Sister+Jane+Kelly&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Here see if this link won't help you find some info on this "HIDDEN" and Mysterious Sister Jane Kelly.  LOL.

    To answer this question... " Is Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" Biblical? "

NO... it is not Biblical.  Heaven will have no Queen.  That is as Blasphemy.

It puts her upon the throne with God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit... it's  Blasphemy to say she is seated with the Holy Spirit.  She is not, nor will she ever be.

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:36:05

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:45
Check the pattern.

The idea of a Jewish queen acting in a position of influence or authority is foreign to the Bible.  Hence the reason Judaism is considered a patriarchal religion.

Read this please, since I know you are open to other points of view:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812fea2.asp

I know that authority and tradition is a big part of what you believe, but may I suggest that you research articles before posting them?  The exegeses contained in this article are not very good.

I have PM'ed you the details.  Since you didn't post the whole text here, I don't see any reason to go through it all here.

Of course not!

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:56:36
...I knew all along they lived as abominations before the LORD.

Well, I guess we are all fortunate to have someone in this forum knew the popes personally. I mean, I figure you must have, since you know how they live.

And I guess ol' Billy Graham was just a big dummy when he said that Pope John Paul II was the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world in the last 100 years.

In fact, according to cbn.com:

Dr. Graham told Larry King he had the privilege of seeing the Pope on several occasions at the Vatican.

"And tonight, I have a very strange feeling of loss. I almost feel as though one of my family members has gone. I loved him very much and had the opportunity of discussing so many things with him. And we wrote each other several times during the years," Dr. Graham said.

Larry King asked Dr. Graham: "Did he actually say to you once, "We are brothers' "?

GRAHAM: That's correct. He certainly did. He held my hand the first time that I met him about 1981 -- he'd just been Pope for two years when I saw him first. Because when he was elevated to the papacy, I was preaching in his cathedral in Krakow that very day. And we had thousands of people in the streets. And watching the television today of Krakow has brought back many memories.

KING: You said that he was an Evangelist.

GRAHAM: He was, indeed. He traveled throughout the world to bring his Christian message to the world. And we see tonight the outpouring from the world that he touched. And I think he touched almost everybody in the whole world.

Could you point me to the passage in scripture that implies that Billy Graham is "The Christ"...

Sure the Pope has influence on the people in the area of morals and all things pertaining to the Catholic Church... its a sad but true thing.

That does not mean that more than a few of them ever were men of high moral standards themselves. Nor can that be proven by the history of the church...  Sadly ... again.

BTW... I liked Pope John Paul...  I just know by the word of GOD that He was wrong in the area of Mary.

And I don't see Billy Graham saying he was right either. 

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 21:35:21
Could you point me to the passage in scripture that implies that Billy Graham is "The Christ"...

He ain't the Christ, but at least he was kind enough to speak kind words about a fellow Christian, and that makes him Christ-like..

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 21:37:22
BTW... I liked Pope John Paul...  I just know by the word of GOD that He was wrong in the area of Mary.

And I don't see Billy Graham saying he was right either. 

I respect your opinion. See that wasn't so hard, was it. You say what you believe, I say what I believe, we understand a little better, build a bridge, and be friends. That is hard to do when words like "antichrist" and "idolator" are flying around the forum.

Quote from: Catholic Crusader on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 21:42:08

Quote from: kensington on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 21:35:21
Could you point me to the passage in scripture that implies that Billy Graham is "The Christ"...

He ain't the Christ, but at least he was kind enough to speak kind words about a fellow Christian, and that makes him Christ-like...   ..perhaps a little more Christ-like so than you, who can only speak ill of your brothers.

Getting personal so quickly again? Why?  What in my post did I imply was personal against you?

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:31:23

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:45
Check the pattern.

The idea of a Jewish queen acting in a position of influence or authority is foreign to the Bible.  Hence the reason Judaism is considered a patriarchal religion.

(and the history teacher winces at this statement  )

Now Wycliffes, I am shocked.  You don't strike me as the naive type.  Never underestimate the power and influence of a woman...that is one thing history has certainly taught us.  What is the saying...."I wear the pants in my family...she just tells me which ones to put on..."

Just looking with my eyes open, friend.  It isn't always pretty, but there's no point in denying that the Jews of the Bible were an entirely male-dominated society.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sat Mar 15, 2008 - 01:03:30

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:31:23

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 14, 2008 - 17:24:45
Check the pattern.

The idea of a Jewish queen acting in a position of influence or authority is foreign to the Bible.  Hence the reason Judaism is considered a patriarchal religion.

(and the history teacher winces at this statement  )

Now Wycliffes, I am shocked.  You don't strike me as the naive type.  Never underestimate the power and influence of a woman...that is one thing history has certainly taught us.  What is the saying...."I wear the pants in my family...she just tells me which ones to put on..."

Just looking with my eyes open, friend.  It isn't always pretty, but there's no point in denying that the Jews of the Bible were an entirely male-dominated society.

Well, the role of queen mother was never authoratative. I never said it was. But she did act as intercessor often, going to the king on behalf of others. And more importantly, the role did exist, regardless of what ever authority or lack thereof went with it.

Mary is not the queen of heaven or any queen at all.  She is the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Mary is not in heaven because she is dead and will be in the resurrection of the just when Christ returns to earth.  My God, this is all written in the Word of God and I can't believe there is even a discussion of Mary as to whether or not she is the so-called "queen of heaven"!?? 

It is man's doctrines - it cannot be found anywhere in The Word of God; that is, the  rightly-divided Word of Truth.