My Mothers and Brothers

[Leo Volont]

My Mothers and Brothers


I often hear Protestants using the story of Christ saying that all who do His will are his Mothers and Brothers. They usually do this in order to bring Our Lady down to their level. This is a misunderstanding of Christ’s intent. When he said that those who did his will were his Mothers and Brothers he meant that as a complement for those who would do His will, not as an insult for his Mother. He was bringing them UP, not pulling His Mother DOWN.

Of course, Protestants may assume that they are doing the Will of Christ and so they are on an Equality with Mary. Let’s examine this assumption. Remember, we are talking of the Will of Christ as expressed in the Gospels – “take up your Crosses and follow me”. We are not speaking of Paulian Doctrine that dismisses Works, Righteousness, and Suffering and depends only upon a free and unearned grace – a doctrine of inaction which doesn’t involve the Will at all, but only Faith. In this regards there are very very few who ever do the Will of Christ.

Specifically regarding those who picked up their crosses and followed Him – the Catholic Church has documented something more than a hundred Stigmatics – with the supernatural Five Wounds of Christ – who suffered pain every day of their lives, and worse on Fridays – who would not be able to eat or drink anything but a Host and a sip of Sacramental Wine – for years on end. Typically they would die incorrupt – that years after burial their bodies would be found without decay, and often looking better than on the day they died. In their extreme suffering they have done the Will of Christ. Those who renounce Christ to follow Paul and depend upon a Free Salvation – it is Satan’s will they do, not Christ’s. One does not become Equal to Our Lady without meeting a high standard – and what standard could possibly be higher than doing the Will of Christ?.

[Doma]

If there wasn't any rebuke to His natural family there, why didn't He just invite them in, instead of ignoring them?

[JayD]

I have never heard of it as a rebuke... Being an evil "prot" I must have missed that one. I have only ever heard it used as part of an overal discussion on whether or not Mary had other children.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Doma
If there wasn't any rebuke to His natural family there, why didn't He just invite them in, instead of ignoring them?

Again, you suggest an insult that is not there.

Do you know there was any delay in letting them in.

It is more likely to suppose that Jesus used his Complement to those who would do His Will as a 'breakaway', that He could refocus attention to His Mother.

What I orginally said still goes -- that looking for insults and rebukes to Our Lady when only a complement was intended for his audience is simply meanspirited. It is the worse form of Pharisaical spinning of scripture. You are using the Word of God to sling mud at Our Lady.

Do you seriously suppose that Lord Jesus Christ would violate the Commandment of honoring His Mother. If Christ had publically rebuked His Mother, the same Pharisees who caught him up on every apparent violation of Torah Law certainly would have called him on that. But they didn't. They saw a complement to the crowd as Jesus turned to greet his Mother.

Take off your poop-colored glasses.

[JayD]

It is more likely to suppose that Jesus used his Complement to those who would do His Will as a 'breakaway', that He could refocus attention to His Mother.


Ah I get it, John was wrong. chapter 14 verse 6 should have read:

No one comes to the mother except through me.

How silly of me not to get that.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by JayD
I have never heard of it as a rebuke... Being an evil "prot" I must have missed that one. I have only ever heard it used as part of an overal discussion on whether or not Mary had other children.

Good!

You are an innocent.

As a Catholic I am beaten over the head with this "rebuke" to His Mother.

In real fact, Christ was ever obedient to His Mother -- though He would speak His mind. At twelve He told His Mother that He must set about His Father's Work, but Mary told him he must come home. He came home. At 30 She told him he must begin his Ministry of Miracles and Change the Water to Wine; and Christ, with some ironic reference to when He was twelve replied, "Perhaps it is still not yet my time". But He went and did what He was told.

But Protestants seem to see only the Talk and not the Action of Christ.

I am glad you are innocent. Thank you for not being mean spirited.

[JayD]

Why thank you Leo,

But I should add that I don't agree with the veneration of Mary. I believe it to be a heresy that was assimilated into the church when the Romans conquered some of the barbaian tribes of northern europe. Respect turned to worship, and that is wrong. Only God deserves worship.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by JayD
Ah I get it, John was wrong. chapter 14 verse 6 should have read:

No one comes to the mother except through me.

How silly of me not to get that.

Don't presume to suppose to make God attainable.

Even if you are permitted into Heaven -- the lowest of the 9 Circles of Heaven -- what makes you think you will ever be in the Presense of God the Father? You may bath in the Light of God, but that may be as close as you will every get.

It is a measure of the Greatness of Christ that He will sit at the Right Hand of the Father.

Now, think about it. Is there a distinction between the lowest Gates of Heaven, to which Our Lady holds the Keys? And the Highest Most Sacred Chamber of God the Father Himself, to Which Christ holds the Keys?

What is little appreciated is that Heaven is a Complex Operation. God's agency is through the Angels of God. Christ has his legends of Angels. Mary commands Archangel Michael and His Legions of Avenging Angels. Heaven is one sphere of Hierarchy and Delegation after another. This is why the virtue of Humility is so much stressed by the Saints -- one must know where one fits in. And it won't be very high. Yet every Protestant pretends that as Christ sits at the Right Hand of the Father, they will sit at the Right Hand of Christ. A delusion of a meglomaniac!

Rest assured. A Saint once visited the Nine Circles of Heaven and asked to meet the lowest soul in Heaven. "Yes, certainly", said the Guardian Angel, and took the Saint to this soul off in the corner gardens. When asked about his feelings he said that he would not trade his present status for all the Kingdoms and all the Wealth on Earth. So, I think the Protestants could relax some of their inordinate spiritual pride without incurring too much lamentable unhappiness in Heaven, wherever they may land. And you might even make somebody happy -- that "lowest Soul" will say, "Good! I'm not in last place anymore!"

[JayD]

You miss the point.

Even if you are permitted into Heaven -- the lowest of the 9 Circles of Heaven -- what makes you think you will ever be in the Presense of God the Father? You may bath in the Light of God, but that may be as close as you will every get.

Is that not enough? If I for one moment could trade being right in front of the throne, to a place on the outskits, for a million more souls to be there as well, I would do it in a flash. My positioning in heaven means nothing to me. I will be there and that is all that matters to me.

The circles of heaven??? isn't that Dante? He does the same thing to hell. But degrees of Hell is pointless just like degrees of heaven. You are either in or your are out. To try and obtain anything more would most probably = out. Humility is ones true guide.

[Doma]

Luke 2:
48: And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49: And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50: And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
51: And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
52: And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.


That doesn't equate to the respect you would expect.

Math 12:
47: Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48: But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49: And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50: For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Math 13:
1: The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.

In no way do I see Jesus going out to them, or them to Him. It says Jesus went out that day, but doesn't say with them or for them.

It fully appears as a rebuke to His family.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by JayD
You miss the point.


Is that not enough? If I for one moment could trade being right in front of the throne, to a place on the outskits, for a million more souls to be there as well, I would do it in a flash. My positioning in heaven means nothing to me. I will be there and that is all that matters to me.

The circles of heaven??? isn't that Dante? He does the same thing to hell. But degrees of Hell is pointless just like degrees of heaven. You are either in or your are out. To try and obtain anything more would most probably = out. Humility is ones true guide.

Dear JayD

Oh, that is so sweet, that you would give up your spot for others. I hope you will not have to, but that is the community spirit that I believe Christ wanted to project in His Teachings.

yeah, I got the Nine Circle thing from Dante. I read an interesting On Line thing (Philip Kramer "My Brief Experience of Eternity and what I saw" ) which divided Heaven into different Planets -- but I took the 'circle' thing as a literary shortcut.

I've had strange dreams about my Place in heaven. In a Dream that depicts immediately after the Day of Judgment I am given the 23rd seat of a table of 17 (the Angel told me that they were able to squeeze in 6 more by putting 3 chairs at each end of the table). A couple years ago I was lead to the Last Car of Our Lady's Train and was shown to my seat -- it was number 231.

for those who believe in Predestination, its funny that the Angels are required to make extra places on The Day of Judgment. What does that say? More will make it then were expected!

[JayD]

It fully appears as a rebuke to His family.



Which part of it is a rebuke? When one reads the passage, the family are just agents in the story. They are there because they move on to an important aspect of the ministry that Jesus was about. If there was a rebuke to anyone it was to the people who saw Jesus' family as so important as to interupt him, or take him away from his ministry. Instead we see jesus building his family, not rebuking them.

A rebuke would be What the hell are you doing here, I told you not to phone me at work. But no Jesus says, that we are all part of his family and that we are each as important to him as His mother and his brothers.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by JayD
Which part of it is a rebuke? When one reads the passage, the family are just agents in the story. They are there because they move on to an important aspect of the ministry that Jesus was about. If there was a rebuke to anyone it was to the people who saw Jesus' family as so important as to interupt him, or take him away from his ministry. Instead we see jesus building his family, not rebuking them.

A rebuke would be What the hell are you doing here, I told you not to phone me at work. But no Jesus says, that we are all part of his family and that we are each as important to him as His mother and his brothers.

Yes, you are exactly right.

The way the Mary-Haters construct the dynamics of the event is more like: "Excuse me, Rabbi, but your Mother and family are at the door and they would like a word", and Jesus says "Ha! Let those unworthy dogs rot in Hell! For my True Mothers and Family are the Prots who stand around with their thumbs up their butts but have a passing faith in Me because they think it will save their hides on the Day of Judgment." Such is how many of our Protestant friends read the passage.

[Doma]

by rebuke I am saying He is lessening their status/relationship to Him. I am speaking of less as Leo did in the beginning of the thread.

[Pekin]

It just might be worthwhile to actually look a bit deeper into the Scripture on this. While I rarely agree with Leo, he is at least right, as proven by Doma, that some think Jesus was rebuking His mother and brethren. Such an idea is Biblically irrational and shows a total lack of any depth of understanding gleaned from the actual Scripture.!

First, why and how did the incident even happen? That’s called context.

This is near the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, and the incident is recounted in all three Synoptics: Matt 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8.

The scene is very nearly pandemonium. Jesus has been performing miracles, and crowds are following Him where ever He goes. This has gotten the attention of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees, who are among the crowd. The situation described is not one of quite preaching, as we picture the Sermon on the Mount, as Jesus is being accused by some in the crowd of being possessed by a demon, and Jesus rebukes them, sternly.

Then His mother and brothers arrive, and it is so crowded around Jesus that they cannot even get close to Him, and so send someone to tell Him they want to speak with Him. Keep in mind, we are told that Jesus is surrounded by a dense crowd, some of which are evidently hostile, and are accusing Him of being possessed, and among these are leaders of the people, and Jesus is rebuking them publicly and sternly, calling them a wicked generation. This is a tinderbox, and the obvious conclusion is that His family is concerned for His safety. So, all three Synoptics:

Matt 12: 46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Mark 3: 31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Luke 8: 19 Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."
21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."

On what grounds can anyone conclude that this is a rebuke to His mother and brethren?

First, what is Jesus preaching about? It is the Kingdom of God. That is His entire point, proclaiming, as Luke 8:1 says, the ‘good news of the Kingdom of God’.

Matt 12:28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Mark 3:23 Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

Luke 8:1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.

So when He is given word that His mother and brothers wish to speak to Him, what does He do? Or more importantly, what would the crowd expect Him to do? His blood relations, His family, are wanting to speak to Him. What is the view of such relationships among the Jews of that time? Basically, the family relationship is uppermost! Noah brought his family onto the ark. Abraham dropped everything to rescue his nephew Lot. Joseph’s story is one of reconciliation between family. Over and over the family ties are given as important, overriding, and it is absolutely reasonable that the crowd, the people Jesus is attempting to teach, would see it that way: His bloodline family will take precedence, as it would for all of them.

And that is where Jesus doesn’t rebuke His mother or brethren, but uses that to teach them something important, and continues doing exactly what He has been doing: He teaches the good news of the Kingdom of God! He lets the crowd know that His family is not merely by blood relation! His family is built on faith and obedience to God, and that all who hears God’s word and obey that word are His family.

He didn’t rebuke anybody, or take anybody down! He preached the good news that the family of Christ was an open one, not closed by established bloodline, but open by faith and obedience! He wasn’t closing anything to Mary, but opening His familial love and bond to all who would come to Him!

To miss that, as Doma does, is to completely miss the Gospel message involved!

For what reason on earth would He rebuke His mother, publicly, for wanting to speak with Him? What kind of lesson would that be? His Father tells us to honor our parents, and some think Jesus will obey the Father by publicly rebuking His mother? How absolutely stupid, and a complete missing of the point!

Note Jesus’ own words:

He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."

How does that apply to Mary? Unless we want to claim the Scripture is a fraud, Mary did indeed hear God’s word and put it into practice!

Luke1:38 "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
45 Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"

The Father cannot send an angel to tell Mary that she is highly favored by God, and the Holy Spirit cannot prompt a woman to bless and honor Mary, and then the Son opposes both the Father and the Holy Spirit by rebuking her publicly for doing no wrong! To accept that Jesus was rebuking Mary, rather than preaching that the Kingdom of Heaven, the Family of God was opened to all by faith and obedience, we have to accept that the Trinity is in opposition to itself! It is nonsense!

Further, if as Doma thinks (the right word, thinks?), this was a rebuke to Mary, why didn’t Jesus say this to Mary, and not to the crowd? Since when is a rebuke to a person spoken to others? Perhaps a single example in Scripture of Jesus rebuking someone by speaking to someone else will do! It is Jesus Who said this:

Matt 16: 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.

If this was not what it was, an invitation to all those hearing Him to enter the Family of God, but a rebuke to His mother and brethren, as though they are not family, why are we told again and again afterwards in the Scripture that they are His family, and Mary is most certainly His mother?

Matt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matt 8:11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

Doma asked this: “If there wasn't any rebuke to His natural family there, why didn't He just invite them in, instead of ignoring them?”

Silly! When the Scripture is silent, it is merely silent. Doma asks why He just didn’t invite them in, and yet Luke tells us they could not get to Him because of the crowd! The Scripture never says anything about whether He went to speak with them or not, whether He asked the crowd to let them through or not, or whether He ignored them or not, but we can rule out ‘ignored’ based on Jesus being obedient to the Father and the Law: He would have shown honor for His mother.

The Scripture made the point that the Holy Spirit intended the authors to make: Jesus preached that His Family was open to many by faith and obedience! That’s the good news of the Kingdom! Jesus didn’t drop that preaching that He came for to rebuke someone by speaking to someone else, for no purpose, and certainly not to oppose the Father and Holy Spirit!

And Leo, just as maybe a surprise for you, I've known many Protestants who see that passage exactly the same: as an invitation to the Kingdom, not a rebuke to anyone!

Pekin

[Buzzard]

In the Old covenant,
they were connected by,
and entrance was according too
"Blood Relations"

In the New Covenant,
we are Children of Abraham
according to the promise
not according to
Physcial Blood

This is the great truth he was trying to teach

and Blood Kin gives no one any special privledges

~{Gal.3:29}~
And if ye be Christ’s,
then are ye Abraham’s seed,
and heirs according to the promise.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

This not only did the jews need to learn
but also his Family

Entrance into the kingdom is upon the blood of Christ
not because of Family relations

This is the reason he was not afraid,
nor in disobedience,
nor dishonoring his mother
by down playing
his physcial relation to her


drazzuB

[countryroad]

For quick reference:


Matt.12: 46. While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49. And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.



Comment:



I would say that Jesus simply disregarded his mother's wishes here. It just has to do with a test of two different wills. But I wouldn't characterize it as a rebuke.

Jesus didn't need to hear from his mother or brothers, he didn't need their counsel or advise.


Instead:

Those doing God's will were sitting at Jesus' feet hearing his word. Jesus is the speaking one.


Then consider:

Jesus' relationship with his Father wasn't limited by crowded houses.

Jn.1:18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jesus was always in the bosom of the Father, except when he cried of being forsaken on the cross, even then he remembered this:


Ps.22: 9. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10. I was cast upon thee(The Father) from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.


So as it pertains to issues of trust and guidance ..... Jesus was looking 100% to his Father. Otherwise it would have meant that his trust would be in man to some extent, and that contradicts the writings of the prophets. Those who trust in flesh, or in man are rebuked.

[Pekin]

Originally posted by Buzzard
In the Old covenant,
they were connected by,
and entrance was according too
"Blood Relations"

In the New Covenant,
we are Children of Abraham
according to the promise
not according to
Physcial Blood

This is the great truth he was trying to teach

and Blood Kin gives no one any special privledges

Actually, and especially from you, not bad!



This not only did the jews need to learn
but also his Family

Entrance into the kingdom is upon the blood of Christ
not because of Family relations

Also generally correct, but I'd add that the family is a family of faith.

This is the reason he was not afraid,
nor in disobedience,
nor dishonoring his mother
by down playing
his physcial relation to her

Generally correct! He was not rebuking her, but preaching the Kingdom, as I said!

Keep this up, Louie, and this could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

That's from Casablance. Bogart to Claude Rains.

Pekin

[Pekin]

Originally posted by countryroad
I would say that Jesus simply disregarded his mother's wishes here. It just has to do with a test of two different wills. But I wouldn't characterize it as a rebuke.

Can I ask on what you base that on? How do you know or even think He disregarded her or them? The Scripture says nothing like that.

Jesus didn't need to hear from his mother or brothers, he didn't need their counsel or advise.

There is also no indication that they wanted to give Him counsel or advice. It is just as probable and even moreso that they were afraid and concerned for Him, and wanted to speak to Him about that. Remember that in Mark 3 we read that the crowds were so overpowering that they almost forced Him and the disciples into the sea, and Jesus requested a boat to get away, and shortly thereafter when He tried to eat at a house, the crowds prevented Him from doing so, and the family heard of this. There is more evidence of righteous concern than anything else, especially with antagnistic folks claiming He was possessed.


Instead:
Those doing God's will were sitting at Jesus' feet hearing his word. Jesus is the speaking one.

Surely, but that doesn't imply anything negative about the family who just arrived.

Then consider:
Jesus' relationship with his Father wasn't limited by crowded houses.

Jn.1:18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jesus was always in the bosom of the Father, except when he cried of being forsaken on the cross, even then he remembered this:


Ps.22: 9. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10. I was cast upon thee(The Father) from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.


So as it pertains to issues of trust and guidance ..... Jesus was looking 100% to his Father.

True, but you are still assuming the family was trying to guide Him, as opposed to genuine familial concern born of love.

Otherwise it would have meant that his trust would be in man to some extent, and that contradicts the writings of the prophets. Those who trust in flesh, or in man are rebuked.

Not exactly true, as Jesus did have to put His trust in some of mankind at least, meaning Joseph and Mary. They were His foster father and real mother, and did raise Him, and feed Him, and cloth Him, and bath Him, and teach Him, and do all the things parents do for their children. The Incarnation was very real: Jesus came as a helpless infant, cared for by mortal humans who loved Him. Likewise, He trusted men to write His Gospels, but they, like Mary and Joseph, were creatures upon whom He poured out His grace.

Pekin

[Buzzard]

Originally posted by Pekin

Not exactly true, as Jesus did have to put His trust in some of mankind at least, meaning Joseph and Mary. They were His foster father and real mother, and did raise Him, and feed Him, and cloth Him, and bath Him, and teach Him, and do all the things parents do for their children. The Incarnation was very real: Jesus came as a helpless infant, cared for by mortal humans who loved Him.
#1
Likewise, He trusted men to write His Gospels, but they, like Mary and Joseph, were creatures upon whom He poured out His grace.

Pekin


Thats just it;
Pekin;
he didn't trust Man nor Men to write the gospels,
or any other part of Scripture;
He used men, to write it
as he moved them to also speak

you can trust his book for he is the author of it all,
Genesis to Revelation


Peter list three things here
~{2Peter 1:16}~
16 For we have not followed
#1: cunningly devised fables,
when we made known unto you
the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but #2: were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory,
when there came such #3: a voice to him
from the excellent glory,
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.18 And this voice which came from heaven
we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

But:
Now Peter is going to tell us what is
even better and More Sure than;
#1: cunningly devised fables,
#2: were eyewitnesses Reports
#3: a voice from Heaven that speaks

And even better than
:eek:
than an Apostle’s Report

the reason being;
The deceptions too come

~{Matt:24:24}~
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
and shall shew great signs and wonders;
insomuch that, if it were possible,
they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.


19 We have also
a more sure word of prophecy;
whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,
as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,
until the day dawn,
and the day star arise in your hearts:
And How we got what we call the Book
20 Knowing this first,
that no
#4: prophecy of the scripture
is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time
by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And the words of Christ,
How they speak to us today,
same as when he was here



-------The Refusal------
30 And he said,
Nay, father Abraham:
but if one went unto them from the dead,
they will repent.
ie:
:no:
nnnnnnnNNNNNOOOOOOoooooooooo ----------------;
:eek:
I Want Something Different:
ie:
:banana:
Writings of the Early Day Church Fathers;
The Cunningly devised Fables of The Ex-Students of the Apostles,
Vain Jangling of False Teachers,
Christian Store Books, Left Behind Movies,
Sermons of Great Swelling Words,
The Twisting and Perversions of the Apologist
anything; Anything; ANYTHING;

OH; PPLLLllleeeEEAAAASSEEEeeeeeeeee, ,
Father Abraham,

Anythingggggggggg—ggaaah
but
Moses and the Prophets

:nuts:
I Wanna-Be one of these Guys:
ie:

[list=1]~{2 Timothy 3:7}~
:bang:
7 Ever learning,
and never able to come to
the knowledge of the truth.
[/list=1].


Abraham Saith "the 2nd Time"
.
-----The Reason-----
31 And he said unto him,
"If they hear not
Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead".
ie:
Moses and the prophets,
------{or rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr }-------
:devil:
The Devils Lies

and Moses and the prophets,
still Speak as they did then
ie:
Thru their writings

and this is Da Reason we know Christ had Blood Siblings,
ie:
Marys other Children
for the Prophets say
-------Prophesy of Christ------
~{Psalms 69:8}~
8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren,
and an alien unto my mother’s children.
9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;
and the reproaches of them that reproached thee
are fallen upon me.
~{Jn.2:17}~
17 And his disciples remembered
that it was written,
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

21 They gave me also gall for my meat;
and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink~{Jn 19:29}~
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar:
and they filled a spunge with vinegar,
and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.


Same as Luke said his reason for writing was

~{Luke 1:1}~
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand
to set forth in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

-----Luke’s Reason for Writing-----
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,

-----Dem Dar Verbal Teachings / Traditions-----
wherein thou hast been instructed.


“Pekin”,
we don’t have to believe all those
:banana:
Teachings / Traditions / Fables / Vain Babblings;
:devil:
Doctrines of Men / Doctrines of Devils

For all they are is
Building on Sand,
and the fall of Babylon
will be very Great


Beleive the Book
--{or}--
Beleive a Lie

Your choice

[Pekin]

Hello Buzzard,

Thats just it;
Pekin;
he didn't trust Man nor Men to write the gospels,
or any other part of Scripture;
He used men, to write it
as he moved them to also speak

you can trust his book for he is the author of it all,
Genesis to Revelation

You know Buzzard, you keep skipping over what I write, to see only what you want to see, or expect to see, or already made up in what passes for your mind that you are going to see, you just won’t get what I am saying.

Now go back to what I did say, which is

“Not exactly true, as Jesus did have to put His trust in some of mankind at least, meaning Joseph and Mary. They were His foster father and real mother, and did raise Him, and feed Him, and cloth Him, and bath Him, and teach Him, and do all the things parents do for their children…Likewise, He trusted men to write His Gospels, but they, like Mary and Joseph, were creatures upon whom He poured out His grace.”

Now, did you purposefully miss that about His grace, or was it accidental? What does God’s grace do, Buzzard? Men, all men, are weak, and not to be trusted. But if the power of God’s grace is working in them, God’s grace is what makes those people trustworthy.

2 Cor 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

1 Cor 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

2 Tim 1:14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

The word for ‘committed’ is ‘parakatatheke’, and it means to be entrusted with.

Titus 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

That word for ‘committed’ is ‘pisteuo’, and it also means ‘entrusted’.


Psalm 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

You of course know that Psalm 41:9 is a Messianic prophesy, and Jesus refers to it when speaking of Judas.

1 Thess 2:4 But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.

1 Tim 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Yes, Buzzard, the power of God did move men, to speak and write, and we can trust what they said and wrote, because it was the power of God’s grace moving in them. That’s what I said right at the beginning, if you’d only open your closed mind to read it.

Now, did God entrust Joseph with the care and protection of His Son, yes or no?

Buzzard:


“Pekin”,
we don’t have to believe all those

Teachings / Traditions / Fables / Vain Babblings;

Doctrines of Men / Doctrines of Devils

For all they are is
Building on Sand,
and the fall of Babylon
will be very Great


Beleive the Book
--{or}--
Beleive a Lie

Your choice

Gee, well thanks Buzzard for another one of your canned rants, but do me a big favor: if you see me using any doctrines of men or devils, fables, vain babblings or any such, be sure to point out what it is and why it is that, okay? I mean, you obviously love to stand on your self-glorifying soapbox, but you are real short on details! I mean, if an idiot were to start shouting at me ‘You killed a man’, I’d imagine I’d have the right to ask who and when, rather than just assume this clown actually knows what he is talking about.

Really, Buzzard, if some mook is going to climb on his fire and brimstone high horse and dress others down, don’t you think he has some obligation to explain why, rather than merely assume everybody knows he just so wonderful and all….

You copy and paste a lot of your own stuff! Is that because you have all the answers to all things already worked out in advance?

Yes, Buzzard, in the highest sense God is the author of Scripture, but it was indeed men who wrote it, as men, and that is why their own grace filled personalities are evident. For example, Buzzard, is this Paul's or God's memory loss?

1 Cor 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Pekin

[countryroad]

Originally posted by Pekin
Can I ask on what you base that on?

The word of God.



How do you know or even think He disregarded her or them? The Scripture says nothing like that.


Because the word says so. Otherwise he would have heeded their request and gone outside to speak with them.



There is also no indication that they wanted to give Him counsel or advice. It is just as probable and even moreso that they were afraid and concerned for Him, and wanted to speak to Him about that.


That's counsel and advice! You've just made a contradictory statement.

Were they afraid that he was going to be injured or killed? If they were it is because they knew not the will of the Father nor the time appointed for the sacrifice of his son.




Remember that in Mark 3 we read that the crowds were so overpowering that they almost forced Him and the disciples into the sea, and Jesus requested a boat to get away, and shortly thereafter when He tried to eat at a house, the crowds prevented Him from doing so, and the family heard of this. There is more evidence of righteous concern than anything else, especially with antagnistic folks claiming He was possessed.




But the truth is that Jesus couldn't die or be hurt until the hour that it was appointed in the counsels of God. They obviously were not privy to those counsels, if they feared for his saftey.





Not exactly true, as Jesus did have to put His trust in some of mankind at least, meaning Joseph and Mary.



If we are speaking purely about trust, then we have to go upon the Spirit inspired prophets for a look into the heart of Jesus, otherwise we are basing our ideas upon our own reference point as those who were born into this world from an earthly father.


Look at the prophets:



Ps.22: 9. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10. I was cast upon thee(The Father) from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.



Jesus was completely "cast upon" the Father from the womb onward.

His trust and hope was totally upon his Father, his God.

Otherwise he would have violated his own word by trusting in the arm of the flesh.


He came to fulfill the law and the prophets; and if I may say so, lives in his people to do the same thing and more today.




Jesus came as a helpless infant, cared for by mortal humans who loved Him.


True, Joseph and Mary loved Jesus and did things for him in his identity as the son of man, but if we are speaking about trust and hope, then I must maintain that Jesus' trust and hope were only and ever in God.



Ps.22: 9. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.


Here's a good question:



Isaiah 53

1. Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2. For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.


He grew before Him.


His identity as the Son of God was not revealed by simply looking at the flesh. His identity and true inner growth was known, guided, and looked upon only by his Father. He is the Holy.


You do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, don't you?



:think:

[Pekin]

Hello Countryroad,

And sorry, this is a three-fer….size limits!

I asked what you based your conclusion that ‘ Jesus simply disregarded his mother's wishes here’.

You claim you did so on the word of God. I would humbly suggest you based it on your reading into the word of God what the word of God does not say. Where are we told that He disregarded anything? The whole text shows that He was given the message that His mother and brethren wished to speak to Him, and then He addressed the crowd, teaching them as always of the Kingdom. We have no idea whether He ignored them (impossible, or He would be going against the Will of the Father!), or sent a message back to them, or finished saying what He said to the crowd and then spoke with them, or anything! What we are told is what we are told, period.

In John 2, His mother asks Him to intervene at the wedding when they run out of wine. There too He has something to say:

John 2: 4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come."

Then He does as she requests, because Jesus is perfect. He will always do the Will of the Father, Who commands that all men honor their parents. Jesus the man-God does not exempt Himself from obedience and righteousness, ever.

So you say ‘Otherwise he would have heeded their request and gone outside to speak with them.’, and yet nothing in the Bible says He didn’t! You may be seeing it because you want to see it, but it is not there.

You quoted me saying: ‘There is also no indication that they wanted to give Him counsel or advice. It is just as probable and even moreso that they were afraid and concerned for Him, and wanted to speak to Him about that.’

You answer: ‘That's counsel and advice! You've just made a contradictory statement.’

Try your Roget’s Thesaurus! ‘Counsel’ and ‘concern’ are not the same. The Bible does not say, no matter what you imagine, that they sought to give Him counsel. They were, evident by the text, concerned, and even knew that He was not even able to eat. They could simply have wanted to ask what they could do to help, or if they could help, or if they could do something so as to get Him something to eat and a place to do so, or any number of things that are not ‘counsel’.

You ask: ‘Were they afraid that he was going to be injured or killed? If they were it is because they knew not the will of the Father nor the time appointed for the sacrifice of his son.’

Sure, but what has that got to do with anything? Were they supposed to know the appointed time? How? Was their not knowing the time a deficiency of theirs in some way?

You continued by quoting me saying: ‘Remember that in Mark 3 we read that the crowds were so overpowering that they almost forced Him and the disciples into the sea, and Jesus requested a boat to get away, and shortly thereafter when He tried to eat at a house, the crowds prevented Him from doing so, and the family heard of this. There is more evidence of righteous concern than anything else, especially with antagonistic folks claiming He was possessed.’

You answered with: ‘But the truth is that Jesus couldn't die or be hurt until the hour that it was appointed in the counsels of God. They obviously were not privy to those counsels, if they feared for his saftey.’

I find that very odd thinking. Again, I don’t know what your claim that His family didn’t know the appointed time bears on the discussion, but as to fearing for His safety or even simple well being, why was that not legitimate? You seem to be speaking as a Monday morning quarterback, who, since you know how the story turns out, impute to those at the time some kind of deficiency because they didn’t know what you know now! But Countryroad, of course concern for His safety, even before the appointed time, was appropriate, especially by those who loved Him. You say He could not be killed or hurt until the hour appointed, and if that were truly so, why were precautions taken to make sure He wasn’t killed beforehand?

Why do I say that? Because it is the Bible!

Matthew 2: 13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him."
14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt.

How could Jesus be in danger, if there were no danger? The angel not only warned Joseph and told him what to do, but that man, Joseph, a purely human man, protected Jesus by taking Him to Egypt.

Even Jesus Himself took precautions because of the real danger He was in, before the appointed time:

John 10: 38 …but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.

John 7:1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.
2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
4 "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
6 So Jesus said to them, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune.
7 "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
8 "Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."
9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.
10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.
11 So the Jews were seeking Him at the feast and were saying, "Where is He?"
12 There was much grumbling among the crowds concerning Him; some were saying, "He is a good man"; others were saying, "No, on the contrary, He leads the people astray."
13 Yet no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the Jews.
14 But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and began to teach.

Note that last: Jesus went up to the feast in secret, not among a group of disciples where He might be spotted, and only began to publicly speak when surrounded by a witnessing crowd, a precaution against being seized and killed ‘before the time’.

If your claim that Jesus was in no danger were true, a lot of the Bible since the flight to Egypt makes absolutely no sense.


Two more:

[Pekin]

You continued:

If we are speaking purely about trust, then we have to go upon the Spirit inspired prophets for a look into the heart of Jesus, otherwise we are basing our ideas upon our own reference point as those who were born into this world from an earthly father.

Look at the prophets:

Ps.22: 9. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10. I was cast upon thee(The Father) from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.



Jesus was completely "cast upon" the Father from the womb onward.

Absolutely. And the Father sent an angel to Joseph with the message to take the Child to Egypt for His protection. One does not cancel out the other.

His trust and hope was totally upon his Father, his God.

Otherwise he would have violated his own word by trusting in the arm of the flesh.

Wrong. We also read that we trust in God’s word (Psalm 119:42), correct? Do you trust, say, the words of the Bible? They were all, all, written by men. But, they are God working through men, not something of the men themselves, correct? So if you trust the Bible as the word of God, is it because the word of God is God’s, and it is still ultimately God whom you trust? It is the same with Jesus. When He was begotten as a man, with a purely human mother and a purely human foster father, He did trust them, as all children do their parents, but those parents of His were His parents only by virtue of God’s Will and Power. So in a sense you are right, that all of Jesus’ trust was in the Father, but wrong in the sense that one cannot still trust God completely by trusting the people He has entrusted things to.

You quoted me saying: ‘Jesus came as a helpless infant, cared for by mortal humans who loved Him.’

You answer: ‘True, Joseph and Mary loved Jesus and did things for him in his identity as the son of man, but if we are speaking about trust and hope, then I must maintain that Jesus' trust and hope were only and ever in God.’

Well, first, they did not love and do things for Him ‘in His identity as the Son of Man’. There is only one Jesus, fully God, fully man, the man-God, One indivisible and inseparable Person. One gives Jesus a drink of water, that drink was given to the Son of God and the Son of Man, One and the Same. And again as to trust, Jesus did trust in other people precisely because He knew God was working through those people. After all, He entrusted His own mother to the care of John while on the Cross. That is trust.

Also see the passages on trust and entrusting in the previous post to Buzzard.

You wrote this:

Here's a good question:

Isaiah 53

1. Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2. For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He grew before Him.

And the good question is????? :D

His identity as the Son of God was not revealed by simply looking at the flesh.

Well, okay, and I don’t ever recall anyone claiming it was, but what is your point and where’s that good question?

His identity and true inner growth was known, guided, and looked upon only by his Father. He is the Holy.

Okay, I am not sure what you mean by ‘true inner growth’! Is there a ‘false inner growth’? What is ‘inner growth’ in the first place? I can find that phrase at both psychological and New Age sites, but not in the Bible, so maybe you can explain what Jesus’ inner growth was.

And while it is absolutely true that Jesus grew before the Father, that growth was not without human witness.

Luke 2: 51 And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.
52 And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Okay, is this the good question now: :D

You do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, don't you?

Absolutely, though I can’t imagine why at this point in the thread you even feel the need to ask that!

However, IMHO, one place where we may see things, if not really differently, but in depth, is the Incarnation. That has seemed to me for quite some time to be one reason why many Protestants don’t understand Catholics on many points. This will be very general, but none-the-less my observations.

Protestant and Evangelical Christians spend a great deal of wonderful and pious time in study of such as the Sacrifice of Jesus for our redemption, the Atonement, how to be ‘saved’ or get ‘saved’, and what I think is an inordinate amount of time on prophesy, the one area of Christian study that could fill entire landfills with the hypotheses seriously presented and rather quickly discarded for the next wave. In and of themselves, all of these are necessary parts of the Gospel, not to be discounted in any way. But I have yet to see, and I have searched, for the depth of understanding of, or even prayerful and pious investigation into the Incarnation and all it means, from the Protestant side as I find readily available from both the Catholics and Orthodox. To the Catholics and Orthodox, the Cross tells us what Jesus did, praise be His Holy Name, but the Incarnation tells us Who He is. They are inseparably necessary to know Him as He is revealed.

One reason why the older faiths may have studied this in more depth is simply that they’ve had fifteen hundred years or so longer to do it. Another, and probably more likely, is that in the early centuries of the Church, the great controversies were almost all about ‘Who is this Jesus?’, and that was the battleground, fought for centuries, with a variety of heresies. Catholics and Orthodox are, as you probably know, attuned to the lives of the saints, and not only the Biblical ones. As such, we know of the battles fought by such as Ireneaus, Athanasias, Augustine, Cyprian and Ambrose against people who tried to teach a Jesus Christ Who was other than ‘the Word become flesh’.

We know the reason for the ancient creed, an escapsulation of the Gospel, made so that anyone who knew it could very quickly spot a false preaching:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Even in the time of the Apostles, the Gnostics were claiming that the Incarnation was not real, but an image only, and God had not truly become man, which John addresses:

1 John 4: 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Speaking of a significant number of Protestants and Evangelicals, the thing told me years ago by a young Baptist rings true: she was taught that there was Jesus and His Apostles, and after He ascended and they died, nothing much happened except somewhat fuzzy bad things about pagans, until Martin Luther came along fifteen hundred years later!

In any event, Catholicism is swamped with Incarnational awe and reverence, because it is the Incarnation that reveals Jesus Christ to us as Who He is, and how unsurpassedly great is the loving condescension of God for us, mortals! God became man. Often said, not often really understood. Jesus is God, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Divine Trinity. He is also fully human, just like us in all ways but sin. He is pre-existent, before all time, eternal and never-ending, the Alpha and the Omega, and He also got hungry, tired and bled and died. There are not two Jesuses, as though He can be separated from Himself. He is the Son of Man. He is also the Son of God. He is One Person. When it is His human flesh that is being torn and ripped and nailed, and His human blood that is being shed, it is God fully experiencing suffering and death, and shedding the blood of God. He is One Person. When Jesus Who is God looks upon us, it is as God Who was hungry, tired, suffered, was tempted, that needed to be washed as an infant, taught as a Child, comforted in sadness, Who wept in misery and anguish, and with nearly His last breath showed concern for His mother, as any good Son would.


One more only, promise:

[Pekin]

When Mary nursed the infant Jesus, it was God she was nursing. When the Romans drove nails into the hands of Jesus, it was God they were killing. When Jesus’ human voice cried out to His Father, it was a fully human Jesus Who called God His Father. When Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven, it was a fully human Jesus Who did so.

When God became man, Jesus committed Himself fully, in obedience to the Father’s Will, and all that it would entail, even His death. As Peter writes, we can now share in the Divine nature. Why? Because the Divine nature joined itself fully, completely and forever to ours.

Jesus spared Himself nothing when He became one of us. Everything that applied to us applied to Him, as He was like us in every way but sin. This is what many others don’t seem to fully grasp, and yes, it is hard to fully grasp Jesus’ complete humanity, existing alongside His complete Divinity in One Person. When He subjected Himself to everything we are subject to, His commitment was human in ability, and Divine in purpose.

It is largely from that understanding of the Incarnation that our views of what God has done with Mary diverge. It is not and never has been that Catholics or Orthodox see Mary as anything more than only a human creature, in no way Divine. But we do know that she is Jesus’ mother, and always will be, because His union of the Divine and the human was not for show, not a temporary thing, not just a method or a device, but a covenant with us, an everlasting one.

One of the times that Jesus’ wrath is poured out in Scripture is at the tradition of the Pharisees called the Corban. That allowed adult children to deny the help they may give to their parents on the excuse that they were dedicating their property to God. Jesus blasted them for that, because it denied God’s command to honor one’s parents, nullifying the word of God by their tradition.

Yet Jesus Himself had two parents. He certainly honored His Father, obeying Him even unto death. But He was not less a Child of Mary than of the Father, and He honored her also, because being the Most Righteous, He could and would do no less.

This is what has astounded Catholics for nearly two thousand years: God’s commitment to mankind, to become forever one of us! It sometimes seems to Catholics and Orthodox that some of the Protestant and Evangelical Christians think God chose Mary from among a group of likely Jewish virgins, as a vessel only.

Children don’t have vessels, they have mothers, and Jesus was and is fully the Child of God and man.

Jesus didn’t just choose Mary. He made her. He created His own mother! That is amazing! What genuinely Christian child would not want to do whatever he or she could that is truly good and genuinely loving for their own mother? What would Jesus, Who is God, do for the mother He is creating for Himself? What kind of mother would He want, and could have, by His own power? Which of these do not apply to Mary?

Eph 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Eph 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

Eph 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

Even this, though it is said of the prophet, applies, because God knew that Mary would be set apart as the mother of the Son of God before the world began:

Jer 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart…

Mary is a creature, in no way anything but mortal, but she is also God’s finest work, as He made her for Himself. Look at the perfection that God required of the Ark and the Temple, and then understand that God Himself was making Mary for Himself to dwell in. Even more, He was creating His own mother from whom His own flesh and blood would be made. What kind of material would God make to be used by Him for Himself?

I’ve had some say, unbelievably Countryroad, that Jesus severed His relationship with Mary, the human bond. That is so highly offensive to the entire Incarnation! It is through that human relationship that Jesus is the Root and Offspring of David, and God’s promises are eternal. It is through that Incarnational joining of God to humanity that we can all join the Divine nature.

Catholics understand this: Jesus died for our sins, Jesus Who is fully God and fully man.

The Jesus Who died for our sins is the Son of our Father Who is in Heaven.

The Jesus Who died for our sins is the Son of Mary, a purely human woman.

One Jesus, not two, and two parents saw their Son tortured unto death for us.

We can no more imagine Jesus being disrespectful to His mother than we can imagine Him committing any other sin, because sin it would be. We cannot see Jesus holding back from doing whatever He can for His mother’s sake, when He so wrathfully castigates others for denying what is in their ability to give their parents, as though Jesus is a hypocrite. We can no more imagine, as you allude, Mary setting her will against Jesus’ in a contest, because she was made by Him and accepted her being predestined before the world began as ‘the handmaid of the Lord’, whose ‘soul doth magnify the Lord’, and rejoiced in God her Savior, and kept all things about Jesus in her heart, and had found favor with God, and stood by His Cross as her Son died!

Jesus is One Person, fully God and fully man, and the Incarnation is real and eternal. There is no going back, praise be to Him. God has joined Himself to His creation forever, for our sakes.

2 Peter 1: 3-4 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

1 John 1: 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.

Luke 2: 8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14" Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."
16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.

Pekin

[countryroad]

How am I going to reply to all that?


:shrug:



Mabey I'll just take one or two points, I don't know.


:think:

[Pekin]

Originally posted by countryroad
How am I going to reply to all that?


:shrug:



Mabey I'll just take one or two points, I don't know.


:think:

CR,

I am not trying to pressure you, nor needs this be a debate to the deathly finish! :D

I am not trying to convince you or challenge your faith.

I explained to you largely the Catholic, and certainly my view. I don't expect you to accept it, agree with it, or require that you present your own or refute mine point by point. It's not a contest. CR, I am more than content to merely tell you what we believe and why, as opposed to what many think we believe.

Seriously.

Pekin

[countryroad]

by Pekin
I don't expect you to accept it, agree with it, or require that you present your own or refute mine point by point.



Ok, thanks. I'll add a related point about the one that the scripture calls the "queen."





Psalm 45:6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
8. All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.
9. Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
10. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;
11. So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.



Who is the Queen in heaven who stands at the King's right hand?

The King's bride.

The bride of Christ.

She is also called his daughter. That speaks of worship.

"he is thy Lord; and worship thou him."


:agree:

[Pekin]

CR,

Is Jesus the King, the King of Kings?

Is Heaven and its occupants described as royalty?

What, in the Scripture, is the mother of a king called? What is the mother of a king called in rolay language?

Bible only.

Pagans also called many false demigods ' the son of god', e.g., Hercules. Does that mean that when Christians use that for Jesus they are doing what the pagans did, or copying them?

Pekin

[countryroad]

:think:


So, are you saying that Mary is the queen who stands at Jesus' right hand in Psalm 45?


Contrast:


Eph.5: 30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. 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.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.



The one at Christ's right in the paradise of God is "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh."



Gen.2: 23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

[Pekin]

Originally posted by countryroad

So, are you saying that Mary is the queen who stands at Jesus' right hand in Psalm 45?


Gee, CR, if I wanted to say something I am capable of that. As I asked, what in Biblical langauge is the mother of the king called. I said nothing about a bride, nor intended anything about a bride.

Pekin

[Leo Volont]

Hi Pekin,

You are doing a wonderful job. More patient than I would be.



Dear Countryroad,

you can see the scripture like I see it, or you can put the worst of all meanspirited interpretations on it.

There is no indication in scripture of a rebuff. Christ only threw out a compliment to the crowd. Then the chapter was over. We could say that the Chapter was over simply because that after Christ tossed out his compliment, he turned around and walked to the door. The Chapter was over because the Speech was done. Done as soon as his Mother asked for Him.

Now you were perfectly free to have interpreted it that way. But how did your brain spin it? Full of hatred for the Holy Family and contempt for Our Lady. Mean spiritedness. I don't know how you people can imagine that you could possibly be saved when you can never stop evincing evil after evil after evil. What did Christ say of the Pharisees -- they were like Tombs -- polished and shiney stone on the outside, but nothing but corruption within.

[countryroad]

Originally posted by Pekin
Gee, CR, if I wanted to say something I am capable of that. As I asked, what in Biblical langauge is the mother of the king called. I said nothing about a bride, nor intended anything about a bride.

Pekin



:doh:

Are you asking me because you don't know, or is this more like an interogation?


You can save a step by just telling people what you believe, or how you interpret the Bible.


"what in Biblical langauge is the mother of the king called."


If there is an answer to that question, then go ahead and post it, and use the Biblical language.


This is what I have done:

I've pointed out that the one called "queen" in the Bible is the bride of Christ ........ according to Psalm 45.


Disprove it or make your own point, by don't try to lead me along with your questions as if I should have to make your points for you. I think it's condescending. This isn't your classroom, and you are not the teacher here.


We are all equals here.

[Pekin]

Originally posted by countryroad
:doh:

Are you asking me because you don't know, or is this more like an interogation?


You can save a step by just telling people what you believe, or how you interpret the Bible.


"what in Biblical langauge is the mother of the king called."


If there is an answer to that question, then go ahead and post it, and use the Biblical language.


This is what I have done:

I've pointed out that the one called "queen" in the Bible is the bride of Christ ........ according to Psalm 45.


Disprove it or make your own point, by don't try to lead me along with your questions as if I should have to make your points for you. I think it's condescending. This isn't your classroom, and you are not the teacher here.


We are all equals here.

Sorry, CR, but I assumed you would have been familiar enough with Biblical terminologies to answer. The Bible uses terms of royalty repeatedly, such as that Jesus is King and Lord and angels are princes and lords, and even the believers are a 'royal' priesthood.

In 1 Kings 15:13, Maacah, the grandmother of the king, is called the queen mother, because she is mother to the king.

1 Kings 15:13 He even deposed his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive Asherah pole. Asa cut the pole down and burned it in the Kidron Valley. (also 2 Chron 15:16)

In 2 Kings 10:13 we again have the mother of a king called the queen mother, as we do in Jeremiah 13:18 and 29:2 and Daniel 5:10.

A queen mother is still a queen, in Biblcal language, even if the king is married to a bride who is queen.

It is Biblical language, CR!

Try 'Queen Mother' from a non-Catholic source:

"QUEEN MOTHER"
Bible Study - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - QUEEN MOTHER Definition

(gebhirah, literally, "mistress," then a female ruler, and sometimes simply the wife of a king ("queen," 1Ki 11:19); in Da 5:10 the term malketha' "queen," really means the mother of the king): It stands to reason that among a people whose rulers are polygamists the mother of the new king or chief at once becomes a person of great consequence. The records of the Books of Kings prove it. The gebhirah, or queen mother, occupied a position of high social and political importance; she took rank almost with the king. When Bath-sheba, the mother of Solomon, desired "to speak unto him for Adonijah," her son "rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand" (1Ki 2:19). And again, in 2Ki 24:15, it is expressly stated that Nebuchadnezzar carried away the king's mother into captivity; Jeremiah calls her gebhirah (29:2). The king was Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Jer 29:2), and his mother's name was Nehushta (2Ki 24:8). This was the royal pair whose impending doom the prophet was told to forecast (Jer 13:18). Here again the queen mother is mentioned with the king, thus emphasizing her exalted position. Now we understand why Asa removed Maacah his (grand?)mother from being queen (queen mother), as we are told in 1Ki 15:13 (compare 2Ch 15:16). She had used her powerful influence to further the cause of idolatry. In this connection Athaliah's coup d'etat may be briefly mentioned. After the violent death of her son Ahaziah (2Ki 9:27), she usurped the royal power and reigned for some time in her own name (2Ki 11:3; compare 2Ch 22:12). This was, of course, a revolutionary undertaking, being a radical departure from the usual traditions.

And finally, the political importance of the gebhirah is illustrated by the fact that in the Books of Kings, with two exceptions, the names of the Jewish kings are recorded together with those of their respective mothers; they are as follows: Naamah, the Ammonitess, the mother of Rehoboam (1Ki 14:21; compare 14:31, and 2Ch 12:13); Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom (1Ki 15:2) or Absalom (2Ch 11:20) the mother of Abijah; Maacah, the daughter of Abishalom, the mother (grandmother?) of Asa (1Ki 15:10; compare 2Ch 15:16); Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi, the mother of Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:42; compare 2Ch 20:31); Athaliah, the grand-daughter of Omri, the mother of Ahaziah (2Ki 8:26; compare 2Ch 22:2); Zibiah of Beersheba, the mother of Jehoash (2Ki 12:1; compare 2Ch 24:1); Jehoaddin (Jehoaddan, 2Ch 25:1) of Jerusalem, the mother of Amaziah (2Ki 14:2); Jecoliah (Jechiliah, 2Ch 26:3) of Jerusalem, the mother of Azariah (2Ki 15:2) or Uzziah (2Ki 15:13,30, etc.; compare 2Ch 26:3); Jerusha (Jerushah, 2Ch 27:1), the daughter of Zadok, the mother of Jotham (2Ki 15:33); Abi (Abijah, 2Ch 29:1), the daughter of Zechariah, the mother of Hezekiah (2Ki 18:2); Hephzibah, the mother of Manasseh (2Ki 21:1); Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah, the mother of Amon (2Ki 21:19); Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath, the mother of Josiah (2Ki 22:1); Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, the mother of Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:31); Zebidah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah, the mother of Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:36); Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem, the mother of Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:8); Hamutal (Hamital), the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, the mother Of Zedekiah (2Ki 24:18). The exceptions are Jehoram and Ahaz.

William Baur

It's Biblical language, and that is why it is so odd that when Catholics actually use such Biblical language, supposed Bible adherents react in shock!

Is Jesus the King, the King of Kings? Is Mary His mother? Is Biblical language aptly used by Christians, or are we supposed only to use the terms of secular society?

Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, not the democatic republic secular state of God. It is a monarchy.

Pekin

[countryroad]

by Pekin
A queen mother is still a queen, in Biblcal language, even if the king is married to a bride who is queen.

Is Jesus the King, the King of Kings? Is Mary His mother? Is Biblical language aptly used by Christians, or are we supposed only to use the terms of secular society?



Okay, thanks for coming out and telling us what you believe. That's much more straightford than attempting to get someone else to do that for you.


So Mary is actually the Queen Mother of Heaven, in your beliefs.


My point is that the Bible tells us that the bride of Christ the King is called the "queen" and that she stands at his right hand. This is according to the inspired word here:


Psalm 45:

6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
8. All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.
9. Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
10. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;
11. So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.




But the pope contradicts the word of God here when he declares that the figure that he calls Mary stands at Christ's right hand:




Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

Given at St. Peter's in Rome, the eighth day of December, 1854, in the eighth year of our pontificate.

Pius IX




That's a bold contradiction of the word of God.



Pekin, who do you believe stands at Christ's right hand?




Here's the reference for the pope quote:


http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi09id.htm

[Buzzard]

~{Luke 8:20}~
19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren,
and could not come at him for the press.

20 And it was told him by certain which said,
Thy mother
and
thy brethren stand without,
desiring to see thee.
21 And he answered and said unto them,
My mother and my brethren are these
which hear the word of God, and do it.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

He looked out over those he was speaking too and said;are these
which hear the word of God, and do it.

He Did Not
Point to Mary and say
"My Mother"
and then too the crowd and say
My Brethren

He made no distinction,


drazzuB

[countryroad]

Originally posted by Buzzard
He looked out over those he was speaking too and said;are these
which hear the word of God, and do it.

He Did Not
Point to Mary and say
"My Mother"
and then too the crowd and say
My Brethren

He made no distinction,


drazzuB




That's true.


And,


In Christ all distinctions vanish.


Including male and female.


Gal.3: 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


Not both male and female, but neither one.


In Christ all distinctions vanish.


It's only Him.

[Pekin]

Hi CR,

You showed where I wrote:

”A queen mother is still a queen, in Biblical language, even if the king is married to a bride who is queen. Is Jesus the King, the King of Kings? Is Mary His mother? Is Biblical language aptly used by Christians...?”

You now say this.

Okay, thanks for coming out and telling us what you believe. That's much more straightford than attempting to get someone else to do that for you.

Dont be silly, CR! I wasn’t trying to get you to tell me what I believe. I was trying to get someone who professes to be a Bible believer to actually look at the Bible and its language. The Bible doesn’t jump at us and make us study it. It takes effort.

So Mary is actually the Queen Mother of Heaven, in your beliefs.

Not just my beliefs, CR! Is Jesus the King? Is Mary His mother. If so, she is the queen mother, in Biblical language. Is Heaven part of Jesus’ Kingdom? Then what is the Kingdom of His queen mother.

My point is that the Bible tells us that the bride of Christ the King is called the "queen" and that she stands at his right hand. This is according to the inspired word here:

Now, before I show, as you did, Psalm 45, please be aware that any second now Buzzard will chastise you for believing in fables and traditions of men and such, and that’s because the Bible does not say the bride of Psalm 45 is the Church. I actually do believe that in the layers of imagery of the Bible that bride can and does certainly represent the Church, but the Bible doesn’t say that, anywhere. So be on your guard, since Buzzard is so very conscientious about these things! Now, Psalm 45:

Psalm 45:
6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
9. Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
10. Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

I got that, and now you say this.

But the pope contradicts the word of God here when he declares that the figure that he calls Mary stands at Christ's right hand:

Pius IX: “...And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.”

That's a bold contradiction of the word of God.

Really? Where? Back to you.

Pekin, who do you believe stands at Christ's right hand?

Exactly who Jesus says:

Matt 22:
23 And he saith unto them...but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Also Mark 10:

First thing to notice, CR, is that Jesus said ‘places’, meaning both left and right. Those are positions of honor, both in reality and imagery. But we also need to accept that whether one is on Jesus’ right, or His left, that person will be a member of His Body, the Church. And so, when one tries to take the imagery of sitting on the right to be the exclusive reserve of the whole Church, from such as Psalm 45, one runs up against Jesus own words, that some may sit on His left. In either, the phrasing means an honor.

Then remember that the mother of the king not only is the queen mother, but in Biblical terminology, sits at the right hand of the king.

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him...the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

And David certainly expected to be seated at His right hand, even as the Psalm that is a prophesy of the Messiah is also the hope of the faithful believer.

Psalm 16:11
You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.

Back to Psalm 45:

Psalm 45
9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

CR, if the queen is an image of the Church, which I agree she is, is she that in exactitude, or generally? I ask because if she is the Church, His bride, representing in exactitude all the believers in the Body, who are the honourable women?

12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift...

Most who accept that the queen represents the Church, Protestant and Catholic alike, also understand the fluid nature of such imagery, for instance, many seeing the daughter of Tyre as representing the Gentiles, who will be brought into the Church. Yet they are also the Church.

14 She shall be brought unto the king...the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

CR, who are the virgins? If the queen represents the whole Church in a finite and exact way, who are these virgins?

15 With gladness...they shall enter into the king's palace.

If the queen is the whole Church, and only that and completely that, who are these non-members of the Church, who will also enjoy the Presence of the King?

In other words, CR, you are taking a genuine use of symbolism and trying to make it an exactitude, and in doing that, lose a lot. It is the same with Songs. The imagery there is of a king and a bride, and a passionate union, and while it certainly is emblematic of Jesus and His Church, it doesn’t mean He is entranced by our lips and breasts, though I’m not sure how Buzzard see it!

Jesus says that those who sit at His right hand are the ones the Father prepared to do so.

Quick question, and I should hopefully expect an orthodox Protestant answer:

Are any of us worthy on our own to do anything pleasing to God, or, if we can do anything pleasing to God, it is solely because it is He Who made it that way by and through His grace?

Eph 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Next question: did God select Mary from something like a list of ‘available’ and ‘acceptable’ Jewish virgins in the line of David, or did He create and prepare her to be the mother of His Son?

Was Mary worthy to become the mother of the Lord on her merits, or did God make her that way?

Paul says that it is God Who made him a fit minster of the Gospel.

The Catholic Bernadine of Sienna follows up on that by writing: '...that it is an axiom in theology, that when a person is chosen by God for any state, he receives not only the dispositions necessary for it, but even the gifts which he needs to sustain that state with decorum.'

Evangelical Christians also profess the same, when they say: ‘God does not call the equipped; He equips the called’.

God did not pick Mary from among possible ‘contenders’, any more than He did Paul. God predestined Mary for her role. He prepared her to be a dwelling for God the Son. He didn’t just use her as a vessel, but created her to be the creature from whom God the Son would be made ‘in the flesh’. His Body was made from hers. When God did that, He placed Mary in a position of great honor. God’s Will and Word are perfect, and it is God Who commands all men to honor their parents. In that, God commanded that Jesus, the Son of God and God, honor a mere mortal!

Luke 1:
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

God made Mary to be the mother of the King of Kings. God made Mary to be a dwelling place for the uncontainable God, to be a fit mother for His own Son. God glorifies those who suffer with Christ, and Mary did, very much so, even to having her own soul pierced.

When Jesus becomes furious at the Pharisees for nullifying the word of God by their traditions, He does so specifially speaking of the Corban, the rule by which children, adult children, could avoid doing what they could for their parents! Jesus was furious.

Mark 7: 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered

If Jesus is that furious at men for not honoring their mother, how would He honor His? To sit at one’s right hand is an honor, whether in reality or figuratively.

Jesus does have and will always have two parents. The Incarnation is real. He has a Father, God the Father. He has a mother, Mary. He will honor His parents, both of them.

And the Father prepared Mary for this, as Jesus created His mother for this, and in doing God gave her a place of honor.

So please explain how the King Who is all perfect will not give such honor to the woman His Father chose for Him to honor?

Of course she is the Queen of Heaven, because her real life Son is the King of Heaven.

Pekin

[Pekin]

Folks, if all distinctions vanish, how come God speaks of being the God of those still living with names like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Pekin