Neither the Cana passage nor the Revelations passage say anything about Mary being “Queen”.
And while I obviously have a level of disdain for “Church Authority”, to the degree the church has authority, it should be based on the Word of God in scripture, which should provide at least a vague inkling of the concepts.
So while the Cana passage can be used (inappropriately, I believe) to suggest Mary as intercessor, and the Revelations passage can (again inappropriately) be interpreted as suggesting Mary had some special place of honor, neither give any suggestion that Mary was ever intended to rule anything, or be considered any relationship of “Queen”.
Of course not, Charles. It was never my intention to imply they did. I simple wished to point out your claim there is "no indication" is a bit of hyperbolization, and not rigorously demonstrable.
And while I obviously have a level of disdain for "Church Authority", to the degree the church has authority, it should be based on the Word of God in scripture, which should provide at least a vague inkling of the concepts.
Isn't the fact this assertion is NOT rigidly demonstrable, even from Scripture itself, one of the things that seperate us?
I see no utility inserting it here as if it were actually a point of agreement between us. Do you?
So while the Cana passage can be used (inappropriately, I believe) to suggest Mary as intercessor, and the Revelations passage can (again inappropriately) be interpreted as suggesting Mary had some special place of honor, neither give any suggestion that Mary was ever intended to rule anything, or be considered any relationship of "Queen".
How can you expect to maintain your intellectual credibility when you admit (with apropriate qualifiers) in the first and second clauses what you deny in the third and forth clauses?
The Wedding at Cana clearly illustrates how our Lord's Mother supports Jesus and guides God's children to obey him.
Revelations does prophecy Our Lady as a Queen.
Revelations 12:1
1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3 3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, 4 with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. 4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. 5 Her child was caught up to God and his throne. 6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days. 6
Crown is usually a symbol of royalty, leadership perhaps a queen? What is so hard to understand about a good, Jewish mother, who became our spiritual mother, and a role model for all of us. Some people venerate Shaquille O'Neil, we venerate Jesus' mother. She was a true part of Jesus, she is a great role model, and she helps us obey Jesus. She is such a great gift that God gave us.
It's not that I don't respect and honor Mary as the Mother of God, it's simply that the church has built up an entire, massive doctrine around her that can be clearly seen to have arisen from an early pagan influence, and that is unnecessary and a distraction. I don't need an "intercessor", nor does anyone else - we have an intercessor - the "man Christ Jesus". He is the one and only mediator between man and God, and the only one necessary and the only one we should be directing our prayers to, outside the Father and Holy Spirit.
Catholics use a disingenuous argument when they claim that we can ask saints and Mary to pray for us just like we ask our friends to pray for us. Our friends are clearly living, and can clearly hear our request. There is no evidence that those who have died and gone to be in the presence of the Lord can at all hear anyone on earth.
Even if they could, how could they conceivably handle billions of "intercession" requests since they do not possess the attribute of omnipresence. This "omnipresence" aspect of the dilemma is one in which I have heard Catholics give simply tortured answers to, in attempts to skirt or divert the logic of the situation. And I do mean tortured logic.
There is no argument possible for the "intercession" of Mary and saints, hearing the prayers of billions of believers, that can in any way dodge the issue of "omnipresence". None. And once you pin it to this issue, it all goes up in smoke. But like I said, I have heard some tortured and circular logic to try to get around it. It doesn't wash.