Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: CharlesWayneCT
Neither the Cana passage nor the Revelations passage say anything about Mary being "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?

252 posted on 05/31/2008 8:48:13 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies ]


To: papertyger

We were discussing the honorific “Queen” applied to Mary. You were (not entirely without merit) faulting me for my “no indication” comment, but I am responding by noting that even if I accept your premise about the two passages and read them in the most positive (to your position) light, they still lend no credence to the use of the honorific “Queen” for Mary.

In fact, I see little reason to accept that Revelation has anything to do with Mary. Without getting into details, I note that if we try to showhorn Mary into the passage (because the woman gives birth to a son), I would note the son she gives birth to is immediately taken to heaven, and the passage later speaks of the woman’s other offspring.

Some interpret the woman as indicating the completion of the gestation period of the end days (42 months), and her 1260 days in seclusion as the 2nd 42 months of the 7-year tribulation.

I’m agnostic on the various tribulation scenarios.

THe Revelations passage and it’s interpretation as being indicative of Mary is what I was refering to with others earlier when I noted how easy it was to form scripture to a worldview if you grant a human the right to pick and choose what parts to interpret in what way.


361 posted on 06/01/2008 12:01:19 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson