Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

[BobRyan]

2. My second point was that the RCC "did not come out of a vaccuum". Rather the context for the 5th century declaration was an RCC that has just been heavily influxed with pagan members and had just agreed to adopt a bevy of pagan forms into its worship liturgy (even by the accounts of Catholic historians themselves). So "pretending not to notice" that you have a church now filled with a bunch of congregants used to worshipping "the Queen of Heaven" but finding themselves now lacking said "queen" -- is just ignoring inconvenient "detail".

Your second point is confusing. First of all I agree the Roman Catholic Church did not come out of a vacuum. Neither was it started by a 5th century declaration. Your history is shady. Think about it at the end of the 200 and the start of the 300 one of the worst persecutions of Christianity occured under the Emperor Diocletian. In an attempt to wipe out Christianity from the empire he tried christians everywhere

All true - but the point I was making is that the 5th century introduction of "incense burned to the Queen of Heaven" came in the context of a 4th century influx of pagans into the Christian Church via church efforts to adopt Pagan forms into its liturgy. A historic fact that even RC historians themselves admit to.

thus with that as context - it is easy to see that the ancient practice of "burning incense to the Queen of Heaven" fits perfectly with the Catholic choice to do that very thing in the 5th century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

For instance. I can draw correlations between Christianity and Demeter, Mythras, Horis, etc.... The fact that there are similar type themes does not necisarrily connect the dots. If what you say is true than I must state that using the same reasoning you've applied to Mary I can apply to Christ. And we must then admit that Jesus Christ is a Type of Demeterm, or a type of Mythras or a type of Horis. That the myths that permiated about these ancient mystery Gods became adopted and expressed about a Jewish Preacher named Jesus and that Christianity is not really a faith founded on the Blood of Jesus Christ but a purpetrated mythos going all the way back to Egypt.

That does not work because Jesus existed as a real historic character - was really crucified and really resurrected with eye witnesses still living at the time of the writing.

there is no mention at all by the NT sources of "queen of heaven" anything.

The equivocation does not work because the cases are not similar.

To make them similar - you would have to re-invent history such that "Jesus was a carpenter and very normal - then 4oo years later the RCC made up a story about him simmilar to Horis".

then as long as you have no historic sources debunking that wild claim you could indeed have a string to hang your hat on.

But the level of historic revisionism needed to carry off that equivocation cannot be supported.

Thus your version requires that we take a "real Jesus" and then 400 years later wrap a "Horis mythic story" around that real historic (but otherwise normal) character.

You're wrong. Nothing in my quote suggest that Jesus isn't real. It suggest that upon a real person a mythos was attached.

I find your response inconsistent with the points mentioned above as you appear to agree with my every point but start with "you are wrong".

I find the logic in that - illusive.

Jesus being a simple Jewish Rabbi was unfairly given a mythos that resembles Mythras. I say this not because I think this is the case but suggesting that your reasoning about the "queen of heaven" is equivilant

Agreed that is the case you want to make. My response simply points out that this is not a good match with Jesus because we have far more historic details on the life of Christ being "said to be supernatural" long BEFORE the 5th century.

Whereas we have NO evidence for "incense burning to the Queen of Heaven" assigned to Mary prior to the 5th century.

Thus - there is no "Christ as Horis " equivalent to the "Mary Queen of Heaven" scenario and you appear to be reluctant to allow for that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I find the logic in that - illusive.

Ok lets look at it. You said

That does not work because Jesus existed as a real historic character

Then I said

You're wrong. Nothing in my quote suggest that Jesus isn't real. It suggest that upon a real person a mythos was attached.

I think the logic of it is clear. Then you state

. My response simply points out that this is not a good match with Jesus because we have far more historic details on the life of Christ being "said to be supernatural" long BEFORE the 5th century.

But the premise is all wrong. The Queen of Heaven in the RCC and Orthodox hold that is a position granted by God or a title not a Supernatural event Though certainly a spiritual one. The fact is the position is titled something that someone used millenia before in a different context makes no sence in combining it. Thats like what the Modernist do with Jesus and Mythras.

 

[BobRyan]

you are missing the point.

In the case of Horis and "The Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah. All legend - none of it is historic fact being "reported" by eye witnesses with the legend being written during the lifetime of those eye witnesses.



In the case of Mary we have the legend of "Queen of Heaven" we have legends about "sinless like Christ" and "Mother of God" and "as God is King so Mary is Queen of Heaven". None of which are legends written down during the lifetime of Mary or during the lifetime of adults who met Mary.

The bigger than life aspects to Mary's story including burning incense and calling her "queen of heaven" are all added centuries later. Thus a good "horis" example.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

you are missing the point.

In the case of Horis and "The Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah. All legend - none of it is historic fact being "reported" by eye witnesses with the legend being written during the lifetime of those eye witnesses.



In the case of Mary we have the legend of "Queen of Heaven" we have legends about "sinless like Christ" and "Mother of God" and "as God is King so Mary is Queen of Heaven". None of which are legends written down during the lifetime of Mary or during the lifetime of adults who met Mary.

The bigger than life aspects to Mary's story including burning incense and calling her "queen of heaven" are all added centuries later. Thus a good "horis" example.

in Christ,

Bob

What do you mean? The gods of Egypt are mentioned in Exodus. Horis has writings all about him on the walls of the tombs in the valley of the dead. These are a witness to the cult that believes in Horis. Even Joshua son of Nun - Nun being an Egyptian god is reflective of this ancient belief. Jeremiah is giving testimony to a deity title Queen of Heaven. There is no correlation between that and what any one called Queen of Heaven today. Two totally different contexts. And the fact that Astoreh was known as Queen of heaven is based on a mythos like Hades being called king of the underworld. both are entirley a mythos. So this added centuries later makes no sence. Note the same people you claim added a "goddess" to Chrisianity are the same people who died for the sake of the Gospel so now your contention is even more confusing. People of the day you are speaking of argued whether there should in an iota in Homoosioius or not. A detailed argument like that makes no sense then to incorporate some bigger than life goddess any more than it makes sense that jesus was given miraculas abilityies by the bigger than life god Mythras.

 

[BobRyan]

Again you missed the point. The issue is whether the pagans of the 5th century A.D knew about the pagan "Queen of Heaven" - and everyone agrees they did.

Then the question is whether pagans entered the RCC and influenced the RCC liturgy such that pagan practices were taken up by the RCC. Catholic historians themselves admit to that - as it turns out.

So now we are left with the historic sequence that shortly after pagans began entering the RCC en masse and their pagan practices began to be adopted by the RCC - we see "burning incense to the Queen of Heaven" pop up as an RCC practice.

We are also left with the fact that the bigger-than-life stories for Mary do not surface in first century accounts - but rather are added with embelishments in later centuries, including efforts to adopt "the Queen of Heaven" motiff coincidental with the influx of pagans.

That is about as straight forward as you could ever demand.

There is no correlation at all between that straightline sequence and the equivocation you are attempting in the case of Christ and Horis. No such straight line sequence exists in that case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BillySunday1935]

Then you put the thief on the cross in hell. He wasn't baptized.

How do you know that he wasn't baptised?

 

[DHK]

How do you know that he wasn't baptised?

1. He was a thief. He was unsaved. Any baptism before salvation is technically no baptism at all. Even if he was it would be a moot point.
2. On the cross he was saved. On the cross he turned to Christ. On the cross he put his faith in Christ.
3. Where in Scripture is there evidence that they took his body down from the cross and then baptized him before they broke his legs in order to hasten his death? :BangHead:

 

[BobRyan]

Why would the Catholic position be that the thief had to be baptized?

 

[BillySunday1935]

Why would the Catholic position be that the thief had to be baptized?

I don't know for sure, but I don't believe that to be the Catholic position.

Most Catholics that I've talked with about this say that he was baptised by desire - or that he was saved by grace working through faith (I.e. - he came to our Lord's defense). My opinion is that God can do whatever He wants - including saving the good thief the way that He did.

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

1. He was a thief. He was unsaved. Any baptism before salvation is technically no baptism at all. Even if he was it would be a moot point.

Have you ever heard of a backslider?

"The dog returns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire."

Personally, I don't believe that he was Baptized either but it is not impossible. The scriptures just don't tell us.

2. On the cross he was saved. On the cross he turned to Christ. On the cross he put his faith in Christ.

Agreed!

3. Where in Scripture is there evidence that they took his body down from the cross and then baptized him before they broke his legs in order to hasten his death? :BangHead:

That's ridiculous...

Peace!

 

[DHK]

Have you ever heard of a backslider?

"The dog returns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire."

Personally, I don't believe that he was Baptized either but it is not impossible. The scriptures just don't tell us.

Agreed!


That's ridiculous...

Peace!

So you admit your position is ridiculous. Good for you to admit that you hold ridiculous positions. Previous to that statement you just put forth the premise "Have you ever heard of backsliders?" suggesting that the thief was a backslider (or did that refer to Jesus)? If the thief was a backslider then he wasn't saved, as you agreed to in your second statement. If he was saved, as you agreed to, then the only way he could have been baptized after he was saved is if he was taken down from the cross after he confessed Christ, before his legs were broken, and then put back on the cross before his legs were broken to hasten his death. And you just admitted that that was a ridiculous position to take. Therefore to suggest a previous baptism is a ridiculous position. I am glad that you agree, and admit your error.

 

[BobRyan]

I also do not believe in OSAS - but I don't see how that idea (one way or the other) comes into play in the case of the theif on the cross since both sides are claiming that they do not think the theif is a former Christian that "Went bad".

So how do we get to this topic on a thread about "Mary Queen of heaven"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So how do we get to this topic on a thread about "Mary Queen of heaven"?

Bob, have you ever seen a thread related to Catholicism actually stay on topic for more 3 pages...

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

Why would the Catholic position be that the thief had to be baptized?

The Catholic position as I understand it is that he wasn't baptised in water and didn't need to be; there is this term used called 'baptism of desire' whereby a convert desires all things which go with baptism but is physically prevented from being baptised in water before death, as was the case with the thief. In such circumstances, the Catholic Church effectively deems him to be baptised through his desire to be so.

 

[lori4dogs]

Although 'baptism of desire' is not specifally referred to in scripture, Jesus referred to different types of baptism when He said "There was "the Baptism wherewith I am to be baptized" (Lk. 12:50). This would obviously be 'baptism of blood'. Martyrs certainly fit into this category.

God is certainly not bound by sacraments. It was St. Thomas Aquinas that said: “It belongs to the excellence of Christ power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament.”

 

[quantumfaith]

I don't know for sure, but I don't believe that to be the Catholic position.

Most Catholics that I've talked with about this say that he was baptised by desire - or that he was saved by grace working through faith (I.e. - he came to our Lord's defense). My opinion is that God can do whatever He wants - including saving the good thief the way that He did.

Peace!

I am with you here Billy, no doubt in my mind that the Lord of All, can make "executive" decisions. While you and I are in agreement and disagreement on various issues relating to theology, what astounds me is the pejorative nature of many of the posts directed at you and your postions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Again you missed the point. The issue is whether the pagans of the 5th century A.D knew about the pagan "Queen of Heaven" - and everyone agrees they did.

Then the question is whether pagans entered the RCC and influenced the RCC liturgy such that pagan practices were taken up by the RCC. Catholic historians themselves admit to that - as it turns out.

So now we are left with the historic sequence that shortly after pagans began entering the RCC en masse and their pagan practices began to be adopted by the RCC - we see "burning incense to the Queen of Heaven" pop up as an RCC practice.

We are also left with the fact that the bigger-than-life stories for Mary do not surface in first century accounts - but rather are added with embelishments in later centuries, including efforts to adopt "the Queen of Heaven" motiff coincidental with the influx of pagans.

That is about as straight forward as you could ever demand.

There is no correlation at all between that straightline sequence and the equivocation you are attempting in the case of Christ and Horis. No such straight line sequence exists in that case.

in Christ,

Bob

I was reading the Aenid translated by Fitzgerald and I noted that Jupiter had a title applied to him "Heavenly Father". Now it is clear that during the time of Jesus the jews would understand that title was used for Zeus as well as a title they themselves used for God. That did not prevent the use by the Jews or by Jesus. I draw the same correlation between the 5th century Christians and the Jews. The Jews did not intermix paganism with Judaism though they used the same title. In like fashion I'm certain that though 5th century christians were aware of the use of the term "Queen of Heaven" for a pagan Goddess. That is where the similarilty ends. Like it was for the Jews and Paganism. The fact is there are frescos in the catacombs that show pictoral referrences to Mary in correlation of some sort of veneration back in the 200's. Now is it equitable with the view held today? I rather doubt it but the title "Queen of Heaven" wasn't adopted because of an intermarriage of paganism with Christianity but that Christianity felt used that title to discribe their specific meaning. Just like Heavenly Father was used for both Zeus and God but the Jews didn't call God heavenly father because the pagans did but titled God that per their own specific meaning.

 

[BillySunday1935]

So you admit your position is ridiculous.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

Good for you to admit that you hold ridiculous positions.

Right….

Previous to that statement you just put forth the premise "Have you ever heard of backsliders?" suggesting that the thief was a backslider (or did that refer to Jesus)? If the thief was a backslider then he wasn't saved, as you agreed to in your second statement.

2. On the cross he was saved. On the cross he turned to Christ. On the cross he put his faith in Christ.

I agree with statement #2 because I believe (personal opinion) that he was not previously baptized. I merely stated that he COULD have been previously baptized – scripture is silent on the matter. Is it possible for one to fall away and to lose one’s salvation? I believe so.

I think everyone knows where you are going with this...

If he was saved, as you agreed to, then the only way he could have been baptized after he was saved is if he was taken down from the cross after he confessed Christ, before his legs were broken, and then put back on the cross before his legs were broken to hasten his death.

False premise. See the above…

3. Where in Scripture is there evidence that they took his body down from the cross and then baptized him before they broke his legs in order to hasten his death? .

And you just admitted that that was a ridiculous position to take.

No – I am stating that point #3 is a ridiculous one on its face.

Therefore to suggest a previous baptism is a ridiculous position. I am glad that you agree, and admit your error.

DHK please... such sophomoric tactics. :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Again you missed the point. The issue is whether the pagans of the 5th century A.D knew about the pagan "Queen of Heaven" - and everyone agrees they did.

Then the question is whether pagans entered the RCC and influenced the RCC liturgy such that pagan practices were taken up by the RCC. Catholic historians themselves admit to that - as it turns out.

So now we are left with the historic sequence that shortly after pagans began entering the RCC en masse and their pagan practices began to be adopted by the RCC - we see "burning incense to the Queen of Heaven" pop up as an RCC practice.

We are also left with the fact that the bigger-than-life stories for Mary do not surface in first century accounts - but rather are added with embelishments in later centuries, including efforts to adopt "the Queen of Heaven" motiff coincidental with the influx of pagans.

That is about as straight forward as you could ever demand.

There is no correlation at all between that straightline sequence and the equivocation you are attempting in the case of Christ and Horis. No such straight line sequence exists in that case.

Thus in the case above - we have Christian writing that 4 centuries "After the imagined fact" starts to invent ideas about "burning incense to the Queen of Heaven" -- coincidental to an INFLUX of pagans that were doing "that very thing" in their own pagan services.

Thus we have a practice condemned in the Word of God -- in the book of Jeremiah - being adopted by the Christian church 400 years after the supposed time when Christians were praying to the dead - praying to Mary as "the Queen of Heaven".

I was reading the Aenid translated by Fitzgerald and I noted that Jupiter had a title applied to him "Heavenly Father". Now it is clear that during the time of Jesus the jews would understand that title was used for Zeus as well as a title they themselves used for God. That did not prevent the use by the Jews or by Jesus.

If "praying to the Heavenly Father" or even "burning incense to the Heavenly Father" were mentioned (and condemned) in the Word of God (let us say the book of Jeremiah for example) and then suddenly with an influx of pagans the time of Christ - the Jews began using that same worship practice - we would indeed have the problem you are trying to equivocate.

But that is fiction - nothing of that kind actually happened because there is no such thing as a Biblical command against "praying to the Heavenly Father".

Thus the problem with your analogy.

I draw the same correlation between the 5th century Christians and the Jews.

Indeed. but in the example you pick - there is no Biblical command against praying to or burning incense to "the Heavenly Father".

And there is no case where the NT Christian Church that introduced the "Father in Heaven" concept with the Teachings of Christ - claimed that pagan influences at the time of Christ's ministry were being rapidly adopted by Christ and his followers - the way that RC historians themselves claim that pagan worship practices were indeed being adopted by the RCC as the time that they suddenly come up with "buring incense to the queen of heaven".

Furthermore to truly equivocate between the two - we would have to have
1. NO mention at all of "Father in Heaven" by the NT
2. suddenly see the phrase "Father in Heaven" introduced 400 years after the NT times - and only after about a 100 years of admitting that "Pagan customs" where being adopted by the Christian church in worship.
3. Find OT texts that actually condemn the practice.

None of these characteristics apply to "Heavenly Father" but ALL of them are the confirmed history for "burning incense to the queen of heaven".

the title "Queen of Heaven" wasn't adopted because of an intermarriage of paganism with Christianity

That is a leap of faith on your part - given that RC historians themselves admit to the adoption of pagan worship customs into the RC worship service at the very time that this "burning incense to the queen of heaven" idea creeps in.


in Christ,

Bob