TPW #1 | Response to Lizzies Answers 7 Catholic Bible Verses that Prove Catholicism

Paul warns that evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving one another and being deceived. The reason Paul told Timothy that was because he needed to be ready to spend the balance of his life in uninterrupted warfare for the truth.

The most dangerous people alive today are always, always, always ordained ministers. They're the most dangerous people in the world, especially the ones that people think are Christians, who will sell you theological poison to the damnation of your soul.

Folks, I just want to warn you about something. Every heretic in the entire history of the church, without exception, has taught their heresy in the name of being faithful to Scripture. What happened when Jesus was nailed to the cross?

That was the day of wrath. That was the day of judgment. That is the day of final salvation. Brought back in time and applied to us once for all at the moment of our effectual calling when we repent and believe in our.

Unity to Christ.

I wanted to respond again to Lizzie here, a friend of mine who's Reformed, and I've been corresponding. I'm actually going to be on his podcast this afternoon. And I just wanted, he had asked this YouTuber who's Catholic to come on the program.

I don't know if she's ever going to respond to that, but here's the video that he linked to. I just wanted to listen to it. First part of it is actually a promo for t-shirts. She has this t-shirt on that says Beast, which is sort of shorthand for be a saint.

So anyway, we're going to skip that part and get right to these seven Catholic Bible verses that prove Catholicism. Here we go.

So I just wanted to tell you guys about a really cool Catholic YouTube channel.

That's the Catholic t-shirt, right?

The Church as the Pillar of Truth and the Meaning of 1 Timothy 3:15

So the first verse, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household. This is 1 Timothy 3, 15, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

So it's not saying that the Bible, scripture, New Testament is the pillar and foundation of truth.

We don't believe it is either.

But the church of the living God, and that's what Catholicism claims. Catholicism claims that the New Testament canon came from the church.

The New Testament canon did not come from the church. In fact, before the issue of what books are in the New Testament is ever even addressed by any provincial councils, all you got to do is read this and you'll see men quoting quite freely from the books of the New Testament as the scripture, as the word of God.

The scripture says it is written and they're quoting from the New Testament books. And evidently they all thought that those books had inherent authority and that they were functioning as scripture long before they were ever addressed by any kind of council.

The provincial councils of Hippocarthage and Rome 397, 399, and 401 address the books of the New Testament. But the problem here is, you know, Lizzie just said that the books of the Bible, the canon comes from the authority of the church.

Well, there's a bit of a problem here because the very first time that an ecumenical council addresses the canon of scripture is April of 1546 at the Council of Trent. So Lizzie, are you actually suggesting to us that nobody knew for sure that Romans was part of the New Testament or that John's gospel was part of the New Testament or 2nd Corinthians or the Gospel of Matthew?

No one really knew for sure. Christians don't give any indication that they're not sure that those books are scripture prior to April 1546. And the fact is the books are functioning as scripture already for hundreds of years by the time that those issues of the canon are addressed in 397, 399, and 401.

They were not giving authority to those books. It's just one of the most common historical errors that people make, as if people were voting on books or something like that. What they simply did was they got a list together of the books that had already been functioning as scripture for hundreds of years by the time they addressed it.

So no, no one is standing outside of those provincial councils going, well, I sure do hope 1st Corinthians makes it in. I sure do hope the book of Hebrews makes it in. No, no one's doing that and the church doesn't give authority to these books, nor does it authoritatively declare the canon.

And if you're going to say that, you have to hold to your own church's theology and understanding, which is the church didn't do that until the 16th century. So are we really to believe that no one really had certainty about what books were in the New Testament until the 16th century?

You know, Augustine doesn't give any indication that he's he doesn't know for sure what books are in the New Testament.

The authority of the church, that you can't separate the Bible from the church. Here's a verse that really...

That's right, because the Bible is the very seedbed in which the church grows, not the other way around.

Oral Tradition, Scripture, and Sola Scriptura in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3

Scared me when I read it. So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm. Second Thessalonians 2 .15, another commonly misused passage. And hold fast to the traditions we pass on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul directly says to hold fast to the traditions, and he's talking about oral tradition, whether by word of mouth or by letter. So Paul is commanding the Christians to accept the tradition and to keep going by the tradition.

And the craziest thing is that I was not reading some Catholic apologetics. Wait a minute. What are you saying?

What are you saying he's talking about when he says the tradition? Are you saying that he's referring there to a separate source of doctrine? A separate source of God-breathed revelation? Is that what you're saying?

You know, most Roman Catholic theologians and apologists do not hold that view. That Second Thessalonians 2 .15 is actually referring to a separate source of divine revelation. In fact, most of them hold to what's called the material sufficiency view of Scripture, meaning they basically believe what we do, that there is nothing outside of Scripture that is God-breathed in the same way Scripture is.

And so everything in the Catholic church is either explicitly or implicitly, implicitly, implicitly, implicitly taught somewhere in Scripture. And that's always fascinating to see, you know, how can you try to defend the papacy, the priesthood, purgatory indulgences, the Marian dogmas, and justification by grace-infused righteousness and so forth.

You don't actually go into tradition. You just like quote the word tradition. See, that must mean the Roman Catholic church's tradition. But you see, I've heard a lot of other groups quote that passage and say, no, no, that's talking about our tradition, the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

What does that tell you? When two groups can quote the same passage, arguing in favor of different traditions, what does that tell you? The passage does not give the content of tradition that they're talking about.

And it shows you they're both misusing the passage. What is Paul talking about when he talks about the traditions, the gospel? You see, what do we know about the church in Thessalonica? Why did Paul write them two letters?

Well, Acts chapter 17 is where you see the founding of the church in Thessalonica. Paul goes and preaches there, and then there's riots, and they have to leave. After probably, I've preached on that before, and preached through 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, probably only about six Sabbath days was he actually there.

That's not a whole lot of time to give a real strong foundation. So Paul is telling them, hold fast to everything that we taught you, whether it was written down or oral. What you have to demonstrate here, Lizzie, is that what he's talking about is somehow doctrinally different and distinct from what we have in the New Testament.

And that's exactly what the Roman Catholic Church cannot and does not do. Which makes their use of this passage really quite meaningless. I'm sorry, Lizzie. No one's going to read this passage. No one will read this passage and think, oh, that must mean the Roman Catholic religion's tradition.

Or, oh, that's got to be the church is the pillar and foundation of the church. That's got to be the East Orthodox religion. That's a completely unbiblical ecclesiology. Totally unbiblical ecclesiology.

Churches are not churches because of the bishops they're in communion with. Churches are churches because they hold to the apostolic doctrine of the apostles.

I was just reading through my Bible on my own, and plainly, obviously, it looked Catholic. So here are some verses that a lot of Protestants...

So,.

You read that and thought, oh, that must be where Paul taught the Thessalonians about the papacy, the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, and the Marian dogmas. It's just, you had no influence from Rome at all.

You just thought, that's got to be where he taught them about those other things. Well, your own best theologians don't even believe that because they know it's historically indefensible.

Scripture, the Canon, and Sola Scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16–17

It's used to support sola scriptura. All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,.

Correcting, and training in righteousness. Well, read verse 17, too, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. What we're talking about when we say sola scriptura is the number of sources of divine revelation that exists in the church today.

Pasa grafe theopneustos. All scripture is God-breathed. Okay, if you're going to deny that, then you need to show us something else that's God-breathed. What else do you have that's God-breathed? I would like to see it so that I can understand it.

What else do you have that is God-breathed? If you have something, hey, you could just totally destroy us in this whole debate about sola scriptura. When we say sola scriptura, what we're talking about is how many sources, how many fixed and unchanging sources of divine revelation exists in the church today.

The answer is, one, scripture. Scripture is God-breathed. Nothing else is. That's why we hold to sola scriptura.

So a lot of people will say this is talking about how the Old and New Testament is the infallible word of God.

Now, Lizzie, please don't tell me you're going to go, well, this is only talking about the Old Testament because the New Testament isn't written yet.

God and his youth to teach us how to be the church. But the problem with this is that when Second Timothy was written, the New Testament canon had not been established yet.

Hello, the passage is not addressing the extent of the canon. The passage is addressing the nature of scripture and what it's able to do. So no, it's not, well, that would mean he thinks the Old Testament without the New is sufficient to do all this stuff.

He's addressing the nature of scripture and what scripture does. And Lizzie, verse 17 says that scripture is able to make the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work. I would assume that you think teaching the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of indulgences and the bodily assumption of Mary would be a good work, wouldn't it?

How does scripture, how does scripture equip the man of God to teach the bodily assumption of Mary? How does scripture equip the man of God to teach Rome's doctrine of indulgences and about the thesaurus meritorum, the treasury of merit?

So when it's saying all scripture, it can only be talking about the Old Testament.

No, it's addressing the nature of scripture and even your own religion holds that the New Testament is also God-breathed. So you're really kind of shooting yourself in the foot here.

The New Testament canon was not closed. It wasn't officially decided which books were part of the New Testament until the 4th century.

No, from your church's own perspective, it was decided in April of 1546 because provincial councils are not ecumenical and therefore they're not infallible.

The second Timothy verse was written. A lot of the New Testament had not even been written yet. You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions. So this isn't talking about the tradition of the early church because this was before the church had even began.

Jesus is saying this and the church officially begins in Acts 2.

What? We like jumped over to Mark 7 verse 8. I'm not sure. That's not a very smooth transition there.

Pentecost. So any Christian tradition, any Catholic tradition, Jesus was talking about human traditions that the Jewish people had created that were going against God's teachings in the Old Testament.

If you read Mark 7 in context, Jesus is just going after the Pharisees and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were not washed. This is not at all talking about Christian tradition.

It doesn't need to. The principle is the same. When someone else comes along and says, well, we have a tradition and it also contradicts scripture, you're to judge it on the same basis that they did prior to the New Testament being written.

No one is saying that Jesus is actually talking about Christian traditions. He's talking about the tradition of the Pharisees. Look at Mark 7 and Matthew 15. The Corban rule. Whatever I might have given as help to my parents, I'm devoting as a gift to God.

That comes from tractate avoth in the Talmud. And people believed that that was a divine tradition, that it was passed on orally outside of the Old Testament scriptures given by Moses, passed down through the succession of rabbis, and it plainly contradicts the fifth commandment.

And Jesus pointed that out to them. Now when they heard that, when Jesus pointed out that their Corban rule contradicted the fifth commandment, you know, you guys say that whatever help you would have given your parents is a gift devoted to God, that contradicts the fifth commandment.

Did any of the Pharisees go, yeah, you're right. It does contradict the fifth commandment. No, they didn't care. Because once you've rejected Sola Scriptura, you'll believe anything. This is an individual who believes that it's appropriate to get down on your face in front of statues and icons.

Now, what does the Old Testament say? You shall not make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the waters on the earth.

You shall not bow down to them. What does she do? Bows down to them. So we come along and say, hey, that contradicts the second commandment. And what's Lizzie's response to that going to be? No, it doesn't.

How can you not see that it doesn't? We have this tradition. And this tradition tells us that it doesn't violate that even though it clearly does. The prohibition against pictures, statues, icons of anything and kneeling to them.

What does Lizzie do? Make pictures, icons, statues and kneels to them. That's a plain and obvious violation of the second commandment. Why doesn't she see it? Because her tradition tells her not to. Just like the Pharisees in Mark 7 and Matthew 15.

Judges, Private Interpretation, and the Problem of Human Authority

It's a really interesting verse. It's the theme of Judges. It's said over and over again. It is in Judges 17, 6, 21, 25 and 11. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. A lot of other places. In those days, Israel had no king.

Everyone did what was right in their own eyes. So this verse really, really convicted me last summer. I was really struggling because I had a lot of views about women's role in the church and sexuality that completely differed from Catholic teaching.

It was just so clear to me that certain things were moral or certain things were immoral. But this verse is saying that doing what is right in your own eyes is the problem. There's no central authority.

That was why.

So the solution here is to submit to a human authority. What they were doing was not listening to the Torah anymore. They weren't listening to the written Old Testament law. That's what God held the people of Israel to.

Not blindly submitting to some kind of human authority.

Everything was going wrong. Everyone was doing what they saw as right based upon their own perspective. That was just really, really convicting and it made me have to just make some really hard choices and have to become really humble and admit that just because based upon my own perspective something seems so obvious that doesn't necessarily mean it's God's truth.

God functions on the premise that language is adequate to convey truth. Jesus held his hearers individually responsible for having read and understood the Bible. He would say to them, Have you not read what was spoken to you by God?

And then he would quote the Old Testament. See, if they thought like Roman Catholics, they would say, well Jesus, we had no centralized infallible authority to tell us that. That's what it meant. Jesus didn't operate that way.

His operating premise was God is able to talk to us.

So.

Her understanding of those Judges passages, everyone did what was right in their own eyes. Meaning what? You just have to slavishly submit to some human authority that claims to be the true church of God on earth.

How can you do that without doing what's right in your own eyes? You see, there's no way around private interpretation. You have to interpret everything. Whether you get it from an infallible interpreter of scripture or scripture itself, you are still the one who has to make sense out of what it's saying.

John 20:21–23 and the Church's Declarative Authority

This is another verse. When I saw it, I was shocked, scared. I wanted to stop reading my Bible. John 20, 21 through 23. This is the very end of John.

If you forgive the sins of any, as if this has anything to do with Roman Catholic priesthood and the confession and priestly absolution, etc. Let's just listen to a reader here.

Jesus said, peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. So Jesus is talking to the 12 apostles. And with that, he breathed on them and said, receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven.

If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.

What?

Because you hear so much about how priests have authority to forgive sins and a lot of people say no.

There's nothing. Wait, wait a minute. You just jumped over the Grand Canyon. He's talking to the apostles here. Where did you get the idea of.

Priests?

Where's that in the passage? Where's that anywhere in the New Testament? What this passage is talking about, again, is another very commonly misinterpreted, misapplied passage. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven.

If you retain those of any, they are retained. What this is talking about is the church's declarative authority. The church's authority is declarative and ministerial. It is not legislative. I can no more forgive someone's of their sins than I could jump over the moon.

Just as a Roman Catholic priest, since there's nothing in the New Testament about priests doing anything like this, what's he talking about here? The church is able to declare, to declare a person's sins are forgiven.

If they repent and believe in Jesus Christ, we can declare their sins are forgiven. That's part of our worship service. It's a word of absolution, a declaration of pardon. But there's a vast difference between the church's declarative authority and what the Roman Catholic religion is saying that this unbiblical anti-scriptural doctrine of priests can do.

You see, the fact is the only person that can forgive anyone of their sins is Jesus Christ. So when someone comes to me and they have sin they want to confess, I will hear that confession, of course, and will pray with them, and I will direct them to the only priest who can forgive them.

His name is Jesus Christ, and he holds the priesthood of Melchizedek forever, and he holds that priesthood, Hebrews 7, 24, aparabaton, not able to be transferred to another. And so every time someone thinks that they are, as a priest, actually forgiving people who are actually doing it, it is blasphemy of the highest order.

Only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. But this is insane because Jesus is literally telling his apostles, he's breathing on them, which is still done in Orthodox and Catholic churches today. They pray over people and breathe on them when passing on apostolic succession.

And so he

Really? I've never heard that before. They actually, like, blow on, breathe on them? That's

Saying if you forgive anyone's sins, they're forgiven. If you do not, they're not forgiven. What does that mean?

It's just me. It means that the church has the authority to declare if a person's sins are forgiven, but they're not forgiven by us. You see, the issue that people need to realize here is you, as a sinner, need to be forgiven by God.

Okay? Not by a priest, since there's no such thing as priests in the New Testament anyway. You need to be forgiven by God of your sins. And there's only one priest who can help you with that, and that's Jesus Christ.

That's why there are no priests anymore. There's no The Levitical and Aaronic priesthood, abolished. Why? Because Jesus Christ holds the Melchizedek priesthood forever. Hebrews 6, 7, and 8. Read it.

He holds that and he is in heaven itself. And so what I do as a pastor, as an elder, not a priest, an elder, is I point people to Jesus Christ, because he's the one that can forgive them. And if they believe in him, I can declare their sins are forgiven.

But my authority is ministerial and declarative, not judicial or legislative. That's the difference here.

You start to think, wow, maybe the whole priesthood, apostolic succession thing.

Could be.

Biblical.

No, there's nothing about apostolic succession. Nothing. Where do you ever see the apostles passing on the authority of their office to anyone? They have no successors. There just aren't any in scripture anywhere.

So again, Lizzie, the only reason you would read a passage like that that says nothing about apostolic succession, nothing about successors, and think, well, maybe apostolic succession is true, is if you're already familiar with Rome's doctrines and now you're, well, I guess there's a way you could understand this that it might suggest such a thing.

The fact is there's nothing there. We read about no successors to the apostles in the New Testament anywhere.

Relics, Miracles, and the Apostolic Signs in Acts 19

This is a verse about relics. So I haven't really talked about this that in depth on my channel. So in Christian history, from the beginning, there have just been reports of miracles being done with the bones or the body part of a Christian who was martyred and is now in heaven.

Miracles that have been done to asking that person to create a god for them. And I just thought that it seemed so pagan or like witchcraft. From what? It's just not biblical.

Okay, necromancy, communication with the dead is not biblical. It's something that's condemned by the Old Testament. Now, what's the standard answer to this? Well, Paul says that all are alive in Christ.

Yes, that's quite true, but that doesn't mean that they're physically alive.

Okay?

It is idolatry to pray to anyone but God. Prayer is an act of worship. That's why you can't direct prayer to anyone but God through Jesus Christ.

Seemed right in my own eyes, but here's a verse that is that same idea of relics going on in the New Testament. God did extraordinary.

Miracles through...

So taking things that were part of the apostolic foundation laying ministry and making that normative today, by the way, Paul wasn't dead when people touched his handkerchiefs and were healed. These were the signs of the apostles.

And again, this doesn't prove anything about your position. It doesn't prove apostolic succession. It doesn't prove that we can go look at the tooth of one of the apostles and get time out of purgatory or or get healed or something like that.

It's just superstitious nonsense.

So that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. So this is a similar thing to the John 20 verse where we have these intuitions that only God can forgive sins.

But then it's like God is working through the apostles to forgive sins and then here with...

No, he's working through the apostles and through his ministers to declare that people's sins have been forgiven and I'm not actually in myself forgiving people of their sins. I am declaring if they repent and their faiths in Jesus Christ that their sins have already been forgiven.

I'm not actually judicially doing it and that's not what those passages teach either.

Paul, you think only Jesus can heal people, but Jesus is working through Paul to heal people. Even working through objects that have touched Paul.

And there is no apostolic foundation laying signs and wonders ministry anymore. After the apostles die off, what are they establishing everywhere that they go? Elders and deacons. Elders and deacons. Why doesn't Paul ever address to the to the elders and the deacons and the successors of the apostles and the apostles in the church at Corinth?

Because there are none. The apostolic office is not passed on because you had to be directly appointed to it by Jesus Christ and you had to be an eyewitness of the resurrection. Remember when they had to replace Judas with Matthias in Acts chapter 1 verse 20 and 21, 22?

Someone else should take his place to be an eyewitness of his resurrection. To be an apostle you had to be an eyewitness of the resurrection of Christ. So no, there are no apostles today. I would honestly be surprised if Rome's own theologians would say that there are apostles today.

I talked about this in my video Do Not Call Any Man Father. I'm going to link that up here, but Matthew 23 is really interesting.

Moses' Seat, the Papacy, and Matthew 23

So in verse 2. Moses' seat. Is that where you're going here?

It says the teachers of the law and the pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So there is this idea in Judaism that we have the Torah but then we have the interpreter of the law and the person would sit on Moses' seat.

So it's just this succession of a position that is to interpret the law and Catholics believe a similar thing. The pope sits on Peter's seat and there's this Are you actually suggesting.

That Moses' seat becomes the papacy? Is that is that what we're being told here? I don't know.

Ex cathedra. When you speak from the chair, you speak on dogmatic matters and we believe it is infallible. So this same idea is in this bible verse Matthew 23, and it's interesting what Jesus says. He actually affirms the position.

Do everything they tell you. He doesn't even talk about the pharisees. He thinks that they're just being really hypocritical and awful, but here is what he says. You must be careful to do everything they tell you, but do not do what they do or they do not practice what they preach.

So Jesus is affirming this chair position that interprets the law.

Where is the evidence that any such thing continues into the New Testament era? And besides that, you know, yes, he's not making a statement saying whatever they tell you to do, do it. Well, they told them to do lots of things that were unbiblical that Jesus ripped their lips off for.

Okay, he he is not saying just give slavish assent to everything that they say. But don't don't do what they do. He goes on throughout the rest of this entire chapter to point out that these guys are going to hell.

Okay, these same teachers taught them the Corban rule in Matthew chapter 15, which was unbiblical. They were commanded to observe it. And Jesus, you know, says here, whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do.

Well, that's not an unqualified statement, obviously. So you're you're really misinterpreting it because Jesus did condemn them for the things that they told the people to do. Namely, to crucify Jesus and to obey these extra biblical traditions that contradicted scripture.

So this is a very weird usage of this passage. Moses's seat becomes the papacy. Wow, I'd love to see that. An attempt made to prove that exegetically.

I'm not at all saying that this alone proves the papacy.

That's encouraging because there's no way you could ever make a case like that. There's nothing here. Not even remotely close to such a thing. Or proves Peter's chair.

I talked about that in my initial Why I'm Becoming Catholic video, why I believe that Peter was the first pope. But this is just blatantly Jesus affirming the same type of position. So if you've been watching my videos for a while

So they're real so Jesus believed that there was something like the the like a pope?

Like a pope in the Old Testament? Well, then you know that I'm obsessed with Revelation. I read it all the time. So Revelation is full of wild imagery. It's difficult to even interpret, know what's going on.

But in Revelation 12, there's this passage about a woman and a dragon. A great sign appeared in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of 12 stars on her head.

She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven. An enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its head. And then verse 5,.

She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God where she might be taken care of.

So I had actually written in the margin of my Bible months before I ever started researching Catholicism. I had just written.

Mary?

Question mark? Because it seems so obvious that this is talking about Mary.

I think it is. But notice verse 2, then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. If Mary was conceived without original sin, why would she have to experience the effects of sin by having pain in childbirth?

Again, with these verses, these are the things I noticed on my own. No Catholic pointed out and was like, this is a Catholic verse, no one indoctrinated me.

The verses about Mary have nothing to do with Catholicism. What does that have to do with Catholicism? I don't understand. This is a Catholic verse because what? It's about Mary? So everything about Mary is Catholic?

I was actually doing this group rosary prayer session with a dozen people from my church on Wednesday. And it was really cool because between each Mary prayer, we read a Bible verse. So we read through like 50 Bible verses during this prayer session.

I was just thinking it was kind of funny because a lot of people against Catholicism say we don't focus on the Bible, but we literally read like 50 Bible verses in 10 minutes during this rosary prayer session.

Reading the Bible is different from understanding it.

Three works is there's five parts of the rosary. So you read Bible verses, focus on five. By the way, the rosary,.

Where does that come from? Allegedly from an apparition of the Virgin Mary in the middle ages. Probably not something you really want to be doing, especially since prayers, especially the kinds of prayers that are directed to Mary are.

Worship and idolatry. Different parts of Jesus' life. And so we were doing the resurrection, the start of the church, Jesus ascension into heaven, Mary being born, and Mary being crowned in heaven. And we read a verse from Revelation.

Because the early church interpreted this to be about Mary. In verse one, it talks about a crown on her head with 12 stars. And in the Jewish monarchy, the mom of the king was the queen. So Christians have just always thought of Mary as the queen of heaven.

No, they haven't.

Christians have always thought of Mary as the queen of heaven. Would you mind demonstrating that from the patristic sources? I would like to see that.

And so this was a Bible verse that seems to be giving her a crown. Also, someone was asking me a question about this verse. They were talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary, how Catholics believe Mary did not have any birth pain, which is correct.