Something better than being Mary, Jesus' Mother

Hi Colin,

I'm well thank you. I just listened to Dr. Robert Gagnon, an Evangelical professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (PCUSA), give a presentation on Homosexuality and the Bible at our university. His book, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice":

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=170W22XR18&isb n=068708413X

is quite a foundational exegetical piece that defends the Traditional Christian teaching and practice in this area of Gospel morality.

"Let us say the passage had gone diferently, Soloman replying to his mother, "well, I was going to have him killed, but because you ask it, I will pardon him". Would the example then be frivolous? Be honest, it would support your claims wonderfully, and obviously you would cite it with gusto."

Notice that I'm already quoting the passage with gusto, regardless of Solomon's denial in this instance. If Solomon would have granted her request in this one instance, then, yes, I will be honest and admit that I would present that as further evidence of an occurance of a granted petition. In this instance, Solomon did not grant it, and I acknowledge that openly.

It is only frivolous because it goes against your doctrine. The facts remain that the only Biblical examples of queen mums doing things or requesting things are bad. Its hard to build a Biblical doctrine out of that.

I love Aussies - and all of your ways of speaking. I had the privelege of spending this past summer with a priest from Thursday Island in the Whitsunday Islands for 9 weeks; he walked across the United States for the Pro Life movement with our small group of college students - a delightful pastor of God with horrible teeth and a wonderful sense of humor!

We know that all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit for our instruction. You must therefore ask yourself, why did the Holy Spirit choose to only mention the queen mum in negative examples?

In order to demonstrate that Solomon had a human will and could decide whether to accept or reject the Gebirah's petitions?

What was he instructing us throught this? If the Holy Spirit had wished to forshadow the intercessory role of Mary in the OT (according to your understanding), would he have chosen to only record such a ministry in a negative example?

I don't take such a Fundamentalist Biblical hermeneutical stance, of which your thought is representative of. I see Scripture as witnessing to earthly realities in the Old Testament that foreshadow New Testament heavenly realities.

I find Luke presenting literary allusion to the Old Testament office of the Queen Mother when he narrates the Annunciation. Mary is addressed with "Hail! Full of grace (kecharitomene, a past present participle which means essentially, "you who have been fully transformed in grace" - a verb that presents an action completed in the past that is relevant to the present)".

We can already see the royal greeting in action. And, then the rest of the Annunciation narrative alludes to royal Davidic attributes: "the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Do we learn from the OT that it is good to petition the queen mum? No, the only example of this happening in inspired Scripture ends in the failure of the intercession and the death of the petitioner.

Thank goodness that the wills of the beatified in heaven are perfectly united with the divine will.

From this we deduce that the Holy Spirit is in favour of prayers to Mary?????????

Beyond favor. Remember, the spouse of the Holy Spirit is Mary, and she is presented as the disciple's mother in John 19:26-27, whom the disciple brings into his own ("Home" in our modern english translations is not in the Greek - the literal rendering is "into his own").

This story of rejection and death is how he chose to forshadow it?

The Gebirah is throughout Jewish Davidic tradition; this passage is just one minute instance of the office. Your Fundamentalist hermeneutic is what prompts you to ask these questions.

A Catholic hermeneutic has a broader Biblical view. It sees God as inspiring the events of history to which Scripture records faithfully in its own way: myth, narrative, historical chronicles, poem, etc. Since the office of great intercessory power was established in the Davidic dynasty for the Queen Mother, I look to that - not to the particular instance of its exercise.

God's will is made manifest not in my interpretation of what I think the Holy Spirit means, but in how a particular passage has been interpreted by the entire Church throughout the centuries in the orthodox Christian tradition. If the former were employed, I would be a Protestant, and divisions would mark my form of Chrsitianity without end.

If you're interested in understanding the differences between Catholic (as well as non-Fundamentalist Protestant) and Fundamentalist approaches to Biblical interpretation, I suggest this very short and inexpensive text by Ronald Witherup, S.S.:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814627226 /qid=1036213352/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-2827169-3093701?v=glance


You choose a difficult argument to defend. We all agree that we can pray directly to Jesus, that he lives to interceed for us, that the glory of the New Covenant is its personal relationship with the creator of heaven and earth. Why would we want to establish a lesser intermediary, unless like the Israelites of old, we flee from shinning faces and plead that we do not wish to hear God's voice.

Because the Father is glorified when he allows his creatures to share in his glory. I like to employ the analogy of the artist who receives glory through his art.

Worship God, seek intimacy with Him, spend time in prayer with Him, and Mary, woman of faith that she is, will become unimportant.

Actually, I've found the contrary to be true in my personal spiritual life. Mary is important precisely because of Jesus Christ. The more I seek Jesus, the more I come to know his mother, and the more I come to know Mary, the more I come to know Jesus.

John presents this dynamic wonderfully in his account of the Wedding at Cana. The mother of Jesus, by her intercession for the wedding guests, brings about the advent of Jesus' public ministry, which eventually leads to his "hour". This act of intercession results in Jesus' first public miracle.

Whoever approaches momma Mary (as the Filipinos call her), is led to Jesus, as her constant advice is "Do whatever he tells you". Adherence to Mother Mary is inseparable from uniting our will to the will of God, which is the simplest definition of "covenant".

True Marian piety tends to the development of exemplary sanctity because of this interesting dynamic in the Christian spiritual life. I like to point to Mother Teresa, St. Pio (Padre Pio), and St. Maximillian Kolbe as examples par excellence.

Blessings,

Carson

[ November 02, 2002, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

I think your taking a little too much credit. Your prayers won't save anybody. Jesus saves.

Carson, this is a reach, even for you. Yes, I disagree with you, I disagree with the whole idea of Mary having anything to do with salvation. The verse you stated doesn't support it. Far from it.

Don't mistake my blunt demeanor. As much as I love you, and, believe it or not, the rest of the members of your faith, I have a job down here. To tell others about Christ. In his own words, he told us to evangelize the world. Mary is not mentioned. Why didn't Jesus tell us about Mary ? Why didn't Jesus tell us to pray to his mom ? Why doesn't Paul, or Peter, or James, or John, or Jude ? Why isn't it spelled out in a language even a dumb ole Baptist like me can understand ?

Because it is a false teaching.

Proverbs 30:4

[ November 02, 2002, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

Brother Curtis,

Because it is spelled out by Christ's Church, the fountain and pillar of truth.

God bless,

Grant

 

But according to the Catholic church, Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude were part of and founders of the Catholic church. Why is it that they never mention praying to Mary. James for example, encourages prayer yet doesn't mention Mary. Christ's Church (not Rome's Church) is the fountain and pillar of truth because Christ has established it to proclaim the Gospel of Truth.

I think that Curtis may have meant Proverbs 30:6, not 4.

 

DualHunter,

Perhaps Mary was still alive and had not been assumed into Heaven at the point in which they wrote their letters?

God bless,

Grant

 

It is possible that Mary was still alive when James was writing, though that shouldn't change anything since Catholics claim they are just asking her to pray for them and she would have been quite capable of doing that while still on this earth (she was among the first 120 Christians praying after the ascension after all). John however wrote later and he never mentions praying to Mary, nor is the practice mentioned in Revelation. The Bible never mentions the other theology that the Catholic church claim in regard to Mary such as her role as coredemptress and comediator

 

DualHunter,

Time and again, it has been stated that these doctrines of faith are taken implicitly from Scripture. You do not accept them, which is why you are not in the Catholic Church. We've provided Scriptural evidence that you reject. I know that I have, and I know that Carson has. We're not here to convert you. We didn't start this thread. We're defending our faiths, and I personally think we've done an excellent job. Have we changed anyone's mind? No, but I'm certain that I feel much stronger in my faith because of my participation in it. I'm that much more confident that the Catholic Church is again correct on these issues.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "I think your taking a little too much credit. Your prayers won't save anybody. Jesus saves."

Are you saying that our prayers have no effect with regards to the salvation of others? This is a new view that I haven't encountered yet from a Christian, and I'm intrigued.

You wrote, "In his own words, he told us to evangelize the world. Mary is not mentioned."

Actually, Mary is a part of the Gospel or the "Gospels" per say. She's mentioned in several key places, especially when she becomes the beloved disciple's mother in John 19.

How do you interpret this action in John 19:26-27? Why do you think that it is a part of the Gospel? What is its significance?

God bless,

Carson

[ November 03, 2002, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Nope! I don't see any mention of Mary here, where the "gospel" is defined for us. You must believe a different gospel Carson. And if that be the case:

Galatians 1:6-9
6...but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

If your gospel contains Mary, it is anothter gospel. The Bible says concerning those that preach another gospel "let him be accursed."

These are God's Words. They are offensive and meant to be so. Why? The gospel message was never meant to be perverted, and the Catholic Church has done just that.

John 19:26,27
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
--Is there a problem with these verses? Jesus is giving instructions to John (both the youngest of the disciples, and one who was nicknamed "the beloved"), to take care of his earthly mother Mary for the remainder of her earthly life. So John took her to his own home, it says. There is nothing mystical here, nothing hard to understand. There is no great leap to be made from here to "Mary, the Queen of Heaven." There is no mention here of Mary being part of the gospel message. Just what is your point in this reference Carson. "Take good care of Mary, John." John gives his consent and takes her to his house. Don't read into Scripture that which is not there.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

Nope! I don't see any mention of Mary here, where the "gospel" is defined for us. You must believe a different gospel Carson.

Allow me to point you elsewhere in the NT Scripture. Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

It seems that everything included in "the Gospels" are part of "the Gospel". And Mary is certainly a central figure in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Turn to Galatians 4:4, "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" Who is the "woman" DHK? Who plays an integral part to God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ?

Jesus is giving instructions to John (both the youngest of the disciples, and one who was nicknamed "the beloved"), to take care of his earthly mother Mary for the remainder of her earthly life.

Hmmm.. Jesus does this hanging from the cross on Calvary, bloody, mangled, and about to complete the redemption of mankind. Taking care of hospitality issues discreetly ...or... taking care of maternal care publicly at the point of the most important event in the history of the universe. What's the difference? Absolutely nothing!.. if you're a prejudiced Marian-minimalist with an agenda.

So John took her to his own home, it says.

No, Scripture nowhere mentions a home in John 19:27. Check your Greek.

There is nothing mystical here, nothing hard to understand. There is no great leap to be made from here to "Mary, the Queen of Heaven." There is no mention here of Mary being part of the gospel message. Just what is your point in this reference Carson. "Take good care of Mary, John."

Riiiiiiight.. So we're witnessing merely a nonchalant gesture of hospitality on the part of Jesus. Uh huh.

John gives his consent and takes her to his house. Don't read into Scripture that which is not there.

Take your own advice DHK. Don't read into Scripture that which is not there. There is no mention of "home" or "house" in this verse. Nowhere.

Bless you,

Carson
"Mary's son"

 

Joh 19:27 (KJV)
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

John 19:27 (ASV)
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.

John 19:27 (WEB)
Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour, the disciple took her to his own home.

John 19:27 (Darby's)
Then he says unto the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

John 19:27 (Young's)
afterward he saith to the disciple, `Lo, thy mother;' and from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

I realize the word "home" is not in the Greek. It was added for our understanding by the translators. It seems that all the other translators agree with the KJV translators as well. The verb requires an object to make any sense in the English language. Home or house would have been the understood object of the verb, unless of course you are a Catholic trying to squeeze in pre-conceived Catholic ideology into Scripture where it doesn't fit.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

I realize the word "home" is not in the Greek.

You are correct. "Home" is not in John 19:27.

The verb requires an object to make any sense in the English language.

Does it need an object to make any sense in the Greek language? Or, is John presenting us with a senseless passage?

I argue that "his own" is the object of "took" in the extant Greek mss, and that it makes perfect sense as it stands.

If John, in his theologically charged Gospel, is merely presenting Jesus' concern for familial hospitality, he most certainly would not have presented the situation (1) on Calvary, (2) with abract terms such as "woman", "mother", "son", and "beloved disciple", (3) as a new relationship between the two objects as "mother" and "son".

Of course, because you reject anything harkening to the study of Mary and have a pre-conceived prejudicial rejection of anything "Marian", you refuse to open your eyes to the clearly theological (i.e. abstract terms), forcefully potent (i.e. "Ecce!" = "Behold!"), and solemn qualities (at the climax of the universal redemptive act of creation) of the event.

"For this people's heart has grown dull,
and their ears are heavy of hearing,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should perceive with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart"

your brother in Christ,

Carson
"Mary's son"

[ November 03, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

John 19:27
2398 idios id'-ee-os
of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, i.e. one's own; by implication, private or separate:--X his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private(-ly), proper, severally, their (own).

John 1:11
Unto his own (eiv ta idia). Neuter plural, "unto his own things," the very idiom used in Joh_19:27when the Beloved Disciple took the mother of Jesus "to his own home." The world was "the own home" of the Logos who had made it. See also Joh_16:32; Act_21:6.

John 16:32
To his own (eiv ta idia). "To his own home" as in Joh_1:11; Joh_19:27. So Appian VI. 23.

Acts 21:6
Home again (eiv ta idia). To their own places as of the Beloved Disciple in Joh_19:27 and of Jesus in Joh_1:11. This idiom in the papyri also.

Learn your Greek Carson. The expression is an idiom. The context fits perfectly well meaning "to his own house." That is what the idiom meant, as in other places as well. The phrase demanded an object in translation.
DHK

 

Hi Carson, how are you? I do think you are defending an untenable position with skill and guts! Being an Aussi, I like us too, and I brushed my teeth sometime last week, so they should be fine for some time also.

You are right, the queen mum is mentioned more in the OT, twice making asherah in the temple, and once fleeing Jerusalem. The office is mentioned, but never favourably. If however, you seek to construct a heavenly queen mum from this sitting on a throne in heaven, Revelation will prove dissapointing. Only the throne of God and of the Lamb are mentioned. No queen mum throne.

As for "hail" being said to Mary, dont read too much into it. The Greek can also mean rejoyce, or salutations. Jesus greets the disciples with this same word (Mat 29:8).

Your real problems remain. Mary is saved in a way unattested by Scripture, (St Anne??) indeed, in a way contrary to all NT teaching about the nature of salvation. Did she confess her sins? Repent? Confess with her mouth (while still being conceived) etc? The myths you repeat are unscriptural and anti scriptural. That is not the salvation of the NT.

The comment that prayers to her are not recorded as she only died after much NT was written is fair, but your doctrine of Mary is about more than prayers. Paul mentions Jesus as the second Adam. He makes absolutely no reference to Mary here as the second Eve, but he does write that he has not shirked to proclaim the whole Gospel to us. And Mary never ever once mentioned by him in all his letters. What does this let you?

You say Mary is your mother, but scripture says the Jerusalem above is our mother.

The early church was blessed and grew. The disciples were told to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit came, and to then go and preach the Gospel to all. (They were not told to wait till Mary died, then to go out) They preached a whole gospel, it was not lacking (see Paul). That is, without a dead Mary, they still preached a whole Gospel. If your gospel would not be complete without adoring and praying to Mary, then you preach a different gospel to the one the early church preached before Mary died.

(Warning, My Aussi humor is about to rear its ugly head!) Imagine it this way, a bunch of early Christians meeting in Antioch, and a messanger runs, puffing, in. "Great news", he cries, "Mary is dead!!". "Fantastic", the rest reply, "now we can start adoring her and praying to her, and things will really start moving" "Yes, says another, "now we are no longer just Christians, now we can be Catholics!!" As the curtin falls on the scene, they are busy making statues to Mary, meditating on her, etc.

Mary was a great person, but a very small part of the message proclaimed by the early church.

Take care, sorry for the humor, Colin

 

I'm saying your prayers don't save anyone. A person has to pray themselves to be saved. Yes, I think praying for others is a good idea, but it is up to each individual to accept, or reject Christ.

Where is prayer to Mary, asking her for intercession, or any other reference to some extra "power" she might have mentioned ? It's not.

My interpretation of John 19:26&27 ? It looks to me like John took her home. Where does it say she became John's mother ? Do you have a different version ? If I see a distraught woman on the street, and offer hera place to stay, does she become my mother ?

 

So it's not in the Bible, correct ?

And where does the following article fit in with the "fountain and pillar of truth" ?

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=catholic_church_abuse_scandal

I'm not trying to change the subject, rather, just pointing out that this pillar you talk about is far from truth.

Still, you don't have a Biblical leg to stand on.

[ November 04, 2002, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

Mee,

If it is Scriptural that MARY was a sinner, please show me the verse where she sinned. If Mary was baptised, please show me the verse where this occurred. If Mary repented of her sins, please show me the the verse where this occurred.

If not, your whole post is speculation, and not Scripture.

God bless,

Grant</font>[/QUOTE]Im kind of just jumping in again so please forgive me if I repeat something.

So as Catholics, do you believe that Mary was without sin?

 

My friend you should have included

Mark 3:31-34

There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

 

Dear Blackbird:

You said:

I am sorry I have not been on this board lately and am a little late reading your post. Why did you change Jesus’ “Yea, rather,” to “Nay! Rather!” in Luke 11: 27-28? Makes a big difference because Jesus was agreeing and going one better. Do you have a version of the Bible that says “Nay!, Rather!” or did you change this yourself based on your beliefs of what you think Jesus was trying to say?

Mary is primarily Jesus Christ’s mother because she did the will of God. She heard the word of God, and kept it. Please refer to Luke 1. We are Jesus Christ’s brothers and sisters when we hear the word of God and keep it.

Matthew 12:50
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

You and I cannot be Jesus Christ’s “mother”, but Mary sure is. We are His brothers and sisters. Jesus is including Mary here precisely because she did the will of His Father. Jesus is saying this is what is important to belong to Him.

God Bless

[ November 04, 2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn S. ]