Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
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'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 ]
