Something better than being Mary, Jesus' Mother

[blackbird]

Sister Kathryn S.!

Truly, the miss quote was an oversite on my part. I have the KJV--and I am aware of my mistake in the Yea--turned to YEA!! What happened is this--I look down at the quote from the text--get a few words in my mind--then look up to the screen as I type--pure oversite! Sorry!

But the text still stands--a disciple of Jesus is far superior than a mere mother of Jesus. Its sure hard to explain to you Catholics---but let me see---Mary is far more better blessed at being a disciple of the Lord Jesus than in being selected as being the mother of Jesus!! I guess thats the way I see it. I, as a disciple of Jesus am better blessed by being a disciple of Jesus--than Mary was at being the mother of Jesus. I'd feel the same way if my wife were involved. My wife, as a disciple of Jesus--is in much better spiritual condition than if she would have been the one selected as being Jesus' momma!

Now, let me just ask a few more questions--I am a curious Southern Baptist. I ain't gonna be able to talk you out of being a Roman Catholic--anything I can talk you into someone else can come along and talk you out of--but here's the question.

In John 2--at the wedding--when Jesus rebuked His mom--why did He need to address her as "Woman"--why not rebuke her as "Momma?" It would seem that if Mary was as holy as you say she is--then Jesus would be standing there--imagine--Holiness rebuking Holiness!! If I were to talk to my momma in the way that Jesus did here in Chapter 2--it would be the "woodshed" for ole Blackbird!!

Mary--at Jerusalem when Jesus was a lad of 12 years old. He's lost!! Rather, couldn't be found though the search was intense. Now, as part of the Godhead--knowing everything--shouldn't Mary have known Jesus' exact location?? Luke 2: 43 says that Mary "knew not" that Jesus tarried. Then in verse 44 it says that she(and Joseph) "supposed" Jesus to be in the crowd somewhere leaving the city. Why do you suppose she just "supposed"--Mary had to guess, didn't she?? Just like if I lost track of my boy over at Wal-Mart or at a big LSU ballgame--amongst thousands of folks--I can only "guess" where he would be!! In verse 49 of the same chapter--Mary, as part of the godhead--shouldn't she have known that Jesus was to "be about" His Father's business? Then in verse 50 of the same chapter--Mary, as part of the godhead--shouldn't she have "understood" what Jesus had been telling them? But she didn't understand, did she?? Because why? Because she isn't God! She's finite! She's limited! Jesus "knew the hearts and the minds of all men"--but Mary didn't know the heart of her own boy, did she??

She ain't God, is she?!!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

[Kathryn S.]

Hello Blackbird: I am glad you ask these questions. You seem to have some misunderstandings about what Catholics believe.

In John 2--at the wedding--when Jesus rebuked His mom--why did He need to address her as "Woman"--why not rebuke her as "Momma?" It would seem that if Mary was as holy as you say she is--then Jesus would be standing there--imagine--Holiness rebuking Holiness!! If I were to talk to my momma in the way that Jesus did here in Chapter 2--it would be the "woodshed" for ole Blackbird!!

It is your interpretation that Jesus was rebuking His mother. Jesus Christ was not disrespecting His mother by calling her “Woman”. On the contrary, it was a term of great respect. He also was not rebuking her as shown by his doing His first public miracle of changing water into wine because she came to Him and told Him there was a problem with the wine running out. Because of His love for her, He did His first public miracle as recorded in Holy Scripture. The way Americans today use the term “woman” lacks the respect that Jesus had using the word “Woman”.
Dying on the cross he gave His mother to John calling her lovingly “Woman”. He was showing no disrespect to her.

John 19:26
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. 28

You ask:

Mary--at Jerusalem when Jesus was a lad of 12 years old. He's lost!! Rather, couldn't be found though the search was intense. Now, as part of the Godhead--knowing everything--shouldn't Mary have known Jesus' exact location?? Luke 2: 43 says that Mary "knew not" that Jesus tarried. Then in verse 44 it says that she(and Joseph) "supposed" Jesus to be in the crowd somewhere leaving the city. Why do you suppose she just "supposed"--Mary had to guess, didn't she?? Just like if I lost track of my boy over at Wal-Mart or at a big LSU ballgame--amongst thousands of folks--I can only "guess" where he would be!! In verse 49 of the same chapter--Mary, as part of the godhead--shouldn't she have known that Jesus was to "be about" His Father's business? Then in verse 50 of the same chapter--Mary, as part of the godhead--shouldn't she have "understood" what Jesus had been telling them? But she didn't understand, did she?? Because why? Because she isn't God! She's finite! She's limited! Jesus "knew the hearts and the minds of all men"--but Mary didn't know the heart of her own boy, did she??
She ain't God, is she?!!

You seem to misunderstand what Catholics believe. Mary is certainly not part of the Godhead. She is not God and would not have “known everything”. Catholics don’t believe Mary to be God. She is a human being created by God. She did not become the mother of Jesus Christ until He became flesh in her womb. She is not God or part of the Godhead.

God Bless

[ November 04, 2002, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn S. ]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Nobody here is debating Mary's parenthood of Christ's humanity. We are asking for biblical proof of a sinless life, the "Mother of God" doctrines, her being removed from Earth bodily, and her job as co-intercessor with Christ. We are asking for Biblical instruction on why we should include her in our prayers. We are asking for Biblical proof that she has anything at all to do with our salvation.

 

[Kathryn S.]

Dear Blackbird:

But the text still stands--a disciple of Jesus is far superior than a mere mother of Jesus. Its sure hard to explain to you Catholics---but let me see---Mary is far more better blessed at being a disciple of the Lord Jesus than in being selected as being the mother of Jesus!! I guess thats the way I see it.

I, as a disciple of Jesus am better blessed by being a disciple of Jesus--than Mary was at being the mother of Jesus. I'd feel the same way if my wife were involved. My wife, as a disciple of Jesus--is in much better spiritual condition than if she would have been the one selected as being Jesus' momma!

What Jesus was teaching is that what is important is that Mary did the will of His Father. Jesus was teaching that this is why she was blessed. The Father’s will was for her to be the mother of Jesus Christ the Son of God. We as Christians are called to also do the will of the Father in order to be Jesus Christ’s brothers and sisters, just as Mary was called to be His mother. (Matthew 12:50)
Mary did the will of the Father when she said, “Be it done unto me according to your word.” This is what all Christians are called to do and say to God's call to us.

God Bless

[ November 05, 2002, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Kathryn S. ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Colin,

Your real problems remain. Mary is saved in a way unattested by Scripture

I do not operate by the principle of Sola Scriptura, which was invented in the 16th c.

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.

You are correct.

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?

St. Irenaeus, as early as 180 A.D. spoke in passing of Mary as the New Eve, and since I hold to Tradition as well as Scripture, I am not bound by the limits that you place yourself within.

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

How would the beloved disciple answer your argument? Jesus gave the beloved disciple Mary as his mother (when, supposedly, Jesus had brothers and sisters).

The early church was blessed and grew.

I suggest that you read a history of this early Church other than what we find the NT in order to ascertain the context of the NT.

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.

I do not adore Mary. Only God is to be given adoration. If I do adore Mary, it is in the sense of affection, not in the sense of adoration given in worship.

(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.

Christians do not "make statues to" Mary. Christians make statues of many different Biblical characters to (1) teach the faith to the illiterate, (2) present visible reminders of heavenly realities, and (3) serve as a focal point of prayer since we are sensual creatures.

It is identical to the contemporary usage of a creche scene.


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

Your Evangelical Protestant tradition (I do not say merely "Protestant" because the Reformers had a Marian devotion to which you would cringe) causes you to downplay the significant Marian texts of the NT, esp. at Cana and at Calvary in John.

Blessings,

Carson

[ November 05, 2002, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "We are asking for biblical proof of a sinless life, the "Mother of God" doctrines, her being removed from Earth bodily, and her job as co-intercessor with Christ. We are asking for Biblical instruction on why we should include her in our prayers. We are asking for Biblical proof that she has anything at all to do with our salvation."

We can give you Biblical foundations, but not the "proof" that you are looking for any more than I can give Biblical "proof" that Jesus is God to a Jehovah's Witness for the simple reason that your Tradition veils your eyes. If you continue to demand "proof", you may start sounding a little bit too much like Frank, who consistently insists, "PROVE IT! ... GIVE ME PROOF!".

Have you ever argued the divinity of Christ with a Jehovah's Witness? If you have, then I would suggest placing yourself in the shoes of a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian and relate your experience to one of explaining Mary's role from Scripture. If your audience is already steeped in a Tradition of its own with veiled eyes and a prejudicial attitude, then your message has a poor chance of being conveyed.

Blessings,

Carson

[ November 05, 2002, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

There is no need to argue the divinity of Christ. He did it for us.

"I and my father are one." John 10:30

That proves he is the Son of God. There are others, but I'm sure you see my point.

I don't argue with Catholics, either. I try to find a Bible reference that says it for me.

By the way, sola scriptura (SP?) was around long before the 16th century...

Joshua 8:31 As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

1 Kings 2:3 And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:

2 Kings 23:21 And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant.

2 Chronicles 23:18 Also Jehoiada appointed the offices of the house of the LORD by the hand of the priests the Levites, whom David had distributed in the house of the LORD, to offer the burnt offerings of the LORD, as it is written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, as it was ordained by David.

2 Chronicles 25:4 But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

2 Chronicles 31:3 He appointed also the king's portion of his substance for the burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 35:12 And they removed the burnt offerings, that they might give according to the divisions of the families of the people, to offer unto the LORD, as it is written in the book of Moses. And so did they with the oxen.

Ezra 3:2 Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God.

Ezra 3:4 They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty of every day required;

Ezra 6:18 And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses.

Nehemiah 8:15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.

Nehemiah 10:34 And we cast the lots among the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, after the houses of our fathers, at times appointed year by year, to burn upon the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law:

Nehemiah 10:36 Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God:

Psalms 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Isaiah 65:6 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom,

Daniel 9:13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:

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

Hi, Dualhunter.

No, I meant verse 4, it mention's God's son, but not Mary.

But verse 6 more than applies, also.

God Bless.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Christians do not "make statues to" Mary. Christians make statues of many different Biblical characters to (1) teach the faith to the illiterate, (2) present visible reminders of heavenly realities, and (3) serve as a focal point of prayer since we are sensual creatures.

Catholics make statues of Mary, and then pray before those statues, thus saying "Make statues to" Mary is quite correct usage.

1. "To teach the faith to the illiterate." I will not speak of your community or nation, but I live in an area where there are plenty of Catholic churches, all of which are richly adorned with Catholic icons of various sorts. Our city has a near 100% literacy rate. If this was the real reason for statues/idols then the Catholic Churches throught the western world would immediately get rid of them. That statement is just pure hypocrisy, unless you are living in a third world nation.

2. "present visible reminders of heavenly realities." This is a direct violation of the second commandment. It is in effect saying, "I need this "visible reminder," i.e. idol, which you told me Lord not to make, but forgive me anyway even if there is not much difference between me and the Hindus in appearance. I really do you serve you Lord even if I break your commandments."

3. "serve as a focal point of prayer since we are sensual creatures." Jesus Himself said in John 4:24, "God is Spirit, they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth. We are to worship/pray to God in our spirit. God expects us to pray to Him, and Him alone. Worship of Him is in spirit, not with the aid of statues/idols. That is forbidden in Scripture. Christians don't need a focal point for prayer; idolaters do.
DHK

[ November 05, 2002, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[ONENESS]

Mary--at Jerusalem when Jesus was a lad of 12 years old. He's lost!! Rather, couldn't be found though the search was intense. Now, as part of the Godhead--knowing everything--shouldn't Mary have known Jesus' exact location?? Luke 2: 43 says that Mary "knew not" that Jesus tarried. Then in verse 44 it says that she(and Joseph) "supposed" Jesus to be in the crowd somewhere leaving the city. Why do you suppose she just "supposed"--Mary had to guess, didn't she?? Just like if I lost track of my boy over at Wal-Mart or at a big LSU ballgame--amongst thousands of folks--I can only "guess" where he would be!! In verse 49 of the same chapter--Mary, as part of the godhead--shouldn't she have known that Jesus was to "be about" His Father's business? Then in verse 50 of the same chapter--Mary, as part of the godhead--shouldn't she have "understood" what Jesus had been telling them? But she didn't understand, did she?? Because why? Because she isn't God! She's finite! She's limited! Jesus "knew the hearts and the minds of all men"--but Mary didn't know the heart of her own boy, did she??

This one is for the Catholics. I say this in a humble manner so please dont take it wrong. Do you guys really believe that Mary is part of the God head or is this a little sarcastic talk? You dont have to write a long novel explaining why you believe that she is if you believe that. A simple yes or no will work for me.

God bless

 

[Dualhunter]

It is usually muslims who get the impression that Mary is part of the Godhead according to Catholic beliefs. While it is not much of a surprise, it is not an official teaching of the church of Rome.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Curtis,

You missed my point.

Hi DHK,

If this was the real reason for statues/idols then the Catholic Churches throught the western world would immediately get rid of them.

Where illiteracy is not present, the statues remain for the other reasons I presented.

"present visible reminders of heavenly realities." This is a direct violation of the second commandment.

Johnv understands this commandment better than you do. I suggest discussing this point with him.

"serve as a focal point of prayer since we are sensual creatures." Jesus Himself said in John 4:24, "God is Spirit

Jesus is God and Jesus has a human body. Jesus himself violates the premise you set forth. He is the image of the invisible God.

they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth. We are to worship/pray to God in our spirit.

Worship is not the same thing as prayer (of course, you know this, and I wonder why I repeat the point).

God expects us to pray to Him, and Him alone.

No, God expects for us to worship Him, and Him alone. Prayer entails communication. Jesus communicated with Moses and Elijah upon the Mount of Transfiguration, thus violating the premise you set forth.

Worship of Him is in spirit, not with the aid of statues/idols. That is forbidden in Scripture.

I suggest discussing the difference between a statue and an idol with Johnv.

Hi Oneness,

God and Mary are infinitely distinct. However, we share in the divine nature as Christians, which allows for a certain divination of human nature. But, in the end, the difference between God and a divinized Christian is still infinite. One remains an everlasting masterpiece of creation, while the other remains the infinite, eternal creator. This is a mystery of the faith, and a mystery is a truth that can only be partially understood with our human intellect - such as the Incarnation or the Trinity.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 05, 2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

Hi Oneness,

God and Mary are infinitely distinct. However, we share in the divine nature as Christians, which allows for a certain divination of human nature. But, in the end, the difference between God and a divinized Christian is still infinite. One remains an everlasting masterpiece of creation, while the other remains the infinite, eternal creator. This is a mystery of the faith, and a mystery is a truth that can only be partially understood with our human intellect - such as the Incarnation or the Trinity.

God bless,

Carson

Ok now can I get that in "I'm not as smart as you" Terms. LOL. So what are you saying that you believe Mary is like God?

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi Carson, I think we are starting to get somewhere.

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Colin,

Your real problems remain. Mary is saved in a way unattested by Scripture

I do not operate by the principle of Sola Scriptura, which was invented in the 16th c.

You would agree however that all Scripture is God breathed and authoritative. 2 Tim 3:16-17 notes it is also for corection, that the man of God may be complete, equiped for every good work. When the church fathers quote scripture, they do so in a way unlike any other. It is not just thrown in as another oppinion to be debated, but as the conclusive, final authority. It has a place their own writings never have. What you have done above is to admit that your doctrine of Mary cannot be established from Scripture, which makes the man of God complete.

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.

You are correct.

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?

St. Irenaeus, as early as 180 A.D. spoke in passing of Mary as the New Eve, and since I hold to Tradition as well as Scripture, I am not bound by the limits that you place yourself within.


Irenaeus is writing 130 years after the event, his writing is not considered by you to be authoritative, he is inventing a doctrine that is no where in the Scripture. In a passage all about the second Adam, Paul does not ever mention Mary.

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

How would the beloved disciple answer your argument? Jesus gave the beloved disciple Mary as his mother (when, supposedly, Jesus had brothers and sisters).

This one is important. Scripture says Jerusalem above is our mother, you say Mary is your mother. You place your doctrines ABOVE Scripture, your tradition from men allows you to go against the Bible. Jesus words from the cross show love and care, they do not establish the universal motherhood of Mary. Iron sharpens iron, and a clearer passage takes precedence over a less clear passage. Biblical doctrine clearly states that Jerusalem above is our mum, but for the sake of human tradition, you contradict God and sign yourself, "Mary's son."

The early church was blessed and grew.

I suggest that you read a history of this early Church other than what we find the NT in order to ascertain the context of the NT.


What I am saying is, that without recourse to a dead Mary, without the possibility or mention of prayers to her, meditations to her etc, the early church preached the complete Gospel, and was blessed. The NT church was a church without prayers to mary, or doctrine of Mary, and it was fully Christian. A dead mary is not required for a church to be complete, blessed or powerful. Re doctrine and function, she is utterly superfluous to church life, except as a great example of humility and obedience, as also Peter, Paul etc.


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.

I do not adore Mary. Only God is to be given adoration. If I do adore Mary, it is in the sense of affection, not in the sense of adoration given in worship.


Great, I like Mary too.

You seem to have given up on the whole queen mum analogy. Good idea, Almost all queen mum press in the OT is negative, and no queen mum throne in Revelation. Can we also dispese with the whole "hail" idea?

Blessings,

Carson

It is good for Christians to discuss and search out their faith and beliefs. We disagree, but we can both learn, and I hope to see you in Heaven. If you trust solely in the blood of Jesus for that destination, then it will be a happy reunion.
Take care, Colin

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by ONENESS:
Ok now can I get that in "I'm not as smart as you" Terms. LOL. So what are you saying that you believe Mary is like God?

To get a better idea of what he means, read the Simarilion by Tolkien. God is like Iluvatar and Mary and the saints are like the Valar. It's not what the Bible teaches but it's good myth (which is what Tolkien was trying to make).

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Oneness,

So what are you saying that you believe Mary is like God?

No, that is not what I am saying, but your statement is true. We are all made in the image and likeness of God; every human is "like" God. But, Christians come to share in the divine nature, which far surpasses our natural state of likeness; it entails an actual conforming to the image of the Son, who is God. Original sin damaged that likeness; our restoration through the redemption not only restores that likeness, but much more than that - it elevates us to share in the divine love. This begins at baptism and will be completed when we enter the Beatific Vision and see God face to face.

Hi Colin,

What you have done above is to admit that your doctrine of Mary cannot be established from Scripture, which makes the man of God complete.

No, Marian doctrine can be established from Scripture through the development of doctrine, based upon the written word. It is Tradition that completes the Word of God. It has (1) a substance of its own and (2) a formative power that correctly shapes our interpretation of the written portion of the Word, which is Scripture.

Irenaeus is writing 130 years after the event, his writing is not considered by you to be authoritative, he is inventing a doctrine that is no where in the Scripture. In a passage all about the second Adam, Paul does not ever mention Mary.

I don't have the time to get into it, but I could show how Irenaeus is taking Scripture to its logical conclusion, just as Paul did with Adam. I would, however, point you to Gen 3:15 and show you the prophecy of enmity - and how it is fulfilled in the person of Mary, the New Eve, whose seed crushes the head of the serpent. I would also show that this is why she is presented as "woman" in John 2, John 19, and Revelation 12 (which itself has intertextual layers: Israel/Mary).

This one is important. Scripture says Jerusalem above is our mother, you say Mary is your mother.

I don't follow your thinking, which is nominalist. I pointed to the beloved disciple. If Jesus gives him Mary as his mother, then wouldn't Jesus be placing Mary in place of the New Jerusalem for the beloved disciple. That was my point, which you missed.

Jesus words from the cross show love and care, they do not establish the universal motherhood of Mary.

I don't think that a mere passing of a hospitable concern is what is at stake in this passage. I only suggest meditating on the solemnity and profundity of the occasion, which is mixed with literary allusion to Eve ("the woman"), who was mother of all the living.

What I am saying is, that without recourse to a dead Mary, without the possibility or mention of prayers to her, meditations to her etc, the early church preached the complete Gospel, and was blessed.

The early Church outdates the Apostolic Age. It continues beyond the death of Mary, and Rodney Starks shows in "The Rise of Christianity" how it conquered the pagan, Roman world.

The NT church was a church without prayers to mary, or doctrine of Mary, and it was fully Christian.

I would suggest that John, who writes for the NT Church, presents a rich Mariological theology in his Gospel.

A dead mary is not required for a church to be complete, blessed or powerful.

No, her death isn't necessary. She was at Pentecost, when she interceded for the Church to the Holy Spirit, her spouse.

Re doctrine and function, she is utterly superfluous to church life, except as a great example of humility and obedience, as also Peter, Paul etc.

I would suggest that this is Marian minimalism.

You seem to have given up on the whole queen mum analogy. Good idea, Almost all queen mum press in the OT is negative, and no queen mum throne in Revelation. Can we also dispese with the whole "hail" idea?

No, I have just not pursued the point any further. We disagree, and I'm okay with that. I still see Mary foreshadowed as the Gebirah in the Old Testament, and I see her presented as such in Luke's Infancy Narrative.

It is good for Christians to discuss and search out their faith and beliefs.

Amen.

We disagree, but we can both learn, and I hope to see you in Heaven.

Amen.

If you trust solely in the blood of Jesus for that destination, then it will be a happy reunion.

That would be the fiduciary faith of the Reformers, which I see as insufficient for salvation. While it is a component, what is needed for salvation is the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 16:26), which entails (1) adherence to the content of faith through faith, the fides qua, and (2) adherence to the God of faith personally through hope and love, the fides quae.

By the way, check out my friend John Sarabia's ministry - he just emailed his website to me today; these are good photos:

http://www.fullnessoftruth.org/photo.htm

Blessings,

Carson

 

[DHK]

Worship of Him is in spirit, not with the aid of statues/idols. That is forbidden in Scripture.
I suggest discussing the difference between a statue and an idol with Johnv.

"present visible reminders of heavenly realities." This is a direct violation of the second commandment.
Johnv understands this commandment better than you do. I suggest discussing this point with him.

I was not having a discussion with Johnv, I was having a discussion with you. Are you not able to defend your own beliefs?
1Pet.3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
--Are you not ready to give an answer (literally "defense") of your own position, that you have to refer me to others on the board? A graven image is an idol, a violation of the second commandment. Bowing down in front of them is idolatry, not any different than the Hindus do. You just call your god by a different name, that is all. Catholicism began when Constantine paganized Christianity. It is still a pagan religion with the pagans falling down before their pagan idols, just like the Hindus, in violation of the Ten Commandments. This is not Christianity. In fact, in a third world country that I worked in I saw Catholics not only bow down before a statue of Mary but many of them brought animal sacrifices: chickens, goats, or sheep to offer to the statue of Mary. Christianity?? NO! Idolatry! Just like the Hindus.

"serve as a focal point of prayer since we are sensual creatures." Jesus they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth. We are to worship/pray to God in our spirit.
Worship is not the same thing as prayer (of course, you know this, and I wonder why I repeat the point). Himself said in John 4:24, "God is Spirit
Jesus is God and Jesus has a human body. Jesus himself violates the premise you set forth. He is the image of the invisible God.

Since Jesus is God, you ought not to be making graven images of Him. The Ten Commandments still stand in that respect. Besides, do you know what Jesus look liked? All the icons and images you have of him make him look like some long haired hippie. Is that what Christ really looked like, or is that what some rennaisance painter who out of the imagination of his vain mind painted him to be, having never seen him? Why so gullibly accept something you have never seen? It's an image of who: the gardener? His sister? We don't know do we?? But you worship before these statues/idols anyway.

they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth. We are to worship/pray to God in our spirit.
Worship is not the same thing as prayer (of course, you know this, and I wonder why I repeat the point).

Though worship encompasses more than prayer, prayer is the purest form of worship that there is. We talk to God in prayer, worship God in prayer, praise Him in prayer, etc. Prayer includes many different things as Jesus taught us in a close examination of the Lord's Prayer. When you pray to Mary you adore her, and you worship her.

God expects us to pray to Him, and Him alone.
No, God expects for us to worship Him, and Him alone. Prayer entails communication. Jesus communicated with Moses and Elijah upon the Mount of Transfiguration, thus violating the premise you set forth.

Jesus did not pray to Moses, as you would infer. Our communication with God is a vertical one. We pray to God and He speaks to us through His word via the Holy Spirit. It is a vertical relationship. Our relationship with others is horizontal. I communicate to others, but I do not pray to them or worship them. The Book of Psalms teaches us how to pray and worship God; the Book of Proverbs teaches us how to communicate or get along with our fellow man.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

I was not having a discussion with Johnv, I was having a discussion with you.

Isn't this obvious?

A graven image is an idol

Isn't that a little presumptuous?

Take, for instance, the Lincoln Memorial statue. This is a graven image. According to your presumptuous definition, the Lincoln Memorial is an idol.

Bowing down in front of them is idolatry, not any different than the Hindus do.

Isn't that a little presumptuous. The Queen of England has subjects of her court bow before her. Is this a form of idolatry? I hope not.

You just call your god by a different name, that is all.

Wow. Are you serious? If so, may God bless you.

Catholicism began when Constantine paganized Christianity.

So you're going to actually revert to the primordial, undefensible position that the Catholic Church began with the Edict of Milan? *Sigh*

It is still a pagan religion with the pagans falling down before their pagan idols, just like the Hindus, in violation of the Ten Commandments. This is not Christianity. In fact, in a third world country that I worked in I saw Catholics not only bow down before a statue of Mary but many of them brought animal sacrifices: chickens, goats, or sheep to offer to the statue of Mary.

Are you really, in all of your "good" will, going to equate Mexican animal sacrifice with pristine Catholicism? If so, may God bless you.

Since Jesus is God, you ought not to be making graven images of Him.

Ah, but he himself is the image of the invisible God. It seems like our God transgresses the very stipulations you set forth.

The Ten Commandments still stand in that respect.

The Decalogue prohibits idolatry, not the making of statues. Once you clear this in your mind, then we can progress in dialogue. Otherwise, we both are wasting our time on this board. We might as well be spending our valuable time praying.

Besides, do you know what Jesus look liked?

A human man?

All the icons and images you have of him make him look like some long haired hippie. Is that what Christ really looked like, or is that what some rennaisance painter who out of the imagination of his vain mind painted him to be, having never seen him?

What's your point? That we cannot make an accurate portrait of Christ? And this proves what?

Why so gullibly accept something you have never seen?

Have I or anyone else asserted that iconography faithfully represents the historical Jesus in detail? If so, you are gravely mistaken. I'm beginning to sense a tone of bad will in your conversation.

It's an image of who: the gardener? His sister? We don't know do we?? But you worship before these statues/idols anyway.

Notice that you said "worship before", not simply "worship". It seems that you acknowledge that I understand that a statue is nothing more than a statue. If you do, I would like to warmly congratulate you on this newfound discovery on your part of Catholic thought.

they that worship Him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I just don't see your interpretation here. To worship "in spirit and truth" can mean a number of things, and I don't see how you can demand the reading of it that you do.

Though worship encompasses more than prayer, prayer is the purest form of worship that there is.

You're kidding me right?

We talk to God in prayer, worship God in prayer, praise Him in prayer, etc.

It looks to me like you're distinguishing different forms of prayer.

Prayer includes many different things as Jesus taught us in a close examination of the Lord's Prayer. When you pray to Mary you adore her, and you worship her.

Again, I reiterate: "You're kidding me, right?"

No, God expects for us to worship Him, and Him alone.

Amen!

Prayer entails communication.

And since Prayer is identical to worship according to DHK's categories, when I type this post in response to you, I'm worshipping you.

That's ridiculous.

Jesus did not pray to Moses, as you would infer.

Prayer to Mary is simply a form of conversation with Mary who is now in heaven. Jesus spoke with Moses, who was no longer alive on Earth. Thus, he prayed. There's no getting around this fact. Or was Moses resurrected? Huh?

Our communication with God is a vertical one.

Amen. And our prayer with the saints is a horizontal one.

We pray to God and He speaks to us through His word via the Holy Spirit. It is a vertical relationship. Our relationship with others is horizontal.

Right on.

I communicate to others, but I do not pray to them or worship them.

And if prayer is simply communication, then you are making a false dichotomy.

The Book of Psalms teaches us how to pray and worship God; the Book of Proverbs teaches us how to communicate or get along with our fellow man.

And this is relevant to our discussion in what way?

Bless you,

Carson
your brother in good faith

[ November 06, 2002, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[DHK]

A graven image is an idol Isn't that a little presumptuous? Take, for instance, the Lincoln Memorial statue. This is a graven image. According to your presumptuous definition, the Lincoln Memorial is an idol.

I was hoping that since you are in seminary that you would understand the context in which the Ten Commandments were written. I will quote them again for you:

Exodus 20:2-5
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
--Notice verse two carefully: "I am the Lord thy God." This is speaking of the LORD (all in Caps), meaning Jehovah. There is no reference to Abraham Lincoln here. When the Lord God Jehovah speaks of making graven images, he speaks of making graven images of Himself not of memorials to Abraham Lincoln. Where did this red herring come from? Or did you honestly not understand that God was speaking of Himself and not of good old Abe??

Bowing down in front of them is idolatry, not any different than the Hindus do. Isn't that a little presumptuous. The Queen of England has subjects of her court bow before her. Is this a form of idolatry? I hope not.

Do they pray to her? Do they worship her? Do they believe that she is God, or takes the place of God? Is the Queen of England a graven image made in the likeness of God or the likeness of any god? The Hindus bow before their gods; as the Catholics do their saints. Not much difference is there?

Catholicism began when Constantine paganized Christianity. So you're going to actually revert to the primordial, undefensible position that the Catholic Church began with the Edict of Milan? *Sigh*

I will hold to that historical position, which I believe to be accurate and demonstrable, that the Catholic Church, as it exists in its present form, existed no earlier then Constantine, when he made Christianity a state-religion, and introduced many pagan customs into Christendom at that time.

It is still a pagan religion with the pagans falling down before their pagan idols, just like the Hindus, in violation of the Ten Commandments. This is not Christianity. In fact, in a third world country that I worked in I saw Catholics not only bow down before a statue of Mary but many of them brought animal sacrifices: chickens, goats, or sheep to offer to the statue of Mary. Are you really, in all of your "good" will, going to equate Mexican animal sacrifice with pristine Catholicism? If so, may God bless you.

I report what I see Carson. And the country was not Mexico which only tells me that the practice is more wide-spread than I thought. The Catholic adapts to the culture of the country in which it exists, and that includes Islamic countries. In an Islamic country it will, like an iguana, turn its colors and take up practices that cultural but also Islamic in nature. The same will hold true in a Hindu country. It will change its colors again like the iguana, and take up cultural practices that are native to that country, but also Hindu in nature. I have seen it, in more than one country. The Muslims make a pilgrimage. Catholics in some lands (particularly Muslim) feel the necessity to make a pilgrimage also. Islam has one day at the end of their month of fast in which they will sacrifice a goat. This is a very special sacrifice and festival for them. Catholics in many Muslim nations will institute a similar day--a day devoted to Mary, and sacrifice goats, chickens, or whatever, to a statue of Mary. You talk of Pristine Catholicism. This is all directed by one of the bishops of the area. Why should Catholicism be so different in a third world nation, or a Muslim nation, or a Hindu nation, than it is in America? Is it only in America that you have this "Pristine Catholicism," you speak of? I thought that Catholics the world over worshiped the same. You have the same catechism do you not? This is what you and others have been trying to tell me for so long now--that you are not divided--that you all believe and worship the same way. Now what's the problem? You seem to be backing away from that position.

Since Jesus is God, you ought not to be making graven images of Him. Ah, but he himself is the image of the invisible God. It seems like our God transgresses the very stipulations you set forth.

He is God Carson. God come in the flesh. Worship Him, not the image. Too bad you don't know what he looks like. Maybe that's why we are commanded not to make images of Him. We are to worship Him (Christ) in spirit and in truth. That means without images/idols.

The Ten Commandments still stand in that respect. The Decalogue prohibits idolatry, not the making of statues. Once you clear this in your mind, then we can progress in dialogue. Otherwise, we both are wasting our time on this board. We might as well be spending our valuable time praying.

You fail to study the Decalogue seriously. It prohibits the making of graven images (statues), period. The context of course is in reference to God. Then, it goes on to say that not only shall you not make them, you shall not bow down thyself to them. That is the act of idolatry itself. Do not make the idols (icons, statues, images, etc.). That is step one. Step two: Don't bow down to them. You violate both of these commandments .

Besides, do you know what Jesus look liked? A human man?

Which human man? Maybe the popular Jesus portrayed in pictures today, in real life (2000 years ago) looked more like the Gadarene demoniac, rather than Christ. Would you then be worshiping demons??

All the icons and images you have of him make him look like some long haired hippie. Is that what Christ really looked like, or is that what some rennaisance painter who out of the imagination of his vain mind painted him to be, having never seen him? What's your point? That we cannot make an accurate portrait of Christ? And this proves what?

True. You cannot make an accurate portrait of Christ, thus to even try is to do Christ an injustice.
We should honor Him, not degrade him with our human vain imaginations. The popular portrait of Christ is just that: the vain imagination of some painter who lived about 1500 years after Christ, and never saw Him. Worship Christ in spirit and in truth.

[QUOTE Why so gullibly accept something you have never seen? Have I or anyone else asserted that iconography faithfully represents the historical Jesus in detail? If so, you are gravely mistaken.[/QUOTE]
No you haven't. But if it doesn't faithfully represent Christ why use it? And even if you knew it did, would Christ approve of it? I don't believe He would for the very reasons set forth in the Decalogue.

It's an image of who: the gardener? His sister? We don't know do we?? But you worship before these statues/idols anyway. Notice that you said "worship before", not simply "worship". It seems that you acknowledge that I understand that a statue is nothing more than a statue. If you do, I would like to warmly congratulate you on this newfound discovery on your part of Catholic thought.

This isn't a new found discovery. Remember I was a Catholic too. What Catholics here don't seem to understand is the Biblical position. Whether you (as a Catholic) consider your act of worship as worshiping before, or worshiping of the statue, it makes no difference to me. I know the difference, but both are wrong according to the Word of God, according to the Ten Commandments. Jehovah made His Word very clear on that.
DHK

 

[Australian Baptist Student]

Hi Carson,

What you have done above is to admit that your doctrine of Mary cannot be established from Scripture, which makes the man of God complete.[/b]

No, Marian doctrine can be established from Scripture through the development of doctrine, based upon the written word. It is Tradition that completes the Word of God.

So Scripture is completed by Tradition. So Scripture is incomplete in itself. So when that very Scripture says that it (in its incompleteness) completes the man of God, it is lying???

A dead mary is not required for a church to be complete, blessed or powerful.

No, her death isn't necessary. She was at Pentecost, when she interceded for the Church to the Holy Spirit, her spouse.

Mary is married to the Holy Spirit? Now you are scaring me. Mary is not mentioned in the Pentecost narrative. She may have been there, but wasn't she PART of the early church?

Keep yourself from idols, Colin