Nuts and Bolts - By Tim Staples: Mary Worshippers Need Not Apply

Envoy ^ | Tim Staples

[GonzoII]

The Scenario:

Ever have one of those days when you’re feeling full of energy and vigor? I mean, you’re feeling just obnoxiously happy? Well, this is one of those days.

Driving home from work, you switch on the radio to see what’s happening, and you tune in to a local Protestant radio station just in time to hear a preacher speaking against various Catholic doctrines concerning Mary. The show is called Pastor Bob’s Bible Hour. Pastor Bob proclaims: “Jesus knew Catholics would come along and begin to worship His mother and call her perpetual virgin and absurd things like that. But the Bible says: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of His sisters with us?’ (Matt. 13:55-56a). And isn’t it sad, my brothers and sisters?”

Pastor Bob goes on to say: “Jesus dealt with these Mary worshippers in His day. In Luke 11:27-28, the Bible says, ‘A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that You sucked!” But He said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”’”

On a normal day you would probably just listen, take a few mental notes and drive on. But not this time. You’re feeling a little bit too saucy. You take the first exit you see and head for a phone. This is just one more reason why you need to buy that cell phone you’ve been talking about getting.

Step One:

[the_conscience]

I am making exactly the kind of argument form scripture that Protestants say should be made...I do see, however, that my opponents start with a dogmatic belief that Mary cannot possibly be in that passage because your belief system does not agree with it, and then they try to make me ignore the plain scripture in favor of their opinions.

No, not even close to being a Protestant hermeneutic. Now you seem to be endorsing Origen's fourfold method of interpretation which the Reformer's rejected for the more appropriate grammatical-historical method.

We Protestants do not go into the text automatically disqualifying any reading, we allow the Author to tell us what he is saying and we do that by considering the genre of the book and all the internal evidence within the entire book along with any pertinent external evidence that will support a reading, and then finally we also use a canonical approach because we believe God is not a God of confusion and believe the whole canon is the great story of sin, redemption, and recreation and try to understand it along the major storyline.

So the Romanist hermeneutic, at least the one you are a proponent of, is not the same as the Protestant hermeneutic and the approach is completely different.

[Petronski]

The Catholic Church has taught you that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, although there is no biblical evidence to support the idea that this is so.

There is no Biblical evidence to support sola Scriptura.

In fact, the term is not Christian and is not a compliment to Mary.

Queen of Heaven is not a compliment? Just because the title as falsely ascribed to some fictional moldy pagan goddess?

Amazing.

[Petronski]

We Protestants do not go into the text automatically disqualifying any reading...

Unless of course it is the reading of the Catholic Church.

[mgist]

“As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve’s sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin—from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be—he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).”

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html

If this were a Catholic interpretation, it would be scorned "NON SCRIPTURAL" man made interpretation by anti-Catholics. I do wonder how you pick and choose these "interpretations", as actual scripture.

Not that I am against these explanations because there is nothing in the Bible that says only biblical word has authority. The bible wasn't even compiled to include The New Testament until about 150AD, there was continued discussion about a few books until about 400AD. It was not officially canonized until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s, when Luther and the first Protestants came to be.

Luther promised to return to the church after reformation. The church did reform, but Luther's followers didn't keep his word.

Regardless, while Adam was made in God's image. Jesus was truly God's only begotten Son. Not the second Adam. Mary was human, and obedient to God, unlike Eve. Therefore, she is the "New Eve". Jesus is God the Son, and is our Savior. Not the New Adam.

[RnMomof7]

We Protestants do not go into the text automatically disqualifying any reading, we allow the Author to tell us what he is saying and we do that by considering the genre of the book and all the internal evidence within the entire book along with any pertinent external evidence that will support a reading, and then finally we also use a canonical approach because we believe God is not a God of confusion and believe the whole canon is the great story of sin, redemption, and recreation and try to understand it along the major storyline.

Exactly ... And it is all about HIM

[mgist]

"Queen of Heaven is not a compliment? Just because the title as falsely ascribed to some fictional moldy pagan goddess?"

So if you call your precious baby daughter a "Princess", does that mean your going to hell?

If I kiss my bible, does that mean I worship leather and paper? When I tell you I simply love the Word of God, and that is an expression of love, you are still willing to tell me you know my intentions better than I do?

That is amazing. Perhaps you need to be reminded that only God truly knows man's heart, and you are NOT God any more than Mary is.

[1000 silverlings]

Read this and tell us who the woman in labor is:

And in Jeremiah 31, is Mary being rebuilt?

Jeremiah 30:

4 Now these are the words that the LORD spoke concerning Israel and Judah.

5 “For thus says the LORD:

‘ We have heard a voice of trembling, Of fear, and not of peace.

6 Ask now, and see, Whether a man is ever in labor with child? So why do I see every man with his hands on his loins Like a woman in labor,

And all faces turned pale? 7 Alas! For that day is great, So that none is like it;

And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble, But he shall be saved out of it. 8 ‘ For it shall come to pass in that day,’ Says the LORD of hosts,

‘ That I will break his yoke from your neck, And will burst your bonds; Foreigners shall no more enslave them. 9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them.

10 ‘ Therefore do not fear, O My servant Jacob,’ says the LORD, ‘ Nor be dismayed, O Israel;

For behold, I will save you from afar, And your seed from the land of their captivity. Jacob shall return, have rest and be quiet, And no one shall make him afraid.

11 For I am with you,’ says the LORD, ‘to save you; Though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you,

Yet I will not make a complete end of you. But I will correct you in justice, And will not let you go altogether unpunished.’

Jeremiah 31

The Remnant of Israel Saved

1 “At the same time,” says the LORD, “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.” 2 Thus says the LORD:

“ The people who survived the sword Found grace in the wilderness— Israel, when I went to give him rest.” 3 The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying:

“ Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you. 4 Again I will build you, and you shall be rebuilt, O virgin of Israel!

You shall again be adorned with your tambourines, And shall go forth in the dances of those who rejoice. 5 You shall yet plant vines on the mountains of Samaria;

The planters shall plant and eat them as ordinary food. 6 For there shall be a day When the watchmen will cry on Mount Ephraim,

‘ Arise, and let us go up to Zion, To the LORD our God.’”

7 For thus says the LORD:

“ Sing with gladness for Jacob, And shout among the chief of the nations; Proclaim, give praise, and say,

‘ O LORD, save Your people, The remnant of Israel!’ ‘

[the_conscience]

Is there an official reading of any particular text or book? I thought there was only dogma and a freedom of disagreement allowed amongst theologians regarding how to approach a text and what it’s meaning is.

I kinda like Hans Kung.

[wmfights]

We may disagree on how to read Church/Israel but I’ve never seen you say that your position is correct irregardless of what the rest of the text says.

Thank you.

We get to have some of the best discussions when we are looking at the whole passage, whom it was being said to, what had happened before and try to understand the meaning.

That’s just plain scary!

Amen

[RegulatorCountry]

If this were a Catholic interpretation, it would be scorned "NON SCRIPTURAL" man made interpretation by anti-Catholics. I do wonder how you pick and choose these "interpretations", as actual scripture.

It appears you are yet again in error, mgist. Please read the following article, entitled The Second Adam, from America: The National Catholic Weekly:

The paintings on the walls of the Brancacci Chapel in Florence show Masaccio (1401-28) at his artistic and spiritual best—not least in the way he links Adam and Eve with Christ. Driven from the Garden of Eden, our first parents are in despair. Weeping and weighed down with terrible pain and loss, they move along a path of sorrows. But the same path brings them toward the next scene: Christ on the shores of Lake Galilee surrounded by his apostles, who will found the church. In his own brilliant fashion, Masaccio follows a tradition that reaches back to St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (Ch. 15) and his Letter to the Romans (Ch. 5), the contrast between the first Adam, who initiated the whole story of human sin and the new Adam, who has brought the blessings of grace and eternal life.

Calling Christ the second Adam is a solidly traditional practice. In the second century St. Irenaeus developed the differences between the first and last Adam. By referring twice to Adam, an early liturgical text, the Exultet or Easter Proclamation (still sung at the Easter Vigil) implies Christ’s role as the second or new Adam. In the medieval mystery plays, the actor who played Adam usually reappeared to play Christ—a vivid way of connecting the first and second Adam. A contrast between the damage done by the first Adam and the gifts of the second Adam entered into the Council of Trent’s 1547 decree on the justification of sinful human beings. Right down to the 21st century, images of Adam and Christ are still wonderfully joined in icons used in the official liturgy of the Eastern Christian tradition and in the decoration of its churches.

The remainder of the article, entitled , in America: The National Catholic Weekly can be found at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3540

[mgist]

To me those verses explain that Adam was man, made in the likeness of God, and describes Jesus as God, that was sent as a man(Adam). Not a second Adam, which would make Jesus simply a man. We are born from Adam, but called to be like Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:45If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

Regardless, I wouldn't dare call you a heretic, or a pagan worshiper for your differing perspective. Only God can determine those things.

[mgist]

You are absolutely right, I was wrong in terms of scriptual meaning. Aren’t we all fallable? That is why as a Catholic, I usually prefer to rely on the Cathechism for scriptural doctrine, which clearly shows you are right in terms of scripture. I guess I should have refered to the Cathechism in the first place, but the real point I was trying to make is that we all interpret scripture. Catholics have the Catechism to refer to for interpretation. It is a necessity, not an “evil tool from the RC church”. Like I said, I don’t understand those who interpret scripture, and accuse others for doing the same.

[mgist]

I apologize to you too Petronski, I was responding to the wrong post. I agree with you. So sorry.

[mgist]

Today's Reading:

Reading I

Is 58:9b-14

Thus says the LORD:

If you remove from your midst oppression, false accusation and malicious speech;

If you bestow your bread on the hungry and satisfy the afflicted; Then light shall rise for you in the darkness, and the gloom shall become for you like midday;

Then the LORD will guide you always and give you plenty even on the parched land.

He will renew your strength, and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring whose water never fails.

The ancient ruins shall be rebuilt for your sake, and the foundations from ages past you shall raise up; “Repairer of the breach,” they shall call you, “Restorer of ruined homesteads.”

If you hold back your foot on the sabbath from following your own pursuits on my holy day; If you call the sabbath a delight, and the LORD’s holy day honorable;

If you honor it by not following your ways, seeking your own interests, or speaking with malice Then you shall delight in the LORD,

and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will nourish you with the heritage of Jacob, your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

[the_conscience]

A beautiful text.

Thank you for posting it.

[annalex]

you read about an adorned woman [...] and so you conclude that the woman is Mary

I conclude that the woman in Mary because in verse 5 she is giving physical birth to a son, and in verse 10 the Son is identified as Christ. That is why I conclude that she is Mary, quite regardless of who else happens to be called "woman", and certainly regardless of whether she happens to be adorned.

Did I not make that connection, to the verses 5 and 10 in particular, clear before?

Now, the woman is also adorned with a crown and other signs of sanctity and majesty. So "Queen" kind of summarizes it. Again, were you to read the scripture honestly for what it says, this would be a good moment to critically reassess the Protestant counterscriptural dogma that Mary cannon possibly be seen as Queen, bedcause this is how she is described by St. John, her adopted son, in the scripture you hold to be the single rule of your faith.

[annalex]

I am not here to discuss the Protestant hermeneutics. The Catholic hermeneutics is simple: read what’s written. Apply allegories if the inspired author put them in there; read the context as well, but read, above all else, read what’s written.

If the Protestants do something different, well, that is a good reason not to be Protestant.

[annalex]

Ask now, and see, Whether a man is ever in labor with child? So why do I see every man with his hands on his loins Like a woman in labor, And all faces turned pale?

This verse describes Jacob (Israel) and likens him to a woman in labor. It doesn't follow that every woman in labor from there on is Jacob.

Jeremiah 31

The passage likens the remnant of Israel to a virgin, that is one who remained faithful. Again, doesn't mean every virgin is from now on Israel. I an fact am familiar with a few verses where Mary is described as virgin. I don't even dispute that Mary is a fulfillment of Israel's historical God-given role. So?

[editor-surveyor]

Whenever the word is ‘woman’ it is referring to Israel.

[RnMomof7]

The last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

That is Christ