Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

self | 12-14-14 | ealgeone

[ealgeone]

The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.

[Elsie]

Elsie, you are awake.

(All thru dark hours dreary, knocking again is He.

[Elsie]

Cover me; I’m goin’ in!

Fired up the snowblower last night to be sure it was working.

Sure did NOT want to mess with it in the SNOW!

[Mark17]

dead and gone before the Final Scenes play out...

I would suspect so. I think you said you were at Lowery AFB around 1960??? I joined the USAF in 1967, spent 20 years in the Air Force, then 25 years with the California Department of Corrections. That should clue you in about our "pre trib" problems. Actually, I don't think it is a problem. Think of how awful the tribulation period will be. I am only concerned for my offspring, and if he has children in the future.

[knarf]

What a surprise to see a 5K something reply in my reply box and .... whew !

Your 5219 hit home with me because I see His salvation (Psalm 51) pretty much the same.

I took out fire insurance in 1981 and have since learned a lot more about the policy issued me

I like your reply mark

[metmom]

It’s a matter of throwing garbage out hoping something sticks.

And that someone who doesn’t know any better might actually believe it’s true.

But the only people who would agree with it would be others looking for something to use against God, as a reason for not becoming a Christian.

[daniel1212]

Hey Boat, here is something I see. When we are dealing with some people, sometimes we need to completely define everything we say. Example: When dealing with Mormons, for instance, they are guilty of "cult speak," meaning almost everything you say must be defined. When you say Jesus Christ, you know exactly who you a talking about, the spotless, sinless only begotten son of God. When a Mormon says Jesus Christ, it conjures up in his mind a whole different concept in his mind, not at all the Jesus of the Bible, but the Jesus of Mormonism, which is a Jesus who does not exist. Same with other words like "faith," "repent,""confession." Make sense?

You mean like speaking of Mary, the pious virtuous girl who assented/requested to become the mother of the incarnate Son of God (which salon.com charges was cosmic rape,which i contended against,by God's grace) and who created her;

And whom no one is shown ever asking her to do anything, while her considerate request of her Son to help others was treated opposite to a command (as not being compelled, and reminding her of the sovereignty of God);

And which obedient (to God/Christ) mother the Christ likened all obedient brethren to, and committed the adoption of her to a disciple (and herto her) to just one disciple, and other than Peter, as would be expected if committing the all church to her care;

And who prayed with the other disciples to God, but who never heard of even one prayer to created being in Heaven;

Then we know we are speaking of the Mary of Scripture.

But when a Mormon speaks of Mary, it is a very radical concept in his/her mind, a Mary who does not exist in Scripture.

That of

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more .

For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

• as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

• as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

• as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

• as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

• as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

• as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

• as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

• as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

• as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

• as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

• as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

• as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;

• as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

• as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

• as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

• as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

• and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

• And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture

[daniel1212]

1/6/2015, 5:27:24 AM · 197 of 215

[Elsie]

I would suspect so. I think you said you were at Lowery AFB around 1960???

Yup.

At San Antonio for early Basic, then at Lowry for the rest of it and electronics training for about a year, Moses Lake, WA for 12 months, then Bangkok for 18.

then an early out due to only 5-6 months to go.

[Elsie]

Done with 300 ft of driveway and walks!

YEA!!!

[Mark17]

But the only people who would agree with it would be others looking for something to use against God, as a reason for not becoming a Christian.

It is spiritual blindness. I am sure you remember, as I did, when we were catholics, how spiritually blind we were. After I became a Christian, I looked back on my life and just marveled at how blind I was. Not anymore though.

[Springfield Reformer]

SR: "...the context for this statement is not that of disembodied souls, waiting fro the resurrection, but those who have actually been raised."

MD: Jesus speaks directly, specifically, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by name. Are you saying they had been bodily raised?

Are you saying Paul is wrong to speak of the dead in Christ?

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
 (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

Because these passages don't cancel each other out.  Both must be true, agreed?

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
(Mark 12:26-27)

The truth is, this resolves very easily.  In each of the parallel passages, what is the question being addressed?

"And as touching the dead, that they rise:"

Jesus is not addressing some other question.  For example, if they had asked, "what do people do up there before they are raised from the dead," then Jesus had given His "God of the living" answer, you would have a case. But that's not what happened.  When I write a legal memorandum, I have to lock down the subject matter which I am about to address, so I put a "Question Presented" section at the top, and everything that follows is understood to be tied to that question.  In this passage, the "question presented" is whether the dead rise.  

The setting for this question, as I am sure you are aware, is that there were some, the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, because they claimed it wasn't taught in the Pentateuch (Moses' five books), and in their minds, nothing outside the Pentateuch was binding, effectively no more than commentary on the law.  The Pharisees, OTOH, who believed in the resurrection, had this one right, sort of, although they also had some wrong ideas about it too, such as the belief you were raised in pretty much exactly the physical state you died.  But the real fly in the ointment was the Pharisees hadn't ever come up with a good argument for the resurrection from the Pentateuch. The Sadducees, by rejecting everything outside the Pentateuch as mere commentary on the law, were able to evade the force of passages such as the one in Daniel that makes a direct case for the resurrection, giving them license to live without regard to an afterlife.

So they brought this hot-button question to Jesus, probably thinking they could stump Him too, which would discredit Him. It didn't work, as usual, because He addressed it, with a text from the Pentateuch, that made a case neither side could dispute. No doubt this answer confounded both parties. It despoiled the safe little world the Sadducees had created for themselves by deleting so much of God's inspired word from their de facto canon, and it refuted the bizarre misconceptions the Pharisees had built up around the resurrection by adding to the word of God.

Bottom line, when you finally get to how Jesus answered this specific question, it is clear He is addressing the truth that God does raise the dead.  This is what I said in my first post.  The fact that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are mentioned by name only confirms one fact with respect to the question presented, that God Himself, speaking in the burning bush, was seeing past their present state of death and looking at them in terms of their resurrection life, therefore it is proper to believe in the resurrection.   This does not discredit Paul's teaching, in which Paul is addressing the reality that even Christian people must deal with death for a short while, but that this condition is temporary, and will give way to the resurrection, just as God implies in the burning bush.

Peace,

SR

[annalex]

On my part, that is not a proposition, but an observation based on the frequent practice of explaining the Bible to Protestants. At some point or another, the Protestants pleads: "Please stop reading this passage. It is against hermeneutics!" At this point my job is done.

they crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him (Acts Of Apostles 7:56)

[daniel1212]

Look at the NE temps for that http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/chrisburt/sg/WEEK1-OUTLOOK-70.jpg Quite a difference 1500 miles south makes!

Frozen chosen

[imardmd1]

Our time 10:34AM to you is minus 11 hrs from Filipino time. I have been thinking about minus 13, but that was figuring on Japan, which is minus 13. But that was when I often had to call our offices in Tokyo, just across the street from the Hotel Okura.

I guess one cannot judge this, looking at a Mercator projection(?).

[aMorePerfectUnion]

The level of denial in your post is worthy of comment and sharing...

“That is simple. Each time there is a passage inconvenient for a Protestant, — like the teaching on the Real Presence in 1 Cro. 11, or negation of salvation by faith alone in James 2, — the following happens.”

Perhaps it has not occurred to you that the issue isn’t inconvenience for Protestants, but [likely] an inability on your part to go beyond what you [it seems] predecided the passage meant??

“I simply repeat citing the text, which says what it says.”

Actually, it would be fairer to say you repeat over and over in your posts what the specific word says, without regard to what the passage means when it uses that word. Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it a truth. I have yet to see one of your posts that does more than surface “see and say.”

To be as fair as possible, I see mormons and the occasional Christian make the same mistakes of seeing a word and assuming what it means in that context.

“My Protestant opponent either changes the topic altogether or he begins discussing some passages elsewhere that, he thinks, invalidate the inconvenient one.”

Perhaps if you changed your assumption from “opponent” to fellow believer who disagrees, you would have more enriching discussions?

I have noticed on FR that catholics have difficulty with the concept that the totality of what the Bible teaches about any topic is the source of correct doctrine.

“When all that does not cause me to shift the focus, he whips out the Wonder Weapon: Hermeneutics. Because the word sounds kinda learned at least he can run off with a semblance of making an argument.”

The word hermeneutics does imply that a believer must WORK to “correctly divide the Word of truth” and to “study to show himself approved, a workman who is not ashamed, rightly handling the Word of truth.”

It appears from the entirety of your posts I’ve read, that you have not done the work. No one can make you. They can point out the shoddy character of posts that avoid the real work.

In the case of your posts, you made it clear through your assertions that your version of hermeneutics is (1) to learn what the catholic denomination teaches and then try to find it in Scripture. (2) see a word and assume what it means without any further work. (3) assume that truth is found outside Scripture, which determines what Scripture means.

All of these are false hermeneutics and do not serve you in the long run, if you desire truth.

(4) It appears that your final principle is to post insults to whoever thought they were going to have a real discussion with you.

Your continued reliance on ad hominem attacks against Protestant hermeneutics and Protestant pastors still leaves you short of a single good argument. I would wish you better than that.

“But of course all that he accomplished is to refuse to discuss the key passage because doing so would violate some mysterious Hermeneutics. In short, Protestant hermeneutics is an instrument by which they ignore the Bible.”

Hermeneutics are not mysterious. They are accessible to anyone who is willing to put in the effort (as we are commanded) to learn what God’s Word means.

Best in 2015 to you.

[CynicalBear]

>>I will take a wild guess and assume<<

>>Some of their churches probably<<

>>Some of them may say<<

>>but it may be<<

>>Some may say<<

>>These may forbid<

>>Maybe some of them<<

>>They may not observe<<

>>they evidently<<

>>they are probably<<

< >>It could be<<

>>If that's the case<<

That's all from one post!!!! The Catholic propensity to base one's beliefs on speculation is stunning.

[metmom]

Well, if you want to ID with the crowd who plugged their ears against the truth and rushed violently at them to shut them up, have at it, but it’s not something I would identify with myself.

[CynicalBear]

>>Catholics have statues and icons in their Churches<<

You don't say!!! I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for your response. You certainly have my good will going into the New Year.

You said you're (frantically searching my swiss-cheese-like memory) -- Baptist, was it?

If I got it wrong, do I get a second guess?

Tagline!

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think only God can answer that question in any comprehensive way. There are those whose faith is known to Him alone.