I’ve been following your debate with AF Vet back to this post, and I still can’t understand: what is meant by “preformed” in the sentence, “Did a favor for [the Grateful Dead] at the Altamont concert where they preformed.”

I read your post 5045 where you deny the word “preformed” is misspelled but I fail to see how that explains what the sentence above says.

Forgive my ignorance but does the phrase “[The Grateful Dead] preformed at Altamont” mean something other than what the usual definition of the word “preformed” would imply? Or does it mean that the Grateful Dead had not yet formed at the time of that concert?

Thanks,

Research Scientology!

Hubbard; science fiction writer, started it!

How about Kwanza??

Can one be saved apart from he BOdy of Christ?

Thank you for calling Ask a Eunuch.

huh?

We teach some things from the scripture and other things from the Holy Ghost directly.

I'm SURE you do!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_F%C3%A1tima

AHHhhh... Grasshopper.

You are beginning to SEE!

Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Therefore; EVERYONE at the table with Him SHOULD have cut off chunks of Him and chewed them up!

Preformed
Pre formed

They prepared (formed) to play (pre).
And then decided not to.

I guess I could have said they were there, but did not play.

I should have realized preformed was too big of a word to use, as it was stated that it was not accurate by af_vet_1981 even though it fit quite well.

I started using smaller words so af_vet_1981 wouldn’t have problems understanding my posts.

LOL didn’t work too well!

Both of have been putting the phrase;

What can I do for you?"

into the phrase "what [is that] to me and you?"

The example from Joshua 15 is a close match-up for "what can I do for you" but not a match-up for "what...[to] me and you?" as found in John 2.

Another difficulty here is that the NT texts were first widely circulated in Greek, not in Hebrew.

That complicates the issue, for we don't have anything in the way of early-in-Church-history copy of the Gospel of John in Hebrew, do we?

Please take note that Michael Heiser did say;

“what is there that concerns me and you?

[underlining added for emphasis]

Further, he can be generally right enough with, as he said;

"When Jesus says to Mary, “What to me to you?”, he isn’t saying “What is it now, lady?” "

which is all well and fine enough, for many have apparently been wrong in thinking Jesus was expressing open rebuke to Mary, when --- unless we were to be there and to gather clues as to tone of voice, facial expression, 'body language' etc., for some additional clue as to how he meant what He said --- we are left with

What [is that] to me and you?"

or again;

“what is there that concerns me and you?"

by Heiser's own understanding of this, which comports well enough with other translations of Hebrew idiom -- but not well enough to hi-jack from Joshua 15 the differently presented question;

and Caleb saith to her, `What -- to thee?'

wherein as I made mention -- we do not have Hebrew language copy of John 2, in which we might be able compare straight across Hebrew, to Hebrew (idiom, and/or usages). That is a bit of a problem.

Yet that doesn't slow Heiser from venturing his own continuation, wherein he introduces a shift of meaning;

"He’s basically asking his mother, who brings a concern to him, “What can I do for you?” "

Can you see the change?

The question is shifted from "what [is that] to me and you"
or the sense;

"what is this to me and to you",

as Heiser had originally provided sense of translation for, to at the end Heiser just so slightly changing things, suggesting

“What can I do for you?”

doing so after having leveraged a passage from Joshua, which concerned a groom's own statement to his own newly wedded in order to make things out to be, to suggest that Jesus was doing this for Mary --- more than for anyone?

This thread's title is

Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

Not being able to find evidence to suggest that anything beyond "veneration" of Mary is in fact biblical (including "hyper" dulia, I might add) it does appear to me that by the route of suggestiveness, with small amounts of re-wording things such as engaged in by Heiser (and hosts of others over the centuries) to make of Mary more than is plainly enough shown; that which was originally gnosticism in regards to "Mary" has been accepted and by now inflated to direct prayers to her, and look upon her as our "Heavenly Mother" to go along with Our (Heavenly) Father.

What are human beings, anyway?

According to Hebrew Scripture of antiquity, Genesis 20:26-27;

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Let us look into how Scripture describes humans are to be when they themselves are transformed into heavenly realm; Matthew 22:30;

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God

in heaven.

What I am getting at is that the "Heavenly Father" is as "heavenly mother" himself also, for there is no "sex" differentiation as it were, in Heaven.

He created us, we human beings.;

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

"Mary" is not our heavenly mother. Regardless of all the past efforts which Roman Catholics have put into conveying and claiming that erroneous idea was in any way truly "Apostolic".

But let me guess -- now what will come to mind is the apostle John with Mary at the foot of the cross?

Will that be where the argument goes next? (...from af_vet, or a few others I can think of).

If so, then please allow me to get ahead of that, for one cannot go "there" and make "Mary" out to be now our "spirit mother" without running afoul of what small amount of Scripture from both the OT and NT (!) which I have just brought to the page.

We need the whole Word, not a squeezing in sideways of concepts and/or principles which are not well established, doing so while ignoring that which is well established.

Ok thanks.

Thought you might enjoy this excerpt from Peter de Rosa's book, "The Vicars of Christ", taken from chapter 12. De Rosa is a catholic, not a critic.

'Roma locuta est,cause finite est', St. Augustine's phrase, Rome has spoken, the dispute is at an end', is quote endlessly by Catholic apologists. There were many papal heretics. Many popes made unfortunate pronouncements "Gregory the Great said that unbaptized babies go straight to hell and suffer there of all of eternity. Some pontiffs went further. These included Milevis and Gelasius I. Vigilius was the most Hamlet-like of all popes, whose career read like a theatrical farce." To shorten this report, I will just say that the Justinian called Ffith General Council found Vigilius to be heretic because of some of his views and excommunicated him. Honorus was another pope. The Sixth General Council condemned Honorus.

The cursory remarks above are leading to the following.

When Gregory XIII became pope in 1572 the Franciscan Cardinal Montalto retired from public life. It was said he had one foot in the grave. Though retired he had to attend the Sacred College, and it was said he was bowed over and coughed continuously with consumption (TB). He was very sickly. His colleagues at the college argued that he was too young to die and Mantalto was too weak to argue. When Gregory died in 1585 it was obvious to the other 42 Cardinals that Montalto was perfect for the papacy. His diminution would not cause consternation, an he was elected unanimously. The moment he was elected he straightened up and declared, "Now I am Caesar," and took the name Sixtus V. His vitality was such that it was said he did the work of 50 years in 5 years.

He took a high-handed approach to the papacy. The Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, was the work of St.Jerome in the fourth century. By the Middle Ages it had pride of place. By then, many false readings had crept in, owing to sleepy copyists. The Council of Trent in 1546 had called the Vulgate the churches authentic version of the Bible. Three years into his pontificate Sixtus appointed a committee to edit the Vulgate. Sixtus was very displeased and a raged and said he would do it himself. He labored, with a single secretary, hour after hour to edit the Vulgate. Sixtus even altered the workings out of the Chapter and verse assignment which had stood for 2 centuries, selecting his own scheme. Sixtus declared,

By the fullness of Apostolic power, We decree and declare this edition....approved by the authority given Us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.

Months later after the book was delivered to the Cardinals and ambassadors, they were boggle-eyed at the translation errors. Four months later Sixtus was dead. Rome went into a frenzy of delight, but none so elated as his enemies at the Sacred college.

Now they set about as to how to limit the damage. Bellarmine, a retired cardinal, returned to Rome to deal with the fallout. Bellarmine advised the new pope to lie about Sixtus bible. The option were simple.....admit that the pope had erred on a critical matter of the Bible or engage in a coverup whose outcome was unpredictable. Bellarmine advised the latter;

The deceit did not stop there. The question was how to get back the Sixtus versions. How could the issue of inerrancy be handled. Bellarmine did not wish to explain the absence of the Holy Spirit's assistance in the Sixtus Version So the version put together by Bellarmine's group was declared by the pope the official version. Instructions went out to the Inquisition in Venice and to the Jesuit General to scour the printing houses, and private homes, especially in Germany, to save the honor of the papacy. That search had elements of farce. At a time when the Protestants were distributing free Bibles, the Catholic church was desperately trying to buy some back.

The affair of the pope who rewrote the Bible proves once more that the teachings that the pope cannot err creates its own version of history and leads even saintly men (Bellarmine) to lie on its behalf.

Thought you might enjoy this excerpt from Peter de Rosa's book, "The Vicars of Christ", taken from chapter 12. De Rosa is a catholic, not a critic.

'Roma locuta est,cause finite est', St. Augustine's phrase, Rome has spoken, the dispute is at an end', is quote endlessly by Catholic apologists. There were many papal heretics. Many popes made unfortunate pronouncements "Gregory the Great said that unbaptized babies go straight to hell and suffer there of all of eternity. Some pontiffs went further. These included Milevis and Gelasius I. Vigilius was the most Hamlet-like of all popes, whose career read like a theatrical farce." To shorten this report, I will just say that the Justinian called Ffith General Council found Vigilius to be heretic because of some of his views and excommunicated him. Honorus was another pope. The Sixth General Council condemned Honorus.

The cursory remarks above are leading to the following.

When Gregory XIII became pope in 1572 the Franciscan Cardinal Montalto retired from public life. It was said he had one foot in the grave. Though retired he had to attend the Sacred College, and it was said he was bowed over and coughed continuously with consumption (TB). He was very sickly. His colleagues at the college argued that he was too young to die and Mantalto was too weak to argue. When Gregory died in 1585 it was obvious to the other 42 Cardinals that Montalto was perfect for the papacy. His diminution would not cause consternation, an he was elected unanimously. The moment he was elected he straightened up and declared, "Now I am Caesar," and took the name Sixtus V. His vitality was such that it was said he did the work of 50 years in 5 years.

He took a high-handed approach to the papacy. The Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, was the work of St.Jerome in the fourth century. By the Middle Ages it had pride of place. By then, many false readings had crept in, owing to sleepy copyists. The Council of Trent in 1546 had called the Vulgate the churches authentic version of the Bible. Three years into his pontificate Sixtus appointed a committee to edit the Vulgate. Sixtus was very displeased and a raged and said he would do it himself. He labored, with a single secretary, hour after hour to edit the Vulgate. Sixtus even altered the workings out of the Chapter and verse assignment which had stood for 2 centuries, selecting his own scheme. Sixtus declared,

By the fullness of Apostolic power, We decree and declare this edition....approved by the authority given Us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.

Months later after the book was delivered to the Cardinals and ambassadors, they were boggle-eyed at the translation errors. Four months later Sixtus was dead. Rome went into a frenzy of delight, but none so elated as his enemies at the Sacred college.

Now they set about as to how to limit the damage. Bellarmine, a retired cardinal, returned to Rome to deal with the fallout. Bellarmine advised the new pope to lie about Sixtus bible. The option were simple.....admit that the pope had erred on a critical matter of the Bible or engage in a coverup whose outcome was unpredictable. Bellarmine advised the latter;

The deceit did not stop there. The question was how to get back the Sixtus versions. How could the issue of inerrancy be handled. Bellarmine did not wish to explain the absence of the Holy Spirit's assistance in the Sixtus Version So the version put together by Bellarmine's group was declared by the pope the official version. Instructions went out to the Inquisition in Venice and to the Jesuit General to scour the printing houses, and private homes, especially in Germany, to save the honor of the papacy. That search had elements of farce. At a time when the Protestants were distributing free Bibles, the Catholic church was desperately trying to buy some back.

The affair of the pope who rewrote the Bible proves once more that the teachings that the pope cannot err creates its own version of history and leads even saintly men (Bellarmine) to lie on its behalf.

I don’t think the basis for Mary’s spiritual motherhood of us all is based primarily on the famous words of Jesus to St. John and/or on the words of Mary at the wedding feast of Cana.

I think it’s just simply based on the fact that Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is our Salvation, so she is the mother of our salvation or our spiritual mother. At least in a sense she is, just as she is in the same sense the Mother of God (not that she created God but bore Him, there is a difference there.). In that same sense she is everyone’s spiritual mother (not that she created Jesus or created salvation for us all, but because she bore Jesus she bore salvation for the world).

Only the really arrogant or atheist (both perhaps?) believe the mother and the father of any baby (much more so WRT Jesus) actually create the baby on their own. No, it’s God who creates all babies (which is why abortion is so wrong but I digress). It’s not the father (earthly father). It’s not the mother. Neither of them create the baby by themselves. The father and the mother come together and with God’s help, his will, a baby is made. And then the mother bears the baby for 9 months. Bears. Not creates. Again, the arrogant or atheist say differently.

It is in this way Mary is the “Mother of God” (God-Bearer, which is what Theotokos means). It is thus in this way that she bears (or “brings”, again brings by bearing not by creating) salvation. It is thus in this way she is our “spiritual mother” because she bore (not create) the Man-God who is our salvation.

It’s pretty simple really, to call Mary our spiritual mother is to simply acknowledge her unique role in salvation history. In other words acknowledge a fact about God, i.e., glorify God.

I think these kinds of debates lose the forest through the trees so to speak. I’ll leave it at that, for the more learned to correct me when appropriate.

He took a high-handed approach to the papacy. The Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, was the work of St.Jerome in the fourth century. By the Middle Ages it had pride of place. By then, many false readings had crept in, owing to sleepy copyists. The Council of Trent in 1546 had called the Vulgate the churches authentic version of the Bible. Three years into his pontificate Sixtus appointed a committee to edit the Vulgate. Sixtus was very displeased and a raged and said he would do it himself. He labored, with a single secretary, hour after hour to edit the Vulgate. Sixtus even altered the workings out of the Chapter and verse assignment which had stood for 2 centuries, selecting his own scheme. Sixtus declared,

By the fullness of Apostolic power, We decree and declare this edition....approved by the authority given Us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.

Sounds kinda like Smith's approach to the BIBLE...

Want to take a look???

See some differences between GOD's Word and the Joseph Smith's 'translation'

Color coding explanation:

Added stuff... Changed stuff... Rearranged stuff... Removed stuff...

*(UNDERLINED stuff is the DISTRACTING reference on every tenth word or so that infuses LDS 'scripture' online.)

JOSEPH SMITH—MATTHEW

An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1831: Matthew 23: 39 and chapter 24.

Jesus foretells the impending destruction of Jerusalem—He also discourses on the second coming of the Son of Man, and the destruction of the wicked.

1 ^aFor I say unto you, that ye shall not see me henceforth and know that I am he of whom it is written by the prophets, until ye shall say: Blessed is he who ^bcometh in the name of the Lord, in the clouds of heaven, and all the holy angels with him. Then understood his disciples that he should come again on the earth, after that he was glorified and ^ccrowned on the right hand of God.

2 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple; and his disciples came to him, for to ^ahear him, saying: Master, show us concerning the buildings of the temple, as thou hast said—They shall be thrown down, and left unto you desolate.

3 And Jesus said unto them: See ye not all these things, and do ye not understand them? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here, upon this temple, one ^astone upon another that shall not be thrown down.

4 And Jesus left them, and went upon the Mount of Olives. And as he sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying: Tell us when shall these things be which thou hast said concerning the destruction of the temple, and the Jews; and what is the ^asign of thy ^bcoming, and of the ^cend of the world, or the destruction of the ^dwicked, which is the end of the world?

5 And Jesus answered, and said unto them: Take heed that no man deceive you;

6 For many shall come in my name, saying—I am ^aChrist—and shall deceive many;

7 Then shall they deliver you up to be ^aafflicted, and shall kill you, and ye shall be ^bhated of all nations, for my name’s sake;

8 And then shall many be ^aoffended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another;

9 And many ^afalse prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many;

10 And because iniquity shall abound, the ^alove of many shall wax cold;

11 But he that remaineth ^asteadfast and is not overcome, the same shall be saved.

12 When you, therefore, shall see the ^aabomination of ^bdesolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, concerning the destruction of ^cJerusalem, then you shall stand in the ^dholy place; whoso readeth let him understand.

13 Then let them who are in Judea flee into the ^amountains;

14 Let him who is on the housetop flee, and not return to take anything out of his house;

15 Neither let him who is in the field return back to take his clothes;

16 And wo unto them that are with ^achild, and unto them that give suck in those days;

17 Therefore, pray ye the Lord that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day;

18 For then, in those days, shall be great ^atribulation on the ^bJews, and upon the inhabitants of ^cJerusalem, such as was not before sent upon Israel, of God, since the beginning of their kingdom until this time; no, nor ever shall be sent again upon Israel.

19 All things which have befallen them are only the beginning of the sorrows which shall come upon them.

20 And except those days should be shortened, there should none of their flesh be ^asaved; but for the elect’s sake, according to the ^bcovenant, those days shall be shortened.

21 Behold, these things I have spoken unto you concerning the Jews; and again, after the tribulation of those days which shall come upon Jerusalem, if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe him not;

22 For in those days there shall also arise false ^aChrists, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect, who are the elect according to the covenant.

23 Behold, I speak these things unto you for the ^aelect’s sake; and you also shall hear of ^bwars, and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled, for all I have told you must come to pass; but the end is not yet.

24 Behold, I have told you before;

25 Wherefore, if they shall say unto you: Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: Behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not;

26 For as the light of the morning cometh out of the ^aeast, and shineth even unto the west, and covereth the whole earth, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.

27 And now I show unto you a parable. Behold, wheresoever the ^acarcass is, there will the eagles be ^bgathered together; so likewise shall mine elect be gathered from the four quarters of the earth.

28 And they shall hear of wars, and rumors of wars.

29 Behold I speak for mine elect’s sake; for nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there shall be ^afamines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

30 And again, because iniquity shall abound, the love of men shall wax ^acold; but he that shall not be overcome, the same shall be saved.

31 And again, this ^aGospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all ^bnations, and then shall the end come, or the destruction of the wicked;

32 And again shall the ^aabomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, be fulfilled.

33 And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the ^asun shall be ^bdarkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the ^cstars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

34 Verily, I say unto you, this ^ageneration, in which these things shall be shown forth, shall not pass away until all I have told you shall be fulfilled.

35 Although, the days will come, that heaven and earth shall pass away; yet my ^awords shall not pass away, but all shall be fulfilled.

36 And, as I said before, after the ^atribulation of those days, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken, then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth ^bmourn; and they shall see the ^cSon of Man ^dcoming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory;

37 And whoso ^atreasureth up my word, shall not be deceived, for the Son of Man shall ^bcome, and he shall send his ^cangels before him with the great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together the ^dremainder of his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

38 Now learn a parable of the ^afig-tree—When its branches are yet tender, and it begins to put forth leaves, you know that summer is nigh at hand;

39 So likewise, mine elect, when they shall see all these things, they shall know that he is near, even at the doors;

40 But of that day, and hour, no one ^aknoweth; no, not the angels of God in heaven, but my Father only.

41 But as it was in the days of ^aNoah, so it shall be also at the coming of the Son of Man;

42 For it shall be with them, as it was in the days which were before the ^aflood; for until the day that Noah entered into the ark they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage;

43 And ^aknew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.

44 Then shall be fulfilled that which is written, that in the ^alast days, two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other ^bleft;

45 Two shall be grinding at the mill, the one shall be taken, and the other left;

46 And what I say unto one, I say unto all men; ^awatch, therefore, for you know not at what hour your Lord doth come.

47 But know this, if the good man of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to have been broken up, but would have been ready.

48 Therefore be ye also ^aready, for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh.

49 Who, then, is a ^afaithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

50 Blessed is that ^aservant whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing; and verily I say unto you, he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

51 But if that evil servant shall say in his heart: My lord ^adelayeth his coming,

52 And shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken,

53 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

54 And shall cut him asunder, and shall appoint him his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and ^agnashing of teeth.

55 And thus cometh the ^aend of the wicked, according to the prophecy of Moses, saying: They shall be cut off from among the people; but the end of the earth is not yet, but by and by.

KJV Matthew 23:38-39 24:1-51

39. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16. Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17. Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18. Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20. But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21. For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25. Behold, I have told you before.
26. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29. Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46. Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49. And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50. The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51. And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

King James Version of the Holy Bible

Public domain

>>Can one be saved apart from he BOdy of Christ?<<

One becomes saved and it is at that point they become part of the body of Christ. The body of Christ is made up of those who HAVE BEEN saved.

It’s pretty simple really, to call Mary our spiritual mother is to simply acknowledge her unique role in salvation history.

Yes; so simple...

And then Rome goes NUTS!!!

Haha dear Elsie I’d submit it’s the critics of the Church that “go nuts” when the simple acknowledgement of Mary’s role in salvation history is stated by such titles as “spiritual mother”.

I submit this thread as evidence of that.

Mrs. D., before you make your mind up on this reinvention of Jesus' response to the Cana request, I would ask you to consider the following, which is a rehash of some of my earlier posts on the same subject:

First, there is little doubt we are looking at an underlying Hebrew idiom, as it doesn't correspond well to any known idiomatic Greek sense. However, that means we have some samples from the OT to compare it against:

Judges 11:12 And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land?

1 Kings 17:18 And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?

2 Kings 3:13 And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab.

2 Chronicles 35:21 But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.

The Hebrew phrase of interest in each of these cases is: מַה־לִּ֥י וָלָ֖ךְ

The speaker in this idiom is not talking about "you and me" versus someone else. Rather, he is setting up a contrast of interests between himself and the other person, as if to say "what [is] to you [that is also] to me?" Or put another way, what common interest exists between you and I? See here for how the "vav" between "you" and "me" can serve more purposes than the simple "and," but can have disjunctive force when a verb is lacking.

The Greek equivalent is: Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί

Which transliterates to "ti emoi kai soi."

The Louw-Nida Semantic Range Lexicon renders this as "for what reason are you saying or doing this to me?" If you plug that back into each of the above OT passages, it works perfectly to capture the sense.

So the phrase is definitely a challenge to the relevancy of Mary's inquiry, especially when seen in light of it's OT usage. As rebukes go, it was quite mild, as friendly and loving as it gets, but still a challenge. He never said He wouldn't do anything about the wine. Only that based on His mission, she had no basis for expecting such a thing. And yet she trusted that He would do something and He did. So I don't see the problem here. I understand that Rome promotes such a view of Mary that challenging her special pull with Jesus seems wrong to those who have accepted that unfounded tradition. But that is a subjective impression. Mary has no greater access to or influence over Jesus that any other genuine believer. Jesus said so explicitly. It is no disrespect to her to be honest.

As for the theories of Michael Heiser, who has turned this expression into Jesus offering help to Mary, this is a person so far detached from traditional Christian theology that he doesn't even need a literal Adam:

That is, I don’t need a single real-time event involving an original human couple to know with theological certainty that all humans are mortal, that all humans sin, and that all humans are totally helpless to remedy either problem.

See it in full context at: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2012/06/evolution-adam-additional-thoughts/

And while Mr. Heiser has outstanding credentials on paper, he also has some really loony tune ideas. For example, His teaching on the Divine Council, where he postulates a class of true deities (sons of God) that are created beings but not angelic beings, is an intriguing idea, and very popular with Mormons. But for me it leaves his credibility as a trustworthy exegete very much in doubt.

In any event, I have reviewed his argument concerning Mary and Jesus at Cana and found it to be flippant and shallow. By his own accounting he hasn't looked at it very hard. He does not even address the four passages which prove the expression has an adversarial sense.

Furthermore, in this particular case, trying to convert the expression in question into "how can I help you," as MH suggests is possible, wrenches statement of Jesus into two incoherent and pathologically disconnected pieces. Under this theory, in the first clause, He is asking "how can I help you," and in the second He is saying "it isn't time yet." Those don't go together. It would be like saying. "How can I help you? BTW, not now." It makes no sense.

Bottom line, I respect credentials as much as they're worth, but no more. My dad was in education, and in dealing with gifted children on a regular basis, he concluded that even a really high intellect couldn't compensate for a failure to do the work. Heiser admits in the last lines of the article this is a bit of lightweight fluff he's been thinking about, and it's obvious he hasn't given it serious thought at all, let alone anything like a scholarly treatment

1. He has used comparison passages for his argument that upon inspection do NOT contain the phrase in question, only bare stumps of the interrogatory "what."
2. He has overlooked a distinct pattern of usage in those passages that DO contain the exact expression
3. He doesn't even mention a critical hint in the context of John 2, Jesus' objection about it not being time yet
4. He has drawn his examples from places where only some of the words of the idiom are used, without noticing that the more compete form of the idiom appears only in adversarial form.

This is significant because if the speaker wanted to put both parties on the same side of the table, there are first person plural constructs in Hebrew for doing that ("what is that between us"), and they would make more sense to use where there is no division of purpose between the parties. This suggests that when the two different pronouns are used (you versus me), it is precisely because a distinction in purpose is being made between the two parties.

Bottom line, this does look like a rebuke to me, albeit a very charitable one, as God is kind to us even when we don't see his purposes quite the way He does.

Peace,

SR

THank you for this scholarly reply. I haven't been on FR much today. I'll have to study on these things at some time in the future.

'Preciate'ja, as we say in Tennessee.

>>I was not using Protestant Hermeneutics. I used reason to clarify misunderstanding. I did not use obfuscation to prevent understanding.<<

Actually you use totally flawed Hermeneutics. You consistently use John 6 in an attempt to prove you are actually eating the real flesh and blood of Christ claiming that is what Jesus said. Yet you stop with only part of what Jesus said. He went on to say other things.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Yet I see Catholics eating and drinking all the time!! Do you switch your "hermeneutics" at that point? Surely in your system of literal "hermeneutics" and interpretation you expect to never get hungry or thirsty again right? After all, Jesus said that in the same conversation.