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.

[FourtySeven]

I think the only time a son can rebuke his mother is if his mother does or asks something of him that is against God’s Law, or if his mother is doing or saying something factually wrong (thus it’s actually charity to rebuke).

Otherwise, such a son is not giving his mother due respect that “Honor your Father and Mother” demands.

Mary did not ask Jesus to do anything wrong or say something factually incorrect. So to suggest He was rebuking her or in any way confrontational or adversarial with her in any way would be to suggest He broke the Command.

This is a point that Heiser also made that I’d like to see you address. How can one believe that Jesus was confrontational with his mother when she didn’t ask Him to do anything wrong or say anything wrong?

The other verses seem irrelevant to this point because again to suggest He was adversarial or confrontational with her for no good reason would be to imply he wasn’t honoring her there as he always should (or did).

[CynicalBear]

Did you eat or drink today? So you just voided:

John 3:35 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.

[CynicalBear]

>>I’ll leave it at that, for the more learned to correct me when appropriate.<<

Mary is NOT the "mother of us all".

Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

The Catholic Church can make up whatever they want but scripture will always trump what they say for true Christians.

[metmom]

***No replies. ***

Fancy that......

[metmom]

Can one be saved apart from he BOdy of Christ?

When one is saved, they BECOME the body of Christ.

The Body of Christ cannot save anyone as if it were an autonomous entity.

One is saved by faith in Jesus. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Someone could simply pick up a Bible, read the Gospel of John, and have enough knowledge about the plan of salvation to become saved.

Granted, there are many things to learn after that, and growing into the likeness of Christ is a lifelong process, but critical part is the getting saved part.

[metmom]

We do not add to the scripture.

OH? So there's no such thing as *sacred tradition* after all?

[metmom]

Wow.

And Luther is castigated for allegedly messing with Scripture.

If what they say about him was true, then he was a piker compared to those popes.

[metmom]

So, if I understand what you posted correctly, what Jesus said to her was essentially.....

*Woman. What are you up to?*

Would that be a fair assessment of the context and intent?

[BlueDragon]

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.

Fascinating. I guess I was a bit wrong. Thank you for your thorough and in-depth investigations and explanation.

Showing your own work, providing evidence for the how and why of things, rather than just so much more argument by assertion (which we are so often subjected to around here) is like a breath of fresh air -- and in this instance far exceeds my own meager attempts to take a stab at the issue. About the best I could do was attempt to put hedge of Scripture and theological principle around the "thingy".

Though as you say (and where I stand corrected) it was still something of a rebuke, yet not entirely...as the word rebuke can be a bit misleading -- but it more along lines of a challenging query, nonetheless?

I'm impressed you've done some homework on this, including (obviously?) having had prior introduction Michael Heiser, his "Naked Bible", and some of his own strange theology.

Yet that is not the real heart of the issue perhaps, for best sense of translation relies upon the conjunction-disjunctive as you very kindly provided link for, which demonstrated that you are not at all just making things up.

It seemed to me that "Naked bible" guy was not making things up at first, his own sense of translation agreeing widely with other translators --- until he then ventured towards guessing and making things up afterwards, in a form of musing untethered from any mooring in evidence.

Row, row, row, your boat

gently down the stream

Merrily merrily merrily merrily,

life is but a dream.

[Springfield Reformer]

First, the OT occurrences can't be irrelevant because they are exactly the expression in question.  As a matter of translation, that sort of thing is pure gold, because it gives you models for how a given expression works in a variety of settings.  I can't help that it is apparently adversarial.  It is what it is.  

What I would suggest is that Jesus was well within the bounds of respect to speak truth in love to His own mother.  Have you never seen a parent that had to be told something they didn't want to hear?  And yet this case is so much milder, it seems strange to even consider this disrespectful.  Jesus is God.  He's lovingly telling His mother after the flesh there is a difference in their interests.  Respect does not entail dishonesty to keep things running smoothly.  Respect is an expression of love, and as Paul says, love takes pleasure in the truth.  Jesus had to be honest with her. How can that possibly be wrong, when it is tempered with so much love?

Or how does this register on the respect spectrum?

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
(Luke 2:48-50)

Here Mary tells Him His going missing was very upsetting to her and Joseph.  Yet even at twelve years of age, He is marking out a distance between their concerns and His.  So while I agree in principle that Jesus must, to conform with the law, give proper respect to His parents, I think it should be obvious that He, being God, is in a better position than you or I to know what that entails, don't you think?  Remember how the Pharisees had mangled the Sabbath principle, and in many other ways had evaded the spirit of the law by adding their own traditions.  Likewise, it is tempting to try and get Jesus to conform to our own, faulty understanding of respect.  But I think the better course is to look at what Jesus actually did and say, that's what real respect looks like, speaking the truth in love.

Peace,

SR

[boatbums]

The "Gay Christians" --- I'm not blaming you --- are using exactly the same historico-critical method to deconstruct the Pauline texts on homosexuality. This is not exactly pleasant reading, but I urge you to check it out: Gay Scriptural Cultural interpretation (LINKS) If you read the top article that comes up from the link, check out the rest of that gaychristian101.com website. As you can see, they are very enthused about Scripture.

By all means we SHOULD take into consideration the historical and cultural context of Scripture but it is not an excuse to totally disregard the truth underlying the passages. So-called "gay" Christians don't use an honest hermeneutic when they say they can justify their perversion by Scripture any more than a JW can justify teaching Jesus was "a" god and not THE God incarnate. Selective reading to prove a pet theological idea is nothing new, though. The first church councils were designed to set down enduring creedal doctrines based upon sacred Scriptures as the Divinely-inspired authority for truth.

Homosexuals do not have a valid argument for their abominable acts and are being DISHONEST with Scripture, excluding and ignoring key passages in order to rationalize what they know deep down God condemns. This is why I do not believe it is the same argument as the one we have been discussing WRT women teaching men. The basic principle behind Paul's instruction is sound and accepted.

[BlueDragon]

Wait minute...

It is thus in this way she is our “spiritual mother” because she bore (not create) the Man-God who is our salvation.

But you had said just previous to that;

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.

Yet in our own instance(s) of birth into His Kingdom, then it is He who is both Father and Creator, with the woman Mary herself being mother only to the Messiah's own earthly Incarnation.

None need go through Mary now to receive from Him, the Holy Spirit, regardless of what the Marionists try to add to the Gospel.

Mary is not "mother" to our own being "born again" or "born from above", for that being reborn is rebirth by the Holy Spirit.

Any talk at all in regards to Mary being "spirit mother" to the rest of us simply must be "poetic" and thus not in actuality theological fact & realism, from whence one can then go venturing further in supposition.

[Springfield Reformer]

So, if I understand what you posted correctly, what Jesus said to her was essentially.....

*Woman. What are you up to?*

Would that be a fair assessment of the context and intent?

Well, it's closer than "how can I help you?"  But I'm not sure it captures the fact that he is telling her there's a gap between what she thinks is important and what He thinks is important.  But even the Louw-Nida (LN) suggested rendering doesn't make that point explicitly, though I think it does imply it:

"for what reason are you saying or doing this to me?"

See how it positions Mary to have to justify her request.  Jesus had good reason to not go full public with His ministry at that time, and He wasn't going to do something contrary to His planned mission. That I suspect is why He did it in such a way that only the servant who filled the jars with water even knew a miracle had occurred.  

I can imagine a subplot here, BTW, that I never thought of before.  What would it have been like to be the servant doing the pouring for the guests?  You know you just put water in there, and now you walk up to an important guest and start pouring.  You're probably thinking, I'm going to get in real trouble once they see I'm giving them water.  And then wine comes out!  Your eyes get big, and you can hardly contain your excitement as you start to pour for the other guests.  And then the compliments start coming.  But only you, the servant, and Mary and Jesus, have any idea there was a near catastrophe, and a miracle.  Interesting to think about.  It tells me we can petition the Lord for things that are of interest to us, and He will hear us, but He will not go off mission either.  He is brilliant in all that he does, and can handle the big picture without losing track of the little things that are important only to us.  Yet only as His will permits.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

I love to think through some of the accounts in Scripture that we so take for granted.

When you stop and visualize the situation and what must have been going on, it can really come alive.

I did that once with the clearing of the Temple, where Jesus got there and saw what was going on and then left and went out and made a whip of cords and came back.

I can see the disciples now, in a huddle, kind of agape at the look on Jesus’ face. And then He strides away.

Did they follow Him or just wait? Did they see Him making the whip and whisper to each other, *Look at that. What’s He doing? He’s making a WHIP!!!! Hoo boy... What next? This could be good.*

And then watching as He enters the Temple.

Cause I’m pretty sure of one thing, it wasn’t gentle. I’m sure to be heard over all the commotion, He had to raise His voice some, throwing tables around, chasing out people and animals as they objected, USING the whip.

And yet, in all that, He did not sin.

Amazing.......

[BlueDragon]

Very good.

Thank you.

[FourtySeven]

First, the OT occurrences can't be irrelevant because they are exactly the expression in question. As a matter of translation, that sort of thing is pure gold, because it gives you models for how a given expression works in a variety of settings.

That's true, and I'd concede your entire point in this post if what you say here was entirely accurate, but it's not. The passages you examined (Judges 11:12, 1 Kings 17:18, 2 Kings 3:13, 2 Chronicles 35:21) are not the only instances where this exact expression is found (in addition to Jn 2 of course). It's also found in Joshua 15:18 (again as Heiser pointed out and he may be a nut otherwise, but a good point is a good point; I don't find character convictions convincing when it comes to specific points made. After all just because Stalin believed 1+1=2 that doesn't necessarily make that equation false).

In Joshua 15:18 it says, "When she came to him, she urged him to ask her father for a field; and she alighted from her ass, and Caleb said to her, What do you wish?'" (RSV. Other translations have it as "What can I do for you" or "What wouldst thou?" or "What do you want"?)

The "What do you wish?" part is the portion we are discussing, this idiomatic expression. Are we to believe here that a father is addressing his daughter, newly married by the way, in an adversarial or confrontational way? That he's asking her, "Whaddya want?!?" or "What business is this of mine that you ask of me? or "What's it to me that you ask this?" or some other confrontational tone or position? With his own daughter? Is that reasonable? REally?

I submit it's wrong to read that interpretation into this context. It just is, and I'm not interested in hearing debate on that.

So we have four verses (that you have examined) and one (that I have, and Heiser) that clearly show different ways the expression (strictly translated) "what is that to me and to thee" can be interpreted. Four times it's clearly confrontational (as you showed) one time not (as I showed).

So this means it's not "case closed" when it comes to how the expression is to be interpreted in John 2. The only counter argument to this is to say, "Well I have four verses you only have one, so four beats one so that's that". Which is of course stupid, so I'm sure you wouldn't say that.

I submit that (and I'm sure you agree at this point) each time it's used it must be examined in the context it's given, and to and from whom, and reasonably examine which type of usage is more likely, given the situation.

You say, "He's lovingly telling His mother after the flesh there is a difference in their interests." and that's fine. That's perfectly reasonable given your previous work with Judges 11:12, 1 Kings 17:18, 2 Kings 3:13, and 2 Chronicles 35:21. Again though, I submit that an even more loving response is entirely possible given its use in Josh 15:18, and the fact (it must be a fact) that Jesus loved his mother (he had and has deep love and respect for her, just as a father would to a child, unlike the feelings that are expressed by the parties involved in the passages you cited) and so probably was willing to listen to any request she made of him, and would do so in the kindest way possible.

As far as any disconnect, per when Jesus says "it isn't time yet", this may be of interest to you.

I'm interested in your reply.

[FourtySeven]

47: It is thus in this way she is our “spiritual mother” because she bore (not create) the Man-God who is our salvation.

But you had said just previous to that

47: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.

Yeah, so? I don't understand how the two sentences you quoted from me contradict.

Yet in our own instance(s) of birth into His Kingdom, then it is He who is both Father and Creator..

I agree...

with the woman Mary herself being mother only to the Messiah's own earthly Incarnation.

...but here is where you err, as far as a logical argument goes, because you are using your own supposition ("Mary is only the Mother of His Humanity") to support your conclusion!

And so the rest of what you wrote to me is poison fruit from the same tree so to speak.

Dear Sir, I am not interested in going 10 rounds with you or anyone. If you don't accept the title for Mary "Spiritual Mother" fine, it's obviously because, though, you reject the initial title of her that is "Mother of God".

I wrote what I wrote not to engage you in a debate, but rather to show how both titles are perfectly reasonable if one already believes that Jesus is the source of our Salvation and Jesus is God. AND, if one acknowledges that a "mother" is not one who "creates" life, but one who "BEARS" it in her womb. It's God who ultimately creates all life in the womb, if you don't agree, if you believe a woman, by her own power, creates human life, then there is NO WAY you're going to see my point.

[FourtySeven]

I’m sorry, I don’t see how Gal 4:26 (or the entire fourth chapter of Galatians for that matter) shows what I posted in post 5433 is wrong. Please explain it to me.

Thank you,

[CynicalBear]

It’s not difficult to find the corruptions of scripture the Catholic Church uses. From “she shall crush your head” to “full of grace” and many, many more. And those are bases for major doctrine in the CC! I wish more Catholics would see the lies of that organization and “come out of her”.

[CynicalBear]

It’s rather clear. You say Mary is our mother. Scripture says it’s “Jerusalem from above”. I’ll go with what scripture says not some guys in fancy bath robes and pagan fish hats.