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]

Ok, but I wasn’t born in Jerusalem. So how is Jerusalem (from above) my mother?

[mitch5501]

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

Aint that the truth!

Take John 3:16,one of if not the most quoted verse in the Bible.One could be forgiven for assuming it was said before a huge crowd from atop a great hill and yet it was spoken to one solitary man in the middle of the night!

One of my favourites though is from Acts 12.It's almost comical....Herod arrayed in his right royal clobber,sitting on his grand throne above the people,giving some puffed up oration to all within earshot.The people are so carried away with his grandeur they shout "IT IS THE VOICE OF A GOD WHO SPEAKS!" Herod stands up,soaking in the adoration,his arrogant pride puffs up inside to the point where he simple 'pops'. He clutches at his heart and tumbles forward and down the steps with a loud clattering of vessels and lies dead as a doornail at the feet of the crowd.

Can you imagine the look on the crowd's faces!?

"IT IS A GOD WHO SPEAKS..........crash!bang!tumble!clatter!....THUD!........or not"

Glory goes ONLY to God!

[CynicalBear]

If you haven’t been born from above I would get on my knees in prayer to the Father in Jesus name if I were you. And don’t insult Him by invoking Mary or any of those so called saints either.

[mitch5501]

simple simplY

[FourtySeven]

I think you’re misunderstanding my question. In what sense is Jerusalem my mother when I wasn’t born there?

In other words, it can’t be the physical sense, since I wasn’t born there. So what does that leave us?

[Springfield Reformer]

The Hebrew phrase that matches the Cana statement and the adversarial occurrences in the OT (Judges 11:1, 1 Kings 17:18, 2 Kings 3:13, 2 Chronicles 35:21) is: מַה־לִּ֥י וָלָ֖ךְ

The phrase in Joshua 15 is not the same. Close, but no cigar: מַה־לָּֽךְ

So Heiser is just factually wrong.  The expression in Joshua 15 doesn't express the two-party contrast.  It's simply "What to you?" in raw form. Could probably be thought of as "What [is of interest] to you?" And this is what I said in my previous post.  Heisner gets his result by comparing apples to oranges.  In the other four passages mentioned above, the full "what to you to me" contrast is established.  Munging those different things together as if they were the same would be like saying 2 = 2 therefore 2 + 3 = 2.  No, a new wrinkle has been added and it makes the expression different.  Again, just the way it is.

Also, consider these passages, based again on the Greek which maps to the full expression as it does in the Cana statement:

Mark_1:24  Saying, Let  us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Mark_5:7  And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus,  thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

Luke_4:34  Saying, Let  us alone; what have we to do with thee,  thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

Luke_8:28  When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus,  thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

These again are direct reflections of the Hebrew idiom that doesn't translate well at all if you try to read it as pure Greek.  In each and every case where there is an exact match on the full expression, it sets up a contrast in interests.  And as I have shown, the case in Joshua 15 falls short.  It isn't the same expression.  One could surely expect different results.

And this is perhaps the most troubling thing about Heiser's comments.  Anybody can check this out.  It seem to be a very unserious approach to interpretation.  And that is why the whole of who he is interests me.  Yes there can be brilliant language experts who do not believe in traditional Christianity.  But there can be less stellar players too.  On both sides.  If one wants to go expert shopping on a challenging passage, I do not recommend someone who doesn't take Paul or Jesus seriously about things as basic as the existence of Adam.  Nor do I recommend lone wolf interpretations. There are plenty of well qualified and knowledgeable scholars you can go to who are also solid believers, and a pattern of understanding will show up if you look for it in a "multitude of counselors."  

I submit that an even more loving response is entirely possible  ...

And here we have the core of the problem.  What Jesus did say to her was as loving as the heart of God Himself, and God is love.  How can I stand in judgment of what would be "more" loving? I'd have to know what He did and said first, before I could even know what true love looked like in that situation.  Mary didn't always key in on Jesus' priorities as Messiah. She and Joseph didn't even understand what He was saying in the Temple incident when he was a child. It's not a crime to have limited understanding of what God is up to. Look at God and Job, a good and godly man, but the Lord needed to set him straight on a few misconceptions.  That's the norm for Christian living. Love is about doing what is right for the other person, not enabling their errors or misunderstandings.  Jesus always did what was right, and that involved reminding Mary, on this occasion and others, that He was on His own timetable. In that situation, that's what perfect love did. Tell the truth.

Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

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.

I don't see a mild rebuke. I see the idiom as friendly or unfriendly, even offensive. If unfriendly, and offensive, and in public, ... As for the hour in question, I see that clearly as his hour of passion, clearly referenced elsewhere. An hour when He starts being Messiah has clearly already passed. Prior to Cana, Jesus had already been publicly identified as the Messiah and chosen at least five of his Apostles. If you say no, he had not really started his ministry yet, and perhaps he did not publicly shame her, but rebuked her privately, then she ignored or shook off his rebuke and forced the miracle, telling the servants to do whatever he told them; she forced him to perform a miracle out of season ! I find this would be even more confrontational and would invite another rebuke. If you say he rewarded her faith, why is the text silent ? It was not silent everywhere else when he approved of faith with respect to miracles. I look at this through the prism of Isaiah.

Mary was obviously trying to help some young couple who had no wine; she knew what it was to be a young wife, poor, and not even able to get a civilized room when she had her baby. She comes across as a pious woman here.

Bottom line, the interpretation you proffer, makes him seem lazy, weak or uncertain of himself, a caricature of who He really is, makes her out to be a scheming, controlling Jewish mother, a caricature of who she really is. It was a very odd Hebrew idiom to use. It had to be personal, between the two of them, and we won't know all the details until we see them.

[FourtySeven]

The phrase in Joshua 15 is not the same. Close, but no cigar: מַה־לָּֽךְ

Alright, thanks. I concede the point, you are probably right. (I don't have the time or linguistic skills to counter your claim above, so I'll take it as correct for now).

Thanks again,

[CynicalBear]

>>So what does that leave us?<<

That doesn't leave us anywhere. That leaves you at odds with what the Holy Spirit said in scripture. Not a good place to be.

[FourtySeven]

Haha ok man, if you say so, then that’s what the Holy Spirit must have said in Scripture.

Have a good night!

[Mark17]

Research Scientology!

Hubbard; science fiction writer, started it!

How about Kwanza??

I sometimes wonder what motivates people to start these false religions, but there a bunch of them out there. There my be a variety of reasons, but I would suspect that making money is one of the biggest reasons. Where I am, there are two "extortion" rackets. One is called the Iglesia Ni Cristo, or as I like to call it, the Iglesia ni Manalo. The other being the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the Name Above All Names, started by Apollo C Quiboloy. Their doctrines are not even close to being orthodox, so I am left to conclude that making money is their goal. 2nd Peter 2:3 applies. They are making merchandise out of the people, and they make no apology for it. Their leaders live in luxury, while the people struggle to get enough to eat. Do you know anyone else who does that? 😗😄😀😊😁😁

[BlueDragon]

...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!

How so?

I had said that Mary was mother of Jesus's earthly Incarnation. I used the word "only" also, to indicate she was not his own "heavenly" mother so to speak.

Perhaps you are confusing my statement with those persons who attempt to argue that Mary was mother only of His physical body?

Being mother to only His earthly Incarnation does not equal that she was not mother of the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.

Which leaves this which you wrote;

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

apply not to me here in the least, but now to your own comment/reply.

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.

I have no disagreement with that, nor did I express the slightest thing which could lead anyone to logically assume that I had...

Either you truly do not understand what I was saying, or else obviously you are trying to put words into my mouth.

Dear Sir, I am not interested in going 10 rounds with you or anyone.

Good.

I'm about fed up with Marionist irrationality/nonsense.

AND, if one acknowledges that a "mother" is not one who "creates" life, but one who "BEARS" it in her womb.

So that could as well (and more accurately, according to Scripture) result in hailing Mary as Christ Bearer, rather than "Mother of God", for the latter requires unspoken assumption that this be restricted to having born the Christ, and herself as created being having not been "Mother of God" as in mother of the Trinity.

If there is to be needful, additional qualifying statement as to Christ's nature, the indivisible union of Christ's own humanity and divinity is less problematically expressed by referring to Mary as mother of Jesus Christ, and leaving it at that.

Although Mary did give birth (in earthly sense) to the "Hypostatic Union", that in no way equates with "Mary" now later "giving birth" and being mother to anyone else.

[af_vet_1981]

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.

Except when one reads the text.
1. There were servants (attendants or waiters) as in plural, not one servant.
2. Jesus gave multiple instructions to the servants.
3. The servants took the jars of water to the wedding director and he publicly pronounced that the wine was excellent.
4. The disciples also knew Jesus had performed the miracle, manifested his glory, and they believed on him.
5. Then Jesus, Mary, his brethren, and his disciples went to Kfar Nahum to stay for a while. There are extensive archeological ruins of a synagogue, likely built on top of an earlier synagogue where Jesus taught on Shabbat.

Of course, the secret things are whose wedding it was, and in what capacity Mary and Jesus were there.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't disagree with you, but I'll tell you what the Gay Christians are saying. They're saying that there are a range of gay sexual behaviors, ranging from viciously bad (forcible sodomy, servile pederasty, pagan boy prostitution) to the honorable (gay marriage.)

The former, they say, is what is condemned in both the OT and the NT; the latter is not condemned, not even mentioned.

They draw the conclusion that the gay married couple is exactly analogous to the straight married couple. As for what a married couple does by mutual consent in their marriage bed - which is "honorable in ALL and UNDEFILED" - it is between themselves and God.

We (you and I) won't be arguing about this, because I would agree with you that the gay exegetes are interpreting things without regard to underlying truths.

But they would say that the "underlying truths" are that, for gay people and straight people alike, rape, prostitution, promiscuity, seduction, fornication, etc. are are wrong; and that marriage is right. "Honorable in all and undefiled."

They'd say their grasp of the "underlying truth" is better than yours. And they would say the way the churches have come, over the centuries, to accept women preaching, teaching, and holding leadership roles -- despite St. Paul's explicit and repeated opposition to this in Scripture --- is a very good parallel to the coming acceptance of gay married couples acting "in good faith" --

We'll be running into this more, I'm sure. And they've got their Scriptural-cultural arguments absolutely down pat.

[Springfield Reformer]

You are right. I was winging if from memory and forgot some details. Thanks for pointing these things out.

Peace,

SR

[terycarl]

Sorry. The early church was there before Catholicism arose.

no it wasn't...the early church soon became known as the Catholic church...same church, same people...just gradually be came known as Catholic...as early as the end of the first century....nothing changed except the adoption of their eternal name.

[terycarl]

Your posts certainly convinced me that you know so much. Unfortunately, most of it if bogus. Still, God is always ready to open eyes and hearts in his time.

YOU DIDN'T REALLY POST THAT DID YOU??????????

That's like entering a thermonuclear war armed with a pellet gun!!

[metmom]

I think you’re misunderstanding my question. In what sense is Jerusalem my mother when I wasn’t born there?

In other words, it can’t be the physical sense, since I wasn’t born there. So what does that leave us?

OK, Nicodemus, not understanding that it's talking about the SPIRITUAL realities and the new SPIRITUAL birth.

Galatians 4:21-31 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

[terycarl]

the USA was mainly PROTESTANT and below the Rio Grande, all the way to Patagonia was Catholic. How have the Nations fared???

sometimes well, sometimes not so well...a meaningless analogy. You are comparing the world and the growth of Christianity from the time of Christ until now with the church in the U.S. and Latin American countries???????

come to think of it...I believe that there are about 100,000,000 Catholics in the United States and who knows how many in Central and South America....not too bad I'd say.....and all of them are right!!

[terycarl]

Mayflower Compact

sounds like a lot of protestants trying to escape an oppressive protestant controlled government....They should have stayed Catholic when they had the chance....But Henry VIII decided to change the rules....too bad!!

By the way, they all came to the country that Catholic Christopher Columbus found for them.....sound familiar???