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.

[redleghunter]

Thanks. Good post. It seems some regret we left Rome.

[terycarl]

and protestants have been around since day 1,601

whoops, forgot to convert to days....that is Protestants have been around since day 584,000......give or take a week or so.

[Mark17]

Thanks. Good post. It seems some regret we left Rome.

You are correct sir. I don't regret it, and I don't think you do either. Praise God for the Navigators.

:-)

[Mark17]

For right now, however, I have a hockey game to watch on NHL Game Center (archived) I bet if you look at my profile page, you could never figure out I am a hockey fan. I gotta see my Blackhawks hang a whupping on somebody.

[BlueDragon]

Right; that was a bad translation.

Which one is bad?

Say...the Clementine Vulgate, or the Nova Vulgata? (note the additional differences Fr. Z outlines).

OR -- do you mean the English translation presently at the USCCB?

My statement is not about translations but about the original Genesis as Holy Moses wrote it.

What "statement" was that again?

The one in which you declare that the "Catholic Bible" has not changed in 2000 years?

[BlueDragon]

Very good presentation and info, spot-on to the finer points.

Thank you, again.

At this juncture I should provide some disclaimer though;

for you are most often quite polite, and I am not always so much (if at all).

I point this out here, in hopes that none will assume that you be entirely supportive of myself, and my own 'style' as it were.

Yet we do much agree on a wide range of things.

That said, I will now return to my own stubborn & headstrong, ongoing cross-examination of the recalcitrant witness(s). ;^')

[Springfield Reformer]

That said, I will now return to my own stubborn & headstrong, ongoing cross-examination of the recalcitrant witness(s). ;^')

LOL!  Be careful or the judge will nail you for badgering. ;)

Peace,

SR

[BlueDragon]

Be careful or the judge will nail you for badgering ;)

Yes, there is that...

Humorous as that is, it is almost as if I'm being rather forced to "badger", due to the slipperiness of the wording that I encounter, which keeps shifting around during the proceedings.

It's like this ---

I do aim to blast the opponent's erroneous rhetoric to smithereens. "It" (the rhetoric) deserves nothing less than near total annihilation.

If we are to be having those whom have been long contending against what we both appear to have been generally saying, to in some way be brought to see what you have been saying (thank you so much for having assisted, and having bailed me out, so to speak, when the issue turned towards the fine details of varying language usages) and I have been otherwise pointing towards as what the ramifications to all of that would be, as applied to the discussion here --- I don't want to be rhetorically ousted from my own trenches (my own positions), just because the opposition may now desire to begin using the information they were previously denying & fighting against.

I'm not sure everyone who may read this could follow what I was just saying in the above, yet I do think that yourself, Elsie, and boatbums, and more than a few others who may have been following the latest installments of the ongoing freeper "religion forum" saga know well enough what I'm saying here...

They can have and occupy our own trenches -- as long as they give some acknowledgement that they did not dig them, and had been just previously attempting to back-fill those diggings as rapidly as possible.

I have a desire to call those sort of things out, spade for spade, as for that aspect of the process.

[boatbums]

And just what would any of them being Protestant or Evangelical prove according to Roman reasoning? Care to answer?

I think it's strange that some FRoman Catholics want to blame ALL Protestants/Evangelicals for the break-off heretical sects, cults and denominations yet won't own up to the blame for all the sects, cults and denominations that existed LONG before there even was a Reformation. Do they not realize that the devil has ALWAYS been in the deception business?

[BlueDragon]

The options I chose were "Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)" and "Greek OT: LXX [A] Unaccented".

I remember now.

The results pages (results of selected searches) on that particular site, cannot be directly linked to.

How conveniently obscure it all can be... for those who need things to remain obscure?

...the better to distract the casual reader, while making the argumentation just that more difficult to properly evaluate, then rebut if necessary.

Now, how did that matter? Genesis 3:15 is known to have variants? I'd love to know that, -- as any lover of St. Jerome would.

In comparable copies of Latin Vulgate, there are known variants as for how Genesis 3:15 is presented to be. In fact, that was among my own original contentions when I raised the subject of the protoevangelium, in the first place.

At the time you wrote the above italicized sentences -- you had already been shown all but an extant, and now near-ancient copy of older Vulgate which would demonstrate beyond all doubt & claim to the contrary, that Jerome's original text varied from what came to be common, some time later.

At this juncture, we must trust the scholars when they tell us there are copies of Vulgate which read as I have (previously) explained.

You yourself provided link for Jimy Akin speaking of the issue. Yet there, I noticed that you hedged and guessed at things, rather than (as you could have, earlier in this thread) take Schaff's own word for there being multiple Vulgate MSS which read strikingly (no pun intended, lol) different than later Vulgate, at Gen 3:15.

If you can recall -- I also brought mention from Schaff of his referencing a particular writing of Jerome's in which that learned 'Doctor of the Church' expressed his own opposition to the idea of using the feminine forms, rather than the masculine.

That establishes well enough that the copies of Vulgate which followed that way of gender assignment for particular words in the protoevangelium, were following his own original hand -- and those which flipped the genders, or else extended the gender of the woman --->to identification of the gender of the individual who's "heel" would do the crushing, and be in turn struck<--- are the imposter copies, which did "rule the day" for long centuries.

Again sir, what is official "Catholic Bible"? You have yet to answer that question directly.

Is it not Latin Vulgate?

I could dig a little bit and show how according to the Roman Catholic Church Latin Vulgate is the only "official Bible".

Can you accept that by now, in this thread previous, it has been well enough established that there are variances within different versions of Latin Vulgate?

A link which S.R. provided to you, that I provided yet again with additional 'helpful hint' to, and also brought a line of text here to you, included mention of there being old Vulgate MSS., which did not at Gen 3:15 read as does the later Clementine Vulgate (and most others copies of Vulgate, other than the Nova Vulgata). Do you desire to include other language versions?

You were here all along talking about "Catholic Bible" -- but then make appeals to Hebrew and Greek text.

Ok, fine. I like those older source texts, myself. We all should value those, and see those as "source". I can claim both Hebrew and Greek texts as being "Protestant Bible" and unchanged for 2000 years just as easily, showing also (as I have already done) that OT Apocrypha was not part of the most widely accepted OT 'canon' in the earliest centuries of the Church -- in fact -- those writings were set aside, and described in no uncertain terms as "not" part of the OT canon, even as they were also at the same time commonly enough read within churches, and had been accessed for isolated phrases & passages to used in liturgy.

But I already know the arguments...and the liturgical one, when that is raised as some kind of proof for full & indiscriminate inclusion of the so-called deuterocanon, that is a specious (special pleading), logical fallacy sort of argument, for it ignores all the evidences which do in fact preclude an incorrect form of affirming the consequent.

Yet the question still begs. What is this "Catholic Bible" which you say is "unchanged for 2000 years?"

It must be Vulgate, for that is the only version which has official endorsement from highest levels.

Yet it can't be the Vulgate -- for that has not been around for 2000 years, even as that most Roman Catholic of bibles has also changed some -- to then be changed back, and at Genesis 3:15 the theological implications can be quite far reaching, depending upon how far who desires to stretch it (the theology).

[BlueDragon]

But it is still heel, not the owner of the heel, — who can be either physiological gender.

You rather undo yourself here, being that the heel was described as masculine, and as S.R. pointed out, that determined independently, as S.R. provided some correction to myself for.

Yet he also supplied;

"What this would look like then in English (oversimplified somewhat) is "bruise [you will] [his]" followed]by "heel." This explains why the LXX supplied..." [transliterated] "...autou, which is the masculine genitive. They wanted to draw that out to show who owned the heel in question."

which you seem to not understand -- even with it being bracketed in word-for-word demonstration as the Hebrew expression (in form of a 'word') unfolds.

You (alex) said;

However, I never claimed that the Vulgate translation is rooted in the Hebrew text.

Actually, previously on this thread in comment #5602 you indicated Hebrew as "original", along with Greek.

Yet Jerome did claim that the Old Testament portions of his own translation were from Hebrew. Veritas Hebraica (truth of the Hebrew) as Jerome put it.

Regardless of all your own little theories, "Catholic Bible" text has been changed -- and then changed back, that is unless you desire to entirely disavow Latin translations, and claim some Greek or particular Hebrew version as representative of OT portion of "Catholic Bible". As S.R. noted -- those texts belong to all of us --- to which I will add my own extended comment "belongs to all of us, not only those whom in some way look upon the bishop of Rome as the "head of the Church" ".

Even then, if Latin versions (and all other but Greek and Hebrew texts) were to be set aside, and only Greek and Hebrew were looked upon as "Catholic Bible" --- the contents have changed over time, by way of eventually having encompassed those writings which Jerome referred to as (Old Testament) Apocrypha.

You do seem to be continually dodging that aspect -- other than to have taken stabs at rewriting history -- which efforts so far, have failed.

Need we go over it all again?

What is the problem here? Do you not accept information I bring to you, providing links for source of my own assertions as I go along -- because it's coming through me? --and is opposition to Romish apologetic?

Is it just too much to accept that the RCC has made it's share of mistakes -- and it's legions of apologists are quite frequently in error themselves (as they go about trying to put the best face on "things")?

I do notice that they often seem to strain at gnats, but instead of a Pharisaical straining at gnats, the dredging and postulating of gnat-like aspects, in musings & suppositions, are being strained at for reasons of attempting to establish foundational support for modern-day RC apologetic in regards to issues pertaining to OT canon, and more.

The overall efforts can be quite "buggy"...

To answer another question which you had;
All the twisting and turning which you have engaged in for how many comments is it now(?) for several days running, to 'keep the faith' that your own statements be 'true', and the lengths of asserting this or that, or musing and reasoning some other collection of things in order to avoid the ramifications of the supplied information irrefutably showing that statements such as exampled here again are not true --- that is what is bizarre.

You said further;

I still think it is corrupted simply because it is easier to think of the passage in terms of the woman and her heel because of the leading statement of enmity between the woman and the serpent.

Such vagueness, and confusion.

What is corrupted? The Hebrew texts? The Greek? The Vulgate (which one?!?).

But here again your own statements provide such a mixture of things; of error along with other "stuff" spoken of vaguely, I expect yet another reply that addresses only those portions which you may find convenient to yourself to provide clarity towards -- and the focus remain upon gnat-like bodies while ignoring the large camels which are milling around, as if those were not even there.

[Mark17]

Do they not realize that the devil has ALWAYS been in the deception business?

Oh, you mean as far back as when Paul said, O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified? (Gal 3:1) Is that how far back, or even further back, like all the way to the Garden of Eden, yea, hath God said? Is that far back enough?

:-)

[Elsie]

and protestants have been around since day 1,601 and haven't been right PERIOD

M-ry is STILL dead as a doornail and IMPOTENT to do ANYTHING with your misguided prayers sent her direction.

[Elsie]

and protestants have been around since day 1,601 and haven't been right PERIOD

Speaking of period; did Mary have them?

Or did her SINLESSNESS prevent that?

---

Leviticus 15:19-20

19 When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

20 Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean.

[Elsie]

Leviticus 15:28-30

28 “‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge.

---

---

Luke 2:21-24

21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.

22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:

23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:

24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:

[Elsie]

The ONLY one...

that was so screwed up that it LOST seven churches in Asia even BEFORE the Bible was 'compiled' by you infallible folks!

(BTW; let me not be remiss in thanking you for that Book. It manages to contain Everything that a person needs to be saved!)

[Elsie]

Regret?

They are mighty pi$$ED!!!

[Elsie]

whoops, forgot to convert to days....

Convert to SECONDS as see how harried your fake 'mary of rome' is!!

---

Let's try some easy math:

There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;

If merely 1% of them  'ask' Mary for help just once each day;

that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.

Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)

...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!

Purty good fer someone NOT 'devine'!

[Elsie]

Badgers?

We don’t need no steekin’ BADGERS!!!