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.

[verga]

So they don’t even read the prot Bible

[annalex]

When we face the Lord at our judgment [...]

We know exactly what will happen:

And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting. (Matthew 25:31-46)

As you can see, we are judged on our good works done in imitation of Christ and with awareness of Christ present.

[annalex]

Saw this copy-paste from you before. And what?

[annalex]

Useless post, sorry.

[annalex]

Titus
	English: Douay-Rheims	Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
	Titus 3
5.	Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;	ουκ εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη ων εποιησαμεν ημεις αλλα κατα τον αυτου ελεον εσωσεν ημας δια λουτρου παλιγγενεσιας και ανακαινωσεως πνευματος αγιου

[Resettozero]

...as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

Something got muddled in the transposing of Scripture to your post; that's not exactly what He said. Yet...

Who do you think Jesus means by "the least of these My brethren"?

[annalex]

Something got muddled...

Where?

Matthew
	English: Douay-Rheims	Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
	Matthew 25
40.	And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.	και αποκριθεις ο βασιλευς ερει αυτοις αμην λεγω υμιν εφ οσον εποιησατε ενι τουτων των αδελφων μου των ελαχιστων εμοι εποιησατε

Who do you think Jesus means by "the least of these My brethren"?

You don't think "least brethren" is clear enough?

[Mark17]

GC, if you even begin to suspect there is even the smallest, remotest, tiniest possibility that I might even be thinking of swimming the Tiber, I want you to beat me severely about the head and shoulders, to knock some sense into my head, and if that doesn't work, just drown me in the baptistery. 😄😃😀

[Resettozero]

Useless post, sorry.

To the doubly blind, the world's finest eyeglasses are useless.

[Resettozero]

Who do you think Jesus means by "the least of these My brethren"?

You don't think "least brethren" is clear enough?

Your response to my question pinpoints the underlying bitterness toward non-RCs in most if not all your posts. It ends any civil discourse before it can begin in earnest.

[CynicalBear]

Interesting that the specific from of the word used there is δικαιοσύνῃ and is used 26 times in scripture. In every instance in means and is translated "righteousness" except in the Catholic Douay-Rheims.

[Springfield Reformer]

AF, I am in agreement with you on this one.  You have already related the Scripture that shows David's guilt (2 Sam 12:9), but this isn't just confirmed by direct revelation, but is also confirmed as a matter of legal principle.  Murder, in it's most distilled form, is when one human being intentional kills another without excuse or justification.  We have a clear expression of intent here:

And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.
(2 Samuel 11:15)

So we have Mens Rea, a smoking gun clearly showing the mental state of not just motive, but intent to kill.

And we have action.  He didn't just sit in his royal bedroom fantasizing about it.  He took steps, involving conspiracy with others, to bring about the death of Uriah.

And we have in loyal, obedient, unselfish Uriah no just cause, nor any excuse, for his death, other than his happy(?) estate as the husband of Bathsheba.

The fact that the killing was performed, indirectly, by an intentional withdrawal of help in the heat of battle, does not alleviate David's guilt.  Murder by conspiracy, where the victim is intentional exposed to lethal danger, is every bit as culpable as if David had stabbed Uriah with his own sword.  It would be structured as a conspiracy to commit murder by omission.  

The point is, if even imperfect human law can see through the sham of murder by premeditated exposure to lethal harm through the directed acts of intermediaries,  then most certainly under divine law David's guilt would be inescapable.  And we know from the prophet that this was in fact God's view of the matter, as you have already pointed out.  So I fail to see how this can even be a controversy. Open and shut.

But if all that is still not enough, I remind everyone that Jesus raised the bar even higher in the Sermon on the Mount, where we learn that to avoid a charge of murder in the Court of Heaven, one must avoid all unjustified anger. Ouch!  How does one get through life without ever tripping that wire?  I am grateful for God's grace, because by that standard I am no better than David, and would have no hope, no commutation of sentence, apart from the pardon provided by the death of Jesus in my place. Amazing grace, how sweet the sound ....

Peace,

SR

[Mark17]

Interesting that the specific from of the word used there is δικαιοσύνῃ and is used 26 times in scripture. In every instance in means and is translated "righteousness" except in the Catholic Douay-Rheims.

Are you surprised? Actually if you want a real exercise in futility, try the Lamsa version and debate someone from INC. Your head might explode. I don't even discuss it with them anymore.

[verga]

I hope that your agreeing with us doesn’t get you into trouble with the non-/anti- Catholics.

[CynicalBear]

I wouldn’t discuss with Catholics here if it weren’t for those lurkers who need to see the truth which counters Catholicism.

[Springfield Reformer]

I hope that your agreeing with us doesn’t get you into trouble with the non-/anti- Catholics.

LOL! I doubt it. There are actually many things we agree on. But in this forum we focus on our differences. So unless I missed some hidden trap in conceding David's guilt, I don't think there will be any controversy. :)

BTW, it actually surprises me that this is an issue. I was raised among some the best evangelical preaching you could ask for, in person, major figures like AW Tozer, Warren Weirsbe, etc., and that's where we learned so much about all of these famous OT persons, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. After a lifetime of such exposure, it was almost like we had known these characters personally. Weirsbe especially had a gift for immersing you in the story, so you felt like you were living it with them.

And after all that, never ran into a single soul who would have questioned David's guilt. So I'm clueless about that. I have no idea where that's coming from.

Peace,

SR

[editor-surveyor]

Mark,

Unlike you, I follow Yeshua HaMachiac, and no one else.

The ping was what is known on the FR religion forum as a “courtesy ping” to those “in the conversation” on the thread.

Bitter sarcasm is never helpful, although one would never guess, observing posting patterns here.

[editor-surveyor]

As you can see annalex, there is not one word about purgatory there, so does that mean that no catholics will be gathered?

Or will a special book of the Bible be written later, after purgatory is done, about gathering the catholics?

.

[editor-surveyor]

Writings attributed to Paul use the concept of “Jewish Law” interchangeably between God’s Torah, which he preached avidly, and the false laws of the Pharisees, which he rejected, which were “hung on the cross.”

Much of the confusion comes from English translations.

There is absolutely nothing “Jewish” about God’s Torah.

There were no ‘Jews’ in existence when he delivered it at Sinai. Judaism arose after the second temple, when the Babylonian captivity returned, and is a defiance of Torah, across the board.

.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “ I have no idea where that’s coming from.” <<

.
It comes, IMO, from someone that lives and posts solely to disagree, and nothing else.

.