Biblical Basis for Marian Dogmas Explained!

[runningdude]

Over the past few months, I’ve been taking a bible study from FOCUS (Fellowship of Catholic University Students), about the history of God’s plan for Salvation, and the whole study just moved me so much. It delved into the Old Testament Covenants and explored how they prefigured Christ. The lesson that rang loudest to me though was the prefiguration of Mary throughout the Old Testament. I want to share the biblical basis that I recently worked out for Marian devotions inspired by this study.

The technique I’m using is kind of a hybrid of “inductive” biblical study, that I actually learned during various Protestant retreats I observed, and what I’m going to call parallel study. I believe each book and passage of scripture on its own has value, but that complex theology can only be derived through connecting themes throughout all of scripture.

Now let us look at a few key points:

Throughout most of the scriptures, almost every important figure is portrayed as a sinner. The fall and repentence of King David. The 700 wives of Solomon (and the various Pagan shrines he built for them). Adam and Eve. Abraham’s various losses of faith. Heck even Job is broken.

cont’d…

 

[runningdude]

cont’d…

Now guess who aren’t recorded as committing any sins? Mary and Jesus. Every other figure, the Pharissees, the Peter the Apostle, the sinners

Christ heals, etc, all have sins either recorded or implied. Its subtle, but speaks loudly that Mary and Jesus never sinned.

Now what is the origin of death? Sin. Why did Jesus die? He allowed Himself to be murdered so He could offer His death as a sacrafice to

attone for mankinds sins. He died because of sin.

Now Mary never sinned. Its not recorded. Its not in scripture. If Mary never sinned, then she never died. By the Grace of God, she was

sustained from all sin. Since sin is a prequisit for death, Catholics believe she was recieved directly into Heaven. We didn’t just

assume this .

Now let us look at the mother of King Solomon. Bathsheba was a poor woman who caught the eye of King David, and let him into various sins

(deliberately sending her husband to the front lines to be killed for example). In 1 Kings 2:19, after David has died and Solomon has taken the

throne, we see Bathsheba intercessing to her son the king of behalf of the king’s half brother. Bathsheba beseeches Solomon on her stepson’s

behalf, prefiguring Mary intercessing to her son on behalf of the wedding party in Cannan. Solomon brings her a throne to sit in for the

audience. Why? Part of it is certainly the commandment to honor thy mother and father, but more importantly, with 700 wives, who would be the

queen? Ancient Israel solved this problem by making the Queen Mum queen of the nation!

If Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, son of David and King of Israel, was honored as Queen of Israel, what then do we make of Mary, the Mother of

Jesus, son David and King of Kings? And because we believe Mary never died, Catholics believe that Mary can continue to intercede to her son on

our behalf. All she needs to do is present the problem, our lack of wine, and trust Christ her son will provide according to His father’s will.

Anyways, I’m open to feedback. I hope I explained the approach I took and the Biblical origins of the doctrine of the Assumption and the title

Queen of Heaven, and nature of Saintly Intercession well enough. If you have any questions about the argument itself, fell freet to ask. I’m

also open to rebuttles (and I’m sure I’ll get a mouthful)!

 

[hyena]

Don’t forget about Mary as the Ark of New Covenant whom Luke described as parallel with David story when receiving the Old Testament Ark. She is also described in Revelation after New Covenant Ark passage.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Did John the Baptist sin?

Anyway, your Biblical or “non” biblical basis for Marian Dogmas have no need for explaination since the church did that lots and lots of years ago for you. No explaination needed, simply demand it be headed. Makes me sad too, since I really like Mary but if I am forced to like her, it seems so ridiculous. Since she can not know my actual thoughts about her, then it’s all just a waste of time.

 

[Joe_Brown]

That was good. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Joe_Brown]

Did John the Baptist sin?

Anyway, your Biblical or “non” biblical basis for Marian Dogmas have no need for explaination since the church did that lots and lots of years ago for you. No explaination needed, simply demand it be headed. Makes me sad too, since I really like Mary but if I am forced to like her, it seems so ridiculous. Since she can not know my actual thoughts about her, then it’s all just a waste of time.

How are you being forced? Did the church tie you up until you said “I believe”?

 

[Joe_Brown]

About John the Baptist— from Jimmy Akin
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/12/john_the_baptis.html

December 04, 2004
John the Baptist . . . Born Without Original Sin?

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

Hello Jimmy

I heard this for the first time last night and do not know the answer.

I was told that the Catholic Church teaches that John the Baptist was Born without original sin, is this the teaching of the church if so can you please explain why.

This is not something that the Catholic Church teaches, but it is what may be called a pious and probable belief among Catholics.

The reason is that in Luke 1:13-15, when an angel prophecies the birth of John the Baptist, he says:

Do not be afraid, Zechari'ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth;
for he will be great before the Lord,and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

It is commonly understood that the Holy Spirit does not fill those who are still in a state of original sin. As Catholics use the term, “original sin” refers to the privation of the sanctifying grace which unites us with God. A soul filled with the Holy Spirit seems unquestionably to be united with God and thus not deprived of sanctifying grace. Hence, it has not original sin as the term is commonly used among Catholics, just as every person who has been baptized or otherwise justified has not original sin as Catholics use the term.

(N.B., Protestants have a different and more expansive definition of the term “original sin,” which includes the corrupt nature we inherit from Adam and which remains with us after we are justified. Consequently, it would sound very improbable to them that any person in this life does not have original sin, but this is because of the way the term is used in their circles, not because of a substantive theological difference.)

(N.B.B., If it is granted that John the Baptist was freed from original sin before birth, it does not follow that he was immaculate, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is firstly because he may have been freed of original sin after his conception and before birth, whereas Mary was preserved from her conception from contracting original sin. And it secondly is because Mary was not only free of original sin, as is posited in the case of John the Baptist, but also utterly free of the stain of original sin, which includes more than just the deprivation of sanctifying grace. It also includes, for example, the later tendency to sin–concupiscience–to which we are subject in this life.)

 

[NHInsider]

Now Mary never sinned. Its not recorded. Its not in scripture. If Mary never sinned, then she never died. By the Grace of God, she was

sustained from all sin. Since sin is a prequisit for death, Catholics believe she was recieved directly into Heaven. We didn’t just

assume this .

If you have any questions about the argument itself, fell freet to ask. I’m

also open to rebuttles (and I’m sure I’ll get a mouthful)!

Not really a rebuttal but a refinement. The Church’s teaching on the Assumption carefully avoids the question of whether or not Mary was taken up after her natural death or before it by saying “at the end of her life.” One cannot make the case that sinlessness=no bodily death since, obviously, Jesus died.

 

[runningdude]

Not really a rebuttal but a refinement. The Church’s teaching on the Assumption carefully avoids the question of whether or not Mary was taken up after her natural death or before it by saying “at the end of her life.” One cannot make the case that sinlessness=no bodily death since, obviously, Jesus died.

I didn’t know about this fine point. hmm.

Also, I was interested in John the Evangelist as well, as I can’t recall any sins being attributed to him either (indeed among the 12 for instance, he was the only one to follow Christ up to Calvary, exempting him from the general sin attributed to the rest of the apostles). Was there something I’m missing?

 

[Quatsch]

I didn’t know about this fine point. hmm.

Also, I was interested in John the Evangelist as well, as I can’t recall any sins being attributed to him either (indeed among the 12 for instance, he was the only one to follow Christ up to Calvary, exempting him from the general sin attributed to the rest of the apostles). Was there something I’m missing?

Sins not being attributed to someone does not mean they did not sin.

For example the Church’s belief that Mary was sinless does not stem from the fact that she is not said to have sinned in the Bible. Be careful with your deductions.

You made a pious attempt at an explanation but to be honest it is not going to convince someone of the Blesses Virgin’s sinlessness if they are not already convinced.

Blessings!
Q