Lack of Mary in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Treacy17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am an ex-protestant and used to think the same thing but I realized I was misunderstanding her role and what she was saying at Fatima. The Blessed Mother’s requests were never to worship her as any type of divinity. It seems idolotrous when you are on the outside looking in as I was as a protestant.

Her role as our Lady of Guadalupe is what brought me to Catholic faith. Along with the beautiful painting she left on Juan Diego’s tilma, her message is a beautiful simple one; she is our Mother.

She is always pointing us to Jesus but just as he honored her as His mother, we too, honor her as ours.

Also, as far as Fatima, it might be a good idea if we starting paying more attention to her warnings.
 
Another myth busted! It seems that Mary figures quite prominently in the biblical account. Oh yeah, and there’s this: God chose her to raise Jesus, and she helped to initiate his public ministry [turning water to wine]. She was the only person on earth who has ever had a child that was all man and all God: and she watched him die a sacrificial death for all mankind. God esteems women, particularly [by telling us to accord them special respect as the weaker sex]: how much do you think he esteems HIS MOM?
 
Last edited:
Treacy17 said:
Talking to a Protestant and this question came up. If Mary is so important, why does she not get any mentions at all in the Epistles?
Click to expand...
BECAUSE the Bible is the Story OF Jesus {our God} and only secondary; God’s Mother {and ours: John 19: 25-26}… Mary’s Role Then and NOW is to lead Souls to Jesus; NOT compete with HIS message.

Thanks for asking,
Patrick
 
A couple reasons could be that Paul was writing to churches when writing the epistles and dealing with the problems they were experiencing as the purpose for his letters, Mary may have still been alive at the time and biggest reason I can think of - her importance doesn’t rely on how many times she is mentioned in Scripture because as Catholics we also follow Tradition. Scripture and Tradition.
 
Last edited:
This may not convince anyone, but Mary’s Magnificat is a pretty lengthy dialogue for any one character. I wonder if you counted the words she is recorded as saying in the gospels, and then compared that to the number of words each disciple is recorded as saying, where it would rank. I’m not sure, but there may be some disciples that have no dialogue recorded at all. No one would argue that a disciple is unimportant in salvation history due to a lack of mention and dialogue.
 
jcrichton said:
…actually, it is about the seed (offspring); the seed being Christ (the Promise) it falls quite normally into the male pronoun (compare with the prophecy about the “Virgin” giving birth–it seems quite disparaging to refer to the term “Virgin” instead of “young woman” or “young maiden;” yet, when we truly delve in we must reconcile the fact that throughout young girls have been having sex (marriage, fornication, rape) and young girls have been getting pregnant–so it is a poor “sign” to suggest: ‘this is a Divine sign, a young woman/girl gets pregnant.’
Click to expand...
I’m sorry if you think I might just nit-picking, but I have to completely disagree with you on this one. It’s not really about the seed. It’s about “the woman”. God is talking to the serpent about Eve (and the New Eve, Mary). While He also mentions her “seed” (i.e. offspring), the animosity (enmity) that He promises to develop between the devil and the “woman” (and vise/versa) is the main subject of the sentence. The “seed” is only secondary to the “woman” (Eve/Mary) because Eve still has no children at this point in time.

(DRV) [Genesis 3:15] “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

(NRSVCE) Genesis 3:15 [15] “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”

The continuity in gender between “the woman” and “she will”, makes perfect sense in the DRV version of the sentence. However, the total gender change from “the woman” to “he will” makes no sense, whatsoever, in the NRSVCE and many other versions. It’s just not a logical way to grammatically structure a sentence.

When it comes to the Bible, the words used in translation really do matter. JMHO
 
Telstar said:
I’m sorry if you think I might just nit-picking, but I have to completely disagree with you on this one. It’s not really about the seed. It’s about “the woman”
Click to expand...
It’s about Christ, the seed of the woman.
 
Telstar said:
40.png
Agathon:
It’s about Christ, the seed of the woman.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the main subject of the sentence in question from a grammatical standpoint, not from the theological standpoint. 😉
Click to expand...
And we are Christians because of the theological standpoint. THAT is of primary importance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top