E
elvisman
Guest
How could I have missed that?
Thanks, Guanophore!
- Status
Thanks, Guanophore!
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually, no. Ranting would require that I have some sort of passionate response, which I do not. I do not find your mixing of science with theology the least bit provoking, just reflective of gross lack of academic background. You are demonstrating flawed logic, and lack of preparation for a discussion using the language you have introduced here.
We are in agreement on this point. I am simply trying to get you to recognize that we accept these things by faith. You are fond of demanding “proof”, and matters of faith do not lend themselves to such an approach.
As you say, the NT is “a record”, and does record the history and origin of the early church. We are in agreement that it is inspired. Where we disagree is that the scripture is not the only record of the faith and practice of the Early Christians, and the fact that the Church herself is also a record of what Christ taught.
2 Cor 3:2-3
2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; 3 and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
What you seem to rule out is that God is just as able to preserve the letters He has written into the heart of the Church as He is the paper version.
1 Thess 2:13-14
13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is,** God’s word, which is also at work in you believers. **You seem to admit that the Word of God was at work in the believers, but then at some point failed to be protected from extinction by God,and ceased to exist in the Church.
People are free to adopt and practice any strange premise and practice their hearts desire. You have chosen to apply a concept developed in science to a field where it does not belong. This is your perogative. It does not make any sense to the rest of us, but, as you noted above, you “don’t care” how ridiculous you appear.
Catholics will agree that Traditions are represented in Scripture. However, Tradition has as much to do with how we understand what is written. When one becomes separated from the sacred Tradition tha produced the NT, is is impossible to understand it from the point of view of those who wrote it. Scripture was never intended to be a total summary of the faith. It is a collection of testimonies, letters, and history.
Code:
Paul was clear in his letters to Timothy about Scripture and how we should deal with it. Jesus said numerous times when he preached, "It Is Written". Stop fighting it and rebelling against it. Open up the Bible and read it with an unbiased heart and mind and let Jesus in.
M
mpernot
Guest
If Scripture is a history book, it tells us itself that it is a bad one:
You are just ranting with alot of flawed logic here. I don’t care what you say, the Bible that we have today is a record of the history of Christ and what he taught and preached, the history and origin of the Early Church (Acts of the Apostles) and the Holy inspired Word of God written by Paul, James and others.
John 20:30 - “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.”
The Bible is not a history book or a diary. It doesn’t contain EVERY event/custom that occurred during Jesus’ lifetime and the lifetimes of the apostles. The Bible itself, in this verse, says that it is not a historical record of everything that happened in the lives of Jesus and the apostles. If it was intended to be read this way, I would expect an explicit account of the great fire in Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Surely such a significant event from both a religious and secular perspective should be recorded in Scripture, if its goal was as you outline here (John was pretty young when Jesus was around, he should have still been alive to record this).
Scripture is not where the truth is proven, it’s where the truth is stated. The early church fathers were martyred for having faith in things they couldn’t prove. I highly doubt that one of them could have held up a Bible (if it even existed yet, which it didn’t!) and said to Nero: “here, you shouldn’t kill me and this is proof”. It’s not about proof.
As for the traditions, well, I’m glad that you believe traditions are important enough to bring up, but they’re not all found in Scripture. In the same vane as your “where is [insert Marian belief here] in the Bible”, I could just as legtimately ask “where are altar calls” or the saving formula about “accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior” explicitly in Scripture? These are faith traditions not found in Scripture, but that by itself doesn’t make them wrong. By the way, I am not assuming that you prescribe to these specific traditions. I used them as examples because I’m not too familiar with extra-Biblical Anglican faith tradiations.
Nothing that you said in this statement is true (or “proof”, if you will) in the context of anything we have discussed in this thread. It is, however, your fallible opinion and makes plainly clear your distrust of the authority of the Catholic Church. That’s it.
Please do not continue to say that Catholic faith traditions are contrary to Scripture unless this accusation is accompanied by one or more Bible verses that “prove” this. I will continue to assume that you have no interest in real dialog and only want to throw around unsubstantiated accusations if you continue to do otherwise.
If by “clear”, you mean that everyone should read it for themselves and consider to be a comprehensive proof of the happenings of Christ… well, apparently Philip didn’t get the memo:
Acts 8:28-31 - "And he (the eunuch) was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Scripture clearly states that Scripture is hard to understand and we need a guide. So what does Philip do continuing in verses 32-35? He “preaches to him unto Jesus”. Note that such a eunuch would have been well aware of the customs and recent historical events, much moreso than us today. He wanted the meaning of the Scriptures, not the diary of everything that happened from 0 - 33 AD. We would do well to imitate the eunuch and embrace the church founded by Christ to learn about Scripture. And yes, to know which of the 33,000+ Christian churches are correct when there is disagreement, one must know which one was founded with the authority of Christ and can trace her roots directly back to Him via apostolic succession. Are you getting sick of hearing this yet?
When Jesus (or St. Paul or anyone else in Scripture) says “it is written”, that means that they are quoting from the Old Testament. It is the duty of the reader when they find “it is written” to figure out what is being quoted so that the correct context is established. Excercise those footnotes a little bit or look it up. You will misinterpret the passage where “it is written” is found if you do not get the quoted context.
This phrase “it is written” also does not indicate that Jesus is expecting everything important to be written down. If He had that expectation, why would he let the Holy Spirit record Himself, St. Paul and others as stressing the importance of tradition (and oral tradiation no less)?
I implore the same thing to you that you did of guanophore; read all of Scripture with an open mind, not just selected verses that you’ve been taught are “proof” that the Catholic Church is wrong.
N
ncgolf
Guest
… I find it interesting … the following bolded quotes … it seems Anglicans themselves don’t regard Scripture as proof. This view is much more like Guan and others have tried to explain. The Bible is revelation … though historical because it relates past events … it is revelatory because of the dynamic of interpretation. I do not see where Anglicans view the purpose of Scripture is from the perspective of “proof”.
You are just ranting with alot of flawed logic here. I don’t care what you say, the Bible that we have today is a record of the history of Christ and what he taught and preached, the history and origin of the Early Church (Acts of the Apostles) and the Holy inspired Word of God written by Paul, James and others. This IS where the traditions are found and the truth is proven. Why do we need to continue to marinate in things that were not of the Early Church, not able to be proven except by saying that the RCC proclaims them so they are so and then worst of all, contrary to Scripture. Paul was clear in his letters to Timothy about Scripture and how we should deal with it. Jesus said numerous times when he preached, “It Is Written”. Stop fighting it and rebelling against it. Open up the Bible and read it with an unbiased heart and mind and let Jesus in.
The website citation is www2.anglican.ca/faith/identity/an-anglican-understanding-of-authority.htm
The following from " An Anglican understanding of authority
A paper prepared for presentation to the Anglican Baptist international conversations (North American session)
Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada
September 10 – 12, 2003
Ronald C. Stevenson
Chancellor of the General Synod
the Anglican Church of Canada
Next I refer to the Virginia Report produced in 1997 by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission partly as a response to a resolution of the 1988 Lambeth Conference. In Chapter 3 of the Virginia Report we find under the heading The Anglican Way : Scripture, Tradition and Reason:
3.6 Anglicans affirm the sovereign authority of the
**Holy Scriptures as the medium through which God by the Spirit communicates his word in the Church and thus enables people to respond with understanding and faith. The Scriptures are “uniquely inspired witness to divine revelation”, and “the primary norm for Christian faith and life”. **
**3.7 The Scriptures, however, must be translated, read, and understood, and their meaning grasped through a continuing process of interpretation. Since the seventeenth century Anglicans have held that Scripture is to be understood and read in the light afforded by the contexts of “tradition” and “reason”. **
3.8 In one sense tradition denotes the Scriptures themselves, in that they embody “the tradition”, “the message”, “the faith once delivered to the saints”. Tradition refers to the ongoing Spirit-guided life of the Church which receives, and in receiving interprets afresh, God’s abiding message…
3.9 Properly speaking “reason” means simply the human being’s capacity to symbolise, and so to order, share and communicate experience. It is the divine gift in virtue of which human persons respond and act with awareness in relation to their world and to God, and are opened up to that which is true for every time and every place. Reason cannot be divorced either from Scripture or tradition, since neither is conceivable apart from the working of reason… The appeal to reason then becomes what people - and that means people in a given time and place - take as good sense or “common” sense. It refers to what can be called “the mind of a particular culture”, with its characteristic ways of seeing things, asking about them, and explaining them. If tradition is the mind that Christians share as believers and members of the Church, reason is the mind they share as participants in a particular culture.
3.10 Anglicanism sees reason in the sense of the “mind” of the culture in which the Church lives and the Gospel is proclaimed, as a legitimate and necessary instrument for the interpretation of God’s message in the Scriptures. Sometimes Scriptures affirm the new insights of a particular age or culture, sometimes they challenge or contradict those insights…
3.11 The characteristic Anglican way of living with a constant dynamic interplay of Scripture, tradition and reason means that the mind of God has constantly to be discerned afresh, not only in every age, but in each and every context… Sometimes the lived experience of a particular community enables Christian truth to be perceived afresh for the whole community. At other times a desire for change or restatement of the faith in one place provokes a crisis within the whole Church… [5]
Wright summarized the Anglican approach as follows:
In the Anglican use of this triad, holy scripture is generally understood as the fundamental source of Christian revelation, the new testament complementing and completing the old, then tradition as the gradual unfolding of the scriptural truth through the pages of history, and finally reason (including experience) as the most satisfactory way in which the former two sources can be appropriately evaluated and measured. And yet Anglicans would be reluctant to rely upon any one of these three sources by itself, for scripture alone, devoid of the collective and developing interpretation of the church, might result in an individualistic and unhistorical fundamentalism; while tradition by itself could easily result in an uncritical conservatism and reason on its own can end in the sheer rationalism of individual judgment.
H
Hebrews_4_12
Guest
I object to use of 1 Kings to support the Queenship of Mary and specifically the approaching of her as ‘our queen mother with confidence, believing that she carries our petitions to her royal son and that he responds to her as Solomon did to Bathsheba: “I will never refuse you.”’. Clearly this is just one facet to the argument, but to me it is extremely illustrative of the modern RCC apologists willingness to rip Biblical texts out of context and so parse the Word’s of God to twist it’s meaning 180 degrees from the direction gleaned from the plain reading of the text.
From Feature Article in This Rock, Volume 9, Number 12 December 1998 “Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?” By Edward P. Sri
found here This Rock Dec 1998
Paragraphs 7,9-10
Probably the clearest example of the queen mother’s role is that of Bathsheba, wife of David and mother of Solomon. Scholars have noted the excellence of Bathsheba’s position in the kingdom once she became queen mother during Solomon’s rule. Compare the humble attitude of Bathsheba as spouse of King David (1 Kgs. 1:16–17, 31) with her majestic dignity as mother of the next king, Solomon (1 Kgs. 2:19–20). As spouse of the king, Bathsheba bows with her face to the ground and does obeisance to her husband, David, upon entering his royal chamber. In striking contrast, after her son Solomon assumed the throne and she became queen mother, Bathsheba receives a glorious reception upon meeting with her royal son:
(1 Kgs. 2:19–20)
This account reveals the sovereign prerogatives of the queen mother. Note how the king rises and bows as she enters. Bathsheba’s seat at the king’s right hand has the greatest significance. In the Bible, the right hand is the place of ultimate honor. This is seen in particular in the messianic Psalm 110 (“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”). In fact, many New Testament passages refer to the right-hand imagery of Psalm 110 to show Christ’s divinity and his reign with the Father over the whole universe (e.g., Hebrews 1:13). Thus, the queen mother sitting at the king’s right hand symbolizes her sharing in the king’s royal authority and illustrates how she holds the most important position in the kingdom, second only to the king.
This passage regarding Bathsheba also shows how the queen mother served as an advocate for the people, carrying petitions to the king. In 1 Kings 2:17, Adonijah asks Bathsheba to take a petition for him to King Solomon. He says to her: “Pray ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife” (1 Kgs. 2:17). It is clear that Adonijah recognizes the queen mother’s position of influence over the king, so he confidently turns to Bathsheba as an intercessor for his request.
Last and pivotal Paragraph giving direction to the faithful RCC member;
Understanding Mary as queen mother sheds light on her important intercessory role in the Christian life. Just like the queen mother of the Davidic kingdom, Mary serves as advocate for the people in the Kingdom of God today. Thus, we should approach our queen mother with confidence, knowing that she carries our petitions to her royal son and that he responds to her as Solomon did to Bathsheba: "I will never refuse you."See also “Hail, Holy Queen: the Mother of God in the word of God” by Scott Hahn p80-81 First Paperback Edition for a very similar argument
Compare the arguments of these two writers with the actual full text of 1 Kings Ch1&2 seeing all that transpires in the actual event and not just the “proof texts” of the RCC writers.
Specifically 1 Kings 1:46-53and 1 Kings 2:13-25
1 Kings 2:20-25 Solomon’s Throne Established
20 “I have one small request to make of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.”
The king replied, “Make it, my mother; I will not refuse you.”
21 So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given in marriage to your brother Adonijah.”
22 King Solomon answered his mother, “Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him—after all, he is my older brother—yes, for him and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!”
23 Then King Solomon swore by the LORD : “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if Adonijah does not pay with his life for this request! 24 And now, as surely as the LORD lives—he who has established me securely on the throne of my father David and has founded a dynasty for me as he promised—Adonijah shall be put to death today!” 25 So King Solomon gave orders to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he struck down Adonijah and he died.
Did you catch that? **“Adonijah shall be put to death today!" So King Solomon gave orders to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he struck down Adonijah and he died.” **Somehow, I’m just not really enthusiastic about following too closely the method of a guy that just got put to death for practicing that method! I really get frustrated with the total lack of interaction with this part of the text by either Dr. Hahn or Mr.Sri. The detail they explain about the rest of the text and then the lack of mention of this conclusion to the text, to me speaks volumes about the lack of integrity of the argument.
From Feature Article in This Rock, Volume 9, Number 12 December 1998 “Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical?” By Edward P. Sri
found here This Rock Dec 1998
Paragraphs 7,9-10
Probably the clearest example of the queen mother’s role is that of Bathsheba, wife of David and mother of Solomon. Scholars have noted the excellence of Bathsheba’s position in the kingdom once she became queen mother during Solomon’s rule. Compare the humble attitude of Bathsheba as spouse of King David (1 Kgs. 1:16–17, 31) with her majestic dignity as mother of the next king, Solomon (1 Kgs. 2:19–20). As spouse of the king, Bathsheba bows with her face to the ground and does obeisance to her husband, David, upon entering his royal chamber. In striking contrast, after her son Solomon assumed the throne and she became queen mother, Bathsheba receives a glorious reception upon meeting with her royal son:
(1 Kgs. 2:19–20)
This account reveals the sovereign prerogatives of the queen mother. Note how the king rises and bows as she enters. Bathsheba’s seat at the king’s right hand has the greatest significance. In the Bible, the right hand is the place of ultimate honor. This is seen in particular in the messianic Psalm 110 (“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”). In fact, many New Testament passages refer to the right-hand imagery of Psalm 110 to show Christ’s divinity and his reign with the Father over the whole universe (e.g., Hebrews 1:13). Thus, the queen mother sitting at the king’s right hand symbolizes her sharing in the king’s royal authority and illustrates how she holds the most important position in the kingdom, second only to the king.
This passage regarding Bathsheba also shows how the queen mother served as an advocate for the people, carrying petitions to the king. In 1 Kings 2:17, Adonijah asks Bathsheba to take a petition for him to King Solomon. He says to her: “Pray ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife” (1 Kgs. 2:17). It is clear that Adonijah recognizes the queen mother’s position of influence over the king, so he confidently turns to Bathsheba as an intercessor for his request.
Last and pivotal Paragraph giving direction to the faithful RCC member;
Understanding Mary as queen mother sheds light on her important intercessory role in the Christian life. Just like the queen mother of the Davidic kingdom, Mary serves as advocate for the people in the Kingdom of God today. Thus, we should approach our queen mother with confidence, knowing that she carries our petitions to her royal son and that he responds to her as Solomon did to Bathsheba: "I will never refuse you."See also “Hail, Holy Queen: the Mother of God in the word of God” by Scott Hahn p80-81 First Paperback Edition for a very similar argument
Compare the arguments of these two writers with the actual full text of 1 Kings Ch1&2 seeing all that transpires in the actual event and not just the “proof texts” of the RCC writers.
Specifically 1 Kings 1:46-53and 1 Kings 2:13-25
1 Kings 2:20-25 Solomon’s Throne Established
20 “I have one small request to make of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.”
The king replied, “Make it, my mother; I will not refuse you.”
21 So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given in marriage to your brother Adonijah.”
22 King Solomon answered his mother, “Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? You might as well request the kingdom for him—after all, he is my older brother—yes, for him and for Abiathar the priest and Joab son of Zeruiah!”
23 Then King Solomon swore by the LORD : “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if Adonijah does not pay with his life for this request! 24 And now, as surely as the LORD lives—he who has established me securely on the throne of my father David and has founded a dynasty for me as he promised—Adonijah shall be put to death today!” 25 So King Solomon gave orders to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he struck down Adonijah and he died.
Did you catch that? **“Adonijah shall be put to death today!" So King Solomon gave orders to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he struck down Adonijah and he died.” **Somehow, I’m just not really enthusiastic about following too closely the method of a guy that just got put to death for practicing that method! I really get frustrated with the total lack of interaction with this part of the text by either Dr. Hahn or Mr.Sri. The detail they explain about the rest of the text and then the lack of mention of this conclusion to the text, to me speaks volumes about the lack of integrity of the argument.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Neither would I be too enthusiastic about petitioning our Blessed Mother to prayerfully intercede for me with her Son if I were as insincere and deceptive as Adojinah was when he brought his request to the Queen Mother. Allow me to share with you what I wrote on another thread with regard to this issue.
The Queen Mother (Gebirah) actually was an extremely powerful and influential figure in ancient Jewish culture. She directed all domestic dealings pertaining to the royal family and she had the final say among all the women in the palace, including the king’s wives. The Gebirah provided privileged access to the king, but only in matters concerning the royal household. The fact that Adojinah came to Bethsheba with the request that she ask Solomon to grant him Abishag for his wife suggested that he had wanted to intrude into the royal family structure. Obviously the Queen Mother was suspicious of his request which explains why she asked: “Do you come in peace?” But she dutifully approached the king, apparently satisfied with Adojinah’s reply, however odd it may have appeared to her in light of her suspicions.
Adojinah’s opening statement reveals that he strongly felt he had every right to exalt himself and secure the kingship: “You know that the kingdom was mine.” It would appear that he had approached Bethsheba with an unrepentant heart. He was still convinced that the throne rightfully belonged to the eldest son. A strong sense of a personal injustice seems to have oppressed him. Adojinah’s hidden rebellious attitude towards Solomon is exposed in his exaggerated claim that all Israel has received him with favour. In spite of her suspicions, and as advocate to the people, Bethsheba nonetheless approached her son somewhat assured by Adojinah’s words: “But now the kingdom has turned. It has come from Yahweh to my brother.” For all his confession to the Queen Mother, Adojinah stiil had a hidden selfish motive behind his request (cf. 1 Kings 2: 13-25).
Abishag had been the concubine of King David (cf.1 Kings 1:4). When Solomon inherited the throne and had succeeded him, his father’s harem was included. Adojinah’s request had sounded an alarm bell in that it subtly underminded the security of Solomon’s throne. The king feared and suspected an insurrection, so he had his brother killed. In ancient time it was customary for the victor to sleep with the concubines of a conquered king as a symbolic gesture of having taken over the kingdom as its new ruler. I’m sure Bethsheba was well aware of this custom as much as Solomon was. And so her suspicions may have leant more towards an actual conviction that Adojinah bore a hidden malignant motive in his odd request - in view of this ancient custom. That being the case, she would not have expected the king to grant her request.
Guanaphore commented on the same thread that Bethsheba was not fooled in the least by Adojinah’s “ingenuous” request. She presented it to Solomon so that his brother’s treachery would come to light and the king would deal with him accordingly. Adojinah’s death would thus in a sense be a fulfilled request - something the Queen Mother would welcome if decreed by Solomon. After all, the Queen Mother’s concern was strictly with what King David wanted, that Solomon should succeed him on the royal throne. And we know by the fate of Adojinah that her true wish was granted. It would appear he had no chance of ever seducing Bethsheba just as Satan had no chance of ever seducing Mary.
"For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she “Theotokos”] would bear God by obeying His word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become * the advocate of the virgin Eve . As the human race was subjected to death through the act of a virgin, so it was* saved by a virgin ."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180)
Notice the subordinate clause of purpose in the above extract: “so that”. Mary has rightfully become our advocate because of her great act of faith that culminated in the incarnation of God. Our Lord and King Jesus Christ never refuses his mother, our Gebirah, her requests on our behalf in keeping with God’s grace (cf. Jn 2:2-5). Our Blessed Queen Mother does help save us through her prayerful intercession by the grace of God. :extrahappy:
PAX :harp:
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, your lack of enthusiasm results from your failure to appreciate the guile of Bathsheba. She knew full well that Adonijah was the greatest threat to her son’s kingdom, and she also knew that his request was the same as asking for the kingdom. She knew her son, too, and she knew he was not going to put up with such a threat to the throne. He did EXACTLY what she wanted!
Look again at how your bible describes this passage. Indeed, after her request was made, the most dangerous threat to his throne was dispatched without delay. By bringing this intercession, Bathsheba was able to play a key role in safeguarding her son’s throne.
S
SIA
Guest
Actually, no. Ranting would require that I have some sort of passionate response, which I do not. I do not find your mixing of science with theology the least bit provoking, just reflective of gross lack of academic background. You are demonstrating flawed logic, and lack of preparation for a discussion using the language you have introduced here.
We are in agreement on this point. I am simply trying to get you to recognize that we accept these things by faith. You are fond of demanding “proof”, and matters of faith do not lend themselves to such an approach.
As you say, the NT is “a record”, and does record the history and origin of the early church. We are in agreement that it is inspired. Where we disagree is that the scripture is not the only record of the faith and practice of the Early Christians, and the fact that the Church herself is also a record of what Christ taught.
2 Cor 3:2-3
2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; 3 and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
What you seem to rule out is that God is just as able to preserve the letters He has written into the heart of the Church as He is the paper version.
1 Thess 2:13-14
13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is,** God’s word, which is also at work in you believers. **You seem to admit that the Word of God was at work in the believers, but then at some point failed to be protected from extinction by God,and ceased to exist in the Church.
People are free to adopt and practice any strange premise and practice their hearts desire. You have chosen to apply a concept developed in science to a field where it does not belong. This is your perogative. It does not make any sense to the rest of us, but, as you noted above, you “don’t care” how ridiculous you appear.
Catholics will agree that Traditions are represented in Scripture. However, Tradition has as much to do with how we understand what is written. When one becomes separated from the sacred Tradition tha produced the NT, is is impossible to understand it from the point of view of those who wrote it. Scripture was never intended to be a total summary of the faith. It is a collection of testimonies, letters, and history.
SIA;4566286:
I plainly disagree with you. I don’t care what you say about me. From the first part of your response, you seem to think that I am stupid. That’s fine. I have a zeal for Christ and the inspired Word of God which reaches through the schemes and tricks of man. Call it whatever you wish, claim that I am merely stupid. Whatever you want. Deep down inside, I think that you know the truth. I pray that someday it will become more important and more urgent to you than wolves in sheeps clothing.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, clearly you are not stupid. You are able to learn, but apparently hard of heart and defensive. When I have repeatedly tried to explain to you that “proof” is in the realm of science, and that our creed is based upon faith, you just don’t want to hear it, I guess. You would prefer to believe that the things you have been taught are “proof”. That is your perogative.
I do see that you have a zeal for Christ, and I commend you for that. I trust that your zeal for God will help you grow in the knowledge of the truth. Perhaps, as some point, you will be able to recognize and accept that there are other sources of knowing the Truth besides “proof” (which, by the way, you erroneously defined as what “most Christians believe”).
Truth can also be found when one receives the direct revelation of God. Such events defy scientific proof, such as the transfiguration of Christ on the Mount.
You may also find that “what most Christians believe” is not necessarily the truth either.
God’s kingdom is not a demoncracy, where the will of the majority rules.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Galatians 3, 27
Pope Pius attributes to Mary the virtues all Christians should possess in emulation of our Lord who exhorted us to “be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect” (cf. Mt 5:48). Your problem is that you completely ignore Jesus is just as much a human being as we are in his Divine Person and that we have been created in the divine image, expected to conform to it. Mary is the purest realization of what it means for us Christians to have faith. Her humble ‘fiat’ (cf. Lk 1:35) brought the Saviour into the world. The Church has praised Mary for her faith ever since apostolic time. Luke certainly reveals that God desires all generations to call Mary blessed for her act of faith and the fruits of her faith with regard to her privileged position with God. (cf. Lk 1:48). It’s blasphemous to deny our heavenly Father the pleasure to do “great things” for Mary on account of her Divine Maternity and true faith.
“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45
“Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180)
St. Irenaeus (Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul) was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist.
PAX :tiphat:
H
Hebrews_4_12
Guest
What about his request getting fulfilled? The argument present by the authors Hahn and Sri is that the petitioners request will be fulfilled based on what transpires in this passage, using it as positive biblical support for the practice of petioning the Queen Mother. My point is this passage gives negative support not positve as far as the petitioners request getting fulfilled. GoodFella and Guanophore have both turned the argument on its head and made it into the fulfilment of Bethsheba’s request. That is not Sri and Hahn’s point, their argument is about attempting to justify a person using a nonbiblical approach to fulfill his or her requests of God by going through Mary. I’m saying this passage is bad support for that bad nonbiblical practice.
BTW Bethsheba has already proven she could be seduced, as she was by David!
Our prayers to God the Father through God the Spirit in the Name of God the Son is the biblical method for requests to God. Getting a non-departed this life saint (ie fellow believer) to pray with you in that same manner is also biblical.
Romans 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.
Romans 8:27
And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.
Philippians 4:6
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.
Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.
Hebrews 7:25
Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Not a lot about Mary here is there? As for me my soul is bound to stick to the pure word of God alone for outlines of practices of my faith.
G
guanophore
Guest
I see your point. But Mary will pray for us according to God’s will, which may be much more clear to her than it is to us. If I ask my friend to pray for me to win the lottery, my friend may do so… Or, my friend, being only a sojourner on this earth and in this world but not of it, may have the good sense to pray for me that I may come to know the whole riches of God in Christ.
The passage demonstrates the relationship if the Queen Mother to the King,and the power of her intercession. She is always going to be in the best interest of the King, however. Had Adonijah made an appropirate and humble request, perhaps the answer would have been different?
Do you not see that Bathsheba got what she wanted?
Do you not agree that the answer was in the best interest of the Kingdom?
You are wrong that this is a “non-biblical approach”. It is very clear at the wedding in Cana that taking their problem to the Mother of the Lord resulted in an overabundant response on the part of the Lord. They probably had enough fine wine to build a new home,and pay the expenses for their year!
Your statement is also based on the false premise that matters of faith practice should be based upon how you interpret scripture.
I would like you to explain what you see happening at the wedding in Cana, and show me where asking for Mary’s help is a “bad nonbiblical practice”.
I would also like you to explain why altar calls are not in scripture, and the use of piano’s and organs in churches, and explain why these are not “bad nonbiblical practices”.
Indeed! I was not defending Bathsheba’s purity. I think she knew exactly what Solomon was going to do. It would not surprise me if she was secretly giddy at the possiblities.
Of course! They are not the only method shown in scripture though.
I am curious. Why do you think Jesus was having a chat with Moses and Elijah?
Thanks for your approval.
Do you imagine that our intercessions for one another are somehow separated from His intercession?
Not a lot about Mary here is there?
I am sure that, during the years that scripture was being written, anyone that wanted her help (prayers, spiritual guidance, etc) just knocked on the door.
Hebrews_4_12;4577852:
Of course you are made free! You can adopt any type of man made tradition you heart desires! You also have the freedom to limit yourself in this way if you wish.
Have you never find it curious that Scripture does not say of itself that it is, “alone for outlines and practices of faith”?
M
mpernot
Guest
I have’t read the work you are citing, but I understand your argument. Whether Bethsheba was a good Queen Mother or not does not diminish the position she and all Queen Mothers held in that time period. The office being held is the connection, not the person holding that office.
You say that it is ok to pray to people who are still alive, obviously indicating that you don’t see that we are supposed to be praying to saints in heaven. I think Scripture says otherwise:
Psalm 102:20-22 - Bless the Lord, all ye his angels: you that are mighty in strength, and execute his word, hearkening to the voice of his orders. Bless the Lord, all ye his hosts: you ministers of his that do his will. Bless the Lord, all his works: in every place of his dominion, O my soul, bless thou the Lord.
King David is obvious adressing angels in Heaven here. Also, note that the Latin Vulgate (which I use) has a slightly different numbering of the psalms; most Bibles have this psalm as 103.
Psalm 148:1-2 - Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise ye him in the high places. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts
Again, it is obvious that King David is invoking angels in heaven here to praise God with him, and praising God is a form of prayer. In this case, the psalm numbering is consistent with other Bible versions. If we are not allowed to pray to those in heaven, then King David didn’t get the memo. Also:
James 5:16 - Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.
Hebrews 12 :22-23 - But you are come to mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many thousands of angels, And to the church of the firstborn, who are written in the heavens, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the just made perfect,
Notice that St. Paul is speaking about the heavenly Jerusalem, or heaven, in Hebrews. If the prayer of a just man avials much, then how much more powerful will the prayers from the spirits of just men made perfect (in heaven) be than from those here on earth who have not been made perfect?
Yet another dimension to it…
Rev 5:8 - And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:
Rev 8:3-4 - And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of **the prayers of all saints **upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the **prayers of the saints **ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.
Notice these passages from Revelation are parts of John’s vision of heaven. Not only can we pray to those in heaven, they can pray for us!
M
mpernot
Guest
First of all, not everything we as Christians believe can be found in Scripture. But don’t believe me, read the early church fathers…
Second of all, I’ve shown in the previous post using Scripture that it’s alright and indeed Biblical to pray to saints and those in heaven to intercede for us on behalf of God. If this is so, and if the “continual prayer of a just man availeth much”, then who in heaven is more qualified to intercede with God for us than the sinless mother of God? Isn’t intercession with God on our behalf by the sinless mother of God the most powerful prayer that can be said? This is the purpose of bringing the office of queen mother to the discussion as well. Once the the fact that Mary holds this office in heaven and power the office contains is understood, why would anyone not want Mary to intercede for them?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
May I suggest you return to Hahn and Sri and carefully examine the extracts you provided above. Neither of the authors write that Solomon will literally grant Bathsheba’s request, that Abishag be given as wife to Adonijah. They are pointing out the powerful position the Queen Mother held in the kingdom next to her son the King, which explains why Adonijah approached her to intercede for him as advocate to the people. She acted out of formality, and if the circumstances had been normal, her request would literally have been granted. One cannot deny that the king bowed to his mother, placed a throne for her next to his, and said to her: “I will not refuse you.” In other words, ‘I will not refuse what it is you truly wish for the sake of the kingdom.’ You fail to grasp the gist of Hahn’s and Sri’s comments and the implications contained therein.
Guanaphore and I have not “turned the argument on its head”:
*So Bathshaba visited the king in his room, while Abishag the Shunamite was attending him because of his advanced age. Bathsheba bowed in homage to the king, who said to her, “What do you wish?” She answered him: “My Lord, you swore to me your handmaid by the Lord, your God, that my son Solomon should reign after you and sit upon your throne. But now Adonijah has become king, and you, my lord, do not know it.” *
1 Kings 1, 15-18
King David answered, “Call Bathsheba here.” When she re-entered the king’s presence and stood before him, the king swore, “As the Lord lives, who has delivered me from all distress, this very day I will fulfill the oath I swore to you by the Lord, the God of Israel, that your son Solomon should reign after me and should sit upon my throne in my place.” Bowing to the floor in homage to the king, Bathsheba said, “May my lord, King David, live forever!”
1 Kings 1, 28-30
Adonijah was the son of Haggith.
You question Bathsheba’s purity. But what about David, who prefigures Christ?
Many passages in the Psalms primarily about David point towards Christ in spite of the former’s sins.Daughters of kings are your lovely wives;
a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold
comes to stand at your right hand.
Psalm 45, 10
*When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, * “They have no wine.” Jesus told them, “Fill the jars with water.”
John 2, 3,7
“And how does this happen, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”
Luke 1, 43-44
When Jesus saw his mother and the ‘disciple’ there whom he loved, he said to his mother, ** “Woman, behold, your son.”
John 19, 26
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against ‘the rest of her offspring’, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.
Revelation 12, 17
His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”
John 2, 5
There’s quite a lot about Mary here. :yup:
*Priests intercede in and through Christ on behalf of God’s people (cf. Rev 1:6; 5:10). God hears the prayers of the righteous (cf. Jas 5, 16) who include the saints in heaven and on earth (cf. Rev 5:8; Heb 12:1).
Jesus and Paul instruct us not only to pray with each other but also to pray for each other in a mediatory capacity. (cf. Mt 5: 44-45; 1 Tim 2:1-4).*
PAX :tiphat:
H
Hebrews_4_12
Guest
**Mpernot **- quick response for right now I will deal with other stuff later as time permits.
You have misread my statement, I said no such thing about praying to any being, creature or otherwise save God. God alone is worthy of our prayers in a religious context. Read my words again, please!
New underline and Bold text added for emphasis of my original words
M
mpernot
Guest
Your original statement:
"Our prayers to God the Father through God the Spirit in the Name of God the Son is the biblical method for requests to God. Getting a non-departed this life saint (ie fellow believer) to pray with you in that same manner is also biblical."
I don’t mean to be mincing words here, but I think that’s what is happening. When you talk about getting a live person to “pray with you in the same manner”, are you not asking that person to intercede with God for you? That is no different (and indeed inferior) to asking the saints, angels and/or Mary in heaven to intercede with God on your behalf. There is Scriptural evidence for this, as I’ve shown. Don’t get hung up on the term “praying to”, it does not imply worship. Catholics pray to Mary and the saints in order to include them as mediators in our prayer to God. When you ask others to pray for you (either here or in heaven), you are similarly asking them to give your prayer intention (the worship, request, etc.) to God. We don’t worship Mary or the saints, they are not gods or goddesses but exist soley for the glory of God (as do we all). Catholics don’t hope that Mary and the saints will answer our prayers through their own merits; we hope that God will answer our prayers, and perhaps through these holy people if He chooses. Do not forget:
Luke 1:37 - “Because no word shall be impossible with God.”
God can certainly give His grace or otherwise act through anyone here on earth as He wishes; how much more so is it in heaven?
I agree that all prayers ultimately exist for God. Mary and the saints cannot receive prayers strictly of their own power or authority (neither can you or I), but they can carry our requests to God (as we can for each other). This happens because he has allowed the communion of saints and all in heaven to act as mediators on our behalf. This ability they do not merit on their own, but possess it by God’s grace to further His glory. Won’t we all be glorifying God unceasingly in heaven? That’s all the term “praying to” means, Catholics are simply acknowledging that those in heaven have the ability to take our prayers and magnify them before God for His glory. It doesn’t imply worship, as I fear you are taking it to mean. Anyone else feel free to add if you can explain it better, I’m sure there are many who can.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a good point. We can see that the “office” of the Queen Mother (Gebirah) was specific and authoritative by looking at King Asa:
“And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as David his father had done. 12 He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13 He also removed Ma’acah his mother from being queen mother because she had an abominable image made for Ashe’rah…” 1 Kings 15:11-13
Obviously Asa did not remove his mother from being his mother! He removed her from her post/office so that her influence would not mislead the faithful.
In Jeremiah we also see where the queen mother rules equally with her son, and inherits the consequences for disobedience along with him.
"Say to the king and the queen mother:
“Take a lowly seat,
for your beautiful crown
has come down from your head.”
19 The cities of the Negeb are shut up,
with none to open them;
all Judah is taken into exile,
wholly taken into exile.
20 "Lift up your eyes and see
those who come from the north.
Where is the flock that was given you,
your beautiful flock?
21 What will you say when they set as head over you
those whom you yourself have taught
to be friends to you?
Will not pangs take hold of you,
like those of a woman in travail?
22 And if you say in your heart,
‘Why have these things come upon me?’
it is for the greatness of your iniquity
that your skirts are lifted up,
and you suffer violence. " Jer 13:18-22
There is also a feminine reference to the “skirts be lifted up” and those pangs of a woman in travail. This bespeaks of a young king, guided and influenced still by his mother.
G
guanophore
Guest
You are confusing supplication with adoration. One need not be “worthy” to be asked for intercession, although it is much more effective if the person being asked, such as Mary, is worthy, as such a person’s prayers are more powerful.
M
mpernot
Guest
Sorry I missed this post from a few pages back. I think you are referring to the west (Roman or Latin) and east (Orthodox) rites of the Catholic Church, and of course I agree. I am just starting to learn about the eastern rites but currently don’t know much, so please excuse any ignorance on my part here.I agree, with the exception that the Catholic Church is not Roman.
- Status