Objection to Argument for Mary's Queenship and Intercession

[Hebrews_4_12]

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, 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.”’. 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. Let’s stay focused on the specifics of this argument from typology.

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 practice of a guy that just got put to death! 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.

Question: Were you (RCC Member) aware of the rest of the text before reading this post?

Question: Are you (RCC Member) the slightest bit uncomfortable by reading the whole text and noticing the implicit typology of you to the late “slain by the King” Adonijah?

 

[Eileen_T]

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, 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.”’. 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. Let’s stay focused on the specifics of this argument from typology.

Edited…

Question: Were you (RCC Member) aware of the rest of the text before reading this post?

Question: Are you (RCC Member) the slightest bit uncomfortable by reading the whole text and noticing the implicit typology of you to the late “slain by the King” Adonijah?

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Q 1. - A: Yes.

Q 2. - A: I am not uncomfortable at all. This passage shows the power of a Queen Mother who is loved and respected by her son the King. It illustrates how she was used as an intercessor, that the concept is biblical.

Apart from that I certainly don’t identify Jesus and Mary with Solomon and Bathsheba.

As for modern RCC apologists willingness to rip Biblical texts out of context they don’t bother me at all. I have almost 2000 years of teaching by the Church by which I can test anything written in modern times, whether by an apologist or a theologian.

I often listen to my non-CC boss and his mate discussing passages of Scripture and ideas/opinions they have come to from their studies and have to smile when they start sounding like Catholics.

Yet, they are very much* sheep without a shepherd.*

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

I am not sure what you are getting at here.
Q 1. - A: Yes.

Q 2. - A: I am not uncomfortable at all. This passage shows the power of a Queen Mother who is loved and respected by her son the King. It illustrates how she was used as an intercessor, that the concept is biblical.

“This passage shows the power of a Queen Mother”? What does the one for whom the intercession is made get from the King? A wife that he asks the Queen Mother to ask the King for? No, he get’s cut down. How does this entire intersession taken from end to end put the intersession by the Queen Mother in a positive light. To quote from “Star Trek” “He’s DEAD, Jim”

Apart from that I certainly don’t identify Jesus and Mary with Solomon and Bathsheba.

Then you are disagreeing with the “Typology” of these writers. Solomon is like Jesus, Bathsheba is like Mary, and (this is just logically not explicitly implied) Adonijah is like the faithfull RCC member. This is the basis of their argument, which is then in turn, one of the links in the chain of attempting to make Mary’s Queenship biblical. And I’m saying the link is not made of anything remotely strong enough to hang my eternal security on.

As for modern RCC apologists willingness to rip Biblical texts out of context they don’t bother me at all. I have almost 2000 years of teaching by the Church by which I can test anything written in modern times, whether by an apologist or a theologian.

I am glad I only have to turn to God’s unchanging Word breathed out by Him and preserved by Him. But this will take this thread off course. I specifically wanted to see if a comparsion of the above listed arguments with the actual text of scripture makes anyone else question the positive portrayal of the office of Queen Mother. For you the answer is obviously, no.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

“This passage shows the power of a Queen Mother”? What does the one for whom the intercession is made get from the King? A wife that he asks the Queen Mother to ask the King for? No, he get’s cut down. How does this entire intersession taken from end to end put the intersession by the Queen Mother in a positive light. To quote from “Star Trek” “He’s DEAD, Jim”

You’re missing the point of this. One, Solomon is simply a “type” of Jesus. Jesus, being greater than Solomon, I’m sure would listen more attentively to His mother than Solomon did.

The main point is that Bathsheba’s intercession doesn’t negate Solomon’s authority-the same as Mary’s intercession doesn’t negate Christ’s.

In the Davidic royal court the queen mother was the kings chief adviser because she was trusted to tell the king those things that other advisers were afraid to. It was not merely a symbolic title but an office that was indispensable to the king. (See 1King 15:13; Jer 29:2)

But the passage still says volumes as to the protocol of the Davidic royal court. An earthly royal court established by God as a foreshadow of the heavenly court that exists now in Christ.

Then you are disagreeing with the “Typology” of these writers. Solomon is like Jesus, Bathsheba is like Mary, and (this is just logically not explicitly implied) Adonijah is like the faithfull RCC member. This is the basis of their argument, which is then in turn, one of the links in the chain of attempting to make Mary’s Queenship biblical. And I’m saying the link is not made of anything remotely strong enough to hang my eternal security on.

As a “christian” who is suppose to foster charity and good will that statement shows your true colors. To say that all Catholic Chrsitians deserve to be struck down as Adonijah is something that I find highly offensive.

That said, I would argue that Adonijah is NOT any “RCC member”. Remember Adonijah tried to make himself king in spite of David’s wishes. Adonijah is, like Satan, or any who desire to put themselves in place of the true Davidic King-Jesus Christ. No Catholic Christian does that.

Mary’s queenship is most evident to me in Revelation 11-12. Because it is Mary who gave birth to Jesus. It is the Church that exists in Jesus-we are His Body. As she physically gave birth to Jesus she spiritually and continually gives birth to us who are His members. That’s why she is Israel, daughter Zion, the Church, His spouse. We are His siblings, His brothers and sisters, adopted by the Holy Spirit in Baptism.

I am glad I only have to turn to God’s unchanging Word breathed out by Him and preserved by Him. But this will take this thread off course. I specifically wanted to see if a comparsion of the above listed arguments with the actual text of scripture makes anyone else question the positive portrayal of the office of Queen Mother. For you the answer is obviously, no.

You forget that that unchanging word was passed on by the Catholic Church. Jesus never told any of His apostles to write anything down. The written Gospels and the letters of Paul exist not by any edict of Jesus but by the good sense and tradition of the Church which Jesus established while on earth. This tradition-oral and written(2 Thes 2:15)-passed on to His apostles who in turn left Bishops in charge as the authority to oversee the flock which is the body of Christ.

I doubt you would have even that distorted version if the bible-distorted in that it has been edited by those with their own personal idealogical bent and which is a violation of God’s word(1 Pet 1:20)-if not for that tradition which the Catholic Church defended from the likes of the Romans, the Jews, and many others.

That same unchanging word that you have says this:
Luke 1:46-55
And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

It’s safe to say that you do not follow the word of God because I doubt you call her at all.

 

[mlchance]

Why do people make Marian doctrine so convoluted? It’s actually very simple. All Marian doctrines are true only because of the Blessed Virgin’s relationship with Jesus.

The Virgin Mary is Jesus’ mother.
The mother of a king is a queen.
Jesus Christ is the King of Kings.
The Virgin Mary is, therefore, the Queen of Queens.

Every single Marian doctrine works this way. They affirm truths about Jesus Christ, and then, by analogy, affirm other truths about the Virgin Mary. To deny Marian doctrine is to implicitly deny something that is true about Jesus Christ.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**I think your disposition to the understanding of the typology being used is conflicting, by bringing a past event to another time to define that event in both time periods, is the conflict to what is happening.

The Typology that I see being used is the authority, of the positions of royalty, and how they interact according to the Davidic Kingship lines. Where the king never placed his wife as Qieen but his Mother as Queen to rule with the king and seats her at his right hand upon his divinely given throne, not the kings wife.

A parallel to this typology can also be applied to the church today. Jesus our king and Lord, Mary the Mother of Jesus is the Mother of all Christians.( Revelations 12:17 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.)

The Church the body of christ on earth are these who keep the commandments and bear witness to Jesus. In summary: Jesus is our King (The bride groom), Mary Jesus mother, is our Queeen. The Catholic church is the Bride of Jesus christ. The two become one body especially in Holy Communion where the bride and the bride groom reveal each other to one another. Bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, let no man put asunder what God has joined together.

The Roman Catholic church is not a democracy, it is a heirarchy, consisiting of a Royal King Jesus from the line of King David, A Mother to the King, who is our Mother Queen Mary, a Bride The Catholic church, who are the offspring of the Mother Queen, who keeps God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

Which make us partakers of his divine nature, in the consumation of the Eucahrist. The Pope is the primeminister of the heavenly king on earth serving as Vicar of Jesus Christ, until he returns for his Bride the Catholic church.

This Vicar has been given the keys to the kingdom of God and authority to bind and loose on earth, this power is tranlated to Jesus, the head of the Church in heaven, who authenticates these given divine powers to forgive sins. But most of all this Vicar and the Bride of Christ is to invite all to the heavenly banquet of the marriage supper of the Lamb.

So there are 3 positions to the Divine Kingship of Jesus, His mother Queen, and his bride the Catholic church. All 3 love each other, and all 3 are one. This can also relate typologically to the Blessed Trinity.

A note to take into consideration is that Scriptue uses Typology to reveal the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. When God’s word states “Perpetual, or everlasting” Jesus fulfills all of these in the new and everlasting covenant.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Question; Did Jesus refuse his Mothers request at the wedding feast of Cana?

It appears Jesus responds the same way Solomon did to his Mother, in the end, Jesus obeyed his Mothers request, and did it in the first public miracle of Jesus, turning mercky water into the best tasting wine.

Symbolizing the old covenant in the stone water Jars, transformed into the best tasting (wine) new and everlasting covenant, God saved the best one for Last.

This Mary interceded for the Wedding bride and groom so as not to be dishonored at their wedding for lack of spiritual drink. Mary was present at Jesus birth, life and death, now She is praying for his bride to be prepared for his coming for her, where Mary will be with the King at his side as Queen, and every knee will bow in heaven and on earth, just like Bathsheba did to her husband king, so does the Catholic church.

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

As a “christian” who is suppose to foster charity and good will that statement shows your true colors. To say that all Catholic Chrsitians deserve to be struck down as Adonijah is something that I find highly offensive.

I said no such thing! - I merely wrote in bold text the full implications of the typology of the RCC Apologist in respect to the twin triangular transactions Adonijah - Bathsheba - Solomon; RCC Member - Mary - Jesus. I advocated the striking down of no one! Bearing false witness is also a sin.

That said, I would argue that Adonijah is NOT any “RCC member”.

And I am arguing that that is the logical connection in the typology and reading the last paragraph again, that is the implicit argument the author is making but skirting the issue by only including 5 of the 6 persons, conveniently leaving Adonijah out of it.

Let’s stay focused on the specifics of this argument from typology.

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

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.”

But Solomon did refuse her, most emphatically, and that is my point.

The written Gospels and the letters of Paul exist not by any edict of Jesus but by the good sense and tradition of the Church which Jesus established while on earth.

First, off topic, but second, Wow… Can I quote you on that (I just did ?!?)? Wow… just wow!
So much for that whole God-Breathed thing.

For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
…
It’s safe to say that you do not follow the word of God because I doubt you call her at all.

Now who is it, that is being uncharitable, I really thought I had laid the limits of the objections fairly narrow so as to not drift off topic so easily, but I guess there are no traditional limits!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**And I am arguing that that is the logical connection in the typology and reading the last paragraph again, that is the implicit argument the author is making but skirting the issue by only including 5 of the 6 persons, conveniently leaving Adonijah out of it.

But Solomon did refuse her, most emphatically, and that is my point.**

Gabriel of 12 commentary follows:
Well from what you have displayed, you are accusing the RC apologist of leaving out the last paragraph, I can only take this at face value. Again the RC apologist typology was used to identify the Queen to the Davidic King line has always been the Mother of the King.

The example of her intercession for her elder son. It appears then you are adding to the RC apologists explanation. You need to state that you are adding to the commentary the last paragraph then, and it is you who are adding this topic of Adonijah, when it was not conviently left out when it was not a topic of discussion, this is your own preminitions to the explained text of the office of Queen Mother.

I am sure if the end result was the case of her Queen ships requests they would have commented on them. But the after effect of her Queenly intercession is not of topic of discussion by the RC apologist,only her office at the right hand of all the Davidic King lines to Jesus, who has the Kings ear.

But because you bring up an added paragraph, you falsely accuse RC’s of conspiracy, to the text, to which you add to their explanation of the typology of Queen Mother.

So to If I can answer your typology to your added paragraph.Adonijah is a Typo to the Blessed Mary’s eldest and only Son to the throne of God, Jesus himself, was tortured, suffered, and was killed by his own, who did not accept him either as their rightful heir to be King, so they murdered Jesus the Son of Mary.

This prophecy of Simeon who spoke to the Blessed Mother in Luke 2:33-35, “Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother”, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted,and you yourself (Mary) a sword will pierce, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed…vs. 52 and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

Explanation: Now the blessed Mother knows of Simeons prophecy, and she kept all these things in her heart, now who lives in her heart, God. Scripture is silent, but as a mother, do you think that Mary did not pray to God for her eldest, and only Son Jesus. Did not God the Father the posseser of Souls and King Kings in heaven of all creation, who owns a thousand cattle on a thousand hills, did not hear Mary the Queen of heaven whom through the Holy Spirit rested in her womb in order to conceive the Lord of Lords the infant Jesus.

Yes God heard Mary’s request, Just like King Solomon heard his Mother’s request. Even though Mary prayed her request to God for her son, God gave his only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. The divinely Kingship of king Solomon killed his Mothers eldest Son. Much of this requires reflection and meditation than more I am willing to give now, but that is what Typology does.

So The creator the “Husband is your maker” did better in answering the Queen Mother’s intercession, God gave her son death, inorder that he might live for eternity. She kept these things in her heart, SO THAT THE THOUGHTS OF MANY HEARTS MAY BE REVEALED.

Are the thoughts of your heart revealed to God, as the thoughts and prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary where and still are?

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

Well from what you have displayed, you are accusing the RC apologist of leaving out the last paragraph, I can only take this at face value. Again the RC apologist typology was used to identify the Queen to the Davidic King line has always been the Mother of the King.

I am not accusing the RC apologist of leaving out the last paragraph, click on the link above and read the article - the whole article - notice the last paragraph is exactly as I quoted except for my introductory line stating it was the last paragraph. I am pointing out the fact that Adonijah is left out of this paragraph and as is his ultimate fate and therefore the argued position of confidence in approaching the “Queen Mother” is artificially bolstered.

The example of her intercession for her elder son. It appears then you are adding to the RC apologists explanation. You need to state that you are adding to the commentary the last paragraph then, and it is you who are adding this topic of Adonijah, when it was not conviently left out when it was not a topic of discussion, this is your own preminitions to the explained text of the office of Queen Mother.

Bathsheba interceded for Adonijah who is not Bathsheba’s eldest son, Solomon is, Adonijah is David’s eldest by another wife. Again I am not adding a paragraph to the text - read the article.

I am sure if the end result was the case of her Queen ships requests they would have commented on them. But the after effect of her Queenly intercession is not of topic of discussion by the RC apologist,only her office at the right hand of all the Davidic King lines to Jesus, who has the Kings ear.

Again read the last paragraph of the article, and tell me again it is not making the case for confidence in requests to Mary based on the Bathsheba account.

But because you bring up an added paragraph, you falsely accuse RC’s of conspiracy, to the text, to which you add to their explanation of the typology of Queen Mother.

Again read the last paragraph of the article I added nothing ! I only point out the logical mapping of all the types considered in the story, and the glaring omission in the final analysis of request confidence with respect to the fate of Adonijah.

So to If I can answer your typology to your added paragraph.Adonijah is a Typo to the Blessed Mary’s eldest and only Son to the throne of God, Jesus himself, was tortured, suffered, and was killed by his own, who did not accept him either as their rightful heir to be King, so they murdered Jesus the Son of Mary.

So, let me get this straight not only is Solomon a type of Jesus but Adonijah is a type of Jesus as well, and we have already noted the claim for Bathsheba to be a type of Mary. Therefore, Jesus approaches Mary with petitions for Jesus because Jesus knows Jesus will not refuse Mary?!?!? Anyone still wondering why typology when done uninspired of the Holy Spirit is a dangerous thing?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I said no such thing! - I merely wrote in bold text the full implications of the typology of the RCC Apologist in respect to the twin triangular transactions Adonijah - Bathsheba - Solomon; RCC Member - Mary - Jesus. I advocated the striking down of no one! Bearing false witness is also a sin.

O really? This is what you said:

Adonijah is like the faithfull RCC member.

Adonijah was struck down by Solomon because he tried to usurp David’s authority and make himself king. Thus to me you were implicitly stating that any Roman Catholic diserves the same fate.
Correct me if I’m mistaken?

And I am arguing that that is the logical connection in the typology and reading the last paragraph again, that is the implicit argument the author is making but skirting the issue by only including 5 of the 6 persons, conveniently leaving Adonijah out of it.

You are looking too much into the events and not enough into the protocol of the royal court. The actions of Solomon and Bathsheba at their meeting speak for themselves. To me the end result of what Solomon ultimately decided is irrelevant as far as seeing this as a foreshadowing of the heavenly court.

But Solomon did refuse her, most emphatically, and that is my point.

If that is your point it is faint at best. Jesus is greater than Solomon, just as Mary is greater than Bathsheba.

First, off topic, but second, Wow… Can I quote you on that (I just did ?!?)? Wow… just wow!
So much for that whole God-Breathed thing.

The scriptures are inspired, I never said that they weren’t.
The Holy Spirit used the talent and ability of the writers to put forth the truth of God’s message.

But there exists another fact that the bible did not come with an inspired table of contents. There were many writings-‘letters’, ‘gospels’, and ‘revelations’ attributed to different apostles. Some authority here on earth-inspired by the Holy Spirit-had to decide which books were truly inspired and which ones were not. That authority was the Catholic Church.

Now who is it, that is being uncharitable, I really thought I had laid the limits of the objections fairly narrow so as to not drift off topic so easily, but I guess there are no traditional limits!

That’s not uncharitable at all. Just stating an obvious fact.

You were bragging about how you follow the Word of God and I was rebutting with a counter-point to your claim.

Uncharitable would be like stating that someone is going to ‘burn in hell’ like I’ve heard Protestants say to me many times before.
I never said that, did I?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

If you want Scriptures for this - John 2:1-11.

There was a wedding feast in Cana. During this feast, they ran out of wine. Now, weddings are weddings, and at a wedding if you run out of wine, you have problems. Now, the Scriptures tell us that they went to Mary and asked for help.

DID YOU READ THAT! THEY HAD A PROBLEM. JESUS WAS RIGHT THERE. THEY DIDN’T GO TO JESUS, THEY WENT TO MARY. MARY INTERCEDED FOR THEM.

Jesus replies: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? Now many Protestants think that this is some sort of a slight. But it isn’t. It is a referral to Genesis and Revelations. This same form of Woman is used also in the Gospel of John when Jesus gives Mary to John (and to the Church and us).

Jesus didn’t want to do the miracle because it would manifest Himself and begin His march straight to the Cross. He says it was not yet the correct time to begin. But, through Mary’s intercession, Jesus performed the miracle.

JESUS DIDN’T WANT TO DO THE MIRACLE. HE WOULDN’T HAVE DONE IT IF NOT FOR MARY’S INTERCESSION.

• For another thread: discussion on how the rest of the story shows how we are to follow Jesus through Mary -<

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

O really? This is what you said:

Adonijah was struck down by Solomon because he tried to usurp David’s authority and make himself king. Thus to me you were implicitly stating that any Roman Catholic diserves the same fate.
Correct me if I’m mistaken?

You are looking too much into the events and not enough into the protocol of the royal court. The actions of Solomon and Bathsheba at their meeting speak for themselves. To me the end result of what Solomon ultimately decided is irrelevant as far as seeing this as a foreshadowing of the heavenly court.

If that is your point it is faint at best. Jesus is greater than Solomon, just as Mary is greater than Bathsheba.

Pointing to logical connections of the argument and their obvious ramifications is NOT the same as advocating the carring out of the implications. To follow your logic would make me an advocate of killing every sinner (including myself) if I were to quote the scripture when it says “the wages of sin is death”. You are mistaken of my intensions in connecting the RCC member to Adonijah. I do not advocate the cutting down of anyone because of this text, I merely point out the obvious discomfort that accompanies the full exploration of this typological argument. Your reaction is most illuminating as to that point, because you obviously don’t like that connection being made and you can see the bad light it sheds on the process.

But there exists another fact that the bible did not come with an inspired table of contents. There were many writings-‘letters’, ‘gospels’, and ‘revelations’ attributed to different apostles. Some authority here on earth-inspired by the Holy Spirit-had to decide which books were truly inspired and which ones were not. That authority was the Catholic Church. ?

Your error is to disconnect the Canon of Scripture from the Scriptures themselves as if man must authenticate them to enter the canon. The Canon of Scripture exists just by the nature of the fact that God chose to inspire some writings but not all writings, man’s limitations in the knowledge of the extent of the Canon does limit the actual existance of the Canon.

That’s not uncharitable at all. Just stating an obvious fact.

You were bragging about how you follow the Word of God and I was rebutting with a counter-point to your claim.

Uncharitable would be like stating that someone is going to ‘burn in hell’ like I’ve heard Protestants say to me many times before.
I never said that, did I?

You stated Facts that were not in evidence I said nothing about not calling Mary Blessed but you assumed that for me to point out the obvious difficulties of an argument is to attack Mary herself, which I did not do.

Hello,

If you want Scriptures for this - John 2:1-11.

There was a wedding feast in Cana. During this feast, they ran out of wine. Now, weddings are weddings, and at a wedding if you run out of wine, you have problems. Now, the Scriptures tell us that they went to Mary and asked for help.

DID YOU READ THAT! THEY HAD A PROBLEM. JESUS WAS RIGHT THERE. THEY DIDN’T GO TO JESUS, THEY WENT TO MARY. MARY INTERCEDED FOR THEM.

John 2
The Wedding at Cana
1On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Sorry, I see no mention of “they” went to Mary, it just says '3When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” ’ You are bringing your theology to scripture instead of taking it from scripture. Could what you say in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS possibly of happened, surely but just as surely she could have gotten the info by mere observance and thought on her own to seek the Son’s intersession in the matter. We just can’t infallibly know given the limits of the infallible text.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

John 2
The Wedding at Cana
1On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Sorry, I see no mention of “they” went to Mary, it just says '3When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” ’ You are bringing your theology to scripture instead of taking it from scripture. Could what you say in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS possibly of happened, surely but just as surely she could have gotten the info by mere observance and thought on her own to seek the Son’s intersession in the matter. We just can’t infallibly know given the limits of the infallible text.

**Yes it can from eye witness accounts, from Sacred Tradition, and the customs that are taken place here are not the same as 20th century thought. Besides you are missing the Hebrew idiums that take place at this scene of the wedding feast. Hebrew idiums can only be known from the people who used them in this time. And this communication gets revealed through Sacred Traditions. Does it mention these were relatives of Mary and Jesus, No not in scripture here, but in Sacred Tradition which is supported by Sacred Scripture.

So I will trust the Roman Catholic interpretation to anothers interpretation of scripture, because the Roman Catholic church has the guarantee of infallibility, with Sacred Scripture supporting Sacred Tradition.

You see this seems to be the trouble of the Sacred Text trying to be explained by Protestants and non Catholics. They are only viewing Sacred Scripture blind sided, because that is all they have to go by what is written. Catholics have the fullness of Sacred Scripture Revelations because Catholics have Sacred Traditions from the Apostles That reveal of what is hidden from the Protestants not to mention lack of infallible teaching of Sacred Scripture. How can you trust a belief or interpretation that has no infallibility attached to it, B]**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ok, Hebrews, you have just slaughtered another truth that you refuse to accept, just like you are trying to do to a world reknown Catholic apologist, with your limited interpretation of Scripture. But it is not your fault, you dont have the fullness of truth. You can only read scripture from a 20th century mind set. Because you have no one in your authority to hand you down Sacred Tradition and early church fathers and saints that explained these texts over 1500 years ago.

Now if you learn to accept truth, then maybe you can get enlightened by Truth and learn something, but when you pull stunts like your doing to someone else who is revealing one thing, and you back stab them by making it to be something else, like you just did my commentary. Sorry dude, I am not buying into your game here. You put up alot of writing up, but you are not saying nothing.

 

[sterryfamily]

Hebrews_4_12…are you suggesting that by “intercessor” Catholic are suppposed to believe that every prayer Mary offers on our behalf is to be answered in the positive?

Catholics believe that Mary is Queen of Heaven and Earth - just like the biblical type you referred to. They don’t believe that every prayer she makes on our behalf is automatically answered in our favor. Where’d you get that idea?

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

Hebrews_4_12…are you suggesting that by “intercessor” Catholic are suppposed to believe that every prayer Mary offers on our behalf is to be answered in the positive?

No, but I am suggesting it is poor argumentaion to use a case answered obviously and strikingly (quite literally) in the negative to prove a positive.

Catholics believe that Mary is Queen of Heaven and Earth - just like the biblical type you referred to. They don’t believe that every prayer she makes on our behalf is automatically answered in our favor. Where’d you get that idea?

I think the last paragraph of Mr Sri’s article gives that impression with the notes of “approaching with confidence”. I’m torn I want to answer your sincere question but I also want to stay narrowly focused on the use of the particular passages of 1 Kings to support the advocacy of Mary and I’m afraid of getting off track with particular prayers. Would you admit this prayer, on the surface at least, is highly suggestive of just such a thing?

From a list of classic Marian prayers found here

NOVENA PRAYER

Mother of Perpetual help, thu art the dispenser of every grace that God grants us in our misery.
For this reason He hast made thee so powerful, so rich, and so kind that thou might help us in our needs.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners, if they but come to thee.
Come to my aid for I commend myself to thee.

In thy hands I place my eternal salvation; to thee I entrust my soul.
Count me among thy most faithful servants. Take me under thy protection; that is enough for me.
If thou doth protect me, I shall fear nothing: not my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me their pardon
and remission; not the evil spirits, because thou art mightier than all the powers of Hell;
not even Jesus, my Judge, because He is appeased by a single prayer of thine.

I fear only that through my own negligence I may forget to recommend myself to thee and so lose my soul.
My dear Lady, obtainest for me the forgiveness of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance,
and the grace to have recourse to thee at all times, Mother of Perpetual Help.

This idea is absolutely foreign to me “I shall fear nothing: …not even Jesus, my Judge, because He is appeased by a single prayer of thine.” My fear of God is alleved only by Jesus’ perfect life lived in place of my imperfect one and His perfect sacrifice on the Cross that fully takes the just wrath of God for my sins. “Nothing but the blood” as they say…