Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scriptural View of Mary
Catholic Pages ^ | Dr. Scott Hahn

Posted on 10/08/2007 6:08:42 AM PDT by NYer

The following is the transcript of Scott Hahn's audio and video tape presentation, "Mary: Holy Mother" as it appears in the "Catholic Adult Education on Video Program" with Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

As you probably know, this is our third installment in a series of five sessions that we are spending together discussing how to answer common objections, questions regarding key tenets that are distinctive to the Catholic Church. We have focused upon the Pope and yesterday we looked at purgatory. This morning we want to focus on Mary and the Marian doctrines and devotions of the Catholic Church to see where in scripture do we see, not necessarily logical demonstrations that are brought forth from proof texts that kind of force the mind against the will to give in and to acquiesce in these beliefs, but where do we find in scripture the reflections and the illustrations and the assumptions and the conclusions that the Catholic Church affirms with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary?

We are also going to be able to touch lightly and briefly upon some historical data, but our focus this morning will be primarily scriptural. Now non-Catholics also are concerned with historical evidences for Marian doctrines and devotions. But I would say the vast majority of non-Catholic questions and objections stem from scripture and the seeming silence from the holy writ. So that's what we are going to be focusing our attention, our energy and our time upon this morning.

Before I go on, I want to make the same admission that I do at every point and that is, we don't have time to cover everything. We don't have time to cover even half of what we need to cover. I'll do my best and you know how fast I can get going and you know how long I can go. I have to candidly concede the fact that you need to be reading scripture. You need to be asking our Lord for extra time to study, to ponder and to pray. Let me recommend some books to you, some secondary sources.

One of my favorites is by one of the top biblical scholars in France, Andre Foulier. It's entitled Jesus and His Mother, the Role of the Virgin Mary in Salvation History and the Place of Women in the Church. This, I believe, is a masterpiece, and it's published by St. Bede, and it's only about two or three years old. The other book I want to recommend, and I am not sure is in print. In fact, I suspect it might be out of print, but you can find it in libraries, and I have found it in used book stores because that's my favorite haunting place, to travel to used book stores. But this is by Max Thurien who is a reformed brother in the Taize community over in Europe. It's entitled, Mary, Mother of All Christians.

What makes this distinctive is that when he wrote this, he was a Reformed Calvinist Christians. You don't find Christians much more non-Catholic than that! I know. I was one! Now, rumor has it, and I have only heard it from two or three persons, and I've not confirmed this, that Brother Max Thurien has converted. He is considered to be one of the wisest Reformed Protestant theological sages of this century, not only for his theological depth and his scriptural understanding, but especially for his spirituality in guiding the Taize community in worship and community and in ecumenical environment.

Another classic, Joseph Duer, a Jesuit by the name of Joseph Duer. I believe it was originally written in German. It's entitled, The Glorious Assumption of the Mother of God. This goes through the biblical and the historical, the patristic and the magisterial data and evidences for the doctrine, or the dogma, I guess we could say, of the bodily assumption of our Lady. Now this is an old copy, but I was just recently informed that the book is back in print. I'm not sure who publishes it, but my suspicion is Christian Classics.

Here's another book, and I'll tell you the story behind this a little later. Remind me; I might forget. It's entitled The Assumption of Mary by Father Killiam Healey, a Carmelite theologian up in New England, in Massachusetts. This is published by Michael Glazier. I'm not sure if you can get it from them, but if you want to try, you have to contact Liturgical Press, because Glazier and Liturgical Press just merged up in Collegeville, Minnesota, which is their new address. But this is superb. This is for popular consumption. This could be like a primer, a first reader in Marian Doctrine and Devotion. He is very fair and even handed. And I might add, he's a marvelous priest. I heard him preach, right after I joined the Church, but I'll tell that story later on. It was a delight in my own life.

The real magnum opus on the subject was written by one of Great Britain's top Biblical scholars, Father John McHugh entitled, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, published by Doubleday, and it's in many public libraries that I have seen as well as college or high school or seminary libraries. I don't believe it's in print, but it is all around, so you could find it if you looked hard enough. This is just a copious study of all of the relevant passages in the New Testament, and McHugh looks at these from the perspective of the writers of scripture themselves, how the Fathers of the Church interpreted it, how Jewish and Rabbinic interpreters and commentators understood certain passages from the Old that were fulfilled by the New, all the way up until the present day. It's very thorough but readable, very readable. I think anybody named McHugh has something good to say. I'm buttering up my host and hostess here.

Scriptural View of Mary

Well, here we go. What I would like to do now is to begin to change our focus to scripture itself. Of course, the place we have to begin in order to see what the scripture says about the Blessed Virgin Mary is found all the way in the beginning of the Bible. Let's turn to Genesis, chapter 3. There we see the first Eve having been seduced and, I believe, brutally intimidated into a kind of disobedient submission. You can go back and listen to this tape that I think we made two or two-and-a-half days ago about how often we distort what really happened in the temptation narrative, because we don't know how to read Hebrew narrative. There is a literary artistry there at work that's very hard for the Western mind to grasp, understand and appreciate. But I believe, just to sum it up, that Adam was called to be a faithful covenant head in a marital covenant, and he was called to show forth, as the representative of the covenant, the love, the hessed, the loyalty of the covenant to the fullest degree. And, as our Lord says, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his beloved."

So, if he is truly going to love his covenant partner in marriage, he has to be willing to lay his life down. Now, how does God, the Father, test his son's loyalty and love? Well, that's what the serpent is there for. The serpent, nahash in Hebrew is, I believe, misunderstood to be a snake. Medieval art work, and this has been carried on into the modern tradition where you have Eve depicted as some dumb, perhaps blonde, but some dumb air-head who just basically is tricked by some little snake, hanging from a branch in a tree, to eat the apple. All right, and so all men just kind of sit back and say, "Yeah, it's still the same way." And they congratulate themselves on being so worldly wise that they wouldn't be so dumb as this air head.

Total misreading, I believe. This is my own hypothesis. This is my own interpretation. You don't have to abide by it, but my view is that the nahash, the serpent is deliberately depicted as a kind of, I'd say mythical figure but I don't want to deny the historicity of this text. It's just that Hebrew historical narrative can often use mythical imagery to communicate historical truth. In Daniel 7, I mentioned four gentile kingdoms are described as being "four beasts." So, I believe, here we have the serpent as a kind of dragon. The word is used and used and used in Hebrew to connote or denotes a dragon figure like Leviathan or Banmuth or Rehab, the monster later than Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Revelation 12:9 in the New Testament confirms this translation of nahash, not as serpent/snake, but as serpent/dragon, because there Satan is described as the "ancient serpent" and then it goes on to describe a seven-headed dragon.

So she is being confronted and brutally intimidated by a dragon who is intent upon producing disobedience, come hell or high water. So in the cross-examination, in the interrogation that goes back and forth, Satan uses the truth in a clever, deceptive, but intimidating way to kind of force this woman to see, in effect, that if she doesn't eat that fruit, she will die, at least in the biological, physical sense because Satan will see to it.

The question, then, as you read through this narrative is not based upon anything that is explicitly stated, but rather that which is so conspicuously unstated, and that is, where the heck is Adam in all this? By the end of the narrative you discover that he's right by the woman because she just turns and gives him the fruit to eat; but the question is, where was he all along? This loving covenant head, this loving covenant partner who is to show the great love that he's willing to lay down his life for his beloved? Well, he was probably rationalizing his silence by saying, "Well, if I oppose such a serpentile monster as this, I stand no chance."

So in Hebrews 2:14-16, the New Testament tells us that Christ had to take on our flesh and blood to free us from the devil, from Satan, who held us in life-long bondage because of the fear of death and suffering we all have. So it seems as though Adam's response, or lack of response, is due to his fear of suffering and death, which in turn subjects all of A-dam, humanity, to life-long bondage to he who holds the power of death, Satan, in this sense.

So the first Eve, then, is abandoned by her covenant partner and husband who was presumably to tell that dragon where to go, and then, in a sense, stand up for his convictions and possibly even suffer martyrdom and to lay down his life for his beloved and trust that God, his Creator, to whom he is loyal in love would raise him and vindicate him in proper covenant judgment. Which is exactly what the second Adam does on behalf of the second Eve, the Church, which is the whole dramatic encounter we read about in Revelations 12. I'm going to have to talk about that later on this day, so I'm not going to get into it too much this morning. You're all invited to that. It's at 1:30. We're going to be talking about Mary, Ark of the Covenant, focusing upon the woman of the Apocalypse who is clothed with the sun, a crown of 12 stars, and the world under her feet. I think it's the deliberate symbol of the second Eve for whom the second Adam lay down his life. Mary, the Church, Israel, and all New Testament believers in a sense.

But having sinned, Adam and Eve were now confronted by God. You can go all the way back, I believe, to verse 8, Genesis 3:8, "They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and the man and his wife hid themselves." Now, this is, I think, perhaps somewhat of a mistranslation. We often have this kind of romantic, bucolic picture here of God kind of walking through the woods. You can hear the crushing of the leaves and the snapping of the twigs as he says, you know, "Adam, Eve, where are you?" Poor God, just doesn't really know what's going on!

But when you actually look at the Hebrew, what the people hear, verse 8, it says, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God." We're tempted to hear that as the crushing leaves and snapping twigs, this poor unwitting God is saying, "where... weren't we supposed to meet, you know. Isn't this the time? Isn't this the place?" But no. The word in Hebrew for sound is qol. Now, what kind of noise does the qol of the Lord make? Well you can find out by reading Psalm 29. Keep your finger on Genesis 3 and take a look at Psalm 29 because there we discover an entire psalm devoted to describing what Adam and Eve must have heard when they heard the qol of the Lord, the sound of the Lord.

Verse 1 of Psalm 29, "Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings or sons of God. Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name and worship the Lord in holy array. The qol of the Lord is upon the waters. The God of glory thunders. The Lord upon many waters. The qol of the Lord is powerful. The qol of the Lord is full of majesty." Verse 5, "The qol of the Lord breaks the cedars. The Lord breaks the cedars of Lebanon. He makes Lebanon to skip like a calf in Sirion, like a young wild ox. The qol of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire. The qol of the Lord shakes the wilderness. The Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh. The qol of the Lord makes the oak trees to whirl and strips the forest bare and all in his temple cry, 'glory'!"

What do you think they heard? It wasn't the snapping of little twigs and the crunching, you know, of leaves. They heard a thunder and shattering roar, and they hid themselves. Quite understandably. Goes on, "They heard the qol of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day." That word in Hebrew, cool, is ruah, normally translated spirit or wind, and that phrase could easily be translated as scholars have argued, "They heard the thundering, shattering roar of Yahweh Eloheim as he was coming into the garden as the spirit of the day!" What day? The day of judgment. We've got a primo parousia on our hands. The second coming in advance in a sense.

So they flee from the sound that they hear. They hide from the Lord God among the trees in the garden. "But the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you?'" Now he doesn't talk about geographical location. The deity here, in order to meet the job description of the divinity is omniscient. He knows where they are. He's asking, "Where are you in terms of your covenant standing before me. Where are you? "He answered, ' I heard you in the garden, but I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid. Who told you that you were naked?" What does the man say? "The woman! Have you eaten of the fruit that I told you not to eat?" And what does he say? He immediately starts passing the buck. Verse 12, "The man said, 'The woman.'" But it gets worse, "The woman you gave me."

Not so subtle, huh? He's not just faulting her. Who's he really faulting? Some help, some assistant you gave me! He's not just blaming her. He's implicitly blaming God. And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you've done?" The woman said, "The nahash deceived me and I ate." Now, if you go back, the serpent never actually told a lie, but what the serpent did was to use a kind of blunt, brutal intimidation to get her to submit to the evil. "So the Lord said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this cursed you above all the livestock, etc." But here we look at verse 15, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head and you will strike his heel."

Now some other translations render, "She will crush your head." And so we have statues of our Lady crushing the head of the serpent. That's an interesting but kind of tangential issue for us right now. At any rate, we see here the woman. "I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed." Now you don't have to be a scientist to wonder what they're talking about here. The serpent's seed, okay. But her seed? The Greek Old Testament translates this spermatos, that's the term for seed. Now so far, so good, but wait a second. What is it doing in connection with the woman? The woman's seed? Nowhere else in the Old Testament do you ever come across an expression like that. It's always the man's seed, the husband's seed, the father's seed. This is weird. The woman's seed? Yeah, God's going to elevate that woman and give to her in some unique sense perhaps a seed through which the serpent's head will be crushed. Keep that in the back of your mind because that is going to be crucial.

Isaiah 7:14

We're going to move on now to, of course, what is probably the second most famous Old Testament passage for understanding our Lady, Isaiah 7, verse 14. Isaiah 7, verse 14: here we have an interesting episode between Isaiah and King Ahas who is king of Judah, and he's worrying about the national stability of his people in his country of Judah, his kingdom, because he is surrounded by stronger neighbors and so he's toying with the idea of entering into all kinds of wrong- headed alliances. So, through Isaiah the Lord says to King Ahas who's always beginning to kind of stumble with doubts, he's beginning to wonder with fear who he should rely upon, Verse 3, "Then the Lord said to Isaiah, 'go out'" and it goes on in verses 3 through 10, where the Lord speaks to Ahas through Isaiah and says, "Ask of me and I will give you a sign."

In other words, let's admit it. Your faith is weak. You need to have it shored up and strengthened. That's what signs are for. Go ahead and ask me for a sign. Verse 12, with false modesty Ahas says, "Oh, I won't ask. I will not put the Lord to the test." Give me a break! Isaiah said, "Hear now, you House of David, is it not enough to try the patience of men. Will you try the patience of my God also?" He sees your need. He's got the gift that you need. Now don't play strong. You're weak, admit it and receive the gift that he's got in this sign." "Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Emmanuel."

That word, almah in Hebrew translated by the Greek Septuagint parthenos has been the subject of incredible debate. Is it young woman or is it virgin? You could stack up scholars who advocate either position, but I am persuaded, not only by the targums, that is the ancient Jewish interpretation of this was decidedly in favor of "virgin." They saw it as some kind of Messianic prophecy in the targums, these ancient Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament.

Now there are a lot of scholars who debate, "Well, are the targums before Christ or after Christ or whatever?" But I think there's a lot of evidence for them being before Christ, but even if they were a little bit after Christ, the fact remains that Jews from earliest times saw a Messianic reference with regard to parthenos, a virgin. A recent scholar whose article I just read by the name of Professor Wyatt argues that the Alexandrian Jews who rendered almah by parthenos were being entirely faithful to the Herogamic tradition. He goes on to talk about how Isaiah borrows all his pagan mythical imagery, only then historicizes it with reference to the coming Messiah, as the ritual technical term for an embodiment of a divine mother, who is both a fecund mother, a fruitful mother, as well as a perpetual virgin.

In other words, Isaiah in using this language is tapping into a well-known ancient outlook on what humanity needs for deliverance, that is, God is going to have to send an incredible figure, the likes of which humans have never seen, a creature, a human but in a sense possessed by God in an absolutely unique way. And this, by the way, is not unique to the Hebrew tradition. It's shared throughout. Now maybe it's because Genesis 3:15 was channeled out throughout the world as the human race spread, whatever you want to believe.

There are other ways to explain it, but the fact remains that this translation, this rendering of almah as virgin is strong and sure and is very reliable. At any rate, we know one thing for sure, the New Testament applies it to Mary and the virginal birth of Jesus. So in terms of the inspired narrative, what do we have? In Matthew, we have in a sense, the answer in the back of the book really, or at least we can treat it that way for this morning's time together.

What is going on here? The Davidic line is almost at an end and the only way out for King Ahas in his own mind is to begin to move away from Yahweh and to begin to trust in all of these pagan neighbors who want to form alliances with him. Only, in order to form those alliances he's going to have to submit as a kind of vassal. So Isaiah says, "Don't do it. If you are weakening in your faith, ask him for a sign. He has one ready." The problem is the Davidic line could be crushed. Well, the faithful were saying, "But God has sworn an oath: there will always be an heir on the Davidic throne."

But now what happens if the king is deposed and if the royal family is murdered? Well, God will take a virgin and produce a son of David. In other words, we're not dependent exclusively upon human resources, political power, economic wealth and all of the rest. So Isaiah 7:14 stands in line with Genesis 3:15 as in a sense the second key text with regards to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Prayer
KEYWORDS: bible; bvm; mary; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-416 next last
To: NYer; DarthVader; Dr. Eckleburg; wmfights; Iscool; P-Marlowe
So there is clear evidence that Protestant, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, as well as Catholic scholars acknowledge that the New Testament deliberately depicts Mary in terms related to the Ark of the Covenant. And we'll discover in Revelation after 580 years without an Ark, Jewish Christians look up and see a sign. It's the Ark of the Covenant in heaven which had not been seen in 580 years approximately. This is where "Raiders of the Lost Ark" comes from. It's been lost for that long. John sees it in Revelation up in heaven and the very next thing he sees is a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars, a Queen Mother. The Ark is no longer an empty throne.

There's no viable, authentic, remotely significant hint of Jesus' Mother in Revelation. It doesn't matter how many clueless sorts from how many denominations pretend otherwise. It's sad that the metaphors in Revelation confuse so many. Though I have to believe that it is more evidence of God hiding things in plain sight and confusing deliberately those who refuse to PUT HIM AND HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON FIRST, FOREMOST AND ALONE IN SUPREME MAJESTY, GRACE, FORGIVENESS, GODLY COMFORT, POWER, . . .

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
This is what I find in Luke 1:28:

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

I understand by this verse that she is blessed because "the Lord is with thee" and that she is to bear the Messiah. I see no inference in this verse (in any translation) of a state of sinlessness.

Another was in the apparition at Lourdes to Bernadette when Mary claimed she was the “immaculate Conception.”

Sorry, but this isn't Scripture.

Salvation, you have a tender spirit which is evident in most all of your posts, so understand that I am not attacking you, but what I see to be a false doctrine. If you will honestly look at the litany of such Marian doctrines, you will see that they are not supported by Scripture and are often at odds with what is written in God's Word. Which are we to believe?

42 posted on 10/08/2007 11:11:31 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Dr. Eckleburg; DarthVader; Iscool; wmfights; P-Marlowe
When I read this article, it was like a thunderclap striking me. I knew I had to really pay close attention to the evidence. What evidence? Well, this is known as the gebirah. The gebirah is the Hebrew term for the Queen Mother. I found in another book, The Graphic History of the Jewish Heritage, that the gebirah, the Queen Mother "occupied a unique and powerful position" throughout the history of ancient Israel's monarchy. He gives as an example Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, who was enthroned, which we will look at in just a moment.

This is supposed to be a POSITIVE affirmation in FAVOR of the QUEEN MOTHER SCHTICK? Where in Scripture is any HINT of such a QUEEN MOTHER being a GODLY, POSITIVE INFLUENCE. Perhaps I'm forgetting such an example.

The only ones I can imagine/faintly "remember?" are very negative ones.

v For the author to put forward such a NEGATIVE bit of evidence to SUPPORT a positive view of THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN is absolutely mind bogglingly PREPOSTEROUS.

I KI 15:3 Maachah, his mother, even her he removed from being queen because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol and burned it by the brook Kidron.

From Jer 7:18 "Ashtoreth--an idol of the Philitines--probably identical with the "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" . . . has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reccommend the QUEEN OF HEAVEN to truly God fearing, God loving people.

The Jews attributed their calamities to having ceased offering sacrifices to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN. Jer 44:17-19

It continues to boggle my mind that anyone would grasp so VAINLY at the SMELL of straws to support ANY NOTION of a POSITIVE QUEEN OF HEAVEN when the whole counsel of quite a number of Scriptures is VERY FIERCELY HOSTILE to such a DEMONICALLY PAGAN idea.

20-23Then Jeremiah spoke up, confronting the men and the women, all the people who had answered so insolently. He said, “The sacrifices that you and your parents, your kings, your government officials, and the common people of the land offered up in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem—don’t you think God noticed? He noticed, all right. And he got fed up. Finally, he couldn’t take your evil behavior and your disgusting acts any longer. Your land became a wasteland, a death valley, a horror story, a ghost town. And it continues to be just that. This doom has come upon you because you kept offering all those sacrifices, and you sinned against God! You refused to listen to him, wouldn’t live the way he directed, ignored the covenant conditions.”

24-25Jeremiah kept going, but now zeroed in on the women: “Listen, all you who are from Judah and living in Egypt—please, listen to God’s Word. God-of-the-Angel-Armies, the God of Israel, says: ‘You women! You said it and then you did it. You said, “We’re going to keep the vows we made to sacrifice to the Queen of Heaven and pour out offerings to her, and nobody’s going to stop us!”’

25-27”Well, go ahead. Keep your vows. Do it up big. But also listen to what God has to say about it, all you who are from Judah but live in Egypt: ‘I swear by my great name, backed by everything I am—this is God speaking!—that never again shall my name be used in vows, such as “As sure as the Master, God, lives!” by anyone in the whole country of Egypt. I’ve targeted each one of you for doom. The good is gone for good.

27-28”’All the Judeans in Egypt will die off by massacre or starvation until they’re wiped out. The few who get out of Egypt alive and back to Judah will be very few, hardly worth counting. Then that ragtag bunch that left Judah to live in Egypt will know who had the last word.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Alex Murphy; HarleyD; DungeonMaster; 1000 silverlings
For the author to put forward such a NEGATIVE bit of evidence to SUPPORT a positive view of THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN is absolutely mind bogglingly PREPOSTEROUS.


This thread is just that -- preposterous. For men to make a queen of Mary is obscene. We fought a revolution against the very idea of a monarchy, yet men are trying to bring it back and indenture themselves to a queen Mary and a king pope!?!

God forbid.

Catholics underestimate how much articles like this are like nails on a blackboard to Protestants who view this elevation of Mary as outright idolatry, worshiping the creature instead of the Creator.

There's no difference between falling down in front of a statue of Mary than there is falling down in front of Isis.

If it is not Jesus Christ men kneel to, then it is pagan.

"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." -- 1 Peter 1:24-25

44 posted on 10/09/2007 12:30:24 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Quix
LOL. Scott Hahn, once a Protestant, thinks he can slip this past more discerning eyes by simply labeling this concocted nuttiness as a "Scriptural View of Mary."

Ha! Nowhere in Scripture is Mary spoken of as anything other than a simple, devout young woman whom God chose to give birth to His Son.

This essay is gibberish and one day Hahn will have to answer for encouraging people to take their eyes off of Jesus Christ.

45 posted on 10/09/2007 12:38:01 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
You haven’t ever taken on Mother Angelica, have you? Believe me, you would lose.

Martial arts? Beer drinking? Chess?

46 posted on 10/09/2007 5:00:43 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Quix

The title of this thread is so off base that the thread isn’t getting any action at all. Even the Marians have nothing to work with from the material posted and are rather silent.

47 posted on 10/09/2007 5:04:36 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Amazing... Nothing scriptural...You could switch Mary’s name for the Goddess Diana and it would make far more sense...

They’ve made a pagan Goddess out of the Mother of Jesus Christ...

We can’t have a Queen of Heaven...The only Queen of Heaven will be the Bride of the King...

They’re following this Scott Hahn like he is the Pied Piper...

48 posted on 10/09/2007 5:22:06 AM PDT by Iscool (REMEMBER all mushrooms are edible, some of them only once!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
The only Queen of Heaven will be the Bride of the King...

Very good, I have to remember that one.

49 posted on 10/09/2007 5:23:21 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
“”This is what I find in Luke 1:28
28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women””

Dear fwdude,
The Bible you’re reading has been changed from the original.
Not by mistake either!

Luke 1:28 Uses the word “Kecharitomene” to describe Mary,s function,essence and being

The original Greek was kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The Protestant Revised Standard Version translates Lk 1:28 as “highly favored daughter.” This is no mere difference of opinion but a conscious effort to distort St. Luke’s original Greek text. Had Mary been no more than “highly favored,” she would have been indistinguishable from Sarah the wife of Abraham, Anna the mother of Samuel, or Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, all of whom were long childless and “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.

Saint Luke does not use Mary as her name in Luke 1:28 He Changes it to “Kecharitomene” this is a new name , and we all know that name changes in Scripture are significant - Abram (Hebrew “father”) to Abraham (”father of multitudes), Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, etc.
This describes her very essence and being.
Mary, is named “kecharitomene” - because she is full of grace-full of perfection

The Blessed Mother fulfills many Biblical Old Testament Typological Prophecies, She is the New Eve. The Daughter of Zion,The perfect fulfillment of the Church and the Ark of the New Covenant.
God Created Ark Of Covenant WITHOUT STAIN

Here is a comparison of Old Testament Ark “verses” New Testament Mary who is the “Immaculate” Ark of the NEW COVENANT

A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35; Numbers 9:15) = Type is
“And the angel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35)

Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11) = Type is
Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)

King David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) = Type is
Elizabeth asked Mary, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

David Leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14 - 16) = Type is
John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)

Even the Early Christians saw this.
Some examples....
Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Mary is the New Eve

Old Testament Eve- Verses New Testament Mary

Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42

There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25 = There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34

There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17 = There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35

There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13 = There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38

A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17

There was pride, Gen 3:4-7 = There was humility, Luke 1:38

There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7 = There was obedience, Luke 1:38

There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20 = There was redemption, John 19:34

Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28

She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15

Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24 = Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25

An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9

Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15 = The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7

Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1 = Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5

Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8 = Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34

The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27

The Early Christians saw this very clear...

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty 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).

“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 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).

Dear fwdude, You should realize that Mary is the greatest of all women, greater than Ruth, greater than Sarah, greater than EVE! Since Eve was created immaculate (without original sin), Mary was conceived immaculate. And, although Eve fell into sin by her own free will, Mary corresponded to God’s grace and remained sinless. She could not otherwise be greater than Eve. Thus, as the Fathers of the Church unanimously conclude, Mary is the New Eve who restores womanhood to God’s original intention and cooperates with the New Adam, her Son, for the Redemption of the world.

I wish you a Blessed day!

50 posted on 10/09/2007 5:26:33 AM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Another was in the apparition at Lourdes to Bernadette when Mary claimed she was the “immaculate Conception.”

You are citing apparitions now? Oh, my. Does the Catholic repository of truth now consist of the triad Scripture, Tradition, and Apparition??
51 posted on 10/09/2007 6:08:18 AM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.

Bunk...There is no credible evidence that the Septuagint was written before 350 A.D...

And what were Jews doing in Egypt in 250 B.C...They were told to get out of Egypt long before that and get back to Israel...

Being in Egypt, they were out of the will of God...

The manuscripts which came out of Antioch, (The Majority Texts) where the Apostles were based, and where follower of Jesus were first called Christians, are the accurate texts...

52 posted on 10/09/2007 6:34:58 AM PDT by Iscool (REMEMBER all mushrooms are edible, some of them only once!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; kosta50
Perhaps you should read this...

I’m sure Kosta50 can shed light on this?

Time for mass
I wish you a blessed day!

53 posted on 10/09/2007 6:56:49 AM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

There are many of us protestants who don’t view Catholics as “worshipping” Mary. It is merely reverence; just more than protestants pay.

54 posted on 10/09/2007 6:57:26 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel; All; Dr. Eckleburg; Iscool; wmfights; armydoc; DungeonMaster; DarthVader
There are many of us protestants who don’t view Catholics as “worshipping” Mary. It is merely reverence; just more than protestants pay.


It is an interesting question as to whether there would be more Episcopalians worshipping Pomp, Circumstance, Situation Ethics and Gay Marriage than RC's worshipping Mary in say a lareg congregation of 1,000 or more.

But RC's ARE human, too. And I absolutely assure you that a certain percentage worship Mary quite brazenly contrary to Scripture and God's priorities. Some may be misguided and ill-taught. Some may be carried away on all the Mary hoopla beyond reason. Some may be attachment-disorder-addicted to the more familiar and pseudo-tangible. For whatever reason(s), a certain percentage of RC's worship Mary whether it is 5% or 55% or 75%. ANY PERCENT IS TOO MUCH such whether it be Prottys or RC's or Jews worshipping a scroll of ink and paper.

And articles like this confirm the worship of Mary as quite kosher, reasonable, 'saint-ly' when it's the opposite, horribly, abjectly, overwhelmingly the OPPOSITE of anything good.

And what craziness pretending Mary is the new ARK! The long line of rationalizations and jury-rigged postulations, comparisons, pairings of Scriptural stuff pretending similarity when there is none is also horribly confused, illogical, mangling of Scripture, straining at gnats and swallowing camels . . . wholesale, lock, stock and barrel heretical dogma from beginning to end.


Where's the documented miracle of this new ARK:

1. Raising a dead mouse to new life out of her motherly compassion?
2. Halting a legion of Roman soldiers in their tracks from abusing Jews?

3. Calling fire down from Heaven to consume a cat that dared to gobble her pet bluebird of happiness?
4. Curing Joseph of halitosis or gas?

5. Walking on water to retrieve a hanky a satanic wind blew out of her hand?
6. Resurrecting a dead moth that dared to crash into her halo?


THERE ARE NONE beyond the miracle of her pregnancy. NONE as in zero-zip. Nada. Meiyou dongxi.

The whole of the RC edifice would have us believe that God thoughtlessly neglected to include such miracles in Scripture. Balderdash.

EITHER Mary's follow-on role included NO miracles--even after Pentecost . . .


God felt it IMPORTANT THAT THEY NOT be mentioned AT ALL.

So, which is it, RC's? Mary did NO miracles or God saw fit that they NOT be mentioned in Scripture AT ALL BECAUSE HE WANTED NO SUCH ATTENTION PAID TO MARY? There aren't a lot of plausible options. Which is it?

PRETENDING, as ya'll seem to do, that God didn't quite know what He was doing when He directed the writing of the New Testament is NOT REALLY a PLAUSIBLE option. Nor is it a very kosher, safe one when it comes to escaping His discipline, wrath on the matter, either.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; Alex Murphy; HarleyD; DungeonMaster; 1000 silverlings
Catholics underestimate how much articles like this are like nails on a blackboard to Protestants who view this elevation of Mary as outright idolatry,...

No they don't.

56 posted on 10/09/2007 8:10:53 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Catholics venerate Mary. And other humans who led holy lives. So what?

I venerate George Washington, John Adams and Ronald Reagan. I venerate the veterans of the great wars. They have monuments (sacrilege!) to them.

That doesn’t mean I worship these people.

57 posted on 10/09/2007 8:20:04 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Dr. Eckleburg; Iscool; wmfights; armydoc; DungeonMaster; DarthVader
Mary, full of grace.

That’s equals someone who is not tarnished with sin. One of the biggest indicators in the Bible of the Immaculate Conception.


So, you're saying that Mary was FULL OF GRACE IN CONTRAST TO St Paul after the Damascus road?

Or, IN CONTRAST TO John on the Isle of Patmos?

What brazen illogic. There is NO "EQUALS" logically, Scripturally, linguistically, theologically, historically, prophetically--JUST AIN'T THERE.

Fantasizing it there isn't remotely sound theology nor even a very sound construction on historical reality.

SCRIPTURE TEACHES ALL US MORTALS that the one who thinks he has no sin is greatly DECEIVED and the truth is not in him. I JOHN 1:8

According to the theological hogwash postulated by this and similar threads, Mary would have certainly "KNOWN" she was immaculately contrived. Therefore she'd have thought she had no sin. Therefore she'd have not had the truth in her.

THAT line of reasoning is MUCH MORE SOUND than the MARY = ARK nonsense above and CERTAINLY MORE REASONABLE than that FULL OF GRACE EQUALS immaculately contrived/conceived.

Observing someone overflowing in a BAPTIZED IN HOLY SPIRIT EXPERIENCE is awesome in many cases. THEY are, in those moments FULL OF GRACE. But still very human. And, as Billy Graham has wisely said--WE LEAK. We need daily refillings.

Pretending that Mary never leaked is utter UnScriptural balderdash.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Dr. Eckleburg

Now we know why Catholics believe that Mary remained a "perpetual virgin". You do remember what happened when people touched the first ark (2 Samuel 6:5-7, I Chron 13:9-10), don't you?

"All I have to ask you is one question - did you hurt my Mama?"

59 posted on 10/09/2007 8:23:56 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time." - Amos 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Quix; the OlLine Rebel; All; Dr. Eckleburg; Iscool; wmfights; armydoc; DungeonMaster; DarthVader
EITHER Mary's follow-on role included NO miracles--even after Pentecost . . .

Or inspired teachings.

Jesus gave care and custody of Mary to John, who just happens to be the longest living Apostle. If Mary was blessed with all the supernatural powers she is claimed to possess, I think it is safe to say John would have mentioned them.

Historically it's interesting that the forgery "The Protoevangelium of James" emerged after the forgery "Acts of Paul and Thecla". In the latter Thecla was given great status because of her virginity, being a devoted disciple and GOD's intervention to save her from men who attempt to burn her alive, or throw her to wild beasts. In the eastern church she was called "Apostle and protomartyr among women". Tertullian complained some Christians were using the example of Thecla to legitimate women's roles of teaching and baptizing in the church.

It was very convenient for the western church that a more submissive role for women was found in the forgery "The Protoevangelium of James".

60 posted on 10/09/2007 8:37:36 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-416 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson