#and whoever has that url has not responded regarding if they will give me the url back
Note
why aren't you seknots...
knights second solos titles dropped
#vi got me some of the urls. and then i was a dumbfuck who made a typo when i was trying to change my url#to ritsus second solo title (mysunshineyouremoonlight)#and i missed the fucking 'n' in moonlight and someone else sniped the url before i realized. and im STILL mad abt it#and whoever has that url has not responded regarding if they will give me the url back#so then kotoko suggested combining both of ritsus solo titles into this. so i just went w/ that bc its cute
3 notes
·
View notes
Link
[New post] Dear Church, Let’s talk Sexual Purity Tue, May 30, 2017 We are going to do the same thing as I can see why it wouldn't be a problem with me know what you think about this is the first time that I would love to see you soon as possible for a little bit more of an impact in the first time that I have a third party that WordPress.com ucheymalo posted: "I have been a Christian all my life, you know by virtue of being born a Christian. I have been a believer for two years now; I just thought I should mention that. Now, from such a young age, my parents took me to Sunday School, Kids Bible Study, they had " Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on The Youthful Vigor Dear Church, Let’s talk Sexual Purity by ucheymalo I have been a Christian all my life, you know by virtue of being born a Christian. I have been a believer for two years now; I just thought I should mention that. Now, from such a young age, my parents took me to Sunday School, Kids Bible Study, they had us (my sisters and I) watching Christian movies and cartoons. Literally everywhere we turned was The Word. Needless to say, the world was flashing itself before our eyes screaming, 'TRY ME! TRY ME!'. Consumption of what the world had to offer introduced me to this thing called SEX! Now up to this age, Church had never taught me about sex. Fast forward to when Church actually started teaching me about sex, I hated it! Don't get me wrong I did not hate the teachings in the Bible about sex, NO! I hated how we (particularly the female specie) were taught about sex. This is why I didn't like it, our (the female specie remember) virginity was oftenly equated to a fragile glass, a sealed envelope and sometimes a glass full of pure water.... As the lessons went on, the fragile glass would be tossed around vigorously with the aim of breaking it. The sealed envelope would move around to as everyone opened like an inch of it and a handful of sand or dirt would be added to the glassful of pure water. The whole point was how sexual encounters with various people defile you, that was fine. Then there was the dreaded question, "Wouldn't you want to give yourself to your husband whole? Not a broken glass nor a torn envelop or dirty water? " Dear Church, WHY? That sentence right there is why I hated the sex talks and I have reason to believe that sentence is why young people in churches are struggling with fornincation and other levels of sexual purity! Why does it have to be that I'll be a virgin to offer myself to another human being struggling with sin; just like me? Why does my virginity have to be equally proportional to offering myself whole to my husband? What if I am a virgin but God never called me for marriage? Is that wasted opportunity? Young people in churches arguing that since it's for the spouse (whom they don't even know about) it's just physical sexual purity. As long as sex has never reached the penetration point, they can do all other things that entails foreplay and sex and exclude the penetration bit of it. Doesn't the guys sexual purity matter too? Does he not have to keep himself for his wife? Dear Church, I choose to be sexually pure ;and not just physically sexual purity but all matters that entail sexual purity; not because of my future husband. He may be a beneficiary of it but he is not the sole reason I do it. I save myself for Christ. Because He paid for my sins at Calvary I shall honor him with my body and my virginity being part of my body. Because I am aware that whoever is in Christ is a new creation, that He has made me new, whole and complete in Him; because my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, I have no business defiling this temple of God that He has entrusted me with. I choose sexual purity because I love God too much that I want to honor Him with every part of my body that includes being sexually pure and because of this, I choose to follow the teachings of Christ in His word The Bible regarding to sexual purity. Love Uchey ucheymalo | May 28, 2017 at 6:55 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: Comment See all comments Like Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from The Youthful Vigor. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://ucheymalowordpresscom.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/dear-church-lets-talk-sexual-purity/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
0 notes
Text
Mary, Catholicism, and the Bibleby
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
One unique feature of Catholicism is the role and status assigned to Mary. The official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are forthright and unreserved in declaring her to be the “mother of God,” and in sanctioning the offering of worship to her and assigning to her an intercessory role (see
Miller
, 2004). Catholics insist that Mary is deserving of respect that surpasses other fleshly mothers, in the same way that a person has greater respect for his or her own fleshly mother. But the New Testament does not make this analogy. While a person’s own fleshly mother certainly deserves more respect than that given to other mothers, Mary is not the fleshly mother of humanity (cf. Genesis 3:20). She is not deserving of any more respect than any other mother. A child views his own mother as
the
mother—because she bore him. But Mary did not give birth to anyone living today. She is no more
the
mother than any other mother.The Catholic Church confuses Mary’s
physical
motherhood (which
is
taught in Scripture—earning for her the surpassing respect of her
physical
children, including Jesus’ respect for her) with an alleged
spiritual
motherhood—about which the Bible says
nothing
. Indeed, to embrace the Catholic view of Mary would require one to repudiate Jesus’ own view of His fleshly mother. This view is accentuated in two separate incidents that occurred while Jesus was on Earth.On one occasion when Jesus was imparting spiritual teaching to a crowd, Mary arrived with her other children and sought to speak to Him:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:46-50, emp. added).
Observe that while Jesus was not being disrespectful to His physical mother, he was contradicting the very aspect of Mary’s status that is advocated by Catholic dogma. Jesus clarified that while His fleshly mother certainly was deserving of respect (cf. Luke 2:51; Ephesians 6:1-3), nevertheless, Mary was secondary to His higher, spiritual concerns. Those who were attending to the assimilation of the spiritual principles that Jesus was imparting were held up by Him as transcending the physical/blood ties associated with mere human relatives.Mark’s account of this incident (3:31-35) is preceded by Jesus’ family (identified in vss. 31-32 as his mother and brothers) questioning His sanity (3:20-21). The Catholic translation (NAB) renders the verses: “He came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” The critical notes that accompany the text of the Catholic Bible make the following comment on these verses: “There were those even among the relatives of Jesus who disbelieved and regarded Jesus as
out of his mind
(21).
Against this background
, Jesus is informed of the arrival of
his mother
and brothers [and sisters] (32)” (1987, p. 1121, italics in orig., emp. added).The other incident in the life of Jesus that illustrates His true assessment of His physical mother occurred as He responded to His critics. Some accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, while others tested Him by challenging Him to produce a sign from heaven. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus gave His usual masterful rebuttal. “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’ ” (Luke 11:27). This unnamed woman in the crowd likely did not intend to accentuate the person of Mary, but simply was expressing her wish that she could have produced such a fine son herself, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Luke 1:48.Nevertheless, her statement expresses the viewpoint of the Catholic Church in its veneration of Mary. If this attitude and emphasis were proper, one would have expected Jesus to give a response that confirmed, bolstered, and sanctioned her declaration. One would have expected that Jesus would have said something to the effect that—
Yes, you are right. The one who bore Me and nursed Me is the “most holy Mother of God” who will be “honored with special reverence” by the Church throughout the centuries, “venerated under the title of ‘God-bearer,’ ” and the faithful will “pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men,” venerate “images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints.”
Why would one expect Jesus to have made comments along these lines? Because the portions of this imaginary response that are in quotes are taken directly from the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church at Vatican II (Abbott, 1966, pp. 94-96).Did Jesus give a response to the woman that in any way resembled these sentiments? Absolutely not! To the contrary, He declared: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28). Instead of “more than that,” the NAB renders it “
rather
” (cf. ASV, NIV, RSV)—further underscoring the contrast He was making. The NASBmakes the Greek even more vivid: “
On the contrary
, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” As University of Cambridge Greek professor C.F.D. Moule noted,
menoun
in Luke 11:28 functions as “an introduction to a new statement
correcting or modifying
a foregoing statement” (1977, p. 163, emp. added). Nicoll was inclined to agree: “
Correction
probably was uppermost in Christ’s thoughts. Under the appearance of approval the woman was taught that
she was mistaken
in thinking that merely to be the mother of an illustrious son constituted felicity” (n.d., 1:550, emp. added). Dana and Mantey also agree: “In Lk. 11:28...the expression contains both
contrast and emphasis
, with the significance of
in fact
,
rather
” (1927, p. 261, italics in orig., emp. added). In essence, Jesus was contradicting the woman and pointing her to the correct focus and object of commendation: not the physical mother of Jesus, but those who obey God’s Word.
THE PRIMARY PASSAGE
The premiere passage of Scripture that is offered to sustain the view that Mary was assigned a special role in the practice of the Christian religion is the statement that Jesus made from the cross:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home (John 19:25-27, emp. added).
The fact that Jesus was referring strictly to the physical care for his earthly mother after His death—and not to an alleged spiritual role that Mary was to fill in Christ’s religion—is evident from the context. Jesus spoke the directive
to John
—not to everyone else present on that occasion, let alone to everyone since. Jesus simply was turning the care of His fleshly mother over to John, since her husband was already deceased and her other children were likely still unbelievers (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). The
very verse
that refers to this oral utterance of Jesus regarding care of His fleshly mother
contains proof of its intended meaning
: “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27).Consider the following three observations: First, Jesus did not entrust the care of His mother
to Peter
! But if Peter were the first pope, Jesus surely would have linked Mary to Peter in order to establish her official spiritual status for all time. Second, Jesus did not arrange to have Mary circulated to the homes of
all
of the disciples, but only to
John’s
home. Jesus knew that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” would see to it that she received adequate care in His absence. Third, John took her to “his own
home
,” i.e., he was attending to her physical needs! He did not take her to any “Holy Shrine of the Blessed Virgin,” or to any other location that would have confirmed a unique role. Indeed, absolutely nothing in this verse leads the objective reader to think that Jesus was assigning a significance or role to Mary that the Catholic Church has since assigned her—“the
Mother
of us all”!Interestingly, if when Jesus said to John, “Behold your mother!,” He intended to call for the veneration of Mary, then the immediately preceding statement directed to Mary pertaining to John, “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26), would necessitate
the veneration of John
by both Mary and everyone since!The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no provision for worship, adoration, or veneration to be directed to Mary. The Bible
forbids
offering praise to
any
human being. All praise, worship, and adoration belongs to God alone (Matthew 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-15; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). To extend veneration to other humans ought to be as horrifying to us as it was to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14-15). Indeed, when Herod accepted such veneration, he was struck dead by God and eaten with worms (Acts 12:23).
REFERENCES
Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966),
The Documents of Vatican II
(New York, NY: America Press).Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).Miller, Dave (2004), “Mary—Mother of God?” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2234
.Moule, C.F.D. (1977 reprint),
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition).Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),
The Expositor’s
Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
New American Bible
(1986), (Nashville, TN: Catholic Bible Press).
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Text
Mary, Catholicism, and the Bibleby
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
One unique feature of Catholicism is the role and status assigned to Mary. The official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are forthright and unreserved in declaring her to be the “mother of God,” and in sanctioning the offering of worship to her and assigning to her an intercessory role (see
Miller
, 2004). Catholics insist that Mary is deserving of respect that surpasses other fleshly mothers, in the same way that a person has greater respect for his or her own fleshly mother. But the New Testament does not make this analogy. While a person’s own fleshly mother certainly deserves more respect than that given to other mothers, Mary is not the fleshly mother of humanity (cf. Genesis 3:20). She is not deserving of any more respect than any other mother. A child views his own mother as
the
mother—because she bore him. But Mary did not give birth to anyone living today. She is no more
the
mother than any other mother.The Catholic Church confuses Mary’s
physical
motherhood (which
is
taught in Scripture—earning for her the surpassing respect of her
physical
children, including Jesus’ respect for her) with an alleged
spiritual
motherhood—about which the Bible says
nothing
. Indeed, to embrace the Catholic view of Mary would require one to repudiate Jesus’ own view of His fleshly mother. This view is accentuated in two separate incidents that occurred while Jesus was on Earth.On one occasion when Jesus was imparting spiritual teaching to a crowd, Mary arrived with her other children and sought to speak to Him:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:46-50, emp. added).
Observe that while Jesus was not being disrespectful to His physical mother, he was contradicting the very aspect of Mary’s status that is advocated by Catholic dogma. Jesus clarified that while His fleshly mother certainly was deserving of respect (cf. Luke 2:51; Ephesians 6:1-3), nevertheless, Mary was secondary to His higher, spiritual concerns. Those who were attending to the assimilation of the spiritual principles that Jesus was imparting were held up by Him as transcending the physical/blood ties associated with mere human relatives.Mark’s account of this incident (3:31-35) is preceded by Jesus’ family (identified in vss. 31-32 as his mother and brothers) questioning His sanity (3:20-21). The Catholic translation (NAB) renders the verses: “He came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” The critical notes that accompany the text of the Catholic Bible make the following comment on these verses: “There were those even among the relatives of Jesus who disbelieved and regarded Jesus as
out of his mind
(21).
Against this background
, Jesus is informed of the arrival of
his mother
and brothers [and sisters] (32)” (1987, p. 1121, italics in orig., emp. added).The other incident in the life of Jesus that illustrates His true assessment of His physical mother occurred as He responded to His critics. Some accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, while others tested Him by challenging Him to produce a sign from heaven. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus gave His usual masterful rebuttal. “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’ ” (Luke 11:27). This unnamed woman in the crowd likely did not intend to accentuate the person of Mary, but simply was expressing her wish that she could have produced such a fine son herself, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Luke 1:48.Nevertheless, her statement expresses the viewpoint of the Catholic Church in its veneration of Mary. If this attitude and emphasis were proper, one would have expected Jesus to give a response that confirmed, bolstered, and sanctioned her declaration. One would have expected that Jesus would have said something to the effect that—
Yes, you are right. The one who bore Me and nursed Me is the “most holy Mother of God” who will be “honored with special reverence” by the Church throughout the centuries, “venerated under the title of ‘God-bearer,’ ” and the faithful will “pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men,” venerate “images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints.”
Why would one expect Jesus to have made comments along these lines? Because the portions of this imaginary response that are in quotes are taken directly from the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church at Vatican II (Abbott, 1966, pp. 94-96).Did Jesus give a response to the woman that in any way resembled these sentiments? Absolutely not! To the contrary, He declared: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28). Instead of “more than that,” the NAB renders it “
rather
” (cf. ASV, NIV, RSV)—further underscoring the contrast He was making. The NASBmakes the Greek even more vivid: “
On the contrary
, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” As University of Cambridge Greek professor C.F.D. Moule noted,
menoun
in Luke 11:28 functions as “an introduction to a new statement
correcting or modifying
a foregoing statement” (1977, p. 163, emp. added). Nicoll was inclined to agree: “
Correction
probably was uppermost in Christ’s thoughts. Under the appearance of approval the woman was taught that
she was mistaken
in thinking that merely to be the mother of an illustrious son constituted felicity” (n.d., 1:550, emp. added). Dana and Mantey also agree: “In Lk. 11:28...the expression contains both
contrast and emphasis
, with the significance of
in fact
,
rather
” (1927, p. 261, italics in orig., emp. added). In essence, Jesus was contradicting the woman and pointing her to the correct focus and object of commendation: not the physical mother of Jesus, but those who obey God’s Word.
THE PRIMARY PASSAGE
The premiere passage of Scripture that is offered to sustain the view that Mary was assigned a special role in the practice of the Christian religion is the statement that Jesus made from the cross:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home (John 19:25-27, emp. added).
The fact that Jesus was referring strictly to the physical care for his earthly mother after His death—and not to an alleged spiritual role that Mary was to fill in Christ’s religion—is evident from the context. Jesus spoke the directive
to John
—not to everyone else present on that occasion, let alone to everyone since. Jesus simply was turning the care of His fleshly mother over to John, since her husband was already deceased and her other children were likely still unbelievers (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). The
very verse
that refers to this oral utterance of Jesus regarding care of His fleshly mother
contains proof of its intended meaning
: “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27).Consider the following three observations: First, Jesus did not entrust the care of His mother
to Peter
! But if Peter were the first pope, Jesus surely would have linked Mary to Peter in order to establish her official spiritual status for all time. Second, Jesus did not arrange to have Mary circulated to the homes of
all
of the disciples, but only to
John’s
home. Jesus knew that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” would see to it that she received adequate care in His absence. Third, John took her to “his own
home
,” i.e., he was attending to her physical needs! He did not take her to any “Holy Shrine of the Blessed Virgin,” or to any other location that would have confirmed a unique role. Indeed, absolutely nothing in this verse leads the objective reader to think that Jesus was assigning a significance or role to Mary that the Catholic Church has since assigned her—“the
Mother
of us all”!Interestingly, if when Jesus said to John, “Behold your mother!,” He intended to call for the veneration of Mary, then the immediately preceding statement directed to Mary pertaining to John, “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26), would necessitate
the veneration of John
by both Mary and everyone since!The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no provision for worship, adoration, or veneration to be directed to Mary. The Bible
forbids
offering praise to
any
human being. All praise, worship, and adoration belongs to God alone (Matthew 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-15; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). To extend veneration to other humans ought to be as horrifying to us as it was to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14-15). Indeed, when Herod accepted such veneration, he was struck dead by God and eaten with worms (Acts 12:23).
REFERENCES
Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966),
The Documents of Vatican II
(New York, NY: America Press).Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).Miller, Dave (2004), “Mary—Mother of God?” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2234
.Moule, C.F.D. (1977 reprint),
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition).Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),
The Expositor’s
Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
New American Bible
(1986), (Nashville, TN: Catholic Bible Press).
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Text
Mary, Catholicism, and the Bibleby
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
One unique feature of Catholicism is the role and status assigned to Mary. The official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are forthright and unreserved in declaring her to be the “mother of God,” and in sanctioning the offering of worship to her and assigning to her an intercessory role (see
Miller
, 2004). Catholics insist that Mary is deserving of respect that surpasses other fleshly mothers, in the same way that a person has greater respect for his or her own fleshly mother. But the New Testament does not make this analogy. While a person’s own fleshly mother certainly deserves more respect than that given to other mothers, Mary is not the fleshly mother of humanity (cf. Genesis 3:20). She is not deserving of any more respect than any other mother. A child views his own mother as
the
mother—because she bore him. But Mary did not give birth to anyone living today. She is no more
the
mother than any other mother.The Catholic Church confuses Mary’s
physical
motherhood (which
is
taught in Scripture—earning for her the surpassing respect of her
physical
children, including Jesus’ respect for her) with an alleged
spiritual
motherhood—about which the Bible says
nothing
. Indeed, to embrace the Catholic view of Mary would require one to repudiate Jesus’ own view of His fleshly mother. This view is accentuated in two separate incidents that occurred while Jesus was on Earth.On one occasion when Jesus was imparting spiritual teaching to a crowd, Mary arrived with her other children and sought to speak to Him:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:46-50, emp. added).
Observe that while Jesus was not being disrespectful to His physical mother, he was contradicting the very aspect of Mary’s status that is advocated by Catholic dogma. Jesus clarified that while His fleshly mother certainly was deserving of respect (cf. Luke 2:51; Ephesians 6:1-3), nevertheless, Mary was secondary to His higher, spiritual concerns. Those who were attending to the assimilation of the spiritual principles that Jesus was imparting were held up by Him as transcending the physical/blood ties associated with mere human relatives.Mark’s account of this incident (3:31-35) is preceded by Jesus’ family (identified in vss. 31-32 as his mother and brothers) questioning His sanity (3:20-21). The Catholic translation (NAB) renders the verses: “He came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” The critical notes that accompany the text of the Catholic Bible make the following comment on these verses: “There were those even among the relatives of Jesus who disbelieved and regarded Jesus as
out of his mind
(21).
Against this background
, Jesus is informed of the arrival of
his mother
and brothers [and sisters] (32)” (1987, p. 1121, italics in orig., emp. added).The other incident in the life of Jesus that illustrates His true assessment of His physical mother occurred as He responded to His critics. Some accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, while others tested Him by challenging Him to produce a sign from heaven. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus gave His usual masterful rebuttal. “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’ ” (Luke 11:27). This unnamed woman in the crowd likely did not intend to accentuate the person of Mary, but simply was expressing her wish that she could have produced such a fine son herself, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Luke 1:48.Nevertheless, her statement expresses the viewpoint of the Catholic Church in its veneration of Mary. If this attitude and emphasis were proper, one would have expected Jesus to give a response that confirmed, bolstered, and sanctioned her declaration. One would have expected that Jesus would have said something to the effect that—
Yes, you are right. The one who bore Me and nursed Me is the “most holy Mother of God” who will be “honored with special reverence” by the Church throughout the centuries, “venerated under the title of ‘God-bearer,’ ” and the faithful will “pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men,” venerate “images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints.”
Why would one expect Jesus to have made comments along these lines? Because the portions of this imaginary response that are in quotes are taken directly from the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church at Vatican II (Abbott, 1966, pp. 94-96).Did Jesus give a response to the woman that in any way resembled these sentiments? Absolutely not! To the contrary, He declared: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28). Instead of “more than that,” the NAB renders it “
rather
” (cf. ASV, NIV, RSV)—further underscoring the contrast He was making. The NASBmakes the Greek even more vivid: “
On the contrary
, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” As University of Cambridge Greek professor C.F.D. Moule noted,
menoun
in Luke 11:28 functions as “an introduction to a new statement
correcting or modifying
a foregoing statement” (1977, p. 163, emp. added). Nicoll was inclined to agree: “
Correction
probably was uppermost in Christ’s thoughts. Under the appearance of approval the woman was taught that
she was mistaken
in thinking that merely to be the mother of an illustrious son constituted felicity” (n.d., 1:550, emp. added). Dana and Mantey also agree: “In Lk. 11:28...the expression contains both
contrast and emphasis
, with the significance of
in fact
,
rather
” (1927, p. 261, italics in orig., emp. added). In essence, Jesus was contradicting the woman and pointing her to the correct focus and object of commendation: not the physical mother of Jesus, but those who obey God’s Word.
THE PRIMARY PASSAGE
The premiere passage of Scripture that is offered to sustain the view that Mary was assigned a special role in the practice of the Christian religion is the statement that Jesus made from the cross:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home (John 19:25-27, emp. added).
The fact that Jesus was referring strictly to the physical care for his earthly mother after His death—and not to an alleged spiritual role that Mary was to fill in Christ’s religion—is evident from the context. Jesus spoke the directive
to John
—not to everyone else present on that occasion, let alone to everyone since. Jesus simply was turning the care of His fleshly mother over to John, since her husband was already deceased and her other children were likely still unbelievers (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). The
very verse
that refers to this oral utterance of Jesus regarding care of His fleshly mother
contains proof of its intended meaning
: “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27).Consider the following three observations: First, Jesus did not entrust the care of His mother
to Peter
! But if Peter were the first pope, Jesus surely would have linked Mary to Peter in order to establish her official spiritual status for all time. Second, Jesus did not arrange to have Mary circulated to the homes of
all
of the disciples, but only to
John’s
home. Jesus knew that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” would see to it that she received adequate care in His absence. Third, John took her to “his own
home
,” i.e., he was attending to her physical needs! He did not take her to any “Holy Shrine of the Blessed Virgin,” or to any other location that would have confirmed a unique role. Indeed, absolutely nothing in this verse leads the objective reader to think that Jesus was assigning a significance or role to Mary that the Catholic Church has since assigned her—“the
Mother
of us all”!Interestingly, if when Jesus said to John, “Behold your mother!,” He intended to call for the veneration of Mary, then the immediately preceding statement directed to Mary pertaining to John, “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26), would necessitate
the veneration of John
by both Mary and everyone since!The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no provision for worship, adoration, or veneration to be directed to Mary. The Bible
forbids
offering praise to
any
human being. All praise, worship, and adoration belongs to God alone (Matthew 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-15; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). To extend veneration to other humans ought to be as horrifying to us as it was to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14-15). Indeed, when Herod accepted such veneration, he was struck dead by God and eaten with worms (Acts 12:23).
REFERENCES
Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966),
The Documents of Vatican II
(New York, NY: America Press).Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).Miller, Dave (2004), “Mary—Mother of God?” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2234
.Moule, C.F.D. (1977 reprint),
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition).Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),
The Expositor’s
Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
New American Bible
(1986), (Nashville, TN: Catholic Bible Press).
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Text
aSiAme
New Post has been published on http://mama-forum.ch/question/asiame-2/
aSiAme
Should blacks date whites
this will depend on the course. If you’re playing a busy nchampionship caliber course and you’re simply a 30 handicap hacker, Don’t play the champion tees, Nwhatever color that they’re. It will slow down play for anyone. you will discover, On friday afternoon nat West Fencepost Municipal, hits the mark is most serious hazard is those hot dogs that go nround and around on the weenie treadmill, There’s no reason not to knock yourself out. m.
NIn other words, Use comman sense. Stand on the back tee at the foremost and tenth and ask yourself nif it looks like fun or torture. If the scorecard lists the rating and slope of every rep,in between each nof tees, Use it as helpful tips. if for example slope is under 113 (and that is essentially average), do it now. NSlopes a lot more than, for example, 130 are for pretty motivated golfers. NAnd if you get four holes in and discover you made a mistake, enhance. ( Full pickup )
thanks to the fact black guys date white women..
method.
I wonder who asked this enquiry? Maybe its since they are fun, they will cook, he or she can dance, and perhaps they are good in bed. capable handle that? there are various reasons why people date other people besides their own race. there isn’t one specific answer, But many honest ones. And it goes for every race. And im not vibrant, Nor african american. I am a puerto rican females. Jajaja.
Lol maybe its very similar to what black women say about white women all the black men are with white women so why not take the white guys=))) ( Full manage )
If you want a White girl and a Black one who should you?
You ought to decide whoever turns you on the most and who has the beliefs and character traits that align closest to what you value most. A little difference in those techniques is good, As it keeps things cool, But too much difference may cause huge arguments later. Leave sex out of it since you won’t be able to think objectively once emotions get into the image. That is why normally, folks don’t have sex until marriage and have one year engagements. like this, although dating, You can look for spiritual match-ups, And while engaged you’d look for emotional matchup. After wed, confidently, You should be physically compatible along. But many couples do it in overturn order. They see who turns them on sexually and then speedily turn to physical attraction. They assume for emotions that they may just fight things out as the time arises, and they do. Then they never make time to see if they are spiritually compatible and share the deepest core beliefs. That concept doesn’t usually work. ( Full treatment )
Do white men date black most women?
not, Me and my white friends sort of see it as taboo and if my friend was dating a black chick i gives him SO MUCH $% for it and I’m not even sure why. Its not even the interracial thing as much as it is just the cultural differences between black women and black men. The white men I know who marry black women do so because they do not give a crap about race. They such as woman, Find her attractive and pleasant to be around, And fall in love. Cultural differences abound in every marriage, it does not matter “run, I’m married to a man who grew up 4000 miles from the me. He forces me nuts, oftentimes, along with stupid accent, And his elbows on the table, And his passion of bowling. But I’m crazy fond of him. ( Full way around the problem )
What should a black women who grow up in a very dysfuntional famly and has only dated white men would a black man be more idea her childhood or does it not matter?
I’m sure it’s possible that a black man can relate more to your family and cultural environment, But that doesn’t mean that black men are more suited to you if you prefer white men. The right man is offered, Be he black or white or whichever race, And you shouldn’t settle for anything less than a man who truly loves you for who you are deep inside your soul. ( Full response )
Should you date the man you’re dating if he is black and you are white and your parents do not approve?
I do not think it really matters what the skin color is. You could be purple and he could be orange and it still wouldn’t matter. Just because somebody looks different on the outside of does nothin to reflect how they are on the inside. Don’t always try to make your mother and father approve of them. If they see that he makes you happy then that’s all that will matter I have similar situation as you. I am women and My boyfriend is white. His parent don’t approve me because I have 2 kids but mostly i know to expect my race. The way my boyfriend told me that his parent told him that i am hunting for a baby daddy to support and think he gonna get me pregnant and using his money which is I AM NOT. to expect LOVE thats all. This is bothering me. ( Full say )
Can vibrant guys date black girls?
obviously, no matter, It only matters if they show you the way you should prepare be treated and respected. Problems will exist as much as people think questions like this need answers I don’t see why not. Do as you please and know that at least a person (us all) Isn’t knowing you. ( Full pick up )
exactly why do people black men date white women?
towards the White Women often treat Black Men better, And will usuallygive them the time; Not expecting Money, Or choice thingslike most Black Women do. Black Men want a romantic relationship with aFamily, And aside from having appreciable lower Abortion Ratesthan Black Women, White Women will be more approachable, truly asShallow, Materialistic and is always to be able to make sacrifices,Doing the required steps to make her man Happy. ( Full respond )
Should I get Pokemon ranger 3 or Pokemon non colored documents?
Pokemon white or black have brand new Pokemon over 150. you should getting black or white maybe both. In the end it is what you truly what you look for best. It depends an advanced ranger fan or an adventure that you can trade and connect with your other Pokemon games. ( Full best solution )
Which starter should you pick in Pokemon monochrome?
It really depends on your decision and what other Pokemon you’veplanned for your team. The Striation City Gym Leader’s main Pokemon come up with a typeadvantage. If you use Snivy, You’ll battle the hearth monkeyPansear, If determine on Tepig you’ll battle the water monkey Panpourand if determine on Oshawott you’ll battle the grass monkey Pansage,You can get a monkey of one’s by talking to the old lady in theDreamyard, She provides the one that is weak to your StarterPokemon’s type but has the advantage against the Gym Leader’sPokemon, You can get your monkey before your Gym battle so it willbe very useful and in the case of the monkey that you will get; Ifyou chose Snivy you have access to the water monkey Panpour, If youchoose Tepig then you’ll get the grass monkey Pansage and if youchoose Oshawott require get the fire monkey Pansage. One recommendation in regards to the choice of Starter is Oshawottsince it can learn all of the water HMs and it has balanced statson Attack and Defense. Another opinion This depends on variety of battler you are. All 3 opt for a combinedbase stat of 550 (True along with Starter Pokemon of allGenerations). The grass types are good for regular Attack andreally good for Speed, The fire types are good for HP and Speed butare really good for regular Attack and the water types’ stats arepretty much evenly divided apart from Special Attackwhich is very high. The cons of each include this amazing. Thegrass types have low Defense and Special Defense additionally verylow HP, The fire types have low Defense and very low SpecialAttacks and the water types stats are not very special with theexception of the Special Attack so if you want regular Attack statswith very high Speed then you should go for the grass type, If youwant HP and Speed with very high regular Attack stats then youshould go with fire types and if you need very high Special Attacksand the other stats not very high then you should go with [url=http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3417037]asiaMe[/url] watertypes. Here are the exact base stats for each Starter in relation to theirtypes Grass Type HP=70, Attack=100, Defense=85, very special Attack=90, [url=https://twitter.com/asiamereview]AsiaME[/url] SpecialDefense=85, Speed=120 Fire type in HP=100, Attack=120, Defense=85,certain Attack=60, SpecialDefense=90, Speed=95 Water write HP=85, Attack=80, Defense=85, original Attack=130, SpecialDefense=80, Speed=90 and the exact base stats for the Starters in grayscale are asfollows: Snivy HP=45, Attack=45, Defense=55, individual Attack=45, specific Defense=55and Speed=63 Tepig HP=65, Attack=63, Defense=45, out of the ordinary Attack=45, extra Defense=45and Speed=45 Oshawott HP=55, Attack=55, Defense=45, important Attack=63, memorable Defense=45and Speed=45. ( Full take )
Should government entities stop the racism between blacks and whites?
n’, The government should not actively stop any racism between blacks and whites or any other race as one should be free to form their own thoughts and opinions. Whenever someones racism goes for to infringe on the rights of others, That’s another story and is unlawful in the US. ______ Improved I’m really sure that all 3 starters stats add up in total are indifferent. Tepig has good proceeds too but, many of them are Fighting. the otter is good, yet the moves sucks but, Can learn very great moves out of the HMs/TMs. i’d personally choose Snivy. Snivy stats are good. i would recommend either Snivy, Or Tepig to the starter! ( Full solve ).
0 notes
Text
Mary, Catholicism, and the Bibleby
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
One unique feature of Catholicism is the role and status assigned to Mary. The official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are forthright and unreserved in declaring her to be the “mother of God,” and in sanctioning the offering of worship to her and assigning to her an intercessory role (see
Miller
, 2004). Catholics insist that Mary is deserving of respect that surpasses other fleshly mothers, in the same way that a person has greater respect for his or her own fleshly mother. But the New Testament does not make this analogy. While a person’s own fleshly mother certainly deserves more respect than that given to other mothers, Mary is not the fleshly mother of humanity (cf. Genesis 3:20). She is not deserving of any more respect than any other mother. A child views his own mother as
the
mother—because she bore him. But Mary did not give birth to anyone living today. She is no more
the
mother than any other mother.The Catholic Church confuses Mary’s
physical
motherhood (which
is
taught in Scripture—earning for her the surpassing respect of her
physical
children, including Jesus’ respect for her) with an alleged
spiritual
motherhood—about which the Bible says
nothing
. Indeed, to embrace the Catholic view of Mary would require one to repudiate Jesus’ own view of His fleshly mother. This view is accentuated in two separate incidents that occurred while Jesus was on Earth.On one occasion when Jesus was imparting spiritual teaching to a crowd, Mary arrived with her other children and sought to speak to Him:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:46-50, emp. added).
Observe that while Jesus was not being disrespectful to His physical mother, he was contradicting the very aspect of Mary’s status that is advocated by Catholic dogma. Jesus clarified that while His fleshly mother certainly was deserving of respect (cf. Luke 2:51; Ephesians 6:1-3), nevertheless, Mary was secondary to His higher, spiritual concerns. Those who were attending to the assimilation of the spiritual principles that Jesus was imparting were held up by Him as transcending the physical/blood ties associated with mere human relatives.Mark’s account of this incident (3:31-35) is preceded by Jesus’ family (identified in vss. 31-32 as his mother and brothers) questioning His sanity (3:20-21). The Catholic translation (NAB) renders the verses: “He came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” The critical notes that accompany the text of the Catholic Bible make the following comment on these verses: “There were those even among the relatives of Jesus who disbelieved and regarded Jesus as
out of his mind
(21).
Against this background
, Jesus is informed of the arrival of
his mother
and brothers [and sisters] (32)” (1987, p. 1121, italics in orig., emp. added).The other incident in the life of Jesus that illustrates His true assessment of His physical mother occurred as He responded to His critics. Some accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, while others tested Him by challenging Him to produce a sign from heaven. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus gave His usual masterful rebuttal. “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’ ” (Luke 11:27). This unnamed woman in the crowd likely did not intend to accentuate the person of Mary, but simply was expressing her wish that she could have produced such a fine son herself, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Luke 1:48.Nevertheless, her statement expresses the viewpoint of the Catholic Church in its veneration of Mary. If this attitude and emphasis were proper, one would have expected Jesus to give a response that confirmed, bolstered, and sanctioned her declaration. One would have expected that Jesus would have said something to the effect that—
Yes, you are right. The one who bore Me and nursed Me is the “most holy Mother of God” who will be “honored with special reverence” by the Church throughout the centuries, “venerated under the title of ‘God-bearer,’ ” and the faithful will “pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men,” venerate “images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints.”
Why would one expect Jesus to have made comments along these lines? Because the portions of this imaginary response that are in quotes are taken directly from the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church at Vatican II (Abbott, 1966, pp. 94-96).Did Jesus give a response to the woman that in any way resembled these sentiments? Absolutely not! To the contrary, He declared: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28). Instead of “more than that,” the NAB renders it “
rather
” (cf. ASV, NIV, RSV)—further underscoring the contrast He was making. The NASBmakes the Greek even more vivid: “
On the contrary
, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” As University of Cambridge Greek professor C.F.D. Moule noted,
menoun
in Luke 11:28 functions as “an introduction to a new statement
correcting or modifying
a foregoing statement” (1977, p. 163, emp. added). Nicoll was inclined to agree: “
Correction
probably was uppermost in Christ’s thoughts. Under the appearance of approval the woman was taught that
she was mistaken
in thinking that merely to be the mother of an illustrious son constituted felicity” (n.d., 1:550, emp. added). Dana and Mantey also agree: “In Lk. 11:28...the expression contains both
contrast and emphasis
, with the significance of
in fact
,
rather
” (1927, p. 261, italics in orig., emp. added). In essence, Jesus was contradicting the woman and pointing her to the correct focus and object of commendation: not the physical mother of Jesus, but those who obey God’s Word.
THE PRIMARY PASSAGE
The premiere passage of Scripture that is offered to sustain the view that Mary was assigned a special role in the practice of the Christian religion is the statement that Jesus made from the cross:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home (John 19:25-27, emp. added).
The fact that Jesus was referring strictly to the physical care for his earthly mother after His death—and not to an alleged spiritual role that Mary was to fill in Christ’s religion—is evident from the context. Jesus spoke the directive
to John
—not to everyone else present on that occasion, let alone to everyone since. Jesus simply was turning the care of His fleshly mother over to John, since her husband was already deceased and her other children were likely still unbelievers (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). The
very verse
that refers to this oral utterance of Jesus regarding care of His fleshly mother
contains proof of its intended meaning
: “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27).Consider the following three observations: First, Jesus did not entrust the care of His mother
to Peter
! But if Peter were the first pope, Jesus surely would have linked Mary to Peter in order to establish her official spiritual status for all time. Second, Jesus did not arrange to have Mary circulated to the homes of
all
of the disciples, but only to
John’s
home. Jesus knew that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” would see to it that she received adequate care in His absence. Third, John took her to “his own
home
,” i.e., he was attending to her physical needs! He did not take her to any “Holy Shrine of the Blessed Virgin,” or to any other location that would have confirmed a unique role. Indeed, absolutely nothing in this verse leads the objective reader to think that Jesus was assigning a significance or role to Mary that the Catholic Church has since assigned her—“the
Mother
of us all”!Interestingly, if when Jesus said to John, “Behold your mother!,” He intended to call for the veneration of Mary, then the immediately preceding statement directed to Mary pertaining to John, “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26), would necessitate
the veneration of John
by both Mary and everyone since!The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no provision for worship, adoration, or veneration to be directed to Mary. The Bible
forbids
offering praise to
any
human being. All praise, worship, and adoration belongs to God alone (Matthew 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-15; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). To extend veneration to other humans ought to be as horrifying to us as it was to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14-15). Indeed, when Herod accepted such veneration, he was struck dead by God and eaten with worms (Acts 12:23).
REFERENCES
Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966),
The Documents of Vatican II
(New York, NY: America Press).Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).Miller, Dave (2004), “Mary—Mother of God?” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2234
.Moule, C.F.D. (1977 reprint),
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition).Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),
The Expositor’s
Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
New American Bible
(1986), (Nashville, TN: Catholic Bible Press).
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Text
Mary, Catholicism, and the Bibleby
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
One unique feature of Catholicism is the role and status assigned to Mary. The official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are forthright and unreserved in declaring her to be the “mother of God,” and in sanctioning the offering of worship to her and assigning to her an intercessory role (see
Miller
, 2004). Catholics insist that Mary is deserving of respect that surpasses other fleshly mothers, in the same way that a person has greater respect for his or her own fleshly mother. But the New Testament does not make this analogy. While a person’s own fleshly mother certainly deserves more respect than that given to other mothers, Mary is not the fleshly mother of humanity (cf. Genesis 3:20). She is not deserving of any more respect than any other mother. A child views his own mother as
the
mother—because she bore him. But Mary did not give birth to anyone living today. She is no more
the
mother than any other mother.The Catholic Church confuses Mary’s
physical
motherhood (which
is
taught in Scripture—earning for her the surpassing respect of her
physical
children, including Jesus’ respect for her) with an alleged
spiritual
motherhood—about which the Bible says
nothing
. Indeed, to embrace the Catholic view of Mary would require one to repudiate Jesus’ own view of His fleshly mother. This view is accentuated in two separate incidents that occurred while Jesus was on Earth.On one occasion when Jesus was imparting spiritual teaching to a crowd, Mary arrived with her other children and sought to speak to Him:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:46-50, emp. added).
Observe that while Jesus was not being disrespectful to His physical mother, he was contradicting the very aspect of Mary’s status that is advocated by Catholic dogma. Jesus clarified that while His fleshly mother certainly was deserving of respect (cf. Luke 2:51; Ephesians 6:1-3), nevertheless, Mary was secondary to His higher, spiritual concerns. Those who were attending to the assimilation of the spiritual principles that Jesus was imparting were held up by Him as transcending the physical/blood ties associated with mere human relatives.Mark’s account of this incident (3:31-35) is preceded by Jesus’ family (identified in vss. 31-32 as his mother and brothers) questioning His sanity (3:20-21). The Catholic translation (NAB) renders the verses: “He came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” The critical notes that accompany the text of the Catholic Bible make the following comment on these verses: “There were those even among the relatives of Jesus who disbelieved and regarded Jesus as
out of his mind
(21).
Against this background
, Jesus is informed of the arrival of
his mother
and brothers [and sisters] (32)” (1987, p. 1121, italics in orig., emp. added).The other incident in the life of Jesus that illustrates His true assessment of His physical mother occurred as He responded to His critics. Some accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, while others tested Him by challenging Him to produce a sign from heaven. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus gave His usual masterful rebuttal. “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’ ” (Luke 11:27). This unnamed woman in the crowd likely did not intend to accentuate the person of Mary, but simply was expressing her wish that she could have produced such a fine son herself, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Luke 1:48.Nevertheless, her statement expresses the viewpoint of the Catholic Church in its veneration of Mary. If this attitude and emphasis were proper, one would have expected Jesus to give a response that confirmed, bolstered, and sanctioned her declaration. One would have expected that Jesus would have said something to the effect that—
Yes, you are right. The one who bore Me and nursed Me is the “most holy Mother of God” who will be “honored with special reverence” by the Church throughout the centuries, “venerated under the title of ‘God-bearer,’ ” and the faithful will “pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men,” venerate “images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints.”
Why would one expect Jesus to have made comments along these lines? Because the portions of this imaginary response that are in quotes are taken directly from the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church at Vatican II (Abbott, 1966, pp. 94-96).Did Jesus give a response to the woman that in any way resembled these sentiments? Absolutely not! To the contrary, He declared: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28). Instead of “more than that,” the NAB renders it “
rather
” (cf. ASV, NIV, RSV)—further underscoring the contrast He was making. The NASBmakes the Greek even more vivid: “
On the contrary
, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” As University of Cambridge Greek professor C.F.D. Moule noted,
menoun
in Luke 11:28 functions as “an introduction to a new statement
correcting or modifying
a foregoing statement” (1977, p. 163, emp. added). Nicoll was inclined to agree: “
Correction
probably was uppermost in Christ’s thoughts. Under the appearance of approval the woman was taught that
she was mistaken
in thinking that merely to be the mother of an illustrious son constituted felicity” (n.d., 1:550, emp. added). Dana and Mantey also agree: “In Lk. 11:28...the expression contains both
contrast and emphasis
, with the significance of
in fact
,
rather
” (1927, p. 261, italics in orig., emp. added). In essence, Jesus was contradicting the woman and pointing her to the correct focus and object of commendation: not the physical mother of Jesus, but those who obey God’s Word.
THE PRIMARY PASSAGE
The premiere passage of Scripture that is offered to sustain the view that Mary was assigned a special role in the practice of the Christian religion is the statement that Jesus made from the cross:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home (John 19:25-27, emp. added).
The fact that Jesus was referring strictly to the physical care for his earthly mother after His death—and not to an alleged spiritual role that Mary was to fill in Christ’s religion—is evident from the context. Jesus spoke the directive
to John
—not to everyone else present on that occasion, let alone to everyone since. Jesus simply was turning the care of His fleshly mother over to John, since her husband was already deceased and her other children were likely still unbelievers (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). The
very verse
that refers to this oral utterance of Jesus regarding care of His fleshly mother
contains proof of its intended meaning
: “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27).Consider the following three observations: First, Jesus did not entrust the care of His mother
to Peter
! But if Peter were the first pope, Jesus surely would have linked Mary to Peter in order to establish her official spiritual status for all time. Second, Jesus did not arrange to have Mary circulated to the homes of
all
of the disciples, but only to
John’s
home. Jesus knew that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” would see to it that she received adequate care in His absence. Third, John took her to “his own
home
,” i.e., he was attending to her physical needs! He did not take her to any “Holy Shrine of the Blessed Virgin,” or to any other location that would have confirmed a unique role. Indeed, absolutely nothing in this verse leads the objective reader to think that Jesus was assigning a significance or role to Mary that the Catholic Church has since assigned her—“the
Mother
of us all”!Interestingly, if when Jesus said to John, “Behold your mother!,” He intended to call for the veneration of Mary, then the immediately preceding statement directed to Mary pertaining to John, “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26), would necessitate
the veneration of John
by both Mary and everyone since!The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no provision for worship, adoration, or veneration to be directed to Mary. The Bible
forbids
offering praise to
any
human being. All praise, worship, and adoration belongs to God alone (Matthew 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-15; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). To extend veneration to other humans ought to be as horrifying to us as it was to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14-15). Indeed, when Herod accepted such veneration, he was struck dead by God and eaten with worms (Acts 12:23).
REFERENCES
Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966),
The Documents of Vatican II
(New York, NY: America Press).Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).Miller, Dave (2004), “Mary—Mother of God?” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2234
.Moule, C.F.D. (1977 reprint),
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition).Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),
The Expositor’s
Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
New American Bible
(1986), (Nashville, TN: Catholic Bible Press).
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Text
Mary, Catholicism, and the Bibleby
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
One unique feature of Catholicism is the role and status assigned to Mary. The official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are forthright and unreserved in declaring her to be the “mother of God,” and in sanctioning the offering of worship to her and assigning to her an intercessory role (see
Miller
, 2004). Catholics insist that Mary is deserving of respect that surpasses other fleshly mothers, in the same way that a person has greater respect for his or her own fleshly mother. But the New Testament does not make this analogy. While a person’s own fleshly mother certainly deserves more respect than that given to other mothers, Mary is not the fleshly mother of humanity (cf. Genesis 3:20). She is not deserving of any more respect than any other mother. A child views his own mother as
the
mother—because she bore him. But Mary did not give birth to anyone living today. She is no more
the
mother than any other mother.The Catholic Church confuses Mary’s
physical
motherhood (which
is
taught in Scripture—earning for her the surpassing respect of her
physical
children, including Jesus’ respect for her) with an alleged
spiritual
motherhood—about which the Bible says
nothing
. Indeed, to embrace the Catholic view of Mary would require one to repudiate Jesus’ own view of His fleshly mother. This view is accentuated in two separate incidents that occurred while Jesus was on Earth.On one occasion when Jesus was imparting spiritual teaching to a crowd, Mary arrived with her other children and sought to speak to Him:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:46-50, emp. added).
Observe that while Jesus was not being disrespectful to His physical mother, he was contradicting the very aspect of Mary’s status that is advocated by Catholic dogma. Jesus clarified that while His fleshly mother certainly was deserving of respect (cf. Luke 2:51; Ephesians 6:1-3), nevertheless, Mary was secondary to His higher, spiritual concerns. Those who were attending to the assimilation of the spiritual principles that Jesus was imparting were held up by Him as transcending the physical/blood ties associated with mere human relatives.Mark’s account of this incident (3:31-35) is preceded by Jesus’ family (identified in vss. 31-32 as his mother and brothers) questioning His sanity (3:20-21). The Catholic translation (NAB) renders the verses: “He came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” The critical notes that accompany the text of the Catholic Bible make the following comment on these verses: “There were those even among the relatives of Jesus who disbelieved and regarded Jesus as
out of his mind
(21).
Against this background
, Jesus is informed of the arrival of
his mother
and brothers [and sisters] (32)” (1987, p. 1121, italics in orig., emp. added).The other incident in the life of Jesus that illustrates His true assessment of His physical mother occurred as He responded to His critics. Some accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, while others tested Him by challenging Him to produce a sign from heaven. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus gave His usual masterful rebuttal. “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’ ” (Luke 11:27). This unnamed woman in the crowd likely did not intend to accentuate the person of Mary, but simply was expressing her wish that she could have produced such a fine son herself, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Luke 1:48.Nevertheless, her statement expresses the viewpoint of the Catholic Church in its veneration of Mary. If this attitude and emphasis were proper, one would have expected Jesus to give a response that confirmed, bolstered, and sanctioned her declaration. One would have expected that Jesus would have said something to the effect that—
Yes, you are right. The one who bore Me and nursed Me is the “most holy Mother of God” who will be “honored with special reverence” by the Church throughout the centuries, “venerated under the title of ‘God-bearer,’ ” and the faithful will “pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men,” venerate “images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints.”
Why would one expect Jesus to have made comments along these lines? Because the portions of this imaginary response that are in quotes are taken directly from the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church at Vatican II (Abbott, 1966, pp. 94-96).Did Jesus give a response to the woman that in any way resembled these sentiments? Absolutely not! To the contrary, He declared: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28). Instead of “more than that,” the NAB renders it “
rather
” (cf. ASV, NIV, RSV)—further underscoring the contrast He was making. The NASBmakes the Greek even more vivid: “
On the contrary
, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” As University of Cambridge Greek professor C.F.D. Moule noted,
menoun
in Luke 11:28 functions as “an introduction to a new statement
correcting or modifying
a foregoing statement” (1977, p. 163, emp. added). Nicoll was inclined to agree: “
Correction
probably was uppermost in Christ’s thoughts. Under the appearance of approval the woman was taught that
she was mistaken
in thinking that merely to be the mother of an illustrious son constituted felicity” (n.d., 1:550, emp. added). Dana and Mantey also agree: “In Lk. 11:28...the expression contains both
contrast and emphasis
, with the significance of
in fact
,
rather
” (1927, p. 261, italics in orig., emp. added). In essence, Jesus was contradicting the woman and pointing her to the correct focus and object of commendation: not the physical mother of Jesus, but those who obey God’s Word.
THE PRIMARY PASSAGE
The premiere passage of Scripture that is offered to sustain the view that Mary was assigned a special role in the practice of the Christian religion is the statement that Jesus made from the cross:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home (John 19:25-27, emp. added).
The fact that Jesus was referring strictly to the physical care for his earthly mother after His death—and not to an alleged spiritual role that Mary was to fill in Christ’s religion—is evident from the context. Jesus spoke the directive
to John
—not to everyone else present on that occasion, let alone to everyone since. Jesus simply was turning the care of His fleshly mother over to John, since her husband was already deceased and her other children were likely still unbelievers (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). The
very verse
that refers to this oral utterance of Jesus regarding care of His fleshly mother
contains proof of its intended meaning
: “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27).Consider the following three observations: First, Jesus did not entrust the care of His mother
to Peter
! But if Peter were the first pope, Jesus surely would have linked Mary to Peter in order to establish her official spiritual status for all time. Second, Jesus did not arrange to have Mary circulated to the homes of
all
of the disciples, but only to
John’s
home. Jesus knew that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” would see to it that she received adequate care in His absence. Third, John took her to “his own
home
,” i.e., he was attending to her physical needs! He did not take her to any “Holy Shrine of the Blessed Virgin,” or to any other location that would have confirmed a unique role. Indeed, absolutely nothing in this verse leads the objective reader to think that Jesus was assigning a significance or role to Mary that the Catholic Church has since assigned her—“the
Mother
of us all”!Interestingly, if when Jesus said to John, “Behold your mother!,” He intended to call for the veneration of Mary, then the immediately preceding statement directed to Mary pertaining to John, “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26), would necessitate
the veneration of John
by both Mary and everyone since!The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no provision for worship, adoration, or veneration to be directed to Mary. The Bible
forbids
offering praise to
any
human being. All praise, worship, and adoration belongs to God alone (Matthew 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-15; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). To extend veneration to other humans ought to be as horrifying to us as it was to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14-15). Indeed, when Herod accepted such veneration, he was struck dead by God and eaten with worms (Acts 12:23).
REFERENCES
Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966),
The Documents of Vatican II
(New York, NY: America Press).Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).Miller, Dave (2004), “Mary—Mother of God?” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2234
.Moule, C.F.D. (1977 reprint),
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition).Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),
The Expositor’s
Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
New American Bible
(1986), (Nashville, TN: Catholic Bible Press).
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Text
Mary, Catholicism, and the Bibleby
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
One unique feature of Catholicism is the role and status assigned to Mary. The official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are forthright and unreserved in declaring her to be the “mother of God,” and in sanctioning the offering of worship to her and assigning to her an intercessory role (see
Miller
, 2004). Catholics insist that Mary is deserving of respect that surpasses other fleshly mothers, in the same way that a person has greater respect for his or her own fleshly mother. But the New Testament does not make this analogy. While a person’s own fleshly mother certainly deserves more respect than that given to other mothers, Mary is not the fleshly mother of humanity (cf. Genesis 3:20). She is not deserving of any more respect than any other mother. A child views his own mother as
the
mother—because she bore him. But Mary did not give birth to anyone living today. She is no more
the
mother than any other mother.The Catholic Church confuses Mary’s
physical
motherhood (which
is
taught in Scripture—earning for her the surpassing respect of her
physical
children, including Jesus’ respect for her) with an alleged
spiritual
motherhood—about which the Bible says
nothing
. Indeed, to embrace the Catholic view of Mary would require one to repudiate Jesus’ own view of His fleshly mother. This view is accentuated in two separate incidents that occurred while Jesus was on Earth.On one occasion when Jesus was imparting spiritual teaching to a crowd, Mary arrived with her other children and sought to speak to Him:
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:46-50, emp. added).
Observe that while Jesus was not being disrespectful to His physical mother, he was contradicting the very aspect of Mary’s status that is advocated by Catholic dogma. Jesus clarified that while His fleshly mother certainly was deserving of respect (cf. Luke 2:51; Ephesians 6:1-3), nevertheless, Mary was secondary to His higher, spiritual concerns. Those who were attending to the assimilation of the spiritual principles that Jesus was imparting were held up by Him as transcending the physical/blood ties associated with mere human relatives.Mark’s account of this incident (3:31-35) is preceded by Jesus’ family (identified in vss. 31-32 as his mother and brothers) questioning His sanity (3:20-21). The Catholic translation (NAB) renders the verses: “He came home. Again (the) crowd gathered, making it impossible for them even to eat. When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” The critical notes that accompany the text of the Catholic Bible make the following comment on these verses: “There were those even among the relatives of Jesus who disbelieved and regarded Jesus as
out of his mind
(21).
Against this background
, Jesus is informed of the arrival of
his mother
and brothers [and sisters] (32)” (1987, p. 1121, italics in orig., emp. added).The other incident in the life of Jesus that illustrates His true assessment of His physical mother occurred as He responded to His critics. Some accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, while others tested Him by challenging Him to produce a sign from heaven. Knowing their thoughts, Jesus gave His usual masterful rebuttal. “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’ ” (Luke 11:27). This unnamed woman in the crowd likely did not intend to accentuate the person of Mary, but simply was expressing her wish that she could have produced such a fine son herself, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Luke 1:48.Nevertheless, her statement expresses the viewpoint of the Catholic Church in its veneration of Mary. If this attitude and emphasis were proper, one would have expected Jesus to give a response that confirmed, bolstered, and sanctioned her declaration. One would have expected that Jesus would have said something to the effect that—
Yes, you are right. The one who bore Me and nursed Me is the “most holy Mother of God” who will be “honored with special reverence” by the Church throughout the centuries, “venerated under the title of ‘God-bearer,’ ” and the faithful will “pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men,” venerate “images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints.”
Why would one expect Jesus to have made comments along these lines? Because the portions of this imaginary response that are in quotes are taken directly from the official pronouncements of the Catholic Church at Vatican II (Abbott, 1966, pp. 94-96).Did Jesus give a response to the woman that in any way resembled these sentiments? Absolutely not! To the contrary, He declared: “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:28). Instead of “more than that,” the NAB renders it “
rather
” (cf. ASV, NIV, RSV)—further underscoring the contrast He was making. The NASBmakes the Greek even more vivid: “
On the contrary
, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” As University of Cambridge Greek professor C.F.D. Moule noted,
menoun
in Luke 11:28 functions as “an introduction to a new statement
correcting or modifying
a foregoing statement” (1977, p. 163, emp. added). Nicoll was inclined to agree: “
Correction
probably was uppermost in Christ’s thoughts. Under the appearance of approval the woman was taught that
she was mistaken
in thinking that merely to be the mother of an illustrious son constituted felicity” (n.d., 1:550, emp. added). Dana and Mantey also agree: “In Lk. 11:28...the expression contains both
contrast and emphasis
, with the significance of
in fact
,
rather
” (1927, p. 261, italics in orig., emp. added). In essence, Jesus was contradicting the woman and pointing her to the correct focus and object of commendation: not the physical mother of Jesus, but those who obey God’s Word.
THE PRIMARY PASSAGE
The premiere passage of Scripture that is offered to sustain the view that Mary was assigned a special role in the practice of the Christian religion is the statement that Jesus made from the cross:
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home (John 19:25-27, emp. added).
The fact that Jesus was referring strictly to the physical care for his earthly mother after His death—and not to an alleged spiritual role that Mary was to fill in Christ’s religion—is evident from the context. Jesus spoke the directive
to John
—not to everyone else present on that occasion, let alone to everyone since. Jesus simply was turning the care of His fleshly mother over to John, since her husband was already deceased and her other children were likely still unbelievers (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). The
very verse
that refers to this oral utterance of Jesus regarding care of His fleshly mother
contains proof of its intended meaning
: “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27).Consider the following three observations: First, Jesus did not entrust the care of His mother
to Peter
! But if Peter were the first pope, Jesus surely would have linked Mary to Peter in order to establish her official spiritual status for all time. Second, Jesus did not arrange to have Mary circulated to the homes of
all
of the disciples, but only to
John’s
home. Jesus knew that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” would see to it that she received adequate care in His absence. Third, John took her to “his own
home
,” i.e., he was attending to her physical needs! He did not take her to any “Holy Shrine of the Blessed Virgin,” or to any other location that would have confirmed a unique role. Indeed, absolutely nothing in this verse leads the objective reader to think that Jesus was assigning a significance or role to Mary that the Catholic Church has since assigned her—“the
Mother
of us all”!Interestingly, if when Jesus said to John, “Behold your mother!,” He intended to call for the veneration of Mary, then the immediately preceding statement directed to Mary pertaining to John, “Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26), would necessitate
the veneration of John
by both Mary and everyone since!The fact of the matter is that the Bible makes no provision for worship, adoration, or veneration to be directed to Mary. The Bible
forbids
offering praise to
any
human being. All praise, worship, and adoration belongs to God alone (Matthew 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-15; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). To extend veneration to other humans ought to be as horrifying to us as it was to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14-15). Indeed, when Herod accepted such veneration, he was struck dead by God and eaten with worms (Acts 12:23).
REFERENCES
Abbott, Walter, ed. (1966),
The Documents of Vatican II
(New York, NY: America Press).Dana, H.E. and Julius Mantey (1927),
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(Toronto, Canada: Macmillan).Miller, Dave (2004), “Mary—Mother of God?” [On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2234
.Moule, C.F.D. (1977 reprint),
An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition).Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date),
The Expositor’s
Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
New American Bible
(1986), (Nashville, TN: Catholic Bible Press).
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
alexis-royce
ǝɔʎoɹsᴉxǝlɐ
myassstro
artist
scorpione69italy
Italy
lfmcn
Lafmacun
sabinemorans
Tell Me, Are You Luicfer?