An objection against Marian devotion dealt with.

[Teallaura]

I think I should have avoided the whole setup because everyone is discussing that, and not the objection I wanted to deal with.

"Why would God want us to pray to Mary, when we can go straight to Him, its not nescessary. Bathsheba might have acted as an intercessor, but that's because Solomon isn't omniscient."

I object to the idea that because its not necessary, then that's a good reason to reject Mary as an intercessor on our behalf. I wanted to give the usual situation where I find people giving me that response. I think that was a mistake, and I'll try to avoid things like that in future posts.

And as I've said in the OP, in my response to Paprika and in my response to Cerebrum, I don't base Maryology on the bible alone. This was just an interesting typology that I sometimes bring up around protestants.

However when I do that I've heard a bad response "Even if Bathsheba would have acted as an intercessor into her role as queen mother, that's only because this was a limited human situation. Christ is unlimited, he doesn't need Mary to intercede for us."

But that's a really bad argument since it goes for just about anything we humans do to get us closer to God. Whether its praying, reading scripture, studying theology, posting on theologyweb, going to church, etc... in principle none of that is necessary. God could have arranged it otherwise.

It was this argument alone I wanted to discuss, and I thought it would be helpful to give the context for the responses.

So far no one has actually said whether they think the objection is good or bad. Hopefully its just bad, and glossed over since people here agree with me, and therefore they're discussing the context: the queen mother Bathsheba as a typology of Mary's role to her own Son.

Maybe you should start with a single stated argument. I don't see how the Scripture supports this - but maybe I'm missing the argument?

I got that you are using other sources - but at this point I am just trying to sort out what you're using the Scripture for, exactly. I, too, see the parallel but I don't see where it helps your case - especially not as restated.

[Leonhard]

Maybe you should start with a single stated argument. I don't see how the Scripture supports this - but maybe I'm missing the argument?

I got that you are using other sources - but at this point I am just trying to sort out what you're using the Scripture for, exactly. I, too, see the parallel but I don't see where it helps your case - especially not as restated.

Like this?

"Why would God want us to pray to Mary, when we can go straight to Him, its not nescessary. Bathsheba might have acted as an intercessor, but that's because Solomon isn't omniscient." That's the objection I wanted to deal with. You can read my response to the objection at the bottom of my OP.

I'm sorry to ask but is this part of the OP invisible? Even in the past few posts I've been writing, no one has cited the quoted part.

[One Bad Pig]

So, because one mother in one instance in Scripture acts (unsuccessfully) as an intercessor you're arguing that it follows that Jesus' mother must necessarily also act as an intercessor? Did I understand you correctly?

He's arguing that, in ANE culture, the mother of the king was often a powerful political figure in her own right because of her unique relationship to the king. People would often use her as a conduit to the king. Because of that historical fact (as exemplified by Adonijah's request via Bathsheba), it is not a stretch to say that Mary can be seen to be in that same position. I disagree with his assertion that queen mothers were specially crowned as such (they weren't), as well as his corollary asserting that Mary was invested with special grace (it is not necessary).

[Teallaura]

Like this?

"Why would God want us to pray to Mary, when we can go straight to Him, its not nescessary. Bathsheba might have acted as an intercessor, but that's because Solomon isn't omniscient." That's the objection I wanted to deal with. You can read my response to the objection at the bottom of my OP.

I'm sorry to ask but is this part of the OP invisible? Even in the past few posts I've been writing, no one has cited the quoted part.

Yep - and yes, I'd read it - just wasn't sure if that was the thing or not.

I'm tired and need to get going - I'll reread the whole thing fresh and get back to you. Rught after I get back to RW who's been waiting longer...

[Teallaura]

He's arguing that, in ANE culture, the mother of the king was often a powerful political figure in her own right because of her unique relationship to the king. People would often use her as a conduit to the king. Because of that historical fact (as exemplified by Adonijah's request via Bathsheba), it is not a stretch to say that Mary can be seen to be in that same position. I disagree with his assertion that queen mothers were specially crowned as such (they weren't), as well as his corollary asserting that Mary was invested with special grace (it is not necessary).

Okay, that jives with what I'd gleaned. I'll come back to this, hopefully tomorrow.

[Obsidian]

He's arguing that, in ANE culture, the mother of the king was often a powerful political figure in her own right because of her unique relationship to the king.

If kings could be swayed in such a way, that seems like more of a weakness than anything else.

I stated on this exact thread that I don't agree with devotion to Mary, and you think I'm arguing that the passage you cited implies that she does?

I think the reality is that you just weren't reading or thinking about what I actually posted very carefully. The passage indicates that sitting at Jesus's right hand has to do with merit, not genetics.

[Paprika]

The passage indicates that sitting at Jesus's right hand has to do with merit, not genetics.

How does it indicate merit?

[JonathanL]

I think the reality is that you just weren't reading or thinking about what I actually posted very carefully. The passage indicates that sitting at Jesus's right hand has to do with merit, not genetics.

No it does not. It does not say whether it has to do anything either with merit, or genetics. The criterion for being chosen to sit at the right hand or left hand of Jesus isn't mentioned anywhere in the passage.

[Obsidian]

Mark 10
38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
. . . .
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

No it does not. It does not say whether it has to do anything either with merit, or genetics.

You still are not thinking. Why didn't Jesus just say, "Sorry, that spot is already taken by mom." That is what Leonhart argues.

[Cerebrum123]

Okay, not really feeling like getting into a big response today, but I thought I would at least attempt to clarify a little of what I was trying to say.

1. You keep pointing back to Sola Scriptura, and saying that's where I am arguing from, that's not what I am attempting to do. I'm attempting to show that there are a few parts of Scripture that have a context directly associated with this topic. If Mary is indeed as important as Roman Catholicism claims, shouldn't those passages at least acknowledge such doctrine as existing?

2. No, I am not denying the Trinity, it's probably due to bad wording on my part with this one. I am trying to say that Christ has a unique position to be our mediator to the Father, being both man and God. I'm also trying to understand what kind of sense it makes to have a mediator to our mediator.
Kind of like back when you said that it was necessary for Mary to have been conceived immaculately, because otherwise she could not have given birth to Jesus. If that was true, then you would have needed an endless chain going back before the Fall. To me anyway, it seems like you would have a similar situation of needing mediators, for the mediators, if certain conditions have to be fulfilled.

3. I was asking how far back prayers to saints go, and how far back veneration to Mary goes. I don't think that it's "quote mining" to show that the belief that they can't hear us goes as far back as Tertullian. He was born around 160 A.D., and died around 220 A.D.(some give dates of around 150, or 225 A.D.).

4. I never disagreed that Scripture has a high view of Mary.

5. I agree that not all will have the same amount of honor.

Anyway, I hope that I have cleared up what I have been trying to say. Like I said, not feeling quite up to a lot of debate right now(my pain isn't worse or anything, I just don't feel like doing much serious stuff right now).

Oh, and as a side note, it's actually due to Tektonics that I signed up on TWeb. I had seen it once before(accidentally found a Drachronicler thread, not sure how, I think I had been trying to find out about Constantine on something ), but the endorsement on Tektonics made me want to check things out a bit more.

[RBerman]

Since a lot of Christology is given in the OT by it having analogies that preshadow it, and especially Solomon is given as a parallel, I don't think its unreasonable to see the role of Bathsheba as intercessor and mediator between the king of Solomon, as possible indicating the relationship Mary would have between Christ and man. We do see similarities: she's crowned queen along with her son, Solomon didn't say no to Bathsheba just as Jesus never says no to Mary, people bring requests to Solomon and she succours them, etc...

The objection then is that Christ, since he's all-knowing, wouldn't have any need of an intercessor. King Solomon might, in that he couldn't personally consider all of the problems of state on his own, and Bathsheba could handle the things he couldn't, and bring particular issues to him. To Christ, Mary is completely superfluous, and perhaps even detracts a bit, since instead of praying to her to intercede for us with Him we could pray to Him on our own.

However a person who makes this objection doesn't make it consistently enough: To Christ, the Bible is completely superfluous; if he wanted he could just impart divinely inspired all the knowledge needed into the head of everyone walking around. To Christ, theology of any stripe is unnecessary, again he could simple have Christianity one large mystical experience. To Christ, prayers aren't needed, he already knows our hearts and what we want. The particular way He's chosen to teach us about the Kingdom of God, all go above and beyond what's needed and has much more to do with what is appropriate.

These are all only done by us because we have reasons to suspect that they are either things he's commanded (pray, worship), respect (the bible is authoritative), or something that we need since we aren't given mystical experiences (natural reasoning based studies of theology). Presumable all these things ultimate serve to glorify God more, if perhaps by distancing us from Him we're more aware of His kingly stature and our own lowliness in comparison. If Christ has installed Mary as someone who in Heaven get special grace to mediate for us on our behalf, I don't think anyone can object to it on the ground because its not really needed. If you take it consistently to the end point our own salvation isn't needed.

The first six pages of this thread have ably disposed of the idea that the Bible shows Bathsheba as an ongoing and effective mediator for people wishing to approach Solomon. Apart from those reasons already mentioned, she doesn't even have her own regular chair beside him. They have to go find one for her to sit on to talk to him. (1 Kings 2:1) Clearly she's doing something there which is unusual for her, and as we've seen, things did not turn out as she expected.

Getting to the substance of your comment: Barring some contradiction that becomes nonsense (i.e. both doing and not doing some particular thing simultaneously), God can do whatever He wants. The question, then, is what God has told us about what He has done, and what He tells us (by inference, or directly)we are supposed to do about it. God often works through secondary means; he doesn't just save us through Christ's life, death, and resurrection. He also makes Christ's death efficacious to us through faith, which includes understanding and acceptance of certain theological propositions about the Father, Son, and Spirit, as well as through direct faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit as persons. We know God works through those secondary means because He tells us so, in Scripture.

If, as you say, "Christ has installed Mary as someone who in Heaven get special grace to mediate for us on our behalf," then the absence of information on this topic represents a lacuna in Scripture. Either that lacuna is harmless, and Mary is an optional intercessor but not particularly important. Or else Mariology is important, and Scripture's failure to tell us about the importance of Mariology is a serious deficit which makes us wonder what other equally important spiritual topics God may have omitted from the Bible. In that case, Mariology represents quite a shot across the bow of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

[One Bad Pig]

He's arguing that, in ANE culture, the mother of the king was often a powerful political figure in her own right because of her unique relationship to the king. People would often use her as a conduit to the king. Because of that historical fact (as exemplified by Adonijah's request via Bathsheba), it is not a stretch to say that Mary can be seen to be in that same position. I disagree with his assertion that queen mothers were specially crowned as such (they weren't), as well as his corollary asserting that Mary was invested with special grace (it is not necessary).

It occurs to me that scripture does record an instance where Mary successfully interceded for someone - namely, the hosts of the wedding at Cana. Further, Jesus seems to have assisted only because she asked.

[Teallaura]

Eh, He did it 'cause she wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. And she knew to ask - the groom most probably wouldn't have known that Jesus could do anything about it. Not a great parallel...

[RBerman]

It occurs to me that scripture does record an instance where Mary successfully interceded for someone - namely, the hosts of the wedding at Cana. Further, Jesus seems to have assisted only because she asked.

Well, sure. Hopefully nobody thinks that Mary gave worse advice than the average person, or that Jesus was less likely to listen to his mom than he was to random strangers on the street who made requests of him. But the whole "Bathsheba" line of argumentation seemed to be heading off in a whole 'nother direction.

[One Bad Pig]

Well, sure. Hopefully nobody thinks that Mary gave worse advice than the average person,

Well, that's kinda out of left field.

or that Jesus was less likely to listen to his mom than he was to random strangers on the street who made requests of him. But the whole "Bathsheba" line of argumentation seemed to be heading off in a whole 'nother direction.

The whole idea of the "Bathsheba" line of argumentation is that the king was more likely to listen to her than his estranged brother (though random strangers would work there just as well). I think Leonhard could've done a better job of presenting the argument.