An objection against Marian devotion dealt with.

[Leonhard]

[Paprika]

We do see similarities: she's crowned queen along with her son

Bathsheba is crowned queen?

Solomon didn't say no to Bathsheba just as Jesus never says no to Mary, people bring requests to Solomon and she succours them.

Solomon does say yes at first, but then later rejects her request. And only one instance is recorded of Bathsheba interceding for one person.

All I can conclude is that you're twisting Scripture just to prop up your own view.

[Obsidian]

Mark 10
36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
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?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

[JonathanL]

Mark 10
36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.
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?
39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

I don't agree with Marian devotion, but I have to ask (under the assumption that you're using this passage to argue against Marian devotion) exactly what you think this passage establishes when it comes to RCC views on Maria?

[Leonhard]

Bathsheba is crowned queen?

Queen mother to be more precise, my bad.

Solomon does say yes at first, but then later rejects her request.

I never said the analogy is perfect, hopefully you'd think the same about Solomon and Jesus, otherwise you'd be wondering where the harem for Jesus would be, or why Solomon had one. The fact is though that Solomon clearly, along with David, prefigured some of the ways Christ would be to us. I don't think its a stretch, without basing all of Mariology on it, that Bathsheba showed us the role Mary would play.

And only one instance is recorded of Bathsheba interceding for one person.

Why is this relevant?

All I can conclude is that you're twisting Scripture just to prop up your own view.

I accidentally called Bathsheba queen rather queen-mother, and according to you the prefiguration isn't perfect. That's hardly twisting scriptures, it would be if I was claiming that things happened that didn't, or the words meant something they didn't. As it stands I think you're the one failing to realise the implications of what's written. However as I said in the beginning I will not make a positive defence of Mariology here.

This thread is about one response that comes up a lot 'Mary doesn't need to intercede for us', more especially in the context of this passage.

[Paprika]

Queen mother to be more precise, my bad.

She is crowned queen mother?

That's hardly twisting scriptures, it would be if I was claiming that things happened that didn't, or the words meant something they didn't. As it stands I think you're the one failing to realise the implications of what's written. However as I said in the beginning I will not make a positive defence of Mariology here.

Neither am I making a attack of Marioogy. Now this is how you twisted Scripture:

1) Claiming that Bathsheba was crowned - whether as queen or queen mother, it is not recorded that it happened

2) Claiming that Solomon "didn't say no to Bathsheba" - he does say no emphatically later, with a rather harsh rebuke

I don't think its a stretch, without basing all of Mariology on it, that Bathsheba showed us the role Mary would play.

Scripture is pretty clear that Jesus would be and was like many people in certain respects: Moses, David, Solomon are key examples. It doesn't say that about Mary.

[Leonhard]

She is crowned queen mother?

That's what Bathsheba is. This isn't controversial as far as I remember.

1) Claiming that Bathsheba was crowned - whether as queen or queen mother, it is not recorded that it happened

2) Claiming that Solomon "didn't say no to Bathsheba" - he does say no emphatically later, with a rather harsh rebuke

Scripture is pretty clear that Jesus would be and was like many people in certain respects: Moses, David, Solomon are key examples. It doesn't say that about Mary.

This amounts to an argument from silence. There's no biblical principle, and the bible never states that only those things which the apostles mentioned as prefigurations are exclusively those things.

I don't have to say more in response to it than that, however we know that God patterns things on the way he did things in the past: The Exodus becomes a prefiguration of baptism and conversion; The Final Judgement is prefigured in Sodom and Gomorra. Even the destruction of the Jewish temple in year 70AD was prefigured.

And again, this isn't the point of this thread. I opened with this to give context to an objection to Mariology I keep hearing. I assume you have no problem with that rebuttal.

[Paprika]

That's what Bathsheba is. This isn't controversial.

There was no crowning.

I need to understand the kind of objection you're trying to make... if something isn't directly mentioned in the Bible, then we can call it into question?

Of course we can call it into question. You need to rigorously show that it can and should be inferred.

I quoted that at the beginning. You'd have to draw the phrasing 'and sat on his right' into question. However there's no independent reason to assume that the it meant anything different in this context. If Bathsheba sat there, then she held a queen title of authority, which is what it always means when in the Bible someone is asked to sit at the right hand. The same with Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father, being our Lord or lords.

I don't dispute that it is a position of honour, but I would like to see evidence that it would necessarily connote a position of power.

This amounts to an argument from silence. There's no biblical principle, and the bible never states that only those things which the apostles mentioned as prefigurations are exclusively those things.

I'm not arguing that it cannot be the case. I'm saying that given the lack of any evidence there's no reason why we should think it is so.

And again, this isn't the point of this thread.

Which is why the first half was expounding on the supposed Bathsheba-Mary typology.

In response to your edit:

However there's no part of this where he rebukes her. He simple looks through Adonisja's subterfuge and executes him.

Solomon places Bathsheba as the one interceding for the traitors, those who had made an attempt to seize the kingdom (with Adonijah trying to do so again). In the context where she was treated with high honour and her request initially granted, this method of refusal is a very sharp rebuke.

[Paprika]

I missed this earlier.

Why is this relevant?

Because you earlier said that Bathsheba succoured "people". The text only has one person being succoured. This weakens your portrayal of her as someone who would regularly mediate.

[Leonhard]

There was no crowning.

How do you know that?

I don't dispute that it is a position of honour, but I would like to see evidence that it would necessarily connote a position of power.

What does 'sit at my right hand' mean? Does it have a different meaning here, than what it usually does?

Which is why the first half was expounding on the supposed Bathsheba-Mary typology.

Yes, I usually hear the objection I mentioned in the OP during that part.

[Paprika]

How do you know that?

I meant that there's no crowning in the text.

What does 'sit at my right hand' mean? Does it have a different meaning here, than what it usually does?

You're claiming that it would "usually" have a certain meaning. Please do show that.

[Leonhard]

I missed this earlier.

Because you earlier said that Bathsheba succoured "people". The text only has one person being succoured. This weakens your portrayal of her as someone who would regularly mediate.

Again, you believe only one person in all of her existence came to her? It seems far more plausible that only one example is mentioned. Bathsheba was not punished for her request in any way, and there's also nothing that indicates that anything changed afterwards.

[Paprika]

Again, you believe only one person in all of her existence came to her? It seems far more plausible that only one example is mentioned. Bathsheba was not punished for her request in any way, and there's also nothing that indicates that anything changed afterwards.

My point is that there's only evidence for one succouring, and that this of course was ultimately rejected. Your case for Bathsheba as mediator for "people" is not supported by the text.

[Leonhard]

I meant that there's no crowning in the text.

So? Lets say that there were a mention of any crowning in the Bible at all. Is Solomon suddenly no longer a king?

You're claiming that it would "usually" have a certain meaning. Please do show that.

This is getting too far off topic. I might open another thread about that.

[Paprika]

So? Lets say that there were a mention of any crowning in the Bible at all. Is Solomon suddenly no longer a king?

I'm pointing out the obvious, that there was no crowning of Bathsheba in the text. The burden of proof for any implicit or inferred crowning despite the lack of any explicit crowning of Bathsheba (actually, I don't even know what Bathsheba's supposed crowning is supposed to correspond to for Mary in your theory) lies entirely with you.