WWJD Did Jesus Pray to Mary?

[ViaCrucis]

Asking and praying are not the same thing. When I ask a cashier for change, I am not praying to them. When I ask a question on a website, I am not praying. Be careful embracing unsound ideas about Christianity.

It's literally what "pray" means. Have you ever watched a movie, a TV show, read a book in which a character says something like, "Pray tell me"? That means "please tell me", it is a request. Or "I pray thee" that is, "I ask of you".

"pray (v.)
early 13c., preien, "ask earnestly, beg (someone)," also (c. 1300) in a religious sense, "pray to a god or saint," from Old French preier "to pray" (c. 900, Modern French prier), from Vulgar Latin *precare (also source of Italian pregare), from Latin precari "ask earnestly, beg, entreat," from *prex (plural preces, genitive precis) "prayer, request, entreaty," from PIE root *prek- "to ask, request, entreat."

From early 14c. as "to invite." The deferential parenthetical expression I pray you, "please, if you will," attested from late 14c. (from c. 1300 as I pray thee), was contracted to pray in 16c. Related: Prayed; praying." - pray | Origin and meaning of pray by Online Etymology Dictionary

The notion of using "prayer" in relation to God, as an explicitly religious word is how we typically use it today.

But historically the word really just means to petition, to ask, to entreat.

Among Catholic and Orthodox Christians "prayer" to the Saints is asking the saints to pray for them. That is why in the petition of the Hail Mary it is, "Pray for us sinners". It is a prayer request.

As such "prayer" to the saints isn't "prayer" in the sense of what is generally understood as "an address directed toward God or object of worship"; it's a prayer request.

For the sake of clarity, the invocation of the saints isn't part of my religious practice. Lutheranism historically has rejected the practice of asking the saints and angels for their prayers; not because we believe they can't pray for us (they can, and indeed do, as the Scriptures themselves testify); but because we can't be certain they can hear us. Maybe they can, maybe they can't--we don't know. But we can be confident that they do pray for us, and we can be confident that our address to God alone is sufficient.

What wrong ideas about Christianity do you believe I have?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes we do.

among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s children. Matthew 27:56

61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the sepulcher. Matthew 27:61

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary and his brethren James and Joseph, and Simon and Judas? Matthew 13:55

It is safe to say that since Mary was married to Joseph that she had relations with him since consummation of a marriage was a common practice and instructed by the Lord. It clearly says she had son's besides Jesus. To say it is impossible to know is not right.

Which of those passages state that Mary had further children with Joseph? None of them do.

You are reading into the text something that isn't actually in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Astroqualia]

It's literally what "pray" means. Have you ever watched a movie, a TV show, read a book in which a character says something like, "Pray tell me"? That means "please tell me", it is a request. Or "I pray thee" that is, "I ask of you".

"pray (v.)
early 13c., preien, "ask earnestly, beg (someone)," also (c. 1300) in a religious sense, "pray to a god or saint," from Old French preier "to pray" (c. 900, Modern French prier), from Vulgar Latin *precare (also source of Italian pregare), from Latin precari "ask earnestly, beg, entreat," from *prex (plural preces, genitive precis) "prayer, request, entreaty," from PIE root *prek- "to ask, request, entreat."

From early 14c. as "to invite." The deferential parenthetical expression I pray you, "please, if you will," attested from late 14c. (from c. 1300 as I pray thee), was contracted to pray in 16c. Related: Prayed; praying." - pray | Origin and meaning of pray by Online Etymology Dictionary

The notion of using "prayer" in relation to God, as an explicitly religious word is how we typically use it today.

But historically the word really just means to petition, to ask, to entreat.

Among Catholic and Orthodox Christians "prayer" to the Saints is asking the saints to pray for them. That is why in the petition of the Hail Mary it is, "Pray for us sinners". It is a prayer request.

As such "prayer" to the saints isn't "prayer" in the sense of what is generally understood as "an address directed toward God or object of worship"; it's a prayer request.

For the sake of clarity, the invocation of the saints isn't part of my religious practice. Lutheranism historically has rejected the practice of asking the saints and angels for their prayers; not because we believe they can't pray for us (they can, and indeed do, as the Scriptures themselves testify); but because we can't be certain they can hear us. Maybe they can, maybe they can't--we don't know. But we can be confident that they do pray for us, and we can be confident that our address to God alone is sufficient.

What wrong ideas about Christianity do you believe I have?

-CryptoLutheran

You must have missed the entire point of my post.
Pray in our modern era, that I grew up learning, does not simply mean "ask". Maybe 1000 years ago it did, but we all grew up knowing prayer essentially meant "making a request to a deity" or something similar. It doesn't make sense to use an ancient apostasy groups' definition of pray, in order to win a debate.

The point stands, there is no point in praying to anyone other than the mediator between us and the Father, whom is Jesus.

 

[Jaxxi]

Which of those passages state that Mary had further children with Joseph? None of them do.

You are reading into the text something that isn't actually in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 1:18

That is there. Before they came together, meaning they came together.

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren. Acts 1:14

among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.
Matthew 24:56

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary and his brethren James and Joseph, and Simon and Judas? Matthew 13:55

How am I reading into what isn't there? It is right there! If you cannot see it maybe you should read it again. I am not trying to make up things that are not true, but to me it is very clear that this is what the scripture is saying. Anyone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Jaxxi]

Here’s your original quote.

If we take that logic and aim it at whether or not Christians should pray to Christ, as Christ never did this, neither should we.

If we are imitating Christ, we are praying to the Father. Christ told us to pray to God. The difference is, though we are imitating Christ, who is God, we will never BE Christ and so where Jesus and the Father are both God to Us, they are separate to each other. For example Jesus told us that He does not know when the Day of the Lord is. No one knows but the Father. But if you want to use the logic and say that Jesus only prayed to the Father and so should we, you are not wrong. That would not hurt us one bit to pray to the Father. However, Mary is not in the equation.

 

[Jaxxi]

And of course you can provide evidence for all that you say, so please proceed to do so. God would not allow the Mother of God to be a sinner that much should be obvious to anyone.

For He hath made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is only one who knew no sin. We know this. If you want to believe Mary was not a sinner and think she was a perfect human being that is up to you. The Bible does not put enough emphasis on Mary's life to tell us anything about her. In fact the Bible talks more about Judas Iscariot than it does Mary so we don't know what she did, or said, or anything really. Jesus seemed to put more effort into talking with the Disciples than with Mary. She is not a central figure in his teachings.

 

[Fidelibus]

No, I’m not seeking God. He found me.

I am happy for you. However, before He found you, were you ever seeking Him in your life?

 

[Hammster]

I am happy for you. However, before He found you, were you ever seeking Him in your life?

No. No one seeks after God.

 

[disciple Clint]

You can twist the words the Bible actually directly says in order to make valid your manmade catholic doctrine if you wish, but I will be believing what the Bible says. It doesn't say "for man has a sin nature", it says "for all have sinned". There are other verses strewn about as well that shows every human has sinned and will sin except Jesus.

Grace has nothing to do with sin, either. I would recommend looking up the definition of the word "grace" for more info.

The reason why our churches are in a heavy, blatant state of apostasy is largely because of people reading a very clear, concise sentence in scripture and instead of seeing "God is love" like the words say, they see something like "God allows us to sin as much as we want and still be saved" instead of "God is love". This is not the correct way to understand scripture, making it say what you want. It says what it says, we should read what it says, instead of reading things it does not say into it.

I suggest you consult a commentary, those are written by scholars, review by scholars, and can be relied upon to be correct which cannot be said for people who read a Bible passage and think they know exactly what it means without spending any time in research or education.

 

[Astroqualia]

I suggest you consult a commentary, those are written by scholars, review by scholars, and can be relied upon to be correct which cannot be said for people who read a Bible passage and think they know exactly what it means without spending any time in research or education.

So your wish is for me to learn what men I have never met and do not know the moral caliber of, tell me what the Bible says, instead of rightly dividing the Word as scripture commands each of its individual readers to do for themselves? Why do folks tend to want to be told what the Bible says by someone else, as opposed to allowing the spirit to lead them into all truth, as scripture says is an option to partake in?

Why would I take a Russian roulette chance at believing some random scholars commentary? Why does physical time spent reading the Bible mean that person is right? Can I just read the Bible for 30 years and claim to be an unquestionable expert? You do realize that there are hundreds of different opinions by historical men about what scripture means, right? How do you know which one you hold to is true? Because that's the one you chose you want to believe? I would argue, that isn't how to objectively find the truth about anything. I don't buy into appeal to authority arguments. Next it will be said that people with college degrees are smarter than those without.

 

[disciple Clint]

Um, yes she was. But I’ll listen to your evidence.

You are a little unclear on who needs to provide evidence you have stated twice now that Mary was not without sin, where is your evidence, and no you do not get to use Scripture based on your understanding of what it means, you have to validate the meaning.

 

[disciple Clint]

For He hath made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is only one who knew no sin. We know this. If you want to believe Mary was not a sinner and think she was a perfect human being that is up to you. The Bible does not put enough emphasis on Mary's life to tell us anything about her. In fact the Bible talks more about Judas Iscariot than it does Mary so we don't know what she did, or said, or anything really. Jesus seemed to put more effort into talking with the Disciples than with Mary. She is not a central figure in his teachings.

We do know that she is the Mother of God and was declared full of grace by an angel of God. If you can provide any evidence that she was a sinner do so. I for a fact am quite certain that God would not be born of a sinner, the logic of that is so obvious that it is hard to believe that anyone could disregard it.

 

[Hammster]

You are a little unclear on who needs to provide evidence you have stated twice now that Mary was not without sin, where is your evidence, and no you do not get to use Scripture based on your understanding of what it means, you have to validate the meaning.

You said Mary was born without sin. I said I was willing to listen to your evidence. I will have to assume that your deflection means that you have no evidence.

 

[disciple Clint]

So your wish is for me to learn what men I have never met and do not know the moral caliber of, tell me what the Bible says, instead of rightly dividing the Word as scripture commands each of its individual readers to do for themselves? Why do folks tend to want to be told what the Bible says by someone else, as opposed to allowing the spirit to lead them into all truth, as scripture says is an option to partake in?

Why would I take a Russian roulette chance at believing some random scholars commentary? Why does physical time spent reading the Bible mean that person is right? Can I just read the Bible for 30 years and claim to be an unquestionable expert? You do realize that there are hundreds of different opinions by historical men about what scripture means, right? How do you know which one you hold to is true? Because that's the one you chose you want to believe? I would argue, that isn't how to objectively find the truth about anything. I don't buy into appeal to authority arguments. Next it will be said that people with college degrees are smarter than those without.

Well I guess we could totally disregard the need for education in its contribution to knowledge. Frankly I am not going to any doctors or any other professional who says I have read the book on this operation and I am certain that I understand every thing but I never went to college. There is much more to understanding the Bible than just reading it. I can read how a book on chemistry that does not make me a chemist. The reason we have so many people walking around with false beliefs is because they failed to educate themselves or make any effort to understand the true meaning of the Scripture they quote. Even worse they take the word of someone who has even less education than they do just because he calls himself a pastor. Regarding the excuse that the Holy Spirit interprets the passage, if you put 10 people who think that in a room and give them a passage to interpret, you get far more than one interpretation, they cannot all be right. The Holy Spirit can give us revelation specific to our situation but it is not the purpose of the Holy Spirit to fill in for people who refuse to educate themselves or use the resources that are available to them. Frankly I will allow those who study theology, which includes far more than just reading the Bible, all their life give me the benefit of their expertise.

 

[Jaxxi]

We do know that she is the Mother of God and was declared full of grace by an angel of God. If you can provide any evidence that she was a sinner do so. I for a fact am quite certain that God would not be born of a sinner, the logic of that is so obvious that it is hard to believe that anyone could disregard it.

Jesus Christ is the only man born without sin! The only human who never sinned! To me that is what is most obvious and to say that Mary was not a sinner is just not true. What evidence do you have that she was a perfect human being? The Bible does not tell us either way so for either of us to make assumptions of her is wrong but the Bible is clear that Jesus knew no sin. Nothing else can be certain but immaculate conception is not in the Bible I take it.

 

[disciple Clint]

You said Mary was born without sin. I said I was willing to listen to your evidence. I will have to assume that your deflection means that you have no evidence.

I gave you the evidence, remember, the angel said she is full of grace, that is not the description for a sinner. God selected her as His mother, that is not a possibility if she had been a sinner. Now it is your turn were is your evidence to refute what I have said.

 

[Hammster]

I gave you the evidence, remember, the angel said she is full of grace, that is not the description for a sinner. God selected her as His mother, that is not a possibility if she had been a sinner. Now it is your turn were is your evidence to refute what I have said.

If she wasn’t a sinner, she wouldn’t need grace.

 

[disciple Clint]

Jesus Christ is the only man born without sin! The only human who never sinned! To me that is what is most obvious and to say that Mary was not a sinner is just not true. What evidence do you have that she was a perfect human being? The Bible does not tell us either way so for either of us to make assumptions of her is wrong but the Bible is clear that Jesus knew no sin. Nothing else can be certain but immaculate conception is not in the Bible I take it.

The Bible clearly states she is full of grace, a sinner is never full of grace. God spent 9 months in her body, God cannot tolerate sin, He could not spend even 9 nano seconds in a sinner. So the God has clearly shown that Mary is without sin.

 

[Hammster]

The Bible clearly states she is full of grace, a sinner is never full of grace. God spent 9 months in her body, God cannot tolerate sin, He could not spend even 9 nano seconds in a sinner. So the God has clearly shown that Mary is without sin.

Do you understand that Jesus spent thirty plus years interacting with sinners? He even sometimes touched them. *gasp*

 

[disciple Clint]

If she wasn’t a sinner, she wouldn’t need grace.

What is the evidence for that statement? There is no basis for that belief.