'19 Bathsheba therefore went to King Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her and bowed down to her, and sat down on his throne and had a throne set for the king’s mother; so she sat at his right hand. 20 Then she said, “I desire one small petition of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”
21 So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as wife.”
22 And King Solomon answered and said to his mother, “Now why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also—for he is my older brother—for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.” 23 Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, saying, “May God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life! 24 Now therefore, as the Lord lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!”25 So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck him down, and he died'
This example shows the opposite of what you intended for it to show. Solomon makes a promise to his mother and then discovers that he cannot keep it. She asks, foolishly, for what should never have been asked. And far from showing him honoring his mother, it shows him refusing her request. Perhaps he refused her with good reason, but this passage definitely doesn't inspire confidence in maternal intercession!
Jon makes a point here. It is true, Bathsheba—Queen Mother—does intercede, but the answer is no.
Personally, I have interpreted this passage exegetically showing that it does represent the hierarchy of the Davidic House with the king’s mother being the queen in as much as she is the King’s mother. The passage does show Solomon honoring his own Mother. But I think Jon is correct here that Solomon does refuse her quite dramatically.
Remember there is a difference between the perfect King and Queen and the obviously flawed representation on the earth. Solomon answers his mother as he should and then sin enters in. The Hebrew Scripture points to Jesus but as St Paul says, through a glass darkly.
Fair. I would rely on the Wedding at Cana to make this particular point. Jesus shows reservations but Mary nonetheless has confidence to tell the servers “to do whatever He tells you.”
No. Solomon answers his mother recklessly. It is good that he thought to honor his mother, but consider the Lord's response at Cana. The Lord appreciates and respects His mother, but it never occurs to Him to be led by her, while at the same time He graciously answers her prayer.
Observing where her master was leading her, she uses whatever(for us undefined) influence she has with the servants to promote His authority. It is interesting and throws us off a bit to see the 'prophet has no honor in His own country' such that Mary's no doubt respected position in the community is useful to point the way. Perhaps we underestimate our own influence.
See my response to Phil. It is the image of the "right relationship" that we are called to see. I will get the references from the Church Fathers ... I just can't recall which one right now ... more to follow.
As our High Priest Intercessor, Jesus is our greatest intercessor. His intercession brings us His presence within us during our exile on this earth. If we don’t have it now, we won’t have it after our exile.
Are there any biblical basis for the Assumption of our Lady into heaven? While there are several for the Assension of Christ as also some of the prophets, I was not able to find any reference of the Assumption in the Bible. Can someone enlighten me
My first question would be does there have to be any reference biblically? The position is one that assumes the Bible is the unique authority regarding God’s revelation—which nowhere is claimed in the Bible itself. So, when asked by a Protestant “I don’t see that in the Bible,” the Catholic response is “So?” Or if they tell you the Bible is the sole source of doctrine ask where that doctrine can be found in the Bible. And they’ll likely quote 2 Tim. 3:16-17 which makes no reference to uniqueness.
Other than that there are material references inferred by Sacred Scripture like Lk. 1:28, Romans 5:12, and Rev. 12.
I could not have answered this better. The fallacy of sola scriptura is that the Church operated for nearly one hundred years before the pieces of the canon of Scripture were written and several hundred years before it was formed. Yet, the Gospel was preached and the Church celebrated the faith. The fact is that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was always believed. Also, like the importance of the various graves of the Apostles, where is Mary’s grave? Being the Mother of God, why isn’t it honored as were many of the Apostles… best answer is that she never had one. She never needed one.
I’ve spent my time in debate with Protestants regarding whether the Immaculate Conception is a biblical doctrine. I believe Luke 1:28 makes a strong case for it being materially present in the text because one can comprehend that for Mary to be full of grace via the perfect passive participle then she must have been conceived without sin.
I’ve made that case & the response was “well, it doesn’t say she was conceived without sin… show me where it says it.”
Okay. If the Protestant is going to put the bar that HIGH then the bar is that high for any doctrine. And we need to hold their feet to the fire then regarding Sola Scriptura. Where does the Bible claim it is the only authority on doctrine; show me plainly where it says it. They can’t because it’s not there—it’s a doctrine that relies on circular reasoning.
'19 Bathsheba therefore went to King Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her and bowed down to her, and sat down on his throne and had a throne set for the king’s mother; so she sat at his right hand. 20 Then she said, “I desire one small petition of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you.”
21 So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as wife.”
22 And King Solomon answered and said to his mother, “Now why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also—for he is my older brother—for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.” 23 Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, saying, “May God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life! 24 Now therefore, as the Lord lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!”25 So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck him down, and he died'
This example shows the opposite of what you intended for it to show. Solomon makes a promise to his mother and then discovers that he cannot keep it. She asks, foolishly, for what should never have been asked. And far from showing him honoring his mother, it shows him refusing her request. Perhaps he refused her with good reason, but this passage definitely doesn't inspire confidence in maternal intercession!
Jon makes a point here. It is true, Bathsheba—Queen Mother—does intercede, but the answer is no.
Personally, I have interpreted this passage exegetically showing that it does represent the hierarchy of the Davidic House with the king’s mother being the queen in as much as she is the King’s mother. The passage does show Solomon honoring his own Mother. But I think Jon is correct here that Solomon does refuse her quite dramatically.
Remember there is a difference between the perfect King and Queen and the obviously flawed representation on the earth. Solomon answers his mother as he should and then sin enters in. The Hebrew Scripture points to Jesus but as St Paul says, through a glass darkly.
Fair. I would rely on the Wedding at Cana to make this particular point. Jesus shows reservations but Mary nonetheless has confidence to tell the servers “to do whatever He tells you.”
No. Solomon answers his mother recklessly. It is good that he thought to honor his mother, but consider the Lord's response at Cana. The Lord appreciates and respects His mother, but it never occurs to Him to be led by her, while at the same time He graciously answers her prayer.
Observing where her master was leading her, she uses whatever(for us undefined) influence she has with the servants to promote His authority. It is interesting and throws us off a bit to see the 'prophet has no honor in His own country' such that Mary's no doubt respected position in the community is useful to point the way. Perhaps we underestimate our own influence.
See my response to Phil. It is the image of the "right relationship" that we are called to see. I will get the references from the Church Fathers ... I just can't recall which one right now ... more to follow.
As our High Priest Intercessor, Jesus is our greatest intercessor. His intercession brings us His presence within us during our exile on this earth. If we don’t have it now, we won’t have it after our exile.
Are there any biblical basis for the Assumption of our Lady into heaven? While there are several for the Assension of Christ as also some of the prophets, I was not able to find any reference of the Assumption in the Bible. Can someone enlighten me
My first question would be does there have to be any reference biblically? The position is one that assumes the Bible is the unique authority regarding God’s revelation—which nowhere is claimed in the Bible itself. So, when asked by a Protestant “I don’t see that in the Bible,” the Catholic response is “So?” Or if they tell you the Bible is the sole source of doctrine ask where that doctrine can be found in the Bible. And they’ll likely quote 2 Tim. 3:16-17 which makes no reference to uniqueness.
Other than that there are material references inferred by Sacred Scripture like Lk. 1:28, Romans 5:12, and Rev. 12.
I could not have answered this better. The fallacy of sola scriptura is that the Church operated for nearly one hundred years before the pieces of the canon of Scripture were written and several hundred years before it was formed. Yet, the Gospel was preached and the Church celebrated the faith. The fact is that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was always believed. Also, like the importance of the various graves of the Apostles, where is Mary’s grave? Being the Mother of God, why isn’t it honored as were many of the Apostles… best answer is that she never had one. She never needed one.
I’ve spent my time in debate with Protestants regarding whether the Immaculate Conception is a biblical doctrine. I believe Luke 1:28 makes a strong case for it being materially present in the text because one can comprehend that for Mary to be full of grace via the perfect passive participle then she must have been conceived without sin.
I’ve made that case & the response was “well, it doesn’t say she was conceived without sin… show me where it says it.”
Okay. If the Protestant is going to put the bar that HIGH then the bar is that high for any doctrine. And we need to hold their feet to the fire then regarding Sola Scriptura. Where does the Bible claim it is the only authority on doctrine; show me plainly where it says it. They can’t because it’s not there—it’s a doctrine that relies on circular reasoning.
You made my day Phillip!
Well said Philip.