Thursday, December 1, 2011

Does Psalm 69:8 Prove that Mary Had Other Children?

Cornelis van Cleve, Virgin and Child (c. 1550)
Yesterday, Michael Addison raised the argument in the comments that Psalm 69:8 disproves the perpetual Virginity of Mary.  The Psalm contains a lot of Messianic elements (various lines are explicitly applied throughout the New Testament to Christ), and v. 8 says, “I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons.”  The argument is that this Old Testament passage shows that the Virgin Mary had other children.

It's a clever argument, but there are at least three alternatives to bear in mind.  First, the Psalms are distinct from traditional prophesy (like Isaiah or Ezekiel, e.g.). The present concerns of the Psalmists are blended with foreshadowing of Christ. Psalm 69 is no exception. On one level, this Psalm is about someone who was falsely accused of theft (Psalm 69:4). Plenty of things in Psalm 69 foreshadow Christ, but that doesn’t mean every element is true of Him. For example, Psalm 69:5 says, “You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you.” And Christ is sinless, of course. So the first option is simply that v. 8 isn’t strictly Christological.

Caravaggio, Adoration of the Shepherds (1609)
Second, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, the “mother” may not be Mary – it may mean Israel. The full sentence (v.8-9), taken as a whole, says, “I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons; for zeal for Your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.” That is, the image is of mother Israel, and her sons, the Jewish people, in their home, the house of the Lord, the Temple of Jerusalem.

Third, even if Psalm 69:8 applies to Christ, and even if the mother is Mary, the other children need not be biological children. Revelation 12:17 specifically says that the Mother of Christ’s children are “those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

So the three options are that v. 8 refers to (1) something exclusive to the Psalmist, (2) Israel, and (3) Christians. Of the three, I think (2) is the strongest, but any are possible.  In any case, none of this strikes me as a compelling reason to declare the Church wrong (from the early Christians onward) about the perpetual Virginity of Mary.

45 comments:

  1. How about John 19:25-27, "25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[b] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."

    This verse may apply as more direct evidence of argument 3.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess that's not entirely true since John and Christ are not strangers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Mary were not a perpetual virgin would she be any less venerated by the RCC or EOs (who in some way venerate her even more)? Would it effect her standing as potential co-redemdrix?

    DJ|AMDG

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brock,

    You were right the first time -- John 19:25-27 is a great proof for Mary's perpetual virginity, and the nature of her Motherhood.

    Two things to note. First, if Mary had other children, she wouldn't have been entrusted to the Apostle John. So this is a pretty strong proof of at least the fact that Mary didn't have other children. Second, the Beloved Disciple (who lays himself out as a model for us) shows how Mary becomes his Mother through Christ, and that through Christ, he becomes Mary's son. That's the same point we see in the revelation to him in Rev. 12:17.

    Mary was called the "new Eve" by the early Church. Eve's name meant "mother of all the living" (Gen. 3:20). That was true of the first Eve biologically. It's true of the last Eve spiritually.


    DJ | AMDG,

    That's an odd counterfactual. I don't want to suggest that Catholics think sex is evil, and would like Mary less if she weren't a Virgin.

    Having said that, the Catholic understanding of Mary is that she's the (1) New Eve, preserved and restored by the grace of God to the status Eve enjoyed (of being freed from all sin, original and actual); (2) Ark of the New Covenant, typified by an Ark so consecrated to God that when Uzzah touched it, he was killed (2 Samuel 6:3-7); (3) Temple Gate, the Gate that the Lord went through and which was then closed to all others (see Ezekiel 44); and (4) Virgin, as the Isaiah 7 prophesy calls for.

    It's because she's these things that she remained a Virgin forever. Her perpetual Virginity symbolizes her purity from sin, and her total consecration to God. In that waay, she's the perfect mother and perfect nun at once, and is truly "blessed of all women."

    So it's not as simple as Mary having other kids. If Mary wasn't a perpetual Virgin, it's hard to see how she's the New Eve, New Ark, or Temple Gate (and Protestants ascribe none of these things to her).

    So I think that Mary's perpetual Virginity is a logical result of the Catholic view of Mary, and that negating it tends towards the low Protestant view. I'm not positive that answers your question. But I'm also not positive I get the question: are you asking, what if the Church was wrong? or could God have done things differently, in which the Mother of His Son wasn't singularly dedicated to Him?

    I.X.,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point catholics want to make is Mary is supreme than Jesus, that she hears more prayers than Jesus and more understanding as our biological mothers are. What does it matter to God whether she didnt remain a virgin? God chose Mary to be Jesus' earthly mother, she was not his spiritual mother. Jesus never gave importance to her throughout his life. Matthew 12:46-48 states

      46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

      48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

      Delete
  5. Completely unrelated to this discussion, but Shameless Popery should have a Twitter. I tweet about the blog all the time and never get to @ mention you :-(

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maggie,

    Thanks! What's your Twitter?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Joe,
    which came first? It seems to me taht mary was thought of as a virgin, and then OT scripture used to justify it.
    I see the NT scripture used, and they actually make sense to me. I see the brothers being cousins, or that John looked after Mary instead of other sons being odd.

    But calling Mary the Temple Gate or the Ark of the Covenant seems like a stretch to me.
    When was the earliest writing of this line of thought?

    ReplyDelete
  8. sorry, I meant the thought of Mary as a perpetual virgin and fitting the OT into that thought.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My twitter is just my name, @maggiemelchior :-)

    Come and follow me! (no guarantees about making you a fisher of men, though)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Waterlooregionafrican,

    Joe may be able to direct you to another source, but I believe the first written documentation of the perpetual virginity surfaced around 145 A.D. in the Protoevangelium of James. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoevangelium_of_James

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

    There is the document in English.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Waterlooregionafrican,

    Grappling with Marian typology in the Old Testament really helped me in my understanding of Catholic Theology concerning Mary. For what it's worth, here's my write-up about Mary as Ark of the New Covenant:

    http://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2010/07/14/ark-of-the-new-covenant/

    As Brock says, the Protoevangelium of James is probably the earliest explicit reference to Mary's perpetual virginity. I think the first reference to her as "New Eve" (from which most of the Marian theology flows) comes with St. Irenaeus of Lyons in around AD 180.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In connection with Mary as the "New Eve" and "Mother of All the Faithful" was made clear to me in connecting John 19:26-27 where Jesus tells John (the disciple whom He loved) to "behold your mother" to Matthew 27:55-56. Why does Jesus present Mary as John's mother? What happened to John's biological mother? Was she dead or in a far off place that he had no mother? Matthew 27 tells us exactly where his biological mother was. She was at the crucifixion identified as the "Mother of the sons of Zebedee." John and his brother James are the sons of Zebedee. In Revelation 12:17 Satan will be at war with all of her offspring, the disciples whom Christ loves.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Joe:
    1) "...falsely accused of theft (Psalm 69:4)."
    I disagree. "I am forced to restore what I did not steal" is Christ restoring man through His death on the cross. Although I agree that this very well could also refer to somebody else falsely accused of stealing since many Scriptures (Psalms especially) have dual and even more than two meanings. Yet, it can and does apply to Christ. That said, it seems all verses but 5 (since Christ WAS, IS, and WILL ALWAYS BE sinless) can refer to the Messiah whether it be Christ's words, the Father through the Spirit's words (like almost all Scripture), or the Father's words (v. 34-36). Yet I say to myself, "But wait, how can all but one out of 36 verses apply to Christ? It is puzzling. Can't verse 5 in some fashion (even though He is sinless) apply to Christ like all the other verses?" - Yes, it can. - If and only if you look at it from this perspective: You know my 'folly', O God (Paul states that the Good News is foolishness to the world, and Christ, perfectly, preached that 'folly' and God knows it.); my 'guilt' is not hidden from you (Our all-knowing Lord knows Christ was sinless and perfect. The Sanhedrin wasn't about to get one past/manipulate Him by accusing his Son of blasphemy. That 'guilt' is known to God.). [I know that sounds like it was grabbed out of thin air and beyond comprehension (as I've accused you and all Catholics in your doctrinal positions), but is it?] And that said, although there are dual meanings/applications to others in this Psalm, it still is strictly Christological. So Psalm 69:8 must refer to Christ's mother.
    2) "Second, even... Temple of Jerusalem."
    Since when is Israel the Lord's mother?
    3) "Third, even if... of Jesus.'"
    The woman in Rev 12:17 is Israel, not Mary, the blessed earthly mother of our Lord.
    4) "In any case, none of this..."
    The earliest church wasn't wrong. You can't take select writings that some mislead blasphemer says is authentic and declare the whole church thought this. It's not reasonable.
    @Joe and all who site John 19:25-27:
    If He was "an alien to my mother's sons", then it was obvious that his half-siblings hadn't yet believed on Him as the other Scriptures testify. And that is why John, at that time, took her into his home. Whether she stayed with him after her other children believed (as the Scriptures testify) is unknown. Although it's possible since they may have ended up traveling evangelists.
    On a side note: How can John 19:25-27 be used to show Mary is the church's mother? There were other believers there. Why didn't He tell Mary Magdalene that Mary was her mother? Something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They didn't also know that the book of Psalms are also pointing to our Lord Jesus Christ e.g. Psalm 22: many prophecies regarding our Yeshua.

      Ps 22:16-18
      16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
      The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
      They pierced My hands and My feet;
      17 I can count all My bones.
      They look and stare at Me.
      18 They divide My garments among them,
      And for My clothing they cast lots.

      and also in Luke 24:44-45
      He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

      45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

      Hope these people of this blog will understand God's Word.. peace

      Delete
  15. Joe:

    Evangelical convert David B. Currie had a thought in his book Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic that really put the matter into what a friend of mine calls "dirt-dirt (i.e. most basic) terms", by looking at the kind of person St. Joseph was. Matthew tells us he was "a righteous man" (Mt 1:19), which argues his piety. Now, he was told that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit (v. 20); Currie argues — and I have to agree — that such a revelation would have changed his perception of and attitude toward his wife. To have been touched by the Spirit, and consecrated so as to bear the Son of God ... what pious man in his right mind would not fear to defile such a woman? At the most animal level, that would be a tough act to follow! "Okay, we got that out of the way; time to make more sons!" No, just the thought of her bearing Godhead in her body renders other children by Joseph improbable.

    @Michael: Your last question is kind of like the Mormons asking, "Why wouldn't Jesus appear to the Indians?" The same kind of question-answer applies: "Why would Jesus need to say the same thing to Mary Magdalene in order for the Church's interpretation to be true?" It's not really a difficulty at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. being righteous as JOSEPH doesn't meant he no longer can touch or can make love his wife Mary after she delivered Jesus the firstborn.. look this priest in

      Luke 1:5-6
      5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both RIGHTEOUS before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. if you continue reading, God gave them a son named John - the baptist..

      and JOSEPH AND MARY are typically lovers and they wanted marriage as we are mortals.... goodness! what is not righteous before God is when you are both are not married!

      Heb 13:4-5
      4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept PURE, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

      2ndly, PROOF that they are lovers and when Joseph found out that she's with child, his reaction was he wanted to get out from their commitment for each other and from her! we can read this in matthew 1:18-19 (even me of course if I found out that my lover who's still a virgin suddenly with child, oh my I'll FREAK OUT!) but Joseph took heed what the angels told him and he took Mary as his wife...

      3rdly, after their firstborn Jesus was born (there is a second, third, fourth kids and so on..) and Mary still "Pure" because God honored their union!

      Matt 13:54-58
      And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works?

      55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?"

      57 So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house." 58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their UNBELIEF.

      last verse/s

      Matt 1:24-25
      When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no UNION with her UNTIL she gave birth her FISTBORN son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

      peace ye all..

      Delete
  16. Michael,

    You wrote:
    2) "Second, even... Temple of Jerusalem."
    Since when is Israel the Lord's mother?
    3) "Third, even if... of Jesus.'"
    The woman in Rev 12:17 is Israel, not Mary, the blessed earthly mother of our Lord.


    So your argument (#2) is that Israel is never described as the Lord's Mother. And in the very next sentence (#3) you say that the Woman depicted Mother of the Lord in Revelation 12 is Israel (see Rev. 12:5).

    ---

    As for #1, it's not impossible to interpret the verse in a way that works as an application for Christ. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Psalm 69:18 talks about the speaker needing to be rescued and redeemed by God. Christ wasn't in need of redemption. He is our Redemption.

    So I think you're straining at a gnat here: regardless of whether or not v. 5 specifically can be viewed as Christological, my point was simply that "the Psalms are distinct from traditional prophesy," in that the "present concerns of the Psalmists are blended with foreshadowing of Christ," meaning that not every verse should be understood as simply prophetic or Christological. You agree with this point, right?

    As for #4, I've got no idea what you're talking about. What Ante-Nicene Church Father ever suggested that Mary had other children? You act as if somewhere there's a trove of Patristic support for whatever religious beliefs it is that you hold, but I've never seen you provide anything.

    Finally, John 19:25-27. Let's assume your argument here is correct. It still wouldn't explain why Mary was entrusted to a non-relative. Jesus' alleged brothers were Jews after all, and as such, had a duty under the Ten Commands to care for her. Show me anywhere in Scripture where widows are left to their children unless the children aren't believers, in which case, they're left to strangers. 1 Timothy 5:4 specifically says the opposite: that even under the New Covenant, the children and grandchildren are still the first ones with a duty to materially care for their widowed mother or grandmother.

    Besides that, we know that James, who you're claiming was Mary's biological son, was a Christian from very early on. The events Paul is recounting in Galatians 1:19 are from right after he converted. And it's possible that this is the same James that Christ appeared to right after the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7). Regardless, even if James wasn't a Christian at the time of the Crucifixion, he was shortly thereafter.

    Yet v. 27 tells us that John took the Virgin Mary into his home "from that time on." That is, for the rest of her earthly life, Mary lived with a non-relative. And we're to believe that this was the case while she had a living son who was a devout Christian? It's inconceivable. In other words, you're suggesting a situation in which Jesus essentially forces His brother James into sin, by making him violate 1 Tim. 5:4 and the Decalogue.

    So that's the pragmatic reason that Jesus singles out the Apostle John: His Mother was about to become a childless widow. Spiritually, John is the Beloved Disciple, and is presented in his Gospel as a model for all of us.

    I.X.,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  17. WRA,

    St. Luke and St. John both draw a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. I've got a post on the subject scheduled for 8:30 Eastern this morning. Check it out, and let me know what you think!

    I.X.,

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Joe:
    1) "So your argument (#2)... (see Rev 12:5)."
    I didn't contradict myself at all. The woman is Israel and the man-child is the 144,000 Jews (see Dake Annotated). [None of Rev. 4 on up has happened yet (including Rev. 12, in which the story of the Lord's birth is a parallel/foreshadowing of what is to come in Rev. 12).]
    2) "Psalm 69:18 talks about..."
    It says, "BECAUSE of my foes". So the WHOLE psalm can still be referring to Jesus. And that said, because Israel is never mentioned as the Lord's mother (as you've incorrectly stated concerning Rev. 12), then Psalm 69:8 MUST refer to blessed Mary.
    3) "As for #4,..."
    I don't need to give 'proof', if that's what you want to call those writings. What is some Catholic-endorsed writing well into the second century (or the ones past the second century) going to do with my faith or any other true believer's faith? All they do as a whole is prove the prophecies about the falling away.
    4) "It still wouldn't explain why Mary was entrusted to a non-relative."
    Why do Jews say that Messianic Jews aren't Jews and disown them? (Look at #5.)
    5) "forces his brother James into sin,..."
    First off, there's no proof in Scripture that she was a widow. Secondly, since it was a religious duty, it doesn't apply since Messianic Jews are fallen away to Jews (no matter the time period). Thirdly, "from that time on" doesn't necessarily mean for the rest of her life. That is an assumption. So, in short, since there's no proof that ALL his half-siblings (or even Joseph) ended up believers, those that did believe possibly ended up traveling evangelists or were too poor to take her in, the messianic/non-messianic relationship, and possibly other possibilities, then there wasn't any 'forcing him to sin' whether it applies to OT or NT laws. Neither was it hinted at. [I know using the possibility of Joseph as an alive, yet unbelieving spouse seems unrealistic; but The Baptist believed, said that Jesus was the Lamb of God because of a revelation, and then later asked if He was the Christ when he committed the sin of doubt/unbelief in prison (even though you Catholics say that he was sinless in a non-immaculate way).] (Anyways, that's why you don't put words in someone's mouth. Ask a question, saying, "Isn't that like saying..." if you want to go there. Don't make a statement, saying, "You're saying..." unless it was said. It's spiritually dangerous. Don't let your spirit of accusation that comes with being an attorney get in the way of the blog. But since you mean well, I'll let it go and pray that Yeshua doesn't hold that sin against you.)
    take care Joe - Mike

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Joe: Sorry about the delay in both my first and second comments. I had to wrestle within my spirit about the first comment, and Live Journal status problems made the delay in comment number two.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @michael

    your response to "As for #4" and not needing to provide "proof," what do you base your undestanding of Scripture and knowledge of Christ on?

    In Christ
    Cary

    ReplyDelete
  21. @scredsoxfan2: If you read all my comments, then you'd know what I thought about the writings of the 'church fathers'. It had NOTHING to do with Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @michael

    i read your comments, it still begs the question, upon what shoulders do you stand? upon whose theological reasoning do you plant your feet? Heck, where do you/how do you understand the creation of the Bible and the books therein. It is quite obvious that you are knowledgeable....but in whom is your trust? Surely it is not some private revelation of your own which predisposes only you to see such "truths." Furthermore, how do you define your (your being more general than just you) ability to define such and declare it as THE truth. Can you really deny that which others express?

    In Christ
    Cary

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Cary: I would consider myself Pentecostal. As Paul was a father in faith to many, Perry Stone Jr. would be my father in faith; and Finnis Dake would be my grandfather in faith. [While I sensed a bit of sincerity in your comment, I also sensed a, "Well I got 'apostolic succession'" sarcasm, no?] That said, as someone given a Charisma of discerning spirits (Glory to God!), I'll say this: Paul says that if you preach a gospel that has not been preached (emphasis on past tense), then you'd be eternally condemned. Is there anything in Scripture BEFORE he penned "preached" that urges praying to any other than to the Father in Jesus' name or to Jesus, himself? The answer is a big NO. (And don't say, "I can ask you to pray for me." You know I mean the unseen. And concerning the unseen, don't say, "I can ask someone on the net to pray for me." Again, you know what I mean.) And that said, I know which religion is for sure NOT the truth: Catholicism and her daughters. Trust Christ. He'll show you all truth. Just don't let your pride and family traditions (or any other traditions for that matter) get in the way.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @michael:

    you say this "Just don't let your pride and family traditions (or any other traditions for that matter) get in the way."

    So you know, I have no family "tradition" of Christianity and certainly not of Catholicism. As far as I know I might be the first and only Catholic in my family tree.

    Also, there is sincerity in my question and you answered it. You place your theological reasoning in men centuries removed from Christ, now I see the question as this why Dake as opposed to say Ignatius of Antioch or Augustine or heck, Joseph Smith? I see this as a question that requires an answer, one I would be interested in if for no other reason than to understand your perspective...

    In Christ
    Cary

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Cary and Meaghan: I said that last sentence concerning ALL whom seek the Truth, not just you and all Catholics, hence "or any other traditions".

    ReplyDelete
  26. @michael:

    "the Church Fathers had NOTHING to do with Scripture"........"Just don't let your pride and family traditions (or any other traditions for that matter) get in the way."

    At the risk of sounding uncharitable, you leave me scratching my head. You say that the early Church Fathers are not apart of Scripture and so they don't apply to your form of Christianity, and yet you adhere to the Scriptural interpretations of your father in faith Perry Stone Jr. and Grandfather in faith Finnis Dake.

    How so, when these two individuals had NOTHING to do with Scripture either? I too like Cary and Meaghan, would be interested in understanding your perspective.

    Pax Christi
    Anton

    ReplyDelete
  27. @michaeladdison,

    How would the "mother"' in Ps. 69:8 NOT be Israel, if some of the "mother's sons" must be the moneylenders in the Temple? Do you have some Scripture-based way of knowing that they were Jesus' brothers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt 13:54-58
      54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works?

      55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?" 57 So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house." 58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their UNBELIEF.

      Delete
  28. These two prophecies are about blessed Mary the virgin: Ezekiel 44:2 and Song of Solomon 4:12, they're enough to say that Mary is ever-virgin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hahaha... never connected to marry.. these describes the church of CHRIST. Christ's heart is upon his church; his treasure is therein; and he delights in the affection she has for him; its working in the heart, and its works in the life. The odours wherewith the spouse is perfumed, are as the gifts and graces of the Spirit. Love and obedience to God are more pleasing to Christ than sacrifice or incense. Christ having put upon his spouse the white raiment of his own righteousness, and the righteousness of saints, and perfumed it with holy joy and comfort, he is well pleased with it. And Christ walks in his garden unseen. A hedge of protection is made around, which all the powers of darkness cannot break through. The souls of believers are as gardens enclosed, where is a well of living water, ( John 4:14 , John 7:38 ) , the influences of the Holy Spirit. The world knows not these wells of salvation, nor can any opposer corrupt this fountain.

      Delete
    2. Andrei...You are very wise and doing a great service to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

      Delete
  29. To the Blessed Mary:

    We turned our backs on you, Virgin Mary,
    And respected you less than a rag doll from a fair;
    In the blazing light of Christ and his eternal radiance
    Our eyes were blinded to your great part.

    Your sincerity we doubted a hundred times, yes,
    And we treated you like some cheap local girl.
    We had forgotten that you were God’s means
    To place his only son among the living.

    Your sleepless nights, who has counted them?
    Your son was mocked, yet you loved Him more,
    And no one but He and you can really know
    What anguish was yours on Calvary.

    Listen to us tonight in your heaven above,
    Accept your due respect, holy virgin,
    And forgive now every disrespectful word
    That came from our lips, O Blessed Mary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. our Prayer MUST directly ONLY to GOD! as King David...

      Ps 5:1-3
      Give ear to my words, O LORD,
      Consider my meditation.
      2 Give heed to the voice of my cry,
      My King and my God,
      For to You I will pray.
      3 My voice You shall hear in the morning, O LORD;
      In the morning I will DIRECT it to You,
      And I will look up.

      O God, we're so sorry we addressed our prayers to other entity and not to YOU alone.. in Jesus name, amen.. peace.

      Delete
    2. and excuse me, (spiritual realms) only God has the authority to forgive sins..

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  30. No ! it must NOT, praying only to God, because the intercession, prayers & demands of saints is also accepted by God, such as praying to the blessed saint Mary the virgin.
    Hopefully, read these verses: Acts 10:4, Romans 8:27, Revelation 5:8 & Revelation 8:3-5 !! ................
    To the Blessed Mary:

    We turned our backs on you, Virgin Mary,
    And respected you less than a rag doll from a fair;
    In the blazing light of Christ and his eternal radiance
    Our eyes were blinded to your great part.

    Your sincerity we doubted a hundred times, yes,
    And we treated you like some cheap local girl.
    We had forgotten that you were God’s means
    To place his only son among the living.

    Your sleepless nights, who has counted them?
    Your son was mocked, yet you loved Him more,
    And no one but He and you can really know
    What anguish was yours on Calvary.

    Listen to us tonight in your heaven above,
    Accept your due respect, holy virgin,
    And forgive now every disrespectful word
    That came from our lips, O Blessed Mary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abu, regarding Acts 10:4, did you read Acts 10:2 which states: 'A devout man (Cornelius), and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and PRAYED TO GOD always.' Furthermore I suggest you read the epistles of Paul in which at the beginning of the letters he addressed them 'To all the SAINTS in Christ Jesus'. The 'saints' as he called them are people who are still alive on earth! So in reference to the verses you mentioned (Rom 8:27, Rev 5:8, Rev 8:3-5) the 'prayers of the saints' are the prayers of living saints on earth to God almighty!

      Delete
    2. And who had custody of the living saints prayers? The 24 elders. Looks like the living saints were praying to the saints in Heaven. Also, if Paul addresses one group of people, it doesn't mean others don't also exist in full communion. Also, royal class, not sure how adrei is doing a great service when he's typing "hahaha"s deleting previous post and grasping for anything. And Michael never answered the great questions posed to him.

      Delete