Youtube Video on Psalm 69 & Virgin Mary

I posted this youtube video today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtH9VGwyh7Y

I refute the claims of Matt Slick the owner of the anti-Catholic site carm.org

His usage of Psalm 69 demonstrates the liklihood that Matt is unfamiliar with the Jewish methods of interpretation used by the New Testament.

The sound quality is bad at point, and screechs a few times, so watch out.

BTW, if you want check how bad Matt Slick is theologically, look at his pages on masturbation, birth control/contraception, and oral sex--his positions may shock/ disgust you. This is what happens when you hold to Sola Scriptura and leave yourself as the ultimate authority (that is they say Scripture is the ultimate authority, but ultimately its their own interpretation/spin on what the Bible says).

Desperate Protestant arguments to "prove" Mary is not the Mother of God

The other day I encountered the most desperate arguments by Protestants to explain why Jesus did not have original sin, without having a sinless Mary--God forbid should the woman the Lord chose be sinless! They likewise concocted some screwy reasons why Mary was not really Jesus' mother!

 One of them was arguing that Jesus has blood that was special and did not have sin--as if sin were transmitted in the blood, or that blood in of its self were evil.  The fact is when the bible calls blood righteous or blameless it's an expression for the righteousness of the person being killed. It's not refering at all to "sinful blood." To say that blood itself transfers sins is smacking with gnostic doctrine which believes the physical world to be evil. I was continually question by people if "blood passes to the child"-which it generally does not, however DOES occassionally happen, they were trying to argue that somehow this proves Jesus did not get "Mary's tainted blood", yet what they fail to realize if in the womb they themselves do not get their mother's "tainted" blood, NOR THEIR FATHERS! So why are not all men conceived without original sin or "sin nature" as they prefer to say? (As a side note, they seem to be ignorant that a child's blood is determined by a combination of the mother and fathers, eg. if the mother is AA and the father is OO the child will be AO; also, ignorant of the fact that modern biology says the mother is the one that accepts the seed via chemical signals, though neither of these are really relevant to the discussion).  Now, continuing she pretends Acts 17:26 somehow proves sin is passed in the blood--though it only says (and only in certain manuscripts) that all men were made of "one blood" (ie Adam), yet she conveniently forgets that Christ too is a "man."  So apparently "all does not always mean all" applies here too! Regardless, this verse in no way speaks of sin being passed in the blood. Even Jesus spoke of other people's blood as being "just":

upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.--Matthew 23:35

Dare we interpret this to mean their physical blood was a better quality than the rest of man's "sinful blood'"? After all, they too were of the "one blood" of Adam! This is the some person I addressed in a previous Question and Answer session over this issue.  People continued to argue that Jesus was not of Mary because she was sinful, so He could have "none of her DNA or blood."  In this desperation to discount Mary they make Jesus a false Messiah because He had to be of the tribe of Judah to be King.  Furthermore, he is called the "seed of David"--so he must be of the "blood line" of David.  If He did not have anything from Mary--how was He the "seed" of David at all?

Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?--John 7:42

In fact, this is not the only verse in the Scriptures which call Him the "seed of David."  St Paul even makes it clear He speaks of Christ being a literal descendant of David by also adding that Christ was of the "seed of David ACCORDING to the FLESH."

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;--Romans 1:3

Another person tried to make an even more desperate against Mary by saying that Jesus' body was prepare in Hebrews means God created a body for Jesus then placed it inside of Mary.

For this reason, when he came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight in."--Hebrews 10:5-6

Nothing in this verse at all implies God created a body outside of the Virgin Mary, in fact if it did it would contradict the Scripture when it says:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.--Isaiah 9:6

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.--Luke 1:30-31

Why does the Archangel Gabriel call it conceiving, if according these Protestants God merely relocated an already made body inside of Mary for Jesus?

Furthermore, why is Jesus refered to as the "fruit of the womb" of Mary if Jesus is not the fruit that was produce from Mary via an umbilical cord? Also, how can these people even argue Jesus is the one being spoken of as the "seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15 if Jesus is not Mary's seed? (This is an argument from a Protestant prespective, since all Christians are actually the "seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis, not simply Christ, though He fulfills the role first and foremost and without that seed none of the others ones would prosper in overcoming the serpent).

 Why shouldn't we simply believe the Holy Spirit when speaking through Elizabeth the Blessed Virgin Mary is declared to be the "mother of my Lord"?

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?--Luke 1:43

In summary: Mary is called the "Mother" of the Lord, Jesus is called the "seed of David according to the flesh" by St Paul, Mary is told she will "conceive" in her womb (not be implanted with a preexistent body), and Jesus is called the "fruit of her womb," so there is NO reason to speculate Jesus was not a physical descendant of the Virgin Mary.

Addition: I have also encountered people objecting to calling Mary the Mother of God on the basis that she did not bear the Father and the Holy Spirit.  However, this reasoning is faulty in that it would mean that Jesus is not God since He is not the Father and the Spirit.  If such requirements were needed to make Mary the Mother of God, then Jesus, nor any other member of the Trinity maybe called God on Their own since, no person of the Trinity is Himself all Three!  Thus the Bible would have errored in Hebrews 1 and Psalms when it has the Father addressesing the Son says "Thy throne of God.."

Queen of Heaven

The Queen of Heaven

Several times I have encountered Protestants accusing me of having Mary as a pagan goddess simply because the Virgin Mary is sometimes referred to as the "Queen of heaven." They would quote Jeremiah typically where a pagan goddess is referred to as the Queen of Heaven.

The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.--Jeremiah 7:18 (NIV)

In addition the term Queen of Heaven is mentioned in Jeremiah 44 where its mentioned people would "burn incense and pour out drink offerings to her".

However, the Virgin Mary is not a goddess to us, she is, however, the holiest woman ever made by God, but is not omnipotent. Catholic women do not make "cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven" as the pagans did for Asherah. Nor do we pour out drink offerings and burn incense offerings to her as the pagans did for Asherah.

In fact when there was a sect in the early Church called the Collyridians in Arabia that did offer to Mary "cakes of bread"-- they were condemned:

"For certain women decorate a barber's chair or a square seat, spread a cloth on it, set out bread and offer it in Mary's name on a certain day of the year"-St Epiphanius of Salamis, The Panarion [The Medicine Chest against Heresies] (AD 377)

He calls their practices "silly", "ridiculous," "extreme," and "idolatrous". This group may be the reason the Quran speaks of Mary as if Christians included her in the trinity.

The reason Catholics do call Mary Queen of Heaven is because of her Son, Christ, who is the King of Heaven, and in the Old Testament Scriptures the mother of the King was given a throne and was Queen (perhaps since kings had many wives in those days and would cause there to be many queens):

So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right.-1 Kings 2:19 NASB

Say to the king and the queen mother, "Take a lowly seat, For your beautiful crown Has come down from your head."--Jeremiah 13:18 NASB

Notice that Revelation 12 can be interpreted as Mary, since she did give birth to the male Child, Jesus:

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;--Revelation 12:1 NASB

Certainly we do not call Mary Queen of Heaven for no reason at all! (It is also interesting why Protestants do not wish to call her a queen in any sense if all saints in Heaven are given crowns and are called "kings" or "queen" in Revelation)

Though the term Queen of Heaven is given to a pagan goddess in the Old Testament, does not mean the term must be excluded to Mary? Let's consider some biblical titles given to people:

Who is the "King of kings?" Christ?, or a worldly pagan king?

Most assume only Christ can be called "king of kings"as seen here:

which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,--1 Timothy 6:15

They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."--Revelation 17:14

On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.--Revelation 19:16

HOWEVER, here we see it being applied to earthly rulers of the Old Testament:

Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, a teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings.--Ezra 7:12

"For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.--Ezekiel 26:7

You, O king, are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory;-Daniel 2:37

Hence, following the logic of Protestants making the assertion the Catholic Mary is a pagan goddess just because she is called Queen of Heaven, then THEY would have to conclude THEY worship pagan kings because they call God "King of kings" or they would have to deny the Divine Inspiration of St Paul in 1 Timothy and St John in Revelation. Both of these points are ridiculous since just because two people are called the same thing does not require them to be the same person.

Let us continue with another, more controversial title found in the bible--Lucifer. Most assume Lucifer if the actual name of the Devil before he fell and became known as Satan, or the Devil. However, this is not the case as all, Lucifer is just a reference to the state of Satan prior to his fall, not his actual name. The name/word Lucifer is actually a good name, not to be associated with something sinister as a the devil, in fact in the early Church some Christians were actually named Lucifer. Most are surprised to know that Lucifer is not a Hebrew name, in fact is not even Greek or Aramaic--its Latin. The reason people associated the name Lucifer as Satan's proper name is because of the King James Version of the Bible, where in Isaiah 14:12 it reads:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

This is proof of the KJV is influenced by the Latin Vulgate which read in Isaiah 14:12:

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

The King James Version seems to present it as a his name, the original 1611 KJV puts in in the margins an alternative translation "day starre."It also should be noted the person called Lucifer here is not necessary the devil, but a king being addressed.

Strong's Lexicon for the word translated in the KJV as lucifer states its definition as the following:

From 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning star: - lucifer.--H1966

The word Lucifer is Latin means "light-bringing" and "The morning-star, the planet Venus". The reason the word "lucifer" or "day star" or "morning star" is brought up is because these terms are given to the Lord Himself.

The Latin Vulgate, the origin of the word "Lucifer" gave the same title to Christ in 2 Peter 1:19:

et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

The English Translation being:

And so, we have an even firmer prophetic word, to which you would do well to listen, as to a light shining within a dark place, until the day dawns, and the daystar [Lucifer] rises, in your hearts.

Lucifer being translated day star. The King James Version of Isaiah 14:12 and 2 Peter 1:19 are:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!--Isaiah 14:12, KJV 1611 translation based on marginal note

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:--2 Peter 1:19. KJV 1611

Note the King James Bible applies the term "day star" to both a king/Devil (before his fall) and Christ.

Now more modern translations of the bible such as the NASB mention "morning star" in the following:

"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!--Isaiah 14:12

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.-2 Peter 1:19

And I will give him the morning star.--Revelation 2:28

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.--Revelation 22:16

In summary, yes a pagan goddess is called Queen of Heaven in the Old Testament, but in the Old Testament pagan kings are also called "morning star"(Isaiah 14:12) and "king of kings"(Ezra 7:12, Ezekiel 26:7, Daniel 2:37), which are both terms applied to Christ in the New Testament.

Addendum: For more example of titles of God that were recorded first by pagans see my later articles.