tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post8881796283301156934..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Did Luther Think Mary Was Queen of Heaven?James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30375429115622748762014-12-06T16:25:34.606-05:002014-12-06T16:25:34.606-05:00Guy, one more time:
"Lutheran Luther scholar...Guy, one more time:<br /><br />"Lutheran Luther scholars are quick to explain he was probably drunk when he said it during one of his Table Talks so it shouldn't count against him."<br /><br />Which "Lutheran Luther scholars"? James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30130672302265670882014-12-06T16:22:46.983-05:002014-12-06T16:22:46.983-05:00Guy,
You were the one claiming "As for my kn...Guy,<br /><br />You were the one claiming "As for my knowledge of Luther/Reformation studies, I think I know as much if not more than you do. But I am not interested in that sort of petty showing off." <br /><br />Then I request a few nuggets of your knowledge and you send me off on Google search to verify facts you say are accurate. <br /><br />Recall, a few weeks ago I stated the following to you:<br /><br /><b>Guy, if you bring a fact to the table and someone asks you for further information about it (like either a source or a context), it's not up to us to search every corner of the Internet to verify your fact. In polite and honest discourse, the burden of proof is the responsibility of the one making the claim.</b><br /><br />If you want to give the appearance that you're clueless, well, that's your choice. It actually doesn't really matter because you're anonymous. You can continue to make any number of ridiculous claims and insults, and then disappear back into cyberspace, or pick a new anonymous screen name. <br /><br /><br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-89539440940561741952014-12-02T18:53:27.931-05:002014-12-02T18:53:27.931-05:00Your Calvinism has blinded you to the fact that Go...<i>Your Calvinism has blinded you to the fact that God wants to disperse His goodness. </i><br /><br />Ah, another example of Hebrews 12:14 (Guy's favorite verse) in which Guy makes his point "without giving gratuitous and intentional offense" (yep, his words).James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80067486461887506142014-12-02T18:49:51.201-05:002014-12-02T18:49:51.201-05:00As for my knowledge of Luther/Reformation studies,...<i>As for my knowledge of Luther/Reformation studies, I think I know as much if not more than you do. But I am not interested in that sort of petty showing off.</i><br /><br /><i>Rumor has it that he said Christ had relations with Magdalene, the woman at the well and the woman taken in adultery. However, Lutheran Luther scholars are quick to explain he was probably drunk when he said it during one of his Table Talks so it shouldn't count against him</i><br /><br />OK, well, I'm always willing to learn from people who know more than I do about the Reformation. Please enlighten me as to which "Lutheran Luther scholars are quick to explain he was probably drunk when he said it"?<br /><br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-17988723276555043592014-12-02T18:46:31.220-05:002014-12-02T18:46:31.220-05:00James seems to have made it his life's work to...<i>James seems to have made it his life's work to clear Luther's name. He isn't even a Lutheran and obviously has never spoken to a card carrying Lutheran as they don't white wash Luther as he does.</i><br /><br />Wondeful Guy, and you wonder why you get booted off blogs? I have a feeling you've been booted out of a lot of Internet places. <br /><br />Your hostile and toxic comments here really do make me wonder which version of the Hebrews 12:14 you have.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16304387368482642182014-12-02T18:38:57.314-05:002014-12-02T18:38:57.314-05:00guy fawkes said...
James,I do have Fr. Mateo's...<i>guy fawkes said...<br />James,I do have Fr. Mateo's book right here. On page 67 he says, "Although Martin Luther was somewhat nervous about applying the title "Queen of Heaven" to Mary he admits that "it is a true enough name and yet does not make her a goddess." He then references LW21:327.I can either accept his scholarship or I can accept yours.</i><br /><br />Wow, Guy- you actually posted something relevant to this blog post. Well done!<br /><br /><i>Where do you see Fr. Mateo claiming what you says he claims? He says Luther was "nervous" about praising Mary.</i><br /><br />Guy, it appears you did not read my entry carefully. Because I don't want to pull you away from your creative writing and comments, please note the following:<br /><br />"While I don't plan on purchasing Fr. Mateo's book to check out these secondary citations, both footnotes presented here are erroneous."<br /><br />The content I was reviewing was from a defender of Rome (much like yourself) that was posting about Luther's use of "Queen of Heaven." I hope this clears things up for you. <br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85091412929050089582014-12-02T11:34:51.456-05:002014-12-02T11:34:51.456-05:00Guy wrote:
"However, and I have asked James t...Guy wrote:<br /><i>"However, and I have asked James this question before and don't think he bothered to answer it, namely, why have Protestants gone way beyond their forefathers in renouncing everything about Mary including the title of Theotokos and her Perpetual Virginity?"</i><br /><br />not "everything", so that is a false charge.<br /><br />we believe in the Biblical Mary, and stand on her being a virgin before Jesus was born - Matthew 1:18; Matthew 1:25. Luke 1:26-35<br /><br />We believe in what the Scriptural texts say about Mary.<br /><br />It is important to reject the Perpetual virginity of Mary because it has Gnostic underpinnings and contributed to centuries of the Roman Catholic Church having a distorted view of sex, even within marriage. It resulted in exalting virginity over marriage; and implies a works-righteousness orientation. <br /><br />"Theotokos" originally meant to say that Mary was bearing God when Jesus was born; that is, He was always God. It was more about Jesus than Mary. The RCC over-exalted Mary after that idea and ran with it in history. But Nestorius was right in that people will misunderstand, which is exactly what happened and what still happens today in that Muslims think RCs are saying Mary brought God into existence (by the term "Mother of God"; yet they also still think we are saying God had sex with Mary (like Mormons). Nestorius was wrong to so emphasize the two natures so as to seem like Jesus was 2 persons, but his work he wrote at the end of his life, The Bazaar of Hericlides, he agrees with Leo 1st's tome and the Council of Chalcedon. <br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-62675319172564480372014-12-02T10:46:58.288-05:002014-12-02T10:46:58.288-05:00"However, and I have asked James this questio...<b>"However, and I have asked James this question before and don't think he bothered to answer it, namely, why have Protestants gone way beyond their forefathers in renouncing everything about Mary including the title of Theotokos and her Perpetual Virginity?"</b><br /><br />Guy, how is any of what you wrote responsive to either my post or of the original post?EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37927557669431195462014-12-02T07:49:53.726-05:002014-12-02T07:49:53.726-05:00"I do have Fr. Mateo's book right here. O...<b>"I do have Fr. Mateo's book right here. On page 67 he says, 'Although Martin Luther was somewhat nervous about applying the title "Queen of Heaven" to Mary he admits that "it is a true enough name and yet does not make her a goddess.' He then references LW21:327."</b><br /><br />So the misattribution of the reference occurred in the citation of Mateo's work by the RC apologist rather than in the citation by Fr. Mateo of Pelikan's work. <br /><br />But that's part of James' point: Many RC apologists use sloppy research methods to formulate their arguments. The misattribution of the citation in question is one example. Another is the inaccurate quotation of the citation in question: “more than an empress or a queen.” As James has pointed out the quotation in LW does not end where the RC apologist citing says it ends but goes instead to deny that Mary is available to render aid to those invoking her. It appears based on your confirmation of Fr. Mateo's citation that the selective quotation appears in Mateo's book as well. That represents poor research on Mateo's part. James showed that the quotation from Pelikan's work goes on providing more context that negates the meaning of the truncated quotation provided by Mateo. I'm not going to infer motive, but at a minimum that's sloppy.<br /><br />You have Mateo's book so you can see for yourself if the RC apologist correctly cited the passage from Mateo's book. But James has indentified the second footnote as a likely "quotation" from a different work than is footnoted, which has already been identified as being an incorrect citation in its own right.<br /><br /><b>"I can either accept his scholarship or I can accept yours."</b><br /><br />If the RC apologist has quoted Mateo accurately and Mateo has quoted his sources inaccurately or in a misleading fashion and James has identified the correct sources and provided the full context for the quotes in question and Mateo did not, then yes the choice should be simple. I agree with you.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42535802570462398472014-12-01T21:55:13.000-05:002014-12-01T21:55:13.000-05:00"Voila! Mary is the Woman of Rev 12."
I...<b>"Voila! Mary is the Woman of Rev 12."</b><br /><br />I find "TA DA!!" to be most convincing in cases such as these.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25685408270985846552014-12-01T21:49:21.400-05:002014-12-01T21:49:21.400-05:00"...I understand Luther had a fear of lightni...<b>"...I understand Luther had a fear of lightning ( along with other childish phobias ). St. Anne was one of the saints invoked for protection from death by lightning."</b><br /><br />Apparently, Guy views fear of death by lightning as a "childish phobia" and disapproves of invoking saints to protect from such a death. Surprisingly, I find myself in agreemment with Guy on this point.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78299231414766326112014-11-30T23:23:52.752-05:002014-11-30T23:23:52.752-05:00Do you want me to demonstrate this or are you alre...<i> Do you want me to demonstrate this or are you already familiar with this?</i><br /><br />Guy,<br /><br />I've noticed a lot of your argumentation is typical Roman Catholic pop-apologetic stuff, most I'm quite familiar with (like the Rev. 12 dispute). I've noticed as well you post comments on my entries that attempt to have a different conversation than the main points of the blog entry. I'm assuming this is because you have no (or little) knowledge in Luther / Reformation studies- so therefore you want to reinvent the wheel and have the same tired old discussion that's typical of Protestant / Romanist interactions. <br /><br />If you feel compelled to post a comment, would you please actually directly interact with this blog entry? How about commenting, for instance, on your fellow defenders of Rome and their propaganda about Luther in regard to this issue? Do you support your fellow defenders of Rome in their inability to actually do historical research on the Reformation? Do you have any information or argumentation that supports their conclusion that Luther held a lifelong belief that Mary was "Queen of Heaven"?<br /><br />As I stated elsewhere, I'm nowhere near as patient as Steve and the other guys. With my time in cyberspace, I pick and choose what to interact with, and following one of your pop-apologetic tangents that's been beaten to death on other blogs and discussion boards really doesn't interest me. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60796346811462862362014-11-30T10:12:03.654-05:002014-11-30T10:12:03.654-05:00Sure, Mary is the woman in Rev. 12... but first y...Sure, Mary is the woman in Rev. 12... but first you have to eliminate the testimony of the early church, then ignore what the text actually says as compared to what Rome teaches.<br /><br /> James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-50011086760090909312014-11-29T14:47:20.811-05:002014-11-29T14:47:20.811-05:00If you have any documentation for Luther thinking ...If you have any documentation for Luther thinking "God was the rightful Queen of Heaven" I would be interested in seeing it. <br /><br />Duet. 10:14 describes God as the supreme ruler of the highest heavens and earth, so it appears to me that the office of "queen of heaven" is superfluous at best, and at worst thinking there is such a office /title in the heavenly kingdom is a limiting anthropomorphism of a heavenly reality. James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com