And move to the center of st peters square by one of the many popes that have redecorated the paganism capital
The Goddess Man Has Made
- Thread starter Axehead
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"It has often been charged... that Catholicism is overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that accusation - and even to make it her boast... the great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized." (The Story of Catholicism p 37)Mungo said:
Catholic Church says opposite of what you're saying. She actually boasts, that she is overlaid with Paganism. And what does God have to say about that?
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Show me where in the Bible it explicitly states, "Mary, Queen of Heaven". Don't bring in what the Pope says, the Magisterium, or what the Catechism says (or any other source I may have forgotten, or am unaware of). Show me where the Bible explicitly tells you, "Mary, the Queen of Heaven."
And please use all verses in context.
P.S.
I don't determine the context of the verse, any more than you do, or the Pope, or the Magisterium, etc. The Bible determines the context of the verse.
Selene
New Member
Raeneske,Raeneske said:
In the Bible, "all" does not necessarily mean all. It really means "a great many" as opposed to each and everyone. As I pointed out, babies who die before the age of reason do not have any personal sins. Adam's sin was disobedience and that was stated in the Bible. Eating the fruit is not a sin and never was a sin. It is disobedience that is always a sin.
We never taught that Mary doesn't need to be saved. We have always taught that Mary also needed to be saved. Mary was saved by the blood of her Son, Jesus Christ. If the saving events of Calvary can be applied to someone 2,000 years after the event, then the eternal God can apply those same merits to Mary to preserve her from the ravages of original sin, and thus prepare her as a more fitting tabernacle for the Son of God. In God's plan of salvation, He showed through Mary that He wants all of us to enter the world in a state of grace without any sin.....just as when He created Adam and Eve without any sin.
1. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was made of pure gold inside and outside (specifically instructed by God). God dwelled inside the Old Ark of the Covenant. The Israelites also placed the Tablets of the covenant (words) and the Manna inside the Ark (Hebrews 9:4).
In the New Testament, Mary was "Living" Ark, and inside her womb was the "Living" Word and the "Living Bread" of life. Christ, who is God dwelled in Mary's womb for nine months.
2. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Judah (2 Samuel 6:1-2)
In the New Testament, Mary went to the country of Judah to visit her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:39)
3. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant came to King David, and King David said, "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?" (See 2 Samuel 6:9).
In the New Testament, Mary went to Elizabeth, and Elizebeth said "And how does this happen to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" (See Luke 1:43).
4. In the Old Testament, when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to King David, he leaped and dance before it (2 Samuel 6:16)
In the New Testament, when Mary visited Elizabeth, the baby inside Elizabeth leaped for joy as Mary approached (Luke 1:41). Elizabeth was carrying St. John the Baptist in her womb. St. John the Baptist.
5. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant remained with King David in the House of Obededom the Gittite for three months. (2 Samuel 6:11).
In the New Testament, Mary remained with Elizabeth for three months ((Luke 1:56).
As you can see, there is a parallel between the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and Mary. The similarities between these two passages demand attention. This is why we refer to Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant.
All who come to the age of accountability sin, Mary is no exception to that fact.Selene said:
How can you say eating from the tree of knowledge was not sin, but disobediance was the sin?
That's like saying, murdering your friend is not sin, the disobediance was the sin.
Saying Mary was sinless, but saying she needed a Saviour makes no sense. They're completely contradictory statements. That's like saying, the sunlight is shining perfectly where I am. I need the sun, it's completely dark today. They don't go together, they cannot be coincided together.
As for the "Ark of the New Covenant", that warrants further study. But even that would not contradict that all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.
Selene
New Member
It's like this.....when a parent tells her child not to the eat the cookies that she put in the jar, that was a command from the mother. When the mother leaves the room, the child looks at the cookies and decides to eat the cookies. The sin is not in the cookies. The sin is in the disobedience of the child. In the same way, Adam's sin was disobedience to God. Sin is not found in the objects nor what we put in our mouths. Sin comes from the heart of man when he chooses to sin (Matthew 15:17-20).Raeneske said:
Also, I already explain the "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of the Lord." Babies who died before the age of reason are not sinners. They did not commit any personal sins. Therefore, the word "all" does not mean each and everyone. It means "many".
Again, I NEVER said that Mary doesn't need a savior. Like all of us, she needed a savior, and it was God who saved her. Mary was conceived without the Original Sin because she was already saved by God. God saved Mary so that she could be the New Ark of the Covenant who will carry His only begotten Son.
And this is exactly what John was speaking of when he used the word anti-christ, "many" "the spirit of" and the identifying attribute 1 John 4:1-3Selene said:
BTW John is the only one that used the word anti-christ
4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
Pretty clever way to deny Jesus didn't come in the flesh by saying Mary never shared in the same flesh as all of humanity.
Romans 1:3
3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Am I supposed to be impressed by some quote from some random unofficial publication.Raeneske said:
Is the "The Story of Catholicism" an official document of the Catholic Church?
Is it a document issued by an Ecumenical Council?
Is is a Papal Apostolic Constitution or Encyclical?
Raeneske said:
Show me where the Bible explicity states that God is three persons in one God.
Show me where the BIble explicitly states that it is the sole source of divine revelation.
If the Bible explicitly stated all the doctrines we argue about we would not be arguing so much.
You know as well as I do that doctrines are for the most part deduced from scripture.
You request is therefore unreasonable.
THE Gypsy said:
OK, you want to get picky about wording. Let me put it this way.
Anyone who tries to argue scriptural support for a particular belief will deduce it from scripture because for the most part scripture does not lay out doctrine as precise theological statements.
What seems quite clear to one person is not so to another.
I'm trying not to get sidetracked into exactly from where and how different groups of Christians derive their beliefs.
Hi Mungo,
If there is such a person, she is not a created being such as the stars and planets which have been worshipped since Noah's day and no doubt, before then, too, or Mary the daughter of David. Selene's idea that Mary was 'saved' before she became pregnant has no foundation in scripture, except as she was blessed to be born under the Old Covenant, which her Son Jesus the Messiah would complete with His own lifeblood. Hebrews 9:15.
When you 'worship[ed] and serve[d] the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen,' you have 'changed the truth of God into a lie', according to the apostle Paul in Romans 1:25
That's the fundamental problem with 'the veneration of Mary': she was a created being, and, God is going to unleash His wrath on all those who hold the truth about Him in abeyance, so that it doesn't get acknowledged by them as fully as it He requires. Romans 1:18
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
If you want the light of Jesus Christ to shine out from your inner man, you cannot have your eyes on Mary instead.
Luke 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, [looking at God the only Saviour] thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. 35 Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. 36 If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.
If there is such a person, she is not a created being such as the stars and planets which have been worshipped since Noah's day and no doubt, before then, too, or Mary the daughter of David. Selene's idea that Mary was 'saved' before she became pregnant has no foundation in scripture, except as she was blessed to be born under the Old Covenant, which her Son Jesus the Messiah would complete with His own lifeblood. Hebrews 9:15.
When you 'worship[ed] and serve[d] the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen,' you have 'changed the truth of God into a lie', according to the apostle Paul in Romans 1:25
That's the fundamental problem with 'the veneration of Mary': she was a created being, and, God is going to unleash His wrath on all those who hold the truth about Him in abeyance, so that it doesn't get acknowledged by them as fully as it He requires. Romans 1:18
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
If you want the light of Jesus Christ to shine out from your inner man, you cannot have your eyes on Mary instead.
Luke 11:34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, [looking at God the only Saviour] thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. 35 Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. 36 If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.
And I said "Anyone who tries to argue scriptural support for a particular belief will deduce it from scripture....."THE Gypsy said:
Venerate vb (tr)dragonfly said:
1. to hold in deep respect
2. to honour in recognistion of qualities of holiness, excellence etc.
(Collins Concise English Dictionary)
What is the problem with honouring Mary?
Cardinal Newman admits in his book that; the "temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays, and seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests, munks and nuns), images, and statues... are all of pagan origin." -The Development of the Christian Religion Cardinal Newman p.359Mungo said:
The Bible doesn't state that God is three persons in one God. I do not believe in the trinity.
Isaiah 8:20, is one of the many verses that show the Bible is the sole authority. If you're in contradiction to the Word of God, "speaking not according to this word", you have no light in you.
And your assertion that we would not be arguing so much is also incorrect. People will war against the plainest statements in the Bible. Like when Christ said He did not come to destroy the law, but now we see in Protestantism the belief gaining ground, that the law is gone, "destroyed".
Doctrines are seen by Isaiah 28:10, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little. Mary being Queen of Heaven; whether one verse, or by many, will be stated in scripture, whether you need a link to understand it or not, makes no difference. I am not asking for a one liner. I'm asking for the proof, which you offered to give.
My request still stands. Show me explicitly, where the Bible calls Mary, the "Queen of Heaven". I can give you 5 verses of abominations pertaining to the Queen of Heaven, but not one verse positive of it.
There is no such book. It's called The Development of Christian Doctrine
Text without context is a pretext.
Here is some context to your twisted snippet::
The principle of the distinction, by which these observances were pious in Christianity and superstitious in paganism, is implied in such passages of Tertullian, Lactantius, and others, as speak of evil spirits lurking under the pagan statues. It is intimated also by Origen, who, after saying that Scripture so strongly "forbids temples, altars, and images," that Christians are "ready to go to death, if necessary, rather than pollute their notion of the God of all by any such transgression," assigns as a reason "that, as far as possible, they might not fall into the notion that images were gods." St. Augustine, in replying to Porphyry, is more express; "Those," he says, "who are acquainted with Old and New Testament do not blame in the pagan religion the erection of temples or institution of priesthoods, but that these are done to idols and devils ... True religion blames in their superstitions, not so much their sacrificing, for the ancient saints sacrificed to the True God, as their sacrificing to false gods." Faustus the Manichee he answers, "We have some things in common with the gentiles, but our purpose is different." And St. Jerome asks Vigilantius, who made objections to lights and oil, "Because we once worshipped idols, is that a reason why we should not worship God, for fear of seeming to address him with an honour like that which was paid to idols and then was detestable, whereas this is paid to Martyrs and therefore to be received?"
Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments {372} and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class.
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus supplies the first instance on record of this economy. He was the Apostle of Pontus, and one of his methods for governing an untoward population is thus related by St. Gregory of Nyssa. "On returning," he says, "to the city, after revisiting the country round about, he increased the devotion of the people everywhere by instituting festive meetings in honour of those who had fought for the faith. The bodies of the Martyrs were distributed in different places, and the people assembled and made merry, as the year came round, holding festival in their honour. This indeed was a proof of his great wisdom ... for, perceiving that the childish and untrained populace were retained in their idolatrous error by creature comforts, in order that what was of first importance should at any rate be secured to them, viz. that they should look to God in place of their vain rites, he allowed them to be merry, jovial, and gay at the monuments of the holy Martyrs, as if their behaviour would in time undergo a spontaneous change into greater seriousness and strictness, since faith would lead them to it; which has actually been the happy issue in that population, all carnal gratification having turned into a spiritual form of rejoicing." There is no reason to suppose {373} that the licence here spoken of passed the limits of harmless though rude festivity; for it is observable that the same reason, the need of holydays for the multitude, is assigned by Origen, St. Gregory's master, to explain the establishment of the Lord's Day also, and the Paschal and the Pentecostal festivals, which have never been viewed as unlawful compliances; and, moreover, the people were in fact eventually reclaimed from their gross habits by his indulgent policy, a successful issue which could not have followed an accommodation to what was sinful.
6.
The example set by St. Gregory in an age of persecution was impetuously followed when a time of peace succeeded. In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}
The Development of Christian Doctrine <<interesting reading but you have to think.
Is Catholicism Pagan? <<refutes all this pagan origin nonsense.
Jesus, the Good Shepherd. A third sub city burial site located on the Via Appia is the Catacombs of San Callisto. In use during the 2nd century these catacombs became the official catacombs of the Church of Rome. More than fifty martyrs are buried here as well as sixteen Bishops of Rome. (non-Catholic source) The Christianized pagans didn't want to draw undue attention from their persecutors, so they took their old god Dionysus, put a sheep on his shoulders, and called it Jesus, the Good Shepherd.
Modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, Robert M. Price , and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels. They point to the symbolism of wine and the importance it held in the mythology surrounding both Dionysus and Jesus Christ;[46][47] though, Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, was intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus.[48] wikipedia (one reason why the pagans were so easily converted)
Then you admit to being a Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentacostal, or some other made-in-America group that claims to make infallible statements on Christianity.
.
Using Isaiah 8:20 to claim it proves scripture is the sole authority is a good example of misusing scripture.Raeneske said:
Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. And when they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! Surely for this word which they speak there is no dawn. (Is 8:16-20)
Isaiah is telling his disciples to seal the oracles that he has been giving and then rely on them not on mediums and wizards. He is not referring to the whole of scripture and he does not say that scripture is the only source of God’s revelation.
Rather like 2Tim 3:16 it us useful for refuting error, although unlike 2Tim 3:16 Isaiah does not refer to all scripture just to the oracles he has been giving..
Raeneske said:
Jesus did not destroy the law. He fulfilled it. Because he fulfilled it then it has passed away. The law has not gone because it has been destroyed but because it has been fulfilled.
Another argument that goes on and on is about what Jesus meant when he said at the Last Supper "This is my body". For Catholics this is very plain. Jesus meant exactly what he said. Others diagree.
I could give many more examples where we argue about the meaning of scripture - baptism, salvation, works, after death etc.
Even when scripture says something explicitly such as "Baptism.. now saves you" people argue that it doesn't mean what it says.
Raeneske said:
You are contradicting yourself. First you say:
Doctrines are seen by Isaiah 28:10, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little. Mary being Queen of Heaven; whether one verse, or by many, will be stated in scripture, whether you need a link to understand it or not, makes no difference. I am not asking for a one liner. I'm asking for the proof, which you offered to give.
Then you say:
Show me explicitly, where the Bible calls Mary, the "Queen of Heaven"
Which is it, showing how Mary is the Queen of Heaven from various scriptural texts or showing you explicitly where the Bible calls Mary the Queen of Heaven?
I can, and will, do the former if that is what you want.
You do realize that even in context, the statement does not change the meaning... Right? It still says:kepha31 said:There is no such book. It's called The Development of Christian Doctrine
Text without context is a pretext.
Here is some context to your twisted snippet::
The principle of the distinction, by which these observances were pious in Christianity and superstitious in paganism, is implied in such passages of Tertullian, Lactantius, and others, as speak of evil spirits lurking under the pagan statues. It is intimated also by Origen, who, after saying that Scripture so strongly "forbids temples, altars, and images," that Christians are "ready to go to death, if necessary, rather than pollute their notion of the God of all by any such transgression," assigns as a reason "that, as far as possible, they might not fall into the notion that images were gods." St. Augustine, in replying to Porphyry, is more express; "Those," he says, "who are acquainted with Old and New Testament do not blame in the pagan religion the erection of temples or institution of priesthoods, but that these are done to idols and devils ... True religion blames in their superstitions, not so much their sacrificing, for the ancient saints sacrificed to the True God, as their sacrificing to false gods." Faustus the Manichee he answers, "We have some things in common with the gentiles, but our purpose is different." And St. Jerome asks Vigilantius, who made objections to lights and oil, "Because we once worshipped idols, is that a reason why we should not worship God, for fear of seeming to address him with an honour like that which was paid to idols and then was detestable, whereas this is paid to Martyrs and therefore to be received?"
Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments {372} and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class.
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus supplies the first instance on record of this economy. He was the Apostle of Pontus, and one of his methods for governing an untoward population is thus related by St. Gregory of Nyssa. "On returning," he says, "to the city, after revisiting the country round about, he increased the devotion of the people everywhere by instituting festive meetings in honour of those who had fought for the faith. The bodies of the Martyrs were distributed in different places, and the people assembled and made merry, as the year came round, holding festival in their honour. This indeed was a proof of his great wisdom ... for, perceiving that the childish and untrained populace were retained in their idolatrous error by creature comforts, in order that what was of first importance should at any rate be secured to them, viz. that they should look to God in place of their vain rites, he allowed them to be merry, jovial, and gay at the monuments of the holy Martyrs, as if their behaviour would in time undergo a spontaneous change into greater seriousness and strictness, since faith would lead them to it; which has actually been the happy issue in that population, all carnal gratification having turned into a spiritual form of rejoicing." There is no reason to suppose {373} that the licence here spoken of passed the limits of harmless though rude festivity; for it is observable that the same reason, the need of holydays for the multitude, is assigned by Origen, St. Gregory's master, to explain the establishment of the Lord's Day also, and the Paschal and the Pentecostal festivals, which have never been viewed as unlawful compliances; and, moreover, the people were in fact eventually reclaimed from their gross habits by his indulgent policy, a successful issue which could not have followed an accommodation to what was sinful.
6.
The example set by St. Gregory in an age of persecution was impetuously followed when a time of peace succeeded. In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}
The Development of Christian Doctrine <<interesting reading but you have to think.
Is Catholicism Pagan? <<refutes all this pagan origin nonsense.
Jesus, the Good Shepherd. A third sub city burial site located on the Via Appia is the Catacombs of San Callisto. In use during the 2nd century these catacombs became the official catacombs of the Church of Rome. More than fifty martyrs are buried here as well as sixteen Bishops of Rome. (non-Catholic source) The Christianized pagans didn't want to draw undue attention from their persecutors, so they took their old god Dionysus, put a sheep on his shoulders, and called it Jesus, the Good Shepherd.
Modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, Robert M. Price , and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels. They point to the symbolism of wine and the importance it held in the mythology surrounding both Dionysus and Jesus Christ;[46][47] though, Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, was intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus.[48]wikipedia (one reason why the pagans were so easily converted)
Then you admit to being a Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentacostal, or some other made-in-America group that claims to make infallible statements on Christianity.
.
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}
So, i'm not sure what your point was of posting all that. Earlier it stated that, sure there are some similiarities. And those similarities are not to be taken as being from Pagans. HOWEVER, there are things not included in God's worship, which were added in by the Roman Church, which they say they sanctified, which were of a Pagan origin. Last time I checked, God said not to do that.
I am not a JW, or a Pentecostal thankyou very much. Yes, I reject the trinity, and what of it? It's clearly, and solely a Catholic Doctrine, without it's foundation in the Word of God. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that. I like my beliefs to be found within scripture, thankyou.
I seriously must not be making myself clear.Mungo said:
Isaiah 8:20 still says this word. What, were they to believe other authorities that came in, if it contradicted it? Who had the final say in such matters? The Church? Or the Word? The Word, of course.
Like I said, people can clearly argue over the plainest statements in the Bible.
What i'm asking for regarding your posts is absolute evidence that it says "Mary, Queen of Heaven". Such a thing does not have to be found in one verse, to be explicitly stated. It's like the last supper, it is explicitly stated, but it is not only found in one verse, to get that explicit statement. I'm not asking for one verse. I'm telling you, what you're saying has to be stated within the Word of God.
Isaiah is referring to he oracles not the whole of scripture. And he was not referring to other authorities but to "the mediums and the wizards who chirp and mutter,".Raeneske said:
Jesus told people to listen to the Scribes and Pharisees who were the teaching authorities and interpreters of scripture for the Jews (Mt 23:1-3). He didn't say ignore the Scribes and Pharisees and just read the scriptures yourself.
Raeneske said:
You keep saying you want absolute evidence that it says 'Mary, Queen of Heaven'. I'm saying that is unreasonable. And then you contradict yourself by saying it does not have to be found in one verse.
However let us start, and with Jesus.
God promised David his throne (i.e. his kingdom) would last for ever (2Sam 7:11-16). At the Annunciation the Angel says to Mary that her son (Jesus) “will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk 1:32-33).
Jesus kingdom is the Davidic kingdom and has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom. One of these characteristics is the role of king’s mother.
In a monarchical system a woman may have the title Queen for one of three reasons.
We can see examples of this in both the recent history in the UK and in the Bible. I will give examples from the Bible.
1. The woman is a ruler in her own right. For example the Queen of Sheba (see 1Kg 10)
2. The woman is the wife of the reigning king. In the book of Esther, King Ahasuerus had many concubines, but gave one of them the honour of being designated Queen, first Vashti, but then Esther.
3. The woman is the mother of the reigning king. In the kingdom of David the king might have multiple wives, so the practice was to give the title Queen Mother to the mother of the king. This was instituted by Solomon the son of David.
We see this first established by Solomon when he greets Bathsheba who comes to ask a favour. He pays her homage and sits her on a throne at his right hand (a position of honour) (1Kg 2:19)
After Solomon the kingdom splits into the Northern kingdom (Israel) and the Southern kingdom (Judah). After this there were 20 kings in Israel before the deportation to Assyria. For none of these is the mother of the king mentioned.
There were 19 kings in Judah after Solomon before they were deported to Babylon. In 17 of these the king’s mother is given, usually after introducing the king, with the words “his mother’s name was ……”. This in itself shows that the king’s mother was a significant figure.
The mother of the king was referred to as the queen mother (1Kg15:13 (& 2Chr 15:16), 2Kg 10:13, Jer 13:18, Jer 29:2.).
Any comments so far?
Isaiah 8:16, 20 - Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.Mungo said:
You seem to be missing something. It says if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them. Does not scripture proclaim the law and the testimony? Yes. So, how can anything contradicting those testimonies have light within them? Whether they are enchanters, demons, or supposed leaders. Like the Pharisees? They clearly contradicted the Word of God with their traditions, and they claimed to be authority. Does, Isaiah 8:20 not apply to them all of a sudden because they are church leaders?
Now let’s put this comment you made also back into context:
Matthew 23:3 - All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
He is saying, do as they bid you to observe. Feast days, etc, but not after their works. For Jesus showed that the Pharisees loved to be called Rabbi, they loved the highest seats in the innermost chambers, and greeting in the market place. He shows that the Pharisees are hypocrites, they profess to follow and believe the oracles of God, but Jesus shows they are liars. They bid people to observe traditions, but Jesus showed that their tradition was in place of God’s commandment. Were the people really to break the commandments of God? Of course not.
Absolute evidence is not always found in one verse, and that’s the point I’m trying to make. You can get absolute evidence in scripture of a doctrine, by following the precepts of Isaiah 8:20. I don’t know how to say that any plainer, sorry if I’m being incredibly confusing.
Is your study finished? If not, continue please.
Similar threads
