The Goddess Man Has Made

[Brother James]

I'm afraid you are misinterpreting my disagreement with "ignoring the importance of 1 Tim 2:14". Now, the Jews had scriptures before Christ. Jesus even read from the scrolls in the synagogues. When He did that everyone understood that He was reading from the scriptures, even though there was no chuch body to certify it. God's people knew.

Yes, there was disagreement among Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc. as to what the scriptures meant, but God's people had the law and the scriptures for a very long time and knew what they were supposed to do long before Jesus or the church. I have not argued for sola scriptura, I subscribe to prima scriptura, but that would make a good topic in and of itself if anyone is interested.

Again, you've misunderstood something else I said. I was not accusing you of saying I was inferior. I was suggesting that the kind of statement where you accuse others of not caring about their souls, as another person did, came from a place where one person considers their opinion as superior. Of course we believe our opinions to be correct, but that doesn't give us license to insult or to tell someone that they don't care about truth or their own soul. That's what I was talking about.

Either I'm communicating poorly, or you're taking it the wrong way, I can't tell which, but do please ask for clarification if you think I've said something offensive. I don't want to do that, but it's so easy to do when there's no body language to see and no way to quickly follow up with a clarification.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi kepha,

Axehead is not judging souls here, he is making himself authority over and above the three fold means of how Divine Revelation is presented to us, as St. Paul describes to Timothy in 1 Tim. 3: 14-15. He is judging the harmony of Tradition, the Magisterium, together with Scripture. It's like a three legged stool. Remove one leg, and the stool falls down. It's up to Axehead to defend his one legged stool, which no sola scripturist can do.

There is no such thing as a 'three-legged stool' in the Bible. That is a man-made construction.

But what there is, is a rock solid historical record of God's word to man... going back to long before Christ.


When Jesus came as the Word of God incarnate, He said plainly -

Matthew 7:23 - 25 And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you all that work iniquity.

Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not:
for it was founded upon a rock.

A great big mountain of a rock.

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet [that were] of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.



Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness
and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did you all never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

 

[Axehead]

I find it interesting that there are no prophecies about Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built or any prophecies about Mary other than Isa 7:14 where the Word foretells that a Virgin will conceive.

The reason there are no prophecies is because God did not intend for Mary to be what the RCC has made her and the same goes for Peter.

Deut 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Psa 18:31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

Psa 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

There are many more references to the Lord being the Rock in the Old Testament and Jews were raised on the Scriptures so when they heard Jesus say, "Upon this Rock, I shall build my Church", right after Peter declared that Jesus was "The Christ, the Son of the Living God", they were not confused into thinking Jesus was talking about them.

And just for good measure, the Holy Spirit links the Rock in the New Testament with the Rock in the Old Testament.

1Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

I'm afraid you are misinterpreting my disagreement with "ignoring the importance of 1 Tim 2:14". Now, the Jews had scriptures before Christ. Jesus even read from the scrolls in the synagogues. When He did that everyone understood that He was reading from the scriptures, even though there was no chuch body to certify it. God's people knew.

Yes, there was disagreement among Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc. as to what the scriptures meant, but God's people had the law and the scriptures for a very long time and knew what they were supposed to do long before Jesus or the church. I have not argued for sola scriptura, I subscribe to prima scriptura, but that would make a good topic in and of itself if anyone is interested.

Again, you've misunderstood something else I said. I was not accusing you of saying I was inferior. I was suggesting that the kind of statement where you accuse others of not caring about their souls, as another person did, came from a place where one person considers their opinion as superior. Of course we believe our opinions to be correct, but that doesn't give us license to insult or to tell someone that they don't care about truth or their own soul. That's what I was talking about.

Either I'm communicating poorly, or you're taking it the wrong way, I can't tell which, but do please ask for clarification if you think I've said something offensive. I don't want to do that, but it's so easy to do when there's no body language to see and no way to quickly follow up with a clarification.

I did misunderstand your intention, it was the premise of your analogy that I reacted to. I apologize. 2 Tim 3:16 has been the trump card for defending sola scriptua and it has turned out to be the joker.

Hi kepha,

There is no such thing as a 'three-legged stool' in the Bible. That is a man-made construction.

It is a metaphor to describe the harmony/complimentarity of Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium, which is in the Bible. Either they work together or they won't work. Thousands of conflicting interpretations prove this.

But what there is, is a rock solid historical record of God's word to man... going back to long before Christ.

God's word is not limited to scripture alone. Do a bible search: "word of God", or, "God's word". It is never used to describe just the scriptures alone; that is a man made construct.

When Jesus came as the Word of God incarnate, He said plainly -

Matthew 7:23 - 25 And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you all that work iniquity.

Therefore whoever hears these sayings of mine, and does them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not:
for it was founded upon a rock.

This has nothing to so with 1Tim 3:12-17. But notice Jesus does not say Therefore whoever reads these sayings of mine..,
Does "rock" have only one meaning in this verse?

A great big mountain of a rock.

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet [that were] of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. 35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

This has nothing to do with 1 Tim 12-17.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

This has nothing to do with 1 Tim 12-17.
Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness
and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

thy word does not refer to the written word alone.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did you all never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Nice bible quotes, but they are incohesive. Try to address quotes so we don't run all over the map.

I find it interesting that there are no prophecies about Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built

Isa. 22.

or any prophecies about Mary other than Isa 7:14 where the Word foretells that a Virgin will conceive.

Genesis 3:15 for starters.

As a lily among thorns, so is my beloved among women. (Song of Songs 2:2)

You are all-beautiful, my beloved, and there is no blemish in you.(Song of Songs 4:7)

.."Arise, my beloved, my beautiful one, and come! (Song of Songs 2:10)

The fig tree puts forth its figs, and the vines, in bloom, give forth fragrance. Arise, my beloved, my beautiful one, and come! (Song of Songs 2:13)
Who is this that comes forth like the dawn, as beautiful as the moon, as resplendent as the sun, as awe-inspiring as bannered troops? (Song of Songs 6:10)

...A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Revelation 12:1)
"Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth... (Judith 13:18)

The reason there are no prophecies is because God did not intend for Mary to be what the RCC has made her and the same goes for Peter.

Keep grinding that axe and there won't be anything left of it.

Deut 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Psa 18:31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

There are many more references to the Lord being the Rock in the Old Testament and Jews were raised on the Scriptures so when they heard Jesus say, "Upon this Rock, I shall build my Church", right after Peter declared that Jesus was "The Christ, the Son of the Living God", they were not confused into thinking Jesus was talking about them.

Psa 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.

Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34; Acts 9:4; 13:9 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Saul to Paul.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

There are many more references to the Lord being the Rock in the Old Testament and Jews were raised on the Scriptures so when they heard Jesus say, "Upon this Rock, I shall build my Church", right after Peter declared that Jesus was "The Christ, the Son of the Living God", they were not confused into thinking Jesus was talking about them.

And just for good measure, the Holy Spirit links the Rock in the New Testament with the Rock in the Old Testament.

1Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Axehead

And just for good measure, St. Paul was talking about an oral tradition, because the Old Testament has no reference to 1Cor 10:4

 

[Axehead]

1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1Pet 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

 

[epostle1]

Come on, Axehead. You know that certain words in scripture can have more than one meaning. ROCK means cornerstone, which is Christ. I don't dispute that. Let me add to your list.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock."


You are arguing that God, or Peter'sa confession, or Peter's faith and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church.

Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock.

These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

But do Catholics agree that Peter's confession is the rock? Peter's faith is the rock? The answer is yes, and the Pope agrees, but it doesn't stop there. The passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book
Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996). a Protestant book:

William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.

Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock

I have 19 more quotes from Protestant scholars and I have no need to bulldoze you with long lists that no one will read anyway, but you should get the idea. Your arguments are antiquated by your own Bible experts.

"New Exodus of Protestants Coming Home to Rome" Part 1 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJF8w04iX2I&feature=related

 

[Axehead]

I don't know....I'm thinking "Far From Rome, Near to God".

Come on Kepha. I can do that too. Here is a book of 50 testimonies of Priests that left the RCC.

You know the most common thing among them? They started seeing the inconsistencies between the Magisterium and the Bible when they started reading the Scriptures.

Same think with these 20 nuns. The Word of God will convert the soul.

Now, I know the party line. All these priests and nuns are dissidents, but you should really treat them all as individuals just like I would treat people like Patrick Madrid and Scott Hahn as individuals and listen to why they left "Protestantism".

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

Yes, it would be a good idea to treat Patrick Madrid and Scott Hahn as individuals. I like Dave Armstrong, who refutes the book "Near to God, Far from Rome here.

This is also interesting :

A CASE STUDY IN CATHOLIC BASHING, More or Les​

Being an Exhaustive Refutation of the Biblical Bloopers, Historical Blunders, Logical Absurdities, Incoherent Nonsense, Outright Fabrications, and Pure Poppycock of the Posts of LES WILCOX​

Anti-Catholicism on the Internet is a good read too.

Richard Bennet, former priest and author of your book, reminds me of the guy who breaks up with his girlfriend and spends the rest of his life bad-mouthing her. Both books are hate propaganda, spiritual pornography and people who mainline that trash are ultimately feeding their self hatred.

Try and stay on the topic you started.

 

[Axehead]

Yes, it would be a good idea to treat Patrick Madrid and Scott Hahn as individuals. I like Dave Armstrong, who refutes the book "Near to God, Far from Rome here.

This is also interesting :

A CASE STUDY IN CATHOLIC BASHING, More or Les​

Being an Exhaustive Refutation of the Biblical Bloopers, Historical Blunders, Logical Absurdities, Incoherent Nonsense, Outright Fabrications, and Pure Poppycock of the Posts of LES WILCOX​

Anti-Catholicism on the Internet is a good read too.

Richard Bennet, former priest and author of your book, reminds me of the guy who breaks up with his girlfriend and spends the rest of his life bad-mouthing her. Both books are hate propaganda, spiritual pornography and people who mainline that trash are ultimately feeding their self hatred.

Try and stay on the topic you started.

Thank you for taking your mask off and exposing for all to see that you are here with an agenda.

Let people make up their own mind about Richard Bennett.
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/testimonies/Former_Priests/Richard_Bennett.pdf

His testimony to the Gospel of Grace is one of courage.

I have more confidence in people than you do. Supply them with the materials and let them make up their own mind without the ad hominems.


Roman Catholic Apologists


The Pillar and Ground of Untruth

The Lost Soul of Scott Hahn

The Desire of Scott Hahn

The Deception of Scott Hahn

The Damnation of Scott Hahn

The Aberrant World of Karl Keating

Scott Hahns The Route into Apostasy

Scott Hahn by Miles McKee

Marcus Grodi Religionist or Rascal

Karl Keating in the State of Denial

Henri Nouwen Exalting Self and Diminishing the Cross

Francis Beckwith is Analyzed

Does the Bible Really Say That

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

Mary: The Blessed Virgin (Index Page for Dave Armstrong)

 

[Axehead]

The Catholic Catechism records that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin for her entire life.

510 Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38).

The position one takes on whether Mary remained a virgin or not her entire life depends on what one believes...either the traditions of men or the Word of God.

The Bible records that after giving birth to Jesus, Mary bore other children:
Let's look at the context in Matt 13. Notice that they are talking about Jesus.

Mat 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
Mat 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

Mat 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
(Mark 6:1 identifies that Jesus Christ is being talked about).

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The previous verses unequivocally contradict Catholic doctrine and because they do contradict, here is the explanation from the Catholic Catechism.

500 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".

Another Mary? Do you not see how they twist scripture. The scriptures clearly refer to "Mary, the mother of Jesus".

This is how they put forth Mary as this pure and holy divine-like being who is somehow above having normal marital relations with a mere man. I'm sure one reason could be that it would make Mary appear more like priests and nuns. And it is important for the RCC that common people revere the office of priests and nuns.

So, the choice is always the same, accept the traditions of man and reject the Word of God, or believe God's Word as it is written.

Unfortunately, the Goddess that has been made by the RCC resembles pagan deities in the OT and it should trouble all Catholics that the Mary of the New Testament has more in common with a pagan deity than Jesus' earthly mother.

Here is the Vatican website where these Catechism entries were taken from.
http://www.vatican.v...sm/p122a3p2.htm

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

Neither Taking Away nor Adding Anything
[T]he Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.
No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.
—Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 62

check this out, Neophyte

An Ordinary Woman and Mother of God

by Catherine Doherty

Consider Mary as she really is. Everybody honors Our Lady. Of course she is to be honored. She is the Mother of God. But I would like to tell of her ordinary life. There are many women like me who feel that she is so high up that nobody can touch her. It is true that she is high up, but she is also very ordinary.

What did she do all day? I imagine she washed and scrubbed and cleaned. She was married to a carpenter. She wasn't a big shot in Nazareth. Nazareth was a small town. Joseph wasn't a big shot, just a carpenter. She tended to her husband and Son, especially when he was small. She cooked, she scrubbed and she washed and wove and attended to the garden and did the laundry. Our Lady was the first person who really knew how to do the will of God in its minute details.

I revel in her normality because she is ordinary and at the same time extraordinary. It was an ordinary household and that is a most fantastic thing. Our Lord chose for his mother a working woman; that's what she was, a working woman.
She got up in the morning, and on some days of the week carried the laundry to the pool. The women of Nazareth must have come to her constantly because she was who she was. She must have kept, not a cookie jar, but the Eastern sweets that all the Eastern people love, and children must have come to her.

I think of her in realistic terms, but I also think of her as the woman with the power to stand silently under the cross of her Son, and in some sort of an incredible way, I understand that at that moment she became the mother of all humanity, for whom he died.
She's the woman of speech and she's the woman of silence. She's stronger than an army in battle array and as weak with God as only a woman can be. She dusted and she cleaned. And she cooked and she knew how to weave. She wove his seamless garment. Her life was a sea of small things so infinitely small that they're almost not worth mentioning. The corn had to be ground, her house swept, the meals prepared; day after day the Mother of God did those things.

From her we can learn the quality of listening, and of taking up the words of others as well as the words of God, holding them in our hearts until the Holy Spirit cracks them wide open and gives us the answer as he did to her as her Spouse.
You asked me to explain who Our Lady is. You could say that she's the gate. She's the gate to the way to the Father, because it is through her that Christ came to us and it is through her that we return to him.

Who is Our Lady? A woman like you and me. She is someone to whom my heart goes out all day and who is with me as a friend, and with whom I can talk. We all should talk about her Son. For you see, she changed his diapers and he drank her milk, and she kissed his boo-boos away like any woman does to a toddler. He scratched himself, so she kissed it away. He went, and he fell and he got up and he grew up, and she probably said, “Eat your porridge,” and she probably said, “Don't forget your sandals. It's wet.”

Who has lived with God as Mary has lived with him? To whom can we go and find out that he is really a man? From whom shall we know the Incarnation better than from the woman who carried him in her womb nine months?

How can anyone talk about throwing out devotions to Our Lady? Do you want to throw out the woman who was pregnant with God and who will never lead you away from him but always to him?

We think of her as the queen of the angels, and queen of the universe, which she is. But you see, God was a carpenter and she was a house-wife. And God is in heaven and he still has calloused hands in his glorified body. And she, who also has been assumed into heaven and has a glorified body, still has hands that show she was just a working woman. She is all things to all people because she is the mother of mankind.
How can we not love her? How can we not go to her, run to her? She has the secret of everything, now that she is where she is. And when we worry about some kind of a mystery or have a hang-up on something or other in spiritual matters, why don't we go to her? She'll say, “Oh relax, kiddo. Let us sit down and talk.”

What a strange thing it is that God chose her. Because she is the gate through which he came to us, she is the gate wide open for us to go through to Him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwx8g8z7FUo

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES 1
http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES 2
http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles2.html

 

[Axehead]

This priest says that Father Karl Rahner sabotaged the announcement of Mary as Mediatrix at Vatican II


Catholic Website, Tradition in Action decries the sabotaging of Mary as Mediatrix.
http://www.tradition...hnRatzMary.html

Father Rahner's Girlfriend Revealed by Catholic Family News
[background=rgb(255, 204, 153)]Father Karl Rahner, the progressivist Jesuit who “set the direction for the Second Vatican Council,”[/background][sup]1[/sup][background=rgb(255, 204, 153)]carried on a secret 22-year “romance” with German writer Luise Rinser.[/background]
http://www.cfnews.org/rahner.htm

There was and still is a big movement within the Catholic Church to crown Mary the Mediatrix of all Graces. When you dig a little bit on Catholic websites you find things that fit the saying, "Truth is Stranger than Fiction".

We know that Catholic Church ridicules those outside their Church who expose them. They severely ridicule former Nuns and Priests but here they are ridiculing those WITHIN their church. They are demeaning the group, Tradition In Action.
http://forums.cathol...ad.php?t=245401

I think the biggest reason they demean them is because they are so truthful.

One does not have to make up anything about the RCC, just use their own websites.

Axehead

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

Don't you get tired of swinging that axe? You should take a break. You need a self help group, not a discussion forum. Read this: http://www.adultchildren.org/ I know where you are at because I've been there too. May God be with you in your journey towards healing and recovery.

 

[Brother James]

Does everyone who disagrees with the Catholic church need a self-help group? "Mother of God" is a shocking term to people outside your church. The Catholic church lifts her to unsupportable heights. She is not omniscient, so she cannot hear the simultaneous prayers of 50 million people. In fact, there is no evidence that dead human beings can hear any prayers of any living people. Ascribing omniscience to Mary is troublesome. Every minute focused on veneration of her is a minute we could be worshipping the Son of God, whom we know is our intercessor with the Father. Would you rather your children come directly to you with their requests, or go to your mother (their grandmother) to get her on their side? Do folks really believe God works this way, that he'll do something for you because you asked Mary that He wouldn't do if you approached Him directly? Respect and admiration for who Mary was is appropriate, but the fixation on her is very troubling to most non-catholics. Given that, what is the need to keep pushing the "mother of God" thing when non-catholics have stated how that strikes them? It's no different than when the non-catholics keep insisting that you worship Mary as a goddess when you've told them you don't and such nonsense is offensive. It's hard to see why people go to such lengths to cause intentional offense. On either side, I mean.

 

[aspen]

Brother James,

We are posting on a thread titled "The Goddess Man has Made" - can you possibly see that both sides of this argument (that is going no where, btw) may be using offensive terms?

 

[Brother James]

Sure, and I've criticized both. You can say what you believe without being rude, but it seems like people prefer to be rude to one another. Don't you think that reflects badly on people? Always that little twist of the knife at the end, always some way of getting in a dig. Ugliness doesn't have to be used. It's a choice.

 

[dragonfly]

the choice is always the same, accept the traditions of man and reject the Word of God, or believe God's Word as it is written.

I think you've captured here the biggest difficulty I've come across in these discussions - that obeying the word of God is not seen as the key to pleasing God and finding eternal life is accessible, but rather many objections to scripture are created by RCC doctrine which ordinary people latch onto, and hold vigourously despite their futility and powerlessness to save souls. It is its own scandal, in the opposite direction from the cross.

 

[Axehead]

Does everyone who disagrees with the Catholic church need a self-help group? "Mother of God" is a shocking term to people outside your church. The Catholic church lifts her to unsupportable heights. She is not omniscient, so she cannot hear the simultaneous prayers of 50 million people. In fact, there is no evidence that dead human beings can hear any prayers of any living people. Ascribing omniscience to Mary is troublesome. Every minute focused on veneration of her is a minute we could be worshipping the Son of God, whom we know is our intercessor with the Father. Would you rather your children come directly to you with their requests, or go to your mother (their grandmother) to get her on their side? Do folks really believe God works this way, that he'll do something for you because you asked Mary that He wouldn't do if you approached Him directly? Respect and admiration for who Mary was is appropriate, but the fixation on her is very troubling to most non-catholics. Given that, what is the need to keep pushing the "mother of God" thing when non-catholics have stated how that strikes them? It's no different than when the non-catholics keep insisting that you worship Mary as a goddess when you've told them you don't and such nonsense is offensive. It's hard to see why people go to such lengths to cause intentional offense. On either side, I mean.

Bro. James,

When a Catholic Apologist cannot refute what one is saying, they stoop to denigrating an individual and if possible tarnishing their reputation. Catholic writings expose Catholic writings and they cannot be refuted because they are Catholic. Obviously, you see what's going on and I think many others do too. There is a saying that is appropriate for forums that is, "Play the ball not the man". Some people cannot "play the ball", so they attack the man. This is obvious to everyone.

Axehead

 

[epostle1]

Does everyone who disagrees with the Catholic church need a self-help group? "Mother of God" is a shocking term to people outside your church. The Catholic church lifts her to unsupportable heights. She is not omniscient, so she cannot hear the simultaneous prayers of 50 million people. In fact, there is no evidence that dead human beings can hear any prayers of any living people. Ascribing omniscience to Mary is troublesome. Every minute focused on veneration of her is a minute we could be worshipping the Son of God, whom we know is our intercessor with the Father. Would you rather your children come directly to you with their requests, or go to your mother (their grandmother) to get her on their side? Do folks really believe God works this way, that he'll do something for you because you asked Mary that He wouldn't do if you approached Him directly? Respect and admiration for who Mary was is appropriate, but the fixation on her is very troubling to most non-catholics. Given that, what is the need to keep pushing the "mother of God" thing when non-catholics have stated how that strikes them? It's no different than when the non-catholics keep insisting that you worship Mary as a goddess when you've told them you don't and such nonsense is offensive. It's hard to see why people go to such lengths to cause intentional offense. On either side, I mean.

Nobody is "pushing the mother of God thing", Br. James, the "mother of God thing" is constantly attacked. I don't preach "mother of God" to hungry people, I give them food. People are "shocked" over the term "Mother of God" because they are happier in their ignorance and they have an axe to grind. . Ignorance might be blissful, but it is never illuminating. You listed 6 maybe 7 misrepresentations. You are going 100 miles an hour and I only have a 10 mile an hour brain. One misrepresentation at a time please.

Mother of God comes right out of the Bible. Luke 1:42 Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit, so she is not about to utter an opinion.

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth's use of "Mother of my Lord" (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used "Adonai" which means Lord God) is the equivalent of "Holy Mary, Mother of God" which Catholics pray in the Rosary. SHOCKING!!! SHOCKING!!!

The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus' Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus' human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures). Mary is NOT above God in any way. Mary does not give birth to the Father. She gives birth to the Divine Logos.

Catholics were using the term over 100 years before the heresiarch Nestorius came along. He objected to the term the same as you. He taught a disunity between Jesus as God and Jesus as man. "Mother of God" is really a sloppy translation of the Greek "Theotokos" which means "God-bearer", so the Early Church Fathers held a council (Ephesus) to settle the dispute, and defended the Incarnation by making the term "mother of God" official. There is nothing wrong with it once you understand the history and reasons behind it. It's wrong to leave the Incarnation out of the picture when talking about Mary, the Mother of God, because in truth, the focus is on the Incarnation. That is what the title affirms. That is where the term came from. What is shocking is removing the Incarnation from the equation, which is what ignorant hostile anti-Catholics do. Jesus is never mentioned in their shallow arguments against Marian teachings.

"After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead."​

Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).​

see pics here

REDEEMER IN THE WOMB

She is the mother of Jesus, who is God. Mothers don't give birth to natures, they give birth to persons. Jesus is a Person, fully God and fully man. Jesus is God, and Jesus is his mother. That is what we mean by "Mother of God". If all you can see is Mary in the main pic of the link, then I guess my light isn't bright enough.​

Catholic Marian Doctrines: A Brief Biblical Primer

Most Protestants are taught very little about the Blessed Virgin Mary: The Mother of God the Son (Theotokos, or literally, God-bearer), other than the fact that she rocked baby Jesus' cradle on the first Christmas and thus helped to make Silent Night (written by an Austrian Catholic priest) the lovely, moving song that it is. Thus, for them to understand the highest theological and spiritual level of Catholic Mariology is somewhat akin to expecting a child who has just mastered the times tables to comprehend calculus or trigonometry. It just won't happen. Even most Catholics don't understand these things. They require much thought and study. One has to progress in any form of knowledge little by little.​

Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in "The Glories of Mary", Teach That Mary is "Above God" and Can "Manipulate God"? (vs. Len Lisenbee)

Br. James, let's be real. It is not Catholics who are fixated on Mary, it is anti-Catholics, because Mary is all they complain about. And we Catholics spend miles of pages in every forum defending deeper spiritual realities that funnymentalists have little hope of comprehending. They post thread titles like "The Goddess Man has Made". Then we are accused of being fixated. When I go to Mass, the only "Mary" I hear about is in the recitation of the Apostles Creed. but for certain celebrations of the year, such as Christmas.

Br. James, your cluster bomb of half truths and preconceived notions is typical. Anyone reading this post with an open mind and is seeking the truth about the Catholic Church will ponder this post, maybe read the links, and anyone who has made up their mind how wrong the Church is, will remember your quote.​

Matthew 10:14​

I made a request for a thread closure to the Forum Administrator.​