"Devotion" to Mary...

[Thinkingstuff]

You stated this about Nimrod -



Surely you see very little humor there - agreed?



Please point to the area in your discussion of Nimrod where humor enters the picture.




In the Bible account - all makind is wiped out at the flood except for Noah and his 3 sons and their wives. That means that a mere 4500 years ago -- all the Egyptian's ancestory goes back to a family of 8 just as do all the Hebrew ancestory. It is not surprising then that some similarities in their views of the flood or the appearance of angels would exist. Far more shocking if there were no similarities at all!

But in the case of Abraham - and his line - (who lived at the SAME time as the sons of Noah) God directed and informed them regarding the truth.

In fact Christ Himself says that Abraham was also shown the future - was shown Christ's day as well.

We can not equivocate between pagan myths and Bible history as if BOTH have equal access to the Divine view of history. But we CAN compare the paganism in Mariolotry to the paganism in Rome since even CATHOLIC historians themselves admit that the two are linked.

in Christ,

Bob

Also note Moses wrote the Torah. How much of his egyptian education has he incorporated into his teachings? (is the basis of my disturbance of the similarities)

 

[BobRyan]

2 Peter 1:21 says that no scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation - but Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit "spoke from God".

Is it your view that God only knew what Egyptians knew? Or are you saying that even though God was giving Moses a direct view of creation - he chose to rely upon Egptian myth "anyway" at times?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You want to redeem yourself? Post on this thread like I do not exist, which is what you should have done to begin with, and .

Very well.

My apologies.

you do not exist.

 

[Darron Steele]

Very well.

My apologies.

you do not exist.

:laugh: Thanks.:thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

2 Peter 1:21 says that no scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation - but Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit "spoke from God".

Is it your view that God only knew what Egyptians knew? Or are you saying that even though God was giving Moses a direct view of creation - he chose to rely upon Egptian myth "anyway" at times?

in Christ,

Bob

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am saying I'm disturbed by it. Look, If I were an atheist I could easily argue. That Moses departing Egypt with his rabble of mixed hebrew, Egyptian disenfranchised, Ethiopians, etc... through the Sinai Penninsula used accepted Egyptian religious norms to establish his new Judaic religion. Moses took away the Pantheon and made one God. Translated the Egyptian Mott into something duable for the Hebrews. Even used the goddess Seraph and made multiple (servant gods) angels known as Seraphim who had the same function as the Goddess. After all Akenaten attempted to bring the polytheistic Egypt to an end and established a single deity about 100 years after Moses. Possibly a correlation there. If you look at the art work displayed on the tabernacle and compared it to standard egyptian works striking similarities. Also note Moses doesn't implement the law until his father in law tells him the mass of people is too much for him to govern by himself and he (moses) needs to estabish judges under him. The very next thing that happens is God gives the 10 commandements and the other laws and restrictions. Convenient (maybe a little too much so?). Moses could have easily taken oral histories similar to Atra-hasis and Gilgamesh fit it to his needs and fabricated the entire book of Genesis. Fortunately, I am not an atheist, however, I'm still disturbed by the similarities and correlations.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am saying I'm disturbed by it. Look, If I were an atheist I could easily argue. That Moses departing Egypt with his rabble of mixed hebrew, Egyptian disenfranchised, Ethiopians, etc... through the Sinai Penninsula used accepted Egyptian religious norms to establish his new Judaic religion. Moses took away the Pantheon and made one God. Translated the Egyptian Mott into something duable for the Hebrews. Even used the goddess Seraph and made multiple (servant gods) angels known as Seraphim who had the same function as the Goddess. After all Akenaten attempted to bring the polytheistic Egypt to an end and established a single deity about 100 years after Moses. Possibly a correlation there. If you look at the art work displayed on the tabernacle and compared it to standard egyptian works striking similarities. Also note Moses doesn't implement the law until his father in law tells him the mass of people is too much for him to govern by himself and he (moses) needs to estabish judges under him. The very next thing that happens is God gives the 10 commandements and the other laws and restrictions. Convenient (maybe a little too much so?). Moses could have easily taken oral histories similar to Atra-hasis and Gilgamesh fit it to his needs and fabricated the entire book of Genesis. Fortunately, I am not an atheist, however, I'm still disturbed by the similarities and correlations.

Of course you are that way you can still claim an orthodoxy and still question scripture and God. It is the liberal way of having your atheistic cake and eat it to.

Given: Barney is a CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR
Prove: Barney is satanic

The Romans had no letter 'U', and used 'V' instead for
printing, meaning the Roman representation would for
Barney would be: CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR

CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR

Extracting the Roman numerals, we have:
CV V L DI V

And their decimal equivalents are:
100 5 5 50 500 1 5

Adding those numbers produces: 666.

666 is the number of the Beast.

Proved: BARNEY IS SATAN!

Anything can be made to look similar if twisted in the right direction.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course you are that way you can still claim an orthodoxy and still question scripture and God. It is the liberal way of having your atheistic cake and eat it to.




Anything can be made to look similar if twisted in the right direction.

I don't know what you're talking about again. I was just saying why I was distubed by it. Also note Barney was never a cute Dinosaur. I've disliked Barney ever since his inseption. I'm disturbed that kids like singing and Dancing next to this purple blob. Also its just as likely the number of the beast is 616. But your argument can be said in defence of veneration of Mary.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just fyi this is an interesting find from the primary source of Ancient Egyptian religion the book of the Dead.

have not done falsehood against men, I have not impoverished my associates, I have done no wrong in the Place of Truth, I have not learnt that which is not, I have done no evil, I have not daily made labor in excess of what was to be done for me, my name has not reached the offices of those who control slaves, I have not deprived the orphan of his property, I have not done what the gods detest, I have not slandered a servant to his master, I have not caused pain, I have not made hungry, I have not made to weep, I have not killed, I have not turned anyone over to a killer, I have not caused anyone’s suffering, I have not diminished the food-offerings in the temples, I have not debased the offering cakes of the gods.
I have not taken the cakes of the blessed, I have not copulated illicitly, I have not been unchaste, I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm, I have not encroached upon fields, I have not added to the balance weights, I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance. I have not taken milk from a child’s mouth, I have not driven small cattle from their herbage, I have not snared birds for the gods’ harpoon barbs, I have not caught fish of their lagoons, I have not stopped the flow f water in its seasons. I have not built a dam against flowing water, I have not quenched a fire in its time. I have not failed to observe the days for haunches of meat. I have not kept cattle away from the God’s property, I have not blocked the God at his processions.

 

[Marcia]

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am saying I'm disturbed by it. Look, If I were an atheist I could easily argue. That Moses departing Egypt with his rabble of mixed hebrew, Egyptian disenfranchised, Ethiopians, etc... through the Sinai Penninsula used accepted Egyptian religious norms to establish his new Judaic religion. Moses took away the Pantheon and made one God. Translated the Egyptian Mott into something duable for the Hebrews. Even used the goddess Seraph and made multiple (servant gods) angels known as Seraphim who had the same function as the Goddess. After all Akenaten attempted to bring the polytheistic Egypt to an end and established a single deity about 100 years after Moses. Possibly a correlation there. If you look at the art work displayed on the tabernacle and compared it to standard egyptian works striking similarities. Also note Moses doesn't implement the law until his father in law tells him the mass of people is too much for him to govern by himself and he (moses) needs to estabish judges under him. The very next thing that happens is God gives the 10 commandements and the other laws and restrictions. Convenient (maybe a little too much so?). Moses could have easily taken oral histories similar to Atra-hasis and Gilgamesh fit it to his needs and fabricated the entire book of Genesis. Fortunately, I am not an atheist, however, I'm still disturbed by the similarities and correlations.

I can't think of any striking parallels between Egyptian pagan beliefs and Judaism. I can only think of contrasts. Superficial similarities (if they exist, such as art work on the tabernacle- can you tell us what was similar to Egyptian art?) don't mean there are parallels.

 

[Marcia]

There is a thought by Ireanaus about Mythras that might possibly be used here. If you studied Mythras you could draw a lot of similarities to christianity. But Ireanaus thought that this was God working with the pagans preparing them for the gospel message for better reception of it. Could it be that this is the case once again? Maybe thats why all the symbols are repeated again and again through out divergent cultures. Because logically different people groups should come up with unique symbolism for their faiths based on environmental differences but this is not what we see demonstrated on our planet. Just a thought.

The Mithras tale is bunk. There is absolutely no record of Mithras being born on Dec 25 (which is crazy anyway since we don't know the birthdate of Jesus), being born of a virgin, or resurrecting. These are urban legends. Tales about Mithras that make him sound like Christ came after Jesus had lived and resurrected.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't know what you're talking about again. I was just saying why I was distubed by it. Also note Barney was never a cute Dinosaur. I've disliked Barney ever since his inseption. I'm disturbed that kids like singing and Dancing next to this purple blob. Also its just as likely the number of the beast is 616. But your argument can be said in defence of veneration of Mary.

"I am just...." those words seem to excuse most everything don't they? don;t get to distracted by Barney the Dinosaur. He is not the focus of my post.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"I am just...." those words seem to excuse most everything don't they? don;t get to distracted by Barney the Dinosaur. He is not the focus of my post.

Be clear what you are talking about. Are you going to accuse me of athiesm now? What are you insinuating?

 

[BobRyan]

In the Bible account - all makind is wiped out at the flood except for Noah and his 3 sons and their wives. That means that a mere 4500 years ago -- all the Egyptian's ancestory goes back to a family of 8 just as do all the Hebrew ancestory. It is not surprising then that some similarities in their views of the flood or the appearance of angels would exist. Far more shocking if there were no similarities at all!

But in the case of Abraham - and his line - (who lived at the SAME time as the sons of Noah) God directed and informed them regarding the truth.

In fact Christ Himself says that Abraham was also shown the future - was shown Christ's day as well.

We can not equivocate between pagan myths and Bible history as if BOTH have equal access to the Divine view of history. But we CAN compare the paganism in Mariolotry to the paganism in Rome since even CATHOLIC historians themselves admit that the two are linked.

---

Also note Moses wrote the Torah. How much of his egyptian education has he incorporated into his teachings? (is the basis of my disturbance of the similarities)

---

2 Peter 1:21 says that no scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation - but Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit "spoke from God".

Is it your view that God only knew what Egyptians knew? Or are you saying that even though God was giving Moses a direct view of creation - he chose to rely upon Egptian myth "anyway" at times?

---

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am saying I'm disturbed by it. Look, If I were an atheist I could easily argue. That Moses departing Egypt with his rabble of mixed hebrew, Egyptian disenfranchised, Ethiopians, etc... through the Sinai Penninsula used accepted Egyptian religious norms to establish his new Judaic religion.

Indeed. If the filter that you use is "there is no God - there was no creation week, there was no flood... all there ever was happened according to the myths of evolutionism" then clearly Moses getting correct information from God on the subject of origins would be out of the question.

You would need "another explanation" for what Moses wrote.

I agree completely.

Moses took away the Pantheon and made one God. Translated the Egyptian Mott into something duable for the Hebrews. Even used the goddess Seraph and made multiple (servant gods) angels known as Seraphim who had the same function as the Goddess. After all Akenaten attempted to bring the polytheistic Egypt to an end and established a single deity about 100 years after Moses. Possibly a correlation there.

I agree that they could "tell that story" and indeed they would be likely to do it since they don't even HAVE the option "Both egyptians and Moses came from the SAME line of Noah -- 8 people a mere 4500 years BC". And they don't even HAVE the option "the one true God actually SHOWED Moses the literal 7 day creation week, and the flood".

If you look at the art work displayed on the tabernacle and compared it to standard egyptian works striking similarities.

None of the glyphs are used. None of the Egyptian Gods used. The writing and the language is entirely different. VERY Hard to equivocate between the Hebrew language and art - and the egyptians.

BUT I agree with you that the atheists would have no choice but to go down that road "anyway" latching on to ANY similarity AT ALL as their one scintilla-of-hope.

Also note Moses doesn't implement the law until his father in law tells him the mass of people is too much for him to govern by himself and he (moses) needs to estabish judges under him.

They might think of it as Moses' father giving him law. But his father-in-law never tells him that he "needs a law about blasphemy" to solve his problem. Never says anything about "a law about coveting" or a law about "feast of unleavened bread" as being the thing that will solve his problems.

NOR does Moses' father-in-law say anything along the lines "you need more laws". Rather he tells him to up come with something like the 70 elders to rule under Moses' direction. And "conveniently" in the story -- Moses comes up with the 70 elders to rule under Moses' direction.

As for law - in the Bible "Moses doesn't codify the Law" until God writes it with His own hand on tablets of stone.

However - in the book of Genesis Moses makes reference to the "Laws, Statutes and Commandments" of God - being applicable to Abraham.

The very next thing that happens is God gives the 10 commandements and the other laws and restrictions. Convenient (maybe a little too much so?).

Certainly for an atheist they would need to "reach" to that extreme. However they would need to ignore the "inconvenient detail" that Moses' Father-in-law never told Moses to "come up with some kind of law about the Sabbath" or "about images" or "about not comitting adultery" or "about Day of Atonement" or "about washing pots" or about "unclean animals".

Moses could have easily taken oral histories similar to Atra-hasis and Gilgamesh fit it to his needs and fabricated the entire book of Genesis. Fortunately, I am not an atheist, however, I'm still disturbed by the similarities and correlations.

There are some similarities in the stories - which is to be expected given that both groups came from the same family of 8 people and the son of Noah dies a mere 350 years before Moses' time.

In fact - far more shocking if the errors and myths of the egyptians lost all connection entirely from an accurate story of the flood that was being told a mere 350 years earlier.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

which brings us back to --

But in the case of Abraham - and his line - (who lived at the SAME time as the sons of Noah) God directed and informed them regarding the truth.

In fact Christ Himself says that Abraham was also shown the future - was shown Christ's day as well.

We can not equivocate between pagan myths and Bible history as if BOTH have equal access to the Divine view of history. But we CAN compare the paganism in Mariolotry to the paganism in Rome since even CATHOLIC historians themselves admit that the two are linked.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

which brings us back to --

But in the case of Abraham - and his line - (who lived at the SAME time as the sons of Noah) God directed and informed them regarding the truth.

In fact Christ Himself says that Abraham was also shown the future - was shown Christ's day as well.

We can not equivocate between pagan myths and Bible history as if BOTH have equal access to the Divine view of history. But we CAN compare the paganism in Mariolotry to the paganism in Rome since even CATHOLIC historians themselves admit that the two are linked.

I don't see the logic flow. On a practical level if we include a Divine into the equation of comparison then there is no comparison. That I understand. But if I find a Christian (or a liberal baptist) historian that points to a connection of Moses to Egyptian religion then aren't you saying the same thing? Note I am sure not all Catholic Historians compare Mary veneration with Pagan worship.
Certainly if you asked Agnus Dei he would disagree with that sentiment. However, he would say that RCC have taken it to an extreme then point to the ECF and the historical aspect of it. He probably would point to the middle of the 2nd century and the ECF discussion of Mary as being the New Eve. Justin Martyr 165 AD; Irenaus of Lyons 202 AD; Ambrose 397 AD; Jerome 420 AD. Yet these discussion are the comparision of the ECF of Jesus with the new Adam and dialogue about sin and forgiveness. They are not an indicator of veneration. Also Catacombs at the middle of the first century has fresco's of Mary holding out her arms to Peter and Paul and of the famous Mother and child pictorals known as the Madona. Also the earliest prayer of veneration (to Mary) written in Greek is "Beneath Your Compasion" which dates to 250 AD in a Coptic Christmas liturgy. It is also used in Byzantine, Ambrosian, and Roman rites. However, I personally would question (since in Rome and else where) how much of this stuff is gnostic in origin? Christians and gnostics may have been confused for each other at this point.

 

[ray Marshall]

We have some Catholics and Orthodox on here, along with some others who, although not literally part of either group, always seem to defend their practices and beliefs.

I happened to see this on EWTN last night. This is an example of the so called "harmless" view of Mary that Catholics and Orthodox engage in.

These are 2 of the "Novenas" that are directed to Mary.



HOW IN THE WORLD can anyone defend this stuff? It is so blatant. So drastically idolatrous.

The defense is always "Why, we are just asking Mary to pray for us, like if you as a friend to pray for you."

Nonsense. This is pure idolatry, and I am amazed at the blindness that exists regarding these practices.


http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/novena/lourdes.htm

Something's wrong with the Mary that was the Mother of Jesus Christ. They are worshipping the virgin Mary and that is the wrong Mary that Jesus talked about when: After Mary had washed Jesus's feet and dried his feet with his eyes, he said. "Let this be a memorial to her from that day forward I am paraphrazing.

 

[DHK]

Something's wrong with the Mary that was the Mother of Jesus Christ. They are worshipping the virgin Mary and that is the wrong Mary that Jesus talked about when: After Mary had washed Jesus's feet and dried his feet with his eyes, he said. "Let this be a memorial to her from that day forward I am paraphrazing.

It is pure idolatry. Look carefully at the wording of the prayer near the end.

Our Lady of Lourdes, Mother of Christ, you had influence with your divine son while upon earth. You have the same influence now in Heaven. Pray for us; obtain for us from your Divine Son our special requests if it be the Divine Will. Amen.Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us.

They have made Mary as an intercessor between man and Christ, as if Christ is too weak to answer prayer, and needs Mary's help, or as if they are afraid to approach Christ directly and need a "softer approach" through Mary.



"There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."
--To teach otherwise is blasphemous.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
which brings us back to --

But in the case of Abraham - and his line - (who lived at the SAME time as the sons of Noah) God directed and informed them regarding the truth.

In fact Christ Himself says that Abraham was also shown the future - was shown Christ's day as well.

We can not equivocate between pagan myths and Bible history as if BOTH have equal access to the Divine view of history. But we CAN compare the paganism in Mariolotry to the paganism in Rome since even CATHOLIC historians themselves admit that the two are linked.

I don't see the logic flow. On a practical level if we include a Divine into the equation of comparison then there is no comparison. That I understand. But if I find a Christian (or a liberal baptist) historian that points to a connection of Moses to Egyptian religion then aren't you saying the same thing?

We are saying that some similarities can be found - but the question is "why". Is it because a mere 350 years has passed since the death of Shem - son of Noah by the time we get to Moses - so that COMMON ancestors of BOTH Egyptians and Noah would have had a common view
a mere 4 centuries earlier? Surely that had to have "some impact".

It would be far MORE surprising if it did not.

Note I am sure not all Catholic Historians compare Mary veneration with Pagan worship.

They admit that with the influx of pagans into the Church in the time of Constantine that the Emperor and the church decided to adopt (baptize) the pagan customs and worship into the church as a way to make all the citizens of the empire happy with the new direction on the new religion.

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols[/b] He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38)

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. [b]He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…

"[b]This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life.[/b] It carried many advantages, but it also entailed some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39


Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy;[/b] the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection, devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."
…
pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his discretion.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just to Note he's not a final authority on anything Catholic. From what my family tells me they often have disagreements for instance speaking about the very book you quoted I have this review from a Catholic.

Thomas Bokenkotter’s book is widely read, but in my opinion, it has a very 1970’s outlook.

If you are looking for a reliable popular history of the Church, I would suggest: The Catholic Church Through the Ages by Fr. John Vidmar, O.P.; you might also enjoy Triumph, by H.W. Crocker III; and Church History by Fr. John Laux.

 

[BobRyan]

I too have a lot of quotes "from a Catholic" -- but I usually stick with the ones well published and recognized as scholars.

History is not as easy to "revise" as some comments "from a Catholic" might have one believing.

in Christ,

Bob