Christian Forums

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 14:56:43

Quote from: winsome on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 14:28:28

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 13:32:48
1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome.  Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
"The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

Quote from: winsome on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:12:05

From Wikipedia

Hellenistic period

In 331 BCE, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Ancient Macedonians ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October, Babylon fell to the young conqueror. A native account of this invasion notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.[13]

Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and commerce. But following Alexander's death in 323 BCE in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.

The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BCE states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of Esagila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary.[14] By 141 BCE, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (my emboldening)

So.. that proves nothing?... a lot can happen in 200 years.  America is just a little over 200 years old.

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:17:49

Quote from: winsome on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:12:05

From Wikipedia

Hellenistic period

In 331 BCE, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Ancient Macedonians ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October, Babylon fell to the young conqueror. A native account of this invasion notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.[13]

Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and commerce. But following Alexander's death in 323 BCE in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.

The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BCE states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of Esagila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary.[14] By 141 BCE, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (my emboldening)

So.. that proves nothing?... a lot can happen in 200 years.  America is just a little over 200 years old.

Well show something did happen to Babylon in that 200 years. It's possible to show a lot happened to America in 200 years.

Babylon was in ruins when Saddam Hussein started to rebuild it.

not my favorite source.. wikipedia.. if you want more I can find them easily.

Quote
Babylon under the Persians

The invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus was doubtless facilitated by the presence of foreign exiles like the Jews, who had been planted in the midst of the country. One of the first acts of Cyrus was to allow these exiles to return to their own homes, carrying with them the images of their gods and their sacred vessels. The permission to do so was embodied in a proclamation, whereby the conqueror endeavored to justify his claim to the Babylonian throne. The Jews were also allowed to rebuild the Temple. The feeling was still strong that none had a right to rule over western Asia until Bel and his priests had consecrated him to the office; and accordingly, Cyrus henceforth assumed the imperial title of "king of Babylon.

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:30:42
not my favorite source.. wikipedia.. if you want more I can find them easily.

Quote
Babylon under the Persians

The invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus was doubtless facilitated by the presence of foreign exiles like the Jews, who had been planted in the midst of the country. One of the first acts of Cyrus was to allow these exiles to return to their own homes, carrying with them the images of their gods and their sacred vessels. The permission to do so was embodied in a proclamation, whereby the conqueror endeavored to justify his claim to the Babylonian throne. The Jews were also allowed to rebuild the Temple. The feeling was still strong that none had a right to rule over western Asia until Bel and his priests had consecrated him to the office; and accordingly, Cyrus henceforth assumed the imperial title of "king of Babylon.

There are at least a dozen other sites out there with similar information.

BTW... I feel the same way about catholics as you do about 'moonies'...

I don't take anything the Pope or catholic site or catholic history says as having any credibility whatsoever.  You know the old adage "the victors write the history"... and since the RCC was so political for so many years and rewrote history in their favor there is not much to believe in anything they say.

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:43:22
There are at least a dozen other sites out there with similar information.

BTW... I feel the same way about catholics as you do about 'moonies'...

I don't take anything the Pope or catholic site or catholic history says as having any credibility whatsoever.  You know the old adage "the victors write the history"... and since the RCC was so political for so many years and rewrote history in their favor there is not much to believe in anything they say.

Are you suggesting the Wikipedia article was written by Catholics?

Quote from: winsome on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 16:00:51

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Oct 30, 2009 - 15:43:22
There are at least a dozen other sites out there with similar information.

BTW... I feel the same way about catholics as you do about 'moonies'...

I don't take anything the Pope or catholic site or catholic history says as having any credibility whatsoever.  You know the old adage "the victors write the history"... and since the RCC was so political for so many years and rewrote history in their favor there is not much to believe in anything they say.

Are you suggesting the Wikipedia article was written by Catholics?

Anybody can write/edit a Wikipedia article.  Why don't you log onto wikipedia and give it a try for yourself.

Forgive me folks, give a quick reply to Macca mclees.

Dear Macca,
                     I originally asked you to back up your obviously uneducated claims to history and the Catholic Church ( and for your information regarding "RC" and "Catholic", the saint who coined the word "Catholic" believed in everything I do,  please go away and study fact and truth ) and you replied with a small quote from wikopedia and then your own unsupported rendition of Napoleonic history ( )
I then ask you to explain St Ignatius' writings regarding belief in the Eucharist in 97AD against your claims about the Catholic church not existing for another 300 yrs, and you reply once again with personalistic, fundamentalist rantings and ( surprise surprise ) no real answer.

As I said earlier, I know some beautiful faith filled Protestant Christians, and the important differences between us I will let Our Lord point out when we face Him. But you my friend are not one. For they are at least wise enough to know what they are talking about before talking.

If you disagree with me, then by all means, answer me with fact regarding the Eucharist, Ignatius and Catholic Church.


I'll wait  ( with a smile )

Quote from: Fallen Knight on Fri Nov 06, 2009 - 00:59:11
Forgive me folks, give a quick reply to Macca mclees.

Dear Macca,
                     I originally asked you to back up your obviously uneducated claims to history and the Catholic Church ( and for your information regarding "RC" and "Catholic", the saint who coined the word "Catholic" believed in everything I do,  please go away and study fact and truth ) and you replied with a small quote from wikopedia and then your own unsupported rendition of Napoleonic history ( )
I then ask you to explain St Ignatius' writings regarding belief in the Eucharist in 97AD against your claims about the Catholic church not existing for another 300 yrs, and you reply once again with personalistic, fundamentalist rantings and ( surprise surprise ) no real answer.

As I said earlier, I know some beautiful faith filled Protestant Christians, and the important differences between us I will let Our Lord point out when we face Him. But you my friend are not one. For they are at least wise enough to know what they are talking about before talking.

If you disagree with me, then by all means, answer me with fact regarding the Eucharist, Ignatius and Catholic Church.


I'll wait  ( with a smile )

Sorry I have reduced you to giving a pet name and making minimizing and insulting remarks and feeling all smug and smiley, but his is all you can do.  Keep smiling   

While you are waiting you can re read what i already posted.


Setting the record Straight

Satan is the great deceiver . I once wrote a small book or booklet  I was led to call "The Counterfeit". Because Satan from the beginning of the church has sought to destroy and misguide The Lords church by deception, confusion, and  producing a counterfeit of Christ church. It is a nature of men to fall into apostasy. It is nothing new because apostasy was part of the sin nature as far back as the fall of man. 

First lets understand how apostasy works. We just don't wake up one day and commit apostasy. It starts out seemingly innocent and harmless, but with time  it will completely change the whole concept of what was first taught.  It is in full blossom when the church returns to worldliness  being guided of men and mans wisdom and carnal instincts Lets look at deception, which is nothing more than a lie that poses as the truth. Confusion is misunderstanding the facts. Which distorts and misleads the truth. 
All  this surrounds this word catholic which the RCC papacy uses to confuse and hold captive the church and even the world  at large. Lets look at when this word was first used. First there is no evidence that this word was used for the church before Ignatius used it in 110 AD. It was just a term that caught on and stuck.  So this word was a term he chose to use to describe those who were the church and were of one universal faith in Christ. It was meant to include all who confessed Jesus as Lord. There were no divisions of the faith. Even though there were some who tried to bring division. There was a vast difference from the church of 110 AD and what the Roman catholic church became in 500AD. First the church was not Roman catholic in 110 AD.  Ignatius  was speaking of all believers which by the true meaning of the word is still all believers today. No Protestant or RCC division.. The papacy made the word synonymous with the Roman catholic church saying the church has always been Catholic, but what they really mean is that the church was always Roman Catholic It was a power and authority issue.  Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the deception that they use to confuse the church into believing the church was always the Roman Catholic papal system and the church that Jesus founded This is deception in capitals and keeps the  people  captive to a false idea that the  self imposed papal authority represents Christ true church. It stopped being Christ True church when the bishops of Rome became drunk with the ideal of being the religious political law of the land, and the center of all Christendom.

The next deception is the true church Christ founded was not political and never was supposed to become a political ambition. Jesus himself rejected this in the temptations of
Satan. What did Satan offer? He said I will give you the whole world if you will worship me . Of course Jesus rejected quickly that we must serve God and Him only. Think about it, Jesus could ruled the world. He would not have had to suffer the cross, but it  was not the Father's purpose or will. Neither did Jesus ever teach that the church was to dominate or seek to dominate the world religiously or politically  Salvation is not adherence to a religious political authority.. When they became the supreme authority of the land they said salvation could only be achieved through adherence to the papacy. It was not an issue of personal faith anymore. It was forced religion and intimidation that played upon ignorance and fear of losing one's  salvation by excommunication. or Anathema . Neither Jesus or Peter ever would have been party to this. Christ was presented up front but the real truth was they robbed Jesus seat and falsely claimed to sit in on the throne of Peter. Not to mention Peter would never sit on any throne like any pope. They were in bed with the world and its kings This ambition was worldly and carnal, and is the very reason this church is referred to as the Harlot in Revelation 17. 

The next deception was they said there was no salvation out side the church which is true except they did not truly represent the church because they institutionalized it. They made the church a thing, a hierarchy centered on the idea of authority and leadership. They became an exalted clergy with religious vestments and titles They were the church and there was no true laity because the clergy was exalted above the people who were not saved by personal confession but forced to observance of the Mass and the rituals of the Eucharist. One is not saved by mere observances. .Those who truly confess Jesus from the heart inter into the church by faith, not forced observances. This of course was before the Reformation. But the politics of this world and the exaltation of the clergy is still very much alive. After the reformation the exalted clergy system was still used by Protestant churches.  This gives the mistaken idea that we are going to church instead of being the church.   

God bless

Keep smiling 



     . 

       

Dear Macca,

You continously talk about the quick sands of deception and the toils of deepening matter in the Catholic Church.  Please, give us a break once in a while.  If you think we are living during the end of the church age, Harold Camping of Family Radio has some interesting stuff posted at his Web Site. He has a pretty good case. 

Quote from: banished on Fri Nov 06, 2009 - 21:17:11


Dear Macca,

You continously talk about the quick sands of deception and the toils of deepening matter in the Catholic Church.  Please, give us a break once in a while.  If you think we are living during the end of the church age, Harold Camping of Family Radio has some interesting stuff posted at his Web Site. He has a pretty good case. 

I don't take any cues from camping. I  can't  stop talking about the deception that is within the church.

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 - 18:00:49

Quote from: banished on Fri Nov 06, 2009 - 21:17:11


Dear Macca,

You continously talk about the quick sands of deception and the toils of deepening matter in the Catholic Church.  Please, give us a break once in a while.  If you think we are living during the end of the church age, Harold Camping of Family Radio has some interesting stuff posted at his Web Site. He has a pretty good case. 

I don't take any cues from camping. I  can't  stop talking about the deception that is within the church.

That do you think of Harld Camping?  I have my car radio tuned to Family Radio and never change it.  That means that I have listened to Family Radio everyday for at least 30 years.  His home office is here in Oakland.

The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers

Actually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.

Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.

Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.

Quote from: TantorActually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.

Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.

Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.

I honestly cannot imagine how a sane person can make such bizarre statements, so completely off the wall as this above and so completely detached from fact.  It's mind-boggling.  

Quote from: winsome on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:38:05

Quote from: TantorActually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.

Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.

Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.

I honestly cannot imagine how a sane person can make such bizarre statements, so completely off the wall as this above and so completely detached from fact.  It's mind-boggling.   

If you know your history.. especially the pagan traditions of Rome prior to its christianization you would see this plain as day.

All rome did was take their existing pagan temples.. chisel off the name of their gods and chisel back on a christian name... they replaced the pantheon of gods with a pantheon of christian 'saints' and replaced artimis with Mary.

The RCC is exactly the same as Paganizm.. only the names have changed.

Quote from: Tantor on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:56:13

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:38:05

Quote from: TantorActually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.

Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.

Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.

I honestly cannot imagine how a sane person can make such bizarre statements, so completely off the wall as this above and so completely detached from fact.  It's mind-boggling.  

If you know your history.. especially the pagan traditions of Rome prior to its christianization you would see this plain as day.

All rome did was take their existing pagan temples.. chisel off the name of their gods and chisel back on a christian name... they replaced the pantheon of gods with a pantheon of christian 'saints' and replaced artimis with Mary.

The RCC is exactly the same as Paganizm.. only the names have changed.

Again, completely bizarre.  I just attended Mass last night, and like every service my Church has celebrated for 2,000 years, it's centre and core is our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  His Word was proclaimed to the faithful and His Body and Blood was received at Holy Eucharist.  At every Mass the Holy Bible is read, the Word preached, the consecrated bread and wine received, and prayers offered.   Mary is venerated because she is the mother of our Lord, our queen mother.  Artemis?  The huntress carrying a bow and arrows?  Lol.  

What do Catholics really believe?  We publicly proclaim it at every Mass...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RNiCsTDAU70

Quote from: banished on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:41:19

Quote from: winsome on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers

Quote from: winsome on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 08:44:27

Quote from: banished on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:41:19

Quote from: winsome on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers

Quote from: winsome on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 12:00:37

Quote from: winsome on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 12:00:37

Quote from: winsome on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 08:12:40

Quote from: Tantor on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:56:13

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:38:05

Quote from: TantorActually the RCC is pretty much no different then Islam when it comes to how it has co-opted things.

Islam says that Jesus was a prophet.. which is pretty much how the RCC treats him.

Islam adopted Jesus into their religion... which is pretty much what the RCC did.

I honestly cannot imagine how a sane person can make such bizarre statements, so completely off the wall as this above and so completely detached from fact.  It's mind-boggling.   

If you know your history.. especially the pagan traditions of Rome prior to its christianization you would see this plain as day.

All rome did was take their existing pagan temples.. chisel off the name of their gods and chisel back on a christian name... they replaced the pantheon of gods with a pantheon of christian 'saints' and replaced artimis with Mary.

The RCC is exactly the same as Paganizm.. only the names have changed.

Again, completely bizarre.  I just attended Mass last night, and like every service my Church has celebrated for 2,000 years, it's centre and core is our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  His Word was proclaimed to the faithful and His Body and Blood was received at Holy Eucharist.  At every Mass the Holy Bible is read, the Word preached, the consecrated bread and wine received, and prayers offered.   Mary is venerated because she is the mother of our Lord, our queen mother.  Artemis?  The huntress carrying a bow and arrows?  Lol. 

What do Catholics really believe?  We publicly proclaim it at every Mass...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RNiCsTDAU70

Maybe you should read about Artemis.. and her perpetual virginity... sound familiar?

Jesus had no earthly mother or father... as we view parents.. Mary was a willing surrogate for the Holy Spirit is all.

First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning?  Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture.  That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate?  Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...

Luke 1:41-44  "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

Ave Maria

Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with Thee.
Blessed art Thou among women
And Blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death.
Amen

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning?  Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture.  That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate?  Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...

Luke 1:41-44  "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

DK,

Tantor just likes stirring the pot by throwing in some of the wackier protestant theories, in this case that God created a complete ferilised egg that he then implanted in Mary so that she was literally a surrogate mother.

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning?  Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture.  That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate?  Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...

Luke 1:41-44  "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

Yes.. that is what Elizabeth said... I don't recall any apostle saying that or making any kind of a fuss about Mary.

It's just as probably that Mary is in hell as she might be in heaven... as God is no respecter of persons... only God knows who the elect are... not us.

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:42:40

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning?  Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture.  That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate?  Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...

Luke 1:41-44  "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

Yes.. that is what Elizabeth said... I don't recall any apostle saying that or making any kind of a fuss about Mary.

Try reading the Bible, especially Luke's gospel. Just read Luke 1:26-38 for an understanding of how important God considered Mary. Of course you need to have read a lot more of the Bible to understand all the implications but give it a try.

Quote from: banished on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 12:06:56

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 12:00:37

Quote from: winsome on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 06:37:37
The big deception started in the 16th century when "Reformers

Quote from: winsome on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:58:28

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:42:40

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning?  Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture.  That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate?  Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...

Luke 1:41-44  "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

Yes.. that is what Elizabeth said... I don't recall any apostle saying that or making any kind of a fuss about Mary.

Try reading the Bible, especially Luke's gospel. Just read Luke 1:26-38 for an understanding of how important God considered Mary. Of course you need to have read a lot more of the Bible to understand all the implications but give it a try.

Quote
The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

?.. she just happened to be the right surrogate at the right time.

Jesus didn't seem to treat his mother as though she was special at all... to the contrary.. he seemed to treat his parents as an obstacle.. but had to obey them to fulfill the law.

for example.

Quote
The Boy Jesus at the Temple
41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 09:03:42

Quote from: winsome on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:58:28

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Nov 09, 2009 - 06:42:40

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:28:32
First of all, your saying because Artemis was a virgin that is supposed to have some hidden meaning?  Well, if you mean that virginity and chastity are to be admired and held to be pure than you would be right, but that God chose a virgin to be the mother of Jesus is no invention of man if you believe the Bible, and is clearly written in Holy Scripture.  That Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the Jesus who is God incarnate?  Again, if you believe that, then you must reject Holy Scripture...

Luke 1:41-44  "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

Yes.. that is what Elizabeth said... I don't recall any apostle saying that or making any kind of a fuss about Mary.

Try reading the Bible, especially Luke's gospel. Just read Luke 1:26-38 for an understanding of how important God considered Mary. Of course you need to have read a lot more of the Bible to understand all the implications but give it a try.

Quote
The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

?.. she just happened to be the right surrogate at the right time.

Jesus didn't seem to treat his mother as though she was special at all... to the contrary.. he seemed to treat his parents as an obstacle.. but had to obey them to fulfill the law.

for example.

Quote
The Boy Jesus at the Temple
41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Your comments demonstrate your complete lack of understanding.

Actually, they are correctly in line with the scriptural text... they text gives me all the understanding I need.


Like I said before.. the RCC is just a replacement for the old pagan Roman system of Gods and sacrifices.. only the names have changed.

Even on the cross he refered to his mother as 'woman'.

Quote
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Like I said, Mary was just the right woman at the right time that said yes... to fulfill OT prophesy.  It was a great honor for her, but it does not make her any different from any other woman that has ever lived in the eyes of God.