J
jlhargus
Guest
mark
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Provide historical-empirical evidence of this “gap” for the Roman worlds need of a goddess? As for paganism? In case you did not know,your life is full of paganism and the U.S. government is modeled after Rome.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Here I disagree. Mary comes from an understanding of the path God took the people of Israel from Adam…to Solomon…and an understanding of the Kingdom…
People spend weekends playing King Arthur and recreating the elements of the Knights of the roundtable with costumes etc…
People claim that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and yet their communities do not give evidence of understanding of a Kingdom…this is the key to understanding Mary…
P
Publisher
Guest
Friend, you can read any historical treatise on the rise of the May cult…goddess worship was prevelant…on the upswing…the "common people’ were devoted deeply to her…Mary filled the “gap” of need of a “Mother” in the divine realm when they converted to Christianity…if…I need not convince you…it has no impact on you one way or another in your devotion to Mary.
N
Nicea325
Guest
My friend, I did not ask for historical treatise,but empirical evidence of the “gap” needing to be filled as you are charging. By the way, different parts of the empire had different cult worship,thus one cannot tie it all to Mary. If you believe it as a fact,then you apparently have read sources supporting your argument,so please provide one primary source. If not,then you are merely assuming something which is not accurate historical fact.
As I said, your life is full paganism and most people have the slighest clue.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Kersey Graves, author of The Christ Conspiracy and* The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviours* feels the same way about Jesus as you do about Mary. He believed in the historical Jesus, but that the authors of the NT incorporated elements from pre-existing pagan mystery religions. Did Jesus fill the need of a God-man who was born of a virgin, suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven?
His claims, and those of many other authors and film producers, are as unreliable and unfounded as yours, which by the way is a glaring double-standard of many Protestants.PAX
:heaven:
N
Nicea325
Guest
Exactly! As I stated,many aspects of our lives are full of paganism,including our government. I hear not gripes from Protestants about those facts?Kersey Graves, author of The Christ Conspiracy and* The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviours* feels the same way about Jesus as you do about Mary. He believed in the historical Jesus, but that the authors of the NT incorporated elements from pre-existing pagan mystery religions. Did Jesus fill the need of a God-man who was born of a virgin, suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven?
PAX
:heaven:
A
Anthony_V
Guest
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
Lots of Protestant bashing going on in here.
R
Roy5
Guest
Please bear in mind that there are different kinds of Protestants. The main split, of course, is between evangelicals, usually fundamentalists, and mainline Protestants. The mainline churches have millions of Christians who minimize traditional doctrine, permit wide variation when it comes to belief, and often acknowledge that the Gospels were heavily influenced by surrounding paganism.
** Their focus is on following Christ, the Sermon on the Mount, loving God and one another**. They often dismiss such dogmae as the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, and many of the miracles as symbolic, parables, fables, whatever. This not does weaken their spiritual sense nor their awe in the face of our mammoth, magnificent, miraculous, and mysterious universe. They are inclined toward a Christian agnosticism, the idea that they perceive and have faith within a Christian context, yet know that our human limitations conceal the ultimate truth from us. This makes them very open-minded when it comes to other faith expressions, sympathetic toward, say, Buddhism and liberal forms of Hinduism. They can be offended, however, when any religion teaches that it alone has full access to the truth, that one and only one church has infallible leadership and spiritual vision.
** Their focus is on following Christ, the Sermon on the Mount, loving God and one another**. They often dismiss such dogmae as the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, and many of the miracles as symbolic, parables, fables, whatever. This not does weaken their spiritual sense nor their awe in the face of our mammoth, magnificent, miraculous, and mysterious universe. They are inclined toward a Christian agnosticism, the idea that they perceive and have faith within a Christian context, yet know that our human limitations conceal the ultimate truth from us. This makes them very open-minded when it comes to other faith expressions, sympathetic toward, say, Buddhism and liberal forms of Hinduism. They can be offended, however, when any religion teaches that it alone has full access to the truth, that one and only one church has infallible leadership and spiritual vision.
Code:
**This helps explain why there is still considerable suspicion of official Catholicism.** This is diminished, however, because most US Catholics today seem to be of the cafeteria variety, picking and choosing. Many are more tolerant than many evangelicals, who so often want to know if we are saved. If so, when?
**Let's make religion a bridge and not a barrier.** Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim - does God care? I don't think so. Re-read those closing verses of Matt. 25. Nothing about doctrine. All about expressing love for one another. God examines our hearts and not our church affiliation.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
C
CopticChristian
Guest
You know…you certainly have some thoughts. It would seem that in the world there are other figures that would cause you to wonder about Mary…and how this is just an incorporation…You really got me thinking…
Now I wonder…do I really have to accept that Jesus is who He says He is and what people say He is, for after all, Jesus just fills the shoes of Horus…or could I be wrong?
religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
G
Good_Fella
Guest
C
CopticChristian
Guest
This is excellent and when you paint the picture of the Davidic Kingdom…Solomon as Lord(priest/King) the Gabira, the Prime minister in the Kingdom…the anticipation of the coming of the Kingdom and Jesus shows up…Paul was not converted…he saw what you are pointing out and put all the pieces together as the Kingdom since he knew the OT by memory and saw that this Kingdom is not earthly but spiritual…the tragedy is that too many do not know or see what Paul and you see in the OT.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Most important and so overlooked. The Spiritual Battle of Good and evil which we are directly involved with in with the history of mankind. The Sacraments are most important.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Actually when the extended family journeyed to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of the Passover, the men and women formed separate groups along with the boys and girls and remained apart for much of the trip. So in all probability, Jesus was alone with Joseph when he decided to slip away and preach in the temple for an appointed three days by his heavenly Father’s bidding. Remember, Joseph was just our Lord’s stepfather and earthly guardian, and so the will of his natural father held priority and excused him from acting dishonourably towards his stepfather. Joseph was not Jesus’ true father. For this reason Jesus asserted the fact in his reply to Mary: “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I should be in my Father’s house?” In other words, Jesus meant that there was no reason for Mary and Joseph to worry, since he was where he rightfully belonged. He did not intend to scold his mother and his stepfather for being so bold as too look for him, or for not thinking where they should have first looked. In his compassion, Jesus simply tried to reassure his parents not to worry about him, seeing the anguish he had caused to his own distress for them. Likewise, neither did Mary scold Jesus when she asked him: “Son, why did you do this to us?” She simply wanted to know why her son had caused her and Joseph so much worry. She did add: “Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” Mary’s question also shows she did not mean to ask why Jesus had slipped away from both his parents. Mary and Joseph are both concerned with regard to how they felt after becoming aware of Jesus’ disappearance. Again, he most likely vanished when accompanying only Joseph and perhaps other male relatives as well while Mary was elsewhere in the female group of pilgrims. Thus what essentially compelled Jesus to reply as he did to his mother was the word “father”. Here we should note that it was Mary, not Joseph, who took charge with parental authority, for she was our Lord’s natural mother in his sacred humanity. The prerogative to interrogate her son pre-eminently fell on her, since she did conceive and bear Jesus by the power of the Most High. Joseph was not our Lord’s natural father, so he could not justly intervene by his authority. This occasion was a personal matter between a mother and her own son. As guardian, Joseph could only stand by and entrust the matter to Mary. It was in honour of Mary’s maternal dignity that Jesus decided to slip away when he was not with her. His heavenly Father’s call would not permit that it be violated in any way. Nevertheless, Jesus was expected to obey both his parents in normal family affairs as he grew older (Lk 2:51). Suffice it to say, Joseph could be charged with negligence only if Jesus had been too young to be left on his own for even a minute.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus simply asks a rhetorical question of what a true mother, brother, and sister generally are in their relation to him after the voices in the crowd draw his attention to his own mother and kinsfolk. He avails himself to the opportunity of tacitly exhorting the Jews who would eventually reject him before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Jesus is prophetically addressing these particular people with Psalm 69 in mind. Instead of implying that his mother and relatives there have distanced themselves from him, our Lord actually has their faithfulness at the forefront of his thoughts. These brothers and sisters of his who came looking for him are the same ones who were present at the cenacle with Mary when the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. We should bear in mind that Jesus asks this question soon after he finishes teaching the parable of the good sower (Lk 8:5-15), so he wishes to reiterate what a true relation to him means in the context of faith. Rather than ask a rhetorical question, Jesus may just have declared to those who drew his attention that they had no idea in what spiritual sense his mother and kinsfolk truly related to him. Biological considerations are of no real importance. Indeed, Jesus is implicitly affirming that his mother is more blessed on account of her faith and charity than she is for having conceived and borne him (Lk 11:28), for it was by these infused virtues of hers that he desired to come into the world and save us from our sins (Lk 1:38). Hence, rather than dismissing and denigrating his own mother in public, Jesus tacitly praises her for her faith in allusion to what it concretely means for one to be a good sower. Prophetically, for the benefit of the Jews who would eventually disown him, in his divinity Jesus is rejoicing over his mother who serves as the prototype of the true Israel in the spirit: mother Zion. Mary is the mother of all the true servants of Israel as she is of all Christ’s faithful disciples. Our Lord alludes to his mother as a shining example for the unfaithful Jews who will eventually deny him before the Roman procurator. After all, Jesus must have foreseen his mother standing at the foot of the cross with his beloved disciple while the other apostles were in hiding for fear of retribution after they had lost faith upon our Lord’s arrest.
:heaven:
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Jesus seems dismissive of His Mother? Does that even somewhat sound like the person of Jesus throughout the Bible? How anyone could conclude that is astounding.
You seem to fail to take into account Mary and the women’s age of conception in this period, thus by this time, 12-yo’s were pretty much on their own. Tough place till this day, where not much has changed in this regard. The children this age are fighting wars in much of the world today. And Israel today is not much different than Jesus and Marys period in many respects. And this particular 12 yo in question was GOD. Whom during this incident was found at the Temple doing exactly what? So you would conduct a conversation with the scholars of this area then would conduct yourself exactly how in regards to your parents in front of the scholars? While remaining with the same parents till He was THIRTY, contradiction in itself.
Imagine the conversations which took place in private with the Holy Family, in those 30-years spent with GOD, that were never told. The same GOD who already chose Mary.
Same question’s been answered 42-different ways for you Roy, whats amazing is you still see it only your way. Which is the most unlikely senerio, that involves some far-fetched spin to it, where God disrespects people and above all His parents and biological Mother?
Matthew is a set of question’s by Jesus to ascend not to his Human state, but the Divine. A question than invites all mankind into the Sonship with God, by understanding He is God. And who “exactly” was Jesus talking with? Not His mother, but another, who passed on info, thus made Him aware. Point being His conversation was in relation to GOD, not his human nature. And thats the point he continued to elaborate on without distraction, but polite re-direction of the conversation. Pretty amazing actually.
In John you see the first example of the Queen of Heaven, in guiding Her Son. The first Miracle performed by Jesus and the start of His ministry just unfolding, which is bought about by that Intercession which we continue to explain to souls here, Jesus does not refuse His Mothers intercession requests. So what did He do with Her concern by intercession?
What is “His time”? The Cross is the specific reason of Jesus. The Mystery of Cana is multiple and profound, Water and Wine as throughout the Bible becomes paramount again here, just as on the Cross, and other Biblical verse’s. “Do whatever He tells you”, is the correct path for man, but who interceeds? Woman is the constant connection from Genesis to Mary to Revelation. Ever consider how many prophecies Jesus fulfilled in his time here? Ah, but another.
You seem to fail to take into account Mary and the women’s age of conception in this period, thus by this time, 12-yo’s were pretty much on their own. Tough place till this day, where not much has changed in this regard. The children this age are fighting wars in much of the world today. And Israel today is not much different than Jesus and Marys period in many respects. And this particular 12 yo in question was GOD. Whom during this incident was found at the Temple doing exactly what? So you would conduct a conversation with the scholars of this area then would conduct yourself exactly how in regards to your parents in front of the scholars? While remaining with the same parents till He was THIRTY, contradiction in itself.
Imagine the conversations which took place in private with the Holy Family, in those 30-years spent with GOD, that were never told. The same GOD who already chose Mary.
Same question’s been answered 42-different ways for you Roy, whats amazing is you still see it only your way. Which is the most unlikely senerio, that involves some far-fetched spin to it, where God disrespects people and above all His parents and biological Mother?
Matthew is a set of question’s by Jesus to ascend not to his Human state, but the Divine. A question than invites all mankind into the Sonship with God, by understanding He is God. And who “exactly” was Jesus talking with? Not His mother, but another, who passed on info, thus made Him aware. Point being His conversation was in relation to GOD, not his human nature. And thats the point he continued to elaborate on without distraction, but polite re-direction of the conversation. Pretty amazing actually.
In John you see the first example of the Queen of Heaven, in guiding Her Son. The first Miracle performed by Jesus and the start of His ministry just unfolding, which is bought about by that Intercession which we continue to explain to souls here, Jesus does not refuse His Mothers intercession requests. So what did He do with Her concern by intercession?
What is “His time”? The Cross is the specific reason of Jesus. The Mystery of Cana is multiple and profound, Water and Wine as throughout the Bible becomes paramount again here, just as on the Cross, and other Biblical verse’s. “Do whatever He tells you”, is the correct path for man, but who interceeds? Woman is the constant connection from Genesis to Mary to Revelation. Ever consider how many prophecies Jesus fulfilled in his time here? Ah, but another.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Having commented on Matthew 12, please permit me to discuss John 2:4. In this verse Jesus employs a familiar Jewish idiomatic expression when he asks: “Woman, what have I to do with you?” or “Woman, how does your concern affect me?” [NAB]. It is easy for us to receive the impression that Jesus is speaking abruptly to his mother when reading the text in modern English. How natural it is for us to sense that Jesus intends to dismiss his mother’s concern as only her own which is no concern of his to the point that it annoys him as a nagging grievance. However, Jesus and Mary shared one vital concern ever since she consented to be the mother of the divine Messiah: the salvation of Israel and the world through mother Zion. Thus in the Greek text of the Gospel the Hebraism used by Jesus reads: te emoi kai soi (literally “what to me and to you”). This colloquial expression denotes a close personal relationship between the one who is asking the question and the one who is being asked. It could be used by a person who is reluctant at first to do someone a favour, but nonetheless complies out of respect for the one who has made the request. The closest equivalent to this expression in modern English is "What is that between friends (mother and son)? This implies that the person who is seeking the favour shouldn’t even have to ask. No favour is greater than the bond of friendship between them. In the Hebrew NT we have the same meaningful expression: mah-liy walak ishah (literally “what is there to me and you”). In other words, “What would you have of me, Woman?” This is the polite form of asking “What would you have me do, woman?” This kind of question suggests that the one asking it already has an idea of what the other person has in mind. And so he is prepared to accommodate the other person granted she first explicitly states what she wants him to do for her. Jesus was drawing his mother closer in her association with him in his work of salvation and inviting her to get more deeply involved. He never rebuked her in the least. By how he expressed himself so familiarly Jesus essentially asked his mother whether she would want to go through with this, for if she did, then there would be no turning back and their snug relationship would no longer be the same. The Mother would have to let go of the Son as Groom to his Bride the Church. Mary would no longer be his mother exclusively, and she would have to subject her offspring to suffering and even death at the hands of sinners. Mary knew that Jesus was the Messiah, and she was familiar with the Suffering Servant Songs of the prophet Isaiah, so she expected nothing less than a miracle when she appraoched her Son with her implict request. We know for a fact that as soon as Jesus answered his mother, Mary faithfully went to the servants and said: “Do whatever he tells you.”
Certainly Jesus never meant to rebuke his mother in public. Nor was he annoyed by her solicitation. He calls his mother “Woman” out of respect for her. The word he uses in his native tongue is the vocative gynai, an honourable dignifying title. Its formal English equivalents are “Madam” and “Lady”. Hence, in the English transalation of the Latin Vulgate we have Jesus ask his mother, “What is that to me and to thee?” Jesus could not possibly denigrate his own mother by asking this question. It implies that the two share a similar concern far from beneath their common dignity, something immeasurably far more important than the replenishing of wine. Neither Jesus nor Mary are primarily concerned with satisfying a temporal want of the guests. What really concerns them both is the start of our Lord’s public ministry in the shadow of the cross for the spiritual benefit of the entire human race. The apparent reluctance of Jesus to accommodate his mother’s wish stems only so far that he wouldn’t change the water into wine for a purpose other than the eternal one they had mind. And Mary had to confirm that this was something she was prepared to complete despite the sorrows she would have to endure because of the love she had for her Son, which Jesus compassionately honoured (Lk 2:35). Mary’s concern did in fact affect Jesus, for it conformed with his divine will. Our Lord’s hour had indeed arrived once Mary expressed her willingness to hasten it however painful it would be for both of them. Our Lord’s human will did not initiate the performance of his first and most significant miracle. And not until his divine will took charge in collaboration with the human will of his mother and his could his hour have arrived in the shadow of the cross. I believe Jesus acknowledged all this while speaking to Mary in simple but vague words.
PAX
:heaven:
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Roy,
Your premise in my opinion jades your discussion. I do not see what you are talking about. Name these “mainline protesants”.
In my thread “Caveat Emptor, Marketing Jesus”…I see the mainline Anglican, Lutheran and surprisingly Reformed as being nothing that you are talking about…you say that these mainline are…
I did not see what you are talking about when I surveyed Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Reformed bodies and their marketing. I found historical, doctrinal, sacramental groups that do not fit the description you speak of…the wide variation is found in those distant from denominational groups that I see as mainstream…Your statements I see as insulting to the denominational groups mentioned…
Name these groups you see as mainstream so I can understand what it is you are talking about.
R
Roy5
Guest
Code:
I'm not referring to some of the professional and traditional leadership among conservative Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed, although many of them are very skeptical when it comes to traditional doctrine. Have you read the books of - hm! - what is his name? - that prolific Episcopal Bishop of Newark (as I recall). Haven't read his numerous books for years so his name slips my mind. I have several of his books somewhere in my 'library' but won't take time to locate them at the moment.
I know well numerous mainline Protestants and they include many 'liberal Protestants'. These include devout Christians, but Christians who look at strict doctrine as of far less importance than seeking to follow the moral teachings and example of Christ. Some are intellectuals who are acquainted with modern 'higher criticism', who are aware - for example - of the four 'JEPD' sources and literary styles of the Torah, who know about the various sources of the Gospels, who have read the non-canonical books that have had such powerful influence upon non-Biblical traditions that became part of Catholicism, who have knowledge of the Church Fathers, of church history and all the fiery controversies over early 'heresies', etc. Visit nearly any mainline seminary - Harvard, Yale, Duke, Garrett, SMU, Candler (ar Emory), Union, Claremont, and many, many more - and you will understand all this better. Seminarians at such graduate schools are taught all this and more. Their Christianity is not dented, but they are likely to abandon their surface understanding learned in Sunday School and go behind the scenes and study scripture and theology in a much deeper way.
Actually, a high percentage of Catholics have a similar 'liberalist' approach, I receive seven Catholic periodicals and recall being surprised to read a poll in the *US Catholic *.indicating that over half of all Catholics it polled (52% was it?) do not believe in transubstantiation, a central dogma of the Church, with an added percentage unsure. Traditionalist Catholics have their heads in the sand if they don;t see this. This doesn't mean they're not earnest disciples of Christ. They seek to live moral lives, stand in awe before God and share happily and generously to help others, admire fine priests, attend Mass with some regularity, and all that. Many others. of course, have left the Church (30 million in the US), some going to Protestant churches, etc.
I don't recall that you ever responded to my question re Coptic Christians. The ones I happen to know are not under the Pope in Rome but under the Pope in Egypt, who traces his authority back to St. Mark. They seem to be the overwhelmingly majority of Christians in Egypt and I pray for their safety in these tumultous times in that ancient land.- Status