Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok, If Jesus said it or 2 of the 13 Apostles (I wonder why 2 though), and we can quote this, that is the only source of proof which you will accept...correct?

If a teaching is correct BECAUSE Jesus and the Apostles (it was specifically stated in the plural - thus requiring two or more) taught it, then it is reasonable to seek the substantiation that they did.


As I stated above, I would not seek any other substantiation for this than I would for my example of Obama promising to appoint Pope Benedict as his Secretary of State or of Jesus and Nathaniel and Philip teaching that Toyotas are better than Fords. If I said that Pope Benedict said that he's leaving the RCC and converting to Lutheranism, I have a hunch (that's all, just a hunch) that you'd want some substantiation for that - where/when he stated that. Now, my unseparated brother, remember: the whole point here is that the poster said that this teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it: THAT is the apologetic. THAT, in my humble opinion, requires substantiation. I've been told - repeatedly - that that's entirely unreasonable, unnecessary and moot.

Now, would you accept that Pope Benedict taught that he is converting to Lutheranism and that it is entirely unnecessary, unreasonable and moot to supply any quote from him where he states that? If not, why are are you requiring that all others do?


More to the point of this thread: Would it be respectful and loving of me toward His Holiness if I dogmatically insisted that he has taught that he has repudiated all his uniquely Catholic beliefs and is converting to Lutheranism - if I don't have a single statement from him to that effect? In your opinion, would I be loving and respect toward Pope Benedict?





.

 

[Qoheleth]

If a teaching is correct BECAUSE Jesus and the Apostles (it was specifically stated in the plural - thus requiring two or more) taught it, then it is reasonable to seek the substantiation that they did.


.

Agreed. If Our Lord or any of the Apostle's are claimed to have said this or that, then we should be able to find the quote.

Im asking directly though, what are you're requirements specifically, as a source of proof for any doctrine.

I dont think you would say that if Jesus or the Apostles did not say it, then it is not true.


Never-the-less, you're specific requirements are...???





Q

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Agreed. If Our Lord or any of the Apostle's are claimed to have said this or that, then we should be able to find the quote.

Here's the statement from our Catholic friend,

the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it.

You seem to be in agreement with my position, so I'm confused as to why you disagreed with my point?

Im asking directly though, what are you're requirements specifically, as a source of proof for any doctrine.

1. I never said anything about "proof."

2. This thread is not about arbitration of dogmas or doctrines, it's about speaking respectfully about Our Blessed Lady.




.

 

[Qoheleth]

Here's the statement from our Catholic friend,




You seem to be in agreement with my position, so I'm confused as to why you disagreed with my point?


Reread, You have missed the point









1. I never said anything about "proof."...You have indeed

2. This thread is not about arbitration of dogmas or doctrines, it's about speaking respectfully about Our Blessed Lady.

And in light of this, these Dogmas (and ensuing discussion) concerning the Blessed Mother are natural topics...are they not?


.

CJ, you said earlier in this thread...

Friend, I'm NOT saying ANY of these Marian DOGMA of the Catholic Denomination are wrong (or right). I suppose I am challenging the Catholic Denomination's insistence that they ARE dogmas

This discussion (as many others) has taken its turns and is now addressing particular Marian Dogmas...correct?

You wanted proof to substantiate the Dogma/s...did you not?

You asked for quotes from either Our Lord or at least 2 of the 13 Apostles...yes?


Because as you said...

"1. It would "prove" your statement that, "Jesus and the Apostles taught it."

Now, Im asking what do you require as proof (substantiation) of any Christian Doctrine?


And BTW, since you are not saying whether these Marian Dogmas

are wrong (or right)

, would you mind just saying it either way?



Q

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If Our Lord or any of the Apostle's are claimed to have said this or that, then we should be able to find the quote.

You seem to be in agreement with my position, so I'm confused as to why you disagreed with my point?

Reread, You have missed the point

Then I'm confused...

The poster said that the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it. My point was then he should be able to find the quote. You agreed with that. Then you said that you disagreed with that. Which is it?

You wanted proof to substantiate the Dogma/s...did you not?

In some of these discussions, we seek substantiation (I've never used the word "proof" - that's the term Catholics keep using). In this case, in the sub-discussion where you entered, I sought the quote from Jesus and at least two of the Apostles for the statement where Jesus and the Apostles taught this teaching - the substantiation that you agree should be forthcoming since it was stated as a matter of fact that they taught it. I asked for no "proof," I asked for the quote (with references).

1. I never said anything about "proof."

...You have indeed

Please quote me from this thread where I stated that I demand "proof."

Now, Im asking what do you require as proof (substantiation) of any Christian Doctrine?

Christians should seek substantiation. We have been boldly and repeatedly warned by God to beware of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, to "test the spirits" to see if they are of God. There is nothing in Scripture that says Eve was correct to accept with docility what the teacher said. Jesus specifically praised the Ephesian Christian laity for "testing" their teachers to see if they were correct, for arbitrating the issues, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2). In the OT, we were warned to NOT do as the Catholic Catechism requires and accept "with docility" and "quiet submission" whatever we are told. If such were the case, all ecumenical councils would have been moot, all excommunications wrong. IMHO, we MUST seek confirmation, substantiation for what we are told. Otherwise, we have NO BASIS to reject Arianism or Gnosticism or Mormonism or Jimmy Jones or Satan. I think truth matters. I'm pretty sure you do, too. Thus, of course, substantiation is needed. However, that's another topic for another day and thread (and probably forum). THIS forum is about Mary, and yes, that includes the DOGMA of the Immaculate Conception and the DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary.





.

 

[Qoheleth]

[/color][/color]


Then I'm confused...

The poster said that the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it. My point was then he should be able to find the quote. You agreed with that. Then you said that you disagreed with that. Which is it?




Where did I say I disagree with this?



In some of these discussions, we seek substantiation (I've never used the word "proof" - that's the term Catholics keep using). In this case, in the sub-discussion where you entered, I sought the quote from Jesus and at least two of the Apostles for the statement where Jesus and the Apostles taught this teaching - the substantiation that you agree should be forthcoming since it was stated as a matter of fact that they taught it. I asked for no "proof," I asked for the quote (with references).


Substantiation is to support with proof or evidence. Whatever words youre comfortable with, this means the same.

Asking for the quote is indeed asking for proof or it to be substantiated. Why is this such a stumbling block, this never-ending semantics dribble?

In any case, why do you demand that it be substantiated by at least 2 Apostles and Jesus?

BTW, Im saying that if someone claims that Jesus or the apostle's said something in particular, we should be able to have reference to the quote. Im not sure what the trouble is?


Lets move on






Please quote me from this thread where I stated that I demand "proof."
[/color]



Christians should seek substantiation. We have been boldly and repeatedly warned by God to beware of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, to "test the spirits" to see if they are of God. There is nothing in Scripture that says Eve was correct to accept with docility what the teacher said. Jesus specifically praised the Ephesian Christian laity for "testing" their teachers to see if they were correct, for arbitrating the issues, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2). In the OT, we were warned to NOT do as the Catholic Catechism requires and accept "with docility" and "quiet submission" whatever we are told. If such were the case, all ecumenical councils would have been moot, all excommunications wrong. IMHO, we MUST seek confirmation, substantiation for what we are told. Otherwise, we have NO BASIS to reject Arianism or Gnosticism or Mormonism or Jimmy Jones or Satan. I think truth matters. I'm pretty sure you do, too. Thus, of course, substantiation is needed. However, that's another topic for another day and thread (and probably forum). THIS forum is about Mary, and yes, that includes the DOGMA of the Immaculate Conception and the DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary.


Well, I'll ask again, do you believe for example, the Marian Dogma of perpetual Virginity, to be wrong or false or otherwise incorrect? You never said conclusively without any doubt, one way or the other.

How do you substantiate your answer?


Knowing full well that each and every denomination substantiates all sorts of things from Scripture which contradict other denominations same read of the identical Scriptures, what tools or requirements do you use to substantiate, say, Infant baptism?

.

Q

 

[hogndog]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/mary.htm

I took a stroll today and found this site, my questions, do all Catholics believe this, do the Papists believe this, will Catholics argue over this being dogma in their church and last, the bible says there is but one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, why do Catholics say she has this authority?

Thanks,
hogndog

 

[Rick Otto]

...why do Catholics say she has this authority?

My opinion is, "because they need it".
Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, depending on how you look at it.
In my limited experience, most of them didn't take it as either serious or relevant to the rest of their personal lives. Religion is a social expression of what is a personal experience (spirituality), and that isn't much more than knee deep for the average consumer (w/a 9-5 ball & a subprime chain).

...And "social" is becoming a more high-value instead of value-neutral word for me as I approach the end of the world,... mine anyway (chuckle nervously); so I'm contemplating prefacing any more of my own "Critiques Al La Rome" with a note of gratitude for what little self-discipline they were able to impart to me, and the great education they afforded me. Especialy worth mention was the World Phiolosophy & Religion course I received my senior year of HS in Indianapolis. It had to be cursory because of the scope, but our teacher waterboarded us in every philosophy & religion in world history from Neanderthals to Neocons. wait a minute, that didn't sound as far as I meant it to... well, you know what I mean.

But I digress...
don't let me derail your attempt at getting some kind attention to your question. I completely sympathize because just that sort of thing used to keep me up nights.

But I gotta tell ya this one story...
In 4th grade when I moved from a semi-urban Parish to a completely sub-urban Parish, I hung out with the nerds & geeks etc., just tryin' to be friendly to whoever, but I was too assertive & kindy antsy so I asked one of 'em, "Hey, where all the "cool" kids? Where do they hang out?"
He pointed toward the church doors about 50yds across the parking lot.
"Thanks" I says & go to check it out.
So here's a half-dozen guys all mopin' around, hands in pockets, mutterin' to each other & spittin' & such. I thought it was kinda comical. I walked up just out of arms' reach and said "hi' & introduced myself.
More surly mutterin' & a spit.
I was unimpressed.
I could tell they were all commiseratin' around this one in the middle who was beginin' to look at me & snarl.
I said, "Who's he?"
The least of 'em reflexively says, "That's Gary."
I said,"What's wrong with his face? Is it always that way?"

He leapt at me, hands goin' for my thoat.
"FIght!, fight" I hear in the backgruond as I'm backin' up & tryin' to pry Gary's hands off my thoat.
At least 100 - 150 kids had circled and a nun was flyin' out the door headed our way.
Already the kids were yellin' "Gary started it!"

Gary was just mad, not realy at me, and so he wasn't realy much of a fight.
I was gettin' loose, but yelled out to the nun over the kids screams & squeals, "No, it's my fault!, Gary's ok, I started it!"

It was all pretty natural up to that point.
Suddenly the nun was lookin' at me like I was from Mars,... then like I had grown wings & a halo. The crowd was realy confused.
Gary had let go. I don't know where he went, I was dealin' with "the authority" and was pretty amused at the reactions I was getting, too.
The nun started givin' me high praises so the crowd got bored real quick & dissipated. I think it all blew over with a quick sit down in her office & a brief exsplanation, as I remember.
LOL, sorry I just had to get that off my chest. Thanks.
Back to the OP!

 

[hogndog]

I was expecting someone to ring out "Food Fight"

I said,"What's wrong with his face? Is it always that way?"

He leapt at me, hands goin' for my thoat.
"FIght!, fight" I hear in the backgruond as I'm backin' up & tryin' to pry Gary's hands off my thoat.
At least 100 - 150 kids had circled and a nun was flyin' out the door headed our way.
Already the kids were yellin' "Gary started it!"

Gary was just mad, not realy at me, and so he wasn't realy much of a fight.
I was gettin' loose, but yelled out to the nun over the kids screams & squeals, "No, it's my fault!, Gary's ok, I started it!"

It was all pretty natural up to that point.
Suddenly the nun was lookin' at me like I was from Mars,... then like I had grown wings & a halo. The crowd was realy confused.
Gary had let go. I don't know where he went, I was dealin' with "the authority" and was pretty amused at the reactions I was getting, too.
The nun started givin' me high praises so the crowd got bored real quick & dissipated. I think it all blew over with a quick sit down in her office & a brief exsplanation, as I remember.
LOL, sorry I just had to get that off my chest. Thanks.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In some of these discussions, we seek substantiation (I've never used the word "proof" - that's the term Catholics keep using). In this case, in the sub-discussion where you entered, I sought the quote from Jesus and at least two of the Apostles for the statement where Jesus and the Apostles taught this teaching - the substantiation that you agree should be forthcoming since it was stated as a matter of fact that they taught it. I asked for no "proof," I asked for the quote (with references).

Substantiation is to support with proof or evidence. Whatever words youre comfortable with, this means the same.

No.

You stressed that I demanded "proof."
I asked you to quote where I did, but you ignored that.
Now you seem to be implying that you were wrong and that I never mentioned proof, but that YOU regard such as identical to "evidence." I never said that.
I spoke of substantiation, not proof.


Evident: adj. Clear, plain, apparent.
Evidence: noun. The condition of being evident, something that makes a position or conclusion reasonable or likely, helps to establish a point.

Substantiation: verb. To give evidence, to cause reasonable confidence.

Proof: noun. Establishing the irrefutable truth of a matter, to make conclusive.

The point is: You insisted that I demanded "proof" when the reality is I never so much as even mentioned it. The issue was that a Catholic stated, "It's true because Christ and the Apostles taught it." And I sought the quotes from them that substantiate that. You entered the discussion about that with (well, I'm still confused about your position on that...)

Why do you demand that it be substantiated by at least 2 Apostles and Jesus?

The Catholic poster stated that the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it. Apostles. It's plural. In English, the "s" on the end means two or more. He didn't say that all the Apostles taught it so I didn't ask for substantiation that all of them did, but he did say that the Apostles taught it - thus meaning at least two did. I

BTW, Im saying that if someone claims that Jesus or the apostle's said something in particular, we should be able to have reference to the quote. Im not sure what the trouble is?

Thus, my puzzle as to your point - because that's exactly where you entered into my discussion with this Catholic, implying I was wrong to seek this substantiation.

Please quote me from this thread where I stated that I demand "proof."

Christians should seek substantiation. We have been boldly and repeatedly warned by God to beware of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray, to "test the spirits" to see if they are of God. There is nothing in Scripture that says Eve was correct to accept with docility what the teacher said. Jesus specifically praised the Ephesian Christian laity for "testing" their teachers to see if they were correct, for arbitrating the issues, and for finding them false (Rev. 2:2). In the OT, we were warned to NOT do as the Catholic Catechism requires and accept "with docility" and "quiet submission" whatever we are told. If such were the case, all ecumenical councils would have been moot, all excommunications wrong. IMHO, we MUST seek confirmation, substantiation for what we are told. Otherwise, we have NO BASIS to reject Arianism or Gnosticism or Mormonism or Jimmy Jones or Satan. I think truth matters. I'm pretty sure you do, too. Thus, of course, substantiation is needed. However, that's another topic for another day and thread (and probably forum). THIS forum is about Mary, and yes, that includes the DOGMA of the Immaculate Conception and the DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary.

Well, I'll ask again, do you believe for example, the Marian Dogma of perpetual Virginity, to be wrong or false or otherwise incorrect? You never said conclusively without any doubt, one way or the other.

I'm not sure how your response relates to what I posted

I have stated - many, many times - that I do NOT regard any of the current RCC Marian dogmas to be heresies. (In fact, I have stated - repeatedly - that I don't consider ANY current dogma of the RCC to be heresy). On the other hand, I have also stated - many, many times - that I don't regard most of them as dogma (I do regard Mary to be a virgin when Jesus was conceived and likely when He was born, and I do embrace the dogma of Mary - the Mother of God). Lutherans embrace them as valid pious opinions because they are solid, ancient beliefs (Tradition) and not in conflict with Scripture, but we do not embrace them as Dogma since they lack biblical substantiation/confirmation/affirmation. That is my position, too. As I've stated dozens of times.




Back to the discussion of what is loving/respectful in spreading stories/reports about Our Blessed Lady....



Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Let's just face reality for a change, folks and let everyone agree that Jesus and none of the Apostles ever taught such a thing. Just because someone makes a dogmatic statement that is utterly unsubstantiated should not mean that he cannot gracefully admit his error. That is exactly what has happened here. It is time to move on now that we all know the lack of sbustantiation and evidence for the assertion.

 

[Qoheleth]

No.

You stressed that I demanded "proof."
I asked you to quote where I did, but you ignored that.
Now you seem to be implying that you were wrong and that I never mentioned proof, but that YOU regard such as identical to "evidence." I never said that.
I spoke of substantiation, not proof.

sub·stan·ti·ate

/səbˈstæn

ʃiˌeɪt/ Pronunciation Key [suh

b-stan-shee-eyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.


1.to establish by proof or competent evidence


To support with proof or evidence; verify


Can we get past the semantics?


Evident: adj. Clear, plain, apparent.
Evidence: noun. The condition of being evident, something that makes a position or conclusion reasonable or likely, helps to establish a point.

Substantiation: verb. To give evidence, to cause reasonable confidence.

Proof: noun. Establishing the irrefutable truth of a matter, to make conclusive.

The point is: You insisted that I demanded "proof" when the reality is I never so much as even mentioned it. The issue was that a Catholic stated, "It's true because Christ and the Apostles taught it." And I sought the quotes from them that substantiate that. You entered the discussion about that with (well, I'm still confused about your position on that...)


I did not insist you demanded. You asked for substantiation (ie...proof) for the Catholics claim. Can we move on?




The Catholic poster stated that the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it. Apostles. It's plural. In English, the "s" on the end means two or more. He didn't say that all the Apostles taught it so I didn't ask for substantiation that all of them did, but he did say that the Apostles taught it - thus meaning at least two did. I


ok



Thus, my puzzle as to your point - because that's exactly where you entered into my discussion with this Catholic, implying I was wrong to seek this substantiation.

No, I didnt imply or state you are wrong to ask











I'm not sure how your response relates to what I posted

I have stated - many, many times - that I do NOT regard any of the current RCC Marian dogmas to be heresies. (In fact, I have stated - repeatedly - that I don't consider ANY current dogma of the RCC to be heresy). On the other hand, I have also stated - many, many times - that I don't regard most of them as dogma


Not Dogma, not heresy but some kind of truth in between...ok


(I do regard Mary to be a virgin when Jesus was conceived and likely when He was born, and I do embrace the dogma of Mary - the Mother of God). Lutherans embrace them as valid pious opinions because they are solid, ancient beliefs (Tradition) and not in conflict with Scripture, but we do not embrace them as Dogma since they lack biblical substantiation/confirmation/affirmation. That is my position, too. As I've stated dozens of times.


Lutherans consider the Mother of God as Dogma, not pious opinion...

“We believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God. (Epitome VIII)”


And the Ever-Virginity of Mary is debated based on...


SD VIII:24
He showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, because He was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore, she is truly the mother of God and yet has remained a virgin [auf Deutsch: IST ein Jungfrau geblieben.]


It was never contested or Confessed against by the Lutheran Confessional authors and later Lutheran fathers.



Do you believe the Blessed Mother to be ever-virgin...why or why not?






Back to the discussion of what is loving/respectful in spreading stories/reports about Our Blessed Lady....Do you wish to combine two threads?


This is part and parcel of the topic as it concerns the Blessed Mother. Why micro-manage the thread like this?


Pax


- Josiah

.

Q

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No.

You stressed that I demanded "proof."
I asked you to quote where I did, but you ignored that.
Now you seem to be implying that you were wrong and that I never mentioned proof, but that YOU regard such as identical to "evidence." I never said that.
I spoke of substantiation, not proof.

Evident: adj. Clear, plain, apparent.
Evidence: noun. The condition of being evident, something that makes a position or conclusion reasonable or likely, helps to establish a point.

Substantiation: verb. To give evidence, to cause reasonable confidence.

Proof: noun. Establishing the irrefutable truth of a matter, to make conclusive.

The point is: You insisted that I demanded "proof" when the reality is I never so much as even mentioned it. The issue was that a Catholic stated, "It's true because Christ and the Apostles taught it." And I sought the quotes from them that substantiate that. You entered the discussion about that with (well, I'm still confused about your position on that...)

sub·stan·ti·ate

/səbˈstæn

ʃiˌeɪt/ Pronunciation Key [suh

b-stan-shee-eyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.


1.to establish by proof or competent evidence


To support with proof or evidence; verify


Can we get past the semantics?

I didn't bring it, you did.

Point is: Contrary to your continuing insistence, I never so much as mentioned "proof." What I said was substantiation - and now you agree that substantiation IS appropriate and necessary. So, I continue to be lost as to your obsession with this point....

Again, I'm more than glad to move on - it's not my point, it's yours. I was having a discussion about the point that the teaching is correct because Christ and His Apostles taught it, and sought the quotes for that. YOU are the one who entered that discussion with your (now puzzeling) point about PROOF - and now several posts about your issue of PROOF.

The Catholic poster stated that the teaching is correct because Jesus and the Apostles taught it. Apostles. It's plural. In English, the "s" on the end means two or more. He didn't say that all the Apostles taught it so I didn't ask for substantiation that all of them did, but he did say that the Apostles taught it - thus meaning at least two did.

Thus, my puzzle as to your point - because that's exactly where you entered into my discussion with this Catholic, implying I was wrong to seek this substantiation.

I'm not sure how your response relates to what I posted

I have stated - many, many times - that I do NOT regard any of the current RCC Marian dogmas to be heresies. (In fact, I have stated - repeatedly - that I don't consider ANY current dogma of the RCC to be heresy). On the other hand, I have also stated - many, many times - that I don't regard most of them as dogma.






(I do regard Mary to be a virgin when Jesus was conceived and likely when He was born, and I do embrace the dogma of Mary - the Mother of God). Lutherans embrace them as valid pious opinions because they are solid, ancient beliefs (Tradition) and not in conflict with Scripture, but we do not embrace them as Dogma since they lack biblical substantiation/confirmation/affirmation. That is my position, too. As I've stated dozens of times.

Lutherans consider the Mother of God as Dogma, not pious opinion...

Yes.

Back to the discussion of what is loving/respectful in spreading stories/reports about Our Blessed Lady....

Do you wish to combine two threads?

Read the title of this thread and the opening post. They govern the discussion. And this forum is for discussions about Mary and the Saints. It's not about epistemology or nonmarian discussions, I'm TRYING to abide by that.




Pax


- Josiah



.






Q

 

[Qoheleth]

[/i]I didn't bring it, you did.

Point is: Contrary to your continuing insistence, I never so much as mentioned "proof." What I said was substantiation - and now you agree that substantiation IS appropriate and necessary. So, I continue to be lost as to your obsession with this point....

Stipulated...you did not use the word, "proof". I am not nor have I insisted that you used the word "proof".

You did ask the Catholic for substantiation of his claim. That is the same as asking for proof (by definition) though, even if you didnt use the word proof.

Thats it, nothing more...please


Again, I'm more than glad to move on - it's not my point, it's yours. I was having a discussion about the point that the teaching is correct because Christ and His Apostles taught it, and sought the quotes for that. YOU are the one who entered that discussion with your (now puzzeling) point about PROOF - and now several posts about your issue of PROOF.





Yes.


yes, what?


Why the seeming contradictions??


For yourself, you said...1. I do embrace the dogma of Mary - the Mother of God) You are Lutheran correct?


Then You said...2. "Lutherans embrace them as valid pious opinions..."

They are not pious opinions in Lutheranism, they are Dogma


Then you said...3. "but we do not embrace them as Dogma "


They are dogma to Lutheranism. Is the "We" in your statement meant to mean Lutheranism or what?




Read the title of this thread and the opening post. They govern the discussion. And this forum is for discussions about Mary and the Saints. It's not about epistemology or nonmarian discussions, I'm TRYING to abide by that.

Speak lovingly of Mary & Respect and Spreading Rumors and Our Lady..... are two threads here in this forum


You said..."Back to the discussion of what is loving/respectful in spreading stories/reports about Our Blessed Lady...."


Sounds like you are combining the two



hmmm...Ive only brought into the discussion what was previously addressed.


Though you do manage to avoid almost every question I have asked you.



Pax


- Josiah



Q

Q

 

[Rick Otto]

So much for law...
Love score any points yet?

 

[hogndog]

"Mary, Queen of Heaven"

The prostituting of virgins in honour of Mylitta, was observed also in Cyprus in honor of Venus. But the positive testimony of Pausanias brings this presumption to a certainty. "Near this," says that historian, speaking of the temple of Vulcan at Athens, "is the temple of Celestial Venus, who was first worshipped by the Assyrians, and after these by the Paphians in Cyprus, and the Phoenicians who inhabited the city of Ascalon in Palestine. But the Cythereans venerated this goddess in consequence of learning her sacred rites from the Phoenicians." The Assyrian Venus, then--that is, the great goddess of Babylon--and the Cyprian Venus (See Mother of god Worship) were one and the same, and consequently the "bloodless" altars of the Paphian goddess show the character of the worship peculiar to the Babylonian goddess, from whom she was derived. In this "bloodless" respect the goddess-queen of Chaldea differed from her son, who was worshipped in her arms. He was, as we have seen, represented as delighting in blood. But she, as the mother of grace and mercy, as the celestial "Dove," as "the hope of the whole world," (BRYANT) was averse to blood, and was represented in a benign and gentle character. Accordingly, in Babylon she bore the name of Mylitta--that is, "The Mediatrix." *

Note: Mylitta is the same as Melitta, the feminine of Melitz, "a mediator", which in Chaldee becomes Melitt. Melitz is the word used in Job 33:23, 24: "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter (Heb. Melitz, "a mediator"), one among a thousand, to show unto man his uprightness, then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom."

Everyone, who reads the Bible and sees how expressly it declares that, as there is only "one Yahweh", so there is only "one Mediator between YHWH and men, the (flesh and blood, first to be born into the kingdom of YHWH) man, Yahshua Messiah," (1 Tim 2:5), must marvel . . . . "How it could ever have entered the mind of anyone to bestow on Mary, as is done by the pagan catholic-christian church of Rome, the character of the 'Mediatrix'." But the character ascribed to the Babylonian goddess as Mylitta sufficiently accounts for this. In accordance with this character of Mediatrix, she was called "Aphrodite". . . . that is, "the wrath-subduer" * . . . . who by her charms could soothe the breast of angry Jove (the god Jupiter), and soften the most rugged spirits of gods or mortal-men. In Athens she was called Amarusia (PAUSANIAS). . . . that is, "The Mother of gracious acceptance".

Note: From Chaldee "aph," "wrath," and "radah," "to subdue"; "radite" is the feminine emphatic.

Note: From "Ama," "mother," and "Retza," "to accept graciously," which in the participle active is "Rutza." Pausanias expresses his perplexity as to the meaning of the name Amarusia as applied to Diana, saying, "Concerning which appellation I never could find any one able to give a satisfactory account." The sacred tongue plainly shows the meaning of it.

In Rome she was called "Bona Dea", "the good goddess", the mysteries of this goddess being celebrated by women with peculiar secrecy.

 

[sunlover1]

So much for law...
Love score any points yet?

Other than tennis?
No contest.
Love ALWAYS wins baby!!!
8 Love never fails

"Mary, Queen of Heaven"

The prostituting of virgins in honour of Mylitta, was observed also in Cyprus in honor of Venus. But the positive testimony of Pausanias brings this presumption to a certainty. "Near this," says that historian, speaking of the temple of Vulcan at Athens, "is the temple of Celestial Venus, who was first worshipped by the Assyrians, and after these by the Paphians in Cyprus, and the Phoenicians who inhabited the city of Ascalon in Palestine. But the Cythereans venerated this goddess in consequence of learning her sacred rites from the Phoenicians." The Assyrian Venus, then--that is, the great goddess of Babylon--and the Cyprian Venus (See Mother of god Worship) were one and the same, and consequently the "bloodless" altars of the Paphian goddess show the character of the worship peculiar to the Babylonian goddess, from whom she was derived. In this "bloodless" respect the goddess-queen of Chaldea differed from her son, who was worshipped in her arms. He was, as we have seen, represented as delighting in blood. But she, as the mother of grace and mercy, as the celestial "Dove," as "the hope of the whole world," (BRYANT) was averse to blood, and was represented in a benign and gentle character. Accordingly, in Babylon she bore the name of Mylitta--that is, "The Mediatrix." *

Note: Mylitta is the same as Melitta, the feminine of Melitz, "a mediator", which in Chaldee becomes Melitt. Melitz is the word used in Job 33:23, 24: "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter (Heb. Melitz, "a mediator"), one among a thousand, to show unto man his uprightness, then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom."

Everyone, who reads the Bible and sees how expressly it declares that, as there is only "one Yahweh", so there is only "one Mediator between YHWH and men, the (flesh and blood, first to be born into the kingdom of YHWH) man, Yahshua Messiah," (1 Tim 2:5), must marvel . . . . "How it could ever have entered the mind of anyone to bestow on Mary, as is done by the pagan catholic-christian church of Rome, the character of the 'Mediatrix'." But the character ascribed to the Babylonian goddess as Mylitta sufficiently accounts for this. In accordance with this character of Mediatrix, she was called "Aphrodite". . . . that is, "the wrath-subduer" * . . . . who by her charms could soothe the breast of angry Jove (the god Jupiter), and soften the most rugged spirits of gods or mortal-men. In Athens she was called Amarusia (PAUSANIAS). . . . that is, "The Mother of gracious acceptance".

Note: From Chaldee "aph," "wrath," and "radah," "to subdue"; "radite" is the feminine emphatic.

Note: From "Ama," "mother," and "Retza," "to accept graciously," which in the participle active is "Rutza." Pausanias expresses his perplexity as to the meaning of the name Amarusia as applied to Diana, saying, "Concerning which appellation I never could find any one able to give a satisfactory account." The sacred tongue plainly shows the meaning of it.

In Rome she was called "Bona Dea", "the good goddess", the mysteries of this goddess being celebrated by women with peculiar secrecy.

Interesting.
Hogndog!
(Saw your name so stopped by to say hey)

 

[lionroar0]

"Mary, Queen of Heaven"

The prostituting of virgins in honour of Mylitta, was observed also in Cyprus in honor of Venus. But the positive testimony of Pausanias brings this presumption to a certainty. "Near this," says that historian, speaking of the temple of Vulcan at Athens, "is the temple of Celestial Venus, who was first worshipped by the Assyrians, and after these by the Paphians in Cyprus, and the Phoenicians who inhabited the city of Ascalon in Palestine. But the Cythereans venerated this goddess in consequence of learning her sacred rites from the Phoenicians." The Assyrian Venus, then--that is, the great goddess of Babylon--and the Cyprian Venus (See Mother of god Worship) were one and the same, and consequently the "bloodless" altars of the Paphian goddess show the character of the worship peculiar to the Babylonian goddess, from whom she was derived. In this "bloodless" respect the goddess-queen of Chaldea differed from her son, who was worshipped in her arms. He was, as we have seen, represented as delighting in blood. But she, as the mother of grace and mercy, as the celestial "Dove," as "the hope of the whole world," (BRYANT) was averse to blood, and was represented in a benign and gentle character. Accordingly, in Babylon she bore the name of Mylitta--that is, "The Mediatrix." *

Note: Mylitta is the same as Melitta, the feminine of Melitz, "a mediator", which in Chaldee becomes Melitt. Melitz is the word used in Job 33:23, 24: "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter (Heb. Melitz, "a mediator"), one among a thousand, to show unto man his uprightness, then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom."

Everyone, who reads the Bible and sees how expressly it declares that, as there is only "one Yahweh", so there is only "one Mediator between YHWH and men, the (flesh and blood, first to be born into the kingdom of YHWH) man, Yahshua Messiah," (1 Tim 2:5), must marvel . . . . "How it could ever have entered the mind of anyone to bestow on Mary, as is done by the pagan catholic-christian church of Rome, the character of the 'Mediatrix'." But the character ascribed to the Babylonian goddess as Mylitta sufficiently accounts for this. In accordance with this character of Mediatrix, she was called "Aphrodite". . . . that is, "the wrath-subduer" * . . . . who by her charms could soothe the breast of angry Jove (the god Jupiter), and soften the most rugged spirits of gods or mortal-men. In Athens she was called Amarusia (PAUSANIAS). . . . that is, "The Mother of gracious acceptance".

Note: From Chaldee "aph," "wrath," and "radah," "to subdue"; "radite" is the feminine emphatic.

Note: From "Ama," "mother," and "Retza," "to accept graciously," which in the participle active is "Rutza." Pausanias expresses his perplexity as to the meaning of the name Amarusia as applied to Diana, saying, "Concerning which appellation I never could find any one able to give a satisfactory account." The sacred tongue plainly shows the meaning of it.

In Rome she was called "Bona Dea", "the good goddess", the mysteries of this goddess being celebrated by women with peculiar secrecy.

non-historical crap.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/mary.htm

I took a stroll today and found this site, my questions, do all Catholics believe this, do the Papists believe this, will Catholics argue over this being dogma in their church and last, the bible says there is but one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, why do Catholics say she has this authority?

Thanks,
hogndog

Anti-Catholic Sites are a dime a dozen. They usually take official Catholic quotes out of their intended context to push their own agenda.

If u had so much time on your hands why not actually find official Catholic Catholic sites with Official Catholic teachings. Instead of the crap your posting?

Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
Dime-a-dozen is retail. I can get ya wholesale (I know a guy who knows a guy).
So is Mary bein' Mediatrix an agenda-driven decontextualisation?