Sede Sapientiae
Posted on 12/27/2011 8:24:19 PM PST by RnMomof7
That picture sort of says it all doesn’t it? The halo of the child is reduced to make room for the full halo of the “queen of heaven”. The child is secondary to the “queen of heaven” just as it is in all pagan worship.
How did Catholics treat them (notice I said Catholics and not Christians ) for doing exactly as Jesus said ? They called them heretics and even had some of them put to do death . How do Catholics treat them now , they curse at them and say they are not followers of Christ (kinda like you just did ) hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wonder if that is why middle eastern Catholics have been so cursed themselves ?
>>Catholic means universal. I’m not going to apologize for what some Western Christians did during the Middle Ages.
I’m not a Western Christian. Anti-Catholic bigots always ignore the fact John Paul II made an atonement for the sins of the past in 2000. They are all stuck in the past.
The modern Messianics have nothing in common with Jesus and his apostles. Their theology is a heretical mixture of Evangelical Protestantism and warmed over Rabinnical Judaism, which differs vastly from the Judaism of Jesus’s time.
Do you follow the Septuagint? The apostles did. All of the OT quotes in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint version, not from the flawed Rabinnical Massoretic text.
Middle Eastern Catholics cursed. That’s a new one. They have far more in common with apostolic Christianity than Messianic Judaizers.
Your sect is neither Christian nor Jewish. It’s sort of in a no-man’s land between the two.
The one ones pulling a verse out of context and making a theological argument out of it is the Catholic church.
The angel simply tells Mary that she's *blessed* and suddenly she's sinless, ever virgin, assumed into heaven, made queen of heaven, yada, yada, yada......
Stuff that is found NOWHERE in Scripture and a whole church stands on falls on it's doctrine concerning Mary.
THAT'S baloney.
There is nothing about sizes of haloes which has anything to do with amount of honor. In this the present example, the "Queen of Heaven" is secondary and even on an incomparably lower plane, as the creature is lower than the Creator, and the finite lower than the Infinite.
The fact is, that God alone is holy; and other persons (or even places, things, or ideas) are called "holy" only in a secondary and completely dependent way: "Holy Saints," "Holy Bible," "Holy Angels," "Holy Songs and Canticles," "Holy Manna," "Holy Mary."
Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is God and who has come in the flesh. As a human mother, she is bigger than her infant. The picture illustratres that. And that's all that "size" has to do with it.
I am glad you have given me the opportunity to explain this. Otherwise, you would have long retained a mistaken impression.
Same old tired defense.
Ex. 20:4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image-...
My eyes and ears don't deceive me. My wife is a former RC. My children went to a RC high school. I watched the school build a grotto that they bragged was wider and taller than the one at Notre Dame University. The grotto had a nice statue of Mary in the middle, no Jesus, and RC's regularly came and bowed down and worshiped Mary. They treat her as if she is God.
At this high school they ended prayers with the words "notre dame".
I've seen the heresy of the RCC and it's loyal followers first hand. I've also been blessed to be able to preach The Gospel to some and I've seen some become Born Again Christians.
You yourself might take a moment to ponder the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The problem isn't anyone lying about the heretical beliefs and practices of the RCC and it's members. The problem is since the Reformation Christians have been able to get their hands on Bibles in the vernacular, read them, and see the things RC's do that Christians are told not to do.
You do realize Mary fled into the wilderness with the Christ for about 3.5 years or 1260 days which are two ways of saying the same thing right ?
The woman who gave birth to Christ is hardly a mystery. And all those painting/statues of Mary are paintings of a woman with a crown of 12 stars, with the rays of the sun streaming around, standing on the earth and crescent moon. And sometimes standing on the serpent as prophesied in Genesis.
Your wife is a former Roman Catholic, so what! Catholics who become Evangelicals usually were ignorant about their former faith to begin with.
I’m not easily duped by your polemics.
I’m a former iconoclastic anti-Catholic. So you have no point.
The problem isn’t anyone lying about the heretical beliefs and practices of the RCC and it’s members. The problem is since the Reformation Christians have been able to get their hands on Bibles in the vernacular, read them, and see the things RC’s do that Christians are told not to do.
>>The only thing that happened at the so-called “Reformation” was the Bible was rewritten by polemicists to suit their prejudices.
If anything is heretical, it is the former “Reformation” beliefs that I once held. Protestantism deters clear thinking and is cult-like in its refusal to allow Christians to think through the cliched arguments.
The one ones pulling a verse out of context and making a theological argument out of it is the Catholic church.
The angel simply tells Mary that she’s *blessed* and suddenly she’s sinless, ever virgin, assumed into heaven, made queen of heaven, yada, yada, yada......
Stuff that is found NOWHERE in Scripture and a whole church stands on falls on it’s doctrine concerning Mary.
THAT’S baloney.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
usually were ignorant about their former faith to begin with
What tired old UNMITIGATED NONSENSE.
Show us the research and how it was designed.
ROFLOL
I’m a former iconoclastic anti-Catholic. So you have no point.
Embracing heresy doesn't make it true.
A substantial point of Rev 12 is Mary was seen in heaven. Not only does scripture say so but also does the histories of the church.
Just as it was not wrong for Christ or the Apostles to converse with a dead man on the mountain, a man who at the time it happened was said by Holy Scripture to be dead and nothing in sacred scripture then extant said otherwise. That Moses can appear and converse about things happening and things to come and yet it not be necromancy is a clue.
If the disciples held to the view you do they would have been forced to conclude Christ was a necromancer, and of course they didn’t.
As to Mary being dead, not even the patriarchs are dead. He is not the God of the dead but of the living. And even Abraham saw the day of the Christ and rejoiced when it happened.
Over and over again it’s been shown that Catholics replace Christ with Mary.
Anyone who denies any of that, denies the Catholic faith.
What part of that don't you accept? You seem to be inadvertently misinterpreting statements you don't quite understand.
If you fail to wrap your understanding about the idolatries and blasphemies I highlighted in the Pope’s paragraphs above . . . then we are evidently not dealing with the same English I’ve used all my life.
I realize that wholesale bias can be quite blinding.
However, I’ve usually thought of you as a bit above that tendency.
The Pope’s paragraphs were hideous in terms of idolatry and blasphemy.
There’s no amount of weasel worded rationalizations that will excuse them before God Almighty . . . nor even before the AUTHENTIC Mary.
Or you could believe God instead of your pope when God says Christ gave birth to the church...
No, Quix:
I didn’t ask you to take a bunch of out-of-context quotes which you take to be prayers to a goddess or Asheroth. You’ll notice there’s not a reference to goddess or Asheroth in the whole bunch. There’s some quotes which in your ignorance you judge to be prayers to a goddess or Ashaeroth, I suppose. But then, that’s your problem. You presume the voices in your head are reality.
Actually, in a strange way, you demonstrate the precise meaning of Revelations 12. Mary is progenitor and archetype of the Church. What the Church accomplishes by bringing Christ into the hearts of each individual it reveals Christ to, Mary accomplished by bringing Christ into the world. Every marvelous utterance directed at Mary is really an instruction of what the Church is to be, to those who constitute the Church, who are those who declare such utterances.
Each of these wondrous statements is directed to the Catholic reader who understands Christ to be ultimate and primary source of all things, not as an apologetic to the Protestant about the role of Mary.
Isn’t Mary the Queen of Heaven, of Rev. 12? Was there some other sign given, where some other woman gave birth to some other Christ? Yet at the same time, the purpose of Rev. 12 is not merely to glorify Mary, but to, by analogy, use her as an archetype for the Church as a whole.
But in your fevered imagination, you see not the mother of Christ, but Asheroth, which is so very, very sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.