Posted on 01/24/2015 4:16:35 PM PST by ifinnegan
Here are artistic representations of two goddesses who are considered the Queen of Heaven and Goddesses.
The Buddhist/Taoist Kuan Yin (or Guan Yin) (觀音)
And
The Catholic depiction of Mary
Note the similarities in representation.
This relates to a thread last week on the leftover, or accretional pagan beliefs or rituals that are still present in the Catholic church.
The Goddess of Mercy is a universal idol/icon in pagan belief systems.
Who compiled the books of the bible as we know it? The Church fathers.
All you have is Bible, Bible, Bible (that was assembled by the early Church fathers) and following the curse of the Reformation, where every Tom, Dick, and Harry believes they can crack open the page of the Bible and give it their “own” interpretation as if reading from a newspaper.
Why don’t you spend serious time reading the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict XVI. I know, all these eminent theologians got it wrong, they are all fools, you alone and corner street pastors now got it right!
Because it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible, to hell with the oral traditions even though the John writes in 21: 25
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”(Douay-Rheims Bible)
The is what Bible Christians do, they attract the low IQ followers like the Osteens and Billy Grahams and Jim Jones’ etc with their simplistic rhetoric waving around Bible in hand. Serious theological research and scholarship goes over their heads. Why don’t you listen to Tim Staples who for 20 years thought like the Jimmy Swaggarts and Billy Grahams of this world until he realized he was being taken for an idiot???
So basically you think, in a nutshell, that Saint Augustine and other Post-Testament “Saints” have more validity and authority in their Op-Eds than the what Peter, John, Timothy, Moses and David via the Holy Spirit?
LOL!
Speaking of serious theological research & scholarship!
I can at least back up what I believe with valid scripture quotes from the Holy Bible (more than I can say for you as I’m still waiting on the Marian worship verses I asked for).
And stop acting as if I follow idiots like Osteen, Swaggart, & Jones. Their stupidity speaks for itself, I’m not totally in agreement with what Graham says either, but at least he gets it.
Prayer is offered to God—never to any created thing. To do so is to offer worship that should only be directed to God, which is idolatry.
> Non-Christians are encouraged to chip in as well.
In that case, Kwan Yin is not a goddess. She was a young woman who lived around 700 B.C. and gained enlightenment after being murdered by her father. Her position in Buddhism is like that of a Saint. After being killed, and arriving at Purgatory, she was given the choice of going to Heaven or staying behind as an immortal to help others find their way on the path of good.
Are you cherry picking only the quotes you like and ignoring the others?
In that case, Kwan Yin is not a goddess. She was a young woman who lived around 700 B.C. and gained enlightenment after being murdered by her father. Her position in Buddhism is like that of a Saint. After being killed, and arriving at Purgatory, she was given the choice of going to Heaven or staying behind as an immortal to help others find their way on the path of good.So she was a buddhist Catholic?
Catholics are the only ones who push the "tradition" of a place called purgatory.
Or can anyone jump in?
To repeat part of your post:
... she was given given the choice of going to Heaven or staying behind as an immortal to help others find their way on the path of good.Catholics can do that too? Purgatory is a "jumping off" place where you can decide where to go?
""Maybe the Catholic bible omits that part too."
Nope. It's right there, along with much else that Martin Luther pitched out of the Protestant Bible because, basically, he didn't like what it said.
As he put it....."why should it be so??? Because I, Martin Luther, say it should be so".
Actually, they both did....Peter first, Paul second. Archealogical investigation has uncovered the skeleton of Peter exactly where Catholic tradition said it was.
That is because only idiots believe "sola scriptura". Heck, even Martin Luther didn't believe that. All truth is "of God", not just what happens to be written in your particular translation of the Bible. And that includes both history and science.
there is no actual proof of this claim.
Cherry-picking is for Bible Christians. Go ask the Osteens, Billy Grahams, the Moonies, Mormons, Jim Jones, David Koreshs, Jimmy Swaggarts, Rev. Schullers and the pastors of every corner street Foursquare Church each having their own interpretation. Either you accept Petrine authority (one Credo) under which auspices the Bible was painstakingly assembled in chapter and verse by the early Church fathers by including some texts, and rejecting others by resorting to the oral traditions and sacred ritual, or you don’t by ignoring Petrine authority and then selectively picking and choosing as do Bible Christians.
The early Church fathers were not only taught by the 12 apostles, they were also first-hand witnesses to the creation of the Church worldwide. Most, if not all, were martyred by being crucified, beheaded, fed to the lions at the Roman Coliseum, or boiled in oil. They were the ones empowered by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13 and 1 John 4:6), and who personally handed on the oral teaching of Jesus Christ, before the New Testament canon was created by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century, at the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.
One of the great early ones, St. Clement, is actually mentioned in the bible in Philippians 4:3. None of these early Church Fathers just stood up and started preaching on his own. They followed the Biblical model in Acts of “being sent” (Romans 10:15). Who sent them? Jesus sent the 12 apostles (“as the Father sent me, so I send you”). The 12 apostles then laid hands on others and sent them (Acts 6:6).
This apostolic tradition has been followed for 2000 years by the Catholic Church, who continuously lays hands on new disciples in every generation since Jesus walked the earth, and then sends them to the four corners of the earth to preach the good news of Jesus Christ, to forgive sins in His Name, and to bring Jesus in the Eucharist to us all. We, the members of the 21rst Century, owe these early Church Fathers a lot of gratitude, because they died horrible deaths in order to preserve and to hand on the ONE, HOLY CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC Word of God to us today.
This is the ONE teaching, ONE Credo, ONE truth, for all times. This is the faith examined by the power of reason and intellect and why the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict XVI are an essential part of the theological curricula at major colleges and universities the world over. They do not study the simplistic nonsense of the Billy Grahams, Osteens, or the Moonies!
> Catholics are the only ones who push the “tradition” of a place called purgatory.
The Greeks believed in Purgatory; they called it Hades. In Hades you are judged and remain in Hades if you did not distinguish yourself in your mortal life, or if you are judged bad, you are sent to Tartarus (Hell) or if you are worthy and pious, you go on to the Elysian Fields (Heaven).
The Buddhists believe that after death, you go to a place of temptation and judgment (Purgatory), if you are judged bad or succumb to the Temptations within Purgatory then you go to Hell, if you are judged good and resist the Temptations, then you go on to Heaven, if you haven’t been bad enough for Hell, nor good enough for Heaven, then you are reincarnated and get another try at the whole process.
It’s amazing how many faiths subscribe to the Purgatory, Heaven and Hell belief.
There is also the traditional Jewish teaching of Gehinom, which is somewhat similar to Purgatory and is probably the origin of Catholic belief.
Wow thanks for the information.
Purgatory is pretty widespread it seems.
Not a part of Christianity though. Thank God for the saving grace of Jesus.
Since when does a rational argument have an expiry date? Church arguments have actually been repeated for over 2000 years old. Isn’t it because Bible Christians can’t rebut deep theological arguments and drown when taken to the deep end of the pool. So they swim in the shallow end and what’s broken is not the record but the player. So this too will sound as a broken record. Advice: get the player fixed so that when you hear it once you hear it right.
LOL!
Catholics probably love your posts, but all the “extras” involved with Catholicism aren’t needed by non Catholic Christians.
Jesus is sufficient.
If those in your belief system need to read your intellectualistic posts concerning rituals and superfluous (to Christianity) dissertations over and over again, fine.
But for the rest of us, could you use that graphic?
I can’t fix your record player, you will have to do that.
Christians have been getting it right ever since Jesus called us to Him starting back when He walked the earth. Long before the creation of the Catholic Church.
It’s pretty simple to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus, would you like to see the scriptures?
Which non-Catholic “Christians”? Biblical “lite” interpretations of Jim Jones, David Koresh; Rev. Wright? Joel Osteen? “long before the creation of the Catholic Church” Right. The Bible fell from the skies and self arranged itself
It's not exactly an entirely rational argument, and the "church arguments" have not exactly stayed entirely all the same, being there admittedly have been [cough-cough] arguments which do not go back 2000 years, but instead were product of so-called theological development (and even "change" although that last is denied, even as "development is confessed).
Cardinal Newman -- was full of beans and fancy excuses, the latter of which were crafted to allow Rome to have things both ways, as in -- to say that nothing had changed -- but then declare that which had been introduced, the RCC (and the RCC alone) had authority to have had their own "revelation" towards.
As for your own comments, there are many places where loose assumption is presented as undeniable fact --- each of which would take a lot of time and space to properly address.
Here's an example;
There were very few of those who were in fact "taught first-hand", or even the first second hand as it were, who's writings come down to us to this day.
When one refers to so-called "Early Church Fathers" (which is something of a 19th century-origins nomenclature for a particular well-known set of documents) it is not inclusive of only those who were "first-hand witnesses".
Which means that to use the phrase "early Church fathers..taught by the Apostles..." one needs to determine first ---- which individuals were those ---- and then make some determination of what it is that was in actual fact taught.
As things progress, it becomes plain enough that not all those who came along later entirely agree with each other, and agree with those whom came before themselves.
Pretty much anyone who has studied those writers whom are referred to as "Early Church Fathers" (ECF's) agrees that they did not all agree with one another.
Rationally, we are left then with the task of sifting out that which they did most widely agree upon --- from earliest times.
Earlier is generally better in this process, if we truly desire to find out what it was they were taught (which was perhaps not in Scripture?) AND what it is they thought (or were taught) concerning Scripture.
Another example of that which you included that can be problematic is;
for among that which is attributed to Clement --- scholars who delve into ancient texts have well enough established there are portions which were not written by that particular Clement, and some else (I do not recall at this time precisely which) that is of dubious (or at least "contested") nature.
Even so, those sort of writings can still have value as far as showing what some later, anonymous writer thought well enough of, to make effort to put those words into 'Clement's' mouth. Clement is not alone in this regard. There was more than just a little bit of later arising "pseudo" this, and pseudo that...
I could go on with examination of the rest of your claims which you made (yourself having alleged the entire argument as being "rational") delving into what what Scriptural basis there are for those, and then further for what evidences there are for how such things came to be considered -- and did in fact vary, and change --- yet for now, to keep this note from becoming too overly long, I'll set that aside until such as the much less limited in scope portions which I highlighted as problematic, are addressed.
But spare us (by us, I mean the entire forum) the generalized insults aimed at all those perceived to be other-than Roman Catholic, yet are honestly enough otherwise identified as Christians, even identified as such by the RCC so-called "Magesterium".
Need I cite proof for that last portion? I do notice the higher [ahem] authorities of the RCC refrain from insulting the intelligence all these "other Christians".
You should try it some time...
How about doing this for us-- call it a favor for FR in general;
Make whatever claim it is that you so desire (that can be backed by firm evidence) -- while keeping the needless insults to others' intelligence -- to yourself?
You know, like this last part;
Obviously...that was posed as a question, yet lacked the proper punctuation. "Deep theological arguments" you say? And what are those?
I'll just go ahead and say these alleged-to-be "deep" arguments are often enough rejected not for reason that the so-called protestants whom examine them do not understand them --- but they are often rejected (many times, only in part, or for certain and particular aspects, though not rejected entirely as having *some* truth to them) for reason the basis and the implications of the arguments are well enough understood.
The "broken record" which was spoken of previously was nothing other than your own, oft-repeated (and shallow -- imagine that) screed, capped by insults, if not shot through with them from intro to end.
Being that you are "the player" of this repetitive [few] groove tune -- are you confessing you are in some way broken?
Logically, that would follow, although I do recognize the intent was (apparently) to push that all onto another here.
I do invite you to take your own advice.
Please take my advice...
(open up the tired eyes)
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.