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.
Show us what Martin Luther "pitched out" of "the bible".
I really do get sick of this...
As a hint --- one might be able to say that it all makes better sense when the texts, and his comments, are reviewed in the German language which he wrote (and translated) them...although there are those purists who would still get themselves into something of a snit over one ~lone~ word bwaahahahhaa
One could just as easily say that only idiots, the ignorant, and those whom would desire to assert sola ecclesia (meaning -- their own) to be over and above Scripture itself -- theologically speaking --- refuse to acknowledge the well enough exampled (in Scripture, itself) principle (of sola scriptura).
There is some evidence in the above quote from yourself (if that be true) that by your own admission, Martin Luther "didn't believe" it, as "it" is often misunderstood, or else misrepresented.
I know of only a scant few who themselves claim to adhere to the principle, whom also would assert the rest of what you mentioned --- all history & science --- is contained there.
Yet interestingly enough -- who comes to my own mind now but Gerald L. Schroeder.
Whatever one says about the man, it would seemingly (by default?) simply have to include that his, ah, applications of particular standard model physics/astro physics theories, are at the least interesting, even one if not accept those, or be hesitant to embrace them too eagerly.
Being that the man is far from ignorant (he does have a Ph.D), thus arguably not idiotic, I suppose his intelligence itself (if intelligence can be an "it") was part of what drove himself to experiment with applying what he knew of physics, to how the traditional Hebrew approach in theology and Hebrew word sense (in the book of Genesis) would stand, when those two disparate creation accounts were compared, one to another.
He does appear to be able to coax them in to fitting well enough(?) with one another, without sacrificing general (pun intended, relatively speaking) standard model physics.
Unless you'd care to try your own hand at establishing that "idiocy" would be a fair word to describe the man, in general, then it could be possible that Schroeder is something of an outlier.
A "bible thumper" who can say, with a straight face --- that the bible (as he knows it) actually does (in sense of origins of the Universe) contain "all science and history".
Popcorn...peanuts
get yer' peanuts
This reply of yours not only is missing facts, it is denying them as well.
You make out as if there was 100% agreement by the ECFs the rcc clings to so desperately to justify its' false teachings.
You are aware they were not in 100% agreement....right? Or does that tidbit of information matter to you?
Do we have to ask cynicalbear or elsie or daniel1212 to post their listings of the bad popes, or the contradictions of the ECFs regarding rcc teaching?
Or do you just gloss over the information they've provided over and over again and turn a blind eye to the facts?
Or do you just repost the same non-sense over and over again. I never see any original thinking in your posts. Just the same talking points over and over again. Bring something new to the table for a change.
Indeed, I find myself in agreement with Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder. Namely, that when one considers General Relativity and the Inflationary Theory, the universe is both approximately 14 billion years old from our space/time coordinates and also approximately an equivalent week old from the inception space/time coordinates.
For instance, while a week may elapse in the vicinity of a black hole, 40 years may elapse on earth. This is the effect of gravity - the warping of the space/time continuum (equivalence principle.)
Physicists know this but rarely finish their sentence when speaking of the age of the universe, i.e. from our space/time coordinates.
Also, I aver that God the Father has revealed Himself to us in four ways: (1) through the Person of His only begotten son, Jesus; (2) through the Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit; (3) through His words, Scripture and (4) through His Creation both physical and spiritual. I see no contradictions in any of these revelations.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:4-5
Nope....not claiming that all history and science are contained in scripture. Both history and science are sources of truth outside scripture. Science in particular is literally the Word of God as it emanated from Him during the act of creation of the universe.
If any of the three disagree with the others, there is an error in understanding on the part of the interpreter.
Sola scripture is simply LUDICROUS. And the final "proof" of that is that the Protestant claimants themselves cannot agree on what Scripture says and means (and ignore large swathes of Scripture when it supports the Catholic position).
We are given freedom in Christ but along with that comes great responsibility.
But many are not comfortable with freedom so began to enslave themselves with all the rules and details again. Working out your salvation with fear and trembling is not easy. It is much easier to follow a set of rules that others have decided for us.
Jesus came to divide, not to bring peace. What you view as a bad thing is God at work. Iron sharpening is not pleasant. Where RC is wrong is not going through the process, thinking they know it all. Relying on rules and traditions.
As described in Revelation the church from the beginning must REPENT and go back to the simplicity of it's first love. It is not about the shiny things and details.
The scripture is to test the truthfulness of something. It is the touchstone for truth. We do not test truth against tradition. Finding the truth is never an easy process, it is hard and will cost us but is worth it.
Nearest I can tell is that from beginning God has desired a personal relationship with us. He doesn't want our institutions, our traditions, our offerings, he want us, body and soul. And thus the working out with fear and trembling..........................
Nothing wrong with oral tradition if it doesn't negate the written word. We know that Jesus did many things not written in the Bible. That's obvious, but if you turn John back one chapter you'd find this.
John 20: 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
It seems pretty clear that the recorded history is sufficient. The written record is traced back to the teaching of the apostles. The oral tradition is only said to be traced back to the apostles' teaching.
Additionally, if there were any details that were required for salvation that were not written down, don't you think someone would have written them down as soon as possible? I have no faith in hear-say that was passed down for hundreds of years before anyone bothered to write it down.
Your response begs the question. Because it means belief in His teachings. What are these “teachings”? He entrusted this to ONE Church.
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
(Douay-Rheims Bible)
Now that’s a pretty strong and definitive statement. But Catholics and Non-Catholic Christians part company on what this “belief” means. This is why we have Petrine authority and this is also why all discussion must begin and end with Petrine authority.
Sometimes words alone cannot captures the essence of grief and entrustment The tears of God’s mother at the foot of the cross cannot be put to words. So too those words of Christ from John 19:26: “When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.” The oral tradition tells us that Mary at that moment became the Mother of us all and God’s Church and hence the start of Marian devotions.
Now you are free to disagree with all of this but you will then be constrained to agree that “belief” is matter of interpretation and Christ did not means to allow for multiple teachings. At least we can agree on that much. We both can’t be right.
Shemot (Exodus) 15, 20
And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
וַתִּקַּח מִרְיָם הַנְּבִיאָה אֲחוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת־הַתֹּף בְּיָדָהּ וַתֵּצֶאןָ כָל־הַנָּשִׁים אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלֹת
Matthew 1,18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
וְזֶה דְבַר הֻלֶּדֶת יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ מִרְיָם אִמּוֹ הָיְתָה מְאׂרָשָׂה לְיוֹסֵף וּבְטֶרֶם יָבֹא אֵלֶיהָ נִמְצֵאת הָרָה מֵרוּחַ הַקּׂדֶשׁ
Mother Miriam מִרְיָם אִמּוֹ
http://www.sarshalom.us/resources/scripture/asv/bible.html
I was not implying that you were...and for the life of me cannot see how you would assume that I had. But what a way to start off your reply. Backwards. sheesh. Receiving reply including such "off" notes, I often wonder why I even bother.
No argument there, for those two can be sources...though my mention of Gerald Schroeder was intended to hold notes of humor, even as I am myself rather persuaded with what he wrote in Genesis And The Big Bang and The Science of God.
If one were to be acquainted with and understand that pair of books, then my own semi-joking inclusion of him in the conversation may have made more sense.
Still, what does the above italicized "science and history" portion of your own comment have to do with the principle of sola scriptura as that was meant to be understood, and was demonstratively enough applied by the Reformers?
It seems to me that what I did write -- went right by you. You missed the meanings...but A.G. did not, not at all, herself even citing passages which came to my own mind when that (my own mind) wandered I was pondering how to address your own reply.
That may depend upon the so-called "science". A note of caution is called for (like sticky notes plastered all over the walls of the laboratory?) to be applied towards too entirely conceptualizing "science", and the literal actual Word of God (inclusive of all that is, beyond the mere texts themselves which we regard as His written Word) as being interchangeable. Or as is it could be expressed in common colloquialism -- "slow down Slim, you're coming to a curve..."
In the manner in which you presented it -- one is the Creation itself -- and the other is mankind's attempts to understand, and then utilize truth in regards to (chiefly) physical matter as that may be best established to be --- usually employing trial and error process, for what is "science" but an accumulation of the [understandable] results of such process?
Yet at the same time, to the manner or degree that knowledge of this world we live in (and the Universe around us -- what scant knowledge there is of that) be true, the physical realms more particularly (no pun intended?) which are in some way visible to us, are more accessible for ourselves to evaluate than are realms of spirit.
So said Augustine -- though not in so many words, and perhaps lacking the clarity of stipulation as towards the "other" two (science and history) with himself unwittingly or not having borrowed the primary concept from Grecian philosophy, applying that towards self-evaluation of an individual's (even his own) understanding of Scripture.
I can agree that the [above] italicized portion is true enough for our own purposes, yet will argue that due to the inherent limitations of the interpreters, it is impossible for the (human) interpreters to understand much of anything beyond that which can be measured, weighed, or otherwise evaluated by using our natural senses, the results being verifiable by replication of the experiment/evaluation --- without being given revelation from God.
Do you recall that Peter's brother Andrew, after Andrew had encountered the Christ, told his brother Peter -- "we have found the Messiah"?
How then could Jesus, when asking the disciples "who do you say that I am" have later said to Peter's own reply --- "flesh and blood did not reveal that to you" --- when Peter's own brother had in fact done that very thing (revealed --in spoken words, anyway, that Jesus was the Messiah) prior to the moment Jesus put that question to Peter more directly?
Understand what is going on there...and one can perhaps better know what the more original concept of "primacy" as that word could be applied to Peter, actually was (in comparison to the later arising conceptualization that this be a thing which is inheritable by way of later earthly succession to church "office").
The erroneous understanding of the principle which you do seem to hold, must be what makes it ludicrous -- to yourself, and apparently more than a few others around here, those persons most often being Roman Catholics.
That being most often the common denominator (when the argument is not taken up in similar form by the virulently atheistic) along with the principle as that was originally applied having been presented as challenge towards the RCC, when that Church ecclesiastical community had seriously lost it's way, having much departed from The Way (this confessed to by Counter-Reformers from within the RCC, also) betrays that the continuing attacks upon the principle itself (the efficacy of the written Word) is part of an ongoing effort to again re-assert "sola ecclesia" and put that in place of sola scriptura, whether yourself are conscious of the larger paradigm of apologetic discourse -- or not. By which I mean, your own motivations as for your own criticisms do appear to me to have been greatly influenced by the highly repetitious (and erroneous aspects) of RC apologetic.
The RCC had it's chance, had opportunity to demonstrate that itself was a shining (and solo) ecclesia, an end-all to beat all -- and miserably failed -- or else there would have not been need for the Reformation, in the first place.
How much "history" do you even know -- I do wonder.
Cannot agree on what the Scripture says? How so?
While we are on that aspect of the subject, I do notice that you have not yet established just what it is that Martin Luther allegedly "pitched out of the bible", yourself having made that claim while also badly misapplying a selected quasi-quote from him...
As for agreeing on what the Scriptures mean there is wide agreement among many (but admittedly not all) whom could possibly identified as "Protestant" for a wide range of shall we say (at some risk) fundamental understanding. As for what disagreement there are --- it is fair and fitting to remind that there is a range of differing view towards particular passages of Scripture among those whom are Roman Catholic --- in fact --- one must go to the so-called catechism to read -- a whole big 'ol pile of rather discombobulated the sayings and writings of men -- which can be shown to express conflicting viewpoints, if it be merely as for emphasis on one aspect of opinion & view of Scripture (and tradition also) or another, with there having always been a range of opinion within the Church.
IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY. Allow Philip Schaff, along with more modern-day assistance from Steve Perisho, found at http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html explain -- first how the saying is not considered derived from Augustine, and then how Marc' Antonio de Dominis (1560-1624), archbishop of Split (Spalato) himself utilized the saying.
You furthered (and ended) your accusational broadside, with;
Don't just talk about that while making the accusation, but instead show what allegedly 'large swathes of Scripture' are being ignored by those pesky protestants --- instead of it being more a case of there being widespread agreement among themselves for a great deal, including also, but not in the least limited towards disagreeing with certain and particular aspects of particularly Romish interpretations of the same Scriptures.
You had just expressed that Scripture itself is what is being "ignored", when that is (generally) not the situation.
If you cannot keep such simple differences well enough aligned during your own course of dissertation --- then how on earth could you ever sufficiently handle the various nuances (and veritable twists and turns) of Roman Catholic theology, unless that be something of a long-range & distant examination?
For one must be able to do that, and fully understand each of the competing (or comparable?) theologies before then being able to rightfully enough compare them.
For you to have proclaimed that these others, these so-called "protestants" which you speak of are "ignoring large swaths of Scripture" is less than convincing, coming as that does from one who has just now repeatedly demonstrated that they apparently either do not grasp the most common and widespread tenets of Evangelic theology by repeatedly misrepresenting what such simple concepts as sola scriptura mean, and do not mean, were not intended to mean, or apply towards.
Your ending parenthetical is also very much refuted by AlamoGirl having cited the passages which she did (for those came to my own mind also -- and that phenomena of theological agreement among many of we so-called "Protestants" on these pages is often a thing of beauty) in particular John 6:63, to which I will add mention of that specific portion of John 6:32 wherein Jesus is attributing to having said
which when well enough understood, and inclusive of the rest of the chapter (and much else besides, of course) leads us not towards a sacerdotalism of the kind which had come to be believed within the ranks of the RCC, inclusive of claim of "authority" on the part of a priestly class to, as many Roman Catholics today still say "confect the sacrifice", but rather instead towards a sense which includes aspect of receptionism among the priesthood of all (true) believers, when those assembled together in worship of God and the One (Jesus) whom He sent.
The Orthodox having long refrained from identifying too specifically just when the bread and wine becomes (or perhaps better yet -- simply is) the bodily present divinity of Christ, yet speak of and invite the Spirit to inhabit/become/transform, or again -- better yet -- have the bread to simply be that divinity.
In this, such personages as Calvin and Luther both (and a long line of other so-called "Protestants") can be seen to very much agree with one another, and the more ancient anaphora of the Orthodox also, as for considerations and conceptualization for the sought-for end results.
That said, it does seem to myself that many today are far too strictly memorialists in their own views towards this thanksgiving feast (wherein Christ himself as the paschal lamb is indeed the meal) yet to discern His spirit be present there, coming down to us from heaven, I will dare say one simply must have the presence of His spirit with themselves already --- perhaps save for those individuals down through history, who possibly first encountered Him truly while themselves partaking of that consecrated memorial meal.
Do you yourself have any of this "Petrine authority" which you incessantly yammer on about?
That is a simple yes or no question, pertaining to yourself as an individual human being -- not the ecclesiastial association to which you possibly self-identify as being associated with.
Can you answer the question honestly and simply --- as that question be to yourself, alone, doing so without dragging in yet more extraneous argument?
Yes, I believe in the Credo. So what do you believe in?
As you said;
Yes, the word is sharper than any two-edged sword Hebrews 4:12 (and we ain't just whistlin' Dixie ...while dying from the slices of a thousand-thousand paper-cuts).
That is not what I asked you.
Thank you so much for your testimony and encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
Well if you are asking if I as an “individual” have Petrine Authority, the answer is emphatically NO. I don’t get to authoritatively interpret scripture. That is power to instruct ONE truth that was handed specifically to Peter and his successors as part of One Church.
Paganism is the core, the heart and soul of the catholic church.
All else is a frill.
Both women godesses with the sun at their heads.
The pagan ‘Mary’ even has her hands in Lotus array.
Well then, under the conditional understanding of 'Petrine authority' as you call it, as you described it to be empowered; if you have none of that sort of authority, then why are you taking it upon yourself to assert your own opinions as authoritative?
For if you have none of that sort of authority yourself --- then how could you ever determine if some other was properly interpreting the Scripture --- or not?
In fact -- how could you ever determine which theologians among the Roman Catholic were properly assessing Scripture, without yourself having to rely upon yet others as being those with some measure of true "authority"?
I know of one who does hold true authority.
That One is the author and finisher of my faith (Hebrews 12:2).
Well, in that case you will have to discount the entire Bible- wouldn’t you? Since the books in the Bible were carefully sorted out by the early Church fathers and they used the oral tradition to fact check some written works with others as to what were authentic. Some tracts like the Gnostic Gospels etc were thrown out and others were included. You must therefore ignore the Bible because by your own lights “ how could you ever determine if some other was properly interpreting the Scripture -— or not?”
Catholics resort to Petrine authority, what is yours?
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.