Mary?

[Musicmaster]

Biblical history shows to us a real Mary, and there is also a counterfeit Mary who never really existed except in the annals of cultic origin. The mother-son imagery dates all the way back to Babel. The 40 days of Lent parallel exactly with the cultic practice of mourning for Tamuz, who allegedly had been killed by wild animals and torn to pieces, with his mother allegedly gathering up the pieces into a basket, initiating a 40 day mourning, and him allegedly raising from the dead by a power I can't quite put my finger upon.

"The pagan system of sun worship had three main aspects: the father, mother, and the son. In ancient Chaldean times, these were the god Bel or Merodach, Ninus the son who was also worshiped as Tammuz, and the female goddess Rhea who was also worshiped as Ishtar, Astarte, or Beltis. She was also referred to as the “queen of heaven,” and the “wrath subduer.” Mary has received these same names in Catholicism.

Mother and child worship was the basis of the ancient religions. In the various religions of the world, the same system of worship was perpetuated under different names. In Egypt , the mother and child were worshiped as Isis and Osiris or Horus, in India as Isi and Iswara, in China and Japan as the mother goddess Shing-moo with child, in Greece as Ceres or Irene and Plutus, in Rome as Fortuna and Jupitor-puer, or Venus and Adurnis, and in Scandinavia as Frigga and Balder. The mother and child were worshiped in Babylon as Ishtar and Tammuz, and in Phoenicia, as Ashtoreth and Baal. Moreover, the child was worshiped as both husband and son of the mother goddess." [https://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_paganism_Catholic_Nimrod_Mary#!]

Many of my RCC friends have tried to distinguish their Mary from those pagan goddesses who were also attributed as "queen of heaven." Given that not one of the apostles addressed her as such, and especially the Lord Jesus calling her "woman" rather than addressing her as "mother," we're left wondering about the parallels with paganism rather than any expressed desire to distance themselves from them. The RCC can't claim copy-cat syndrome against those other religions since they existed thousands of years before the RCC was ever even conceived as even a distant thought. Given that the apostles never once even hinted at such imagery shows to us how contrived those images are as an alignment with paganism in relation to the purity of doctrine and practice handed down to us from the apostles.

MM

 

[Lanolin]

well of course RCC want to point out that their Mary is special.
Thing is you cant reason with idolators. Same as people who idolise certain politicians or rock stars and think they can do no wrong.

 

[TheWaytoGo]

If I may ask, what is your definition of idol?

The mistake people make is to assume that Catholics worship Mary. I call it a mistake because I know they do not. And, this is a fact.

I do not see anything wrong in honouring whom the father first honoured, blessed and favoured above all women. Maybe you are misconstruing their devotion as a sign of worship but there is a big difference. if you love someone, you are likely to be devoted to that person and I know Catholics love her a lot as the mother of our saviour Jesus Christ and they do not shy away in showing their devotion.

You will need to understand the spiritual lesson Jesus is imparting to us in Matthew 12:47 which you quoted unless you are suggesting that Jesus dishonoured and discredited his mother, in which case you are yet to understand fully his person. How could anyone even think that?

I attended every sad, dark, hopeless Catholic funeral of my entire Catholic extended clan. None ever picked up a bible or voiced any belief in Jesus Christ. They couldn't tell you the difference between the Lord of Glory and a lucky rabbit's foot.

As far as Matthew 12:47, the Catholic bible I received from my RCC catechism teacher as a 12-year old, placed a footnote on it warning me not to believe the Word as clearly written, but rather the RCC explanation. I chose within a week after receiving that bible that I would ALWAYS believe the Word of God over what any man or institution says to the contrary.

 

[Musicmaster]

I attended every sad, dark, hopeless Catholic funeral of my entire Catholic extended clan. None ever picked up a bible or voiced any belief in Jesus Christ. They couldn't tell you the difference between the Lord of Glory and a lucky rabbit's foot.

As far as Matthew 12:47, the Catholic bible I received from my RCC catechism teacher as a 12-year old, placed a footnote on it warning me not to believe the Word as clearly written, but rather the RCC explanation. I chose within a week after receiving that bible that I would ALWAYS believe the Word of God over what any man or institution says to the contrary.

It's amazing how few of my roman catholic friends who have any desire to learn about not just the basics of salvation by faith, but also the hope we have in Christ Jesus apart from works. The idea of doing what this song of mine stands for is a foreign concept to them.

https://soundcloud.com/fourwindsangels%2Fassaulting-the-gates-of-hell
MM

 

[Musicmaster]

An article on the catholicexchange.com website makes this claim:

Anyone who takes the truth of the Incarnation seriously must accept Mary as the Mother of God, a title which demands some degree of honor to the one bearing it. Thus, the ‘scandal’ of Marian veneration is really the ‘scandal’ of the Incarnation. Such truths are truly scandalous to a world that thinks so little of both God and man. But they shouldn’t be so anyone who believes in Christ.

Many evangelical Protestants, however, subscribe to a form of fundamentalism which holds that if something is not explicitly permitted in the Bible, it must be forbidden. Since we don’t see Christians venerating Mary in the New Testament, the argument goes, we shouldn’t either.

Except Mary is venerated in the Bible. At least twice.

Don't you love how those within various belief systems always spew the claim for what others must accept, as if their beliefs are the ultimate and absolute truth.

The assumption that Mary is the "mother of God" is pure nonsense. Given what we know of her, she would never have accepted that accolade for herself. She was the woman chosen to bring forth the Savior of the world, who was/is indeed God, but she did not mother that part of Him, for He is the One who created her.

Also of note in this horrid corruption of logic and reason, especially anti-biblical, is her claim:

Many evangelical Protestants, however, subscribe to a form of fundamentalism which holds that if something is not explicitly permitted in the Bible, it must be forbidden.

This is as useful as broken pottery. No follower of Christ Jesus subscribes to the idea that only those things permitted in the Bible should be practiced. The true follower of the REAL Christ Jesus seeks after Him for what is not written in the Bible. \

Paul of Tarsus called followers of Christ to live and walk by faith and in relationship with Christ Jesus through indwelling Holy Spirit. The woman who wrote that pathetic article obviously is not living in relationship with the REAL Christ Jesus, because she would then know through the inner workings and revelation of Holy Spirit that veneration of Mary is wrong.

It's interesting that those outside faith in Christ Jesus, as defined by the REAL Christ Jesus and His apostles, always gravitate toward the physical, world-based things as to knowledge of spiritual things, such as a Bible one can hold in their physical hands and read with their physical eyes, while at the same time, these apostates rely on their man-made religion and its leadership for what they are to believe and follow.

What roman catholics call veneration is so far beyond anything we see attributed to Mary in the scriptures:

John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

The feeble attempts at writing this off as being something that allegedly would not easily offend any roman catholic woman who is a mother of a child or children, for her son to say something like this to her, well, they are seen for the liars they are. Roman catholic apologists claim that, in that culture, this was acceptable and non-offensive language in how a grown son addressed his mother in those days, and that we must observe and consider cultural differences.

Really?

The same people who will finger similar items at the exclusion of culture and time will, in this instance, apply what is convenient? The glaring dishonesty in some of the ranks of RCC apologists is sad to behold, and yet so typical of fleshly pursuits in order to feel as though they are right, even when it's at the expense to their own credibility.

The veneration of Mary, like so many pagan beliefs and practices, has its origin in the pagan, religious system founded by Nimrod and Semiramis, which was originally a from of the worship of the "Mother and Child."

Through the centuries, the symbol of the "Mother and Child" has been endlessly repeated. You can find evidence of Mother-and-Child worship in all of the nations in ancient times. Though some of the characteristics varied from culture to culture, the common element is that the Mother was the Queen of Heaven, and she bore fruit, even though she was a virgin.

The roman catholic religion has elevated their Mary to divine status, and has given her titles and responsibilities reserved for God the Father and His Son alone! In fact, they have essentially made her the third member of a trinity modeled after the pagan trinities of ancient times. These heathen trinities, founded in most polytheistic religions, follow the Father-Mother-Son pattern: Osiris, Isis and Horus; Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz; Zeus, Diana, Dionysus; Jupiter, Venus and Cupid; etc.

In like manner, some roman catholics attribute to Mary the position and characteristics of the third person of their unscriptural trinity, in the place of Holy Spirit. The official publication of "The Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima," boasting 22 million members, claims:

Mary is so perfectly united with the Holy Spirit that He acts only through His spouse. . . . All our life, every thought, word, and deed is in Her hands . . . at every moment, She Herself must instruct, guide, and transform each one of us into Herself, so that not we but She lives in us, as Jesus lives in Her, and the Father in the Son. (Soul Magazine, November—December 1984, p.4.)​

This is pure blasphemy!

If she had these powers and characteristics, then Mary must be God! There can be no doubt that this adoration of the roman catholic Mary is simply a modern manifestation of goddess worship that began over 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia! In fact, one of her titles, as used by the present Pope, a devoted Marian, is "Queen of Heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19, 25)!

No thanks. I love people too much to not at least raise the alarm. If I didn't love roman catholics, I would remain silent and say nothing, or I would pretend we all believe in the same God. The Jesus I know from the scriptures was/is never called back down for re-sacrifice every day, thousands of times all across the earth by an army of "priests" because He died once, and said, "It is finished!"

MM