Biblical Mary

[Webers_Home]

.
That woman of mine she ain't happy
Unless she finds something wrong and has someone to blame
If it ain't one thing, it's another one on the way.
Waylon Jennings 1974
_

 

[Mungo]

Straining at gnats We are talking about Dagon speciifically here.

Really? How do you know? Is there a lable on the original image?
And if this is dagon then there is no resemblance to the pope's mite whatsoever.
You can't have it both ways.

and Ninieveh was rejected as a city, the collapse of jericho was rejeccted, tower of Babel was rejected by those "crfedible" historic scholares, and the word archon to describe greek govt. was rejected by said scholars until they found. I root for the Bible and bibliocal archeologists. Dag is fish . No one is saying He is the god of fishing or the god of grain He was a god and represented by a merman. some disagree, some don't you taake the former I take the latter.

You take what you like, but you post what you think is presumably evidence but then reject it when I show it actually debunks it.

Okay- I give you evidence it is real you say it is made up- where is your evidence to back that empirical statement up. Don't say bvecause it is a debated issue. all that means is eggheads don't agree.

The evidence that it is made up is firstly in the colouring. No such coloured images could possibly survive from that era. Secondly your claims are contradictory.
Two different and very different versions of what dagon is alleged to have looked like.
And the merman version has no feet which the biblical statue has.

 

[Mungo]

Philiswtines worshipped Him and he is represented as a merman inthat aqncient culture-Sorry! I notice all your eggheads do not comment on the philistines (or you failed to post their comments on them) so I vote with gods Word on the philisitnes. And as the philistines spoke a root semitic language- dag which means fish is most likely correct.

We could get in to the facts that all these empires occurred after teh philisitnes came and then went as a power. things change over time. Romans had the same gods as the greeks with just different names

It was your link and it said
The association with a Hebrew word for "fish" (as in Hebrew: דג‎, Tib. /dɔːg/) in medieval exegesis has led to an incorrect interpretation of Dagan as a "fish-god."
and
The "fish" etymology, while late and incorrect, was accepted in 19th and early 20th century scholarship. This led to the association with the "merman" motif in Assyrian and Phoenician art (e.g. Julius Wellhausen, William Robertson Smith), and with the figure of the Babylonian Oannes (Ὡάaννης) mentioned by Berossus.

Both quotes say the fish association is incorrect. Will you not believe your own link?

Moreover the second quote points to Oannes as the fish god mention by the Babylonian priest Berossus, which as I showed is Oannes not Dagon and which your quote also says

Then there is another link you gave which says this:
The image of Dagon is a debated issue. The notion that Dagon was a god whose upper body was that of a man and the lower body that of a fish has been prevalent for decades. This idea may stem from a linguistic error in translating a derivative of the Semitic 'dag.' The word 'dagan' actually means 'corn' or 'cereal'. The name 'Dagon' itself dates back to at least 2500 BCE and is most probably a derivative of a word from a dialect of the Semitic tongue. This notion that Dagon was represented in iconography and statuary as part fish in Philistia proper is not supported entirely by coins found in Phoenician and Philistine cities. In fact, there is no evidence in the archaeological record to support the theory that Dagon was thusly represented.

It seems you don't believe that link either.

 

[Taken]

Do you ever answer a simple question without prevaricating?
How is that reply to my question?
Do you think that God, who made us, was incapable acts as a fertilized egg?

I am fully aware I am speaking with someone who has very different views than myself, in which case I would rather be expressly precise, than to guess or pretend we are speaking of exactly the same thing.

I find NOTHING whatsoever of God EVER deviating from LIKE Kinds of things Reproducing.
God is Spirit, a Celestial being.
Men are Body's, Terrestrial beings.
Clearly DIFFERENT...NOT the same KINDS of things.
So. No. It would be Against Gods own WAY, Against Gods own HOLINESS...for God to fertilized a Human womans egg.

 

[Taken]

No I am not. My original statement was (and note the emboldening
It only says“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you". It doesn't go into an detail as to the exact mechanism of how God performed that miracle.

You responded
So you say. Scripture says otherwise.

I replied
Then you will be able (if unwilling) to show me that scripture.

I think you have just shown that you are unwilling to share that scripture.
Do you ever answer a simple question without prevaricating?

I find it rather amusing you are irritated because I wanted to clarify exactly what you were asking.

See next post.

 

[theefaith]

TRUE
IMPOSSIBLE
TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Nowhere in the Bible is Mary called "the mother of our salvation" or "the mother of God". She is called "the mother of Jesus" and she had many children with Joseph after Jesus, her firstborn son.

It is highly significant that after Christ began His earthly ministry He never called Mary "Mother". Always "Woman".

always refering to gen 3:15
Lk 2:30 Jesus is our salvation yes?
Mary is his mother Yes?
Jesus is God yes?
Mary is his mother yes?

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, not wrong again!

John 3:
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Which Heaven specifically?
"WHICH" Heaven?
There's more than ONE??

No. Wrong about Rev 12:1, same as you are Wrong about Gen 3:15.

Rev 12:1
[1] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

the twelve stars are 12 Tribes of the collective NATIONS of Israel.
the woman is the head government of the 12 Tribes of the NATIONS of Israel Reunited.

Gen 3:15
[15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Enmity is hostility BETWEEN:
thee spirit angels fallen from holiness
the woman is Earthly Nations.
thy seed fallen spirit angels
her seed human occupants of the Earthly Nations, divided.
Not in dispute.
"WILL HAVE"...glorified bodies; has not yet occured.

(* Ever heard the modern term; Mother Earth?
* Ever heard of Nations referred to as "her", "she"?
* Ever noticed NATIONS war against NATIONS?
* Ever noticed "the enmity between" some Nations that embrace God, and some Nations that reject God?
* Ever learned WHY nations are referred to in the FEMALE sense, and not the MALE sense ?)

Mary was a human woman, who was naturally born in sin, of a human mans seed, like every other natural born human, who like many others expressly named in Scripture, when called into Service of the Lord God, Willingly Served the Lord God according to His Will.
Mary, being expressly Named IN Scripture, like others expressly Named IN Scripture ARE examples of humans WHO willingly Served the Lord God, according to the Lord God's Order and Way...and are expressly Remembered FOR their Service unto God "according" to His Order and Way and exemplary Examples for latter humans to learn about and DO the same, in ALSO willingly Serving the Lord God according to His Order and Way...and BE Blessed of the Lord God, as others specifically mentioned in Scripture, were Blessed for their Service unto the Lord God.

Mary is not a Nation, nor mother of Nations, nor Sinless, nor mother of God. She was a God created and made Earthly human and expressly mentioned Servant of God.
You should learn the difference.

WOW - your Scriptural acrobatics are worthy of the Olympics.

- The "Woman" in Gen. 3:16 are NATIONS and does NOT refer to the mother of the one who will crush the head of the serpent??
- Jesus is God and Mary is His mother - but she is NOT the Mother of God??
- Mary gives birth to Jesus then flees into the desert (Egypt) for a couple of years like the Woman of Rev. 12 - but the Woman ONLY represents Israel and NOT Mary??

You should be in Japan this weekend . . .

 

[theefaith]

Matt. 1:
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

that word "knew" means having sex with her!!!! there is no other meaning in both the Jewish culture and the wrioters of the KJV! no mattger what you and your cardinals scream!

Where does anyone say thatt Mary was conceinved and never committed sin all her life?

I do see in SCripture that Gods says this of all human beings:

:There is none righteous, no not one"!!!! There is no parentheses that says except for Mary.

Does not say he knew her!
Lk 1:34 say no never

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh good grief, you and your worn out holier that thou anti-Catholic tactic...

Scripture IS About those who are not WITH Christ are those Against "Him"...and are anti-Christs.

Climb off your podium, open your ears, listen;
No one is saying they are Against Catholic "people".
People are Against "Catholic teachings and doctrines".

Learn the truth, Accept the truth and get over it.

Being a lying anti-Catholic yourself - I wouldn't have expected anything less from you . . .

 

[theefaith]

Implication in Adam's transgression isn't inherited, nor can it be inherited,
from one's parents.

Take for example Eve. She was already in existence before Adam tasted the
forbidden fruit so it was too late for him to pass something new on to her by
means of the material taken from his body to construct hers.

Now, if you'll recall, nothing happened when Eve tasted the forbidden fruit.
She went right on in the nude unashamed. It wasn't till Adam tasted the
fruit that her feelings about nudity changed. This tells me-- along with Rom
5:12 --that Adam is the sole, and only, source of the ramifications
associated with eating the forbidden fruit.

The point to note from what I'm saying is that the ramifications of Adam's
act became ramifications for everybody the very instant in time that he
tasted the forbidden fruit -- no delay, no waiting period, and no exceptions,
i.e. children not even born yet are already implicated in Adam's act even
before they are conceived.

If perchance what I'm saying here turns out to be true, then the Vatican's
doctrine of the virgin birth contains a very significant error.
_

Not sure what a “Vatican’s doctrine” is?

 

[BreadOfLife]

And THAT ^ is how a (self-proclaimed) Catholic man attempts to get a Response from a non-Catholic.

Oh, oh, the fruit displayed.

WRONG.

There are "non-Catholics" - and there are lying anti-Catholics who obstinately refuse to stop lying - even when they are proven wrong.
This is a SIN - not just a difference of "opinion".

Being that way yourself - I don't think you can understand that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I gave them, maybe you had your nose so stuck up in the air you missed the posts I showed. Oh well your loss.

Alright, then - point me to the POST where you gave historical references for the LIE that Nimrod and Semiramis were married.
If you can't do that -= then you are exposed for lying again.

I'll wait right here for your response . . .

 

[theefaith]

False teaching.
Luke 1:43 says no such thing.

Luke 1:
[43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Have you not heard?
God is eternal, everlasting, without beginning.

Lord and God are the same

I never said mother of the divinity
But mother of God cos Jesus is God and Mary is his mother

 

[BreadOfLife]

And lying again doesn't make it so! I am anti-Catholicism not anti catholic. Do try to get that through your superior intellect skull please. Even an uneducated moron rube like me knows the difference.

That point is as idiotic as saying that radical Muslims in Iran and Afghanistan are "Anti-American - but NOT "anti-AmericanS".

You are an anti-Catholic because you have to resort to LYING to make your arguments.
SOME Protestants simply "disagree" but on't LIE as you do.

 

[theefaith]

LOOK.

Not astounding.
Not shocking.
Jesus was manifested in the likeness AS a man, and had a "lawful" mother. So?

He is making her our mother
If you’re a disciple

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well unbiased is your definition. I want to know the standard accepted universal definition, not just what you call credible. and I want to know when you cite a source you know the authors are not biased in any way shgape or form. Yo opened this can of worms so now I want answers. Stop being coy and slimy. You know what is expected of you.

And oh snobbish one who believes He is a superior intellect like Khan on Stafr trek: I gave you answers for all and you act like I never did- that is intentional deception on you rpart!

And how does those false claims about me lying prove I lied about the catholic church?

How is that bearing false witness? Bearing false witness is lying about teh person or things they have done.

bear false witness To lie about or misrepresent the truth about some event, person, or thing. In common usage, it usually refers to perjury (telling a lie while under oath in a court of law) or to the Ninth Commandment in the Bible, from which the phrase is taken: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

YOu said I have borne false witness AGAINST 1,000,000,000 people! How have I misreperesented Catholics individually by showing you disagreements with your anal definition of who you will accept as "crfedible"

HUHH???
I apologize for calling any of your previous posts "stupid" because this is the most asinine thing you've said yet.

"Unbiased" means "UNBIASED". It's not MY definition - it simply means that you need to present a historical reference - NOT the blatherings of anti-Catholics. We've ALREADY established that anti-Catholics LIE. Give me historical proof - not a video from an anti-Catholic pastor.
And, by the way - historians are not "authors" who write novels, They documents FACTS as they are proven by history.

I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed - nut you CAN'T be this dense . . .

As for the LIE that you have given evidence for "ALL" of your claims - you haven't presented ONE SHRED of documented evidence.
You've only given YOUR opinions. And why do you keep insisting that I need to "prove" that you lied - when I have proven this in almost EVERY post?

Post #404 lists several of those lies where YOU bore FALSE witness against EVERY Catholic.
So, instead of compounding your lies - let's see some historical documentation. that prove Hislop's and YOUR claims . . .

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Not sure what a “Vatican’s doctrine” is?

The Vatican is a city state located within the city of Rome in the country of
Italy.

A major portion of the hierarchical power and control of the Roman Catholic
Church is situated in the Vatican. It is here where the official beliefs and
practices of the Roman Catholic religion are determined. In other words:
truth for a Catholic is whatever the Vatican says is the truth; sort of like the
Party in George Orwell's novel 1984.

As an hypothetical example: if the Vatican says that 2 + 2 = 5, then for a
faithful Catholic, that's what it is, i.e. that's the truth for a Catholic. It
obviously wouldn't be the real truth but no matter; it would be the truth for
a faithful Catholic because 2 + 2 = 5 would be a Vatican doctrine.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.

He is making her our mother if you’re a disciple

If Jesus' mom is a disciple's mother, then every mother before her
leading up to Jesus is a disciple's mother too; beginning with Eve and
including, but not limited to: Noah's wife, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Tamar,
Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary's mom.

However, every real disciple is born of God rather than born of one of
Jesus' mothers (John 3:3-8 and Gal 4:26) unless of course you happen
to be in a Sense8 cluster, then I guess Mary could be your mother.
_

 

[Mungo]

I find it rather amusing you are irritated because I wanted to clarify exactly what you were asking.

See next post.

Well now it's clear what I was asking can you please answer it instead of prevaricating

 

[Mungo]

I am fully aware I am speaking with someone who has very different views than myself, in which case I would rather be expressly precise, than to guess or pretend we are speaking of exactly the same thing.

I find NOTHING whatsoever of God EVER deviating from LIKE Kinds of things Reproducing.
God is Spirit, a Celestial being.
Men are Body's, Terrestrial beings.
Clearly DIFFERENT...NOT the same KINDS of things.
So. No. It would be Against Gods own WAY, Against Gods own HOLINESS...for God to fertilized a Human womans egg.

Why is it "Against Gods own WAY, Against Gods own HOLINESS...for God to fertilized a Human womans egg."
You keep giving out opinions but nothing to back them up.

Also you seem to be suggesting that God can never do anything for the first time which is clearly ridiculous.