Mary is not the mother of God

[fncceo]

Some of my best friends are loony goat herds... they tell all the best stories.

But these goat herders knew something....wonder why?

You have a lot of time on your hands ... the goats pretty much take care of themselves.

Unless some Muzzie is sexually abusing them...want a vid taken by a US military drone?

Two things you should never share with strangers ... your religious opinions and your porn.

Not my porn idiot. Hmmm a muzzie lover perhaps?

And I'll defend my God 24/7 if you dont like it go elsewhere

You defend your faith by demeaning the faith of others? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of defense?

Or do you believe a good defense is being offensive?

 

[harmonica]

no---if you claim something--you have to prove it--or it is bullshit
like when they charge a criminal--it needs to be proved
I can claim crap all day:
ducks fly on the moon
the Eiffel Tower moved 10 feet
etc

Well then you CLAIM there is NO GOD, prove it.

again--as I've stated a million times--that is a very dumb/immature/ridiculous reply
--you people make the INITIAL claim--YOU have to prove it
OBVIOUSLY I could not say ''there is no god'' BEFORE you say ''there is a god''

....so if I said ''ducks are on the moon'', you would automatically believe it like the idiots believed Jim Jones and drank the Kool Aid...???!!

Don't demand proof if you can't provide proof. It's simple

you people claim there is a god--now prove it or it's bullshit

You claim there isn't....check

so you believe Smollet's story
???!!!!!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

and the nail in the coffin:
I guess you people believe Smollet's story
hahahhahahahahahahahahaha

Your coffin. You cant prove shit

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Well then you CLAIM there is NO GOD, prove it.

again--as I've stated a million times--that is a very dumb/immature/ridiculous reply
--you people make the INITIAL claim--YOU have to prove it
OBVIOUSLY I could not say ''there is no god'' BEFORE you say ''there is a god''

....so if I said ''ducks are on the moon'', you would automatically believe it like the idiots believed Jim Jones and drank the Kool Aid...???!!

Don't demand proof if you can't provide proof. It's simple

you people claim there is a god--now prove it or it's bullshit

You claim there isn't....check

so you believe Smollet's story
???!!!!!

He's an attention seeking fag

 

[HaShev]

Let's get this topic back on track:
let's be Intellectualy honest and investigate who Mary really was;
Since Jesus and Mary are both borrowed figures from both historical and mythical characters then lets discuss wherw Mary's image stems from. 1st the historical.
The historical Mary was no virgin, this is a borrowed purity claim from previous godess queens.
The historical Mary comes mainly from Mary Stada of 100bc who's son Yeshu was the sentenced on passover Egyptian influenced sorcerer scammer.
Talmud Shabbos 104, the gemara explicitly discusses the mother being Stada and the father being Pandera. Which is why in Matthew it says Joseph had a mind to divorce her quietly (so she would not be stoned). More sources found in
Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zerah II 40d)and in the Tosefta on Hullin II, and (Sanhedrin 43a & 67a). This story is further expanded upon in the Tosefta and Baraitas.
2 accounts:
-Dr. Franz Hartman -
& Gerald Massey's Lectures Originally published in a private edition c. 1900

According to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract "Shabbath," this Jehoshua, the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or Lydda,
Jesus ben Stada (or Pandera) was placedin the time period of about 90 B.C. in Lydda, a town Peter is said to have visited in ACTS.
Interestingly, the early church father Epiphanius around 400 said Pandera was the grandfather of Jesus.
Since Rome favored the half Roman christ that they could blame his sentencing On the Jews they lifted high this Harlot Mary as a queen mother/ godess figure (thus called the Harlot church by other later era christ's followers).
To lift Mary as a glorious queen figure they needed to use prexisting borrowed mythology and ideas of purity and deified powers.
So now study the amplified lifted high Mary through the mystery religions (the glorious mysteries the church gives it's idol)
Semiramis, as the female divinity, would be called Baalti. This word translated into English means "My Lady." In Latin it would be translated "Mea Domina". This name becomes the name "Madonna" which is the name by which Mary is often referred. The same reasoning can be applied to the name of "Mediatrix", which Mary is also called. Mary received that title from "Mylitta" (mediatrix) which was one of the names of the Mother Goddess of Babylon. "The Queen of Heaven" is another name for Mary that has been adopted from the pagan Babylonian religions.
EASTER (ISHTAR) WAS THE mother of the morning star -who's father is Baal.
Isis (is said to be Ishtar in Egyptians culture) is the
WIFE OF THE SUN GOD BAAL father of the morning star therefore Isis is Ishtar (easter)
Mary statues with son are actually predated Isis and baby Horus statues.
Do the math: you call Jesus the morning star (baals son). You celebrate Ishtar (easter) where the fish comes out the egg.
You use Isis statues as Mary.
The holy trinity is mystery Babylon revealed as Baal(father), Isis (mother), Morning star Jesus(son who is the myth plagiarized masking worship of the father).
This is why the number of his name:
Baal Jesus=666 in ascll numerology.
Which is why at the end of the Roman mockery where the punch line sits, they said Jesus was Lucifer (morning star)the son of Baal
-Rev 22:16

 

[harmonica]

and the nail in the coffin:
I guess you people believe Smollet's story
hahahhahahahahahahahahaha

Your coffin. You cant prove shit

......so you believe Smolley who CLAIMED 2 white crackers attacked him in 20 below weather in Chicongo.......??!!!
..you don't need proof???

 

[harmonica]

again--as I've stated a million times--that is a very dumb/immature/ridiculous reply
--you people make the INITIAL claim--YOU have to prove it
OBVIOUSLY I could not say ''there is no god'' BEFORE you say ''there is a god''

....so if I said ''ducks are on the moon'', you would automatically believe it like the idiots believed Jim Jones and drank the Kool Aid...???!!

Don't demand proof if you can't provide proof. It's simple

you people claim there is a god--now prove it or it's bullshit

You claim there isn't....check

so you believe Smollet's story
???!!!!!

He's an attention seeking fag

you believe Smollet---yes or no?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

But these goat herders knew something....wonder why?

You have a lot of time on your hands ... the goats pretty much take care of themselves.

Unless some Muzzie is sexually abusing them...want a vid taken by a US military drone?

Two things you should never share with strangers ... your religious opinions and your porn.

Not my porn idiot. Hmmm a muzzie lover perhaps?

And I'll defend my God 24/7 if you dont like it go elsewhere

You defend your faith by demeaning the faith of others? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of defense?

Or do you believe a good defense is being offensive?

I'm on the offense. If you don't believe that's you. I don't care but I'll pray for you.

You need it

 

[harmonica]

if you don't believe Smollet, yet believe in god--you are a HYPOCRITE

 

[SassyIrishLass]

if you don't believe Smollet, yet believe in god--you are a HYPOCRITE

Gawd yer a clown....and utterly stupid

Two different issues

 

[gtopa1]

The Galileo Controversy

Maybe those who don't know the facts should do some research. This might be a good start.

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a “tradition.” They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentrism, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentrism. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the “sensible demonstrations” needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentrism as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this “new science” was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .” (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history, there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

"If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were."

Needed better technology to prove this. I first read about this in school in the late 60s early 70s and looked at the Maths at Uni in the 70s. Galileo was inconclusive in his proofs as they had no idea of the distances away of the stars. Now we know. The error was mixing Science and religion.

Greg

 

[Mike Dwight]

HaShev, judging by your other posts, I'm not Inclined to be extremely attentive. You're borrowing a lot from the Revelation metaphor. The Persian area was known at the 300 bcs as a Babylonian Empire that the Jewish state hated. They then also hated the Roman Empire and most people see this for Israel as a symbolic Babylon to Rome metaphor and the "Fallen Babylon" may even be the city of Rome "where traders" come and go. The Roman Tax Collectors were heavy and hated and not the every-day normal day tax collector, Imperial tax collectors.

The Old Testament Priests fought against Eastern Gods like Baal that you referenced.

 

[fncceo]

You have a lot of time on your hands ... the goats pretty much take care of themselves.

Unless some Muzzie is sexually abusing them...want a vid taken by a US military drone?

Two things you should never share with strangers ... your religious opinions and your porn.

Not my porn idiot. Hmmm a muzzie lover perhaps?

And I'll defend my God 24/7 if you dont like it go elsewhere

You defend your faith by demeaning the faith of others? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of defense?

Or do you believe a good defense is being offensive?

I'm on the offense. If you don't believe that's you. I don't care but I'll pray for you.

You need it

You do that, I'm praying for a new kitchen.

 

[HaShev]

Just another factor in the Roman Mockery: the only living thing that I can remember that can reproduce on it's own is a serpent.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Unless some Muzzie is sexually abusing them...want a vid taken by a US military drone?

Two things you should never share with strangers ... your religious opinions and your porn.

Not my porn idiot. Hmmm a muzzie lover perhaps?

And I'll defend my God 24/7 if you dont like it go elsewhere

You defend your faith by demeaning the faith of others? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of defense?

Or do you believe a good defense is being offensive?

I'm on the offense. If you don't believe that's you. I don't care but I'll pray for you.

You need it

You do that, I'm praying for a new kitchen.

Broke joke eh?

 

[harmonica]

if you don't believe Smollet, yet believe in god--you are a HYPOCRITE

Gawd yer a clown....and utterly stupid

Two different issues

well, he claimed something--yet you do not believe
....you claim something --and I do not believe---yet you call me names and stupid--that MAKES YOU stupid
hahahhahaha---you just made yourself out to be stupid--

 

[Darkwind]

If we are talking about Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, then yes she is. If we are talking about another Mary then no

there is no god--so she can't be

You can claim there isnt a God all day long. He is still there. He still loves you

....very stupid .....you people made the initial claim--so it's up to you to prove it--not the other way around..and you can't prove it

You can't prove you exist. Deal with it.

 

[HaShev]

HaShev, judging by your other posts, I'm not Inclined to be extremely attentive. You're borrowing a lot from the Revelation metaphor. The Persian area was known at the 300 bcs as a Babylonian Empire that the Jewish state hated. They then also hated the Roman Empire and most people see this for Israel as a symbolic Babylon to Rome metaphor and the "Fallen Babylon" may even be the city of Rome "where traders" come and go. The Roman Tax Collectors were heavy and hated and not the every-day normal day tax collector, Imperial tax collectors.

The Old Testament Priests fought against Eastern Gods like Baal that you referenced.

I discussed Rome taking to the son of Mary figure, but the other christ's they despised because of revolt, & followers always argued PAUL was teaching another Christ then them and vice versa.
You talk about the Tax revolters what about discusing the Herod era Galilean tax revolter Yehuda used for the Jesus image? he was crucified in 4bc, fit the Herod(died 4bc) and Lysanias (died 35bc) era and Census (7bc).
Yes they hated the tax, but this band of thieves and thugs robbed and burned houses of anyone who paid the tax and supported Rome. And the third christ in this trinity was a sexual deviant in the Pilate era who used rich kid Lazarus for his money by sleeping with him. pick your poison, all 3 christs used for the Jesus image make for one big Roman mockery while swallowing up the christs movements and revolts to become the benefactors of, like they did many religions before them, they become the new authority hidden under the mask and cloak of religious purity.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

if you don't believe Smollet, yet believe in god--you are a HYPOCRITE

Gawd yer a clown....and utterly stupid

Two different issues

well, he claimed something--yet you do not believe
....you claim something --and I do not believe---yet you call me names and stupid--that MAKES YOU stupid
hahahhahaha---you just made yourself out to be stupid--

So you don't believe do you think that will change my mind?

You're stupid and fear the unknown it's obvious.

Sit down, stfu and worry about your own existence....nobody else cares

 

[Mike Dwight]

So the APOSTLES , which is a group of Twelve Followers of Jesus, exclusively Rome-hating Jews, and their testimony who wrote most of the New Testament and personally established Churches throughout Europe which are also accounted in the Bible. I mean the 7 CHurches in Revelation are in Anatolia and the Macedonian Church, aren't any sort of plot? The Bible is accurately not edited for Roman Happy-Reads.