Mother mary without sin?

[IndigoChild5559]

Either you aren't Jewish or aren't a religious one because you are falsely presenting Christian theology as Jewish. If I went into a synagogue and said what you were saying I'd be excommunicated.

- Jews have never believed in original sin so there was nothing to preserve Eve from to begin with.

I never said this.

- Elijah isn't deified and we don't pray to him.

I never said this either.

- Judaism teaches it is theoretically possible to live a sinless life. This does not make someone divine.

And?

- Jews don't pray to former rabbi's, they ask G-d for simular blessings and attributes.

I never said this either.

- I personally don't believe in Kabbalah mysticism and think it's a bunch of mystical magical woo.

Me neither. In particular, I just don't appreciate the magical thinking, like making amulets and stuff. (Give me Maimonides' rationalism any day.) But the Kabbalah DOES exist, Chasadim DO hold those opinions, and those opinions ARE very similar to that of Catholics in some respects.

FWIW, since you brought it up, my observance is that of the Conservative movement, and my approach to our sacred texts tends to be very liberal. I have also devoted a lot of my life to studying the various religions of the world, because I think listening and understanding will make me a better neighbor.

To me this is a very simple thing. It drives me absolutely nuts when people mischaracterize Jews and Judaism, and mean it really drives me up the bleepity wall. Therefore when I see someone else and their religion being mischaracterized, I butt in and defend them. "What is hateful to you, do not do to others."

 

[Betho_br]

The use of teraphim in this verse is interesting because it suggests that despite Israelite prohibitions against idols, they were still present in some households, even in the home of King Saul’s family.

When you read the prophets, what you find is that over and over, there were Jews who slid back into idolatry. It was the job of the Prophets to rebuke them when this happened.

It really wasn't until the Babylonian captivity that idolatry was finally burned out of the Jewish soul forever. Both Josephus and Tacitus record Pompeii's astonishment when he conquered Jerusalem and found no idols in the Temple.

So, the churches of Jerusalem and Judea were of the circumcision, and the practice of "teraphim" of the saints was perpetuated and saw a greater increase with Constantine.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, the churches of Jerusalem and Judea were of the circumcision, and the practice of "teraphim" of the saints was perpetuated and saw a greater increase with Constantine.

I'm having trouble understanding you. Churches (the houses of worship for Chrsitians) didn't exist in Saul's day. Even synagogues didn't exist yet. There was only the Tabernacle in Shiloh. Are we changing the subject to the early church?

I also don't understand your mention of Constantine. Christian churches in Constantine's day did not have statues. The western church didn't begin that tradition until, I think, the 9th century.

Nor do I understand what you mean by "teraphim of the saints." Teraphim are family idols--they are statues of gods, not saints. Not every statue is an idol.

 

[blü 2]

Is mother Mary without sin?

Isn't sex outside marriage considered to be a sin?

 

[Eliana]

I never said this.

I never said this either.

And?

I never said this either.

Me neither. In particular, I just don't appreciate the magical thinking, like making amulets and stuff. (Give me Maimonides' rationalism any day.) But the Kabbalah DOES exist, Chasadim DO hold those opinions, and those opinions ARE very similar to that of Catholics in some respects.

FWIW, since you brought it up, my observance is that of the Conservative movement, and my approach to our sacred texts tends to be very liberal. I have also devoted a lot of my life to studying the various religions of the world, because I think listening and understanding will make me a better neighbor.

To me this is a very simple thing. It drives me absolutely nuts when people mischaracterize Jews and Judaism, and mean it really drives me up the bleepity wall. Therefore when I see someone else and their religion being mischaracterized, I butt in and defend them. "What is hateful to you, do not do to others."

As I understand it conservative "Jews" are supposed to follow halakha, so once again your views seem quite out of the mainstream. If I went into my synagogue and said the things you said I could be excommunicated.

 

[Eliana]

Isn't sex outside marriage considered to be a sin?

Do you have reason to believe Mary did such?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I was speaking on the deification of Mary, not the source of Christian doctrine.

Praying to/praying through is a distinction without a difference.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight and I think Christianity is idolatry either way. I was just making an observation.

It clearly isn't. And if you grew up in Ireland you'll no doubt have had people explain the difference to you. Catholicism is loaded with iconography, which does look a lot like idolatry, granted. And there's quite a cult of The Blessed Virgin in Ireland, which probably looks like mumbo-jumbo to you. But Catholics do not deify the Virgin Mary, nor the Saints; intercessionary prayer may be unacceptable in your theology, but asking Mary, or Saint Anthony, to pray for us is no different in principle to asking a priest or rabbi to pray for us - "now, and at the hour of our death."

 

[blü 2]

Do you have reason to believe Mary did such?

Only the Mary of Matthew and the Mary of Luke, the alternative apparently being that they were raped.

There is no Mary of Paul, the Jesus of Mark is a straightforward Jewish man until God adopts him, and John is silent on the matter.

 

[Betho_br]

I'm having trouble understanding you. Churches (the houses of worship for Chrsitians) didn't exist in Saul's day. Even synagogues didn't exist yet. There was only the Tabernacle in Shiloh. Are we changing the subject to the early church?

I also don't understand your mention of Constantine. Christian churches in Constantine's day did not have statues. The western church didn't begin that tradition until, I think, the 9th century.

Nor do I understand what you mean by "teraphim of the saints." Teraphim are family idols--they are statues of gods, not saints. Not every statue is an idol.

1) In the King James Version of the Bible, Acts 4:13 reads: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus"

2) The Catacombs at Rome: Benjamin Scott. BOOK

3) The illiteracy rate was huge in Christian times, only 5% to 10% of the population were literate. The images and statues served as means of evangelizing this illiterate mass.

 

[Eliana]

Only the Mary of Matthew and the Mary of Luke, the alternative apparently being that they were raped.

There is no Mary of Paul, the Jesus of Mark is a straightforward Jewish man until God adopts him, and John is silent on the matter.

First of all according to the Christian bible HaShem made her pregnant via divine providence. This may come as a shock for your brain, but if G-D can create the universe by willpower alone he can probably cause a pregnancy without physical procreation. Secondly an angel visited her beforehand and told her what G-D intended and her answer was she was his servant and to let his will be done, which is the opposite of "rape".

I'm no advocate for Christianity but I have zero tolerance for those who malign people's character. Do you have evidence that Mary fornicated? Back in those days that didn't really happen, because the social and legal consequences were quite severe. Woman didn't really go out of their homes or associate with unrelated men, and even touching one is a violation of Halakha. Where do you surmise she even had an opportunity to meet someone, let alone build a relationship strong enough to even want to sleep with them, given the constant scrutiny she would have been under?

Maybe perhaps you should try reading the relevant books before showing everyone you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

I have even less, if less then zero is possible, for those who disrespect HaShem i.e. calling him a rapist. I also can't stand people who use terms like "rape" lightly, especially when it's merely to elicit an emotional response and disarm people of their critical thinking.

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Eliana]

It clearly isn't. And if you grew up in Ireland you'll no doubt have had people explain the difference to you. Catholicism is loaded with iconography, which does look a lot like idolatry, granted. And there's quite a cult of The Blessed Virgin in Ireland, which probably looks like mumbo-jumbo to you. But Catholics do not deify the Virgin Mary, nor the Saints; intercessionary prayer may be unacceptable in your theology, but asking Mary, or Saint Anthony, to pray for us is no different in principle to asking a priest or rabbi to pray for us - "now, and at the hour of our death."

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

They attribute divine attributes to her, pray to her and call her "mother of G-D".

The differences are you can ask a priest or rabbi to pray FOR you. Catholics pray TO spirits and deceased beings.

Christians claim the Jewish scriptures as their own so I am fully entitled to question that premise, especially when they ignore or contradict HaShem's clear commandments.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1) In the King James Version of the Bible, Acts 4:13 reads: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus"

2) The Catacombs at Rome: Benjamin Scott. BOOK

3) The illiteracy rate was huge in Christian times, only 5% to 10% of the population were literate. The images and statues served as means of evangelizing this illiterate mass.

Why didn't you reply to the things I brought up?

 

[Betho_br]

Why didn't you reply to the things I brought up?

The Good Shepherd statues are significant Christian artifacts that date back to periods before Constantine the Great, who is renowned for his role in Christianizing the Roman Empire. Two notable statues include:

1. The Good Shepherd Statue from Dura-Europos (3rd century): This statue was discovered during excavations at Dura-Europos, an ancient city in Syria. Dating from the 3rd century, it is one of the earliest known depictions of Jesus as the Good Shepherd. The figure is shown carrying a lamb on his shoulders, a common Christian symbol representing Jesus as the one who cares for and guides his flock.

2. The Good Shepherd Sarcophagus (3rd century): This Christian sarcophagus from the 3rd century was found in Rome. It features several Christian scenes, including a depiction of the Good Shepherd among its decorations. Such sarcophagi were common among early Christians, serving as testimonies to their faith and hope in the resurrection.

These depictions of the Good Shepherd reflect early Christian iconography, emphasizing the image of Jesus as the shepherd who leads and protects his people, a theme that continued to hold significance throughout Christian art history.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Good Shepherd statues are significant Christian artifacts that date back to periods before Constantine the Great, who is renowned for his role in Christianizing the Roman Empire. Two notable statues include:

Again, you are deviating from the topic. I asked you to explain your remark, which I'm pasting now:

So, the churches of Jerusalem and Judea were of the circumcision, and the practice of "teraphim" of the saints was perpetuated and saw a greater increase with Constantine.

This remark made no sense to me, so I asked some questions about it.
1. You use the expression "teraphim" of the saints. This makes no sense, since a teraphim is a statue of a god, not a saint.
2. You said statues of saints in churches increased under Constantine. The truth is, the churches built in the fourth century did not have statues of saints.

In this post, you go off on a tangent about the Good Shepherd iconography. It doesn't in any way address my comments.
1. The Good Shepherd is a symbol of Jesus. It is not a saint.
2. Your examples are not in any fourth century churches.

IOW you still have not provided any evidence of statues of saints in 4th century churches. You also have not addressed my remark that a teraphim is not a statue of a saint.

1. The Good Shepherd Statue from Dura-Europos (3rd century): This statue was discovered during excavations at Dura-Europos, an ancient city in Syria. Dating from the 3rd century, it is one of the earliest known depictions of Jesus as the Good Shepherd. The figure is shown carrying a lamb on his shoulders, a common Christian symbol representing Jesus as the one who cares for and guides his flock.

I looked this up. It's not a statue. It's a drawing on a stone. Yes, Christians used drawings from the beginning. We have all sorts of Christian drawings in the catacombs, including the good shepherd.

What I'm expecting from you and not finding is evidence that fourth century churches had statues of saints, and that this had something to do with Constantine, since that is what you claimed.

2. The Good Shepherd Sarcophagus (3rd century): This Christian sarcophagus from the 3rd century was found in Rome. It features several Christian scenes, including a depiction of the Good Shepherd among its decorations. Such sarcophagi were common among early Christians, serving as testimonies to their faith and hope in the resurrection.

This was found in the catacombs (an underground mausoleum), not a church. Again, the Good Shepherd is a symbol of Jesus, not a statue of a saint.

These depictions of the Good Shepherd reflect early Christian iconography, emphasizing the image of Jesus as the shepherd who leads and protects his people, a theme that continued to hold significance throughout Christian art history.

If you are saying that the Good Shepherd was a common Christian symbol for Jesus, I heartily agree.

That's not what the issue is. You mentioned statues (you incorrectly used the word teraphim) of saints in fourth century churches. So far, you have not provided any evidence of this.

It is true that after the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity, Christians did begin building churches. But these churches did not contain all the statues of saints like you find today. That practice began in the western churches around the ninth century.

 

[metis]

I was speaking on the deification of Mary, not the source of Christian doctrine.

Technically, it's not deification as Mary is not God nor looked upon as being God.

Praying to/praying through is a distinction without a difference.

I beg to differ. Mary can be a conduit when one may ask her to pray for us, but neither does that stop a Catholic for praying to haShem directly.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight and I think Christianity is idolatry either way. I was just making an observation.

I don't believe it fits the description of idolatry, but I can see where some may get that impression.

BTW, personally, I'm pretty much a Spinoza Catholic, so see it you can figure that out.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mother mary without sin?

I'm pretty much a Spinoza Catholic, so see it you can figure that out.

Did one mean?:
Benedict Spinoza

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Spinoza

Belonged to a family of Jewish merchants of moderate means, and was originally called Baruch. Born at Amsterdam, 24 Nov., 1632; died at The Hague, 21 Feb., 1677

www.newadvent.org

But he was never a Catholic, please, right?

Regards

​

 

[Kathryn]

You know what? As a former Protestant, to be completely honest, I was tired of being proven wrong over and over and over again by Catholic theologists.

TRUE STORY TIME!

I was helping my dad clean out my grandmother's attic after she died but it was just a few months till I was able to convert to Catholicism. I had helped him pack up my grandmother and I thought I had seen every single item in her home. I was in the attic handing smallish boxes down to my dad and there was enough space between us for me to say, "Dad. I really need my baptismal certificate. I know you have it. In fact, I know where it is (with my shot record and everything else pertinent to me in a file). But I am waiting for you to give it to me." He sighed and said, "OK, I'll get it - I know you need it. I'll give it to you this week." So, the next box I opened contained a porcelain statue of Mother Mary, and I said, 'Wow, I've never seen this before, have you?" "No, " my dad said. And right below the Virgin Mary statuette was my baptismal certificate! I yelped and said, "Don't worry about the baptismal certificate, it's right here!" to my dad, who said "Wow, how did it get there?" I don't know and don't care, just telling people what happened to me.

Long story short - I give the church the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Mary.

 

[blü 2]

First of all according to the Christian bible HaShem made her pregnant via divine providence.

No. As I said, the NT states that's only true of the Mary of Matthew and the Mary of Luke. It isn't true with the others.

This may come as a shock for your brain, but if G-D can create the universe by willpower alone he can probably cause a pregnancy without physical procreation.

Such a remarkable feat, as I said, is only remarked by the author of Matthew and the author of Luke. Paul never suggests such a thing for his Jesus, the Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jewish male until his baptism and ADOPTION, and the author of John says nothing of the kind.

From where did the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke get their Y-chromosomes except by divine insemination?

Secondly an angel visited her beforehand and told her what G-D intended and her answer was she was his servant and to let his will be done, which is the opposite of "rape".

That's still only relevant to the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, and not at all to the other three.

The Mary of Matthew is told, not asked.

And the justification the author of Matthew offers (1:23) is from the Septuagint's misleading translation of Isaiah 7:14, which renders the Hebrew almâ as 'parthenos' / 'virgin' instead of 'young woman'. (And if you read on in Isaiah 7, you find that the child referred to is born and has played his part by quite early in Isaiah 8, so that as predictions go, that one had already been completely fulfilled.)

The Mary of Luke is also told (1:31). However, she agrees to go along with it (1:38).

Note that neither was given a choice.

I'm no advocate for Christianity but I have zero tolerance for those who malign people's character. Do you have evidence that Mary fornicated?

If we take the story to be correct and if like me you don't believe in magic then there is no divine conception and these two versions of Jesus are illegitimate.

Back in those days that didn't really happen, because the social and legal consequences were quite severe. Woman didn't really go out of their homes or associate with unrelated men, and even touching one is a violation of Halakha. Where do you surmise she even had an opportunity to meet someone, let alone build a relationship strong enough to even want to sleep with them, given the constant scrutiny she would have been under?

These can only be matters of speculation and inference. Given a historical Jesus at all, which I think is more likely than not, since the Jesuses of Paul, Mark and John had no such story, and the Jesus of Mark (6:3) and the Jesus of Matthew (13:55-6) had brothers and sisters, I think Jesus came from an ordinary household, and the authors of Matthew and Luke were carried away by their desire to give their version of Jesus a grand entrance, as it were, by seizing on the Septuagint's version of Isaiah 7:14.

I have even less, if less then zero is possible, for those who disrespect HaShem i.e. calling him a rapist.

What term would you prefer for impregnating a woman without her consent?

 

[Eliana]

Technically, it's not deification as Mary is not God nor looked upon as being God.

She is ascribed many traits of a deity, is prayed to and called mother of G-D. Catholics insist they don't worship her, but their practices show otherwise.

I beg to differ. Mary can be a conduit when one may ask her to pray for us, but neither does that stop a Catholic for praying to haShem directly.

I don't believe it fits the description of idolatry, but I can see where some may get that impression.

I go by the Torah, and HaShem is pretty clear. Regardless I think all Christianity is Idolatry, Catholic or otherwise.

BTW, personally, I'm pretty much a Spinoza Catholic, so see it you can figure that out.

What, is it supposed to be too much for my widdle head? If you think the Tanakh is not divine and contains errors then that's the end of the line, since the Christian bible is predicated on the belief in said divinity.

 

[Eliana]

Blah blah blah insulting rubbish...

You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. I do not like Christianity or Islam but I would never ever call Jesus/Muhammad rapists, or denigrate their leaders. I especially will not put up with those types of comments about HaShem. Since I already expressed my extreme intolerance for that type of talk which you ignored, now I am blocking you.