"Devotion" to Mary...

Also note Moses wrote the Torah. How much of his egyptian education has he incorporated into his teachings? (is the basis of my disturbance of the similarities)

 

2 Peter 1:21 says that no scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation - but Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit "spoke from God".

Is it your view that God only knew what Egyptians knew? Or are you saying that even though God was giving Moses a direct view of creation - he chose to rely upon Egptian myth "anyway" at times?

in Christ,

Bob

 

Very well.

My apologies.

you do not exist.

 

:laugh: Thanks.:thumbs:

 

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am saying I'm disturbed by it. Look, If I were an atheist I could easily argue. That Moses departing Egypt with his rabble of mixed hebrew, Egyptian disenfranchised, Ethiopians, etc... through the Sinai Penninsula used accepted Egyptian religious norms to establish his new Judaic religion. Moses took away the Pantheon and made one God. Translated the Egyptian Mott into something duable for the Hebrews. Even used the goddess Seraph and made multiple (servant gods) angels known as Seraphim who had the same function as the Goddess. After all Akenaten attempted to bring the polytheistic Egypt to an end and established a single deity about 100 years after Moses. Possibly a correlation there. If you look at the art work displayed on the tabernacle and compared it to standard egyptian works striking similarities. Also note Moses doesn't implement the law until his father in law tells him the mass of people is too much for him to govern by himself and he (moses) needs to estabish judges under him. The very next thing that happens is God gives the 10 commandements and the other laws and restrictions. Convenient (maybe a little too much so?). Moses could have easily taken oral histories similar to Atra-hasis and Gilgamesh fit it to his needs and fabricated the entire book of Genesis. Fortunately, I am not an atheist, however, I'm still disturbed by the similarities and correlations.

 

Of course you are that way you can still claim an orthodoxy and still question scripture and God. It is the liberal way of having your atheistic cake and eat it to.

Anything can be made to look similar if twisted in the right direction.

 

I don't know what you're talking about again. I was just saying why I was distubed by it. Also note Barney was never a cute Dinosaur. I've disliked Barney ever since his inseption. I'm disturbed that kids like singing and Dancing next to this purple blob. Also its just as likely the number of the beast is 616. But your argument can be said in defence of veneration of Mary.

 

Just fyi this is an interesting find from the primary source of Ancient Egyptian religion the book of the Dead.

 

I can't think of any striking parallels between Egyptian pagan beliefs and Judaism. I can only think of contrasts. Superficial similarities (if they exist, such as art work on the tabernacle- can you tell us what was similar to Egyptian art?) don't mean there are parallels.

 

The Mithras tale is bunk. There is absolutely no record of Mithras being born on Dec 25 (which is crazy anyway since we don't know the birthdate of Jesus), being born of a virgin, or resurrecting. These are urban legends. Tales about Mithras that make him sound like Christ came after Jesus had lived and resurrected.

 

"I am just...." those words seem to excuse most everything don't they? don;t get to distracted by Barney the Dinosaur. He is not the focus of my post.

 

Be clear what you are talking about. Are you going to accuse me of athiesm now? What are you insinuating?

 

---

---

---

Indeed. If the filter that you use is "there is no God - there was no creation week, there was no flood... all there ever was happened according to the myths of evolutionism" then clearly Moses getting correct information from God on the subject of origins would be out of the question.

You would need "another explanation" for what Moses wrote.

I agree completely.

I agree that they could "tell that story" and indeed they would be likely to do it since they don't even HAVE the option "Both egyptians and Moses came from the SAME line of Noah -- 8 people a mere 4500 years BC". And they don't even HAVE the option "the one true God actually SHOWED Moses the literal 7 day creation week, and the flood".

None of the glyphs are used. None of the Egyptian Gods used. The writing and the language is entirely different. VERY Hard to equivocate between the Hebrew language and art - and the egyptians.

BUT I agree with you that the atheists would have no choice but to go down that road "anyway" latching on to ANY similarity AT ALL as their one scintilla-of-hope.

They might think of it as Moses' father giving him law. But his father-in-law never tells him that he "needs a law about blasphemy" to solve his problem. Never says anything about "a law about coveting" or a law about "feast of unleavened bread" as being the thing that will solve his problems.

NOR does Moses' father-in-law say anything along the lines "you need more laws". Rather he tells him to up come with something like the 70 elders to rule under Moses' direction. And "conveniently" in the story -- Moses comes up with the 70 elders to rule under Moses' direction.

As for law - in the Bible "Moses doesn't codify the Law" until God writes it with His own hand on tablets of stone.

However - in the book of Genesis Moses makes reference to the "Laws, Statutes and Commandments" of God - being applicable to Abraham.

Certainly for an atheist they would need to "reach" to that extreme. However they would need to ignore the "inconvenient detail" that Moses' Father-in-law never told Moses to "come up with some kind of law about the Sabbath" or "about images" or "about not comitting adultery" or "about Day of Atonement" or "about washing pots" or about "unclean animals".

There are some similarities in the stories - which is to be expected given that both groups came from the same family of 8 people and the son of Noah dies a mere 350 years before Moses' time.

In fact - far more shocking if the errors and myths of the egyptians lost all connection entirely from an accurate story of the flood that was being told a mere 350 years earlier.

in Christ,

Bob

 

which brings us back to --

But in the case of Abraham - and his line - (who lived at the SAME time as the sons of Noah) God directed and informed them regarding the truth.

In fact Christ Himself says that Abraham was also shown the future - was shown Christ's day as well.

We can not equivocate between pagan myths and Bible history as if BOTH have equal access to the Divine view of history. But we CAN compare the paganism in Mariolotry to the paganism in Rome since even CATHOLIC historians themselves admit that the two are linked.

 

I don't see the logic flow. On a practical level if we include a Divine into the equation of comparison then there is no comparison. That I understand. But if I find a Christian (or a liberal baptist) historian that points to a connection of Moses to Egyptian religion then aren't you saying the same thing? Note I am sure not all Catholic Historians compare Mary veneration with Pagan worship.
Certainly if you asked Agnus Dei he would disagree with that sentiment. However, he would say that RCC have taken it to an extreme then point to the ECF and the historical aspect of it. He probably would point to the middle of the 2nd century and the ECF discussion of Mary as being the New Eve. Justin Martyr 165 AD; Irenaus of Lyons 202 AD; Ambrose 397 AD; Jerome 420 AD. Yet these discussion are the comparision of the ECF of Jesus with the new Adam and dialogue about sin and forgiveness. They are not an indicator of veneration. Also Catacombs at the middle of the first century has fresco's of Mary holding out her arms to Peter and Paul and of the famous Mother and child pictorals known as the Madona. Also the earliest prayer of veneration (to Mary) written in Greek is "Beneath Your Compasion" which dates to 250 AD in a Coptic Christmas liturgy. It is also used in Byzantine, Ambrosian, and Roman rites. However, I personally would question (since in Rome and else where) how much of this stuff is gnostic in origin? Christians and gnostics may have been confused for each other at this point.

 

Something's wrong with the Mary that was the Mother of Jesus Christ. They are worshipping the virgin Mary and that is the wrong Mary that Jesus talked about when: After Mary had washed Jesus's feet and dried his feet with his eyes, he said. "Let this be a memorial to her from that day forward I am paraphrazing.

 

It is pure idolatry. Look carefully at the wording of the prayer near the end.

They have made Mary as an intercessor between man and Christ, as if Christ is too weak to answer prayer, and needs Mary's help, or as if they are afraid to approach Christ directly and need a "softer approach" through Mary.



"There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."
--To teach otherwise is blasphemous.

 

We are saying that some similarities can be found - but the question is "why". Is it because a mere 350 years has passed since the death of Shem - son of Noah by the time we get to Moses - so that COMMON ancestors of BOTH Egyptians and Noah would have had a common view
a mere 4 centuries earlier? Surely that had to have "some impact".

It would be far MORE surprising if it did not.

They admit that with the influx of pagans into the Church in the time of Constantine that the Emperor and the church decided to adopt (baptize) the pagan customs and worship into the church as a way to make all the citizens of the empire happy with the new direction on the new religion.

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

 

Just to Note he's not a final authority on anything Catholic. From what my family tells me they often have disagreements for instance speaking about the very book you quoted I have this review from a Catholic.

 

I too have a lot of quotes "from a Catholic" -- but I usually stick with the ones well published and recognized as scholars.

History is not as easy to "revise" as some comments "from a Catholic" might have one believing.

in Christ,

Bob