/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

>>607930

So where does that say to call Mary the queen of Heaven?

easy: catholics aren't saved

>>607931

>Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

>Jesus doesn't mention Mary

>>607941

Yep, he didn't. He didn't mention himself either. In fact he didn't mention anyone because he was just using the question to guide people on how to get to heaven.

Protestant reading skills everyone.

>>607942

>He just refused to answer their question!

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever. That's the answer.

In the Kingdom of David, the mother of the king is the queen. Jesus sits on the throne of David and Mary is his mother, that makes her the queen of heaven.

>>607923

>Why do catholics(dunno about orthodox) call Mary the Queen of Heaven? That's crap pagans in Jeremiah did. Also if she's the queen then is the king Joseph?

Not Cathodox, but Christ is the King, and Mary is the queen mother (as in the tradition of the Old Testament Judean monarchy). Properly understood the title "Queen of Heaven" is fundamentally a Christological statement just like "Theotokos".

>>607964

This.

Also

>To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Rv. 3:21)

>Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Rv. 2:10

>He that shall overcome shall possess these things, and I will be his God; and he shall be my son. (Rv. 21:7)

Since Our Lady overcame, was faithful unto death, and was the most eminent of all saints that ever lived, how can this not apply to Her all the more?

Sometimes prot arguments read almost like Muslim "arguments".

>hey where in the bible does Jesus say "I am God worship me" using those exact words. Can't find it? too bad, kufir XDDDD

>>607923

>That's crap pagans in Jeremiah did.

These pagans also build houses, work, eat, etc. Should we stop doing these things simply because pagans do them too?

>>607964

Jesus rules heaven because He is God. This logic requires Mary to be a goddess.

>>607970

>either embrace full-on paganism or cease all function, there is no in between

>>607971

Just as He is the king of Heaven, so He also is the king of Earth and all its nations - but this doesn't prevent Him from instituting other, human kings of said nations (see e.g. Romans 13).

>>607971

Hi Nestorius.

>>607972

I'm not saying "embrace paganism". What I'm saying is that "but the pagans do it too!" isn't a valid argument.

You need to not only show that pagans do it too, you also need to show that this exact thing is "inherently" pagan (presence in pagan religion of a thing isn't a proof enough - pagans use incense, temples, etc. too; for an even better example). Note that the mere fact that pagans use a certain string of words as a title for their deities is insufficient if the person referred to is different than in paganism - for example, the title "Lord" (that's the translation of "Baal") was used by pagans to refer to their idols, but this doesn't mean that we should avoid using it to name Christian God.

>>607923

>Is Joseph the king of heaven because Mary is the queen of heaven?

No, the king of heaven is God, you insufferable, disingenuous dullard

>>607930

>>607931

>>607941

>>607964

>>607971

Mary humbled herself as a little child, submitting to God's will and humbling herself more than any other creation ever.

Does this make more sense now?

>>607947

>Jesus taught his followers by speaking literally

Just no.

>>607923

>>607980

Also,

>[18] "Queen of heaven"

<That is, the moon, which they worshipped under that name.

>>607980

>Jesus taught his followers by speaking literally

Not all of His followers were 12 disciples, and the 12 disciples weren't His only followers. Jesus spoke in parables to the general multitudes.

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

>humbling herself more than any other creation ever.

Sauce? We're never told that Mary lead a perfect life. She obeyed the will of the Father, but so did Paul. In fact the Scriptures tell precious little about Mary and her life.

>>607980

>insufferable, disingenuous dullard

banworthy tbqh

>>607983

>Sauce

How about being the mother of God?

>>607987

So do you suppose she was the greatest human being ever to live besides Christ?

>>607989

Maybe I do. What's it to ya?

>>607941

So has only Mary humbled herself like a child?

>>607980

>>607980

>No, the king of heaven is God, you insufferable, disingenuous dullard

I know. It's that Mary was married to Joseph

>Mary humbled herself as a little child, submitting to God's will and humbling herself

Yes

>more than any other creation ever.

No

>>607979

Worshipping their goddess is a religious practice though

That would be like if someone said not to betray Chriat like Judas did then you say how Judas also drank water so we shouldn't do that either. That's autistic

>>608005

and yes I realize that the saved are married to God or whatever(I think not yet but that's in the future) so even if that would make Mary the aueen if Heaven it would also make billions of other women the queen of heaven also.

>>607979

>God: pagans do this specifically, and it provokes me to anger

>OP: we shouldn’t do this. It’s a pagan practice

>(you): SO YOURE NOT TO DRINK WATERR?????

You’re an idiot.

>>607979

>What I'm saying is that "but the pagans do it too!" isn't a valid argument.

>>608008

>>608021

>protestant intellectuals

xd

>>608022

I just don’t even get what you’re trying to say. God said when pagans do this very specific act it provokes him to anger. We’re saying not to do this specific act because of that. If God said “pagans drink water and that provokes me to anger,” well that would be very different now wouldn’t it?

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

<he meant the opposite of what he said

>>608025

>cuck: a man who’s wife is unfaithful

>Joseph’s wife was literally never unfaithful

Nice try dipshit. Eat a sidewalk

>>608024

I already posted about this. See >>607981

>>608011

>>608024

<So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right.

1 Kings 2:9

Protties don't understand typology

>>608031

They understand it even less than secularists.

The reason is because their ideologies are so inherently tied up in being anti-Catholic. That is what defines them at their core.

>>607977

So papists are just Nestorians. It all makes sense now…

>>608035

What is it with Catholics and assuming everybody is arguing in bad faith? The Bible says not to pray to the Queen of Heaven. It’s a pretty clear doctrine. But no, it must be some anti-Catholic conspiracy theory

>>608037

>The Bible says not to pray to the Queen of Heaven

Catholics. Don't. Pray. To. Mary.

>>608040

The rosary alone contains 54 prayers to Mary, you liar.

>>608037

Because if a person who identifies a passage relating to the worship of Ishtar as something relating to the Virgin Mary is doing so in bad faith, that means that at least they're not invincibly ignorant of the substance of Scripture i.e. they aren't retarded.

Hi. Mary is the Queen of Heaven, because Our Lady is the highest of all the saints, not because she is considered co-equal with God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit.

Where Jesus is the only true mediator to God, Mary is a most blessed mediator to Jesus, her Son.

She is the Queen of Heaven, Queen of all the Saints, those in Heaven, on Earth, and in Purgatory. At the end of time, we shall all be re-united.

thanks for asking OP

>>608042

Hi. Veneration to Mary is not worshiping her as God. We venerate Mary, because in doing so, we acknowledge that her Son is the blessed Christ, true man and true God.

Look at the Hail Mary prayer again, and really think about it.

>>608042

Was Gabriel making an offering to Mary when he said,

<The Lord is with you.

?

Was Elizabeth making an offering to Mary when she said

<Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.

or

<mother of my Lord

And when we Romanists say,

>Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death

Are we making an offering to Mary?

or are we doing as James 5.16 says:

<pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.

>>608042

I deleted my post >>608049

because we were confounding offering with prayer when you wrongly quoted Jeremiah 7:18

By saying > The Bible says not to pray to the Queen of Heaven

when it says

<to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods

>>608042

Yes, we pray to saints and saints pray for us as James 5.16 says

But Catholics don't make offerings for the saints like if they were gods.

>>608031

So he made his mom a throne that's to his right? And that means Mary is yhe queen of Heaven how exactly?

>>608048

>It's not worship if we give a different name

Either way if you count praying as worship or not you're still praying to her

>>608053

>16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

So where does that say to pray TO saints and do vain repetitions?

>>608061

Who is Christ? Who is Mary?

Did Mary give birth to God? She did, she gave birth to Jesus Christ. Thus, she is the Mother of God. In celebration of such, we celebrate the fact that Christ is God.

Bible asks us to pray for one another either way, why do you dislike Scripture?

>>608062

How are they vain repetitions? They are to the one True, Living God.

You blasphemer, you don't even know what you're saying.

Jesus is the Davidic King, Davidic queens are the King's Mother. The Theotokos is Jesus's Mother, She is the queen of heaven.

/thread/

>>608062

>where does that say to pray TO saints

<pray one for another

<prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

A saint is righteous. We pray to saints in request so that they may pray for us.

<Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

Is it wrong to ask anyone to pray for you when you're sick? same thing.

>vain repetitions

When we pray the rosary it's a meditation on the gospel.

What's vain about that?

Have you prayed the Our Father only once in your life? or have you repeated that?

Is there a limit on how many times we can pray a prayer?

>>608071

>Jesus is the Davidic King, Davidic queens are the King's Mother. The Theotokos is Jesus's Mother, She is the queen of heaven.

The argument that if Jesus is the king of heaven, Mary must be queen of heaven… It doesn't hold water. Because Jesus is not king of heaven based solely on his royal Davidic lineage. David was not king of heaven. He was king of Israel. A physical earthly nation. Jesus is king in a unique way that none other of Israel's royalty were. As the son of God, God made flesh, and the promised Messiah. Mary was none of these things, any more than King David was. So she was not queen of heaven.

>>608029

Cuck: A man who raises another’s child.

Cuck: A man whose wife becomes pregnant from other than his seed.

Cuck: A man whose wife is a virgin.

Go play your priest’s “organ”, idolator.

>>607966

>Pleeeeeeease love me, Cathodox-senpai!

I don't need flags to see that this is an Anglican.

>>608029

Why is it Catholic doctrine that Mary blueballed Joseph instead of fulfilling her marital duties to him as God's word commands?

There are clear and concise answers in more than one post ITT, yet the OP, nor any of his cohorts respond to/acknowledge any of them.

This immaturity reeks of first baptists.

>>608094

see

>>608080

>>608099

I shouldn't respond to shitposters like you, but I will.

>>608080

Luke 1: 30-33

“Don’t be frightened, Mary,” the angel told her, “for God has decided to wonderfully bless you! Very soon now, you will become pregnant and have a baby boy, and you are to name him ‘Jesus.’ He shall be very great and shall be called the Son of God. And the Lord God shall give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he shall reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom shall never end!”

Mary being the Gebirah of Heaven is pretty obvious, as after her assumption into Heaven she was greeted with renown by even the Angels of God.

If the Old Testaments account of the Davidic Kingdom, and Rev 12 won't persuade you, then you are beyond hope.

Too cool, OP.

>>608083

nope

>>607923

In revelation, the mother of Jesus is called the queen of heaven. It is not dogma though to say Mary is queen of heaven

>>608126

>as after her assumption into Heaven she was greeted with renown by even the Angels of God

Can I get a source on this? Genuinely curious.

>>607923

The concept of Church marrying Christ sounds, to me, that Christendom is the queen of heaven. That's just me, though.

>>608084

Maybe Joseph agreed to the celibacy? Maybe he valued something in Mary above his own physical pleasure? Is this really the way you think about Mary and Joseph? It's very disrespectful

>>608234

Is it Catholic doctrine that Mary -never- lost her virginity? Sounds very odd to me, given that marriage is holy.

Regarding spiritual realm, Mary may have, in fact, retained her virginal innocence - which is then represented culturally, religiously and in art.

>>608084

Joseph was old, he had already been married. Mary was young and caste. Do you think that he wanted to force her?

Title=/=nature.

If this was the case, you would have to accept that God and Satan and Baal are the same person. Or Satan and Christ. Or Christ and Cyrus.

Now here is reason why we call Mary Queen of Heaven.

>Mary is mother of Christ

>Christ is one divine person, who has both divine and human nature.

>We are not Nestorians who say that God-Man did not suffer for we say see in Scripture: I am the First and the Last (Divine title and glory), And am alive, and was dead (What can be said not about Divine, but about Human nature), and behold I am living for ever and ever

If you this point, you deny Chalcedonian definition and can gtfo from this board

>Christ is King of Heaven and King of Israel

>Kingdom of Israel have office of Queen-Mother

>Mary as mother of Christ the man and Christ the God (for there is only one Christ, God-Man) is queen of both Israel and Heaven

Or in simpler terms: Mary is Queen because she is Mother. And behold I saw a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

>>608238

Marriage is holy, but celibacy is more holy. Mary's question about how can incarnation take place, for she know not a man make no sense unless she vowed to be a virgin for life.

>>608242

>Mary's question about how can incarnation take place, for she know not a man make no sense unless she vowed to be a virgin for life.

Where do you get the 'for life' part? Or vow, for that matter.

>Marriage is holy, but celibacy is more holy.

Mary and Joseph are married. Celibacy in a marriage is clearly wrong.

>>608240

That would make sense of the Catholic interpretation. Thanks.

>>608065

Scripture does not ever teach praying to people in heaven besides God

>>608066

Because they're vain and repetitions

>>608240

Well why the hell would you get married to someone you wouln't have sex with

>>608037

It's a way to ignore debate and declare opposing viewpoints as simply "haters" and thus write off other people.

You can easily see this technique in other areas of life. Politics is a common one.

>>608240

Sure he was. Just like when Mohammedans say Mary was 12 when she gave birth to "Jesus."

>>608126

And what part of that contradicts what I said? Jesus is the king of Israel via his descent from David. But he's also the king of heaven and the entire universe, and that was not something he inherited from David. David was not the king of heaven.

>Mary being the Gebirah of Heaven is pretty obvious, as after her assumption into Heaven she was greeted with renown by even the Angels of God.

lol

>>608277

>Jesus is the king of Israel via his descent from David. But he's also the king of heaven and the entire universe, and that was not something he inherited from David. David was not the king of heaven.

this

>>608255

Vain: having or showing an excessively high opinion of one's appearance, abilities, or worth.

Considering that this prayers are from Holy Ghost it's blshermous to say that they are vain in this sense.

Vain: producing no result; useless.

Considering that they do produce results (Conversaion of Carthars, Withdraw of Soviets from Austria etc.) they are not vain in this sense ethier.

>>608277

>>608281

I am the First and the Last (Divine title and glory), And am alive, and was dead (What can be said not about Divine, but about Human nature), and behold I am living for ever and ever

Nestorius pls go.

>>608299

Yeah, repeating the same prayer 54 tines in a row like a pagan is vain

>I am the First and the Last (Divine title and glory), And am alive, and was dead (What can be said not about Divine, but about Human nature), and behold I am living for ever and ever

How does that regute what he said? That's Jesus just saying he's the beggining and ending, and that he dies then resurrected. I'm not seeing how that makes your vjrgin goddess the queen of heaven.

>>608318

>Yeah, repeating the same prayer 54 tines in a row like a pagan is vain

How? Show me definition of vain that equal it to just repetition. And when you do, throw away Psalm 118/117 and 136/135 and last prayer of Christ in the Garden, when he prayed using but one sentence

>How does that regute what he said? That's Jesus just saying he's the beggining and ending, and that he dies then resurrected. I'm not seeing how that makes your vjrgin goddess the queen of heaven.

Mary is not goddess. That's the first thing, Satan.

Second is that Divine nature does not die. It cannot. But God, the person can. And God the person is King of Heaven and Davidic Kingdom. He united the two as he is united in Union. And Davidic Kingdom had Queen-Mother

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

>>608082

im glad the fun red text isnt removed

>>608360

No salvation in the Catholic Church

>>608008

Just to clear things up, there are two different arguments in this thread:

1. "Pagans do x, therefore x is wrong."

2. "Doing x is an inherently pagan thing, therefore x is wrong." or more generally "The Bible condemns x."

Since you just said why the first is obviously illogical, I'll again reply to the second. It's indeed logical and there wouldn't be an error in this argumentation if it was carefully followed. The error in your use of this argumentation is that you don't use a single "x" - in the premise it's "honouring Asherah with the title "Queen of Heaven"" - but in the conclusion, it's "honouring Mary with the title "Queen of Heaven"". The words in the title are the same, but the person to whom this title is ascribed is different, therefore these two actions are different and can't identified as a single action, a single "x".

I have actually given another example of this above, namely the title "Lord". In the Bible, we see it used in the "honouring a pagan deity with the title "Lord"" way - this deity being Baal. And this is condemned for being pagan. We also see this title used in the "honouring God with the title "Lord"" way. And this is a categorically different action, because the person that gets the title "isn't" a pagan deity.

>"Don't call Jesus 'Christ' it's what the Antichrist will be called!"

Literally OPs logic

>>608357

God heard you the first time.

>>608421

God did when it was written 800 years ago (and said it was good). You did not yet so I will hammer it upon you until you do.

>>607983

<humbling herself more than any other creation ever.

>Sauce? We're never told that Mary lead a perfect life. She obeyed the will of the Father, but so did Paul. In fact the Scriptures tell

Not to mention that Mary went through purification and that she called Jesus her savior. Jesus didn't come to save the righteous.

>>608546

>Not to mention that Mary went through purification

And? Ritual purification doesn't necessarily imply sin.

>she called Jesus her savior.

The effects of Jesus' sacrifice aren't reserved to time after the Crucifixion alone, they flow from the Cross but work throughout all history, including history before the Incarnation.

>>608548

If Mary doesn't sin, she doesn't have a savior

>>608383

> Scripture refers to a “queen of heaven” in a negative sense, and never calls Mary the queen of heaven or uses it in a positive way

> Scripture tells us that Christ is God, and of all the great things He did, and also warns us about the antichrist

There’s no logical reason a believing Christian would read the Bible and say that it’s bad to call Christ his name, but there is certainly a good reason why a believing Christian would read the Bible and say that it’s bad to call Mary the queen of heaven. Every believing Christian thinks that the name of Christ is holy and is to be reserved only for the real Christ. Whereas to believe that Mary is queen of heaven requires one to believe in Roman Catholic doctrine.

Requesting the info graphic comparing Mary and the temple or something like that, it's like 3-4 different verses from OT and NT

Help an anon out

>>608551

>If Mary doesn't sin, she doesn't have a savior

No, a life without sinning doesn't change a nature which is subject to corruption.

St. Athanasius:

<Yet, true though this is, it is not the whole matter. As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do? Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What—or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing? His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.

>>608421

God hears your heart, then why pray at all?

Are you going to tell me that chanting the psalms also fall under "Vain repetitions"? It meets your purely arbitrary standard of sola scriptura.

>>608254

Pray for. We ask the Blessed Mary, and all the angels and saints to pray for us, to the Lord Our God.

Why do you lie and say we pray to them? We ask them to present our thoughts, hopes, and prayers to God, because they are our brethren saints confirmed in Heaven, and we do so in the hopes that they will carry them to Christ, whom they now see.

you remember the golden bowl of prayers in revelation right?

>>608553

We call Our Blessed Mother the Queen of Heaven because she is the highest of all the saints in Heaven, not that we infer that she is co-equal with the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

I have to explain this EVERY SINGLE TIME, but I will keep repeating it until you yourself see the affirmation of that truth in Heaven.

>>608047

This is the correct answer

>>608551

>http://m.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-immaculate-conception-so-mary-needed-no-savior#.Wo6_s3Pdg0M

>>608748

Use your own words please

Catholics and Orthodox: How do you defend the fact that many of your practices in the church are seemingly Christianised substitutes for originally pagan beliefs and traditions? Can it be that the Roman emperor Constantine foresaw the rise of Christianity and decided to integrate it into his empire? Please enlighten me on the subject, I am attracted to the churches that compiled the Bible and claim to have a link to the original church founders, but how does it follow that either of these are the "One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church" when Christ is revered and honoured in memorial images using occultic pagan symbolism and Mary nearly takes on the form of a pagan fertility Goddess? Will I ever be satisfied with the answers I ever get about this subject?

>>608797

Okay lemme break this down to you

>Will I ever be satisfied with the answers I ever get about this subject?

No.

Want to know why?

>and Mary nearly takes on the form of a pagan fertility Goddess?

Because I'm about to ask what you mean by this, get a horrible argument back(At least, that's what I expect), and then quit the thread because the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is a magnitude higher than the amount of energy needed to make it.

>>608797

Anon, we're not supposed to give up every teaching and tradition because pagans do something similar.

Icon and Mary veneration have been with us for many, MANY years.

I believe that the church historian Eusibius of Cesarea recorded an event where Christ created an icon of himself.

>>608797

>>608797

>How do you defend the fact that many of your practices in the church are seemingly Christianised substitutes for originally pagan beliefs and traditions?

By knowing that it's bullshit.

>Can it be that the Roman emperor Constantine foresaw the rise of Christianity and decided to integrate it into his empire?

No. We have pre-constantinian records, like Justin Martyr apologies that show that "Catholics corrupted Christianity" claim is bullshit on multidimensional level

>Christ is revered and honoured in memorial images using occultic pagan symbolis

Biblical symbols aren't pagan.

Natural symbols aren't pagan.

Occultism postdates anything Church created.

Read a book.

> Mary nearly takes on the form of a pagan fertility Goddess?

<fertility Goddess

<Being virgin

<Being EVERvirgin

Dude, those memes are lame.

>Will I ever be satisfied with the answers I ever get about this subject?

Yes, if you clear your mind from satan lies. For Satan hates Mary and her children even more than God. For he is proud, and being wrecked by humble human is more painful to him than being defeated by Allpowerful.

>>608799

3 Now in Babylon you will see gods made of silver, of gold, of wood, being carried shoulder-high, and filling the gentiles with fear.

4 Be on your guard! Do not imitate the foreigners, do not have any fear of their gods

5 as you see their worshippers prostrating themselves before and behind them. Instead, say in your hearts, "Master, it is you that we must worship."

6 For my angel is with you; your lives will be in his care.

7 'Overlaid with gold and silver, their tongues polished smooth by a craftsman, they are counterfeit and have no power to speak.

8 As though for a girl fond of finery, these people take gold and make crowns for the heads of their gods.

9 And sometimes, the priests filch gold and silver from their gods to spend on themselves, even giving some of it to the prostitutes on the terrace.

10 They dress up these gods of silver, gold and wood, in clothes, like human beings; on their own they cannot protect themselves from either tarnish or woodworm;

Baruch 6:3-10

>Because I'm about to ask what you mean by this

>what you mean

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Who is the queen of heaven spoke of in Jeremiah?

https://www.gotquestions.org/Queen-of-Heaven.html

>This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech.

When I say

>nearly

I mean that Mary neatly took the place of where a fertility goddess would be in the Roman pantheon, most of these pagan gods are just rehash deities of previous cultures, Mary represents an earth mother aspect that brings forth the divine sun god who is her child. Mary may not be portrayed as voluptuously as your average pagan goddess, yet one could argue that she does fit the bill.

>>608804

>By knowing that it's bullshit.

https://thefigtreeahebrewyisraelitetorahstudygroup.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/bible-feast-days-vs-pagan-feast-days/

Roman Catholic and Orthodox feast days are substitutes for originally pagan deity feast days of honour from my meager knowledge on the subject, why is this so hard to accept?

>Occultism postdates anything Church created.

Seriously dude? What is Mithras. Who is Solomon.

>Natural symbols aren't pagan.

http://www.whats-your-sign.com/nature-symbols.html

I'm afraid you're wrong.

>Read a book.

You got me there, I need to do more research and even learn the languages of Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew before I gain any solid ground just for the Bible in particular.

I'm aware this is not some comprehensive argument against either of the churches, but a part of me holds back until I know more.

>>608810

>Roman Catholic and Orthodox feast days are substitutes for originally pagan deity feast days of honour from my meager knowledge on the subject, why is this so hard to accept?

>why is this so hard to accept?

For someone brought up or enticed by the "One True Church" and "2000 years of apostolic succession", the undeniable aspects of syncretism, doctrinal "development" outside the Faith once delivered, Jude 1:3 and farces such as the Babylonian Captivity can waver long-held presuppositions and subjective beliefs.

>>608797

>How do you defend the fact that many of your practices in the church are seemingly Christianised substitutes for originally pagan beliefs and traditions?

1. The scale of this is VASTLY (as in, almost nonexistent) smaller than what you hear from the "Catholics aren't Christian!" types, high school atheists, etc.

2. There are some cases where this indeed happened. In these cases, see >>608372 Although a symbol or holiday may be the same as the one used by the pagans, its purpose and meaning - i.e. the things that made it pagan, and not secular or Christian - have been replaced by a new meaning and purpose, of giving glory to God. Superficially similar, such a new e.g. holiday would be in its nature a completely different thing.

>Can it be that the Roman emperor Constantine foresaw the rise of Christianity and decided to integrate it into his empire?

This theory immediately falls apart when you read pre-Constantine Christian writings, and see how "Apostolic" the early Church was.

>>608821

I have read some of the pre-Constantine writings, and I must admit, I am intrigued. I've visited the Orthodox church in town before, and I've been invited to the Catholic church previously but never went when I said I would and still haven't made up for it. I think I might do that this weekend. Your explanation was useful, thank you.

>>608810

> A Hebrew Israelite Torah Study group

>Synagogue of Satan hate Bride of Christ episode 1012581468

lmao.

>Roman Catholic and Orthodox feast days are substitutes for originally pagan deity feast days of honour from my meager knowledge on the subject, why is this so hard to accept?

Because it's ahistorical bullshit. Read a book kike

>Seriously dude? What is Mithras. Who is Solomon.

Mithras is pagan, dualist. Salomon was into idolatry but his association with occult comes from Babylonian Talmud

>I'm afraid you're wrong.

Is not the sun icon of Sun of Righteousness? Is not Spring icon of resurrection? Is not water icon of Holy Ghost? It's like you never read Prophets and Psalms.

>>608814

>Scarlet and purple. The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic Bible as well by the way.

I can find your picture with the same colors given enough time. Maybe it's time that you do your research and learn what those things signify you nigger.

>>608881

ahhhh, so having a theological disagreement is grounds for a ban?

if i disagree with the trinity i will be banned? being a "NONTRINITARIAN" is grounds for a ban?

is this the soviet union? am i not allowed to have my own theological opinions?

like, i havent even formed an opinion on the trinity, but banning someone for disagreeing with your theological view in my mind makes him the correct one, not the power-tripping god-complex admin who cant cope with the idea that people disagree with his views

>>608976

>ahhhh, so having a theological disagreement is grounds for a ban?

yes, read the rules

>>608976

You do not have license to blaspheme

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_11101954_ad-caeli-reginam.html