I wish you all a...

[rach n bach]

Happy Easter!   

[pianistimo]

it's also the last day of the seven day festival of passover/unleavened bread.  the first day (Passover) exodus 12: 17-19 -is a commemoration of the journey the israelites took from ramses to succoth in the middle of the night (being redeemed) and also the very night that Jesus was cruxified.    the messianic jews believe in the return of Jesus Christ, too, and anxiously await the fulfillment of the ressurrection to all believers.  'we shall be changed...in a moment...in a twinkling of an eye...at the last trumpet.'  at passover meal (last sunday night) the jews leave a place for 'elijah' - who is said to come and prepare the way for Christ as John the Baptist did.  in our day and age - i think it behoves us to watch and listen for whomever God sends.  they won't be liked - as has happened in the past - and often the saints were killed.  they were speaking about the kingdom of God.  it upset the government of the time - and part of the reason Jesus was killed was that he was supposedly causing 'insurrection' to roman rule by proclaiming news about a new government.

was just watching a show about the shroud of turin again.  there are so many things said about it - but what is a consensus is that the method of how the shroud was made is inconsistent with the middle ages.  also, the x-ray of Jesus form could not be made without some kind of radiation which they did not have back then, that we know of.  and, every wound matches that of Jesus wounds.  also, the face cloth (which is in a separate location) has the exact same blood type (AB) as the blood type found on the shroud.  they were separated years ago. 

one physicist said that it was literally impossible to get this type of image from a 3-D wrapping alone.  she said the cloth fell through Christ at the moment of ressurrection and the x-ray type image was even of the thumb which was under the four fingers of the hand!  scholars have looked closely at this shroud and find more and more amazing proof for Jesus ressurrection than against.  the type of fabric, weave, etc.  blood stains consistent with before and after death wounds.  beating with the flaggellum (exact type used in Christ's day by the romans). 

if you don't believe in the ressurrection - check earthquake records.  i truly believe there was a GREAt earthquake at his ressurrection - just like there will be at his return.  it was SO great back then - that even the romans believed.  the centurion said 'truly this man WAS the son of God.'  they all believed - and it is witnessed by our calendar beginning again around the date of his birth (considering he died about 30-33 AD)  I personally believe his death was around 33 AD because 30 ad  would have been his start in the ministry (if the date of his birth was recorded correctly - because all the boys under 2 years of age in his town were murdered - so it would leave little room for doubt).  three years of his ministry would be around 33 AD.

i believe the significance of the ressurrection is best typified in Passover.  passover was the day that Jesus Christ literally was crucified (taking the passover meal the night before).  he WAS the lamb of God - for our sins.  the passover symbols ARE communion (flat bread and wine - typifying the body and blood of Jesus Christ). 

easter has a long tradition of stemming from pagan sources - as they were combining in roman times the pagan with the christian to pacify people.  painted eggs are a symbol of fertility and rebirth.  they stem from babylonian traditions that go back to ISHTAR.  she was suppsedly a goddess of fertility.   according to babylonian legend, a huge egg fell from heaven landing, in the euphrates.  the goddess ishtar broke out of this egg.  the easter egg hunt was conceived because if anyone found her egg while she was being 'reborn,' she would bestow a blessing on that lucky person.  today, christian churches hold 'ressurrection egg hunts' - but whose ressurrection is this commemorating?  ishtar's or Jesus?  same with hot cross buns and lent.  did you know that lent is not just a 40 day fast for Jesus - but a remembrance of the death of Tammuz.  it has occultish figurations as it is a day for each of the days that tammuz lived.  (he lived to 40).  many things that are supposedly christian - have pagan origins. https://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/lent.htm  'weeping for tammuz' IS mentioned in the bible.

[pianistimo]

i might get into trouble on this one - but ishtar and isis are of a similar identity.  isis being the egyptian name of the goddess similar for fertility.  they are virgin queens - if i remember right - and assume this wierd identity of producing a god - much like the virgin Mary.  she is as infallible, in this babylonian story, as the son she produces.  and people venerate and worship her in the same manner.

Jesus said, 'who is my mother, brother, sister?  those who hear the word of God and do it.' there are several places in the bible that denounce 'the queen of heaven' - and baking 'cakes' to her.  one is in jeremiah 7:18  another jer. 44:17-18 and 44:25.  this queen of heaven usurps the role mary played and put her in the realm of worship.

sorry, if i had to put in my two-cents - because even my husband and i do not agree about bible interpretation being literal.  my husband and two daughters are celebrating a typical sunday service right now.  i told the youngest to say that she was not celebrating easter - but the last day of the feast of unleavened bread.  which it is true that today is the seventh day.  the first day being the second of april.

it is thought that the biblical calendar is impossible to keep and maintain. but, jews for many centuries have actually maintained the exact calendar according to the reckoning of months in the hebrew bible.  nissan or abib is the first month and is observed by the new moon.  this new moon happened this year on march 19.  counting 14 days brings one to the passover date (observed the evening before by some christians by a communion/and footwashing) which would have coincided with the service that Jesus held with his disciples the night before his crucifixion.  the famous 'last supper.'  the following evening he was dead.  this is the passover day (or evening).  he was taken down from his cruxifixion cross and placed in a tomb to be ressurrected exactly three days and nights later.  the ressurrection date does not always happen on a sunday - but this is a convenient calendar date every single year.  three days and nights from sunday would have been wednesday this year!  mid-week - as several scriptures of isaiah and other places said that he would be 'cut-off in the middle of the week.'  he was probably killed mid-week and ressurrected very early sunday morning (or as saturday changed to sunday) wedesday night/  thurdsay day/night  friday day/night  saturday day (already ressurrected by sunday morning)   

here's a site about isis:  https://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/carl-teichrib/5isis.htm  i believe that catholics are wrong about the sinlessness of mary.  she was not to be venerated in a perpetual state of virginity (as she had other children after Jesus was born) and also she was sinful like the rest of us.  if we worship her - we have worshipped another god.  a false 'queen of heaven.'

[thalbergmad]

Hmm, a simple thread has been infested.

Why could you not stick with just passing on your wishes, instead of posting 2 pages of unintelligible drivel.

Thal

PS, Happy Easter everyone. I have sent you all a large egg.

[jakev2.0]

PS, Happy Easter everyone. I have sent you all a large egg

When's mine due to arrive? I'm starving. 

[Mozartian]

Happy Easter! Come over and I'll share my chocolate with you.

[thalbergmad]

was just watching a show about the shroud of turin again.  there are so many things said about it - but what is a consensus is that the method of how the shroud was made is inconsistent with the middle ages.  also, the x-ray of Jesus form could not be made without some kind of radiation which they did not have back then, that we know of.  and, every wound matches that of Jesus wounds.  also, the face cloth (which is in a separate location) has the exact same blood type (AB) as the blood type found on the shroud.  they were separated years ago. 

one physicist said that it was literally impossible to get this type of image from a 3-D wrapping alone.  she said the cloth fell through Christ at the moment of ressurrection and the x-ray type image was even of the thumb which was under the four fingers of the hand!  scholars have looked closely at this shroud and find more and more amazing proof for Jesus ressurrection than against.  the type of fabric, weave, etc.  blood stains consistent with before and after death wounds.  beating with the flaggellum (exact type used in Christ's day by the romans). 

I find it difficult to believe that you have decided to regurgitate this rubbish again.

I will make a couple of points (possibly more).

1. The "consensus" is only amongst those who believe, not those who do not.
2. If we did not have radiation in the Middle Ages, it is even more impossible that we had it 1300 years before.
3. "Every wound matches that of Jesus's wounds". Well, if i was making a fake, i would make sure it did, wouldn't you.
4. "One Physicist said it was impossible". I would agree with that. I would be amazed if it was more than one.
5. The "AB" blood nonsense has been rubbished. It is pure guess work and could equally be pigs/sheep or probably Diplodicus blood.

Every Easter this Medieval piece of toilet paper is plastered over the newspapers and Television.
If people need this object to confirm their faith, then they have not got much in the first place.

Personally, i am beginning to warm to the idea that this "event" took place, but i don't need a 13th Century tea towel to assist me.

Thal

PS I did promise not to get involved in these types of arguments again, so i hereby promise again that these are my last words on the subject.

[mephisto]

I had a great ski-trip today, absoloutly wonderfull

[thalbergmad]

I went away for couple of days, but little chance of skiing as it is bloody hot in England today.

To make things worse, i went to the Eden Project in Cornwall which was even hotter.

I want to emigrate to Greenland.

Thal

[ahinton]

I want to emigrate to Greenland.

Thal

Even though it's marginally nearer Pennsylvania than Gravesend is?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

thal, i shall plague you no further (excepting to politely ask if it is not time to change the signature to something less definitive than hell).

[thalbergmad]

Even though it's marginally nearer Pennsylvania than Gravesend is?

Best,

Alistair

Considerably if i choose the Thule airbase, marginally if i go for Ammisiliak (possible spelling error). Either way, i shall apply to the Danish Embassy.

I leave for St Kilda next Saturday, which is as close to philly as i can get without leaving the UK.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

thal, i shall plague you no further (excepting to politely ask if it is not time to change the signature to something less definitive than hell).

I had thought that Easter might bring out some "long stuff" from you.

Thal

[pianistimo]

mt climbing trek, i presume. 

i may be getting out this weekend after all.  i think the messiah IS going to be performed soon.  ursinus college.  the only college in collegeville.

[thalbergmad]

Hill climbing. There are no mountains on St Kilda.

In UK, anything under 2,000ft is not considered to be a mountain.

Thal

[living_stradivarius]

I find it difficult to believe that you have decided to regurgitate this rubbish again.

I will make a couple of points (possibly more).

1. The "consensus" is only amongst those who believe, not those who do not.
2. If we did not have radiation in the Middle Ages, it is even more impossible that we had it 1300 years before.
3. "Every wound matches that of Jesus's wounds". Well, if i was making a fake, i would make sure it did, wouldn't you.
4. "One Physicist said it was impossible". I would agree with that. I would be amazed if it was more than one.
5. The "AB" blood nonsense has been rubbished. It is pure guess work and could equally be pigs/sheep or probably Diplodicus blood.

Every Easter this Medieval piece of toilet paper is plastered over the newspapers and Television.
If people need this object to confirm their faith, then they have not got much in the first place.

Personally, i am beginning to warm to the idea that this "event" took place, but i don't need a 13th Century tea towel to assist me.

Thal

PS I did promise not to get involved in these types of arguments again, so i hereby promise again that these are my last words on the subject.

https://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

and

https://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=338412002

Stop worshipping a Frenchman  !

Worship the Easter Bunny Instead!

[thalbergmad]

Jacques de Molay as the face on the Shroud is a fascinating theory.

Thanks for the link.

Thal

[pianistimo]

there is nothing to compare the shroud to - as nothing like it exists.  also, it is not a 3-D image, nor one which is 'scorched.'  the blood stains went completely into the cloth.  it is not gelatine either.  that would easily disintegrate and fall through the cloth after only a short time.  especially with all the folding.  gelatine would be analagous to any sort of globbed on item.  this isn't a glob job.  it's a pixel job.  and there was no technology to do this at that time that we know of.  even in the middle ages.  nobody was pixel-savvy to not only pixellate the shroud - but the exact folding - the exact wounds - the exact blood type (which has been tested) - and nobody has explain how it is that the thumb can be slightly seen under the four fingers.  this is radation.  not just sweat and lactic acid.  also, coroners can determine by the blood stains - which happened when a person was alive and which when they were dead.  before Jesus was taken off the cross, the soldiers were going to break his legs.  but, he was already dead - so they pierced his side.  either you believe people who are 'scholarly' or you believe the bible.  just because someone looked like Jesus doesn't mean they were crucified in the exact same way and then 'didn't die.'  that's ridiculous.

[ramseytheii]

either you believe people who are 'scholarly' or you believe the bible.

Yikes!

Walter Ramsey

[rc]

It was a fun easter.  I played chess with my little cousin, it went on a lot longer than I expected before the queen started kissing the knights, the rooks became cannons and zombie pieces came back from the grave.  He won of course.  Eventually the game turned into a battle-drawing on the box of the chessboard.  The sky monster won that one.

Looking out the window we saw the neighbours had come to the 'feats of strength' of their holiday.  Uncle won that one easy, the kid was lying on the ground of a while...  We thought of grabbing our pole and joining their celebration, but we were already in the airing of grievances.

We're not a very religious family, in case anyone's wondering.

[living_stradivarius]

"De Molay was accused of denying the divinity of Christ so it’s logical that they would have subjected him to a re-enactment of the suffering of Christ - including a copycat crucifixion," says Lomas. "The final act of mockery would have been to use his own shroud."

How ironic it is that a heretic is being worshipped

[thalbergmad]

the exact blood type (which has been tested) 

Interesting, so you know the blood type of Christ do you. Did you ask him when you saw him over Easter?

I only picked out the above sentence from the rubbish that you posted, because the rest was so funny, i could not stop laughing for long enough to post a response.

I will have another go later.

Thal

[pianistimo]

pbs said that the blood type on the face cloth matched exactly the blood type of the shroud.  AB blood. 

not having access to a relic makes pretty much everyone (excepting the scientists who test it) take close pictures as a second hand source.  but, in any case - noone can really disprove that Christ was not ressurrected - as noone found the body.  perhaps the bones of Christ would have been more of a relic.  none were there to find.  if Jesus had survived - this 'hoax' would truly be a hoax.  i tend to think there is some merit that people would attempt to save the shroud.  and, that the pollen found in the shroud is from that area of the middle east is quite strong evidence that even if it was the middle ages - the shroud was produced in that area. 

in any case, i have not seen the shroud myself - nor would it convince me more solidly of Jesus ressurrection.  after all, seeing a shroud - is as you say - just  apiece of fabric.  the manner in which the Holy Spirit moves is much more convincing.

[thalbergmad]

Welcome back to earth.

A balanced response.

Thal

[pianistimo]

?  are you agreeing with me.  well, mighty strange you've become lately (excepting that thread about 'the sound of music.')

are you still coming to pennsylvania at the end of april?  you've seen st. kilda a thousand times.  must be a bird you're in love with.  maybe a puffin.

[thalbergmad]

hmm, left Earth for outer space again.

Thal

[pianistimo]

i have two packs of 'bio-freeze' in case it isn't cold enough here for you.  vanishing scent. 

basically it's cryotherapy.  don't suppose you've ever had that form of therapy.

[prometheus]

Happy Easter! Come over and I'll share my chocolate with you.

Chocolate is not something you just share with anyone. Unless it isn't dark chocolate.

[living_stradivarius]

i have two packs of 'bio-freeze' in case it isn't cold enough here for you.  vanishing scent. 

basically it's cryotherapy.  don't suppose you've ever had that form of therapy.

Do you plan on joining Ted Williams?

[ahinton]

hmm, left Earth for outer space again.

Thal

Who has? The puffin?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

what i am proposing, stradivarius, is a much less expensive procedure.  basically just hands and feet.  it's a completely harmless therapy.  usually.  and, certainly costs way less than $136,000 to perform.  i think it's more like $5.00.  but, there are some hidden fees.  for one.  opening the package might break a nail.  this would be another $5.00.  but, as it so happens, pianists don't have that long of nails, so i might just bite it to open it.  this particular therapy is completely natural as it uses mostly natural active menthol.

as i understand it - ted williams died and then went to the cryonics factory where he was decapitated.  then, his head was stored in a steel can filled with liquid nitrogen.  it had been shaved, drilled with holes and accidentally cracked 10 times (with a baseball bat?)  his body stands upright in a 9 foot cylidrical steel tank, also filled with liquid nitrogen.  this procedure cost $136,000.  but the company says that $111,000. is still owed.  (accidentally cracking the head 10 times?  i should think that they should pay the survivors.  anyways...death is never a pretty subject.

thal seems better used for alive scientific purposes.  although, if he came to pennsylvania after climbing mt blanc - it might be more interesting.  for one thing -i'd find out what happened and actually how one climbs that mountain. 

[mike_lang]

if we worship her - we have worshipped another god.  a false 'queen of heaven.'

Who worships Mary?  Adoration and worship are reserved for God alone.  However, because she was conceived free of the stain of original sin and lived a life in God's grace without sin (not to mention being ordained by God to be the mother of the New Adam) she was crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.  As such, we pray to her as an intercessor and an advocate on our behalf to the Lord Jesus Christ, her Son.  In any event, the Assumption would not have occurred if Mary was with sin.

[pianistimo]

are you saying that mary was also conceived (as Jesus was) by a virgin?  are you saying that you actually call her queen of heaven?  this is nowhere proven in the bible.  in fact, 'as in adam all die, and so in Christ shall all be made alive.'  this means, mary is dead and buried.  praying to her gets you nothing.

ok.  if she was sinless BEFORE Jesus - what does that make Jesus Christ?  second rate, i'd say.  if Jesus Christ is the second adam - what is she - the first queen?

don't worry.  we just disagree.  you can believe whatever you wish.  i stand by every word of the bible.  there is nowhere in the bible that says mary is sinless.  in fact, according to catholics - sexual act is sinful - so mary had more children after Jesus Christ.  this would have made her 'sinful.'  although, i happen to think married sex is pure.

if Jesus himself said 'why do you call me good.  there is none good but God the Father....'  and that was Jesus Christ himself, then the adoration was always put from him to the Father.  he directed people to pray 'our Father, who art in heaven.'  at no point did He refer anyone to his mother.

ps if sex was bad, it would have been one of the ten commandments.  thou shalt not have sex.  but, the only commandment is against fornication and adultery.  so, although mary was a virgin when married - she lived a full life and probably less sinful than most - but i'm sure she committed some kind of sin (although probably not the sexual kinds).  she may have gotten angry at Jesus at some point - but, then stored it in her heart to wait for his answers.  he stayed back at the temple in Jerusalem when He was 12 instead of going home with them.  i'm sure when He did that - she was saying - 'why didn't he follow us home?'  she was either hurt or angry - and probably didn't know quite what to say when he said 'I must be about My Father's business.'

[ahinton]

i stand by every word of the bible.

That's the trouble...

there is nowhere in the bible that says mary is sinless.

What does this matter?

in fact, according to catholics - sexual act is sinful

Wherever did you get that idea? Why do suppose that Catholics are all for families, etc.?

- so mary had more children after Jesus Christ.

Why - "because the sexual act is sinful"?

this would have made her 'sinful.'

Through choice?

although, i happen to think married sex is pure.

Like any other - only when it is so, presumably...

he directed people to pray 'our Father, who art in heaven.'  at no point did He refer anyone to his mother.

So you mean He never even referred to her, in any context?

ps if sex was bad, it would have been one of the ten commandments.  thou shalt not have sex.  but, the only commandment is against fornication and adultery.

You mean bad according to the creators of the ten commandments, specifically...

so, although mary was a virgin when married

You cannot posibly know that for a fact.

- she lived a full life and probably less sinful than most - but i'm sure she committed some kind of sin (although probably not the sexual kinds).

Again, you don't know about this; you weren't there at the time and were not an intimate of hers.

she may have gotten angry at Jesus at some point

Again, speculation, although mothers do tend to do this to their kids from time to time...

- but, then stored it in her heart to wait for his answers.  he stayed back at the temple in Jerusalem when He was 12 instead of going home with them.  i'm sure when He did that - she was saying - 'why didn't he follow us home?'  she was either hurt or angry - and probably didn't know quite what to say when he said 'I must be about My Father's business.'

A good thing that Jesus' mother was not Susan, then; she'd not have put up with too much of that. Anyway, if Mary took all this as literally as you do, it's no wonder that she'd have gotten confused by it all from time to time...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

in fact, according to catholics - sexual act is sinful

Are you sure about that?

I thought that they woz OK about sex, but were not allowed to use rubbers.

Thal

[mike_lang]

this is nowhere proven in the bible. 

I'm sorry that your religion lacks Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Magisterium.  It must be difficult to find the full means of salvation with only a third of the resources.

As for the alleged worship of Mary and "thou shalt not have sex" bit, you may be wise to have a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church before making doctrinal assumptions.  Regarding the latter, John Paul II's Theology of the Body would prove quite informative for you.

[ahinton]

I'm sorry that your religion lacks Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Magisterium.  It must be difficult to find the full means of salvation with only a third of the resources.

As for the alleged worship of Mary and "thou shalt not have sex" bit, you may be wise to have a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church before making doctrinal assumptions.  Regarding the latter, John Paul II's Theology of the Body would prove quite informative for you.

I must admit that, even as a non-Christian, this statement about the Catholic church and sex struck me as quite extraordinarily incmprehensible and untenable and it's difficult to detect where it came from philosophically (obviously I know who wrote it, so I know where it came from in that sense).

I'd better keep off this now, given my non-qualification to say more...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

this statement about the Catholic church and sex struck me as quite extraordinarily incmprehensible and untenable

Well, it did come from pianistimo.

No stranger than the Grand Canyon being formed in 200 years.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, it did come from pianistimo.

No stranger than the Grand Canyon being formed in 200 years.

Thal

Which said, "pianistimo" is infinitely smaller than the Grand Canyon and certainly far less than 200 years of age...

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

And Pianostreet ruins another holiday

[ahinton]

And Pianostreet ruins another holiday

No, Pianostreet itself doesn't...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i realize everyone has their own beliefs - but one of the catholic beliefs is that mankind 'fell' at around the same time as adam and eve had sex.  before they ate the fruit.  or that the fruit symbolized the sex.  this cannot be true if the words of genesis are taken literally.  (i am of the opinion they had sex in the garden.  how much nakedness can two naked people take?  i think adam checked her out when she was made.  they slept together the first night).  why else the effort to keep the priests celibate?  is that a non-issue now?

perhaps john paul II changed some things - but i believe ratzinger will make it go back to what it was and perhaps even a bit 'stricter.' why do i say this?  well, look at the easter service.  a byzantine chant portion added  with black robed priests.  where does that come in?  perhaps we are witnessing the coming together that john paul was hoping for, of the eastern and western churches.  when they come together - expect that both sides (at least this is my understanding) will attempt to indoctrinate the other.  the more mysterious, the better, as it seems.

ok.  as i understand it - and some may beg to differ - if God punished the woman by childbirth for simply having sex - He would be quite unfair.  but, it wasn't the sex that was punished.  it was eating the forbidden fruit.  quite a literal thing.  from the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil.'  - and lest they take from the 'tree of life' - they were banished.

alistair, i do think Jesus respected his mother.  why wouldn't He?  He probably had something to do with choosing which woman that he would be born from (since He preexisted as 'the Word').  he wanted to be born of a virgin to fulfill the prophecies given to isaiah that He would be born of a virgin.  does this also make her sinless?  find me the verse that says 'Mary was sinless.'

[pianistimo]

sorry for the double post - but i wish to explain myself further.  starting with the apostle john's 'gospel of john' in the NT - he explains Christ as 'the Word.'  in the beginning was the Word, and the word was WITH God and the Word was God...there was a man sent from God whose name was John...the same came for witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.  he was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.'

now, why did John have the inspiration to start here and NOT with Mary?  i feel that it is because Jesus preexisted and didn't need to 'start' a virgin/son 'thing' as the basis of His true spiritual beginning.  in fact, he never HAD a beginning.  He was and IS God.

true, he had a virgin birth - but, that was his form (just a physical body and form that he was born to).  His true identity is spiritual and no person could 'give' him birth.  He gave birth to His own identity to us - as a man - but returned to His form as God.

ps i think mary was blessed by God and favored by God.  but, she is now dead.  awaiting the ressurrection.  and, although i personally cannot prove she was a virgin - i highly doubt God would choose a ***.  queen of heaven - implies a goddess like attribute to mary.

[mike_lang]

i realize everyone has their own beliefs - but one of the catholic beliefs is that mankind 'fell' at around the same time as adam and eve had sex.

Mankind fell from grace, according to Catholic doctrine, because the first man and woman disobeyed God by eating of the forbidden tree.  With this first sin, the original sin, was introduced death, illness, and many other evils into the world.  There is not a correlation between Adam and Eve having sex and the Fall.

[mike_lang]

now, why did John have the inspiration to start here and NOT with Mary?

Because all authentic teaching is Christocentric.  Christ is the cause of salvation, and this is the Good News proclaimed by the Gospel.  It would be absurd to open the verse with Mary.

He gave birth to His own identity to us - as a man - but returned to His form as God.

There was no change of form.  The Word was made flesh, fully man and fully God.  At the resurrection, He was raised in His glorified body, which he retains for all eternity.  This is a prefigurement of the resurrection at the end of time, when all those who have been separated from their bodies in death will be reunited with them in glorified form.

queen of heaven - implies a goddess like attribute to mary.

How so?  It merely acknowledges her crucial role in the redemption of mankind, the new Eve who crushed the serpent's head.

[pianistimo]

was milton a catholic?  'paradise lost' is one of my sources and the other is from a catholic booklet that i read about the worship and adoration of mary.  how people should make intercession to her.

also, through priests with 'confession.'  if Christ is our intercessor - why do people need a priest?  a priest was first made to talk directly to God for people - but there is no scripture where a priest is asked to interceed for sins AFTER Jesus died.  there was no more animal sacrifice.  are we to assume that suddenly there is needed some kind of appeasement to God by the priests - and Jesus Christ is not enough (even after He died and was ressurrected?)  even king David, in the OT, said 'against Thee only have i sinned, done evil in Thy sight....'

the bible says - call no man Father.  the pope calls himself that all the time.  papa.  father.

[mike_lang]

also, through priests with 'confession.'  if Christ is our intercessor - why do people need a priest?

I am not as well versed in sacramental theology, but I can tell you that it has to do with the idea that there is no priest but the High Priest Himself, Christ.  All priests enter into the High Priesthood of Christ, acting in Him.  Regarding the institution of the sacrament of reconciliation, the Catechism cites Jn 20:23 and 2 Cor 5:18.

[pianistimo]

as i read these verses - i take them literally to mean ALL the saints have this capability.  we preach 'reconciliation' because Jesus DID the reconciling.  we cannot forgive sins - per se - because only He can truly forgive our sins.  if an apostle held a sin against a person - it would be something that the Holy Spirit would guide him to tell the person in private (something they are not aware of) but usually, this method is by preaching to an entire congregation and not singling out people to embarrass.  but, again - that's my understanding - and i understand that you have as much right to what you believe.

considering that forbidding priests to marry has caused countless sexual abuse charges even up to very high places in the catholic church - it causes one to wonder to whom they are confessing - and if their sins are in any way less than the sins committed by the priesthood.

[ahinton]

alistair, i do think Jesus respected his mother.  why wouldn't He?  He probably had something to do with choosing which woman that he would be born from (since He preexisted as 'the Word').  he wanted to be born of a virgin to fulfill the prophecies given to isaiah that He would be born of a virgin.  does this also make her sinless?  find me the verse that says 'Mary was sinless.'

Choosing His mother? Sorry, that and the whole "virgin" birth thing just doesn't make sense in any case, so I don't feel that there is a question to answer here.

Best,

Alistair

[virtuosic1]

Interesting, so you know the blood type of Christ do you. Did you ask him when you saw him over Easter?

They must have gotten the type from the "spear of destiny", or "Constantine's spear". Or one of the 5 fakes, unless they're all fakes. I'm surprised there hasn't been one offered on ebay.