[geocentrism] Re: correction
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:47:44 +1000
John this was in drafts, is a mystereious pop back or did I forget it.. I send
it again in case it wasn't ..
Glad to hear your staying.. but don't fear asking the questions.
You said, I was Catholic too growing up, and was the most ardent worshiper of
Mary around. So I understand how deeply this issue is felt by many Catholics.
Now if you said that as a catholic I would still jump on you ,,,,....God
forbid I should worship Mary ... God alone should I worship.respecful
veneration should never become "worship" . Honour due to Mary is no different
to honour due to any royal person, other than degree perhaps. Honour and
respect I may give to the Queen of Australia, that is to her office, and not
necessarily her person (whom I might dispise) is the same as that due to Mary ,
except perhaps it would be higher. ie. the queen of Australia is bound to
honour the office of Queen of Heaven , even though she may not like it, or like
Mary personally.. Is that difficult? Perhaps another way.. As I cannot say
the current pope is not the Pope, I would accord him his due title of "Your
Holiness" even though I truely suspect him of heresy and apostasy.. I am bound
to do this till God in the prescribed manner declares him antipope..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Roodt
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:40 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: correction
No :-)
I'm just going to bite my lip more often. It's silly to cross-swords with the
Catholics. I'm going to let them throw out statements without feeling compelled
to "correct" them. I was Catholic too growing up, and was the most ardent
worshiper of Mary around. So I understand how deeply this issue is felt by many
Catholics.
I've always considered this forum to be an eclectic mix -- although we have
our weird moments.
I'll stick around till I'm thrown out, and pay more attention to the Science
John
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I don't know -- but I'll move on now.
With respect to all,
John
Hey John... Hope you are not moving on er off .. the list that is.. I'm
not finished with ya yet! Grin..
You said,
So it's significant that Neville appears to believe little of what the
bible says,
I don't really believe that... not at all.. All he has done is shown an
open ness to what it all means.. Something everybody wants.. right Neville?
Thats putting honesty above conviction... something a lot of scientists will
not do.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: John Roodt
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:55 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: correction
:-) no problem, Phil. And, no, I am not a clever scholar.
We're like a company of soldiers all marching to the beat of the drum in
our own heads, and each of us loudly protesting that we're the only one in step.
But even though we should probably end this discussion, I see no reason
to apologise to this forum.
Wasn't it the Scripture that caused us to question the current model of
the Universe? Even though we had no scientific proof, we were confident that
the Bible held a contrary view, and we were inclined to believe it.
In fact, Neville's website initially quoted the Scriptures that indicated
that the Earth was fixed and could not be moved.
I asked the question ages ago whether or not the word 'moved' meant a
physical movement as opposed to: "my heart is steadfast and will not be moved",
or "I was moved to tears" etc. No one answered it. But I have watched the
debates to see if the question would be answered anyway.
So it's significant that Neville appears to believe little of what the
bible says, and that you and I (and others) can differ so much in our
interpretation of what the bible says. Does it really matter to us whether or
not we rotate and orbit or just stand still? What matters is that there is an
apparent discrepancy between what Science says and what we believe the Bible
says. At least that's how it appeared when I joined this forum. Maybe you've
all moved beyond that and I haven't. My only concern is: "what is the truth?"
We both love the truth; we read the same Scriptures; and we pray to the
same God for understanding on these matters and others far more important than
whether the Earth moves or not. How then can we be so far apart?
I don't know -- but I'll move on now.
With respect to all,
John
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:48 PM, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Peter came in with some biblical comments that seemed to deny Jesus was
God. along with other, Therefore I can answer those points together with my
response to Johns below. inserted in brown.. Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Roodt
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:18 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: correction
Phil,
Catholics overlook one glaring truth. JESUS EXISTED BEFORE THE WORLD
BEGAN!! In what possible sense could Mary be his mother in Heaven?!? A Mystery
perhaps but Elizabeth did say it..
42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou
among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me
that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Some Catholics may overlook it ! but they are not "clever
scientists" like myself, and would hardly be expected to comprehend the
complexities of time space and eternity. Thats why Heaven is called a place of
many mansions!
I have already asked John using this same quotation , did he
understand the difference. "Before Abraham was born, I AM". Time is temporal or
temporary.. Eternity in temporal terms is compared to an everpresent "now" A
mystery to 3D human brains, but fully experienced in the next world. " We
pray ....." Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as
it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be..."
beginning = ever shall be..
What has Mary to do with Him?
46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit
hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of
his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his
name.
Jesus entered this world for a purpose ... He wasn't created here the
way we are. He already existed. He is no-one's Son but God's alone. Mary is NOT
the mother of God.
And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
She is not even the mother of Jesus in glory -- how could she be?
You've said it yourself, Catholics make "Graven images of things in
Heaven and Earth and pay them homage"... how much more evidence must you see of
pagan worship before your eyes are opened and you see the truth?
You read into my words a thing I did not say. And it is off subject,
unless you are only interested in Catholic bashing.. I am not into protestant
bashing, and will not be drawn into such a slanging match here.
Sufficient to say, no catholic may pay homage to images or things.
Respect absolutely, as I would hope you give to the Holy Book, lest someone
commit sacrilege with it. You could not see, or else ignored my accent on
humility in all things as promoted by Mary.
The Bible is an incredible work. Consider how God allows sinful men to
be the writers of His Word. Even Jesus did not commit anything to writing -- He
knows that He can get man to write down His eternal and perfect truths. Even
though they are weaved into the fabric of human existence -- interlaced with
the stories of sinful human lives. It is truly amazing. How awesome, and wise,
and great is our God. The depth of His Wisdom is unfathomable.
Thus here may I take the quote Peter used and His comment..
It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as
doctrines commands of men.'
So, unless a doctrine such as Mary veneration is in the Bible, it is a
doctrine of men. Peter. "Consider how God allows sinful men to be the writers
of His Word. Even Jesus did not commit anything to writing -- He knows that He
can get man to write down His eternal and perfect truths"
And if you did not hear it from His mouth, how can you be absolutely
sure the Bible is not a collection of the doctrines of men!
Jesus selected 12, many more than the few of the testaments. Yet it was
the men who followed centuries later who decided to collect and authorise the
Books into a canonised NT of Scripture. "Doctrines of men " As are the Quran
or the Book of Mormon!.... They cannot authorise themselves..
Mary is just a blessed part of the fabric through which God wove His
plan for salvation. Jesus himself said that no-one born of woman was greater
than John the Baptist -- not even Mary. How could she be exalted above even
John the Baptist?
These issues are your preferred interpretation. If you are indeed a
clever scholar then I must weigh your opinion against other clever scholars who
also are very well educated men. And after that, then one must wonder which if
any has the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
That the most intelligent of scholars in the world are unable to find
consensus on so many issues raised by Bible study, is fair evidence to show how
in-appropriate is the idea that the Bible Alone suffices unto salvation.
Thanks for efforts to explain your position, but I think you need to
step back and re-look at what you believe.
Be sure I believe nothing blindly. I said above, "And after that, then
one must wonder which if any has the guidance of the Holy Ghost. " If it was
on scholarship alone, I would have no faith. I firmly believe that those men
whose apostolic succession is proven by the historical continuity of "laying
of the hands" in ceremonial sacramental ordination all the way back to the
Apostles, and to Christ Himself are the most logical group whose scholarship
would be guided by the Holy Ghost; that same group of men who collected and
authorised the Holy Scripture and protected it throughout the centuries.
I agree, we have exhausted the subject here. Its been an enjoyable
discussion. My Prayers as always are with you and all the members of the group.
Many thanks to Neville for his tolerance and for allowing us to proceed.
Regards, Philip.
John
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:05 AM, PETER CHARLTON
<peter.nambo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is an awful lot at stake here. How terrible for either of
us to cling to our beliefs at the cost of our souls. Incidentally, is there a
consequence to denying Mary as "Queen of Heaven"?
A good question indeed for Jesus said 7 It is in vain that they
keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.'
So, unless a doctrine such as Mary veneration is in the Bible, it
is a doctrine of men.
46 While he was yet speaking to the crowds, look! his mother and
brothers took up a position outside seeking to speak to him. 47 So someone said
to him: "Look! Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking to
speak to you." 48 As an answer he said to the one telling him: "Who is my
mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 And extending his hand toward his
disciples, he said: "Look! My mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the
will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and
mother."
Also, Jesus showed us that even he himself was not to be
venerated, let alone his Mother, only his Father in heaven, MT 19:16 And,
behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do,
that I may have eternal life?
MT 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments.
Pete Charlton
Other related posts:
