The Holy Rosary

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


Once again, you are trusting in a book that was wriiten by our church, but refusing to listen to the entire message.

As for the early pre Laodecian beliefs and writings (Thankyou Windword for that correction lol) one can actually find remnants of the ancient church in places like Ethiopia.

The Ethiopian Orthodox church is an absolutely fascinating ancient branch of Christianity who among other things are the people who made those amazing stone churches carved into the ground out of solid rock and also claim to have the ark of the covenant in their posession in one of their churches (nobody except for the priest who is 'guardian' is allowed in to this church to see and once he is chosen he remains there until he dies, which is always a lot quicker than it should be.)

This church's beliefs and practises are different from our version of Christianity in that they are the closest we know of in terms of being s crossover from Judaism to Christianity i.e. they still follow many Jewish traditions, but are 100% Christian.

So, what does any of this have to do with Mary and the rosary you ask? Well see below for a partial explanation of their faith. They too believe in what we call the communion of saints and yes, they venerate Mary as a divine helper. There is even a picture on the page the link takes you to of Mary on the wall as a ceremony is taking place.

A hierarchy of Kidusan (angelic messengers and saints) conveys the prayers of the faithful to God and carries out the divine will, so when an Ethiopian Christian is in difficulty, he or she appeals to these as well as to God. In more formal and regular rituals, priests communicate on behalf of the community, and only priests may enter the inner sanctum of the usually circular or octagonal church where the tabot ("ark") dedicated to the church's patron saint is housed.[14] On important religious holidays, the tabot is carried on the head of a priest and escorted in procession outside the church. It is the tabot, not the church, which is consecrated. At many services, most parish members remain in the outer ring, where debteras sing hymns and dance.[15]

Quite simply, the belief in Mary has been around since the earliest days of Christianity and all the ancient churches that split off from Catholicism accept, venerate and pray to her. This even includes the church that started modern Protestant faith - the one that gave the world the King James bible, the Church of England I've already posted about Kangarilla here in SA where there is an Anglican approved Marian miracle.

edit, I searched for the oldest known image of Mary, incredibly it is dated at 150 AD and is on the wall of a tomb. This is only the oldest known surviving picture. She really has been around as long as the church itself

www.historyofinformation.com...

a reply to: zazzafrazz

My point is that there is nothing missing from the bible. There are some added portions depending on what manuscript you look at, but the whole message is there. The challenge is sorting through the additions, which stand out like a sore thumb when viewed in the context of other related scriptures. The meter is simply an objective way of confiming what belongs and what doesnt.

Im not going to tell you that the translations are perfect, cuz they arent. I will say that the underlying message is flawless. Im not going to split hairs over which manuscript is superior or inferior, I simply follow the meter.

a reply to: markosity1973

THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It was given through the Apostles and prophets by divine inspiration. They were not catholics. Catholicism didnt even exist back then. You need to look a little furthur than the walls of your church.

a reply to: markosity1973

Your welcome? But, I think it's Akragon who made that observation.

a reply to: windword

Oh dear, today is not my day lol. Well thankyou to Akragon as well then

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: markosity1973

THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It was given through the Apostles and prophets by divine inspiration. They were not catholics. Catholicism didnt even exist back then. You need to look a little furthur than the walls of your church.

Whoa, quite defensive all of a sudden aren't we lol. They are the people who became the catholic church. Read my post about the Ethiopian Orthodox church. They also have a slighlty different New Testament with an extra book in it, the gospel of Thomas.

Everything is not as you believe it to be I am afraid.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
THE BIBLE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

It was assembled and determined to be canonical by the Catholic church. Without the Catholic church, there would be no bible. There was no bible for the first few hundred years of the Church ... there was only the Church ... the Catholic church.

Catholicism didnt even exist back then.

Jesus formed the church and an unbroken chain of succession from Jesus to Pope Francis says otherwise.
Peter the First Head of the Church
Catholic Church - Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

You need to look a little furthur than the walls of your church.

Take your own advice.

a reply to: FlyersFan

It was assembled and determined to be canonical by the Catholic church. Without the Catholic church, there would be no bible. There was no bible for the first few hundred years of the Church ... there was only the Church ... the Catholic church.

Yes your bible may have been created in that manner and yes there would be no Roman Catholic bible without the Romans murdering the first Christians and usurping god's authority. The thing that is not foremost in your mind is that prior to the massacre of 70 CE and 135 CE there was a bible of Hebrew and Aramaic called Torah. Torah has been centuries ahead of the thieving Edomites murdering thousands of Jewish people. The bible existed even as Jesus read from the scrolls and quoted the prophet Isaiah. The Roman Catholic church was not even thought of in that age.

Yes Jesus did form His church on the day of Pentecost following His death. The church leadership was given to brother Jacob known as James the Lord's brother or James the Just. James held that church leadership for over three decades and at 100 years of age was murdered by the house of Annas. Peter died about 34 years after Jesus died and at about the same time as James the Just. James' cousin, Simeon ben Clopas succeeded James as priest of the Jerusalem church while Peter was dead. Peter has never been appointed as nasi or president or priest of the first Christian church. That is unequivocally wrong and absolutely untrue.

The entire premise of the Romans was their claim that Peter was some how ordained by God as the leader of His church and yet the apostle Thomas tells us that James was chosen directly by Jesus as the nasi of the first church. I would believe the Thomas account simply because James did become the first nasi of the Christian church and Thomas was right.

I have a very hard time accepting mass murdering and various other atrocities by various Roman popes as being the church of Christ Jesus. If this is Jesus' foundation then it does not say much in favor of Roman Catholicism. Instead of parroting religion it would be profitable to study the first Christian church's history. Leave the Apostles letters lay in the Greek mire of confusion because those are not the true Hebrew and Aramaic letters from which the Greek scribes have committed many errors. Don't be angry because some disagree with you. I am not angry nor do I hate you. I simply disagree with you and wish you the best.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Im not going to tell you that the translations are perfect, cuz they arent. I will say that the underlying message is flawless. Im not going to split hairs over which manuscript is superior or inferior.

Isn't that what you are doing to the Catholic members on this thread?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Isn't that because the thread is about the rosary?

Perhaps I should have extrapolated. I see nothing in this thread that credits the true church with Roman Catholicism and the dominicam rosarium which venerates the woman Mary.

Gotcha thx for extrapolating


Venerate, if someone wants to respect or admire with deference the woman who carried a "god" why are people getting their knickers in a knot about this?

----------------------------

Im not even sure what half the people are upset about on this thread, unless misogyny is a cause?
Leave people to meditate and reflect and prayer how they want. Why is their faith anyone else's business here? Are you all meant to be chanting clones of each other in prayer?

Embrace in a sisterly or brotherly way the OP who wants to share their spiritual joy, why are people so hell bent on trying to destroy one of their preferred mediums for prayer to god ?

How the OP prays should not effect anyone else's personal relationship with god and I don't think it warrants the aggression I have seen in the thread.

NB/( I am not referring specifically to you Seede, it is a general observation)

Jesus did not have blood brothers. This is an affront to Mary's virginity. From scripture, we can deduce that he had cousins, but blood brothers...NO

Did Joseph have children from a previous marriage? It's possible, it's one theory, but it's not scriptural. There's other scenarios I've heard about, but at the end of the day it's not really important.

In the bible, when it mentions Jesus' brothers, and sisters, these are not blood siblings. James, (cpl of them) often attributed as a blood brother, has different parents, which is in scripture.

There is no word for cousin in Aramaic, they use "brother" instead. Also, I call my fishing buddy, "brother" sometimes, but he's not my brother. Dig?

This is a response to nobody in particular, but I see this "brother'" term thrown around a lot, even in this thread.

originally posted by: Seede
The bible existed even as Jesus read from the scrolls and quoted the prophet Isaiah.

No. Jesus read from Jewish texts, not the canonical Christian bible. There was no bible for the first few hundred years of the Church. There was sacred tradition and Jewish texts and scattered letters. When the bible was put together by the Catholic church, some was kept and much was dumped. (Another example of why the Sola Scriptura crowd is dead wrong)

Peter has never been appointed as nasi or president or priest of the first Christian church. That is unequivocally wrong and absolutely untrue.

Um ... no. James was the head of the church in Jerusalem (first bishop of Jerusalem), while Peter was head of the entire church. It's obvious from scripture that all the apostles looked to him as the leader. And Jesus Himself appointed Peter as the rock upon which His church would be built (Matthew 16:18-19)

As for being ordained priest in Jesus church, yes he was. All the apostles were at the last supper. Jesus gave the mandate to them to 'do this in remembrance of me'. He ordained them in His church. And in Acts we see the apostolic succession take hold when the replacement for Judas was chosen and the apostles lay'd hands on him and ordained him.

Was James the Real Leader of Early Church?
Origins of Peter as Pope
Peters Primacy

Don't be angry because some disagree with you.

You are attributing an emotion to me in this matter that is not there.
To be angry I'd have to have 'skin in the game' and care to convert others.
I don't.

a reply to: FlyersFan

No. Jesus read from Jewish texts,

Jesus read the Isaiah scroll from the Greek Septuagint. The Greek Septuagint precedes Jesus by several centuries. The Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls were still in existence at this time but were later lost in the decimation of the Jews. This is referenced as the bible even though they were written scrolls. The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) was fixed well before the forth century BCE according to some authorities in this matter. As Jesus was alive the Tanakh was considered the Hebrew bible.

As for being ordained priest in Jesus church, yes he was. All the apostles were at the last supper. Jesus gave the mandate to them to 'do this in remembrance of me'. He ordained them in His church. And in Acts we see the apostolic succession take hold when the replacement for Judas was chosen and the apostles lay'd hands on him and ordained him.

That is a matter of disagreement in theology. Ordained pertains to all who are embraced into one order and if what you postulate is true then all twelve men are popes. We know that is not true because one named Judas Iscariot was a devil. How then does this apply to simply eleven men? By your own determination? By understanding we come to realize that Judas could not have been ordained as you suppose or that there is truth in that men can lose their first estate such as the angels have done in the past. The entire matter is one of theology and nothing more.

Likewise we see the pope being elected this very day by council election and not by the hand of God such as were the prophets of old. James the Just was elected by the mouth of Christ Jesus and recorded by the scribe of Thomas in plain script to minister to the faith of Christ Jesus. This was later confirmed by election of the congregate which was the first and only true church. Matthias was also accepted by election of men to replace Judas and was not ordained at the last supper with Christ Jesus. Paul was accounted as favored by Christ Jesus but received no ordination of men. By this we can see that ordination is but acceptance into a fold of certain orders. By your own understanding you say that Judas was ordained and yet was brought down to hell. Where then does this apply to Peter being the beacon of the church?