'Third Secret' of Fatima

[mansio]

Most Bible scholars (and Catholic ones too) think that Mary had children from Joseph after Jesus' birth.
The "virgin birth scenario" is most probably a borrowing from the surrounding Hellenic pagan religions as the incarnation of a god in a human being is.
The Jews could only reject those pagan adaptations to their faith.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mansio

Most Bible scholars (and Catholic ones too) think that Mary had children from Joseph after Jesus' birth.
The "virgin birth scenario" is most probably a borrowing from the surrounding Hellenic pagan religions as the incarnation of a god in a human being is.
The Jews could only reject those pagan adaptations to their faith.

Except that the hebrew texts speak openly of the prophesies of the messiah being born of a virgin, starting with Genesis and Isaias, Micheas, and Jerimias. And the hebrew texts preceed the Greek texts (translated in the third century
BC) by 100 to 1100 years. The rise of the Greeks in power and influence did not occur until the third century. Therefore the prophecies were already in place and not subject to the influence of the pagan religions of the Greeks.

v/r

Q

[mansio]

Hellenic (maybe I should have spelled Hellenistic) religions doesn't mean only Greek religions but religions from the Hellenistic kingdoms that stretched from Iran to Greece and Egypt. Those religions were indigenous religions with roots thousands of years old. For example Mithraism had its origins in Iran about two thousand years before Jesus.
The only text in the Bible that I know about a "virgin" birth is Isaia 7:14.
The actual Hebrew word is not virgin but young woman, and the verse has nothing to do with Jesus.
Matthew took it out of context (as usual) and twisted its meaning with the help of the Septuagint (as in other occasions) to apply it to Jesus.
I'd appreciate that you give me the verse numbers of the prophecies of the Messiah being born from a virgin in Genesis, Jeremiah and Micheas.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is no Catholic "pantheon". Like most of us have asked our mothers to intercede in our behalf to our fathers, catholics ask Mary to intercede in our behalf to the Father and the Son. Why? Why do I get mom to talk to dad for me, instead of talking to dad myself? A mirad of reasons...

Is it useless? Not to those who believe they are doing right by it. Not to God who knows the heart of the child, even though the child is ignorant of that fact.

There is a familial comfort in addressing Mary, that is lacking in addressing the Father directly. When we go to Mary, we become like children...because it is okay to do so. Some of us do not have that kind of feeling when standing before the Father, or the Son.

Mary doesn't answer prayers my friend. She passes them on. She may tell us we're barking up the wrong tree, but that is what a mother does...any mother worth their salt.

Catholicism's concepts can sometimes be so "foreign" to most Christians. That's why we call ourselves "mainstream." I suppose it can be a bit offsensive at times. It's like we're looking for a word to describe Christians that have a lot in common and we happen to choose the word "mainstream."

From what I've read of church history, the idea of being able to pray to Mary comes from Catholic traditions. It originated during medieval times when people thought they could pray to God through their deceased friends and saints who had gone to heaven. Then they came up with the idea that if they prayed to Mary, Jesus' mother, there was a greater chance of their prayers being answered.

As least in the past, Catholics were taught that if they didn't believe in what the Catholic Church taught, then they were heretics and would be excommunicated. I don't know if that practice continues. Finding the right church can be hard, especially if you're used to the one you were born in. It can be hard finding the right church after you've been kicked out of one that has been teaching you Christian concepts for almost all your life. The reality can be scary.

Catholics stay with the Catholic Church because they have no idea where to go if they are excommunicated. Being with a church that is generally close to the Truth is better than going out and being led astray by false teachers, and that is why I think Catholics stay Catholics. They don't know who else to listen to and believe.

[I, Brian]

I don't believe at all that praying to Mary is a mediaeval invention - I think you'll find that praying to major Christian figures is far older than that.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Catholicism's concepts can sometimes be so "foreign" to most Christians. That's why we call ourselves "mainstream." I suppose it can be a bit offsensive at times. It's like we're looking for a word to describe Christians that have a lot in common and we happen to choose the word "mainstream."

From what I've read of church history, the idea of being able to pray to Mary comes from Catholic traditions. It originated during medieval times when people thought they could pray to God through their deceased friends and saints who had gone to heaven. Then they came up with the idea that if they prayed to Mary, Jesus' mother, there was a greater chance of their prayers being answered.

As least in the past, Catholics were taught that if they didn't believe in what the Catholic Church taught, then they were heretics and would be excommunicated. I don't know if that practice continues. Finding the right church can be hard, especially if you're used to the one you were born in. It can be hard finding the right church after you've been kicked out of one that has been teaching you Christian concepts for almost all your life. The reality can be scary.

Catholics stay with the Catholic Church because they have no idea where to go if they are excommunicated. Being with a church that is generally close to the Truth is better than going out and being led astray by false teachers, and that is why I think Catholics stay Catholics. They don't know who else to listen to and believe.

That is in interesting set of views you present. However, I would like to present a fact or two, and then offer my perspective.

There are 2.3 billion people on earth who profess to be Christian. And of that number 1.2 billion people claim Catholocisim of one variation or another as their denomination of choice. That actually means there are more Catholic Christians than "mainstream" Christians.

Not that catholics are in a race with others, just that for a 'minority' faith, catholics are not technically the minority.

As for why catholics remain catholic, well there are many positive reasons for doing so. The church is rich in tradition, symbolism, mystery and revelation. No matter what church I go into, the presence of God is quite palpable, as though there is only the thinnest of veils seperating heaven from earth.

Anywhere in the world I can walk into a Catholic mass (service), and regardless of the language being used to present mass, I can follow along and understand. Though I may be a foriegner, our common bond is our faith.

There is an "oldness" about catholisicm that seems to strip away the millenia between now and the time of Christ.

The richness of the chatholisicm lies not it it material wealth, but rather in the history of the people who helped form it, shape it, flesh it out. Their lives are intrinsically woven into the fabric of the church. The saints and prophets, just ordinary people of their time, who rose to extraordinary measures and accomplishments, for the love of God and the love of the Son of God, and yes, the love of the young woman who submitted to the will of God.

Catholisicm is also very close to the Jewish roots it sprang from. It is marked by orthodox beliefs, and by episcopal church government. Which makes it different as well as similar.

From my perspective...why drive in a Ford, when I can drive in a Cadillac?

v/r

Q

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

As for why catholics remain catholic, well there are many positive reasons for doing so. The church is rich in tradition, symbolism, mystery and revelation. No matter what church I go into, the presence of God is quite palpable, as though there is only the thinnest of veils seperating heaven from earth.

There is an "oldness" about catholisicm that seems to strip away the millenia between now and the time of Christ.

I suppose the fundamental question is whether Catholics believe they are the ones that belong exclusively to Christ's Kingdom. Staying within the Catholic Church because it is "spiritual safe" to do so (to avoid false teachings), and believing in the Catholic Church as the exclusive Christian Truth, are not the same thing.

In "mainstream" churches, it is believed that whoever steps up onto the pulpit to preach may or may not be there to present false teachings. "Mainstream" Christians generally don't believe in the infallibility of their preachers. Every pastor or speaker's words must be examined as to whether it agrees with what is (generally) accepted as Christian Truth.

If the Catholic Church is just as fallible and error-prone as any other church, why should it be so special? Most mainstream churches don't consider themselves infallible because most Christians know it always depends on the person who leads the worship and offers direction.

The Catholic Church is a world-wide organisation that relies on a system of protocols, institutions, rules and principles to regulate Christian Truth. It preserves traditions it has practised in the past. My objection with such an organisation would be how people become dependent on it on receiving Truth. While in some ways, it provides a foundation for preserving Christian Truth, but it may also be a way of preserving things that are untrue about Christianity.

I believe that a Christian, given the experience and the right knowledge, will be able to discern Christian Truth from false teachings -- Catholic or non-Catholic. People who have been Christian all their lives have the background knowledge to know whether something is a heresy. It's those who haven't been around that long (recent converts) that are more vulnerable to heresy.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Catholisicm is also very close to the Jewish roots it sprang from. It is marked by orthodox beliefs, and by episcopal church government. Which makes it different as well as similar.

Whether or not a church or congregation acknowledges or fully explains the Jewish roots of the Christian faith may depend on how long it's been growing and developing. Many churches (young churches) focus too much on the NT. The congregation I have attended from childhood gets occasional visits from speakers who are Messianic Jews (Jews that acknowledge Christ as Messiah). It's nice when Jews recognise that we are God's people too even though we are Gentiles.

I still find Catholicism a bit hard to swallow. The Mary thing is just the beginning of my objections . . . Confession to a priest, priests being a special source of Christian Truth, etc. It all seems to revolve around the Catholic political system and the Pope rather than the Spirit of Christ living in us. It's not that Catholics are void of Christian Truth, it's just that the Catholic Church seems to make believers so dependent on itself for Truth, which is not how God's Spirit is meant to work in human beings.

Didn't Jesus say that whoever drinks from this Well will never thirst again?

It is more important to be Christian than to be Catholic. Catholicism may indeed be a good starting point for a Christian, but every Christian must become independent of the church he grew up in. I would think of the Catholic Church (or any church) as more of a support structure rather than the embodiment of Truth.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I suppose the fundamental question is whether Catholics believe they are the ones that belong exclusively to Christ's Kingdom. Staying within the Catholic Church because it is "spiritual safe" to do so (to avoid false teachings), and believing in the Catholic Church as the exclusive Christian Truth, are not the same thing...

...It is more important to be Christian than to be Catholic. Catholicism may indeed be a good starting point for a Christian, but every Christian must become independent of the church he grew up in. I would think of the Catholic Church (or any church) as more of a support structure rather than the embodiment of Truth.

Catholic means universal church. Catholics believe all Christians belong to the universal Christian church, but like the prodigal son they went their seperate ways. Catholics know the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.

Independence from the church is to be isolated and lonely. As steel sharpens steel so must men come together to reinforce eachother in the faith, and stand together in strength. A house divided will fall. The church is the people, not the establishment.

One last thing. I can walk into any church that professes Christ as the savior and only way to the Father, and be at home...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Truth Seeker]

Hello,
I apologize for being late to an interesting thread...

But in your best opinion.. was the third secret of Fatima ever fully publicly disclosed?

Somewhere I read that the third secret was that a pope would go to visit a nuclear wasteland.. to pray or bless the dead.. and that he would be gunned down in cold blood.

Now as far as I know that has never come to pass [happened] yet.. and it would make more sense in relation to the night of screams.. referenced in the third secret.

As always seeking the truth [frustrated]

[lucius]

On the general topic of Mary, it should not be forgotten that the Orthodox church has also long held Her in high esteem. She is given the title 'Theotokos' Mother of God, and venerated, as in the Catholic church, as head of the Saints. She is not thought of as a goddess, or part of the Trinity.

On the subject of Fatima, I think it is an interesting thing, and since then there heve bee further claims of apparitions of the Virgin at Garabandal and Medjugorge.

A good site covering all this http://members.aol.com/bjw1106/marian.htm

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Truth Seeker

Hello,
I apologize for being late to an interesting thread...

But in your best opinion.. was the third secret of Fatima ever fully publicly disclosed?

Somewhere I read that the third secret was that a pope would go to visit a nuclear wasteland.. to pray or bless the dead.. and that he would be gunned down in cold blood.

Now as far as I know that has never come to pass [happened] yet.. and it would make more sense in relation to the night of screams.. referenced in the third secret.

As always seeking the truth [frustrated]

The third secret was that a great pontiff, dressed in white would be gunned down while in front of a great multitude of people, as a martyr.

On 13 May 1981, (the anniversary of the first Apparition of Fatima), Pope John Paul II (who was circling St. Peter's Square), was shot in the stomach and hand by a gunman. He remained hospitalized for 22 days, and not much hope for his survival. However, he did survive as well as Russia leaving communism behind (this too was part of the third secret).

v/r

Q

[The Lord]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The rise of the Greeks in power and influence did not occur until the third century. Therefore the prophecies were already in place and not subject to the influence of the pagan religions of the Greeks.

v/r

Q

Which Greeks are we talking about? The Greek Greeks, the ones in question relating to pagan influences on Christianity, existed way before Jesus' time and their influence was carried over thru the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. If you mean the Byzantines, that is the Eastern Roman Empire, sometimes called Greeks in the ignorant West, they were already Christian when the Roman Empire split apart.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by The Lord

Which Greeks are we talking about? The Greek Greeks, the ones in question relating to pagan influences on Christianity, existed way before Jesus' time and their influence was carried over thru the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. If you mean the Byzantines, that is the Eastern Roman Empire, sometimes called Greeks in the ignorant West, they were already Christian when the Roman Empire split apart.

Jewish Greeks did not show up on scene until Hellenistic Period (circa 323 BCE). This is when Greece was at the height of its power and influence, and began to fade with the death of Alexander the Great. By 145 BCE Greece had been split into four parts and incorporated within the Roman Empire.

However, the Tanakh existed in great part, as early as 1400 BCE, and was not translated into the Greek Septuagant until the second or third century BCE.

Prior to the arrival of Constantine, the only thing "Byzantium" was a tiny town tucked inside the straits and a narrow harbor. When Constantine arrived (330 ACE), it became Constantinople and was addressed as such by local populaces, until the name was changed again in 1930 by the Turks to "Istanbul".

The term "Byzantine Empire" did not appear until the 19th Century ACE. It was a title made up by Western scholars as a reference for the area and time of the dominant rule of the Eastern Catholic church.

It is also noted that Hellenic Greece was the model for Western civilization (or the cradle if you wish).

So much for the "ignorant West"...

v/r

Q

[The Lord]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Jewish Greeks did not show up on scene until Hellenistic Period (circa 323 BCE). This is when Greece was at the height of its power and influence, and began to fade with the death of Alexander the Great. By 145 BCE Greece had been split into four parts and incorporated within the Roman Empire.

However, the Tanakh existed in great part, as early as 1400 BCE, and was not translated into the Greek Septuagant until the second or third century BCE.

Prior to the arrival of Constantine, the only thing "Byzantium" was a tiny town tucked inside the straits and a narrow harbor. When Constantine arrived (330 ACE), it became Constantinople and was addressed as such by local populaces, until the name was changed again in 1930 by the Turks to "Istanbul".

The term "Byzantine Empire" did not appear until the 19th Century ACE. It was a title made up by Western scholars as a reference for the area and time of the dominant rule of the Eastern Catholic church.

It is also noted that Hellenic Greece was the model for Western civilization (or the cradle if you wish).

So much for the "ignorant West"...

v/r

Q

Thank God for the internet, where knowledge could be had in an instance. Praised be the Lord of the internet.

Anyway, you still did not slove the riddle. Which Greeks were you talking about when you said that they could not have influenced Christianity because they came after Jesus or after the prophecies were fixed, whatever that means? You show above, as I said earlier, that the "real" Greeks and their Hellenistic culture predated Jesus, and thus their pagan influence and cultic practices were present before, during and after the life of Jesus (in fact, they were the dominant forms of belief at the time in the region), and thus could have affected and helped formulate Christian theology and rituals. Further, the Hellenistic culture is an extension of the much older cultures of the Axial World.

P.S. I have no idea about what you mean by "Jewish Greeks"? Would you care to explain? Also, how did you arrive at a date of 1400 BCE for the Tanakh? Did we find some archeological evidence which was carbon dated to 1400 BCE?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by The Lord

Thank God for the internet, where knowledge could be had in an instance. Praised be the Lord of the internet.

Anyway, you still did not slove the riddle. Which Greeks were you talking about when you said that they could not have influenced Christianity because they came after Jesus or after the prophecies were fixed, whatever that means? You show above, as I said earlier, that the "real" Greeks and their Hellenistic culture predated Jesus, and thus their pagan influence and cultic practices were present before, during and after the life of Jesus (in fact, they were the dominant forms of belief at the time in the region), and thus could have affected and helped formulate Christian theology and rituals. Further, the Hellenistic culture is an extension of the much older cultures of the Axial World.

P.S. I have no idea about what you mean by "Jewish Greeks"? Would you care to explain? Also, how did you arrive at a date of 1400 BCE for the Tanakh? Did we find some archeological evidence which was carbon dated to 1400 BCE?

Actually, my references are right here in hard copy. And I don't care to explain anything that is given and been out there for a long time..."Jewish Greeks" being one such body.

I was quite clear on which Jewish Greeks I meant... Everyone else can see that, why can't you?

The Greeks had no influence on the Tanakh, which predated Greek influence by at a minimum 400 years, and at a maximum, 1000 years. Greek power was at it's peak with Alexander the Great (300 BC), and slid down hill immediately after the death of Alexander. Greece had no influence on the beginnings of the "Bible" of the One God, and the resultant demotion of such "pagan" gods to mere mythology and folklore. The influence of the Greeks came through, perhaps the septuigant, or "translation" of the Tanakh into Greek, for those Greek Jews living withing the sphere of Greco influence. However, the Septuagant, and the Tanakh are not the same. One is the original, and the other is a "copy".

Your attempt to belittle the Jewish God, while bolstering the glory of Greece, is not missed.

Greece was great...Today, Greece is "refined" and noble, while the rest of us are raw and barbaric...about sum it up?