asco15:
U must come to realise dat most of wat d catholic doctrine teaches was never practised by d early apostles and worst of it is dat d bible condems dos tins.
D cath. Ch did nt gave us d bible, the old testiment has been in existence before the coming of christ and the new testament comprises d letters and gospels by d early apostles, d cath ch only combines dem and God kept His word 2 saves us 4rm d conspiracy in His ch.
I was once 1 a promoter of Mary Queen of all hearts and i cn tell u dat d words we used in our prayers shows dat we worship and depend on mary, i can remember where st.louis said dat we cn't approach Jesus except 2ru mary' imaging such conspiracy?

Go and learn about bible history.

Even the olodos have learnt a thing or two about the bible from this thread.

woky: is that all

no. What about burning of incense, using of black, white and yellow candle, worshipping dead bodies, worshipping the pope as supreme abeg, i cant count them all, they are too many to enumerate.

Ukuts gp: no. What about burning of incense, using of black, white and yellow candle, worshipping dead bodies, worshipping the pope as supreme abeg, i cant count them all, they are too many to enumerate.

Is that all you can count?

italo:

You might or might not go to heaven. That is Catholic teaching.

Stop telling cheap lies just to discredit the Church.

It is a sin in Catholic doctrine to tell lies.

Surely there is nothing wrong with telling lies where you worship.

You see,i have to follow the teachings of the church as against the word of God for me to make it to heaven ! Even as you try to be diplomatic with coming out straight to to tell me that the roman catholic church teaches that no matter ur relationship with Christ,if you are not a roman catholic you can't go to heaven as i earlier pointed out to you not minding ur double standards as it is with the 'infallible pope' francis and ur church.But i tell you,so long as you folks dnt believe in the scriptures,you will keep making mistakes and in a bid to cover one of ur errors,you will commit another one and it goes on and on and on.
God help us

asco15:
U must come to realise dat most of wat d catholic doctrine teaches was never practised by d early apostles and worst of it is dat d bible condems dos tins.
D cath. Ch did nt gave us d bible, the old testiment has been in existence before the coming of christ and the new testament comprises d letters and gospels by d early apostles, d cath ch only combines dem and God kept His word 2 saves us 4rm d conspiracy in His ch.
I was once 1 a promoter of Mary Queen of all hearts and i cn tell u dat d words we used in our prayers shows dat we worship and depend on mary, i can remember where st.louis said dat we cn't approach Jesus except 2ru mary' imaging such conspiracy?

We know the truth already ! Even from ur coments,we can see clearly that you are saved now by the Grace of God through the blood of Jesus. Thanks for all the information.

God help us

@lacum

To say thanks for noting that slip of hand, here is more about our friend "pope" John XII -- who was of the Pornocracy era of the "pope" business.

EDIT in fact our original friend was John XXII but slip slip, I have now spoken about John XII! Oh well.

For now I will use a Roman Catholic source http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm

"The younger Alberic, after the downfall of his mother, Marozia (932), was absolute ruler at Rome. Before his death he administered an oath (954) to the Roman nobles in St. Peter's, that on the next vacancy of the papal chair his only son, Octavius, should be elected pope. After the death of the reigning pontiff, Agapetus II, Octavius, then eighteen years of age, was actually chosen his successor on 16 December, 955, and took the name of John. The temporal and spiritual authority in Rome were thus again united in one person — a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium. War and the chase were more congenial to this pope than church government."

"On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and in.cest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication (ferendæ sententia) against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope. The emperor now came forward to accuse John of having broken the agreement ratified by oath, betrayed him, and called in Adalbert. With the imperial consent the synod deposed John on 4 December, and elected to replace him the protoscriniarius Leo, yet a layman.

"John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumour, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery. Luitprand relates that on that occasion the devil dealt him a blow on the temple in consequence of which he died."


Great "pope"; very great "pope"; eminentissimum occupant of the "chair of Peter".

italo:

But the Bible supported using church money to buy private jets?

is dat the answer to the questions b4 u?

I believe that when the scales has fallen from italo and his friend's eyes, they would be at the forefront of the crusade against catholic erroneous and fallacious doctrines.

italo:

Is that all you can count?

i had to pause there first.

Oh well, as the Roman Catholics have been saying that any person who claims to be a Christian must submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic "pope", then .....

Anyway, here is a bonus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism

"Nepotism
Nepotism is favoritism granted in politics or business to relatives regardless of merit. The term originated with the assignment of nephews to cardinal positions by Catholic popes and bishops. ....

The term comes from Italian word nepotismo,[1][2] which is based on Latin root nepos meaning nephew.[3] In the Middle Ages some Catholic popes and bishops, who had taken vows of chastity, and therefore usually had no legitimate offspring of their own, gave their nephews such positions of preference as were often accorded by fathers to son.[4]

Several popes elevated nephews and other relatives to the cardinalate. Often, such appointments were a means of continuing a papal "dynasty".[5] For instance, Pope Callixtus III, head of the Borgia family, made two of his nephews cardinals; one of them, Rodrigo, later used his position as a cardinal as a stepping stone to the papacy, becoming Pope Alexander VI.[6] Alexander then elevated Alessandro Farnese, his mistress's brother, to cardinal; Farnese would later go on to become Pope Paul III .[7]

Paul also engaged in nepotism, appointing, for instance, two nephews, aged 14 and 16, as cardinals. The practice was finally ended when Pope Innocent XII issued the bull Romanum decet Pontificem, in 1692.[4] The papal bull prohibited popes in all times from bestowing estates, offices, or revenues on any relative, with the exception that one qualified relative (at most) could be made a cardinal.[8]"


"Apostolic succession" pffft

Had any one in the bible baptised prior to their believing the gospel and message of salvation by the early apostles?

Ukuts gp: I believe that when the scales has fallen from italo and his friend's eyes, they would be at the forefront of the crusade against catholic erroneous and fallacious doctrines.

keep dreaming

m.k.o2005:

You see,i have to follow the teachings of the church as against the word of God for me to make it to heaven ! Even as you try to be diplomatic with coming out straight to to tell me that the roman catholic church teaches that no matter ur relationship with Christ,if you are not a roman catholic you can't go to heaven as i earlier pointed out to you not minding ur double standards as it is with the 'infallible pope' francis and ur church.But i tell you,so long as you folks dnt believe in the scriptures,you will keep making mistakes and in a bid to cover one of ur errors,you will commit another one and it goes on and on and on.
God help us

Stop lying against the Catholic Church. It is a sin.

It doesn't teach that all non-Catholics are going to hell...and it didnt tell you that I doesnt believe in the scripture it compiled.

Why are you not ashamed of telling lies?

Ukuts gp: is dat the answer to the questions b4 u?

Is it not the answer?

Ukuts gp: I believe that when the scales has fallen from italo and his friend's eyes, they would be at the forefront of the crusade against catholic erroneous and fallacious doctrines.

How does what you believe matter?

Just to tone things down a little for the benefit of more moderate and reasonable Roman Catholics out there.

I have said before on many other threads that this is not personal and in fact I used to beg the more belligerent or "cantankerous" Roman Catholics that we should keep things civil. I even reminded them that even while they were being aggressive, I myself was then trying very hard to maintain a respectful attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, my grouse with Roman Catholics is about some claims and not just claims but false claims that they make which fly in the face of what informed people know about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The worst of it is the divisiveness of some of the claims. I make no apology about challenging such false claims and will always continue to challenge them.

On the other hand, it would be churlish to deny that the Roman Catholic Church has also done many good things in its history. In fact some of these were the reasons why I kept quiet here for years about what I know of the Roman Catholic Church ---- until the arrogance and conceit of some of their representatives got to the level that their pomposity had to be punctured

Anyway, as I have already said on this very thread, every denomination (even including abominations) each has its own share of responsibility for the visible disunity that exists.

My own personal commitment is to the catholic Church, i.e. to the universal Church, i.e. to the Christian Church.


As I once said: https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/10#12159778

"We love the catholic church and it will please us no end if the Roman Catholic Church repents and rejoins the catholic Church."

italo:

Excuse me, why do you protestants find it easy to tell blatant lies? Is it not a sin in your doctrine?

Can you please supply evidence of the bold?

Cant you shut up if you have no credible reply?

Must you tell lies?

You say I tell lies?
We'll examine previous comments and conclude who the liar is.
You have implied all these I said in many of your previous statements.
Examine these statements of yours

italo:
"When did a book become the basis of Christian faith?"
'At what point in time did a book take over the Church as the guide and who made it so?'

These clearly suggest the 'Catholic Church' has more authority than recorded words of Christ in the Bible

italo:
I dont doubt the Bible...because I believe when the Church (the pillar and foundation of truth) says it is Gods word and the apostles wrote those letters. I believe the bible because I believe the Church that compiled and canonized it.

This one clearly says you only believe the bible because the catholic church told you to believe it....meaning if you are told to disbelieve in it tomorrow by the catholic church, you will.

Now we can determine who the liar is.

Now let me put this straight to you...I also need a straight and definite answer
Which is more superior? The words of the head of the Church (Christ) recorded by the apostles in the bible or the words said by the Catholic Church?

italo:
There's no need of going round in circles. You've admitted that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Go and sleep over that. The same Church that you people say is false, antichrist.

You're saying the antichrist compiled the Holy book.

I can only laugh at the sense in that.

Recorded by the Catholic Church.


Verified by the Catholic Church.

Paul asked Christians to follow oral tradition.

If you dont, your practice is contrary to scripture.

Do you?

You're the one going in circles with the excuse that the Catholic Church compiled the bible. Well, the good news is that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEVER WROTE IT....and definitely, they don't have the authority to change or twist it, there's a punishment for that (Read Revelation 22:18-19)

italo:
Pastor Chris says masturbation is a sin. I bet you disagree. Yet you both read the Bible. How then can you people decide what is Jesus true doctrine when you people are in total confusion.

By the way, I have not mentioned Pastor Chris so far neither have I said I am a member of Christ embassy (I have not also named any Priest in the catholic churches). I don't know why you are bringing him into this. (This is out totally of our conversation). Besides, all your criticism have made you type the wrong thing (check your post or what I quoted).

italo:
Or you believe the whole world should adhere to your own interpretation of scripture? Why yours?

No, I do not. Do you also believe the whole world should should adhere to the scripture interpretation of the catholic church?

italo:
"Reason!" What is your aim of reasoning with me?

My aim of reasoning with you?
I wouldn't have even reasoned with you if you had not first replied my post on page 7 of this thread.

italo:
You dont know 'x' (the full and exact prayers, teachings and practices of Jesus and the apostles), yet you claim that you know people doing the exact thing.

I never claimed to have known the full ones, I only claim to know the ones in the Bible.

italo:
You dont know how Jesus danced...yet you claim to know those who dance exactly like Jesus.

Sorry to say. This is a lie (I never claimed this).

italo:
My dear, dont make me say the word. Carry this madness go front abeg. I no wan sin.

You win. You are the true Church. Every church with contrary opinion to you is false, including Christembassy.

Now we can decide who carries the 'madness'.
.and I should say this now, I am not a member of Christ embassy. I have also discovered that when you have no reason or when you do not know what to say, you declare reasonable fellows as liars.

The whole thread has become about the Catholic Church.

Is the Catholic Church the reason for the billions of denominations and contradictory doctrines among protestants?

Is it the Catholic Church that is breaking them up and forcing them to teach contradictory doctrines?

italo:

But the Bible supported using church money to buy private jets?

U dn't answer my question, rather u r diverting, dat some pastors r wrong doesn't justify d use of images in d cath ch. Beside, d bible did nt condem it like it clearly condems ur fetish practises.
But i tell u most solemnly dat d use of dos images will stand against catholics on dia judgement day because it is clearly written in Ex.20:4-5, Deut.5:7-9, Rom.1:23,25, etc. Or wic bible verse wil u use 2 justify d use of dos graven images?

asco15:
U dn't answer my question, rather u r diverting, dat some pastors r wrong doesn't justify d use of images in d cath ch. Beside, d bible did nt condem it like it clearly condems ur fetish practises.
But i tell u most solemnly dat d use of dos images will stand against catholics on dia judgement day because it is clearly written in Ex.20:4-5, Deut.5:7-9, Rom.1:23,25, etc. Or wic bible verse wil u use 2 justify d use of dos graven images?

Then the images in the Ark of the Covenant will stand against Joshua and all the Israelites on judgement day abi...

Amen! Amen! I think we Catholics will like to stand next to Joshua on judgement day.

Amen!

italo:

Meaning the god samiramis compiled the bible.

You also worship it then.

she introduces an anti-GOD practise into d ch, and dat may b after d compiling of d bible. But u hvn't stil answer my question. Hw did d use of graven images came into d ch, years after d early apostles were no more? Did God ask d ch 2 use dos images 2 worship Him?

Some of the matters highlighted below are the reasons why the Roman Catholic claims must be confronted ---- especially when they are doctrinally detrimental and/or false!

adsonstone: ... These clearly suggest the 'Catholic Church' has more authority than recorded words of Christ in the Bible

Yep, for example Jesus says "I am the Way" to be saved; Roman Catholics say a person must submit to the "pope" to be saved"

This one clearly says you only believe the bible because the catholic church told you to believe it....meaning if you are told to disbelieve in it tomorrow by the catholic church, you will.

Almost unbelievably, this is true! If Bergoglio were to be filled with the Holy Spirit and organise Vatican III to take Vatican II further and undo the lunacies of Trent and especially Vatican I, and tell them to call us brothers and not "separated brethren" anymore, I expect they will comply. The only problem Bergoglio would face is that he would have to openly admit that Roman Catholic claims of "infallibility" are hogwash; something that Vatican II just couldn't bring itself to do even though it did change things from Vatican I. (Although people like Ratzinger would say it only "clarified" some things about Vatican I; na so!)

Now we can determine who the liar is.

Now let me put this straight to you...I also need a straight and definite answer
Which is more superior? The words of the head of the Church (Christ) recorded by the apostles in the bible or the words said by the Catholic Church?

I am happy to supply an example for this test!

Roman Catholic Church

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. (‘Pope’ Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; statement made ex cathedra, thus ‘infallibly’!)

Versus

Jesus Christ

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

You're the one going in circles with the excuse that the Catholic Church compiled the bible. Well, the good news is that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEVER WROTE IT....and definitely, they don't have the authority to change or twist it, there's a punishment for that (Read Revelation 22:18-19)

They never wrote it! They did NOT even compile it! They are LYING when they claim to have "compiled" the Bible!

No, I do not. Do you also believe the whole world should should adhere to the scripture interpretation of the catholic church?

Heart of the matter.

My aim of reasoning with you?
I wouldn't have even reasoned with you if you had not first replied my post on page 7 of this thread.

It's not even only about reasoning. It is also, if not more, about countering the falsehoods they are trying to spread! They were spreading poisonous propaganda right from page 1 that the only way for there to be Christian unity is if every one submits to the Roman catholic "pope".

In Roman Catholic documents and theology, this is called "universal jurisdiction". Meanwhile one of the better Bishops of Rome who they call "pope"* i.e. Gregory I said that any bishop who claims to be universal bishop is a precursor of antiChrist. Yep, a Roman Catholic "pope" said so!



* The word "pope" is actually not different from some expressions that we often disparage like "papa" (it does mean papa) or "Daddy G.O."

Matthew 15:8-9.
This people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
9. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

adsonstone:

You say I tell lies?
We'll examine previous comments and conclude who the liar is.
You have implied all these I said in many of your previous statements.
Examine these statements of yours

These clearly suggest the 'Catholic Church' has more authority than recorded words of Christ in the Bible

This one clearly says you only believe the bible because the catholic church told you to believe it....meaning if you are told to disbelieve in it tomorrow by the catholic church, you will.

Now we can determine who the liar is.

Now let me put this straight to you...I also need a straight and definite answer
Which is more superior? The words of the head of the Church (Christ) recorded by the apostles in the bible or the words said by the Catholic Church?

A senseless question and conclusion.

God the Father is not competing against Jesus the Son. Jesus is not competing against his body, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not competing against the written teachings of God-Jesus just as it is not competing against the unwritten teachings of God-Jesus. But just as God authorized his Son to Come to earth, his Son gave authority to the Church to minister and the Catholic Church gave authority to the Bible. It doesnt mean any one is superior to the other.

adsonstone:
You're the one going in circles with the excuse that the Catholic Church compiled the bible. Well, the good news is that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEVER WROTE IT....and definitely, they don't have the authority to change or twist it, there's a punishment for that (Read Revelation 22:18-19)

The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Or have you changed your mind?

adsonstone:
By the way, I have not mentioned Pastor Chris so far neither have I said I am a member of Christ embassy (I have not also named any Priest in the catholic churches). I don't know why you are bringing him into this. (This is out totally of our conversation). Besides, all your criticism have made you type the wrong thing (check your post or what I quoted).

I never said you worship at Christembassy. I brought him in to show how you lot are confused despite the fact that you are using the bible. This thread is about denominations and their contradictory doctrines so how is he out of it. How can you people decide the true doctrine in your confusion?

adsonstone:
No, I do not. Do you also believe the whole world should should adhere to the scripture interpretation of the catholic church?

I believe they should. Though it is not a must. I believe so because I'm convinced it is God's true doctrine.

Why shouldn't the world adhere to you doctrine if it is God's doctrine?

adsonstone:
I never claimed to have known the full ones, I only claim to know the ones in the Bible.

You could be misunderstanding the Bible to your destruction as Peter said. Or are you perfect and incapable of misunderstanding the Bible?

adsonstone:
Now we can decide who carries the 'madness'.
.and I should say this now, I am not a member of Christ embassy. I have also discovered that when you have no reason or when you do not know what to say, you declare reasonable fellows as liars.

Meaning you believe what mko2005 has been saying.

That Catholics dont believe in scripture they compiled.
That Catholics believe all non-Catholics are hell bound...

Those are not lies abi?

Yet you say you're 'reasoning' with me...lol

Do you follow oral tradition like the bible commands Christians to?

If you dont, your doctrine and practice is unscriptural.

italo:

Go and learn about bible history.

Even the olodos have learnt a thing or two about the bible from this thread.

U haven't still ans any of my questions, wic means dat u r practising wat u dn't knw.

Here is another one I made earlier https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic#15219843

Before any of the things/events which the Roman Catholics claim to be where they set "the Canon" of the Bible, the Eastern Orthodox people had already looooong identified "the Canon" of the Bible.

The things events claimed by the Roman Catholics as where "they" established "the Canon" of the Bible are:

1. Council of Rome 382; this has been questioned and the supposed list of Bible books identified with it shown to be a forgery or at least a document produced hundreds of years later; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum

2. Synod of Hippo 393 --- this was actually simply a regional synod of African churches!

3. Synods of Carthage 397 etc --- again these were regional synods of African churches!

4. Council of Trent 1546 etc --- this is truly where the Roman Catholics set their canon, at least finally; see how late, how recent i.e. 16th century!

Compare with Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter of AD 367 --- at least 15 years before number 1 above (Rome 382); this is also before one goes to study the contribution of people like Origen also of Alexandria going back nearly 200 years even earlier!

Part of Athanasius' Letter of 367 http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

asco15:
she introduces an anti-GOD practise into d ch, and [b]dat may b [/b]after d compiling of d bible. But u hvn't stil answer my question. Hw did d use of graven images came into d ch, years after d early apostles were no more? Did God ask d ch 2 use dos images 2 worship Him?

LMAO! "Dat may be." You are not even sure. So it means you are not sure if the Bible was compiled by the god samiramis?

This is how low hatred for the Church has made you go.

Why are you asking me about images when you are reading samiramis' book and worshipping her?

Abi you want me to start quoting samiramis book for you?

asco15:
U haven't still ans any of my questions, wic means dat u r practising wat u dn't knw.

Pls which question again, my funny friend?

italo:

Then the images in the Ark of the Covenant will stand against Joshua and all the Israelites on judgement day abi...

Amen! Amen! I think we Catholics will like to stand next to Joshua on judgement day.

Amen!

God directed moses to build d ark of covenant, and Jesus is nw d new covenant. Did God ask d cath ch 2 mould images of Jesus, Mary and all d saints and to bow before dem? U hvn't ans my question: how did d use of images came into d ch? Wen we knw dat d early apostles only worship God in truth and in spirit.

italo:

LMAO! "Dat may be." You are not even sure. So it means you are not sure if the Bible was compiled by the god samiramis?

This is how low hatred for the Church has made you go.

Why are you asking me about images when you are reading samiramis' book and worshipping her?

Abi you want me to start quoting samiramis book for you?

italo:

LMAO! "Dat may be." You are not even sure. So it means you are not sure if the Bible was compiled by the god samiramis?

This is how low hatred for the Church has made you go.

Why are you asking me about images when you are reading samiramis' book and worshipping her?

Abi you want me to start quoting samiramis book for you?

As i earlier said, the bible has existed before the Roman cath ch existd. The old testaments was seperate and the gospels and letters were seperate, so d bible was never written by d cath ch, and there is no book written by samiramis. So dat d cath ch was in possesion of d bible dn't make ha d writer or author. Even d last book of Rev. Was written by John. So dn't say dat samiramis owns d bible. U stil dn't knw hw images enterd d ch i gues.

asco15:

God directed moses to build d ark of covenant, and Jesus is nw d new covenant. Did God ask d cath ch 2 mould images of Jesus, Mary and all d saints and to bow before dem? U hvn't ans my question: how did d use of images came into d ch? Wen we knw dat d early apostles only worship God in truth and in spirit.

Yes. God permits the Catholic Church to use images of holy people to draw the minds of the people to holiness.

The apostles had images, Joshua had images, Catholics have images. Yet we all worship God in truth and spirit.

You worship samiramis and her book.

Idolatry! Idolatry!

Why?

asco15:
she introduces an anti-GOD practise into d ch, and dat may b after d compiling of d bible.

The Church already had images and venerated Mary and the saints before they compiled the Bible.

If you worship their Bible, you're a samiramis worshipper!