Have you lost your marbles or something? Did the quote from the pope say "honour" instead of "worship"??

I quoted you and you didn't quote a Pope. If you do not understand english language, that is not my problem.
Anyway I am not going to get into the Mary issue with you. That's your blindness and hatred, and it is up to God to judge you on how you treat His Mother.
Omenuko has responded well to you.

~Lady~:

I quoted you and you didn't quote a Pope. If you do not understand english language, that is not my problem.
Anyway I am not going to get into the Mary issue with you. That's your blindness and hatred, and[i] it is up to God to judge you on how you treat His Mother[/i].
Omenuko has responded well to you.

Holy flying spaghetti monster

Did u just mention God  and Mother of God WTF!!!

The ferouscity with which u are using to defend the Roman Catholic Church even against things clearly stated/written in the Bible is starting to change from merely being amusing to downright scary .


@lady

I don't get it, why have u become so hostile all of a sudden. You sincerely were not like this a few months ago. What happened.

You be responding almost as if its a war and not a discussion. Haba pipe down. At the end of the day:

- If u are right and others are wrong then those who are wrong go to hell or otherwise the reverse is true.

So in as much as discussion is good and its good for u to win. At least put it in context that winning or losing the discussion is not really the goal; instead the salvation of the soul is.

Abeg cool cool temper 

chukwudi44 link=topic=.msg:

@topic

So you agree that your greedy pastors are extorting money from their cnfused congregation for purchase of private jets and other materiaslistic things .

The word of the Lord makes it clear in galatians 5:4 that anyone who depends on the law to make themselves straight with christ has been cut off from grace,since he has rejected the sacrifice made by Jesus on the cross of calvarly.

Your greedy pastors for the love of money repudiate the sacrifice of the cross,it's not for me to condemn them I leave them for God.

With respect, the same way Catholics take up weekly/monthly collection to maintain their buildings, buy wine for communion, donations etc, the same goes for Christian (tithing) churches.

b) Let;s look at John 3:3. After reading this verse you'll agree that water baptism is a sign or a show that you are a new creature in Christ.

Why Catholics confirmed (recite the catechism (sp)) people instead of baptising them?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Pray for me and I'll pray for yoyou

@~Lady~,

Unfortunately, your latest replies are repeating the denials you already made in spite of the fact that I have already answered all your objections and given articulate pointers from Catholic sources. Your cyclic replies are not quite establishing anything for your position, and after summarizing them once again, I'll point you to the one serious issue that you tried to excuse away - the worship of Mary.

~Lady~:

Then why do you even bother?

I gave you the benefit of doubt.

~Lady~:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not aware of what the 'popery' really is. So the question is was Peter the leader of the Apostles or not?

Nope - and I already addressed it.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4093584

~Lady~:

Did Christ give him the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven or not?

That does not make Peter a Pope.

~Lady~:

What do those Keys mean?

Keys of the Kingdom does not mean Popery.

~Lady~:

What does it mean to bind and loose? Or to Shut and to open?

Binding and losing was not given to just one person you assume to be pope - Matt. 18:18-19.

~Lady~:

No the first 'daft' person would be St. Ignatius of Antioch who used it in 100AD, he was the successor of Peter in Antioch and an apprentice of St. John who wrote the gospel. He also was the child who sat on Jesus' lap in the gospel.

Lol, so Ignatius was 'daft'? I didn't know.
Yet, Ignatius did not use the term "Catholic" as a "name" of any church, and it was Cyril of Jerusalem in A. D. 350 who specifically used the term 'Catholic' as the 'peculiar name' of the church - just as I said previously.

~Lady~:

Like I said the One, Holy, Catholic, Church, not the Roman Catholic Church as it is but one part of the Catholic Church. If you cannot deal with that simple truth and would like to turn a blind eye to it, that is not my problem, it is entirely yours. The Church doesn't cease to be Catholic bcus you say so.

That is not my porblem - the Catholic sources I cited are the ones making the very inference I posted. If you can't deal with it, what is my worry?

~Lady~:

1) I was making my own statement, I don't ride on anyone's coat tails.

Your statements or opinions don't count as far as Catholic authorities cited in my replies are concerned.

~Lady~:

2) The word used in Luke 1:42 for Lord is Kyrios or Adonai, and we very well know that those words are reserved for God alone, you would be better acquainted with the word Adonai, so if Elizabeth calls Mary the Mother of Adonai, how does that not equate to Elizabeth calling her the Mother of God, or is Adonai no longer God?

Luke 1:42 has no instance of the word 'Lord', perhaps you meant verse 43. Be that as it may, we know the Bible nowhere refers to Mary as the 'Mother of God' - that is merely Catholic tradition dribbled into that verse. Referring to Mary as the "mother of God" would require Catholics to tell us where they put the Father - is the Father not God, and is Mary the mother of God in referrence to the Father?

The Bible shows clearly that God and Lord are not to be confused as far as relationships in our redemption is concerned. This distinction is given in 1 Corinthians 8:6 --

        But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;
        and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Reading that verse, would it be correct to say that Mary was ever know as "mother of GOD" (ie., the Father)? Does Luke 1:43 not rather say "mother of my Lord" instead of "God"? Try not dribbling in "God" into Luke 1:43 in order to maintain the fallacy of theotokos. As to relationships, Mary is never called anywhere 'mother of God' - that is a fallacy that did not originate from the teachings of the apostles.

~Lady~:

3) Theotokos, means God-bearer, last I checked Mary gave birth to God, either that or Jesus isn't God. Take your pick.

Please make up your mind on the meaning of theotokos - Mother of God or God-bearer? Even those who have tried to translate the term know for certain that it is awkward to refer to it as "Mother of God" (for mother in Greek is mētēr). Mary did not "give birth" to God, for God has always been before anything and anyone else.

Second, to refer to Mary as the one who gave birth to God would raise another question of whether Mary gave brith to the 'FATHER'. This is especially the case (as regarding divine relationships in our redemption and worship), for the standard phrase among the apostles between 'God' and 'Lord' has always been that the FATHER is God and Jesus Christ is Lord. Romans 1:3 points out (as all other passages as regarding the Incarnation) that "Jesus Christ our Lord" who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, not according to His Deity. Galatians 4:4 also bears the same point. In the other connections between 'God' and 'Lord', the apostles did not confuse matters in support of the 5th century fallacy of theotokos.

~Lady~:

There is no other logical way you can explain that. Also it isn't 'romish' to call Mary the Theotokos, it is rather Catholic to do so.

It is both romish and Catholic to call Mary what Scripture does not call her; and there's no romish logic that can dribble in that fallacy into Scripture to make it say what it does not say. Theotokos does not appear once in Scripture.

~Lady~:

And anyone who's studied the history of Christianity will see that Mary has always been regarded as the Theotokos.

Nope, Mary has not 'ALWAYS' been regarded as theotokos - that's another Catholic tradition that has tried to maintain what history does not reveal. Please point out the EXACT phrase in the Bible where Mary is called "theotokos" - just no excuses, please.

~Lady~:

Not just that, even the Eastern Orthodox Christians who are no longer identified as Catholic call her the Theotokos. Even Martin Luther who started the revolt called Mary the Theotokos.

And what did the apostles in the Bible call her?

~Lady~:

In denying Mary as the God-bearer, you are indirectly denying Jesus as God.

Nope - rather, in asserting Mary as God-bearer, you are directly interpolating a 5th century romish tradition into Luke 1:43 that says nothing about Mary being called such.

~Lady~:

In denying Mary as the Mother of God, you are indirectly denying Jesus as God.

Nope, in making Mary the mother of God, you're indirectly ignoring the FACT that "God" also applies to the Father. Is Mary the mother of the FATHER?

~Lady~:

Which is the actual reason why the title was given to Mary.

It was given to Mary by those who were too eager to establish their own heresy to perpetuate the worship of Mary; it was not found anywhere among the apostles.

~Lady~:

Because of those who denied the divinity of Christ.

Lol, from the apostles the divinity of Christ was known all through Christian history - that confession did not vanish at anytime in Christian history other than Catholic tradition trying to make it appear so. However, even though the apostles affirmed the Deity of Christ, they did not once name Mary as the mother of Deity, for they knew that in essence there was ONLY ONE GOD -- as seen in 1 Corinthians 8:6 >>

       But to us there is but one God, the Father,
       of whom are all things, and we in him;

       and one Lord Jesus Christ,
       by whom are all things, and we by him.

To stretch Luke 1:43 to call Mary what she was never called is to dubiously read "God" into that verse whereas the verse only mentions "Lord", not "God". Catholicism has no anchor in Scripture for making Mary the mother of GOD by pretending that was what Luke 1:43 says when it clearly does NOT say so. Mary is NOT the 'mother of God'; for to us the confession of our redemption is "there is but one God, the Father", which does not deny the DEITY of Christ.

~Lady~:

Infact their argument was that God couldn't have a mother and because Jesus has a mother he couldn't be God.

That has been the dubious charge of the Catholic Church in trying to obfuscate the real issue for the heresy of theotokos. The basic question that led to the council of Ephesus in 431 AD was this:

       was Christ God in hypostatic union with the man Jesus, or was God dwelling in him?

It was basically a question of whether Christ had one or two natures - not about a denial of His DEITY.

~Lady~:

The difference between you and them is that you do not go so far as to say that Jesus couldn't be God because he has a mother. If you will say that God cannot have a mother then you are also saying that Jesus cannot be God because he has a mother, and you cannot deny that Jesus has a mother and that the Bible does call Mary his mother.

You've totally confused my position to make that up.
The question is not about whether Christ was DEITY, but rather that -

1. the verse you quoted (Luke 1:42) does not call Mary the "Mother of God"
- You made the bold claim that Mary was CALLED such in that verse. That is FALSE and shamelessly so, for that verse DOES NOT CALL Mary theotokos or mother of God.

2. God cannot have a 'mother' in so far as:

            (a) the mother is the creature who cannot precede the Creator

            (b) the appellation "mother of God" is romish tradition, not Scripture

            (c) in divine relationships, the apostles spoke of GOD the Father and
                 Jesus Christ the Lord

            (d) "mother of GOD" begs the question of whether Mary was mother of the FATHER

3. The appellation "theotokos", although it did not originate from the apostles, it nonetheless became a 5th century official romish title that has become the bastion of the worship of Mary.

~Lady~:

4) The reason for rejecting Catholicism, is because you have absolutely zero knowledge of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, and are clearly unaware of the beliefs of early christians.

The reason for my rejecting Catholicism is simply that it cannot be Biblically defended. The many things you have tried to dribble into the Bible that are simply NOT THERE is one more confirmation for anyone with a conscience to reject it.

~Lady~:

More and more protestants/pastors/theologians/historians agree that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is the better fit, and most logical.

Nope, for even your claim here simply self-destructs when asked to show where they find ANYONE in the Bible worshipping Mary. Ask them, and they would be as silent or vacuously assertive and yet never be able to point to the Bible for their assertions. These same theologians will get stuck on such occasions and resort to the default excuses of not basing Catholicism on the Bible but on Romish traditions. 'Better fit' - where?

~Lady~:

Have you forgotten that you were the first one to boast about how people were leaving the Church for the 'truth' and that I was replying to your boast? Hypocritical are we?

Nope, you're alone in your hypocritical adventures. 
People are leaving Catholicism - and that is a statement you can't hypocritically evade.

~Lady~:

I think they should feel sorry for Catholics like you. Your duplicity is one thing that would have been a constant source of embarrassment to them if they remained. Another is the Romish excuses that cannot be found in the Bible ('mother of God' as you claimed for Mary in Luke 1:42). We also know that the Catholic Church is divided today, so why pretend a fictitious 'unity' that is no longer news to anybody in the know? How long ago was sancta on this forum and bleached the pretences of the Vatican - did you try to cough back then to join hands with him for the smokescreen you're parading here now?

Ok sure whatever.
Whomever is not in union in Rome is not Catholic. Plain and simple, you know it, I know it. There is no division. If you place yourself outside of the Church, you are outside of the Church, no matter how much you try to call yourself Catholic. That was my whole point on the 'catholic' and 'Catholic' crap you were trying to pass off here.

'Crap'? Heheha! I was quoting your own Catholic sources - and if they've been talking crap, I can well bear with their crapola. And sorry, I never have and never will call myself Catholic. Your reactive shakara here has nothing to do with my quote you were replying to, so what crapola was all that about? Where's your verse for "('mother of God' as you claimed for Mary in Luke 1:42)"? And the fictitious "unity" of Catholicism?? These were issues you quoted from my reply that you did not address, other than now turn inward to refer to the Catholic sources distinguishing between 'catholic' and 'Catholic' as. .  crap?
I really don't think filling pages with vacant assertions and not being able to discuss issues is working out well for your arguments. But it's your choice.

~Lady~:

Contradictions would come - and though it is deplored, that is an acknowledged Biblical fact (1 Cor. 11:18-19)! It brings out another fact: that those who understand God's Word may stand out from the unfounded compromises that have nothing to do with the apostles.

No contradictions in the Church Christ founded. Contradiction is confusion. Yet you all claim to be in the Church that Christ founded. When did Christ found contradiction.

Did I claim anywhere that Christ founded any contradiction? Are you just breezily making these knee-jerk answers to cover up for the gasp you can't deal with in Catholicism? Oh, there certainly are contradictions in Catholicism that Christ did not originate - I've pointed a few of these issues out which are recognized by Catholics themselves: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4093580 - did I claim there that Christ founded any contradictions? Why are you ducking the real gist and covering up with such cobwebs?

~Lady~:

For one, the Holy Spirit does not contradict His Word. Now, how have you been able to show the touch of the Holy Spirit in your duplicity of claiming what is not in His Word?  The examples I've outlined above should do for now; and if you have a short memory, where in Luke 1:42 did you find that Mary is called the 'mother-of-God'? How can you quote that verse and lie brashly and without conscience?

This is based on your assumption that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible and that you are the one who is seeing the message in the Bible clearly. With all the contradictions going on in the Churches that claim to be of Christ and directed by the Holy Spirit, how do you know that you have the correct interpretation or understanding and they do not? Are you the infallible interpreter? Are you without sin that when you read the Bible you infallibly interpret it?

Lady, PLEASE, PLEASE and PLEASE, minimise your abracadabra of switching issues.
I had no assumptions to make for YOUR CLAIM that Mary was CALLED "mother of God" in Luke 1:42; and I asked - "where in Luke 1:42 did you find that Mary is called the 'mother-of-God'?" You haven't addressed that query but are making excuses to argue silently away from that clear pointer. Your duplicity is NOT my assumption - you made the claim, I asked you to show me where that verse ever CALLED Mary what you said it did; what has that got to do with whether I was an "infallible interpreter"?

~Lady~:

The unchanging interpretation and teaching of the Church for 2000 years is proof enough.
'How is it that the MOTHER OF MY LORD will come to me?' Who is the Lord here and who is the Mother? Who is being called the Mother of the Lord?

The "mother of my Lord" is not the same thing as "Mary is CALLED the Mother of God in the BIBLE". Your bold brash claim was this:
         ______________________________________________________

          It makes no sense that Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible
          and you say it doesn't Luke 1:42.

          see here:
          https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4091530
         ______________________________________________________

PLEASE, ~Lady~, PLEASE . . where in the BIBLE was Mary ever CALLED the "mother of God"?   Yes indeed, I say it doesn't - so please don't wave your abracadabra in our faces - no excuses, just show where that verse or any other in the BIBLE says what you claimed she was CALLED. There is no "theotokos" in that verse or any other - so please point us to your own Bible that claimed to CALL Mary what is not in ANY Bible. Please eh, thank you.

~Lady~:

Yet we're the only ones quoting scripture that have to do with the topic. And you guys are the ones making accusations without backing it up, and without biblical basis. hmmmmmmmmm

Please show us the verse where you're the only ones QUOTING SCRIPTURE for theotokos - that is all. Anyone can claim that they're quoting scripture, whereas as in your case they're only doing so to bend Scripture to say what it does not say. Luke 1:42 does not CALL Mary the "mother of GOD" - where did you get that quote from in Scripture?

~Lady~:

It is rather convenient to quote a passage that has nothing to do with the topic. We were talking about apostolic successions which deals with the power to preach, heal, and all that.

Sorry, that inconvenience might just be apt in describing the way you reply to posts.

~Lady~:
Where does the power to cast out demons equate to preaching? Did the man preach the gospel, did Christ commission him to preach?

What did you just say above that quote? Here:
"We were talking about apostolic successions which deals with
the power to preach, heal, and all that"
Was the said man in Mark 9:38-40 not also healing? And was he doing so because he was "commissioned" by "apostolic succession"?

~Lady~:

All Christians can cast out demons but not all christians can preach.

Where did you get that from?

~Lady~:

In all my biblical posts, I showed apostolic succession, and every single one of them had to do with preaching, not casting out demons, so where did you get the casting out demons from it?

At least in this reply you've made, you have included "preaching" as part of "apostolic succession" - which was how I saw you were arguing away previously. Inspite of that, I also showed clearly that there were many who were not commissioned with any "apostolic succession" and yet went about PREACHING - Acts 8:1 & 4.

~Lady~:

heheh omo u try sha, but not well enough. All your OPINION.

Once again, you state YOUR OPINION and backed up YOUR OPINION. Nothing about facts here

Lol, you always have a way of shouting "your OPINION" when you can't deal with an issue. Nice try.

~Lady~:

We don't see the authority "transferred" to romish Popery.

ROTFLMAO
But you DO see authority being TRANSFERRED. So you cannot say there was not supposed to be apostolic succession, and that's why you're about to switch positions.
It not being transferred to romish popery is YOUR OPINION.

You quoted Luke 22:29 immediately before making the statement: "Now we see that authority transferred to others." (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4091530) That verse has nothing to do with "transferring" any authority for "apostolic succession" nor establishing romish Popery. Together with verse 30, they read:

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The Lord Jesus was not pointing to "apostolic succession" nor was He pointing to romish papacy. It is obvious He was speaking to the apostles and made clear from v. 25-26 that He did not have in mind the idea of romish "apostolic succession" - The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so . . That it is not a "transfer" to romish Popery is not my opinion, as there's nothing there to indicate Popery there.

~Lady~:

Roman Catholicism "claims" apostolic succession from Peter does not necessarily make it so. For one, the issue of Acts 1:15-26 you quoted has nothing to do with ROME. That meeting took place in Jerusalem (see verse 12), not Rome. Second, all that the Catholic church can claim is "tradition" - that is why none of you can open the Bible and show us the Papacy in a single verse there.

And YOU DO SWITCH POSITIONS. Apparently there IS apostolic succession that you claim was not existent. Now your position is that it wasn't in Rome, and that is rather a poor position, bcus we can very clearly see St. Paul writing about apostolic succession, he certainly wouldn't exclude Rome from it.

You're the one too busy switiching positions and trying to force Romish papacy into Paul's epistles -quite a poor magical act. Again, the issue of Acts 1:15-26 which YOU quoted had nothing to do with ROME, and rather than deal with it, you typically are glibbly passing it off as my opinion.

~Lady~:

So there is proof that it is in Rome, now the question is was Peter ever in Rome? Well 1st and 2nd Peter certainly tells us that he was in Rome, not just that, history tells us that he was in Rome, or is it that you haven't studied history my dear? Maybe you should?

Please softly-softly with this abracadabra!
You quoted Acts 1:15-26, and I pointed out that it had nothing to do with ROME. That meeting took place in JERUSALEM, not Rome. I also pointed out that Peter had his base in Jerusalem and that was the place he often went out from, as well returned to after he accomplished whatever he went to do. There is no verse that points that Peter established any such thing as the Romish Papacy, and your best shot at trying to dance away from your own quote of Acts 1:15-26 is hilarious.

~Lady~:

The papal authority has nothing to do with Rome. Infact several councils were not held in Rome, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Basically all you're saying is that if Obama were to hold a meeting in England it means he isn't the President of America. How does a meeting being held in England take away from Obama being President of America? or better yet How does a meeting being held in Jerusalem take away from Peter being the Bishop of Rome?
Infact that logic is perfectly flawed as we see that it isn't only Peter that is present in Rome, but several other Bishops, certainly you cannot say that those Bishops were all Bishops of Jerusalem instead of their respective provinces because they were present at the council in Jerusalem.
And not just that, it is also saying the Paul never traveled to other places to preach and that he didn't found the other churches because he was in Jerusalem.

Nice try, but the Obama thingy here is a weak diversionary tactic; and as far as I did not produce it, you made up your own fallacy and are at the same time attacking it - that's commonly referred to as "strawman argument".
Someone being at Rome or anywhere else does not equate to his being Bishop of Rome - it is much as to think that your logic for Obama being in England at anytime would translate as his being the 'President' of England (whereas England has no "President". So, your strawman argument simply self-destructs, but nice try.

~Lady~:

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem that's why he was more prominent there. But it still doesn't take away from Peter being the Pope.

True, James was a leader in Jerusalem; but so was Peter - in Jerusalem. There's not a hint in Scripture where Peter went about as a Pope - that would simply again by Catholic tradition which is a limp logic as far as Scripture is concerned.

~Lady~:

This was also the beginning of the Church it wasn't fully established that Peter's seat would permanently be in Rome. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch not Jerusalem before he moved to Rome.

Another abracadabra, not so?
What you're arguing is simply the vacant assertions of romish traditions which ahve no bearing in Scripture.

~Lady~:

The Church was birthed in Jerusalem and Acts talks of the first days of the Church, clearly almost everyone was still there in the beginning before moving out. Acts does not only talk about Peter being in Jerusalem, it continues to talk about Peter moving to the land of the gentiles certainly Rome cannot be excluded since later we see that Paul talks about building on another man's foundation, this was after Peter founded the Church in Rome.

Again, Catholic abracadabra. Throughout in Acts, Peter's base was Jerusalem, not Rome. He did not "transfer" any seat from Jerusalem to Rome; nor did Paul suggest any papacy for Peter. When Peter went to Antioch where Paul withstood him to his face for not walking according to the Gospel, Peter had come from Jerusalem, not Rome.

~Lady~:

The councils are presided over by the Bishop of the place where the council is being held, that doesn't take away from Peter being the leader of the apostles, or Peter being the Pope.

Catholic tradition repeated over and over is a convenient way of ducking the fact that Scripture does not read Peter as being Pope ANYWHERE.

~Lady~:
Bottom line, Peter holds the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the other apostles did not get those keys.

Once again YOUR OPINION.

Nope, bottomline is that you had tried to make Peter the Pope by dribbling in all those vacuous statements that argue away from Scripture.

~Lady~:

Ah, there - "the Church has grown" - what 'Church' are you talking about? Where is the romish papacy in all this? Please relax - stop shamelessly dragooning the Biblical history to cover up for your Papacy that the apostle knew nothing about!

Well ofcourse the Church has grown that was why they ORDAINED deacons. That was why Apostolic Succession took place.

No Papacy there, sorry.

~Lady~:

Ok where in my post did I say that the Church in Antioch started in Acts 13?

Did I say that was what you said?

~Lady~:

My point is apostolic succession took place, and this is seen in the laying on of hands, and Acts 13 talks about laying on of hands.

Acts 13 is NOT apostolic succession - those who had hands laid on them had ALREADY been teaching long before Acts 13 -- which was why I went back and drew up the background from chapter 8 through chapter 11 to chapter 13 to show the history of the Church in Antioch.

~Lady~:

So how about you start using Biblical passages to refute what I am actually talking about not what I wasn't talking about.

Repeatedly done.

~Lady~:

Well you would've had me there, except it doesn't talk about those people preaching. Where does it say that they preached. They were scattered because they were running for their lives, but where does it say that they ran to go preach the gospel. Actually the people that are spoken of preaching are those we see who've been ORDAINED.

~Lady~, please slow down on your magical trail. That same Acts chapter 8 showed that those who had been scattered abroad went about PREACHING the Word. Let me quote it for you:

Verse 1 -
And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great
persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem;
and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and
Samaria, except the apostles.

Verse 4 -
Therefore they that were scattered abroad
went every where preaching the word.

Your assertions and questions were:

(a) it doesn't talk about those people preaching

(b) where does it say that they preached?

(c) they were scattered because they were running for their lives

(d) but where does it say that they ran to go preach the gospel?

From those two verses of Acts 8:1 and 4, we read that -

(i) [verse 1] - they were all scattered abroad. . .

(ii) [verse 4] - they that were scattered abroad. .

(iii) [verse 4] - went EVERY WHERE preaching the word

Where in those verses did it say that those who were scattered abroad were ORDAINED? At least, I have now AGAIN shown you that those who preached the Word every where were the very same people who were scattered abroad - without having been "ordained" by anybody or had hands laid on them. Please, ~Lady~, kindly show me where in those verses you read of anyone claiming to have been "ORDAINED" - no excuses, just quote the verses and show where it said so.

I'm quite used now to your Catholic abracadabra - forcing your arguments into the Bible to make it say what it does not say. These verses clearly stand as they wewre quoted and discussed in my previous reply. Since you're magically force-fitting your "ORDAINED" into them, can you please kindly show where that word is written anywhere, or simply acknowledge you were trying to force your idea into those texts? No excuses, please - just show the verse, thanks.

~Lady~:

Barnabas and Paul were ordained.

They ALREADY were preaching and teaching BEFORE the ordination in Acts 13.

~Lady~:

Before Barnabas goes to Antioch, Antioch received the message most likely from Nicholas who was a convert from Antioch. This is evidence that the Apostles had already preched to the Antiochans.

That is tradition, not "evidence" - you cannot be vacantly asserting the same romish abracadabra as "evidence" for what the verses in Scripture do not say. Please show us from Scripture where the highlighted in your quote is written.

~Lady~:

I seriously dislike reminding people of things, it's one of my pet peeves.

Nope, you seriously should mind repeating the same vacant romish assertions and trying to run away with it where you're found dribbling in your magical lines into Scripture.

~Lady~:

Whether Peter was in Nigeria, or Iraq, or Amsterdam, he would still be Pope.

Where in Scripture, abeg eh?

~Lady~:

The Papacy doesn't have to be from Rome. Peter was Pope when he was in Antioch as Bishop, before moving to Rome. I also mentioned 1st&2nd Peter several times look it up

Neither 1st or 2nd Peter show that Peter was Pope anywhere, whether in Antioch, Rome or anywhere else. Just stating it and dribbling away with it does not mean that is what those references say. ANYONE who is gullible enough to allow that lazy assertion to go unscrutinized will easily fall for that claptrap.

~Lady~:

Ok this one is different from the one I wrote how?
How is the Bible a hoax? Is that passage not in the Bible? And does it not talk about people who had no commandment or mandate from the apostles to preach?

Did I say that "the Bible is a hoax"? This is the skit you whip up and yet doesn't work for you. I simply said "your "favourite" interpolation is a hoax" and went on to quote the Bible - does that amount to what you're trying so hard to switch it into?

~Lady~:

Once again Obama being present in England does not make him any less the President of America. You can hold an office and be in other places you know?

Strawman and redherring - since I didn't produce your Obama thingy, what's my worry? No matter how you try to dribble in your ideas, it hasn't helped a tiny dot.

~Lady~:

I know the letter was addressing an issue and it was addressing the issue of your belief that anyone can get up and preach, this verse proves that they have to have a mandate by the apostles to preach.

It "proves" no such thing - because then you would have to explain how those who were scattered abroad went about preaching the Word without any such "mandates" in Acts 8:4.

~Lady~:

So after they established that those who were preaching heresy wasn't from them, what did they do? Just tell them to be careful and to read the Bible well or did they send Ordained preachers to them?
Thanks for proving my point?

Your "point" was not "proved" - you're simply trying to ignore the clear pointer that no one needs your romish mandate to preach the Gospel. I have shown this from Acts 8, and I haven't seen you address that issue other than make excuses for them.

~Lady~:

Which of the preachers were not ordained?

Which one of them was "ordained" in Acts 8:1 & 4 among those that were scattered abroad?

~Lady~:

Apparently you've forgotten that there are more than one versions of the Bible.

Nope, you've tried all sorts and are only dribbling against your own goal post.

~Lady~:

Anyway, how is dispensation different from Office
DISPENSATION

4. Theology. a. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
b. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
c. a divinely appointed order or age: the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation

OFFICE
a position of duty, trust, or authority, esp. in the government, a corporation, a society, or the like

Either way Paul was appointed, a dispensation is an appointment, an office is also an appointment.

I pointed to where Paul used such terms and made clear that he did not do so in Colossians 1:25 that you quoted. This weak excuse you're whipping up there doesn't even come close enough to clear the air for you. Try not reading your own vocab into the texts you quote and then come back making vacuous excuses for them later on.

~Lady~:

This has no bearing (even in context) for the idea of the "successor" thingy for the Popery. Perhaps it might just help here to simply quote the text from the Douay Rheims again and the footnote before commenting on it, yeah? Here:

            Hebrews 7:23
           And the others indeed were made many priests,
           because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue

LOLOLOLOL THIS IS SOO FUNNY. PLIGRIM.1 DOES NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF WORDS. OR CANNOT TELL FROM A PASSAGE WHAT IT IS SAYING. OMO U NO SABI ENGLISH AGAIN.

What's your masquerade dance up there for? I notice you just make noise and pass over what you can't handle. What have you said about Hebrews 7:23? Just what have you said about that verse? No, you would have nothing to say but mask it under your excuses with a silent glib. Do I take it that the reason you passed over it glibly is because you couldn't counter the Catholic source I quoted the footnote from?

~Lady~:

I saw the next point, and cannot wait to get to it, so here it goes

I just want you to know, that I find it very hard to reply to this post, because I am laughing hysterically, my mother thinks I have lost my mind.

Hmm, it's not recently I noticed the hysteria though.

~Lady~:

Girl LAYING OF HANDS IS NOT APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
WHAT IS IT THEN?

What has "neglect not the gift" got to do with "apostolic authority" in that verse - 1 Tim. 4:14? Was the apostle asking him to "neglect not apostolic authority" or rather "the gift"?

~Lady~:

The laying on of hands is ordination but somehow it isn't apostolic authority or sucession? When the laying of hands happened nothing happened? HAHAHA.

The laying on of hands is one thing; dribbling that for all the verses you have tried to paint that picture is another. Acts 13 shows the laying on of hands - but I pointed out that LONG BEFORE Acts 13, both Barnabas and Paul had ALREADY been teaching the Church. You're putting the cart before the horse and arguing away at your strawman.

~Lady~:

LOLOLOL Ok this verse talks about a gift, ok so I guess we need to determine what the gift is.
But he receives this gift by the laying of hands of the presbyter who is also known as the Priest, look it up in the dictiocary presbyter and priest are synonyms, so we see this gift being given by the Priest, and it is NOT apostolic authority?

Nope - presbyter is not to be misconstrued for priest.

The Bible does not teach a separate class of Christians as "priests" - for ALL Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5 & 9 and Revelation 20:6); but not all Christians are "presbyters".

Second, the term "presbyter" (Gr. πρεσβυτέριον, presbuterion) is used in Scripture basically in reference to an "elder" - not "priest", which in Greek is ’ιερευς.

This is why Peter did not refer to himself as a "’ιερευς" (ie., 'priest') but rather called himself a συμπρεσβύτερος (ie., 'co-elder') among other elders [1 Pet. 5:1].

We cannot confuse "presbyter" (Gr. πρεσβυτέριον) for "priest" (’ιερευς) just because many people do so in clear disregard for the appropriate Biblical term of "elder" which is what 'presbyter' means.
       

~Lady~:

How is it not may I ask?

I don't confuse "gift" for "presbyter".

~Lady~:

Um apparently you don't know what transfer means. When you take your knowledge and you give it to another are you not transferring that knowlegde? Let's say your mother gives you the recipe to a cake that apparently is not the act of transferring? hmm thanks for telling me that when something is given to another it isn't being transferred.

You're apparently confusing knowledge for apostleship. Anybody sharing knowledge does not necessarily mean they are sharing apostleship.

~Lady~:

You really think you're clever but you're not. Who's the US John talks about? Is that not the apostles, the bishops, the successors? Who is it?

You're not half-witted to excuse the questions I asked. Was John writing to buttress romish Papacy? I asked you a few questions there -

[list]When John was writing that verse, was he doing so as a Roman Catholic?
Was John asking Christians to adopt Roman Catholicism by that very verse?
Does John's writings anywhere suggest the Popery of Rome?
Do the apostles collective not warn us against the heresies of Rome?
Has the Roman Church not repeatedly violated the very teachings of the apostles?
Has Catholicism not violated Biblical warnings against idolatry and bowing down to image?
Where did the apostles or John teach the worship of Mary and bowing down to graven images?[/list]

You didn't seek to discuss them but just tried to excuse them - nice try, please grasp a stronger exculpation next time, if you may.

~Lady~:

You do the classic thing, when trapped you proceed to your lies.

Nope, I haven't been lying. Your duplicity has all been shown for what they are, and there's no cosmetic you can wear to cover them.

~Lady~:

Girl it doesn't do it anymore, try a different tactic this time. Try addressing the issue at hand.
Does John talk about us listening to the apostles or not? And doesn't the Bible show where the laying on of hands, as in ordination, as in succession, as in transfer takes place?

I've dealt with those issues and addressed them from Scripture. You, on the other hand, try to read your duplicity into the texts and when they fail you, you turn round to accuse me of lying. Should I oblige by teasing you again with my answers:

     *  John did not ask us to listen to romish Papacy, since they knew none.

     *  The apostles did not teach the heresies of Romish rites

     *  So, in listening to the apostles, we can reject the heresies of Romish Catholicism.

The Bible shows the laying on of hands - which I did not deny, as in Acts 13; but I pointed out that there were Christians who were preaching the Word WITHOUT  any such "ordinations". I don't confuse Biblical ordination for romish rites, which you have weakly tried to read into the texts and still are left none-the-wiser for it.

Now, having addressed your worries, can I now ask you to show me answer for your own LIES below?

          WHERE did you find Mary CALLED "mother of GOD" in Luke 1:42?

          WHERE did you find those who were scattered in Acts 8 having been "ORDAINED"?

Please don't even go down the route of the typical romish abracadabra you've been attempting all these while and yet failing so miserably. Just show the verses, highlight where you find the terms there, and no excuses at allo, thank you.

~Lady~:

Girl you need to learn to answer questions. Where in the Bible does it say Bible alone? Is the Bible the only way to get the Gospel? Is the Gospel the Bible?

You need to stop blinding yourself to answers already given.
I do not read romish rites in the Bible - please show where the Bible says what you have claimed from there. If you cannot show them, what is thise miserable excuse you're giving for your low ebb? You claimed that you're the only ones quoting Scripture, abi? Good - show me your dubious statements in Scripture and stop dancing around in this masquaerade.

~Lady~:

Where in Salus Populi Romani did you get Mary?

From the same quote from the Fulgens Corona Encyclical of Pope Pius XII.

~Lady~:

Show me which of those words mean Mary.
You hateful and deceitful woman.

I didn't post anywhere that that those words mean 'Mary'; and it's futile accusing me here, ~Lady~. The quote connects Salus Populi Romani with Mary; nor did I state that it meant 'Mary'. You're desperately clutching at straws and hysterically foaming your frustration, but it might help to go back and see the connection rather than spewing out such yowlings. Here's the quotes again -

      As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for
      the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian
      Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still
      glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary,
      and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani)
      benignly smiles.

see here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4089457

If it helps, here is another pointer for that connection -

      Among many evidences of papal devotion, the current Pope Benedict XVI
      twice referred to Mary as the "Salus Populi Romani" during
      the funeral prayers for his predecessor John Paul II.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salus_Populi_Romani#History

Did any Catholic source point to that same connection? Check out the Catholic EWTN source:

[list]

Final Commendation and Farewell

_{Following the prayer after Communion, the Dean of the College of Cardinals performs the rite of the final commendation and farewell. Standing next to the coffin with the other concelebrants, he invites those present to pray with these words:}

Dear brothers and sisters, we entrust to the most gentle mercy of God the soul of our Pope John Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church, who confirmed his brothers with belief in the resurrection.

We pray to God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit for the deceased, so that, ransomed by death, he may be received in his peace and that his body may rise on the last day.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of the Apostles and savior of the people of Rome, intercede to God for us so that the face of his blessed Son may be shown to our Pope and comfort the Church with the light of the resurrection.

source: http://www.ewtn.com/JohnPaul2/_mourning/ritessummary1.asp
[/list]

You can see why your accusations are futile here. I did not interpret "Salus Populi Romani" to mean 'Mary' - you're the one making that inference and you can as well tear your hair out on your strawman argument. As far as Catholic sources are concerned, Catholic Popes and Bishops have referred to Mary as "Salus Populi Romani" - NOT that the phrase "mean" Mary as you hastily and vacantly tried to hyperventilate upon there.

Rather than pretend to not understand the fact, all you should have done is simply admit that is precisely what Catholic Popes and Bishops have done - they have referred to Mary as "Salus Populi Romani". Accusing me of anything in your frustration is absolutely futile and does not erase the fact.

~Lady~:

What the hell?

Meaning. . ?

~Lady~:

Right, Catholic websites that you never cited.

Why you dey blow lie as easily as you breathe?
If on this issue you skipped it, you should have simply asked.
In pointing this out, I clearly made reference to Catholic sources that publish the very things I've been discussing - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.160.html#msg4083134
("Catholic Exchange" and "Catholic Culture" when I tried to explicate further to Omenuko) - you can't just have skipped that and then rush to say I NEVER cited Catholic sources.

~Lady~:

Did I happen to loose you somewhere? You do know that I was using the Anglicans as an example of people who want to call themselves catholic but really aren't right, and you do knot that particular 'diet catholic' thing was a joke right?

Where did I cross over to base my discussions on Anglicans being referred to as such?

~Lady~:
I don't think we're on the same page anymore

No, you danced around until you forgot your cue.

~Lady~:

So you agree with me?

How?

~Lady~:

So if you're not worried why do you constantly ignore the topic and dash to talk about the poperish romish.

Stop making excuses - you should not have tried dragooning issues to bend them back to romish popery in order to run off on that cheap ticket.

~Lady~:

Oh I am mrs. somebody o, learn to respect.

Really? Lol, I didn't know at your age you could beggar self-worth with your hysteria.

~Lady~:

who be u?

Me.

~Lady~:

Ok EWTN stating that the name is Catholic it is expressing to those who are unaware and who consider the Catholic Church to be a denomination to know that the actual Church founded by Christ is Catholic.

Please look for other excuses. EWTN does not make such excuses and Catholics all over the world know that EWTN addresses them as well - unless you're trying to argue (vacantly) that those who read their articles are "unware" - which would be none other than Catholics themselves. At least now, you agree that Catholic sources make these distinctions - your problem is your futile excuses are not working in your favour to cover the whole issue up.

~Lady~:

However amongst ourselves we know that Catholic is a description of the Church. No Catholic will disagree with me, not even EWTN.

Please drop this excuse - the EWTN did not have to consult you to make up their mind before publishing that article.

~Lady~:

So in an effort to properly correct you, I let you in on how WE view ourselves when we're gathered. If you were to go through the question and answer forums and you come across someone asking on the Church who is Catholic, they will rarely ever ask a question using The Catholic Church, they most likely would use The Church. This is how we know when a person is Catholic. Got it now?

Nope - I bet the EWTN and other sources were not pointing at others but were speaking about themselves. Next excuse, please. . .

~Lady~:

And you do know the meaning of peculiar don't you? Please say you do.

You're grasping at nothing. Was Cyril asking anyone about the meaning of peculiar when he 'daftly' said that the 'peculiar NAME' of the Church was "Catholic"? Are you at pains to sort yourself out on this issue that you pretend to be blind to the fact of the 'daft' Cyril was the one who called it its NAME? NAME? NAME?
Lol, ~Lady~, please look for another romish excuse. The daft Cyril called it a NAME - peculiar or not, he said that was its NAME; not whether anyone has a romish meaning of "peculiar"!

You're just wilting all the more on your exculpations. You do well.

~Lady~:

So you would kindly use wikipedia to prove your point but when it proves your opponents point it is no longer worthy of being used? Are you sure you're no longer a muslim? Cause you sound like one. Well maybe it never really got out of your system.

What has using Wikipedia or not got to do with anyone being Christian or Muslim?
The point I made still stands - one has to be careful when quoting Wikipedia, and the founders of Wikipedia clearly have cautioned about that. We can quote from there, but that in itself does not mean that we cannot scrutinize and discuss what anyone quotes from there. Instead of discussing issues, you're complaining here as if these excuses are solving any of your problems.

~Lady~:

I already showed you the church in the bible, you choose to ignore it it is your own palava.

Nope, I asked you to "show me where in the Bible you find any romish "Catholic Church" there, free from your abracadabra" - that's all. How long are we going to be entertained on your exculpations?

~Lady~:

Actually you're right, it's not the same Philip, but guess what though, he was already ORDAINED. This Philip is one of the 7 ordained by the apostles in Acts 6. So my point still stands. HE WAS ORDAINED. HE WAS COMMISSIONED. HE WAS APPOINTED. does that clarify it for you?

I already know about Acts 6, but I'm not surprised you're dashing back and forth and changing lanes now. I can excuse you on this one, though; but this was what you stated:

       "Philip was an apostle himself, he was commissioned by Christ
        like the other apostles. He was one of Christ's 12 disciples."
        https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4091530

Now, you're abandoning that one and no longer claiming that he was commissioned by Christ. No wahala.   In Acts 6, was Philip there "commissioned" to go and PREACH the Gospel in Acts 8?

I already said this, which you quoted in your reply:

      In Acts 8:5, which one of the apostles "commissioned" Philip before
      he went down to Samaria to preach the Gospel? Please tell us.

You didn't tell us nada - and you who have always sought to make this "commissioning" a matter of PREACHING, please tell us who "commissioned" Philip in Acts 6 for the express purpose of PREACHING.

~Lady~:

It doesn't explicitly state that they were comissioned. But since that isn't the only passage in the Bible and in other passages we see that those who preached were commissioned we can safely assume that they too were commissioned.

Nope, you're trying to read your ideas into the texts, which is not so smart a thing to do.

~Lady~:

You will not find a place in the Bible where those who preached were not commissioned.

I did - and I quoted it for you: Acts 8: 1 & 4.
If you find any verse where it said that those who were scattered abroad were 'commissioned', please post it ans settle the back-and-forth.

~Lady~:

I quoted you and you didn't quote a Pope. If you do not understand english language, that is not my problem.

Sorry, my quote was from a Pope - did you care to check it out?
I clearly quoted Pope Pius XII - that was his quote, and he said plainly "WORSHIP", not "honour".
Again, this was what he said:
   "this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother"
Here is where I quoted him: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4089457
What then is the substance in your charge that I didn't quote a Pope?

~Lady~:

Anyway I am not going to get into the Mary issue with you. That's your blindness and hatred, and it is up to God to judge you on how you treat His Mother.
Omenuko has responded well to you.

Now, that's the big issue - and I anticipated you'd back off on that issue and dribble in another accusation about what you can't defend. When you need to see what Catholic Popes and Bishops have said about worshipping Mary, please let me know - I would be too glad to share them with you.

You guys should stop this ignorant type-happy displays and check out this rhyme: 'If I call Rasque is raz kid, I know wetin I speak so make nobody come harass me'.-Ruggedybaba.

You can substitute Rasque for everyone that has contributed to this thread- except ME of course.

pilgrim.1:

Ok sure whatever.
Whomever is not in union in Rome is not Catholic. Plain and simple, you know it, I know it. There is no division. If you place yourself outside of the Church, you are outside of the Church, no matter how much you try to call yourself Catholic. That was my whole point on the 'catholic' and 'Catholic' crap you were trying to pass off here.

'Crap'? Heheha! I was quoting your own Catholic sources - and if they've been talking crap, I can well bear with their crapola. And sorry, I never have and never will call myself Catholic. Your reactive shakara here has nothing to do with my quote you were replying to, so what crapola was all that about? Where's your verse for "('mother of God' as you claimed for Mary in Luke 1:42)"? And the fictitious "unity" of Catholicism?? These were issues you quoted from my reply that you did not address, other than now turn inward to refer to the Catholic sources distinguishing between 'catholic' and 'Catholic' as. . crap?
I really don't think filling pages with vacant assertions and not being able to discuss issues is working out well for your arguments. But it's your choice.

No contradictions in the Church Christ founded. Contradiction is confusion. Yet you all claim to be in the Church that Christ founded. When did Christ found contradiction.

Did I claim anywhere that Christ founded any contradiction? Are you just breezily making these knee-jerk answers to cover up for the gasp you can't deal with in Catholicism? Oh, there certainly are contradictions in Catholicism that Christ did not originate - I've pointed a few of these issues out which are recognized by Catholics themselves: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4093580 - did I claim there that Christ founded any contradictions? Why are you ducking the real gist and covering up with such cobwebs?

This is based on your assumption that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible and that you are the one who is seeing the message in the Bible clearly. With all the contradictions going on in the Churches that claim to be of Christ and directed by the Holy Spirit, how do you know that you have the correct interpretation or understanding and they do not? Are you the infallible interpreter? Are you without sin that when you read the Bible you infallibly interpret it?

Lady, PLEASE, PLEASE and PLEASE, minimise your abracadabra of switching issues.
I had no assumptions to make for YOUR CLAIM that Mary was CALLED "mother of God" in Luke 1:42; and I asked - "where in Luke 1:42 did you find that Mary is called the 'mother-of-God'?" You haven't addressed that query but are making excuses to argue silently away from that clear pointer. Your duplicity is NOT my assumption - you made the claim, I asked you to show me where that verse ever CALLED Mary what you said it did; what has that got to do with whether I was an "infallible interpreter"?

The "mother of my Lord" is not the same thing as "Mary is CALLED the Mother of God in the BIBLE". Your bold brash claim was this:
______________________________________________________

It makes no sense that Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible
and you say it doesn't Luke 1:42.

see here:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4091530
______________________________________________________

PLEASE, ~Lady~, PLEASE . . where in the BIBLE was Mary ever CALLED the "mother of God"? Yes indeed, I say it doesn't - so please don't wave your abracadabra in our faces - no excuses, just show where that verse or any other in the BIBLE says what you claimed she was CALLED. There is no "theotokos" in that verse or any other - so please point us to your own Bible that claimed to CALL Mary what is not in ANY Bible. Please eh, thank you.

Please show us the verse where you're the only ones QUOTING SCRIPTURE for theotokos - that is all. Anyone can claim that they're quoting scripture, whereas as in your case they're only doing so to bend Scripture to say what it does not say. Luke 1:42 does not CALL Mary the "mother of GOD" - where did you get that quote from in Scripture?

Young Lady you are begining to commit heresy by trying to seperate the Father from the son by kind of imposing a hierechial structure in the trinity.

The fact remains that the huan ind cannever fully comprehend the mystery of the trinity.

we know Jesus existed before the Virgin Mary yet Elizabeth under the influence of the holy spirit addressed her as the mother of my Lord,If she was addressed as the mother of my Lord ,then there is nothing wrong in calling her the Mother of God unless my Lord is not God.

Young Lady better be careful with what you post,this is an advice .By rejecting Mary as the Mother of God You are also rejecting the dogma of the trinity

pilgrim.1:

Lol, please open your Bible and sort yourself out on this. I wasn't lying when I quoted the Bible and showed that there are OTHER DAYS regarded as sabbath. Shall I quote them again? Here:

► In the OT, God speaks of other days of "sabbath"
 the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath - Lev. 23:24
 the seventh day is the sabbath of rest - Lev. 23:3
 the eighth day shall be a sabbath - Lev. 23:39
 in the ninth day of the month at even. . .shall ye celebrate your sabbath
(Lev. 23:27-32)

If you want the quotes in full, here they are as well (all taken from the favourite Catholic version, Douay Rheims):

[list][li]Leviticus 23:24
Say to the children of Israel: The seventh month,
on the first day of the month, you shall keep a sabbath,
a memorial, with she sound of trumpets, and it shall be called holy.[/li]
.
.
[li]Leviticus 23:3
Six days shall ye do work: the seventh day, because it is the rest of the sabbath, shall be called holy. You shall do no work on that day: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your habitations.[/li]
.
.
[li]Leviticus23:39
So from the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you shall have gathered in all the fruits of your land, you shall celebrate the feast of the Lord seven days: on the first day and the eighth shall be a sabbath, that is a day of rest.[/li]
.
.
[li]Leviticus 23:31-32
You shall do no work therefore on that day: it shall be an everlasting ordinance unto you in all your generations, and dwellings. It is a sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls beginning on the ninth day of the month: from evening until evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths.[/li][/list]

Read again through those quotes, and then look again at your claim: "no other day was regarded as sabath" - are you kidding yourself? If no other day was regarded as sabbath, what is the meaning of such statements as -

 'on the first day and the eighth shall be a sabbath'

- and all the highlighted words? I did not lie to you - and the verses are there. Perhaps you're too insecure in your Catholicism to even open your eyes and see plain statements before you hastily launch your accusations unnecessarily.

I understand that; but they also knew the fact that other days besides the seventh day were also known as sabbaths - the verses above point that out. If you're in doubt, you could consult scholarly materials on Judaism that outline the special sabbaths of the Jews.

What are you on about? Did you again read my reply or trying ever so hard to read into my reply?

I quoted straight out of the Mosaic Law to you, didn't I? Which part did you not understand as of the Law?

Nada. Catholics from their own lips have told us exactly what they do, and that is why I take the time to quote directly from your own authority. Of course, there are Protestants who may have some tendency to violate God's Word on many issues; but when worship of Mary becomes an official Catholic doctrine, you need to pull up your socks and take notice.

Speaking for myself, I don't regard Sunday as the sabbath; so I cannot answer for those who think it is so for them.

^{Uhm, first of all, we all make typos - my own sef plenty. But the word is not "f[b]r[/b]agrantly" (sweet smell) but 'f[b]l[/b]agrantly' (notoriously).}

Anyhow, 'leadership' is a word that many people use quite loosely without a clue what they're talking about. There are various leadership roles that people play apart from pastor and overseers - but that is another thread entirely.

Yet, your complaint here does not stand peculiar with Protestant believers. Perhaps you said that out of being upset; but actually, chukwudi44, no be today I know say women ordination sef dey worry Catholic Church. Haba.

Yes, women ordination to leadership is one very hotly contested subject in the Catholic Church today - and I shall point you to just a few non-troubling examples:

___________________________________________________________

● The ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church

● There are at least seven reasons why women can and should
receive Holy Orders!
● Eight out of ten Catholic scholars in the world support
the ordination of women.

sources: http://www.womenpriests.org/default.asp
http://www.womenpriests.org/scholars.asp
http://www.womenpriests.org/menu.asp
___________________________________________________________


● Catholic Women's Ordination (a Catholic organization)

Our site is dedicated to the support for ordaining women
in the Catholic Church. Many are curious about the subject
and we offer a site rich in interesting material,

We are a forum to examine, challenge and develop the current
understanding of priesthood. We aim to achieve the ordination
of women to a renewed priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

source: http://www.catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk/
___________________________________________________________


● Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP)

Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP) is an international initiative
within the Roman Catholic Church. The mission of Roman Catholic
Womenpriests North America is to spiritually prepare, ordain, and
support women and men from all states of life, who are theologically
qualified, who are committed to an inclusive model of Church, and
who are called by the Holy Spirit and their communities to minister
within the Roman Catholic Church.

source: http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

___________________________________________________________


● Women's Ordination Conference (WOC)

The Women's Ordination Conference (WOC) is the world's
oldest and largest organization working solely for the ordination
of women as priests, deacons, and bishops into an inclusive and
accountable Catholic Church.

source: http://www.womensordination.org/

___________________________________________________________


@chukwudi44, if you want many more, simply ask - so you may know that there's such a serious movement of ordination of women in the Catholic Church.

That may be true - but disobedience does not favour any movement, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

How blind do you want to be before you see clearly that Catholic Popes and Bishops are worshipping Mary according to their own confirmed statements? What else do we need to open out eyes that such a system is clearly in violation of God's Word? I'm not pointing accusing fingers at your cherished beliefs; that is why I'm willing to share such things privately instead of posting them publicly. But if you wan shakara pass this your gra-gra, simply ask and I shall oblige you free of charge.

Shalom.

Back to the sabath,

Exodus 20:8-11

Remember to observe the sabath day by keeping it holy.Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work but the SEVENTH day is aday of rest dedicated to the Lord your God.On that day no one in your family may do any kind of work.

Deut 5:12-14

Observe the sabath day by keeping it holy,as the Lord your God has commanded you .six days a week are set apart for you daily duties but he SEVENTH day is a day of rest dedicated to the LORD

So young lady you can see that the seventh day was specifically designated as a day of rest dedicated to the lord.We all know that saturday happens to be the seventh day of the week.

There is no basis for you protestants observing rest on sunday sice it is neither based on a sola bible or the proclamation of a pope.

If I may say you are fragranting disobeying God's commandment since you dont recognise the authourity of the Pope who transferred this solenmity to sunday.

@chukwudi44,

There's just one advice I have been holding out to Catholics when discussing with pilgrim.1 -

     *  just simply pass on silently and hold on to your own belief system *

I have no worries with anyone believeing whatever they want to believe; but in particular reference to Catholicism, it is clear that Catholics cannot Biblically defend the worship of Mary. I understand that is a very sensitive matter; and I was not trying to be unduely distressful to Catholics in my various posts. However, if the one advice I've been holding out does not help our dear Catholic friends and they need to push for clear evidence for Mariolatry, I might as well post them for your consideration. I just hope we have not come to that level, so I'll just give concise answers to your latest concerns.

chukwudi44:

Young Lady you are begining to commit heresy by trying to seperate the Father from the son by kind of imposing a hierechial structure in the trinity.

No, I'm not.

chukwudi44:
The fact remains that the huan ind cannever fully comprehend the mystery of the trinity.

True.

chukwudi44:

we know Jesus existed before the Virgin Mary yet Elizabeth under the influence of the holy spirit addressed her as the mother of my Lord,If she was addressed as the mother of my Lord ,then there is nothing wrong in calling her the Mother of God unless my Lord is not God.

There's everything wrong with calling Mary the "mother of God" because such a teaching is contrary to Biblical Christianity and cannot be traced back to the apostles.

chukwudi44:

Young Lady better be careful with what you post,this is an advice .By rejecting Mary as the Mother of God You are also rejecting the dogma of the trinity

No, I'm not rejecting the Trinity. The 5th century romish heresy of calling Mary "theotokos" - 'mother of God' cannot be traced to Biblical Christianity - and that is why anyone with a Godly conscience can also reject that heresy, especially because it is the foundation for the worship of Mary.

                    _____________________________________________

chukwudi44:

Back to the sabath,

Exodus 20:8-11

Remember to observe the sabath day by keeping it holy.Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work but the SEVENTH day is aday of rest dedicated to the Lord your God.On that day no one in your family may do any kind of work.

Deut 5:12-14

Observe the sabath day by keeping it holy,as the Lord your God has commanded you .six days a week are set apart for you daily duties but he SEVENTH day is a day of rest dedicated to the LORD

So young lady you can see that the seventh day was specifically designated as a day of rest dedicated to the lord.We all know that saturday happens to be the seventh day of the week.

The seventh day is only ONE of the several days of rest - it is NOT the only "day of rest" known as the sabbath. That is why the Bible emphatically says:

      (a)   Verily my sabbaths [plural] ye shall keep -  Exodus 31:13

      (b)   Ye shall keep my sabbaths -  Leviticus 26:2

In the same way as the seventh day is called a "sabbath of rest", so are there other days that are designated as "sabbath of rest" - check the following:


      The TENTH DAY - Leviticus 16:29-31

      And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month,
      on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls,
      and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger
      that sojourneth among you: For on that day shall the priest make an
      atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins
      before the LORD. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall
      afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.


Many of the verses on sabbaths in the OT speak mostly about the seventh day - but the same OT also speaks about other days as "sabbath of rest" in precisely the same manner. There is no difficulty in these passages, in as much as the other stipulations are built upon the foundation of the Decalogue - that is why it is called the "Ten Commandments".

There are other passages that speak both about several commandments of the Decalogue without listing all 10 of them; but we understand that they are pointing to the Decalogue nonetheless. Here's a good example:

      Leviticus 19:2-4
     
     Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them,

     (aa)   Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.

     (bb)   Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father,  [cf Exo. 20:12]

     (cc)    and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.   [cf Exo. 20:8]

     (dd)   Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods:
               I am the LORD your God. [cf Exo. 20:3-4]

Now look carefully at the above - it seems to have reiterated some of the commandments in the Decalogue, yes? But take particular note of (cc) >> it says to keep the "sabbaths" without mentioning any particular day and yet places the word "sabbaths" in the plural. Should one then discard Leviticus 19 because of Exodus 20? If your answer is yes, what do you do with the TENTH DAY which also is called "a sabbath of rest" to the Jews?

I am not advocating that we excuse the Decalogue simply because we're Christians. Rather, what I'm pointing out is that any commandment you pick out of Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 should be understood in relation to other verses that speak on the same subject(s) being reviewed. The Decalogue does not stand all by itself completely detarched from other passages of the OT.

chukwudi44:

There is no basis for you protestants observing rest on sunday sice it is neither based on a sola bible or the proclamation of a pope.

Lol, I for one do not argue a "rest on Sunday" on the premise of the Decalogue. That is why I have said that it is not an argument you can drag me into or tie round my neck. Sunday, for me, is NOT a "sabbath" - Pope or no Pope. Anyone arguing a "sabbath-switch" from Saturday to Sunday is fooling himself or herself, because there's no Biblical basis for any such argument - and no Pope (dead, alive or yet-to-be-born) can argue nada on that premise either.

chukwudi44:

If I may say you are fragranting disobeying God's commandment since you dont recognise the authourity of the Pope who transferred this solenmity to sunday.

Lol, the Pope does not obey God's commandments, so what "authority" are you claiming on his behalf? He may have transferred the "solemnity" of the sabbath to Sunday for you guys, but that's all mere theatricals without a clue as to what is meant by the "solemnity" of the sabbath. Give or take, the Catholic Popes have no Biblical precedence for making any such 'transfers', and there's nothing for anyone to be worried about on that issue.

You guys still dey argue?
Ok let me settle it for y'all:
Are you ready?-
Non of y'all are true christians. You are just a pitiful lot.

pilgrim1:


Lol, you assume that every Christian denomination today is a clone of Catholicism - why then are they averse to Catholicism in the first place? I think you assume things far too much, jagunlabi. But that's alright - it's your call.

The problem with you non-catholics is too much.
Besides Jesus did not write the Bible himself people did and since humans are not omniscience, not everything that happened was recorded.