"Should Catholic tradition have equal or greater authority than the Bible?"

Answer: Should church traditions be accepted as equally authoritative as Scripture? Or, should church traditions be followed only if they are in full agreement with Scripture? The answer to these questions plays a large role in determining what you believe and how you live as a Christian. It is our contention that Scripture alone is the only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice. Traditions are only valid if they are built on the firm foundation of Scripture and in full agreement with the entirety of Scripture. The following are seven biblical reasons supporting the teaching that the Bible should be accepted as the authority for faith and practice:

(1) It is Scripture that is said to be God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), and it is Scripture that has the repeated, “Thus saith the LORD...” In other words, it is the written Word that is repeatedly treated as God’s Word. Never is it said of any church tradition that it, too, is God-breathed and infallible.

(2) It is to Scripture that Jesus and the apostles appeal time after time in support or defense of their actions and teachings (Matthew 12:3, 5; 19:4; 22:31; Mark 12:10). There are over 60 verses in which you find “it is written...” used by Jesus and the apostles to support their teachings.

(3) It is to the Scriptures that the church is commended in order to combat the error that was bound to come (Acts 20:32). Likewise, it was the written Word that was seen in the Old Testament as the source of truth upon which to base one’s life (Joshua 1:8; Deuteronomy 17:18-19; Psalm 1; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; etc.). Jesus said that one of the reasons that the Sadducees were in error concerning the resurrection is that they did not know the Scriptures (Mark 12:24).

(4) Infallibility is never stated as the possession of those who would become church leaders in succession of the apostles. In both the Old and New Testaments, it is seen that duly appointed religious leaders could cause the people of God to err (1 Samuel 2:27-36; Matthew 15:14; 23:1-7; John 7:48; Acts 20:30; Galatians 2:11-16). Both Testaments exhort people to study the Scriptures to determine what is true and what is false (Psalm 19; 119; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17). While Jesus taught respect toward religious leaders (Matthew 23:3), an admonition which the apostles followed, we have the apostles’ example of breaking from the authority of their religious leaders when it was in opposition to what Jesus had commanded (Acts 4:19).

(5) Jesus equates the Scriptures with God’s Word (John 10:35). In contrast, when it comes to the religious traditions, He condemns some traditions because they contradict the written Word (Mark 7:1-13). Never does Jesus use religious tradition to support His actions or teachings. Before the writing of the New Testament, the Old Testament was the only inspired Scripture. However, there were literally hundreds of Jewish “traditions” recorded in the Talmud (a collection of commentary compiled by Jewish rabbis). Jesus and the apostles had both the Old Testament, and the Jewish tradition. Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus or any of the apostles appeal to the Jewish traditions. In contrast, Jesus and the apostles quote from or allude to the Old Testament hundreds of times. The Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of “breaking the traditions” (Matthew 15:2). Jesus responded with a rebuke: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). The manner in which Jesus and the apostles distinguished between the Scriptures and tradition is an example for the church. Jesus specifically rebukes treating the “commandments of men” as doctrines (Matthew 15:9).

(6) It is Scripture that has the promise that it will never fail, that it will all be fulfilled. Again, never is this promise given to the traditions of the church (Psalm 119:89,152; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; Luke 21:33).

(7) It is the Scriptures that are the instrument of the Holy Spirit and His means for conquering Satan and changing lives (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

"And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17). "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17, it is Scripture that is able to give one knowledge of salvation, it is God-breathed, and it is what we need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. To be “thoroughly” equipped, means that it has all that we need. Scripture contains the information from God that is all we need for salvation and to live a life of good works. According to Isaiah 8:20, it is the “law and testimony” (terms used to refer to Scripture, see Psalm 119) that is the standard by which to measure truth.

"Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:10-11). Here the Jewish people of the town of Berea were commended for testing the teachings they were hearing from Paul by the Scriptures. They did not just accept Paul’s words as authoritative. They examined Paul’s words, compared them with Scripture, and found them to be true.

In Acts 20:27-32, Paul acknowledges publicly that “wolves” and false teachers would arise from “among yourselves” (within the church). What did he commend them to? To “God and the word of His grace.” He does not commend them to the “church leaders” (they were the church leaders) nor to the traditions of the church nor to a particular overseeing elder. Rather, Paul pointed them to the Word of God.

In summary, while there is no one verse that states that the Bible alone is our authority, the Bible over and over again gives the examples and the admonitions of turning to the written Word as one’s source of authority. When it comes to examining the origin of a prophet’s or religious leader’s teaching, it is Scripture that is appealed to as the standard.

The Roman Catholic Church uses a number of biblical passages to support their use of tradition as of equal weight with Scripture. Here are the most commonly used of these passages, along with a brief explanation:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6). These passages relate to the traditions the Thessalonians had received from Paul himself, whether oral or written. They do not relate to traditions handed down, but to teachings that they themselves had received either from the mouth of Paul or from his pen. Paul is not giving his blessing on all tradition, but, rather, only on the traditions he had passed on to the Thessalonians. This is in contrast to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, which have been handed down from the fourth century and later, not from the mouth or pen of one of the apostles.

"These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:14-15). The phrase "pillar and ground of the truth" does not indicate that the church is the creator of truth, or that it can originate tradition to supplement Scripture. The church being the “pillar and ground of the truth” simply means that the church is the proclaimer and defender of the truth. The New Testament praises churches for proclaiming the truth, "for from you the word of the Lord has been spread abroad" (1 Thessalonians 1:. The New Testament commends early Christians for defending the truth, "partakers with me...in the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (Philippians 1:7). There is not a single verse in all of Scriptures which indicates that the church has the authority to develop new truth, or to decree new truth as being from the mouth of God.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26). This was a promise given to the apostles alone. The Holy Spirit would help the apostles to remember everything that Jesus had said to them. Nowhere does this Scripture state that there would be an apostolic line of successors, and that the promise would also be for them.

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19). These verses are used by the Roman Catholic Church to support their teaching that Peter was the first pope, and that the church was built upon him. But when taken in context with what takes place in the Book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one who opened up the gospel to the world in the sense that it was he who first preached the gospel of Christ on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). It was he who first preached the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). So, the binding and loosing was done through the preaching of the gospel, not through any Roman Catholic tradition.

While it is clearly evident that Scripture argues for its own authority, Scripture nowhere argues for “authoritative tradition equal with Scripture.” In fact, the New Testament has more to say against traditions that it does in favor of tradition.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, does not give the church council equal authority with those books.

In summary, one cannot find a single passage that states that “the written Word alone, and not tradition also, is our sole authority for faith and practice.” At the same time, what must also be admitted is that repeatedly, the Old Testament writers, Jesus, and the apostles turn to the Scriptures as their measuring stick, and commend the same to any and all that would follow them.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-tradition.html#ixzz3LPeCHcQV

OLAADEGBU:


"Should Catholic tradition have equal or greater authority than the Bible?"

Where are the Roman Catholics to answer this question?

OLAADEGBU:
Where are the Roman Catholics to answer this question?

The Bible is a product of Catholic tradition. It was compiled by the Catholic Church in 382 at the Synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus.

That answers your question.

To illustrate, you snatch the bible from it's sacred traditional context and you end up with x thousand opposing doctrines.
One example, @olaadegbu believes that drinking alcohol is sinful while his font of knowledge - gotquestions.org states the exact opposite with both using sola scriptura. Who is right in this case?
Bigger examples are opposing doctrines on the Trinity,holy eucharist, sabbath,Tithes,infant baptism, female clergy etc.
How does one know the correct doctrine/interpretation without recourse to the sacred traditional context.
Back to your question,sacred tradition and scriptures (both word of God)are equally valid as the source of authority plus a third source,the teaching authority of the church.None of these are contradictory.

Olaadegbu's gotquestions.org says the founder of the Catholic Church is Emperor Constantine inthe fourth century, while he also believes another website that says the founder is Simon Magusin the first century.

One has to be an empty head to believe those too concurrently.

^^^
Meaning??

adsonstone:
^^^
Meaning??

OLAADEGBU is an empty head to believe those two concurrently.

babestell:



OLAADEGBU is an empty head to believe those two concurrently.

OLAADEGBU did not indicate that he believes both concurrently, he has only posted an article from the site which he (may) believe/s is true.

adsonstone:


OLAADEGBU did not indicate that he believes both concurrently, he has only posted an article from the site which he (may) believe/s is true.

You might need to familiarise yourself with Ola a bit more.

italo:


The Bible is a product of Catholic tradition. It was compiled by the Catholic Church in 382 at the Synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus.

That answers your question.

If you had taken the time to read the OP you will not be repeating the same old dogma that has been refuted time and again. The fact that I recognise the excerpt below that refutes your point does not make me to be the writer of the article, does it?

The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, does not give the church council equal authority with those books.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-tradition.html#ixzz3LPeCHcQV

btoks:


To illustrate, you snatch the bible from it's sacred traditional context and you end up with x thousand opposing doctrines.
One example, @olaadegbu believes that drinking alcohol is sinful while his font of knowledge - gotquestions.org states the exact opposite with both using sola scriptura. Who is right in this case?

That should tell you that I don't swallow everything the said site posts hook, line and sinker as you do to your church traditions. Whenever any article or tradition departs from the God breathed word of God I do not follow suit but stay with the Scriptures that is able to make one wise unto salvation.

btoks:


Bigger examples are opposing doctrines on the Trinity,holy eucharist, sabbath,Tithes,infant baptism, female clergy etc.
How does one know the correct doctrine/interpretation without recourse to the sacred traditional context.
Back to your question,sacred tradition and scriptures (both word of God)are equally valid as the source of authority plus a third source,the teaching authority of the church.None of these are contradictory.

When you allow the author of the Holy Scriptures to awaken your spirit man you will know the truth and the truth will set you free and this can only happen when you accept Jesus and not "Simon" as your personal Lord and Saviour.

italo:


Olaadegbu's gotquestions.org says the founder of the Catholic Church is Emperor Constantine inthe fourth century, while he also believes another website that says the founder is Simon Magusin the first century.

One has to be an empty head to believe those too concurrently.

That show that the site I post just as your church traditons are not infallible. The Scriptures says that we should study to make ourselves approved men of God rightly dividing the word of truth. My investigations, using your so called traditions led me to the overwhelming conclusion that Peter was not your first pope but Simon Magus. The earlier you realise this the better because Christ was not the Saviour of Magus but another "Christ".

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0047/0047_01.asp

@Olaadegbu
Great post, as ever.
I pray the eyes of those who just can't see the sufficiency of the scriptures (in all matters of faith) will be opened by this post, in Jesus' name, amen.

5solas:


@Olaadegbu
Great post, as ever.
I pray the eyes of those who just can't see the sufficiency of the scriptures (in all matters of faith) will be opened by this post, in Jesus' name, amen.

Amen!

btoks:


To illustrate, you snatch the bible from it's sacred traditional context and you end up with x thousand opposing doctrines.
One example, @olaadegbu believes that drinking alcohol is sinful while his font of knowledge - gotquestions.org states the exact opposite with both using sola scriptura. Who is right in this case?
Bigger examples are opposing doctrines on the Trinity,holy eucharist, sabbath,Tithes,infant baptism, female clergy etc.
How does one know the correct doctrine/interpretation without recourse to the sacred traditional context.
Back to your question,sacred tradition and scriptures (both word of God)are equally valid as the source of authority plus a third source,the teaching authority of the church.None of these are contradictory.

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:16-17).

Search the scriptures for they speak of our Lord Jesus Christ.

OLAADEGBU:


"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:16-17).

Search the scriptures for they speak of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Obviously, you search the scriptures as they are profitable for teaching etc. However, you understand scriptures within the tradition of the church that declared them as scriptures. I 'll like to know how the Christians from the 1st 3 centuries knew what writings were scripture and how they practiced their faith, because it's easy for you 2000 years later( after all the hardwork and persecutions) to come up with what you think is correct!!!

Ironically the scriptures where declared as such because they fit with the Church's tradition. You'll not even know that the gospel of John is Scripture without the church telling you so. Simple

btoks:


Obviously, you search the scriptures as they are profitable for teaching etc. However, you understand scriptures within the tradition of the church that declared them as scriptures. I 'll like to know how the Christians from the 1st 3 centuries knew what writings were scripture and how they practiced their faith, because it's easy for you 2000 years later( after all the hardwork and persecutions) to come up with what you think is correct!!!

Ironically the scriptures where declared as such because they fit with the Church's tradition. You'll not even know that the gospel of John is Scripture without the church telling you so. Simple

If you sincerely wanted to do the will of God you will know whether a doctrine is of God or of man. Jesus castigated the Pharisees because they had "made the commandment of God of none effect by [their] tradition. . . . teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:6, 9).

"...Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition...But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:6, 9).

This unfortunate practice is what you espouse as a virtue when it is really a vice in the sight of God. This is the question Jesus is asking you guys:

"...Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3).

You have ignored the clear teachings and commands of the Scripture in favour of your self preserving interpretations and traditions.

italo:


The Bible is a product of Catholic tradition. It was compiled by the Catholic Church in 382 at the Synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus.

That answers your question.

I disagree with that sir. May be the catholic version of it and not the contemporary one that is acceptable by all, persecuted by many, survived and passed the test of time and commercially available to all,

italo:
Olaadegbu's gotquestions.org says the founder of the Catholic Church is Emperor Constantine inthe fourth century, while he also believes another website that says the founder is Simon Magusin the first century.

One has to be an empty head to believe those too concurrently.

Despite all these, there are some facts that can. Be denied
1Jesus Christ was not of Romans extraction
2 Origin of the early church is well articulated in book of act of apostles in a simple explanation that shows christianity is not alienated with any nation not even jewish one.
3. The first roman that became christian was converted
4. If all of the above are TRUE, the romans and their catholic, the Britain and their Anglican etc found Christ the way I found Him, so kini big deal.
Except someone is hiding behind one finger.

From the mist of the Christian folk, this False teacher who concieved the very idea of fusing paganism into Christianity rose, just as Christ and Apostle Paul warned.
As far as am concerned, Catholicism is an independent religion outside christianity.

The Catholic Religion.

It took a single individual to think and Orchestrate what we now have as Catholicism. Infusion of Paganism with Christianity. All the Greek gods and goddessess, the roman deities, all replaced with biblical names. To make them seem right and christian. The rituals performed for them then, are still being performed by the Catholics today. You won't get any clue if u r just a let's go, let's go Catholic. They blatantly religate the scriptures and replaced them with the traditions of men.

Let's agree with them for a moment that they are Christians, as they claim.
They do not see the Roman as Christian Converts, they see them as the originators of Christianity.

And I ask again, are they categority stating that Christ was a Catholic, and all the apostles, were also Catholics? Those Asian churches Christ talked abt in Reveltion, were they Catholic churches.

Maybe, just like Muslims say, Adam, cain, abel, Abraham, moses, elijah all the Patriarchs were all Muslims. So also these men were Catholics.
Where did they get all the relics they use in worship in their Church? because those are not in the scriptures.

Anas09:
From the mist of the Christian folk, this False teacher who concieved the very idea of fusing paganism into Christianity rose, just as Christ and Apostle Paul warned.
As far as am concerned, Catholicism is an independent religion outside christianity.

The Catholic Religion.

It took a single individual to think and Orchestrate what we now have as Catholicism. Infusion of Paganism with Christianity. All the Greek gods and goddessess, the roman deities, all replaced with biblical names. To make them seem right and christian. The rituals performed for them then, are still being performed by the Catholics today. You won't get any clue if u r just a let's go, let's go Catholic. They blatantly religate the scriptures and replaced them with the traditions of men.

Let's agree with them for a moment that they are Christians, as they claim.
They do not see the Roman as Christian Converts, they see them as the originators of Christianity.

And I ask again, are they categority stating that Christ was a Catholic, and all the apostles, were also Catholics? Those Asian churches Christ talked abt in Reveltion, were they Catholic churches.

Maybe, just like Muslims say, Adam, cain, abel, Abraham, moses, elijah all the Patriarchs were all Muslims. So also these men were Catholics.
Where did they get all the relics they use in worship in their Church? because those are not in the scriptures.

for the sake of clarity, WHO IS THIS PERSON THAT FUSED PAGANISM WITH CHRISTIANITY?

Anas09 gud to see u, we didnt complete our previous discussion on d other thread.

Ubenedictus:
Anas09 gud to see u, we didnt complete our previous discussion on d other thread.

i mean this thread. You asked for a link u were given a few and you disappeared from the thread.

www.nairaland.com/2636337/pope-us-visit-proves-nigerian/12

@Ubenedictus.
Mehnnnn, really good to see u.
My dear, Bills to pay, we can't afford to be here all the time. Just stealing time once in a while to see what my Christian folk are up to.
Sup with you man?

I don't know which hall that thread is right now, and no time to swim through searching for it.

waldigit:


I disagree with that sir. May be the catholic version of it and not the contemporary one that is acceptable by all, persecuted by many, survived and passed the test of time and commercially available to all,

Who compiled the bible that you use...and when was it compiled?

*oya start abracadabra

Anas09:
@Ubenedictus.
Mehnnnn, really good to see u.
My dear, Bills to pay, we can't afford to be here all the time. Just stealing time once in a while to see what my Christian folk are up to.
Sup with you man?

I don't know which hall that thread is right now, and no time to swim through searching for it.

am great,
true we cant b on nl everytime.
I dropped d link in case u may have time to visit it, d thread came to mind because d discussion seems related to this one

@ Uben.
You know as well I do, that every idea is first concieved by one man, who nurtures it, then sells it to his audience.
The Idea of Mary (The Queen of Heaven) being venerated beyond what she is or was, started in the mind of someone. Praying to her and the Saints, instead of Christ as the only MEDIATOR between God and Man (1Tim 2:5).
I hope you know who the Queen of heaven is, according to Jeremiah 7:16-18

The idolatry in the Catholic religion started in the mind of a man, just like Charles Tass Russel, who sat down in a corner of his room and took justice away from God, thereby concieving the idea that God is too loving to purnish the wicked by letting them go to WHERE they choose to go(hell fire). It made sense to him, he then sold it to his audience, what do we ve today in that regard? JW.
What about Joseph Smith? What abt Muharmad of Arabia? It starts with one man.
So @ Uben, the name the man who thought it wise to replace the names or Biblical characters with the Greek and Roman deities,and then showcased them as mediators instead of Christ, may not ve been documented for the world to see, but we know it all started with a man concieving that idol ridden Religion, then selling it to the then power drunken men who wanted to rule the whole world.

They were not Christians and are still not.

For he that is called of God, speaketh the word of God. Not the traditions of the CHURCH. For 'even if an Angel from heaven comes and preaches a different Gospel from the one we have preached to you, let him be Accursed'

Anas09:
@ Uben.
You know as well I do, that every idea is first concieved by one man, who nurtures it, then sells it to his audience.
The Idea of Mary (The Queen of Heaven) being venerated beyond what she is or was, started in the mind of someone. Praying to her and the Saints, instead of Christ as the only MEDIATOR between God and Man (1Tim 2:5).
I hope you know who the Queen of heaven is, according to Jeremiah 7:16-18

The idolatry in the Catholic religion started in the mind of a man, just like Charles Tass Russel, who sat down in a corner of his room and took justice away from God, thereby concieving the idea that God is too loving to purnish the wicked by letting them go to WHERE they choose to go(hell fire). It made sense to him, he then sold it to his audience, what do we ve today in that regard? JW.
What about Joseph Smith? What abt Muharmad of Arabia? It starts with one man.
So @ Uben, the name the man who thought it wise to replace the names or Biblical characters with the Greek and Roman deities,and then showcased them as mediators instead of Christ, may not ve been documented for the world to see, but we know it all started with a man concieving that idol ridden Religion, then selling it to the then power drunken men who wanted to rule the whole world.

They were not Christians and are still not.

For he that is called of God, speaketh the word of God. Not the traditions of the CHURCH. For 'even if an Angel from heaven comes and preaches a different Gospel from the one we have preached to you, let him be Accursed'

Where does your argument end though? How about those who say the story of Jesus is a myth and conceived by one man? Do you know that a lot of people do not believe Jesus is God and should not be worshipped?
At what point did this idea of catholic teaching coming from one man arise? Are you aware there have been several documented church councils where teachings have been declared just like in Acts 15? - E.g. that God is a Trinity.

The Catholic Church does not teach or practice Idolatry. It's even written that all generations will call Mary blessed. Do you realise she delivered and nutured our saviour? The Church declared a lot of teachings including honouring Mary and other saints; and surprise, surprise what to be considered Inspired scriptures.
To understand why Mary is referred to as Queen of heaven, You need to understand that in the Davidic kingdom, the King's Mother was always the Queen(e.g. 1 Kings 14:21; 15:9-10; 22:42 etc). Jesus as King (see Luke 1:32-33)has his mother as the Queen - but you'll probably won't understand this theology as you fail to realise that the OT foreshadows the NT. and the numerous parallels.
The logic of your argument is flawed.

Anas09:
@ Uben.
You know as well I do, that every idea is first concieved by one man, who nurtures it, then sells it to his audience.
The Idea of Mary (The Queen of Heaven) being venerated beyond what she is or was, started in the mind of someone. Praying to her and the Saints, instead of Christ as the only MEDIATOR between God and Man (1Tim 2:5).
I hope you know who the Queen of heaven is, according to Jeremiah 7:16-18

i hope you know who the king of kings is according to daniel?

The idolatry in the Catholic religion started in the mind of a man, just like Charles Tass Russel, who sat down in a corner of his room and took justice away from God, thereby concieving the idea that God is too loving to purnish the wicked by letting them go to WHERE they choose to go(hell fire). It made sense to him, he then sold it to his audience, what do we ve today in that regard? JW.
What about Joseph Smith? What abt Muharmad of Arabia? It starts with one man.
So @ Uben, the name the man who thought it wise to replace the names or Biblical characters with the Greek and Roman deities,and then showcased them as mediators instead of Christ, may not ve been documented for the world to see, but we know it all started with a man concieving that idol ridden Religion, then selling it to the then power drunken men who wanted to rule the whole world.

They were not Christians and are still not.

For he that is called of God, speaketh the word of God. Not the traditions of the CHURCH. For 'even if an Angel from heaven comes and preaches a different Gospel from the one we have preached to you, let him be Accursed'

there is sometimes a thin difference btw truth and lie, but in my short life life on earth i have learnt that the difference between the truth and a conspiracy theory is just one interesting word, "assumption". When u talked abt jw, u gave a name infact if u look well u'll find dates, dsame with smith. Where are the facts abt d CC? Stop making assumptions, that is d recipe for a conspiracy theory.

There is no idolatry in d CC, the use of image in d church is a most ancient practice, i'll gladly call it an apostolic practice. All churches with apostolic origin use images and have used them from ancient time. The church doesn't do anytin "instead of" Christ, there are no 'instead of' christ mediators, there are instead christian who continue to share the office of christ. I believe every christian shares in d ministry of Jesus as a king, a priest and a prophet. A priest is a interecessor, one that stands btw God and mortals, a mediator, d thing ur pastor didnt tell u is dat d day u bcame a christian u became a co-mediator with Christ. The catholic church didnt create any instead of mediators it instead taught d gospel truth that all christian share in d mediatorship of Christ. All Christians whether in heaven or earth.

We aren't talking abt church traditions we are talking abt apostolic tradition. Nothing d catholic church teach is against d bible wen intepreted correctly.

Ubenedictus:
i hope you know who the king of kings is according to daniel?

You mean all these people that say they are worshipping the king of kings are actually worshipping the King of Babylon?

5solas:
@Olaadegbu
Great post, as ever.
I pray the eyes of those who just can't see the sufficiency of the scriptures (in all matters of faith) will be opened by this post, in Jesus' name, amen.

the real issue is that d bible doesn't claim to be sufficient, infact it says d opposite, it say to hold on to apostolic traditions. It is also interesting dat for d 1st 300yrs of d church there was no agreed bible. The early xtians didnt practice dis teaching.