@bobbybff
am only interested in your wrong interpretation of Daniel's prophecy.where did you get the 1260 years from,you have only succeeded in making a fool of yourself.I will post some bible quotations below indicating the duration of the Antichrist's reign.

Dan 7:25
He will speak against the supreme God and oppress God's people He will try to change their religious laws and festivals and God's people will be under his power for three and a half years.
Daniel 8:13-14

Then I heard an angel ask another,how long will this things that were seen in the visions continue ,how long will an awful sin replace the daily sacrifices.How long will will the army of heaven and the temple be trampled upon.I heard another angel answer it will continue for 2300 evenings and mornings during which the sacrifices will not be offered then the temple will be restored.

Daniel 9:27

That ruler will have a firm agreement with many people for seven years and when half this time is past,he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings.

Daniel 12:11
From the time the daily sacrifices are stopped that is from the time of the awful horror 1290 days will pass.Happy are those who will remain faithful until 1335 days are over.

Rev 12:6

The woman fled to the desert to a place God had prepared for her ,where she will taken care of for 1260 days

Rev13:5
The beast was allowed to make proud claims which were insulting to God and it was permitted to have authority for forty two months

I WILL BE WAITING FOR YOU TO RE-INTERPRET THE PROPHECY BASED ON 1260 DAYS

~Lady~:

Olaadebu, you still haven't added compilation of the Bible to that list of yours, why?

Your information is wrong and you know it, I already showed it to you, and I remember you running away with shame. Don't embarass yourself again o.

There I have stated it now state your source and explain how each item was introduced. If you will make a claim you should be able to back it up, put your money where your mouth is.

You guys love to take credit for what God in His Sovereign Power has inspired through His holy prophets who were Jews.  God will not share His glory with anyone, it is dangerous.  The only contribution to the Bible you made was the addition of the apocrypha and the subtraction of some of the decalogue, and you know the reward awaiting you guys for adding, removing or changing the Word of God.

I will be glad if you can show me where you claimed that I ran away in shame?  I remember you using the Scriptures falsely to justify your traditions and dogmas and challenging us to prove you wrong, which I did, do you care to bring up the thread on Purgatory for our perusal?  And if you are referring to another thread I will be happy if you can bring it up, we will be waiting.

Your claim for sources is just a smokescreen that will allow you some space to divert attention from the exposure to your half truths and lies.  Below is the list of your traditions, dogmas and doctrine, I also proceeded to give you a source as to how you arrived at the dogma of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary in 1854, referencing the source which you turned a blind eye to.  You don't have to seek for the source if you have already made up your mind and refuse to be confused with the facts. The best you can do is to refute the allegations with facts that can be verified or better still to justify that Jesus Christ, the holy prophets and the Apostles taught these using the Scriptures.

OLAADEGBU:

Below are some of the traditions and doctrines placed besides or above the gospel (Word of God)

[list]
[li]Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310 AD
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950 [/li]
[/list]

Can anyone show us where Jesus or the Apostles practiced or taught any of these traditions or doctrines?

This book was written by an ex RCC priests who spent 50 years in the organization, who witnessed how and when the doctrine of the immaculate conception was instituted.

OLAADEGBU:

The is the story of an ex priest of how the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was established in 1854.

The 8th of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX was sitting on his throne; a triple crown of gold and diamonds was on his head: silk and damask – red and white vestments on his shoulders; five hundred mitred prelates were surrounding him; and more than fifty thousand were at his feet in the incomparable St. Peter’s Church of Rome. A few minutes of most solemn silence, a cardinal, dressed with his purple robe, left his seat, and gravely walked towards the pope, humbly prostrating himself at his feet, and said:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe and teach that the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The Supreme Pontiff answered: “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

The cardinal withdrew; the pope and the numberless multitude fell on their knees; and the harmonious choir sang the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus.’

The last note of the sacred hymn had hardly rolled under the vaults of the temple, when the same cardinal left his place, and again advanced towards the throne of the pontiff, prostrated himself at his feet, and said;

“Holy Father, tell us if the Holy Mother of God, the blessed Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The pope again answered: “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

And again the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ was sung.

Again the eyes of the multitude followed the grave steps of the purple- robed cardinal for the third time to the throne of the successor of St. Peter, to ask again:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe that the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God was immaculate.”

The pope, as if he had just received a direct communication from God, answered with a solemn voice:

“Yes! We must believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in her conception . . . There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma!”

And, with a loud voice, the pope intoned the Te Deum; the bells of the three hundred churches of Rome rang; the cannons of the citadel were fired. The last act of the most ridiculous and sacrilegious comedy the world had ever seen, was over; the doors of heaven were forever shut against those who would refuse to believe the anti-scriptural doctrine that there is a daughter of Eve who has not inherited the sinful nature of Adam.

She was redeclared exempt when the God of Truth said, “There is none righteous; no, not one: for all have sinned!” (Rom.3:10,23)

No trace of this teaching is found in the first centuries of the Church.”

Source:
(50 Years in the “Church” of Rome, The Conversion of a Priest, by Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications, 1985, pp. 233-234 [c. 1886])

Please do not believe, use or celebrate the undermentioned because they are works of Catholic Tradition.

Bible
Christmas
Trinity
Easter
Sunday and others

However, if you believe, use or celebrate above mentioned, then keep quiet else you will be condemning yourself .

@Bobbyaf,

Since you keep harping on Daniel 7 (I've already explained) and 8, lets discuss the latter.  I'll start. . . .

Daniel 8:4-9

4 I saw the ram butting toward the west, north, and south.  NO beast could withstand it or be rescued from its power: it did what it pleased and became very powerful.  5 I was reflecting, a he-goat with a prominent horn on its forehead suddenly came from the west across the whole earth without touching the ground.  6 It approached the two-horned ram I had seen standing by the river, and rushed toward it with savage force. 7 I saw it attack the ram with furious blows when they met, and break both its horns.  It threw the ram, which had not the force to withstand it, to the ground, and trampled upon it; and no one could rescue it from power.  8 the he-goat became very powerful, but at the height of its power the great horn [/b]was shattered, and in its place came up four others, facing the four winds of heaven. 9 Out of one of them came a [b]little horn which kept growing toward the south, the east, and the glorious country.

So, the vision is of a ram (with two great horns) and of a he-goat (with one great horn initially).  This vision seems to be related to the vision in Daniel 7, though in more explicit fashion.  In regards to the he-goat, the great horn is shattered and in its place came up four others (still referring to the he-goat).  Out of one of the four came a little horn that became very powerful.  Lets continue. . . .

Daniel 8:20

The two-horned ram you saw represents the kings of the Medes and Persians. 21 The he-goat is the king of the Greeks, and the great horn on its forehead is the first king.  22 The four that rose in its place when it was broken are the four kingdoms that will issue from his nation, but without his strength.

Now, as we can see from the above passage the identities of the two animals (e.i., the ram and he-goat) are revealed.  The ram and its two horns represent the kingdoms of Medes and Persia and the he-goat represents the kingdom of Greece and the great horn on its head represents their first king (Alexander the Great).  After he (Alexander the Great) is broken four kingdoms issue from his nation ( Kingdom of Ptolemy I Soter, Kingdom of Cassander, Kingdom of Lysimachus, Kingdom of Seleucus I Nicator; Bobbyaf go and check the history books).  After the fall of Alexander the Great (the greatest of the kindoms/horns) his kingdom was divided into four smaller kingdoms; the Seleucid Empire being one of them. The Seleucid Empire was centered in the near East and at the height of its power included central Anatolia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, today's Turkmenistan, Pamir and parts of Pakistan. It was a major center of Hellenistic culture which maintained the preeminence of Greek customs and where a Greek-speaking Macedonian elite dominated, mostly in the urban areas.The 'little horn' discussed in Daniel 8:9 is Antiochus IV and the glorious country is Palestine.  This is the same 'little horn' discussed in Daniel 7.  Again most scholars agree that Antiochus IV is the little horn presented in Daniel 7:8 and 8:9, see below: 

A strong scholarly consensus, as well as most Jewish and Christian commentaries hold that the "little horn" refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, since he came from the Seleucid empire, which was one of the four empires that came to power after Alexander died. He seized the Seleucid Kingdom "through intrigue", took away the 'daily sacrifice' (Tamid) in 167 BC, and committed the 'abomination of desolation'. He made it illegal to follow the Judaic laws, with the penalty of death. The temple was reconsecrated in 164 BC, 2300 mornings and evenings, i.e. 1150 days, from the time Antiochus began his persecution of the Jews (167-164 BC).

When Time Shall be No More By Paul S. Boyer, pp. 28-31

 

Will continue. . . .

hey guys, just wanted you to see this:



The Blessed Virgin Mary: Her Privileges and Relation to Christ and His Church

by Father William G. Most

According to a late tradition, the parents of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, were St. Joachim and St. Anne, natives of Bethlehem who lived in Nazareth.

Mother of God

Mary's most fundamental privilege is that of being the Mother of God. We do not mean she produced the divine nature, of course. But her Son is God, so she is the Mother of God. Similarly, Mrs. Jones shares only in the production of the body of her son John, not at all in the making of his soul. Yet we do not say she is mother of the body of John Jones, but of John Jones, the person. Pius XI quoted St. Thomas Aquinas with approval in saying that "From the fact that she is the Mother of God, she has a sort of infinite dignity from the infinite good that God is. (Lux veritatis, Dec. 25, 1931, citing St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae I. 25. 6. ad 4).

Mary conceived her son by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). The Archangel first told her that her Son was to be the Son of the Most High. However, any devout Jew could be called a son of God. But there was more: the angel told her He would reign over the house of Jacob forever: right then she would know He was to be the Messiah, for Jews then commonly believed the Messiah would reign forever. Finally, the angel said He would be conceived when the Holy Spirit would "overshadow" her. That word, she would know, was the one use to describe the Divine Presence filling the ancient Tabernacle in the desert (Exodus 40:35). Her Son was to be called Son of God "for this reason". So that He was the Son of God in a unique sense. From this alone she likely knew of His divinity, especially when she would add the words of Isaiah 9:5-6 that the Messiah would be "God the Mighty". Even though the Jews found that text hard, she, full of grace, would readily grasp it.

Ever Virgin

So this was a virginal conception, that is, without the intervention of a man. Both Matthew and Luke make this clear. If we believe the Gospels, we will understand that readily. The teaching of the Church, already in the oldest creeds, which call her "ever-virgin," tells us she remained a virgin during and after His birth. Some have tried to say the teaching on her virginity was not physical, but just a way of expressing her holiness. But it is more than that: Vatican II (Lumen Gentium # 57) wrote that His birth "did not diminish, but consecrated her virginal integrity." That word "integrity" refers to physical condition.

Therefore when the Gospels speak of the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus, they do not mean other children of Mary. The Hebrew words were very broad, could cover any sort of relationship. For that matter, modern English uses these words even more broadly for members of fraternities and sororities.

Immaculate Conception

As a result of this Divine Motherhood, because it was fitting for Her Son, she obtained the great grace of the Immaculate Conception, defined by Pius IX in 1854. This means that from the first instant of conception her soul had sanctifying grace, a share in God's own life, given in anticipation of the future merits of her Son.

The angel's greeting to Mary is traditionally translated "Hail, full of grace," but this has been disputed in modern times. Vatican II, Pope John Paul II and others understand the Greek of Luke 1:28, kecharitomene, to mean "full of grace". The word is a perfect participle, a very strong form. The root verb, charitoo, means to put someone into the state of grace/favor. And especially, the word is used instead of her name, in direct address. This is like saying someone is Mr. Tennis--the ultimate in tennis. So she is Miss Grace, the ultimate in grace. Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception, said that even at the start, her holiness was so great that "none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it"!

Cooperation in the Redemption

One of the oldest teachings of the Church is that Mary is the New Eve. Just as the first Eve really contributed to the disaster of original sin, so Mary the New Eve really contributed to removing it, that is, to redeeming us. She was Mother of the Redeemer precisely insofar as He is our Redeemer. Every Pope since Leo XIII, and Vatican II, in seventeen documents have said that her role in redeeming us extends even to a part in the great sacrifice of Calvary itself! It is a general principle, that if something is taught repeatedly by the Church, even on a level less than a definition, the teaching is infallible.

Vatican II, echoing earlier papal teaching, tells us that at the cross she was asked even to "consent" to the death of her Son (LG # 58). Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical, The Mother of the Redeemer, set out to further deepen that teaching (as he tells us in his Guardian of the Redeemer [on St. Joseph]). He showed that this was the "deepest self-emptying in history" for her and her Son. In in it, Mary practiced "the obedience of faith". Now since all perfection lies in positively willing what God wills whenever we know His positive will, it is clear that Mary was called on to positively will that her Son die, die then, die so horribly. She had to will this in spite of a love for her Son so great that "only God can comprehend it"--for Pius IX had said, as we saw above that her holiness was that great even at the start. But holiness and love of God are interchangeable words. So in willing the death of her Divine Son, it is clear that her suffering was such that "no one but God could comprehend it."

Mediatrix of All Graces

As we would expect, having shared at immense cost in earning all graces, she shares similarly in distributing all of them as Mediatrix of all graces. This truth too has been taught numerous times by a long series of Popes--every Pope from Leo XIII through John XXIII.

Assumption and Queenship

At the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken up (assumed) into heaven, body and soul. Pius XII, in defining the Assumption, explained that "Just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory [over sin and death by Calvary] so that struggle [Calvary] which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son, had to be closed by the glorification of her virginal body". That is, the struggle, a work common to the two was a common cause. It brought Him glorification; it had to bring the same to her. (In all this it is understood she is subordinate to Him, and really depends on Him for all her ability to do anything at all).

As a result, just as He is now King of the Universe, she is Queen of the Universe. "And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion" (Pius XII, Bendito seia, May 13, 1946).

Vatican II

Chapter 8 Vatican II's Constitution on the Church is entirely on her. In it the Council goes through in detail her association with Him. She is eternally joined with Him in the eternal decree for the Incarnation. She will remain eternally joined to Him as Queen in His Kingdom. And the council went through in detail every one of the mysteries of His life and death, showing in each case her close association with Him. The place the Father gave her is really all-pervading, in His approach to us. In writing this, Vatican II wrote more extensively about her, went farther theologically than all previous Councils combined! In spite of talk that it downgraded her, it was the opposite. Vatican II could really be called the Marian Council.

Spiritual Motherhood

On the floor of the Council, Pope Paul VI declared Mary Mother of the Church. This was not entirely new. Pius XII, in a message to the Marian Congress of Ottawa, Canada, on July 19, 1947 said: "When the little maid of Nazareth uttered her fiat to the message of the angel,  she became not only the Mother of God in the physical order of nature, but also in the supernatural order of grace, she became the Mother of all, who,  would be made one under the Headship of her Son. The Mother of the Head would be the Mother of the members."

Taken from The Basic Catholic Catechism
PART THREE: The Apostles' Creed II - V
Second Article: "Jesus Christ His Only Son, Our Lord"

By Fr. William G. Most. (c) Copyright 1990 by William G. Most

Electronic text (c) Copyright EWTN 1996. All rights reserved.

and in case you have research phobia, here is a link to the source: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya1.htm

Blasphemies of the highest order.

OLAADEGBU:

Blasphemies of the highest order.

what part?

Carlosein:

hey guys, just wanted you to see this:



The Blessed Virgin Mary: Her Privileges and Relation to Christ and His Church

by Father William G. Most

According to a late tradition, the parents of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, were St. Joachim and St. Anne, natives of Bethlehem who lived in Nazareth.

Mother of God

Mary's most fundamental privilege is that of being the Mother of God. We do not mean she produced the divine nature, of course. But her Son is God, so she is the Mother of God. Similarly, Mrs. Jones shares only in the production of the body of her son John, not at all in the making of his soul. Yet we do not say she is mother of the body of John Jones, but of John Jones, the person. Pius XI quoted St. Thomas Aquinas with approval in saying that "From the fact that she is the Mother of God, she has a sort of infinite dignity from the infinite good that God is. (Lux veritatis, Dec. 25, 1931, citing St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae I. 25. 6. ad 4).

Mary conceived her son by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). The Archangel first told her that her Son was to be the Son of the Most High. However, any devout Jew could be called a son of God. But there was more: the angel told her He would reign over the house of Jacob forever: right then she would know He was to be the Messiah, for Jews then commonly believed the Messiah would reign forever. Finally, the angel said He would be conceived when the Holy Spirit would "overshadow" her. That word, she would know, was the one use to describe the Divine Presence filling the ancient Tabernacle in the desert (Exodus 40:35). Her Son was to be called Son of God "for this reason". So that He was the Son of God in a unique sense. From this alone she likely knew of His divinity, especially when she would add the words of Isaiah 9:5-6 that the Messiah would be "God the Mighty". Even though the Jews found that text hard, she, full of grace, would readily grasp it.

Ever Virgin

So this was a virginal conception, that is, without the intervention of a man. Both Matthew and Luke make this clear. If we believe the Gospels, we will understand that readily. The teaching of the Church, already in the oldest creeds, which call her "ever-virgin," tells us she remained a virgin during and after His birth. Some have tried to say the teaching on her virginity was not physical, but just a way of expressing her holiness. But it is more than that: Vatican II (Lumen Gentium # 57) wrote that His birth "did not diminish, but consecrated her virginal integrity." That word "integrity" refers to physical condition.

Therefore when the Gospels speak of the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus, they do not mean other children of Mary. The Hebrew words were very broad, could cover any sort of relationship. For that matter, modern English uses these words even more broadly for members of fraternities and sororities.

Immaculate Conception

As a result of this Divine Motherhood, because it was fitting for Her Son, she obtained the great grace of the Immaculate Conception, defined by Pius IX in 1854. This means that from the first instant of conception her soul had sanctifying grace, a share in God's own life, given in anticipation of the future merits of her Son.

The angel's greeting to Mary is traditionally translated "Hail, full of grace," but this has been disputed in modern times. Vatican II, Pope John Paul II and others understand the Greek of Luke 1:28, kecharitomene, to mean "full of grace". The word is a perfect participle, a very strong form. The root verb, charitoo, means to put someone into the state of grace/favor. And especially, the word is used instead of her name, in direct address. This is like saying someone is Mr. Tennis--the ultimate in tennis. So she is Miss Grace, the ultimate in grace. Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception, said that even at the start, her holiness was so great that "none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it"!

Cooperation in the Redemption

One of the oldest teachings of the Church is that Mary is the New Eve. Just as the first Eve really contributed to the disaster of original sin, so Mary the New Eve really contributed to removing it, that is, to redeeming us. She was Mother of the Redeemer precisely insofar as He is our Redeemer. Every Pope since Leo XIII, and Vatican II, in seventeen documents have said that her role in redeeming us extends even to a part in the great sacrifice of Calvary itself! It is a general principle, that if something is taught repeatedly by the Church, even on a level less than a definition, the teaching is infallible.

Vatican II, echoing earlier papal teaching, tells us that at the cross she was asked even to "consent" to the death of her Son (LG # 58). Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical, The Mother of the Redeemer, set out to further deepen that teaching (as he tells us in his Guardian of the Redeemer [on St. Joseph]). He showed that this was the "deepest self-emptying in history" for her and her Son. In in it, Mary practiced "the obedience of faith". Now since all perfection lies in positively willing what God wills whenever we know His positive will, it is clear that Mary was called on to positively will that her Son die, die then, die so horribly. She had to will this in spite of a love for her Son so great that "only God can comprehend it"--for Pius IX had said, as we saw above that her holiness was that great even at the start. But holiness and love of God are interchangeable words. So in willing the death of her Divine Son, it is clear that her suffering was such that "no one but God could comprehend it."

Mediatrix of All Graces

As we would expect, having shared at immense cost in earning all graces, she shares similarly in distributing all of them as Mediatrix of all graces. This truth too has been taught numerous times by a long series of Popes--every Pope from Leo XIII through John XXIII.

Assumption and Queenship

At the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken up (assumed) into heaven, body and soul. Pius XII, in defining the Assumption, explained that "Just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory [over sin and death by Calvary] so that struggle [Calvary] which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son, had to be closed by the glorification of her virginal body". That is, the struggle, a work common to the two was a common cause. It brought Him glorification; it had to bring the same to her. (In all this it is understood she is subordinate to Him, and really depends on Him for all her ability to do anything at all).

As a result, just as He is now King of the Universe, she is Queen of the Universe. "And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion" (Pius XII, Bendito seia, May 13, 1946).

Vatican II

Chapter 8 Vatican II's Constitution on the Church is entirely on her. In it the Council goes through in detail her association with Him. She is eternally joined with Him in the eternal decree for the Incarnation. She will remain eternally joined to Him as Queen in His Kingdom. And the council went through in detail every one of the mysteries of His life and death, showing in each case her close association with Him. The place the Father gave her is really all-pervading, in His approach to us. In writing this, Vatican II wrote more extensively about her, went farther theologically than all previous Councils combined! In spite of talk that it downgraded her, it was the opposite. Vatican II could really be called the Marian Council.

Spiritual Motherhood

On the floor of the Council, Pope Paul VI declared Mary Mother of the Church. This was not entirely new. Pius XII, in a message to the Marian Congress of Ottawa, Canada, on July 19, 1947 said: "When the little maid of Nazareth uttered her fiat to the message of the angel,  she became not only the Mother of God in the physical order of nature, but also in the supernatural order of grace, she became the Mother of all, who,  would be made one under the Headship of her Son. The Mother of the Head would be the Mother of the members."

Taken from The Basic Catholic Catechism
PART THREE: The Apostles' Creed II - V
Second Article: "Jesus Christ His Only Son, Our Lord"

By Fr. William G. Most. (c) Copyright 1990 by William G. Most

Electronic text (c) Copyright EWTN 1996. All rights reserved.

and in case you have research phobia, here is a link to the source: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya1.htm

Carlosein:

what part?

All of the above are considered to be blasphemies from the pit of hell, and it will be wise to learn what Paul had to say about it.

[list]
[li]"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."[/li]
[/list]  Gal.1:8,9

It is obvious who is preaching and teaching the doctrines of devils that are competing with the living Word of God.

[list]
[li]Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.[/li]
[/list]
1 Timothy 4:1-3

dear ola, you seem to not get my question.

what part of the above is a blasphemy, show it.

I said all of the above.

no matter how u critize us,Catholic church will ever remain strong bc not even the gate of hell can e prevail against it.

may the lord Jesus forgive all of u that does not respect and honor His mother the blessed virgin mary. how do you treat ur own mother let alone the mother of Jesus.why wont we pray to mary for help when the first miracle Jesus did on earth was from his mother even when it was not yet his time. think smartly people.

olaadegbu, it is(was) students like you that disgrace(d) teachers.

after a full length lecture, the teacher asks "do you understand?"
olaadegbu: "no"
teacher: "what part don't you understand?"
olaadegbu: "all"

i dont really understand the problem that these pentecostal sheep have with catholics. either you like it or nor. the catholic church is the mother church. continue to let your businessman pastors deceive you. shame.

There is no point arguing on the discipancies and contradictions in the bible. The obvious thruth is that the book is man made as God is not the author of errors. Bilble was written some centuries after the death of Jesus Christ by some men who claim to have inspiration from God just like the present day Pastors. Go and check your bible very well , observe all the countries mentioned in the bible , be it babilon -the present day Iraq, Jordan , Do they practise christianity? The truth is that none of this countries not even Israel is a Christian country. The original language of Jesus is aramaic hence the manuscript given to him by God was written in Aramaic . It remain a fact that until the original manuscipt is found , men will continue to be in state of doubts

reservoir:

There is no point arguing on the discipancies and contradictions in the bible. The obvious thruth is that the book is man made as God is not the author of errors. Bilble was written some centuries after the death of Jesus Christ by some men who claim to have inspiration from God just like the present day Pastors. Go and check your bible very well , observe all the countries mentioned in the bible , be it babilon -the present day Iraq, Jordan , Do they practise christianity? The truth is that none of this countries not even Israel is a Christian country. The original language of Jesus is aramaic hence the manuscript given to him by God was written in Aramaic . It remain a fact that until the original manuscipt is found , men will continue to be in state of doubts

olboy you are even more confused than i thought

Carlosein:

olaadegbu, it is(was) students like you that disgrace(d) teachers.

after a full length lecture, the teachers asks "do you understand?"
olaadegbu: "no"
teacher: "what part don't you understand?"
olaadegbu: "all"

What part of the "All of the above" don't you understand?  Is it the "All" or the "above"?

Carlosein:

olboy you are even more confused than i thought

It's all your fault.   If you did not lay claim to the production or inspiration of the Bible many people would not be deluded into thinking that the Scriptures were inspired by men. 

For a more accurate and better understanding of how the Bible came about read the article in the weblink below:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/rcc+bible001.asp?FROM=Catholicpage

OLAADEGBU:

It's all your fault.   If you did not lay claim to the production or inspiration of the Bible many people would not be deluded into thinking that the Scriptures were inspired by men. 

For a more accurate and better understanding of how the Bible came about read the article in the weblink below:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/rcc+bible001.asp?FROM=Catholicpage

olaadegbu, please lay off the weed so you'd SEE what the church says as different from what you read into it.

the catholic church does not claim to "inspire" or "produce" the bible. the holy spirit inspired the authors who then wrote books.
the catholic church compiled what was written under the inspiration.

i really don't expect you to understand (mr. i don't understand ALL!)

Carlosein:

olaadegbu, please lay off the weed so you'd SEE what the church says as different from what you read into it.

the catholic church does not claim to "inspire" or "produce" the bible. the holy spirit inspired the authors who then wrote books.
the catholic church compiled what was written under the inspiration.

i really don't expect you to understand (mr. i don't understand ALL!)

Nah, I don't do weeds, I only use the drug called HG (Holy Spirit), what are you on?, ES?

The Old Testament was compiled over several thousand years, but the New Testament was compiled within one lifetime.  Paul's letters, though sent to specific churches, were circulated as a group, often accompanied with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

The books of the New testament were written during the last half of the 1st century.  This was because of the limitations of communication and transportation, which slowed down the time that it took the books to reach christians in churches that were scattered all over the then known world  before the canon was finally settled.

Councils only ratified what the church had already done; no council or pope imposed upon the churches books that they had not already accepted.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/rcc+bible001.asp?FROM=Catholicpage

OLAADEGBU:

Nah, I don't do weeds, I only use the drug called HG (Holy Spirit), what are you on?, ES?

The Old Testament was compiled over several thousand years, but the New Testament was compiled within one lifetime.  Paul's letters, though sent to specific churches, were circulated as a group, often accompanied with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

The books of the New testament were written during the last half of the 1st century.  This was because of the limitations of communication and transportation, which slowed down the time that it took the books to reach christians in churches that were scattered all over the then known world  before the canon was finally settled.

Councils only ratified what the church had already done; no council or pope imposed upon the churches books that they had not already accepted.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/rcc+bible001.asp?FROM=Catholicpage

so i ask, does this your post corroborate or contradict your claim about the catholic church inspiring or producing the bible?

p.s: how can HG = Holy Spirit? if to you the Holy Spirit is a drug, i now get why you are a cretin.

today must be one of your HD (High Days!)

Links to the truth about the Roman Catholic Church:

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/sevenhills.asp

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine10&item=1104072955

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Catholic_church_by_scripture.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/10-rcc.htm

These are just a few of the links among many that show the real deal behind the RCC.
Those who've been ordained to salvation who're still within the RCC will definitely heed the message being put forward and "COME OUT OF HER".
The rest that don't,well,too bad.

Ooops,I forgot to add another link:

http://israelitewatchmen.com/Emahiser/Daniel%20Prophesied%20the%20Roman%20Catholic%20Church.pdf

ttalks:

Links to the truth about the Roman Catholic Church:

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/catholicism/sevenhills.asp

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine10&item=1104072955

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/Catholic_church_by_scripture.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/10-rcc.htm

These are just a few of the links among many that show the real deal behind the RCC.
Those who've been ordained to salvation who're still within the RCC will definitely heed the message being put forward and "COME OUT OF HER".
The rest that don't,well,too bad.

Oh great another misguided person, when u guys are ready to use logic instead of just posting crap that isn't true then we'll take u seriously, until then you prove ur ignorance day by day.

Carl, I love that, don't mind Olaadegbu he already affirmed he is battling his own beliefs.

Just to add to what u wrote on Mary.

When protestants deny Mary the title of Mother of God, they deny also the divinity of Jesus without even knowing it, for if Mary didn't give birth to God then the child that came from her womb could not be God, but if in fact the baby that came from her womb is God then there is no doubt that she is the Mother of God. If they continue to deny her then they are of the belief that Jesus was not born a person, but as an empty body without a soul. But infact he was born a person as all of us are, and that person is God then Mary gave birth to the person, God.

abi no be so?

On the Immaculate Conception.

This honestly is the easiest to see.

She was the throne of God, the wonderful palace in which the Son of Gos chose to dwell for nine months. Her womb was the chose place honoured by the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. If everything that comes in contact with God must be pure and immaculate, purity was necessary for her, the vessel in which the Son of God formed His Flesh and Blood. (If Mary was stained with original sin then Jesus must have been stained also, as the inclination to sin is inherited by all humans, if God didn't cleanse Mary from original sin then Jesus would've inherited it too, and we know he didn't, so Mary must have been kept from original sin). Her Immaculate Conception is a witness to the sanctity of Jesus, her Son.

If Jesus, the Son of God, could choose for His Mother her who please Him most, He would surely choose one acceptable to the Blessed Trinity and worthy of the great honour for which she was destined. Mary was therefore not only free from actual sin, but also she remained exempt from original sin; otherwise she would not have been a Mother suitable for Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

As Eve received natural life from Adam, Mary received spiritual life, the life od grace, through her Son. If Eve was originally immaculate, Mary, who is superior to Eve in merits, could not be inferior to her in dignity. Since Eve was immaculate in her formation, Mary must have been immaculate in her conception.

@Olaadegbu

When Carl asked you which part, he is asking you to point to what is wrong and explain how you think it is wrong. How do you expect to free us from Catholicism if you can't explain how the teachings of the Church is wrong. Oya start using logic to explain jo, it shouldn't be hard, afterall we're the ones that are wrong and you are the right one, so you should be able to point us to the right path, so start o, we're waiting.

Ok so there's more to write, sorry but writing about Mum makes me happy.

Mother of God.

The most sublime of Mary's privileges is her Divine Maternity. Without that Maternity, her other privileges would not exist; she herself would not exist, for she was created only to be the Mother of God.

Mary's Divine Maternity is great also because this privilege is the reason for her other privileges, her Immaculate Conception, miraculous virginity, fullness of grace, Assumption, and the spiritual maternity of all mankind. The Divine Maternity explains everything in her; without this Maternity nothing in Mary can be explained.

In her teaching concernig the union of the human and the Divine natures in Christ the Church states that Jesus Christ is God and Man, perfect God and perfect Man, and that this Divinity and Humanity are united in only one Person so that the actions of the Divine Nature or the Human Nature are the actions of one person, the Divine Person.

Since God was born of Mary, she is the Mother of God. If we could not say that she is the Mother of God for having given a body to the Son of God, then neither could we adore this Body; nor would we have been redeemed by the sacrifice of this Body on the Cross; nor would we be united to the Divinity in receiving this Body in the Eucharist.

Mary's Divine Maternity is a such a sublime privilege that no creature, not even Mary herself, can understand it fully. Tp understand her dignity as Mother of God in all its fullness, we would have to understand fully the dignity of the Son of God whose Mother she is.

The dignity of the Divine Maternity raises Mary above all the rest of creation. As Mother of God she surpasses, in an immearuable degree, all other creatures, Angels, and human beings. They are God's servants, but she is His Mother.

We have the sublime dignity of being children of God by adoption; Jesus alone is His Son by nature. But Mary is not the adoptive Mother of the Son of God; she is His real Mother. We can lose our Divine adoption, but Mary can never lose her Divine Maternity. God might have created a more beautiful world, more perfect people, more marvelous spirits; He could not have made anything more wonderful than a Mother of God.

Mary's Divine Maternity places her in a very wonderful relationship with the three Divine Persons. She is the loving daughter of the Father, because, before all creatures, she was predestined to be His daughter at the same moment that He decreed the Incarnation of His Son. He bestowed marvelous privileges upon her and loved her more that all other creatures together. As Mother of the Son of God, she is associated with the Father in the generation of His Son as man. With the Father she, too, can say: "This is my beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased."

Mary is the Mother of the Son of God. She fulfills the duties and enjoys the rights of a true mother. From her own flesh and blood, she formed the Body of her Son. SHe nourished Him, clothed Him, educated Him. She commanded Him and he obeyed. How can we ever understand the great love that bound their hearts together!

Mary is the spous of the Holy Spirit because according to the Gospel and the teaching of the Apostles' Creed, she conceived of the Holy Spirit the Son of God, made Man. She is also called the temple of the Holy Spirit because, in virtue of her Immaculate Conception and her fullness of grace, He dwells within her in a most singular manner.

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993: “Baptism is necessary for salvation , the Church does not know of any [other] means . . . that assures entry into eternal beatitude , ”

“, Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians” (Catechism 1271).

The above contradicts the bible:

Romans 5:1-2
(1) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
(2) By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 3:24-28
(24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
(25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(26) To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
(27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Galatians 2:16
(16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:26
(26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The bible's accounts show that we are justified/saved by faith in Jesus Christ which does not agree with being justified by faith in Baptism as put forward by Cathecism.

Clear contradiction,won't you say?!!

From your interpretations those passages contradict the Bible where Christ himself said to Nicodemus "5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

So is JESUS right or is he wrong?

Well show us a passage of scripture that matches up with sacred tradition saying that Mary didn't see death but went straight to heaven. If you're bent on accepting an assumption, no puns intended, having gotten not an iota of evidence in scriptures, to prove or back up Catholic tradition, then what do you expect me to think?

Show us scripture that says that everything that is true must be written in scripture. When you can prove that "scripture alone" is scriptural then I will give u an answer.

Besides St. John already told us that he saw the ark of the covenant in the temple of God (this would be in heaven) in the form of a woman who is pregnant and then she gives birth to the savior of the world, abeg tell us who the mother of the saviour of the world is.

How did the bible say you should interpret it? Didn't the very one you said became the first pope instructed us how not to do it? Let me give you a little reminder.

2 Peter 1:20 says, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

In other words no one person is allowed to interpret the scriptures in a way that will suit his or her fancy. One is not allowed to put a slant to the meaning of scriptures so as to suit oneself. Many persons have introduced teachings based on one passage alone, without fully grasping the context in which such a passage was derived

Then why are your privately interpreting it? You're adding your own spice to the Bible o, all u have done is said what you believe the Bible to be saying. What you believe the Bible to be saying is wrong. You are wrong, plain and simple. Luther was wrong, which by the way, if you think he did the right thing, why do you still ocnsider Revelations, James, and others especially the writings of St. Paul to be legitimate Bible books when he didn't consider them as such. Did you know he told St. Paul that he was wrong in his writings?

Your case is somewhat different. You have ignored the scriptures all together, and have adopted Catholic traditions that don't even come close to what the scriptures teach.  Not once have I gotten a Catholic to show from scriptures where it says that Mary didn't see death, but was taken to heaven before she died

Not once has a non-catholic proven that scripture alone is scriptural, when you guys are able to prove to us the logic behind scripture alone, we'll then adhere to your rule of scripture alone.

When you guys are able to tell us that the only revelations or actions or practices of Jesus and the apostles in the Bible are the ones that are legitimate then we'll follow your rule, but sorry I cannot follow something that isn't scriptural.

And I will say this much that the church to which I belong uses the bible as the rule of faith and practice. We look to Jesus' life and ministry as the perfect example. We dare not look to men as examples. The apostle Paul says that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. John says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Is it any wonder to you and the world for that matter that big grown men in robes are raping off little boys, and that men of the cloth are smoking and drinking and having no remorse about it whatsoever. Is that what you call not understanding the faith? 

So did Jesus give authority to the Bible or did he give it to men? I asked this question before and received no answer, pls provide me with an answer. Where did the Bible get its authority from?

Prove to me how using the Bible alone is actually scriptural.


You mentioned something earlier about the missing books of the Bible or that the Bible is incomplete. The only Bible that is incomplete is the Bible you protestants use. The Catholic Bible is complete. There is no such thing as missing books from the Bible when one uses the Catholic Bible. There wasn't a Bible and then the books were taken away, the books that were meant to be in Bible are in the Bible the ones that were not meant to be are not in there. None of the books of the Bible were written to be scripture. They were defined as scripture by the Church. If the Church didn't define it as scripture it is not scripture, so truly there is no such thing as missing books or missing scripture. They were never scripture in the first place. The only scripture we have are those in the Bible, the Catholic Bible, you guys are missing books of the Bible.

Carlosein:

so i ask, does this your post corroborate or contradict your claim about the catholic church inspiring or producing the bible?

Let me clarify your misconceptions.

[list]
[li]The Bible was inspired or produced by the holy prophets (OT) and apostles (NT) of God[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]The Bible (OT) was then compiled by the Levites in and by the ark of covenant[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]The Bible (NT) was compiled by the early church (not the RCC) and most were distributed and read in their respective churches[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]The Bible which was already widely accepted and read by believers in Christ was only ratified by the then councils which the RCC may want to lay claim to.[/li]
[/list]

Therefore, Councils only ratified what the church had already done; no council or pope imposed upon the churches books that they had not already accepted.  QED

Carlosein:

p.s: how can HG = Holy Spirit? if to you the Holy Spirit is a drug, i now get why you are a cretin.

today must be one of your HD (High Days!)

This foul and obscene language only exposes what kind of drug influences you, and that is not by the HG.

~Lady~:

@Olaadegbu

When Carl asked you which part, he is asking you to point to what is wrong and explain how you think it is wrong. How do you expect to free us from Catholicism if you can't explain how the teachings of the Church is wrong. Oya start using logic to explain jo, it shouldn't be hard, afterall we're the ones that are wrong and you are the right one, so you should be able to point us to the right path, so start o, we're waiting.

Read all about the full monty in the weblink below, it will inform you of the 37 false RCC doctrines and how they compare with the Bible. You don't have to read it if you don't want to be confused with the facts.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp

Read all about the full monty in the weblink below, it will inform you of the 37 false RCC doctrines and how they compare with the Bible. You don't have to read it if you don't want to be confused with the facts.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp

If you want to learn about history you don't go to the chemistry professor. If you want to learn about the Catholic Church you don't go to a non-catholic source. Only ignorant ppl do that. Or better yet if you want to learn about Christianity you don't go to a muslim website, only misguided fools do so.

Now if you feel you know the truth then by all means go through what Carl and I wrote and explain line by line or item by item how wrong we are. Use logic pls, I don't have time for ppl who don't know how to use their brains. God gave us brains for a reason, pls let's use it.

You guys love to take credit for what God in His Sovereign Power has inspired through His holy prophets who were Jews. God will not share His glory with anyone, it is dangerous. The only contribution to the Bible you made was the addition of the apocrypha and the subtraction of some of the decalogue, and you know the reward awaiting you guys for adding, removing or changing the Word of God.

Please tell us how we added the apocrypha and subtracted the decalogue, or is the decalogue not in the Bible again?

Oga pls you do know that the apocrypha were used by the Jews right? But the holier than thou Jews didn't accept them as truth and infact it was when Christianity came to be and Judaism got threatened that the apocrypha were removed from their book.

So if Jesus thought the apocrypha was good enough to be used to study who are you to say that we can't?

Infact it is those of you that have removed books from the Bible that will be judged?

Oga pls how do you know the books in the Bible today are truly meant to be in the Bible? Why do you call them scripture today?

~Lady~:

If you want to learn about history you don't go to the chemistry professor. If you want to learn about the Catholic Church you don't go to a non-catholic source. Only ignorant ppl do that. Or better yet if you want to learn about Christianity you don't go to a muslim website, only misguided fools do so.

Now tell me, whether it makes sense to learn the truth from an organisation that has been accused of being a counterfeit or to go to the source of Truth Himself and compare the original with the counterfeit and find out how it stands up to scrutiny?

The link suggested used your own source which is the Catechism and compared it with the Bible to see where and how it stood or did not stand the test of scrutiny.  Don't be like the proverbial ostrich that buries its head in the sand and hopes that reality would go away.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp