haha. . . Jesus loves u

that was not my quote lady. Your memory seems to be fading,

that's why I wasn't replying to you.

I repeat (for emphasis):

I don't see why Lady and others should be justifying their idolatrous practices with what happened under the Mosaic law. If the ark of covenant was made at the time of Moses and you use that as the basis of what you do, it implies that what you practice is not CHRISTianity but Judaism. Besides, if you could make reference to what happens then and tell us it's still applicable today, what happens to all the religious rituals, ceremonies and punishments that were given under the Mosaic law? Why don't you keep to them?

But if you claim to be CHRISTians (followers of Christ), then your teachings and practices clearly negate that. On all the occasions that Christ prayed/taught his disciples to pray, did he use any images? On all the occasions that the apostles prayed after the ascension of Christ, did they use any images? Or better still, did they worship God with the aid of any sculptored or graven images? Where did you get your ideas from? How can you claim to be Christians if you cannot follow Christ's teachings and principles? Hebrews 12:2 says "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith" Why do you have to look unto Moses or the Pope for that matter? Please, let's know where you stand. If you're CHRISTians, then follow Christ!


And here's where the Bible denounced your idolatrous tradition:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections. . ." (Romans 1:22-26)

Man is corruptible. Only God is incorruptible and deserves your absolute worship! Desist from idolatry!

@ Gen2genius. . .Is there only one right way to practice Christianity? And if there is, I'm guessing it is yours. Am i right?

What are you talking about? In how many ways are you supposed to practise CHRISTianity? Or don't you know the implication of the word CHRISTian? If you don't, then read Hebrews 12:2

haha. . what i'm gettin at is u will hardly ever find the same thing practiced in different places. I'm talking about the reality of Christian practice, and not just the belief in Christ.

People that believe the same thing practice differently. depending on where u go and some other factors

Humans act towards things e.g. religion, based on the meanings those things hold for them. We acquire those meanings from our interactions with other people and society. Meanings are handled, and may change, as we interact with the object and interpret our experiences. There is a dialectic between religion and society Religion always has a head start before us. As individuals interact with meaningful social institutions they also change them. . so, religions are ultimately socially constructed even though they don't appear that way. U would like to think that the Christianity (or whatever religion) u practice today is just exactly as it was when it was started, but that is far from it. That is why U will hardly ever find any religion practiced in the same exact way in different places. . because they evolve differently depending on the place.

Now people will argue that the Bible prescribes such and such. . .I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that the reality of practice is different. Even within denominations. . . u'll find that the practice is different depending on where u go.

Its really going to take God's divine hand to unravel all that humanistic teaching that has taken hold of their minds. When one stops and think about the heights of religious confusion within the catholic church, its mind boggling. How did it get to that stage only God knows.

I pray daily for Catholics. They are sincere people who have been caught up in deceit and are not aware of it. And that is why I am blessed to have as my only guide the LIVING WORD. THANK YOU JESUS for the light.

most christians are guilty of following just some parts of the bible that suits their perceptions, hence some worship idols but closes eyes on some scriptural evidences of God's anger towards that one good example is when Moses was up the Mountain and the israelites built a god/cow to worship

unitee:

most christians are guilty of following just some parts of the bible that suits their perceptions, hence some worship idols but closes eyes on some scriptural evidences of God's anger towards that one good example is when Moses was up the Mountain and the israelites built a god/cow to worship

The same way God himself commanded the same Isrealites to build graven images to use for their salvation. Seriously when will you guys realise you're interpretint the biblical passage wrongly.

Are the Israelites Christians?

Are you following the Mosaic tradition or the teachings of Christ?

Why don't you FOR ONCE stop referring to what happened before Christ came and say something about what he taught and instructed?

@ gen2genius

It is entirely your opinion that Catholics engage in idolatrous practices. We're not justifying idolatrous practices we're showing that our practices aren't idolatrous by trying to have you expand your own knowledge of what idolatry is and what idolatry isn't.

By your post, are you insinuating that God is inconsistent? That the OT is just the OT and the NT is just the NT and there is no relation between them?

Are you also insinuating that idolatry was permitted in the past with the use of the ark and the bronze serpent and the images of chrerubims and such in the temple?
Why would God give a commandment and then ask that the commandment be broken?

Could it be that maybe it is your reasoning that is flawed and not ours? And that it is your interpretation of the Bible that is errant and not ours? Or will you now claim that your interpretation of the Bible is flawless and you are therefore the infallible interpreter of the Bible?

Are you insinuating that the practices in the OT were abolished in the NT?

gen2genius:

Are the Israelites Christians?

Are you following the Mosaic tradition or the teachings of Christ?

Why don't you FOR ONCE stop referring to what happened before Christ came and say something about what he taught and instructed?

Is it then convenient for you to focus on the OT when it suits you and then the NT when it suits you?
Did Christ abolish the Mosaic law? Was the Mosaic law flawed?

@gen2genius

Shall I show it to you from the NT that images are not wrong?

Why would God give a commandment not to make any images and then break it ultimately by making himself an image?

If you think Christians should still be under the Mosaic law, don't you think then that we should still be observing all the rituals, ceremonies and traditions in it? Don't you think we should still be stoning and killing people who do wrong, observe the Sabbath and offer rams as sacrifice for atonement of our sins? Why do you think Christ came?

God is not inconsistent. The Mosaic law was to serve a purpose until Christ would come. After that, everything was to be patterned after Christ and His teachings. Here is the full explanation from the Scripture:

"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:19-25).


"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.  But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Galatians 4:21-26)

And here's where Paul expressed concern for his brethren who were still stuck in the Mosaic system, despite the fact that a better system had been introduced:

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:1-4).

Shall I show it to you from the NT that images are not wrong?

Go ahead. But one thing you must know is, if you claim to be a CHRISTian, then be a follower of the teachings and examples of Christ. Otherwise, calling yourself a Christian is a misnomer



[color=#000099][/color]

Yes He used both sets of offices that were specifically introduced for a particular reason. The priests represented the people to God, while prophets represented God to the people. The Priests had a set of instructions to follow that were given by the prophets, as it related to the sanctuary services. The prophets were the mouth piece of God ensuring that God's will was known to both the people and the priests.

In the case of worship however, each person came to God as individuals. Each person developed their own relationship with God on a daily basis. If there was a matter that needed to be brought to the people, the prophet would make God's will known through revelations and visions.

But your initial post was that God doesn't need representatives on earth. Why then would the prophets represent God? Is God being inconsistent?

All are free to come as long as they do not attempt to derail my thread. If they say I am judgmental its only because they do not realize the importance truth. What would be the point of stressing love, if that love is built on a false premise of ignoring God's gems of truth? It simply means that they do not know God, and are falsely representing Him. Sin must be exposed as sin even if it means offending those who practice it. Jesus once said "truth is an offense but not a sin"

Truth is an offense and that's why  you're banging your head against the wall fighting against the truth. You assume you know the truth, ofcourse this is based on your own interpretation of the Bible, so can you please explain to me how you became the infallible interpreter of the Bible.

Yes you responded by defending idolatry, rather than confess that what has been displayed in the photos are downright wrong and sinful. How can anyone see those photos and walk away arguing about the semantics of worship? How can you, when its obvious what is happening.

So then you accused me falsely?
Confess to what when you finally said the same things I was saying. I told you before and I will say it again. You believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches you just don't know it. You erroneously think the Catholic Church believes in things that she does not and that she practices something that she does not.
Maybe you need to learn what the teachings of the Catholic Church is before you continue to fight your own beliefs.

But that is what the thread is all about. The photos are proof enough. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Not quite, photos are also very misleading and they're easily changed. One may have found a picture that has been photoshopped and made to look like something else. For example, last week there was a piture of Obama and the french president and a woman. It looked like Obama was checking her out by looking at her backside but initially he was actually helping her to stand up because she fell. Turns out it was the french president that was checking out the woman. People accused Obama of doing what he wasn't doing. And you are doing the same.
So just because you see something in a photo doesn't mean that the photo hasn't been tampered with reveal what isn't initially true.

And besides the photo doesn't say "ignore the Bible" your claim is that Catholics are told to ignore the Bible and now the burden of proof is on you to provide Catholic teaching that tells Catholics to ignore the Bible.

But in post 123 you said these words, "There is a saying: Never wrestle with a pig, you will only get dirty and the pig will only like it. Ignorance certainly is the best answer for a fool. Apparently Bobbyaf has shown that he doesn't know what reason is."

I gave a saying and no where in my saying did I say Bobby is a pig. If you happen to read that in there, that is your palava and apparently you must have felt guilty. But rest assured I had no intention of calling you a pig.

I made the following statement to prove that  you wish not to reason but make the assumption that you know the truth when you are very much human and very much flawed and are prone to misinterpreting and imsunderstanding things. You assume your interpretation of the Bible to be the truth, but you fail to understand that you are human and your reasoning can be flawed, and as you've shown several times here you contradict yourself and your interpretations of the Bible contradict each other. So Bobby are your interpretations of the Bible perfect?

Because most of those people find the catholic church a rather convenient place to be, seeing they can smoke, and drink alcoholic beverages, and commit all manner of sins. They don't worry you see. They can always confess their sins to a priest rather than go directly to Jesus.

The Catholic Church is anything but convenient and that's why people are always attacking us for being too conservative and too strict in rules and beliefs. If you think confession is convenient think again. Imagine having to face up to your sins and confront them. You seriously think that's simple. If it was simple, none of you would be so against it, infact you would all be jumping on it.
Smoking is not encouraged in the Church, as it damages ones body and we are called to see our bodies as the temple of God and to therefore respect it and not defame it.
Alcohol is not prohibited because alcoholic beverages are not wrong, drinking too much is wrong. Don't forget Jesus was also accused of being a drunk, he wouldn't have been accused if he wasn't seen drinking.
And we don't confess the sins to the Priest as a person, we confess the sins to Christ. The forgiveness that comes from the Priest is actually the forgiveness of Christ as Christ gave the power to forgive and not forgive sins to the apostles (John 20:21-23)and we see St. Paul exercise that authority when he forgives the sins of others in the person of Christ (2 Cor 2:10).

Because they fear the Catholic church, nothing more. They are spineless creatures.

Riiiighhht.

If that is the case how come there is such a vast difference between what is taught in the Catechism, and what is taught in the bible. Let me give you an example, According to the Bible, it was God's design for a husband and wife to become one flesh and to cleave to each other, and yet the Roman Catholic church says otherwise. They have another man-made doctrine condemning priests to celibacy, something which God never intended. Bishops i.e. pastors, according the Bible are supposed the husband of one wife (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6), Roman Catholicism adds to the Bible by placing an undue burden upon the clergy by forbidding them to marry (I Timothy 4:1-3), the Bible calls this a "doctrine of devils!"

Have you even read the Catechism to be able to make such a claim?
The Cateshims outlines Christian beliefs and shows how we arrive at those beliefs from scripture.
You're only stating your own opinion based on the your own personal interpretation of the Bible, which you haven't proven to be the infallible interpreter of. So how is your interpretation the correct interpretation?

Out of courtesy I addressed them even though they were irrelevant.

But you claim not to address them because they were irrelevant. You're contradicting yourself again.

Is that your reason for my finding your posts irrelevant?

I'm not the one who said your posts are irrelevant, you're the one who said my posts are irrelevant. You're the one that's insecure, I have no problem defending my faith and answering questions pertaining to it. However you've done nothing but dodge and try to twist things. I pray one day you will get over your fear and insecurity.
I do not have a problem taking on anyone with any belief, that's why I gladly debate with muslims because I am very confident in my faith and I defend my faith with intellect. I don't just say it and pray that no one catches that I don't make any sense.

Don't bother to waste your time.

Then stop making false claims.

I am certain you weren't discussing Judas as a disciple who was being used by Jesus. The only role he played was to handle the money bag.  

I am very certain I was talking about Judas, and also certain you had no idea who I was talking about because you are not in my head. Have you forgotten that before Judas betrayed Jesus he was given the power to cast out demons and to heal and preach the gospel?

That was never an issue in our discussion. The discussion centered around the disciples, and you were the one who brought them up. Now in your deception you're making it look as if I am ignorant of the fact that God's Spirit did annoint others before Jesus' birth. Its typical of you to try and deceive.

That was the issue. You made a statement trying to debunk my point and then showed your ignorance in it. Go back and read what you said. You were implying that the Holy Spirit did not act through anyone or annoint anyone until after the death of Jesus, I was correcting you by showing you how flawed your statement was. It was your statement and not mine. We were talking about the disciples but your statement went on a broader spectrum and if a muslim or non-christian were reading this thread and trying to get info about Christianity you would have steered them wrong. You have to remember that this is a public forum and me and you are not the only ones reading.

I never said that. You're assuming that.

I am not assuming anything, and I don't accuse you of anything. I made my statement that way because I know you don't see the other side of the coin when you speak sometimes. You completely dismiss the notion that when you directly say one thing you are indirectly saying another, and the thing you indirectly say is heretical. It is good to always look beyond.

Trying to prove your knowledge?

No, my knowledge is also flawed, afterall I am human, but I do try to reason beyond the obvious and to see both sides of the coin before I speak.
I'm sorry if I made you feel stupid, that is not my intention.
I do try to believe that you have good intentions, but I also know you're human and flawed and so far you clearly don't want to reason things through. You assume the Church is wrong, instead of trying to understand why it is we believe what we believe, and then weigh it well. If it makes no sense to you, then don't believe. But it makes sense to me, so I believe.
And trust me you'd believe too if you were to scope through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and then also learn Catholic teachings and I do mean Catholic teachings not what you think the Church teaches or what someone has led you to believe is Catholic teaching.

If that is your attempt to use the early church's glitches, and minor shortcomings even in the presence of God's Son, to minimize the evils of the RCC, you're making a sad mistake. don't confuse the struggles of the followers of Christ with outright attempts to destroy persons who do not agree with the RCC's beliefs. Please don't insult our intelligence.

I don't insult your intelligence, you insult your own intelligence. My point was to show that because someone sins or because a group of people sins does not mean they are not truly in God's Church or are not God's Church. Your criteria for God's Church is flawed.

No one is arguing that. This is a perfect example of one of your irrelevant points. There is a vast difference in sinning willfully, and making mistakes. The disciples made mistakes along the way, but there can be no comparison with the atrocities that were committed by the Roman catholic church during the period 538 AD to 1798 AD, when Catholicism reigned supreme, and did as it pleased.

You are arguing that. Apparently you think that because a group of people sinned they cannot be God's Church. How is willfull sinning different from making mistakes. If a man commits adultery he sins willfully but it is also a mistake as long as he realises what he has done is wrong. You'd be amazed how many credible historians disagree with popular assumptions like yours.

You need a refresher course in history. Millions died not just a few.

1) I'm trying to understand how this relates to the post of mine you quoted
2) Do you want to check those numbers again?
3) Most of what the Church has done she has done it in defense of herself. First from the muslims when they attakced and killed christians and took over christian land. Second the inquisition is not about killing people, there never were any killings, the inquisition still exists and it is not about what people think it is. The inquisiton is for those who claim to be Catholics who preach/teach/ or act heresies. It was never aimed at Protestants or muslims or jews even. If one professed to be of another faith, they were set free or given to the state if they committed a criminal act.

No. The Holy Spirit is.

So how then does your own interpretation contradict itself and others who also claim to be interpreting from the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?

@gen2genius.

I currently have little patience for illogical people or people who wish to rant and refuse to answer my questions but expect me to answer theirs.

I asked you several direct questions, please answer them. I never stated anything about my belief so I don't know where you're getting that from.

One more time answer my questions.

Go ahead. But one thing you must know is, if you claim to be a CHRISTian, then be a follower of the teachings and examples of Christ. Otherwise, calling yourself a Christian is a misnomer

2 Corinthians 4
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them

Christ himself is an image.

Colossians
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins; 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature

Ha look at that in the NT we actually have an image of God.

The making of images are not prohibited, it is the worshipping of those particular images that are prohibited.
Worshipping does not mean one bows, so bowing before anything doesn't constitute worship.

@ Lady

It is entirely your opinion that Catholics engage in idolatrous practices. We're not justifying idolatrous practices we're showing that our practices aren't idolatrous by trying to have you expand your own knowledge of what idolatry is and what idolatry isn't.

That is not an opinion Lady. Its a fact.

By your post, are you insinuating that God is inconsistent? That the OT is just the OT and the NT is just the NT and there is no relation between them?

To be honest the bible is God's words, and hence I make no distinction. But frankly neither Old or New testament ascribe to disobedience to God's specific instructions to not bow to graven images, whether or not we have a clue as to anybody's motives for bowing.

Are you also insinuating that idolatry was permitted in the past with the use of the ark and the bronze serpent and the images of chrerubims and such in the temple?
Why would God give a commandment and then ask that the commandment be broken?

That is because you're confusing the issues. The 2nd commandment is a direct instruction given to Moses for God's people not to make any images, and to use those images as a means of worshiping God directly. In other words God doesn't want us to use intermediaries when we are in the act of worshiping Him. God wants us to come to Him directly and individually in worship.  

As regards the furniture of the temple they are not to be seen as graven images in the sense of the 2nd commandment. They serve as illustrations to meet an objective which is to make it easier for the Children of Israel to have a better understanding of the plan of salvation. For example, the shew bread represents Jesus who is the bread of life, The 12 golden candlesticks represent the light of God, and His people that continuously lead into truth and freedom.

Could it be that maybe it is your reasoning that is flawed and not ours? And that it is your interpretation of the Bible that is errant and not ours? Or will you now claim that your interpretation of the Bible is flawless and you are therefore the infallible interpreter of the Bible?

The problem with this view is itself erroneous. St. Peter said we should not have private interpretations of scriptures. I gather that what he meant is that we should allow the scriptures to explain themselves, seeing they are in unity. Christ Himself used scriptures to defeat the devil.  

Are you insinuating that the practices in the OT were abolished in the NT?

Well, he might, but I do not believe that everything from the Old testament has been done away with. They are certain principles that serve a purpose.

Lady you keep referring to the bronze serpent as an image, and that God contradicted Himself apparently when He gave Moses the command to place it on a pole. Why would you bring God's repute into question just because you're looking for excuses to justify the idolatrous methods of Catholicism? Can't you see what you're doing? Can't you see that its a plot of the devil to trap you?

Wasn't it explained to you before as to the purpose of the pole with a brazen serpent?

@gen2genius.

I currently have little patience for illogical people or people who wish to rant and refuse to answer my questions but expect me to answer theirs.

I asked you several direct questions, please answer them. I never stated anything about my belief so I don't know where you're getting that from.

One more time answer my questions.

Quote
Go ahead. But one thing you must know is, if you claim to be a CHRISTian, then be a follower of the teachings and examples of Christ. Otherwise, calling yourself a Christian is a misnomer

2 Corinthians 4
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them

Christ himself is an image.

Colossians
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins; 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature

Ha look at that in the NT we actually have an image of God.

The making of images are not prohibited, it is the worshipping of those particular images that are prohibited.
Worshipping does not mean one bows, so bowing before anything doesn't constitute worship.

@Lady

Now, who's ranting and spewing out absurdities?  

What questions did you ask that I didn't answer? You asked a single question - Is God being inconsistent? - and I answered you, so why the hysteria?


And the passages you cited in the New testament as the basis of your bowing to graven images are totally outrageous, to say the least.

Don't you understand simple English? Does any of the passages you mentioned talk about carved or sculptured images? Are you saying God sculptured Jesus out of stone or clay or wood and therefore Catholics have the licence to do same ? I never thought you'd need explanation on the passages you quoted but since you seem to be misinterpreting them, let me inform you that what the scripture implies is that all you need to know about God is in Christ. That's what the Bible means by "image of God," not that you should be carving out images for yourself to bow down to. Simple!

And I ask you, if you claim to be a Christian, why don't you emulate Christ? Did he bow to or taught you to make and bow to any images? And when he taught you about prayer, did he say anything about using images? When the first Christians, including Peter whom you claim to be the first pope, began their ministry did you read about them using images in worship?

It really amazes me how you people bring up ideas that contradict the teachings and practices of Jesus and still claim to be his followers.

Can't state it any simpler than that!

The brazen serpent among other significances was a step short of an idol . . .  

Bobbyaf's already doing a good job highlighting the significances  

Notice that the brazen serpent was looked up to (i.e. beheld) and not bowed down to (i.e. it was not worshipped)

The distinction between a graven image & an idol can be noticed when reading Exodus chapter 20 verses 4-5

Exodus chapter 20 verses 4-5 Amplified Bible (AMP):


⁴ You shall not make yourself any graven image [to worship it] or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;

⁵ You shall not bow down yourself to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me

Remember that verses numbering do not exist in the original scriptures - verse with numberings are uninspired additions, in essence verse 4 and 5, possibly could be one long sentence

There is a whole world wide difference between a graven image and an idol

Moreover the brazen serpent wasn't a subject of worship . . .

The brazen serpent was a graven image and not an idol

Pictures or paintings of ancestors or effigies of any other human beings for that matter cant assist in worshipping the true God.

Neither are and/or were such effigies (i.e. these Virgin Mary figurines) commanded to be made by God or "Pope" Peter anyway

Remember when the Israelites burnt incense and made drink offerings to the “queen of heaven,”

God was angry with them because they were serving other gods

Read Jeremiah chapter 44 verses 14-30 for the exact details

Check out the below quick FYI from Isaiah 42:8

Isaiah 42:8:


I am the Lord; that is My name!

And My glory I will not give to another,

nor My praise to graven images.

When a graven images starts getting worshipped (i.e. bowed down to etc)

it metamorphises and/or turns in (i.e. gets promoted ) to an idol

That is not an opinion Lady. Its a fact.

You've proven it to not be a fact.

To be honest the bible is God's words, and hence I make no distinction. But frankly neither Old or New testament ascribe to disobedience to God's specific instructions to not bow to graven images, whether or not we have a clue as to anybody's motives for bowing.

How do you know the Bible is God's words. The quran claims to be God's words, do you believe it?
Unfortunately you misunderstand what is meant as a graven image.
So then when a person bows to another person that person is committing idolatry?
Or how about when the Jews adored and bowed before the ark, if what you take the commandment to be wouldn't that mean they committed idolatory and that God commanded it?
Or how about when the bronze serpent was put in the temple and used in Jewish worship wouldn't that according to you be idolatry?

Seriously just because one bows does not mean it is worship. Bowing is not always a form of worship. If the intent is to be worship then it is worship, but if the intent is not to be worship then it is not worship.

If bowing means worshipping then the OT is full of idol worshippers.
Lot would be guilty of worshipping the angels in Sodom when he bowed to them Gen 19:1
Joseph's brothers bowed before Joseph
Joshua prostrated before an angel
Saul bows before Samuel
Nathan bows before King David
2 Chron. 29:29-30 - King Hezekiah and the assembly venerate the altar (an altar is an image) by bowing down in worship before the sin offerings.
Dan. 2:46 - the king fell down on his face paying homage to Daniel and commands that an offering be made to him.
King Solomon bowed before his mother when she took her throne as Queen by his side 1 Kings 2:19

So not all bowing is idolatrous. So no I am not defending any idolatrous practices because our bowing is not idolatrous.

That is because you're confusing the issues. The 2nd commandment is a direct instruction given to Moses for God's people not to make any images, and to use those images as a means of worshiping God directly. In other words God doesn't want us to use intermediaries when we are in the act of worshiping Him. God wants us to come to Him directly and individually in worship.

No I am not confusing the issues you are. That's all the more reason why I say learn what the Church teaches before you falsely accuse us. The Church doesn't teach that those statues are intermediaries. The Church doesn't even teach that those statues do anything. They're just physical reminders and serve the same purpose as the ark of the covenant, the bronze serpent and the cherubims. The images are only used to worship God, the images themselves are not being worshipped. I have said that continuously and consistently here. You're only saying what I'm saying.
We do go to him directly and individually.
That's what we do at Mass. We as a community offer Christ sufferings on the cross to God (what you call breaking bread), we also do it individually when he tell the Priest to let everyone know what the Mass is being offered for, and we do it individually when we are praying at Mass. At Mass you are praying to God by adoring him, petitioning him and praising him.

As regards the furniture of the temple they are not to be seen as graven images in the sense of the 2nd commandment. They serve as illustrations to meet an objective which is to make it easier for the Children of Israel to have a better understanding of the plan of salvation. For example, the shew bread represents Jesus who is the bread of life, The 12 golden candlesticks represent the light of God, and His people that continuously lead into truth and freedom.

Finally you get my point.

The problem with this view is itself erroneous. St. Peter said we should not have private interpretations of scriptures. I gather that what he meant is that we should allow the scriptures to explain themselves, seeing they are in unity. Christ Himself used scriptures to defeat the devil.  

Whoa so you do know that S. Peter says we shouldn't have private interpretations of scripture so why do you privately interprete scripture?
I understand what you're trying to say by allowing scripture to explain itself, but there's no way scripture can explain itself, only people can explain scripture, you'll actually need a person. But I do understand and I do agree. I will take it a step further to tell you what Catholic principles are for interpreting scripture.

1) To understand the Bible we must look for the meaning the writers intended. We must go back to the time, place, way of life, mode of thinking, and manners of expression of the people of the Bible.

2) We must interpret a given passage in light of the other passages that relate to it. Therfore no picking one passage and disregarding the other. A classic example of this is Matthew 26:26-28, where Jesus said over the bread and wine: "This is my body, This is my blood." Curiously enough, many fundamentalists refuse to take this passage literally. But Catholics must interpret it in the light of John 6, where Jesus proclais himself to be the bread of life. When Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, many of his hearers abandoned him. Jesus did not call them back and tell them, "You misunderstood. I only meant that in a symbolic way." What he was asking them to believe was hard to accept, and when they refused Jesus sadly let them go. Other verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:27 also point to the real presence of Jesus under the appearances of the bread and wine.

3) Biblical scholars often accentuate one point of an issue without denying all the other dimensions of that issue. Remember above where I was saying you should see the other side of the coin, that when you directly say one thing you're indirectly saying another thing. The writers of the Bible were careful enough not to do that.
So in Galatians 3:1-9, Paul emphasizes that justification comes through faith in Christ rather than through observance of the Jewish law. By saying this Paul is not denying the importance of good works, for in Galatians 5-6 he emphasizes them as the way to "inherit the Kingdom of God."

4) Aramaic language spoken by Jesus tends to use colorful expressions not meant to be taken literally. Some of the parables are examples of this. This kind of language is not easy to translate into English.

5) Most passages in the OT needs to be interpreted in light of Jesus Christ and the NT. As a general rule, it is safe to say that if an OT passage attributes something to God that we cannot attribute to Jesus Christ, then that passage is probably not to be taken literally. For example it is not likely that God actually commanded military leaders to slaughter every man, woman, and innocent child in the cities they overran; it is far more likely that these leaders mistakenly believed God to be behind their directives and that their erroneous attitudes are reported as they perceived them.

Lady you keep referring to the bronze serpent as an image, and that God contradicted Himself apparently when He gave Moses the command to place it on a pole. Why would you bring God's repute into question just because you're looking for excuses to justify the idolatrous methods of Catholicism? Can't you see what you're doing? Can't you see that its a plot of the devil to trap you?

Lol ok darling relax. I don't think that God contradicts himself. In an effort to get you to see my point I take your own view and turn it into a question to you. So when I'm asking why God contradicts himself I am actually trying to get you to see that with your reasoning or interpretation of the bible verse you are indirectly saying that God contradicts himself.

What questions did you ask that I didn't answer? You asked a single question - Is God being inconsistent? - and I answered you, so why the hysteria?

Actually I asked more than that. Go back and read through, Bobby clearly didn't miss them so I suggest you go back and see my questions.

Don't you understand simple English? Does any of the passages you mentioned talk about carved or sculptured images? Are you saying God sculptured Jesus out of stone or clay or wood and therefore Catholics have the licence to do same ? I never thought you'd need explanation on the passages you quoted but since you seem to be misinterpreting them, let me inform you that what the scripture implies is that all you need to know about God is in Christ. That's what the Bible means by "image of God," not that you should be carving out images for yourself to bow down to. Simple!

No but the claim of you guys is that images are wrong. I proved that images aren't wrong because Jesus is an image of God. You also claimed that bowing is worshipping, I have also proven that not all acts of bowing is worshipping.

And I ask you, if you claim to be a Christian, why don't you emulate Christ? Did he bow to or taught you to make and bow to any images? And when he taught you about prayer, did he say anything about using images? When the first Christians, including Peter whom you claim to be the first pope, began their ministry did you read about them using images in worship?

Are you forgetting that Jesus himself is an image?

Jesus is not a carved/sculptured image. Jesus is the embodiment of God. Stop blaspheming by comparing Jesus with what you carve out with your hands!

And as I said before you have no one to point to, either among Jesus or the early disciples, that advocated that carved images be used in worship, or that you should bow to them. Even when, out of wonder and amazement, John the Revelator wanted to bow before the angel that showed him some things concerning the end time, he was STRICTLY forbidden from doing so. Revelation 22:8-9 says: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."


If it's forbidden to bow before an angel of God in worship, how can it be scriptural to bow before a graven image or before the Pope in worship?

~Lady~:


. . . Are you forgetting that Jesus himself is an image?

[size=16pt]@^[/size]

What a preposterous and ludicrous statement

and completely out of context and not relevant . . .

I give up & rest my case . . . ^{This is like beating a dead horse}

gen2genius:

Jesus is not a carved/sculptured image. Jesus is the embodiment of God. Stop blaspheming by comparing Jesus with what you carve out with your hands!

And as I said before you have no one to point to, either among Jesus or the early disciples, that advocated that carved images be used in worship, or that you should bow to them. Even when, out of wonder and amazement, John the Revelator wanted to bow before the angel that showed him some things concerning the end time, he was STRICTLY forbidden from doing so. Revelation 22:8-9 says: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."


If it's forbidden to bow before an angel of God in worship, how can it be scriptural to bow before a graven image or before the Pope in worship?

Oh but you're the one that said something about images?

And where in scripture is it forbidden to bow before an angel of God in worship?
Oh you're also assuming that Catholic bow beofre a graven image or the Pope in worship. Go through the post I've already talked about that. Don't make me do this again.

Jesus is not a carved/sculptured image

So must it be carved?
Why then do you oppose the bowing to the Pope the Pope isn't carved, he has flesh as Christ has flesh.

Recognise:

[size=16pt]@^[/size]

What a preposterous and ludicrous statement

and completely out of context and not relevant . . .

I give up & rest my case . . . ^{This is like beating a dead horse}

So if I don't see it your way I'm automatically wrong?
I didn't take anything out of context, if anyone is ever guilty of that, it's you guys. You clearly mis everything that is being said by the Catholics and assume that we must be wrong instead of trying to reason things through and see maybe we are actually right.

He spoke about images and how we worship them, I try to correct him by showing him that it is not the images that is wrong it is the worshipping of images that is wrong.

He needs to learn to be careful in how he says things then. Because in the process he blasphemes.

@ Lady

How do you know the Bible is God's words. The quran claims to be God's words, do you believe it?

You'd say anything or pose any irrelevant question just to win an argument.

Unfortunately you misunderstand what is meant as a graven image.

We are referring to graven images that are not to be bowed down to. Its that simple!

So then when a person bows to another person that person is committing idolatry?

Not in every case is bowing a sign of worship, especially when applied to persons of high office. For example, when a person steps away from the queen of England it is natural to walk backwards and make a slight bow. The same is true when approaching the queen, or any monarchy for that matter. Even the governor general receives a slight bow when being approached. The above however is not to be construed as worship. Don't confuse showing respect for the high offices as being the same as worshiping the persons who hold those offices.

Or how about when the Jews adored and bowed before the ark, if what you take the commandment to be wouldn't that mean they committed idolatory and that God commanded it?

So because the Jews back then might have done makes it right, heh?

Or how about when the bronze serpent was put in the temple and used in Jewish worship wouldn't that according to you be idolatry?

You're so desperate in your attempt to justify pagan practices in the catholic church that you'd rather twist scriptures to suit your argument. So because an object is placed in a temple its seen as an object of worship, or in worship?  

Seriously just because one bows does not mean it is worship. Bowing is not always a form of worship. If the intent is to be worship then it is worship, but if the intent is not to be worship then it is not worship.

God doesn't need your philosophies. He simply commanded "do not bow down to them, nor serve them"

If bowing means worshipping then the OT is full of idol worshippers.
Lot would be guilty of worshipping the angels in Sodom when he bowed to them Gen 19:1
Joseph's brothers bowed before Joseph
Joshua prostrated before an angel
Saul bows before Samuel
Nathan bows before King David

It doesn't matter what people did back then. What matters is what God commanded. If they disobeyed must you follow in disobedience. The bible has been silent on many of the ills that prevailed among God's people, but that doesn't mean we should now commit the same wrongs? An example would be multi-marriages that were practiced by kings and patriarchs. Besides, look at those instances when God raised up kings to restore God's law in the land and to demolish the idols that were established.

2 Chron. 29:29-30 - King Hezekiah and the assembly venerate the altar (an altar is an image) by bowing down in worship before the sin offerings. Dan. 2:46 - the king fell down on his face paying homage to Daniel and commands that an offering be made to him. King Solomon bowed before his mother when she took her throne as Queen by his side 1 Kings 2:19, So not all bowing is idolatrous. So no I am not defending any idolatrous practices because our bowing is not idolatrous.

By whose standards are they not idolatrous? Simply showing how God's people erred due to uncontrolled emotional behaviour, doesn't justify what they did. These were humans who were prone like us to make grave mistakes.

No I am not confusing the issues you are. That's all the more reason why I say learn what the Church teaches before you falsely accuse us. The Church doesn't teach that those statues are intermediaries. The Church doesn't even teach that those statues do anything.

So how did church members come to be bowing to statues in the first place? And even if the RCC didn't suggest then why are the members not corrected? If we are able to see these photos online, how come the priests aren't able to see what is going on?

They're just physical reminders and serve the same purpose as the ark of the covenant, the bronze serpent and the cherubims.

Yet these ancient symbols were never bowed down to. Its one thing to have images and teach that they are used as illustrations, but its quite another thing to see people bow down to them, when God forbids any form of worship involving bowing down to graven images. The ancient furniture in the temple, or the brazen serpent on the pole, were never once being bowed down to by those who knew better. And even if anyone did bow down to them you and I know that that act in and of itself was wrong.

The images are only used to worship God, the images themselves are not being worshipped. I have said that continuously and consistently here. You're only saying what I'm saying.

And as long as you fail to see God's command I will certainly make it my duty to constantly remind you Lady. Trust me on that.

We do go to him directly and individually. That's what we do at Mass. We as a community offer Christ sufferings on the cross to God (what you call breaking bread), we also do it individually when he tell the Priest to let everyone know what the Mass is being offered for, and we do it individually when we are praying at Mass. At Mass you are praying to God by adoring him, petitioning him and praising him.

Its funny when people failed to acknowledge the mass they were killed. Its funny that Jesus didn't utilize fermented wine when He celebrated the passover supper. Do you realize how many priests have become alcoholics because they drink all that wine at mass? I am sure it isn't grape juice. Besides, everyday Christians worship God. Its not just as Communion service.

Quote from Bobby
As regards the furniture of the temple they are not to be seen as graven images in the sense of the 2nd commandment. They serve as illustrations to meet an objective which is to make it easier for the Children of Israel to have a better understanding of the plan of salvation. For example, the shew bread represents Jesus who is the bread of life, The 12 golden candlesticks represent the light of God, and His people that continuously lead into truth and freedom.

Finally you get my point.

What point?  

Whoa so you do know that S. Peter says we shouldn't have private interpretations of scripture so why do you privately interprete scripture?

I don't. I quote scripture, and explain what it means based on other references.

I understand what you're trying to say by allowing scripture to explain itself, but there's no way scripture can explain itself, only people can explain scripture, you'll actually need a person. But I do understand and I do agree. I will take it a step further to tell you what Catholic principles are for interpreting scripture.

I am glad you understand the import of my argument.

1) To understand the Bible we must look for the meaning the writers intended. We must go back to the time, place, way of life, mode of thinking, and manners of expression of the people of the Bible.

Point taken.

2) We must interpret a given passage in light of the other passages that relate to it. Therfore no picking one passage and disregarding the other. A classic example of this is Matthew 26:26-28, where Jesus said over the bread and wine: "This is my body, This is my blood." Curiously enough, many fundamentalists refuse to take this passage literally.

So how come you do not taste blood when you drink the wine if it were meant to be literal? Why not go all the way?

But Catholics must interpret it in the light of John 6, where Jesus proclais himself to be the bread of life. When Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, many of his hearers abandoned him. Jesus did not call them back and tell them, "You misunderstood. I only meant that in a symbolic way." What he was asking them to believe was hard to accept, and when they refused Jesus sadly let them go. Other verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:27 also point to the real presence of Jesus under the appearances of the bread and wine.

He never had to say to them it was symbolic.

John 1:14 says "and the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us".

Psalms 119:103, "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!"

Psalms 34:8, "O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him."

Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found, and I did eat them, "

In fact in verse 58 of John 6 we see Jesus even explaining to them that this "eating of bread"  is not "as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead:" For Jesus to bluntly explain that the type of bread eating He is speaking of is in no way like "eating manna," is a blunt fact that sadly only a natural man void of Heavenly Truth can miss. Wasn't it you a few verses above that said we should not isolate a few verses out of their general context. How come you overlooked Jesus' own explanations concerning what He meant by what He said about eating His flesh, and drinking His blood?

You know what I am really happy about is the fact that we have witnessed to Catholics in this thread. They cannot say they didn't hear the testimony. Its either we or they are wrong. We both cannot be right.

In time as we draw closer to final events, I pray that their eyes will be opened. It is my desire that they truly understand what is at stake.

You'd say anything or pose any irrelevant question just to win an argument.

No you made a statement and I asked you questions based on that statement. That is how discussions go.

We are referring to graven images that are not to be bowed down to. Its that simple!

So which are those?

Not in every case is bowing a sign of worship, especially when applied to persons of high office. For example, when a person steps away from the queen of England it is natural to walk backwards and make a slight bow. The same is true when approaching the queen, or any monarchy for that matter. Even the governor general receives a slight bow when being approached. The above however is not to be construed as worship. Don't confuse showing respect for the high offices as being the same as worshiping the persons who hold those offices.

Exactly what I and other Catholics have been saying. Just because you see bowing does not mean it is worship. It has now become you and others assuming that if Catholics bow then it must be worship. Where does it say that if Catholics bow it must be worship?

I as a Catholic meet my babes parents and bow as a sign of respect does that automatically mean I am worshipping his parents?

So because the Jews back then might have done makes it right, heh?

No it means that if it was acceptable to God then, it would be acceptable now. God is not inconsistent.
He isn't confined to time and space as we are. He isn't looking at it as "oh well they did it then but that's then and now is now so I'll condemn the Catholics and not the Jews" He also doesn't look at it saying "well I commanded it then, but I change my mind, I don't command it now"

You're so desperate in your attempt to justify pagan practices in the catholic church that you'd rather twist scriptures to suit your argument. So because an object is placed in a temple its seen as an object of worship, or in worship?

According to you? Yes. That's what this has been all about. You saw and then assumed and then accused.
According to you because statues or objects are found in the Catholic Church it is worshipped. Or isn't that what your cry has been about?

God doesn't need your philosophies. He simply commanded "do not bow down to them, nor serve them"

Ok now you're contradicting yourself. Above you said not all forms of bowing is worship, but now you're trying to show that bowing is worship?

It doesn't matter what people did back then. What matters is what God commanded. If they disobeyed must you follow in disobedience. The bible has been silent on many of the ills that prevailed among God's people, but that doesn't mean we should now commit the same wrongs? An example would be multi-marriages that were practiced by kings and patriarchs. Besides, look at those instances when God raised up kings to restore God's law in the land and to demolish the idols that were established.

It does matter what people did back then, because back then foreshadows now. Not just that God commanded back then, if he was ok with something then he is ok with it now. He is not inconsistent as you are implying him to be. But there's no evidence of their disobedience because the "disobedience" is a command from God. So what God is now inconsistent? And this is a matter of commandment and we see it clearly elsewhere where God punishes the Jews for making a golden calf but commands them to make a bronze serpent and an ark and images of cherubims. The difference between them is that the calf was the focus of the worship and the others were not. Same with the Catholic Church, the images are not the focus of worship.

By whose standards are they not idolatrous? Simply showing how God's people erred due to uncontrolled emotional behaviour, doesn't justify what they did. These were humans who were prone like us to make grave mistakes.

By God's standard seeing that he did not punish them as he did with the calf, he would've been consistent don't you think?
So now King Hezekiah and the Israelites erred?
How about you go and read that chapter very well and see that Hezekiah did things pleasing to the Lord. Infact when they bowed before the altar they were doing it to cleanse the temple from the nuisances that had taken place. The burnt offering was to please the Lord and to consecrate themselves to the Lord.

So how did church members come to be bowing to statues in the first place?

Because bowing to statues are not wrong in the first place, the act of bowing doesn't mean worshipping. The statues themselves are not wrong either. It is when the focus is on the statue that it becomes wrong and the Church condemns that. The Jews always had statues in the temple and Christianity is a continuation from Judaism or the fulfimment of Judaism, and if you study the Bible well you will see that Judaism wasn't done away with it was given more meaning and fruitful meaning, a fulfillment. That's where it comes from. And last I checked Jews aren't Pagans.

And even if the RCC didn't suggest then why are the members not corrected?

You're still assuming that bowing down equates to worship even though you yourself have proven that bowing down does not equate to worship. So why would the members be corrected if they're not bowing down in the form of worship?

Yet these ancient symbols were never bowed down to.

Actually they were, I already provided scriptural proof of that. And you yourself already proved that bowing does not equate to worship.

Its one thing to have images and teach that they are used as illustrations, but its quite another thing to see people bow down to them, when God forbids any form of worship involving bowing down to graven images

Ok one more time, you already proved that bowing down does not mean worship so why do you still assume that our bowing down is worship of the object?

The ancient furniture in the temple, or the brazen serpent on the pole, were never once being bowed down to by those who knew better.

It doesn't have to be furniture, it doesn't have to be the bronze serpent, it doesn't have to be the ark, it just has to be an image, and I've already shown from scripture that they did bow down to those images. When the bronze serpent was erected the Israelites were prostrated on the floor and they had to look up to the bronze serpent for their salvation, that alone would be a form of "worship"

And even if anyone did bow down to them you and I know that that act in and of itself was wrong.

No it's not wrong if their focus is not on the image as gold or bronze or metal or mud in itself. If it was for the purpose of serving God it is not wrong, if God is the focus it is not wrong. You yourself alluded to that in your previous posts.

And as long as you fail to see God's command I will certainly make it my duty to constantly remind you Lady. Trust me on that.

How am I wrong when you're initially saying what I'm saying? We're just going in circles here. The only problem is that you refuse to believe that the Catholics aren't doing anything wrong even though by your statements were not wrong. But you absolutely refuse to see that you just vindicated Catholics.
You take it that Catholics must be wrong because that's been your belief for a very long time, even though you just defended the Catholic faith very well. Just the idea of admitting it kills you inside.

Its funny when people failed to acknowledge the mass they were killed.

What? Can you rephrase this so I can better understand you?

Are you now going to tell me what the mass entails? You the outsider looking in will now tell me what goes on in my home? Have you ever been to a mass?

Its funny that Jesus didn't utilize fermented wine when He celebrated the passover supper.

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus didn't use fermented wine?

Do you realize how many priests have become alcoholics because they drink all that wine at mass? I am sure it isn't grape juice

I know it isn't grape juice, and thank God it isn't because Christ didn't use grape juice. No where in the Bible does it say that Christ used grape juice at the Last supper.
It is one of the crosses they have to bear just as I have to bear mine. There are even more Priests that have never become alcoholics from the wine.

What point?

The point you yourself continue to state.

I don't. I quote scripture, and explain what it means based on other references.

Ok you just contradicted yourself. There's no way you would say you explain what scripture means by not interpreting it. To explain it you interpret it, and if you do this on your own you are doing it privately.
And what references are these, you'll have to go deeper into that.

So how come you do not taste blood when you drink the wine if it were meant to be literal? Why not go all the way?

That's the whole point of it being Jesus in the form of bread and wine.

John 1:14 says "and the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us".

Last time I checked Jesus did literally dwell in the flesh among the disciples. Or is that not what John wrote?

Psalms 119:103, "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!"

Psalms 34:8, "O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him."

Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found, and I did eat them, "

Ok so the whole Bible should be interpreted symbolically?

So does that now mean that the commandments are symbolic?

In fact in verse 58 of John 6 we see Jesus even explaining to them that this "eating of bread" is not "as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead:" For Jesus to bluntly explain that the type of bread eating He is speaking of is in no way like "eating manna," is a blunt fact that sadly only a natural man void of Heavenly Truth can miss. Wasn't it you a few verses above that said we should not isolate a few verses out of their general context. How come you overlooked Jesus' own explanations concerning what He meant by what He said about eating His flesh, and drinking His blood?

Um actually the fact that Jesus mentions the eating of manna makes it even more literal because the Jews did literally eat manna

Bobbyaf:

You know what I am really happy about is the fact that we have witnessed to Catholics in this thread. They cannot say they didn't hear the testimony. Its either we or they are wrong. We both cannot be right.

In time as we draw closer to final events, I pray that their eyes will be opened. It is my desire that they truly understand what is at stake.

Anyway. I am off to take a nice cold shower, go to the Chapel, and then come do this dreadful homework. Come and do my homework for me PLEASE!!!

~Lady~:




Anyway. I am off to take a nice cold shower, go to the Chapel, . . .

@~Lady~

- ~Lady~

Whilst you're at it, mean in the shower

dont forget to scrub & rinse out the canards & misconceptions ^Joke

Are the Israelites Christians?

Are you following the Mosaic tradition or the teachings of Christ? Huh

Why don't you FOR ONCE stop referring to what happened before Christ came and say something about what he taught and instructed? Huh

its jesus who said he was fulfilling the OT

its jesus who quoted OT always when preaching

so why should we close our eyes to the OT
his teachings were based on OT

Jesus was not bound by doctrine or Law. . .he was a progressive. And the fundamentalists of his time were threatened by him and the rapid spread of him movement - and got him wiped out. Jesus was a great thinker. . .a wise philosopher. Way waaaay ahead of his time

Christ brought the teaching of unity, oneness and love. In this era, you can be catholic, protestant or whatever without practising God's love, you cannot be saved. Christ did not bring Christianity - his followers did. Now I will give more importance to Christ's doctrines than Paul's or Peter's where I perceive a contradiction as in the case of women. Our Lord was free to both men and women, so I disagree with Paul and frankly Paul admitted that he saw through a glass darklyand hence he is not sacrosant.