₦airaland Forum

Nigerians should be allowed to bear arms legally for self protection. This would prevent robberies (especially burglaries), herdsmen attacks and even boko haram kidnappings. There's no way a group of criminals could invade a village and go scot-free if the villagers have guns.

kevoh:
Christians! They can not even agree among themselves! Even to get married to each other na wahala! And you expect an atheist to take you guys serious?

Are you judging the existence of God off people's actions?

brocab:
{Luke 9:1-3} Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.
Not only the 12 disciples-how about the 70-72 Jesus sent out..
{Luke 10:1-2} After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.
{Galatians 2:6-8} But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised {Gentiles} had been committed to me {Paul} as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles)
Meaning both Peter and Paul received the Holy Spirit preaching the gospel to the nations-baptizing everyone who have chosen to believe in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Which again it leaves us with the question? If Peter spoke only to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, then where do you fit in 'all this, is the Catholic Church now Jewish, that they need to fellow the traditions of the Mosaic laws, males must be circumcised before becoming Catholic through baptism..

You have a problem with comprehension. You have abandoned your own argument and now weighing in on another person's.

solite3:
It wasn't intended for non Jews but it was used by the apostles for non Jews.
Jesus didn't come for non Jews but was preached to the gentiles.

Now you agree with me!

It is God's will that both Jews and gentiles have the scripture.

@bolded, you can't prove that from the scripture.

Matthew 10:5-7, These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’"

Can you explain this passage? I'm not yet saying it means anything, I want to know your understanding of it.

solite3:
the old testament wasn't written to Jews alone. The new testament is not for Christians alone.
I want to ask you what is scripture? Why did Philip instruct the enuch from the old testament? Why did he not say to him the that scripture is not for him? The scripture is useful to you in what way?
@ stroked speak for yourself.

"Pay attention [again]! It wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts or non-believers.

I don't speak just for myself, I speak objectively. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

the fact that a scripture was written to specific people does not mean it doesnt apply to others. For example

Deuteronomy 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

The above scripture was addressed to jews on how to treat their animals.

1Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

Paul use used this scripture for Christians also.

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

@bolded, thank you for defeating your argument! See why context matters a lot while interpreting the bible? Something not thought in protestant churches.

who said All of Jesus life was written down.
False, a single scripture cannot be used to form doctrine or a single verse. Paul didn't say a single scripture but all scripture. Don't subtract from God's word or add to it.

Being that about 17 books of the New Testament, including the 4 gospels talk about Jesus' life, this is to evidence to show you they did not write down in the scripture everything they knew and preached. There was nothing like bible until mid second century. The Corinthians did not have letters written to the Thessalonians and vice versa. But they all received sound oral teaching from the apostles; the letters was written to supplement the oral teachings.

So my dear, it's not about thumping the bible which the Catholic Church has done the work of compiling and canonizing it for you; but you don't want to know how it came about or who has the sole to interpret it.

@bolded, so how many do you need to form a doctrine?

are you now saying Paul preach one thing and did another?
2 Timothy 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
Paul said we shouldn't think of men( botht in doctrine of in actions) above that which is written. Do you agree with him? So anything about the apostles should never go beyond scripture.
1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written [in the Old Testament], that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

if the scripture is not sufficient apostle Paul would have not limited us in assessing men by scripture alone.

Why do I need tradition if I could understand paul's knowledge in the mystery of Christ from what is written?

Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
This is not possible if Paul didn't write down his complete knowledge.

what are those things not found in scripture can you name them? You are using uncertainty in God's word? God's word is yes and Amen not I m not sure.
Scriptures certainly reveals the mind of God. Anything other than this is crap.

Again, you're ripping 2 Timothy 3:10 out of context! When will you learn? That was Paul talking to Timothy who of course was his son in faith and have been around him to learn and understudy him. You don't know jack about Paul compared to what Timothy knew about him.

For 1 Cor. 4:6, it's clear from the context that he was referring to the Old Testament because the Corinthians had as yet no New Testament Scriptures, 1 Corinthians being the very first letter Paul had sent them. Prior to this letter all his teaching had been oral. Paul was on his third missionary journey and staying in Ephesus when he received a letter from Corinth concerning problems within the church and asking for Paul's instruction. His response was this First Letter to the Corinthians, written in about 54 AD.

Note this: Paul remained in Ephesus teaching the faith so diligently that "all the inhabitants of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord" (Acts 19:10), he says "I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God" (Acts 20:27). Paul spent over two years in Ephesus doing all that, yet his epistle to the Ephesians is a scant 4 or 5 pages and could not even begin to touch upon all the doctrines he taught them orally."

More so, none of the figureheads (Reformers) of sola scriptura even attempted to use this 1 Cor. 4:6 to vindicate sola scriptura. In fact, John Calvin says Paul's use of the phrase "what is written" is probably either a reference to the Old Testament verses he quotes within his epistle or to the epistle itself. Not only did Calvin not see in 1 Corinthians any support for sola scriptura, a theory he vociferously promoted, he regarded the verse as obscure at best and of negligible value in the effort to vindicate Protestantism.

If Paul in saying "do not go beyond what is written" was teaching sola scriptura, he would have been advocating 1 of the 4 principles below which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology:

PRINCIPLES
1. Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings. No Protestant would agree with option one, that the Old Testament is a sufficient authority in matters of doctrine.

2. Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56). This would mean all New Testament books written after the year 56 would not qualify under the 1 Corinthians 4:6 guideline.

3. Accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written. This option also fails because in order for sola scriptura to be a "biblical" doctrine there must be, by definition, at least one bible verse which says Scripture is sufficient, or that oral Tradition is to be disregarded once Scripture has supplanted it, or that Scripture is superior to oral Tradition. But there are no such verses; and as we see, 1 Corinthians 4:6 is no exception.

4. the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing. This fourth option is likewise untenable because it contradicts Paul's express command in to "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura, Paul would have been talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side demanding adherence to the written word only, and on the other urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition.

Also, none of the other apostles taught sola scriptura. In fact, John said, "I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face" (3 John 13). Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John 12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior to oral Tradition? The already flimsy case for sola scriptura is further weakened by the fact that most of the apostles never wrote a single line of Scripture; instead they transmitted the deposit of faith orally. Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the written teachings of Paul or Peter or John?

look up! Paul didn't argue or teach using traditions but using the holy Scripture.
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
Paul had a particular manner of always using the sctipture fot his argument. Lol i guess paul was a protestant heretic.

@bolded, what do you mean by "using tradition" what Holy Scripture was he teaching them at around 54 AD?

the early Christians were sola scripturians to the core. Even Jesus the Son of God based his ministry on scriptures, the apostles. Who is roman idolatry catholic church to oppose and replace scriptures with her filthy and whorish traditions.

I already debunked the sola scriptura argument above. Moreover, you have nothing to back up such a senseless claim. Have you heard about the New Law (the Law of Christ)? Jesus introduces himself as a standard for love while the Old Law had been "as you love yourself". The New Commandmant goes beyond "as you love yourself" as found in the ethic of reciprocity and states "as I have loved you", using the Love of Christ for his disciples as the new model. And this is the basis of Christian Ethics. Hence, 1 John 4:19 states "We love, because he first loved us."

To bury your silly argument: Jesus says, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:33–35).

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

@ bold do you know which scripture Paul was talking about? Is this not a strong proof that the new testament was already scripture and when Paul said scripture it meant both old and new testament?

I already said this few pages back.

9inches:
Of course, Paul quoted Luke (1 Timothy 5:18); about 13 books of the New Testament, including Luke, have been written before Paul's letter to Timothy.

Out of these 13 books, Paul wrote about 10 of them. It's not a strong proof of anything beyond the time it was written. Refer to the 4 PRINCIPLES above.

brocab:
The truth is, just like Martin Luther, I believe and solemnly am filled with the Holy Spirit to preach the Word of God.
I don't come to you, with your doctrine, I myself, Peter and Paul have come to you preaching the doctrine of Christ. But you have come to me preaching another doctrine, concerning the tradition of men.
{Galatians 2:7-9} Amplified Bible (AMP)
"But on the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles),just as Peter had been [entrusted to proclaim the gospel] to the circumcised (Jews)
(For He who worked effectively for Peter and empowered him in his ministry to the Jews also worked effectively for me and empowered me in my ministry to the Gentiles).
Which means, Peter wasn't empowered more then the others to do their ministry, no-one is greater then the least, "Peter filled with the Holy Spirit, proclaimed the Word of God to the Jews, "Is the Catholic Church claiming to be Jewish, or Did Paul who was also filled with the same Holy Spirit-preached the truth to the Gentiles?
And recognizing the grace [that God had] bestowed on me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars [of the Jerusalem church], gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we could go to the Gentiles [with their blessing] and they to the circumcised (Jews)

And what's your argument here?

brocab:
We see bible verses, but out of that, I don't read where the Catholic Church comes into place..
Church of believers coming together under one fellowship, in one accord.
Where does the protestants stand with the Catholic's, and when do we agree upon the Word of God?
And when did the Catholic's agree with Peter's teachings, and don't agree upon the Word of God the protestants speak off...

The protestants speak a mixture of the word of God and that of Martin Luther. They don't accept the sacred tradition like Timothy and the Thessalonians did.

brocab:
In what way have they the answers?

It is the original church of the apostles.

brocab:
I thought you had all the answers, this is why I have applied, and returned your call..

The catholic church has all the answers.

brocab:
Which church—that is, which denomination of Christianity—is the “true church”?
Which church is the one that God loves and cherishes and died for? Which church is His bride?
(Ephesians 2:8–9). The answer is that no visible church or denomination is the true church, because the bride of Christ is not an institution, but is instead a spiritual entity made up of those who have by grace through faith been brought into a close, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Those people, no matter which building, denomination, or country they happen to be in, constitute the true church. In the Bible, we see that the local (or visible) church is nothing more than a gathering of professing believers. Interestingly enough, the word church is never used in the Bible to describe a building or organization.
It is easy to get ensnared by the idea that a particular denomination within Christianity is “the true church,” but this view is a misunderstanding of Scripture. When choosing a church to attend, it is important to remember that a gathering of believers should be a place where those who belong to the true church (the spiritual entity) feel at home. That is to say, a good local church will uphold the Word of God, honoring it and preaching faithfully, proclaim the gospel steadfastly, and feed and tend the sheep.
A church that teaches heresy or engages in sin will eventually be very low on (or entirely bereft of) those people that belong to the true church—the sheep who hear the voice of the Shepherd and follow Him (John 10:27)
The true church is the bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2, 9; 22:17) and the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 12:27). It cannot be contained, walled in, or defined by anything other than its love for Christ and its dedication to Him.

The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, "Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches.

The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.

God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

brocab:
But sadly that Church isn't the Catholic Church..

Which church is it?

brocab:
No" it isn't the same way-my mother forcing me to go to school' isn't a life and death situation.
This is why it is important we have choices, and a infant can't make these choices, nor did the infant make choices at 8 day's old, the problem is. back then it was a custom to obey the law of the land, and in those early day's young boy's weren't baptised, but circumcised.
"Circumcision was the physical sign of the covenant God made with Abraham. O/T
And Baptism is, in some sense, the sign of the New Covenant God makes with His Church. N/T
But sadly many Reformed traditions have made a very close parallel between circumcision and baptism and have used the Old Testament teaching on circumcision to justify the baptism of infants. The argument goes like this: since infants born into the Old Testament Jewish community were circumcised, infants born into the New Testament church community should be baptized.
(Matthew 28:19). Jesus commanded baptism in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Baptism is the outward sign of an inward change. It represents rebirth in Christ.
This passage also specifies that the new life, represented by baptism, comes “through your faith.” This implies that the one being baptized has the ability to exercise faith. Since infants are not capable of exercising faith, they should not be candidates for baptism.
How can we know what the inward change is within an infant, babe's aren't capable to make choices.
Likewise if someone born (physically) under the Old Covenant received the sign of that covenant (circumcision) likewise, someone born (spiritually) under the New Covenant (“born again,” John 3:3) receives the sign of that covenant (baptism)

Have you searched the website I showed you for the answer? What did it say?

brocab:
Church history is not where I belong, Christ is where I belong.
According to {1 Timothy 3:15} the house of God “is the church of the living God.”
Does anybody live in the Catholic Church. Is the Catholic Church "The Spirit of Truth or the Spirit of Error, Now he who keeps the Lords commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
Does the Catholic Church abide with Martin Luther, does abide with anybody outside the Catholic Church?
{John 2:2-8} The Test of Knowing Him-Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.
Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning.
{1 Corinthians 1:10-13} Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you.
Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” {or I am of the Catholic Church} or “I am of Christ.”
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? {Was the Catholic Church crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of the Catholic Church?}

Jesus established one church only and prayed "that they may be one." He took that one Church as His bride. Just that one Church only. Read your bible and stop pulling verses like a disturbed individual.

brocab:
It is pretty clear what it teaches, the problem is, you have many Catholic's deciding what to write, and there are many interpretations, it seems the Catholic's writing these interpretations, haven't a clue which God they believe.

I doubt it's clear to you when you haven't read it. You can't find problem from what you have not read. Learn church history so you know where you belong.

shadeyinka:
I don't care a hoot about Martin Luther.

He would certainly have faced the Inquisition if he was caught from his hiding places

You don't care about the history of your doctrine of sola scriptura? That's willful ignorance. You better learn.

shadeyinka:
I don't know Martin Luther.
Are you mad with him because he left the Catholic faith?

Yes, I understand. The runaway priest who broke up the catholic faith. All Christians would have been bowing to the image of Mary if not for him.

Eiya! Sorry!

I'm not mad, just pointing it out for you. You say you don't know him, so you can't say the doctrines he contested before he was excommunicated from the Church for heresy. Mind you, he did not "leave", he was excommunicated for heresy and he wasn't the first.

Their faces be like "this woman don misuse our money com dey tell story!"

shadeyinka:
The only thing short is that you don't call the idol of Mary " god". Other than that, there is no difference between you and the Ogun priest

There are criteria for putting tags/names to things, unless you are a toddler in kindergarten.

Good thing! It's good the line remains there, abi? Shows I'm in line with early Christian practice, rather than a 1517 man-made doctrine of Martin Luther.

shadeyinka:
Images of Mary dont have spiritual values yet the Pope also bow to them. I have never seen a Catholic bow to the church bell in its tower because it doesn't have any spiritual value. Idols of Mary have spiritual values to you and that is why you bow down to them.

I have given you the definition of obeisance: which is what you really do to the image proxy of Mary.

Revelation was written before the fallbof Jerusalem. Apostle John was still alive

Read your comment again. How can someone bow to a church bell when it does not an image of anyone important. You are also saying something about spirituality but then you are talking about "bowing" which is a physical gesture. You are concerned that Catholics bow down to statues, but really, you are confusing what is in the heart of the believer and judging by outward appearances. So listen again, first step of idolatry is crediting an image or statue with Divinity or Divine powers. It clearly evidenced in Exodus 32:1, "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.” You can clearly the intent to attribute divine powers to the images, which makes it valid as idolatry.

I know you are having a hard time with Exodus 20:4. But I will let that pass; I hope you take it as an assignment, take your time and look further and figure it out.

God bless.

More like Monica Lewinsky!

shadeyinka:
Of course Catholics do not claim that they worship Mary or her images. Just like the claim of the Yoruba ATR. Buy Catholics BOW to the image of Mary. That is not excusable, it is idolatory because the image of Mary is a proxy for Mary.

That is, if Mary was physically present, you would bow to her but since she is not present, the idol stands in proxy

If you bow down [b]for spiritual purposes[/b] to a person or thing whether by proxy or directly, it's idolatry.

You are something else. On one hand you were saying bowing is worship, on the other hand you essentially say bowing is okay as long as it's not "spiritual"... Which one is it? You have a hole in your argument. I say, it's either bowing and kissing of any person or thing is idolatry or it's not. Period. I've never encountered any Catholic who thinks statues or images have any spiritual attribute. Only protestants think that due to their shallow and decontextualized interpretation of the scripture. Without the Catholic Church,you won't have this bible you are thumping. Read some history on Christianity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrvktdJJUIk

You know them! They are not direct Apostles of Christ yet they have created traditions you use today. Except you can link any of the traditions we contest about to before 70AD.

If you don't pay obeisance, what do you do?

This is laughable. Why not discard the Gospel of John, Epistle of John and Revelation from your bible since they were written long after 70AD? By the way, do you know when the bible was put together, who did that and how it was done and confirmed free of heresy. Bear in mind the apostles did not leave a defined set of new scriptures aside the Old Testament; instead the canon of the New Testament developed over time. Groups within Christianity include differing books as part of their sacred writings, most prominent among which are the biblical apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.

Do you know any of the early Christians (Church Fathers) like those of the second century who fought to protect the teachings of Christ from heresy which was strife during that era? People like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenaeus of Lyons, etc... have you heard of them and the journey they and others went through so that you could have an error-free Word of God in your hand right now? You have a lot of reading grounds to cover man.

If you don't pay obeisance, what do you do?
noun
deferential respect.
synonyms: respect, homage, worship, adoration, reverence, veneration, respectfulness, honour, submission, deference
a gesture expressing deferential respect, such as a bow or curtsy.
https://www.google.com.ng/search?dcr=1&biw=360&bih=507&ei=kbK0WuEahv5Sr8uPkAM&q=obeisance

You do pay obeisance

Do you pay obeisance to your elders like your parents? Obeisance can mean worship, so we are careful enough not use that. We use the exact words that explain what we do - honor, adoration, veneration... I can understand your predicament; protestants don't know where to draw the line between reverence and worship. And I know that's where the whole argument of Catholics worshipping idols emanate from.

Except you still believe you don't do obeisance to the idol of Mary. In the scripture I quoted, I highlighted the NOR bow to them which of course you do.
Of course I wouldn't just tear a bible but I won't bow to it for any reason. It may contain the logos, but it is just wood pulp converted to paper and bound.

Idols of Mary are made up of Plaster , cement and paint. God forbid that I pay any form of obeisance to it as a proxy to anything living or dead.

You're skipping the question! What do you understand by "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."? (Exodus 20:4)

What do you think about kissing the bible or a photograph of someone, is it idolatry too ? So from own understanding, "should you pay obeisance to any person other than God?"

shadeyinka:
The Yoruba ATR claim that they do not worship their idols, the idols ate just channels to Olodumare. Yes, they bow down but their claim is that they do not worship other than God. How are you different?
If the Catholics are justified, can a Catholic insist that the Yoruba ATR worshippers are idolaters? (You both seem to be the same).

Catholics do not use images or statues as channels to God. Read my previous reply to understand the role of images in the Catholic Church. Yoruba ATF (I don't know what that is) can kiss or bow down to anything as they wish, it becomes idolatry as soon as they start crediting the image or statues with Divinity or Divine powers.

BTW, we greet our elders not by proxy: we greet them directly. If you want to call the worship of the queen of heaven greetings, you do it by proxy, hence idolatry.

If you worship a person or thing whether by proxy or directly, it's idolatry.

I read all your scriptures unfortunately, they are all misquoted.
For the Ark of the Covenant, God promised to speak to the children of Israel from within it. And I asked, is the spirit of Mary in her image; you said no!
For the bronze serpent, the children of Israel were to look at it for their healing: That was Gods solution for their healing. What is the biblical bases for paying obeisance to an idol of Mary?

Does my opinion matter? No!
But the scripture matter especially when some godfathers decide to subtly introduce idolatory to the rest of you folks

The scriptures aren't misquoted. You know it defeats your argument which is that God forbids the use of images in worship (not worshipping images). Those verses show making of images aren't forbidden. How they are used is what matters.

We don't pay obeisance to any idol of Mary. The same way you respect and adore your mother is the way we venerate her. But of course, as the only Mother of God, she deserves to be adored more than any mother but not worshipped. Just to add, having an photo of someone you love only creates an emotional presence of that person within you, it does not mean that the spirit of that person is present in that photo.
@bolded, Who are the godfathers? Any names?

Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
The NOR here is exclusive. It means neither should you bow down to such images. Now, since neither God nor Mary are in your idols, why bow to them in direct violation of the scriptures.

Have you ever wondered why the images of Mary outnumber that of Jesus in the Catholic faith? If it was all for the sake of respect or greetings, who is more important: Jesus or Mary? But, the case isn't just this but a direct violation of the scriptures in the name of tradition.

@bolded, it says you shall not make any graven image at all, right? Yes or no? Explain verse 4 before we go to verse 5. What you fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his bible. Idolatry is committed by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them.

The bolded is a complete misreprentation. A bible before a protestant has not a single spiritual value or connotation. Its as good as praying while kneeling down before a bed or a chair. Not so with you Catholics: the image of Mary is a spiritual object!

My experience with my pastor childhood friend says otherwise. The bible is a spiritual book. Would you tear up bible pages same way you would a notebook if you happen to run out of toilet paper? The bible contains the word of God, so it's not like every other book.

What is an idol?
An idol is simply a physical representative for the invisible demon spirit. So, one could have 10,000 images (belonging to several individuals or communities) yet, one spirit behind it. Same with Mary.

Have you wondered why the spirit called Mary sometimes appear to Catholics?

How come Peter, Paul, James and John seldom appears but mainly Mary? I doubt you know that demons impasonates. I've even met one in the cause of deliverance who introduced himself as Jesus and said we should not cast him out!

Catholics who bow to an idol are paying respect to an image who is a proxy for the spirit in charge! That is pure idolatory.

Do you know that Buddhists claim they don't worship Buddha!? They only bow to his idol! How pathetic!? How are Catholics different?

A final question: Through which of the Apostles or the early Catholic church Fathers did your tradition of making the images of Mary and bowing before it come?

Every tradition must have a beginning, isn't it?

I think this video was made for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K9yGNPaIcA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7c5AyJ9Lgk?t=1m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8p9i696K-o?t=5m24s

shadeyinka:
Do you really worship the statues of Mary?
No, not intentionally but you bow to it.

Your case is similar to that of Israel and the golden calf.
Here what Aaron said in the bolded below

As a yoruba person, you worship your elders when you greet them, right?

(Exodus 32:1) “Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.”

(Exodus 32:4) Then they said, “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

Notice something common in those two verses?

shadeyinka:
It is like praying before an Idol in the name of Jesus. It can never be right.

Do you think it is right for a Catholic to construct an Image of Jehovah Yahweh for the purpose of personal worship in the name of Jesus?

Your opinion does not matter. What matters is what the bible says. Protestants make these blanket statements like "God has forbidden the use of images in worship." But if you search the scriptures (John 5:39), you will find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts (Ex. 25:18–20, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ezekiel 41:17–18, Num. 21:8–9).

Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Yorubaland, people show respect by bowing or kneeling in greeting before an elder or a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.

Further read: http://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2016/07/12/do-catholics-worship-graven-images/

shadeyinka:
Are you saying it is an empty idol? So, why bow before it if itbis that empty?

Would then kindly show us the similarity between the acts of Joshua and the catholics with respect to this?

Like, why did Joshua fall on his face before the ark of the covenant and why you Catholics bow before the image of Mary

In the ancient world, pagans worshipped the elements of nature and false gods, which they represented as carved or cast images, of various sorts. Hence the commandment against these. On the other hand, even the Lord commanded certain images to be made for religious purposes, such as the bronze snake which Moses held up before the people, and some cast bulls which had water basins upon them in the Sanctuary of the Temple. So it is not the carved image itself which is evil, but the intent of those who look upon them or make them.

In the case of statues of Mary and the saints, we do NOT worship them, but they call to mind the figure they represent, whom we honor and whose prayers we invoke. NEVER has the Catholic Church tolerated the worship of any creature or anyone other than the one true God. Statues of Mary are no more idols than the photo of your family, which you display in your home, and has value for you for what it represents.

The Joshua story is not related to this.

shadeyinka:
So, we know why Joshua fell on his face before the ark of the covenant.

1.Is the Spirit of Mary in the Idols of Her Image?
2. Whose spirit is inside the idols of Mary?

There is no spirits in statues and images. The Catholic Church does not believe any statue or image has any power in and of itself. For Catholics, having statues is just as natural as having pictures in our wallets to remind us of the ones we love here on earth. But reminding ourselves of loved ones is a far cry from idolatry.

brocab:
Does age have anything to do what you have given unto me, https://www.catholic.com/ firstly you winched I wasn't responding to these sites, now I am here, you are lost in words.
You said: to me if I wanted to know more about the Catholic's I can use these sites, well I am here.
Jesus said:If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand, and now it seems you aren't standing really well; maybe you should be searching the sites, and compare them with the scriptures, or maybe better for you is to keep on believing the lies you have been teaching since you have entered this page.
"But thanks I am quite pleased, about the differences the Catholic's know about each other.

I had to ask because you don't come off articulate. I'm glad you are reading it. I encourage you to read more, not necessarily to believe anything, but so you can at least argue on what the Church teaches, not what you think it teaches.

brocab:
The site you have given me-https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/infant-baptism! Say's there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism.
Though passages in the New Testament contain principles supporting infant baptism. (e.g., Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21), the first overt statements that the children of believing households were baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic.
In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision. (see quotation from Cyprian, below; compare {Lev. 12:2–3, Col 2:11–12}
{Acts 2:37-39} When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and to your children and to all who are far off, to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.
Look how dangerous this actually sounds, the parents actually made an infant's decision?
(John 1:12) But to all who have received him--those who believe in his name--he has given the right to become God's children.
Do infant at the age of 8 day's old-or between a certain age even know Christ, do they actually understand the scriptures well enough to make their long life decision, and plus when do parents allow infants to make decisions for themselves?
Peter was talking to those who understood, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise [of the Holy Spirit] is for you and your children and for all who are far away [including the Gentiles], as many as the Lord our God calls to Himself.”
This promise is given for everybody, whom God calls, not the other way around, sadly He knows not everyone are suited for His kingdom, He said many are called, but few are chosen.
{John 15} Jesus said: “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you.”
Do the Catholic's even understand the scriptures? This sounds like once born again always born again, the infant say's to himself, because my parents made my choice 8 day's after I was born, If I was to live the life I choose-break the law, steal kill and destroy, and I am still sinning then because of the decision my parents made, by their choice they gave me the keys to heaven.

It happens same way your mother makes a very dangerous decision to give birth to you and also to force you to school, for your own good. Baptism does not guarantee anyone heaven.

brocab:
1. https://www.catholic.com/ And the first page I opened up said this? Is Sex Okay As Long As Nobody Gets Hurt?
Does this mean it is alright for the Catholic's to have sex without marriage?
I looked into number 1 site again, and I wrote-Are Catholic's born again, saved? And I found that Augustine say's he knows it is not written in the bible, he said: parents can make their own decisions to have anybody, infants to be baptised, by doing this under the banner of the Catholic Church, they are born again Christians, they are taught by their works, they are saved.
It shows their teachings isn't about the bible, it's about works in the Catholic Church.
The Victor of Christ-Pope Francis had said: Quote-By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM) 5/30/2013 (4 years ago) Catholic Online (https://www.catholic.org)
Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!
Pope Francis said: Jesus died and was raised for them as well. His redemptive embrace was for all, not just a chosen few. The choice to accept its reach is our own. The Holy Father was not teaching anything new.
In fact, the Pope continual's this hope that all who do not yet know God are not only capable of doing good - but will progress toward that knowledge of God by doing good - is ancient.
Well Pope Francis is teaching something new.
If sin could enter into Heaven, then holiness isn't needed, and Christ never died, and the race we started will never end. Jesus said: Many are called, but few are chosen. Obviously Jesus is not the only way into heaven, and the scriptures below don't exist, according to the Catholic's..
{2 Timothy 1:9} Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.
{John 6:44} Jesus said "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me, draw him: and I will raise him up on the last day.

Stick to one topic at a time. How old are you?

brocab:
they are taught by their works, they are saved

Show me where you read this.

solite3:
Really? How about the Greeks who read the scriptures? How about timothy who was instructed in the scriptures? How about the enunch whom Philip instruct from the old testament? This your comment is one of the dumbest I have ever come across.

Pay attention! It wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts or non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians. Timothy knew the scripture from infancy, that was why Paul was giving him direct instructions. On the other hand, nobody wrote any letter or gave any instruction directly to the eunuch. Just like you and I, we adopt the scripture because it is useful for us.

solite3:
really there is a vast body of non believers and there doctrine for them. that is the roman catholic church.
The letter of apostle Paul is scripture and the scripture is inspired by God meaning it has God's own authority.
2 timothy tells timothy that the scripture is the basis for doctrine any other doctrine is false and invalid.

Tell me one book of the scripture that was not specifically written to a particular person or group of persons.

solite3:
All their teaching were written down. If all their teaching was not written then their letter would be unsuitable for doctrine but it is not so for if timothy was to instruct others with the letter then it must of necessity contain the complete teaching of the apostles or else it would be useless for doctrine.


2 Timothy 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Totally false! All their teaching weren't written down. Someone with a brain would know there is no way Jesus' entire life could be contained in the scripture. Listen, even a Verse or Chapter, or even a Book of the scripture, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. A single verse or two can turn someone's mind towards God.
(John 21:25) Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

oral teaching that was written down. The apostles already told you that their tradition and letter is one and the same.

Where did they say they are the same? You will feel ashamed of this your comment in the future.

the message of Paul to timothy remains indented, All scripture is God inspired and can make a man of God perfect.

Absolutely, all scripture is God inspired and can make a man of God perfect. That's not the argument. The argument is the scripture alone is not sufficient rule of Faith.
Here's the argument: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-alone-sufficient

you mean God's inspired word is insufficient and incomplete rule of faith and yet timothy was made wise unto salvation, Jesus overcome Satan with it. Jesus preached and teach with that you call sufficient,


Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

@bolded- No, I did not say that. That's a straw man argument you're making. What I said essentially is that the written Word of God (scripture) alone is not sufficient; you need both written and unwritten.

The oral teaching was about Christ, and about Christ is from the scripture.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Without scripture no one can believe in Christ.

None of the above refutes that the bible is NOT the ONLY rule of faith. Biblical oral tradition is wider in scope than written Scripture. Neither the Bible nor logic require Paul’s oral teaching (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:2, 23, 15:1-3, Gal. 1:9, 12, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2) to be the same as his written teaching or “forbid” it from containing information not found in his letters. Paul’s oral teaching was obviously harmonious with his teachings preserved in the written text of the Bible; but it also would almost certainly have contained some things not found in Scripture. Remember he argued and reasoned in the synagogues and other public places. The sheer number of his spoken words must have included subject matter either not covered or only touched upon in his New Testament epistles.He taught in one synagogue for “three months” (Acts 19:, and in one location “daily” for two years (Acts 19:10). This was all oral teaching, probably including a lot of oral apostolic tradition, and a great deal of it was not recorded in Scripture. Simple common sense!

If as a Protestant you claim we are not bound to anything not found in Scripture, why should we think ourselves as bound differently than the earliest Christians, who lived before the New Testament was compiled?

there is no context that suggest that. During timothy days some of the new testament books were already written and recognised as scriptures.

Paul went to Lystra (Timothy's city) during his First Missionary Journey around 48 AD. Can you tell me the New Testament books already written before then?

shadeyinka:
I see both your Popes and Reverend Fathers and Reverend Mothers bow before " graven images of Mary" and also kiss it!

You don't worship it, you only bow before it in adoration!

It is called IDOLATRY!

The question was, what's the teaching behind it?

See what I did in the pic below. You can do it too; it's easy.

Answers
Here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/graven-images
and here: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=311119&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

brocab:
1. https://www.catholic.com/ This is the first page I opened up and this is what it said: Is Sex Okay As Long As Nobody Gets Hurt?
With this very same site-I asked a simple question "Are Catholic's born again "saved" and I read Augustine wrote,"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated-when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. Augustine believes it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5].
How do infants know he/she is baptised, and what sort of faith do you expect an infant to have? And if the parent's don't follow Christ-then what sort of baptism did the infant receive? "And what does the Catholic church expect out of it?
Jesus made a point to be baptised as a man-men make decisions, infants can't make he/she decisions.

Answers:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/infant-baptism

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=313917&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

brocab:
Who's arguing? Well if you had something I could go by, something with a little knowledge, I have watched your video's, and there is nothing in them that has anything to do with Christ.
Which of course it leaves me wondering about, trying to find something that may interest you, of course none of it does.
Those sites you have given me, I had told you, if they were about Christ I would be interested, don't you believe in Christ yourself well enough to even want to try and support your theories, you give me sites, without the message-sites that drag on and on, not going anywhere, and you expect me to follow up on What?
Give me directions that's in those sites, but if you were to prove you are a believer in Christ, then give me sites, that can prove your theory.
Don't leave me posted-give me something about your authorized Catholic teachings, did you like the 2 page truth about the Catholic Church,
it was a great finding-and it is detailed in scripture. Unless you can prove the bible is wrong, and your Church is right?
You ask why do protestants hate Catholic's, haven't you watched Lizzie, she hates protestants.
The problem is 9 inches, we can go on for ever with these theories of yours, I am still waiting for you to open up a door-to prove your facts, but it seems you keep on pushing your facts over to someone else, to explain for you, but they aren't explaining these facts-not the facts I need.
See what you don't understand is, God sent His Spirit to teach us all things, in Word and in truth.
{2 Timothy 3:15-17} From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.…

Everything you want to know about Jesus Christ, the Scripture, the Catholic Church's beliefs, teachings and practices is here:

1. https://www.catholic.com/
2. http://www.ewtn.com/search.asp

Just type your question in the search bar.