Syncan:

Yes.
1Cor 7:12 starts with this "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:" The words in bold sends you a message immediately. It puts the next set of instructions not in the same category with the earlier ones

Are you trying to say those words are fallible hence they may not be what God really want.....so, those parts of the bible should not be 100% trusted?

Syncan:

hahaha, no wahala.

Yes.

...Yes.

Yes it did.

wow! So, this applied to early apostles......
......they were fallible in matters outside faith and doctrine even if they were talking to the whole church...

woky: taking it one after the other will be ok..
Tnkx

alright, lets continue.

hennrit4u: Yes ..we have only brand new of HTC One X+

how much is it please and how much is used htc butterfly?

Syncan:


I'm not so sure the content of your agreement with Italo on traditions, eg what you agreed to be "scriptures". I am ok with your post, however on the third, it will be better we take it one after the other. I will propose we take "mother of God" first.

scriptures in my post means bible.
I'm sorry if it sounded ambigous.
However, He noted that the NT canon is a tradition not in the bible.

Oh! I'd prefer if we take them simultaneously but if you prefer it this way, Its fine.
You may go on.

Syncan:

I do not like breaking of speech, it bores me. However I will clear this up now.

1.Yes. only in officially defining a doctrine about matters of faith and moral, and even then, only when he speaks to the universal church in his capacity as chief shepherd. Eg, If he is speaking on geography, this does not apply. If he is preaching in his chapel, he is only exercising his role as a shepherd, it does not apply.

2. In those statements made,at different times eg in a gathering of some priests etc, they were not defining any doctrine, they were simply stating the obvious. Any teaching in such occasions that is seemingly contrary to the articles of faith received by the church, could be challenged.

3. When a pope speaks Infallibly, there is always a definitive decree at the end. Something like "it is bound on all Christians" to believe that there are three persons in one God.

4. In every other circumstance, the pope is just a shepherd, leading the flock, most importantly, he is human.

I sense some sarcasm in your statements there about Pope Francis, it wasn't necessary at all, but I'll take it as friendly fire.

....sarcasm?
Maybe yes.

that definitely does mean that the pope is fallible in speech/definitions in 'priestly meetings' and matters outside 'defining doctrines/matters concerning faith and morals to the whole church' eg: when He speaks to the whole church about geography, he is fallible....

I hope the above is what you mean....
...and I also want to believe these things you have said is true and I'd like to ask if this position of infallibility applies to the early apostles too.

alcuin: Well.....OP.

The has nothing to do with whether Christianity or Islam.

There are disembodied souls all around us. These are souls of men who have died without shedding their passions and vices, hence, they are earthbound. These souls can take temporary or permanent control of one's brain, if permitted through one's spiritual strength.

It is highly probably that you are the subject of psychic pranks by these beings. In other words, you are temporary possessed. You may have unconsciously opened yourself by being too emotional, this breaks down natural psychic defenses and makes you vulnerable. The fact that you can not understand or control the process is a proof of this fact. The brain controls the body. These beings hijack your brain and control your nervous system thereby rendering you incapable of controlling your body. Be careful, these beings can drive you into actions that are not good based on their vices and inclinations. Examples of serial murderers hearing voices in their head and urging them to commit murder is a version of the unnatural control. Research on the phenomena of automatic writing, mediumship, etc.

This has nothing to do the Holy Spirit.

Christians telling you that tongues are heavenly languages understood only by God, do not have any idea of the spiritual worlds. Human words are only needed here on earth as a medium of conveying our thoughts to others. In the higher worlds closer to God, words are not needed. There, a thought is equivalent to a word, an action even a real experience. Thoughts, words and action are one and the same. By that, language is useless. You only communicate with God through heartfelt thoughts. Words only clothe our thoughts here.

In conclusion, the greatest power of the human being is WILL. If you exercise your will with unshakeable faith, you can easily disperse any psychic attack or oppression. Try it. Consciously will that alien force to leave. It will bow out. Even Satan can not stand a man with strong spiritual will.


If I don't make any sense, kindly ignore me. Thanks.

hmmm....

You sound like a philosopher.

Are you one?

Syncan:


Adsonstone, for your sake I shall give this reply.

The pope is only Infallible when he takes up his position as shepherd of the universal church to speak on matters of "FAITH AND MORAL".

Do you mean the pope is only infallible in his teaching of faith and morals and fallible in all other teachings outside faith and morals.

I.e infallible within the church and fallible outside the church?

Syncan:
The two popes are right.

I suppose this means that they must have declared those things infallibly hence, they were not mistaken/confused.

Syncan:
Pope Benedict XVI says rightly that only in rare situation does a pope speak Infallibly.

ie only in teaching of faith and morals.

....but all others, he is prone to mistakes, hence, should not be trusted for other matters because he could be wrong about it.

I agree with that

Syncan:
Pope John XIII is right

since He said that infallibly, he must be right to have said he is 'not inefallible' however, he is infallible when he speaks infallibly....just as the one he said above.

Syncan:
he does not see anything before him that will require him ...or does not want... to exercise that power.

so, could he be deceiving the whole world when declared infallibly that He is 'not infallible'?


Please, correct me if I'm mistaken....because I'm not speaking infallibly on your faith just as Francis cannot speak infallibly on hinduism....he is fallible about their faith.

Syncan:
Just finish up your reading on wikipedia with a mind to know.

of course, I've read it all....even on catholic encyclopaedias.

How interesting is this 'papal infallibility matter'

lanrexlan: Do you understand what you are saying? No,you don't so it's jargons and still they are congratulating you on it.Se holy spirit never sabi english ni?

hey, why dont you just leave her.
Your response suggests you dont even understand what's happening (to her).

@op, God knows all, it is well.

@ Syncan and Italo.

The first we talked about: Tradition concept.

We reached a compromise that all traditions whatsoever have their roots in scriptures.

The second one which is the 'graven image' concept; you indicated that they are not forbidden...and you also affirmed that it is not wrong to refuse using images in worship.

I think that's sufficient otherwise, we won't leave this topic.

Why not let's throw in a third.
'Mary as a co-mediator with Jesus' or Mary as a mediator to Jesus and Jesus to God.
We'll treat that simultaneously with the declaration of only Mary as 'mother of God' knowing fully well that the Holy Spirit says she's blessed amongst women.

italo: At least Pope Francis knows his stand. He doesn't say I'm fallible, then act infallible...or imply that anyone under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is infallible, only to question others infallibility as if his own Holy Spirit is superior to others'.

That's pope Francis.
I won't be surprised if tomorrow, he says he's fallible.

One pope declared 'all popes' infallible..
....and a number of popes have said they are not 'infallible'

Let's see the views of other popes.


Per Pope Benedict XVI
This happened in In July 2005 during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that:
"The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know"


Per Pope John XXIII, He once remarked:
"I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".

From Wikipedia.

Were these men speaking infallibly when they said those?

italo: You seem to be solely on a mission against Catholicism, not on a mission for truth.

You are never interested in challenging the absurd things that your fellow Protestants say. That suggests that you're not on a honest search for truth.

You have seen me ask Olaadegbu 5 times to tell me the essential and non-essential doctrines and show me where Jesus makes such a distinction. You have seen him constantly dodge this question...yet you are unconcerned that he's proclaiming something unscriptural.

I have never seen you challenge those who say Jesus is only an Angel.

All you are interested in is to snoop around looking for one 'loose' word a Catholic says so you can latch on to it and criticize. And when you're given an answer, you never say "oh...that's true." You just go looking for the next punctuation mark in a Catholic statement to criticize.

You remind me of the Pharisses' attitude to Jesus.

Take a moment to think what Jesus would think of your attitude.

Anyway, if you want an answer, please tell Olaadegbu to show me where Jesus distinguished between essential and non-essential doctrines...and where he listed them.

for me, (as far as the bible records), I know of nowhere Jesus speaks of such...and I hope I'm not mistaken.
If someone thinks I am, he can correct me.

I don't know how you think Jesus would see your attitude perhaps, as that of the pharisees.

You think you can tell imply subtle lies just because someone says what you dont believe in.
You refer them that believe in those two epistles of Peter as his 'all his teachings' as dull people yet you dont see those that believe that 'all Peter's teaching' are in tradition+letters yet unable to provide any, not even one that is found in tradition and the letters are totally silent about....you dont see them as 'the duller ones' that need re-think their opinion before criticising others' opinion.

Well, Remember Jesus' action when the adulterous woman was brought before Him?
He favoured her yet she had sins because the pharisees and scribes tried to 'bring her down' because of her sins.

italo: None of the two passages forbids making images or taking pictures, if we are to consider the intended meaning.

But, since you have decided to use a literal interpretation here, you must be ready to use it for the whole of the Bible.

...or at least the whole of Ex 20:4.

Choose which meaning you want to ascribe to verse 4.

Intended meaning or literal meaning.

Already, i'm wondering if you pluck your eyes out if they cause you to sin.

the intended meaning of the passages says 'dont make images to become idols/gods'....is that right?

italo: Depends on what you're using the images for. If you're using them as we do, it's even a holy thing.

you did not answer the question. Perhaps, you read it in a haste.

Well, here is it again:
Is it wrong not to use images in worship?

italo:

As for dogmas, we believe, like Peter, in Sacred Tradition, not Scripture alone. Unlike dull people who think that all of Peter's life teachings are contained in those 2 short letters.

oh! I see.
A question for you (just answer honestly).

Are all the teachings of the Apostle Peter contained in your tradition + those those two short epistles?

.....and since you believe in tradition + scripture,
Kindly show me at least two of the Apostle Peter's teachings from tradition....especially ones totally exempted from those letters...

Syncan:


Adsonstone, we've made our position clear, God did not abhor making Images, for He himself ordered that Images be made. He never said they should replace Him as God and worship them. We do not replace Him with the Images, we do not worship them.

Stop going round and round, remember I called for honesty. Move on to the next allegation.

How honest can one be other than stating the truth?

God clearly forbid 'making graven images'....leviticus 26:1, Deuteronomy 4:16, 23 and 25 state that.

If the bold is the reason God supports making graven images, then killing esp killing 'God's enemies' is also right and supported by God.

Or should we re-examine the passages I stated above....

....and before that, I should ask you and Italo this.

Is it wrong not to use images in worship?

italo:

That's the logical conclusion using your approach.

They were both explicitly stated in verse 4.

I believe that passage does not forbid what you assumed I implied (taking photographs).

....and you believe it does not forbid 'making graven' images.


Deuteronomy 4:23 forbids graven images but does not forbid 'photographs'.

Can we agree on that?

italo:

You're infallible then...like adsonstone.

I dont go around disproving the rantings of every lunatic on the street. Sorry.

More like pope Francis.

italo:

If the above is true, you're contradicting God if you say it is not a sin to take any picture.

Ex 20:4 - Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.

ok, you believe 'making the likeness of any creation is forbidden' only if 'making graven images is forbidden' right?

Is that your position or did I misunderstand you?

italo:
Yes

you're contradicting God.

Thats directly contrary to God's Law that says Graven Images are forbidden.

Deuteronomy 4:23
"Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which He made with ynu, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of anything which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

Syncan:

So I did not show you were He ordered it to be made?

That is God for you.

Other examples.

Under the old covenant, God commanded that israelites (men) should not marry whores. (leviticus 21:7).....but here is God in Hosea 1:2....commanding Prophet Hosea to go and take a LovePeddler as a wife.

Has God changed?
No, His commandment still remains...and that does not justify 'other' israelites to marry whores....they would be seen as disobedient.

Another is seen in the case of 'making graven images'
God commanded that Graven Images should not be made....(leviticus 26:1, Deut 4:16)...and I guess we both know God's commandment about the bronze serpent and the Ark of covenant.

Even if some kings made images and God did not speak against it (as far as the bible records), It doesnt still justify christians to make graven images.

The 'graven image' concept is very similar to the murder (killing) concept.

God says in His law
'thou shall not kill'
(exodus 20)
yet He orders Saul to utterly kill all the amalekites ('enemies of God') (1 samuel 15)....Infact, God punished Saul for not 'killing' the king of Amalek....

Israelites killed on a number of occasions 'without God's command'

even Moses killed 'the Egyptian' without God's command yet He wasnt punished (as far as the bible records).

....and does that justify killing 'enemies of God' as a right/inspired act for everyone?

I guess no.

italo:

It is not a fact. It is what you think is fact.

then whats the fact?

Images are not forbidden but they're permitted (infact, Inspired as you said earlier)...right?

italo:

... and you say every sculptor, artist, person who has a picture of anything is sinning ?

I would like for you to tell me whether those "Bible-believing Christians" are right or wrong.

Truthislight and every other non-Catholic I have ever met say you are fallible.

JMAN and Truthislight say Jesus is Archangel Michael.

Are they right or wrong?

regarding the bold, I did not say that.

The fact still remains: God does not permit making 'graven images' as he taught in the Mosaic laws.

...and for the rest, I have said that until I talk to Jman, I have nothing to say about their position.

italo: @ adsonstone,

It so happens that you have my respect on this thread.

You're the only one challenging the Catholic faith who is trying to reason it out logically.

The rest I see here are not interested in reason.

They just want to vomit their frustration on us, and that's not what this thread is for (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

...and I thought you were one of the worst...

and sincerely,
I respect you a lot likewise Syncan.

So far, your replies have been well presented.

Syncan:

Fine. By your position - God must have forgotten to add "except by my command" to his "make no graven Image" Law.

By our position - God did not include "except by my command" because he did not forbid making it, only He forbids giving it Divine honour or Worship.

We both used the Scripture for our defense. Agreed?

....but I showed you where God explicitly says graven images should not be made...not necessarily idols.

You showed me where God said images should not be worshipped (which also supports my position because it also says it should not be made in the likeness of any creation)

are you gonna disagree with the parts thats says graven images should not be made?

Or do you mean God was wrong/joking to have said that Images should not be made?

italo:

Then what do you do with the numerous verses I gave you showing that God is not against making images?

You just throw them away?

No, those verses show that those people made images without God's command and God did not say anything about it.

....and I maintain my position that says; the fact that they made images without God's command does not justify making images.

italo:
Your mouth dey sharp as you dey tell me to show that I agree with Syncan. When I asked you if you agreed with JMAN in the other thread, you suddenly went from very vocal to silent.

Yes, I agree with Syncan.

JMAN, Truthislight and all the other Protestants I have ever met say you are fallible. Do you agree with them?

JMAN and Truthislight say that Jesus is not God, but Archangel Michael. Do you agree with them?

is Syncan not a catholic?

Am I a JW?

Can we continue our discussion?

You guys said images are not forbidden.

italo:
Can you show me where God states the 10 commandments exactly as you stated them?

Since you imply the other one is Catholic version while the one you stated is God's version.

I did not imply that, you did.

....God did not also explicitly state the commandments the way the RCC states hers.

Elementary Logic.
Pick up any RCC bible....perhaps Douay Rheims,
open exodus 20,
write out all the points separated by a full stop and reason.

italo:

When dealing with the first part of Ex 20:4, you disregarded all the passages that shows that what God is against is not "making of images" but "worshipping of images." You even disregarded v2, v3 and v5 which proves my point.

You just wanted to deal with that part in isolation.

Now that I apply that flawed approach to the second part of the verse, you suddenly remember other passages.

Which approach do you want us to use?

Should we deal with the verse in isolation or not?

The verse/passage cannot be treated in isolation, and it should not also be misunderstood.

It shows God is against making/worshipping images.


I suggested those other passages to show you that God is also against 'making images' as the exodus 20:4 says alongside worshipping them.

....because, you said God isn't against making images.

italo:

The same use that Peter was when Jesus had left this earth, yet was alive.

"Feed my sheep," "I will give you the keys to the kingdom," yet Jesus was alive.

Clearly, Jesus wanted a visible head for his Church...and even the Early Church Fathers knew this.


You have a habit of arguing against Catholic positions without having any firm and reasonable position of your own.

It seems like you just tell yourself: "the Catholics say this so I must disagree."

regarding the bold:
....and who told you that my 'Daddy' is not the visible Head?

italo:
God is never silent about an abomination.

Really?
Well,
show that you have agreed with syncan then we can talk about the rest.

italo:
When and where did God appoint you alone as his spokesman?

did you not read that in His law?

Or when did I become the author of the book that states all those?

italo: This is actually funny. You really believe God forbids all images.

Let us read Exodus 20:4 again to see how outrageous this is.

"Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing,
nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth."

Going by the same reasoning approach you applied to the beginning of the verse, surely you also believe that making/keeping anything with the likeness of anything in heaven, or on earth or in water (That includes pictures, sculptures, drawings, graphic designs of all kinds).

Do you see that you are wrong...or do you also believe that all these are sins too?

That's totally absurd.....infact, in your mind, replace all your photographs/all drawings/artwork you've ever seen with graven images.....thats how absurd it is.

By the way, Syncan typed a reply which is on page 13 (infact, the last comment on that page) which I wanna believe thats your position too and you totally agree with that. (I would have copied it in a quote here but for phone ish)


now, back to topic.
To understand what God meant in that passage (if that is too ambigous) we'll consider other passage that speaks of such and see what God is against.

Leviticus 26:1 which I stated earlier

Deuteronomy 4:16-18

'16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and you make you a graven image of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
17. The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
18. The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:

It is evident from those passages that God is against making all forms of Graven Images in the likeness of anything at all.

italo:
Yes.

This is a big lie.

That is directly contrary to what Christ commanded in that passage.
What a twist!

Matthew 28:20

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you "...

Thats Jesus Himself.
I don't know why you delibrately Changed His message to suit the RCC's objective-- teaching what Christ did not teach e.g submission to the pope to be saved contrary to 'Become born again' to see the kingdom of God.

italo:
Christ made it clear he didn't teach everything.

Yes, Christ also made it clear that the Holy Spirit will guide 'all Christians' into all truth.....teaching them thing He hasn't taught them.

.....and the apostles are not exempted from the Holy Spirit's guidance.

italo:

Oh! I see your theology is not reasonable enough to explain anything. You just want to disagree with the Catholics without having any sensible reason.

but you said all those things I wrote.....or did you not say them?

Of what use is Francis when Peter is alive?