₦airaland Forum

@ Omenuko

It looks like we have another JW (Jevoha's Witness) or some sort in the house. Did you ever bother reading Church history and the writings of the early Church leaders. My friend, all of the Bishops of the early church were Catholic bishops. Since the time of the apostles, most the Christians (well at least the orthodox ones) were Catholic. This same Church spread to India (the Malankora Church), Africa (Coptic and Geez Churches, etc.), middle east (Syrian, Chaldean Churches, etc.), Asia (Russia, Ukraine Churches, etc.), Europe (Greece and Rome Churches, etc.). This nonsense that you are posting is just twisting and currupting the passages of the Bible to fit your 'off the wall' notions and insinuations. The proper name of the Church is the 'Catholic Church' and it is comprised of many different faith traditions or rites, the Latin (Roman) rite being one of them (and largest in terms of population).

Firstly, I am a witness of Jehovah but not a Jehovah's Witness. Secondly I have bothered to read church as well as secular history. In the early centuries of the church there were no Catholics, but as you correctly said bishops. At what stage may I ask was the church universal? What you ascribe to the Catholic church is what I ascribe to the pure church of Jesus Christ. If there is any twisting of the scriptures it is when priests, friars, prelates, popes decieve the people with titles that only belong to God. I am afraid the twisting takes place when a dead woman is called Queen of heaven and placed in the exalted position as co-redemtrix of God.

You really have the gaul and nerve to talk about twisting the scriptures.

A rite represents an ecclesiastical tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. As the early Church grew and spread, it celebrated the sacraments as would be best understood and received in the context of individual cultures, without ever changing their essential form and matter. The early Church sought to evangelize in the major cultural centers of the first centuries A.D. These centers were Rome, Antioch (Syria), and Alexandria (Egypt). All the rites in use today evolved from the liturgical practices and ecclesiastical organization used by the churches in these cities.

Did our Lord and apostles celebrate the ordinances with such extravagance and pomp as do the priests today? Did they persecute anyone who refused to celebrate it the Catholic way?

Daniel:7 1-27 describes a vision that Daniel has concerning worldly kingdoms and is similar to that of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the preceding chapters (Daniel 2). It primarily concerns the four succeeding world kingdoms (the known world at that time) of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece and how they were opposed to and contrary to the messianic kingdom of the people of God.

I am afraid you're guilty of the ignorance you accuse others of. History shows without a doubt that the line up of kingdoms are Babylon, Medes/Persia, Greece, Rome. It would be of interest if you gave a source of your line up of kingdoms, and the duration of each kingdom. For your information the Medes and Persians did not serve as separate kingdoms. The prophecy makes that absolutely clear by the very description of the bear in Daniel 7. it stood higher on one side symbolizing that Persia was the more dominant kingdom of the twin kingdoms.

It does not apply to the Catholic Church or to the apostolic teachings. On the contrary it is a vision of how the followers of God will be persecuted by these kingdoms. The imagery of the Daniel passage is also used extensively in Revelation (Rev. 12, 13, 17), where St. John applies it to the Roman Empire (Babylon) and how it will/did persecute the body of Christ (the early Christians), the Church. Again, this does not refer to the Catholic Church.

That is not what Daniel said. He pointed to the little horn that grew among the 10 smaller kingdoms that came out of the 4th beast. if we go back to Daniel 2 we would know that the iron metal found in the legs truly represent Rome, since history has it that all those kingdoms used those metals to represent them. The Greeks were associated with the age of bronz, and Rome was associated with the age of iron. It is logical to think that since the visions are parallel then the 4th beast would correspond with the metallic iron in the image. The major difference between the two visions was that God showed Daniel additional information in chapter 7 about the 4th kingdom that drew Daniel's attention. Daniel was concerned about the extent to which that little horn would continue doing so much wrong.

If we take all factors into consideration then the time given for this power to reign could not have excluded the timing of the Roman Catholic church. The timing of the prophecy fits perfectly the timing of the start and temporary end of the RCC.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther. The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon. The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

The fact remains there could not have been a canon without the word of god. As I have said if some didn't do it God would have found others to do it, so no big deal. This thread is not about the canonization of scriptures. It is about the RCC's attempt to ignore God's clear teachings via its traditions. History has revealed the evil intent of the church, or how else would you explain the millions of killings against those who were prepared to stand for the bible and not the RCC's traditions. You seem to have blinded your eyes and senses to the stark reality that God's church was never called to persecute people, but to lead them to Jesus Christ.

And also, there was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible.

So where did Jesus preach from? So where did Paul direct Timothy to when he said that "all scripture is given of God by inspiration and is profitable for doctrine, "?

All you guys did was to simply collate, , kudos to you all.

The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible.

I couldn't agree more! You're exactly right. The RCC is not the church of the bible.

It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Really! So if the church didn't create the canon then who did? And if there were no known scriptures then how did the church grow and feed spiritually? It also proves that there were no catholics according to your own words, yet you all boast that there has never been a break in the apostles chain that commenced with Peter, wow!

My friend see above. . . .the fourth kingdom that ruled the world (the known world at the time) was the Alexandrian/Greek Empire (the Seleucid kings). It was this kingdom (the Seleucids) that primarily concerned the author (presumably Daniel). My friend Bobbyarf, try to read more world history and keep the scriptures within context.

If I were you I'd be scared to reveal such un-researched material on such a powerful fora as this. Just do a simple google and spare yourself the embarrassment.

The ten horns represented the kings of the Seleucid dynasty (the Greek Hellenistic Empire). The little horn that took the place of the three horns that were torn away (Daniel 7 verse eight) represented Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 BC), the worst of the Seleucid kings, who usurped the throne.

This is debatable. When one is a bible student of prophecy it pays to put all the pieces together. As I have alluded all the fingers point to the RCC as the LovePeddler of Revelation 17, and the beast of Revelation 13. Ephiphanes lived before the demise of Rome. The prophecy points to events that would have occurred after Rome came off the scene. This is why the RCC seeks to point people away from the true historical facts by introducing confusing data.

I don't know whether to take the above seriously or not. The 10 horns represented the Seleucid kings and the 11th horn (the little one that took the place of the three horns that were torn away) represents the Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see above) who took the throne by force.

For your sake you'd better.

These kingdoms (Astrogoths, Heluleans, and Vandals) were absorbed into the Roman Empire (basically became roman citizens themselves) and are present day French, German, Spanish, and Italian people (basically western Europe). It does not relate to the four kingdoms discussed in Daniel 7 (e.i., Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece/Seleucids)

You mean after Rome dispatched crusades to destroy them! , Where on earth are you getting your information from?

No, in Revelation 12, 13, and 17 St. John is describing the Roman Empire (pagan Rome) and how it persecuted the early Christians. It does not refer to the Catholic Church (see above). And the Pope is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Christians (nothing more nothing less).

So if Daniel and John said that the RCC would rule for 1260 years before the deadly wound, then how could you attribute Rome to such a long existence, when Rome existed between BC169 to AD476? That is less than 650 years. That is why I said before that understanding bible prophecy means putting all the pieces of the prophecy together instead of isolating verses and making a mess of things. We must apply line upon line, and a little here and a little there in accordance with scriptures.

So as I have said previously the RCC officially began in AD538 and came to a temporary end in AD1798 when Napolean Bonaparte under the revolution brought the church to its knees. Its pope was placed into exile and eventually died. Revelation 13 predicted that one of its head would have been wounded, and it became so in AD 1798, exactly 1260 years according to bible prophecy.

No, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. Even if you can't or don't accept the fact the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, you cannot wish away history and disregard the teachings and testimony of the early Christian bishops who were all Catholic

If Jesus were here today He'd be rebuking the RCC and its follies, just as He did the corrupt Jewish church.

(lets even start from after the last apostle died, John). All the writings of the early church fathers, bishops, and faithful Christians professed to be members of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope). I think it is very disingenuous of you to arbitrarily claim and argue that the Catholic Church stared in 538 AD and ended in 1798 AD. Helloooooo, the Catholic Church is still standing.

Go back and reread my posts. I said that it came to a temporary end and was re-installed by Mussulini in 1929, and given the Vatican city.

You are a joke. . . .If you want to talk about new world order it is not the Catholic Church, it is the USA. It is the USA that is currently dominating world politics and world affairs and not the Pope. Please, stop posting this trash.

And who do you think is controlling the US?

@ Magz

No offense, but this does not make any sense at all. I was raised as a Baptist Christian, and this contradictory stuff here is the exact reason that I no longer identify with the Christian faith.

I know it doesn't make sense, but it is true. To some the GodHead is quite a mystery. The bible says "great is the mystery of Godliness"

You say, in essence, that there are two Gods:

No I didn't say that. There is One God. The term God is a title.

One, the divine creator of Heaven, Earth and everything within, and the second a man who came directly from the Creator, is the Creator, but yet is not the creator. I know in my heart that this is not right.

They are the same person. It was Christ who created all things according to John 1, but John said in verse 14 that that Creator became human.

John 1:1-3 say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Word was with God, and the Word is also God. This denotes two distinct persons.

2 "The same was in the beginning with God."

They both existed together.

3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

So Christ indeed made all things. He was the agent of creation.

Now verse 14 says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Then as you know He took on flesh, or He became human. Please allow me to ask of you a few questions.

1. Did He lose His status/privilege as God to become human?

2. Was He still God while He was human, but was not allowed to use His powers?

What I am about to share with you is very deep theology. You can either agree or disagree, but I want you to see exactly what I am trying to say.

For anyone to understand the plan of salvation without the least of confusion it is important to fully understand why God had to send His ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON in the first place. Before I explain let me revisit some things we have taken for granted:

1. God is love

2. God is just and fair

3. God is omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient.

4. God has no beginning, or end and is not restricted by time and space.

5. His righteous principles and truth are absolute.

Now why did Jesus had to come here in the first place? Because of sin, correct? Now who was the first sinner? Lucifer of course. One of God's smartest and brightest angels developed the folly to rebel, but he didn't rebel overnight. The feelings of pride and selfishness gradually grew in him.

Did God knew that Lucifer would eventually rebel? Of course He did since He is Omniscient, correct? Was God caught off guard? Absolutely not!

Could God have prevented sin, or put another way, could God have created Lucifer or any of His creatures in a way to prevent them from sinning? Well, since He is God he could have done anything He desired, correct?

Does God know something that we don't know about evil, and where did evil come from if God is so holy and good? I am yet to find a person who knows what is really going on. All I know is that God had a plan, and still does have a plan.

It seems that part of God's divine plan was to potentially allow evil to lurk behind the scenes. I believe that evil existed in a potential state, but could only have been activated by the wrong choice, at any point in time, by any of His intelligent created beings. I believe that God made all His creatures aware of the possibility of evil manifesting itself, and He protected them through His absolute laws that act as a guide. In other words if Lucifer had listened to God's voice and stay within the border of safety He would not have reached the point of rebellion.

Three prophets describe the scenario. two from the OT, and one from the NT.

Isaiah. 14:12-14 say, "12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Did you see what Lucifer's intention was? Have you seen how many times he said I? Here was an angelic creature trying to usurp God's throne, and government. Was he crazy?

Listen to another writer.

Ezekiel 28:13-15 say, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15: Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

Wow! Lucifer was an anointed Cherub. He was in the immediate presence of God. He was specially created to provide exquisite music, and it is believed that he was a choir master. Why did such a beautiful angel rebel that had everything at his disposal? The bible calls it the mystery of iniquity. Was this a way to test the free will of His creatures?

Now Lucifer it seems had gotten himself some other angels to side with him, and that is when things took a turn for the worse. John in Revelation 12 puts the pieces together. He describes a war where Michael (Christ) and His angels fought Lucifer and his angels. Lucifer had gotten 1/3 of the angelic host to distrust God. It seems they had a problem with how God administered things. Lucifer felt that God was not being fair to him, and that he Lucifer deserved more power and attention.

The logical question is, why didn't God destroy Lucifer instantaneously? That is because Lucifer questioned God's character, and if God had zapped him and the other rebel angels out of existence, then what kinds of questions would linger in the remaining angels' minds? A lot of questions. Could Lucifer have been right in questioning God's right to rule? Do you see where I am heading with this? So God allowed Lucifer to live in order to prove his case. He was kicked out of heaven with his rebel angels to build a case against God.

Who would Lucifer take his case to? This is where a lot of people are going to call me crazy. Well, he had several worlds to visit. Each world was made by the same Creator, and each world had a leader who was placed in charge. Just before the rebellion it is believed that Lucifer was a witness to the creation of earth. It seems that earth opened a way for Lucifer to prove his case, because like Lucifer Adam and Eve disobeyed God's instructions. Although God had taught Adam and Eve the way they like Lucifer were not exempt from sinning. They were free moral agents and they too had a choice. They now became sinners like Lucifer. Adam sinned because he loved Eve. Eve sinned because she was deceived. Lucifer got Eve to distrust God's word by appealing to her desire to be wiser and more knowledgeable which God was denying her.

What would God do now? His righteous law was broken and it could only be satisfied by the death of the sinner. Lucifer knew he'd die one day, and he desired to bring others with him. He was bent on destroying humans at any opportunity.

The divine plan of redemption was that since God could not change His perfect law to accommodate sin, then the lawgiver would have to die in the sinner's place. That lawgiver was Christ Himself who had created Adam and Eve. It was He who laid out the plan to Adam, Eve, and even reminded Satan what his fate would be one day. Christ had promised Adam, and Eve that through their seed He would come as the Messiah in the flesh to teach the way of God and to restore righteousness, and ultimately destroy Satan, his angels, sin and sinners.

What most people fail to see is that Christ had to divest Himself of divinity fully, and clothe with humanity fully. His mission was to reveal who the Father truly was. His test was to truly represent His Father's way and truth, and prove to those cosmic witnesses, and including us on earth, that God's law and justice can be trusted. Christ became fully human and will forever remain a human even though He is fully God. He will never go back to what He truly was before He became one of us. Most Christians have not been taught the true mission of Christ because they fail to see that His life was just as important as His death on Calvary. If Christ had failed then Satan would have been proven right, and the Son of God would have been Himself lost. Sounds sacrilegious doesn't it?

Jesus now has a body that has been glorified. He is not a spirit. In the earth made new after sin is destroyed all of God's redeemed will be able to touch Christ, and commune with Him. We will be able to see and touch one another as well because we too will possess glorified flesh. Soon this will be a reality when our vile body will become like His according to Paul. We will be changed. This curruptible will put on incurruption, and as John says we shall see Him as He is.

@ manmustwac

If jesus was Black Christianity would have finished before it started and the white population would be atheists. Period!

It seems you have very little faith in black people, correct?

It really matters to me if Jesus were black or white, because art is a form of communicating important historical information. The first artist who portrayed Jesus did he or she take the time out to have gotten the facts about the race of Jesus before forcing others to see him as white?

But what is stirring the pot of controversy is the level of deception that was thrown at black people in general. If Jesus weren't white then why are we seeing him as such?

Are not Christian artists concerned about what they portray? If racism was not an element within the whole affair then why is it at one point in time racism/slavery was pushed as a divine mandate by many Christians?

Christians need to stop hiding under the notion that "it doesn't really matter as long as you serve Him." Truth is important in all areas of life, and not just in some.

Sorry, we were looking at it from very different perspective, while you were looking at it from a prophetic angle I was looking at it the other way round. Sorry for intruding you guys should carry on with your debate.

No problem at all Bindex. And please don't see it as an intrusion. You had a genuine query.

@ Riskie

Christians asks many questions of Muslims like "Do you believe Allah is a real God?", "What has your Allah done for you?", "Why did your Prophet do this and that?". I think the Muslims have done a decent job trying to answer these questions but I have several questions for the Christ-worshippers.

Well as a Christian I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.

1) Isn't Jesus a human being?

Yes he is human.

2) Can you explain the "Holy" Trinity in a way that it would make sense?

Firstly, not all Christians agree on the doctrine of the Trinity. Its a term coined by the Catholics to explain the unity of three persons making up the GodHead. It so happens that that is one doctrine I have come to understand more, and not because the Catholics taught it, but because the word of God supports it. John 3:16 says in summary that God loved the world and gave His Only Son to die in our place so that eternal life can be granted to those who believe.

3) Do you believe idol worship ie praying to statues and figures is wrong? If so why do you do it?

Not all Christians worship as Catholics.

4) Would you worship your fellow man? If not, why worship Jesus, isn't he human?

God has forbidden humans to worship other humans. We worship Jesus because He is both God and human. He is 100% God, and He is 100% human. I know it sounds a bit confusing, but before Jesus became human He and the Father shared the same glory. They both had the same title - GOD.

But God the SON couldn't die so He divested Himself of all that glory so that He could become one of us. That was the only way to identify with the fallen race. So in human form He was tempted, and had the limitations just like humans. His nature was the post-fall nature. He wasn't like Adam who hadn't a nature to sin. Christ was born with the propensity to sin like anyone of us, but He chose not to.

Adam was made perfect and never felt the rigors of temptation that those of us felt and still feel after the fall. Yet Adam chose to sin because he felt he couldn't do without Eve.

So the bible depicts Christ as the 2nd Adam who could have sinned if He wanted to. He too had a choice. If Christ couldn't sin then what kind of example would He be? He'd be a fake. In other words God His Father didn't grant His Son any special favors. Jesus like us had to learn to depend on His Father in all things, and that is why having passed the test that Adam failed, we can depend on Him to strengthen us. If we do as Jesus did we too can pass the test with flying colors.

5) Why do you worship Mary, the human mother of Jesus?

That is a Catholic problem.

These questions were never answered all the years I took religon class at various Catholic schools. I don't know everything about my own faith either but I do know I am worshipping one supreme being and I think that is the most important.

I understand your position Riskie. Catholic schools were never designed to teach holy scriptures because their traditions are not supported by the bible. So you cannot rely on them to be effective in presenting the bible.

Thanks in advance. Hope I get some actual answers. Smiley

I hope I helped.

Posted by: bindex

This assertion is very false, With the population of places like China, India and the whole of Asia, Africa and the Americas(North and South), I know for sure that Europe has never at any time in the history of the world had the greater percentage of the world's population. This assertion is not true.

First of all don't compare populations of different nations today as against what they were over 2000 years ago. It so happened that Europe then at the time the RCC was developing was the most centered place. They were the most dominant of nations. That was the place to be so to speak.

But let's say for argument sake that there were other crowded regions, it still wouldn't affect the prophecy that the RCC came out of a more populated region at first, than say the US which came out of a less populated region. The chapter says that the lamb-like beast came out of the earth signifying a less populated region.

@ ttalks

The tithe that Abraham paid before Moses' time was something he did of his own freewill; it was not based on an order from God or any commandment of God. It was a freewill situation.

Jacob vowed a vow, saying, Gen 28:22

"This stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God's house, and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth"

Here was a man of God without being asked or commanded who freely established systematic giving.

In other words, if he had not given the tithe then, it would not have meant he would have lost favour in God's sight. he chose to do it on his on volition.

And why didn't Melchezidek refuse it? Yet we don't know for sure if there was not something already in place. We can't assume either way.

Now,under the old covenant which was established through Moses, and spanning to the Malachi accounts,the tithing there was based on God's command,so the people paid it/returned it/gave it because of that command and not because they were operating on freewill.

What kind of a people would that make them out to be if they only paid the tithe that was based on a command. What kind of a God would that be that forces people's free will to pay a tithe if they didn't desire to pay? Tithing can't be wrong if its based on a command, because in the NT we have been commanded to teach and preach, among other things. In fact adultery, stealing, and other sins have been commanded against which have been passed down through the dispensations regardless of whether or not we are under the OT, or NT.

I raised that point to say that God's command doesn't in any way affect one's free will. There had to have been a reason why God commanded it in the first place, and that was based on the stark reality that the temple needed the resources in order to function effectively, and that those stiff necked people needed to see that.

As is very obvious,there were penalties for not paying such tithes. Therefore, the tithe paying/giving then was not because the people had love for others or felt compassion for the needy; it was because they were under compulsion by the commandment(that is not to say some people didn't genuinely have compassion for othrs then).

And there were penalties for other laws that were broken too. You see sometimes God has to command things as if we were children. They were spiritual children at the time and needed laws to mold them. Although God's laws are always meant for good, sometimes they can be not so appreciated by those on the receiving end. There is a difference between free will and choice. Free will is a gift we have of God who doesn't need robots to worship Him. A choice is something we make based on the free will we have, and based upon the relationship we have with God.

In the new covenant, every form of giving which exists is based on the freewill and the compassion and love of the giver towards those that are in need. It does not flow along the same lines as giving based on commandments and specific stipulations.Tithes which are based on commandments and specifics don't belong to the order or way of the new covenant.

The tithing was never about alms. It was never about having compassion for anyone. It was designed to secure and maintain the ministry of the temple. Why do you think that God allowed the prophet Malachi to have used strong language in describing those who refused to support God's cause? God Himself called them thieves, and robbers.

But,the most reasonable reason why tithes can not be under the new covenant is because they were a law to the people under the old covenant which Christians do not operate under anymore.

And I keep saying that the law came into being only when Israel became unfaithful. The fact that God commanded it then, shows its importance.

If a christian, out of love for others or a specific need to be met,gives 10% of what he has to help out, it is labeled as giving as he/she purposes or settles in his/her mind and not a tithe.If a Christian gives 10% of what he/she has to any cause or need out of the compulsion of the "Pay tithes" commandment,and not because of genuine love and willingness to help out, such a Christian is simply obeying an abolished law and is forcing Galatians 5:4 upon himself/herself.
Paying of tithes because of the law to pay it;that is paying it in accordance to the law,defeats the theme of the new covenant,which is love as the basis of everything done.

Let me ask of you a question. If a Christian doesn't commit adultery when tempted must we assume he or she doesn't because the law says so, or because they love God? Only God knows the heart. You cannot use the law as an excuse for not wanting to freely do something for God. The law only acts as a guide.

The new covenant only supports giving of different kinds,different amounts,- there are no specifics or stipulation and they all stem from love and also from willingness to help and are done according to the determination of the giver.Anybody can definitely see that the rules of tithes don't agree with these conditions.

Under the NC what would you consider to be reasonable giving?

Thank you guys. I need your prayers. Its never easy having to speak bluntly to other Christians who sincerely believe that their worship is true.

I hope that as we share that sincere Catholics who are genuinely seeking God will see where we are coming from and flee like Lot did before the destruction comes.

The books of Daniel and Revelation are interesting books to study.

@ Ttalks

Bobbyaf,

I think it would be cool for u to give more specifics on the prophecy.Let's all view it and see what we can make out of it.And it would also be nice to get the source where u got the info relating most of the details of the prophecy to the Roman Catholic Church.It would help in viewing things on a very broad note. Thanks.  Wink

I will provide more details, but I am not too sure I'd like to expose the website I got the information from lest the enemy of souls motivate Naughty Boys to try and cause problems for the site,    ,  I hope you understand.

Concerning the prophecy against the RCC.

Daniel 2
It begins with Daniel. As a matter of fact most of the important prophecies seem to have started there. As I previously said Nebuchadnezzar king of Neo Babylon had a dream of an image divided up in 4 metallic parts, and each part represented his kingdom and 3 future kingdoms that would follow. The image looked somewhat like this:


https://www.geocities.com/gacbloomington/nebuimage2_rep_1.jpg

So the golden head = Babylon which ruled from 705BC to 539BC
two arms & breast of sliver = Media Persia which ruled from BC539-Bc331
Thighs of brass or bronze = Greece which ruled from BC331 - BC169
Legs of Iron = Rome which ruled from NC169 - AD467
feet of Iron and Clay = 10 nations or smaller kingdoms that sprang up after Rome's collapse.

As you know from further chapters the king built a golden statue because he wanted Babylon to rule forever, and he ordered for all peoples and nations to bow down. Of course the faithful ones refused.

Now in chapter 7 Daniel himself had a fresh dream but this time he saw 4 beasts which might have looked like these:

https://oneyearbibleimages.com/daniel_beast_.jpg

No doubt the lion represented Babylon at the time, and its 2 wings represented the speed with which it came into power. Remember Babylon was called Neo Babylon whose foundation was the old Assyrian nation.

The bear with one side raising higher than the other symbolized the twin kingdoms of the Medes & Persia, but eventually Persia became the dominant kingdom. The 3 ribs in the bear's mouth represented 3 colonies under Persia.

The leopard with 4 heads and 4 wings represented Greece under Alexander the Great. The 4 wings reveals that his kingdom spread rapidly and was established faster than any other. The 4 heads represented the 4 generals, and divisions of Greece after Alexander's death. He died at age 33 after becoming so drunk he died of a fever.

The non-descript beast represented Rome that ruled the longest and was the most feared kingdom just as was described in chapter 7. It started out with 10 horns among which grew a little horn that increased in size and while it grew it uprooted 3 others leaving itself and 7 others. As can be seen from the picture it also had the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke blasphemies. Notice too that this little horn came after imperial Rome. Bear in mind that the 10 horns represented the rise of 10 smaller kingdoms after Rome's demise which was the birth of modern Europe.

https://www.mefag.com/images/klhorn.jpg

History has it that the little horn power (the RCC) started out officially in AD538, although there were Roman bishops around before that. The term catholic which means universal was not yet applied. According to Daniel's prophecy it would rule and persecute and blaspheme for 3 1/2 times, or symbolic years which amounted to 1260 symbolic days, and as most scholars are aware each day in prophecy means 1 literal year.

So in actual reality the RCC would rule for 1260 literal years. John the apostle's revealtion pointed out the same time period in chapter 13. let us read as follows:

Revelation 13:5, "And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months."

Now 42 symbolic months represents 1260 years if you calculate the math.

42 X30 days =1260 days = 1260 years.

Notice how John describes the beast in the same manner, and notice also that the beast is a blend of the beasts mentioned in Daniel's 7. What does that mean? It means that the same pagan tendencies would have passed down to the RCC, because all of those kingdoms were pagan. The RCC has baptised paganism to dress it up so that it can become acceptable to the people. How have they managed to get away with it? Simple! People look to the priests instead of reading their bibles. John says they have become drunk with the harlot's wine, or doctrines. They are in a stupor.

Revelation 13 description of the RCC

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Sea here means a very large population. Revelation uses water to represent peoples and nations, etc. The RCC first started in Europe which had the greater of the world's population.

2: And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

The beast was a composite of the previous beasts in Daniel 7. It is pagan in nature but poses as a church. The dragon represents 2 entities. Primarily it represents Satan, but secondarily it represents pagan Rome. If you notice the RCC got its power from pagan Rome in the form of power transfer. Their own literature confesses that reality:

", superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #19, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

Pope Pius IX, in his "Discorsi" (I., p. 253), said: "The Caesar who now addresses you, and to whom alone are obedience and fidelity due."

3: And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

This wound occurred in 1798 under Napoleon Bonaparte exactly 1260 years after its AD358 official inception. Between 1798 and 1929 the catholic church existed without an official pope. In fact at one satge there were three candidates fighting over power. Mussulini eventually installed the pope and gave him the Vatican city in 1929 thus healing the wound. Incidentally this city is built in 7 literal hills as pointed out in the prophecy.

4: And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

The RCC grew once again and allows Satan to recieve worship by her false idols and pagan practices she has installed in worship. She is way more powerful than we can imagine.

5: And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

See details above

6: And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

The priesthood system under the RCC has violated the High Priesthood ministry of Jesus Christ. It has blasphemed God's name by literally using holy titles that only belong to God. The whole of heaven is offended when priests teach that Jesus' literal body is re-crucified at the mass. They have made a mockery of the crucifixion of our LORD Jesus Christ.

7: And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

If nothing else proves this prophecy true its the manner in which bible-believing Christians were murdered by the millions by the RCC. Babies were cut from pregnant mothers; Children and mothers were given their father's flesh to eat; I could go on and on.

The remaining verses point out the role of the US in helping the beast to gain a stronger foot hold. I will attend to that another time. Initially though America is represented as a lamb which later became a dragon. This US according to the prophecy will create an image of the first beast mentioned in the opening verses of Revelation 13.

In essence the beast represents a union of church and state The US as it were will create the conditions for church and state to combine their efforts in solving the world crisis, but it has to begin at the US first. The current US economic mess is only a planned device to make way for a change in the US constitution so that church and state can mix as it was in Europe.

The first beast = church and state in Europe

The image of the beast = church and state starting in the US and spreading over the globe using war and economics as weapons.

The US = lamb like beast initially when it stood for peace and freedom. The pilgrim fathers all migrated away from popery to the land of the free. Notice too that just as Europe started having its wars and civil uprisings, the lamb like beast was just forming. Recall that Napolean's revolution was just about the time that the US was developing its own constitution. It was a very youthful and powerful nation on the rise.

Trust me fellow Christians, including Catholic Christians this is for real. The prophecies are sure. God's words cannot fail.

I am not here to score religious points against those with whom I disagree. I am here to share what I have come to know through prayerful study of God's words. I make no claim to fame, and I am not anymore righteous than any other man. I too need prayer and encouragement as I journey to the kingdom.

My only desire is to see souls saved in God's kingdom.

@ Sisi Jinx

I watched the videos, and they are very much on topic. The first two I saw before, but not the third. The attempt at defense by the speaker in the third video wasn't convincing.

He tries to associate the LovePeddler with Jerusalem, but all that was from the past. What John saw pertained to the future from his time. Besides, Jerusalem didn't commit fornication with the whole world, and neither did she sit on a beast as described in Revelation 17.

Besides, there are other factors in the prophecy that he failed to have noticed, in that Revelation 17 is just an extension of Revelation 13. In most cases when God reveals important information He often does so in phases. Each new vision or revelation tends to develop from the previous, so in actual reality the prophet is usually given a little more each time.

So his attempt was lame if you ask me.

Besides, the argument that Peter was the rock on which Christ built His church is false. The word Peter in Greek means pebble, or small stone. The theme of the whole bible is Jesus, and He is the one referred to as the rock. The rock that Moses struck twice instead of once represented Christ.

The irony of it all is that Peter himself in the very same chapter that Christ referred to him as blessed rebuked Christ for reminding them of His suffering. At that point Christ called him Satan because as usual he was allowing the devil to use him, just as he allowed the devil to use him when he denied Christ later on at the trial.

If anything this chapter revealed more than ever the weakness of Peter, and that he could not have been the foundation upon which Christ would build His church. If only Catholics would read the scriptures and ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance rather than listen to nonsense from their priests, things would be so different.

Listen to Matthew 16:18 "And I also to you say that you are Πέτρος and on this πέτρᾳ I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not have power over it.

Christ knew exactly what Peter was and He reminded him, but He also gave Peter the assurance that the very statement that he made concerning who Christ was, would be the foundation or rock on which the church would survive. As long as persons kept in mind at all times who Jesus really was, then the church would be able to overcome any unslaught, or attack that Satan would unleash upon the church.

The fact that Peter was not even in charge of the Jerusalem council speaks volumes. It was James who became the chairman. So where was Peter? Where was this man when Jesus was captured? And long after Pentecost Peter was rebuked by Paul for not standing up against Jewish bigotry, after God sent a message to Cornelius through him explaining that God is no respecter of persons, and that all nations under God are seen as the same.

Do as I did. I started a fun international business in which you can work from home and expand your business internationally. All you need is to let another distributor register you and teach others to do the same. Wellness is the way to, and what better business can you start up with very little money yet make a lot.

You can view this part of a larger video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbNay85ehcI

Perhaps, and she decided to break the ice,

@ Cayon

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you on the highlighted.  Moses instituted Tithing because the Israelites were not paying taxes. Also, tithing in Malachi 3 was for the Levi (#11) tribes.  The other ten tribes were to pay tithes to help the Levi tribes.

So on what basis did Abraham pay his tithe?

Tithing was based on the Old Covenant. We no longer live under the Law of Moses, but rather under the Law of Christ hence no mention of Tithing in the NT.

That is why I asked you to explain to the fora why Abraham payed tithes of all? Moses was not yet around much less the children of Israel.

2 Corinthians 9 clearly states how God wants us to give. . . . .  we give cheerfully (Offering); I don't recall in the NT a 10% rule, and I can’t find one when I search.   We are more obligated to our family and help who are in need as per the book of Timothy.  Charity begins at home

Likewise I haven't seen anything against it.  The absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence.

Peace

If tithing was a holy institution before then it still is. The same purpose it served it still serves today.

I also want to clear up something that I have seen said by many a persons on the topic. Tithing was never instituted by Moses, nor is something to be restricted to the Old Testament.

In Gen 14:20, we read "And blessed be the Most High God , which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand. And he gave Him tithes of all."

Its pretty obvious that the principle of tithing was introduced to the patriarchs long before Moses came on the scene. Where did Abraham learn to pay tithes like that? Out of the nowhere?

Stewardship was always a principle encouraged by God among His people to test their faithfulness. How we manage God's resources is usually a strong indication as to where we are going spiritually. True and faithful Christians will be faithful stewards of the three most important things given to man:

1 time

2. treasure (the things we feel we possess but truly belong to God)

3. talents (all the skills that God has bestowed on us)

When tithing was introduced to the Israelites it was a means of maintaining the ministry in order to prevent the priests from having to work for a living. The priests' sole duty was to focus on spiritual matters. It is believed that on those occasions when Israel back slided it was associated with a lack of faithfulness in returning the tithe. When the priests were forced to work then the spiritual feeding of the flock was compromised.

Take a look at those lives who participate in systematic giving, and compare them to those who are only Christians by profession. I am apart of a tithe-paying organization that pays all its pastors a salary that is sourced from tithing. All our denominational educators are also paid from the tithe, because we consider them ministers of Christian education.

Friends we own nothing in this life. All belongs to God. Has anyone seen a text in the NT that has denounced tithing? If it were associated with only Moses don't you think that at least one of the apostles would have mentioned it? Jesus made a passing reference about it, but He didn't suggest it was obsolete, did He?

So why are we making such a big ado about it?

If you ask any Catholic friends at what point did the now Roman Catholic denomination became universal it would be interesting to hear what is said. The bible predicted the arrival of the false church that would dominate and persecute. Are you Catholics aware that the Roman Catholic organization has fulfilled every iota of Bible prophecy since its official inception?

Daniel 7; Revelation 12,13,17 all spoke of a power that would arise to oppose God's teachings and God's people. Histroy is on our side. It so happens that the RCC fits the characteristics of the prophecies.

This constant argument about the RCC being responsible for the preservation of the bible is debatable, but even if it were it doesn't take away from the truth that God could have still allowed His word to be preserved despite the evil intentions of the opposing body.  

I'd be the first to acknowledge that not all the priests and officials in the then Catholic church were evil. The bible says God has His people in all denominations, but they will be exposed to truth and forced to make a decision for truth in its entirety.

The prophecies are as plain as day, and the history to support them couldn't be plainer. In a nutshell let me summarize:

1. Daniel 2 starts with Nebuchadnezzar's dream of an image in 4 metal parts hinting at 4 world kingdoms starting with his own kingdom of babylon to be followed by Media-Persia, Greece, and finally Rome.

2. Daniel 7 repeats the king's vision but the symbols used were 4 beasts namely a 2-winged lion; a lap-sided bear; a 4-winged leopard; and an undescript beast that confused Daniel.

3. This non-descript beast that resembled nothing ever witnessed by humans, including Daniel, represented Rome which was the 4th kingdom to rule the world.

4. Because Daniel 7 was an extension of Daniel 2, God revealed additional information to the prophet concerning the 4th beast Rome. Daniel noted that the 4th beast had 10 horns which in themselves symbolized 10 kingdoms.  Daniel also noticed that 3 of those horns were rooted up as an 11th horn grew.  Daniel went on to describe this 11th horn that had:

- the eyes of a man
- and a mouth speaking blasphemies against God
- persecuting power
- power to reign and persecute God's people for 3 1/2 symbolic years or 1260 literal years

It is this 11th horn that represents Papal Rome or Vatican which sprang up among the 10 barbarian tribes, or what we now call European nations, as soon as pagan Rome went into demise. History reveals that as soon as the Papacy established itself it used crusades to annhilate from the fac of the earth 3 of the original 10 kingdoms, and these were:

1. the Astrogoths

2. the Heruleans

3. the Vandals

These kingdoms were destroyed because they disagreed with the RCC on the nature of Christ. Once again religion became the dominant force for conflict and bloodshed.

Revelation 12 and 13 are basically reminders of what Daniel previously predicted. In these books similar, as well as additional information is given about the opposing body that comes in the form of a church. The Popes and Pontifs are no different in intentions from the former Roman Caesars. Read it for yourselves:

", superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #19, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

Pope Pius IX, in his "Discorsi" (I., p. 253), said:  "The Caesar who now addresses you, and to whom alone are obedience and fidelity due."

So the RCC officially began in AD538 and came to a temporary end in AD1798 when Napolean Bonaparte under the revolution brought the church to its knees. Its pope was placed into exile and eventually died. Revelation 13 predicted that one of its head would have been wounded, and it became so in AD 1798, exactly 1260 years according to bible prophecy.

But didn't the prophecy also say that the deadly wound would have been healed? Yes. Italy under Moussilini re-established the RCC, and gave it the vatican city which according to the prophecy would rest on 7 hills. Its all there.

The prophecy goes on to say that this persecuting body in the form of a church will once again dominate not just Europe, but the whole world under a New World Oder that is being worked out as we speak.

Dear bible believers time is not on our side. We need to study God's word and live for Christ. We need to carry the saving grace of Jesus Christ to a dying world for sooner than you think Jesus will come again.

If you want more specifics about the prophecy I will be glad to share more details.

@ Omenuko

Its very late over here, just came back from hanging with friends. But before we continue, I just want to ask where are you getting these quotes? Are you just copying and pasting them from another site or are they a result of your research and study. Many of the quotes that you are posting (the ones portraying Catholics) seem to be out of context.

Don't worry the quotes were taken from the very words of the leaders of the RCC over a period of time that were collated. Besides, what difference would it make if information was sourced from other sites? The more the merrier.

@ Omenuko

Did you bother to read what you just posted or did you cut and paste this from somewhere else? How is the practice of calling priests father against the teachings of the Bible? If you’re referring to Mt 23:8-10 (see below) then you are taking that passage out of context.

Defensive huh! Christ spoke in a spiritual sense when He said we should call no man father. Common sense alone dictates that He was not referring to earthly father. He wasn't stupid.

Quote
Mt 23:8-10 You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ.

If this passage was meant to be taken literally, then we all offend the Scripture. We all have used "father" to designate our birth father; and "teacher," our instructors at school. The meaning of that scripture is that no person should be given the respect and honor due ultimately to God the Father. The title “Holy Father” is only a title and refers to the office of the Pope and not necessarily the person himself. The Pope occupies the chair of Peter (the leader of the Apostles and the first Pope) and because of that we refer to him as “Holy Father”. The adjective ‘Holy’ is also used as titles for other prominent figures and people within the Church. In many cases the word “Saint” is used, which means the same thing as ‘Holy” (e.g., Saint Theresa, Saint Martin, Saint whoever). Catholic Christians call the priests “father with the same sense understood by Paul (see below).

Since the text in question had a spiritual connotation then I need not worry about offending the scripture. What are the roles of fathers, teachers, etc, in the context in which Christ reasoned? They cannot be the end all. Christ and His Holy Spirit in accordance with the scriptures are responsible for whatever we learn as it relates to our salvation. We must never surrender our ability to anyone person or persons with regards to how our salvation is accomplished. A case in point why Jesus made sure to have spoken those words was because He saw in advance the pomp and pride that are associated with the likes of Catholic leadership:

", God Himself descends on the altar, that he comes whenever they call Him; and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands, even though they should be His enemies. And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move Him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut Him up in the tabernacle, expose Him on the altar, or carry Him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat His flesh, and give Him for the food of others. ;Oh how great is their power!' - The Dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p. 26,27

1 Cor 4:14-16 I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.

Quite a different matter all together. You and I know that there is a vast difference in how Paul viewed himself, and how catholic leaders view themselves. The above quote vis a vis the Eucharist, and how it is used to demoralize God is a perfect example.

1 Thess 2:11-12 As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

If anything this is not a very good text for Catholics to quote, if you get the gist. I certainly wouldn't want a celebate man to be around young men nourishing and encouraging them. If smoking and drinking can be considered as conducting oneself as being worthy of God, then majority of Catholic priests are certainly doing an excellent job.

Well, we Catholics don’t see it as speculation, but rather revealed truth. What many people don’t realize is that the Church uses Sacred Tradition (that oral Tradition handed down to us from the apostles) to interpret Sacred Scripture (with the help of the Holy Spirit).

Revealed truth should not contradict the written scriptures. If there was anything sacred about the RCC's traditions then how is it over 100 million innocent bible-believing Christians perished simply because they preferred reading the bible, than listen to Catholic fables? How is it that these words could ever proceed from their own lips as quoted below?

"The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity." -The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII, "Protestantism", Section III A - Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone", Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912 by Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. (online source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm )

"Who can worthily thank thee and adequately praise thee, oh Blessed Virgin, who by thy fiat has saved a lost world." St. Augustine

"The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: That we obtain everything through Mary." Pope Pius IX

You quoted

Although there has been grave wrongs committed by members of the Catholic Church, I would have you know that some of the greatest Biblical scholars (I would even say the greatest Biblical scholars) were Catholics (e.g., St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St Thomas Aquinas, Blessed Cardinal Newman, and the list goes on and on). For you to say that the Catholic Church stifled people’s attempt to understand the Bible full stop, is nonsense. Like I said above, although there were many wrongs committed by members of the Church, the mere fact that you believe the Bible is the Word of God is because of the Catholic Church.

There continues to be grave wrongs, and all you have to boast about is Catholic scholars? Stop making claims about catholic scholars being responsible for the bible. God is responsible for preserving His words. Stop taking the credit. Let me tell you who those scholars really are. They are infiltrators. They simply use their education to penetrate the most powerful organizations so as to get a foothold with the ultimate goal of getting the powerful governments to pay homage to the pope. How is it that an organization that claims to have continued the apostles' doctrines has as its head a political figure? Were you aware that each country sends an ambassador to the Vatican, and that the Vatican is a state/country whose political head is the pope? Was this what Christ had in mind when He called the apostles to evangelize?

My God Peter was crucified upside down, and Paul was beheaded. Most of the apostles were killed. Compare that to the comfort of the Vatican city. Peter whom you call the first pope never lived the easy life that popes live ever since the papacy came into existence. Can you recall when there were three popes fighting over power? Don't even go there.

The Catholic Church safe guarded the writings of the apostles, transcribed them, translated them into the vernacular (Latin), and compiled them into the present day canon of the Bible. My friend, give the Catholics more credit than what you are giving. Latin was the vernacular of Europe for sometime. Most of the European languages are based on Latin. The masses were not totally clueless about the scriptures (give them credit). In addition, during the Middle Ages (Dark Ages) the learned were mostly the ones who could read before the invention of the printing press. Even if Bibles were made in all the various vernaculars and dialects of Europe, it would have been no use because not everyone could read. The topic of selling indulgences for gain was very wrong and I’m sure God will punish those who participated in that wrong doing.

Read this!

The decree set forth in the year 1229 A.D. by the Council of Valencia, places Bible on The Index of Forbidden Books. The doctrine withholds "it is forbidden for laymen (common man) to read the Old and New Testaments. - We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular." "The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out." Council Tolosanum, Pope Gregory IX, Anno. Chr. 1229

Will continue later. . . .

I hope so,

No Church has the authority to change any teaching of Christ. The only Church that has not changed the teaching of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Christ taught that no man should be called Father on earth for there is one Father above, yet the change came when the RCC referred to their priests as Fathers. Some are even referred to as "Holy Father"

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you don't know fully the teaching of Christ and that they weren't all written in the Bible? Oh yeah that's right John tells us that many things that were done by Christ were not written down.

What difference does it make? If you are having problems with, and can barely handle what is revealed, can you imagine the kind of remarks and excuses you'd be making now, on top of what you're already making? Why speculate about what was not revealed? It doesn't help to wonder what might have been, does it?

The Church has the authority to interpret scripture (that it wrote and defined as scripture) and teach it to its members, use it to address every situation that the Church faces in every age or era.

The church for your information comprises both clergy and laity. The clergy's job is to act as a guide, and an example to its members in reading and studying the bible. All the catholic church did was to stifle people's attempt to understand the bible. Have you forgotten so quickly what some were burnt to the stake? It was simply because they read the bible.

All the church did was to translate to some extent from the original autographs, and even those translations had their inbuilt biases. In fact I'd go further to say that for most of the centuries, referred to as the Dark Ages, only the priests were allowed to understand and interpret the bible. Most were done in the Latin Vulgate which the ordinary people could not understand. Priests and friars were thus able to rob the people of the little that they possessed through indulgences. These poor people had to pay in order to secure their loved ones' removal from purgatory.

And where in the Bible does it say that unless it is written down it isn't true. The passage shows the woman who gave birth to the Messiah in the temple of God as the ark of the covenant. Who gave birth to the messiah?

This is the kind of ridiculous response I am expecting anyway. I am not surprised you have no clue about the matter. Don't forget Lady that people are following this thread.

First and foremost the woman is a symbol of the church, and in no way symbolizes Mary. The God's church is often compared to a bride with Christ being the bridegroom. Now let us proceed to follow through the rest of the 12th chapter of Revelation. In summary John is simply relating to a vision he received showing the part the church played in the coming of the Messiah, and Satan's attempt at destroying Him. In fact John happily reveals the outcome of the victory of Christ by saying that He was quickly taken up to heaven, and out of arms way.

What happens next even proves additionally that the woman in no way went to heaven. An attempt to persecute her was initiated by Satan when he saw that his plan to gain the victory over Christ failed. This woman, God's true church was protected during 1260 years from both pagan Rome initially, and papal Rome. (The Papacy)

If this woman really represented Mary then why would verse 17 refer to us as her remnant seed according to these verses: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

No where in scripture is Mary used to represent God's church. She herself has been a member. This kind of symbolism strongly represents rather the church, than a literal Mary. In the last days this church, as was correctly symbolized by the woman will continue to possess Christians who will be identified as those who keep God's commandments and have His testimony. They will not be apart of Babylon, and hence will become a target for persecution.

So who is the woman that gave birth to the messiah that is in the book of Revelations? When you answer this question it would lead to another mystery of Christ. How disrespectful of Christ to allow his mother's body to rot like the rest of us. He would dishonour her if he did. How can he be against himself?

See above for who the woman is, You're saying that Christ would have dishonored His mother if He had allowed her to rot in the grave. My answer is simply this. Death cannot prevent the resurrection. Mary like everyone else was born in sin. Mary like everyone else repented and was forgiven. She was only a chosen vessel for God's Son which brought some degree of favor on her, and nothing more.

And I show you from Revelations that Mary appears in the book of Revelation as the ark of the covenant. Anyone who can reason will see that. We also see the apostles in heaven in the book of Revelations, if the apostles can make it to heaven, do you expect God to allow his mother to be in the ground?

You're yet to show and explain the relevant scriptures. Besides, why would Paul and Peter speak of a resurrection if they were not included? Why does Paul teach that death is a sleep in the grave and that all God's children will be resurrected? Several times in John do we find Jesus saying that at the last day His people will hear His voice and arise from the dead. Do you expect the saints to first go to heaven, and after Jesus comes the second time come back to the grave to be resurrected formally?

Mary is no Ark of the covenant. That is a Catholic fallacy. Long before Mary was even concieved, God revealed to Moses what the heavenly sanctuary looked like. He ws instructed to build an earthly copy just like the one God had revealed to him on mount Sinai. St. Paul in the book of Hebrews makes mention of it, and John the beloved disciple saw the original Ark of the covenant in heaven. Neither of the two men has even remotely ascribed it to Mary. Yet you do.

You'd think that most of what the Catholic leaders taught would have at least be mentioned or hinted at, but what we see is wild speculation.

The word translated is actually kinswoman, but thanks to sacred tradition of knowing that Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, the Bible replaces kinswoman for cousin. There really isn't a word for cousin in aramaic, and the gospel was written in Greek, don't forget that. If you think I am lying, go ahead and research it and see for yourself, but make sure you let me know what you find.

Let me ask you a simple question. Did the Jews back then in the time of Christ knew the difference between the terms "brother" and "cousin"? Are you telling the fora that there wasn't a way for people to distinguish familial terms such as cousins and brothers? So according to your theory the word cousin means kinswoman. Earlier you made it clear that when we see the word brethren it really means cousins. Remember? So in other words we can't really trust what the Catholics have canonized then.

Are you saying to us that in the Aramaic language no one could correctly express the difference between the children from one sister, versus the children from another sister in the same family line? Wow!

Another point I'd like to make is that if Catholic Scholars, and others, are able to come up with this idea that there was no Aramaic word for cousin, then obviously the Greeks discovered the same problem, if it were true, and would have had to find a word in order to fill the deficiency. The Greeks do have a word for cousin. It is called anepsios

A great part of being able to translate from one language to another is not hinged only on the failure of the mother language to be deficient in vocabulary. The target language has means of making up for any supposedly shortage. Thoughts and ideas are what is being translated. So if in my language I am able to show familial relationship between cousins as we have come to now it, but the mother language cannot, then because I know of the need to express such a relation during the translation process, what would logically prevent me from using the Greek word to express it?

Honestly I find the whole thing so convenient.

I love the imagery of the whole thing. Makes it easier to understand and appreciate.

On Catholic sacred tradition.

The Bible is sacred tradition, that is how we were able to tell who wrote what in the Bible and which books were legitimate to be included in the Bible. Without sacred tradition there is no Bible.

Not all traditions are in themselves bad. My contention is not with tradition per se, but with an attempt by Catholic leadership to downplay the authority of God's word.

The Bible was not used to teach instead the scripture that was used to teach was the Old Testament, but the Bible as you know it today (Old Testament and New Testament) was not used.

The word bible means a collection of sacred writings, written by different authors. In the time of the apostles they only had the OT scriptures, of which was said of them, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16)

The Bible tells us to hold on to tradition, that tradition is what the Church has held on to for centuries. Here's scripture to prove so. Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

I think you're missing the point. Let me clarify matters for you. A tradition is a set of lifestyle practices resulting from a set of teachings, or indoctrinations, be they good or bad, that have become apart of a society's consciousness. Before one can practice, or live out something one would have to have learned it, or grown to appreciate it, over time. Christian tradition is no different, such as baptism, participating in the communion, and preaching, etc, are sound traditions that have passed on from God's people to us.

However, on the other hand, if a new set of doctrines, and teachings were introduced that are contradicting what was already taught by Jesus himself, or His apostles, then such traditions should be questioned and judged by a standard, and that standard is God's WORD. Something outside of human tradition has to serve as a check and balance. Even if the tradition practiced is intrinsically good , it cannot become the final arbiter of truth.

The tendency is for men to want to impose on others what they want them to learn, and often times its not for the good of those being taught, but for the teachers. It is all about power, and self-aggrandizement as is evident among catholic leaders. The Jewish leaders are a perfect example of a-once-called-out-people who because of their own twist on things made a complete mess of spiritual matters. In fact when the Messiah actually came they failed to see who He was, and for what purpose He came.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Am I debating who wrote from who didn't write?

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received

Only as long as any form of Oral tradition was in perfect harmony with the written word, were the apostles content in receiving them. The aim of my thread is not to discuss oral tradition, but the teachings and dogmas that have become a part of the RCC that run contrary to God's WORD, and WILL.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith. Those things are not less important.

Preserved? Did the apostles demand penance of their converts when they sinned, or did they direct them to Christ the perfect sacrifice, and High Priest who intercedes on the sinner's behalf in the heavenly sanctuary?

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - 9 I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world.

11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat

this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

Listen not everything became apart of the canon, and since you people boast of putting the canon together, then who do you have to blame if what you call important outside sources didn't get in the canon? I have no qualms with extra-biblical sources as long as those sources run in harmony with and submit to the standard of the source of truth, which is GOD"S WORD.

1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

And for the umptheen times as long as those traditions submit to God's word.

Philipians 4:9 Keep on doing what you have learned and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you. Nothing here about reading the scripture alone, we hold on to what Paul and the other apostles have taught us.

I hope all those priests are paying attention to what this text is saying.

Colossians 4:16 And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea. - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

How can you be sure that it wasn't another apostle who wrote that epistle? There is nothing in this verse to indicate that someone outside the influence of inspiration wrote this epistle.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, ” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? You can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation)

Today its way different. The compilation of the NT letters didn't take place until about 60 or so years after they were first written. So what was inspired were read, and or told to the congregation orally. The fact is most of what were taught by the apostles came as a result of inspiration. So, whether or not they were compiled is unimportant. The major point that is running through this thread you're overlooking, and that is, the RCC has drastically sought to change the teachings that were laid down by Christ and the apostles.

1. The RCC has deliberately maintained the priesthood that had become null and void under the old Jewish system when Christ died on Calvary. No where in scripture does it teach that we must confess our sins unto priests. We are admonished to confess to Jesus Christ as our High Priest in heaven, but this is what your magesterium believes to be more important than God's word, "And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priest and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it." -Liguori, «Duties and Dignities of the Priest», p.27

2. They have placed Mary as the 4th member of the God-Head giving a dead person the power to make intercession for sinners.

---"God has entrusted the keys and treasures of heaven to Mary." Thomas Aquinas.

---"No one ever finds Christ but with and through Mary. Whoever seeks Christ apart from Mary seeks Him in vain." St. Bonaventure

---"What will it cost you, oh Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned Queen at the right hand of your son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of hell, and you alone, oh Mary, save us from the hands of Satan." Pope Pius Xl

Are those what you assert to be a continuation of the teachings and traditions of the apostles?

@ twftextra

Welcome to the thread. I hope that truth will prevail rather than pride. Religious pride as a barrier is one of the hardest barrier to surmount. I carry a specific burden for Catholics. Some of these people are some of the most sincere Christians you can find, but they are yet to discover the truths of God's word.

", the Blessed Virgin can do whatever she pleases both in heaven and on earth, At the command of Mary all obey, even God, God grants the prayers of Mary as if they were commands, Yes Mary is opnipotent, " - Glories pp 154-156.

Catholic leadership declares: "The pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and on earth" - Pope Pius V ,

"And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse to give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it" - Duties and Dignities of the Priests p. 27

"The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh, and who by means of a being common to humanity continues His ministry amongst men ,  Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father  to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." -Evangelical Christendom, January 1, 1895,  pg. 15, published in London by J. S. Phillips.

"The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God." -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." - On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

", the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth, by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

"To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.-I?i the Gloss "Extravagantes" o.f Pope John XXII come inter, Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685.

Most of these quotes may seem old, but don't you dare think that the RCC no longer holds these blasphemous views. The quote below ocurred in 1958.

"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Pope John XXIII in his homily to the Bishops and faithful assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958).

Listen goodly people I don't take pleasure in all of this, but it is important to note that God's word has predicted that a power would rise up and attempt to take control of people's religious freedom. As it was predicted to have happened between AD538 - Ad1798, according to Daniel's and john's prophecy, so will this beast rise up again after its wound would be healed to once again wreak havoc upon all those Christians who will refuse to pay homage to its teachings, and dogmas.

The great reformers Martin Luther, Huss, Jerome, and others shed their blood to defend the cause of truth. We as modern day protestants have an obligation to carry on this great work of defending the scriptures above man's traditions.

Don't come here and lie, the Church does not teach any such thing. If anyone told you this they are lying. Be careful who calls themselves a Catholic, we already many on Nairaland who try to validate their statements by saying that they were once Catholics, but when we ask them questions about Catholicism they run away.

I am sure that every faithful Catholic has a book of Cathechism, correct? This has been taken from one such, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." #100, p.35

So if the church decides to teach anything other than what is taught in God's word who dares question such a teaching. Look at what happened to those who dared? Weren't they burned alive, or pulled assunder?

Well the authority comes from God, even the Bible will tell you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the Bible calls the Church (not the Bible) the foundation and pillar of truth.

Thank you for stating the obvious. That wasn't the question I asked initially. There is a vast difference between what came out of inspiration, that is the word of God, and what was invented by a group of men, called the cathechism.

1 Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

This has nothing to do with Catholic traditions. Let us be honest here.

I hope you actually know what the traditions of the Church is before you start speaking false things.

Well, hang around and you will see where I am heading. I hope for your sake you will hang around.

Did God give the Bible authority to preach and spread the good news, cast out demons, and such or did he give it to the Church (the people)he founded? If you can answer this you can answer your question.

Would you like me to repeat the question I asked you earlier? And can you give me a honest answer this time around? Here is the question again, Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command, or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

That isn't a teaching of the Church. The teaching is that Mary fell asleep, which is death, and then was taken to heaven. There is biblical basis for it, go to Revelations 12: 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

This man child is Christ, while the woman here is mostly applied to the Church and the crown of twelve stars as the apostles, it can be applied, by allusion, to Mary. As we know that she is the one who gave birth to the man child who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. Mary is seen as a type of Church (that's a discussion for another day)

And where in this passage did it say that Mary went to heaven?

Anyway, we know as Christians that Jesus on the Cross admonished John the beloved disciple to take care of Mary His mother. It is obvious she too died, and remains dead until Jesus comes back again and call her from the grave. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that remotely indicates that Mary was later resurrected from the dead.

Your task is to show from scriptures that Mary was resurrected. Any attempt at extra-biblical material will only prove the purpose of my thread true, and the purpose of my thread is to show that the RCC leaders have taken it up on themselves to attempt to replace God's truth with their doctrines and traditions.

Scholars will tell you that those brothers of Jesus most likely belong to Joseph from a different marriage. It is also possible that James was the son of another Mary related to Jesus, Mary the Mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary. In Aramaic there isn't a word for cousins, everyone is simply referred to as brother and sister, unless we are to assume that Mary had a sister also named Mary, I would say that Mary called her sister is a relative, a cousin.

So if there isn't a word for cousin then what did the angel mean when he said these words? "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

Let's not forget that Jesus spoke aramaic and not english. and the Bible was not written in english, it is translated word for word without regard to the culture or custom or use of a word of the language it was originally written in.

So what! Not in all cases are the original transcripts translated word for word. Think before you write, you're not making any sense. What genius would it require for a translator to simply express the relationship between cousins? Why would brothers, or sisters as words be used instead? LOL

As per your scholars are they Catholic scholars by chance?

Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

If a Jewish mother had a daughter first, and a son afterward, did you know that the son would be called the first-born? Literally he wasn't, but as regards preeminence he was considered the first-born.

under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

So what!

Ezekiel 44:2
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

And if you were never taught by catholic scholars that this passage pointed to Mary's experience I guess you yourself would not have thought of it, correct? If I as much as randomly came across this passage I'd be at my wits end trying to figure out what is being said here.

Not once is the word virgin mentioned in that passage, or Messiah, yet you'd rather extrapolate a single passage blindly, because some priest gave his take on it through private interpretation. Interesting indeed.

Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary

Doesn't make a difference if its a son or the son. Isaiah did not say "the son is given", he said "unto us a son is given"

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings. Why would she leave her other children behind, why would they leave their other siblings behind and go searching for Jesus alone.

When Jesus was 12 Mary was about 29, or there about. Certainly, brother Joseph must have known her intentions if she had decided not to have had any more children. Remember she got pregnant before she was married to Joseph. It was the angel who instructed Joseph not to abandon her.

Matthew 1:19, 20 say this, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

Imagine brother Joseph having fallen in love with this beautiful virgin was now preparing himself to put her away. How broken hearted he must have been, as one who had big family dreams.

Now listen to what Matthew said in verses 24 and 25, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, "

Notice the phrase, "knew her not till". So in other words Joseph made love to his wife some time Jesus was born. He gave her time to recover. Its not in me to speculate as to how soon after they had more children, but from the previous biblical passages I quoted from my opening post, together with Matthew 1:24,25, it is undeniably a fact that Mary had more children with Joseph.

John 19:26-27 - 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Why would Jesus commit Mary into the hands of a disciple if she had other children to care for her? it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Probably out of fear Jesus' siblings were nowhere to be found. This text is neither here nor there.

John 19:25 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene - I spoke of the other Mary related to Jesus, you see her here in scripture.

Yes I know of the different Marys.

Matt. 27:61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre ,

And I'd like to think that the second reference of Mary in this passage is Jesus' mother. I can't imgaine her not going all the way from the cross to the sepulchre.

28:1 - 1 And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

Same set of Marys again.

Matt 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

And as was highlighted before James was referred to as the Lord's brethren. So without a doubt this mother of James and Joseph had to have been the same Mary mother of Jesus. It all adds up.

Mark 15:47 47 And Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid.

Similar to the above passage.

We know that the 'other Mary' is the one that accompanied Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre and here she is called mother of Joseph. We see from Matthew 27:56 that Mary the mother of Joseph is also Mary the mother of James.

Which can only point to one person, namely Mary mother of Jesus who had other children.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Really now! lol

Do not forget that there are several Mary's in the Bible.

Lol@ punish Mary with a barren womb. A barren womb is one that cannot conceive, Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus so how is she barren?

But that wasn't natural at all,

Look when you are ready to discuss the doctrine of the Church without contempt in your heart, you may do so, until then make sure you are not holding animosity in your heart because it will be clear for all to see and no one will take you seriously.

You say I have contempt and its way too early to pass judgement on me because I am simply questioning the teachings of the RCC.

If you're already getting upset wait until you see what further things I am coming with, and please don't call them fallacies, or lies until you see what is on the table.

Don't come here and lie, the Church does not teach any such thing. If anyone told you this they are lying. Be careful who calls themselves a Catholic, we already many on Nairaland who try to validate their statements by saying that they were once Catholics, but when we ask them questions about Catholicism they run away.

I am sure that every faithful Catholic has a book of Cathechism, correct? This has been taken from one such, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." #100, p.35

So if the church decides to teach anything other than what is taught in God's word who dares question such a teaching. Look at what happened to those who dared? Weren't they burned alive, or pulled assunder?

Well the authority comes from God, even the Bible will tell you that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the Bible calls the Church (not the Bible) the foundation and pillar of truth.

Thank you for stating the obvious. That wasn't the question I asked initially. There is a vast difference between what came out of inspiration, that is the word of God, and what was invented by a group of men, called the cathechism.

1 Timothy 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

This has nothing to do with Catholic traditions. Let us be honest here.

I hope you actually know what the traditions of the Church is before you start speaking false things.

Well, hang around and you will see where I am heading.  I hope for your sake you will hang around.

Did God give the Bible authority to preach and spread the good news, cast out demons, and such or did he give it to the Church (the people)he founded? If you can answer this you can answer your question.

Would you like me to repeat the question I asked you earlier? And can you give me a honest answer this time around? Here is the question again, Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command, or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

That isn't a teaching of the Church. The teaching is that Mary fell asleep, which is death, and then was taken to heaven. There is biblical basis for it, go to Revelations 12: 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

This man child is Christ, while the woman here is mostly applied to the Church and the crown of twelve stars as the apostles, it can be applied, by allusion, to Mary. As we know that she is the one who gave birth to the man child who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. Mary is seen as a type of Church (that's a discussion for another day)

And where in this passage did it say that Mary went to heaven?

Anyway, we know as Christians that Jesus on the Cross admonished John the beloved disciple to take care of Mary His mother. It is obvious she too died, and remains dead until Jesus comes back again and call her from the grave. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that remotely indicates that Mary was later resurrected from the dead.

Your task is to show from scriptures that Mary was resurrected. Any attempt at extra-biblical material will only prove the purpose of my thread true, and the purpose of my thread is to show that the RCC leaders have taken it up on themselves to attempt to replace God's truth with their doctrines and traditions.

Scholars will tell you that those brothers of Jesus most likely belong to Joseph from a different marriage. It is also possible that James was the son of another Mary related to Jesus, Mary the Mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary. In Aramaic there isn't a word for cousins, everyone is simply referred to as brother and sister, unless we are to assume that Mary had a sister also named Mary, I would say that Mary called her sister is a relative, a cousin.

So if there isn't a word for cousin then what did the angel mean when he said these words? "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

Let's not forget that Jesus spoke aramaic and not english. and the Bible was not written in english, it is translated word for word without regard to the culture or custom or use of a word of the language it was originally written in.

So what! Not in all cases are the original transcripts translated word for word. Think before you write, you're not making any sense. What genius would it require for a translator to simply express the relationship between cousins? Why would brothers, or sisters as words be used instead? LOL

As per your scholars are they Catholic scholars by chance?

Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

If a Jewish mother had a daughter first, and a son afterward, did you know that the son would be called the first-born? Literally he wasn't, but as regards preeminence he was considered the first-born.

under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

So what!

Ezekiel 44:2
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

And if you were never taught by catholic scholars that this passage pointed to Mary's experience I guess you yourself would not have thought of it, correct? If I as much as randomly came across this passage I'd be at my wits end trying to figure out what is being said here.

Not once is the word virgin mentioned in that passage, or Messiah, yet you'd rather extrapolate a single passage blindly, because some priest gave his take on it through private interpretation. Interesting indeed.

Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary

Doesn't make a difference if its a son or the son. Isaiah did not say "the son is given", he said "unto us a son is given"

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings. Why would she leave her other children behind, why would they leave their other siblings behind and go searching for Jesus alone.

When Jesus was 12 Mary was about 29, or there about. Certainly, brother Joseph must have known her intentions if she had decided not to have had any more children. Remember she got pregnant before she was married to Joseph. It was the angel who instructed Joseph not to abandon her.

Matthew 1:19, 20 say this, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

Imagine brother Joseph having fallen in love with this beautiful virgin was now preparing himself to put her away. How broken hearted he must have been, as one who had big family dreams.

Now listen to what Matthew said in verses 24 and 25, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, "

Notice the phrase, "knew her not till". So in other words Joseph made love to his wife some time Jesus was born. He gave her time to recover. Its not in me to speculate as to how soon after they had more children, but from the previous biblical passages I quoted from my opening post, together with Matthew 1:24,25, it is undeniably a fact that Mary had more children with Joseph.

John 19:26-27 - 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Why would Jesus commit Mary into the hands of a disciple if she had other children to care for her? it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Probably out of fear Jesus' siblings were nowhere to be found. This text is neither here nor there.

John 19:25 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene - I spoke of the other Mary related to Jesus, you see her here in scripture.

Yes I know of the different Marys.

Matt. 27:61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre ,

And I'd like to think that the second reference of Mary in this passage is Jesus' mother. I can't imgaine her not going all the way from the cross to the sepulchre.

28:1 - 1 And in the end of the sabbath, when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

Same set of Marys again.

Matt 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

And as was highlighted before James was referred to as the Lord's brethren. So without a doubt this mother of James and Joseph had to have been the same Mary mother of Jesus. It all adds up.

Mark 15:47 47 And Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where he was laid.

Similar to the above passage.

We know that the 'other Mary' is the one that accompanied Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre and here she is called mother of Joseph. We see from Matthew 27:56 that Mary the mother of Joseph is also Mary the mother of James.

Which can only point to one person, namely Mary mother of Jesus who had other children.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Really now! lol

Do not forget that there are several Mary's in the Bible.

Lol@ punish Mary with a barren womb. A barren womb is one that cannot conceive, Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus so how is she barren?

But that wasn't natural at all,

Look when you are ready to discuss the doctrine of the Church without contempt in your heart, you may do so, until then make sure you are not holding animosity in your heart because it will be clear for all to see and no one will take you seriously.

You say I have contempt and its way too early to pass judgement on me because I am simply questioning the teachings of the RCC.

If you're already getting upset wait until you see what further things I am coming with, and please don't call them fallacies, or lies until you see what is on the table.

Another doctrine that is not bible-based that has become a Roman Catholic doctrine is the one that says that Mary mother of Jesus remained a virgin.

The word of God says to the contrary:

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH HIS BRETHREN." Acts 1:13-14

God says "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James THE LORD'S BROTHER." Galatians 1:19

As favoured as Mary was of God, do Catholics really believe that God Almighty would punish her with a barren womb after being used as a chosen vessel to deliver His Only Begotten Son? Wouldn't this be an indictment on God Himself? What kind of an all-loving God would do something like that?

1 Corinthians 7:3-5, "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

And I would have to agree with you on that, God still has His servants who have been faithful to the word.

Interesting,

Most of my Catholic contacts often say that they are taught to believe that they must be more loyal to the church than to the bible. In other words they don't see the bible as the final arbitre of truth and doctrines.

What do you think is the source of authority? The RCC's traditions, or is it God's word?

Does the church, and not just the catholic church only, but any church, have the right to adjust a command or teaching simply because the pope, or prelate says so?

A case in point is the teaching that Mary went straight to heaven without seeing death. On what basis should we believe such a teaching when there is no biblical basis for it?

Would you accept such a teaching because it may sound appealing?

@ martian

A couple of things I noticed on this thread.

1)Some people said, it was directed at the CORINTHIANS so it was meant for the Corinthian women. So you people can choose what is directed at you and whats not? I thought the bible is inerrant and universal so it's direct at YOU people too.

Not necessarily! Context is important. There were things that were said by Paul that resulted from sets of circumstances that necessitated those statements. There is nothing wrong in trying to get to the bottom of why Paul made those statements. Christ gave us minds to think. Paul himself said once, "prove all things"

2)~lady~ said you have to use common sense!!! Now that's just surprising to me because i know "COMMON SENSE" is not a in a christians repertoire!!!!

That is part of the problem. There are some things that go beyond simply using common sense. Simply saying "use common sense" in analyzing the word of God is putting simplicity before scholarship and proper research.

Mark you don't get me wrong, common sense has its place. If something is plain to see then one doesn't need specialized knowledge to break it down. At that point one can appeal to common sense.

Well, let me see. From my understanding Cain married one of his sisters. The Genesis accounts were not written in time gaps to account for detailed events, and neither were the events placed in any particular order. So in reading the Genesis account it is easy to want to speculate. Its only human.

I believe that Adam and Eve were the first parents, and if that were the case, then Cain could only have found a wife later on in time when he met up with one of his sisters. Chapter 5:4 says that Adam and Eve continued to have sons and daughters.

Now if we look at chapter 4:16 we read thus, "And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, ", If we notice the verse doesn't really tell us when exactly, and it also didn't say whether or not he left with his wife, or whether or not he was married. As far as he having to leave God's presence It could have been a year after, or 10 years after. People lived rather long then.

Again if we look at chapter 4:17, we find, "And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, " Notice it didn't say he found his wife. The word "knew" in bible terms means "had sexual intercourse with"

So speculation is common place when it comes to the book of Genesis. Christians view the bible differently than non-Christians. As a Christian I have every confidence in God's word. I may not understand everything at once, but in time I will.