Notice the shape of the pope's mitre and how it resembles the mitre of the pagan god called Dagan.

REVELATION 17:5 says "And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."[color=#000099][/color]

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is associated with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary.

Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary, or images, (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some saw him as a political genius. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace.

2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god) This is the catholic's equivalent to the Eucharist or mass. They teach that Jesus' literal flesh and blood are being eaten and drunken when members partake of the wafer, and the wine.

Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood.

Oh Skydancer o

People are seeing you for who you really are. You claim to be able to defend Catholicism and its many errors, and yet you can't even honestly answer some simple questions posed to you.

What a disgrace!

@ 49 cents

just want you to stop disregarding the power of REASON God gave you cos to use to

discover Him.

Before i even believed in Jesus Chrsit as the Person God sent amongst others like

Mohammed, Bhudda, etc i had to apply reason becos at a point in my search for

TRUTH that was worth living all my days on earth; being "BORN" a CATHOLIC was

barely enough.

The historical fact that Jesus was the only "messenger" of God whose birth was

pre-announced proved that it: God knew that the humans He created would consent

resonably if there was a pre-information of His "messenger's" coming and even to

his place of Birth, and his fate as the Suffering servant. In this light Mohammed

was simply a claimant as Bhudda, there was no valid reason not to continue to

believe in Jesus as another claimant of coming from God.

I would later use REASON to verify issues like whether Scriptures as interpreted

by me was sufficient alone, Did Christ intend a Church where the Fulness of His

revelation to Mnakind would be taught infallibly?; what where the marks if it existed,

All this happened 4 years into my "conversion" experience: that sudden feeling

of kowing God and wanting others to know Him too, of wanting to read the Bible

from begining to end in obe day, and everybody calling you Pastor, Broh or

Fada, looking back i call it Honeymoon, God lured me with highs just to turn

my attention to Him only to leave me Really find Him again with my Reason and love

Him with my will not emotional highs.

I dont claim credit for my conversion i feel humbled by it as oin my case i found

Him whom i was not originally seeking, and boy am i happy and feel the freedom

of the Children of God not of the will of flesh but by God For instance every morning

i wake up and know that it is unreasonable for a young person like myself

to live Chastity till i get wedded in such a permisive society like ours so i ask

that i may recieve grace from God whom i find resonable to believe in.

I get your drift on this thread and i know that like many others you dont REALLY

and TRULLY hate the Catholic Church but what you believe to be the cathalic church
God bless thee

Blessings my brother. Let me encourage you to be true to God and your conscience, and that He will give you the strength to live for Him in a world that is full of sin and evil. I will be praying for you.

@ krayola

bobbyaf. . .open your eyes. . .stop being a zombie. . thats the worst form of idolatory. Jesus broke the Jewish laws because they didn't make sense. . .they allowed for exploitation of the peasants, and ostracization of the most vulnerable in society, the sick. . eg lepers.

Those laws that you think Jesus broke were additional traditions that obscured God's spiritual law. Jesus simply shed light on how God's spiritual law should be kept rather than follow tradition. This is how Jesus explained it so that persons like you would have gotten a better understanding. Note:-

Matthew 15:3, "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"

In other words the religious leaders of the day, because of their man-made traditions obscured the spirituality of God's law. They created a burden for the people who no longer saw the law as the way it was intended to be seen, and hence they the religious leaders were already breaking it while pretending to be righteous.

Jesus said this also in verse 9, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"

This is what this thread is about, and that is to make a clear distinction between that the Catholic church has imposed on its members which is contrary to what the word of God teaches. What happened back then is the very same thing that is happening now, where the religious order of the day by reason of its strength in numbers is imposing on the conscience of the people. That happened to the detriment of Europe in the dark ages, and according to the prophecy its going to happen all over again.

The term "healed" as used in the bible is not literal. . .but thats a whole other debate and from reading ur posts, discussing that with u is pointless. U can't get beyond the superstition and I doubt I'm going to be the one to fix that. But just for the sake of people who aren't as deluded as u, when Jesus healed lepers, it meant he included them in the community. Being a leper meant u were dead as far as society was concerned. . it wasn't just a physical thing, it was a social and psychological thing.

That you need not tell me of. Everyone knows it was more than a physical healing. So whats new? That is besides the point anyway. Jesus having to heal a leper, which was an expected and integral part of His ministry, had nothing to do with Him breaking His own law. It was He who prescribed them and gave them to the Hebrew people in the first place, but because of the silly traditions that came along, and piled up high above God's perfect law, and which led to more confusion than ever, Jesus when He came had to do some bushing. He had to clear up all that misconception that surrounded the law. So for you to argue that Jesus broke the law by doing good is nothing short of being ridiculous.

For someone as adored as Jesus to touch a leper, in front of witnesses, as an example to be followed, was such a big deal, and a challenge to the status quo.

Whose status quo are you referring to? None other than the religious leaders. Don't forget that the miracles pulled the people closer and closer to Jesus. Besides, do you think that Jesus was concerned about Himself being so adored? Quite the opposite. He came to identify with the fallen race. Paul said "He became a servant, " That was His mission.

That's what he meant when he said he was giving the disciples and other followers the power to heal and do great things in his name. . .he meant that his example should be followed. That of inclusiveness, of tolerance.

Its strange how you're drawing upon general acceptable truths to defend your argument that Jesus broke the law. Now its plain to all forumites that you never had any argument from day one.

Jesus lived in a time where myth was the way memory of the great was preserved. The stories in the Bible are only theologically interpreted narratives, and not direct eye witness accounts. To treat the bible as equivalent to God (infallible) is the worst form of idolatry.

This is not even worth responding to. So the apostles, who wrote the epistles, and some of whom were of the 12 disciples, who walked and talked with Jesus aren't qualified to be eye witnesses? Lord have mercy,

U said Jesus obeyed all his fathers laws. . i showed u that he broke them. ANd now u say since he is God, he is above the Law, or wasn't bound by law.

Hear it from Jesus' own words, John 15:10, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

The point of Jesus' life and teachings is that we all have the capacity to fix the problems of the world. To bring about God's Kingdom, or rule over the world i.e. To create a world that functions as if God was directly in charge. In other words, we are all "Sons of God" if we are guided by love of our fellow men. The Kingdom of God is fulfilled when this simple principle is what guides human action on earth. That is how God's will for humanity is fulfilled. That is the simple, yet revolutionary message of Christ, and not all the dogmatic stuff that Pastors tell their followers to keep them coming back and donating tithes. Salvation is not an induvidual thing, it is a universal thing. Love, as exemplified by Christ, is what can save humanity from self destruction.

No one can gainsay that, which is just one aspect of God's will, but do not believe that God is only interested in us being love dovy. He desires that we be obedient to His word. God isn't like us. He says what He means, and He means what He says. There is no shadow of turning with God, He says, "I am Jehovah and I change not, "

@ Krayola

hahahahahaha. . . . Respond to what? I dare u. I haven't rebutted the rest of the crap on that video yet. I don't want to embarrass u that much. And u talk of someone gettin an education? Talking some crap about the Ostrogoths, trying to sound like he knows what he is talkin about

go rebut your ignorance,

Once again wikipedia would have told u that the Ostrogoths were not defeated until 554.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths#War_with_Rome_.28535.E2.80.93554.29

If only u had the slightest idea of how clueless u are. . .

"Rome fell to the Byzantines in 536. The Ostrogoths responded with a year-long siege against the city, but were repelled in 538. However, they would retake the city in 546 under Totila, and then again in 550. The Byzantines would kill Totila in 552 and recapture Rome two years later, sparing the Ostrogoths on the condition that they cease invading the peninsula. "

So can you find anywhere on the map that shows any trace of the descendants of the Ostrogoths? If you can come back with information, fine. Secondly you have missed the whole point of the video, and prophecy. If what you have conjured up in wikipedia, which cannot be trusted as a good and reliable source anyway, what you failed to realize is that the Papacy was no longer affected by the continued upheavals between forces. It had already gotten what it wanted, and that was control. In AD538 the bishop got complete control over all the affairs of the state and church. Hence between AD538 through to AD1798 the Papal system did as it pleased.

Bobbyaf, please just stop embarrassing yourself. please

Just make sure you're ready when the RCC takes over the world. If you live to see it.

@ Krayola
.

He touched a leper.

Leviticus 13
43The priest is to examine him, and if the swollen sore on his head or forehead is reddish-white like an infectious skin disease, 44the man is diseased and is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean because of the sore on his head.

45“The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt,d cover the lower part of his face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

You seem to forget who Jesus was. He is God, and being God He was not subject to limitations. That cannot be construed to mean He broke the law. By touching the leper His intent was to heal him, and in addition to that, healing the leper was based on the leper's faith.

<< Leviticus 5 >>
King James Bible   
1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. 2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. 3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.

Mark 1:40-42 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.

Once again you seem not to realize that it was Jesus who gave those laws to the children of Israel. He is the law giver. Jesus was not a lawbreaker because He touched and healed a leper. That is the most ludicrous remark I have ever seen expressed in all my life as a Christian. 

He broke the sabbath

He kept the sabbath as His custom was, Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

In the Old Testament, the collection of food on the Sabbath is strictly forbidden:
Exodus 16:28-29: The Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.

This quotation has no relevance to what Jesus did on the sabbath. The circumstances during the journey in the wilderness necessitated such restrictions. Secondly, the children of Israel were spiritually immature, who were accustomed to the ways of the Egyptians. There had to be strict guidelines in sabbath keeping.

In the Gospel of Mark, however, Jesus and his disciples broke this Mosaic commandment. Challenged by the Pharisees, Jesus justified their actions:

Mark 2:23-27: One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" …And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Is that what you refer to as sabbath breaking?  You're making an unfair comparison between one set of guidelines that controlled how much manna should have been picked up on the Friday to avoid having to labour unnecessarily on the sabbath in picking up the same. Walking through a corn field and picking corn to satisfy one's hunger is not seen as breaking the law when we stop to consider that the sabbath was given for man's contentment, rather than to be yoke. That is why Jesus said that the sabbath was made for mankind. It was made for the good of mankind. Hence man was not made for the sabbath, since man was made on the 6th day, and the sabbath was made on the 7th.

Leviticus 24:19-20: If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Matthew 5:38–39: You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

Under a theocracy such strict laws were necessary in order to control a stiff-necked people. When Jesus came no such theocracy existed. He came to broaden the law spiritually. In OT times the letter of the law had to be stressed based on the level of spirituality of the people who had just been delivered from Egypt, the influence of which still impacted them. It wasn't easy leading almost 2 million people on the go.

When Jesus came the situation was completely different. The Hebrew people were now a nation living in their own land, albeit occupied by the Roman kingdom. What God could not have accomplished due to the ill-preparedness of ancient Israel, he was now willing to teach. Years and years of tradition by the Jewish leaders had somehow obscured the spiritual aspect of God's law. No wonder Jesus said concerning doing good on the sabbath:

11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?  12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

Jesus used his brain and did what was right, whether or not the law allowed it. He wasn't a zombie that just followed some Holy Book down to the letter. That was his genius, and that was what got him killed. He was a threat to the establishment.

Exactly! But at least He never had to compromise the requirements of the law. He accomplished both things. He carefully taught the spirit as well as the letter of the law. The spirit of the law has to do with one's discretion when keeping it. For example being a sabbath keeper myself, although I wouldn't necessarily do unnecessary work on the day itself, it doesn't mean I cannot be helpful to someone's needs, if such an occasion arose. If someone came to my house hungry, and I had no light stuff to feed him with, it would become a necessity to cook. Or if I had to go and buy something at the shop to feed the brother, I'd very much go.

@ sugerbelle

Wow. The word count in this thread is enormous! Some posts are as long as my History textbooks! But seriously, this issue has been flogged on for decades: I mean, this is one of the tenets of churches like Jehovah's Witnesses; they make it their duty to castigate the Catholic Church. Let's leave all these monumental issues and face the little things. OP, which person on the street have you smiled at today and said, "God loves you", or how many charities have you donated to, which of your friends/neighbors have you given a helping hand when in need? Try and focus on the little things. Soon you'll start a thread about Muslims because to me that's an even bigger issue. But I have nothing but love for all, just like Jesus had. Jesus Peace y'all, for all. Wink

The love sentiments that you're stressing is quite in order, but is not the purpose of this thread. This thread is to educate Catholics of the sin against God when they practice idolatry.

Yes its all good to live a practical Christian life, but when Jesus returns I want no one's blood on my shoulders for failing to warn certain Christians who profess to know God, and who are ignorant of His divine instructions.

Revelation 22:14,15 say, 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Above: Look at this huge "Virgin Mary" statue in Pine Bluffs, Wyoming! 

Philippians 2:10 proclaims, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth."  Not one Scripture, NOT ONE, tells us to recognize Mary in any capacity whatsoever.  Yet, a Catholic will say 53 "Hail Marys" in a full Rosary, and millions of times in a normal lifetime.



"And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsmen: they say of them, Let the men that sacrifice KISS THE CALVES." -Hosea 13:2



"Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations." -Ezekiel 14:6



"Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth."
-Deuteronomy 16:22

Plain and open evidence of paganism and idol worship within the Catholic organization.

@ Tudor

Shut up abeg! I'm not suprised, you'll go to any length to demonize the catholic church.

You soon find out what word demonize means. can't even put up a reasonable debate.

This is coming from an atheist shows how desperate and silly you've become.

An Athiest in your dreams. Deep down you're struggling with the thought of the reality of God, and that is why you live on these forums without a sense of purpose. You need to get a life.

You and No2Atheism are the most arrogant and ignorant christians on this forum spamming the whole board with your baseless and hogwash theories.

And what does that make of you? You're barely educated, yet you have the most chat.

Now the anti christ is a system Huh haba! What the hell is that?? Do you read scriptures diagonally??

If its not a system then what is it then? If you were a diligent student of history you'd have picked up something from the lessons I have been teaching you, but alas your warped sense of intelligence has gotten the better of you. Truth has already overcome you.

You both carry yourselves like the fountain of truth, as if you have conference briefings with god every morning.

Yes I do. I talk to Him daily. Who do you talk to, Satan? It would appear so,

You condemn other christians to hell like you're perfect. . . What hypocrites! LEAVE THE CATHOLICS ALONE!!!

We correct their paganistic teachings. By the way are you now representing the Catholics? Pleading for the Catholics?

The conduct of catholics on this forum is enough to convert anyone through their peaceful ways but you and your colleague on the other hand can only convert Indian Hemp/marijuana smokers coz thats what it seems you lot smoke before receiving inspiration to come post useless and baseless conspiracy theories like jesus was a black man Grin Grin. . . I rest for now

There you go! Where were you when Catholics killed millions of Christians?

@ Krayola

I refuse to stoop to your level of hatred, and cynicism. Its either you lack deep insight, which I believe resulted from an improper education, or you're plain silly. Its best if you keep silent, because the more you express yourself, the more you reveal your ignorance. 

@ Krayola

Jesus was not bound by doctrine or Law

.

Yes He was. He was obedient to His Father's commandments. Name one law He broke.

he was a progressive.

yet you say He was not bound by laws. Can anyone who is lawless be progressive?

And the fundamentalists of his time were threatened by him and the rapid spread of him movement - and got him wiped out. Jesus was a great thinker. . .a wise philosopher. Way waaaay ahead of his time

To which I totally agree, but never count out His perfect life of obedience. Jesus came to bring more significance to the law, and to highlight its spirituality. On the other hand it was the Jewish leaders who shed a negative light on God's law by pushing the letter rather than the spirit of the law.

That is why in Matthew 5:17 --- 21 Jesus made it clear to them that His mission didn't involve destroying the law, or the writings of the prophets, as they were thinking, but to fulfill, and by fulfill is meant, making the law more meaningful by showing its true benefits.

@ Bindex

Bobbyaf on the other hand will never stop berating the catholics for one reason or the other, this i find very funny considering the fact that he is a seven day adventist a sect that have a very weird set of belief. This is the same bobbyaf who does not believe in hell as other christians on nairaland do, yet he never stops bashing the catholics but what goes around comes back around as the saying goes, the catholic church has repressed, malign, maimed and killed a lot of people in the past now the table has turned and they have to accept what ever is thrown at them.

Weird set of beliefs? Sorry Bindex I do believe in the reality of hell. If the bible teaches it then I believe it. What makes my beliefs different is how I view the reality of hell. I don't believe its a place where sinners burn indefinitely.

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

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

@ Lady

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

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

Unfortunately you misunderstand what is meant as a graven image.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally you get my point.

What point?  

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

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

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

I am glad you understand the import of my argument.

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

Point taken.

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

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

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

He never had to say to them it was symbolic.

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

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

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

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

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

Can't state it any simpler than that!

Yes darling I do, and please make sure what you present actually has something to do with the question asked.

You asked for it so don't blame me when the facts stare you in the face. For your sake I hope you will see it for what it is without the usual excuses, and cover up.

John 17:11 records Jesus praying , " And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

Only God is holy, yet the popes have taken on that title that only belongs to God. Jesus also said "call no man Father, for there is one Father which is in heaven"


"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

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".

"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.

Should I go on Lady?

I wonder if you're going to once again ask of me for references? They are all there even if they are from way back when.

@ Lady

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

That is not an opinion Lady. Its a fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Tudor

And whose slave are you might I ask? God's or Satan's? Think before you answer.

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

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

I agree. Its just a case in which certain blacks are trying to make out their messiah-king to be African. Its simply another man-made religious movement trying to get some traction.

@ Tudor

Haba! With all the anti christ threads on how to identify the AC and what not, the guy would be pretty scared to show his face coz everybody already claims to know who he is.

The Anti-Christ is not a person, but a system run by men. That is why the prophets were specific in saying how long the system would have lasted for before its temporary demise in 1798, which proves how accurate the bible is.

The papal system got real power in AD538 when the last of its opposing forces, the Astrogothic Arian kingdom was finally destroyed. It came to a temporary end in AD1798, exactly 1260 years as the bible had predicted, when Napolean's revolution abolished papal authority. Hence history without a doubt points to only one religious-political system that ruled during that period as the Roman Catholic Church.

Since 1929 (the deadly would was healed) when the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini under the Lateran treaty gave the Vatican city to the pope. Once more the church was given an opportunity to heal since 1798. The Vatican is ruled not only by the pope, but by a king making it an independent state . It sends out ambassadors to the various countries it has a political relationship with, and receives theirs.

So when one puts all the pieces together there can only be one power that fits the bill, and that power is the Roman Catholic organization that poses as a church, but in reality is not.

If it were it would not have signed a concordat with Germany while it killed close to 6 million Jews. It could not have financed the war at a time when Germany was flat broke. Yes, how else could Germany have maintained a war when its inflationary rate was so high? Hitler himself was the son of a Catholic.

@ Postakolor

hahaha. . .U really are a Lemming. Mr follow follow

Little fellow don't waste my time, If you have something to contribute of substance, which I doubt you have, then by all means continue,

IMO a Christian going around playing judge, acting like the final authority of all things Christian, and insulting people that do not share his beliefs is a clown.

If simply repeating what the bible says of who constitutes a fool is making me a judge of character of atheists, then I am proud to be called a judge,

Comic relief. . .that is what u are. Nobody with half a brain takes ur clownin ass seriously.

That is why you shouldn't take me that seriously,

. .Mr "Im in charge of this gathering" Are u 4 real? Are u really this lame?

You paraphrased my quote to make it mean something totally different. Good try! You should have asked what I meant by that statement first before showing up your ignorance.

So only fellow Christians deserve respect.

You're the one saying that, not me. Besides, referring to Atheists as fools is quite justifiable. The bible backs me 100%.

please quote Jesus on that, clown. U have zero credibility. U dig?

I certainly don't dig your ignorance so far displayed. My advice to you is to get an education before addressing me. Dig?

With every post u make u show that u are not guided by any principles. U're just a hyperactive dummy seeking attention. "At no time have i ever addressed a Christian as a fool" . . .what was goin thru ur head when u posted that. . . fukn Bigot.

Go try and figure out what you want in life and come back and start a thread on your success,

Bye!

http://www.john1429.org/video/antichrist/Antichrist-128.html

Watch this video for the indicators. Its not just using 666 as a set of numbers in pointing out the beast of Revelation 13, because several names have been shown to bear that number.

You have to look at all the signs and indicators that were pointed out by both Daniel in chapter 7:25 and John in Revelation 13.

Enjoy.

@ Postakolor

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 05:23:29 AM


I bid you ignore the fools, for fools they are, with very little to contribute to life, and proceed to bless those who are willing to learn.

"The fool hath saith in his heart there is no God" according to David, is a statement that applies to the persons I was addressing in another thread that made it clear they were Atheists.

fukn hypocrite. . .Mr. Christian. DO the world a favour and go walk off a cliff like the lemming that u are, dodoyo!!

Just make sure what you wish for another person don't happen to you first. So, before you attempt to correct me as to who I address as being fools, and who are deserving of the title,  , make sure you grasp the context in which a statement is made. At no time have I ever addressed a Christian as a fool.

At the rate at which you are going I am not too sure if you actually believe there is a God, so you're next in line for such an appelation, 

How smart can one get! 

I see all the Catholic warlords are out in their numbers defending the impossible. Wow!!!

@ Lady

Um I'm sorry can you please show me and explain to me how Catholics believe that the Pope is a super-human, please? Make sure you back up your statements darling. It's not good to lie.

Do you really desire to go there?

You need look no further than this - Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Seriously . . . the bible is not that hard . . . read it.

I repeat again - if faith and reason went hand in hand . . . NONE of the scientists today would be atheists.

When it comes to faith and human reasoning . . . the bible has this to say - 1 Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

I guess she studies too much catechisms instead of the bible, because if she did that would never have been an issue. That is exactly why she is where she is now. All those nice-sounding words that spring from the lips of the Holy Father, so-called, and his priests, are blurring her vision to the simple truth of God's sacred scriptures.

Job once asked, "Can man by reasoning find out God?"

@ ogajim

Dude, You seem like an over medicated bozo if you have to ask which law Jesus Christ ( our High Priest) fulfilled and I reserve the right not to get embedded in this pre K stuff. Good luck.

There was a reason I asked you which law. There are several laws. There is the law of ceremonies, and rites. Then there is God's moral law that guides all men to righteousness.

Let me repeat the question. Which law did He fulfill?

haha. .   the guy na muroose

@ Lady
Don't argue with idiots. They will bring u down to their level and beat u with experience. Just let him be.

How do u have a debate with someone that has spent all these pages dismissing everything that comes his way, and cherry pickin the questions he anwsers. . .do u really think this is goin anywhere? He isn't here for a debate. He came to push an agenda of hate. If he had the authority u would be burnin at the stake right now. He is no better than the medieval Catholic church he is condemning. His way is the right way and all others must be nonsense. At least the catholic church learned from their mistakes.

Good try but your obvious lies will get you nowhere. Besides, if you were a true Christian you'd never refer to Christians as idiots and fools, even if you disagree with them. I notice you and Chukwudi have that disposition, which proves to me that you do not reflect the love of Christ.

@ Lady

Quote
You said this - Stop confusing USED in worship and BEING worshipped. They are two different things. That makes absolutely no sense . . . its just like saying there is a difference between eating rice and using rice to eat.

Can you then enlighten me how USED in worship equates to BEING worshipped.

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

@ Lady

You really think I am like you who doesn't have a life, that I'd take my time to go dig up convos we had a very long time ago?

Feisty as usual, heh! I do have a life that is dedicated to Christ. I'd rather spend quality time delivering His truth, than worry about temporal matters.

But the immediate one is the one below. You didn't provide me with an answer, instead you asked me a question.

"Did he use the Priests in the OT and didn't he use prophets to speak to the people?
Why didn't he speak to each individual?"

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

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

No honey not just to me, that's why there have been people who are not Catholics that have come to this particular thread and asked you to stop being judgmental. But they're irrelevant because they disagree with you right?.

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

I have addressed them, go back to page one and two. Because I don't copy the pictures does not mean I am not talking about the pictures.

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

This is rather big assumption. Can you provide me with Catholic teaching that says we should ignore the Bible, and in case you didn't know the Bible is a Catholic tradition.

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

Calling who names? Isn't Bobby your name? Didn't I call you Bobby?

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

For the same reason why some people are leaving the Christian faith and joining Islam or becoming atheist. Lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Also you are aware that there are more people joining the Church than there are leaving right?

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

They understand the fullness of truth better than they ever did. By the way the fastest converters to the Catholic faith are evangelical pastors who set out to rescue the Catholics. When they finally see the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and interpret it properly they become Catholic. Do a search on the evangelicals that have become Catholic, they are one of the best defenders of the Catholic faith right now.

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

You also do not know what born-again means apparently.

Really? Are those that are bowing before those images of Mary really born again as the bible suggests? Wake up Lady. Wake up before its eternally too late.

Lol oh honey I once was blind but now I can see. I was a protestant who believed Catholics were idol worshippers and I was always told they weren't. So I said ok fine I will stop being afraid and learn what Catholics really believe. When I did and started reading the Bible, and researched history I became Catholic. It wasn't easy and when I finally stepped into the Catholic Church for Mass, I knew I was home. I knew God was physically present. And then I paid attention to the words used at Mass and I realised the words used at Mass are actually Biblical words, word for word. Wow!! I was amazed and ashamed for the many times that I spent away from God and His Church.

I will leave you to be the judge of that. Both you and God know. I am not in a position to judge your sincerity, but you are going to need more than that to endure to the end.

So rather than going off of what someone told me that they heard from someone that heard from someone, I do my own research and find the truth and for the first time, I started becoming honest with myself. Rather than making Christianity what I wanted it to be just to make myself feel better.

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

My issues are irrelevant? And yet you were trying to say that you address them? You're contradicting yourself Bobby, get your story straight.

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

The only person that would consider another person's point of view irrelevant is the person that is insecure in his own belief. What are you too scared to address the issues?

Is that your reason for my finding your posts irrelevant?

Honey do you really want me to educate you on the history of the inquisition because I will.

Don't bother to waste your time.

So Judas didn't betray Jesus?

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

Well then you need to consult your Bible again mister, because even before the birth of Jesus and before his ministry the Holy Spirit had already filled others.

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

One in particular is Mary. Don't forget Simeon also. And to look at the Holy Spirit with your eyes is to say that the Holy Spirit didn't exist before the coming of Christ.

I never said that. You're assuming that.

The Holy Spirit was present in the OT, they just were not aware of him as the Holy Spirit, but they knew of the Spirit of God. And several men in the OT were filled with the Spirit of God.
Now when Jesus sent out his apostles to heal and cast out demons, they did so on the power of the Holy Spirit.

Trying to prove your knowledge?

It is your line of argument. I am just presenting it to you from a different angle. See you're quick to say that God's Church could never do this or never do that. Well I'm trying to get you to see how flawed your argument is by showing you that even with God in their midst God's Church couldn't always get their acts straight.

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

So because the apostles were sinners does not mean that they were never a part of God's true Church. Because they abandoned him does not mean that they are not God's Church.

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

No where did Christ say that the members of the Church will be perfect, but that the Church will never teach heresy. So when it comes to the teaching on faith and morals, the Church isn't wrong and never has been wrong. However when it comes to the actions of the members, the Church can and has been wrong.

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

So you're claiming to be the infallible interpreter of the Bible?

No. The Holy Spirit is.

@ Chukwudi

why did God introduce burnt offering and other jewish rites in the face place/

In order to illustrate the plan of salvavtion that one day the Messiah would have to shed His blood to save humankind.

The scripture explicitly states that the law of moses came to an end with the death and ressurection of Jesus. All the mosaic laws are consequently abolished (ephesians 2:15,heb 7:18)

But unfortunately for you is that the tithing principle predated Moses. Abraham who was not under Moses paid a tithe to Melchizedeck. Joseph also paid a tithe to God.

Malachi chapter 1 made mention of burnt offerings but noboby is talking about it .bloody criminals even while the jews tithed ,it never involved money and was never a monthly affair.

Nobody is talking about that simply because tithing is the topic.