₦airaland Forum

ijawkid: I think angel gabriel and elizabeth been construct a carved image of mary and bowed down to it...abi??......

Who would not celebrate with any woman who becomes pregnant??.....


Elizabeth was happy that mary was carrying the foretold messiah in her belly....nothing more nothing less......

She didn't make carved mouldings of mary and put them all over her house or rather took it to the temple...

You guys have gone past celebrating mary,you now put her high on a podium that directly conflicts with scriptural standards....

So you agree that Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth celebrated Mary. Thank you!

So do we.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to me at this point.

ijawkid: I think angel gabriel and elizabeth been construct a carved image of mary and bowed down to it...abi??......

Who would not celebrate with any woman who becomes pregnant??.....


Elizabeth was happy that mary was carrying the foretold messiah in her belly....nothing more nothing less......

She didn't make carved mouldings of mary and put them all over her house or rather took it to the temple...

You guys have gone past celebrating mary,you now put her high on a podium that directly conflicts with scriptural standards....

So you agree that Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth celebrated Mary. Thank you!

So do we.

@ Bernimoore,

You are desperately resorting to lying openly now.

How does angels acting as mediators contradict angels not being fit for worship?

Lies...lies...lies

Defend this with more lies, typical of protestants.

@ Brainpulse,

For you to say that you give reverence to God alone is a big fat lie... Except you are yet to know the meaning of the word "reverence."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you so-called "Christians" not ashamed of your hypocrisy?

1 Pet 3:19,20: 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Is this not clear enough? Later you will accuse Catholics of not reading scripture, but when we show you scripture you start to run from pillar to post trying to use mental gymnastics to sommersault everything.

What part of those to verses is difficult to understand now?

What is the problem? Is it that you are blind and cannot see or you are mentally deficient and cannot understand or you are just plain hypocrites and will not accept the truth?

teeo: Mary was a medium, it would have been different if her ovaries where used to concieve him. She only was a channel for his birth. He knew no sin cos her blood wasnt in him Mr,

She was his MOTHER! She carried him in her womb for 9 months! He definitely got his flesh and blood from her.

teeo: you celebrate Mary more than Jesus. You forget the wine and romance the bottle. LMAO

Even YOU know that is a LIE, and lying is typical to you people.

teeo: Mary is a medium and not the final glory.

What is the need for this? Who is disputing it?

teeo: Why would you celebrate a bottle when the wine is what you want

Because Angel Gabriel celebrated her...and the Angel's message was from God.

Elizabeth celebrated her...while she was filled with the Holy Spirit.

We will celebrate her too.

What the hell is his point exactly?!

[quote author=O.M.E]you are right..was about posting something similar...Jesus said 'NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME' he is the only person that can provide true and ultimate salvation..about the image..Satan also has powers you know..he is a deceiver this could be another one of his tricks...[/quote]"...this COULD be another one of his tricks..."

Keyword: "COULD"

Meaning, it might NOT be one of his tricks. That is what the Church is investigating: whether it is a trick, a coincidence or Mary bringing a message from heaven?

What if it is not one of Satan's tricks, could it be Mary reaching out to us from heaven?

If it is Mary from heaven, should every Christian not be concerned with it?

"Bible prophecy scholars" at work.

The Lord be with you...

Lmao.

"Bible prophecy scholars" at work.

The Lord be with you...

Who is it that wants to separate the blood of the foetus that grew in the womb from the mother that sustained that child within her body for 9 months?

Who in the world could be so unreasonable?

Oh! AnTi-CaThOlIcS!

honeychild: Why did the Catholic church oppose the printingn, distribution and reading of the bible so much that it used to burn people found with copies of the bible? Even copies of tjhe bible were burnt by the Catholic Churcjm

Ever since the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century, the Catholic Church has been accused of ignoring, opposing, hiding and even destroying the Bible in order to keep it from the people. Allegedly, copies of the Bible were chained to the walls of churches during the Middle Ages so that people could not take them home to read. Supposedly the Church during the Middle Ages also refused to translate the Bible into the various tongues of the common people, the vernacular languages, in order to further hinder personal Bible reading. Furthermore it is claimed that the Church even went as far as to burn vernacular Bibles.

After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and  teachings.

In 1528, the Bishop of London wrote to Sir Thomas More, requesting that he examine the works of certain "sons of iniquity" and explain "the crafty malignity of these impious heretics" to "simpleminded people." He sent More examples of the Lutheran writers. Tyndale was not mentioned in the letter, but his New Testament must have been among the books sent to More.

(1) St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Tyndale translated the term baptism into "washing;" Scripture into "writing;" Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," Bishop into "Overseer," Priest into "Elder," Deacon into "Minister;" heresy into "choice;" martyr into "witness;" evangelist into "bearer of good news;" etc., etc. Many of his footnotes were vicious. For instance, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter, as "that great idol, the LovePeddler of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."

Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." (2) Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.


William Tyndale was executed for the charge of "heresy" by order of the Protestant King of England Henry VII in October 1536.
This wood cut is from the 1563 printing of John Foxe's "Acts and Monuments"

Tyndale, along with many Protestant-leaning scholars, resided in Antwerp, a free city, but surrounded by territory under control of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and a relative of Catherine of Aragon. Early in 1535. Tyndale became friends with Henry Phillips, a visiting Englishman. Phillips presented himself to Tyndale as sympathetic to the Lutheran cause, but plotted with the emperor's magistrates to arrest Tyndale. In May, 1535, Phillips invited Tyndale out to dinner and, upon leaving his residence, identified him to waiting guards who apprehended him. Although by this time, England had separated from the Catholic Church and Tyndale had some supporters in the government, the Church of England continued to fight against Lutheranism. Tyndale's friends appealed to the English government to intervene, but to no avail. After a sixteen month imprisonment, an ecclesiastical panel convicted Tyndale of heresy in August, 1536 and turned him over to the secular authority. In October of the same year he was executed, being first strangled and then burned at the stake. 

Tyndale died not for the right to read the Bible, as many Protestants arrogantly claim. He was put to death by the civil judges of the father of the English Protestant Deformation, for doctrines subversive of law and order, which Dr. James Gardiner, Protestant, said "was intended to produce an ecclesiastical and social revolution of a most dangerous character. . ."(3)

It is love of the God-inspired books in the Bible that caused the Catholic Church to protect the people from counterfeit translations as ardently as the State endeavors to protect the people from counterfeit currency. The "right to read the Bible," which is a moral right, does not include imbibing such a blasphemous and distorted translation as came from the contemptible ex-Catholic pen of Tyndale. His translation was ordered to be destroyed, not because it appeared in the English language, as you assume, but because it was a faulty, corrupted translation, which was a deliberate profanation of the Sacred Text. Does this action make the Church anti-Bible? First if the Church truly wanted to destroy the Bible, why did her monks work diligently through the centuries making copies of it? Before the printing press (before 1450), copies of the Bible were hand written with beauty and painstaking accuracy. One reason for Bibles being chained to the walls of churches is because each copy was precious both spiritually and materially. It took a monk about a year to hand copy the entire Bible, so Bibles were scarce. Paper was not used during the Middle Ages, as the first paper mill was not built until the 15th century (in England). Every monastery had a scriptorium, a writing room, in those ages, where priests and monks diligently and lovingly transcribed Bibles. In that way the texts we have today were preserved. It is calculated to have taken 427 skins or parchments. It has been estimated that in 1518 the cost of a copy of the Bible wold work out at the 1952 rate of L218 (or about $1000),for material upon which to write a single Bible(4). Hence Bibles could not be distributed then as they are distributed today.

Those chained Bibles were Open Bibles. The people who could not afford to own a Bible stood at a desk, lectern or stall in the aisles and corridors of the Catholic Churches during those Middle Ages, for there were no Protestant Churches in those days, and read those valuable open chained Bibles, to their hearts’ content. Thus we see, that chained Bibles were Bibles used for educational purposes. the Protestant  misconception, gleaned no doubt from anti-Catholic sources, is as unreasonable as to conclude that telephone books, city directories and dictionaries are fastened to telephone booths, druggist counters and library tables in order to keep people ignorant of the numbers, addresses, and definitions in them.

The Church did not oppose faithful vernacular translations, Luther himself noted "it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation..." (5)

What the Church did oppose were heretical additions and distortions to the Bible. The Church prohibited these corrupt Bibles in order to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. This action was necessary if the Church is to preserve the truth of Christ's Gospel. As St. Peter in his Epistle (in the Bible) warns us, the ignorant and unstable can distort the Scriptures to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16; see front panel].

The Catholic Church has always Protected the Bible against those who would destroy it. The great scholar G.K. Chesterton said "It was only the Roman Catholic Church that saved the Protestant truths. It may be right to rest on the Bible, but there would be no Bible if the Gnostics had proved that the Old Testament was written by the Devil, or had littered the world with Apocryphal Gospels. It may be right to say that Jesus alone saves from sin, but nobody would be saying it if a Pelagian movement had altered the whole notion of sin. Even the very selection of dogmas which the reformers decided to preserve had only been preserved for them by the authority which they Denied" (Upon this Rock)

The beginning of the 4th century A.D. witnessed the horrible persecutions of Diocletion, the Roman legionaries raided Catholic churches and libraries throughout the Empire destroying the Codexes of sacred scripture (6). In the 6th century A.D. the world was suffering under the plague of the Turkish and Arabian hoards led by the notorious outlaw Mohammed, in A.D. 614 Palestine was overrun, Jerusalem was captured; in 1009, the Caliph Hakim, began his devastating work in Jerusalem by ordering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. By 1014 some 30,000 churches in Palestine had been burnt or pillaged, with them went a vast number of ancient Bibles. (7)

As their conquests spread throughout northern Africa, In Alexandria was sacked (A.D. 642). The great Alexandrian library fell into their hands, it was the largest and most famous of the ancient collections of scrolls. It contained more than 400,000 scrolls and books. These book including many ancient Bibles, were distributed among the four thousand departments of the capitol, and served to feed the fires six months. yet through the protection of the Catholic Church the was preserved. Luther himself noted "it was an effect of God power, that the Papacy should have remained, in the first place, sacred baptism; secondly, the text of the Holy Gospels which it was custom to read from the pulpit in the vernacular tongue of every nation..." (

The 16th century witnessed vast confusion among the Protestants as to the nature of scripture. It was in this century that the Christian world witnessed the Protestants relegated the seven Sacred Deutero Canonical books of the Old Testament as "apocryphal works", and as only worth being in the appendix in their Bible (9) Martin Luther developed a theory that only those books that taught his Dogma of Justification by Faith Alone should be accepted as part of the canon. However, he didn't work out this theory until after he had lost a debate with a Catholic (either Cardinal Cajetan in 1518 or Johann Eck of Ingolstadt in 1519 AD), when 2 Maccabees 12:43-45 was quoted to refute Martin Luther's "Faith Alone." His subjective standards were also the given for his reason for claiming that Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation were also not to be considered as fully the Inspired Word of God. the early Lutherans followed him in this. In the 17th century the Lutherans of the put these New Testament books back into their canon (10) Zwingli said of Luther’s German version of the Bible ‘Thou corruptest award of God, O Luther; thou art seen to be a manifest corrupter of the holy scripture; how much are we ashamed of thee, who hitherto esteemed of thee beyond all measure, and prove thee to be such a man!’ To which Luther politely answered ‘Zwinglians are fools, asses and deceivers.’ Melanchthon, Gerhard, and Chemnitz went in the same direction, and Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Molinoeus complained Calvin "Uses violence to the letter of the gospel, and besides this, adds to the text," Erasmus denied the apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse. (11) Beza condemned Castalio’s version; and of Beza said: ‘I will not note all his errors, for that would require too large a volume". even Whitaker himself was guilty in this respect rejecting the sacred books of Tobias, Ecclasiasticus, and Machabees. (12)

In England Between the winter of 1537 and April 10,1540 over 318 Catholic monasteries and convents were destroyed including there vast libraries of religious texts encompassing many rare and old hand copied Catholic bibles (both ancient Greek and Latin) by the Protestant king of England Henry VIII (13)

The Anglicans in the English controlled sections of Ireland took the destruction of monasteries, churches, church libraries and schools to a new level, It became a passion. In 1544 Immense

amounts of ancient books and Vulgate Bibles were maliciously destroyed in giant bon fires. In an effort to reduce the Catholic Irish to ignorance Henry VIII decreed that in Ireland even the possession of a manuscript any subject whatsoever (including sacred Scripture) incurred the death Penalty.(14).  On January 5, 1541 by order of the king a English printer named Grafton was arrested and imprisoned for printing the Matthew and Great Bibles to which he had exclusive printing rights.(15) King Henry VIII held a great official burning of to "heretical" books in 1546, The Protestant Bibles of Tyndale, Coverdale and Matthew and the Catholic Latin Vulgate helped feed the fires (16)

In 1582 The Rheims Catholic New Testament in English was issued Needless to say, the appearance of this New Testament, with its annotations, at once aroused the fiercest opposition. Queen Elizabeth ordered the searches to seek out and confiscate and destroy every copy they could find. If a priest was found in possession of it, he was forthwith imprisoned. Torture by rack was applied to those who circulated it. (17) so strong indeed was the feeling--nay, the dread aroused by the The Rheims New Testament, that Elizabeth asked Beza to undertake a refutation. Beza, however referred her to a Puritan scholar named Cartwright. Elizabeth accepted Beza’s recommendation and Cartwright who was financed by Leicester and Walsingham not to work on This new challenging project. Cartwright got as far as Apoc. chapter 15 when Whitgift resenting Cartwright continuous attacks upon the church in England was forced to stopped the publication.(18)

Even from the very start many renowned Protestant scholars came out in opposition the King James Bible and to its inaccuracies some even called for it to be burned. for example In 1612 Dr. Hugh Broughton said in a critique addressed to the house of Lords stated:

"The late Bible (The 1611 King James version)... bred in me sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done... to his Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, then any such translation by my consent should be urged upon the poor churches...the new edition crosseth me. I require it to be Burnt"(The Bible Through the Ages copyright 1996 p. 318)

Several times The Anglicans themselves burned Copies of the King James Version, a example of this was the 1631 printing somtimes know as the "Wicked Bible" because of a error made by the Printer Robert Barker. The word "not" was left out of the 7th commandment say it said "Thou shalt commit adultery". England's King Charles I [a Anglican] was not amused by the mistake. He ordered the Bibles recalled and destroyed, took away Barker's license to print Bibles and fined him 300 pounds([a lifetimes wages in those days]. Barker was out of business. By order of the King almost 1000 Bibles was put to the torch, only 11 of this printing are left today.

In 1642 Civil war broke out in England, [some call it the "Puritan Revolution"]. during the war Bible printing in England Ceased, but the desire for the Scriptures continued, and poorly executed, error-filled versions were imported from Holland. In Parliament these Bibles were labeled "corrupt and Dangerous to Religion... and should be burned" (22)


The 1782 Aitken's edition of the Bible . This Bible is Part of the webmaster's collection

The Title Page of The 1782 Aitken's edition of the Bible.

There were even stipulations on the printing of sacred scripture, it was illegal in Anglican England or the American colonies to print the Bible in English. The Crown claimed a copyright on king James version, and printing of that version was a privilege accorded exclusively to the King’s printers and the universities of Oxford in Cambridge. Hence its published in English colonies appeared in languages other than English. It was not until after the outbreak of the American revolution that American presses began to publish the King James Bible. First came Robert Aitken’s edition of the new Testament printed in Philadelphia in 1777 against great odds. Not only was the work done on poor equipment, but on one occasion Aitken had to save his type and printing materials from destruction by the English red coats by sprinting them out-of-town and hiding them under a barn (19).

John Calvin in 1522, had as many copies as could be found of the Servetus Bible burned, since Calvin did not approve of it. Later Calvin had Michael Servetus himself burned at the stake for being a Unitarian. (20)

The Calvinists in France caused Ten wars between 1562 and 1628 [The Siege and fall of La Rochelle] In one year alone (1561), according to one of THEIR OWN estimates, the French Calvinists "murdered 4,000 priests, monks and nuns, expelled or maltreated 12,000 nuns, sacked 20,000 churches, and destroyed 2,000 monasteries " with their priceless libraries, Bibles and works of art. The rare manuscript collection of the ancient monastery of Cluny was irreparably lost, with many others. (21)

The Anabaptists In 1534, seized control of Münster Germany calling it The "New Jerusalem" they embarked a reign of terror and indescribable orgies, communism and polygamy. Many Catholic and Lutheran Bibles, treasures of literature and art were burned in great fires held in the town squar. The Anabaptists atrocities came to a end on June 24, 1535 with a joint Catholic and Lutherans siege and capture of the town of Münster.

http://catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm

salt 1: No, Italo. I am not saying those things authoritatively based on my human knowledge. I am basing every response from the Bible.
Would you rather I modified my post showing you the cross references?

You are not just basing every response on the Bible, you are basing them on YOUR FALLIBLE INTERPRETATION of the Bible, which could be wrong, YES or NO?

Same goes for your "church." All their teachings are based on THEIR FALLIBLE INTERPRETATION of the Bible, which could be wrong, YES or NO?

1 Pet 4:6 "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now DEAD..."

But anti-Catholics will say that they were not dead.

1 Pet 3:19,20: "19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

But anti-Catholics will say that those that were in the days of Noah were still alive after the death of Jesus.

@ Boomark,

Since you have/had images in your phone/laptop, do you admit to being an idol worshipper. Yes or No?

Kamxin: Protestants claim that the bible is infallible. Then the church that wrote it & compiled it is falliable. What a paradox. Without the catholic church explainig 2 me how a man called himself God I wud hv change religion.

You wonder at the manner of reasoning.

That a fallible Church can write and compile an infallible book.

If the Bible is infallible, so is the Church that wrote the new testament and compiled the Bible.

@ Trex73

Calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts! 

God Said To Make Them

Example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20). 

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels. 

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim." 

The Religious Uses of Images

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9). 

One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations. 

Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.

God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images. 

It is when people begin to worship a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan", the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4). 

What About Bowing?

Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry. 

Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it. 
 
The Form of God?

Some anti-Catholics appeal to Deuteronomy 4:15–18 in their attack on religious statues: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth." 

We’ve already shown that God doesn’t prohibit the making of statues or images of various creatures for religious purposes (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:29–32, 8:6–66; 2 Chr. 3:7–14). But what about statues or images that represent God? Many Protestants would say that’s wrong because Deuteronomy 4 says the Israelites did not see God under any form when he made the covenant with them, therefore we should not make symbolic representations of God either. But does Deuteronomy 4 forbid such representations? 

The Answer Is No

Early in its history, Israel was forbidden to make any depictions of God because he had not revealed himself in a visible form. Given the pagan culture surrounding them, the Israelites might have been tempted to worship God in the form of an animal or some natural object (e.g., a bull or the sun). 

But later God did reveal himself under visible forms, such as in Daniel 7:9: "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was Ancient of Days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire." Protestants make depictions of the Father under this form when they do illustrations of Old Testament prophecies. 

The Holy Spirit revealed himself under at least two visible forms—that of a dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). Protestants use these images when drawing or painting these biblical episodes and when they wear Holy Spirit lapel pins or place dove emblems on their cars. 

But, more important, in the Incarnation of Christ his Son, God showed mankind an icon of himself. Paul said, "He is the image (Greek: ikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Christ is the tangible, divine "icon" of the unseen, infinite God. 

We read that when the magi were "going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh" (Matt. 2:11). Though God did not reveal a form for himself on Mount Horeb, he did reveal one in the house in Bethlehem. 

The bottom line is, when God made the New Covenant with us, he did reveal himself under a visible form in Jesus Christ. For that reason, we can make representations of God in Christ. Even Protestants use all sorts of religious images: Pictures of Jesus and other biblical persons appear on a myriad of Bibles, picture books, T-shirts, jewelry, bumper stickers, greeting cards, compact discs, and manger scenes.

Common sense tells us that, since God has revealed himself in various images, most especially in the incarnate Jesus Christ, it’s not wrong for us to use images of these forms to deepen our knowledge and love of God. That’s why God revealed himself in these visible forms, and that’s why statues and pictures are made of them. 

Idolatry Condemned by the Church

Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warn against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue. 

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), which dealt largely with the question of the religious use of images and icons, said, "[T]he one who redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous insanity, Christ our God, when he took for his bride his holy Catholic Church . . . promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols." 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) taught that idolatry is committed "by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them" (374). 

"Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’" (CCC 2114). 

The Church absolutely recognizes and condemns the sin of idolatry. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know his Bible.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

If you have any other issues or misunderstandings, I will be more than willing to oblige.

@ Boomark, I didn't expect you to answer my question. But please allow the person I asked to answer it.

Boomark: Yes.

I will start by deleting them. We can live without those things. Make sure you destroy and burn to ashes those one you bow to in your church and at home..,they are all idols and images. I hope you agree with me?

I have never bowed to an image or idol...and I don't know any Catholic who has.

So you admit that you are an idol worshipper since you have or had images on your phone or laptop? Yes or No?

@ HerexG,

Do you still insist that the spirits Jesus went to preach to were not dead?

vickyO: Mehn, most of this catholic peeps are ignorant. My body isn't me, its just a part of my make up. So is Christ's body, its is a part of Him not Him. Com'on, open the compartment of understanding in your brain(s). @ question they are meant to say let me pick up the statute of jesus not jesus gan gan..

Question 1: when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb, who were they looking for, 'the body of Jesus' or 'Jesus'?

2: what was laid in the tomb, was it 'the body of Jesus' or 'Jesus'?

3: what rose from the tomb, was it 'the body of Jesus' or 'Jesus'?

Boomark: If it is a painting, then it is still demons that turned people attention to it instead of God.

Don't you know satan and his demons? They can do anything to make people turn away from God.

I don't know satan and his demons. You obviously know them tell me: where did you meet them and what are their names?

alexleo: I didnt say that charismatic is the only church that hasthe sound word. There are other churches i listed in another thread i opened sometime last year. Look, if charismatic is doing that your nonsense rosary thing and idol worship then thats bad. But i doubt. Why do you like to wound youself whenever someone tries to point out an error about catholic? I opened a thread on my church here some months ago which you saw. Pls feel free to criticize my church if you find anything wrong and i wont feel bad.

But I asked you questions about your Church almost 2days ago and you haven't answered till now. Why are you now talking as if you are ready to answer any question on your Church when you are not?...when you probably can't.

daviddext: you claim the word ''fallible'' as nothing to do with the word '' err'' and mistake''. Don't you? I will tell u this; if u can't challenge anyone with the word of God but follow every teachings that comes your way. Then as a christian, you are likely to err on ur own part. The pope is a human and u are also human. If he is infallible in his teachings as a born again then u should also be infallible in ur teachings as a born again christian too. God make people pastors and bishops but did not make them above erring in some teachings that is got from traditions and theology, dat is why d bible is there to reprove and correct. I made no mistake to leave the catholic church, u should be the one to make more research.

Do you think Peter was fallible or infallible?

If you are fallible, doesn't that mean that any or everything you think you know about faith and morals could be wrong?...including the fact that you think the Pope is fallible. And if you are wrong, doesn't that mean that the Pope could be infallible?

[quote author=HerexG ]"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;" (1 Peter 3:19-19). Who are these spirit in prison ? These were the unbelieving Jews and gentiles, the bible is not talking about the dead here. If you are an unbeliever your spirit is a prisoner to the devil.[/quote]1 Pet 3:19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Do you still insist that the people in prison were not DEAD?

Those who lived in the time of Noah were still alive even after Jesus death?

You are saying that these people lived for about 2500 years?

You're saying Metuselah is not the man who lived longest. You want to redefine Bible history rather than accept that you are wrong?

olivegirl: . Please angels have been appearing b4 we came on earth likewise the once that fell. What we need 2 be dooing is how can we enter de kingdom of God. Preach de gospel and practice it. Ma I, ma husband ,kids and famili not miss dis kingdom ijn amen

Believing in Marian apparitions doesn't stop us from striving for salvation. Infact it even encourages us to do that. That has always been the essential message the Blessed Mother brings us during all the apparitions. "DO WHATEVER HE TELLS YOU!"... As she told the servants at the wedding feast in Cana.

Thank you all the same. Your message is a good one.

daviddext: did God tell the church so or the church voted for the motion that the pope is infallible?. Even saint peter made mistakes.

I haven't said the Pope doesn't make mistakes, I only said he is infallible. They are not the same thing.

Why don't you do a quick search for the meaning of Papal infallibility, then come back and tell me what's wrong with that?

No wonder you left the Church...

You didn't strive enough to know your faith, let alone, practise it.

daviddext: ur statement is 100% wrong. Being a protestant doesn't mean the protestant does not take communion.

They call it communion but it is not communion in the way we mean it. They say it is bread and wine, we say it is the body and blood of Jesus. Are they the same thing?

daviddext: Except u see d catholic church as the true church and others fake.

There is only one Church founded by Jesus Christ, whatever you call those communities is up to you, but I do not call them churches.

daviddext: Then i will consider all catholics proud if they think that way.

We must proclaim the truth whether you consider us proud or not. Do you consider all Christians proud because we proclaim truthfully what we know: that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life? Or do you reserve the blame for us alone?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning anybody. We are not even taught to do so. Anybody that wants to believe any rubbish can believe it, but we must proclaim the truth we know.

It is what Jesus commanded.

The Pope is infallible...

frosbel: Church investigate what

We already know what it is , a DEMON !!!!

What if it's just a painting, would that be a demon too?

You don't know anything about it and you are already making conclusions.

I guess that's how you come to all your blind conclusions...

You who said' Jesus was only a man that never existed until Mary bore him'... What can you not say.

If there is any demon here, my bet would be on you.

Then every sculptor and painter is an idol worshipper.

Anybody who buys their art-work is an idol worshipper.

Anybody who uses his camera to take images of anything is an idol worshipper.

Mr Boomark Sir,

Do you have an image of youself or anyone else on your phone or lap?

(Don't tell me long story o, just answer YES or NO)