₦airaland Forum

i use to listen to him, but after his interview on Larry king, that he couldnt wholeheartedly say that those who doesnt believe in Jesus will riot in hell

Can you wholeheartedly decide who will go to heaven and who won't? Because when Larry asked him that question that is what Larry was initially saying.
So are you or Joel the determiners of who will go to hell or heaven?

So why is Mary called queen of heaven by your own leaders?

Because Jesus is the King of heaven, with the King the mother rules as Queen and not the wife, if Jesus is the King of heaven, Mary is Queen of heaven. Sorry but God isn't sexist, he wouldn't make man more important than woman. We are created equally.

That also means that if Jesus is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve. If God will undo man's disobedience, he will undo woman's too, as sin didn't come from man alone, but from man and woman. It took both man and woman to get sin here, and it will take both man and woman.

So why must the RCC go directly against God's law which says, "4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them, "

Why would God go against his own law when he required the Israelites to make a graven image of the cherubim and the serpent?

The issue is not whether how many persons have given birth to Jesus.

That is precisely the issue, you cannot wave a magic wand to make it all go away, so you cannot choose which is the issue and which isn't when it is very explicit that the son given birth to there is Jesus. Yes that son given birth to is the New Israel, the Church, and we know that the Church is the body of Christ, this is a mystery of Christ, therefore can we then not say that a mystery of Mary is that she is a symbol of the Old Israel (Jerusalem) who gives birth to the New Israel, the Church, and in so doing is the Church's Mother? Therefore isn't it a commandment of God that we honour our mother?

Do you now see that it isn't all one sided and that there are different angles to it and it is a great mystery?
You cannot choose to believe one part of the mystery and choose to deny the other part just because it seems hard to swallow. Instead of telling God this is how it is supposed to be, how about you let him show you how it's supposed to be.

The RCC has removed the 2nd commandment, which forbids the making of graven images, and have divided the 10th in 2 so as to account for 10.

The RCC has done no such thing. It is a continuation of the 1st commandment, it is still a commandment, if you wish to say that it isn't, then pls provide the decalogue as used by the Catholic Church and show me where the commandment "thou shall not make any graven image" is eliminated.

And the major differences between these organizations are very thin, and not enough to warrant any serious problems. So no big deal if they at least have this in common.

Shouldn't this tell you something? Shouldn't it tell you that you guys are the ones reinventing the Bible interpretation? Who is better to tell about the birth of a child, the mother or the child?

As for Revelations, start from Revelations 11 where the ark appears in the temple, it appears in the form of a woman, when John wrote the book of revelations it wasn't divided into chapters, so the ark that appears is the woman who is giving birth, now you may continue.

The truth of which I speak frees all men from the bondage of sin. The only source of salvivic truth I am aware of is that which comes from the word of God, and from Jesus Christ Himself who is the embodiment of absolute truth.

Hence anything that seeks to nullify the scriptures cannot be termed truth. Jesus said, "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"

While I agree that there are other sources of truth it must be understood that such sources must have their roots in the bible. It cannot be that some are championing the cause of the canon, and making a boast of having established it, while at the same time are ignoring its divine instructions. If any tradition, be it Catholic, or otherwise seeks to lessen the impact of God's instructions, then away with such. The written instructions must take precedence over worship formats.

Ever wondered why God instructed Samuel the prophet to tell king Saul that any worship without obedience is unacceptable? The act of worship itself does not guarantee that God will accept such. The element of sacrifice, or worship isn't enough. Acts of worship aught to be based on following exactly what God instructs. Samuel told the king "that to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken the fat of rams, "True love for God is reflected in being obedient to His will. Jesus once said, "If you love me keep my commandments"

The purpose of this thread, which is being derailed by those who seek to hide from the truth, is to show the stark difference between what men teach as doctrines, versus the plain teachings of scriptures.

Everything in the Catechism and that has been pronounced by the Church is in the Bible. Most are explicit, such as the eucharist and purgatory, intercession of the saints, and Mary as Mother of God. Some are not so explicit, but are implicit and are still truths. The problem is that you guys accept one teaching of the Bible but reject the other. You also want to ignore the actual teachings of the Bible, such as the Papal office and apostolic succession, and Mary as Mother of God (Elizabeth called her the Mother of God), and sacred tradition.

For example, honeric admitted that Mary is the Mother of God when I shoed him that the Bible calls Mary the Mother of God, but when I pointed out to him that he admitted it, he screamed foul. That is why I continually say, you guys believe what we believe you just don't know it. We may use different terms or different ways of saying it, but we're saying the exact same thing.

You are of the impression that what the Church teaches is not in the Bible, and we're telling you that it is you who's wrong about the Bible, and we're trying to show you that. Everything we believe is in the Bible, you guys are the ones that don't know everything in the Bible.

As I have stated the Bible isn't illogical, you guys are. If you all will honestly answer our questions, then you will see we believe the same thing. I know it is a hard thing to accept, but when you carefully examine the Bible, you will see that we are right. Many pastors have led their congregations to the Catholic Church when they decide to study theology and the history of Christianity and applied logic to the Bible. Protestants are vastly converting to the Church (I am one) when they decide to stop deceiving themselves and actually learn the truth, and they decide to remove hatred and bias from their heart.

I pray the Lord open your heart to the truth as he did mine.

You might want to stop and think for a minute and seek the Lord on this matter. The Holy Spirit is willing to direct you but the thing is are you willing to listen or have you made up your mind? Most of you have already made up your mind, because if you hadn't you would be answering questions right now, and you will answer fully and truthfully too.

For example, when I asked honeric to interpret the passage where Christ gave power to the disciples to forgive or retain sins, Christ said" whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, whose sins you retain are retained them" he said that there Christ was giving us the power to forgive and that it isn't left for the priests alone, and then I asked him why Christ would allow us to retain the sins of people, he refuses to touch on that. SO maybe you can answer me, why would Christ say "whose sins you retain are retained them"? Why would he tell us not to forgive?

So what do you call catechisms if not a compilation of catholic doctrines?

Catechism is a compilation of catholic doctrine, my problem is not with when u have the catechim, it's when u go to non-catholic websites and get information that is not in the catechism but is posed as something from the catechism. I own a catechism, and I check, most of what u had are not in the catechism, and for the ones that are in the catechim those beliefs u don't hold to because you don't know much about your own faith. What's in the catechim isn't false, it's actually truth because it is from the Bible, the problem is you don't understand the Bible and when parts of it are shown to you, you refuse to interpret it and you simply dodge the questions you ask. Most of you quote Bible passages to counter the Bible passages we post for you, you make it seem as if the Bible is contradictory, when it isn't. The problem is in the interpretation of the Bible. I happen to choose the interpretation that has been there since the apostles, you choose your own personal interpretation. If you guys will start applying logic and start being honest with yourselves and your interpretation, you will see that you believe in what we believe in.

Would you consider the very pope's confession "made up documents"? When reports are revealed about the wanton murders and maiming of Christians in the millions over hundreds of years, would you consider those reports as "made up documents"?

When did catholic doctrine become newsmagazines? Where in the catechism or books written by Catholics does it say that we should go and kill those protestants.

History refutes everything you have said above.

You will have to show me that history.

Millions of Catholics? When was that may I ask? Were they killed for believing the bible instead of protestant teachings, or were they killed for meddling in politics?

In either case find the source where Catholics were searched out and killed for period of hundreds of years.

Ever heard of Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I, ask the Irish and the Scots why they were afraid of the Brits. Ask the KKK who they killed before they turned towards black people.

And yes it continued for hundreds of years, and is still going on right now, especially in the South of the U.S, I know this because I live in Florida, and I have lost friendships for converting to the Catholic faiths. They have labeled me devil, and all sorts of things. Did you know that John F. Kennedy did for the Catholics what Obama has done for blacks? That's right, Catholics everyday are discriminated against, and while majority of us are not being killed right now because of the stricter laws and the CSI unit, we are still being persecuted by you all. This board is evidence of the hatred towards us. Do a research on this board and tell me if you will find a Catholic thread started to bash Protestants. But I can assure you, you will find many threads bashing Catholics.

If what you were refering to from the Catholics is the Crusades, that in itself isn't a calling from the Church to kill and maim people. The first crusade was called by the Pope to defend Christians from muslims, and that's the reason why we are all not screaming "allahu akbar" right now and being subject to sharia law, so be grateful. The crusades was hijacked by greedy politicians who decided to use the name of the Church to gain riches and such, the Pope called for them to stop and decreed that any of them who continued with that will be excommunicated. So in reality they didn't belong to the Catholic church.

Why did the Pope apologise, because we are a humble people, and because you guys have so much hatred in your heart that you refuse to listen to reason, we apologised.

But if we go by your reasoning and say that because some church members (excommunicated) performed such atrocious acts, then the whole Church must be evil, then all white people must be evil because of the atrocious acts by their ancestors.

Be careful not to let hatred cloud your judgment.

But since you want to know what acts have been committed against the church, then take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism

You can definitely use the time you spend finding hateful things about the church, to search for the atrocious acts done against it.

bindex:
I am an ATHEIST, all I am doing here is showing you blind people what is really in your bible and how some of the stories or words were delibrately mistranslated to create the new God (Jesus) by Paul, the Romans, Greeks and some of the early Christian founders. The Prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's claim that Isaiah is referring to Jesus' virgin birth. It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin." It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity.

"…I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. … and the isles shall wait for his law. … for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles…"
Isaiah 42:1-7.

This verse is completely mistranslated from the original hebrew bible go and read the JPS or Stone edition of the hebrew bible and you will see what I am talking about. The early Christian founders took the Hebrew text and created a new God(Jesus) out of it, but unfortunatly for Christains Judaism is still around to show all the lies and delibrate mistranslation of the original hebrew bible (tanakah) by the Christains. Jesus is a new God that was created by Paul and the rest of the gentiles out of the original hebrew text.

I agree that the story was portraying how the woman had faith in Jesus, but to say anything other wise is to lie about what Jesus has said so many times. Again here is your Jesus in his own words.

Here you have Jesus in the bible telling his disciples not to go any where near the gentiles when preaching about the kingdom of God that is at hand. There you have it. More from Jesus in the bible.

Even when he was talking about Judgement he only mentioned Israel, he never said he was going to judge the gentiles.

You do know that the Church is Israel right?
In one of the above passages you showed where Jesus is saying they shouldn't go to the samaritans, and yet he went to the samaria and was talking to a samaritan woman, and even offered her to drink from the living water (himself).
Also samaria is considered a lost sheep of Israel. If above in the passage Jesus was including samaria as a gentile nation (which rightfully it is), then he was including the gentiles when he made that offer to the samaritan woman.

If Jesus was trying to exclude the gentiles then why did he offer the gentile woman salvation? In the above passage, it was not yet time for his disciples to go to the gentiles, they first had to preach to the Israelites who then refused his message, before going on to the gentiles.

Here's more of Jesus speaking about going to the gentiles or being a light to the gentiles.

Matthew 10: 16 Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. 17 But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. 18 And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles

This was after he asked them not to go to the gentiles, this is to tell you that you are misinterpreting the message of Jesus here.

Luke 2:25-32
25 And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was in him.

26 And he had received an answer from the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Christ of the Lord. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when his parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, 28 He also took him into his arms, and blessed God, and said: 29 Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; 30 Because my eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples: 32 A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel

this was an Israelite, a rabbi in the temple speaking about Jesus, so the Jews knew exactly what the messiah was to do. He was not just to be a messiah to the Israelites but to the world. The problem with them is that they still maintained that the gentiles were to become Jews, subject to the law of Moses. They killed Jesus because he seemed to be challenging Moses, even though he was not.


Acts of the apostles 1: 8 But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth

this is Jesus speaking right before he was taken up to heaven. The apostles were to preach to the ends of the earth. This is before Paul.

Stephen the martyr was killed because the Jews accused him of changing the laws of Moses, this was before Paul. The same message that Paul preached was already being preached. Infact Paul killed him because he was preaching that same message.

Acts 8:5 And Philip going down to the city of Samaria, preached Christ unto them.
remember Christ had already told them not to go to the city of samaria to preach, if we go by your interpretation of that verse, then Philip was already not listening to Christ. This was before Paul.

Acts 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert. 27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore, 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? 37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.

St. Phillip baptized and preached to an ethiopian. This was before Paul.

You just took an ambiguous statement from Jesus and interpreted it to mean what it never meant. I have other sheep does not mean gentiles in any way. He might have been talking about the other lost tribes of Israel. Jesus told his disciples in clear terms not to go to the cities of the gentiles to share the message about the kingdom of heaven because as it is written in the bible he came only for the lost tribe of Israel. If there is anywhere in the bible where Jesus himself said he came to save the world(Jews and Gentiles) in the bible pls go ahead and show me

Ok. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. 18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved

Matthew 28: 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Carlosein:
leave seagoddess be. that's her screen name (hopefully not her real name).

i think we have derailed from the topic of the thread so can we get back on track please

St John Bosco is patron saint of alter boys and youths (another of my favourites ).

didn't his day just pass? they made a movie about him i think.

Paul never changed anything around, you're interpreting it wrongly.

I think Acts is one reason for a lot of the confusion about early Christian history. It pretends to describe the immediate years after Christ's death but it's clearly not a good historical source, being written many decades later and including a lot of mythologizing. Paul is one of the main characters, but at times it contradicts Paul's own accounts of events in his letters. It clearly has an agenda - it wants people to believe that all the problems between Paul and the Jewish Christians were smoothed over and resolved (in Paul's favor) and Christian unity was achieved.

there is no confusion about the early christian history and if there is it isn't from acts. Acts was written by Luke, the same one who wrote the gospel. so it isn't a far off book for the bible. it is the second writing by luke. In that book, before the conversion of Paul, Peter spoke about the gentiles, and their receiving the gospel. actually the gentiles were already receiving the gospel before the conversion of Paul, it wasn't at the rate that paul spread the gospel. Paul also didn't formulate his own gospel to preach, he received it from Peter. Paul spent at least two weeks with Peter learning from him after his conversion.

Peter preached the same thing that Paul preached, he was wrong when later he wasn't living by his preaching and Paul rebuked him for that.

So no Paul didn't try to change Jesus' teaching, he learned his teaching from the apostles and mostly from the Chief apostle, Peter. Paul was commissioned by them to spread the gospel far and wide.

bindex, the passage about the canaanite woman is wrongly interpreted by you, you failed to go to the end of the conversation with her. that was a test of the woman's faith, when she passed the test, Jesus granted her request. If he wasn't including gentiles in his ministry then he wouldn't have healed her, but not just that he also wouldn't have accepted the samaritan woman.

also in John 10:16 Jesus said "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

The other sheep that do not belong to that fold (israel) are the gentiles. the fold he talks about is israel, the other sheep are gentiles. so he did say that he came for them too.

ROTFLMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

People are funny sha!!!

The book called Babylon Religion by David W. Daniels is an eye opener where you will learn how a Babylonian goddess became the virgin Mary. Check the link below for a copy and review of the book

The book called Hail Holy Queen by Dr. Scott Hahn is an eye opener where you will see how God's love came to the world. The connection between the Old Testament and New Testament and Jesus in the Old Testament and Mary in the Old Testament. Check the link below for a copy
http://www.getfed.com/catholic-product/733/Hail-Holy-Queen/?aid=164

Hey lady, stop trying to paint me, Mary was the vessel which God used as his earthly mother to bring Jesus into this world to do his job, God would have as well just sent Jesus into this earth directly but because He wanted him to come in Flesh so that he can be justified through flesh his authenticity,Her Job has the mother stopped after Jesus started his ministry, that was why Jesus always used the word "Woman" to describe Mary in the scriptures

Sweetheart this is what you wrote

When Elizabeth called Mary the mother of God, which is Normal for anyone who knew how the pregnancy of Mary came about, but that does not guarantee catholics to use that as a Fact to use as their base for their church tradition.
Elizabeth must have been admiring the fact that Mary was opportuned to be having Jesus (Adonai) so came that statement from her

If the Bible calls her the Mother of God, why can't you or do you not believe in the Bible again?

I think i do, that's why Catholics have her status in all of their cathedral

So if I walk intot a protestant church and I see a statue or picture of their pastor should I assume that they worship their pastor as God?

Since you think you know, do you mind telling me what the tradition of the Church on Mary is?

Not only the tradition of a true "church" but also the guidelines to be followed to the end with addition or subtraction.

Well since the New Testament is the tradition of a true "church" and the Catholics wrote and defined those books as the tradition to be followed to the end, wouldn't that make the Catholic Church the true Church?
Also if you think we added or subtracted, do you mind telling me what we added and subtracted? Last time I checked you guys are the ones not following the Bible.

If she was also born this same way Jesus was born, hers would have been different from other women, The fact that She gave birth to Jesus didn't make her an immortal, rather because she also believed and accepted Jesus, that's why she has a place in heaven come the last day.

I bet you $500.00 you don't realise what you just said. You just agreed with the Catholic Church. 
Only thing is you contradict yourself in this statement. She was born differently than other women, that's why her birth of a child was different from other women, or have you forgotten that. She was born immaculate because she was bringing the new adam into the world, now if the old Adam was created immaculately and from an immaculate soil (earth) how do you expect the new adam to be born? Do you expect him to be born by a tainted woman? Also don't forget that the woman who was to bear Christ could not be tainted by the devil, she was to have complete enmity with the devil, if she was a sinner she wouldn't have complete enmity with the devil because the devil likes sin. So if Mary was a sinner as you believe, Jesus couldn't be the messiah.

Stop treating something unnatural with a natural thinking, Mary was favored by God for her role in the working of Jesus on Earth and nothing more and she got that favor by being the mother of Christ here on earth and she was honored among her peers back then

Sweetheart it isn't unnatural, God isn't unnatural, he wouldn't go against his own creation. Mary is favored by God, and it was after she was favored by God that she actually had a role in the working of Jesus on earth. Remember the angel's greeting "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" She already had favor with God before she agreed to bring God to the world. She was already chosen. She wasn't only honoured among her peers, she was honoured among all generations from the apostles down to us. Infact she herself said that all generations will call me blessed Luke 1:48, this is from the Bible, all generations not just her peers shall call her blessed.

You telling me Mary never died? show me with biblical backings, and i will stop debating on this issue

How the hell did you get this from my statement? Where did I say that she never died? All I said was do you expect God to allow his mother's body to rot in the ground like the rest of us?

Have you forgotten that Jesus died and was buried but he didn't rot in the ground? Do you want to say it is impossible?
Mary died, but she was taken up to heaven by God.

Answer my questions, do you expect God to allow his mother to rot in the ground? Do you think that is a good way for him to honour her? If you had the power to keep your mother from all sin and from the sting of the devil and from rotting in the ground, would you do it?

Also for the scripture alone attitude, show me in the Bible where it says that it must be in the scriptures for it to be true. Show me how logical scripture alone is, and I will use scripture alone.

Mary was never the ark lady, well, i don't know how to tell you this, but i guess your interpretation of prophesies in the bible has to do with this

If Mary was never the ark, then Jesus was never the Word of God, and the ark of the covenant in Revelations 11 is not real. Which one is it?

please you need to pray well, i mean the real prayer to God with a clear intention before you read the bible again so that the holy spirit can put forth a thorough explanation of prophesies in the bible for you to understand and interpret
Elizabeth: How is it that the Mother of my Lord would come to me?
For God sake, if you knew that your cousin was carrying an unnatural baby, and her knowing well that she was chosen by God to carry out his mission, wouldnt she have spoken out this way?

Abeg, Jesus was not unnatural, God is not unnatural, thank you. It is one thing to insult us, but please do not insult God.

That wasn't an interpretation but a parallel, what the ark did in the Old Testament it did in the New Testament.

David danced in front of the ark John the baptist also danced in front of the ark, not because the ark was there, but because of what the ark was carrying the Word of God. Or Mary no carry the Word of God for belle?

The ark was carried to the hill of judea to reside for 3 months, Mary went to the hill of judea to reside for three months. DO you not see the parallel there?

God almighty, now i see, it's too late

let me guess, you don't know who. let me tell you who.
John the baptist: Luke 1:41-44
41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy

the infant in the womb was John the baptist, and he did the same thing David did, and Elizabeth said the same thing David said. Too much for ya?

So even if that is "false as you claimed" where then did Jesus say Mary or the bible said Mary can intercede for us here on Earth, the angels of the lord are always there to take our prayers up to God, but Jesus is the mediator and intercedes on our behave. taking the prayers up to God and interceding is a two different thing

Ok see this is where denial kicks in for you. Well I already showed you that it is false, so you see it is not just Jesus that can interceed for us in the spritual realm. So this is where you start keeping an open mind that others can interceed for us as well, especially after James tells us they can.
How is that different? Dude Jesus tells us the angels interceed on our behalf? How can you fight against Jesus' own words. Jesus is the one mediator but you also forgot that Jesus himself is God. Mary doesn't bypass Jesus, she can never do that, she goes to him, she prays to Jesus for us, remember Jesus is God.

Ok I am seriously trying to understand you here, that's why it's difficult for me to respond to you. I don't understand your last sentence, are you now saying that interceeding and mediating are two different things?
Before you were saying that Jesus was the only one who could mediate and interceed and they weren't two different things, but now they are? i want you to clarify this for me, seriously.
Or is it that no one other than Jesus can interceed and mediate on our behalf in the spiritual realm? pls pls clarify your point for me.

I'm sure you're educated so you should be able to legibly clarify for me,thanks.

There is no connection between the dead and the living lady, i forgot the bible chapter and verse that clearly stated that one, It's appointed unto a man to die once, and after that comes judgment. and there is no relationship with the dead and the bible, those that died in Christ remain dead until the resurrection hour.

The verse you re looking for is in the Old Testament, I also know if it, but can't remember it now. But don't forget that there was no Church in the Old Testament, and that in Christ all are living. Christ is the head of the Church, so whether dead or not we are all one family. Eph 3:14-15, whether in heaven or on earth we are one family.
No one who dies in Christ is dead until the resurrection hour. The body will resurrect but the sould never dies so it needs not be resurrected. It is a resurrection of the body that will happen in the end, but the soul will be condemned to hell or will be in heaven or will be undergoing purgatory. That is the reason why we shouldn't be afraid of he who can kill the body but not the soul.

A soul doesn't die as a body does, except when they live a life of sin, and God condemns them to hell. Don't forget a person is made up of a body and soul.

Rom 8:35-39 death does not separate the family of God from the love of Christ, even after death. If we die in Christ we shall also live in him.

So those who died in Christ are not dead. God is a God of the living and not the dead, if they are dead, then God is not their God, by your reasoning, then God is no dead man's God, and those christians who died do not have God as their God.

Luke 15:7 I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance
Luke 15:10 So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance
if the angels and saints experience joy in heaven over our repentance, then they are still connected to us and are aware of our behavior

We are all called to be saints 1 Cor 1:2. Rom 1:7 Saints refer to those who are in heaven and those who are on earth. I'm sure you already knew that.

Proof of saints in heaven: Matthew 27:52, Eph. 2:19; 3:18; Col. 1:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:10 pls open your Bible and read those verses.

St. Paul tells us that the Church is one body and we are all united and that we should all use our gifts for the benefit of the body. You cannot honestly tell me that just because someone dies they are cut off from the body of Christ. If they are cut off from the body of Christ they are not in Christ, and therefore will ot make it to heaven, by that reasoning, no one who dies before judgment day will make it to heaven.

You will have to show me how it is those who die in Christ are cut off from the body of Christ after their death. If they are not cut off, then was St. Paul mad when he said that the body is unite and that we should use our gifts to support each other?

And why is it that They only conversed with Jesus and not with the rest of the disciples? Jesus also appeared to his disciples 3 times after resurrection and never did again.

Do they have to converse with the disciples? Afterall Peter answered and suggested that a tent be pitched for all three, he wouldn't have suggested that if he knew that the dead and the living couldn't converse. He probably would have screamed abomination, and hid his face so as not to displease God. Moses and Elijah appeared to all of them, not just Jesus. Jesus was also a living human, don't forget he is true man and true God.
But my point of Moses and Elijah was to refute your claim that the dead cannot speak to us, and also that there's no one in heaven until after the resurrection, clearly Moses and Elijah as well as those who were in prison before the death of Christ who became freed are in heaven.

that was in the vision, is this how you interpret the bible why not pray to the angels instead of a status called Mary who is as human as another person on earth except for the fact that God used and honored her among women in her time just as he used many other people in the bible and blessed them?b]

and the vision tells us that they are in heaven, abi no be so? We do pray to the angels, we ask them to defend us in battle, actually that's archangel michael. And we do not pray to statues thank you. If that is the case then you and others are not praying to Jesus but to the pictures of Jesus in your homes and churches.

We pray to Mary because Mary is also a part of the Church and she is a saint, and she is not separated from us. That verse also has nothing to do with the angels, but with the human beings who died. SO stop trying to deviate from the topic. DOes it not prove to you that there are people in heaven, and that they hear our prayers?

Your point is changing slowly but surely, first there could be no one except Jesus who could interceed for us in the spiritual realm, now you have added that the angels can interceed too, why are you denying that the humans who have died in Christ and are now living in heaven as the Bible shows and tells us are able to pray for us too, as the Bible shows and tells us?
Mary isn't a human like us, she was never under the control of the devil, if she was Jesus isn't the messiah, the very first prophecy of the messiah tells us that the woman to give birth to him will not be under the control of the devil, meaning she will be immaculate.

their souls are in paradise and not heaven yet

biko nu which one be this paradise wey u dey talk of?
second o, revelations tell u sey dem dey paradise or dem dey the presence of God, God no come dey heaven again? ha see confusion na.

Is God is heaven or not? And if the elders are in the presence of God and are in the temple of God, how are they not in heaven?

Your interpretation says the ark is Mary?

the ark is a pregnant woman, and the ark contains the Word of God, which woman was pregnant with the Word of God?

According to your interpretation which is totally wrong, that prophesy wasn't referring to one person, someone already interpreted this verses in this thread before, please go take a clue from it

My interpretation isn't totally wrong, it is not even the least bit wrong. The woman pregnant we know is the Christian Church, but that only leads us to know that Mary is symbol of the Church. The Church is to be immaculate, clean from all sin. It is also applied to Mary. It can be applied to Israel also, and that in itself is another mystery about Mary that you are not ready for. Mary the Old Israel gives birth to Jesus the new Israel. The New Israel is the Church, the Church is the body of Christ, Mary gave birth to the body of Christ. She is also our mother, the Mother of the Church.

too much for ya? don't worry seek the Holy Spirit, he will guide you, and don't tell him to guide you to what you want to believe, let him show you the truth. Let him show you what you already believe.

We as individuals, we are allowed to forgive sins, so that makes it a job every believer should do and not one particular person in a church or a community. God is the supreme being who have the final right to accept the confession and dish out forgiveness not a pope, father, pastor or a priest

So we are also told not to forgive sins by Jesus? Why would Christ tell us "whoever sins u retain are retained them"?

We don't believe in the same thing, because what you practice is not what i practice. My bible states that I should not worship, bow down or praise any idols or images in any form or shape and that i believe in. and also should not erect any idol or image of any kind

Ahn ahn, why are you contradicting yourself? You just say we do not practise the same thing, meanwhile you just state what we also state. So you do practise the same thing o. We too we do not worship, bow down or praise any idols or images in any shape. We do not erect any idol or image of any kind, so how can you say we don't practise the same thing.
Come I'm beginning to be worried about you o.

But my dear, if you believe Jesus is God, then you believe Mary is the Mother of God.
If you believe the Church is the body of Christ, then you believe Mary is the Mother of the Church, and that she is your Mother too, well unless you are not in the body of Christ.

@~Lady~
Thanks for the compliments. God bless you

Ah omo you're very welcome. Now try using your brain. and yes you're welcome for that one too. Very welcome.

I said i don't want to be drawn into this argument or debate, so i am leaving with this line.

I'm sorry if I missed it but where did you say you did not want to be drawn into this argument or debate?
Below are the posts of yours and neither one has you saying you do not want to be drawn into this argument or debate. Infact you purposefully asked us to show you why we believe what we believe, so unless goodbye is hello in reverse to you, I don't see how you asking us to explain ourselves is you telling us you don't want to be involved.

Infact you even asked me if you were clear enough, so how is that you avoiding the debate or argument.

This is what happens when people cannot logically defend their beliefs.

One of the things i discovered from the Catholic's teachings that doesn't conform with the scriptures is having to pray to Mary instead of Jesus as it was written by Jesus himself.

Another is Having to confess your sins to the fathers and then giving you assurances that your sins has been forgiven is not what the scriptures Christians read spoke about,

Maybe you should start from there,  I am just reading through and taking points from both parties =,

It's unfortunate that catholics lack spiritual interpretations to alot of things Written in the bible, When Elizabeth called Mary the mother of God, which is Normal for anyone who knew how the pregnancy of Mary came about, but that does not guarantee catholics to use that as a Fact to use as their base for their church tradition.
Elizabeth must have been admiring the fact that Mary was opportuned to be having Jesus (Adonai) so came that statement from her.

Hebrew 8:6, spoke about the mediator and the only person that was authorized to pray for us in the realm of the spirit is Jesus, because he's the only person with the power of ressurution, so he can interceed for we christians here on earth and Heaven because he died and rose again.
Not even any of his disciples can interceed for us (Including Mary) because they all died and haven't risen yet until the trumpet sounds.

The above quoted verse from John 20:20, The word Disciples there was his disciples then, And this present world we are now, We as Christians, in respective of our status in Christ, as far as we are True Christ-like (Christians), we are automatically a disciple too, so we have same attributes as the disciples of the old.
John 20:21, Peace be with "you" there referred to his disciples then, this present world, "true Christians are also his disciples, so we are also automatically commanded to go out as he commanded the then discciples as his father sent him.
John 20:22: As a true christian, we are in a position to receive the holy spirit, Act 1 vs 8, Mark 16:15 18. we have been given the power just like in the days of the apostles to preach, heal, and deliver. it was only in the OT that the holy spirit never came on all believers then, But when Jesus died, he promised to send us the holy spirit, So all christians with a ready mind have the same opportunity to receive the holy spirit just like the pastors.
John 20:23, It was simply saying as christians, we all have the same opportunity to forgive sins because God dwells in us through the Holy spirit. having said that, it's now left for God to differentiate between a spirit-filled christian to a non-spirit-filled christian.
some christians also have the gift of discernment. the discerning spirit help in testing the spirit behind every claimed christian.

Bottomline, we as "True"christians have equal rights to take our prayers and sins before God through one person JESUS CHRIST and no one else Because he's the mediator both here on earth and in Heaven.

Let me know if i was clear enough.

You assume Mary is the woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet,and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Have you ever considered that it could not be Mary but rather is Israel?!!
Did you try to relate the issue about the sun,moon and twelve stars with Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9-11?
Remember,Jacob represents Israel and was represented by the sun in the dream,Rachael was represented by the moon,the eleven stars represented Joseph's brothers;and definitely Joseph is the twelfth star in the revelation as he is now among the other tribes of Israel(12 tribes).

Also remember that Israel was often represented as a woman(Isaiah 54:1-6,Jeremaiah 3:20,Ezekiel 16:8-14,etc).

Looking at Revelaions 12:2,

Rev 12:2
(2) And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

The pain and travail during the birth represent the travail and pain of israel at the time of the birth of Jesus; under Roman oppression and occupation.

No sweetheart I do not assume that the woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet is Mary, if anyone knows that the Mother of the one who will rule with an iron fist, they will know that it is Mary.

And yes the woman stands as Israel, that is another mystery of Christianity that you guys are missing about Mary, but if I go there, your head will spin since you still cannot accept what you already admitted.

Now I asked you to tell me how it is you expect God to treat his own mother. Please answer my questions thank you.

I am never the least surprised that Catholics are never able to use the bible to defend their faith, because they simply cannot. After having paganized pure Christendom, as was predicted by the bible itself, are we now surprised to see the level of responses?

I am also not in the least surprised that you guys want to use selective reasoning, or are the Bible verses we posted not in the Bible?

I am also not in the least surprised that you guys don't know what logic is. When you can apply that to the Bible call me.

I sincerely hope this is not typical Davidylanish behavior seeing as it is that I made bold the statement I was referring to which was (for clarity's sake) your authoritative statement that we are the thoughts of God.

Hahaha, oh no it is not. Ok I use thoughts as a way of showing that not everything can be calculated by science and can still be very much real. Thoughts are real, and yet there's no way for you to calculate my thoughts. The only way you can know my thought is if I bring it to fruition by either saying it or creating something out of it. That's why I said we are God's thoughts, we are (creation) because he thought of us and we know what his thoughts were because we're here. His thoughts came to fruition. We truly are made in God's image, look at that we too can create.

Are you affirming my belief that the bible is predominantly an historical (but possibly not completely factual) account of the origins of the Jewish people? if you are then I have no contrary opinion but if you are saying it is the word of God meant for the whole of mankind then time has shown that it is grossly inadequate just as the Yoruba tales of Ogun, Sango, Oya and Igbo's Amadioha are historical but not factual relics of the various Nigerian cultures or the various Gods in Greek and other ancient mythologies.

Haha it has always been a historical account of the Jewish people. We've been telling you guys that for a long time, but you all seem to be so block headed that you don't hear us. Now there are two parts of the Bible, there's the Old Testament which is the actual historical account of the Jewish people. It records their interaction with God and their laws and their mistakes as well as prophecies and all that. Now buried in the Old Testament are all of mankind's salvation (the jews don't see it that way though even though it is explicitly expressed), those are what are called the prophecies. The New Testament is the accomplishment of those prophecies located in the Old Testament. But majority of the Old Testament is the historical account of the Jewish people and that's not meant for all people. But our salvation is also buried in there so we won't get rid of it, the New Testament is meant for all people. That's why you see the change from all these strict dietary laws and jewish culture and customs to acceptance of all people and their cultures. Originally that is how it was always supposed to be, but because of the stubbornness of man (Genesis 3), they restricted the salvation to just the Israelites when it was not meant to be so.

That's why when Jesus always said "You heard it said by Moses that blah blah blah, but I say blah blah blah" and the Jews were angry because Christ was taking everything back to the way it was supposed to be, not with the whole "I am better than all the nations" that the Jews always had, and because they viewed Moses as the friend of God, like the best buddy of God, so no one could go against his teaching, or challenge it, and they viewed Jesus as that person, and they know the only person that can actually make statements like that is God, so they knew very well that Jesus was saying that he is God. So basically Christ turned things upside down. They misinterpreted the 10 Commandments and that's how they ended up with 613 or so laws, it wasn't meant to be so. It was very simple, they made it complicated. God permitted them to do certain things, because they needed to fall on their faces and learn hard lessons just like the rest of us, they were a stubborn people.

Now as for it being the Word of God. It is our belief that we can't do anything without God. Even me writing this is not by my grace, but by God's grace. So even though it is written by men, it contains information that we can all learn from. It is our belief that it is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that these men put these stories or narratives into writing. Just enough was written down, everything wasn't written down or accepted as inpsired, but exactly what was needed was put down. That's why we call it the Word of God. Not that he actually wrote it or actually spoke those exact words, but just for the mere fact that these writers were inspired by God himself to write these things down, we call it the Word of God.

I don't think Bindex has ever implied that only visual proofs are authentic, atimes in attempting not to wax lyrical, people summarise their posts and some of the meaning is lost. You're welcomed to insult me anytime though it doesn't do any justice to my idea of a Lady.

Well he should be even more careful, because if you read his statement that's exactly what he said. I figure he may not mean it that way, but not everyone can do so. I am not the only one reading this thread. I try to be explanatory as possible as I always keep in mind that there are other participants who do not actually post. I also know that ppl are gullible and will run on idiocrisy, I as a Catholic see it all the time from the protestants.
So it is always good to keep that in mind.

I was pointing out the historical fact that the old roman catholic church did not encourage members of the laity to read the bible as it was supposed to be only understood by priests and other members of the clergy hence one of the reasons for Martin Luther's rebellion (revolutionary dude the guy was, I'm sure if he was born in these days he wouldn't be a christian at all)

You are right that the Church in the old days did not encourage the members to read the Bible, but the part about the priests are supposed to be the only ones to be able to understand it, is your own personal opinion. That was never by the Church. You deduced that from the fact that they never encouraged it. However, the Bible was read everyday, so it wasn't like the members never heard the scriptures. The same way it was read then, it is read now. I learnt more about the Bible by attending mass, than I did reading it when I was a protestant. So it wasn't like the people were unaware of what the Bible contained, infact the whole year they read the Bible. The readings at mass are arranged that by the time we go through the liturgical year we've gone through the whole Bible. So if you attend mass as you should, you would have read the entire Bible by the end of the liturgical year, and then start all over again. So the Bible wasn't foreign to them. Also keep in mind that it was very expensive to own a Bible, only the extrememly rich could as we didn't have the printing press as we have today. The Church was more concerned with making sure that these people knew their beliefs and that they were living it, we are actually working on our salvation, I guess that's why we don't have mega churches with mega stereos that disturb civilisation and we don't jump up in molue and start calling everyone a sinner or start threads on nairaland bashing everyone for not believing what we believe. We think the way we live our lives should be preaching. Actions do speak louder than words even on the internet, don't you think.

That account of the origin of sin is fraught with contradictions in itself, I will leave it to Bindex and Chris to trash that out with you because I'm sure once we start, you will start to point out a thousand and one differenct meanings of the forbidden fruit (plain old shaggin explains it for me everytime as it does seem like eating a forbidden fruit at the first time with all the anticipation and anxiety at being caught in the act).

You'll be amazed, there really is only one meaning, and it has nothing to do with sex or fruit. And there is no garden of eden, it will never be located. These people were good with symbols you know. But as you say we'll leave it.

I do like the New Testament and beleive the world would be a better place if more people could be like Jesus, the dear old soul always stressed the important things in life and in my opionion never even intended to start a religion per se, it is unfortunate we don't have a book he really wrote as I personally beleive he was mostly misunderstood in his sayings.

That's how the world was supposed to be in the first place but Genesis 3 happened, everything was fine until Genesis 3. Humph man, have to go an ruin everything. I could be sipping mojitos and margaritas in the carribean by now not worrying about a thing. geez.

Hey guess what I can speak spanish: MARGARITA!!!! SI!!!

No vex, I love giving you an hissy fit (makes my day everytime when you flare up and become totally unladylike, it is rather a pity you are not giving me much of the satisfaction today). And you do tend to run away from our discussions but now yu're in a corner since you started this thread so I have an opportunity to beat you black and blue.

ROTFLMBAO. I Guess I can't run away huh.

I disagree totally Lady, it is unfair to make a villain out of the victim (assuming the story were true)God is still not absolved of responsibility as to why he chose to put the forbidden fruit in a Garden with two innocent kiddies while ensuring the grounds of the garden were insecure enough to allow the serpent's entry. For a supposedly perfect being, he did a thoroughly shoddy job, Adam and Eve should be suing for damages at being the butt of a bad joke by a very cruel mind.

Hahahaha ROTFLMBAO AGAIN!!!!

DUDE THERE IS NO GARDEN!!!

Ok duduspace, bindex, everyone, I am off for a vacay, so won't post until I get back. I'll try to though. Smooches.

Where's everyone?
You all cannot be that busy.

Seun or A_K_O pls make this thread sticky again, so we can easily find it, thanks.

Out of curiosity, just where did you come by this knowledge? from the bible of course, of which you have also said

Don't be so stupid to make such an ignorant assumption. I know about these energies because Exxonmobil has an ad running about these energies, turn on your t.v. you'll see it too. It is also called science duh.

my point being that if those who wrote such statements had some deficiency in knowledge which you have sincerely pointed out, what assurance can anyone have that the rest of what they wrote is not spurious? and while I do agree that they should be listened to, I see no reason why their writings should be given any iota of credibility when it turns out to be largely self contradictory.

Funny enough when I read it, I don't see the contradiction. Could it be that you have a one sided view of it and fail to see how and why this book came about? Or maybe you just want to read what you want to it. Or maybe you haven't studied the Bible and the history of the people writing it. Maybe you need to know what they were trying to convey, for example, the story of Cain and Abel isn't really about two literal brothers but about Israel and their surrounding nations. Want to know more about that?

You've made no point here Lady, as you have rightly pointed out that we are very much aware that space, time and air are real and anyone who does not beleive in their existence is (in a consensus of opinions a looney).
But pray, what tiny, itsy bitsy bit of evidence is there for the existence of God that will not degenerate into absurdity? I mean, most proofs and logic for his existence end up also disproving it for example the age old infinite regression argument

My point is just because it isn't seen doesn't mean it isn't real. Maybe you should have read what the person whom I was replying to said, before you jumped into my post to spill crap.
Dude said, God isn't real because he cannot be seen, I put a hole in his argument stating that space, time air, and such cannot be seen but they are very much real. Where am I leading to? I want so called intelligent people to stop being elementary in their postings.

Perhaps that quote in the bible should be changed to read thus, "The fools says in his heart that time does not exist"

Well then bindex must be a fool, because according to him, if it cannot be seen then it isn't real. Seriously follow the posts before you start spilling nonsense.

That way you get to know why a person is reply the way he/she is replying and exactly what he/she is replying to, instead of doing amaebo work.

Sheesh Lady, we are not going down that route of delusional visions and urban myths are we? How can scientific facts be made up with all the technological advancement you see everyday based on those various principles mankind's knowledge has built up over time?

Are you even sure you know what point you're supposed to be making?

True Catholic you are Lady, that was the same reasons given for the strict separation between the Laity and the clergy isn't it? only problem was that the so called catholic priests of that time were as confused if not even more confused than the charlartans we have around these days.

I'm sorry what? I don't get you, what strict separation? First you don't understand the Bible and you seriously think you can dabble into the mystics of it?

Why should God create all men and then make it only possible for some subset of men to be able to understand his message to humanity at large? leaving the remaining people subject to exploitation and intimidation by these "Superior Men". Very soon you'll tell us God created the class structure, well he did anyway if the bible is to be beleived

First of all, God did not create anyone that way, man chose that to become that way. That is what everyone is missing. When you read the Pentateuch you all miss one very important part of it that explains why things were the way they were. There is a sharp contrast between the Old Testament and the New Testament isn't it? You guys can't complain about the principles in the New Testament, actually you live by it. There is a reason why Christ had to come and it's right there in Genesis 3. When you guys understand that particular Chapter you will understand why everything turned out to be this way.
That is where I was trying to get to with Bindex until the lot of you started adding your own jara to the discussion.

If the God you are talking about actually existed, then he is the greatest author of confusion you can have and is deserving of no respect from anyone at all.

Man is the greatest author of confusion, go and read Genesis 3 and tell me what you get from it.

rotimy:
@ , Lady,
the meaning of the word lady is the same no matter the background. So if Fela, Daniel Webster or any other person uses it, we know the meaning. Pls we are dealing and discussing spiritual matters not romance or petty things and it is a wonder that you consider it a judgement for correcting her or raising the issue up! She should choosen Lucifer or Satan since it concerns no body!
Let seagodess speak up , then I will know who will offer the apology. Will you in all fairness name your daughter seagodess?

It does not matter whether or not I will name my daughter seagoddess, if I do, I will have a reason behind it and no one can judge me for that. She had a reason to use that as her screen name and it is not up to you or I to do any judging.

When I saw the name seagoddess mammywater did not come to my mind. I am not that superstitious. Pls don't let your superstition cause you to insult her, thanks.

She owes you no apology, get over it. But you do owe her an apology, it is none of your business whatever name she chooses. You do not have any control over her and you certainly do not pay her bills. She owes you no apology neither does she owe you an explanation for it. We are not using Canon law here, thanks.

Janssen what the hell is wrong with your brain? Or can't you read at all? Was it a catholic that started this thread or was it a protestant that started it to bash Catholics.

PLEASE pull up every thread on this forum that catholics have started to bash protestant.

It must be that you are on drugs, or do you not even recognise what the title of the thread is?
Because I can certainly pull up plenty of threads where protestants are bashing catholics.

It's unfortunate that catholics lack spiritual interpretations to alot of things Written in the bible, When Elizabeth called Mary the mother of God, which is Normal for anyone who knew how the pregnancy of Mary came about, but that does not guarantee catholics to use that as a Fact to use as their base for their church tradition.
Elizabeth must have been admiring the fact that Mary was opportuned to be having Jesus (Adonai) so came that statement from her.

Please enough with the insults, if you are true christian, you would actually be Christ-like and stop insulting people anyhow.

So you admit that Mary is the Mother of God, if so why are you all whining and crying that we call her the Mother of God?
Also do you even know what the tradition of the Church is about Mary?
Do you even know that the Bible (the New Testament) is also a tradition of the Church? so you might want to discard it.
Since you've admitted that Mary is the Mother of God, how infact do you expect God to treat his own mother?
Should he treat her like he treats the rest of us? Would you treat your mother the same way you treat any other person, or does she hold a special place in your heart?
Since you admit that Mary is the Mother of God, do you think she is so unimportant to him that he would let her body rot in the ground? If you had the power to keep your mother from rotting wouldn't you keep her from rotting?

You're right Elizabeth was, infact it parallels to the what David said when the ark came to him, notice that it was almost the exact words used by both Elizabeth and David.

David: How is it that the ark of the Lord would come to me?
Elizabeth: How is it that the Mother of my Lord would come to me?

See the similarity there, what can you deduce from that?

David also leapt for joy when the ark came to him, guess who leapt for joy when Mary came to Elizabeth?

Hebrew 8:6, spoke about the mediator and the only person that was authorized to pray for us in the realm of the spirit is Jesus, because he's the only person with the power of ressurution, so he can interceed for we christians here on earth and Heaven because he died and rose again.
Not even any of his disciples can interceed for us (Including Mary) because they all died and haven't risen yet until the trumpet sounds

The Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus isn't our mediator, and she doesn't teach that anyone is equal to Jesus or can take the place of Jesus. About the only one that is authorised to pray for us in the realm of the spirit is Jesus is false, the Bible disagrees with you on that. Jesus himself tells us that the angels of the little ones are praying for them and interceeding on their behalf.
Matthew 18:10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Nothing in the Bible states that we are in the Church are cut off from one another after death. How can we be one body if we are cut off from one another? When people die in Christ do they stop ceasing to be in the body of Christ?

We also know that it is possible for people to already be in heaven, as we see that in the transfiguration Moses and Elijah appear to Jesus and converse with him. According to the Bible it isn't unusual. Also in Revelations the twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel are seen in the temple of God.

Revelations 4:4 Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which twenty-four elders sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads.

Not only were they there they also offered the prayers of the holy ones (US)

Revelations 5:8 When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

So much for the apostles not haven been in heaven. Their bodies haven't risen but their souls are with the Lord. We all have our personal judgment that takes place at our death, but at the end time, all will be revealed for everyone to see and our souls will be reunited with our bodies. Our souls don't just wonder around.

As for Mary.

Let's look at Revelations 11:19- 12
11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, and earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
12:2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
12:5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

Mary is the ark of the covenant. She carried the Word of God in her womb for nine months, and we see in Revelations the ark of the covenant has now taken the shape of a woman.

The above quoted verse from John 20:20, The word Disciples there was his disciples then, And this present world we are now, We as Christians, in respective of our status in Christ, as far as we are True Christ-like (Christians), we are automatically a disciple too, so we have same attributes as the disciples of the old.
John 20:21, Peace be with "you" there referred to his disciples then, this present world, "true Christians are also his disciples, so we are also automatically commanded to go out as he commanded the then discciples as his father sent him.
John 20:22: As a true christian, we are in a position to receive the holy spirit, Act 1 vs 8, Mark 16:15 18. we have been given the power just like in the days of the apostles to preach, heal, and deliver. it was only in the OT that the holy spirit never came on all believers then, But when Jesus died, he promised to send us the holy spirit, So all christians with a ready mind have the same opportunity to receive the holy spirit just like the pastors.
John 20:23, It was simply saying as christians, we all have the same opportunity to forgive sins because God dwells in us through the Holy spirit. having said that, it's now left for God to differentiate between a spirit-filled christian to a non-spirit-filled christian.
some christians also have the gift of discernment. the discerning spirit help in testing the spirit behind every claimed christian.

It also mentioned "whatever sins you retain are retained them" are we allowed not to forgive sins too?

Bottomline, we as "True"christians have equal rights to take our prayers and sins before God through one person JESUS CHRIST and no one else Because he's the mediator both here on earth and in Heaven.

Well thank God you believe the same thing we do. I was beginning to worry about you ya know.

Your write up is nice I must say but it answers little.

That was not the answer, and I'm not trying to give you an answer, stop looking for it, and I thought I was supposed to be explaining Genesis to you. I gave you that as a background of it, for you to keep in mind as we dialogue.

Stop jumping the gun, if you're looking for answers it won't happen overnight, and it certainly won't happen when you've already made up your mind, a big part about knowing God is being able to recognise that it's him and willing listen to him.

The problem is that 80 percent of Christians do not know the Christian history or how the bible was written most just believe that it came from heaven

That is why there are misinterpretations here and there, and also why not just anyone can pick up the Bible and read and understand. Even though some people would like to think so, it's not true.
It is also why I gave you the background so that when you read you'll be able to put yourself in the shoes of an Israelite living at the time the book was written, they understood clearly what was meant. We're the ones who don't.

Moses never wrote anything in genesis and your writing just confirms that. I just wonder why genesis is still called and believed to be the first book of moses when truly the authors are unknown. Some of the teachings of Jesus are good. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Remember the same Jesus never condemned slavery. His messages were based on the level of morality that were acceptable at that time. Our level of morality as out grown that of the bible today. In the old testament the bibleGod advocated slavery, tribalism, racism, rape etc of the non Jews. These vices that we frown at today because the people that wrote all the biblical stories wrote the stories based on their culture, level of morality and how they viewed the world and thought life should be lived. Pls read the old testament again if you haven't, read it up and tell me how you guys still associate the God that is talked about in those books with mercy or love. A God that will instantly kill people because they looked into an ark, harden a persons heart and punish him and other people around him for hardening the persons heart clearly does not understand what love or mercy is. The people that wrote those stories never knew that the world was going to change so much and that their writings were going to be exposed to so many people long after they have died, in fact they never knew other regions existed in the world apart from theirs. Now to genesis 1. It says in the beginning God created the universe, the question is what beginning?

You're jumping the gun. I thought you said you will keep an open mind. Patience truly is a virtue, practice it. Your accusing God of what he didn't do, even though the Bible said he did it, that's why I gave you that background and I told you that once we go through Gen 1-3 you will start understand plenty of things in the Bible.

The people did not write it to the world, they wrote it to a certain people with certain traditions and culture and they were to in turn explain it to their descendants. Stop being angry that they didn't write it to the world, most of them thought what they could see was the world. You can't fault them for that, and it certainly isn't enough reason to not listen to them.

Seriously were you lying about being open minded or what?

I really don't want to continue this discussion with you because you really do not care, you don't want to be open minded, and you don't want to see it from a different persepective. You only want to rant and vent to everyone. You want to rant and vent call your mother or girlfriend or anyone close to you who's willing to listen.
I have no time for internet rantings. Stop deceiving yourself and me, by saying that you're going to be open minded. You aren't, you don't want to, at least be truthful with yourself if not me.

I believe it to be accurate because no God can be seen. Study every religion and you will see that men created all the religions and all the Gods. Moslems, Buddhist, Hindus etc all see and feel their God perhaps even better than the way some Christians see, interact, and feel the presence of their own God.

There are energies that cannot be seen and are being tapped by the energy companies to create power for us. Just because it cannot be seen does not mean it doesn't exist. My thoughts cannot be seen but it exists. The only way you can see my thought is when I create something out of it, that's how man came to be. We are the thoughts of God.
Thoughts cannot be calculated.

Space cannot be seen and neither can time or air, but we are very much aware that they are real. So that point makes no sense.

Also there are many ways in which God reveals himself to many people, they are not man made. Just because writings exists does not mean that it must be made up. If so, then scientific facts are also made up.

What would you expect God to be if he really does exist? e.g would you expect him to be omnipotent, all knowing, all good, and all that stuff? Perfect maybe?
How do you view man? Imperfect maybe?

Seriously lady you are all over the place, is there a God or not?
We know left to science there is no reason to believe in a God, do you have any other reason aside from faith and your personal convictions, bring it on.
Why can no christian even define the concept of God?

My point in the write up was not to prove that God exists, bindex asked me to dialogue with him on the book of Genesis. That's what I am doing. To understand it one must first understand the background of the Bible, why it was written and what it really contains.

So please allow me to do that. Stop jumping the gun.

One of the things i discovered from the Catholic's teachings that doesn't conform with the scriptures is having to pray to Mary instead of Jesus as it was written by Jesus himself.

Another is Having to confess your sins to the fathers and then giving you assurances that your sins has been forgiven is not what the scriptures Christians read spoke about,

Maybe you should start from there, I am just reading through and taking points from both parties =,

First of all, we don't teach "pray to Mary instead of Jesus" even the prayers to Mary are not in the form of praying to Jesus, and when we pray to Mary all we do is ask her to pray for us. SO in essence when you ask someone to pray for you, you are also praying to them, as that is the actual meaning of prayer. So you are also guilty of it too, if it's a crime.

Praying to Jesus is in adoration, and that is reserved for God alone. Mary can never have that.

Also let's look at the prayer we have for Mary "Hail Mary, Full of grace or highly favored, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus" These are the words of Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth in Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42
Also Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of Adonai, Adonai is God, so the whole Mother of God title was given to her in the Bible also. But if you want further clarification on that, I am happy to oblige and give you the whole rundown of Mary in the Bible.

As for confession, how would you interpret this verse?

James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

And this one about the forgiveness?

John 20:20-23
20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you"
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

Thanks.

olabowale:
@~Lady~: « #490 on: Yesterday at 07:33:55 PM »
Joshua must have many lives. Joshua lived and died in the OT. Then he came back in NT as Jesus. You this girl, you fit sabi wayo. I guess he didn't finish his work, as ordinary prophet in OT. So he had to come as combination; god, son, prophet, etc named Jesus in NT, to mop up, uh?

You are still in Florida or now in Georgia? Location may determine the critical evaluation of your answer, above. Joshua, who was under Moses, like a boy boy? You make me laugh. I know why I miss you now.

You were looking for the name Jesus, you didn't say anything about the person Jesus. But even at that he was present as he already said before Abraham, I AM. that statement ticked the jews off, I wonder why.

Anyway I already said I won't oblige you, and pls don't miss me, cause I don't miss u. I have no time for liars in my life.

How can evil be the absence of God when the bibleGod said he created evil?

You must have missed the answer to this in the joke or did you not see that this was one of the questions by the professor. No where does God say he created evil, you'll have to show me seriously.

As for the one who made the statement on God's omnipresent, first do you know what it means? second do you not realise that we can choose to have him absent from us? He is everywhere, but he will not dwell in sin. When you sin, he isn't with you, God is not present within you. God isn't the one that does the sinning, it's us humans that do sin. And because God cannot be with the sinful, he doesn't dwell within us. We have that choice to have him dwell within us or away from us.

Just because someone believes something to be accurate doesn't mean that it is.

Funny enough you believe it to be accurate that God doesn't exist, I guess you just refuted your own claim.

Now to genesis do you realize that there are two different accounts of creation in genesis 1 and 2?
Did the bibleGod really create all the animals as vegeterians?

We're going to start with the background of the Bible and why it is existing in the first place and what it is.

But to answer your question, yes there are two different accounts of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2. This arises from the different narratives of the Bible.
I want you to keep in mind that the Bible was not written in one day and that it didn't fall down from heaven, people tend to think so.

Also there is the septuagint translation and the vulgate translation, the septuagint is the greek-roman translation (old testament) for those Jews who lived in the diaspora, which is what Christ used, and the vulgate is including the New Testament and that's from the Catholic Church, it is translated from the septuagint as well as the various new testament writings in their original languages (greek also).

Below is just for you to keep in mind, especially the ones I put in bold. Just read and keep them in mind, we'll hit on them as we go into Genesis. I want to focus on Gen 1 - 3, maybe 4. If you understand those passages you'll understand why there's the shift from the Old Testament to the New Testament and why it seems the God in the Old is wicked and the God in the new is nicer.

First the Pentateuch.

The Pentateuch which consists of the first five books of the Bible, is regarded as the "Law" or "Torah". It is a body of legal doctrine (mush like the laws of a nation with the 10 commandments as the constitution from which all laws arise, see it's not that different from today), it also contains the story of the formation of the People of God (Abraham, the covenant, Egypt, Sinai, etc)
The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historical traditions, or sources (this puts a hole in the protestant claim of Bible alone huh, lol). These sources are primarily four: the yahwist, elohist, priestly, and deuteronomic strands. Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: The yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the elohists prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach as seen, e.g., in the narraitve of creation in Gn 2, compared with the Priestly version in Gn 1 (this explains the two narratives of creation). The elohist is more sober, moralistic. The priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The deuteronomic approach is characterised by the intense horatory style of Dt 5_11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralisation of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

However, even this analysis of the Pentateuch is an over-simplification, for it is not always possible to distinguish with certainty among the carious sources. The fact is that each of these individual traditions incorporates much older material. The yahwist was himself a collector and adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand. Within the yahwist and priestly traditions one has to reckon with many individual units; these had their own history and life-setting before they were brought together into the present more or less connected narrative.

This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in the Priestly and deuteronomic are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the LORD said to Moses." One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallisation of Israel's age-old relationship with God. (so basically everytime it is written "the Lord said, the Lord said" does not literally mean "the Lord said."

This sacred history is found within the bosom of early Israel, guided by the spirit of God. It was sung beside the desert campfires' it was commemorated in the litrugical feasts, such as passover; it was transmitted by word of mouth from generation to generation- until all was brought together in writing about the 6th BC, when the liturgical formation of the Pentateuch came to an end.


The Book of Genesis

This is the first book, but we'll skip all that common knowledge part and go to the theological part.

The tracing of the direct descendance from Adam to Jacob constitutes the major part of the book, while genealogies tables of lateral branches are not so developed nor of such interest as those that pertain to the story of the Israelite people. In fact, these lateral branches gradually disappear from the narrative.
Despite its unity of plan and purpose, the book is a complex work, not to be attributed to a single orginal author. Several sources of literary traditions that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. We discussed this sources above, yahwisht, elohist, priestly, which in turn reflect oral traditions.
In Genesis the yahwist source is the most important by reason of its teacing, its antiquity, and the continuity it gives the book. It constitutes a sacred history, continually drawing attention to the working out of God's design through his interventions in the affairs of men. The elohist source, less well preserved, is found in fragmentary form only, depicting God's manifestations through visions and dreams rather than theophanies. The priestly source contains those chronological data, lists, genealogies.

The interpreter of Genesis will recognise at once the distinct object that sets chapters 1-11 apart: the recounting of the origin of the world and of man. To make the truths contained in these chapters intelligible to the Israelite people destined to preserve them, they needed to be expressed through elements prevailing among people at that time. For this reason the truths themselves must therefore be clearly distinguished form their literary garb.

By the way you asked your question as if the Bible is trying to hide information. There is no conspiracy theory, I've only found people to be too lazy to study, and when something is brought to their attention, they've already made up their mind on what the Bible is and then they get this big, not so much surprise, surprise and then they loose faith as if it's been hidden from them all along. Nope they've just been too lazy to study.

But when you've read the above let me know, and I will move on to Genesis 1.

By the way, what do you think about Christ's teachings, are they good priniciples to live by or not? (pls answer, thanks)

bindex:
Lady pls let me engage you and lets discuss genesis. I will listen to you with an open mind do you agree?

As long as you're being truthful and respectful, I have no problem with it. And you don't make claims that you can't back up. We make claims and you guys ask us to back it up, but you also make claims that you don't back up. You still can't prove that God doesn't exist, but u guys say it as if it's a fact. I call that hypocrisy. You have to leave all that hypocritic stuff behind, I am willing to do the same.

But if you're ready we can start with Genesis 1. When you're ready.

well said m_nwankwo

The problem really arises when certain scientists try to make science the god. Or when atheists want to use science to refute God. as if science can refute God.

As per the religion. the problem there arises when people are unable to interpret properly what the said scriptures states. When I tell atheists the interpretations of Genesis and what the author is trying to say, they get angry because they see it's logical and then result to saying "you ppl want your scripture to be logical when it isn't, you're changing it"

How does one react to that? I just leave them alone, but they like trouble too much