₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
But lamb was the passover sacrifice and you say that the eucharist is to be understood as a fulfillment of Passover.

That's why I said I don't understand you and want you to go deeper into what you actually mean.
If you mean an actual lamb that we can see everyday if we go to malam, no it is not that lamb.

If you mean the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world? Then yes it is that lamb.
No YOU have never had him. You've only had bread, I however have had him in the form of bread.

Now this leads me to something else. If that bread that you hold in your hand isn't really Jesus in the form of that bread, and is just plain bread wouldn't that mean that you're worshipping bread?

Bobbyaf:
Jesus said "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up so that whoever believes on him shall have eternal life"

They are several reasons why God told Moses to place a brazen serpent on a pole for all to see.

1. It was a reminder to them. Upon seeing the serpent they would remember what led to some of them dying from excruciating pain in the wilderness, (forgive my finding it amusing)

2. Its medically strange that the very venom of snakes that kill, is the very venom that saves life. Is it any wonder why God said life is found in the blood. The serpent on the pole represents both death and salvation, hence it symbolizes Jesus on the cross. The bible says "He became sin for us, " On the cross Jesus bore the sin of the entire world from all dispensations both from the past until the very last person to be born.

by looking in faith they would be healed. it wasn't the look so much on the serpent that healed them but their faith. It is only as we look at Calvary can we really and truly experience salvation.

But that doesn't make any sense when we look at your reasoning. God is contradicting himself here according to your interpretation of the commandment.
Your interpretation says any making of a graven image and use of it in worship means that the image is being worshipped.
So why would God command that a graven image be made that will be used in worship?

bawomolo:
which is technically idol worshiping.

The God of the bible is only worried when the idol worshiped is not him.

No actually it is not technically Idol worship.
The problem arises when people do not know the meaning of the term worship.
Worship does not pertain to God alone, it can also pertain to man.
Hence the reason why in Britain today they address their judges and such as 'Your Worship'

To understand the actual meaning of Idolatry one has to look at the root words. Particularly the latry part of the word. Latry is the english variation of the latin word Latria, which is the highest form of worship. That form of worship is due to God alone. It doesn't matter if u were to use pictures to focus your mind on God, if you do not consider that picture your God, and you do not put the foucs on that picture as the Supreme Being then that picture is not God. And hence you are not worshipping the picture as God. But rather instead using the picture to focus on God.

The other confusion comes in with the word Pray. Unfortunately most people are not aware of what the word prayer means.
To pray is to ask, it is to petition, plain and simple. When we look back at shakespear time  we see that the characters in his plays when speaking to other human characters use the word pray in referring to them. The most notable one being "I pray thee"
They are not regarding the person they're speaking to as God. They are simply petitioning the person.

So it all comes down to context and intention of the person.

What those who always find pleasure in attacking the Catholic church fail to realise is that they are actually the ones guilty of idolatry or are even doing the same thing.

While praying in their homes they have pictures of their family members and of themselves. They even have T.Vs, tables, chairs, beds and such in their rooms. They even get down on their knees in front of their beds to pray or their chairs to pray and if one looks at their gesture they are bowing in front of the bed.
According to them, if one bows in front of an object or bows in front of the object to pray that person is guilty of worshipping that object. Therefore they too are guilty of worshipping their chairs or beds or pictures in their rooms as they get on their knees and bow to pray in their room.
Unless they wish to somehow logically explain how those objects are not images.

They even go so far as to worship a book, the Bible. They worship the ink used in writing it, and worship the paper it is written on. They worship a book. By asserting that it is by Bible alone, they worship the Bible and elevate the Bible above all else.
The actual Word of God (the logos) is a Person and not a book or an object.

14. From the teaching of the two Vatican Councils there also emerges a genuinely novel consideration for philosophical learning. Revelation has set within history a point of reference which cannot be ignored if the mystery of human life is to be known. Yet this knowledge refers back constantly to the mystery of God which the human mind cannot exhaust but can only receive and embrace in faith. Between these two poles, reason has its own specific field in which it can enquire and understand, restricted only by its finiteness before the infinite mystery of God.
Revelation therefore introduces into our history a universal and ultimate truth which stirs the human mind to ceaseless effort; indeed, it impels reason continually to extend the range of its knowledge until it senses that it has done all in its power, leaving no stone unturned. To assist our reflection on this point we have one of the most fruitful and important minds in human history, a point of reference for both philosophy and theology: Saint Anselm. In his Proslogion, the Archbishop of Canterbury puts it this way: “Thinking of this problem frequently and intently, at times it seemed I was ready to grasp what I was seeking; at other times it eluded my thought completely, until finally, despairing of being able to find it, I wanted to abandon the search for something which was impossible to find. I wanted to rid myself of that thought because, by filling my mind, it distracted me from other problems from which I could gain some profit; but it would then present itself with ever greater insistence, Woe is me, one of the poor children of Eve, far from God, what did I set out to do and what have I accomplished? What was I aiming for and how far have I got? What did I aspire to and what did I long for?, O Lord, you are not only that than which nothing greater can be conceived (non solum es quo maius cogitari nequit), but you are greater than all that can be conceived (quiddam maius quam cogitari possit), If you were not such, something greater than you could be thought, but this is impossible”.(20)

May kelly:
Ave Maria
Glory to Jesus Honour to Mary!
whatz 'up is there no activities going on in the Catholic church again?

we must be our brother's keeper - always looking for the lost sheep!

There's lots of activities. It is currently the year of Priests where we are to pray for the Priests, that the Lord may strenghten them and guide them and ask God to call young men trustworthy men to the Priesthood. We pray that those who've had a calling would say to God "Here I am send me"

But as to why we're hardly here.
Well I for one I'm very busy with school, family life, and prayer life. I hardly have time for anything anymore. I have to sneak time here and there to socialize and say hello once in a while on nairaland and facebook ofcourse, lol.

Pastor AIO:
Yeah but I've never had lamb at Eucharist before. Have you?

I don't understand you. Why would I have lamb when lamb isn't the Holy Sacrifice?
Christ is the Holy Sacrifice, and because he is the eternal sacrifice and because he did not abolish the law of sacrifices or else he wouldn't have been a sacrifice himself, he fulfilled the law on sacrifices by providing his own flesh and blood. And just as the sacrifices was commemorated by the Jews as God commanded them to, so are we to commemorate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but this time it is perpetual because Christ is eternal and never ending. And just as the Jews were commanded to consume the sacrifice so are we commanded to consume the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence him telling us that we are commemorating his sacrifice on the cross.

@ Chukwudi

Why are you entertaining Bobbyaf?
Don't you know foolishness when u see one?
According to Bobby, God himself promotes idolatry when he commanded the Israelites to make graven images to be used in worship.

If the bones of Jesus were found

it would only increase my faith in knowing that the man lived and exsited. Of course I believe that he rose again but not physically.

ok this is what caught my eye. How did he not rise physically?

@ Poster

I know the one in Stone Mountain on Memorial Drive, it's close to where I live. The pastor there is Pastor Bayo. Funny guy.

Pastor AIO:
Lamb was eaten in the passover

but jesus gave his disciples Bread

Okay, they ate unleaven bread too but what happened to the lamb.

Also was wine an essential part of the passover feast.

Lamb was eaten at the supper.
Jesus gave his disciples his body in the form of bread. That is why he said "THIS IS MY BODY"
If it was rather just bread he could have said "THIS IS BREAD"
But he didn't say bread, he said BODY!

Wine was an essential part of the passover feast, however I am not quite sure how. I'd have to ask my Jewish friends.

KunleOshob:
Typical example of working to a preconceived answer aka wuruwuru to the answer

I don't quite understand ur point. Could u logically debunk my statement please?

Reason before the mystery
13. It should nonetheless be kept in mind that Revelation remains charged with mystery. It is true that Jesus, with his entire life, revealed the countenance of the Father, for he came to teach the secret things of God.(13) But our vision of the face of God is always fragmentary and impaired by the limits of our understanding. Faith alone makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently.
The Council teaches that “the obedience of faith must be given to God who reveals himself”.(14) This brief but dense statement points to a fundamental truth of Christianity. Faith is said first to be an obedient response to God. This implies that God be acknowledged in his divinity, transcendence and supreme freedom. By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals. By faith, men and women give their assent to this divine testimony. This means that they acknowledge fully and integrally the truth of what is revealed because it is God himself who is the guarantor of that truth. They can make no claim upon this truth which comes to them as gift and which, set within the context of interpersonal communication, urges reason to be open to it and to embrace its profound meaning. This is why the Church has always considered the act of entrusting oneself to God to be a moment of fundamental decision which engages the whole person. In that act, the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature, enabling the subject to act in a way which realizes personal freedom to the full.(15) It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith: it is absolutely required. Indeed, it is faith that allows individuals to give consummate expression to their own freedom. Put differently, freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization? Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth.
To assist reason in its effort to understand the mystery there are the signs which Revelation itself presents. These serve to lead the search for truth to new depths, enabling the mind in its autonomous exploration to penetrate within the mystery by use of reason's own methods, of which it is rightly jealous. Yet these signs also urge reason to look beyond their status as signs in order to grasp the deeper meaning which they bear. They contain a hidden truth to which the mind is drawn and which it cannot ignore without destroying the very signs which it is given.
In a sense, then, we return to the sacramental character of Revelation and especially to the sign of the Eucharist, in which the indissoluble unity between the signifier and signified makes it possible to grasp the depths of the mystery. In the Eucharist, Christ is truly present and alive, working through his Spirit; yet, as Saint Thomas said so well, “what you neither see nor grasp, faith confirms for you, leaving nature far behind; a sign it is that now appears, hiding in mystery realities sublime”.(16) He is echoed by the philosopher Pascal: “Just as Jesus Christ went unrecognized among men, so does his truth appear without external difference among common modes of thought. So too does the Eucharist remain among common bread”.(17)
In short, the knowledge proper to faith does not destroy the mystery; it only reveals it the more, showing how necessary it is for people's lives: Christ the Lord “in revealing the mystery of the Father and his love fully reveals man to himself and makes clear his supreme calling”,(18) which is to share in the divine mystery of the life of the Trinity.(19)

12. History therefore becomes the arena where we see what God does for humanity. God comes to us in the things we know best and can verify most easily, the things of our everyday life, apart from which we cannot understand ourselves.
In the Incarnation of the Son of God we see forged the enduring and definitive synthesis which the human mind of itself could not even have imagined: the Eternal enters time, the Whole lies hidden in the part, God takes on a human face. The truth communicated in Christ's Revelation is therefore no longer confined to a particular place or culture, but is offered to every man and woman who would welcome it as the word which is the absolutely valid source of meaning for human life. Now, in Christ, all have access to the Father, since by his Death and Resurrection Christ has bestowed the divine life which the first Adam had refused (cf. Rom 5:12-15). Through this Revelation, men and women are offered the ultimate truth about their own life and about the goal of history. As the Constitution Gaudium et Spes puts it, “only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light”.(12) Seen in any other terms, the mystery of personal existence remains an insoluble riddle. Where might the human being seek the answer to dramatic questions such as pain, the suffering of the innocent and death, if not in the light streaming from the mystery of Christ's Passion, Death and Resurrection?

Nope i do not worship the bible, hence why i do not support or believe in all those people that put the bible under their pillow or handle it with care like an egg.

Um putting the Bible under the pillow doesn't equate worshipping neither is hanfling it with care like an egg. But placing it above all else is worshipping it. I think more and more people need to hit the dictionary and discover the meaning of the word worship in its truest form.

The Bible is the written word of the Creator, hence I am obliged to believe it as the final authority in all things.

I beg to differ darling. While reading the Bible I fail to see where the Bible alludes to itself as being the word of God, or the final authority in all things.
Would you mind informing me of how you know the Bible is the word of God and the final authority in all things.

I would rather believe and obey the Creator rather than trust the created beings (like @Lady, @Pope, @Ignatius Loyola the mass murderer etc)

um ok. So how do u know st. ignatius of loyola was a mass murderer, did u witness him murder anyone?

I would still you even if u choose to insult me, cus i am here to discuss not insult.

First of all EWWWWW

second i'm all for discussing. I'm not the one going about disrespecting people, it's actually u.

I like this.  Could you tell us more.   I know the Jewish had lots of feast that they celebrated.  Why the Passover and not any of the others?

What does the statement 'do this as often as you drink it' mean.  That we should bless every meal that we eat?

I hope you don't mind if I dive into this.

As I stated above Christ's sacrifice is a fulfilment of the sacrifice of the lamb (paschal lamb). During passover the atoning sacrifice is slaughtered and eaten by all Jews.
I think there was a conversation we both had where we were arguing about the body and blood of christ being the actual body and blood of Christ.

The very first passover feast was held in Egypt when the Lord commanded that each Jewish house slaughter a lamb and paint the blood on their doorpost to keep the angel of death from entering. He commanded them to eat the lamb and commemorate it or do it in remembrance.
So every year after that a paschal lamb was slaughtered and eaten.

This takes us to the Lord's supper where we see the true sacrificial lamb being eaten. Viewing this in light of the Old Testament, we then know that the actual body of christ is to be eaten if he is to be the sacrificial lamb.
The sacrificial lamb was ALWAYS physically, literarilly (not symbolically) eaten.

Other than that God is always consistent. All his laws were fulfilled and they were fulfilled the exact same way they were done in the Old Testament.
So we see the parallels.

The sacrificial lamb is sacrificed during the passover. Jesus is sacrificed during the passover.
The sacrificial lamb is physically eaten. Jesus gives us his body to eat.
The sacrifical lamb is done in commemoration of the Jewish exodus. The eucharist is done in commemoration of Christ's sacrifice on the cross
It really is very rich and very deep in meaning. The New Testament can only be understood in light of the Old Testament. If one carefully looks at the Old Testament and New Testament one finds what Christ truly meant by the law not being abolished but actually being fulfilled.
The people and things in the Old Testament prefigure the people and things in the New Testament.

Just to touch on some.

Adam prefigures Jesus
The tree in the Garden of Eden prefigures the Cross
The Word of God on a tablet prefigures the Word of God in person
the 12 tribes of Israel prefigures the 12 disciples
Aaron prefirgures Jesus as Priest (the levitical High Priest and the true High Priest)
David prefigures Jesus as King (both were annointed)
circumcision prefigures baptism
noah's ark prefigures baptism

there's so much more really

To understand the concept of Holy Communion you have to see it in the light of the Passover Feast.

Every Passover the Israelites commeMORATE the Salvation of God in Egypt when the first borns were spared from

the angel of Death. In the Passover Feast a pure lamb is killed,its blood paste on the doorway of the Israelites,

its meat of cooked and shared amongst the residents of the house. Now we all know that Jesus is an Israelite and

so are the disciples. Jesus was celebrating this same Passover Feast with his disciples just their fellow Jews were

doing on that same day, Jesus is saying he is the New Lamb. That everytime they celebrate the Passover feast

they should remember He has sacrificed His life and body for their salvation from the Angel of Death.

(groundnut and water have nothing to with the story of the Passover feast)

I just have to go out on a limb, and ask. Are you Catholic? Bcus to me it would be amazing to see a non-catholic finally understand the Lord's Supper the way it should be understood. In light of the Jewish passover feast as the sacrificial lamb is fulfilled in Christ. Remember Christ came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The practices weren't to go away, it was to have meaning to it, and not be a mere ritual. Everything in the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the New Testament. Everything in the New Testament is a revelation of the Old Testament.

Thanks. But my school is not in Tallahassee. So you want me to drive (walk in this instance) 3hrs (walking= 3days) to find a church?

Yea, let's try another advice

I was actually saying you should transfer to my school. It was meant to be a joke. Are you new to the university rivals in Florida?

Because the bible shows so.

So you worship the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone shall you follow?
Since the early christians didn't have a Bible, I guess they weren't christians.

A fool shows himself, and you have certainly shown yourself a fool.

@Poster: You must be a freshman, because of your response to Senior woman, ~Lady~. She actually was saying that you should transfer to her school, in Tallahassee, because its a better academic and student life enviroment School. She propped up what the University is known for without any doubt, Marching Band. Of course both Universities are good Universities for academics and research,

that's exactly what I meant.

This means it is true that people speak in tongues and no man on earth understands what they say.

lol really, so the Bible is contradicting itself?

And didn't the original poster ask you not to bash anyone here? How rude of you? Shows the spirit of God in you eh?

The Illuminati does not exist and the Freemasons do not worship the All Seeing Eye.

This is true. But I have a feeling the illuminati will be having a comeback.

Dude you need to bleed to Orange and Green. Take yourself to Tallahassee. To the home of the one and only Marching 100.

If you care for your religious belief. Do your research about all Churches, use logic, history, and unbiased sources. And most of all pray pray pray. The Lord reveals himself to those who really care.

Smooches.

Have you lost your marbles or something? Did the quote from the pope say "honour" instead of "worship"??

I quoted you and you didn't quote a Pope. If you do not understand english language, that is not my problem.
Anyway I am not going to get into the Mary issue with you. That's your blindness and hatred, and it is up to God to judge you on how you treat His Mother.
Omenuko has responded well to you.

Lol, sorry - Philip the apostle was not the Philip the evangelist. You don start again - anywhere you see "Philip" you just shakara and think it must be the apostle throughout.

Actually you're right, it's not the same Philip, but guess what though, he was already ORDAINED. This Philip is one of the 7 ordained by the apostles in Acts 6. So my point still stands. HE WAS ORDAINED. HE WAS COMMISSIONED. HE WAS APPOINTED. does that clarify it for you?

Where did it say that they were commissioned?

It doesn't explicitly state that they were comissioned. But since that isn't the only passage in the Bible and in other passages we see that those who preached were commissioned we can safely assume that they too were commissioned.
You will not find a place in the Bible where those who preached were not commissioned.

Wikipedia is an open online source where anybody could post their bias - it does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily is giving you "truth" in a finalist tone, nor do they claim to do so.

So you agree with me?

Begging. . who - you? Lol, Christ didn't preach the romish popery you've been touting hysterically, so what is my worry?

So if you're not worried why do you constantly ignore the topic and dash to talk about the poperish romish.

And you're "mrs" who. .  that you consider it an insult you can't read my answers? Your arrogance is quite a display, but no worries.

The Church which is the Body of Christ was not called "Catholic Church" from Biblical times - that was not its 'name' or what it was 'called'. On the one hand you guys are too busy confusing yourselves on this same issue: one minute, you scream that "Catholic" was not the "name" of the Church; whereas Catholic cources like the EWTN are busy shouting the contrary: "The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church" - why are you guys so nonplussed on this one issue that you can't even agree among yourselves?  Then again Cyril of Jerusalem said that "Catholic" was the peculiar name of the Church; and that has been shown to be patently false! What then is my worry if this has become a dilemma for your hysterics?

Oh I am mrs. somebody o, learn to respect.
who be u?
Ok EWTN stating that the name is Catholic it is expressing to those who are unaware and who consider the Catholic Church to be a denomination to know that the actual Church founded by Christ is Catholic. However amongst ourselves we know that Catholic is a description of the Church. No Catholic will disagree with me, not even EWTN.
So in an effort to properly correct you, I let you in on how WE view ourselves when we're gathered. If you were to go through the question and answer forums and you come across someone asking on the Church who is Catholic, they will rarely ever ask a question using The Catholic Church, they most likely would use The Church. This is how we know when a person is Catholic. Got it now?

And you do know the meaning of peculiar don't you? Please say you do.

It wasn't called Catholic - Wikipedia is NOT the Bible; and I've shown from the Bible that there was nothing said about a "catholic" Church or Bishop there. On the other hand, you have tried many times to manufacture your romish "Catholic" church and bishops into the Bible, and I've sorted your tango out. Do yourself the well-deserved favour of pointing to sorting out the cacophony between you saying one thing and Catholic sources saying quite another thing - then come back and show me where in the Bible you find any romish "Catholic Church" there, free from your abracadabra.

So you would kindly use wikipedia to prove your point but when it proves your opponents point it is no longer worthy of being used? Are you sure you're no longer a muslim? Cause you sound like one. Well maybe it never really got out of your system.
I already showed you the church in the bible, you choose to ignore it it is your own palava.

Nada. The verse has nothing to do with any such ideas of "successors" - Paul counselled Timothy to teach others what the latter had learned from the former. Nothing like "transfer"  of authority there - whether apostolic, Catholic, romish, popery, Romanism, Vatican, bull or any other. It simply urges Timothy to teach others what he had learned from Paul - see the following:

         2 Timothy 1:13
         2 Timothy 3:10
         2 Timothy 3:14

Um apparently you don't know what transfer means. When you take your knowledge and you give it to another are you not transferring that knowlegde? Let's say your mother gives you the recipe to a cake that apparently is not the act of transferring? hmm thanks for telling me that when something is given to another it isn't being transferred.

That's interesting.   
When John was writing that verse, was he doing so as a Roman Catholic?
Was John asking Christians to adopt Roman Catholicism by that very verse?
Does John's writings anywhere suggest the Popery of Rome?
Do the apostles collective not warn us against the heresies of Rome?
Has the Roman Church not repeatedly violated the very teachings of the apostles?
Has Catholicism not violated Biblical warnings against idolatry and bowing down to image?
Where did the apostles or John teach the worship of Mary and bowing down to graven images?

Indeed, it's easy to quote 1 John 4:6 for your Popery; but not so easy to make sense out of what you're quoting. That verse stands as an antidote to Romanism. sorry

You really think you're clever but you're not. Who's the US John talks about? Is that not the apostles, the bishops, the successors? Who is it?
You do the classic thing, when trapped you proceed to your lies. Girl it doesn't do it anymore, try a different tactic this time. Try addressing the issue at hand.
Does John talk about us listening to the apostles or not? And doesn't the Bible show where the laying on of hands, as in ordination, as in succession, as in transfer takes place?

I could show you many verses where we're warned against violating Biblical teachings. One I've repeatedly quoted is Galatians 1:8-9 - "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed". Rome came with another gospel of Salus Populi Romani - the salvation of the Roman people resting on Mary - where did the apostles teach that heresy?

Girl you need to learn to answer questions. Where in the Bible does it say Bible alone? Is the Bible the only way to get the Gospel? Is the Gospel the Bible?
Where in Salus Populi Romani did you get Mary? Show me which of those words mean Mary.
You hateful and deceitful woman.

That's right - I didn't start out about Anglicans calling themselves 'Catholics'. Since you kept using the Anglican case as if I wasn't aware, I offered a bit more gist to rest the case.

What the hell?

This is shamefully hilarious!  Not all Catholics are these vacantly assertive as you are - and I've sourced Catholic sources that throw your objections right out the window. You can keep banging your head on that and ignoring the fact, that is not my worry. Your complaints here are laid to rest and have no substance on those Catholic sources that settle the case for you. Ignore them all you like.

Right, Catholic websites that you never cited.

Doesn't matter a bit what you like to call them - I wasn't all about Anglicans, please keep the diversionary tactic for another time.

Did I happen to loose you somewhere? You do know that I was using the Anglicans as an example of people who want to call themselves catholic but really aren't right, and you do knot that particular 'diet catholic' thing was a joke right?
I don't think we're on the same page anymore

On the contrary, I've shown you that many people were preaching the Gospel without waiting centruries later for a romish popery system. The Church in Antioch was established by the preaching of Christians who were scattered abroad from persecution of Stephen - they didn't wait for any ordination - NONE WHATSOEVER! Even the Lord from Heaven authenticated and blessed their work, and established the Antioch Church there even before the apostles at Jerusalem heard of it!

Which of the preachers were not ordained?

Dear Lady, please enough of your abracadabra. 
It's now horridly boring to read your manufactured romish ideas into the Bible.
Here is Colossians 1:25 from the favourite Catholic Douay Rheims:

       25 Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God,
       which is given me towards you, that I may fulfill the word of God.

Apparently you've forgotten that there are more than one versions of the Bible.
Anyway, how is dispensation different from Office
DISPENSATION

4. Theology. a. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
b. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
c. a divinely appointed order or age: the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation

OFFICE
a position of duty, trust, or authority, esp. in the government, a corporation, a society, or the like

Either way Paul was appointed, a dispensation is an appointment, an office is also an appointment.

This has no bearing (even in context) for the idea of the "successor" thingy for the Popery. Perhaps it might just help here to simply quote the text from the Douay Rheims again and the footnote before commenting on it, yeah? Here:

            Hebrews 7:23
           And the others indeed were made many priests,
           because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue

LOLOLOLOL THIS IS SOO FUNNY. PLIGRIM.1 DOES NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF WORDS. OR CANNOT TELL FROM A PASSAGE WHAT IT IS SAYING. OMO U NO SABI ENGLISH AGAIN.

I saw the next point, and cannot wait to get to it, so here it goes

That verse does not teach about "apostolic authority" - this is what it states:

             "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy,
              with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."

It was focusing on the gift which came to Timothy through prophecy and laying on of hands of the presbytery - not anything on "apostolic authority".

I just want you to know, that I find it very hard to reply to this post, because I am laughing hysterically, my mother thinks I have lost my mind.
Girl LAYING OF HANDS IS NOT APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
WHAT IS IT THEN?

The laying on of hands is ordination but somehow it isn't apostolic authority or sucession? When the laying of hands happened nothing happened? HAHAHA.

LOLOLOL Ok this verse talks about a gift, ok so I guess we need to determine what the gift is.
But he receives this gift by the laying of hands of the presbyter who is also known as the Priest, look it up in the dictiocary presbyter and priest are synonyms, so we see this gift being given by the Priest, and it is NOT apostolic authority?

How is it not may I ask?

Those who had been scattered abroad (following Stephen's persecution) were mentioned as far back as Acts 8:1 - it specifically mentions that only the apostles remained at Jerusalem (not Rome):

          . . there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem;
          and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of
          Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

These same dispersed Christians from Jerusalem had evidently not been "commisioned" or had hands "laid on" them by any apostle. If you see any verse saying that the apostles laid hands on them, please provide it and let's read it openly. No excuses.

Well you would've had me there, except it doesn't talk about those people preaching. Where does it say that they preached. They were scattered because they were running for their lives, but where does it say that they ran to go preach the gospel. Actually the people that are spoken of preaching are those we see who've been ORDAINED.

Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which
       was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as
       far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God,
       was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would
       cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost
       and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed
       Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he
       brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they
       assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the
       disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Barnabas and Paul were ordained.

Notice here, NOT A SINGLE LINE about "ordination", "laying on of hands" or "Catholic biship" there. When barnabas visited them, he saw what was already taking place without waiting for any Popery to bring romish pretences to Antioch - Barnabas saw "the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all". Period. Then he later brought Paul to Antioch - and that was where we read first that the believers were called "Christians".

Before Barnabas goes to Antioch, Antioch received the message most likely from Nicholas who was a convert from Antioch. This is evidence that the Apostles had already preched to the Antiochans.

More to the point is Galatians 2:11 where Paul had this to say: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." From where did Peter go to Antioch - from Rome or Jerusalem?

I seriously dislike reminding people of things, it's one of my pet peeves. Whether Peter was in Nigeria, or Iraq, or Amsterdam, he would still be Pope. The Papacy doesn't have to be from Rome. Peter was Pope when he was in Antioch as Bishop, before moving to Rome. I also mentioned 1st&2nd Peter several times look it up

Sorry, your "favourite" interpolation is a hoax. Acts 15:24 from the Catholic favourite version (Douay Rheims) simply reads:

            24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us
            have troubled you with words, subverting your souls;
            to whom we gave no commandment:

Ok this one is different from the one I wrote how?
How is the Bible a hoax? Is that passage not in the Bible? And does it not talk about people who had no commandment or mandate from the apostles to preach?

First, the event was in Jerusalem, not Rome - so please understand it has nothing to do with the romish papacy. Second, the letter was addressing a situation, not "proving" Papal authority. It says: "we have heard, that some going out from us" - they wanted to assure the Christians at Antioch that the apostles and elders at Jerusalem had nothing to do with the heresy preached by "some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed" (v. 5) - it was not about a hole you could exploit for your Romish Popery dragged all the way to Jerusalem.

Once again Obama being present in England does not make him any less the President of America. You can hold an office and be in other places you know?
I know the letter was addressing an issue and it was addressing the issue of your belief that anyone can get up and preach, this verse proves that they have to have a mandate by the apostles to preach. So after they established that those who were preaching heresy wasn't from them, what did they do? Just tell them to be careful and to read the Bible well or did they send Ordained preachers to them?
Thanks for proving my point?

And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name,
       and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
       But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name,
       that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. 
       ~~ [Mark 9:38-40]

It is rather convenient to quote a passage that has nothing to do with the topic. We were talking about apostolic successions which deals with the power to preach, heal, and all that.

Where does the power to cast out demons equate to preaching? Did the man preach the gospel, did Christ commission him to preach?
All Christians can cast out demons but not all christians can preach.
In all my biblical posts, I showed apostolic succession, and every single one of them had to do with preaching, not casting out demons, so where did you get the casting out demons from it?

When we hear the Catholic bishop spewing out heresies, we're not hearing Christ speak but a diabolic voice - (John 10:5 - "And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers".

heheh omo u try sha, but not well enough. All your OPINION.

The Kingdom includes all who have believed in Jesus Christ without involving any romish rites - Galatians 3:26.

Once again, you state YOUR OPINION and backed up YOUR OPINION. Nothing about facts here

We don't see the authority "transferred" to romish Popery.

ROTFLMAO
But you DO see authority being TRANSFERRED. So you cannot say there was not supposed to be apostolic succession, and that's why you're about to switch positions.
It not being transferred to romish popery is YOUR OPINION.

Roman Catholicism "claims" apostolic succession from Peter does not necessarily make it so. For one, the issue of Acts 1:15-26 you quoted has nothing to do with ROME. That meeting took place in Jerusalem (see verse 12), not Rome. Second, all that the Catholic church can claim is "tradition" - that is why none of you can open the Bible and show us the Papacy in a single verse there.

And YOU DO SWITCH POSITIONS. Apparently there IS apostolic succession that you claim was not existent. Now your position is that it wasn't in Rome, and that is rather a poor position, bcus we can very clearly see St. Paul writing about apostolic succession, he certainly wouldn't exclude Rome from it. So there is proof that it is in Rome, now the question is was Peter ever in Rome? Well 1st and 2nd Peter certainly tells us that he was in Rome, not just that, history tells us that he was in Rome, or is it that you haven't studied history my dear? Maybe you should?

The papal authority has nothing to do with Rome. Infact several councils were not held in Rome, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Basically all you're saying is that if Obama were to hold a meeting in England it means he isn't the President of America. How does a meeting being held in England take away from Obama being President of America? or better yet How does a meeting being held in Jerusalem take away from Peter being the Bishop of Rome?
Infact that logic is perfectly flawed as we see that it isn't only Peter that is present in Rome, but several other Bishops, certainly you cannot say that those Bishops were all Bishops of Jerusalem instead of their respective provinces because they were present at the council in Jerusalem.
And not just that, it is also saying the Paul never traveled to other places to preach and that he didn't found the other churches because he was in Jerusalem.

Fifth, when we turn to Acts, we find that Peter was mainly at Jerusalem, not Rome - it was from Jerusalem he went forth to visit other places, and back to Jerusalem he went after accomplishing what he went out to do (see for example Acts 8:14, 25;  10:45 & 11:2). Where then did Catholic "tradition" see any Popery for Peter at Rome from Jerusalem? Where in Scripture did the "transfer" occur? Sixth, even in Jerusalem, it was James who seemed to be more prominent than Peter - as in Acts 15 when the former presided over the council there, as well Paul mentioning him first before Peter in Galatians 2:9.

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem that's why he was more prominent there. But it still doesn't take away from Peter being the Pope.
This was also the beginning of the Church it wasn't fully established that Peter's seat would permanently be in Rome. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch not Jerusalem before he moved to Rome. The Church was birthed in Jerusalem and Acts talks of the first days of the Church, clearly almost everyone was still there in the beginning before moving out. Acts does not only talk about Peter being in Jerusalem, it continues to talk about Peter moving to the land of the gentiles certainly Rome cannot be excluded since later we see that Paul talks about building on another man's foundation, this was after Peter founded the Church in Rome. The councils are presided over by the Bishop of the place where the council is being held, that doesn't take away from Peter being the leader of the apostles, or Peter being the Pope.
Bottom line, Peter holds the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the other apostles did not get those keys.

Hehe, the apostles in Acts knew nothing of the Papacy in Rome, my dear.

Once again YOUR OPINION.

Ah, there - "the Church has grown" - what 'Church' are you talking about? Where is the romish papacy in all this? Please relax - stop shamelessly dragooning the Biblical history to cover up for your Papacy that the apostle knew nothing about!

Well ofcourse the Church has grown that was why they ORDAINED deacons. That was why Apostolic Succession took place.

The Church at Antioch did not start at chatper 13 of Acts. Way back in chapter 11, we read the following -

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose
about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were
men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch,
spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord
was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
~~ Acts 11:19-21.

Ok where in my post did I say that the Church in Antioch started in Acts 13?
My point is apostolic succession took place, and this is seen in the laying on of hands, and Acts 13 talks about laying on of hands.
So how about you start using Biblical passages to refute what I am actually talking about not what I wasn't talking about.

I think they should feel sorry for Catholics like you. Your duplicity is one thing that would have been a constant source of embarrassment to them if they remained. Another is the Romish excuses that cannot be found in the Bible ('mother of God' as you claimed for Mary in Luke 1:42). We also know that the Catholic Church is divided today, so why pretend a fictitious 'unity' that is no longer news to anybody in the know? How long ago was sancta on this forum and bleached the pretences of the Vatican - did you try to cough back then to join hands with him for the smokescreen you're parading here now?

Ok sure whatever.
Whomever is not in union in Rome is not Catholic. Plain and simple, you know it, I know it. There is no division. If you place yourself outside of the Church, you are outside of the Church, no matter how much you try to call yourself Catholic. That was my whole point on the 'catholic' and 'Catholic' crap you were trying to pass off here.

Contradictions would come - and though it is deplored, that is an acknowledged Biblical fact (1 Cor. 11:18-19)! It brings out another fact: that those who understand God's Word may stand out from the unfounded compromises that have nothing to do with the apostles.

No contradictions in the Church Christ founded. Contradiction is confusion. Yet you all claim to be in the Church that Christ founded. When did Christ found contradiction.

For one, the Holy Spirit does not contradict His Word. Now, how have you been able to show the touch of the Holy Spirit in your duplicity of claiming what is not in His Word?  The examples I've outlined above should do for now; and if you have a short memory, where in Luke 1:42 did you find that Mary is called the 'mother-of-God'? How can you quote that verse and lie brashly and without conscience?

This is based on your assumption that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible and that you are the one who is seeing the message in the Bible clearly. With all the contradictions going on in the Churches that claim to be of Christ and directed by the Holy Spirit, how do you know that you have the correct interpretation or understanding and they do not? Are you the infallible interpreter? Are you without sin that when you read the Bible you infallibly interpret it?

The unchanging interpretation and teaching of the Church for 2000 years is proof enough.
'How is it that the MOTHER OF MY LORD will come to me?' Who is the Lord here and who is the Mother? Who is being called the Mother of the Lord?

Yes, that's precisely what you did with Luke 1:42 - not only trying to interprete it on your private stream, but also interpolating your own ideas into that verse to call Mary what it does not call her. This romish auricular interpretations and interpolations is the reason why Catholics will never feel comfortable referring to the Bible for every single assertion they make. The funny thing is that they soon abandon their assertions as soon as it is blown out of the water; then next, these same catholics will turn round and foam in the mouth with all sorts of accusations and comical jocose hebetude.

Yet we're the only ones quoting scripture that have to do with the topic. And you guys are the ones making accusations without backing it up, and without biblical basis. hmmmmmmmmm

You know, I had thought it would be worth discussing with you - I was dead wrong! Typically, Catholics who grasp at straws would flail and mispunch until when they come to realize how weak are their defences for their romish rites, they resort to accusations and caterwauls. Not that I expected anything from you to rise above that level - and you've managed to prove it just one more time. Well done.

Then why do you even bother?

Do you feel better after those accusations? After all is said and done, please show me the Popery in the Bible - that was all I requested. Having failed to find a single verse for the heresies of the Vatican, the last straw was to turn right round and yowl about me not acknowledging this, that and the other. True, I reject the Popery one and all for the same reasons that the apostles warned Christians against the duplicities of Romish rites.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not aware of what the 'popery' really is. So the question is was Peter the leader of the Apostles or not?
Did Christ give him the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven or not?
What do those Keys mean?
What does it mean to bind and loose? Or to Shut and to open?

No, the dafter person is you yowling your ignominious duplicity here. Perhaps the first "daft" Catholic would be Cyril of Jerusalem in A. D. 350 who used the term 'Catholic' as the 'peculiar name' of the church - since that time, 'dafter' Catholics have rushed to endlessly quote the same Cyril on that same line of the "peculiar name" (not "description" to dragoon it to Roman Catholicism. Even then, the Catholic EWTN boldly declares that -

           'The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church.
            It is not ever called "the Christian Church," either.'
            http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

You just come on board with your vacuous jiggery-pokery when you obviously haven't seen what your popery have been saying, no? Go launch your Catholic crusade on them in order to re-educate them on how "daft" they could have been for contradicting you there.

No the first 'daft' person would be St. Ignatius of Antioch who used it in 100AD, he was the successor of Peter in Antioch and an apprentice of St. John who wrote the gospel. He also was the child who sat on Jesus' lap in the gospel.

Like I said the One, Holy, Catholic, Church, not the Roman Catholic Church as it is but one part of the Catholic Church. If you cannot deal with that simple truth and would like to turn a blind eye to it, that is not my problem, it is entirely yours. The Church doesn't cease to be Catholic bcus you say so.

First, that exculpation has no relevance to the part of my reply you quoted; for I was not on about John 6:35-63 there. Was that your not-so-clever wriggling act?

Second, your assertion: "Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible" - WHERE in the BIBLE? Just don't flail further here, because there's not a single verse in the Bible where Mary is "called" the 'mother of God' - NOT A SINGLE VERSE in the entire Bible! Not even Luke 1:42 comes close to calling Mary that title - 'Mother of God'. The term 'theotokos' for the romish appellation of 'mother of God' upon Mary was a late post-apostolic invention of the third century and has nothing to do with Luke 1:42. What duplicity are you now re-inventing into that verse in this 21st century?

Third, the reason for rejecting Roman Catholicism is precisely because Catholics have rejected what the apostles taught and tried to interpolate their own romish rites into Biblical Christianity - as your example of 'mother of God' in Luke 1:42 above. Such boldfaced falsehood completely rubbishes your noise. We can confidently reject the Popery on the basis of the Godly warning the apostles gave - those who teach differently from the apostles are accursed (Galatians 1:8-9), and it does not matter how you try to dribble in Catholic falsehood into Luke 1:42 on a 3rd century unfounded premise.

1) I was making my own statement, I don't ride on anyone's coat tails.
2) The word used in Luke 1:42 for Lord is Kyrios or Adonai, and we very well know that those words are reserved for God alone, you would be better acquainted with the word Adonai, so if Elizabeth calls Mary the Mother of Adonai, how does that not equate to Elizabeth calling her the Mother of God, or is Adonai no longer God?
3) Theotokos, means God-bearer, last I checked Mary gave birth to God, either that or Jesus isn't God. Take your pick. There is no other logical way you can explain that. Also it isn't 'romish' to call Mary the Theotokos, it is rather Catholic to do so. And anyone who's studied the history of Christianity will see that Mary has always been regarded as the Theotokos. Not just that, even the Eastern Orthodox Christians who are no longer identified as Catholic call her the Theotokos. Even Martin Luther who started the revolt called Mary the Theotokos.
In denying Mary as the God-bearer, you are indirectly denying Jesus as God. In denying Mary as the Mother of God, you are indirectly denying Jesus as God. Which is the actual reason why the title was given to Mary. Because of those who denied the divinity of Christ. Infact their argument was that God couldn't have a mother and because Jesus has a mother he couldn't be God. The difference between you and them is that you do not go so far as to say that Jesus couldn't be God because he has a mother. If you will say that God cannot have a mother then you are also saying that Jesus cannot be God because he has a mother, and you cannot deny that Jesus has a mother and that the Bible does call Mary his mother.
4) The reason for rejecting Catholicism, is because you have absolutely zero knowledge of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, and are clearly unaware of the beliefs of early christians. More and more protestants/pastors/theologians/historians agree that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is the better fit, and most logical.

Christ does not base His truth on numeric boasts about how many people convert to become 'Catholic'. In just the same way, we know so many that have been staunch 'Catholics' until they left, as they could no longer endure the falsehood of the Popery and romish rites. If anything, both the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles warned believers to come out of systems of idol worship that boasts great numbers and yet have turned their backs on the clear Word of God ("And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? . . Wherefore come out from among them" - 2 Cor. 6:16-17, and also Rev. 18:3-5). It is on record that Catholicism enjoys its own post-apostolic inventions that have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity - so your excuses here are merely filling pages and saying absolute zilch.

Have you forgotten that you were the first one to boast about how people were leaving the Church for the 'truth' and that I was replying to your boast? Hypocritical are we?

The pointers I made nonetheless demonstrate that the Catholic Church is a denomination, despite the disavowal of Catholics on this point. The meaning of 'denomination' as a different group from others is clear, and unless you're saying that the RCC is not a different group from other churches then I can bear with your disavowal. Which would then require you to show that the RCC is the same as all churches today.

And it still stands we are not a denomination, because Catholic isn't a name, it is a description. You guys have names, we just have the description of the Church that Christ founded. So you can try to twist it as you wish it won't work.
And it's not RCC, it is Catholic.

If you guys were considered truly christian then maybe we could be a denomination. But it remains you're a heretic, so we're not a denomination

I thought I've shown this already?

Clearly you don't realise what you wrote. You gave a definition by a dictionary. I am asking you to show me how the catholic church in the past is different from the one today. What were the teachings of the catholic church then, and what is it now? What are the beliefs of the catholics then, and what is it now?

Are all that the PAPACY?

Yes my dear, it is. Or is it that you are unaware of what the Papacy is? Maybe you should find out what the papacy is and then show how it is different from these passages?
Show that the Pope is not the leader of the apostles?

And you didn't respond to Pope Shenouda that I showed you when you claimed the schismatics didn't have a papacy.
in case you've forgotten, go back and read.

I have not denied the Church which is the Body of Christ - and I've shown it several times. The one thing I asked for still remains standing - yet unanswered. Where is the Papacy of Rome in the Bible, ~Lady~?

I won't be redundant and respond to you as if you're a toddler. I showed you take it or leave it. Turning a blind eye to it does nothing. It is what it is.

Why your "fellow" Catholics? Does that not show already that you're divided already? C'omon dear, we know that Catholicism is divided already, and by pointing it out and making the distinction, we don't suppose that any new case is built here. Besides, I've shown already that this fact is considered as such by catholics themselves.

Yes my fellow Catholic. Here's your foolish reasoning. Because someone uses the word "fellow" does not mean a division. I guess your fellow christians are divided from you, no? or your fellow women means divided women? or your fellow nigerian means divided nigeria?
don't use hatred as your driving force, it shows too much, and is very hard to hide.

It's a pity you are confused about your own name, really. I don't think resorting to insolence is doing a better job for you, so please don't go down that route yet again. A discussion is quite in order; but if you've got nothing for your defences, why beggar the discussion with vitriol? Is that typical of Catholicism?

Girl come back and try this with logic ok.

If everyone called you Sandra, there would be a reason why they do so - and the problem is not mine or theirs. You may choose to shout Sandra everytime - that doesn't make EVERYONE wrong and only you right! By extension, most of the sources I cited are catholic sources, not outside observers.

Ok go back and read what I wrote.

Nope, and I wonder why Catholic sources recognize the distinctions and you're the only one floating out on sea unable to take it in.

Last I checked Omenuko agreed with me, or did you miss when he was showing you that it isn't Roman Catholic, but simply Catholic including the east and west.
I know what catholic sources say so don't pass things off ok.

Uhm, is that now a knee-jerk confession? Are you admitting to the very thing you kicked and fought to disavow and yet come back saying I was right? Oh, the Catholic faith is a "sect" - in the common sense as understood widely?

You're reaching too far, and reading what isn't there. I agree that it is a Sect, the Christian sect does not mean I agree it is a denomination. B doesn't mean A.
The argument has never been whether Catholics are a sect, it was whether we are a denomination and you differentiated the 2.

It's not news that the typical Catholic sees non-Catholics as non-Christians. Use all the insolence you have stored up, it won't change a thing about the fact that the Papacy and Romish rites are unfounded and can't be found among the apostles. It is this very Romish heresies that upsets Catholics - and that is why you assume that non-Romish believers are not Christians.

Lol, click your red hills, close your eyes, and pray that this is true. It still won't be true. Catholicism is very evident in the Bible.
All I've done is use Scripture, all you've done is made allegations without backing them up. The evidence of that is everywhere in this thread.

We didn't cook up nothing - tsk-tsk. . look again and see that Romish rites have no place among the apostles - that's why you have not been able to point them out up until now.

Oh really? Is that why Bible alone is not found in the Bible? Why your understanding of graven images is not found in the Bible? Is that why you guys can't make up your mind on what you believe?
Why are you all fighting each other for the correct interpretation of the Bible? Since when did the Holy Spirit become the author of confusion

Who has just acknowledged a moment ago that her Catholic church is a sect? Was that a smart way to wriggle out of your delimma?
Ringing around the rosie are we?

Well if the whole argument was about sectarinism it would be ring around the rosie, but it never was about sectarianism, it was about DENOMINATIONS.

Denominations Oxford dictionary
a branch of the christian church

Sect Oxford dictionary
a group of people who belong to a particular religion but who separate them from the rest of the group.

Don't twist words with me woman.

It seems so nicely well said. Question: how do these prohibitions from the Catholic Church work out where evidently Catholics WORSHIP Mary?

Oh girl you're grasping at straws and showing everyone that YOU are the one who clearly doesn't understand Catholic teaching.
You post Catholic teaching and agree with it and then go on to say that Catholics Worship Mary.

Does that make sense to you?

Why would we teach something we intend not to practice?

I guess to you Catholic teaching against idolatry means we are really idolaters.

Maybe the reason we worship mary is because you are confusing HONOUR with worship.

Apparently you must think that if a person asks another person to pray for them, it is considered idolatry. Or if they bow before a King it is automatically considered idolatry.

Or did you not see it in the Bible where people bowed in honour to one another?
Anyway I have provided you with Biblical passages above. I can't wait to see how you twist them or dismiss them as if they're not in the Bible.

STOP CONFUSING HONOUR FOR WORSHIP, YOU DECEITFUL WOMAN.

Should anyone be reading from the apostles and still wonder about making graven images to bow down to them in the mistaken doctrine that - what? That the incarnation of Christ was a precedence to such idolatry and yet we didn't find any such things among the apostles?

God must be one heck of a damn liar or confusing person to command no graven images be made and then turn around and command graven images be made and used in worship. Abi no be so?
Or is the Bronze serpent not a graven image? what about the ark of the covenant? what about the gold image details David gave to Solomon on building the temple, God liked it 1 Chronicles 28:11-18?
Or about Ezekiel describing the ideal temple in Ezekiel 41:17-18 "On the walls round about in the inner room and on the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

It is very easy to falsely accuse when you refuse to understand what a person or group of people believe.

But the funny thing is that you are way too deceitful to even stop spreading such lies.

1. Apologises in case you took my statements the wrong way, hope we can kiss and make up now  . Yes enemies can be made as a result of my statements, however they are not set up to make enemies rather to reveal the truth and hopefully make longterm friends.

2. Yes you were feisty in the past, but haba Lady we usually still got along. What happened you are have changed.

No need for apologies.

I haven't changed, I just have less tolerance for foolishness, stupidity, ignorance, and liars, you've exhibited all those traits.

1. Haba now @Lady you are starting to hit below the belt.

2. I have not gotten this personal, yet you have gotten so personal to the point of referencing parents, which is unacceptable as far as am concerned. You can do ur best to insult me personally i won't mind but please kindly zip your tongue wen it comes to parents.

3. I have backed up my statement by referencing the Messiah Himself (who is the best witness), @pilgrim1 went a step further to show you that it occurs in the book of revelation.

4. I don't need to prove anything because i am using the bible for my arguments and simple logic tells you that i don't need to prove the bible. You and I both know the bible is true. Hence you statements insinuating that i still need to prove myself are quite disingenious. I do not need to prove myself cus i am using the bible.
Unless of course you are now saying that your catholic church history is more authentic and truthful than the bible itself.

1. I was stressing a point.

2. Apologies to your parents. Glad you got my point. So you see you don't make friends by insulting them.

3. You've done no such thing. All you've done is given rhetoric and your own opinion. You haven't pointed to Catholic beliefs and shown how it is refuted by the whole Bible. When you are ready to do so let me know. But please don't come with foolishness and personal opinions. Please make sure you have scanned the whole Bible to make sure I cannot refute you. Make sure you learn True Catholic teachings (this is not what you read on anti-catholic sites) and use our own biblical backings to refute our beliefs.
When you can approach this as a true scholar, then I will oblige you with civility.

4. No you didn't. You gave what YOU THINK the Bible is saying, you didn't show anything from the Bible. All you gave was your opinion. Can you put your opinion aside and approach Biblical exegesis from Genesis to Revelation?

Hehe. .  ~Lady~, you're very funny. 
Who else but the RCC in all the Universe has rejected the teachings of Christ through the apostles? Where did Christ ever teach the apostles any of the heresies of the Vatican? We believe what Christ said - that HE is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He did not point to the RCC as the Way, the Truth or the Life. It has never occured to you that the Lord Jesus Christ can and does save those who come to Him by faith OUTSIDE the RCC? The Vatican or the Papacy does not equate to the Saviour, so they can't mislead or goon anybody with your quip up there, sorry.

If this will make you sleep better at night, ok. But it still doesn't change anything.
It doesn't change the fact that you do not acknowledge Christ's Church on earth. It doesn't change anything that you do not listen to the words of Christ and that you only choose what you want to believe. You pick certain points that make you feel better. You dismiss authority of the Church, that Jesus talks about, that Paul talks about, that Peter talks about.
You dismiss the veneration of the saints done by the apostles. You dismiss the prayers of the saints and angels for us as evidenced in Revelations [ Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)]

You dismiss the honouring of his mother.
You completely disregard him telling us that unless we eat his FLESH and drink his BLOOD we won't have life in us. So you see dear, you are the ones dismissing what God says in the Bible. Maybe you should spend more time studying the Bible, and not just going to certain parts of the Bible that make you feel good.

It is because we take our time to read the Bible and reason, that is why we can intelligently reject the heresies of the RCC - that is why many staunch Catholics have also rejected them and found faith in Christ alone. On the other hand, how many Catholics would point to the Bible and show us where their claims are to be found? Just one question about the name of the Church being "Catholic" has brought us thus far, and no Catholic has been able to point it out from the Bible they read. NOT ONE.

That's because Catholic isn't a name, it is adescription of Christ's church or are you too daft to understand the difference between a name and a description. I see you completely disregarded all I've written throughout.

Sweetheart. it doesn't make sense that the Bible talks about eating the flesh and blood of Christ and you say it doesn't John 6:35-63. It makes no sense that Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible and you say it doesn't Luke 1:42. It makes no sense that the Bible talks about so much and you guys dismiss it.
No where did Christ say that all that come to his church will stay. It is very much expected. But understand that there are so much more who become Catholic after reading the Bible and after rigorous studying of it and the history of the Christianity. I am one of them. My friends are also one of them. Various former pastors have also converted. More and more people are becoming Catholic, and protestantism is dying out. You guys have no sound doctrine.
I feel sorry for the Catholics that have left. They left sound doctrine and truth for churches that fight each other everyday on who can properly interpret the Bible.
It is a known fact that all you guys do is fight each other on who has the better understanding of the Bible. Each one of you calim that it is from the Holy Spirit yet the God is not the author of confusion. Why are you all contradicting each other?

How do you know who's telling the truth when all of you claim to be touched with the Holy Spirit. Since when did the Holy Spirit start contradicting Himself.

Girl stop deluding yourself. It still remains that everyone knows you guys are as confused as ever. Today you interpret one thing out of a passage, tomorrow you interpret another thing from the same passage. When you attend one church, you hear something you don't want to hear so you leave and you go find another church.
Each pastor puts his own interpretation in the Bible, even after the Bible says that the Bible is not meant for private interpretation and talks about people who interpret and twist the scriptures 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:16.

Stay there thinking the Catholic Church is the enemy. The Jews thought Jesus was also the enemy.

Please stop making excuses and adding your own appendages to what the Bible says. The Bible never in one instance rest salvation on any claim to 'apostolic succession' - not once. Rome has rejected the teachings of Christ and continues to bring up many 'bulls' to fill in the gaps, and we're sitting here adding and slicing what the Bible does not teach?

Lol, honey read the Bible will you.
Here's the Bible on it. Oh by the way every passage is connected to the other so pay attention.

First we see that the apostles have authority give by Christ

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Now we see that authority transferred to others.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority. A successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric" is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown. To better see this passage read the ones before it Acts 6:3-6

Acts 13:1-3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

This one is my favourite because it proves that not just anybody can get up and start preaching. So because this is my favourite I will write out the passages.

Acts 15:22-27
22 Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreeement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.
23 This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, of Gentile origin: greetings
24 [size=14pt]Since we have heard that some of our number who went out [/size] [size=16pt]without any mandate [/size] [size=14pt]from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind[/size]
25 we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul
26 who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
27 So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth.

Notice that they emphasized men who tried to preach [size=14pt]without any mandate [/size] from the apostles. Meaning you must have a mandate from the apostles and the newly appointed Priests/Presbyters. So you see no one can just get up and start preaching.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
Just like the Office of the President.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Now can you show me where in the Bible it says we should go by Bible alone?

I don't remember if my reply was about what some Anglican posts on their website; but I do remember I was making a distinction between 'catholic' (as a term for universal) and 'Catholic' (as an official title for what obtains as the 'Roman Catholic Church').

I'm not sure it's correct to infer that "the anglicans" call themselves 'catholic' - that could be misleading, because it would infer that Anglicans use that term 'catholic' as the RCC uses it today for their Romish rites - not all Anglicans do so. 'There is no single "Anglican Church" with universal juridical authority as each national or regional church has full autonomy. . . For some adherents it represents a non-papal Catholicism, , for others a form of Protestantism though without a dominant guiding figure such as Luther, Knox, Calvin, Zwingli or Wesley' [here]

I already knew some Anglicans go by the denominational appellation of 'Anglican-Catholic' or 'Catholic Anglican'. While some Anglicans refer to themselves as 'The Holy Catholic Church' Anglican Rite here], it still is with the same meaning of their inclination to Roman Catholicism [see here].

Your reply wasn't about the anglican church, I was using the anglican church as an example of those who wish to call themselves 'catholic' as if to say it is anything different from 'Catholic'

You can write it in big or lower case letters it steal means the same thing, and that is 'Universal'.
'Universal' is not different from 'universal' it is the same thing. Like I said, those who now know what Catholic means have found a way to make it seem as if catholic and Catholic are different. They are not.

Anglicans have their own leader, the King of England, their head is Henry VIII.
They are protestants, even though sometimes we like to call them 'diet catholics'

That's a shy complaint. 'Catholic' is not 'catholic' unless you're deliberately ignoring the distinctions and the several quotes from Catholics (eg., faith69) that I already repeatedly highlighted. The other source I offered showed that 'Catholic' is used an as official title for the Roman Catholic Church - a separate group pointing to Rome and not the 'universal' Body of Christ incorporating EVERY CHRISTIAN irrespective of whether they are of Rome or elsewhere. It's not amazing how you guys who claim to know much about this are the same people who are yet unable to acknowledge these simple facts.

Since when does 'Universal' and 'universal' start meaning different things. Since when is there a distinction. You can try to make it different to make yourself feel better but it isn't. Plain and simple, you cannot logically differentiate the 2. The english language does not allow for that.

Oh, I see - new revelation. I never knew such Catholics like 'faith69' was stubborn; I also had o clue that those who distinguished them at the Wikipedia source are also stubborn. And the other dictionary and etymology sources - they stubborn too? Very interesting.

Nice try to twist my words, But I was talking about non-catholics who've finally understood what catholic means and decides to find a difference between 'catholic' and Catholic.
Wikipedia is un bias and will only go by the information given it. If the lutheran church calls itself catholic, wikipedia will report it as so, if buddhist, hindus, muslims, atheists, wish to identify themselves as catholic, wikipedia will report it as so. So that doesn't make any difference.

Yep, and by that it should be the Roman catholic Church, not so? Which again explains why you will never find the term "Catholic" for the Church in the epistles of the apostles.

No the Catholic Church both east and west. RCC is only a part of the Catholic Church, you cannot be so disrespectful to deny the Eastern Catholics their faith.
Lol, you and I both know that you're really begging here. You know very well that a word doesn't have to be in the Bible in order for it to be true. Or are you insinuating that Christ wanted his Church to be in one place and not universal/catholic?

Please be honest to yourself. Catholics (such as Omenuko) had quipped that "the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today" - and I wondered if this meant the Roman Catholic Church - having pointed to the Wikipedia source that clarifies this point. Was it used before the reformation as an OFFICIAL title before the reformation?

Oh I am being honest with myself, but maybe you're misunderstanding me.
Darling what was the Church called before the reformation? I asked you a question, please learn to answer my questions before you ask me one, it is rather insulting that you always fail to answer my questions or that you answer with another question.
I know very well what the Church was called OFFICIALLY. Why don't you also consult wikipedia and tell me what the Church was OFFICIALLY called before the Reformation?
But let me give you my answer. The Church was OFFICIALLY called Catholic before the reformation. Now provide your own answer please. thanks.

You've been singing the lullaby of a child, and it's either one has to patiently follow your gabble until you realise how tenuous your excuses are, or otherwise ignore your incessant vacuous assertions.

Lol girl you make me laugh.
No wonder you haven't been picking up anything. I guess Omenuko and every Catholic who's provided you with answers has provided tenuous excuses. Get over yourself, you know very well we speak the truth but it's too hard for you to swallow it. It's called Pride. It's a vice humility is its virtue, learn it.

I can't believe you have no clue that there were people throughout the Christian history that went to places to preach the Gospel without waiting to be "commisioned" by any apostle? Haba!

In Acts 8:5, which one of the apostles "commissioned" Philip before he went down to Samaria to preach the Gospel? Please tell us.

Oh, look back just one verse in Act 8:4  -  "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word". Who "commissioned" these believers before they could preach the Gospel? Please tell us, and tell us from Scripture rather than the magical 'bull' of the vatican.

Who were these examples waiting for to be "commissioned" to preach the Gospel - the Papacy?

Lol, girl, read your Bible well. Philip was an apostle himself, he was commissioned by Christ like the other apostles. He was one of Christ's 12 disciples.
Where does it say that they weren't commissioned? It is clear that it must have been from the apostles, considering they were with the apostles. It would make no sense that in other places they were commissioning others and warning of those who were not commissioned and then to not commission it.
At best this passage doesn't show whether or not they were commissioned. But we know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so if we are shown in various places that people preach because they are commissioned then we can safely conclude that they were commissioned.
But Philip himself is an apostle.

Aww, I knew you'd come up with such an excuse. In other words, what you can't establish in Scripture is to be excused away? Brilliantly romish.

hiss and ignorantly foolish of you. What you thought I'd forget that you made an assertion? If you don't know the difference between ignatius' catholic and the catholic church today why make an assertion that there is a difference? This is how stupidity is caught, the stupid admit to being stupid.
Girl quit with your nonsense twisting, it's getting too old. Everyone's caught up to it.
Answer my questions.

Nope - until Roman Catholicism divided the Church with their heresies. What other reason has the same Roman Catholic Church sought to murder those who rejected her heresies and sought to discredit other churches with dubious pretences?

And when did that happen? Show us the belief of the early christians and then the heresy that the RCC introduced, and show us the difference between the 2.
make sure you don't come with your rubbish rhetoric but come with facts.

How do these exculpations answer the question of your several claims yet unsubstantiated? Excuses are the tools of the frantic people. Whenever people have asked questions and pointed to the Bible, Catholics will frantically rush to quotes from so-called 'church fathers' to fill the gaps. This is why I'm rather "requesting" that you help us trace your assertions back to the Bible so we see the Popery of the RCC there. Is that a taboo that continues to prove elusive for Catholics?

Lol look at you trying to hide from questions.

Since when did the questions.

Was the Church un-holy?
Was the church only to be in one place?

become church father quotes.