Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,360 members, 7,957,964 topics. Date: Wednesday, 25 September 2024 at 06:03 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Pilgrim1's Profile / Pilgrim1's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 215 pages)
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 5:23pm On Jul 01, 2009 |
@chukwudi44, There's just one advice I have been holding out to Catholics when discussing with pilgrim.1 - * just simply pass on silently and hold on to your own belief system * I have no worries with anyone believeing whatever they want to believe; but in particular reference to Catholicism, it is clear that Catholics cannot Biblically defend the worship of Mary. I understand that is a very sensitive matter; and I was not trying to be unduely distressful to Catholics in my various posts. However, if the one advice I've been holding out does not help our dear Catholic friends and they need to push for clear evidence for Mariolatry, I might as well post them for your consideration. I just hope we have not come to that level, so I'll just give concise answers to your latest concerns. chukwudi44: No, I'm not. chukwudi44: True. chukwudi44: There's everything wrong with calling Mary the "mother of God" because such a teaching is contrary to Biblical Christianity and cannot be traced back to the apostles. chukwudi44: No, I'm not rejecting the Trinity. The 5th century romish heresy of calling Mary "theotokos" - 'mother of God' cannot be traced to Biblical Christianity - and that is why anyone with a Godly conscience can also reject that heresy, especially because it is the foundation for the worship of Mary. _____________________________________________ chukwudi44: The seventh day is only ONE of the several days of rest - it is NOT the only "day of rest" known as the sabbath. That is why the Bible emphatically says: (a) Verily my sabbaths [plural] ye shall keep - Exodus 31:13 (b) Ye shall keep my sabbaths - Leviticus 26:2 In the same way as the seventh day is called a "sabbath of rest", so are there other days that are designated as "sabbath of rest" - check the following: The TENTH DAY - Leviticus 16:29-31 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you: For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. Many of the verses on sabbaths in the OT speak mostly about the seventh day - but the same OT also speaks about other days as "sabbath of rest" in precisely the same manner. There is no difficulty in these passages, in as much as the other stipulations are built upon the foundation of the Decalogue - that is why it is called the "Ten Commandments". There are other passages that speak both about several commandments of the Decalogue without listing all 10 of them; but we understand that they are pointing to the Decalogue nonetheless. Here's a good example: Leviticus 19:2-4 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, (aa) Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. (bb) Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, [cf Exo. 20:12] (cc) and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God. [cf Exo. 20:8] (dd) Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God. [cf Exo. 20:3-4] Now look carefully at the above - it seems to have reiterated some of the commandments in the Decalogue, yes? But take particular note of (cc) >> it says to keep the "sabbaths" without mentioning any particular day and yet places the word "sabbaths" in the plural. Should one then discard Leviticus 19 because of Exodus 20? If your answer is yes, what do you do with the TENTH DAY which also is called "a sabbath of rest" to the Jews? I am not advocating that we excuse the Decalogue simply because we're Christians. Rather, what I'm pointing out is that any commandment you pick out of Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 should be understood in relation to other verses that speak on the same subject(s) being reviewed. The Decalogue does not stand all by itself completely detarched from other passages of the OT. chukwudi44: Lol, I for one do not argue a "rest on Sunday" on the premise of the Decalogue. That is why I have said that it is not an argument you can drag me into or tie round my neck. Sunday, for me, is NOT a "sabbath" - Pope or no Pope. Anyone arguing a "sabbath-switch" from Saturday to Sunday is fooling himself or herself, because there's no Biblical basis for any such argument - and no Pope (dead, alive or yet-to-be-born) can argue nada on that premise either. chukwudi44: Lol, the Pope does not obey God's commandments, so what "authority" are you claiming on his behalf? He may have transferred the "solemnity" of the sabbath to Sunday for you guys, but that's all mere theatricals without a clue as to what is meant by the "solemnity" of the sabbath. Give or take, the Catholic Popes have no Biblical precedence for making any such 'transfers', and there's nothing for anyone to be worried about on that issue. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 2:58pm On Jun 30, 2009 |
~Lady~: Meaning. . ? ~Lady~: Why you dey blow lie as easily as you breathe? If on this issue you skipped it, you should have simply asked. In pointing this out, I clearly made reference to Catholic sources that publish the very things I've been discussing - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.160.html#msg4083134 ("Catholic Exchange" and "Catholic Culture" when I tried to explicate further to Omenuko) - you can't just have skipped that and then rush to say I NEVER cited Catholic sources. ~Lady~: Where did I cross over to base my discussions on Anglicans being referred to as such? ~Lady~: No, you danced around until you forgot your cue. ~Lady~: How? ~Lady~: Stop making excuses - you should not have tried dragooning issues to bend them back to romish popery in order to run off on that cheap ticket. ~Lady~: Really? Lol, I didn't know at your age you could beggar self-worth with your hysteria. ~Lady~: Me. ~Lady~: Please look for other excuses. EWTN does not make such excuses and Catholics all over the world know that EWTN addresses them as well - unless you're trying to argue (vacantly) that those who read their articles are "unware" - which would be none other than Catholics themselves. At least now, you agree that Catholic sources make these distinctions - your problem is your futile excuses are not working in your favour to cover the whole issue up. ~Lady~: Please drop this excuse - the EWTN did not have to consult you to make up their mind before publishing that article. ~Lady~: Nope - I bet the EWTN and other sources were not pointing at others but were speaking about themselves. Next excuse, please. . . ~Lady~: You're grasping at nothing. Was Cyril asking anyone about the meaning of peculiar when he 'daftly' said that the 'peculiar NAME' of the Church was "Catholic"? Are you at pains to sort yourself out on this issue that you pretend to be blind to the fact of the 'daft' Cyril was the one who called it its NAME? NAME? NAME? Lol, ~Lady~, please look for another romish excuse. The daft Cyril called it a NAME - peculiar or not, he said that was its NAME; not whether anyone has a romish meaning of "peculiar"! You're just wilting all the more on your exculpations. You do well. ~Lady~: What has using Wikipedia or not got to do with anyone being Christian or Muslim? The point I made still stands - one has to be careful when quoting Wikipedia, and the founders of Wikipedia clearly have cautioned about that. We can quote from there, but that in itself does not mean that we cannot scrutinize and discuss what anyone quotes from there. Instead of discussing issues, you're complaining here as if these excuses are solving any of your problems. ~Lady~: Nope, I asked you to "show me where in the Bible you find any romish "Catholic Church" there, free from your abracadabra" - that's all. How long are we going to be entertained on your exculpations? ~Lady~: I already know about Acts 6, but I'm not surprised you're dashing back and forth and changing lanes now. I can excuse you on this one, though; but this was what you stated: "Philip was an apostle himself, he was commissioned by Christ like the other apostles. He was one of Christ's 12 disciples." https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4091530 Now, you're abandoning that one and no longer claiming that he was commissioned by Christ. No wahala. In Acts 6, was Philip there "commissioned" to go and PREACH the Gospel in Acts 8? I already said this, which you quoted in your reply: In Acts 8:5, which one of the apostles "commissioned" Philip before he went down to Samaria to preach the Gospel? Please tell us. You didn't tell us nada - and you who have always sought to make this "commissioning" a matter of PREACHING, please tell us who "commissioned" Philip in Acts 6 for the express purpose of PREACHING. ~Lady~: Nope, you're trying to read your ideas into the texts, which is not so smart a thing to do. ~Lady~: I did - and I quoted it for you: Acts 8: 1 & 4. If you find any verse where it said that those who were scattered abroad were 'commissioned', please post it ans settle the back-and-forth. ~Lady~: Sorry, my quote was from a Pope - did you care to check it out? I clearly quoted Pope Pius XII - that was his quote, and he said plainly "WORSHIP", not "honour". Again, this was what he said: "this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother" Here is where I quoted him: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4089457 What then is the substance in your charge that I didn't quote a Pope? ~Lady~: Now, that's the big issue - and I anticipated you'd back off on that issue and dribble in another accusation about what you can't defend. When you need to see what Catholic Popes and Bishops have said about worshipping Mary, please let me know - I would be too glad to share them with you. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 2:58pm On Jun 30, 2009 |
~Lady~: From the same quote from the Fulgens Corona Encyclical of Pope Pius XII. ~Lady~: I didn't post anywhere that that those words mean 'Mary'; and it's futile accusing me here, ~Lady~. The quote connects Salus Populi Romani with Mary; nor did I state that it meant 'Mary'. You're desperately clutching at straws and hysterically foaming your frustration, but it might help to go back and see the connection rather than spewing out such yowlings. Here's the quotes again - As all know, there are many sacred edifices here, in which she is proposed for the devotion of the Roman people; but the greatest without doubt is the Liberian Basilica, in which the mosaics of Our predecessor of pious memory, Sixtus III, still glisten, an outstanding monument to the Divine maternity of the Virgin Mary, and in which the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) benignly smiles. see here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4089457 If it helps, here is another pointer for that connection - Among many evidences of papal devotion, the current Pope Benedict XVI twice referred to Mary as the "Salus Populi Romani" during the funeral prayers for his predecessor John Paul II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salus_Populi_Romani#History Did any Catholic source point to that same connection? Check out the Catholic EWTN source: [list] Final Commendation and Farewell source: http://www.ewtn.com/JohnPaul2/_mourning/ritessummary1.asp [/list] You can see why your accusations are futile here. I did not interpret "Salus Populi Romani" to mean 'Mary' - you're the one making that inference and you can as well tear your hair out on your strawman argument. As far as Catholic sources are concerned, Catholic Popes and Bishops have referred to Mary as "Salus Populi Romani" - NOT that the phrase "mean" Mary as you hastily and vacantly tried to hyperventilate upon there. Rather than pretend to not understand the fact, all you should have done is simply admit that is precisely what Catholic Popes and Bishops have done - they have referred to Mary as "Salus Populi Romani". Accusing me of anything in your frustration is absolutely futile and does not erase the fact. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 2:57pm On Jun 30, 2009 |
~Lady~: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: What's your masquerade dance up there for? I notice you just make noise and pass over what you can't handle. What have you said about Hebrews 7:23? Just what have you said about that verse? No, you would have nothing to say but mask it under your excuses with a silent glib. Do I take it that the reason you passed over it glibly is because you couldn't counter the Catholic source I quoted the footnote from? ~Lady~: Hmm, it's not recently I noticed the hysteria though. ~Lady~: What has "neglect not the gift" got to do with "apostolic authority" in that verse - 1 Tim. 4:14? Was the apostle asking him to "neglect not apostolic authority" or rather "the gift"? ~Lady~: The laying on of hands is one thing; dribbling that for all the verses you have tried to paint that picture is another. Acts 13 shows the laying on of hands - but I pointed out that LONG BEFORE Acts 13, both Barnabas and Paul had ALREADY been teaching the Church. You're putting the cart before the horse and arguing away at your strawman. ~Lady~: Nope - presbyter is not to be misconstrued for priest. The Bible does not teach a separate class of Christians as "priests" - for ALL Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5 & 9 and Revelation 20:6); but not all Christians are "presbyters". Second, the term "presbyter" (Gr. πρεσβυτέριον, presbuterion) is used in Scripture basically in reference to an "elder" - not "priest", which in Greek is ’ιερευς. This is why Peter did not refer to himself as a "’ιερευς" (ie., 'priest') but rather called himself a συμπρεσβύτερος (ie., 'co-elder') among other elders [1 Pet. 5:1]. We cannot confuse "presbyter" (Gr. πρεσβυτέριον) for "priest" (’ιερευς) just because many people do so in clear disregard for the appropriate Biblical term of "elder" which is what 'presbyter' means. ~Lady~: I don't confuse "gift" for "presbyter". ~Lady~: You're apparently confusing knowledge for apostleship. Anybody sharing knowledge does not necessarily mean they are sharing apostleship. ~Lady~: You're not half-witted to excuse the questions I asked. Was John writing to buttress romish Papacy? I asked you a few questions there - [list]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?[/list] You didn't seek to discuss them but just tried to excuse them - nice try, please grasp a stronger exculpation next time, if you may. ~Lady~: Nope, I haven't been lying. Your duplicity has all been shown for what they are, and there's no cosmetic you can wear to cover them. ~Lady~: I've dealt with those issues and addressed them from Scripture. You, on the other hand, try to read your duplicity into the texts and when they fail you, you turn round to accuse me of lying. Should I oblige by teasing you again with my answers: * John did not ask us to listen to romish Papacy, since they knew none. * The apostles did not teach the heresies of Romish rites * So, in listening to the apostles, we can reject the heresies of Romish Catholicism. The Bible shows the laying on of hands - which I did not deny, as in Acts 13; but I pointed out that there were Christians who were preaching the Word WITHOUT any such "ordinations". I don't confuse Biblical ordination for romish rites, which you have weakly tried to read into the texts and still are left none-the-wiser for it. Now, having addressed your worries, can I now ask you to show me answer for your own LIES below? WHERE did you find Mary CALLED "mother of GOD" in Luke 1:42? WHERE did you find those who were scattered in Acts 8 having been "ORDAINED"? Please don't even go down the route of the typical romish abracadabra you've been attempting all these while and yet failing so miserably. Just show the verses, highlight where you find the terms there, and no excuses at allo, thank you. ~Lady~: You need to stop blinding yourself to answers already given. I do not read romish rites in the Bible - please show where the Bible says what you have claimed from there. If you cannot show them, what is thise miserable excuse you're giving for your low ebb? You claimed that you're the only ones quoting Scripture, abi? Good - show me your dubious statements in Scripture and stop dancing around in this masquaerade. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 2:57pm On Jun 30, 2009 |
~Lady~: Strawman and redherring - since I didn't produce your Obama thingy, what's my worry? No matter how you try to dribble in your ideas, it hasn't helped a tiny dot. ~Lady~: It "proves" no such thing - because then you would have to explain how those who were scattered abroad went about preaching the Word without any such "mandates" in Acts 8:4. ~Lady~: Your "point" was not "proved" - you're simply trying to ignore the clear pointer that no one needs your romish mandate to preach the Gospel. I have shown this from Acts 8, and I haven't seen you address that issue other than make excuses for them. ~Lady~: Which one of them was "ordained" in Acts 8:1 & 4 among those that were scattered abroad? ~Lady~: Nope, you've tried all sorts and are only dribbling against your own goal post. ~Lady~: I pointed to where Paul used such terms and made clear that he did not do so in Colossians 1:25 that you quoted. This weak excuse you're whipping up there doesn't even come close enough to clear the air for you. Try not reading your own vocab into the texts you quote and then come back making vacuous excuses for them later on. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 2:56pm On Jun 30, 2009 |
~Lady~: ~Lady~, please slow down on your magical trail. That same Acts chapter 8 showed that those who had been scattered abroad went about PREACHING the Word. Let me quote it for you: Verse 1 - And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time 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. Verse 4 - Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. Your assertions and questions were: (a) it doesn't talk about those people preaching (b) where does it say that they preached? (c) they were scattered because they were running for their lives (d) but where does it say that they ran to go preach the gospel? From those two verses of Acts 8:1 and 4, we read that - (i) [verse 1] - they were all scattered abroad. . . (ii) [verse 4] - they that were scattered abroad. . (iii) [verse 4] - went EVERY WHERE preaching the word Where in those verses did it say that those who were scattered abroad were ORDAINED? At least, I have now AGAIN shown you that those who preached the Word every where were the very same people who were scattered abroad - without having been "ordained" by anybody or had hands laid on them. Please, ~Lady~, kindly show me where in those verses you read of anyone claiming to have been "ORDAINED" - no excuses, just quote the verses and show where it said so. I'm quite used now to your Catholic abracadabra - forcing your arguments into the Bible to make it say what it does not say. These verses clearly stand as they wewre quoted and discussed in my previous reply. Since you're magically force-fitting your "ORDAINED" into them, can you please kindly show where that word is written anywhere, or simply acknowledge you were trying to force your idea into those texts? No excuses, please - just show the verse, thanks. ~Lady~: They ALREADY were preaching and teaching BEFORE the ordination in Acts 13. ~Lady~: That is tradition, not "evidence" - you cannot be vacantly asserting the same romish abracadabra as "evidence" for what the verses in Scripture do not say. Please show us from Scripture where the highlighted in your quote is written. ~Lady~: Nope, you seriously should mind repeating the same vacant romish assertions and trying to run away with it where you're found dribbling in your magical lines into Scripture. ~Lady~: Where in Scripture, abeg eh? ~Lady~: Neither 1st or 2nd Peter show that Peter was Pope anywhere, whether in Antioch, Rome or anywhere else. Just stating it and dribbling away with it does not mean that is what those references say. ANYONE who is gullible enough to allow that lazy assertion to go unscrutinized will easily fall for that claptrap. ~Lady~: Did I say that "the Bible is a hoax"? This is the skit you whip up and yet doesn't work for you. I simply said "your "favourite" interpolation is a hoax" and went on to quote the Bible - does that amount to what you're trying so hard to switch it into? |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 11:23am On Jun 30, 2009 |
~Lady~: Sorry, that inconvenience might just be apt in describing the way you reply to posts. ~Lady~: What did you just say above that quote? Here: "We were talking about apostolic successions which deals with the power to preach, heal, and all that" Was the said man in Mark 9:38-40 not also healing? And was he doing so because he was "commissioned" by "apostolic succession"? ~Lady~: Where did you get that from? ~Lady~: At least in this reply you've made, you have included "preaching" as part of "apostolic succession" - which was how I saw you were arguing away previously. Inspite of that, I also showed clearly that there were many who were not commissioned with any "apostolic succession" and yet went about PREACHING - Acts 8:1 & 4. ~Lady~: Lol, you always have a way of shouting "your OPINION" when you can't deal with an issue. Nice try. ~Lady~:We don't see the authority "transferred" to romish Popery. You quoted Luke 22:29 immediately before making the statement: "Now we see that authority transferred to others." (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4091530) That verse has nothing to do with "transferring" any authority for "apostolic succession" nor establishing romish Popery. Together with verse 30, they read: And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The Lord Jesus was not pointing to "apostolic succession" nor was He pointing to romish papacy. It is obvious He was speaking to the apostles and made clear from v. 25-26 that He did not have in mind the idea of romish "apostolic succession" - The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so . . That it is not a "transfer" to romish Popery is not my opinion, as there's nothing there to indicate Popery there. ~Lady~: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. You're the one too busy switiching positions and trying to force Romish papacy into Paul's epistles -quite a poor magical act. Again, the issue of Acts 1:15-26 which YOU quoted had nothing to do with ROME, and rather than deal with it, you typically are glibbly passing it off as my opinion. ~Lady~: Please softly-softly with this abracadabra! You quoted Acts 1:15-26, and I pointed out that it had nothing to do with ROME. That meeting took place in JERUSALEM, not Rome. I also pointed out that Peter had his base in Jerusalem and that was the place he often went out from, as well returned to after he accomplished whatever he went to do. There is no verse that points that Peter established any such thing as the Romish Papacy, and your best shot at trying to dance away from your own quote of Acts 1:15-26 is hilarious. ~Lady~: Nice try, but the Obama thingy here is a weak diversionary tactic; and as far as I did not produce it, you made up your own fallacy and are at the same time attacking it - that's commonly referred to as "strawman argument". Someone being at Rome or anywhere else does not equate to his being Bishop of Rome - it is much as to think that your logic for Obama being in England at anytime would translate as his being the 'President' of England (whereas England has no "President". So, your strawman argument simply self-destructs, but nice try. ~Lady~: True, James was a leader in Jerusalem; but so was Peter - in Jerusalem. There's not a hint in Scripture where Peter went about as a Pope - that would simply again by Catholic tradition which is a limp logic as far as Scripture is concerned. ~Lady~: Another abracadabra, not so? What you're arguing is simply the vacant assertions of romish traditions which ahve no bearing in Scripture. ~Lady~: Again, Catholic abracadabra. Throughout in Acts, Peter's base was Jerusalem, not Rome. He did not "transfer" any seat from Jerusalem to Rome; nor did Paul suggest any papacy for Peter. When Peter went to Antioch where Paul withstood him to his face for not walking according to the Gospel, Peter had come from Jerusalem, not Rome. ~Lady~: Catholic tradition repeated over and over is a convenient way of ducking the fact that Scripture does not read Peter as being Pope ANYWHERE. ~Lady~: Nope, bottomline is that you had tried to make Peter the Pope by dribbling in all those vacuous statements that argue away from Scripture. ~Lady~: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! No Papacy there, sorry. ~Lady~: Did I say that was what you said? ~Lady~: Acts 13 is NOT apostolic succession - those who had hands laid on them had ALREADY been teaching long before Acts 13 -- which was why I went back and drew up the background from chapter 8 through chapter 11 to chapter 13 to show the history of the Church in Antioch. ~Lady~: Repeatedly done. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 9:59am On Jun 30, 2009 |
~Lady~: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? 'Crap'? Heheha! I was quoting your own Catholic sources - and if they've been talking crap, I can well bear with their crapola. And sorry, I never have and never will call myself Catholic. Your reactive shakara here has nothing to do with my quote you were replying to, so what crapola was all that about? Where's your verse for "('mother of God' as you claimed for Mary in Luke 1:42)"? And the fictitious "unity" of Catholicism?? These were issues you quoted from my reply that you did not address, other than now turn inward to refer to the Catholic sources distinguishing between 'catholic' and 'Catholic' as. . crap? I really don't think filling pages with vacant assertions and not being able to discuss issues is working out well for your arguments. But it's your choice. ~Lady~: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. Did I claim anywhere that Christ founded any contradiction? Are you just breezily making these knee-jerk answers to cover up for the gasp you can't deal with in Catholicism? Oh, there certainly are contradictions in Catholicism that Christ did not originate - I've pointed a few of these issues out which are recognized by Catholics themselves: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4093580 - did I claim there that Christ founded any contradictions? Why are you ducking the real gist and covering up with such cobwebs? ~Lady~: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? Lady, PLEASE, PLEASE and PLEASE, minimise your abracadabra of switching issues. I had no assumptions to make for YOUR CLAIM that Mary was CALLED "mother of God" in Luke 1:42; and I asked - "where in Luke 1:42 did you find that Mary is called the 'mother-of-God'?" You haven't addressed that query but are making excuses to argue silently away from that clear pointer. Your duplicity is NOT my assumption - you made the claim, I asked you to show me where that verse ever CALLED Mary what you said it did; what has that got to do with whether I was an "infallible interpreter"? ~Lady~: The "mother of my Lord" is not the same thing as "Mary is CALLED the Mother of God in the BIBLE". Your ______________________________________________________ It makes no sense that Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible and you say it doesn't Luke 1:42. see here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4091530 ______________________________________________________ PLEASE, ~Lady~, PLEASE . . where in the BIBLE was Mary ever CALLED the "mother of God"? Yes indeed, I say it doesn't - so please don't wave your abracadabra in our faces - no excuses, just show where that verse or any other in the BIBLE says what you claimed she was CALLED. There is no "theotokos" in that verse or any other - so please point us to your own Bible that claimed to CALL Mary what is not in ANY Bible. Please eh, thank you. ~Lady~: Please show us the verse where you're the only ones QUOTING SCRIPTURE for theotokos - that is all. Anyone can claim that they're quoting scripture, whereas as in your case they're only doing so to bend Scripture to say what it does not say. Luke 1:42 does not CALL Mary the "mother of GOD" - where did you get that quote from in Scripture? |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 9:23am On Jun 30, 2009 |
@~Lady~, Unfortunately, your latest replies are repeating the denials you already made in spite of the fact that I have already answered all your objections and given articulate pointers from Catholic sources. Your cyclic replies are not quite establishing anything for your position, and after summarizing them once again, I'll point you to the one serious issue that you tried to excuse away - the worship of Mary. ~Lady~: I gave you the benefit of doubt. ~Lady~: Nope - and I already addressed it. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4093584 ~Lady~: That does not make Peter a Pope. ~Lady~: Keys of the Kingdom does not mean Popery. ~Lady~: Binding and losing was not given to just one person you assume to be pope - Matt. 18:18-19. ~Lady~: Lol, so Ignatius was 'daft'? I didn't know. Yet, Ignatius did not use the term "Catholic" as a "name" of any church, and it was Cyril of Jerusalem in A. D. 350 who specifically used the term 'Catholic' as the 'peculiar name' of the church - just as I said previously. ~Lady~: That is not my porblem - the Catholic sources I cited are the ones making the very inference I posted. If you can't deal with it, what is my worry? ~Lady~: Your statements or opinions don't count as far as Catholic authorities cited in my replies are concerned. ~Lady~: Luke 1:42 has no instance of the word 'Lord', perhaps you meant verse 43. Be that as it may, we know the Bible nowhere refers to Mary as the 'Mother of God' - that is merely Catholic tradition dribbled into that verse. Referring to Mary as the "mother of God" would require Catholics to tell us where they put the Father - is the Father not God, and is Mary the mother of God in referrence to the Father? The Bible shows clearly that God and Lord are not to be confused as far as relationships in our redemption is concerned. This distinction is given in 1 Corinthians 8:6 -- But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Reading that verse, would it be correct to say that Mary was ever know as "mother of GOD" (ie., the Father)? Does Luke 1:43 not rather say "mother of my Lord" instead of "God"? Try not dribbling in "God" into Luke 1:43 in order to maintain the fallacy of theotokos. As to relationships, Mary is never called anywhere 'mother of God' - that is a fallacy that did not originate from the teachings of the apostles. ~Lady~: Please make up your mind on the meaning of theotokos - Mother of God or God-bearer? Even those who have tried to translate the term know for certain that it is awkward to refer to it as "Mother of God" (for mother in Greek is mētēr). Mary did not "give birth" to God, for God has always been before anything and anyone else. Second, to refer to Mary as the one who gave birth to God would raise another question of whether Mary gave brith to the 'FATHER'. This is especially the case (as regarding divine relationships in our redemption and worship), for the standard phrase among the apostles between 'God' and 'Lord' has always been that the FATHER is God and Jesus Christ is Lord. Romans 1:3 points out (as all other passages as regarding the Incarnation) that "Jesus Christ our Lord" who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, not according to His Deity. Galatians 4:4 also bears the same point. In the other connections between 'God' and 'Lord', the apostles did not confuse matters in support of the 5th century fallacy of theotokos. ~Lady~: It is both romish and Catholic to call Mary what Scripture does not call her; and there's no romish logic that can dribble in that fallacy into Scripture to make it say what it does not say. Theotokos does not appear once in Scripture. ~Lady~: Nope, Mary has not 'ALWAYS' been regarded as theotokos - that's another Catholic tradition that has tried to maintain what history does not reveal. Please point out the EXACT phrase in the Bible where Mary is called "theotokos" - just no excuses, please. ~Lady~: And what did the apostles in the Bible call her? ~Lady~: Nope - rather, in asserting Mary as God-bearer, you are directly interpolating a 5th century romish tradition into Luke 1:43 that says nothing about Mary being called such. ~Lady~: Nope, in making Mary the mother of God, you're indirectly ignoring the FACT that "God" also applies to the Father. Is Mary the mother of the FATHER? ~Lady~: It was given to Mary by those who were too eager to establish their own heresy to perpetuate the worship of Mary; it was not found anywhere among the apostles. ~Lady~: Lol, from the apostles the divinity of Christ was known all through Christian history - that confession did not vanish at anytime in Christian history other than Catholic tradition trying to make it appear so. However, even though the apostles affirmed the Deity of Christ, they did not once name Mary as the mother of Deity, for they knew that in essence there was ONLY ONE GOD -- as seen in 1 Corinthians 8:6 >> But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. To stretch Luke 1:43 to call Mary what she was never called is to dubiously read "God" into that verse whereas the verse only mentions "Lord", not "God". Catholicism has no anchor in Scripture for making Mary the mother of GOD by pretending that was what Luke 1:43 says when it clearly does NOT say so. Mary is NOT the 'mother of God'; for to us the confession of our redemption is "there is but one God, the Father", which does not deny the DEITY of Christ. ~Lady~: That has been the dubious charge of the Catholic Church in trying to obfuscate the real issue for the heresy of theotokos. The basic question that led to the council of Ephesus in 431 AD was this: was Christ God in hypostatic union with the man Jesus, or was God dwelling in him? It was basically a question of whether Christ had one or two natures - not about a denial of His DEITY. ~Lady~: You've totally confused my position to make that up. The question is not about whether Christ was DEITY, but rather that - 1. the verse you quoted (Luke 1:42) does not call Mary the "Mother of God" - You made the bold claim that Mary was CALLED such in that verse. That is FALSE and shamelessly so, for that verse DOES NOT CALL Mary theotokos or mother of God. 2. God cannot have a 'mother' in so far as: (a) the mother is the creature who cannot precede the Creator (b) the appellation "mother of God" is romish tradition, not Scripture (c) in divine relationships, the apostles spoke of GOD the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord (d) "mother of GOD" begs the question of whether Mary was mother of the FATHER 3. The appellation "theotokos", although it did not originate from the apostles, it nonetheless became a 5th century official romish title that has become the bastion of the worship of Mary. ~Lady~: The reason for my rejecting Catholicism is simply that it cannot be Biblically defended. The many things you have tried to dribble into the Bible that are simply NOT THERE is one more confirmation for anyone with a conscience to reject it. ~Lady~: Nope, for even your claim here simply self-destructs when asked to show where they find ANYONE in the Bible worshipping Mary. Ask them, and they would be as silent or vacuously assertive and yet never be able to point to the Bible for their assertions. These same theologians will get stuck on such occasions and resort to the default excuses of not basing Catholicism on the Bible but on Romish traditions. 'Better fit' - where? ~Lady~: Nope, you're alone in your hypocritical adventures. People are leaving Catholicism - and that is a statement you can't hypocritically evade. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 8:29pm On Jun 29, 2009 |
If you have any salient point to discuss, please do so. But if you're beginning to lose your grip and want to turn now to uncouth exchanges ('bloody hypocrites', 'evil machinations' etc), it might be better to leave you to pipe down and sizzle in your own heat. It does not seem like you're interested in discussing anymore and are only out to make matters worse for your brethren. In just about the same way, anyone who truly wants to take a swipe on your system and reduce it to its meaninglessness could point out the many atrocities of the Catholic Church where Catholic priests for many years were sexually abusing children, enjoying adulteries - and the millions in dollars that the Catholic Church proposed to pay for reparations to victims of those abuses. There are other unprintable things you have to worry about in your Catholicism, but what good would it do you at the end of the day if you're only too busy foaming in the mouth and tearing out your hair about Protestants? They're 'bloody hypocrites' with 'evil machinations' - how do these things make you a better Catholic or promote your own cherished beliefs? When you find your ground for a discussion, please let us know. But if you're going to keep on getting red in the face with such tempers, it's all up to you. . . just do hold your heart so that it does not escalate to things you shouldn't say against God. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 8:23pm On Jun 29, 2009 |
@chukwudi44, chukwudi44: chukwudi44: chukwudi44: If you have any salient point to discuss, please do so. But if you're beginning to lose your grip and want to turn now to uncouth exchanges ('bloody hypocrites', 'evil machinations' etc), it might be better to leave you to pipe down and sizzle in your own heat. It does not seem like you're interested in discussing anymore and are only out to make matters worse for your brethren. In just about the same way, anyone who truly wants to take a swipe on your system and reduce it to its meaninglessness could point out the many atrocities of the Catholic Church where Catholic priests for many years were sexually abusing children, enjoying adulteries - and the millions in dollars that the Catholic Church proposed to pay for reparations to victims of those abuses. There are other unprintable things you have to worry about in your Catholicism, but what good would it do you at the end of the day if you're only too busy foaming in the mouth and tearing out your hair about Protestants? They're 'bloody hypocrites' with 'evil machinations' - how do these things make you a better Catholic or promote your own cherished beliefs? When you find your ground for a discussion, please let us know. But if you're going to keep on getting red in the face with such tempers, it's all up to you. . . just do hold your heart so that it does not escalate to things you shouldn't say against God. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 7:16pm On Jun 29, 2009 |
@chukwudi44, chukwudi44: How am I being a hypocrite - because simple and plain truth is far too bitter for you to swallow? chukwudi44: HAHAHAHA!! This is simply magical! So, in your Catholic eschatology, Oxford Dictionary supercedes Catholic dogma?? Abeg yan me more! chukwudi44: Lol, what double standards have I applied? Have you not noticed that most of my quotes are sourced directly from Catholic authorities? I have not made any source you guys quote to be "unreliable", other than discussing the weaknesses of some of the desperations you advance. In the case of the Oxford Dictionary, I didn't make it "unreliable" but merely said that it is not the only definition of the term "idol" - that was why I pointed you to Catholic sources to hear them from their own mouths! What is wrong now with Catholic theology - too tough for you, abi? Or are they also hypocrites? chukwudi44: This is a laugh! My dear sir, please zip your trap - you know absolute zilch about the documents from the Vatican if you can be so brash to make such vacant assertions. I don't want you to push your luck, that is why I invite you to contact me through email - I'd be too glad to share them with you. If you are going to be a trouble to both yourself and other Catholics, here's where I should give you my disclaimer: you're responsible for what follows after I post them. chukwudi44: Lame excuse. My replies are getting you too riled up to even address issues - now it has become a matter of all Yorubas going to hell. Abeg pass make I hear word. Dobale in Yoruba culture does not even resemble your Catholic Mariolatry - just go compare and let's see. chukwudi44: What other posts? Please point them and I shall oblige. My apologies for my slow replies - I'm posting while attending to some other stuff in my office. chukwudi44: Okay, I hear. chukwudi44: Dress warm - you may hurt yourself further than when you began, and I won't be responsible. chukwudi44: I feel sorry for you. If your Catholic champion can afford to be blasphemous in accusing God, how does that make you a "better" Catholic? It seems you're beginning to feel desperately insecure, that is why you've typically turned now to beggar this discussion with such pifffling rather than discuss issues. chukwudi44: Em, I don't know if my discussions with ~Lady~ began a year ago; but be that as it may, I don't need to be alarmed at your extended reactive gesticulations - they're inconsequential to the discussion. chukwudi44: Lol, then you might be confusing me for someone else - and I forgive you that |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 6:59pm On Jun 29, 2009 |
chukwudi44: Poor fellow. Francis of Asisi should have calmly read Galatians 1:8 -- "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed". An icon coming to speak to a Christian to confirm what is contrary to God's Word should make you think, dear chukwudi44. chukwudi44: I'd seen it long before now, thank you for the offer. chukwudi44: I feel very sorry for you. This is why Catholics like you should be very well schooled before you come to the public to weaken your position. I know you don't believe in what the Bible teaches, and I'm not forcing you to change your mind; but did the Catholic Church not boast itself on the fidelity to Scripture when it came to apologetics? The Catholic authorities often like to quote this line from Jerome against Helvidius when it tries to defend their Catholicism - Jerome was content simply to reply: Just as we do not deny these things which are written, so do we repudiate things that are not written. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus_en.html Does the Catholic Church today repudiate the things that are NOT WRITTEN? No - that's the one reason why you must always make excuses for what you can't find in Scripture. chukwudi44: Where is that written - do you repudiate what is NOT written in Scripture? Of course not - and we know from the mouth of Catholic Popes and Bishops that all such things tend to the worship of Mary. chukwudi44: There's nothing like "legitimate veneration of images" - the "legitimacy" is dribbled in there to make it acceptable to Catholics, not because you have found it in God's Word. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 6:46pm On Jun 29, 2009 |
chukwudi44: Lol, please open your Bible and sort yourself out on this. I wasn't lying when I quoted the Bible and showed that there are OTHER DAYS regarded as sabbath. Shall I quote them again? Here: ► In the OT, God speaks of other days of "sabbath" the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath - Lev. 23:24 the seventh day is the sabbath of rest - Lev. 23:3 the eighth day shall be a sabbath - Lev. 23:39 in the ninth day of the month at even. . .shall ye celebrate your sabbath (Lev. 23:27-32) If you want the quotes in full, here they are as well (all taken from the favourite Catholic version, Douay Rheims): [list][li]Leviticus 23:24 Say to the children of Israel: The seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall keep a sabbath, a memorial, with she sound of trumpets, and it shall be called holy.[/li] . . [li]Leviticus 23:3 Six days shall ye do work: the seventh day, because it is the rest of the sabbath, shall be called holy. You shall do no work on that day: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your habitations.[/li] . . [li]Leviticus23:39 So from the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you shall have gathered in all the fruits of your land, you shall celebrate the feast of the Lord seven days: on the first day and the eighth shall be a sabbath, that is a day of rest.[/li] . . [li]Leviticus 23:31-32 You shall do no work therefore on that day: it shall be an everlasting ordinance unto you in all your generations, and dwellings. It is a sabbath of rest, and you shall afflict your souls beginning on the ninth day of the month: from evening until evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths.[/li][/list] Read again through those quotes, and then look again at your claim: "no other day was regarded as sabath" - are you kidding yourself? If no other day was regarded as sabbath, what is the meaning of such statements as - 'on the first day and the eighth shall be a sabbath' - and all the highlighted words? I did not lie to you - and the verses are there. Perhaps you're too insecure in your Catholicism to even open your eyes and see plain statements before you hastily launch your accusations unnecessarily. chukwudi44: I understand that; but they also knew the fact that other days besides the seventh day were also known as sabbaths - the verses above point that out. If you're in doubt, you could consult scholarly materials on Judaism that outline the special sabbaths of the Jews. chukwudi44: What are you on about? Did you again read my reply or trying ever so hard to read into my reply? chukwudi44: I quoted straight out of the Mosaic Law to you, didn't I? Which part did you not understand as of the Law? chukwudi44: Nada. Catholics from their own lips have told us exactly what they do, and that is why I take the time to quote directly from your own authority. Of course, there are Protestants who may have some tendency to violate God's Word on many issues; but when worship of Mary becomes an official Catholic doctrine, you need to pull up your socks and take notice. chukwudi44: Speaking for myself, I don't regard Sunday as the sabbath; so I cannot answer for those who think it is so for them. chukwudi44: Uhm, first of all, we all make typos - my own sef plenty. But the word is not "f[b]r[/b]agrantly" (sweet smell) but 'f[b]l[/b]agrantly' (notoriously). Anyhow, 'leadership' is a word that many people use quite loosely without a clue what they're talking about. There are various leadership roles that people play apart from pastor and overseers - but that is another thread entirely. Yet, your complaint here does not stand peculiar with Protestant believers. Perhaps you said that out of being upset; but actually, chukwudi44, no be today I know say women ordination sef dey worry Catholic Church. Haba. Yes, women ordination to leadership is one very hotly contested subject in the Catholic Church today - and I shall point you to just a few non-troubling examples: ___________________________________________________________ ● The ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church ● There are at least seven reasons why women can and should receive Holy Orders! ● Eight out of ten Catholic scholars in the world support the ordination of women. sources: http://www.womenpriests.org/default.asp http://www.womenpriests.org/scholars.asp http://www.womenpriests.org/menu.asp ___________________________________________________________ ● Catholic Women's Ordination (a Catholic organization) Our site is dedicated to the support for ordaining women in the Catholic Church. Many are curious about the subject and we offer a site rich in interesting material, We are a forum to examine, challenge and develop the current understanding of priesthood. We aim to achieve the ordination of women to a renewed priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church. source: http://www.catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk/ ___________________________________________________________ ● Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP) Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP) is an international initiative within the Roman Catholic Church. The mission of Roman Catholic Womenpriests North America is to spiritually prepare, ordain, and support women and men from all states of life, who are theologically qualified, who are committed to an inclusive model of Church, and who are called by the Holy Spirit and their communities to minister within the Roman Catholic Church. source: http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/ ___________________________________________________________ ● Women's Ordination Conference (WOC) The Women's Ordination Conference (WOC) is the world's oldest and largest organization working solely for the ordination of women as priests, deacons, and bishops into an inclusive and accountable Catholic Church. source: http://www.womensordination.org/ ___________________________________________________________ @chukwudi44, if you want many more, simply ask - so you may know that there's such a serious movement of ordination of women in the Catholic Church. chukwudi44: That may be true - but disobedience does not favour any movement, whether Catholic or non-Catholic. chukwudi44: How blind do you want to be before you see clearly that Catholic Popes and Bishops are worshipping Mary according to their own confirmed statements? What else do we need to open out eyes that such a system is clearly in violation of God's Word? I'm not pointing accusing fingers at your cherished beliefs; that is why I'm willing to share such things privately instead of posting them publicly. But if you wan shakara pass this your gra-gra, simply ask and I shall oblige you free of charge. Shalom. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 5:40pm On Jun 29, 2009 |
@chukwudi44, chukwudi44: Okay, nice quotes. chukwudi44: The definition of the Oxford dictionary is not the only definition that is available; nor is it the one that settles Catholic theology. We can consult other references - including Catholic references to see what definitions are given for 'idol'. Other dictionaries give definitions of idols as including: _______________________________________ 1. An image or representation of anything. 2. An image of a divinity; a representation or symbol of a deity or any other being or thing, made or used as an object of worship; a similitude of a false god. _______________________________________ Reference: Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idol] Notice above that the definition of 'idol' includes a representation or symbol of any other being or thing - made or used as an object of worship. Do the statues of Mary not fit precisely into this definition? Do the statues not fit the definition of "an image or representation of anything"? Of course, the Bible tells us plainly that the graven images includes all such things as "any likeness of any thing" - whether those things be in heaven above, in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4); and from the definitions above it is square and clear that the statues of Mary qualify as 'idol' as defined above. Now, even if as a Catholic you would like something more cogent, let me draw from Catholic sources on the definition of 'idol'. Here: _______________________________________ IDOL. Any creature that is given divine honors. It need not be a figure or representation, and may be a person. _______________________________________ References: Modern Catholic Dictionary [http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl] Catholic Refrence.Net [http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm] Catholic Culture [http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/] "Any creature that is given divine honors" - is that not what the Catholic Church has done with Mary? Dear chukwudi44, I've said several times that it's not my inclination to be distressful or troubling to Catholics by going so far as to quote clear statements of Catholic Popes and Bishops on the worship of Mary. However, if you are inclining towards that end, I would advise that you contact me privately be email so I could share only with you on that note - I'd not like to post them openly to perturb other Catholics. chukwudi44: I absolutely do - and I hope for your sake that you also know the difference. The words used by the Catholic Popes and Bishops are clearly "worship" to Mary - and if I happen to quote them, I shall not edit any word in those quotes. chukwudi44: I already showed you directly from Scripture that prostrating is not the same thing as worshipping a created being. I quoted you the relevant passage from my reply to Omenuko1 - did you just skip it in order to argue vacantly? Im my culture, no one I know in Yoruba assumes that they are worshipping the one they prostrate to. The mere act of prostrating does not in itself constitute "worship" - which is what Catholicism does with the worship of Mary. chukwudi44: Because that is precisely what your Catholic Popes and Bishops have openly declared - WORSHIP to Mary. Nothing less than that. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 7:54pm On Jun 28, 2009 |
chukwudi44: Well, I'm Yoruba - and not in one instance do we "worship" those elders to whom we prostrate to. 'Dobale', yes; but "worship"? No. This is all the difference between what obtains in Catholicism and what we find in other cultures. Besides, I've already discussed why I do not have a problem with people 'prostrating' to other people: [list] 3. "do you object to one bowing to created beings (i.e., human beings)."source: my reply to Omenuko1, #225 https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.224.html#msg4098373 [/list] chukwudi44: I don't know who ever "prayed to" or "worshipped" or "bowed down" to the Ark of the Covenant. Do you? Perhaps there are quite a few instances where these have occured: could you point them out from Scripture so that we discuss further? However, along the lines of Mary-worship as violating the 2nd (or 1st) commandment, there are clear statements that cannot be confused from the lips of Catholic Popes and Bishops about Catholics worshipping Mary - yes, "worship" is the very word they used, not any other such as 'honour', etc. Like I said, I don't want to be distressful to Catholics, that is why I'm somewhat reserved from posting links and quotes from such Popes and Bishops. Cheers. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 7:39pm On Jun 28, 2009 |
@chukwudi44, chukwudi44: Uhm, why so hurriedly? There was more that could be sourced from Catholic sources about the worship of Mary, you know. Anyhow, let's move on - as you wish. chukwudi44: Okay. chukwudi44: 1. It is true that (speaking for myself) I do not recognize the authority of the Pope. 2. It is one thing to understand the 'sabbath' (as the seventh day) in a Biblical way; quite another thing to talk about "the solemnity of the sabbath". The solemnity of the sabbath would be pointing to its 'gravity' or 'seriousness' - and no one could honestly say that any Pope "transferred" the gravity/somenity of the sabbath to Sunday. 3. What you probably are referring to is a switch from the days (between the seventh day to the first day of the week) for the sabbath. 4. Taking on from the seventh to the first day of the week, I don't see why that should be looked upon as ● the Law was not given to Gentiles (ie., non-Jews) [Psa. 147:19-20] ● but the Law still speaks to both Jews and Gentiles [Rom. 15:4] ● Christians are not looking to any seventh day to be justified before God [Col. 2:16] ● however, the keeping of "sabbaths" was not limited to just a seventh day: ► Scripture mentions different days in connection with the "sabbath": "a certain day" (Heb. 4:7) "Today, after so long a time" (Heb. 4:7) "another day" (Heb. 4:8) ► In the OT, God speaks of other days of "sabbath" the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath - Lev. 23:24 the seventh day is the sabbath of rest - Lev. 23:3 the eighth day shall be a sabbath - Lev. 23:39 in the ninth day of the month at even. . .shall ye celebrate your sabbath (Lev. 23:27-32) So, you can see that even in the OT, there were other "sabbath days" than just the seventh day - there were - ~ 1st day ~ 7th day ~ 8th day ~ 9th day . . and even ~ 10th day So, why do I mention these various days for the sabbath? Because Scripture recognizes more than one day of the sabbath - as is clear from these statements: Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Leviticus 19:3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 26:2 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. Ezekiel 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. You can see that the word "sabbaths" is in the plural; and also that God had given it to "them" - the Jews (Ezekiel 20:12). Now, which one of those days do you as a Catholic recognize as the proper "sabbath day" to catch up on the 6th commandment? I know that traditionally, we many times have fixed our minds on just one day - the seventh day; however, seldom do we take our time to look carefully as see the big picture. Dear chukwudi44, God speaks about other days as "sabbath", not just the seventh day. However, Christians are not under the "solemnity" of the sabbath day - for though we have a "sabbath" in Christ (Heb. 4:9), but it is not a question of a specific day constrained to just the seventh day. Blessings. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 12:31pm On Jun 27, 2009 |
Omenuko1: No, that's not true. I'm sure that those who are "unfortunate" to think like 'pilgrim.1' can readily see the difference and understand that God does not contradict Himself in this issue. I've outlined the simple point here: God never intended for His people to - ● bow down to them ● serve them ● worship them Moses' tabernacle reared up according to the pattern shown him had nothing to do with anyone bowing down in worship to such images. Besides, Moses' pattern has been set aside and proven to be ineffectual to the Christian worshipper (Heb. 8:5 and 9:9) - by trying to incorporate such images as part of our worship today (whether bowing down to them in worship or burning incense to them), such people are effectively stating that their consciences are not made right with God even after Christ has obtained eternal redemption for us and also purged our consciences from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:12-14). Not in one instance do we find anyone among God's people bowing down to any graven image as an act of divine service or worship or to pray to such representations under any excuse. None. Omenuko1: Well, look again at 2 Kings 18:3-4 - doesn't it show plainly that God hated the ritual use of the serpent in the worship and/or devotion of His people Israel? Omenuko1: The act of pledging oneself to a country/idea/goal etc may or may not be regarded as idolatry or a violation of the 1st (or 2nd) commandment. The reason is because such people are - not "praying to" their country/idea/goal - not "bowing in worship" to their country/idea/goal - not "burning incense" to their country/idea/goal Now, certainly their are people who may do this in many places around the world; but are they claiming to be doing so as CHRISTIANS? Are they claiming to be doing so on the basis of a Biblical faith in reference to the Decalogue? It is when we as Christians who should know better are the ones who begin to deliberately excuse why we contravene God's Word that it then becomes an issue for us, not them. Yes, the Bible shows that people who are not Christians have their own devotions and temples where they serve those things referred to as idols (1 Cor. 8:4) - but that in itself does not mean we should do the same thing as they do and then consider it at par with Christian worship. I don't know anybody that venerates a flag and regards it as a 'divinity'. Omenuko1: Have you seen any such visitors bowing down in worship and praying to those monuments/statues? Have you seen any such visitors burning incense to those monuments/statues? If you have, then you're seeing an open case of a violation of the 2nd (or 1st) commandment as far as the Christian is concerned. Omenuko1: There is a vast difference between the secular and the religious; but the point in our discussion could again be made plain by seeing what 2 Kings 17:10-12 says - And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree: And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger: For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing. One does not measure Biblical Christianity by what obtains in heathenism or any other system of belief. So also, you cannot appraise the Biblical faith on the basis of secularism. Since the Biblical faith is committed to all who profess faith in Jesus Christ, it is our happy privilege to ensue we be found faithful stewards in keeping that faith inviolate and free of any form of syncretism. Omenuko1: I understand all those terms; but not in one instance do we read of anyone extending them to mean it is okay to be devoted to saints and worship them, however that may be expressed. Omenuko1: It is understood that in legal, civil, diplomatic and political circles and practices around the world, titles such as those are used, including - Your Majesty Your Honour Your Worship Your Imperial Highness Your Lordship Even the French term "Monsieur" is equivalent to our English "my lord". However, all these terms so used are not to be misconstrued for the meaning conveyed when used in Christian worship. It is not merely the giving of titles in honour that we're talking about here; but the very practice of devotion in commiting one's hopes, faith and soul to the object addressed in prayer and worship. At least, one difference is clearly that no one worships any such VIPs in political or civil affairs by seeking to connect with God in a spiritual sense - whereas, Catholics are not merely giving titles to Mary as an act of honour, but they go so far as to PRAY TO Mary, and rest the salvation of the Roman people on Mary! Omenuko1: It is not that simplistic as you stated it. More than merely seeking to give titles to Mary and the past saints as if to honour them, Catholic teaching commits the soul of the worshipper to them and involves praying to them. You will not find any Christian in the Bible anywhere praying to any dead saint, from Abraham to Mary or anyone else. Omenuko1: It is true that across board (Catholic and Protestant), there are expressions of unorthodox practices. What is worrying is that while Catholic authorities would claim that they come out strongly against worshipping Mary or anyone else other than God, it is the same authorities themselves who have actually laid the foundation for such Mary-worship. This is why again and again one reads clear pointers to the fact that Catholic teaching approves of such practices while claiming that it condemns them in public. Omenuko1: I wondered. But thanks for sharing your concerns. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 12:29pm On Jun 27, 2009 |
Omenuko1: No, not according to 'pilgrim.1', but rather according to God's Word. It is, however, interesting that you made some pointers here that tessellate with what we find in Scripture: ● any depiction of Jesus ● any depiction of God ● anything from heaven above . . . and we might add these: ● anything in the earth beneath ● anything that is in the water under the earth These are the various pointers as regards the 'graven images' that Scripture speaks about - and one should always keep in mind that the substance of the commandment concerning such matters is a question of our bowing down to them in worship. This is why we often like to quote the texts in full for people to read and see for themselves: [list] Exodus 20:4-5 Leviticus 26:1 Deuteronomy 4:15-19, 23 Deuteronomy 5:8-9 Acts 17:29[/list] You can see that all these are not according to 'pilgrim.1', but rather according to God's Word. What gives substance to that commandment is not the making of the edifices, images or sculpted representations in themselves, but rather the express purpose of making them to "bow down to them in worship". Omenuko1: In all three cases you cited (Ezekiel 41:17–18, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ex. 25:18–20), which one of them indicates that ANY JEW bowed down in worship to any of those sculpted representations? Which one exactly? Please, if you find any verse saying that any Jew bowed down and worshipped any of those things anywhere, could you kindly quote the verse and let's read it for ourselves? Let me go one step further and show you somewhat why those things were made and why no Jew worshipped any one of them: In Exodus 25, God specifically instructed a sanctuary to be made from such things as Israel offered - the purpose was that He might dwell among them (vv. 1-. In verses 9 and 40, Moses was commanded to make those things according to the pattern that was shown to him - it was the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all the instruments thereof. In the next chapter, it was also stated: "And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was shewed thee in the mount" (Exo. 26:30). This was all testified to all through the redemptive history of the Jewish people (see Acts 7:44 - "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen". However, what Moses reared up is described in Scripture as thus: ● the example and shadow of heavenly things - Heb. 8:5 ● things which could not perfect the conscience of the worshipper - Heb. 9:9 As such, it is no surprise that NONE OF THE JEWS ANYWHERE ever went so far as to bow down in worship to any of those sculpted representations! NONE. Perhaps, a picture is worth more than a thousand words; so if we show some of them, it may help to see the difference between what the Jews did and what is done today in Roman Catholicism: Now, a simple thought: where in Scripture would any Jew have bowed down in worship or prayer to any sculpted or graven representation? Do the above indicate the same thing as what we read of in Exodus 25 and other passages as you cited? Omenuko1: Nice quote, and I was already aware of that when reviewing the Mary statutes issue in Catholicism. The point still stands - none of those bitten ever sought to bow down in WORSHIP to the brass serpent. God specifically ordered the making of the brass serpent as a remedy for those bitten by snakes in their disobedience, for He had sent the serpents as judgement to them for their rebellion (verses 5-6). The event was not about worship or bowing down as an act of divine service - in as much as the purpose of the brass serpent was not for the people to worship. Indeed, Israel later took this same brass serpent as an act of worship, which was clearly violating the 2nd commanment of the Decalogue - and it was in 2 Kings 18:3-4 that we read of Hezekiah destructing the brass serpent: And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. By calling it 'Nehushtan' (ie., a worthless piece of brass), the Godly king Hezekiah was showing contempt for the idolatry that Israel had fallen into. The brass serpent was not meant to be included in their worship, in as much as they had been clearly warned on such terms as: ● do not bow down to them ● do not serve them ● do not worship them By burning incense to it, the Israelites had turned the brass serpent into a thing of idolatry - expressly violating God's warning. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 12:28pm On Jun 27, 2009 |
@Omenuko1, Glad to read from you. Believe me, I had almost made up my mind to not continue in this discussion whatsoever after my penultimate reply (#219). It is one thing for Christians to discuss and sometimes get very reactive; quite another to throw all conscience away and tend towards blasphemous statements. Somehow, you managed to invite me back basically because people like you choose to be reasonable - and that is what I appreciate more than anything else. Thank you for your composure. Omenuko1: Yes, I've come across many, many Catholics who say the same thing - that they do not worship or pray to Mary or images. For your sake, I would have quietly acquiesced and left it at that as I don't want to distress many Catholics on purpose. However, let's keep the thought of "worship" at hand and focus on that as we move along. Omenuko1: The highlighted part is the main concern to me personally. But let me outline answers to each point you raised: 1. "is it your argument that God forbids the making of images that portray heavenly things?" No, that is not my argument, as I'm quite aware of the very fact that sculpted representations were commanded by God to be made on various occasions. The question is: how were these things applied in view of the express commandment to not worship or bow down to them? I already explained (here - reply #198) precisely why that commandment would be violated: bowing down to them in worship. Let me quote the section of that explanation again: ________________________________________________________________ Please note: the commandment forbidding the making of graven images does not stand alone - it is rather expressly stated as to why God forbade it: “you shall not bow down to them or worship them” for this very thing (bowing down to them in worship) is what constitutes that very act as “idolatry” . . . . It is not simply the making of any image or figurine in and of itself that completes the commandment forbidding idolatry - it is its connection with any expression of worship that gives that commandment its meaning. ________________________________________________________________ Thus, the other passages where people made sculpted representations as commanded by God (eg., Exo. 25:18-20 and Num. 21:8-9) do not violate the 2nd commandment in as much as we don't read of anyone bowing down to such representations in worship. 2. "do you object to one paying honor/veneration to fallen heroes in Christ." I absolutely object to the kind of Catholic "honour/veneration" being paid to 'fallen heroes in Christ'. One could speak in an honourable or respectful manner of Biblical persons; but when such tends to being a part of our worship, there's every reason to raise a red flag. 3. "do you object to one bowing to created beings (i.e., human beings)." It depends on what context you're asking that question. Bowing to "created beings" (whether angels or human beings) IN WORSHIP is in contrast to bowing to living people as a sign of obeisance. Let me give a few examples to contextualize what I mean: [list][li]In Genesis 24:52, we read that "when Abraham's servant heard their words, he worshipped the LORD, bowing himself to the earth". He certainly was not bowing to those in his presence; but even though they saw him bowing himself, it is clear that it was in worship to the LORD.[/li] [li]In Genesis 27:29, Isaac blessed Jacob thus: [list]"Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee."[/list] This is prophetic, as we understand that Isaac did not mean for his son Jacob to be worshipped by anyone - rather he was declaring prophetic blessings upon Jacob in terms of making that latter prosperous. We don't find anywhere in Scripture where Jacob was worshipped by anyone. When Jacob encountered his brother Esau and "bowed himself to the ground seven times" (Gen. 33:3), we understand he was not worshipping but rather showing deference in obeisance.[/li] [li]There are many other passages we read of people bowing down to other people. The question, of course, is whether God had indicated those events were to be out model for worship to Him. One such example where He categorically spoke of people bowing down to other people is Isaiah 60:14 - "and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet", but the context of that verse is clear: it was signalling judgement on those who antagonized God's people.[/li] [li]In Acts 10:25-26, we read this: [list]And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.[/list] Peter's response showed why it would be wrong to have men bow down to men as an expression of worship.[/li][/list] Thus, when such bowing down to 'created beings' are involved in our expression of worship, that is a clear indication of violating God's Word. 4. Or, do you object to one bowing to inanimate objects? This is the issue - and yes, bowing down to inanimate objects in worship is clearly violating God's commandment forbidding such. More on this as we move on. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 1:16pm On Jun 26, 2009 |
~Lady~: Have you lost your marbles or something? Did the quote from the pope say "honour" instead of "worship"?? ~Lady~: Sorry o. . no be my word - na you pope openly declare WORSHIP to Mary, he did not say "honour", so please shut this flapping clapper to pretend you can't read. ~Lady~: Aww. . . need I say anymore? If you can accuse God in such a manner, what more is there to say? People can discuss and debate; but if this is your desperation to save face, I would rather leave you all to it. Not when Catholicism drags you down that raod to say such unprintable things. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 1:10pm On Jun 26, 2009 |
~Lady~: Begging. . who - you? Lol, Christ didn't preach the romish popery you've been touting hysterically, so what is my worry? ~Lady~: 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? ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: I just did, above. ~Lady~: What "answers"? The manufactured dribbling you've attempted here several times? Please pass. ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: Where did it say that they were commissioned? ~Lady~: There's not a verse anywhere saying they were commissioned - being "scattered abroad" following a persecution does not automatically translate into "commission" simply because they were with the apostles. Besides, these who were scattered abroad were not going about "warning" of those who were not commissioned - they were preaching the Gospel. What sort of high-handed manufacturing have you been attempting? ~Lady~: That Philip was not an apostle; second, I've given detail earlier about the very fact that you can't read into the text to make it say what it does not say or "safely conclude". ~Lady~: Thank you - after hissing and the insolence, please show me Romish Popery in the Bible. ~Lady~: The stupid admit to being stupid - was that your CV? I don't see how you're the only person trying to assert the direct opposite of what other Catholics are saying. ~Lady~: I didn't twist nada - others can see your abacadabra with "mother of God" deliberately read into Luke 1:42 and numerous others. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 1:09pm On Jun 26, 2009 |
~Lady~: 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". ~Lady~: As above, please try not reading into the text - that verse does not teach apostolic succession. ~Lady~: We've established the fact that there's nothing like "Catholic bishop" in the Bible - it would do nicely to stop the Catholic abracadabra of manufcaturing your own ideas into the texts, thank you. ~Lady~: 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 ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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? ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: Oh yes, there are vast difference of meaning in that terms as used in catholic circles - and rather than keep grumbling, please discuss those sources I pointed out (hint: they are Catholic sources). ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: Shhhhh. . . don't be so hysterical! Catholic sources already references have made FIVE distinctions of that term - ALL FIVE distinctions are recognized and used in Catholic circles. What is this 'talantolo' noise you're making, eh? ~Lady~: Sorry, there are Catholics who distinguish between them - I already gave you some, you said nothing about them and are only crying out hysterically here. Please say something more cogent - a complaint from you is not the same thing as an intelligent discourse. ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: I'm not being disrespectful, which is why I have not been yapping about anything "Eastern". |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 1:08pm On Jun 26, 2009 |
~Lady~: 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: 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. ~Lady~: 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! ~Lady~: 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. That's all - nothing in that verse about Paul calling his "position" a divine "office". There are other verses to look to where he mentioned "office", not Colossians 1:25 - you could try Romans 11:13 ("I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office" or again 1 Tim. 3:1 ("If a man desire the office of a bishop". And no, Paul does not speak in any one verse about a "successor" in those offices. ~Lady~: 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 footnote on v.23 (Douay Rheims) 23 "Many priests", The apostle notes this difference between the high priests of the law, and our high priest Jesus Christ; that they being removed by death, made way for their successors; whereas our Lord Jesus is a priest for ever, and hath no successor; but liveth and concurreth for ever with his ministers, the priests of the new testament, in all their functions. Also, that no one priest of the law, nor all of them together, could offer that absolute sacrifice of everlasting redemption, which our one high priest Jesus Christ has offered once, and for ever. The point is plain: you cannot use Hebrews 7:23 to extend the romish "successor" thingy fro Christians as priests - for the one reason that there is no "successor" for priests, because ALL Christians are called PRIESTS to God under the new covenant in Christ (see 1 Peter 2:5 & 9 and Revelation 20:6). Apologies - no "successor" thingy for NT priests and priesthood, for ALL are priests unto God without the Popery trying to manufacture romish products anywhere into those verses. Next. . ? |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 1:08pm On Jun 26, 2009 |
~Lady~: I knew that's where you were going. You don't need to invent your Catholic bishop into that scripture. Let me show you. 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. 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. However, from Acts 8 to Acts 11, the dispersed preached the Gospel without having waited for any laying on of hands or 'apostolic succession'. Results? The hand of the Lord was evidently with them - proof that the grace of Jesus Christ does not wait for your romish popery system before He works among His people. It was only afterwards that news got to the church in Jerusalem (not Rome), and the next thing happened (Acts 11:22-26): 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. 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". Now to Acts 13 that you cited. Here again we see nothing of the sort about any "Catholic bishop". The church in Antioch was already established and well taught for a whole year (Acts 11:26) before the event in Acts 13. When the teachers and prophets fasted and prayed, there was no "Catholic bishop" present there to lay romish hands on them. To assert your own "Catholic bishop" into Acts 13 is to read your own falsehood into that scripture. Who was the Catholic bishop who laid hands on them? On the contrary, reading Acts 14:26-28 shows it's more likely that the Church in Antioch had laid their hands on Barnabas and Saul (Paul) before senidng them forth - it was to Antioch they returned after their missionary journey. 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? This is why I don't have anything to worry about with the farce of a Romish papacy for Peter . . .nada! All you Catholics can do is either try to dubiously manufacture your Popery into the Bible; and when that fails, you lose your grip and resort to yowlings by default. The one thing is that non-Catholics can point back to the Bible to show you certain things - you on the other hand have to manufacture words into the texts that are not there. First it was "Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible" which you read into Luke 1:42; now it is "Catholic bishop" which you tried to manufacture into Acts 13. Please dream up a bigger fallacy - these ones are a total lose for your defence and a complete winner for your comedy central theatricals. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 1:07pm On Jun 26, 2009 |
~Lady~: Sorry miss, that is not the only passages to read from the Bible. Besides the Twelve Apostles, there was someone who did not even count among them nor followed them - he did not wait for your "central authority" but was busy doing mighty works for Jesus. What was the Lord's response to the objection of the apostles? Hear the report for yourself: 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] You always have this virus of seeing "chaos" in non-Catholic churches; you simply have no clue about the bigger issues that rattles your suave Catholicism (scroll up and see, yes?). ~Lady~: 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". ~Lady~: The Kingdom includes all who have believed in Jesus Christ without involving any romish rites - Galatians 3:26. ~Lady~: We don't see the authority "transferred" to romish Popery. ~Lady~: 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. Third, Peter did not establish any seat of his presumed "Popery" at Rome - again, tradition is the fragile boast that Catholicism holds on that. Fourth, there were churches well established among the apostles (read the epistles), yet not a single hint about romish Popery. 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. Your claim to a "Catholic church" linkage to the apostles is a farce - live with it. This is simply the reason why you cannot turn to the Bible and show anything from there, but you thrive on the romish "traditions" which have been circulated too many times it has become comical. There were Churches well established in the time of the apostles - we read of them in Scripture; from there also we can find what they believed, taught and lived by. The best shot you can give your own Popery is the fictitious connection of a papacy at Rome for Peter. Romishly scripted, that is. ~Lady~: Hehe, the apostles in Acts knew nothing of the Papacy in Rome, my dear. ~Lady~: 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! |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 1:06pm On Jun 26, 2009 |
~Lady~: 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? ~Lady~: 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. In this regard, we also know that Catholicism today is split into opposing factions - see the example of a Catholic bleaching the pretences you are making up here (did you dare cough afterwards?). In another well-articulated outline, the schisms, deep divisions, rancour and opposing interpretations of teaching in the Catholic Church can be found online here. Excerpts establishing the veracity of the current deep divisions among Catholics - [list]____________________________________________________[/list] [list]1. The division within the Roman Catholic Church For the last decades, problems relating to faith and morality, politics, economics, social, sexual and family decisions, have all been the subject of such differing interpretations among Roman Catholics, that they have led to a split without precedent in the history of the Church. This division calls for careful analysis. It can be compared with the ongoing schisms between it and other Christian churches, in some cases for more than a millennium, and which have also played an important role in the conflicts between various European nations. On the occasion of the European Bishops Synod, we feel it worthwhile to focus on a number of considerations in respect of the division within the Roman Catholic Church.[/list] They further identified a few of these in their analysis: [list]1.1. Our analysis of the division in the Church Social-religious studies show, without exception, that there is no unanimity among Roman Catholics in following official Church teaching. International and trans-cultural inquiries - such as that carried out by the North American sociologist Greeley - show particularly clearly how the faithful have reached totally different opinions, even in matters which Papal authority regards as closed for discussion (i.e. 'almost dogmas'), such as the ordination of women and married men. In many countries, the majority of the faithful think and act in a manner which the Church's teaching qualifies as 'erroneous' http://www.we-are-church.org/forum/forum6engl.htm [/list] [list]____________________________________________________[/list] You need to start educating yourself of the reality on ground on this issue and stop deluding yourself further on your jocose hebetude. ~Lady~: 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? ~Lady~: That just about describes your Popery who keep inventing and re-inventing Romish amusements for folks like you to gullibly slave over. One minute Catholicism says the pope is infallible; another minute you find Catholics outlining the "heresies" of Catholic popes and bishops (here). ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: Please stop slaving yourself on that excuse - there were Jews who believed on Jesus before and after the Cross (John 10:42-43; 11:45). If the Catholic Church has been too busy hounding believers who rejected the Popery, I can well understand why you're continuing this drama on their behalf. The Catholic Church is rife with internal inconsistencies to such extent that Catholics do not even trust everything that comes from the Vatican or whatsoever is waved by the Pope. ~Lady~: Lol, it's interesting to watch you delude yourself. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 1:04pm On Jun 26, 2009 |
@~Lady~, 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. ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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. |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 12:31am On Jun 26, 2009 |
~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: I thought I've shown this already? Especially here. ~Lady~: All you need to do is show where the Papacy from Scripture. That's all that was requested. Stating over and over that you've shown it and yet not able to do more than state it does not do the job. ~Lady~: Are all that the PAPACY? ~Lady~: 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~? ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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? ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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? ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: Lol, which one - the one that Catholics like sancta called the heresy of the vatican? Is he not a Catholic too? ~Lady~: 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. ~Lady~: 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? |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 7:12pm On Jun 25, 2009 |
pilgrim.1: Of course, the fact that Catholics worship Mary is no longer news. We've discussed this in another Catholic thread and also examined the various excuses that the Vatican gives to allow for the worship of Mary - such as the expressions dulia and hyperdulia as distinct from latria. The question is not so much that a distinction is made between the various "types" of worship - the fact is that no other being is worthy of worship than GOD alone. That is essentially what we read the Catholic sources acknowledge earlier: ● 'The first commandment, according to Church teaching, "means that [followers] must worship and adore God alone because God is alone" ● The Catechism explains that this prohibits idolatry, providing examples of forbidden practices such as the worship of any creature More explicit in the condemnation of idolatry is what the Catechism states: [list]2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history. 2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46[/list] Does the reader get anything from all these? If the meaning is lost in the format, let's outline them the salient points: ● man is not to venerate other divinities than the one true God ● Scripture rejects the idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands ● These empty idols make their worshippers empty ● Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God ● Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God ● Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God ● it is therefore incompatible with communion with God Despite reading all of these, what do we yet find as regards the practice of Catholic worship, veneration and the 2nd commandment (1st commandment for Catholicism)? It is worrying indeed to read all the above and still find Catholicism violates ALL of them through the worship of MARY. Please note: the word 'worship' is quite a strong one, and when asked, many Catholics would tell you they do not "worship" Mary. Quite to the contrary, it is Catholic authoity that articulates the worhip of Mary - E[/b]xcerpts from the "[b]Fulgens Corona" Encyclical of Pope Pius XII: [center][list] [/list][/center] [list]Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].[/list] Please note tyhe following from the above - ● Rome took the lead to give the early example of having worshipped the "heavenly mother" ● it rests the "salvation of the Roman people" (Salus Populi Romani) on Mary ● it enjoins that "before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers" WHERE is the 2nd Commandment (or 1st commandment, Catholics) in all this?? What has happened to the express forbidding of worship and bowing down to images in all this? What has happened to all the fine talk we find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the fact that "Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God"? |
Religion / Re: Don't Let The Catholic Faith Deter You From The Christian Faith by pilgrim1(f): 6:35pm On Jun 25, 2009 |
Catholicism on the warning against Idolatry What is the position of the Catholic Church on the express warning forbidding the making of graven images and bowing down to them in worship? In the first place, it is not as if the Catholic Church and her authorities are not aware of the 2nd commandment in question. Yes, they certainly are aware of it - but the question of it having been “done away with” in Catholicism is one that rests on how they have interpreted that command. Consulting mainly the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be quite helpful here; and the relevant sections are quoted: [list] IV. "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . ."[/list] Let's recap: on the commandment that: "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE", the Catholic Catechism interprets this as meaning: ● The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. So far so good. What exactly is included in this "prohibition"? In the Wikipedia source, this explanation is given for what the Catholic Church holds: [list]The first commandment, according to Church teaching, "means that [followers] must worship and adore God alone because God is alone."[32] The Catechism explains that this prohibits idolatry, providing examples of forbidden practices such as the worship of any creature, and of "'demons , power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state [and] money'".[32] Augustine interpreted this commandment as "Love God and then do what you will".[/list] What every conscientious Catholic (and indeed any Christian) should take to heart here are these: ~ that [followers] must worship and adore God alone ~ this prohibits idolatry, such as the worship of any creature[/color] It seems so nicely well said. Question: how do these prohibitions from the Catholic Church work out where evidently Catholics WORSHIP Mary? Yes, there are alway excuses from Catholicism to include just about anything it prohgibits; and here's just one of them: [list]While Catholics are often accused of worshiping images, in violation of the first commandment,[36] the Church says this is a misunderstanding. In the Church's opinion, "the honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration', not the adoration due to God alone".[36][37] In the early centuries of the Church, heated arguments arose over whether religious icons were prohibited by the first commandment. The dispute was almost entirely restricted to the Eastern church; the iconoclasts wished to prohibit icons, while the iconodules supported their veneration. At the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, the ecumenical council determined that the veneration of icons and statues was not in violation of the commandment and stated "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."[/list] Are there things that are wrong here? Let's see - ~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity ~ It was as late as the 8th century (Nicaea in 787) that such idolatry got into Christianity ~ those who sought to incorporate this activity knew it had something to do with violating God's Word ~ the so-called 'respectful veneration' (dulia and hyperdulia) was not found among the apostles; but those who sought to incorporate it understood it was a recent matter beyond the time of the apostles ~ it is amazing that the issue was a "dispute" in post-apotolic age; for this was not even a matter to be debated among early Christians; for the apostles were quite definite on this issue and we can understand where they stood - ● that they abstain from pollutions of idols - Acts 15:20 ● idolaters had nothing to do with God's Kingdom - 1 Cor. 6:9 ● what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? - 2 Cor. 6:16 ● Little children, keep yourselves from idols - 1 John 5:21 ● that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk - Rev. 9:20 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? |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 215 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 606 |