@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:

Young Lady you are begining to commit heresy by trying to seperate the Father from the son by kind of imposing a hierechial structure in the trinity.

No, I'm not.

chukwudi44:
The fact remains that the huan ind cannever fully comprehend the mystery of the trinity.

True.

chukwudi44:

we know Jesus existed before the Virgin Mary yet Elizabeth under the influence of the holy spirit addressed her as the mother of my Lord,If she was addressed as the mother of my Lord ,then there is nothing wrong in calling her the Mother of God unless my Lord is not God.

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:

Young Lady better be careful with what you post,this is an advice .By rejecting Mary as the Mother of God You are also rejecting the dogma of the trinity

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:

Back to the sabath,

Exodus 20:8-11

Remember to observe the sabath day by keeping it holy.Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work but the SEVENTH day is aday of rest dedicated to the Lord your God.On that day no one in your family may do any kind of work.

Deut 5:12-14

Observe the sabath day by keeping it holy,as the Lord your God has commanded you .six days a week are set apart for you daily duties but he SEVENTH day is a day of rest dedicated to the LORD

So young lady you can see that the seventh day was specifically designated as a day of rest dedicated to the lord.We all know that saturday happens to be the seventh day of the week.

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:

There is no basis for you protestants observing rest on sunday sice it is neither based on a sola bible or the proclamation of a pope.

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:

If I may say you are fragranting disobeying God's commandment since you dont recognise the authourity of the Pope who transferred this solenmity to sunday.

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.

~Lady~:

What the hell?

Meaning. . ?

~Lady~:

Right, Catholic websites that you never cited.

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~:

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

Where did I cross over to base my discussions on Anglicans being referred to as such?

~Lady~:
I don't think we're on the same page anymore

No, you danced around until you forgot your cue.

~Lady~:

So you agree with me?

How?

~Lady~:

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

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~:

Oh I am mrs. somebody o, learn to respect.

Really? Lol, I didn't know at your age you could beggar self-worth with your hysteria.

~Lady~:

who be u?

Me.

~Lady~:

Ok EWTN stating that the name is Catholic it is expressing to those who are unaware and who consider the Catholic Church to be a denomination to know that the actual Church founded by Christ is Catholic.

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~:

However amongst ourselves we know that Catholic is a description of the Church. No Catholic will disagree with me, not even EWTN.

Please drop this excuse - the EWTN did not have to consult you to make up their mind before publishing that article.

~Lady~:

So in an effort to properly correct you, I let you in on how WE view ourselves when we're gathered. If you were to go through the question and answer forums and you come across someone asking on the Church who is Catholic, they will rarely ever ask a question using The Catholic Church, they most likely would use The Church. This is how we know when a person is Catholic. Got it now?

Nope - I bet the EWTN and other sources were not pointing at others but were speaking about themselves. Next excuse, please. . .

~Lady~:

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

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~:

So you would kindly use wikipedia to prove your point but when it proves your opponents point it is no longer worthy of being used? Are you sure you're no longer a muslim? Cause you sound like one. Well maybe it never really got out of your system.

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~:

I already showed you the church in the bible, you choose to ignore it it is your own palava.

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~:

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

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~:

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

Nope, you're trying to read your ideas into the texts, which is not so smart a thing to do.

~Lady~:

You will not find a place in the Bible where those who preached were not commissioned.

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~:

I quoted you and you didn't quote a Pope. If you do not understand english language, that is not my problem.

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~:

Anyway I am not going to get into the Mary issue with you. That's your blindness and hatred, and it is up to God to judge you on how you treat His Mother.
Omenuko has responded well to you.

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.

~Lady~:

Where in Salus Populi Romani did you get Mary?

From the same quote from the Fulgens Corona Encyclical of Pope Pius XII.

~Lady~:

Show me which of those words mean Mary.
You hateful and deceitful woman.

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

_{Following the prayer after Communion, the Dean of the College of Cardinals performs the rite of the final commendation and farewell. Standing next to the coffin with the other concelebrants, he invites those present to pray with these words:}

Dear brothers and sisters, we entrust to the most gentle mercy of God the soul of our Pope John Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church, who confirmed his brothers with belief in the resurrection.

We pray to God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit for the deceased, so that, ransomed by death, he may be received in his peace and that his body may rise on the last day.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of the Apostles and savior of the people of Rome, intercede to God for us so that the face of his blessed Son may be shown to our Pope and comfort the Church with the light of the resurrection.

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.

~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

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

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~:

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

I just want you to know, that I find it very hard to reply to this post, because I am laughing hysterically, my mother thinks I have lost my mind.

Hmm, it's not recently I noticed the hysteria though.

~Lady~:

Girl LAYING OF HANDS IS NOT APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
WHAT IS IT THEN?

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

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~:

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

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~:

How is it not may I ask?

I don't confuse "gift" for "presbyter".

~Lady~:

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

You're apparently confusing knowledge for apostleship. Anybody sharing knowledge does not necessarily mean they are sharing apostleship.

~Lady~:

You really think you're clever but you're not. Who's the US John talks about? Is that not the apostles, the bishops, the successors? Who is it?

You'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~:

You do the classic thing, when trapped you proceed to your lies.

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~:

Girl it doesn't do it anymore, try a different tactic this time. Try addressing the issue at hand.
Does John talk about us listening to the apostles or not? And doesn't the Bible show where the laying on of hands, as in ordination, as in succession, as in transfer takes place?

I'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~:

Girl you need to learn to answer questions. Where in the Bible does it say Bible alone? Is the Bible the only way to get the Gospel? Is the Gospel the Bible?

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.

~Lady~:

Once again Obama being present in England does not make him any less the President of America. You can hold an office and be in other places you know?

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~:

I know the letter was addressing an issue and it was addressing the issue of your belief that anyone can get up and preach, this verse proves that they have to have a mandate by the apostles to preach.

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~:

So after they established that those who were preaching heresy wasn't from them, what did they do? Just tell them to be careful and to read the Bible well or did they send Ordained preachers to them?
Thanks for proving my point?

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 of the preachers were not ordained?

Which one of them was "ordained" in Acts 8:1 & 4 among those that were scattered abroad?

~Lady~:

Apparently you've forgotten that there are more than one versions of the Bible.

Nope, you've tried all sorts and are only dribbling against your own goal post.

~Lady~:

Anyway, how is dispensation different from Office
DISPENSATION

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

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

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

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.

~Lady~:

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

~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~:

Barnabas and Paul were ordained.

They ALREADY were preaching and teaching BEFORE the ordination in Acts 13.

~Lady~:

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

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~:

I seriously dislike reminding people of things, it's one of my pet peeves.

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~:

Whether Peter was in Nigeria, or Iraq, or Amsterdam, he would still be Pope.

Where in Scripture, abeg eh?

~Lady~:

The Papacy doesn't have to be from Rome. Peter was Pope when he was in Antioch as Bishop, before moving to Rome. I also mentioned 1st&2nd Peter several times look it up

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~:

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

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?

~Lady~:

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

Sorry, that inconvenience might just be apt in describing the way you reply to posts.

~Lady~:
Where does the power to cast out demons equate to preaching? Did the man preach the gospel, did Christ commission him to preach?

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~:

All Christians can cast out demons but not all christians can preach.

Where did you get that from?

~Lady~:

In all my biblical posts, I showed apostolic succession, and every single one of them had to do with preaching, not casting out demons, so where did you get the casting out demons from it?

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~:

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

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

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.

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

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.

And YOU DO SWITCH POSITIONS. Apparently there IS apostolic succession that you claim was not existent. Now your position is that it wasn't in Rome, and that is rather a poor position, bcus we can very clearly see St. Paul writing about apostolic succession, he certainly wouldn't exclude Rome from it.

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~:

So there is proof that it is in Rome, now the question is was Peter ever in Rome? Well 1st and 2nd Peter certainly tells us that he was in Rome, not just that, history tells us that he was in Rome, or is it that you haven't studied history my dear? Maybe you should?

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~:

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

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~:

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem that's why he was more prominent there. But it still doesn't take away from Peter being the Pope.

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~:

This was also the beginning of the Church it wasn't fully established that Peter's seat would permanently be in Rome. Peter was the Bishop of Antioch not Jerusalem before he moved to Rome.

Another abracadabra, not so?
What you're arguing is simply the vacant assertions of romish traditions which ahve no bearing in Scripture.

~Lady~:

The Church was birthed in Jerusalem and Acts talks of the first days of the Church, clearly almost everyone was still there in the beginning before moving out. Acts does not only talk about Peter being in Jerusalem, it continues to talk about Peter moving to the land of the gentiles certainly Rome cannot be excluded since later we see that Paul talks about building on another man's foundation, this was after Peter founded the Church in Rome.

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~:

The councils are presided over by the Bishop of the place where the council is being held, that doesn't take away from Peter being the leader of the apostles, or Peter being the Pope.

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~:
Bottom line, Peter holds the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the other apostles did not get those keys.

Once again YOUR OPINION.

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!

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

No Papacy there, sorry.

~Lady~:

Ok where in my post did I say that the Church in Antioch started in Acts 13?

Did I say that was what you said?

~Lady~:

My point is apostolic succession took place, and this is seen in the laying on of hands, and Acts 13 talks about laying on of hands.

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~:

So how about you start using Biblical passages to refute what I am actually talking about not what I wasn't talking about.

Repeatedly done.

~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?

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

'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.

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

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?

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

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

The "mother of my Lord" is not the same thing as "Mary is CALLED the Mother of God in the BIBLE". Your bold brash claim was this:
         ______________________________________________________

          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~:

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

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?

@~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~:

Then why do you even bother?

I gave you the benefit of doubt.

~Lady~:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not aware of what the 'popery' really is. So the question is was Peter the leader of the Apostles or not?

Nope - and I already addressed it.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.192.html#msg4093584

~Lady~:

Did Christ give him the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven or not?

That does not make Peter a Pope.

~Lady~:

What do those Keys mean?

Keys of the Kingdom does not mean Popery.

~Lady~:

What does it mean to bind and loose? Or to Shut and to open?

Binding and losing was not given to just one person you assume to be pope - Matt. 18:18-19.

~Lady~:

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

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~:

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

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~:

1) I was making my own statement, I don't ride on anyone's coat tails.

Your statements or opinions don't count as far as Catholic authorities cited in my replies are concerned.

~Lady~:

2) The word used in Luke 1:42 for Lord is Kyrios or Adonai, and we very well know that those words are reserved for God alone, you would be better acquainted with the word Adonai, so if Elizabeth calls Mary the Mother of Adonai, how does that not equate to Elizabeth calling her the Mother of God, or is Adonai no longer God?

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~:

3) Theotokos, means God-bearer, last I checked Mary gave birth to God, either that or Jesus isn't God. Take your pick.

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~:

There is no other logical way you can explain that. Also it isn't 'romish' to call Mary the Theotokos, it is rather Catholic to do so.

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~:

And anyone who's studied the history of Christianity will see that Mary has always been regarded as the Theotokos.

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~:

Not just that, even the Eastern Orthodox Christians who are no longer identified as Catholic call her the Theotokos. Even Martin Luther who started the revolt called Mary the Theotokos.

And what did the apostles in the Bible call her?

~Lady~:

In denying Mary as the God-bearer, you are indirectly denying Jesus as God.

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~:

In denying Mary as the Mother of God, you are indirectly denying Jesus as God.

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~:

Which is the actual reason why the title was given to Mary.

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~:

Because of those who denied the divinity of Christ.

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~:

Infact their argument was that God couldn't have a mother and because Jesus has a mother he couldn't be God.

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~:

The difference between you and them is that you do not go so far as to say that Jesus couldn't be God because he has a mother. If you will say that God cannot have a mother then you are also saying that Jesus cannot be God because he has a mother, and you cannot deny that Jesus has a mother and that the Bible does call Mary his mother.

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~:

4) The reason for rejecting Catholicism, is because you have absolutely zero knowledge of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, and are clearly unaware of the beliefs of early christians.

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~:

More and more protestants/pastors/theologians/historians agree that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is the better fit, and most logical.

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~:

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

Nope, you're alone in your hypocritical adventures. 
People are leaving Catholicism - and that is a statement you can't hypocritically evade.

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.

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

On sola bible you pentecostals are bloody hypocrites,you only profess sola bible when it will favour you.

When your pastors claim God asked them to open churches where is it in the Bible?

When Jesus appears to Roman catholics it is unacceptable because it is not in the bible,but he can appear to Benny Hinn and Keneth Hagin even though it is not in the Bible.Your hypocrisy stinks!!!

The honour pentecostals gives to money and their pastors far exceeds the honour given to Mary by the catholic church.Christianity has been been turned into a wide business empire ,so obviosly the merchants Jesus drove out of the synagogues has returned in form of pentecostals.All they preach is prosperity,tithes ,first fruits,seed sowing e.t.c

The early fathers of prostestantism were not like you pentecostals ,in the 80s we had less than 200 churches in Nigeria and a christian poulation of 50%,today we have more than 2000 churches and the population still stands at 50% obviously the growing number of churches has not reflected in the christian population.

They are not interested in taking christianity to areas in the north that are under muslim control rather they will all come to lagos where they hope to make more money .They even go as far as US , britain and other rich countries that are already under christian control.

The oyibo missionaries that brought christianity to Nigeria first captured their countries before moving out .Our so called God assigned pastors should first strive to christianize all parts of their homeland before looking for whom else to evangelize.

You only evangelize where you hope to reap bountifully fom illegal tithes ,e.t,c

Go to the rural areas ,the only pentecostal churches you will likely find are the deeper life church,it is only filled with churches like Roman catholic,anglican ,methodist ,baptist and other old churches.

Our modern day evangelists in pentecostal churches are only interested in evangelizing where they will reap bountifully from illegal collection of tithes.In fact I propose that pentecostal churches should henceforth be designated as tithe collection centres.Lagos state government should proceeed with the collection of tax from pastors .

chukwudi44:

So many so called God called miniters like you have brought their time to attack the catholic church hoping to pull down,the church it has continued to grow in mounts and bounts over the years between the 57 year period 1950-2007 it has seenan astronomical rise in poulation from 450,000,000-1,147,000,000 far exceeding the percentage growth of the world population over the same period.

Your evil machinations are obviously not working ,you can go ahead and publish your so called vatican secret document you claimed directed catholics to worship Mary.It will be in line with the scriptures which directs us to dispel false teachings

chukwudi44:

If I may ask what qualifies a writing to be called scriptures,and when did the holy spirit inspired writings end .
You may use your sola scriptures to answer this questions.

we can have new churches ,but no new scriptures what hypocrisy!!!

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.

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

Madam please when will you stop being a hypocrite ,

How am I being a hypocrite - because simple and plain truth is far too bitter for you to swallow?

chukwudi44:

so now catholic definition of idol now spercedes the oxford dictionary definition of idol.

HAHAHAHA!! This is simply magical! So, in your Catholic eschatology, Oxford Dictionary supercedes Catholic dogma??  Abeg yan me more!

chukwudi44:

But when catholics tell you the truth about scriptures they become unreliable sources,please stop applying double standards.

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:

I am well versed in catholic history and I have never come across any document from the vatican which directed the worship of Mary or any other saint.

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:

By the way if the above definition of idol you gave is anything to go buy ,then probably all yorubas will go to hell since dobale is part of their culture.Dobale is far worse than merely taking a bow since you all part of your body is involved.

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:

Why didn't you also reply to my other posts that exposes your hypocrisy.You point one finger to catholics while four are pointed to you.

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:

You don't have to communicate anything by email since this is an open forum which everyone should benefit from.

Okay, I hear.

chukwudi44:

I wasn't previously versed in catholic history but reading arguments between you and lady over the months made me to investigate my faith and I can tell you that I am a better catholic for it.

Dress warm - you may hurt yourself further than when you began, and I won't be responsible.

chukwudi44:

Your puerile rants and insults on Mother Mary,popes and roman catholicism as a whole has made me a better catholic .

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:

I have been following arguments on this forum between you and lady for almost a year before I started contributing ,May I say that the Insults you heaped on Mary in this forum is second only to the devil,even though the tone of your posts have come down now I pray that God almightymight have Mercy upon you and forgive you for your sins.

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:
Your posts feature on more than 80% of anti -catholic threads on this sites,it loke you dont have any other job doing besides surfing the web to bash catholics

Lol, then you might be confusing me for someone else - and I forgive you that sin mistake.

chukwudi44:

Jesus has sopken to some christians through images,francis of asisi perhaps the greatest christian evangelist in the last 1000 years had a vision where an icon of jesus came alive and spoke to him.

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:

for more of this story follow the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi

I'd seen it long before now, thank you for the offer.

chukwudi44:

Dont tell me about sola bible since I dont beleive in it besides it has no biblical foundation.

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:

The blessed virgin mary also spoke a nun through an image of her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Akita

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:
emphasis should be placed on worship of idols not legitimate veneration ogf images

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.

chukwudi44:

Young lady I admire your boldness when you decide to lie and confuse people,the sabath day was the seventh day(saturday),no other day was regarded as sabath.

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:

Mind Jews are still in existence and they are still observing the sabath.

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:

So you mean of all the 10 commandments only one was part of the obsolete mosaic law?

What are you on about? Did you again read my reply or trying ever so hard to read into my reply?

chukwudi44:

what was your criteria for determining which part of the 10 commandments fall under the mosaic law ?

I quoted straight out of the Mosaic Law to you, didn't I? Which part did you not understand as of the Law?

chukwudi44:

You protestant point to catholics as not observing the commandments when you are equally guilty of more .

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:

Since I recognise the authourity of the Pope I recognise the transfer of the sabath from saturday to sunday,but If I may ask you and other protestants on what basis do you regard the sunday as sabath?

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:

The Apostle paul in his letters to the corinthians and Timothy made it clear that Women should not be alowed to hold leadership positions in the church .You protestants fragrantly disregard this order appointing womens as pastors and in some cases as general overseer.

^{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:

99% of pentecostals women do not cover their hair as the scripture instructs they should do.

That may be true - but disobedience does not favour any movement, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.

chukwudi44:

Why dont you remove this log in your eyes ,so you might be able to see th supposed speck in roman catholicism

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.

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

@pilgrim
A bout bowing down to images I have this for you

Exodus 20:5
do not bow down to any IDOL or worship it because Iam the Lord ,your God and I tolerate no rivals.

Deut 5:9

Do not bow down to any IDOL or worship it ,for I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals.

Okay, nice quotes.

chukwudi44:

Now the oxford dictionary defines the word IDOL as an image of a god ,often carved in stone or wood and used as an object of worship.So obviously the statutes of Mary and other saints used in catholic veneration fails this definition ,since they are not regarded as gods and are not used as an object of worship.

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:

(hope you know the difference between veneration and worship)

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:
Prostrating(dobale) before elders is even worse than bowing ,since in this case you are fully lying on the ground unlike in bowing when you merely move your head.

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:

If you dont regard dobale as worship why do you regard catholics bowiong to images of saints as worship?

Because that is precisely what your Catholic Popes and Bishops have openly declared - WORSHIP to Mary. Nothing less than that.

chukwudi44:

@pilgrim

It is a common practise among we nigerians to prosrate(dobale),bow to our eldersespecially our traditional rulers ,does this constitute a violation of the second commandment since obviously these people represent images of people on earth.?

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)."

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.

source: my reply to Omenuko1, #225
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-284000.224.html#msg4098373
[/list]

chukwudi44:
Mind you the ark of the covennt was adored and venerated even though it was made with mere wood,do you think this acts would constitute a violation of the second commandment?

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.

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

Lets leave the second commandment

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:

. . and move on to the sixth which clearly says
in deut 5 :6
Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.

For six days you shall labour and do all your work.

But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well

Okay.

chukwudi44:
Since obviously you dont recognise the authourity of the pope who transferred the solemnity of the sabath to sunday,why do you and other pentecostals fragrantly dis regard this commandment of God because of a pronouncement of a pope whose authourity you dont recognise?

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 fragrantly flagrantly disregarding the sixth commandment, for the following reasons:

         ●  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.

Omenuko1:

How can God forbid his people from making graven images and then at the same time command them to build them. Not only does he command them to build images of heavenly things, he also commands them to put them in their places of worship (i.e., their temples, the Ark of the Covenant, etc.). Does God contradict himself? According to the protestant (well those who think like pilgrim.1) yes, he does.

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:

According to Catholic teaching (the teaching of the early Church), God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned (including the crucifix). But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images. That’s the bottom line in the prohibitions of the 1st Commandment; worshiping graven images as gods.

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:

For one thing, the Catholic Church does not teach the veneration of other divinities. What is practiced is the veneration of saints and heroes of the Church. The act of venerating/honoring and worshiping (using present day lingo) are two different things. Many people don’t realize that when they pledge themselves to their country/flag they are performing a form of veneration. Any time I attend a Nigerian function I hear people pledging themselves to their country. Why is the act of pledging oneself to a country/idea/goal not idolatry (i.e. prohibited by the 1st commandment)?

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:

I live in Washington DC and whenever I go downtown I see countless number of people coming here and going to monuments/statues of past American heroes. They stand near the statue, reflect on the deeds of the individual, some even touch the statue, and what they experience at that time becomes a lasting moment in their life. They are giving honor to the person that the statue/monument depicts. Is this prohibited by the 1st commandment?

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:

What is the difference between doing this in a secular sense (honoring national heroes) and doing this in a religious sense (honoring religious heroes)? Catholics do rightly in giving honor to saints, because they are worthy of honor. We do not give them the honor do to God alone.

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:

Catholics have three forms of honor/veneration. They are latria, dulia, hyperdulia. Historically, Catholics have used those terms to describe the different types of Honor given to God and the saints. The Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship (the saints). In referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary another term (hyperdulia) was used to describe honor given to her because of her unique role in salvation history; since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundamentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

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:

All these terms (e.g. latria, hyperdulia, dulia) have come to be described by the English word (old English) weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God. The word worship, today, has a more limited meaning and does not have the same wider usage as in the past. But there are some instances where it still remains. For example, in the British legal system they would refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship" and in the American system we use "Your Honor". What this means is that they are giving the title-holder (e.g., magistrate, judge, politician, etc.) the honor appropriate of their office.

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:

That document (Fulgens Corona) was first written in latin and translated into English. At most, what we can say about that document is that the term worship is used in the sense of giving the Virgin Mary the appropriate honor, her ability to fully (100%) follow God's will by giving birth to our savior. The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English and the term, as is in the document, is not a good translation into the English vernacular of today. I think the more appropriate word would be 'honor'. As was said earlier, we give Mary and all the saints honor because of their faithfulness towards God. Despite all of the hardships they may have endured, the way they lived the lives is a tangible (present day) experience which we strive for. We know they are not gods, but rather created beings.

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:

Again, let me reiterate what I said before, the catholic Church does not teach the worship (latria) of anyone or anything other than God. There may be people who improperly elevate Mary and the saints to levels that are improper and unorthodox (nay, anti-biblical), just as you will find in other denominations; when this occurs, the Church strongly comes out against it and condemns the practice.

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:

Note: for some reason I was locked out of my previous account (Omenuko) so I opened a new account (Omenuko1). . . .

I wondered. But thanks for sharing your concerns.

Omenuko1:

According to you, the making of a cross, or any depiction of Jesus, or God, or anything from heaven above as a graven image is wrong.

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
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
~ or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above,
~ or that is in the earth beneath,
~ or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Leviticus 26:1
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image,
neither rear you up a standing image,
neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land,
~ to bow down unto it:
for I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 4:15-19, 23
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image,
~ the similitude of any figure,
~ the likeness of male or female,
~ The likeness of any beast that is on the earth,
~ the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
~ The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground,
~ the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:

And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

Deuteronomy 5:8-9
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image,
~ or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above,
~ or that is in the earth beneath,
~ or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God,
we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto -
~ gold, or
~ silver, or
~ stone,
graven by art and man's device.

[/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 other words, when the Jews created the Ark of the Covenant and placed cherubim and seraphim aside it and when they placed statues of angels in their temples they were breaking the 1st commandment (according to pilgrim.1), Ezekiel 41:17–18, 1 Chr. 28:18–19, Ex. 25:18–20.

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:

What about when a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live; were they breaking the 1st commandment? So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).

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.

@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:

Catholics do not worship statues or icons. Of all the postings you provided from the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (I think you did a good job I might say) it is plainly clear that worship of anything other than God is prohibited. You do right to say:

~ It is clear that the worship of images did not begin with apostolic Christianity

The Catholic Church speaks out against the worship of images, starting from the apostles and continuing to present day; as per the 1st commandment:

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:

Question, is it your argument that God forbids the making of images that portray heavenly things? Or, do you object to one paying honor/veneration to fallen heroes in Christ. Or, do you object to one bowing to inanimate objects? Or, do you object to one bowing to created beings (i.e., human beings). I’m having difficulty in understanding your objections.

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.

~Lady~:

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

Does that make sense to you?

Why would we teach something we intend not to practice?

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

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

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

~Lady~:

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

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

STOP CONFUSING HONOUR FOR WORSHIP, YOU DECEITFUL WOMAN.

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~:

God must be one heck of a damn liar or confusing person to command no graven images be made and then turn around and command graven images be made and used in worship. Abi no be so?

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.

~Lady~:

Lol, you and I both know that you're really begging here. You know very well that a word doesn't have to be in the Bible in order for it to be true. Or are you insinuating that Christ wanted his Church to be in one place and not universal/catholic?

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

~Lady~:

Oh I am being honest with myself, but maybe you're misunderstanding me.
Darling what was the Church called before the reformation? I asked you a question, please learn to answer my questions before you ask me one, it is rather insulting that you always fail to answer my questions or that you answer with another question.

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~:

I know very well what the Church was called OFFICIALLY. Why don't you also consult wikipedia and tell me what the Church was OFFICIALLY called before the Reformation?

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~:

But let me give you my answer. The Church was OFFICIALLY called Catholic before the reformation. Now provide your own answer please. thanks.

I just did, above.

~Lady~:

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

What "answers"? The manufactured dribbling you've attempted here several times? Please pass.

~Lady~:

Lol, girl, read your Bible well. Philip was an apostle himself, he was commissioned by Christ like the other apostles. He was one of Christ's 12 disciples.

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 does it say that they weren't commissioned?

Where did it say that they were commissioned?

~Lady~:

It is clear that it must have been from the apostles, considering they were with the apostles. It would make no sense that in other places they were commissioning others and warning of those who were not commissioned and then to not commission it.

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~:

At best this passage doesn't show whether or not they were commissioned. But we know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so if we are shown in various places that people preach because they are commissioned then we can safely conclude that they were commissioned.
But Philip himself is an apostle.

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~:
hiss and ignorantly foolish of you.

Thank you - after hissing and the insolence, please show me Romish Popery in the Bible.

~Lady~:

What you thought I'd forget that you made an assertion? If you don't know the difference between ignatius' catholic and the catholic church today why make an assertion that there is a difference? This is how stupidity is caught, the stupid admit to being stupid.

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~:
Girl quit with your nonsense twisting, it's getting too old. Everyone's caught up to it.

I didn't twist nada - others can see your abacadabra with "mother of God" deliberately read into Luke 1:42 and numerous others.

~Lady~:

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

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~:

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

As above, please try not reading into the text - that verse does not teach apostolic succession.

~Lady~:

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

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~:

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

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~:

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

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~:

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

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~:

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

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~:

You can write it in big or lower case letters it steal means the same thing, and that is 'Universal'.

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~:

'Universal' is not different from 'universal' it is the same thing. Like I said, those who now know what Catholic means have found a way to make it seem as if catholic and Catholic are different. They are not.

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

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~:

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

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~:

Nice try to twist my words, But I was talking about non-catholics who've finally understood what catholic means and decides to find a difference between 'catholic' and Catholic.

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 un bias and will only go by the information given it. If the lutheran church calls itself catholic, wikipedia will report it as so, if buddhist, hindus, muslims, atheists, wish to identify themselves as catholic, wikipedia will report it as so. So that doesn't make any difference.

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~:

No the Catholic Church both east and west. RCC is only a part of the Catholic Church, you cannot be so disrespectful to deny the Eastern Catholics their faith.

I'm not being disrespectful, which is why I have not been yapping about anything "Eastern".

~Lady~:

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

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

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

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~:
So you see no one can just get up and start preaching.

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~:

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office.

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~:

See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
Just like the Office of the President.

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. . ?

~Lady~:

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

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.

~Lady~:

First we see that the apostles have authority give by Christ

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

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

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~:

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

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~:

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

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

~Lady~:

Now we see that authority transferred to others.

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

~Lady~:

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

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~:

A successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric" is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

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

~Lady~:

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

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!

~Lady~:

I feel sorry for the Catholics that have left. They left sound doctrine and truth for churches that fight each other everyday on who can properly interpret the Bible.

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~:

It is a known fact that all you guys do is fight each other on who has the better understanding of the Bible. Each one of you calim that it is from the Holy Spirit yet the God is not the author of confusion. Why are you all contradicting each other?

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~:

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

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~:

Girl stop deluding yourself. It still remains that everyone knows you guys are as confused as ever. Today you interpret one thing out of a passage, tomorrow you interpret another thing from the same passage. When you attend one church, you hear something you don't want to hear so you leave and you go find another church.

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~:

Each pastor puts his own interpretation in the Bible, even after the Bible says that the Bible is not meant for private interpretation and talks about people who interpret and twist the scriptures 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:16.

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~:

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

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

Lol, it's interesting to watch you delude yourself.

@~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~:

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

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

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~:

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

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~:

Sweetheart. it doesn't make sense that the Bible talks about eating the flesh and blood of Christ and you say it doesn't John 6:35-63. It makes no sense that Mary is called the Mother of God in the Bible and you say it doesn't Luke 1:42. It makes no sense that the Bible talks about so much and you guys dismiss it.

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~:

No where did Christ say that all that come to his church will stay. It is very much expected. But understand that there are so much more who become Catholic after reading the Bible and after rigorous studying of it and the history of the Christianity. I am one of them. My friends are also one of them. Various former pastors have also converted. More and more people are becoming Catholic, and protestantism is dying out. You guys have no sound doctrine.

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.

~Lady~:

I understand completely your point, and what I am trying to express to you that it is false. Just because something is accepted by popular culture doesn't make it the truth. Most people think sex before marriage is okay but we both know that it's not the truth. Just because people today consider the Catholic Church a denomination doesn't make it a denomination. I was trying to express to you that we have never been a denomination, as from the beginning when the church was called catholic, it was one church and was not a denomination and is therefore today not a denomination.

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~:
If it is your belief that the Catholic church as you know it today is not the same as spoken of then, could you kindly point me to the Catholic church spoken of by the early christians?

I thought I've shown this already? Especially here.

~Lady~:

We've shown it to you many times, but then again you neither understand the Bible or the Catholic teaching so how could you see it?

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~:

The same place where Christ gave the Keys to the KIngdom of heaven to Peter (is this not in the Bible?) the place where Christ prayed that his church be one in unity (is this also not in the Bible) the part where Matthias was APPOINTED by the APOSTLES to take the place of Judas, proving that you do need apostolic succession (or is this also not in the Bible?)

Are all that the PAPACY?

~Lady~:

Sweetheart you can deny it all you want but it doesn't make it true. The muslims deny the divinity of Christ does it make it true?
Point remains that you are yet to show the true church of Christ. Or does that church not exist?

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~:

Ok one more time, it is not the Roman Catholic Church, it is the Catholic Church. In stating RCC you are insulting various catholics around the world and excluding them from the Church. I do not appreciate you excluding my fellow catholics from the Church.

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~:

And it is rather idiotic of you to argue with me about my own name.

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 calls me Lady but I tell you that my name is Sandra, why in the world would you call me Lady when I've told you my name is Sandra and I want to be called Sandra, why would you argue with me over my own name, does that make any sense?

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~:
Or are you the one that gave me my name?

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~:
1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denomination

You are exactly right in your thinking, the Catholic faith is a sect, it is THE CHRISTIAN SECT.

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~:
However you guys have fooled yourselves into thinking you're christians, and therefore have created christian denominations, among the "christian denominations" Catholic is not included.

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~:
Catholic is plain and simply THE CHRISTIAN SECT.

Lol, which one - the one that Catholics like sancta called the heresy of the vatican? Is he not a Catholic too?

~Lady~:
Catholic is not included in the delusions you guys have cooked up for yourselves.

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~:
Sweetheart how does it make your point when your point was that the Catholic church spoken of by Ignatius is different from the Catholics believe their church to be?

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?

pilgrim.1:

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

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]

34. But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshipped the heavenly mother, its patroness, with a special devotion. 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. Thither especially let the suppliant citizens flock, and before that most sacred image let all put forth pious prayers, imploring especially that Rome, which is the principal city of the Catholic world, may also give the lead in Faith, in piety and in sanctity.

[/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"?

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 . . ."

2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "⁶⁶ It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."⁶⁷ He is "the author of beauty."⁶⁸

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.⁶⁹

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."⁷⁰ The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

[list]Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.⁷¹[/list]

IN BRIEF

2133 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deut 6:5).

2134 The first commandment summons man to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him above all else.

2135 "You shall worship the Lord your God" (Mt 4:10). Adoring God, praying to him, offering him the worship that belongs to him, fulfilling the promises and vows made to him are acts of the virtue of religion which fall under obedience to the first commandment.

2136 The duty to offer God authentic worship concerns man both as an individual and as a social being.

2137 "Men of the present day want to profess their religion freely in private and in public" (DH 15).

2138 Superstition is a departure from the worship that we give to the true God. It is manifested in idolatry, as well as in various forms of divination and magic.

2139 Tempting God in words or deeds, sacrilege, and simony are sins of irreligion forbidden by the first commandment.

2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

2141 The veneration of sacred images is based on the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word of God. It is not contrary to the first commandment.

[/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?