₦airaland Forum

imhotep:
My sister. How are you doing?

Bros boo. . . I dey. Still my naughty self. How are you? I was taking time to go through your entries while I was on "sabatical". hmm. . you still be the real "imhotep!" God bless you.

imhotep:
He administered the sacrament of confession all his years as a priest, and was also a 'worshiper of Mary'.

Well, na you know.

@~Lady~,

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2848820#msg2848820 date=1222281848]exactly my point Jesus has the same body that man has, yet we don't bow to man, why?

So why not bow to a man, if man is not a graven image?[/quote]Answered already. You may want to study the reason why Mordecai would not bow to Haman (Esther 3:5). When we read instances where men bowed to other men, it helps to understand the context - it had nothing to do with worship (see 1 Chron. 21:21 as an example). Do not assume that references to men bowing to men is necessarily encouraging the practice of Mariolatry or Mary-graven-image-veneration. Godly men who knew the import of this thing quite understood that bowing down to anything, anywhere and to anyone at any time other than to the LORD was a sin (2 Kings 5:18). We should not be seeking to justify our violation of God's Word because of our cherished traditions.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2848820#msg2848820 date=1222281848]The cherubims were a part of the ark, the were mounted on top of the ark, yet everyone bowed before the ark of the covenant. Even David danced in front of it, note that the ark wasn't worshipped but the Lord's presence was in it, and they knew this. The ark was pure and could never be undefiled, even the statue god by one of the pagan countries, I can't remember the name right now was found prostrate before the Lord. The ark of the covenant was in no doubt held in high regards, and was widely protected by the Israelites. It was reverenced and venerated. The ark was no joke to them.[/quote]Mary's statues are directly bowed to in veneration of Mary - hence Mariolatry. The cherubims do not represent the LORD, and people were not bowing down to the ark. When Israel went to worship, it was not to anything they bowed - directly or indirectly - and that is why we read: "O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker." [Psa. 95:6]

The word is clear: "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." [Leviticus 26:1].

Unless you categorically have a commandment where God asked you to make statutes of Mary and bow down to her, asserting this and that will not help the case. do you have such a commandment from God on this matter?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2849145#msg2849145 date=1222286498]Now you know why we don't worship Mary. She is not Deity.[/quote](1) And what about the fact that Mary has been ascribed the divine title meant for God alone? - the Glory of Israel?

(2) What about the graven images of Mary that some Catholics bow down to? Or are they also not catholics?

(3) What about the fact that some Catholics pray to Mary? Is that a fact that could be denied as well?

(4) Why is it that up until now, no Vatican "bull" has been released to disavow what the Bishops have called Mary - the Saviour of the people of Rome?

It is easy to claim that no Catholic worships Mary; nor bows down to her or her graven images or statues; nor pray to Mary, etc. The fact is that simplistic assertions are not all there is in this matter - for we know that Catholics do so, and mere assertions do not erase the evidence.

rampagain:
do You think so?

but he said --------------watever i hear you say to my hearing i will do for You

Let's read it together:

Numbers 14:28 ~ "Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you."

Hmm, if you think that verse is referring to answers in prayer, please read the warning in both verses 27 and 29 to get the gist. When you do, come back and let's know if you see that quote as God serving us.


_{Hint: bros, they were not praying O. . . it says "murmuring" - a very different matter. If you ask God to murmur on you. . . we doubt the aftermath would be pleasant!}

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]Not just the event of Golgotha. In the book series titled transmitted writings, Abdrushin permitted blessed ones to document the mankind spiritual history from the very beginnig to the end. You may have to read books titled, past eras aweaken vols 1, 2, 3, From past Millenia and the Forerunner book series.[/quote]Hmm, there are so many people having their own versions of the history of mankind - spirituality, psychology, evolutionary, etc. I don't have any worries about such. I only asked what reference he would have got GOLGOTHA from if it is so hard for his followers to simply admit the fact: from the BIBLE.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]The prophecies are again written in the book of life, the living law of God.[/quote]Is this book of life different from the Bible? Is it a hard thing to just say simply: "BIBLE"? You just make the assertion that the prophecies are written in the book of life - and I should assume to follow Abd-Ru-Shin's interpretation of those prophecies without knowing those prophecies for myself? Is that how the prophets interpreted prophecies? Why is it so hard to simply say "BIBLE"?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]He did not draw from the bible or any other book.[/quote]Then please do us the favour of posting those prophecies he meant. failure to do so is seriously undermining your assertions. I could show you where in the Bible those prophecies are. Could you show me any other book where you can find those prophecies?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]He draw from out of himself, from the Truth.[/quote]He drew from the Bible. QED.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]My perception is that Abdrushin saw the begining, the development and the end and thus he has personal knowledge of the events he is describing. Abdrushin even gave where the star of Bethlehem originated, its course and development. Are all these just interpretations of the star of Bethlehem? I wonder. Besides the prophecy of the star of betlehem was known to Zoroaster and his followers. I recommend that you read another transmitted writing " Zoroaster- Life and work of the Forerunner in Persia" You can also check out this book from Amazon "Tom Kay- When the Comet Runs."[/quote]Please do me the favour of posting the prophecies - and that will do. Until then, I would play ignorant for the time being - and when you have the occasion to delight us thereto, I would gladly show you what you are missing.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]My dear sister Pilgrim, the Grail Message drew from the eternal Truth.[/quote]Okay, I hear. I only need the book that Abd-Ru-Shin was referring to when he mentioned the prophecies.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]What ever prophecies or events that has happened or will happen is written in the book of life.[/quote]I hear. Just show me that book.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]It is possible to go backward or forward and draw from Time, from the laws of God what was, what is, what is to come. Stay blessed.[/quote]I hear. before I travel across time, please show me that book of prophecies.

Warm regards.

@m_nwankwo,

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]The Grail Message do not draw from the bible as you seem to suggest. First I mentioned that the reference to Grail Message is the TRUTH. That implies that wherever is the Truth will be found in the Grail Message. If there are Truth in the bible, in any other sacred text, in science etc, you will find that in the Grail Message. When such happens, there are two possible explanations: one is that the author got his authority from these sources which seems to be your persuation. The other possibility is that the author knows the Truth and as such what is true in the bible will be found in the Grail Message. My persuation is of the later.[/quote]This is where you're making a grave mistake. The problem here is that if you ask a follower of the Grail Message if the bible is the Word of God, there answer would be a decided NO. I don't see how such people would be saying the Bible is not the word of God and at the same time you would be admitting that there are truths in the Bible.

However, there's only one answer to everything you have tried to argue out: it still simply demonstrates that there is no authority in "itself" as you hinted in reference to "In The Light of Truth". The Bible did not have to draw from other texts or "scriptures" and misinterprete them as does Abd-Ru-Shin. It would only make sense if he had tried to devise his own religion without misrepresenting the Biblical message.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]The Ten Commandments and the Lords Prayer are the Truth and that is why you find it in the Grail Message. Therefore the ten commandments and the lords prayer were drawn from the Truth, that is they were drawn from GOD. Moses who was the instrument that God used to make the ten commandments available to mankind drew from the Truth and Jesus who gave mankind the the Lords prayer also drew from the Truth. In most cultures people have noted that yam gives yam, tomatoes gives tomatoes. If Abdrushin then says that you reap what you sow, does it mean he drew the knowlewdge that yam gives rise to yam from these cultures? Certainly not.[/quote]Lol, have you not affirmed what I just said earlier? Abd-Ru-Shin drew from the Bible. If you say "No", you would definitely be contradicting your own assertion. In other words, the Bible is the Word of God from which Abd-Ru-Shin drew from as regards both the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. There is no other source where you would find the Ten Commandments or the Lord's Prayer other than in the Bible. Period.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]Not at all in my view. These lectures are drawn from the Truth. The Grail Message is a continuation and consolidation of the message of Jesus, the son of God.[/quote]Sorry, this excuse will simply not cut it. The Grail Message is not a continuation of the Biblical message - that is why anyone who reads it with a sharp understanding will see that the Grail Message is just Abd-Ru-Shin's (mis)interpretation of the Biblical message.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]Therefore the Grail Message discusses in detail the teachings of Jesus, the son of God.[/quote]That Abd-Ru-Shin "discusses" the teachings of Jesus Christ is okay, and I have no problem at all with that; afterall, there are so many people discussing the message or teachings of Jesus Christ. What the Grail Message does not do is "continue" the message, as you hinted.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]The teachings of Jesus can be found in the TRUTH, in God and that is from where ABDRUSHIN draw his message.[/quote]Lol, m_nwankwo. . . If the teachings of Jesus can be found in the TRUTH, what is that truth? Where? If you're finding it so difficult to simply state that the teachings of Jesus can be found in the BIBLE, I can understand your dilemma. If someone asserts that the teachings of Jesus can be found in XYZ, they want to know what XYZ stands for - it cannot be an abstract notion that nobody can handle and read for themselves. The problem is made easier for us: the "TRUTH" where Jesus' teachings can be found is simply the BIBLE - that's your XYZ - that's the TRUTH. Outside of that Book, you will not find the prophecies that Abd-Ru-Shin referred to in The Star of Bethlehem. If you can source them outside the Bible, please let us know. if not, his so-called "authority" for prophecies are vague.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]Abdrushin drew from the Truth.[/quote]WHAT is this "TRUTH" apart from the Bible?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2849059#msg2849059 date=1222285245]The events of Golgotha is indelibly written in the book of life, that is the living law of God.[/quote]What is this "book of life"? You see, this play on words is not helping matters. You cannot reference GOLGOTHA outside the Bible as Abd-Ru-Shin used it. If you could, please serve it gently to us - because vague assertions will simply not do the job. If Mr. Abd-Ru-Shin believes he was giving us the "truth" and yet referring to GOLGOTHA, we should be able to check him out on his references. To shy away from doing so is simply making us candidates of gullibility.

For the simple reason that man is not Deity.

~Lady~,

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2848564#msg2848564 date=1222278264]What is the difference between falling down and bowing to Jesus the man and falling down and bowing to any other regular man?[/quote]If Jesus was "any other regular man", I could see your point. But is that what the Bible teaches?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2848564#msg2848564 date=1222278264]Aren't both of them images, isn't man in the image of God?[/quote]Phew! I don't know how else to say this O. . .!! We have been through this same argument so many times now that it has been retired out of use!

Look carefully: where was it ever taught that anyone was asked to bow to man in worship? Whether or not it is graven images, is there anywhere the Bible teaches that we were asked to bow down and worship man as a "graven image"? The injunction in the Bible is clear O! He said do not make any graven images (Isaiah 42:8 -- "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.) Well, where can we find the teaching in the Bible that man was made as a "graven image"?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2848564#msg2848564 date=1222278264]Why did God permit the image of cherubims to be used for the ark of the covenant?[/quote]Where did God's Word teach that anyone was asked to bow down to those cherubims in the ark of covenant?

I'm sorry and don't want you to assume that I'm being rude by asking questions instead of giving answers. I have shared on this same issues with answers from the Bible in the other catholic threads before; I never was able to make others see the point - and that is why instead of filling pages, I approach these issues by asking simple questions. This is so that my fellow discussants would do a bit of reflection themselves. If the Bible teaches what you assume, then please simply quote the verse where it states that anyone was commanded to bow down to the cherubims.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2848564#msg2848564 date=1222278264]The first commandment forbids putting anything or anyone else in the position of God or above God.
So when you put money first you worship money, you can also worship sex even though sex is not an image.[/quote]That is true - thankfully, God has been faithful to help me worship neither of them. The question is that we should not be looking for excuses to continue in what we know violates His word.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2848564#msg2848564 date=1222278264]God made himself an image when he walked the earth in human form.[/quote]Wrong. God did not make Himself into a graven image when He walked the earth. The word used is is graven image - clear as it appears in Exodus 20:4 & 5 ~~

[list][list]⁴Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: ⁵Thou 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.[/list][/list]

Haa! na serious matter to mistranslate His word O!

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2848564#msg2848564 date=1222278264]So dear please what is the difference between the image of Jesus flesh and another man's flesh?[/quote]As above - (a) Jesus is not a "graven image"; second, (b) Jesus is Deity and not another man's flesh!

@m_nwankwo,

Okay, I hear. Just a line or two to point out, though:

(a) the author of the Grail Message's 'In the Light of Truth' does not only "alludes" to issues delineated in the Bible, he actually draws upon them from the bible to arrive at his own interpretation. My point? Simply this - Abd-Ru-Shin would have no reference whatever for those subject the way he teaches about them if he had not got his underlying terminologies from the Bible. Let me give you an example:

~ where do you think Abd-Ru-Shin got his idea of the Ten Commandments from?

~ where do you think Abd-Ru-Shin got his idea of the Lord's Prayer from?

[img]http://www.grailmessage.com/TTCL.GIF[/img] This is a copy of the book by Abd-Ru-Shin that I have perused - without doubt, he takes every single line of the Lord's prayers as found in the Bible and arrives at his own interpretation. It is going to be difficult for anyone who has read that book to claim that he was only "alluding" to the Lord's Prayer and not drawing from the Bible on that very subject. The same could be said about The Ten Commandments - Abd-Ru-Shin has no message to offer about that if we deny that he got his ideas precisely from the decalogue in the Bible to arrive at his own teaching on that subject.

(b) What about the book itself - In The Light of Truth? Are certain chapters which draw from the Biblical terminologies giving it his own interpretations be regarded as you asserted - "authority in itself"? Just think for a minute - what other books did the Bible authors borrow spiritual terminologies in their inspiration as Abd-Ru-Shin did in consulting the Bible and actually re-interpreting Biblical subjects? Let's look at a few of them:
[list][list]
[li]Volume 1[/li]
[li]3. The Anti-Christ[/li]
[li]14. The Star of Bethlehem[/li]

[li]Volume 2[/li]
[li]16. Watch and pray![/li]
[li]20. The Lord's Prayer[/li]
[li]45. The crucifixion of the Son of God and the Lord's Supper[/li]
[li]46. Come down from the Cross![/li]
[li]47. This is My body! This is My blood![/li]
[li]52. I am the Resurrection and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by me![/li]
[li]63. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit[/li]
[li]66. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do![/li]

[li]Volume 3[/li]
[li]36. Ask, and it shall be given unto you![/li]
[li]38. Let there be Light![/li][/list][/list]

No, it is not a matter of mere "allusions" or even of "reference" - the point is that Abd-Ru-Shin would have no authority at all on those subjects found in his book 'In The Light of Truth' if he had not taken his ideas from the bible directly and only given them his own interpretations.

A few examples:

Where did Mr. Abd-Ru-Shin get the idea about Golgotha from in the chapter on The Book of Life (Vol. 1) when he stated: "Even as the Darkness moved over Golgotha when Jesus, the Living Light, departed from this earth, so is it now moving over mankind. . . " No, this is not about "allusion" or "reference"; rather, this is about the question of where Abd-Ru-Shin got his idea about Golgotha from?

Again, what prophecies did Abd-Ru-Shin mean when he says in The Star of Bethlehem: "At that time only a few recognised the Star as the fulfilment of the prophecies"? What prophecies - from where - which book? Can you please point us to another book other than the Bible to which Abd-Ru-Shin was directly drawing from in that chapter?

You see, my dear m_nwankwo, when people assume that Abd-Ru-Shin had nothing to do with the Bible and his works were totally an authority in themselves, I find that quite a untenable gist to digest. Why? Because there is no authority in the quote above if Abd-Ru-Shin was not referring to prophecies in the Bible! But we know he was - and that is why I already made the case that he drew heavily from the Bible and the claim otherwise is untenable.

Cheers.

Warm greetings, Omenuko. . .

Thank you for weighing in on this matter. I pray for the grace to share with you as a disciple of my own advice - to do so with a humble spirit.

Omenuko:
From that same document you posted, the above quote more articulates the reason why we honor and respect the saints.  As you posted your self:

Okay, I'm quite familiar with the 3 definitions of worship in Catholic eschatology. The problem here is that a serious play on words have been employed to confuse issues with people who are not careful to examine them in light of Scripture. I was hoping that you may first consult your resources, see the context of each meaning ascribed to those 3 words, and carefully reason it through as to whether issues have not been confused. Let me expatiate a bit further:

Suppose we look up the worship due to God alone (latria), the basic question is this: who indeed could share that worship in anyway at all? Answer? NONE. What then does this connote? It means that in such matters, none other than the Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) could be properly ascribed that worship. Yes? Yes.

Now here is the problem. Are you aware, dear Omenuko, that God categorically states that in this regard He would not share His glory with anyone (Isaiah 42:8)? He says specifically:

[list][list]"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."[/list][/list]

For those who may not understand this bit, the case is simply that God connects His NAME with His GLORY in matters of latria - the worship due alone to God. However, even after distinguishing these points between latria, dulia and hyperdulia, is it not amazing that the same latria is applied to the worship of Mary? How? For the simple reason that Scripture tells us that no one else is called specifically by the name: The "Glory of Israel" - none other than God alone is properly called that very Name.

Just to share with you the veracity that the appellation "the Glory of Israel" is a proper Name, one needs only consult the works of Catholic scholars themselves who admit this !! e.g., Fr. René Laurentin and the late Pope John Paul II. They already know that the appellation "the Glory of Israel" is a proper name that applies only to the Lord Jesus Himself - for He is Deity.

However, my two unanswered questions all along have been this:

[list][list][li]A. WHO is the "Glory of Israel" - MARY or GOD?[/li][/list][/list]

And if we acknowledge indeed that God alone is properly deserving of that Name, then the following question follows:

[list][list][li]B. WHY has the Catholic Church taken the divine titles of God and ascribed them to Mary?[/li][/list][/list]

You see, forget the excuses of 'we are only honouring Mary with "hyperdulia"', the real issue is that by applying something which belongs to God alone, they have crossed over to latria (the worship due alone to God) - because it is God Himself who said that as regards His Name, He would share that glory with none other! I believe that God's Word is weightier than any religious tradition being formulated at any one time.

You may see this thread ('Honour to Mary') where I asked these questions and provided the evidence for the fact that "the Glory of Israel" is a proper Name belonging only to God - even acknowledged by Catholic scholars (Fr. René Laurentin and Pope John Paul II).

As for the explicit statements where latria has been used for Mary, perhaps one day you may want to see for yourself when I offer the reference.

Cheers.

Alhaji Olabowale,

Ema binu si mi. Mi o ri kini na, abi besi ma a ro po. Ba wo l'ara yin?

Phew! So I am free of that worship, ba? I thank God say nobody go come back and accuse either you or me of . . . em. . . pilgrimolatry!

Hi m_nwankow,

Although you mat agree with me, but I'm sorry to observe that you have not actually countered the fact of what I stated. There is no other place where you will find Jesus Christ particularly called Son of Man and Son of God outside the Bible - go and check. ALL authors that I know of in the Grail Message cannot deny the fact that their reference to Jesus Christ as Son of Man and Son of God is in allusion to the Bible.

Chrisbenogor:
Matters of faith, hmmm very interesting indeed . I will try my best to make this not look like a coup d etat (hijack ).
First I want to call out on the mods(A_K_O, mukina), my brothers and sister wetin dey happen? why this bias, I have never posted in the islamic section, the tales of what you guys do to people who do so is quite alarming and since I like my username a lot I keep away even though there are loads of things posted over that make me wonder if they are real people there. Why would you allow a muslim( not sure if original porter is but certainly looks that way) post a question to a christian thread, not just any question but one that is the foundation of what they believe in, I can imagine going into the islamic section to post something about their sacred prophet calling him a prophet of doom. I don't know if anyone has tried before and I certainly don't want to try myself even though I have almost had to cut off my hand so I don't fall into the temptation.
But I respect and commend christians because they even have the patience to sit and try to explain things to the muslims even though quite obviously they are not there to understand but to invalidate that which the christians believe in, please do well to throw the floor open for us to seriously probe islam however we want or simply create a christian thread and ask all muslims to stay away, but I don't think the christians really mind because I am sure if it were jesus christ's pictures that was made fun of in cartoons there would be no destructive protests by the christians and the muslims would not protest even though they say they believe jesus was a prophet of God.
Now to the crux of the issue at hand, what is basis for this discussion between christians and muslims? None whatsoever! The christians believe from their holy bible the nature of the personality of Jesus and if this is a discussion between the sects in christianity then fine the floor is open for them but you as a muslim HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT to question that which the christians have chosen to believe in.
None of us has seen God and you rely on what you have been told by those who either say they have heard from God or is the Son of God.
The christian position is simple God in three forms whats so difficult to understand, its so annoying that you are using physical things to explain the spiritual when you fully well know that one does not even have to go that far to invalidate the totality of Islam. How about you tell us more why there is sunni and shia sects or did the prophet forget to explain that to you.
Any religion that has enough time to directly invalidate another to me is already 100 percent man made.
I would be happy to engage you muslims on what you believe but that would be on my turf which is this particular board, I know the benevolent christians won't mind but I don't want to step on the toes of your mostly ill tempered brothers, and sisters( its a wonder they allow the ladies use the internet).

https://images.zaazu.com/img/clap-animated-animation-clap-000340-large.gifBalanced. . . thoughtful. . apt!

Gamine:
I never went to anyone, i had my fellowship with my God.

Okay, since that one different from all the other fellowship, make we jus form your own and call it "my fellowship" (aka MFWMG - "[b]m[/b]y [b]f[/b]ellowship [b]w[/b]ith [b]m[/b]y [b]G[/b]od"

Lol, babe chill. . . I just dey mess with your head! How body?

@Backslider,

Isaiah 45:11 does not teach that God prays to anybody. I just wanted to make that point clear so that people don't assume your own interpretation is the Christian or Biblical one. Shalom.

rampagain:
but d thing get as e be

@rampagain, I agree with you on that - even though I don't see it the way people interprete those words.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
But I still dey wonder for you sha how you take dey get time to create all those hyper links, infact I an begining to suspect that you are a Nasa creation, prove me wrong or I go begin worship you now now

Haa!! I no be Nasa creation O! Lol, I don't know how they come so easy to me to do. . . maybe because i have the info loaded in my memory that I could just recall them instanta - fiam, like that!

Anyhow, I just wanted to help the discussion so discussants don't banter accusations across board - especially when the evidence is well established beyond any doubts.

Shalom.

Em. . dear plappville,

plappville:
I am lead by the word of God through his only son Jesus christ and not by FAKE DOCTRIMS. MAY GOD'S WORD REMAINS BLESS AMEN.

Please take it easy with your fellow discussants. Things have happened to me since I last debated them on Catholicism in the other thread - I have made a whole lot of other Catholic friends, and lost friendships as well. In the midst of it all, I have learnt more to be humble and not assume that Catholics do not know what they are talking about. Yes, many of them know their onions, and if we must be fair to them, in as much as we accuse Catholics of many things, let's remember these two very humbling facts:

(a) Catholicism has produced most of the finest and most brilliant minds in religious and Christian scholarship. There are men whose words are on marble and constantly referenced to this moment, who have benefitted many others without waiting to check what denominations they belong to. An example? Anyone who knows or has read Chesterton will understand what I mean.

(b) God is sovereign and can use anyone. I know of Catholics whom God has used to bring about matters of blessings to other people without waiting to check their ID as to whether they were catholics, protestants, or Universalists. Most of the friends who have taught me humility in practical terms are Catholics (although some of them recently left the Catholic faith). When people accuse catholics of being murderers, I have refrained from going that far - because I am reminded that God convicted a man like saul of Tartus and mightily used him for the glory of Christ.

My point here is that nobody paid me for any public relations job for catholics; and I'm certainly not canvasing support for Catholicism not changing my views on what I know about the whole system. But my point is simply this: we should be willing to enter into constructive dialogue rather than hostile debates. Truth can still be shared with a humble spirit. Can we all try to do so?

Regards.

Omenuko:
What is/are the definition of worship.

Lol, good question. Perhaps I may have to wait until you offer any of the 3 definitions (latria, dulia and hyperdulia) that Catholics often refer to from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Afterwards, I may come back and post you the explicit statements that Catholic Bishops have used in reference to Mary that might surprise you. I warn you, dear Omenuko, it is not my intention to hurt you or rattle your faith: so please leave pilgrim.1 jeje. . . or you may simply invite the very thing you may not want to read at all from your Bishops. Albeit, I shall be patient and hope you don't push your luck.

Omenuko:
When was the letter written? Lets dissect this statement and bring it into context. I'm sure many people will be surprised.

Lol. . . so what's your point? That Mariolatry did not originate from Catholicism? or that time has erased Mariolatry completely out of Catholicism today? Either way, let us know - you might be truly surprised at the answers.

Omenuko:
Oh by the way, you really seem to have a handle on your bible. Your knowledge of your faith is most admirable. You should think about reading books and writings of some of the 'early church fathers' and the lives of the saints. You'll be surprised as to how they worshiped and conducted their faith. Many non-Catholics seem to believe that Christianity started after the reformation and have no clue as to the great dept of spirituality and knowledge of the early Christians (all of whom were Catholic).

Hmm, okay I hear. We've been through that same idea and found it largely wanting. The apostles of Jesus Christ (whichever version of the Bible you might adhere to) were not Roman Catholics. So, please don't go there and assume things which have been retired out of circulation.

All the same, Deus vobiscum.

Hallo @Omenuko,

Omenuko:
@pilgrim.1,

My friend, you can do better than that.

I most certainly could, if I cared.

Omenuko:
Let me ask you a question, "so according to your understanding, does the word 'worship' in this context and time mean the same thing as it does today?"

Perhaps you would have directed that question to the same bishop who used it in the context of the quote taken directly from that Catholic website. Do you have anything to share that would enlighten us?

Omenuko:
In other words, do you believe that Pope Pius XII is extorting Catholics to give to the Blessed Virgin Mary the worship that should be given only to God?

Let me restate something I have often said so many times in the other thread: I have asked Catholics who enter into dabates on this subject to observe the following:

(a) if any Catholic doesn't know or have their facts ready to hand, then just leave pilgrim.1 jeje before she refers them to issues in Catholicism that may surprise them;

(b) my aim has never been to hurt anyone - and that was why I tried to be so patient until after over 300 entries from when I asked the same question in the other thread, before I actually started posting evidence of the fact of Mariolatry - issues which no Catholic has ever come back to counter with concrete evidence to the contrary;

(c) I regret (yes, regret) that so many people who contacted me through email were Catholic friends; after severally challenging me to post the "evidence" (because they miscalculated my patience for a lack of evidence thereto), I obliged and posted only one - and the result? So many of them wrote back that they had left the Catholic faith. I am not bluffing - even a dear friend who himself goes by the username lawyer was quite puzzled and considered leaving Catholicism - which was my regret, because I had not intended to disturb or rattle his faith-foundations.

(d) I found myself appealing to many Catholic email friends afterwards that I would listen and not hurt them by posting the remaining 11 explicit quotes from Bishops who stated in no unmistaken terms that Catholics worship Mary. I mean, "worship Mary". Rather than post in online on the Forum, I sent the references by email to a friend who calmly asked for such references to check out my assertions. Three weeks later, she emailed me just one line: "All you asserted are true - and shocking." I never heard from her ever since.

(e) when Catholics make the grave mistake of over-reacting without checking out their own archives, they only make a case against themselves. If you want to discuss with me, that's fine - and as I listened to other email friends, I will refrain for their sakes and not post the other 11 explicit statements (including where one of the Catholic Bishops referred to Mary as GOD), as was the case when another Bishop referred to Mary as the Saviour of the Roman people.

I don't make ungaurded assertions. As long as the evidence is there and well documented, I often make them plain for all to see - that is the difference my arguments make, and not the bluff and wild denials we often read.

My whole point here is to caution discussants here to not be so accusative against plappville by assuming she was lying - she was not. The evidence of what she has been saying is there - the problem is that not all Catholics are aware because not all Catholics actually are involved in Mariolatry. However, Omenuko, if you suppose that there's something you have to share which simply deflates the evidence I have referenced, it might be more helpfult to share with readers instead of wondering if I could do better than this.

Well, the fact is that he is not. Yeses!

rampagain:
this is one difficult question ,i really can't answer directly

Benevolence and service are not the same. While God blesses us, we are called to serve Him.

To conflate words and make them the same doesn't necessarily mean they portray the same idea. It is as much as to ask: do we pray to God, or does God pray to us? Someone might think up a clever way of making them the same, but we know they are not.

@topic,

I think it all depends on several factors - it depends on what context people speak about Christianity as well as who's using the phrase. As Christians, we like to argue more along the lines that Christianity is a way of life (and most other religions would argue the same). However, there are elements of our Christian life that are religious - such as James makes clear when he spoke about pure and undefiled religion before the Father in reference to our Christian lives [James 1:27].

On the other hand, many who often argue about the core values of our Christian faith often use the term "religion" particularly in reference to christianity. How often have atheists used the term "religion" when they know that they actually meant "Christianity"?

However, the problem that such discussions or arguments project is that it is not so easy to define "religion", just as there is no single definition of "atheism" agreed upon even among atheists themselves. Often, when people are discussing either "Christianity" or "religion", it is pertinent to ensure clarity of terms before drawing any conclusions.

plappville:
even some mumbers do ve their own alter in their home where they do worship everytime.

It's also done in the open with other shrines and images of devotion ~-

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope_worship.jpg

@~Lady~,

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=116335.msg2843757#msg2843757 date=1222200321]

Yes the catholics do worship the image of MARY, i was once a catholic member i know tings there i don't just say what i do not know

This statement shows you were never a Catholic, don't come here and lie.[/quote]I don't think it's fair to assume that plappville was lying. We've been through this discussion before in the other thread where I demonstrated this very issue to show that Catholics (or should I say "some Catholics" actually worship the image of Mary. Infact, there are several places where this fact is decried by the many Catholic faithfuls with whom I had that discussion - a very heated debate infact - and at the end of the day when the facts were posted, it went all quiet with no counter claims to provide a contrary evidence. See the following:

          post #185
          hayo's comment on post #191
          ebo's reiteration on post #197
          alliednewt berating A.K.O
           

It took quite a long while before I started posting evidence of the fact of Mariolatry - the worship of Mary by some Catholics, after having given enough space for our Catholics friends on the Forum to deny any tendencies of such. Here are some, beginning from here:

           post #666 - #670
           post #672 & #673
           post #708
           
           are these pictures real?

           brent's observations @ post #841
           

After much patience, it was not until after over 300 entries that I finally posted a sample of the evidence I had often asked Catholics to clarify:

           post #930 observes that -

[list][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][/list]

[list]Source: "Fulgens Corona" - Encyclical of Pope Pius XII [from a Vatican website].[/list]


On the whole, I don't think it's fair to assume that plappville was lying. There are well established evidences to show precisely more serious and explicit statements of worhip to Mary from Catholic bishops; so one cannot just dismiss plappville out of hand in such a manner.

Regards.

ayinba1:
Thanks for exposing your ignorance and falsehood, pilgrim.

Hope you find your way!

I can't keep up with your load of c--p!

@ayinba1, I was not surprised you would resign yourself to such fatalistic thinking. The "ignorance and falsehood" are actually a compliment - especially where my exposé of your false claims are evident. Cheers.

@Backslider,

I still ask you to be careful what you say. Read Matthew 12:37. Cheers.

SAM MILLA:
I just asked what you think makes your church better than others and i expect a direct answer from you.
Dont make me say something wrong here. If you have no answer to the question, just move to another one.
i wonder why some of you always like to complicate and derail topics.

This is not about derailing a thread. It's a simple question, and you may pass it over if you'd not like to answer it.

Well, perhaps we may ask you to kick-start the gist by asking you: is it not true that you would prefer your own church to some others?

@justcool,

justcool:
All that I have written above is my perception of the Grail Message concerning the issue of the Son of Man. The references to Biblical verses are solely mine, the Grail Message does not draw from the Bible.
It draws from the purest source, from God HIMSELF.

Lol, the Grail Message has no other place to find Jesus being referred to as Son of Man and Son of God other than in the Bible. I have read a few publications from the Grail Messengers (pardon my pun) who have cited references from the Bible itself, though. I think it is fair for us to admit the simple fact that the Bible is a point of reference for most of what is being discussed in the Grail Message.