₦airaland Forum

Steep:
The jews can also claim the same. Without them, you won't have the bible.

The good thing is a lot of Jews did become Christians. With regard to those practicing Judaism, they obviously reject Jesus as the Messiah as thus reject all of the NT as scripture. Mind you, there were 3 or 4 Jewish sects with different OT canons.
The crux is that Jesus gave authority to the apostles to bind and loose. The successors of the apostles- ordained Bishops carried on this process which included canonising the bible.

btoks:
Bible has to be read as a whole and it is not an instruction manual of all doctrine from 1st page to last. You do realise the church already existed and the scriptures were written to the church decades after the event? There was also word of God via sacred Tradition which the Catholic church has passed down and clarified via councils where required. In fact, it is the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura that is to be rejected has this was never taught by the Apostles by letter or tradition. You will need to decide how it is you believe in a biblical canon and sola scriptura where these are clearly not within the bible.

when it comes to doctrine scripture alone is the authority.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The Catholic choice passed down traditions that didn't originate from the apostles and the early church such as veneration of Mary ,Roman Catholicism go against the apostles by teaching what they didn't teach.

We see seeds of veneration of Mary, when she visited Elizabeth - Luke 1: 43 - 44 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

Veneration is honour given to all saints , worship (Latria) is given to the Trinity alone. All made clear via tradition/magisterium. - Read the Apostles Creed from latest 4th century to see the mention of the 'communion of saints'. Please read other documents and letters from the early church fathers to get a feel for how christianity was practised. Every Christian practice was never detailed in the bible.

veneration of Mary was never taught by the Apostles. Elisabeth conversation with Mary was never taken as a doctrine for the church, neither is praying through Mary, they were all imported after the death of the apostles.

emmyileri:
I see how you are trying to justify yourself to the worship of lifeless statue. The Bible say children should honour, obey and submit to their parents. If you prostrate to your parents in greetings which is honoring them, is it the same as worshipping them as gods?

Good, I like your answer.

Just as anyone who bows or prostrates to his father at home with the intention of worshipping him,is actually worshipping an Idol so also any Catholic who bows to any Idol with the intention of worshipping it, is worshipping an idol. He/she is meant to honor the Person those images represent.
If it's an image representing Christ, He/she is meant to in addition to obey and honor, Worship the PERSON Of CHRIST the image represents.
(note the words- "with the intention" )

To your indirect question- why worship them as gods?
Answer: Catholics don't worship them as gods.

Why do Catholics even have the images at all?

Let me also let you provide the explanation by yourself with the ffg questions. Hope you will indulge me. Thank you.

1) Why do you have images/pictures/enlarged Portraits of your parents, loved ones friends or those who have passed away?
Even statues of celebrities and prominent people are molded both dead and alive?
Why is it done?

2) Why can't some parties/events be held without decorations?
(disco light, mannequine, costumes, assorted designs, etc)

3)Why can't some intimacy/romance session be held without some sort of symbolism?
Like physical symbols we buy candle Light, dim lights, flowers, music, love symbols, etc)

Just as Praying and Worshipping the Lord can be done without images..TRUE

but why do we humans make the extra effort to carry out
( 1, 2 & 3); buy and put them around us in such moments even when we can still carryout each activity without buying a single item or "IMAGE" or decorating a single place or "IMAGE"?
are we humans worshipping those "Images" or slaves to the "work of artistic decorations"?

Again: Hope you will indulge me. Thank you.

jesusjnr2020:
Good evening. Men who behave, dress like women, for instance, Bobrisky. I hope you're clear now.

Oh makes sense.
Does this clarifies the issue with women wearing trousers? Like I feel we have been confused about this issue as wearing feminine trousers isn’t an abomination then or what do you think ?

Thanks for your opinion.

Steep:
Roman Catholicism is a false religion just as Islam or Buddhism is.

saints who have physically died do not pray or intercede for anybody. Any Christian who is still alive (physically) can intercede.

The woman in Revelation is not Mary.

Just as you call Mary mother of God so also David is the father of God, it is not a cause for veneration. The woman in that verse said blessed is the person that blessed him but Jesus said rather those who obey him are the blessed ones meaning the blessings is for obeying God not because one is the mother, father or relative of Jesus.

Luke 1:45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
In luke 1.45 the blessing came on mary becauze she believed not because she is Jesus mother.

All saints held in high esteem (because they believed the word of God) but not bowing to their images or praying to them. Mary is not the queen of heaven, the queen of heaven is an idol, Roman Catholicism is Satanism in disguisd.
Only one person can mediate in heaven and that is Jesus. Only The high priest can minister in the holy of holiest which represent heaven.

431 AD is a very long time after the death of the apostles, during their time such abomination called veneration of Mary was never practice, it is obvious these heresies were brought in.
The apostles has already prophecies that such heresies would enter.2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

It never originated from the bible, mariolatry is paganism. It is the worship of divine feminine.

saints who have died (physically) can't pray for anybody they are decibed as asleep which does not mean they ceased to exist but that they are in a state of rest.

There can never be unity with idolatry and heresies. Roman Catholic church is filled with abomination.

chimex38:
Good, I like your answer.

Just as anyone who bows or prostrates to his father at home with the intention of worshipping him,is actually worshipping an Idol so also any Catholic who bows to any Idol with the intention of worshipping it, is worshipping an idol. He/she is meant to honor the Person those images represent.
If it's an image representing Christ, He/she is meant to in addition to obey and honor, Worship the PERSON Of CHRIST the image represents.
(note the words- "with the intention" )

To your indirect question- why worship them as gods?
Answer: Catholics don't worship them as gods.

Why do Catholics even have the images at all?

Let me also let you provide the explanation by yourself with the ffg questions. Hope you will indulge me. Thank you.

1) Why do you have images/pictures/enlarged Portraits of your parents, loved ones friends or those who have passed away?
Even statues of celebrities and prominent people are molded both dead and alive?
Why is it done?

2) Why can't some parties/events be held without decorations?
(disco light, mannequine, costumes, assorted designs, etc)

3)Why can't some intimacy/romance session be held without some sort of symbolism?
Like physical symbols we buy candle Light, dim lights, flowers, music, love symbols, etc)

Just as Praying and Worshipping the Lord can be done without images..TRUE

but why do we humans make the extra effort to carry out
( 1, 2 & 3); buy and put them around us in such moments even when we can still carryout each activity without buying a single item or "IMAGE" or decorating a single place or "IMAGE"?
are we humans worshipping those "Images" or slaves to the "work of artistic decorations"?

Again: Hope you will indulge me. Thank you.

Romans 1:21–23
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Leviticus 26:1
“’Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

Galatians 5:19–21
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God

Romans 1:21–23
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Leviticus 26:1
“’Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

Galatians 5:19–21
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God

You twisted my word. Prostrating to your father is not the same as worshipping him. Let the Bible speak for itself.
You should ask yourself if this is how the early Christians worship Jesus Christ,including Peter, James and paul etc. If you can't find auch in the Bible then something is wrong with it

Steep:
when it comes to doctrine scripture alone is the authority.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The Catholic choice passed down traditions that didn't originate from the apostles and the early church such as veneration of Mary ,Roman Catholicism go against the apostles by teaching what they didn't teach.


veneration of Mary was never taught by the Apostles. Elisabeth conversation with Mary was never taken as a doctrine for the church, neither is praying through Mary, they were all imported after the death of the apostles.

The verse quoted does not say scripture alone, also it says all scripture is 'profitable' or useful as per other translations - it doesn't mean that is all that's needed. In fact you'll need to read the verse 14 for further insight:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,
2ndly, what scripture was Paul referring to here? The pharisee, saducee or Essen OT canon? Surely even the NT hadn't been completed nor deemed scripture at this point. Could hindu scriptures count here?
How do you trust that the church got its determination of scripture right if you believe that it has passed down incorrect tradition?

Sola scriptura was first introduced to Christianity 1500 years after the event by Martin Luther as part of his protestant reformation solas. A full 1100 years after the 431AD Theotokus declaration,but you posit that sola scriptura is the only authority on doctrine! It'll be interesting to see which church council attested to sola scriptura.

Re Mary- I wonder how you know what the apostles did/didn't teach, especially with no canonical writings from half the apostles.
Are you now going to ignore an entire half chapter on Mary's visit to Elizabeth, would you ignore the verse where Mary said "all generations will call me blessed" ,as no other Apostle taught this? As I stated befor, the bible was not put together as an instruction manual- it stands together with sacred tradition and the magesterium teaching of the church.
Please see the early church father writings from the 2nd century e.g irenaeus, justin martyr for further info. You may also find that there's a prayer to Mary dated to about 250AD .

btoks:
The verse quoted does not say scripture alone, also it says all scripture is 'profitable' or useful as per other translations - it doesn't mean that is all that's needed. In fact you'll need to read the verse 14 for further insight:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,

Paul and the other apostles never taught veneration of Mary, praying through Mary and deceased saints etc they werr ever part of the traditions handed over by the apostles, all these were added.

2ndly, what scripture was Paul referring to here? The pharisee, saducee or Essen OT canon? Surely even the NT hadn't been completed nor deemed scripture at this point. Could hindu scriptures count here?
How do you trust that the church got its determination of scripture right if you believe that it has passed down incorrect tradition?

same can be said of the jews, how could you disagree with them yet they gave you the scripture.
Those other scriptures were not written by the apostles and prophets,historically the books that were canon by the jews were the books of the law and the prophets. While the church followed the teachings of the prophets and apostles anything outside of these were not scriptures.

Sola scriptura was first introduced to Christianity 1500 years after the event by Martin Luther as part of his protestant reformation solas. A full 1100 years after the 431AD Theotokus declaration,but you posit that sola scriptura is the only authority on doctrine! It'll be interesting to see which church council attested to sola scriptura.

Sola scriptural does not mean church tradition is not neccesary provided such traditions truly came from the apostles not fraudulently added which the Roman catholic church is notorious of doing.
Heck the Roman church goes against the bible.

Re Mary- I wonder how you know what the apostles did/didn't teach, especially with no canonical writings from half the apostles.
Are you now going to ignore an entire half chapter on Mary's visit to Elizabeth, would you ignore the verse where Mary said "all generations will call me blessed" ,as no other Apostle taught this? As I stated befor, the bible was not put together as an instruction manual- it stands together with sacred tradition and the magesterium teaching of the church.
Please see the early church father writings from the 2nd century e.g irenaeus, justin martyr for further info. You may also find that there's a prayer to Mary dated to about 250AD

can you show me proof that the apostles venerated Mary, or prayed to Mary not church fathers. By the way you seem to take authority from church fathers, are their writings considered as scripture? Why? What is the difference between scripture and non scripture?

emmyileri:
Romans 1:21–23
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Leviticus 26:1
“’Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

Galatians 5:19–21
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God

Hmm..
Your quote from Romans and Leviticus is worth a thought. Especially Romans..


And to buttress this verses you quoted, I think there is a thin line to which some Catholic faithfuls cross and their ministers need to enlighten the members to fall back or note them. Cuz what the members do and how they carry on with their worship is more of a reflection of what the Catholic Church stands for when unfortunately some are not the official stand.

I am also against how far some catholics go in keeping such images as sacred as though they glorify it's importance more than their next door neighbor or family member not to mention God. That's Idolatry and it's wrong❌

Catholics use beads similar to Moslems but it has crucifix at it's end.. If I have a problem with my phone and nothing around me,but this tiny crucifix can pass through and press-open the inner button of my phone, I will use it.

If I am in danger and there is a big statue of crucifix close-by I can use to fight off an enemy or hit a predatory animal attacking me or other domestic animal.. I believe Catholics should gladly use it without thinking twice.
Revering and protecting it as a sacred entity even when it is just a carved material and can serve other purposes where one has no other alternative is idolatry to me and glorification and it's wrong❌.

Responding to your verses:
My understanding of the context of the verses is that those images are idolised by the populace when erected. They can't pray to their gods if they don't have it in there homes, centre of worship, gatherings, etc because that is the physical object they worship and so it's very sacred.
I don't think it is so for Catholics..
No one forces the members to have them in their houses, places of worship, etc.
It doesn't stop a community gathering of catholics from praying without those artifacts if they so choose because it is not their God. I have seen them pray.
I have seen catholic ministers celebrate church service in an open place without crucifix or any images..this usually happens in remote villages most times. This proved to me that it is not their God and doesn't in any way, take the place of God when it's used.
(You didn't respond to my 3 questions, so I will reserve my response on why I believe those images are used cuz you and I know that within those questions, lies one singular answer.)

I will add 2 more questions below to buttress the 3 above:

4) Why do some people leave their homes with 24/7 light, comfortable chair, table, sometimes even quiet and serene enough,to go to a different environment to read or nearby library especially Masters and PhD students same reason as why do some undergrad students leave there hostels or room and go to the library or class to read?

5a)As a human, which I presume you are, when you pray as a person or when one generally prays, do you form a mental image of events you pray to/thank God for as well as form a mental image of the God you pray to?
5b)If yes, Is it right or wrong?

For me all questions just drives at one singular answer.

Happy Sunday, remain blessed

chimex38:
Hmm..
Your quote from Romans and Leviticus is worth a thought. Especially Romans..


And to buttress this verses you quoted, I think there is a thin line to which some Catholic faithfuls cross and their ministers need to enlighten the members to fall back or note them. Cuz what the members do and how they carry on with their worship is more of a reflection of what the Catholic Church stands for when unfortunately some are not the official stand.

I am also against how far some catholics go in keeping such images as sacred as though they glorify it's importance more than their next door neighbor or family member not to mention God. That's Idolatry and it's wrong❌

Catholics use beads similar to Moslems but it has crucifix at it's end.. If I have a problem with my phone and nothing around me,but this tiny crucifix can pass through and press-open the inner button of my phone, I will use it.

If I am in danger and there is a big statue of crucifix close-by I can use to fight off an enemy or hit a predatory animal attacking me or other domestic animal.. I believe Catholics should gladly use it without thinking twice.
Revering and protecting it as a sacred entity even when it is just a carved material and can serve other purposes where one has no other alternative is idolatry to me and glorification and it's wrong❌.

Responding to your verses:
My understanding of the context of the verses is that those images are idolised by the populace when erected. They can't pray to their gods if they don't have it in there homes, centre of worship, gatherings, etc because that is the physical object they worship and so it's very sacred.
I don't think it is so for Catholics..
No one forces the members to have them in their houses, places of worship, etc.
It doesn't stop a community gathering of catholics from praying without those artifacts if they so choose because it is not their God. I have seen them pray.
I have seen catholic ministers celebrate church service in an open place without crucifix or any images..this usually happens in remote villages most times. This proved to me that it is not their God and doesn't in any way, take the place of God when it's used.
(You didn't respond to my 3 questions, so I will reserve my response on why I believe those images are used cuz you and I know that within those questions, lies one singular answer.)

I will add 2 more questions below to buttress the 3 above:

4) Why do some people leave their homes with 24/7 light, comfortable chair, table, sometimes even quiet and serene enough,to go to a different environment to read or nearby library especially Masters and PhD students same reason as why do some undergrad students leave there hostels or room and go to the library or class to read?

5a)As a human, which I presume you are, when you pray as a person or when one generally prays, do you form a mental image of events you pray to/thank God for as well as form a mental image of the God you pray to?
5b)If yes, Is it right or wrong?

For me all questions just drives at one singular answer.

Happy Sunday, remain blessed

Happy Sunday.. Sincerely, i understand your point of argument. But if there is no one place in the Bible where such is practiced or sanctioned, i think it's not worth doing. May God guide our part to the truth of the scripture.

Paul and the other apostles never taught veneration of Mary, praying through Mary and deceased saints etc they werr ever part of the traditions handed over by the apostles, all these were added.

At least I can point to early church tradition and magisterium as evidenced throughout the centuries and within early councils. I gave you a seed form of veneration of Mary within the bible already. Interesting you state deceased saints, when we see in Luke 20: 37 - 38 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.” - Catholics believe this.
It is clear you adhere to sola scriptura but this protestant doctrine was never taught by Paul and other apostles. All apostolic churches before the schism affirm veneration of saints.

same can be said of the jews, how could you disagree with them yet they gave you the scripture.
Those other scriptures were not written by the apostles and prophets,historically the books that were canon by the jews were the books of the law and the prophets. While the church followed the teachings of the prophets and apostles anything outside of these were not scriptures.

I don't quite get your point here - I asked how you determine the scripture but you state that we disagree with the Jews>>. I think you'd find that the the Jews opposed Jesus and his teachings, ultimately leading to crucifixion. Yes, we disagree with the Jews' views on Jesus but not the scripture (OT) already written. Jesus had authority, he gave authority to his apostles who in turn ordained bishops/ priests of the early church. These same guys canonised the books of the bible as we have it today.

Sola scriptural does not mean church tradition is not neccesary provided such traditions truly came from the apostles not fraudulently added which the Roman catholic church is notorious of doing.
Heck the Roman church goes against the bible.

The Catholic Church does not go against the bible, all teachings are implicitly or explicitly found there. The bible does not contain every Christian practice. Would you say the following are false as we know some protestant churches don't believe these - 1. Consecrated bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Christ 2.God is a Trinity.
Another question for you - it is the year 320AD , what church would you have attended with your current sola scriptura views? Mind you, the following books were still disputed even at this stage - James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2,3 John, Revelations, shephard of Hermas etc; a common man would most likely have being unable to read; Bible books wouldn't have been bound together or as easily accessible as today.

can you show me proof that the apostles venerated Mary, or prayed to Mary not church fathers. By the way you seem to take authority from church fathers, are their writings considered as scripture? Why? What is the difference between scripture and non scripture?

I don't need to show you any proof based on your own erroneous standard of sola scriptura. Within Church tradition and the Church magisterium veneration of saints is very clear. Veneration of saints is also implicit within the bible.

Church fathers give an idea of what the church tradition is e.g. list of bishops, accepted teachings etc. Historically you had to be part of the one church founded by Jesus or you were considered a heretic. E.g, the Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians who used the same scriptures to give their novel interpretation of who Jesus was and other doctrines.

btoks:
At least I can point to early church tradition and magisterium as evidenced throughout the centuries and within early councils. I gave you a seed form of veneration of Mary within the bible already.

can you point historically were the church where Mary was venerated? It shouldn't be hard give me evidence.
When did this church tradition start before or after the apostles?

Interesting you state deceased saints, when we see in Luke 20: 37 - 38 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.” - Catholics believe this.

Are you saying the saints are not dead? If they are not dead who is christ coming to raise at his coming?
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

In 1 cori 12:52 who did Paul call "the dead"?

It is clear you adhere to sola scriptura but this protestant doctrine was never taught by Paul and other apostles. All apostolic churches before the schism affirm veneration of saints.

There is no evidence that the early church during the apostles venerated saints, it was introduced after the death of the apostles.


The apostles and Jesus himself were very strict in following the scriptures, Jesus even said the scriptures cannot be broken,
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
The scripture takes preeminence above traditions, you cannot set aside scriptures by tradition, which Roman Catholicism does.

I don't quite get your point here - I asked how you determine the scripture but you state that we disagree with the Jews>>. I think you'd find that the the Jews opposed Jesus and his teachings, ultimately leading to crucifixion. Yes, we disagree with the Jews' views on Jesus but not the scripture (OT) already written. Jesus had authority, he gave authority to his apostles who in turn ordained bishops/ priests of the early church. These same guys canonised the books of the bible as we have it today.

So how do you know that Jesus is the christ if not through the old testament written by the jews, without the jews the old testament could have not be written, which means you won't know who Jesus is. Now using your own logic we should agree with the jews even though they contradict the scriptures they put together.

The Catholic Church does not go against the bible, all teachings are implicitly or explicitly found there. The bible does not contain every Christian practice. Would you say the following are false as we know some protestant churches don't believe these - 1. Consecrated bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Christ 2.God is a Trinity.
Another question for you - it is the year 320AD , what church would you have attended with your current sola scriptura views? Mind you, the following books were still disputed even at this stage - James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2,3 John, Revelations, shephard of Hermas etc; a common man would most likely have being unable to read; Bible books wouldn't have been bound together or as easily accessible as today.

I can say same with the jews because according to your own logic Roman Catholicism is unquestionable because they put the bible together, so following your own logic the jews are unquestionable because they wrote the old testament and put it together, can't you see the flaw in that line of thought.
Roman Catholicism contradicts scriptures in almost all doctrinal issues.

I don't need to show you any proof based on your own erroneous standard of sola scriptura. Within Church tradition and the Church magisterium veneration of saints is very clear. Veneration of saints is also implicit within the bible.

you have no proof to show only what has being fed to you without questioning. Roman Catholicism hate questioning, it is like a blasphemy, she is just like Islam.

Church fathers give an idea of what the church tradition is e.g. list of bishops, accepted teachings etc. Historically you had to be part of the one church founded by Jesus or you were considered a heretic. E.g, the Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians who used the same scriptures to give their novel interpretation of who Jesus was and other doctrines.

Are speaking of traditions that were handed down by the apostles? Gnosticsms, Arians, nestorians are heretics because the contradict scripture and the traditions handed down by the apostles and you know what so is veneration of Mary and the saints, and a host of false teachings of the Roman catholic church.

emmyileri:
Happy Sunday.. Sincerely, i understand your point of argument. But if there is no one place in the Bible where such is practiced or sanctioned, i think it's not worth doing. May God guide our part to the truth of the scripture.

I get your views as well..
May God guide our path

can you point historically were the church where Mary was venerated? It shouldn't be hard give me evidence.
When did this church tradition start before or after the apostles?

You need to do your own research in reading the church fathers, you can start from here: [url]https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-full-of-grace [/url] Also check out St. Athanasius' writings on Mary.

Are you saying the saints are not dead? If they are not dead who is christ coming to raise at his coming?
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

In 1 cori 12:52 who did Paul call "the dead"?

Are you trying to pit Paul against Our Lord Jesus? You need to read what Jesus said about the dead again here Luke 20: 37 - 38, as per previous post. You can't pluck verses here and there without a wider context. Do you really think the dead are still waiting for their individual judgement before going to Heaven or hell?

There is no evidence that the early church during the apostles venerated saints, it was introduced after the death of the apostles.

This would be like me saying there is no evidence during the apostles taught God as Trinity. This is why you need the authority of the church to decide what the correct doctrine is based on scripture and tradition. You need to read the church fathers that lived in the time after the apostles.

The apostles and Jesus himself were very strict in following the scriptures, Jesus even said the scriptures cannot be broken,
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
The scripture takes preeminence above traditions, you cannot set aside scriptures by tradition, which Roman Catholicism does.

Who says the catholic church is not strict in following scriptures. Sacred tradition complements scripture as scripture was written to the existing church. how exactly do you think they knew which scriptures to canonise and how to interpret if that's what you mistake for setting aside.
Who determines what the interpretation of scripture is? What is your interpretation of bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Christ after consecration going by your sola scriptura. Was your interpretation taught by the apostles?
Within the same NT scriptures, what is the pillar and foundation of truth (Where is it today?)

So how do you know that Jesus is the christ if not through the old testament written by the jews, without the jews the old testament could have not be written, which means you won't know who Jesus is. Now using your own logic we should agree with the jews even though they contradict the scriptures they put together.

I can say same with the jews because according to your own logic Roman Catholicism is unquestionable because they put the bible together, so following your own logic the jews are unquestionable because they wrote the old testament and put it together, can't you see the flaw in that line of thought.
Roman Catholicism contradicts scriptures in almost all doctrinal issues.

Wrong, you can't conflate the two. Jews rejected Jesus teaching and his claim to be Son of God. Jesus established a church with authority to bind and loose. This church has carried on for 2 millennia but you want me to believe your own opinions 2000 years later!

you have no proof to show only what has being fed to you without questioning. Roman Catholicism hate questioning, it is like a blasphemy, she is just like Islam.

Oh, you can certainly question the Catholic church but once a matter is decided by those given authority, matter is closed. See Act 15, Luke 10:16.
Now where has all the questioning and individual protestant popes led you? Which do you believe -
-Infant baptism or not
-Baptism saves or not
-Baptism is for the forgiveness of sin or not
-Bread and Wine becomes actual body and blood or not
-God is Trinity or Not
- Jesus has 2 natures but 1 person or human Jesus is separate from God the Son
- Marriage is a sacrament or not
- Divorce is allowed or not
- Justified by faith alone or not
- Once saved always saved or not
-Rapture or not
- Mary is perpertual virgin or not
And so many other differing beliefs within the different protestant denominations

Are speaking of traditions that were handed down by the apostles? Gnosticsms, Arians, nestorians are heretics because the contradict scripture and the traditions handed down by the apostles and you know what so is veneration of Mary and the saints, and a host of false teachings of the Roman catholic church.

Do you have any idea who named these groups heretics? You are aware these groups justified their views using scriptures, right? Are you aware of the early church schisms after church councils? I don't see where the catholic church split from early christianity due to false teaching. Could this be because it had/ has the orthodox teaching. How come it was others that split from the Catholic Church.
This leads to to the question you ignored - it is the year 320AD , what church would you have attended with your current sola scriptura views?