₦airaland Forum

uboma:
1st John 2:1-2 clearly addresses the issue raised by the op.

Earlier i said that no man (including the Priest) born of man and woman is qualified to forgive the sins of another fellow man.

jn 20:23

uboma:
As i continue to laugh in Swahili at your false belief of the Church (Catholic) being older than the Bible and that the Church (Catholic) compiled the Bible, you can continue to wallow in your ignorance and unwillingness to reason objectively.

You have being brainwashed beyond repair and i only pity the naive ones who will fall victim to your false teachings

since u are mr objectivity, kindly tell us who compiled the bible, inform d people u call ignorant.

Speechless3:
*bold. I will say the bible. Prior to the establishment of the church, books were already written and even prophecies said.

prior to the establishment of d church only the old testament was written! Is ur bible a old testament only bible? Are u a jew? It was after d establishment of the church that the new testament was written, 300yrs later it was compiled and called d bible. So the church is older than the bible in its present form.

The apostles, teaching authority? Isn't that too much reputation for men? Vessels sound appropriate.

The apostles had a teaching authority whether u like d word or not, Jesus said he who hears u hears me, that is a teaching authority. Whether u call them vessels or not they had a teaching authority.

Okay the bible may not be the sole authority,like others why is it not brought to the fore-front of catholic teaching and worship.

who told u the bible is not at the forefront of catholic teaching and worship, at mass what is read? What do catholic first quote when they teach doctrine. The catholic worship is of two parts, d first part is dat of d Word. Sorry u are wrong on d above.

dolphinheart:
Yep, you are right, nobody killed galileo, he died under house arrest by the church.

Yep, the church did not support hitler, the members did! .

sorry, but please allow me to ask this question.

Is ur church held responsible for d sins of each individual member esp sins ur church had clearly condemned?

vooks:
I don't need necromancy to see tomorrow. Jesus is the way to the throne of grace not dead men

the communion of saints has nothing to do with necromancy, necromancy is d act of foretelling future event. The saints arent fortune telling and anyone who attempts to do such is under condemnation by the catholic church. It is a communion of prayer in d one body of Christ.


Lastly, Jesus is The way to the throne of grace, wen i pray it is thru Jesus, when my brother on earth prays 4 me it is thru d same Jesus, when my brother in heaven prays 4 me it must still be thru the same Jesus. no catholic will have it without Jesus.

vooks:
I don't need necromancy to see tomorrow. Jesus is the way to the throne of grace not dead men

the communion of saints has nothing to do with necromancy, necromancy is d act of foretelling future event. The saints arent fortune telling and anyone who attempts to do such is under condemnation by the catholic church. It is a communion of prayer in d one body of Christ.

dolphinheart:
That, I cannot say. But what do I know, I know that the scriptures is completely equipt for every good work. It is suitable for setting things straight!

my bible says the scriptures is profitable (it was talking abt d old testament because d new testament hadnt been written) it didnt say it was solely sufficient.

dolphinheart:
Bro, I appreciate ur effort , but I believe you should have left us to finish our discussion, the discussion is more than the compilation
Of the scriptures, it is more about how the compilation of the scriptures made the church believe they can also make an image of mary for any religious purpose without reference to the scriptures they said they compiled.

i think you've gat your timeline wrong. The use of images in the Christian church predates the compilation of the bible.

Secondly u seem to think the bible is d sole authority for what is done in d church, that is wrong, the bible is not a catalog of every Christian practice, the use of images doesn't have to be recorded in d bible before we know it is an apostolic practice.

The worship place of some early Christian communities are still there till today and in each and every one of them there are image! The bible was not written to record everytin.

dolphinheart:
Pictures dnt lie Bro, at least not during those days. Wish I could post the pictures here .

alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/photogallery.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


Irrelevant question, finding the Protestant guilty does not make the catholic innocent!. Both where guilty of participating in the war, whichever side they are on.

Both members were known to participate and kill each other in wars after the second word war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Go and read it , or do you want me to quote some parts out?

i hope u are aware d pic u posted is not a catholic priest. It is easy to know a catholic priest by the vestments they wear.

dolphinheart:
You claim the use of the image of mary has scritural support, I just want you to show me which image was used in the scriptures, and we will compare its use with that of the use of the image of mary.
If truly there were images that was made by man in the scriptures,and its use is similar to that of the use of mary's image, pls let us see it.

if i understand the above correctly, it means u've gat no argument, u are not saying no images but instead 'let us examine d passage', or are u simply trying to avoid taking a position so u can continue shifting d goal post?

uboma:
I laugh in Swahili

Keep deceiving yourself that the Catholic Church is older than the Bible which is God's word.

you can laugh in chinese for all I care but that doesn't change the undisputable fact that the church is much older than the bible you carry around. The church compiled that bible you are holding abt 300yrs after the death of Christ. That means for 300yrs d early xtians didn't use the bible as we have it today.

uboma:
Tell us please one instance from the Bible where an infant was baptised.

I am waiting please....

sorry dear, first come first serve, i asked d question first, is there a law in d bible dat prohibit baptism for infant?
Is seem u cant answer d question dat is y u are trying to reverse it.

vooks:
Why not have Mary make you food as you work?

she does make the food, by praying for me.

uboma:
The Bible is clear and straighforward. With the help of the Holy Spirit, one can get a better understanding of the Bible.

Its people like you that choose to interpret the content of the Bible in so many different and confusing ways just to gather naive followers and enrich yourselves.

if the bibke was so clear and didnt need an authoritative interpreter i.e the church, why then do u protestants have over 30,000 disagreeing sects. God is not the author of confusion.

uboma:
Are you implying that the Church is older than the Bible?

the church is older than the compiled work called the bible. The old testament is older than the church, but d new testament was written by members of d church, compiled by d church, added to d old testament by d church and called d bible.

The church is older than d bible.

dolphinheart:
Now use those scriptures, mention those images and let's see if there is similarities between its use and that of the use of marys image.

before i do so, kindly tell me ur point cos u seem to be shifting d goal post every now and then.

Are u saying it is sinful to make any image for religious use, or that it it sinful to make such images without express divine command.

If i dont know ur position then i'll nt know how to respond.

dolphinheart:
Yep, they where also perfect to support hitler during the war, perfect to do what they did in south America, perfect to support the crusade, perfect to kill galelio(?) .
How was mary compiled ?

stop lying dear. Nobody killed galileo and the church didnt support hitler in his war.

beright:
always make the bible your standard, Jesus your role model and the Holy Spirit your teacher. By their fruit we shall know them. Millions are lead to destruction because they fail to read the bible and understand the ways of God. My ppl are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Read Ephesians 4 :14

the bible is a standard for me, but it is also a standard for 30,000 protestand sects and yet they cant agree on doctrine. That tell u something more is needed. JESUS didnt come to earth to write a bible he came to build his church, are u in that Church or are u labouring in d vineyard of men?

ByfireByfire:
Where you there? Did you witness it. Several reference to the old testament scriptures were made in the new testament.


Jesus himself stated in the new testament that the scripture cannot be broken jn. 10:35. So if there was anything wrong with the sacred scriptures then Jesus or his apostles would have spotted it and condemned it as they condemned a lot of unwholesome practices in their day.


I reject every Catholic Church history trying to make the scripture irrelevant or trying to allude that Roman Catholic wrote or compiled the scripture.


As far as neither you nor I were there to witness it such claims are false especially when they are made by a backsliden, idolatrous church.

i'll add ur question as one of d dumbest i have been ask on nl. I don't need to be there, there are available written records dating back to that period. Read up and b enlightened.

There was no new testament during d life time of Jesus, d jews didnt even have a unified canon at the time.

The apostles didnt write a bible they wrote a few individual letters and distributed then to a few churches, it was d church who gathered some of those scattered letters and left some out, added them to the old testament and called it d bible.

vooks:
You are very silly
How many men went to Jesus in behalf of others?
Mary and Martha went to Jesus on behalf of Lazarus, the centurion on behalf of his sick servant and so forth yet you don't go to them and ask them to approach Jesus.

it seems you know little abt catholicism even though u seem to enjoy criticising it.

Catholics believe in the "communion of saints" (google d apostles creed), put simply, it means Jesus has one body, and all who are justified by faith are members of that body, that body is timeless, ageless, does not die and cannot be butchered. So everybody in the body of Christ are brothers and sister and they all assist each other (1 cor), and physical death cannot divide dat body.

mary is not d only person catholics ask 4 prayers, they ask from all member of d body of Christ, those in heaven and those on earth including peter, paul, james...and even martha.

vooks:
Some villagers believe it is. Must be the psychedelic mushrooms


http://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/virgin-marys-image-appears-on-a-rock-in-makueni-county/

unfortunately, I can not give a conclusion based on sone lines in a photo.

kingk:
One thing I don't like is arguement......ok for example, infant baptism do the bible justify as catholism do?....there are many many more but I wouldn't want to be contencious ok.

is there any law in d bible against baptising infants? Or are u a false prophet trying to speak where God has not spoken?

Speechless3:
Okay i need your help. Was born by catholic parents and by default, amma catholic too, but what i dont understand is my birth church adopts two authorities. Its own and the bible. And to be sincere, its hard ta admit it, the bible is seen as a sub-authority...

Well not like i even read the bible ummm but i have this feeling something is nat in place.

Can someone figure this out.

I still love my church but...

u should go get ur bible and read it after saying a short prayer to d holy spirit.

The bible never claims to b d sole source of authority or d sole index of christian practice. The catholic church predate d bible in its present form. The leader of the church is also a teaching authority for d church read acts 15.

And lastly i think u should go back to catechism class and learn what d catholic church teaches.

Speechless3:
I think you are correct but why is the bible not the only authority?

I get confused sometimes

simple question, the church and the bible which is older?


The bible has NEVER been the sole authority in d christian church. Just the way the constitution is not d sole source of authority in nigeria, d courts must interprete what it says.

During the time of the apostles, the apostle themselves and the elders were d teaching authority in d church along with d old testament. It was d apostles and elders who interpreted and taught what was written by d prophets.
After the apostles died their teaching came down as letters (which d church lata gathered and calld d bible), and the witness of their disciples who learnt from them and transmit the faith (dis is calld apostolic tradition), d elders were still d teaching authority.
So there has been 3 distinct source of authority in d church, d bible, apostolic tradition and the churchs' teaching authority.

beright:
the bible which is the word of God is not straight forward? That is a big fat lie! False teaching

if the bible was so clear and straight forward why do we have over 30,000 protestant sects all teaching different doctrines?

PastorAIO:
You mean all these people that say they are worshipping the king of kings are actually worshipping the King of Babylon?

that is actually anas09 argument i do not share it. he claims once an idol or person has used a title then the title cannot be usedby anyone. he claims since the queen of heave was used by a goddess it cannot be used for mary. the rebuttal is simple, his argument contradict scriptures which show that king nebu used a title which is still used for Jesus till date.what about the title morning star?

dolphinheart:
Does the belief by some that the Catholics compiled the bible now become the pillar for their use of images, expecially that of mary?
What is the correlation between compiling the bible and the use of mary's images?.

the use of images is found from the correct interpretation of scriptures.

Ichiato:
Your logic is flawed. If I compiled a book and thought it latter to make additions to the very book I compiled automatically disqualify me from claiming I'm the compiler? Bro the first version and second version were compiled by me. Secondly what exactly do you mean the contemporary bible is unacceptable to Catholics.
Thirdly you seem not to know the difference between compilation of the bible and translation of the bible. The catholics were only against the translation of the bible.

the problem with is agruement is that the catholic church didn't make any additions to the bible, the bible was canonised with 73 books not 66, it was luther and co who removed boks from the bible.

ByfireByfire:
There's nothing you'll show me in history to make me believe Roman Catholics compiled the bible.


How can they compile a book they refuse to obey in totality. A book some Pentecostals they deride obey more than them.Some Catholics even claim they wrote the Bible. I laugh.


In the new testament we see examples of where Christ and apostle paul entered synagogues and opened old testament scrolls and taught from it. So you people imply the Catholics compiled those for Christ and Paul? I laugh.


What of the Churches Christ rebuked in the revelations(Rev. 2&3). Did the Roman Catholic compile their Bible for them? I see historical lies somewhere .


And yes Catholics worship Mary without even knowing it. Many of them accord her reverence equal to worship... in fact far above worship. Reverence greater than they even offer to Christ Himself.

They name the name of Mary many times more than that of Christ in prayer. They bow to her image in reverence in church and many at their house alter with Mary's statue.


They almost make Mary equal or greater than God by calling her Queen of heaven and mother of God.



They'll hallow, reverence and bow to any formation or reflection in the sky or sea that looks like a woman and call it Mary.


They once had to bow to a mirror reflection on a wall from someone's room in a storey building in a city. A reflection they believed was Mary.


If all that is not worship then I wonder what is.

are you aware that when Jesus was alive the Jews the jews didn't have a concluding canon of the old testament? every jew followed his rabbi on what book to accept. the church didn't have a definite new testament for over 300yrs. so my dear even the church called in rev didn't have bibles. the bible was collected by the church fathers canonize at the council of hippo and cathage.

[quote author=dolphinheart post=39502450]

U read my post, you read my request, yet you now ask this question?.

yeah, during the making of the temple the bible records that several images were added which were never commanded by God, they include bulls, flowers and several winged creatures which God never commanded yet after the building of the temple God rested therehe didn't reject it, he didn't scream idolatry as you guys scream today. if God as was against those images that he didn't command, why then did he not reject the temple that contained them?

Did you not read the precise instructions giving to moses about the construction of the ark?
If the ark was constructed by moses for his people and god said " do not make for urselfs", yet they made the ark for themselves, does this not tell you what "do not make for yourselves" really mean.?

you are grasping at straws, the people made those images for them selves under God's instruction and when they built the temple they made several more without Gods instruction

1. Good, those images where made by those who made it under divine instructions. it was recorded in the scriptures.
2. Those images would not have been made by those who made it without those instructions. those instructions where very specific and detailed, these details they followed, and where recorded in the scriptures.
3. Those images would not have existed without the directive from god that it should be constructed. Those directives where recorded in the scriptures.

haahahahah, so what about the images made in the temple without the express permission of God?

Now apply these to the image(s) of Mary and let's see where we are.



”Do not make for yourself” means ”do not make for yourself”

simple after God gave commands that images should be made even the isrealites understood that God was not against all images but only against idols so when the temple was built they put there several images.


let me ask you, do you know what happened after the ark was lost? there was no ark in thetemple when Jesus was alive, Do you know that yet people including Jesus went there to pray, do you know what was there? a drawing made on a cloth.... that was it, there was no ark yet Jesus went to a temple and called it a house of God a house of prayer when all that was there was a mere image on a cloth. even Jesus must be laughing at you, the jews will be laughing at you because it seems those ancient rabbis understood the bible better than you do, it seems Jesus understood it much better.
how is ur day going?

PastorAIO:
You mean all these people that say they are worshipping the king of kings are actually worshipping the King of Babylon?

that is Anas09 logic and arguement not mine. He claims becos a goddes was called queen of heaven that means mary cant legitimately use the same title, i'm simply reminding him that the king of babylon who claimed godlike status was also honoured as king of kings and if his arguement and logic is right then it is wrong to call Jesus king of kings or even morning star.

Many of d symbols there has nothing to do with the occult.