₦airaland Forum

StillDtruth:
Is a letter not an access? Does Abraham Lincoln's letter and Paul's letters and the bible not give us access to what transpired?using words like "at that time" or "in those days"

the letters of Abraham Lincoln as lovely as they are do no give us a full picture of what was happening in America in his day nor does it purport to record every American culture, belief and practice. The new testament gives us some sense of what happened in the first century, but it was not written to give an exhaustive understanding of every Christian belief and practice. When Paul was writing to Ephesus, he wasn't trying to give a compendium of Christian teaching, in fact he assumed someone had already taught them before his letter, nor does he attempt to tell us all Christian practices.

If you want a full idea of what was going on through out America in those days, you'll need to read the different people who lived in the days of Abraham Lincoln and those who lived immediately after.
If you want to know all that the apostles taught, you read their letters and read the writing of the Christians they taught who were charged to teach others

The bible even laid out the practies and laws of the people it is talking about incliuding when, where and who kept them or broke them. So you have no valid excuse.

since you are sure of this, kindly tell me how the church in Rome conducted their service every Sunday.

If in crime scenes investigators ensure that the evidence there are not corrupted or tainted, is it now the bible, the Book of Truth?

investigators don't only look at the crime scene, they talk to the accused and the presumed victims, then they talk to all who were there at the time the crime was allegedly committed.
That is why after reading my bible, I check the historical context in which it was written, the church it was addressed to, the practices of the early Christians, how they understood the passage. Anyone who has studied scripture will tell you of patristics and HCM.

I get it, you don't like whole and pure Truths as is your right, no wahala

People swallow greedily any lie that flatters them, but sip only little by little at a truth they find bitter.' Dennis Diderot

I could say the same about you. That is why you are scared to check how Christians from the beginning have always understood scripture.
Instead you take them and wrest them to your own desires

StillDtruth:
Off Point!

on point

StillDtruth:
Off Point/Deflection!

The point is about the announcet says "only practicing catholics" should come for the communion even after all the prayers for forgiveness at the beginning and during the mass.

the prayer for forgiveness at the beginning of mass does not make a person a practicing Catholic

1) "Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? (at the begining of the mass or during the mass or the one just before the communion is given)

the bible actually says God does not hear the prayers of sinners. That is why the Catholic church will tell you that the penitential rite is for minor failings like venial sin and for venial sin you should use the sacrament of confession.

However if you have perfect contrition for all your sins then the word of God applies "A broken and contrite heart o God you will not spurn". In such a case all your sins are forgiven even at the penitential rite.

2) Does it mean God hears only the confessions we make before the Priest?"

He hears a lot more than that, but he also has his process. You think the people of Israel couldn't get their sins forgiven like David who had perfect contrition? Or you think God was stupid to have then confess the sins on an animal?

StillDtruth:

Unity is an.agreement.and consent and compliance thing exactly how we see that Christ did not disagee or object or disobey any of His Father's Laws, Doctrines and Priinciples because they had nothing wrong in them.

Nor the disciples to Christ.

But catholic church has said so many wicked lies and.have done great many evils such that no reasonable righteous loving person can be uniified with them, exactly as[b] David said, for God's Laws are very very clear and without any ambiguity, so anyone who does not obey them, is not a member of the Body of Christ

What lies did the Catholic church tell?
It is funny that you claim "the Catholic church has...done so many great evils such that no reasonable righteous loving person can be unified with them" and then you went to quote David. Are you ignorant of scripture?
Is David not the king who did "many great evils" and yet God did not go back on his word to confirm his descendants on the throne?
This same David was the one who was to unite the righteous in Israel. So you can go and look for the sin of a catholic or many Catholics, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus only built one church and he promised to be with her till the end

And catholic church.by their words and deeds, is not a.member of the Holy Body of Christ[/b]

And I'm sure your church is filled with all holy people. This isn't an argument

Where did the bible say schism is a sin?

Gal 5:19-20

Emusan:
Yes! It's not logical and that's why the scripture says it's a miracle.

But did scripture say it's a miracle that Mary gave birth without the baby passed through her womanhood?



If it's based on just logic I won't believe it but I believe it because it is attributed to miracle.

The scripture doesn't claim to record everything that God did in salvation history. In fact scripture tells us it did NOT record everything. The certainly for this miraculous birth of Jesus is not found in scripture. It is attested to by the early church, this is why all ancient Churches agree that Mary is perpetually a virgin

StillDtruth:
I don't understand, is Jesus not already the first who opened Mary's matrix?

The point is that biblically an only son is still a first born. The first son is not necessarily the one that has a 2nd born or 3rd born. He is just the one that opened the womb

So, The Law is already fulfilled. And this is not the issue.

The issue is did Mary have sex and had other children?

And Mathew, Mark, John,, answers yes, she did for Joseph knew Mary as a married man must do and had 6 other children.

And besides, having children is a proof that God was pleased with her for barreness is a Curse and having one child would not cut it.

Further, the bible never said Joseph's only child which it did when it was True. It even went as far as naming the other children Mary had., so i'm sorry, you are Wrong!

where in th bible did you read that Mary had sex and had other children. You're making it up.
Where does the bible say having one child is still barrenness.
The bible does not at any point name children of Mary. The only person the bible acknowledged as the child of Mary is Jesus.

StillDtruth:
This is obviously an old Lie!

Is a woman who has given birth still be a virgin? .That is does the birthing not remove her virginity?

And this is of course aside the fact that she had other children.

I guess pagans will also ask you, can a virgin be pregnant?

There is no passage in the bible that says Mary had other children

StillDtruth:
I don't understand, is Jesus not already the first who opened Mary's matrix?

So, The Law is already fulfilled. And this is not the issue.

The issue is did Mary have sex and had other children?

And Mathew, Mark, John,, answers yes, she did for Joseph knew Mary as a married man must do and had 6 other children.

And besides, having children is a proof that God was pleased with her for barreness is a Curse and having one child would not cut it.

Further, the bible never said Joseph's only child which it did when it was True. It even went as far as naming the other children Mary had., so i'm sorry, you are Wrong!

When did those books say that Mary had other children? Are you now using the bible to tell lies

StillDtruth:
And you can become those people to.see what they saw and experience what they.experienced, so, this is no bar or excuse.

Since the bible is known to be True, then it is necessary to.read it in isolation so that outside Lies will not corrupt and interfere with its Truth

No sir,
You seated in your room are not those people, you don't have access to all what tha apostles said to them before sending them letters, you don't have access to all their practices either by simply reading the bible. Because the bible was never written to contain every Christian practice.
The practices were already established in those Christian communities by the apostles and they were already taught by the apostles before they sent letters to those communities.

You might have a chance to experience what they experienced if you belonged to a church that traces itself directly to the apostles, then you will know the apostolic practices passed down and be able to read the letters in the same way in early church read them, in an already believing and practicing community

Emusan:
Well it's not even logical to think that Mary remains VIRGIN after giving birth and I never see where scripture talks about miraculous delivery during Jesus birth.

It is also not logical to believe that a virgin gave birth...
I'm sure the illogicality of that didn't stop you from believing it

paxonel:
Invariably, the bible condemn communion order than the catholic communion?

Invariably Jesus founded one church and the apostles though dispersed in different places were part of that one body of Christ and condemned anyone who brought division into that communion.

If you have a group that separated itself from that one the apostles formed then you have committed the sin of schism, AKA division.

Kingsempires:
I have understand what you told me but why do the pecostant churches believe that mary give birth after Jesus.because i had this argument with them before i can across mat13;55

First and foremost Matt 13:55 does not say Mary had other children it says Jesus has other aldophos which can be translated as relatives.


As for the Protestant belief that Mary had other kids, it's very funny because the early protestants disagree. For instance Martin Luther, Zwingli, Thomas Cranmer, Wollebius, Bullinger, John Wycliffe and John Wesley all agree with Catholics and all ancient Christianity that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Because anyone who has read Christian history knows that by the time the church was defining doctrines like trinity, it was also clear to all Christians that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
However later protestants believe in a more serious version of sola scriptura which can only be more clearly called solo scriptura....so many modern protestants will tell you that unless a thing is clearly stated in the bible, it is not true.
That is the problem, the perpetual virginity of mary is not explicitly stated in the bible.
This is the same reason why older protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans baptise babies, but newer protestants don't, because they will say, unless you show me exactly where a baby was baptised in the bible then it isn't true.
Those who use a kind of solo scriptura tend to interpret the bible as if it is a stand alone book, they forget that it is addressed to a church that was already a believing community, and the bible was never written to explicitly cover every Christian practice or everything Jesus did. If you want to see every Christian practice and what the apostles taught even before they started to write letters, then you need to read up the early Christian writing and the traditions of the churches that trace tbeir foundation directly to the apostles.

paxonel:
ok

Thanks for helping me to correct that.
It was spun from a popular misconception

That's fine

paxonel:
ok
my question came from the mindset of unity of the body of Christ.
Laws, commitment and organisation is dependent on the church.
Not all churches have the same laws and organisation. Even commitment is still subjective to the laws of the church. But the most important is that all churches should be subjected to Christ.

Among the pentecostals and most Protestants, communion is open for all believers of Christ, irrespective of the denomination.
If you think there is anything wrong about this, you can explain to me, why it is wrong

There is no unity in the body of Christ today. That unity ended when Martin Luther broke away to form the first protestant church, since then we have many churches with very different contradictory doctrines. Since Martin Luther schism from the church all that schism from him only continued the divisions.
That is why the bible condemns schism as a sin, all who are part of those groups that divided themselves are living the reality of the sin that scripture condemns

Dtruthspeaker:
Does the announcement not say "only practicing catholics" should come for the communion?

And who does not know that "practicing catholic" means one who has gone for confession before the mass?

And this is not the issue, the op cleatly asked
1) "Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? (at the begining of the mass or.furing the mass or the one just before the communion is given)

2) Does it mean God hears only the confessions we make before the Priest?"

If you cannot answer these questions we understand!

Practicing Catholic does not mean those who have gone for confession before mass. I am a practising catholic and I have sometimes gone 3 months without confession

Dtruthspeaker:
The point is that you people are biblically wrong but are just doing "Your house, your rules"

biblically wrong on what? On asking people to examine themselves before coming for communion?
If they are wrong on that then I guess Paul the apostle was also wrong.
And for your information, the church does have the authority to set it's rules and the bible backs it up on that

paxonel:
I was in one of the mass today, it reminds me how it used to be then...

But mehn...
Religion itself antagonizes the truth it teaches.

And i also understand that the Vatican officially accept that the earth is a sphere and isn't flat in shape most recently, after all these centuries, even when Neil Armstrong had landed on the moon in 1969 it really do not matter to them.

Imagine the level of dogmatism

Where did you get your story from? The church never argued that the earth was flat...the argument was about what was at the centre and even at that the church didn't take an official position

ocnovakmichael:
Brother, if only you knew the implications of that announcement. As a matter of fact, that announcement have kept many in their seats, than it has moved them to the alter to receive the communion.

However, I'm talking about Catholics who are baptized and have been confirmed. Many don't go to receive because they feel they're not well prepared.
You see, when the Lord Jesus instituted the communion, he said to his disciples "Take this all of you and eat..." He did not say, take this, if you are well prepared, or in a state of grace. At the time, even Judas was having wrong thoughts in his heart, yet the Lord gave him his body and flesh.

Now somebody says, it was the communion he received that led him to betray Christ. I do not believe God will give you something that will open you to demonic thoughts: because in the Bible, Christ says, "... If we being evil know how to give good gifts to our children, how much more shall the heavenly Father give good gifts to them that ask"

You seem to be reading just half or a part of scripture. Jesus said take and eat but he also told them just before that supper that "you are clean through not all". What else does the bible say about this.
1 cor 11
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.


If that announcement made helped a brother or sister to examine himself or herself to see if they partake worthily and are discerning of what they receive, then that's a good one. They are doing exactly what Paul says. Discern before you eat

immortalcrown:
The spiritual preparation includes but is not only the confession.

The spiritual preparation is by Catholics who are baptized and confirmed. Confession and celebration of the Holy Mass are the preparation mentioned in the announcement. The announcement does not mean that someone who went for confession should not receive the holy communion.

The announcement simply means that the holy communion is for baptized and confirmed Catholics who went for confession and participated in the celebration of the Holy Mass. As a matter of fact, a baptized and confirmed Catholic who could not go for confession before the celebration of the Holy Mass can receive the holy communion and go for confession after the Mass.

It's not just confession and baptism sef, it also includes a fast

ocnovakmichael:
The following treaties are my conversation with a Catholic. Although, his responses were not captured here. But these were written for many to think.

It was early hours of Sunday 14th July' 24. I had just come out of the church, after the Rev., father had pronounced the dismissal, having celebrated the Holy Mass.

Nonetheless, a few minutes back, before I stepped out to engage that brother in a conversation that would herald this discuss, I was burdened in my spirit as to the faith we profess as Catholics. Now what is this burden? Let me narrate it here because this burden will be the very foundation of my conversation with a fellow Catholic brother.

Sitting on the pew right inside the church, while the mass was ongoing, the communion prayers was in the air, I began to laugh in my spirit.
I said to myself, after one of the Lectors had announced to the congregation that "The grace of this mass is for everyone; but the reception of the Holy Communion is meant for practicing Catholics who have prepared themselves in the spirit," what other way can a Catholic prepare himself to receive Christ after he had confessed his sins in the beginning of the mass, he'd also asked for God's mercy during the recital of penitential Act?

Now to my conversation with a Catholic:

After the Priest had walked down the isle and out the sanctuary, I stepped out of the church and proceed to look for a Catechist, a fervent brother, a sister, or anyone that I could have a conversation with, to glean from the mouth of the person that could explain the perception of my burden.

So I went up and down the church premises but my spirit couldn't accept those I'm seeing around. Yet, as I returned from my walk to and from the church, I saw a brother standing close to the Rev., father's office with a Bible in his hands, and my spirit said to me, go to him.

The following are my conversation with that brother:

I started by way of salutation: Good morning sir, I'm sorry for interrupting you (: because the brother was busy with his mobile device). I have few questions concerning the profession of our faith as Catholics that I would like you to enlighten me on: because I don't think anyone knows it all.

The brother replied: Ok!
Then I said: In the beginning of the Holy Mass, the Priest ask the congregation to call to mind our sins and confess them before God. And after that, the Priest recite the prayers of penitential Act (:which goes like this: You were sent to heal the contrite of heart: Lord, have mercy. You came to call sinners: Christ, have mercy...). And all the congregation respond by saying: Lord, have mercy.

I then said to the brother: At this point, we all have confessed our sins before God and asked for mercy. My question is: do we really believe that God has heard us and have forgiven us our sins; or are we just saying those words to fulfil the order of the mass?

I said to him: Why is it that after we have confessed our sins and asked God for mercy, when it comes to receiving the communion, the Lector will announce to the whole church that the communion is meant for only those who have prepared themselves in the spirit? Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? I mean what other way can one best prepare himself if not before the presence of God, asking for mercy and forgiveness of sins? Does it mean God hears only the confessions we make before the Priest?

I then laid the foundation of my argument on a Scriptural perspective:

I said to that brother: If God did not forgive us after we'd asked for mercy, and we're not well prepared to receive the communion during the mass, then the Bible told a lie in the following scriptures:

1 John 1:9
[9]If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we confess our sins, and God did not forgive us, then this verse of scripture should be expunged from the Bible.


Matthew 18:21-22
[21]Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
[22]Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

God cannot tell us to forgive, and not forgive us when we ask for mercy from Him during the mass: He will be an unjust God!

John 6:37
[37]All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

If we come before God asking for mercy and he cast us out, then Jesus told a lie.

Matthew 11:28
[28]Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.


If we bring our burden of sins to Jesus and we are still laden with them during the mass, then Jesus told a lie here.

James 5:14-15
[14]Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
[15]And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.


If we say the prayer of faith for the forgiveness of our sins in the name of Jesus Christ, and our sins are not forgiven, then this verse of Scripture is a lie.



Note that that brother gave good response to my questions. He even admitted that my points are valid. But in the end, he says, "we know in part, and we prophesy in part."


These were written for us Catholics to put our faith in Gods word, not on our doctrines.


Jesus is Lord!


Do not hoard knowledge, propagate it!

"These were written for us Catholics to put our faith in Gods word, not on our doctrines."


The above is where the false dichotomy comes in.

Maybe you should read Matt 18:15-17

chatinent:
But the Catholic pope approved it.


Nigerian Catholic don tire as no words could be used to defend the pope.

Listen to the pope himself


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqFC0IzAs4?si=kq2IhLQl7ZwhJ8KT

StillDtruth:
Same as i.

But if you would put aside catholic doctrines and read your bible solely to form your own mind independent of cathoilic doctrines, you would see what every bible follower and believer has seen.

The bible was never written to be read solely. It contains writings addressed to communities. The new testament was mainly addressed to the churches, people who were already taught and already believed by words of preaching. It takes its meaning in the church to which it is addressed

StillDtruth:
Mathew 1:25

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

First born means she had second born and the bible shows she had other borns too.

No Sir, first born is a designation according to the law of Moses. The first born is the child that opens the womb. Ex 13 says "Consecrate every firstborn male to me, the firstborn from every womb among the Israelites, both man and domestic animal; it is mine". As you may notice the biblical definition of a firstborn is not the one who has a second born, the first born is the child that opens the womb. He is first born even if he is only son. So please, first born does not necessarily imply a 2nd born in the bible.

Emusan:
Calling Mary 'Virgin Mary' isn't about her life after Jesus birth but the position she was before giving birth to Christ.

Well I presume Catholic holds the position of Mary never gave birth to another being apart from Jesus Christ, which in itself has nothing to do with Salvation brought by Jesus Christ.

That should be the most pressing issue!

Actually those who call Mary Virgin are very clear that they mean she was a virgin before Jesus and remained so after Jesus was born.
This is an old Christian belief that you'll find across Christian history

Kingsempires:
In the catholic church,they call mary mother of Jesus `virgin mary'.but in the bible matthew13:55.the bible called the names of Jesus brothers.so what still make mary mother of Jesus a virgin when she have other children?

The historic Christian believe is that Mary had no other children after Jesus. Every historic church that has 1000 years on earth or can trace itself back to the apostles all agree on this. This includes the Catholic church, the orthodox church, the Assyrian church,the Ethiopian Orthodox church, The Coptic Church, the Oriental Church etc.

This is because every church that can trace itself back to the apostles, hold that this belief is apostolic tradition. Put simply, it is what the apostles taught.
It is not explicitly mentioned in the bible, however it is implied. For example at the cross Jesus gave his Mother to John. The Jewish practice is that your junior sibling takes care of your mother if you die early. You only give your mum to someone else if you have no siblings.
The theological reason is that it befits the dignity of God. To understand this you might need to read Ezk 44:1-5
And the Lord said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it. Therefore it shall remain shut.

It befits the dignity of God that someone God has set his glory upon, become set apart from normal use. So a Jew will not use a plate from the temple to eat in his house. Joseph was a Jew who knew that God's has overshadowed Mary (the literal meaning is that God spread his garment over her). She thus becomes set apart from what would be the normal everyday use of a wife.
However, that Mary remained a virgin is not explicitly stated in the bible, the churches that hold this teaching are those that can trace themselves back to the apostles and they will tell you that the certainty for this is apostolic tradition.

Now to your question,
One cannot conclude from the bible either that Jesus had other siblings from Mary, because the word translated as "brothers and sisters" is also used in the bible to mean uncle, nephew, cousin, relative and kinsmen. The ancient Jews used to speak like most Africans who will call their relatives "brother or sisters". More interesting they are never mentioned as children of Mary and if you read the new testament well, you might even see the parents of those people.

chatinent:
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/vatican-approves-blessings-same-sex-couples-under-certain-conditions-2023-12-18/


The Cable:
https://www.thecable.ng/pope-francis-approves-blessings-for-same-sex-couples/amp/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqFC0IzAs4?si=i4MBRBr10o5xJ3e2

Be informed so you can stop listening to those twisting the pope's words

Augustine2244:
You can say that again.
Even the so called Roman Catholic Pope is an advocate of sexual depravity.
In the West,gay priests and Pastors are being openly recognized by the religious authorities.

which Catholic pope are you talking about?

donofdons:
What’s is wrong with Catholics nowadays. The pope is infallible, and beyond mistake according to the church laws. Why won’t an archbishop understand, acknowledge and respect that. He is a Mugu. You will never see other top religious leaders do these sort of things



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFVswamJ7Q8

Catholics don't believe that the pope is "beyond mistake", that is not church law

jesusjnr2020:
If any member of the Catholic church or any other church practicing such is truly of God, it's those encouraging such idolatrous and abominable practices in their church that they should be angry with because those are the ones that truly hate them, not those that were trying to tell them the truth so they could repent from such abominations for their own good.

God bless.

same sex marriage is prohibited in the Catholic church. Where are you getting this nonsense from?

jesusjnr2020:
Prior to the Catholic pope openly showing support to the LGBTQ+ community and approving the blessing of same-sex marriages, thousands of priests and clergy men of the Catholic church were embroiled in a rape scandal of massive if not unprecedented proportions, that in the US alone, payments of compensation made to rape victims amassed billions of dollars.

Many of the rape victims were male minors, exposing the sexual orientation of many Catholic priests and clergy members as homosexuals.

However despite their hierarchy having knowledge of such abominable and atrocious acts being perpetrated by prominent and highly respected leaders of the church, they kept silent and covered them up until it became a widely blown scandal that they could no longer hide or suppress, that when they finally owned up to such strong allegations, to suggest culpability on their part and that the Catholic church had always supported or condoned homosexuality even though in secret prior to their pope's open endorsement of such abominable practices.

But what else would one expect from a church whose leader and her members kneel, bow down, worship and pray to an evil spirit which is behind the idol dressed in the image of Mary, but the inevitability of them exhibiting it's evil and abominable traits sooner or later?

That explains why so many Catholic priests talkless of their members have an uncontrollable urge to sleep with those of the same sex, to the point of raping even minors times without number.

So unless they decide completely destroy all those idols in the Catholic church, including that dressed in Mary's name and image, which they worship and pray to, they shouldn't expect such abnormal and inordinate urges and atrocities in the Catholic church to ever stop or be curtailed.

God bless.

Are you talking about the same Pope Francis that said NO to any blessing of same sex marriage this year?
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/pope-francis-on-blessing-same-sex-couples/

Or are you just trying to bash Catholics?

ErnestNc:
That's where you all miss it. JESUS is God and before God there's no dead. He's not the God of the dead. You don't know your scriptures. Any other person in the scripture who tried to contact the dead met a fatal fate.

Also necromancy doesn't just involve predicting the future but it's basically about contacting the dead in order to influence the future or predict it. Praying to Mary so she can Intercede on your behalf in order to be at peace with God and avoid your damnable fate is actually necromancy, or else why would you communicate to the dead through prayer ?

True believers pray to God in the name of Jesus and not to the dead sir. Jesus never said " to approach God , you have to pray through my mother" , rather he said " no man can come to the father except through me ".
Catholics are one of those who are under a strong delusion in the last days as Paul spoke in 2nd thessalonians .

Again , the meaning of necromancy

you are one of those who enjoy arguments for its sake, I'm too old for this, besides the bible has taught me the unprofitability of arguing over words.
Instead of this back and forth and does no one any good where I'm absolutely such you'll learn nothing even if i went passage by passage to explain it to you, instead of this, I will pray to the Holy Spirit to enlighten the eye of your mind and heart that you may see and understand more clearly.
Whenever you decide to have a conversation instead of this arguments, my username is Ubenedictus.

And when someone gives you the etymology of a word, it is usually a stupid idea to go pull up a dictionary meaning. Atleast understand what an etymology is maybe you'd learn that Mancy is about divination.

Kobojunkie:
According to Jesus Christ, God --- YHWH -- is God of the living and not God of the dead Moses is instead among those who sleep in their graves.

P.S. Not interested in holding brief for anyone here.

The bold is exactly the issue, that we are in Christ and in him there is no such thing as "the dead", all who have gone before us in faith are all in him. Hebrews put it more clearly as we been surrounded by such great a cloud of witnesses. Where protestants see "the dead", Catholics, orthodox, ethiopian and assyriain christians (in fact the entire apostolic churches) will tell you that those are simply our brothers in Christ with whom in Christ we have communion as members of the same body.
And this is where there is divergence, the apostolic and ancient churches believe in "the communion of the saints" which means that all who are in Christ alive or in heaven are united together as one body and have communion of care and charity, and the protestants have not developed their theology enough to know that right now as I speak there are elders in heaven offering to God the incense of my prayers and when i invites christians to join me in prayer I may very well invite those in heaven because they are a cloud of witnesses around me.

This is something anyone who has an internet connection can investigate, if you hate catholics feel free to insult them and throw their witness away, but that leaves you with every historic and ancient church established by the apostles, why do they all believe this? Investigate it and maybe you'll realise that the term "body of Christ" used in scripture has a deeper and more profound meaning for Christians than your pastors have taught you.