₦airaland Forum

truthislight: Do you think that it is all people that seek positions in this world like Catholics do?

Read paul statement in the bible and you will know what the truth about their mind set is.

hahaha, give me proof

truthislight: Rome was the world power and was the place were appeal cases go to.

Like America today people run there to free from opressors from there own country, that one seek asylum in amarica how does that translate to moving something that started from his own country to an asylum country?

Stop this lies.

give me the testimony of the xtians that lived then, tell me why the early xtian say rome was preeminent and that it presided over the church? Provide proof.

truthislight: peter was never a bishop of Rome.

Cant you get it?

you have started spining lies again, what did the early xtian say? All the early xtians say that peter was bishop of rome are you so dumb that you cant accept that you are wrong?

Cant you live a life outside what Roman Catholics has fed you?
Have a life men!

cant you learn the truth for once?

truthislight: after an Angel of God set peter free from prison the bible did not say anything about him again.

i remember paul talked about their meeting, so you i not correct, he was also in jerusalem during d council.

Can you cite any writing that peter wrote from Rome?

the church fathers attest to it 1pt 5:13 say 'she who is in babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends u greetings" the xtians in babylon, the code name for rome in the early church was babylon, my dear i can truly conclude that peter wrote 1pt from rome.

What You are saying are not base on the bible and stop calling peter the pope or so cus he is aware that Jesus had told him that No one should be called father except God.

your understanding of scripture is deficient, can you tell me what paul called timothy and co, even peter called mark his son, paul told his guy 'i fathered u in the faith' go and read your bible.

But he has already made his case that the early church "catholic"(not noun(name)) is different from Roman Catholic(capital C a noun with reference to Rome Church)

that is your idea, my dictionary say they are the same.

his case is already made and any that is honest will know that the early christians spread gospel to all places including Rome and that the start point was Jerusalem.

aha, only that peter lived and died in rome,

So Roman catholic was a late late thing.

hahaha, the catholic church was founded by christ, rome became a centre when the leader of the church took up the bishoprick of rome and died there.

That operated from Rome is later is not the issue here but that as when the genuine books was arrange it was not the Roman catholic church.

hahaha wen the council of hippo compile the bible, there was already a pope in rome, i think about 6 popes had already died. You are joking, rome was already the center of the church before the bible was compiled.

Deceit Is an easy thing to do and this is very easy to see, why did they not pick another word apart from "catholic"?, all this will have been very easy to differentiate.

you are the person speaking decit, even before the bible was complied rome already presided in love over the church, read the church fathers.

What are you trying to proof?
Did christianity start from Rome?

no xtainity didnt start in rome, when d israelite rejected it, it went to the gentiles

Stop this lies it is only those that dont know that you can deceive with this "Roman Catholic gave the bible stuff" how can they give the books they did not write?

they compiled it, amomg many existing books, the church decided which ones are scripture.

Lies, and it is very Dangerous.

prove that im lying, can any protestant church claim it came from the apostles?, did any protestant church retain the order of worship? Or the teachings of the early christains?
This is why i prefer discussing these issues with orthodox, because protestants cant even accept a simple truth that the catholic church decended from the apostles. If no orthodox on this forum, i would prefer an anglican.

truthislight: catholic is old no doubt.

But must we rely on the story of the old catholics to know the truth?

if you want to know the meaning of what the apostles wrote, ask their disciples, when we check the beliefs of the early christains we see what they were taught. Tradition it is handed on.

truthislight: ^^^

on this premise it is safe to rely/accept the account of the apostles and so that is recorded in the bible in the 1ce than to accept other account that came after the apostles.

is anybody saying the bible shouldnt be accepted? The fact remains that the bible tell christians to hold to the tradition handed to them, that tradition was handed to us in d 21 century thru the church fathers. Peace

plaetton: I had been reading from the sidelines watching you demonstrate the depth of your knowledge on the above subject, while at the same time, laughing to myself as I watched your opponent dribble himself into his own goal posts. You are obviously a staunch catholic who knows his onions.
As a non catholic, I really have no interest in dabating the minute details of catholic history.

However, one thing that we all know is that the victors normally write the history. So the catholic history that you are most acquainted with is history written by members of the catholic church themselves. Anything else would be considered heresy, not so? We know what happened to those that dared to write a different truth. Dont we?

Correction, Marcion POINTED OUT, and did not create the dichotomy that exists between the god of the OT and the god of the NT.

nah! There is no dichotomy, so anyone who say there is one is 'creating' it.

I am amused at how you use the word "heretic"
May I remind you that all great truths of religion, philosophy, science, etc,that have influenced human development, including and especially the teachings of Jesus, all started out as grand heresies against the established and powerful orders of the day.

I am equally amused that you think because the catholic church and its doctrines outlasted its 2nd century peers,therefore it can legitimately lay claim to be the repository of the true or truest truth of christianity.

i wouldnt call them peers, it outlast paganism before it, pelaganism after it, it seem in almost every century there came heresy, and the church outlasted them all.

You conveniently forget that the catholic church did not outlast its smaller rivals by the sheer superiority of its version of the truth, but by the sheer magnitude of its political, economic and military might, or should I say, brutality.
So, in this case, might is right(?)

aha! The same happen to the church even after the third century, the xtians we killed, i remember a historian said the more the xtians we killed the more people converted to xtianity, those heresies didnt even lived so long, beside the church didnt have military might until after the fall of the empire. So those early heresies didnt really see the church's military might, so you idea of butality wasnt around in d 2nd century, those heresy just didnt last, their falsehood was discoverd.

I am also amused, again, at how you put it that the catholic sect, having outlived its rivals, has gone ahead to pass along ITS CANONS to the present day churches.
By "Its Canons", am sure you mean its own true truths.

nah, it canons, refer to the canons of scripture.

By influencing the church in approving the four gospel structure and discarding others, Did Iraeneus not veto or a vet what we are told are the words of god?

not exactly, iraeneus wasnt around during the time of the councils, so he couldnt veto, it is almost imposible to veto a council, the pope has to use the fulness of his authority before he can achieve that fit. The so called 'other' gospels couldnt be traced to the apostles, it was all pen names.

And lastly,for those of us that have no religious leaning, we find it very amusing when we read of the various paths and trajectories through which these infallible words of god have come to us.
As we listen to the babel of voices and opinions and counter opinions about apostolic authority, bishopricks, ecumenical councils ,popes, power, heresies etc, we watch in bewilderment and wonder how the word of god, truth so simple, should cause so much controversy, so much debate, so much schism and so much wars.
Cheers.

if you believe in God and agreed that the devil exists, i would has given a link to st justin he explained it. But you dont believe, it would be useless to u.
Peace

Ishilove: Busted.

the protestant was busted by his fellow protestant. GOOD JoB

Deep Sight: Everyone knows catholic means universal. But it is more than intellectually dishonest for anyone to pretend that the work or collation or activities of the Roman Catholic Church, WERE in fact works of some other vague amorphous "catholic" - [universal] church - which did not exist at the time - nor has ever, or since.

surprisingly most of the church father didnt think the catholic church was amorphous. It is a pity protestants.

Shamefully dishonest.

it seem you are trying to separate the same thing, that is the intellectual dishonestly i see.

plaetton: No sir,
The roman universal or catholic church of Rome usurped the teachings of Nazerene poineers of christianity by making christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. By doing so, the new hybrid christianity, forcefuly removed from its Nazerene roots, became a veritable tool for the political unity,control and domination for the roman empire.
Those who opposed this perversion where branded heretics and where harrassed,intimidated,persecuted and killed. These are historical facts.

hahahaha, what a joke. The heretic wanted to stop the church from been political? I just laugh, the heretic were busy going after emperor so that their heresy would be made an official religion. Have you ever read about pope vergiluis, an arain emperor planted him in the vatican to make the church arian, he couldnt do it? Are u out of your mind? Pelagius was busy telling pipo that they can be saved by their own power, augustine had to interfer, their list goes on and on and you are telling me that those heretics wanted to bring xtainity back to its nazerene roots? Tell me you are kidding me.

In his one of his tirades against percieved heretics, Iraeneus of Lyon wrote a treatise titled Against Heresies, where he went as far as to imply that Jesus himself was a heretic who had been practicing the wrong religion
Jesus, he claimed, was personally mistaken in his beliefs.

Here is an excerpt from the treatise:
They, like jesus as well as the essenes and Zadokites of two centuries before,expounded on he prophetic books of the old testament: They reject the pauline epistles and reject the apostle paul, calling him a apostate of the law!

im sure you have a problem with understanding, let me check if i can get the full work...i've gat it, this is a link to his book chapter by chapter, tell me if the heresy he was speaking against is your idea of xtianity.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

So, to claim that Christianity is Catholicism is not just a lie, but completely absurd.

you are making conclusion based on wrong premise. Logical falacy.

ifeness: Now, as the Babylon of the Apocalypse (Catholic Church) is characterized by the name of “MYSTERY,” so the grand distinguishing feature of the ancient Babylonian system was the Chaldean “MYSTERIES,” that formed so essential a part of that system.

Their (Nimrod’s Babylon/Catholic Church) primary object was to introduce privately, by little and little, under the seal of secrecy and the sanction of an oath, what it would not have been safe all at once and openly to propound.

Chaldean Mysteries can be traced up to the days of Semiramis, who lived only a few centuries after the flood, known to have impressed upon the ante-flood peoples the image of her own depraved and polluted mind.
She herself was a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness, but in the MYSTERIES which she had a chief hand in writing, she was worshiped as:

“RHEA, MOTHER OF THE gods”
“VENUS, MOTHER OF ALL IMPURITY”
“ISIS”

Semiramis raised the very city (Babylon) where she had reigned as the grand seat of idolatry and “consecrated” prostitution. Thus, was this Chaldean queen a fit and remarkable prototype of the “Woman” of the Apocalypse, with the golden cup in her hand, and the name on her forehead, “Mystery, Babylon the Great”, mother of harlots and abominations of the earth:


It is noteworthy to see that the Roman Catholic Church itself actually used the symbol of the woman bearing the Cup, with the legend around her “Sedet super universum”, “The Whole World is her Seat” on it’s celebration coin of the Jubilee: (note, who else does that woman remind you of with her “sun rays”?)

stupid idea, those run rays? Haha read rev12

Since it was dangerous for the church, during it’s early formation, to introduce such Satanic emblems out in the open, just as in Nimrod’s time, they were introduce thru rituals and oath’s, to include confessions, where by the “priest” would know intimate knowledge of the “initiate” which could be used to bind them to an oath of secrecy.

hahaha

Ever wonder why, though in the New Testament, it makes no distinction between the congregation and the priest’s when it comes to confession of sins (i.e., the leaders were to admit their sins to the congregation), that is not the way it is in the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter). Exactly WHO are the leader’s of the church confessing their sins to?

you are making noise, i believe you are talking about the rite of confession that existed in the early church, if you are serious and want to discuss about it. Say so and stop spining lies.

This is why Paul siad “The mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thess ii 7). It was corrupting the “church” before the “church” became a religion!

hahaha, tell me u are joking

So, who does the Catholic Church really worship, Mary or the original harlot, Semaramis, in disguise as Mary?

none of the above. I give latria to the one true God.

http://biblepaedia./2012/03/05/nimrod-part-13-semiramis-and-the-catholic-church/

lolz you are living in a fairytale wakeup to reality. Your post is just the lies stupid people have started to tell. It is a pity you are among the decieved.

frosbel: It is inspired , I know this by the Holy Spirit.

Do you have the Holy Spirit ?

Keep following a Pagan church.

oh! So as you were sleeping in your bed the holy spirit came to you and told you that luke, ephesians and timothy were inspired abi? U just dont want to admit that the holyspirit worked thru the church to determine the new testament.

frosbel: Because I know .

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16

you just made a big mistake, the passage you quote was not refering to the new testament, at that time the new testament hadnt been compiled, some book hadnt been written, at that time the epistles werent even called 'scripture'. Read your bible verse 15 says that 'and how from your childhood you have been been acquainted wit the sacred writing" when timothy was in his 'childhood neither mark, nor luke, nor paul has written anything. Cant you see that that passage when read in context is not talking about the new testament? It is talking about the old testament the sacred writting the timothy was acquainted with since childhood.

And yes the church passed it down, starting with the apostles.

just note that the protestant church wasnt around then.

I prefer not to use the phrase 'church fathers' due to it's ambiguity and propensity to accord authority to men rather than GOD.

aha! You also have a problem with what they are called.

I would rather use the term ' church leaders' who ensured the preservation of scripture.

my friend not all the church fathers were 'leaders' so you label may not be correct. The phase church fathers was coined becos the men who instructed other is the faith were called fathers, just the way paul said the fathered timothy and other in the faith. The church fathers are those member of the early church who writting serve as instruction for us even today.
Peace

Enigma: Although I had intended to continue on from my second post that seems unnecessary now and it seems that this thread has really run its course.

For me, a good place to round up is this:

First I return to Ignatius who was the one who coined and the first to use the expression "the catholic Church". While Ignatius was a strong supporter of the role of a bishop in worship, he also believed that each individual church was in itself complete and a part of the universal church.

However, even whilst still expounding/extolling the role of a bishop (possibly even questionably somewhat), Ignatius said another interesting thing in his Epistle to The Smyrnaeans:



* another translation:
ETA http://www.jhu.edu/gcf/lessons/IgnatiusSmyrnaeans.pdf



Now where have I heard something similar before? Oh, here (Matthew 18:20):

that is why it is better to read the church fathers themselves, let me see if i can get the exact writting,
here is his writting to the ephesians.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm
ok i think the one you quoted is from this letter. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm chapter 8, this is the part you quoted in context: "wherever the bishop shall appear there let the multitude of people be, even as where ever christ is there is the catholic church" his advice was that the church should be united around the the bishop as the church is united to christ the head. Please read the letter dont cut it in half and put it out of context.
Peace

Ihedinobi: Forgive my impertinence, but if indeed they do agree, why do they at all?

it is written all over scriptures and the church fathers bear witness to it.

Why also do they disagree with it in exercise?

the exercise means that the pope has universal jurisdiction som orthodox dont want that.

Why the hypocrisy?

some years before the east-west divide the orthodox church decided that rome interfered too much in their business, so though they will continue to give the bishop of rome the primacy of honour they deny his universal jurisdiction. This is quite easy to do. The orthodox say the bishop of rome is first among equals and he is the spokesman for the church + a factor for unity.... The orthodox will agree with most of the responsibilities of the pope but they will deny him the power to fulfill is responsibilities. Rome in the past was not best in human relations. Many of the orthodox church has come back and are now in communion with rome, those who came back accepted the full excercise of the popes authority, they may be collectively refered to as "eastern rite catholics". The orthodox share an almost same faith as catholic, valid sacrament and apostolic sucession etc. We still pray that the east-west divide would end.

Ihedinobi: What I have been refraining from telling you guys is that Bokenkotter is more on your side. You know why I kept mute? To know whether you were true scholars or not. You have ended up throwing Bokenkotter out without even hearing his own witness. That says that you are not true seekers of truth. You countenance witnesses only when they agree with you.

nobody threw bokenkotter off the window, one thing i have learnt is that protestants who study the church father sooner or later learn that some of the teaching dont compliment the church fathers, this usually lead to a shiff in their understanding, so im not surprised if bokenkotter interpreted some of the church fathers correctly, the fact is i also know protestant scholar who go about twisting the church fathers, the point stands, if you want to know what the early christians believed go directly to the church fathers.

I actually know some of the church fathers and have great respect for St Augustine in particular. The more I read Bokenkotter though the more I understand the positions of the church fathers. That is probably why you need more than just things they were said to have written to judge statements attributed to them correctly. You need their contemporary history as well. Allow me to encourage you to read that as well. If you did, you'd be able to read their writings contextually and understand what their positions would be if they were here today in the prevailing condition of things.

ha! Ihedinobi, the truth doesnt change, that is a simple fact, if 2000yrs ago the christian church believed in d trinity "prevailing conditions" cannot change that truth.
As for the op, the canon of scriptures were put together by the church fathers, it was defined and confirmed by the bishops in a council. That clearly tells me that the protestant church wasnt around when the bible was written neither was it around when it was compiled. During the fall of the roman empire, the babarians who happened to be illiterates didnt want anything to do with book, most the books of the ancient world that came down to us is because the catholic church preserved them. Monks spent days handcopying word for word, the greek, hebrew, syriac, etc manuscripts. It was copied and circulated to each local church by the monks. And so you know the protestant church wasnt around either.

Oh! Friends i would love to answer all your post, but i have to prepare for mass. Expect my response soon.

I would have loved to continue this discussion but it is about time for mass. I've gat to prepare. GOD willing i would post my explanation this night or 2morow

k2039: Holyvirgin you are wrong:
Biblically, Mary was a dirty, rotten, vile, sinneR—just like you and me, and everyone else.

where is it in the bible?

The only sinless Person to ever walk this earth was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (2nd Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15)
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.
2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

i cant find the word 'only' in the pasage you quoted.

Mary was a sinner and needed a Savior just like everyone else. In fact, Mary called Jesus “God my Saviour” in Luke 1:47. Jesus is the precious Savior! Luke 2:11, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”

ofcourse my friend Jesus the son of mary saved mary. The point of contention is: 'when was she saved?' my bible lets me know that she was save even before the birth of christ, wow! Glory!

PREMISE FOR MY ASSUMPTION

There are seven distinct ages(dispensation) throughout the entire gamut of Human history. They start and end in paradise.Human history begins with Paradise Lost(Eden); it ends with Paradise Restored(Heaven).
The seven ages are:
1. The Age of Innocence
2. The Age of Conscience
3. The Age of Human Government
4. The Age of Promise
5. The Mosaic Law
6. The Dispensation of Grace
7. The Millennial Reign of Christ and the Redeemed.
I dont have the time to explain everything,but I will explain the ones relevant to our discussion.

i love the way you listed it.

In the dispensation of law, God gave detailed instructions about how to live, how to structure society, and how to live justly and righteously as a nation. The people said this was good; they could implement these laws and create an upright society. They said in Exodus 19:8 , “All the Lord has spoken we will do.”
At Mount Sinai, the Israelites encamped, and Moses went up to the mountain to hear the Word of the Lord. For them, that Word is the law. This is not just the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God on tablets of stone, but the 613 moral and ceremonial laws contained inthe books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

very correct.

The Dispensation of Grace is what we sometimes call the churchage. It is highly relevant to us, because we live in this age. For the first five ages, we can only look back in history to see how God worked in the past. But in this age,we can see how God is working now. The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross introduced a dispensation of unmerited favor, called grace. Instead of requiring man to live righteously by keeping the law,the righteousness of Another, is imputed to undeserving men and women.

again beautiful.

Perhaps the most pertinent scripture for this age is where Paul said: By grace we are saved through faith and not ourworks. Ephesians 2:8-9 .

Mary was born during the dispensation of Law,which means the basis for her justification,will be her obedient to the mosiac law.

here comes the stuff. My bible lets me know that God made an exception, grace was granted to mary before the birth of christ. Can you see that in luke? That God gave grace to someone in the mosaic despensation?

“And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, whichwas so named ofthe angel before he was conceived in thewomb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him tothe Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male thatopeneth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” (Luke 2:21-24)

oh no! Dont tell me you are ignorant of scripture in this respect, what was done in luke 2:21 is commanded in lev 12:2-8. Read the passage carefully when you give birth you will be unclean for 7 day just exactly as u were unclean during menstruation, i ask u is menstruation a sin? Why is it that the offering for menstruation is d same as that for birth? Because the jews believe that touching blood makes you unclean, that is why the priest didnt help the injured man in the parable of the good samaritan, because to touch blood make you unclean in the mosiac law. Verse 8 of lev12 shows us the effect of the sin offering it says "and the priest shall make atonement for her and she shall be clean" it didnt say she shall be forgiven of her sins, it says she shall be clean, the 'sin offering' in this passage is not to offer atonement for sins, it was for atonement 4 uncleaniness. It was to make her clean not 4 sins.
Read your bible.

k2039: Ofcourse if the catholics say that Mary was Holy,Pure,Immaculate etc,yes they are right,afterall base don the standard then she was pure,she followed the mosiac law,did the necessary attonement for her sin,the only sin she didnt commit was fornication,which was explicitly stated by the bible(virgin).
But portraying Mary as sinless is a lie,fallacy,arrant nonsense and a hoax completely from the pit of hell.

hahaha, u are now the new bible right?

Portraying her as sinless is wrong,
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” (Romans 3:10)
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23)
Mary was infact a sinner.

go and learn to interprete scripture 'all have sined', "none is righteous" they are generalisation, and like generalisation they have exceptions. Did Jesus sin Yet d bible say all has sined, was Jesus righteous? Yet the bible say no one is righteous rm4:9 shows that abraham was righteous, another exception. My friend go and learn about the use of generalisation in scriptures.

There is no basis for comparison of the birth of Jesus with any other person on earth,He was the only person that was born by a virgin(the last time I checked),and His conception was by the overshadowing of the HolySpirit(last time I also checked didnt hear of any other conception by the HolySpirit) so Jesus being Holy shouldnt be a big deal.

is anybody contesting the holiness of Jesus?

So Mary was pure during the conception of Jesus(the scriptures shows that explicitly,but the point that she was sinless has no basis,except you want to prove otherwise).

the scriptures showed that she possesed a plentiful of grace before the birth of christ. How do you explain that uh?

Delafruita: to be honest,if a person is considering becoming a christian or perhaps still finding his roots in christianity,coming across this thread totally takes him off course.

tell me how it takes them off course, so you find it wrong to celebrate the birth of the mother of the saviour? It is your comments that takes pipo off course becos you go about talking about Jesus moda without respect

one thing i have learnt over the years is that catholics are just as stubborn and dogmatic as muslims.the truth stares them in the face but they have been so brainwashed that they fail to acknowledge it.to engage in discussion with catholics is to waste valuable time because they will never agree to see the light.

hahaha, it seem you are describing yourself.

many of them dont even know the history of their church.they dont know why they are called the ROMAN catholic church.they dont know who constantine is.they dont know where the doctrine of trinity,purgatory,limbo,indulgence etc come from.they dont even know that the rosary was invented in the 11th century by peter the hermit.

heck my friend you have been brainwashed, what concerns the catholic church and constantine, constatine was d emperor that made xtainity the oficial religion of the roman empire. He wasnt even oficially a xtian until he was on his deathbed, and in case you dont know constantine wasnt a theologian. And the word roman was added to the name 'catholic' when protestants and schimatic started to adopt the name 'catholic'.
Do you know the history of the protestant church? It is a pity you dont belong to a church founded by christ and his apostles. Your group of merryband was started by an excominicated priest, an heritic. Do you still want to talk about history of your church?
Peace

ijawkid: If the day God d son was born is not important then why celebrate it??

i dont celebrate the day, i celebrate his birth.

what are u celebrating??

im celebrating that my savior is born, im telling the world that im not a jew who is still expecting the messiah, nor a gentile who doesn't know the mesiah, the wall of partition has been broken in christ Jesus and im very happy that he was born. Imagine the marvel God unleashed on the world thru the birth of christ. The began a new creation, why cant a jehova witness celebrate that? Why?

And when was mary born??just give me a date....

her birth is celebrated on sept 8. ha! Jehova witness, i dont celebrate d day, i celebrate a reality. A simple reality that christ was born.

Now you are funny, what a joke. The bible show people of God making images like the cherubim and it was put in their worship place and they bowed before the ark, you have no problem with that yet you go all red when catholic us image, hypocrisy.

ijawkid: Lol.......

Did they bow down to the ark out of there own impulse??where they commanded to or not??

Where u commanded to bow down to mary's image from d bible??

In essence u might be saying that mary's image has replaced the ark d isrealites bowed down to...

Show from d bible where persons moulded an image of mary or even Jesus and bowed down to it.....

If Jews who became christians stopped bowing down to the ark in the holy of holies and also images of the cherubs,why shuld christians today bow down to any image??

Even the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed along with the ark and everytin....

Show me from d scriptures where christians were commanded to bow down to mary's image..

This is idolatry my freind.....absolute idolatry.......!!!!!!

ijawkid: Sory my freind...

I don't celebrate xmas....

I was just saying I only see persons celebrating the false birth day of Christ.....

Never heard of mary's birth day b4....so when was mary born??

E dey bible??

that is becos your sole interest is in asking which day is the day? The important thing is remembering that the my savior is born. Go on and argue abt d day.

ijawkid: 3 distinct persons but 1 GOD.....

I never see that kin thing for my bible b4.....

3 distinct persons shuld mean 3 GODs not 1 GOD....

Na small pikin u dey talk to??

3 persons don't make up 1 GOD.......

that is becos u are thinking with human wisdom where 1person equal 1being, in animals, one being equals no person, in God on God 3 persons.

bigmaut: hmmm!Mary birth day again immaculate God mama how does that help eradicate d ever-increasing propensity to sin by mankind .

it is an encouragement, if thru Gods grace a human was free from sin, then im encourage that by God's grace i can send sin away.
Just a thought.

Seriallink are you ok? You quote my post and wrote about 'holyvirgin' did you see the word holy virgin in my post?

seriallink: Do u mean all virgins are holy? Holy mary indeed.... Is it bcoz she was chosen to be the mother of Christ? Prophet Hosea was also told by Yahweh to take a prostitude for a wife, how do u explain that?

was the prostitute a virgin? Did the prostitute give birth to God in the flesh? Did God reveal that the prostitute was blessed among women? Or can you show me anyone thru out scripture that the bible call "kecharitomene"?

God is unpredictable, u can't understand His ways; God uses whoever He wants, anywhere, anytime; so for u to say God chooses mary to be the mother of christ bcoz she was a virgin & without sin, it's a complete WRONG IDEA!!

i believe God prepared her from her conception to be the mother of the savior,

U catholics are just confused with some crazy doctrines....it's all paganism!

just personal attacks.

Why worship mary? Tell me....Is she God?

catholic dont give mary latria mary we honor her as the moda of the savior, latria is due to God alone.

Why praise her name? U guys are just fvckin' confused... U need help....

i think you are the person who needs help, what did you bible say? "Honor ur father and moda", the word traslated as honor here is 'kamboda' it literally means to glorify. Christ was born subject to the law and he honored "kamboda" his moda, we just follow his footsteps.

seriallink: So u think praying through mary would change things huh? Whatever happened to praying to God directly I have neva prayed to God through mary but He has been answering my prayers. I only pray to God through His son Jesus who died for my sins... Wake up holyvirgin, this trinity doctrine is confusing you!

rev5:8 shows that my prayer thru the saints goes to God thru christ, whether you like it or not doesnt concern me. I can also go to God thru christ and ask the angels and saints to join me as the psalmist does.

ijawkid: U people bow down to her image not even the real mary and u define it as not worshipping a goddess...

But I tire for ona o..

The apostles who even saw mary never bowed down to her to venerate her..

Did they??

the israelite bow before, danced and prostrated before the ark of the covenant and the moulding of the cherubim with it. Did they worship the ark and the cherubim Go and study your bible and stop screaming idol worship.

ijawkid: Surprisingly I'm only familiar with x-mas(the birth day of the almighty GOD,..as if God had a birth day).....but mary's birth day eludes me....

Abeg wheÑ was mÀry born??

yeah God the son has a birthday and so does his mother, today catholics celebrate the birth of mary.

ijawkid: So I could say mary is the mother of the holy spirit?? SMH!!!!!.....

If 1 person =(Yahweh,Jesus and Holy spirit) then we can say mary gave birth to Yahweh and the holy spirit too.).....

Mary powerful o.....

.......

it seem you will never learn, the fada son and spirit are 3 distinct persons but 1 God. So mary is not the moda of the holyspirit. She is the moda of God the son (GOD IN THE flesh)

nedostic: @ All contributors and viewers,

This thread has been quite exploratory considering our dissenting views on our understanding of the Holy scriptures.

I believe what is of essence is to treat the subject matter via scriptures which Frosbel from my own understanding has been doing even though I do not fully agree with some of his own views.

The point I have always said we should ponder is this if the Almighty God is an invisible being,thus, he is a 'Living Spirit' and this makes our God a 'HOLY SPIRIT'. Right or wrong?

More so, I am sure without doubt most of us know fully well that the word 'God' is a title.

Let us equally recall the baptism of our Saviour- The lord Jesus Christ, how the Spirit descended upon him like a dove.

I also believe that our God manifested in the flesh as a Son, as well as a'Heavenly Father'.

I have always wanted bible scholars in this forum to adduce the reason why the apostles adopted the name of Jesus Christ as the baptism formula mostly cited in the bible and not in the name of the three titles or the supposedly trinitarian dogma as instructed by Jesus Christ. Could the apostles be termed as disobedient servants in this case? God forbid!

I await a response from all your bible scholars on the reasons for the 'paradigm' shift from baptism in the name of the father, son, and Holy Spirit. Also recall, that name is singular and not pluralized-'in the name of......

the singular 'name' is and evidence for the trinity, the 3 person are one.

Hint: In case you are not sure of how baptism was done by the apostles and the early church, just 'google' it.

it was done in 3 ways, by immersion, sprinkling and pouring. The didache will give historical proof.

May God help us all! Let me say that we cannot fully fathom whom God is. Its not possible!