₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Ok all is well then, I wasn't referring to you but your popes who declared people heretics for translating the bible to English (i.e. condemning people for reciting the lord's prayer in a language they understood)[/quote]that is a lie, translating the bible wasnt a crime, translating without permission or when permission had been refused was a crime, producing and possesing an adultrated bible was also a crime, and in our world today any reasonable xtain will consider the above as crimes. Just know that nobody was kill for lawfully translating the bible and the laws that were applied were state law not church, nobody called english a heritic language. The church was alway careful when it comes to transmitting the word of God.

in other words killing people for an attempt to understand scripture.

another lie, the state considered adultrated bibles as capital crime.

Your pope has a history of adulterous, power hungry, murders as predecessors and this you cannot deny.

i have noticed that protestants love to talk about peoples sins, but in an arguement that constitute a logical fallacy called ad hominem.

Back to the true bone of contention:
I have not made any claims. You are the one claiming Mary as free from original sin. Prove it.
You may also want to translate "kecharitomeme" to plain English so we can be on the same page. Thank you

i have already translated it check my previous posts.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Let me adopt your style a bit: So in other words any time people agree it must be God?[/quote]another logical fallacy, conclusion based on wrong premise. I said God brings about harmony and agreement, i didnt say whenever people agree they are doing Gods work those two points arent dsame. A laptop process information, that doesnt mean that that anything that process information is a laptop, go and learn your logic again. What is your aim? Pushing words into my mouth

This your "God" must have been the cause of the Rwandan genocide - The Hutus all killed the Tutsis in "harmony"
This your "God" must have brought the "agreement" for the Nazis to kill Jews

not all the germans wanted the jews dead.

This your "God" is also the cause of the "harmony and agreement" amongst Nigerian politicians to embezzle money.

In fact anyone that condemns the activities of the "One True House Of Assembly" is a heretic and deserves to be put to death and this includes anyone that dares to translate the Nigerian constitution to Yoruba.

well i cant help but laugh at you. Before protestanism started there were already some translations in the local language.

The House of Assembly can never be corrupt even if all it's members are rotten to the core.
Don't you just love your logic?

you need to learn the difference between the state and the church. You miss the oga in charge of the church, the holyspirit, like i said you really need to believe in christ promise. The previous national assembly was called corrupt and yet all their policies that was passed into law cant be faulted, that is just a human organisation not to talk about 'the pillar and foundation of truth' guided by the holy spirit.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol' exactly what I expected. Rather than defend his claims properly he dances around the issue, throws in a word he knows I am not familiar with "kecharitomene" and doesn't even attempt to translate it in the least.[/quote]that is because you didnt read the previous posts i explained the word. If you dont agree check the net.

Much like his papal predecessors who would bambuzzle the common men with big latin words they were sure thy wouldn't understand and then condemn them to death for daring to understand it.

point of correction kecharitomene isnt latin it is greek. No body was condemn for trying to understand, i think you have been misinformed or you are just trying to be a fanatic.

It is interesting how you place your church leaders above God's law and call everyone who points out their errors a heretic.

you cant even defend your claim all u do is make accusations, you have been talking about error and you cant even prove that one thing i have said is wrong. My church leaders may have their own sin just like your church leaders but that isnt a reason to claim that that they taught errors in doctrine. If you cant prove that they are teaching errors that mean you are against the truth. And be carefull i havent called you a heretic, you are throwing accusations.

i wish you God's grace.

same 2 u, the feeling is mutual

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, shouldn't the priority be truth rather than agreement?[/quote]if God isnt the guy who brings confusion then i guess he bring harmony and agreement.

OLAADEGBU: You are still saying the same thing, that your final authority does not lie in the Bible alone but with your traditions. Why make God's commandments of no effect because of your traditions?

i asked you before where did d bible teach sola scriptura and you said it didnt well you bible says we should hold on to christain tradition. If you dont know the difference between scripture+christain tradition and the traditions of men that make the word ineffective then i would have to question your ability to reason. It seem your brain simply malfunctions when it comes to the catholic church.

Isaiah prophesied it, Jesus cited and quoted it to confirm that those who put their tradition above the Word of God are only paying lip service to His commandments.

that is where you get it wrong, the christain tradition is the word of God that is why paul tell the christains to keep and hold it, and if you are a christain you would. I have reason(s) to question your christainity.

OLAADEGBU: Read the reasons in the suggested link below.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp

on a 2nd thought i looked i all i find is speculations, ifs and if not. Cant you make a good arguement at all. Ha im surprised at the way you discuss.

OLAADEGBU: Read the reasons in the suggested link below.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp

yeah the usual way protestants insult catholic, i didnt bother to loo up ur link. Your aim is to insult, u are giving me an anti catholic site to prove im nt a christain. You are a gosip because you cant make research on your own. You live on hearsay. A disgrace to any intelligent person.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My friend, you missed a lot of the fun. I can't go through all you replies, I'll do this one.[/quote]no problem.

The bible says nothing about Mary's "immaculate conception"

you are trying to make an arguement from silience that is a logical fallacy and it shows a weak arguement. luk 1:28 says chiare kecharitomene, if you know the meaning of 'kecharitomene' you will know how it surports the IC.

Angels greeted many people in the bible, the greeting to Mary isn't as special as you are trying to make it

. It is very special, the word kecharitomene appears just once in scripture. Dont be surprised it wasnt used anywhere else.

Nothing in that greeting declares mary sinless.

just try and explain kecharitomene.

The church fathers are people like you and me who read scripture like we do today and they also disagreed amongst themselves over this so called church tradition.

no friend they are the guys who heard it from the the horses' mouth, from the apostle, from the disciples of the apostles. They are the transmitter of the word of God. They dont preach heresy, they preach want they recieved.

Or it wasn't important enough to deserve the pen. because the canon was more like a statement to clarify "this is what we believe"

again wrong the canons wasnt to proclaim all that was recieved. None of the guys who compiled it wanted to put down all they believed in a book, you are making an assumption, a speculation and a wrong one.

Unless the God you are worshiping and the God of the Jews is not the same God because that God abhors making of images and kneeling before them including images of Himself

hahaha he was fine with the ark of d covenant, do u know it it was a just a tablet and some images of cheribim. My dear when images are used right God isnt against it.

The question is not whether Peter sinned or not, the question is preaching in sin and committing heresy.

sorry i think you need more faith in christ words 'the gates of hell shall neva prevail' 'i will be wit u till the end of time'. People can fall the the church cant teach heresy because christ said 'thou art cephas nd on this cephas i will build my ecclesia nd the gates of hell shall neva prevail against her' i think you need more faith.

God is not an author of confusion but God abhors sin so much He would rather have the church scatter than have them gathered in sin.

did you missed the word neva prevail? Where did you get the idea that a christain neva sins? Wow u are on you own. That means each time a christains sins the church a new sect will break away. Ha u are joking

Nonsense, .........in a theocracy who makes the state laws? Case in point: Pope Martin V was so infuriated by John Wycliffe's translation of the bible that he commanded that the body of John Wycliffe - that had been dead for 44 years - be dug out and burned.
People were put to death because they recited the Lord's prayer in English that they could understand.[quote]you are ignorant of history my dear it wasnt a theocracy, there were kings and queen and prince. And the guy u are talking about had a a bible that wasnt correct. According to the laws of that time that was a capital crime that deserved a capital punishment. And take note it was the state not the church that was involved in the law making. No body was kill 4 saying the our father, prove it [quote]The Catholic church would rather they use Latin to obfuscate things and confuse people.

there were german translations, even some other languages.

Jesus Christ and the apostles would never kill a man because he disagreed with their teachings, much less because he wanted to pray in his own language. The mere fact that any pope can condemn someone to death, whatever the cause is enough to tell me that the pope has lost the truth. How much more when he claims as truth something that is not biblical.

another ad hominem.

As far as I am concerned, it is better the Holy Spirit is personally revealing the Word of God and 30,000 people disagree - but one must be true - than one group of murderers who claim to be the "church of Christ" - even though they look nothing like him - is dictating the word of God to people and killing them for daring to translate it in another language. May God have mercy on your "one true church"

30,000 demonination nt just pipo. How can the holy spirit teach 30,000 denomination and they teach opposing thing? Is God the authur of confusion? so heresy is beta truth?

.....yes of course. the pope had nothing to do with the fraudulent selling of indulgence

hahaha you dont even know what an indulgence is how can you know when it is abuse uh? It wasnt sold it was giving, abuses happened along the way but since u dont know the meaning of indulgence how can you know an abuse?

italo: @ Mr_Anony,

I second everything ubenedictus said.

Thats the beauty of the Catholic faith. ONE GOD, ONE CHURCH, ONE DOCTRINE, ONE FAITH.

amen to this

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My point isn't that it is not the same same church making the claims, my point is that the second claim does not in any way tally with the first Hence I am suspecting that at some point this church got corrupted. I humbly ask you to ease my suspicions. Isn't this fair enough to ask?[/quote]proof that the first claim doesn tally with the second.

Even from all these books you have now mentioned please validate the immaculate conception of Mary then we can ponder over why it wasn't canonized.

here u go, u want me to use sola scriptura. The angelic salutation is my vague proof of the IC. The church fathers clarify.

Why are we still thrashing this issue of Christian tradition, I have now accepted Christian tradition for you. Much of Christian trandition can be easily inferred from scripture and similar writings of the time. The "immaculate conception of Mary" is conspiciously left out and not even hinted at but seemingly less important things like Paul's letter to Philemon about his slave managed to be canonized. There was room for four gospels all saying the same thing - and many more gospels that were not canonized talking about Mary - yet amazingly you can cite none that claims that she was concieved without sin.
It is either your account of Mary's conception is not true or it is such a trivial and unimportant detail that nobody bothered to mention it in their writings.

or no one who wrote wanted to tell everything, because it wasnt necessary.

Yes the angel's greeting to Mary was indeed profound but then so was The angel's greeting to Gideon, Jacob e.t.c. We don't suddenly build images for them and kneel before them just because and angel greeted them "profoundly"

the jews will be in a better position to lecture you about the veneration of their saints.

This is the point where I misunderstand you. Why should sinful leaders preach the truth?

peter denied Jesus yet he is an apostle.

What if the "shops" you are referring to are people who see this sinful leaders for who they are and break away from them?

so God is the authur of division? Aha.

By the way in reference to the bolded: Thank God that the bible is there for me to read.
Was it not the "Holy" Catholic church that executed people for daring to translate the bible into languages the common man could read?

it seems you are trying to use the ad hominem fallacy. No sir the existing state laws did. There were many people translating the scriptures. Those who translated errors especially illegal were tried in a court.

Is it not ironic that it was when people started actually reading the bible for themselves that they started breaking away from the so called "one true church"?

what do you expect? The bible clearly states that scripture isnt a matter of personal interpretation, when people began to give personal interpretation on a wide scale we have wide scale heresy. Over 30,000 protestant churches and they dont teach d same thing.

Was it not the corruption and hypocrisy of your popes and cardinals that sparked of Protestantism?

no sir, it had nothing to do with d pope. I think u nid to rid d writtings of luther.

If people had read the bible for themselves and seen the same in the life of your popes, no one would have broken away.

hahahaha tell me u are joking .

Somewhere along the line, the "one true church" lost the truth and it is a very shameful thing.

that is what u guy say. Let me tell u what christ said ' d gates of hell shall never prevail against her', it seems u want to make God a liar. Oh let me share in ur fun wen do u tink d church 'lost' d truth?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Now, on what authority is "Mary's immaculate conception" Do you just want me to take your word for it because you and some priest say so?[/quote]wow the church fathers are there, do you want me to give quotes?

The problem with "word of mouth" authority is that I can make up anything and claim it is Christian tradition and once I am challenged I can always claim it was passed down by word of mouth.

before you can make that claim you will need to show it at least from the church fathers.

I can even make stuff up and bribe the pope to proclaim it as "word of mouth tradition" (and please don't tell me your popes are incorruptible)

i think you totally missed it, the pope and council proclaim doctrines and put them beyond dispute, unless you are one of those early christains then you cant really bring up a tradition, that is why the doctrine of luther is considerd heresy.

Trinity isn't the topic of discussion but since you insist on proof from scriptures, here you go:
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1John 5:7 (.......and in case you are wondering who the Word is, read John chapter 1)

wow, wow, wow, wow. Please modify your post immediately or the muslims will begin to mock you. That part entered erasmus translation by mistake, it was a gloss in one of the manuscript. That part is not in any ancient greek aramaic latin syrian version. It is not in the text.

Much like asking you to prove from scripture that Peter was the first pope or that the papacy is scripturally valid (of course you will say "word of mouth tradition)

it can be shown from scripture.

Doesn't it bother you that the Catholic church still left out all references to Mary's conception? Surely someone's writing must have at least vaguely referred to it or was it strictly a word of mouth tradition never to be written about?

it seem you havent been on this thread for long. I have been hinting on the words of d angel 'kecharitomene'. That is a vague instance of d IC.

How come that in all the books the Catholic church allowed, except for the part where she is simply the mother of Jesus Christ, Mary isn't given nearly half as much reverence as the Catholic Church gives her today?

like i wrote earlier d bible wasnt compiled to cover everything.

No statues,chaplets,hail Mary prayers nothing?

well maybe you dont know there are status of the apostles and chaplets, the hail mary to a large extent is found in d bible.

Concerning the letters in bold: If the apostles sinned will they still be apostles?

peter deny d lord yet he is an apostle, all he needed was repentance

Is Judas Iscariot still an apostle that Christ entrusted his Church to? If any of the apostles died in sin they would have gone to hell. Did Paul not rebuke Peter when he was being hypocritical? The sanctity of church leaders matter because they can lead people to hell with false doctrine.
The true Church of Christ are believers that keep Christ's teachings and not a system of clergy and laity.

provide biblical proof.

Immaculate conception and the Canon are two different things entirely. Immaculate conception is an event The Bible is a compilation of books.

that is because you are cherry picking.

Justify the importance your church places on Mary.

importance? Well thats simple she is d mother of God the son

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The bible is a compilation. The catholic church did not create the bible, it only arranged the manuscripts in order.

The catholic church also is not the bedrock of Christianity, Jesus Christ is the bedrock of Christianity.

Let me play your game with you to show you how absurd it is:-
Where is the word catholic church in the bible? If you can answer this, you have a point.[/quote]im not sola scriptura, im asking u where is the word 'protestant' in the bible?

It seem you have ran out of point and now u are only interested in telling lie.

OLAADEGBU: They are Roman Catholics and they don't claim to be Christians.

who said catholic arent christains? Are u joking? Or trying to insult? What is the meaning of that? Where did u get that stupid idea that catholics arent christain? Dont tell me you go it from that anti catholic website. If u want information about the church check the church's document and dont bring such silly ideas.

There reference point is not the inspired holy Scriptures but their church traditions.

another lie, i will tell you our reference, i call it 'sola verbum Dei'. It mean only the word of God. The end of divine revelation is Jesus and he has giving the apostles that divine teaching, he didnt write he preach, that is why the word of God is found in sacred scripture and tradition that is why st paul tell the christains to hold and keep the tradition.

These are the people that Jesus referred to as rendering the Commandment of God void because of their traditions

actually Jesus was talking to the jews. You are the person holding sola scriptura a position that isnt consistent with scriptures.

and it's only the Holy Spirit that can open their eyes and minds to see the light of the gospel which can save their souls.

may he do same to you.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My brother, please consider carefully the implications of what it means if the bible is not our final authority. Let me assume that at least you believe the bible is true.


Now to strictly answer the question you have asked, I noticed the emphasis on the word 'bible'. Now this would be unreasonable to ask specifically for that word because the bible is a compilation of books however the bible describes it's message with words like 'gospel', 'doctrine', 'scripture'. And there are verses affirming the authority of scripture including 2Tim 3:16, 2John 1:10, Rev 22:18, Gal 1:8 etc etc.[/quote]does that say it is d final authority?

Now that aside, if you at least believe that the catholic church is the original true church and that the Catholic church compiled the bible,
how come that the immaculate conception of Mary was left out?

here we go! When the fathers of hippo made the canon their aim wasnt to make a book that contained all that d xtain believe, no! It was made first of all to combat heretic who were making their own canon and as a reference for the core doctrines, that is why it sounds really funny to me when protestants want everything to be in the new testament. The bible isnt and wasnt made to substitute Tradition that is why not everything will be found in the bible.

how come that there is no account of Mary being co-mediatrix in the bible or even any scripture somehow implying it?

here we go! You are trying to push something unto the word 'co-mediatrix' uh? Well it would be a good discussion to tell you why some catholics use that title, and hey if u understand it right then it is in d bible. I would like to inform you beforehand that debating this title will not lead us anywhere because it isnt a doctrine and not every catholic is expected to use it.

Don't you think this is such a huge detail to be left out.
Considering that the "catholic church" chose which books to include and which ones to leave out, how come this "very important doctrine" was left out?
How come the ones that were included state categorically that there is one mediator (1Timothy 2:5)?

like i told you before 'co-mediatrix isnt a doctrine, you have been misinformed. And please go and check the meaning of 'one' in greek. Greek isnt english, and even if you wish to use the english translation the title doesnt contradict scripture, ask me how.

Why wasn't this and all such references excluded if indeed there were two mediators?

it seems you are making you own doctrines,

Study the bible for yourself my brother I beg you. Don't rely on other people's interpretations. (Acts 17:11)

the bible isnt suppose to be your personal interpretation(read ur bible) it is d work of d spirit to interprete d word thru d church.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Wow, I never knew that a day would come when I would have to argue with someone who claims to be a christian over the authority of the bible.
If the bible is not the the final authority on the Word of God, then what is?
What is the validity of our faith? If the bible is not the final authority, What then do we agree on?
How can we possibly discuss as christians since we don't even agree on the bible's authority?

I happen to be a bible believing christian, I cannot be anything else.

If you say Mary was immaculately born but it wasn't recorded in the bible, I may as well say that Abraham, David, King Herod, Job, Nebuchadenezar, Esther and Judas Iscariot e.t.c. were all immaculately concieved. Afterall the details of their conception isn't recorded in the bible and the bible is not the final authority.

@Italo and chukwudi44, No christian will ever imply what you are both trying to imply that the bible is not our final authority. I thought I was speaking with brothers but i am afraid you are not christians. Please repent! God loves you.[/quote]you are a bible believing xtain and so am i but the bible never said it was the sole and final authority, a guy called martin luther said that. I would like to inform you that for the first 300yrs of xtainity there was no bible just d old testament, so what did the early xtain use? The answer is simple, tradition and the old testament, those who had a writting of and apostle or disciple didnt call those writtings scripture. So i think the early church wasnt bible centered.

Ubenedictus: hahaha, please dont do this because you will lose. The people who said that mary wasnt a perpetual virgin were called heretic, this is a link to a writting of the bible scholar st Jerome. He was instrumental in canonising the bible he exist before the bible was canonised, he was around during the canonisation and was after it. Jerome almost singlehandedly translated the scripture fron greek to latin. Enought of the vc here we go http://ww.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm this site is a mine of gold i hope you will learn from the early xtain. Check chapter 19 he gives a list of the church father who wrote about or called mary a perpetual virgin, can you see that st justin is there. This is my proof that your opinion was considerd heresy in the early church.

well since nobody has tried to refute st Jerome, i think he has succeeded in giving a good explanation of scripture that protestant usually misquote. I believe i have sufficiently showed that the early christains believed in d perpetual virginity of mary, in the absence of any opposition i think it is safe to say that Jerome has ended the perpetual virginity arguement, so i can move forward.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]@Ubenedictus

From what I can decipher, the contention is between whether Jesus was the only one immaculately conceived and whether Mary was also immaculately conceived.

We agree that the bible is the final authority.

The bible clearly states that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin hence without sin. (Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14)

Please show us where the bible says that Mary Jesus' mother was born without sin.

Once you do that, this case will be settled. If you cannot do that then it is not true. This should be fair enough don't you agree?[/quote]it seems i missed all the fun, i say a big thankyou to all catholic who are explaining their faith. i couldnt help noticing that this post lead to the discussions. I would like to correct mr anthony that the post he quote wasnt even talking about the immaculate conception, it was about the theotokus. I wouldnt want to add to the answers my brothers gave.

OLAADEGBU: Let us reason outside the box a little bit.
When the RCC came into existence around 300 AD their leaders

another lie, go and check your bible d first council was in Jerusalem

knew if they could adopt the worship of the goddess mother into their religious system then countless pagans would convert into Catholism. They decided to use the logical person in the name of Mary as the replacement of their pagan goddess and gradually, the worship of the pagan goddess was transferred to "Mary".

another lie.

"The mother of God" that the RCC worship is not the same Mary of the Bible. She is the "queen of heaven" that has been carefully incorporated to deceive multitudes into worshipping this counterfeit goddess. See Jeremiah 7:17-18;44:16-17,20-29

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

your link is totally erroneous, if you need the writtings of d church council dat confirmed mary as theotokus i can provide it. Dat title was used whe heretic started to dispute d divinity and hypostatic union of christ. Sorry you are really ignorant of church history.

OLAADEGBU: Let's see whether this claim of yours is true.

remove that from quote so i can answer.

My questions to you are:

Why do you claim to follow Peter as your "Rock" and yet ignore his teachings?
Did Peter teach or practice these traditions posted above?
This is what Peter had to say:
"Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth" (2 Peter 1:12).

as usual u want the bible to contradict it self, peter didnt say anything against tradition because he used it.2 thess 2:15 what does it say?

OLAADEGBU: Are you saying that your dogmas teach you that there are at least three immaculate conceptions?

two

My friend, Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the only Person born without sin and that is why He is the only One who qualifies as the Lamb of God to take away our sins.

not true, Jesus is d lamb of God because he is God and beyond sin, mary isnt God, her sinlessness is simply on the mediatorship of christ. No human being could carry the sins of d world that is why God did it

All others have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

the bible say all as a generalisation no without exception. If it was without exception that means you are making d bible contradict itself and u are saying that Jesus sinned. I find it insulting that you didnt or couldnt answer the main objection i posted, u mis interprete marys' words. She already had a saviour, it is a pity when you argue against scripture.

OLAADEGBU: Again, I refer you to what Peter said about "the present truth".

what interpretation are u pushing on that verse. Read 2thess 2:15 do you keep the christian tradition?

OLAADEGBU: I believe that I have given adequate evidence both scriptural and historical to prove that your dogma has no foundation and that it has nothing to do with the early church. Come with evidence and refute this if you can.

hahaha, please dont do this because you will lose. The people who said that mary wasnt a perpetual virgin were called heretic, this is a link to a writting of the bible scholar st Jerome. He was instrumental in canonising the bible he exist before the bible was canonised, he was around during the canonisation and was after it. Jerome almost singlehandedly translated the scripture fron greek to latin. Enought of the vc here we go http://ww.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm this site is a mine of gold i hope you will learn from the early xtain. Check chapter 19 he gives a list of the church father who wrote about or called mary a perpetual virgin, can you see that st justin is there. This is my proof that your opinion was considerd heresy in the early church.

OLAADEGBU: This is what I quoted about what Peter wrote and which you pretended not to have seen:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given to him has written to you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15-16).

This is Peter placing his seal of approval on the fact that Paul's letters were not merely writings of men but of Scriptures.

as usual u are pushing your interpretation on the bible. He didnt say paul scripture because at that time there was nothing like new testament he said paul epistle, letters and said that those guy also twist the scripture. How can peter call pauls writting scripture when there was no NT?

OLAADEGBU: Again I quote what Peter said in the NT:

"Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth" (2 Peter 1:12).

i see the verse, so what interpretation are you giving it?

It is not new that the RCC has always taken the credit for the writing and the compilation of Scriptures but this is another lie from the pit of hell. Check the weblink below to see how the Bible was written and compiled first by the OT Jews and then by the early Christians for the church.

hahaha were the early christain jehova witness? Eh? You just go about talking about early xtain. They were catholic, the early xtains who cannonise d bible were catholics. But how would u know that when you go about reading some stupid webpage. Go and read the writtings of the early xtains and let them tell us who they are, dont be dumb.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/rcc+bible001.asp?FROM=Catholicpage

you are starting to tell me very big fairy tales, the quote on when dogmas started should be modified and placed in plain text so i can respond to it, your webpage is purely anticatholic it is a really big liar.

chukwudi44: 57. KamiLara: Quote Post

chukwudi44:

@kamilara

Are disputing the fact that the cherubims and bronze serpents were graven images


I understand your interest . . .

Let it first be known that the cherubims and bronze serpent are in a league of their own

and that the cherubims and bronze serpent had privilege statuses enjoyed or made available to a group of people at a particular period of time

I am not disputing the fact that the cherubims and bronze serpent were graven images

but questioning the truth whether they were

- bowed down to
- shown any reverence to by gesture of the body
- offered prostration, bending of knee, kissing of hand, lifting up of hands or eyes to as if there was divinity in them
- shown outward action expressing a spiritual esteem of them, as if there was divinity in them

in conjunction with the below verses, with particular reference to verse 5


4“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.

5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me

Please expatiate on your assertion that the bronze serpent and cherubs were "in a league of their own"
Also you are claiming there were made available to a group of people @ a certain time yet you keep quoting commandments given to those same people at that time.I would want to believe God outlawed making of idols and not graven images .God will be braking is own commandment by asking moses to make graven images if that is what he actaually meant.

Now now that idols and graven images do not mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangebly.Idols are images which are worshipped which supposes that images that are not worshipped cannot be regarded as idols.

You also claimed moses was the only one in the bible God instructed to make graven images.That claim is fallacious as solomon also constructed graven images during the construction of the temple.Even his throne had graven images of lions

this a very true. There is a difference between having religious images and idol. Many people confuse the two.

KamiLara: Hmm. I salute and stand at attention

Since when did "not giving a monkey's" started been analysed and interpreted as been upset

". . . I felt that the mention of the bronze serpent would stimulate discussion in line with the subject of the thread . . ." yeah right,

stimulate discussion laced with a bit of "talking snake" time, isnt it?

This is all a disguise, isnt it?

The romance with iconography OR iconolatry is a ruse, as the interest really is in graven images (i.e. idolatry)




So what's with the cherubims now?

You're all over the place, one minute its Paul's handkerchief, next its Jesus' gown, or now its cherubs

OK, now that you are pushing the boat out to sea.

Why doesn't the discussion deliberate on the significance of the bronze serpent?

Why the choice was a snake and why the snake had to be brass for that matter too?



SMH

they are far because:

- they are not bowed down to
- not shown any reverence to by gesture of the body
- no prostration bending of knee, kissing of hand, lifting up of hands or eyes to
- no outward action expressing a religious esteem of them, as if there was divinity in them

Would be intriguing to know what you understand by the term worship

to worship is to ascribe divinity to a being and act according. To worship is more of the mind and heart. If one doesnt ascribe divinity to something the all signs are interpreted as respect or veneration.

KamiLara: @Pastor AIO

I dont give two monkeys about "thou Shalt Not Make Unto Thee Any Graven Image" And The Church (i.e. the posting title)

To each his own and their lot is likely a case of live and let die

You sire, brought up the serpent for reasons best known to you.

The fact of the matter is that God asked that the serpent be made to be looked upon & be saved from a snake bite death for that period in the wilderness

simply to show that even images have significance.

God didnt asked that the serpent be made for burning incenses to as was later practiced by the Israelites

very correct. At that time incense was an act of worship and could only be done by a priest. The image lost it usefulness when the israelites began to worship it.

so this is why the breaking up of the bronze serpent into pieces was made noteworthy along with a commendation

The Israelites made the bronze serpent an idol and were burning incense to it.

That is the reality. Give it a rest.

PS: The woman that got healing from touching the hem of Jesus garment? you mentioned
That's a different matter altogether

She knew her bible that well that she got the revelation about "healing in the wings" from Malachi
She put her faith to test, and behold she was made whole

and those who got healing from item from the apostle?

ijawkid: Why mÀke d molten images. In d 1st place??


U guys bow down to d image.....

They serve as talismans to d users don't they?

Like lucky charms or what have u.........

If I bow down to mary's image or d cross and say d hail mary's,what have I done??

you are on ur own, hail is a word of respect not worship a bow is also a symbol of respect. To worship something it takes more than a sign it come from the heart.

Jenwitemi: Graven images of Jesus are a regular feature on most xtian churches altars, dude. That means they are focus of worship. Not to talk of the image of a naked, bearded white man as God in the minds of most christians put there by oyinbo man.

no it doesnt mean they are focus of worship, they are instead focus of attention.

Pastor Kun: The catholic church actually first brought the doctrine of tithes into christianity and they practised it for centuries.

this isnt true. You are making a baseless statement.

However in modern times with widespread use of the bible and enlightenment it became obvious it was a false doctrine so they decided to retract and preach it as voluntary.

another lie.

However the catholic church being the oldest and richest institution in the world has amassed wealth over the centuries which they continue to re-invest. The catholic church is the largest shareholder in a good number of large corporations in America and around the world they made good money from tithes and other scams like 'sale of indulgence' in the past but today they have moved ahead.

the catholic church was never give on tithe, the indulgence case wasnt used to amass wealth it was used to renovate only one basilica called st peter. The accumulated wealth came from donations as old as 1500yrs.

They are so huge now that tithe money would seem like peanuts to them.

they were never into the tithe thing

buzugee: the catholic church collects tithes from countries not peons (humans )

this isnt true

OLAADEGBU: When I quote Justin I was referring to his martyrdom and not what he believed. If you can prove that he also believed in doctrines not grounded in the Scriptures then the holy Scriptures takes is my final authority and not what one "church father" said or believed.

this is the classic protestant response to the fact that what they believe is different from what the early christains believe. You will claim to follow the bible and declare all xtain frm 100AD till date wrong and follow doctrines that started in the 16th century. Has it ever occured to you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong. I had to carve out time to make these responds, my sleep time it long past and even though my brain is still sharp my eyes may be heavy, there may be spelling error. I hope i havent offended some one.
Ubenedictus