DavidDylan:

Nothing. Just logged on last week to discover my userID had been changed without my knowledge. Simply asked that it be restored and i was promptly banned. Hey . . . such is life.

bro david it is only monday morning and you are already getting me laughing. it is getting better abi? wonders shall never end

27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Absolutely.

Mary is even more blessed as a disciple of Christ than she is as his mother. She too kept to the commandments of God and she too did the will of God. When she heard the word of God, she did not go against it. Unfortunately people think that the passage was Jesus dissing Mary when infact he was only blessing her the more.
If the passage was in anyway dissing Mary then there would be a contradiction in the Bible when Elizabeth called her blessed, when the angel called her full of grace, and when Mary said she will be called blessed by all generations.

So that passage includes Mary in it. The question to ask oneself is "Did Mary hear the word of God and keep it?" if the answer is yes, did Christ not bless her the more?

Well to me he did. This passage blessed Mary even more.

Speaking of the meaning of words, check this out:
Matt 16:18- That thou art Peter <Petros>, and upon this rock <petra> I will build my church <ekklesia>; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . (KJV)

I'm glad you brought it up. The words spoke by Christ was aramaic. The original word is kephas (I believe that's the right spelling) meaning rock, but when written in greek it needed to be translated. The word Petra is a female word, therefore the word Petros was used instead because it wouldn't have made any sense calling Peter Petra as if he was a woman. It certainly would have caused even more confusion to have people thinking that Peter was a woman.
But truly the word rock is meant to be used for peter.

@Chris , Anything that Denies Jesus, and makes a mockery of what He did on the cross

is indeed SATANIC

pheww well then thank God the Catholic Church does not deny Christ and only teaches what he has taught and revealed to us.

Sweeetie it is your own interpretation that is wrong and not ours.

you people are wasting your time. If you notice Lady NEVER hedges her "arguments" with the bible.

Yet i am the only one who quotes the Bible AND interprets it, rather than quoting and running away like a coward, and when asked to interpret bring up something completely random.

[Please do./quote]

Absolutely.

~Lady~:

Absolutely.

Mary is even more blessed as a disciple of Christ than she is as his mother. She too kept to the commandments of God and she too did the will of God. When she heard the word of God, she did not go against it. Unfortunately people think that the passage was Jesus dissing Mary when infact he was only blessing her the more.
If the passage was in anyway dissing Mary then there would be a contradiction in the Bible when Elizabeth called her blessed, when the angel called her full of grace, and when Mary said she will be called blessed by all generations.

So that passage includes Mary in it. The question to ask oneself is "Did Mary hear the word of God and keep it?" if the answer is yes, did Christ not bless her the more?

Well to me he did. This passage blessed Mary even more.

Lady,
that short passage was not meant to diss Mary. Jesus would never have done that, He being strictly brought up under the Jewish Law.
What Jesus was telling the old woman was that focus or veneration or undue adulation was not meant for His mother. The focus of God's children should be on God alone and it is those who obey God that are blessed. Jesus didn't bless Mary more abeg o (whip out the scriptural references for saying that He blessed her more). Look at that passage again dear, it says ', YEA, RATHER, '
If that woman had had her way i.e. in form of religious-political power, she may have deified Mary at a much earlier time. I find it funny that Jesus being the owner of the mama never gave instructions to deifiy, venerate, 'honour' as you Catholics want to be politically correct, nor did He do any of such or even tell Mary to bless / pray for christians on His behalf , yet mere mortals like you and I who were never connected with her ,can pass a law for her veneration, adulation and 'honour'.

Lady's posts get bizare by the day. This is just baloney.

~Lady~:

If the passage was in anyway dissing Mary then there would be a contradiction in the Bible when Elizabeth called her blessed,

Every child of God is blessed. Are we now God's parents?

~Lady~:

when the angel called her full of grace,

the bible says we are filled with exceeding grace in Christ Jesus . . . are we God's parents now?

~Lady~:

and when Mary said she will be called blessed by all generations.

The bible says to Abraham . . . in thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Is he God's father? Should we build an altar unto him too?

The rest of your treatise is a sad testament to your lack of knowledge and a plain fact that you're not genuinely saved. All this christian formality of "putting people in prayer" is empty wind.

This is the confession of a man who had been a member of the RCC for 50 years and who served as a  priest for many of those years.  He was a living witness during the time when the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was introduced into the RCC.

The 8th of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX was sitting on his throne; a triple crown of gold and diamonds was on his head:  silk and damask – red and white vestments on his shoulders; five hundred mitred prelates were surrounding him; and more than fifty thousand were at his feet in the incomparable St. Peter’s Church of Rome.  A few minutes of most solemn silence, a cardinal, dressed with his purple robe, left his seat, and gravely walked towards the pope, humbly prostrating himself at his feet, and said: 

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe and teach that the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.” 

The Supreme Pontiff answered:  “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

The cardinal withdrew; the pope and the numberless multitude fell on their knees; and the harmonious choir sang the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus.’ 

The last note of the sacred hymn had hardly rolled under the vaults of the temple, when the same cardinal left his place, and again advanced towards the throne of the pontiff, prostrated himself at his feet, and said;

“Holy Father, tell us if the Holy Mother of God, the blessed Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The pope again answered:  “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

And again the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ was sung.

Again the eyes of the multitude followed the grave steps of the purple- robed cardinal for the third time to the throne of the successor of St.  Peter, to ask again:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe that the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God was immaculate.”

The pope, as if he had just received a direct communication from God, answered with a solemn voice:

“Yes!  We must believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in her conception . . .   There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma!”

And, with a loud voice, the pope intoned the Te Deum; the bells of the three hundred churches of Rome rang; the cannons of the citadel were fired.  The last act of the most ridiculous and sacrilegious comedy the world had ever seen, was over; the doors of heaven were forever shut against those who would refuse to believe the anti-scriptural doctrine that there is a daughter of Eve who has not inherited the sinful nature of Adam.

She was redeclared exempt when the God of Truth said, “There is none righteous; no, not one:  for all have sinned!” (Rom.3:10,23)

No trace of this teaching is found in the first centuries of the Church.”

(50 Years in the “Church” of Rome, The Conversion of a Priest, by Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications, 1985, pp. 233-234 [c.  1886])

You can see that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a relatively new doctrine that Peter knew nothing about but which was first accepted within the RCC in 1854.  The truth at times may be bitter but it has a lasting sweetness and it has to be told because Jesus Christ did not die in vain to make us religious, as we can do that without Him dying the vicarious death but He died so that we can get our relationship with God restored and to worship Him in Spirit and Truth.  You can see that the RCC adherents have been deceived big time as they have been led to serve a false Jesus which is actually Satan.

This is what Apostle Peter said of Jesus:  “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”  Acts 4:12

He also said in Acts 16:31 “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house.”

Our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ said “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me”  John 14:6

The Apostle Paul made it clear under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he said: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  I Timothy 2:5

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:  it is the gift of God:  not of works, lest any man should boast.”  Ephesians 2:8-9

Jesus said again in Revelation 18:4 “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

It must be stressed that you are not saved by your membership in the RCC or by taking communion at mass neither are you saved by confessing to your priest nor by being subjected to water baptism.  You can only be saved by asking Jesus Christ of the Bible to forgive your sins, turn away from your sins, especially idolatry, and ask Jesus Christ to come into your life and to impart in you the gift of righteousness by the Power of the  Holy Spirit.  Then read the Bible starting with the synoptic gospels and especially the gospel of  John and the epistles of John so that you can get to know the person of Jesus Christ intimately.  Pray that our heavenly Father will reveal His Son to you and show you all that it means from Genesis to Revelation.  As you commit your life to the true Jesus of the Bible, the Holy Spirit will come and live within you and enable you to understand what you are reading as you read the Bible.  Please do not accept a false Christ.

OLAADEGBU:

The 8th of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX was sitting on his throne; a triple crown of gold and diamonds was on his head: silk and damask – red and white vestments on his shoulders; five hundred mitred prelates were surrounding him; and more than fifty thousand were at his feet in the incomparable St. Peter’s Church of Rome. A few minutes of most solemn silence, a cardinal, dressed with his purple robe, left his seat, and gravely walked towards the pope, humbly prostrating himself at his feet, and said:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe and teach that the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The Supreme Pontiff answered: “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

The cardinal withdrew; the pope and the numberless multitude fell on their knees; and the harmonious choir sang the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus.’

The last note of the sacred hymn had hardly rolled under the vaults of the temple, when the same cardinal left his place, and again advanced towards the throne of the pontiff, prostrated himself at his feet, and said;

“Holy Father, tell us if the Holy Mother of God, the blessed Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The pope again answered: “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

And again the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ was sung.

Again the eyes of the multitude followed the grave steps of the purple- robed cardinal for the third time to the throne of the successor of St. Peter, to ask again:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe that the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God was immaculate.”

The pope, as if he had just received a direct communication from God, answered with a solemn voice:

“Yes! We must believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in her conception . . . There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma!”

And, with a loud voice, the pope intoned the Te Deum; the bells of the three hundred churches of Rome rang; the cannons of the citadel were fired.

@olaadegbu

This is so funny! Roman Catholics really need to have their collective heads examined! lol lol

this is eternal life that they may you the only TRUE GOD and JESUS CHRIST whowho you sent.[i][/i] john 17:3
I belong to a church where men who did not shed their blood for me wants to rule over me.
but i understand the truth above so Iam not bound to the and they can't Lrd it over me.
I suggest you read your bible and pray tha thee eye of your understanding may be enlightened
in order 4 u 2 knw christ and not ur church or pastors
becos they are humans and they have their own humanity

carmelily:

@olaadegbu

This is so funny! Roman Catholics really need to have their collective heads examined! lol lol

I don't think it is funny at all because millions of souls are perishing as a result of this great deception from the pit of hell.  Let us continue to pray that the Lord would open their eyes to see, their ears to hear and their hearts to perceive the Truth that Jesus Christ brings so that their hearts would be washed in the 'blood of the Lamb.'

@olaadegbu

it IS funny. i'm sorry if i offend anyone. but where are their brains? so anyone can wake up any day and make another human being "immaculate"?

May God have mercy on those of them who are sincere but are sincerely wrong.

carmelily:

And this is what he has to say about his frequent sexual exploits:

An Rcc priest on the move May God save the RCC. if they are salvable!

Hmm, let us understand that not everyone making a claim to being a priest is actually one. Some are actually internet trawlers just posing as "priests", and they do this so well that anyone might be easily taken in by them.

Second, God is able to save the worst of people - and it is not only people within the Catholic system that stand in need of this mercy we all seek and sing about. "Salvable"? Let's look outside the Catholic systen for a moment and focus on our "Protestant" testimony - are we any better than those we sometimes point fingers at? I am humbled and blessed by a Nigerian proverb someone shared with me recently - "when we point accusing fingers at others, remember that 3 longer fingers are pointing directly back at us - who knows where the thumb is pointing to!" I believe that God's mercy is open to all - we can be open to this fact and desire that all men come to His saving grace, regardless of what they might have been.

Just my observations. Cheers.

oh my days.

The Roman Cath Priests are now the Mediators between God and Us

Such Bull.

Discarding Jesus along the way.

And yet they say they dont Deny Christ

Yeah, they mention Jesus but What He did or what He Is, they throw it outta the window.

Pity.but

You guys can be saved.

@pilgrim

He IS a priest. I am 100% sure about that. And we've had about a million discussions about RCC doctrine and all that.

In any case i think you need to read the posts here more closely to know where i stand about "catholic" "protestant" etc. Funny when you say "our protestant". I definitely am not "protestant". And any exasperated person who has gone through RCC dogma would surely wonder if they are indeed, salvable. Like someone said you like saying on another thread, "sorry", but i stand by my comments.

be careful in ur judgements lest ye be judged by the same standards. a lot of people over the ages have found the catholic church an easy mark for them to vent out thier frusrations. the so called "bible believing churches" have con viniently forgotten the origins of the bible itself. the bible did not just fall down from heaven. it was a culmination of abt a hundred yrs of inspired writing by inspired men of God. the catholic church as we the catholics believe was founded by jesus himself when he appointed peter as the first head of the church. this annointing as we catholics believe has been passed on unbroken since then to the present pope, bishops and priests. this is what we call the doctrine of apostolic succession. prior to the complilation of the bible which if i am not mistaken came abt at 60 yrs afta the death of christ. the apostles passed on the good news by word of mouth they were not preaching 4rm any bible at this time. thier mode of worship and some other traditions not contained in the bible have been passed on and retained by the mordern day church. for example the lighting of candles is reminiscent of the early day when christains were persecuted and had to worship in caves using candles aa a source of illumination. as such the catholic church looks not only to the bible for truths but to tradition which hv been passed 4rm the early christains and also to the pope and other cardinals who make proclamations on mordern issues such as abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia bringing us to the doctrine of the infalliability of the pope, which state that the pope when standing in position as Gods representative on earth to make proclamations on issues of doctrine and morals cannot be wrong. which if i may adddo not mean the pope cannot make a mistake as a human. i culd go on and on explaining various doctrine but it shld be clear to see that the catholic church is a church filled wit history and tradition and not all of its history has been goodsuch as the spanish inquisition or the passive role it played duing the massacre of semites in the world war but just like humans it does not claim to be perfect but we r all striving towards it. so pls take ur time to study the doctrines of other religions b/4 u make catergorical or absolute condemnations u might just b suprised

carmelily:

@pilgrim

He IS a priest. I am 100% sure about that. And we've had about a million discussions about RCC doctrine and all that.

In any case i think you need to read the posts here more closely to know where i stand about "catholic" "protestant" etc. Funny when you say "our protestant". I definitely am not "protestant". And any exasperated person who has gone through RCC dogma would surely wonder if they are indeed, salvable. Like someone said you like saying on another thread, "sorry", but i stand by my comments.

@carmelily,

Again, I say sorry. And thank you at the same time for pointing out your persuasions - I'm not going to legislate for the man who claims to be a priest, as I have no way of ascertaining who exactly he is or what he has been saying.

That said, whatever postures we assume ("we", whether Christian or not), I think it is not quite helpful to regard others as standing on an "if" as regards salvation. Again, it is not in my power to change them, and though everyone is entitled to their opinions, we could hope for the best for others. Should we doubt them while at the same time hoping the best for them - that indeed would be somewhat difficult for others to read as to what our own condition is.

Cheers.

@pilgrim

nah, that was me saying "sorry" to you in case i offended you in some way by insisting on my viewpoint. I told you i said that in exasperation, no one is beyond God's saving power. Have a great day!

Hugs, dear carmelily. . I understand just a bit of where you're coming from (incidentally, I know someone who has been terribly hurt recently and I'm lost for words to say to comfort her even though she's a very dear friend). Enjoy.

aaww i wish you both God's peace. I think she understands how u feel if she's really a dear friend. you know, sometimes it's in the silence.

@OLAADEGBU

The 8th of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX was sitting on his throne; a triple crown of gold and diamonds was on his head:  silk and damask – red and white vestments on his shoulders; five hundred mitred prelates were surrounding him; and more than fifty thousand were at his feet in the incomparable St. Peter’s Church of Rome.  A few minutes of most solemn silence, a cardinal, dressed with his purple robe, left his seat, and gravely walked towards the pope, humbly prostrating himself at his feet, and said: 

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe and teach that the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The Supreme Pontiff answered:  “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

The cardinal withdrew; the pope and the numberless multitude fell on their knees; and the harmonious choir sang the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus.’ 

The last note of the sacred hymn had hardly rolled under the vaults of the temple, when the same cardinal left his place, and again advanced towards the throne of the pontiff, prostrated himself at his feet, and said;

“Holy Father, tell us if the Holy Mother of God, the blessed Virgin Mary, was immaculate in her conception.”

The pope again answered:  “I do not know; let us ask the light of the Holy Ghost.”

And again the ‘Veni Creator Spiritus’ was sung.

Again the eyes of the multitude followed the grave steps of the purple- robed cardinal for the third time to the throne of the successor of St.  Peter, to ask again:

“Holy Father, tell us if we can believe that the blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God was immaculate.”

The pope, as if he had just received a direct communication from God, answered with a solemn voice:

“Yes!  We must believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculate in her conception . . .   There is no salvation to those who do not believe this dogma!”

And, with a loud voice, the pope intoned the Te Deum; the bells of the three hundred churches of Rome rang; the cannons of the citadel were fired. 

And what does this prove.  My friend, I can post you a long list of converts from Pentecastal, Anglican, Baptist, Jehova's Witness, Mormans, name it, etc. churches that have joined the Catholic Church on account of its teachings.  Just because you find the writings of one fallen away Catholic, is it supposed to convince us that the Catholic Church is not true?  You are funny indeed.  Some of the greatest minds of Christendom have been Catholics and you come and post this obscure passage from some nobody we don't even recognize.  Lol, go and try again.

It must be stressed that you are not saved by your membership in the RCC or by taking communion at mass neither are you saved by confessing to your priest nor by being subjected to water baptism.  You can only be saved by asking Jesus Christ of the Bible to forgive your sins, turn away from your sins, especially idolatry, and ask Jesus Christ to come into your life and to impart in you the gift of righteousness by the Power of the  Holy Spirit.  Then read the Bible starting with the synoptic gospels and especially the gospel of  John and the epistles of John so that you can get to know the person of Jesus Christ intimately.  Pray that the our heavenly Father will reveal His Son to you and show you all that it means from Genesis to Revelation.  As you commit your life to the true Jesus of the Bible, the Holy Spirit will come and live within you and enable you to understand what you are reading as you read the Bible.  Please do not accept a false Christ.

You get no argument from me here.  Although I do find the dogmatic tone of what you wrote problematic.  For the most part I can agree with the above.  One cannot be assured of salvation, unless they persevere in Christ till the end (bottom line).  But this doesn't refute the claim that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and its teachings are true.

Lady,
that short passage was not meant to diss Mary. Jesus would never have done that, He being strictly brought up under the Jewish Law.
What Jesus was telling the old woman was that focus or veneration or undue adulation was not meant for His mother. The focus of God's children should be on God alone and it is those who obey God that are blessed. Jesus didn't bless Mary more abeg o (whip out the scriptural references for saying that He blessed her more). Look at that passage again dear, it says ', YEA, RATHER, '
If that woman had had her way i.e. in form of religious-political power, she may have deified Mary at a much earlier time. I find it funny that Jesus being the owner of the mama never gave instructions to deifiy, venerate, 'honour' as you Catholics want to be politically correct, nor did He do any of such or even tell Mary to bless / pray for christians on His behalf , yet mere mortals like you and I who were never connected with her ,can pass a law for her veneration, adulation and 'honour'.

So did Mary hear the word of God and disobey? If she is not included in that passage then she must have disobeyed right?
My statement was in no way saying that Mary should be deified, that's the problem you all think that we hold Mary as a deity when we do not, so in essence you only reiterate Catholicisms beliefs.
When you all start recognising that Catholicisms is not honouring Mary as a deity then your minds will be at rest.
She deserves honour and rightfully so, or don't you think so?
But she can neer be God, plain and simple. If you all want to continue to think that we treat Mary as a god then that's your own palave, but we do not.

AND also what is wrong with Jesus blessing his mother the more, maybe you should have read my post very well when I said that Mary is considered even more blessed as a disciple of Christ than she is as his Mother. That is in no way elevating her the more, but only saying that she was obedient to God's word.

If she was already blessed as being God's mother, then won't that be that she is even more blessed as his disciple?

it IS funny. i'm sorry if i offend anyone. but where are their brains? so anyone can wake up any day and make another human being "immaculate"?

Yet you as a human are here determining who can and cannot be saved, who died and made you god?

I'm talking about the RCC charismatics in "disunity of belief" with mainstream RCC.

If they are not in unity they are not a part of us.

Then why presume to use today's meaning of christian to define me?

Because today's meaning of Christianity is the same as then. There will be those who try to change it or who misuse it, but Christianity has not changed. The fundamentals are still the same.

You may pretend not to know that by RCCians, i mean Roman catholics. It's ok. i understand your discomfort caused by my question. but i'll repeat it again: Following your logic, Christ is RCC. Question: still following your logic, why weren't the apostles called Roman Catholics?

I have no discomfort, I dey kampe. They actually were, truly the name is not Roman Catholic, and infact it isn't a name. I'm seriously trying to find the best way to explain it to you, but Catholic is a description of the Church founded by Christ. We are not just Catholic, we are One, we are Holy, we are Apostolic. These are the four descriptions of the Church, the true name in all essence is THE CHURCH as in the body of Christ.

So the apsotles were called that, actually the first record (this is not to say that before it was written down it wasn't used) was in 100 A.D. and even at that time the term Catholic was something old and not new, so that means that even while the apsotles were alive they were Catholic, they were One, they were Holy, and they were Apostolic.
That is also the reason why I say we are not a denomination. We are simply put THE CHURCH. Denominations were not supposed to be there, it is against the teaching of Christ. Reading the Bible and coming up for yourself what Christ's teachings are is against the teaching of Christ and the apostles. THE CHURCH IS ONE IN BODY, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DIFFERING BELIEFS, that includes you shouldn't be a christian on your own and not in union with anyone. You are not just in unionwith Christ but you are in union with those on earth and in heaven and those who are getting purged from their sins in purgatory (not necessarily a place as in heaven or hell, and not necessarily for the dead)

This statement of Jesus Christ answers a lot of questions about how we can address issues about the veneration of Mary and whether Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus or did she consumate her marital vows.

"Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside asking for you." He said in reply, "Who are my mother and my brothers? and gazing around Him at those seated in the circle He continued, "These are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is brother and sister and mother to me" (Mark 3:31-35).

Check the weblink below and see the our answers to our Catholic friends

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/218/218_06.asp

This statement of Jesus Christ answers a lot of questions about how we can address issues about the veneration of Mary and whether Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus or did she consumate her marital vows.

"Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside asking for you." He said in reply, "Who are my mother and my brothers? and gazing around Him at those seated in the circle He continued, "These are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is brother and sister and mother to me" (Mark 3:31-35).

On the contrary. This passage doesn't address the issue. If so then the Bible is contradictory.
This passage first of all doesn't insinuate that Mary was no longer a virgin, as in the aramiac language there is no word for cousin therefore everyone is called brother and sister. For example in the Gospel according to John (I believe that's the right one) at the crucifixion present in the scene is Mary the mother of Jesus and her sister Mary the wife of clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Now that passage calls Mary the wife of Clopas Mary the Mother of Jesus' sister. Does that mean that they both came from the same womb or that they both have the same father? No but they were called sisters, it wouldn't make sense also because they both have the same name. What family gives siblings the same name? This is also an indication that the "brothers and sisters" spoken of were children of the other Mary, Mary the wife of Clopas who is Mary the Mother of Jesus' sister.

Second the part about Whoever does the will of God is brother and sister and mother to me, well that doesn't disclude Mary, it includes her all the same. And in case you don't know Catholics also believe in veneration of saints, (yes those who do the will of God are saints) but there are those whom we know are in heaven by evidence.

All we say is that for the mere fact that she gave birth to God and that God himself honoured her, she should be honoured.

@~Lady~

You just keep going round and round. It's dizzying. Are RCC Charismatics Roman Catholics or not? If RCC is "the church", where do they fit in when you say there should be no differing beliefs in "the church"?

When you say the "fundamentals" are the same. The Early Church and RCC, what proofs do you have? what "fundamentals"? the Papacy? the statues? the practical deification of Mary? the election of a "pope"? the rosary? the observance of Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and other equally bizarre, outlandish "days"? what fundamentals?  You sound like Mccain. The RCC bears no resemblance to Early Christianity. But you'll come back with the same mantras you've been reciting. Now, i understand why no one else bothers with you. Anyway, like it or lump it, RCC ain't Biblical IN ANY WAY. You aren't even trying to prove that it is, you manage to show why it isn't.

And please, don't even presume to tell me how to worship. Thanks for the effort. Just let me be. Na me and God sabi.

carmelily:

Anyway, like it or lump it, RCC ain't Biblical IN ANY WAY. [

Likewise 99% of the churches we have today are not based on sound biblical doctrine (especially the pentecostals) i don't know why so called christans just enjoy attacking each other.  Most churches have departed from the practices of the early church although this deviation started with the catholic church the new age churches have carried it to another propestorous level.

carmelily:

@~Lady~

You just keep going round and round. It's dizzying. Are RCC Charismatics Roman Catholics or not? If RCC is "the church", where do they fit in when you say there should be no differing beliefs in "the church"?

When you say the "fundamentals" are the same. The Early Church and RCC, what proofs do you have? what "fundamentals"? the Papacy? the statues? the practical deification of Mary? the election of a "pope"? the rosary? the observance of Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and other equally bizarre, outlandish "days"? what fundamentals? You sound like Mccain. The RCC bears no resemblance to Early Christianity. But you'll come back with the same mantras you've been reciting. Now, i understand why no one else bothers with you. Anyway, like it or lump it, RCC ain't Biblical IN ANY WAY. You aren't even trying to prove that it is, you manage to show why it isn't.

And please, don't even presume to tell me how to worship. Thanks for the effort. Just let me be. Na me and God sabi.

One more person who now understands Lady is not someone you can have a genuine intelligent debate with.
She just repeats the same old hogwash time and time again with no proof. When she gets trapped in a corner she starts bleating about "questions".

You just keep going round and round. It's dizzying. Are RCC Charismatics Roman Catholics or not? If RCC is "the church", where do they fit in when you say there should be no differing beliefs in "the church"?

A man opens his mouth and say that he is a Christian but he doesn't believe in Christ, will you still consider him a Christian?
If you can answer this question you would have answered your own question about some RCC Charismatics.

If you cannot answer the question then I would advice you get the money back that you paid for your education.

When you say the "fundamentals" are the same. The Early Church and RCC, what proofs do you have?

History and the Bible.

what "fundamentals"? the Papacy? the statues

Yes. It has always been there.

the practical deification of Mary?

This is not our belief.

the election of a "pope"?

Yes.

the observance of Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and other equally bizarre, outlandish "days"?

Forgive us for remembering Christ's passion.

You sound like Mccain. The RCC bears no resemblance to Early Christianity. But you'll come back with the same mantras you've been reciting. Now, i understand why no one else bothers with you. Anyway, like it or lump it, RCC ain't Biblical IN ANY WAY. You aren't even trying to prove that it is, you manage to show why it isn't.

Thanks for your opinion unfortunately for you it doesn't change the truth. You can be in denial all you want, that's not my problem.

And please, don't even presume to tell me how to worship. Thanks for the effort. Just let me be. Na me and God sabi.

Well if this isn't hypocrisy at its best, why are you telling me how to worship. If I chose to worship in the RCC how does that affect you? Will you die for it? Will you go to hell for it?

One more person who now understands Lady is not someone you can have a genuine intelligent debate with.
She just repeats the same old hogwash time and time again with no proof. When she gets trapped in a corner she starts bleating about "questions".

Lol, I am proud of you for knowing yourself.

Have a blessed day.

~Lady~:

Lol, I am proud of you for knowing yourself.

Have a blessed day.

At least David is not in denial

~Lady~:

A man opens his mouth and say that he is a Christian but he doesn't believe in Christ, will you still consider him a Christian?
If you can answer this question you would have answered your own question about some RCC Charismatics.
If you cannot answer the question then I would advice you get the money back that you paid for your education.

Are we back to 101 questions? Is it too hard to say you have no answer to a question? and what's "some" RCC charismatics? Even the Rcc charismatics are sectionalised? lol lol lol.
I should get my money back for failing to answer your stupid irrelevant question? you're so laughably pathetic.

Forgive us for remembering Christ's passion.

Re-direct that plea to God Almighty.

Well if this isn't hypocrisy at its best, why are you telling me how to worship.

Kindly point out where i as much as hinted that you should leave the RCC, please. The topic says you guys are idol worshippers and i've stuck with that line of reasoning. maybe wandered a bit, but never told you how (or who) to worship. I never asked you to stop doing the idolatory. you are the one who has repeatedly tried to lump me with you "christians".
i said it before, whatever makes you happy, do it. You can go back and check.Sister, enjoy ok. stay loose

@carmelily
I was a catholic for the early parts of my life and I can honestly say that Idol worship is not the doctrine of the church, the intention is not to serve the statues. So y'all should just take it easy on them.
The truth of the matter is the God you all believe in did not say how you should worship, and language is ambiguous, someone reading this 2000 years from now might not be able to put what I mean in the right contexts.
If there is a church that has held their own for very long, they are the ones, protestants split off the smallest of issues and it all boils down to the "silly" book called the bible which they the catholics have a big hand in compiling like it or not.
The probability that a sect in christianity is right is 0.003% that makes the probability each one is wrong 99.99% no sane person should invest in anything with such odds.
Cheers.

Chrisbenogor:

@carmelily
I was a catholic for the early parts of my life and I can honestly say that Idol worship is not the doctrine of the church, the intention is not to serve the statues. So y'all should just take it easy on them.
The truth of the matter is the God you all believe in did not say how you should worship, and language is ambiguous, someone reading this 2000 years from now might not be able to put what I mean in the right contexts.
If there is a church that has held their own for very long, they are the ones, protestants split off the smallest of issues and it all boils down to the "silly" book called the bible which they the catholics have a big hand in compiling like it or not.
The probability that a sect in christianity is right is 0.003% that makes the probability each one is wrong 99.99% no sane person should invest in anything with such odds.
Cheers.

Must be the most stupid lie i've read all day. There is just no point correctinig this . . .