brocab:
At least the movie gave me a leg to stand on, and I do remember what the priest said to the demon God compel you.
And still there's nothing in here to say the priest used Jesus name-so who's name have they used-the power of Christ that compel you-"is this it? God the Father commands you, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit commands you, and the mystery of the cross commands you?
And the faith of the Holy apostles Peter and Paul and all the saints command you-could you explain to me, which of these names are casting out the demon?
Jesus name has the only power and authority to caste out demons, it is His name the Catholic Church have refused to use to caste out demons, there is no other name above that can caste out demons.
{Acts 19:15} Says this-One day the evil Spirit said: "Jesus I know and Paul I know""but who are you?
Do you honestly believe this actually works, you have priest that cast out demons, without using Jesus name? Do you really believe these demons would allow the priest to cast them out, without them using the power in the Lord name, You are dreaming.
Priest haven't got this authority nor the power to do so, do the demons leave, or do they just lay low for a while until the priest have gone, and after the house is sweep they come back bringing back with then 7 other spirits more evil then the first.

Lol. Firstly, Christ is Jesus na. So don't act like He was not mentioned.

Secondly, using Jesus name =/= mentioning or saying Jesus name.
Using Jesus name = Acting with His authority. In the NT testament, how many prayers ended with/included "In Jesus' name"? Just 2. So are we to assume that all the other prayers where "In Jesus name" was not mentioned did not work?

Even your quotation shows it. In Acts 19:13 - 18, the Sons of Sceva actually mentioned Jesus' name and yet the demon didn't move because he didn't know them. Meaning, it is not by mentioning Jesus' name, it is by actually having his authority in you.

Thirdly, the movie does not give you a leg to stand on because the movie is not from the Church. Anyone can act and say whatever he wants, if you now decide to replace the Reality of The Church with the fiction of a movie made by people outside the Church, then that is your issue to contend with. I do not muddle up reality with fiction when discussing.

brocab:
Here I go again, Now this time pay attention-In {John 20:23} Jesus tells His disciples, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." The very core of the gospel message is the truth that the way someone has their sins forgiven is by having faith in Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior.
In {Acts 10:43-44} when Peter was sharing the gospel, he said, “Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
Did you understand that? He said: Everybody who believes in Christ receives forgiveness of sins through His name.
{First John 5:1-5} tells us only he who believes in Jesus will overcome the world.
{Luke 5:20} says, “When Jesus saw their faith, He said ‘Friend, your sins are forgiven.
{Colossians 2:13-14} says Jesus forgave all our sins.
All these passages confirm that Jesus is the one who forgives sin, and He forgives all of our sins.
If we have had genuine faith in Him, someone else cannot later decide we are not forgiven one sin or another.
Only God can forgive sins, and Christ, being God, has the power to do so as well, but He never communicated any such power to His disciples, nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves.
The key to understanding the meaning of {John 20:23} lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’
And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world.
Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them. As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes.
Jesus said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36)
You won't believe this but we today have the very same mission given to us! We are obligated to share the gospel message, the way to heaven, to others in the world, and we go about that mission with the Holy Spirit living inside us, guiding us as we share His truth.
We are obligated to tell people the only way to be forgiven is through faith.
Jesus said in {John 8:24} “If you do not believe that I am (God), you will indeed die in your sins.” This is the very core of the gospel message and the very heart of what we are to explain to the world. It was Jesus’ last command to His followers before He physically left the earth—carry forward the message of hope and save as many as will believe in Him.
Jesus preached a crucial message about forgiving our brothers, as God forgave us. We stand in grace, and He expects us to keep our hearts pure toward others, not holding grudges or harboring a spirit of unforgiveness, especially after He gave us such undeserved love and forgiveness at such a high personal cost to Himself! Jesus said those who have been forgiven much, love much (Luke 7:47)
He expects us to forgive others 70 times 7 times (Matthew 18:22) We are also told that if we are praying but hold something against anyone, we are to forgive that person so our relationship with God is right and righteous!

SAME POST GETS SAME RESPONSE

You quoted John 20: 21 and 22 but did not quote v 23 which is the completion of the statement. Here is the complete quotation:

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Your interpretation of this passage and the statement in v 23 to mean "He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world." is a very wrong one. It is in no way traceable to v 23.

Also, this is not his last appearance before Ascension. This is actually his first appearance after his Resurrection and the message is clear, "if you forgive...., they are forgiven". The mission on which they are sent here is directly spelt out: The forgiveness of sins.

NOTE: The mission of Christ has many different (related but different) parts; teaching, healing, interceding, forgiveness of sins, e.t.c. Even St Paul says "All this is the work of God who in Christ reconciled us to himself, and who entrusted to us the ministry of reconciliation." - 2 Corinthians 5,18

You are claiming that the authority given by Christ in John 20:23 is the general authority to forgive sins. The problem is the Bible does not say that.
John 20 shows:
1. The 11 Apostles alone in the upper room
2. Jesus (post-resurrection) appears to them
3. He says "As the Father sent me, so I send you"
4. Then He breathes on them saying "Receive the Holy Spirit"
5. Then He says to them "Whose sin you forgive is forgiven, whose sin you do not forgive is not forgiven"

It is obvious that there is nothing general about this commission. He is giving a specific authority to specific people. The same thing was done with "Whatever you bind is bound......"

Also, if it was an ordinary repeat of the teaching "Forgive your brother 7 x 70 times.....", then what it means is that if Brother A offends Brother B and Brother B refuses to forgive Brother A (in other words, if Brother B retains the sin of Brother A), God too will retain the sin of Brother A.
It cannot be a general forgiveness because the forgiveness of Brother A's sin by God cannot hinge on Brother B forgiving him first.

However, just as we read in Leviticus 19: 20 - 22, the OT Priests could offer sacrifices for someone else's sin and obtain God's forgiveness for the person.
So in John 20:23, Jesus give the NT Priests the authority to do the same without the need for sacrifices. Again, it is God who forgives and He uses the Priests to do that too just as it is God who heals and yet He often uses people to heal others e.g Elisha, Peter, Paul, etc.

Your not here to learn, nor are you here to know the truth, but you come to me, preaching a twisted doctrine, I have written to many organisations who claim Christ built their Church above every other Church, while the rest of the believers in the body, sit in darkness waiting in fear until He returns. It blows my mind-when I hear different organisations such as yours, claiming to know Christ, and lie against the truth-its blasphemy to even think your priest have the power to forgive sins.

I am here to learn. However, Galatians 1: 8 - 9 says:
"8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

So, i no go just dey pack error dey full my head because I wan learn.

brocab:
No Jesus didn't just give the apostles the authority to forgive sins.
I have explained to you, the authority we have is to forgive those who have sinned against us-visa versa, we all have this gift to forgive.
The subject matter in this passage, the forgiveness of sin, is an enormous issue in that regard, for the Old Testament made it very clear that only God could forgive sins. This will help us understand the response of the teachers of the Law, and the reason for the authenticating miracle.
Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town.
2 Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”
3 At this, some of the teachers of the Law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”
4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?
5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?
6 But so that you might know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sin . . . .” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”
7 And the man got up and went home.
8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe, and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
Some religious leaders say that the disciples and apostles were given authority by Jesus to forgive the sins of others just like what Roman Catholic priests do in their confession booth. And they use {John 20:23 and James 5:16} to support their claim.
“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 20:23, ESV)
“Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” (James 5:16, NIV)
Only God Forgives Sins
{Daniel 9:9} “To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness…”
Even in the Old Testament, a Levite priest cannot pronounce absolution of sin to the repentant sinner. The priests can only communicate the forgiveness that God has already given to the sinner based on the ceremonies and rules in the earthly sanctuary God gave to Moses.
{Leviticus 4:26} “And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.”
The verse never said “and the priest can now forgive the repentant sinner”.
The Jews knew that God alone can forgive sins (absolution). This is the reason the Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy when Jesus forgave the sin of the paralytic man in {Mark 2:3-12}
The same is true in the New Testament. Nowhere in the Bible mentioned that the apostles nor disciples exercised the forgiving of sins of their fellow men in behalf of God. Why? Because they fully understood what Jesus exactly meant in {John 20:23} The remission of sin is the prerogative of God alone.
{1 John 2:1} tells us that we have only one Advocate or Mediator with the Father, and that is Jesus Christ. This Advocate can forgive sins as what He had demonstrated in His earthly ministry.
So what was Jesus saying in {John 20:23} is that any Christian can declare that those who genuinely ask for forgiveness and repent the sins he committed and accept Jesus and His Gospel will have his sins forgiven by God.
However, for those who will hardened their hearts and not accept Jesus and follow His Gospel will die from their sins. Jesus gave that privilege to any of His followers."Next Question are you a follower of Christ, all would you prefer to follow after a priest?

Again, only God forgive sins. But He gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. Their authority is gotten from God's own. So when they forgive, it is not by their power that forgives but God through the authority he has given them.

JOHN 20: 23

Do I follow Christ or a Priest?
Lol.
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” - Luke 10:16

The Priests have been ordained as ministers of Christ and so they are our spiritual fathers just as St. Paul said he was on 1 Cor. 4:15.

How do I know who to follow and who not to follow? Simple.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." - Galatians 1: 8 - 9.

Anyone who teaches what cannot be traced to the Apostles is a FALSE TEACHER. So again, check what the Apostles taught and believed and see if it is different from yours.

brocab:
Exorcism from a movie is a good start, God compel you, this gives someone outside the square something to go by, I don't know if you are one that studies the scriptures or not-but did you know the devil can counterfeit miracles (2 Thessalonians 2:9)
In fact, Jesus warned, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers’” (Matthew 7:22–23)

Lol.
1. The movie does not give you a background of exorcism or knowledge about exorcism because it is not a movie by the Catholic Church. If you want to research exorcism, search for what the Church says it is and does, not what a movie or series says and does.

"God compel you" is not what the Catholic Church says during exorcism.
Here is an excerpt from the full EXORCISM prayer

"I adjure you, ancient serpent, by the judge of the living and the dead, by your Creator, by the Creator of the whole universe, by Him who has the power to consign you to hell, to depart forthwith in fear, along with your savage minions, from this servant of God, N., who seeks refuge in the fold of the Church. I adjure you again, + (on the brow) not by my weakness but by the might of the Holy Spirit, to depart from this servant of God, N. , whom almighty God has made in His image. Yield, therefore, yield not to my own person but to the minister of Christ. For it is the power of Christ that COMPELS you, who brought you low by His cross. Tremble before that mighty arm that broke asunder the dark prison walls and led souls forth to light. May the trembling that afflicts this human frame, + (on the breast) the fear that afflicts this image + (on the brow) of God, descend on you. Make no resistance nor delay in departing from this man, for it has pleased Christ to dwell in man. Do not think of despising my command because you know me to be a great sinner. It is God + Himself who commands you; the majestic Christ + who commands you. God the Father + commands you; God the Son + commands you; God the Holy + Spirit commands you. The mystery of the cross commands +you. The faith of the holy apostles Peter and Paul and of all the saints commands + you. The blood of the martyrs commands + you. The continence of the confessors commands + you. The devout prayers of all holy men and women command + you. The saving mysteries of our Christian faith command + you."

Do you see the only place where compel is used and how it is used?

2. Seeing as the Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself on St. Peter and the Apostles with a promise that "Hell would not prevail" and that the Holy Spirit would always be with them to guide them, I would rather trust the CATHOLIC CHURCH than any other person, pastor or faith community.

So, it is protestants who should be wary of Matthew 7:21.

Do you know the Catholic Church openly breaks God’s Ten Commandments (the second and fourth – Exodus 20) and is not purified by the truth.

2. Let's stay on topic, please. Although it is normal for protestants to keep accusing Catholics of doing things without giving any proof of Catholics doing that, so I'm not surprised.
However, if you are talking about images, God still allowed the building of images o. The Bronze serpent, the Cherubim on the Ark of Covenant and the one in the Temple built by Solomon.

For the fourth commandment, be articulate and state your accusation plainly. We will then see if it is true or not.

Or if it's like that time you said Jesus forbade the use of "Father" and then I should you where His disciples and even Jesus himself used the word.

Sadly, its priests can be used by the devil to perform counterfeit miracles.
Satan has some powers and he uses these powers to deceive the world. Satan is a master trickster and the father of lies. (John 8:44; 2 Corinthians 11:14)
Whether to possess a person or be cast out of that same person, the devil uses every possible way to achieve his deceptions.
Exorcism strengthens the faith of people in the authority of priests. {It strengthen your faith towards priest} It causes people to trust the priest’s authority and their teachings even though it contradicts the Bible.
But the good news is that every Christian has the power to defeat the devil “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils” (Mark 16:17)
Believers are given the authority to “cast out devils” (Matthew 10:
The only power that is guaranteed to defeat Satan every time is the power of the Holy Spirit residing within a believer who is equipped with the armor of God’s Word (Ephesians 6:11–17; 2 Corinthians 10:4)
As Christians submit to God, they can “resist the devil, and he will flee” from them (James 4:7)
And there is nothing impossible for the believers for “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26)

3. Guy, na wa o.
You first said Priests can not chase away demons. When I showed you that they can, you now switched to saying that is Satan that uses the Priests. You are just flying from argument to argument saying things that you can not defend.

Anyways, "A student is not above his teacher, or a slave above his master. A student should be glad to become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If the head of the family has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of the family! So, do not be afraid of them." - Matthew 10: 24 - 25

Also read Matthew 10:1-4 in addition to the verse 8 you are quoting. The people Jesus was talking to were the 12 Apostles, not every one of his followers. Apostles are not disciples. However, all Christians can conquer demons.

A question does come to mind though. If you agree that they were given this authority in Matthew 10:8, why don't you agree that they were given the authority to forgive in John 20:23.

brocab:
To be honest you are floating or over the place, now you have brought in the heavy guns, Didache or Philadelphia is not the books I would use in this conversation, but I little brotherly love doesn't go astray, why do Catholic's feel they need to arm themselves up, when the bible is concerned, no-one is interested in other literature's from outside God's Word the bible.
First, how is this going to support your theory on seeking a priest for prayer with this>-Didache 4:14; 14:1 - As early as 70 The Didache Bible presents extensive commentaries, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for each of the books of the Holy Bible. It also includes numerous apologetical inserts to assist the reader in understanding the Church's teachings on current issues.
Second, Philadelphia, which means “brotherly love,”

Lol. I am not floating. I am actually the one who is responding directly and not copying articles from sites, making claims, repeating them and not backing them up.

Anyway, you don't seem to read my responses. I answered you from the Bible first and then I specifically said "Having quoted the bible, I will also include quotes from the Early Christians to counter your personal interpretation." I did that to contrast your interpretation with that of the Early Christians and obviously they are different.

You ask why do Catholics need to arm up......? Bros, I have been quoting from the bible in every of my response and you have failed to respond with one quote that counters the Apostles receiving that authority in John 20:23. You are instead posting quotes about how God can forgive sins(which no one is arguing about anyway).
PS: Only God can give life. But St Paul and Elisha also did.

You say that they are not books that you would use and yet from the Bible (which I assume is the book you would use), you have not provided one quote or statement that counters what Jesus said in John 20:19 - 23 (which is the basis of this argument).

Also, can you stop using false information and lies in this discussion? I quoted from the "DIDACHE" which was written about 70AD and you are talking about (or more accurately copying and pasting a short description of) "THE DIDACHE BIBLE" which was written recently and can be found here https://www.ignatius.com/Products/DBIB-H/the-didache-bible-with-commentaries-based-on-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.aspx

I should throw this one in, since its starting to look like a competition? King James Bible {Matthew 23:9}And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

So you mean that Jesus asked Christians not to literally use the word "father"? Lol.

Jesus himself said: "And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'" - (Luke 16:24-25)
Maybe St. Paul forgot when he called himself father: "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel" (1 Corinthians 4:14-15).
Maybe he forgot again when he said: "Brethren and fathers, hear the defense which I now make before you"- (Acts 22:10)
Even St. Stephen forgot when he said: "And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in." - (Acts 7:2)
Then St. John must have been very forgetful (and by your logic, sinful) because he said: "1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; 13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong d, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one." - (1 Jn 2:1, 13-14)
Him own no be father serf, na fathers.

Jesus meant that no one was to bring in his own interpretation or create his own version of Christianity. In other words, all fatherhood must truly flow from the Fatherhood of God. He was referring to the Scribes and Pharisees and their errors. Read (Matthew 23:1-12). Always read the bible in context. Don't carry one verse away from its background and start giving whatever interpretation you like best.

To be honest I don’t see how the Catholic Church can teach that a priest can forgive sins. It’s against the Bible.

Which bible? The one that said: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” in John 20: 19 - 23 Which bible, bros?

The Psalmist, speaking to God, says in {Psalm 130:4} "But with you there is forgiveness." A man cannot forgive the sins of another person.
The only sins a man can forgive are those against him directly. Jesus said we should forgive those who sin against us. But how can a priest, or any human being, forgive sins which are not against him directly. Only God can do that.
But In your case you need a earthly priest to forgive your sins, of cause you will see this as a judgement, but the Lord said we will know them by their fruit, and when it's time for you to hit heaven, you will say to the Lord see I have done everything I was taught, He will turn to you and say, I do not know you, do you not know the bible is God speaking to you, and everything concerning the bible, you disagree, ask yourself this>when was your last time you had a conversation with the Lord? IF EVER
{1 John 1:8-10} If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
{Psalm 25:11} For Your name's sake, O LORD, Pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
{Matthew 18:19-21} “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
Peter said his brother sinned against him, so Peter should forgive him up to seven times, Peter never had the authority to forgive another mans sins, especially if the sin wasn't against Peter, or visa versa, so you are wrong to think an earthly priest can forgive sins that isn't against him.
{Mark 11:25}"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.
Our Father in Heaven hollowed be your name your kingdom come, that will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. This is a good example how to pray to and whom too, as we forgive those who sinned against us, the Father will forgive our trespass.
{Exodus 32:32} "But now, if You will, forgive their sin--and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!
"{Luke 23:34} But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing " And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.
{Psalm 19:12} Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.
How can a priest warn those who are sinning, when he is just a man. Peter was also a man filled with the Holy Spirit, Peter couldn't see unless the Spirit of the Lord had showed him to see..
{Luke 17:4} "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."
If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. If my brother asked me to forgive him, I shall forgive him, and I will say to him let us pray to the Lord. There's no power in forgiveness without the Father.
{Daniel 9:9} "To the Lord our God belong compassion and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against Him.
{James 5:15} And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.
{Genesis 50:17}'Thus you shall say to Joseph, "Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong."' And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father." And Joseph wept when they spoke to him.
Look in this verse, they asked Joseph to forgive their sins.
{Ephesians 4:32} Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Again, no one is arguing about the Father being able to forgive or whether people can or should forgive others. The argument is did Jesus give the Apostles the power to forgive sins? John 20: 19 - 23 says YES. Reply with a bible verse or area that says NO.

I do remember the Exorcist, but even then, what name do the priest use to cast out demons, I watched the Exorcist, and I don't recall the priest using Jesus name to cast out the legion of demons. God compel you 'was the terms used.
It took the priest weeks to cast it out, I suppose without the name of Jesus, one would ask-is the Exorcist really true, or is it just a story to draw in the people, demons casting out demons?
This gift was given to the apostles, they used Jesus's name, and the demons flew out in seconds. And you claim priest are the new generation of the apostles from Peter, so what went wrong?

Exorcism no be film o. You watched a movie, bros. I said research EXORCISM, not go and watch film.

brocab:
I have been into confession myself, I sat beside a priest spilling my guts, about the sins I had committed, this is before I knew Christ-He set me free, from the law.
This isn't the wrong argument, you say, going to a priest will make all the difference, but the point is, we don't have to seek after a priest, for our confession, we just need to seek after God the Father about our confession in our rooms.
No-one has the authority to forgive sins, only the Father, the priest is a man, he can forgive, just as well as you can forgive, but God is our last resort to forgive our sins.
The Catholic priest does not have these gifts, does he heal the sick, does he raise the dead, does he cast out demons.

Seeing as I have responded to majority of what you're saying here, I will just refer you to my earlier responses (especially because you are not making new points but instead repeating points that you have been unable to back up with the Bible)

The Catholic has these gifts. Does he heal the sick? Yes, when it is the will of God.
Does he raise the dead? Yes, when it is the will of God.
Does he cast out demons? Yes. Go and research Exorcism.

And yes the Priest is a man but so was St. Peter when his shadow was healing people and St. Paul when he brought Eutychus back to life. There is a huge difference between Apostles and Disciples (a lot of authority were given to only Apostles) and yet both groups were made up of only men.

For example, if a man looks with lust at a woman, he should immediately confess the sin to the Lord. It would not be needed or appropriate to confess that sin to the woman.
That sin is between the man and the Lord. However, if a man breaks a promise, or does something that directly impacts the woman, he must confess to her and seek her forgiveness. If a sin involves a large number of people, such as a church, a man or woman must then extend the confession to the members of the church. So the confession and apology should match the impact. Those impacted by the sin should hear the confession.
While our forgiveness with God is not dependent on our confessing our sins to others and/or their forgiving us, God does call us to be honest and forthcoming with others regarding our failings, especially when our mistakes involve them.
When we have offended, hurt, or sinned against others, we should seek to offer a sincere apology and confession and ask for forgiveness. Whether the forgiveness is granted is up to those who were confessed too. Our responsibility is to genuinely repent, confess the sin, and ask for forgiveness.
We must do this with each other, not just turn to a priest, expecting your sins are forgiven, many people are taught by asking a priest to forgive their sins, they don't need to settle any accounts with their brother sister they had sinned against.
"No you must turn to your brother, you must ask him for your forgiveness and make amends with your brother and yourself, a priest can not do this..If you hate your brother, the kingdom of God is far from you.

Seeing as this your argument (confess directly to God when you feel the sin doesn't affect anybody else and confess to everyone when you feel it does) is not from the Bible nor from any Early Christian Writing, it is nothing but your personal interpretation. AND it is wrong.

1 Corinthians 12:12 - 27 shows that we are all parts of one body and that if one part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers. Then if one part of the body is injured, then the whole body is injured. (If I had an injury on my head, I would say "I am injured" not "My head is injured."
So your sin as a member of the Body of Christ affects the whole Body of Christ. There is no sin between you and the Lord only (This is a product of the new and wrong mentality of a personal relationship between me and God only. There is no use of the word personal in anything faith related in the NT. Also, no accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour in the Bible). Christianity has and will always be a communal faith just as Judaism was. This is why it is part of the greatest commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself".
In summary, there is no sin that is private, all sins are public.

Having quoted the bible, I will also include quotes from the Early Christians to counter your personal interpretation.

1. Didache 4:14; 14:1 - As early as 70 AD

Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life…. On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.

2. St. Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD]
Epistle to the Philadelphians ch 3

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ"

3. St. Cyprian of Carthage - 250 AD
The Lapsed 15:1-3; 28

The Apostle likewise bears witness and says: ….”Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” [1 Cor 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest…they do violence to his body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him.

….Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who…confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. God cannot be mocked or outwitted, nor can he be deceived by any clever cunning….Indeed, he but sins the more if, thinking that God is like man, he believes that he can escape the punishment of his crime by not openly admitting his crime….I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord.

There are a lot more that show that the Early Christians believed in the Apostles/Bishops/Priests having the power to forgive sins.

brocab:
No priest nor I, have the final authority to forgive sins, but Christ Himself can forgive sins. I have forgiven my brothers sin against me, but it's his choice to ask the Lord to forgive him. We should seek forgiveness from the Lord for every sin.
He desires “truth in the inward parts” (Psalm 51:6) If our relationship with the Lord is right, then our relationships with other people will fall into line. We will treat others graciously, with justice and honesty (Psalm 15)
To sin against someone and not attempt to make it right would be unthinkable.
The extent of the apology for a sin should match the extent of the impact of the sin. In other words, we should seek forgiveness from whoever was directly involved in order to ensure healing, but it's his choice to ask the Lord to forgive Him, "Not ask the priest.
“Does any man have the right to forgive sins?
Some Catholic's suggest that Jesus granted this authority to the apostles, and then, through them, to others (John 20:23).
Can the bible actually explain this passage, before you go of the deep end?”
Shortly before His ascension, Jesus said to his apostles:“Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (Jn. 20:23).
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ was actually granting to the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that the apostles passed on to their successors (supposedly the Roman priesthood) the same license to pardon sin.

Firstly, you are not directly responding to my points. Instead you're quoting an article from Christiancourier.com which still fails to address the points I have raised.

Yes, we believe that Jesus granted the authority to the apostles because that is what Jesus says in John 20:23 "Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained". You have not given any biblical reference or quotation that shows that they did not recieve the ability.

PS: This argument is similar to saying Jesus promised something He did not fulfill or that Jesus didn't know the correct words to use in passing his message across. How will Jesus say "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whoever you forgive is forgiven..." and then the Apostles will not receive the authority. Why? Because the Holy Spirit failed to enter them? Because Jesus doesn't have the power to grant them the authority? Give a reason with biblical backing.

This is false-Jesus has the final say, not priest, Consider the following points.

Exactly Jesus has the final say and Jesus said "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whoever you forgive is forgiven...". So why are you arguing with He who has the final say?

First, no interpretation is to be placed upon a difficult and obscure passage (such as this one) that would place it in direct conflict with numerous other clear texts.
The fact is, though all Christians are to forgive one another, i.e., have a forgiving disposition (Eph. 4:32), ultimately, only God can bestow absolute pardon (cf. Psa. 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Dan. 9:9; Mic. 7:18; Acts 8:22).
The Lord did not grant that right to the apostles or anybody else.

Psalm 130:4 - "But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared." (KJV)
Isaiah 43:25 - "I it is, I am He who blots out your offenses for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more" (CCB)
Daniel 9:9 - "To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;" (KJV)
Mic 7:18 - "Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy."
Acts 8:22 - "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."

See, having quoted all these verses, there is nothing in them that shows that the promise/action of Jesus (Who is God) in John 20:23 failed. These verses do not in anyway counter the ability of Jesus to forgive sins, His ability to pass to pass on this authority and the ability of the people who have received an authority from Jesus from using it.

In addition, Matthew 9: 1 - 8:
"1. Jesus got back into the boat, crossed the lake again, and came to his hometown.
2 Here they brought a paralyzed man to him, lying on a bed. Jesus saw their faith and said to the paralytic, "Courage, my son! Your sins are forgiven."
3 Then some teachers of the Law said to themselves, "This man insults God."
4 Jesus was aware of what they were thinking, and said, "Why have you such evil thoughts?
5 Which is easier to say: 'Your sins are forgiven' or 'Stand up and walk'?
6 You must know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." He then said to the paralyzed man, "Stand up! Take your stretcher and go home."
7 The man got up, and went home.
8 When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and praised God for giving such power to human beings."

Note the verse 8.

Bro it is easier for any man to not waste his time going to make a confession to any priest, but go into your room and pray to the Father and ask Him for your forgiveness, go and make some kind of amends with your brother, who you feel he have sinned against you, or visa versa, make it right either way. If my brother feels I am leading him up the wrong road, then I advise him to seek after the Word of God, not something you have been taught by the church, church teachings can be wrong in many cases, seeking God's word can make a big difference to you and your family eternal.

I believe my earlier responses and the one above have shown that going to a Priest for confession is not a waste of time. As St Paul relates in 2 Corinthians 5:18 - " All this is the work of God who in Christ reconciled us to himself, and who entrusted to us the ministry of reconciliation." NOTE the use of the word entrusted to us.

Again, nobody says you shouldn't pray to the Father directly for forgiveness but even the Bible shows that for some sins, direct confession to the Father is not always the way to go.
1 John 5:14-17 -
"14 Through him we are fully confident that whatever we ask, according to his will, he will grant us.
15 If we know that he hears us whenever we ask, we know that we already have what we asked of him.
16 If you see your brother committing sin, a sin which does not lead to death, pray for him, and God will give life to your brother. I speak, of course, of the sin which does not lead to death. There is also a sin that leads to death; I do not speak of praying about this.
17 Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin leads to death."

Note v 16.

Again, this is all from the Bible. There is more than enough quotes and teaching from the Early Christians to show that the authority to forgive sins was actually given to the Apostles and their successors and that they used this authority.

brocab:
You won't what I am about to write, but really who gave the priest any rights that only God can do is forgive our sin, if you aren't willing to seek God the Father, asking Him to forgive you, your sins are not forgiven.
Only God can forgive sins, and Christ, being God, has the power to do so as well, but He never communicated any such power to His disciples, nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves.
The key to understanding the meaning of {John 20:23} lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”
He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world.
Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them. As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes.
Jesus said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36)
Believers today have the very same mission given to us! We are obligated to share the gospel message, the way to heaven, to others in the world, and we go about that mission with the Holy Spirit living inside us, guiding us as we share His truth.
We are obligated to tell people the only way to be forgiven is through faith. Jesus said in {John 8:24} “If you do not believe that I am (God), you will indeed die in your sins.”
This is the very core of the gospel message and the very heart of what we are to explain to the world.
It was Jesus’ last command to His followers before He physically left the earth—carry forward the message of hope and save as many as will believe in Him.
Jesus preached a crucial message about forgiving our brothers, as God forgave us. We stand in grace, and He expects us to keep our hearts pure toward others, not holding grudges or harboring a spirit of unforgiveness, especially after He gave us such undeserved love and forgiveness at such a high personal cost to Himself!
Jesus said those who have been forgiven much, love much (Luke 7:47) He expects us to forgive others 70 times 7 times (Matthew 18:22)

You quoted John 20: 21 and 22 but did not quote v 23 which is the completion of the statement. Here is the complete quotation:

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Your interpretation of this passage and the statement in v 23 to mean "He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world." is a very wrong one. It is in no way traceable to v 23.

Also, this is not his last appearance before Ascension. This is actually his first appearance after his Resurrection and the message is clear, "if you forgive...., they are forgiven". The mission on which they are sent here is directly spelt out: The forgiveness of sins.

NOTE: The mission of Christ has many different (related but different) parts; teaching, healing, interceding, forgiveness of sins, e.t.c. Even St Paul says "All this is the work of God who in Christ reconciled us to himself, and who entrusted to us the ministry of reconciliation." - 2 Corinthians 5,18

Man if Jesus gave us this authority, no-one would have to repent nor go to the Father asking Him for our own forgiveness.
Its insane even thinking only your priest have this gift, I wouldn't like to meet Jesus on judgement day just to find out I believed in something that is all wrong, and unscriptural and end up in hell fire..

This is another wrong arguement. If you say that Jesus giving us this authority would mean there was no need to repent, then what you are implying is that when Jesus Himself was using this authority on earth (Matthew 9: 1 - 7, Luke 7: 44 - 48), people didn't need to repent. And so that argument is weightless.
Also, the fact that some people can heal has not stopped anyone from asking the Father for healing, has it?


Catholic priests have this gift(office/faculty/whatever you want to call it) because they have been sent just as Christ sent the Apostles in an unbroken succession (Apostolic Succession).

On the issue of meeting Jesus on the final day,......

Well, I too do not want that. This is why I am a Catholic, a member of the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ upon St Peter, which for more than 2000 years has carried on his mission of making disciples of all Nations, of teaching them all that He revealed to the Church through Apostolic Teaching and Writing, of forgiving the sins of those who repentantly confess their sins, of caring for the poor and needy and of saying and standing by the Truth even when everyone else hates the Church for it.
The testimony of the Early Christians(disciples of disciples/Apostles of Christ) show me what and what are actually the tenets and doctrines of the Christian faith and those tenets are that of the Catholic Church and not that of anyone who wakes up one morning and feels that his interpretation of the Scriptures is more accurate than that which has been continously passed down for 2000 years.

My advice: Read the Early Christians/Church Fathers and compare their Faith/Practices to yours and see if they are the same or not.

brocab:
If representative means vicar the why does the Pope take on this roll, why do all the priest believe they are God on earth, who can forgive sins?

The People of God are referred to as His sheep.
“For he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care” ( Psalm 95:7 ).

In John 10, Jesus identifies Himself as our Good Shepherd (John 10:11) and then says "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." - John 10 : 27.


Then when He was about to ascend into heaven, He gave Peter a three-fold command to “feed my sheep” in John 21:15-17.

Here, He makes Peter a Shepherd, physically PRESENT to rePRESENT Jesus, the Good Shepherd.

The Popes as successors of Saint Peter continue to do this feeding and will continue to until the Good Shepherd returns.
___________________________
On the other half, priests don't believe they are God (else they would be worshipping themselves na).

They forgive sins because they are ordained to that ministry and office.
In Mathew 9, Jesus says the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins
In John 20:21 - 23, Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins while sending them as the Father sent Him.

brocab:
The problem is you don't search the net, you just go to the Catholic site, and that's it, what they believe it's true, doesn't have to be written in the bible, or else where in history?
If the Pope told you to jump off the edge, you would do it for the Pope, the Pope believes he is the vicar of Christ, vicar means Christ Himself, and no-one can go into heaven without the vicar "Christ standing at the door of Rome.
So as far as your studying the scriptures go, Uben, nothing else matters..

Bros, Vicar doesn't mean Christ na.

It means a representative using one's authority.

Here's my own address.
Kindly send mine

GXaM9oCiKKRpFG3Ef8TnPGMffTB4LLcnQE

Kodejuice:


You may combine the operators, but use the numbers once

Must the four numbers be used?

If yes, here's my answer on python 2.7

from __future__ import division

numbers=[1,3,4,6]
result = int(numbers[3] / (numbers[0] - (numbers[1] / numbers[2])))
print(result)

toddjohnson:
Hello guys am in a serious soup, a malware entered my laptop, it is called counterflix, it keeps refreshing my page and loading google ads and loading a page that i did not click, i have installed avira, i removed it and put quick heal, i have ccleaner, i have spyhunter, i have used malwarebyte too, all of them could not stop it
i have reset all my 5 browsers, clear cache and browsing history.

PLEASE HELP ME

I advise you follow the steps here:

https://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-counterflix-ads/

Vectormike:




The user enters the radius

PRINT "Welcome"

INPUT "Enter the radius of the circle"; r

INPUT "The X-cordinate of the point"; x
INPUT "The Y-cordinate of the point"; y

L = (x ^ 2) + (y ^ 2) - (r ^ 2)

IF (L > 0) THEN PRINT "This point lies outside the circle." ELSE PRINT "The point lies inside the circle"

Vectormike:
Write a Qbasic program which reads the radius of a circle centered at the origin. then read in coordinate (x,y) of a point and determine if that point lies within a circle

Do you need a version where the radius of the circle and coordinates of the point are entered by the user?

Or

a version that is graphic and involves diagrams?

sarz:
Nobdy can interceed 4 us exept Jesus d son of God.

1. Rev 5:8
2. When I pray for you, am I not interceding for you?

It would only make sense to reply when someone actually tackle A Catholic teaching.

This talk of "Catholics holding the Mother and Child as grand objects of worship" is pointless.

Catholics worship God.
Catholics honor Mary as did the founders of the Protestant Religion.

Kindly show everyone a CATHOLIC document or Catechism that says "Worship Mary", "Mary is God" or "Mary is higher than God".


Don't accuse falsely just to have something to criticize

I'll soon reply the others.

dolphinheart:
Why do you not reply by quoting the specific section in my post that you are making reference to. This ur method will not allow others to fully understand the discussion.....or maybe that's ur aim.

I already apologized and explained that earlier.

Cus jesus was not at that tree to see Nathaniel sitting down.
Would you not be astonished if I tell you all you did yesterday, even in the privacy of ur house?
Do you think its an ordinary thing to see someone sitting down under the tree far away from ur line of sight.?
The answers to that will make you understand why Nathaniel believed jesus cus of jesus statement.
Jesus did not only see Nathaniel , he told Nathaniel who he is!, which suprised Nathaniel.
I'm suprised that you view this as not magnificent and impressive and thus to be classified as glorious!
Maybe you expect something to be a physical manifestation before its glorious.

This is not an issue of knowing what happened a day before. There is no mention of Nathaniel being out of Jesus’s line of sight. Listen to what Jesus said in John 1:43-50 particularly in verse 48, “And Jesus said to him, "Before Philip called you, you were under the fig tree and I saw you."”

If I've done that you would not have been able to reply at all.

Actually I would. But that is not the issue at hand.

Who is talking about glory?

Dnt change the topic , glorious deed is different from glory.

A Glorious deed is a deed that reveals glory or that is a result of Glory. You can’t separate both of them.

Jesus has Told you several times that he has not done anything on his own, all he did are what the father had told him to do.
Mary's suggestion has no basis. Jesus would have done so, even if mary had not made the suggestion. This is the difference between what eve did and that of mary.

Okay. So Jesus had no free will and couldn't make any decisions because all he was to do was already decided by the Father? When Jesus healed those who asked for healing, were their pleas also without basis? Or would Jesus have healed them without them asking?

You dnt even know if mary's request was that jesus should bring money for them to go and buy more wine.

This statement shows the twisted logic you use to read the bible and draw points and arguments. Why would Mary ask Jesus to bring money to buy more wine? This statement is both unreasonable and unbiblical. Again, flawed logic is displayed.

I remember what jesus told mary when she made that suggestion, Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?

“καὶ λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου.”
He calls her “Woman” on the 7th day at a wedding feast just as Adam called Eve “Woman” on the 7th day at their wedding.
And then he asks her “What does this have to do with me and you?”
http://biblehub.com/text/john/2-4.htm

And then dnt give her a headship position.
God did not give it to her when she had jesus, jesus did not give it her when he was on earth ( he even went further to tell you and I who his mother is), the apostles did not give it to her when she was with them, why then do you now give it to her even when the scriptures did not tell you to.?

In the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary and Joseph), Joseph was the head of the family and not Mary. The Church has never called Mary the head of the Family. Holiness and headship of the family are not the same thing. Stop arguing with a strawman.

Queen mother or queen of heaven is an earthly title that has no divine inspiration and the scriptures never mentioned any good thing about that title, not even one good thing!

The title which you say has no divine inspiration was instituted by the Davidic Kings in the Kingdom of Israel. It is even mentioned in a message from God.
Jeremiah 13:18: Tell the king and the Queen mother (Gebirah), 'Sit in a lower place, since your glorious crown has fallen from your head.

Haba!, is jesus not a descendant of eve?

Yes. But who is his mother?

You are the one tying the prophecy to mary!

We(Catholics) understand that the bible has a lot of layers and that passages are linked to each other and that many biblical characters are linked to each other.
When God spoke to the serpent, he was predicting the fall of Satan and so when he spoke of “Woman and seed”, he was pointing to “Mary and Jesus”.
When he was talking to the woman(Eve), he gave a punishment to she and her descendants.

Why are you now changing course, so the prophecy was not for eve alone, but for her and all her offsprings!
Dnt worry, you will still change it again.

Is that not obvious already? The punishment on Adam and eve was for all mankind. What change are you now speaking of? Note: what God said to the serpent was a punishment and prophecy while to the man and woman he gave only punishment.

Are you saying that the structure on family giving by God will change when we become perfect again?
What does giving birth in pain have to do with family structure?
Can you tell us if mary gave birth in pain?

I said and quote: “So obviously, sharpening the pain and he ruling over her refers to every human and to the structure of a family based on Marriage.”
I did not say that the family structure will change. Na you bring that one come.
Read what I wrote. giving birth refers to all humans. He ruling over her refers to family structure. Where did I equate giving birth in pain with family structure.
Mary gave birth without pain.

Quote the scripture you mentioned and let's see if you are right.

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." – John 3:36.
You can also check out the greek here.
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-36.htm

I gave you an example of how people believe they will be purnished yet went along to disobey the command giving.

Did David disbelief God when he sinned? No. His imperfect state caused him to disobey Gods command, God did not purnish him for disbelief, he was purnished for disobedience. Disbelief is not disobedience!

To believe is to Obey. To disobey is to disbelieve. What is carried in the heart is shown through actions.

Did Satan disbelief God or disobeyed God?
Or do you think Satan does not know that they will die when he lied to eve?

Satan was not the one who committed sin na.

Again I tell you, eve was purnished for disobedience not disbelief, there explanation shows that they believed God but where deceived by Satan.
Rom 1:5
John 15:14

Romans 1:5 =” By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;”
John 15:14 =” You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.”

How do these verses show that they were punished for disobedience and not disbelief? I repeat To Believe is to Obey.

The above destroys ur view that mary was the ark cus she gave birth to jesus. Breaking the covenant did not stop eve from giving birth, therefore the covenant was not based on womens ability to give birth, but rather on their obedience to God.

The punishment for breaking that covenant was pain in child birth not inability to give birth. Why are you arguing with a straw man?

The punishments where for disobedience. All punishments associated with the ark was as a result of direct disobedience of Gods command respecting the ark. There was no punishment that has no law to guide it. Uzziah was punished cus he disobeyed Gods command, not because he disrespected it!


The question I asked is, So if the instruction was not giving and moses had worn his sandals into the holy ground, would he have shown irrelevance and disrespect to the holy ground ?.
You did not answer the question.

If the instruction has not been giving, would moses be purnished for wearing the sandals into the holy ground? No.
So he will be purnished for disobeying an order and not purnished for disrespect, same with the ark.
If moses have been told to remove his clothes there and he had not done it, he would have been punished. But that he was not giving such command, he was not punished for wearing his clothes into the holy ground.

They disobeyed by showing irreverence to what God asked them to reverence.
God asked them to reverence the ark because he had made the ark worthy of reverence. God is a sensible God, he does not just give laws for fun. He gave them the law because the Ark was made worthy of reverence by God.

Did you read the verses at all?

First king games Bible says: "But they, supposing him to have been in the company."

Holman Christian Standard Bible says: "Assuming He was in the traveling party, they went a day's journey.

International Standard Version says: They thought that he was in their group of travelers.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English says: "For they were thinking that he was with the children of their friends.

Does this verse not tell you that they know as a family that jesus was not with them,? that they thought he was with other people travelling in the same direction with them?
They already know he is not with them, but you want the scriptures to expand it to "he was not with the other children of mary". The point there is that jesus alone stayed in Jerusalem. That the verses did not mention other children of mary does not mean mary did not have other children . The context was on jesus and not the other children. And they where not dummies to be looking for him among their own children when they already know he is not among them. They had travelled for a day, it is enough time for a good parent to count her children and know one is not there, so why search among the children. You will search among the other travellers in which you initially believe he is among, not ur other children in which you already know he is not.!


Cus the story was about the custom of the parents, they did not mention directly that they took jesus Along, but the content of the story shows jesus went with them. If jesus had not stayed in the temple on that occasion, the story would not have been told like the previous 11 and next 17 years of that custom of Joseph and mary where not told.

Firstly, the bible does not mention the presence of any other children whether from Joseph or Mary. You were the one who brought up this passage to show that Mary had other children. Now you are admitting that the passage does not mention any other children. But you still want us to use non-biblical information or thinking to assume and accept that there were other children even when the bible does not mention it. Flawed logic again.

And did I say the verse used anepsios?

This is what I said :
[b]” Even the writer of Luke used the greek word for relative when refering to mary and elizabeth.”

So did the writer of luke not use the greek word for relative.?

The point is simple. Luke did not use the word for cousin “anepsios” which shows that even Luke (a disciple of the Learned Paul) still maintained the Hebrew way of referencing family members.
You might want to say that he did not use “adelphos” also. But then he was talking of woman and so using adelphos(brother) would be odd and so he uses the genderless word relative(syngenis).

That it was used at all shows you it was a known word in greek, and it was used where it was supposed to be used.

What is my arguement? That there is a word for cousin in greek, and that word was used in the scriptures!

What ur defence? That it was only used once! Imagine.
pls give us another place where it should have been used and it was not used.
If the Greeks do not use relatives, they will be more specific with the description of the relationship.
Trying to bring the Hebrew view into Greek writings in a wrong view.

Of course, it is a wrong view to you. But not a wrong view to the people who wrote the Gospel because they had to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and then Greek.

I already showed you Luke’s description of Mary and Elizabeth where instead of ANEPSIOS he uses SYNGENIS.

Yep, the other writers of the new testament are olodos and do not know simple greek words like the one used for "cousin.".

Lol. You act like say fishermen no follow among those wey write the bible. If you want to be truthful, you would admit that even in English there are terms that even university graduates do not know. The same is the case with the authors. Each wrote with the grammar they understood and based on the background they had.

Footnote: pls handle my posts the way I do urs so that all aspects of my post can be responded to.
These are things you did not respond to in ur post.

1.
A.So how do you honour ur biological mother, that is different from how u honour her spiritually
B.how do you honor ur mother spiritually.
C.how is Mary your mother.

2.. Other peoples children would not have been moving with mary so frequently mentioned in the scriptures if she had not been their biological mother. They would have been with their own mother, afterall they did not believe in Jesus untill after his ressurection.

3. The question I asked about Jesus sitting at the right hand of God until his enemies have been put under his feet has not been answered by you

1.
a. instead of listing unnecessarily. It is the same difference between how you honour your biological father and God your heavenly father(honour).
b. we honour Mary by calling her BLESSED! Just as she herself prophesied everyone.
c. She is my mother because she is the New Eve. The mother of all those who hold to the testimony of God which I do.

2. The bible never called them the children of Mary. The children are always linked to Jesus or Joseph. “Brothers of Jesus” and never “Children of Mary”
Read Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3.

3. JESUS WAS STILL IN HEAVEN EVEN WHILE HE WAS ON EARTH. As a member of the Trinity, Jesus who is God was in heaven while he was on earth.

Brocab, you sent thw first two messages and I refused to answer you because you don't have an argument but you just want to talk all the rubbish about the Church that you can.

But it seems I will have to respond to you, not because I expect you to take correction but for the others who are reading this thread.

Timothy3113:


Your Baptism by Holy Spirit was not performed or taught by the apostles.

Read 1 Peter 3:20-21.
Holy spirit received at baptism??
When peter went to d house Cornelius did he baptize dem with water
Act 10vs 44 and when peter was speaking d word d holy spirit poured on the dose who heard d message.
Vs 47 can anyone keep dis ppl from being baptized with water??
They have received d holy spirit just have we had.
Baptism is what john d baptist preached (repentance) and it is a traditon of d jews. Now when jesus have come, he need to fulfill it. Cos no one is saved untill d death of christ. And paul even said i have not come to baptize but to preach d gospel.
He even rebuked apollos. Act 19, apollos was baptize but he never had d holy spirit 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 19:5( When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Bro water baptism is in name of john while being baptized in the name of jesus christ is being immersed(baptised) with d holy ghost

The Holy Spirit can work on anyone whether baptized or not. The Holy Spirit even came upon Saul and other people in the old testament. So unbaptized people manifesting the Spirit is not a new thing.
Even the context is clear on this. Peter did not baptize them in the Holy spirit, the Holy Spirit fell on them.

1. Tradition of the Jews?
Baptism is and has never been a tradition of the jews o. And Besides the point of John's birth and Baptism was to usher Christ in. Christ himself also baptized.

John 3:1-5- Jesus first teaches to be born again by water and spirit. And immwdiately after that discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus goes and starts baptizing. Read John 3:22-30.

If Jesus was simply laying hands on people and giving them the Holy Spirit, why the person make that comment in verse 26? The question shows that they were baptizing in the same manner.

Jesus himself baptized. In Matthew 28:19 He sends his disciples to go and baptize.

2. Paul was telling already baptized Christians that he came to preach. How does that support your "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" talk?

3. Paul rebuked Apollos?
Do you even read what you are quoting? There was no discussion between Paul and Apollos.
He found some disciples who had never heard of the Holy Spirit. This obviously shows that they were not baptized by the Apostles because the Apostles would follow Jesus' command and baptize "In the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit."

Acts 19:5- Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus. That is "In the name of the Father,........."
Verse 6- Paul does what the Catholic Church calls the Sacrament Of Confirmation where the gift the Soul has received at Baptism is ignited or sparked and the individual begins to manifest the gift or gifts.

Even Paul was baptized by Ananias. Read Acts 9:17-20.
Ananias came to heal and to fill him with the Holy Spirit. Ananias laid hands on him and he was healed. (v12)
He then stood up and was baptized. By what do you think he was baptized? Well, it would have to be water because if he was baptized by just laying of hands, why did he stand up to be baptized?


There is no mention of Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

4. Water baptism is in name of John
Where did you read or hear that anyone was Baptized in the name of John?

Timothy3113:
were baptised with water
No but with holy ghost.
Or did which sea did Peter took dem to
Pls read act 10vs 48

Firstly, Baptism does not always have to be in a Sea. Acts 8:38.

Secondly, Baptism is done by water and the Person receives the Holy Spirit. Jesus was baptised by water and at the moment of his rising from the water, a great event occured.

The same event that occurred at the Transfiguration. That shows that Baptism by water is the Baptism. The Holy Spirit is received at Baptism.

Your Baptism by Holy Spirit was not performed or taught by the apostles.

Read 1 Peter 3:20-21.

dolphinheart:
@ jolliano

Jesus brothers.

Brothers of Jesus. The four Gospels, the Acts of Apostles, and two of Paul’s letters mention “the Lord’s brothers,” “the brother of the Lord,” “his brothers,” “his sisters,” naming four of the “brothers”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
Mt 12:46; 13:55, 56;
Mr 3:31;
Lu 8:19;
Joh 2:12;
Ac 1:14;
1Co 9:5;
Ga 1:19.

The majority of Bible scholars accept the cumulative evidence that Jesus had at least four brothers and two sisters and that all were offspring of Joseph and Mary by natural means after the miraculous birth of Jesus.
The arbitrary notions that these brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, or by levirate marriage with Joseph’s sister-in-law, must be classified as fictitious, since there is no factual confirmation or even a suggestion to this effect in the Scriptures. The claim that “brother” (a•del•phosʹ) here means “cousin” (a•ne•psi•osʹ) is a theoretical contention, the
invention of which is credited to Jerome, and dates back no
earlier than 383 C.E. Not only does Jerome fail to cite any
support for his newborn hypothesis but in later writings he wavers in his opinions and
even expresses misgivings about his “cousin theory.”
J. B. Lightfoot states that “St
Jerome pleaded no traditional
authority for his theory, and that therefore the evidence in its favour is to be sought in
Scripture alone. I have examined the scriptural evidence, and the . . . combination of difficulties . . . more than counterbalances these secondary arguments in
its favour, and in fact must lead to its rejection.”—St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, London, 1874, p. 258.

In the Greek Scriptures where
the account involved a nephew
or cousin, a•del•phosʹ is not
used. Rather, the relationship is explained, as “the son of Paul’s sister” or “Mark the cousin [a•ne•psi•osʹ] of Barnabas.”
Ac 23:16;
Col 4:10

In Luke 21:16 the Greek words syg•ge•nonʹ (relatives, such as cousins) and a•del•phonʹ (brothers) both occur, showing that the terms are not used loosely or indiscriminately in the Greek Scriptures.

When, during Jesus’ ministry,
“his brothers were, in fact, not
exercising faith in him,” this
would certainly rule out their
being his brothers in a spiritual
sense.
Joh 7:3-5

Jesus contrasted these fleshly brothers with his disciples,
,who believed in him and who were his spiritual brothers.
Mt 12:46-50;
Mr 3:31-35;
Lu 8:19-21.

This lack of faith on the part of his fleshly brothers prohibits identifying them with apostles of the same names: James, Simon, Judas; they are explicitly distinguished from Jesus’ disciples.— . Joh 2:12

The relationship these fleshly brothers of Jesus had with his mother Mary also indicates they were her children rather than more distant relatives. They are usually mentioned in association with her.

Statements to the effect that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn”
(Lu 2:7) , and that Joseph “had
no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son,” also support the view that Joseph and Mary had other children.(Mt 1:25)

Even Nazarene neighbors
recognized and identified Jesus as “the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon,” adding, “And his sisters are here with us, are they not?”— .
Mr 6:3

After Jesus’ resurrection his
fleshly brothers changed their
doubting attitude, for they were present with their mother and the apostles when assembled for prayer after Jesus’ ascension.
This suggests that they
were present also at the
outpouring of the holy spirit on
the day of Pentecost.

1. BROTHERS.
Let me help you expand your list. So we can use in context and not individual verses.

Matt 12:46–50, Luke 8:19-22 and Mark 3:31-35.
In all these readings, Jesus when replying also says brothers and mothers but never mentions sisters. Either Jesus is saying the Kingdom of God is for males only or the word “BROTHERS” refers to both sexes and that would go back to the actual interpretation of adelphos as kinsmen which is what you are trying to deny.

John 2:11-12.
Jesus traveled with his mother, brothers and disciples. I wonder why the same brothers who disbelieved him were travelling with him. This does not prove that they were biological brothers.

Matthew 13:55-56.
List the names of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Does not say they are his blood brothers and sisters?

ADELPHOS
Matthew 23:8, Jesus says you are all brothers and sisters. So all of them came from the same parents now abi?

Acts 1:14-15.
This is how you contradict yourself and your arguments.
Apostles(12), Mary(1), some women(let’s assume they were twenty) and his brothers(X) = 120.
This means the brothers were about 87 in number.
Now either you accept that the brothers were family relatives or you explain to us how Mary gave birth to the about 87 children who were grown up when Jesus the first son just died at the age of 33/34.

1 Cor 9:5
After mentioning apostles, it would only be logical to mention disciples. So brothers of the Lord would be disciples and not blood brothers. Why would Paul be making references to Jesus’ blood brothers and not mention the disciples whom Jesus said were his brothers?

Gal 1:19
Still, James the less. Son of Alphaeus (Clopas). Not a blood brother of Jesus.


All these talk of Jesus blood brothers converting to disciples and apostles is not mentioned in the bible. So are you no longer s Sola Scriptura guy?

Also, you falsely accuse St Jerome (who was in charge of translating the whole bible) of inventing a tradition and not referencing anyone earlier. Abeg show us one person before 383AD who taught or wrote that the brothers are blood brothers of Jesus.

2. first born?
The greek word used in Luke is Protokon which occurs only thrice in the bible and does not in any place speak about a second child.

Whoever opens the womb is called firstborn both biblically and historically. Read Exodus 13:1-2.

In verse 7, the word “firstborn” (protokon) is particularly noteworthy. This term had above all a juridical-legal meaning, and designated the “firstborn” who was to be offered to God for his ransom (Ex 13:1-6; Num 3:12-13; 8:5-26; 18:15-16), who had the right to his father’s first and most important blessing, and who received a double inheritance in comparison to other sons. Therefore, the first son was called firstborn even if there were no other sons after him.

3. Until.
The greek word for until is “heos”. Check through everywhere it is used. It means to, unto, till and until. They are used interchangeably.

Matthew 11:12 uses until and it does not connote that something different will occur in heaven.
And yes, Jesus was still in heaven even when he was present in Earth.

There are mentions of God meeting Moses on a mountain. Would you say God left heaven to come talk to Moses?

4. Jerome.

You are using someone’s lie to argue against Jerome. This is Jerome’s response to Helvidius. Just in case you did not know, Helvidius is only known because of this letter Jerome wrote.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

If Jerome invented the cousin/relative talk, how come Helvidius who was “teaching the truth” was not known and at the same time, show us one early Christian who shared Helvidius’ theory?

5. quotes from church fathers on Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Origen
The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers
If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius
Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

dolphinheart:
@ jolliano



A statement from that webpage reads:

"Just like we don’t know what Jesus looked like, we don’t know what His mother Mary looked like either."

So the question is , how did you now get the pictures and images of mary and jesus. Did they just formulate one and you adopted it?

Not counting the many, many imagesthat people claim were painted by St. Luke, the earliest image we have of Mary is from the 2nd century, and you can’t exactly make out the details of her face (see the first image below).
In any case, it’s still fascinating to see how Christians depicted Mary in the first few centuries of the faith. Pay attention to who she’s almost always depicted with…
Enjoy!
1) Madonna and Child in the Catacombs – 2nd century
via histo ryofinformation.com
Located in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome, Mary appears to be nursing the infant Jesus on her lap. It is dated to around A.D. 150.
[See also: 13 Beautiful Non-White Depictions of the Blessed Virgin Mary]

(* represents my view)
* this picture was constructed 150 years after the event occured . The early disciples and apostles did not know about it, did not do it nor subscribe to it.

2) Madonna and Child With the Magi Bringing Him Gifts – 3rd century
Giovanni Dall’Orto / Wikimedia Commons
This is a picture of a cast of a sarcophagus that is in the Vatican museums. It shows the scene of the magi adoring the Christ child, who is held by his mother Mary. It is dated to the 3rd century.
3) Protectress of the Roman People – 5th century
Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons
The oldest and most important image of Our Lady in Rome, legend has it that it was one of the many icons painted by St. Luke, though historians date its original composition to the 5th century.
4) Madonna and Child Enthroned Among the Angels and Saints – 6th century
Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons
This image can be found at St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai and is dated to the 6th century. Around Mary and Jesus are St. Theodor of Amasea, St. George, and two angels. Notice also the hand at the top of the image (God the Father?).
[See also: 31 Beautiful Paintings of Mary Nursing the Baby Jesus]
5) A Nativity Icon – 7th century
via pravmir.com
This is another icon found at the monastery at Mt. Sinai, and it is dated to the 7th century.
6) Agiosoritissa (Mother of God) – 7th century
via communio.stblogs.org
Originally from Constantinople, this 7th century icon is currently kept at the Santa Maria del Rosario a Monte Mario in Rome.
7) Cover of Copy of the Gospels – 8th-9th century
Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons
This is the ivory cover of a copy of the Gospelscreated in Germany in the late 8th and early 9th century.
[See also: 7 Church Fathers on that Profound Insight of Mary as the New Eve]
Madonna and Child Icon – 9th century
Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons
This icon is currently kept in the Art Museum of Georgia (the country), and is dated to the 9th century.

* all these images are images formulated by the state church and its adherents.

The disciples did not bring up or make up any images or pictures of mary. They did not use the image in any veneration or part of worship to God. They where very careful as the scriptures warned.



1st james
James, Son of Zebedee; brother of John and one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. His mother, it seems, was Salome, as may be noted by comparing two accounts of the same event.
One mentions “the mother of the sons of Zebedee,” the other calls her “Salome.”
Matt 27:55,56
Mark 15 :40,41

The next year, 31 C.E., when
Jesus designated 12 of his
disciples to be apostles, James was one of the group selected.
Mark 3:13-19
Luke 6:12-16
James is always mentioned along with his brother John, and in the majority of instances he is mentioned
first. This may indicate he was
the older of the two.

James evidently died in 44 C.E.
Herod Agrippa I had him
executed with the sword. He was the first of the 12 apostles to die as a martyr.

second james
Another apostle of Jesus
Christ and son of Alphaeus.

Matt 10:2,3:
"The names of the 12 apostles are these: First, Simon, the one called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebʹe•dee and John his brother; Philip and Bar•tholʹo•mew; Thomas and
Matthew the tax collector;
James the son of Al•phaeʹus;

Mark 3:18
Luke 6:15

Acts 1:13:
"When they arrived, they went
up into the upper room where
they were staying. There were
Peter as well as John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bar•tholʹo•mew and Matthew, James the son of Al•phaeʹus, and Simon the zealous one, and Judas the son of James."

It is generally believed and
quite probable that Alphaeus
was the same person as Clopas, in which event James’ mother was Mary, the same Mary that was “the mother of James the Less and of Joses.” john 19:25
Mark 15;40

He may have been called James the Less because of being either smaller in physical stature or younger in age than the other apostle James, the son of Zebedee.

3rd james
James, Son of Joseph and Mary, and half brother of Jesus.

Mark 6:3
Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't
this Mary's son and the
brother of James, Joseph,
Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
These later sons of Mary explain why Jesus was called her “firstborn son” (Matthew 1:25
Luke 2:7:
"and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

The attempts by some to make these cousins and not brothers of Jesus are ill-advised attempts to deny scripture. (to be examined in my next post)

Gal 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the. Lord's brother

Although not an apostle, it
was evidently this James who
was an overseer of the Christian congregation at Jerusalem.
Acts 12:17
"Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had
brought him out of prison. “Tell
James and the other brothers
and sisters about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

He may have been next to Jesus in age, being the first named of Mary’s four natural-born sons: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

It appears that during Jesus’
ministry James was well
acquainted with his brother’s
activity, but though apparently not opposed, he was not one of the disciples and followers of Christ.
Luke 8:19
"Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

John 2:12
"After this he and his mother and his brothers and his disciples went down to
Ca•perʹna•um, but they did not
stay there many days.

Matt 12:46-60

He was probably with his nonbelieving brothers when they urged Jesus to go boldly up to the Festival of Tabernacles, at a time when the rulers of the Jews were seeking to kill him.

However, after the death of
Jesus and prior to Pentecost
33 C.E., James was assembled
for prayer together with his
mother, brothers, and the
apostles in an upper chamber in Jerusalem.
Acts 1:13,14
" When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying.
Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in
prayer, along with the women
and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

It was evidently to this James that the resurrected Jesus appeared personally, so convincing this onetime nonbeliever that He was indeed the Messiah. This reminds us of Jesus’ personal appearance to Paul.

"After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. But last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely."

Thereafter James became a
prominent member and,
apparently, an “apostle” of the
Jerusalem congregation.

Thus, at Paul’s first visit with the Jerusalem brothers (about 36 C.E.), he says he spent 15 days with Peter but “saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother
of the Lord.”
Peter, after his miraculous release from prison, instructed the brothers at John Mark’s home, “Report these things to James and the brothers,” thereby indicating James’ prominence.

That it was this ‘brother of Jesus’ who wrote the book of James, and not one of the apostles by the same name (either the son of Zebedee or the son of Alphaeus), seems to be indicated at the beginning of his letter. There the writer identifies himself as “a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,” rather than as an apostle. In a similar fashion his brother Judas (Jude)
also identified himself as “a slave of Jesus Christ, but a brother of James.”

My next post will be a re- examination of the word "brother".

1. The first image was made in about 150AD. This is the oldest image that is still around now. There would definitely be older ones which have been lost or misplaced.
Just as original manuscripts of the books in the bible are no longer here.

So if you say the apostles did not know of the images because we have no image from their time, the same can be said (even more) about the books of the bible.

B. St John died in about 100AD and just fifty years later, you are saying the Christians had fallen away and started making images. Oksy o. Can you give us a proof of the Christians falling away at that time?

C. You say the State Church created the images but you already said the State Church was formed by Constantine. So how did a State Church formed in 325AD create an image in 150AD?


2. You are now arguing using non-biblical sources to argue. Thought you were Sola Scriptura guy. Why can’t you use the bible to prove that there were James and not two?

I will fully reply it in your next post sha.

dolphinheart:

11. Mary was saved before she was born. Jesus kept her from sin and so she was and is sinless by the Grace of God. "FULL OF GRACE" in a past perfect participle.

Mary was not born in sin. She was saved and sanctified before birth.

Before you say it is Catholic tradition, read the quotes from the protestant reformers on Mary:
servantofchrist.tripod.com/beholdthymother/id20.html

12. IN GREEK "KECHARITOMENE".

From Charitoo which means grace. Do a break down of the words used to make KECHARITOMENE and see if it means "FULL OF GRACE" or not. Biblehub will always include commentaries by Modern Protestants and reject Catholic ones. Do your research.

At bold , pls explain how you can be saved before birth.

Greek word charitoo:
Definition
1. to make graceful
a. charming, lovely, agreeable
2. to peruse with grace, compass with
favour
3. to honour with blessings
...........................

to give graciously, to show acts of kindness by freely giving; (n.) one highly favored; see also {5921}
Definition: to favor, visit with favor, to make an object of favor, to gift,, Eph. 1:6;
pass. to be visited with free favor, be an object of gracious visitation, Lk. 1:28*

https://billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/charitoo
.......................


χαριτόω charitóō, khar-ee-to'-o; from G5485; to grace, i.e. indue with special honor:—make accepted, be highly favoured.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5487
............................
Some Translations that used favoured in Luke 1:26

1.New International Version
2.New Living Translation
3.English Standard Version
4.Berean Study Bible
5.Berean Literal Bible
6.New American Standard Bible
7.King James Bible
8.Holman Christian Standard Bible
9.International Standard Version
10.GOD'S WORD® Translation
11.New American Standard 1977
12. King James 2000 Bible
13.American King James Version
14.American Standard Version
15.Darby Bible Translation
16.English Revised Version
17.Webster's Bible Translation
18.weymouth New Testament
19.World English Bible
20.Young's Literal Translation

Does the angel greeting mary with " full of grace" mean she was born perfect without sin? . The scriptures never said so nor implied so.

Mary is not perfect, she did not understand the greeting.!
Luke 1:29
"Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might
be."

The angel now told her what the greeting meant
Luke 1:30
But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God.

Mary was now told what that favor is
Luke 1:31-33
You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be
great and will be called the Son of the Most High...........

There is no mention in the scriptures that mary had the same conception that jesus had and jesus had to be concieved that way so as to not to allow the seed of adam (an imperfect sinful seed) to be passed on to jesus.

Mary is from adam and thus inherited sin from birth. The scriptures does not indicate otherwise and ur use of derived analogy does not mean mary was without sin.

Romans 3: 21-24 totally shows the doctrine that mary is without sin as false.

”But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets
testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that
came by Christ Jesus.

Rom 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Mary called God her savior , a man without sin does not need a savior.
There is no other way at which mankind can be saved except through jesus ransom sacrifice. Therfore mary could not have been born without sin before jesus ransome sacrifice.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. (1 John 1:8-10)
This same words apply to mary

10. Firstly, you only broke down charitoo. Break down KECHARITOMENE and show us if it means “Full of grace” or “Highly favoured”.

Being full of grace does not mean she has perfect understanding na. Besides the Angel greeted her with a royal word “Hail” and she was not a queen though she was from the royal tribe of Judah.
If an angel appeared to you and called you King or Oba, regardless of how holy you are , you would be troubled at the statement. The word disturbed doesn’t connote anything sinful.

So what you are saying with the emphasis on found favor is that by Mary’s ability, she found God’s favor and then God decide to send Jesus through her. That is wrong.

God created Mary “Kecharitomene” (find out the real meaning). He already planned to come down to Earth by that time. He sent Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles at that time because he had a plan. It was not a result of Mary finding favor.

So saying Luke 1:31-32 is a favor mary found with God is wrong. This is a passing of relevant information concerning what is about to her to Mary.

11. Mary was from adam and so was Jesus. One who was made right from creation “Full of grace” is obviously “Empty of sin”.

The same way God saved and saves people from sin regardless of their age is the same way God saved Mary from sin before birth in order that She would be more NOBLE and PERFECT – Heb. 9:11.

God is not limited by timer and space.

12. “All have sinned”.

Another take one verse and argue approach.

Romans 3:3 – “… if SOME of them were not faithful……”
Romans 3:9 – “”Do we have, then, any advantage? Not really. For we have just demonstrated that all, Jews and non-Jews, are under the power of sin,
Romans 3:10 – “as the Scripture says: Nobody is good, not even one,
”
Romans 3:23 – “Because all have sinned and all fall short of the Glory of God”

Two things are clear:
A. Paul uses all to connote that both jews and gentiles are in need of salvation. He does not say that every individual had sinned.
B. Paul still uses SOME in the same context. Even the scriptures he quoted from (which is Psalm 14 and also 53) shows that the statement is not general on individuals.

13. Born without sin before Jesus’ death.
If you say Mary could not have been born before Jesus’s death because Jesus’ death is necessary for salvation, then you are indirectly saying that every one that died before Jesus came were all not forgiven or saved from sin and so Abraham, Noah, Moses, ENOCH and ELIJAH were neither forgiven their sins nor saved.

Also you make God to be a liar because in so many places in the OT, God forgave sins and yet Jesus had not come or died.

Do not limit God by space and time.

You say no one can be righteous from Rom 5:12 but forget Luke 1:6, Hebrew 11 and the other people describes as righteous.

dolphinheart:

11. Mary was saved before she was born. Jesus kept her from sin and so she was and is sinless by the Grace of God. "FULL OF GRACE" in a past perfect participle.

Mary was not born in sin. She was saved and sanctified before birth.

Before you say it is Catholic tradition, read the quotes from the protestant reformers on Mary:
servantofchrist.tripod.com/beholdthymother/id20.html

12. IN GREEK "KECHARITOMENE".

From Charitoo which means grace. Do a break down of the words used to make KECHARITOMENE and see if it means "FULL OF GRACE" or not. Biblehub will always include commentaries by Modern Protestants and reject Catholic ones. Do your research.

At bold , pls explain how you can be saved before birth.

Greek word charitoo:
Definition
1. to make graceful
a. charming, lovely, agreeable
2. to peruse with grace, compass with
favour
3. to honour with blessings
...........................

to give graciously, to show acts of kindness by freely giving; (n.) one highly favored; see also {5921}
Definition: to favor, visit with favor, to make an object of favor, to gift,, Eph. 1:6;
pass. to be visited with free favor, be an object of gracious visitation, Lk. 1:28*

https://billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/charitoo
.......................


χαριτόω charitóō, khar-ee-to'-o; from G5485; to grace, i.e. indue with special honor:—make accepted, be highly favoured.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5487
............................
Some Translations that used favoured in Luke 1:26

1.New International Version
2.New Living Translation
3.English Standard Version
4.Berean Study Bible
5.Berean Literal Bible
6.New American Standard Bible
7.King James Bible
8.Holman Christian Standard Bible
9.International Standard Version
10.GOD'S WORD® Translation
11.New American Standard 1977
12. King James 2000 Bible
13.American King James Version
14.American Standard Version
15.Darby Bible Translation
16.English Revised Version
17.Webster's Bible Translation
18.weymouth New Testament
19.World English Bible
20.Young's Literal Translation

Does the angel greeting mary with " full of grace" mean she was born perfect without sin? . The scriptures never said so nor implied so.

Mary is not perfect, she did not understand the greeting.!
Luke 1:29
"Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might
be."

The angel now told her what the greeting meant
Luke 1:30
But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God.

Mary was now told what that favor is
Luke 1:31-33
You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be
great and will be called the Son of the Most High...........

There is no mention in the scriptures that mary had the same conception that jesus had and jesus had to be concieved that way so as to not to allow the seed of adam (an imperfect sinful seed) to be passed on to jesus.

Mary is from adam and thus inherited sin from birth. The scriptures does not indicate otherwise and ur use of derived analogy does not mean mary was without sin.

Romans 3: 21-24 totally shows the doctrine that mary is without sin as false.

”But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets
testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that
came by Christ Jesus.

Rom 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Mary called God her savior , a man without sin does not need a savior.
There is no other way at which mankind can be saved except through jesus ransom sacrifice. Therfore mary could not have been born without sin before jesus ransome sacrifice.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. (1 John 1:8-10)
This same words apply to mary

10. Firstly, you only broke down charitoo. Break down KECHARITOMENE and show us if it means “Full of grace” or “Highly favoured”.

Being full of grace does not mean she has perfect understanding na. Besides the Angel greeted her with a royal word “Hail” and she was not a queen though she was from the royal tribe of Judah.
If an angel appeared to you and called you King or Oba, regardless of how holy you are , you would be troubled at the statement. The word disturbed doesn’t connote anything sinful.

So what you are saying with the emphasis on found favor is that by Mary’s ability, she found God’s favor and then God decide to send Jesus through her. That is wrong.

God created Mary “Kecharitomene” (find out the real meaning). He already planned to come down to Earth by that time. He sent Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles at that time because he had a plan. It was not a result of Mary finding favor.

So saying Luke 1:31-32 is a favor mary found with God is wrong. This is a passing of relevant information concerning what is about to her to Mary.

11. Mary was from adam and so was Jesus. One who was made right from creation “Full of grace” is obviously “Empty of sin”.

The same way God saved and saves people from sin regardless of their age is the same way God saved Mary from sin before birth in order that She would be more NOBLE and PERFECT – Heb. 9:11.

God is not limited by timer and space.

12. “All have sinned”.

Another take one verse and argue approach.

Romans 3:3 – “… if SOME of them were not faithful……”
Romans 3:9 – “”Do we have, then, any advantage? Not really. For we have just demonstrated that all, Jews and non-Jews, are under the power of sin,
Romans 3:10 – “as the Scripture says: Nobody is good, not even one,
”
Romans 3:23 – “Because all have sinned and all fall short of the Glory of God”

Two things are clear:
A. Paul uses all to connote that both jews and gentiles are in need of salvation. He does not say that every individual had sinned.
B. Paul still uses SOME in the same context. Even the scriptures he quoted from (which is Psalm 14 and also 53) shows that the statement is not general on individuals.

13. Born without sin before Jesus’ death.
If you say Mary could not have been born before Jesus’s death because Jesus’ death is necessary for salvation, then you are indirectly saying that every one that died before Jesus came were all not forgiven or saved from sin and so Abraham, Noah, Moses, ENOCH and ELIJAH were neither forgiven their sins nor saved.

Also you make God to be a liar because in so many places in the OT, God forgave sins and yet Jesus had not come or died.

Do not limit God by space and time.

You say no one can be righteous from Rom 5:12 but forget Luke 1:6, Hebrew 11 and the other people describes as righteous.

dolphinheart:

Glorious. Deed:
Something that is glorious is very beautiful and impressive. (=magnificent)
If you describe something as glorious, you are emphasizing that it is wonderful and it makes you feel very happy.

You might view jesus turning water into wine as his first glorious deed cus of your need to glorify mary, but his disciples knew better

John 1:47
47 When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.”
48 “How do you know me?”
Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, “I saw you
while you were still under the
fig tree before Philip called
you.”
49 Then Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”
50 Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree.
You will see greater things
than that.”

A glorious thing happened there in the disciples selection, cus that formed the basis of christianity as this disciples played a vital role in the spread of the good news. I'm appreciative of these glorious deed or actions done by jesus.
Through the actions of jesus during the selection of his disciples, he could say these to his father "As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.".
Jesus turning water into wine was the first sign or miracle through which jesus revealed his glory, but it was not his first glorious deed!. Glorious deeds is not being defined or neccessary accompanied by miracles.
You compare jesus selection of his disciples to other teachers selection of disciples, but you ommit their miracles and signs, why?

In addition ill repeat what I said earlier:

"now if Mary did not tell Jesus
what to do, why do you compare her to Eve who gave
Adam the fruit. Again I tell you,
all that Jesus christ did was
from his father and Mary had no hand in it. Mary did what every other upright woman bringin up a child would have done."



Mary did so because she was favoured to do so. Can't you see that after jesus birth, everything or message from God that had to do with jesus survival as a child was done through the man, the father Joseph? This is in line with Gods arrangement of family and Christian headship. You are trying to change Gods arrangement through the elevation of mary.

All these explanations is not needed, what I'm asking is who is the woman that God was talking about in Gen 3: 15-17:?

"And I will cause hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”
16 Then he said to the woman,
“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.

Pls tell us with an explanation of the bolded parts.



She was punished for disobedience!
A lot of people commit fornication today knowing fully well that Gods purnishment will come on them. They did not disbelief gods word, yet they still break it.

Mary is a seed of eve.


Yep you are right, and eve stopped having children when she broke the covenant just as the isrealites stopped receiving blessings right?
And all women are arks cus they all have the ability to carry offsprings.

The ability to carry the mans seed after conception was giving to all women, a mother could have a son cus she has the same human makeup as eve. It is Gods arrangement and it does not mean that eve was the ark.
As the ark and the covenant, including its rules and laws was for all isrealites , so also was the ability to spread and fill the earth for man and woman, not for woman alone and definitely not for eve alone. To use these gift given to women to mean eve was the ark is wrong. The scriptures never said so.
Remember, eve was created from adam!


Ill reply these in my next post.

6. how is the typology flawed?
St. Paul gave this typology in Romans 5:14 - 21. Jesus is the second and new adam. Typology shows similarities and contrasts. I already said this before. You are arguing against what i did not say. I never said Jesus is the same as Adam or that Mary is the same as Eve.
The similarities between jesus and adam is fully explained and supported by the scriptures. The reasons for the similarities are giving in the context. Your derived topology does not follow scriptural arrangements, neither does the scripture support ur views outside the fact that some similar events happened. There are a lot of similar events in the scriptures. Using them the way you do to elevate mary will totally distort what the scriptures is saying.

7. Disobedience and not irreverence or lack of respect? Seriously? How do you disobey and claim to respect at the same time? you can disobey and respect someone at the same time. Mishark and abednego did it.
When God told Moses to take off his sandal cause he was on holy ground, why did God make that statement?
Because the ground was holy and was to be respected and reverenced. So if Moses had not taken off his sandal, would it have just been disobedience or disobedience by disrespecting and irreverencing the holy ground?

You just supported my view with the bold. If the instruction has not been giving,moses would not have been purnished if he wore his sandals despite that place being a holy ground. So if the instruction was not giving and moses had worn his sandals into the holy ground, would he have shown irrelevance and disrespect to the holy ground ? The issue of disrespect would not have been mentioned.

8.
A.So how do you honour ur biological mother, that is different from how u honour her spiritually
B.how do you honor ur mother spiritually.
C.how is Mary your mother.( remember, the woman in rev 12 is not mary, and before you start saying we are jesus brothers, remember what jesus said about who is brothers and mothers where)

Answers to these questions are simple.
Firstly, Mary is the WOMAN in Rev 12. That one is clear. If you think it isn't, give your own name of who the woman is.
Honouring her is done in different ways. One of which is calling her the way the angel did "KECHARITOMENE" or in english "Full Of Grace". Another is fulfilling the biblical prophecy in Luke 1:48 "..... people forever will call me blessed" by calling her Blessed Virgin Mary.
If you say you are a christian but not a brother of Jesus, then you are not sure of what you are.
You have seen that you stylishly refused to answer any of the questions but tried to focus on ur view of Mary.
First, ill tell you who that woman in rev 12 is when you answer the 3 questions I asked you on rev 12.
Second, I've shown you that mary was not everly a virgin, as she had other children, both male and female. Other peoples children would not have been moving with mary so frequently mentioned in the scriptures if she had not been their biological mother. They would have been with their own mother, afterall they did not believe in jesus untill after his ressurection.

Thirdly, mary is highly favoured as the scriptures tell me and ill call her "mary, a woman blessed by God"
8. Bros, to, unto, till and until when used to represent time (especially in the bible) do not mean that something different occured after.

It means that the event or situation changed the moment after the reason for it remaining constant got fufilled. That Joseph did not know his wife until his wife gave birth means that the situation changed after his wife gave birth and thus then knew his wife. God allows sexual relationship between husband and wife, and Joseph and marys marriage was not an exception, neither was there any instruction for them not to enjoy sexual relations with each other. So dnt formulate one for them.

The question I asked about jesus sitting at the right hand of God until his enemies have been put under his feet has not been answered by you

Bringing up the issue of giving birth after her ressurection is extremely funny and irrelevant to the subject matter.
You are the one who asked if she could give birth after death

9. Greek is the not the language of Israel, Hebrew is. In Hebrew, they for more than 1000 years (from Abraham to Jesus) have been calling all kinsmen "BROTHERS". After greek came in, they all continued in the same way. They kept calling kinsmen brother(Adelphos). They did not switch to a greek method of describing family.
Same way an ibo man would save himself stress and call anyone from his hometown "My Brother" or "Nwannem" instead of "He is the son of my grandfather's elder brother's first son."
The new testament scriptures was written in greek and there is a greek work for cousin. If those brothers where cousins, the writers of the greek scriptures would have used the greek word for cousin.
For example a yoruba man knows the word "oju" can refer to both face and eye. The context determines which is which. But I'd that yoruba man is going to write in English, he will use his knowledge or concept to determine which is which and write it down accordingly. He will not continue to always write down eye when the context is reffering to face!

Now is there an example of these when it comes to brothers and cousins?
Did the Jews who wrote the scriptures used the greek word for cousin?

Col 4:10
My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of
Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)

Even the writer of Luke used the greek word for relative when refering to mary and elizabeth.

So they knew these greek words and knew when to use then, but at no time was it used for jesus half brothers. This shows they where actually jesus real half brothers who where (in most cases in was mentioned) always with their real mother , mary , who is also the real mother of jesus.

10. "James in Gal 1:19 is called brother of the Lord but we all know that James the apostle was not his brother. Same as those written in Acts.
that is why you where specifically told that this James is the lords(jesus) brother. not James the disciple."

this is a grave contradiction.

The 12 disciples became the 12 Apostles. This James was a disciple that became an apostle that is being called the Lord's brother. So James the apostle was James the disciple.

There are only two James. James, the brother of John also calle James the greater. and James, son of Alphaeus/Clopas also called Brother of Jesus and James the younger.
"among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56)
This means the James in Matthew is James the younger. This is the same James the Apostle in Gal 1:19. The same person whom Jude said is his brother in Jude 1:1. Note Jude was one of the twelve.
For space purpose, I'm going to reply to this in My next post.

1. Even Jesus clarified the issue with Nathaniel. “You believe because I said: 'I saw you under the fig tree.' But you will see greater things than that.”

Nathaniel did not exclaim because he saw Jesus’ Glory. He exclaimed because Jesus said He saw him under the tree. What is glorious about seeing someone under a tree?

If you had brought your argument from the notion that all Jesus did was Glorious, it would be different. But using Nathaniel’s statement doesn’t prove any point.

Yes. Glory isn’t followed by miracles. But Glory is followed by unusual events e.g. Transfiguration.

Using dictionary for spiritual discussions doesn’t help. The Glory of God is not ”something that makes you feel very happy”.

2. “She took its fruit and ate it and gave some to her husband who was with her. He ate it.” – Gen 3:8.

Eve did not command Adam to eat the fruit. At most, what she did was suggest it to him. Just as Mary suggested to Jesus subtly when she said “Son, they have no wine”.

3. Nobody has said Mary was the head of the family. If a wife is holier than the husband, it does not make her the head of the family. Do not assume when making a logical argument.

4. Explanation of the bolded parts.
The woman is Mary. Gen 3:15 was spoken to the serpent about the woman and the man she is to give birth to. Which man fulfiled the prophecy and who was his mother.

However, when God spoke to the woman and the man directly, he spoke to them and their descendants. You seem to be tying it strictly to Mary which is a wrong move. Typology is not necessarily tied to one person alone.

When God spoke to the woman in verse 16, He was talking to her and all the women to come.
When God spoke to the man in verse 17 - 19, He was talking to him and all the men to come.


So obviously, sharpening the pain and he ruling over her refers to every human and to the structure of a family based on Marriage.

5. DISOBEDIENCE IS A PRODUCT OF DISBELIEF.
You are trying to separate the Faith from the Works. If I do something evil consciously, then I am guilty of both disbelief and disobedience.

Read John 3:36. Disbelief and Disobedience are the same. Leave English dictionary and follow biblical language.

6. Covenants.
God does not say I will only give you children if you honour the covenant. Gen 3:16-19 is the punishment given for breaking the covenants.

Every time someone disrespected the Ark of the Covenant, there was a punishment. Uzziah is a nice example.
When the covenant box was captured during times of war, the Israelites always suffered defeat.
Even the philistine god Dagon fell face flat, broke its head and arms when the Ark of the Covenant placed in front of it.

7. Holy ground.
It doesn’t support your view. You are trying to circumvent the Holy ground and you are just trying to tie the command to God directly without remembering that the command was given about a place that God himself made holy.

God gave the instruction to Moses because God had made the ground holy. The fact is God made it holy and detrmined what was to be done there and what is not to be done there. If you desecrate the place, you irreverence it and by irreverencing it, you offend the One who made it holy.

8. Other Children.
“They thought he was in the company and after walking the whole day they looked for him among their relatives and friends”. –- Luke 2:44.

They did not say they looked for him along the other children. They looked for him among their relatives and friends.

Even verse 43 says his parents were returning home. No mention of other children.

9. Mary and Elizabeth.

Bros, Luke 1:36 uses syngenis not anepsios.

And anepsios only occurs once in the bible which is in Colossians 4:10. This negates your argument that they used “ANEPSIOS”.

Paul was very very educated and so he would know specific words that you wouldn’t expect the rest of the Apostles to know. Read Acts 22:3.

PastorAIO:


Okay, I for say. So the jews never actually took part in Emperor worship.

Where I disagree with you is when you say that the Jewish revolt didn't have anything to do with religion. I believed they called it the abomination of desolation.

Yeah. I understand what you're saying.

I said they did not rebel against the Roman Religion (the way the Christians did) and not that it didn't have anything to do with religion.

The main fight was for freedom. If the Jews had been rebelling against the Roman religion mainly, they would been under persecution for it.

We find from the Bible that the Jews and Romans existed a little peacefully and that would only occur if there was religious tolerance.

So, religion was a factor of the Jewish Revolt but not in the way the Christian faith was.

Hope you see what I meant now.

PastorAIO:


Please how can we check the veracity of the bolded part. I don't think there were ever any Jewish priest that ever made sacrifices to Caesar in the temple. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The sacrifices were not offered by Jewish priests. They were however offered in Jerusalem. This was part of the things that showed that Jews were under the Romans.

Josephus the historian also pointed out that canceling the daily sacrifices in Jerusalem was one of the things that provoked the Romans to destroy Jerusalem (a city they were already in control of).