nseke:
oga grappling the content seems to me tha you the one really challenged here-HOLY ROSARY Isn't the word of God and can't be equated to the word- holy rosary states thus hail mary...is that the word of God?teach me depth biblically,very read to learn

All prayers of the Rosary are from the bible.
The twenty mysteries meditated upon while praying The Rosary are from the Bible.

I hope you know that not everything God revealed is written in the bible o.

nseke:
i wouldn't want to keep on with this oga with all respect: mary surely is not the only recorded person visited by angel and spoken good of in the bible!besides prayer isn't a patherned in a recorded format of an angel visitation message-pray to your heavenly Father as your need may be in my name...is the word of Christ sir. Please can you make reference to a particular prayer rendered in the bible starting,ending or in between that mary was hailed,or had the bible disrespected her?but surely read through bible,prayers rendered through Christ name is abound or is this one of the areas the church(catholic)supersides?if so pls count me out. Thanks

1. Firstly. Look at the words used.
Remember that the words of Angel Gabriel are the words of God.

Hail = This is a royal greeting. Remember, the soilders while mocking Jesus were shouting Hail! King of the Jews.
Only Jesus and Mary are greeted with the word "Hail".

Full of Grace = Empty of Sin. Sinless.

The Lord is with you. - I don't even need to go on.

2. Show us some one else that was greeted and saluted by any angel in the Bible. And then compare the greetings.

3. The Lord's Prayer does not end in "In the name of Jesus".

4. Luke 1:41-45. Elizabeth filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:46 - 56. Mary's Song of Praise/Prophesy.
Did you see the statement "All ages shall call me Blessed"

If you want to know who Mary is in the bible, ask and I'll show you with the bible.

nseke:

Rosary a prayer made to the FATHER using the chaplet-my greatgrandfather prayed to a god through certain image(s) just like your beads by whatever name. Praying to/through an image can't be more than a troubled soul falling at the feet of a graven images all over catholic premises to pour out ones budend heart. Whether you teach it or not is unquestionable in somuch as every catholics adherent pay obeisance to it. A man who greets by bowing is defferent from a man who is praying yet bow to an image,moreso,to intermediate between you and God,or are there no defferent between the two intention/purposes? Compiling doesn't mean pre-dating oga, a post has answered this(ref.to lexicologist)!remenber,i questioned your claim that church precedes bible-implying that the final authority lies with the church-our topic of discuss. The church is niether the catholic nor any named protestant church but a people who have believed in CHRIST JESUS AS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOUR,fellowshipping with Christs' Spirit and bretheren-this niether a building, an institution nor a named congregation oga. It could be in a tent,a believes' house or even under a tree

Lol. Again you show that you do not understand the issue at all.

1. The Rosary is prayed vocally and mentally. The Chaplet is used for counting. Without the Chaplet, you can pray the Rosary by counting with your fingers or whatever. The Rosary is not prayed through the Chaplet.

2. Another false accusation. Catholics do not use images as mediators between we and God. Or can you show me a Catholic doctrine that says the image should pray for us? Or a catholic prayer asking an image to pray for us?

Research and talk. Don't say things that are not done just because you want to slander the Church.

3. Catholics bow as a sign of respect and not worship. A Catholic bows every time the name Jesus Christ is mentioned. If you assume that we bow down because we worship images, you are wrong.

I repeat all Catholic Doctrines are open to everyone. Find out what the Catholic Church teaches and make your arguments. Do not argue against your ASSUMPTIONS. It is a waste of time.

How do Catholics believe what the Catholic Church does not teach?? If we don't teach it, then how do we believe and practise it? You're contradicting yourself.

4. Lexicographer? I've already responded to this. Ill sha repeat it.

If I am a lexicographer and I compile a dictionary from different scripts and then publish the dictionary. I obviously predate the Dictionary because I was here before it was published.
If you say the Scripts predate me, that would be a different case. But the Compilation (Dictionary) cannot predate the person that made and published it! This is simple logic na.

5. Church and Bible.
The OT predates the Church, no argument. The NT however does not predate the Church.

The Church existed before Pentecost. Or let us even assume that the Church was formed at Penecost. Was there any book of the NT that was written before Pentecost? NO!

All of them were wriiten after the Church was formed. Which question? History says it is the Catholic Church.
The Early Christians say it is the Catholic Church. Read the quotes I already posted.
The Promise of Jesus, The Holy Spirit, Oneness and unity of the Church, Apostolic Succession, The Eucharist and The Authority of the Church all point to one place and that isssssssssssssssss. THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

If you disagree, reply with proof that
1. The bible was not compiled by the Catholic Church.
2. The early christians and Apostles did not belong to the Catholic Church.
3. Another Church existed from then till now.
4. That the current churches are all right and yet from the SAME bible and SAME Holy Spirit teach DIFFERENT things?

nseke:
oga you tried very much to convince me otherwise but its not working right,lets put things in perspective- when one bows with the intent of greeting and praying,could they be doing the same thing? When catholics say THE HOLY ROSARY IS A POWERFUL WEAPON to put the demons to flight and keep oneself from sin against Jesus' victory on the cross,aren't you worshiping that which will give you victory over life challange? I would only tell you to have a rethink with your bold aclaimation of preceding the bible,because the bible set the standard of church. When catholics say they are the first,it makes a good student of the bible to squint at you. Why,do you really understand what church means? The event of the pentecost in jerusalem and the converts,were they not a church? Oga, i have followed because i believe it would help us rethink,but when it becomes a case of sticking to ones' gun count me out.

1. It seems you do not know the difference between Rosary and Chaplet. The Chaplet is the bead. The Rosary is a prayer made up of Our Father, Hail Mary... And Glory Be....

2. Good. They were a Church. The question is which Church? The more than 35,000 Protestants or the One Catholic Church?

3. Which Church compiled the bible? Even Martin Luther, your protestant reformer said and admitted it!

4. If you say it wasn't the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible, then tell us who compiled the Bible. Enlighten us!

5. Bowing down is a sign of respect in most cultures. Catholics bow down as a sign of respect for what and who the image represents. What is the issue with that?

If the Catholic Church wanted to worship images, we would teach the members to worship the images. Now, can you show me one Catholic Teaching that says worship the images or that the images are your gods and saviors? Why would we be denying what we believe?

donsufia:
My brother, thank you for this question. They were two major forces that opposed the Christians- The Jews and the Romans. That the earlier were not persecuted by the later was because there was an organised and some what agreed system of government that existed between them.The Romans were the all and all even in Jewish land. The Jews only served as governors in their provinces, eg Festus, Agrippa and Herod (Acts 12).
The Jews rejected Christ as prophesied by Isaiah. They killed Jesus. Persecuted the Apostles, reported them to the Romans, accused them falsely even till this day. However, Christians got the wrath of the Romans when they refused to bow down to emperor Nero who proclaimed himself more than God. Remember Paul's imprisonment in Rome in Acts 22? This was where he wrote some of his epistles like Timothy and Titus.
Finally, the Jews and Roman's romance did not finally go down well. They were finally destroyed by the Romans in AD70. That is to say they later had their fair share of the Roman's persecution when Jerusalem, Galilee and other towns of theirs were destroyed. ( If you need the full history of this incidence from Josephus, the eye witness to this destruction, I can give you.)

Your arguments are wrong on many counts.
1. The Jews and Christians did not oppose Rome in the same way. The Romans did not have a monotheism (Emperor only worship). They had a polytheism in which the Emperor was the only living god.

Jutt like yorubas have about 401 traditional gods with Ooni of Ife being the only living one..

The Jews did not rebel agaisnt Roman Religion (after all there were sacrifices offered daily to Caesar in Jerusalem), they rebelled and revolted physically against the Roman Rule.

Christians rebelled in the religious sense only because they believed in ONE God (Monotheism) and rejected both the emperor and every other roman god. This is why from the beginning of Christianity, We have always been persecuted. Matt 11:12.

2. Knowing this why would Constantine (An Emperor who is supposed to be worshiped and who believes in Polytheism) institute a religion at the Council of Nicea which would in the same council profess a creed that says "We believe in ONE God, The Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and In Jesus Christ, His ONLY-begotten son, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God....."

3. Christianity already existed in Rome before Constantine. Think I'm joking? 1 Peter 5:13. Babylon = Rome.

Here are quotes from Saint Ignatius of Antioch that show that The Catholic Church already existed before Constantine. And funny enough, St Igantius himself was the first person to call the Church CATHOLIC!
Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch and died in 110AD when the Romans put him in an arena with hungry lions to be eaten.

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." — Letter to the
Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the PRESIDENCY of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father". — Letter to the Romans, Intro

"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him." Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2.

"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you.
They were apostles and I am a convict. They were
free, and I even to the present time am a slave." —
Letter to the Romans, Ch 4

donsufia:
In as much as I would't want to ague on things of the Spirit to avoid blasphemy, I really cannot overlook this one.Do you say that Catholic Church is superior to the Bible? Well, it depend on if you really know the true Church that was instituted by the Apostle on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). What you are made to belief to be the first church today-Catholic- was an institution brought out by the Romans to water down this 'One True Church of Acts 2. Read the Book of Acts very well and you will know that it was the Romans who later founded Catholic that were the prime persecutors of the early Apostles.Apostle Paul who was their Son suffered much.

To say that Catholic Church own the Bible and remain superior to it is not true. Is like saying that a lexicographer who collect words as used in a particular language together to form a dictionary is the final authority owner of the content of the dictionary. This cannot be correct because he is not the owner of those words that make up the dictionary.

Catholics cannot be superior to the Bible because they are not the owners of the words in there. They only gathered the manuscripts as written by the various Apostles 'Who from the beginning were the eye witnesses', Prophets who received their message from God and some accomplice who studied from first principle - read Acts 1:1-8.

So my brother, if your priests tell you they are superior to the Bible, please ask him if that happened since when. Was it after their persecution of the writers or before? The Romans were the people that did not want to here the name of Christ in their nation because of Emperor worship. How then did they become the RIGHTFUL carrier of His gospel? It is impossibly!!! They are out there to bring what the bible call 'SWIFT DESTRUCTION' to the simple minded. They are pure Idol worshipers please.

I'm not sure this guy dey read wetin him dey write. Now now, you have over contradicted yourself.

1. The Apostles did not institute The Church. Christ did. Matt 16:18 and that institution occured at The Cross where the final EXODUS occured. John 3:14 and John 12:32.

2. The Church already replaced Judas before Pentecost and so the Church was already in existence.

3. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church and you are saying that the Romans prevailed over the church? So Jesus lied or what? Explain what happened to the true Church.

4. Lexicographer and Dictionary.
Regardless of the words in the dictionary, accepting the meaning the Lexicographer placed there would require you to trust the Lexicographer to be truthful and to be correct.

Abi na all dictionary be the same. Oxford and Michael West na the same?

5. The Lexicographer obviously predates the Dictionary. He may not predate all the words inside the dictionary but he predates the dictionary itself.

You know obviously that The Church predates the Bible. After all, Saul was persecuting the Church before he became the Paul that wrote more than 8 books out of 27 NT books!
Seeing that, you have shifted base to saying The Catholic Church is different from the Apostolic Church(Church of the Apostles). This is also funny. Because then the question is who compiled the Truth in the Bible, the Catholic or Apostolic Church?

donsufia:
My brother, thank you for this question. They were two major forces that opposed the Christians- The Jews and the Romans. That the earlier were not persecuted by the later was because there was an organised and some what agreed system of government that existed between them.The Romans were the all and all even in Jewish land. The Jews only served as governors in their provinces, eg Festus, Agrippa and Herod (Acts 12).

The Jews rejected Christ as prophesied by Isaiah. They killed Jesus. Persecuted the Apostles, reported them to the Romans, accused them falsely even till this day. However, Christians got the wrath of the Romans when they refused to bow down to emperor Nero who proclaimed himself more than God. Remember Paul's imprisonment in Rome in Acts 22? This was where he wrote some of his epistles like Timothy and Titus.

Finally, the Jews and Roman's romance did not finally go down well. They were finally destroyed by the Romans in AD70. That is to say they later had their fair share of the Roman's persecution when Jerusalem, Galilee and other towns of theirs were destroyed. ( If you need the full history of this incidence from Josephus, the eye witness to this destruction, I can give you.)

Okay. So what you are saying is that the true Church disappeared or was destroyed by the romans, abi?

and the christianity under and after Constantine was different from what the Apostles and those that were there before Constantine, abi?

Let me now ask o. Council of Nicae (where Constantine who was still a pagan was present and did not contribute at all) held in 325AD. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible In 382AD. If the Catholic Church was/is an evil and false Church, why do you all accept the NT books they chose as Truth and Word of God? How did the Evil Church compile the word of God?

[quote author=preetyb post=40690057][/quote]
I asked questions. You no answer but instead accuse me of trying to justify my beliefs. How come?

Since Jesus gave the Truth to the Apostle and we all agree that the Early Christians were true Christians. Why don't you go to the Writings of the Church Fathers(Early Christians) and show us if they believed what we believe or not.

Try and read the quotes from the Protestant reformers on this site first and see what they had to say.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/mary.htm

nseke:
i wouldn't want to argue the bible but for sake of you question- hope i quoted a post,and as it is,i know the catholics believes are outside the of bible provision oga- the worship and bowing before a graven image, the catholics pray through mother mary etc etc which are against the bible provisions yet you have boldly argued here or boasted you catholics preceded the bible and your eventual compilation of the bible.

Okay. At least you are specific.

1. WORSHIP MARY
Catholics don't worship Mary. That is just a claim everybody likes to make because they need to discredit the Church. Every doctrine of the Catholic Church is open to everyone and is more than well documented and not hidden. So if we actually worshiped Mary, the Catholic Church would tell you that we worship Mary. Why would we be denying it or believe it and refuse to teach it? Can you point to any Catholic teaching that says Mary is God?

We honour Mary and not worship her. Point to any Catholic Prayer that refers to Mary as God.

2. Bowing DOWN before graven image.
When God gave the ten Commandments, he said do not make any image to be Worshiped in place of me. He did not mean the making of image but the worship of image.

Put the bowing down in context, it means bow down as in worship the image and not bow down as a physical gesture. Read 1 Sam 20:41, David BOWED 3 times! Was he worshiping Jonathan or would you count that as idolatry?
King Solomon bowed before his Mother, would that be idolatry?
Read more of bowing in GEN 33:3, Luke 24:5 and more than fifty other places.

Yorubas prostrate when greeting which is even worse than the Asians bowing. Would that be idolatry?

Catholics do not bow because of the image. Catholics bow a lot when we pray. So because they are always paintings and other Christian artworks around us, it is easy to assume that we are bowing to them. But if you actually know the Catholic belief, you would know that we do not do what you accuse us of.

3. Did I lie about preceding the Bible and Compiling it? NO. That is a fact and only liars would actually deny that.

preetyb:

If you think catholic is that church then u lie. Cus they worship the image of mary which is idolatry. So just stop deceiving yourself and follow what is written in the bible. Not even your pope can change what has has already be written in the bible. If u want to carry church on ur head and forget the truth written in the bible then that is ur own palaver.

1. What is worship?
2. What did God command us to do as a sign of worship?
3. Do we give that worship to Mary?
4. How do we worship Mary?

Please be specific in your answers.

nseke:
catholic church produced INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE, yet catholics flout the doctrine they handed down! Or was the doctrine for others outside the catholics? Just asking

Please, do not make ambiguous statements. You say Catholic Church produce INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE and yet they flout it. Can you give us an example so we can discuss?

It would be better that way.

preetyb:

True but that does not mean some churches have not stop existing and many more may stop existing because they were/are not built on the foundation of truth

Exactly. Christ said I will build my Church. Not churches.

Therefore, there can only be one Church and it must have existed right from the time of the Christ and the Apostles down to our time.

Question is : Which Church is that?

preetyb:


What they say is not my business but Christians should always read the bible and ask the holy spirit for the understanding of what they Read. The church may collapse or may even stop existing but God's word will remain.

Firstly, I appreciate your honesty and zeal to follow the truth. I hope we can have a sensible discussion that will benefit everyone.

1. The Pillar and Foundation of truth is not the word of God. 1 Tim 3:15 says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the truth.
Now if the Church Christ founded is the Pillar and Foundation and the Holy Spirit came down at Pentecost to guide them into all truth, How then would they teach error or fall into falsehood? Would Christ who promised to be with the Church
and The Holy Spirit who is to guide the Church allow the Church fall into error?


2. The Church will never cease to exist for a lot of reasons. Firstly, Jesus promised to be with the Church for all time.
Secondly, Matt 16:17 - 19. "... I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell will never prevail against it"

I will reply you today or tomorrow. I've been and still am very busy. I can't type long responses now.

LadyFiona:
I stopped querying the Catholic doctrines the day I realised that they compiled the Bible.....sorting out what should be included and weeding out the "supposed" non essentials.
I will like to have assess to the Gnostic books ....the books of Philip etc to know what the fuss is all about.
Someone commented that Catholics knows the origin and stories surrounding the Bible that's why they care less what anybody is saying about its doctrines. I kinda agree to an extent though. With the little they compiled confusion abounds, what would've happened if the whole Gnostic and other heresy-filled books where added.? Total disintegration of Christendom .

Exactly. Even The Bible warns us of private interpretation. Every protestant church claims to follow the SAME bible and to be directed by the SAME Holy Spirit. How come they don't have the SAME doctrines and teachings?

preetyb:
. I can not answer ur question bcus I don't knw their reason for doing it. But one thing I know is the fact that the bible is not like any other book we read to gain knowledge alone. it is a special kind of book because it contains the words of God.

And you are sure that those books gathered together as the Bible are divinely inspired because the Catholic Church made that canon (list). Admitting this won't cost you anything. Even Martin Luther admitted this in one of his sermons.

preetyb:

Because Gods words carries some kind of conviction that is even beyond the imagination of your pope. We accepted it and it is still being accepted not because of who wrote it but because of the devine power in the words and the special conviction it possess.

1. You say you accept it because of "Divine power and Special Conviction".

So if I write a book and you feel or discover that it has "Divine Power and the special conviction", you will add it to the bible.

2. One thing is clear, the early christians and anti-christians wrote a lot of books and some of those that had "the special conviction and divine power" were not added to the bible.

Why?

3. If you as a protestant feel that all 27 books contain "divine power and special conviction" and The Founder of Protestanism Martin Luther taught that James and Revelations did not have "the divine power and special conviction", then one of you is wrong. Or would you say that James and Revelation lost their "divine power and special conviction" during the time of Luther and later the books got them back?

4. The Pope did not determine this alone. A council did.

preetyb:

Did ur pope tell u that the bible is his?

None of the Popes would ever say the bible is his. The point is that the Catholic Church in 382 A.D. determined which books were true and which books were not. From the books which were true, they chose the earliest ones and declared them as the NT. And everyone accepted and still accepts it. Nobody until Martin Luther challenged it.

There was no direct command from God to make a bible but it was done and everyone accepted and still accepts it.

[quote author=preetyb post=40646902][/quote]
Ex 20:4 talks against worshiping images not making them. In Exodus 25:18-20, Moses is commanded to make images.

The problem some have is the idea of making an image of Jesus, Mary and other saints and events. They say that God did not directly command us to make those images but then Jesus did not command his disciples to write anything down but they wrote the Gospels. God did not command anyone to make the Bible in the Bible, but The Catholic Church did it and everyone accepts the bible.

So why accept the bible and reject the images? It is the same mentality and the Same people that gave them to us.

I have said this before. When you are doing proof reading (take one verse out of its context and use it as you like) to interpret the bible, you will end up contradicting both yourself and other people.

The Bible was not divided into Chapters and Verses. The individual books were written as books. They are meant to be read and studied as a whole and not in a scattered and seperated style.

Do a bible study.

If you have an issue with any Catholic doctrine, post it and let's show you how it comes from the bible. Have you tried to find out what the Early Christians taught concerning the doctrines we have and see if we invented them or if they were handed down to us from the Apostles and disciples.

Be open and consider the facts without bias or prejudice.

The Canon of the Bible was decided in 382AD at the Council of Rome. Actually, the Canon of the OT was already there and then The Catholic Church decided on which books are to be in the New testament or not and those 27 books had always been used in all The world until Martin Luther tried to remove James and Revelations.

When they say Luther saw a flaw in the Catholic Church, they do not mention what he did to the bible. Everyone just assumes the Catholic Church is wrong and so without caring for details, they start spewing what they know nothing about.

Do your research.

JMAN05:


chai boy, so you are consciously saying the above? hahahahahahahaha, just short short up. See this boy o, oh, u dont know the blood you people spilled and the many bibles your church burned? You don start o, you don start now.

Well, when you are 100% sure that I dont have a document for my statement, do what I say. Stop diverting, lest I remember your church barbarism.

If you have a document, show it so everyone can see it. No document = No proof/Evidence = No Case just pure hatred.

You're the one trying to prove a case. You're the one to present your data but you don't post anything and expect a reply. If I reply to every stat ement made by people like you, we go dey reply almost every second of every day.

Present your proof of your argument and then we will see if na lie or not.

OLAADEGBU:


Why did you omit the earlier points from the link?



What don't you understand about the reigning Monarchs who dictated the 'favoured' religion? What happened to those who adhered to the 'wrong' religion according to the excerpts in the bullet points above? Let's see whether you can figure that out.

Give an example of a monarch and give us a proof of that declaration or dictation. I can't accept fact from a site that uses the non-existent term "Elizabethan Catholics".

Secondly, if you say Catholicism and Protestanism are two different religions, then you have shot yourself in the leg because you would have to admit that the Protestant religion started in the 15th/16th century and so it could not have been the religion Jesus founded. And that shuts down all your arguments.

JMAN05:


I ve not even attacked your church, you are talking. You guys are here attacking protestantism, no one spoke out against it, but now when I want to prove contradiction in ur church, the anger kept rising. Another catholic will still come up to voice his anger. But the contradictions are true. I dont think shouting will change it. That is history.

Lol. Which anger is rising? You are bearing false witness now o. Na who dey vex?

Which contradictions are true? Because in 2000 years, no one has proved any contradiction and neither have you.

History shows that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church. If Jesus did not found the JW himself, why then was the JW even formed at all?

Matthew 16:17 - 19. Acts 1 and 2 tell us that there was indeed A Church and a nameless Church at that.

Now which Church on Earth is nameless? Only one.
The true Church which Christ sent to all Nations in order that the Church would be Universal. The only Church is identified as being Universal and that is the Catholic Church.

Jesus prayed for His Church to be one. Which Church is one in doctrines,practices,beliefs and even in the scriptures read daily all over the world? The Catholic (Katholos - Regarding the whole) Church.

Jesus gave his Apostles the Truth and told them to teach the world. He gave the Spirit to help them find the truth in all cases and situations that would arise. This Truth has been passed on from the Apostles (The First Bishops) down to our time. Jesus said he would be with the Church for all time. In other words, there would never be a time when the Church would not exist. So if Protestanism is the true Church, where was it between the time Jesus made all these promises and the 15th/16th century?

Can you trace your church back past Charles Taze Russell? No.

You were not even among the first set of Protestants and you are forming familiarity with them.

If protestanism is True and the true Church is meant to be one as Jesus prayed, why did the protestant reformers not agree with each other? Why is there more than one protestant church? Actually, why are there more than 1,000 protestant churches in Lagos alone? Why does almost every street in my area have at least 2 churches on them, each church claiming to possess the truth and yet they are all contradicting each other?

When Catholics from the Apostles up till now were being murdered for their faith and the bible, where were you people? Now everybody dey claim preacher and man of God. The bible tells us that there was always a physical passing of annointing, authority and Power. All Catholic priests and bishops can trace their annointing back through to the Apostles as records are kept of these. Let me ask, how many pastors can trace the annointing they received back to the 18th century, not to talk of the Apostles?

Even Paul that had a special encounter with Jesus went to The Apostles for them to lay their hands on him. And someone will wake up one day and start telling us that Jesus annointed him specially and privately. Haba! The lie no follow well na.

If you believe protestanism is true, why are you afraid of reading the Church Fathers and Early Christians? Study their writings and the Church History by Eusebius (not wikipedia) and tell me if they were protestants or JW. Or did the Apostles not teach them the Truth?

I do not mean to mock or abuse. Just want you to search for the True Light which is in Christ and his Mystical Body, the Church? John 1:4 - 5.

JMAN05:
Now this is your official proof that the statement is a forgery. Seriously?

LOL.

You're the one trying to show contradictions. You are the one who is to show us a proof of all your accusations.

So prove your accusations and allegations.

JMAN05:


No, you hv not shown me that what i said about strossmayer is wrong. No document, no evidence. Just a claim by you. Take note of that

However this willnot make u to runaway from the other things I said in reply to ur previous comment. If u are tired you admit, not this excuses. Didnt u quote my comments one by one previously? Follow d same method.

Lol. Run away. Lol. Very funny.

Can you show me an official document proving that Bishop Strosmayer said those things in Vatican I?

Because I have told you of the book written abot him which clearly states that he did not make those statements.

You say he spoke against the Papacy. Yet he received a Pallium from the Pope before he died.

Why would he say all those things and still remain a Catholic Bishop? That would be very unresonable and Hypocritical.


Simple Logical Debate.
Make your arguments with proof. If you give proofless arguments, then nobody has to reply them because they would be pointless.

JMAN05:


Habah, what's the big bros? Quote the comments you respond to one by one let me attain to them. That way the discussion will have shape. Am not in a hurry.

You made accusations against the Popes and Papal infallibility. I replied your aCcusation.

Your response was all about Bishop Strossmayer's speech. I have shown you now that the speech is a forgery and so there is no point in replying accusations presented from forged documents.

Present accusations from actual sources and I'll reply.

JMAN05:


Pls quote my post one by one let me know the one your replied to and the one you did not reply so as to re-post them for ur attention.

waiting..

All of them come from the same Forgery. So either you find a new base for those arguments or you find a new argument.

Why do I need to quote individual points from a single forgery?
You're the one making accusations. The onus is on you to prove your accusation. Just remember, that the speech by Strossmayer you are using as your basis for argument is a forgery and so cannot be used as a basis.

Give us proof of your arguments first.

dolphinheart:

1. how did you arrive at that?
2.does your translation use that name?


the bold says it all, the word and the earth do not have the same beginning.

is genesis not talking about the beginning of the creation of the heaven's and earth.?
The word is the one being said to have a beginning, it was with God! The verse did not say God had a beginning.
moreover, you have not told us what you understand by "in the beginning".


and you have refused to share that knowledge with us here.


I use the bible, I quote from the scriptures words and sentences that are directly related to what is being discussed. I do not use derived analogy, I tell you as the scripture says it.
You have not given a different, straightforward explanation on most of the scriptures I quoted.

you do not have one single example in the scriptures to show you that Jesus, the father and holy spirit come together to form God, that is why you us any trilogy based example outside the scriptures.


simply tell us what that name is! and how u use it to babtize.
can you see what I'm saying about derived analogy? you now inscribe "unity of essence cus you view they have one name. This is what the lack of example to surpport a doctrine can cause.


agreed, Jesus and the father are one(jesus excluded the holy spirit). so is jesus the same person as the father ? The answer is no!. so in what way is jesus one with the father.
Jesus is one with the father in purpose, to do the will of the Father.
does this mean jesus is equal to the father? no!.
how do we know this? jesus said "the father is greater than I am" John 14:28
he told us he was sent by the father. John 17:3
he told us that the father is the only true God . John 17: 3
he told us that he was giving power and authority, to show that he did not have it before.
He told us that he only does what the father tells him to do.
And he finally told Mary that the father is his God .
We also know that the almighty God does not have companions!

can being one with the father still bring him to a position of being equal to the father?no
cus for these to be true one has to accept that the disciples will also be equal with the father in the future, when they share in the divine nature!
John 17:21-22
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;…

these are just a few of the scriptures that can be quoted to show you that Jesus is not equal to the father, neither is he the almighty God.

you Ave not said anything on the scriptures I quoted earlier.


heb 1:8-9
8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

Jesus was anointed, Jesus was exalted, Jesus was giving a name, Jesus was told to sit at God's right side, Jesus was sent as a messenger, and yet you say he is equal to his God!


jehovah, the father is our God. He is also the God of Jesus. He is the almighty God, the supreme being. We have no other almighty God apart from him.
The word "us" does not mean 3, and it does not mean they are equal.
as to creation, pls read proverbs 8: 22-31.

1 cor 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.





the apostle Peter.
1 peter 1:3.

1. I am in hebrew/Aramaic = YHWH. Which was pronounced as Yahweh. It is written as YHWH because Hebrew did not have written vowels.

I should be asking you why you think Jehovah is God's name. Because I know very well that even as at the 6th century A.D. There was no language that had J as an alphabet. So how did the Israelites write Jehovah as God's name?
Do you even know where the word Jehovah came from?
Catholic monk around 1270. Do your research. Despite this fact, The Catholic Church still says that God's name is Yahweh.

2. Jesus is God.
Jesus is not God by Glory. He is God by nature. The disciples sharing in divine nature will not make them God, that is true. But then Jesus was not a man who became God, He was God who assumed flesh.

John 1:1 ends with "kai Theos en ho Logos". Which means God was the word. How does your a god fit into this sentence?

All the verses you quote show Jesus directing people to God. None of them says Jesus is God.
You say Jesus is Lord (Adonai). Then say Jesus who is Adonai is not God. The bible tells us clearly that the Lord is Our God.

If you say God was alone in Genesis. Then when God said "Let us make man.....". The us was the 3 persons in One God.

Else, you will be saying that there is God and other gods and so they were the ones God was referring to when he said US. Then why did God say "Thou shall have on other gods besides me" when He knew other gods (Like Jesus according to you) existed and were with him.

John 17:21-----
"21That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me."

Jesus never said that we may become one. He said they may become one as we are one.

Truly, all disciples are one in the sense that They have become One Body with One Lord through One Baptism. How does that contradict the trinity?

All your quotes do not contradict the Trinity at all.

Read the following
Phillipians 2:6, John 5:8, John 10 : 30 - 33. Again, The AND mentality. The Father is God, the Son is also God and so is the Spirit.

3. Jesus said baptize in the NAME not name. So if Jesus is not God and the Holy Spirit is just a force as you JWs say, why would God share his name with them?

dolphinheart:

by early christians , you mean ur church right!?

rev 12
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 she was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” a And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11 They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”
13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against[b] the rest of her offspring[/b]—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

pls explain the bolded parts, the ones you omitted from ur summary.


is Mary the ark of God's strength?


the scriptures has shown you his own view of the title and authority of the Queen Mother, a title not anointed or ordained by God. you now want to force such title on Mary, something she nor jesus ever told you to do.

The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to arouse my anger.

Then all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, along with all the women who were present—a large assembly—and all the people living in Lower and Upper Egypt, said to Jeremiah, 16 “We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! 17 We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our ancestors, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. 18 But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine.”
19 The women added, “When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes impressed with her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?”
20 Then Jeremiah said to all the people, both men and women, who were answering him, 21 “Did not the LORD remember and call to mind the incense burned in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem by you and your ancestors, your kings and your officials and the people of the land? 22 When the LORD could no longer endure your wicked actions and the detestable things you did, your land became a curse and a desolate waste without inhabitants, as it is today. 23 Because you have burned incense and have sinned against the LORD and have not obeyed him or followed his law or his decrees or his stipulations, this disaster has come upon you, as you now see.”



is the use of the image of Mary part of ur worship or just a personal thing?
is the image blessed?
If the answers are yes, then you are breaking that law, cus you did not see any form! so dnt make any unistructed form!
do not make on ur own any Image!


dnt twist the scriptures. do we have similar physical features like God?


pls show us one of such carvings or images.


good, but dnt make one as part of ur worship or religious rites to God.
take an example from the isrealites who heeded the words of Deut 4: 15 and watched themselves very carefully. They did not make the image of moses, who was very very very important to them as part of their worship to God. all the images they made for worship was as a direct and recorded instruction from God. moreover those images where kept in a place where they (the general populace) cannot see them.

1. Lol. It is Jesus that founded the Catholic Church. Pastor Charles Taze Russell formed the JW. If you have a problem with the early Christians being Catholics, then you should complain to God who made it so.

And 1 Peter 1:3 does not in anyway contradict the Trinity. Of course, God is the Father Of Jesus (God the Son in his divine nature) and God of Jesus(Son of Man in his human nature).

Jesus called God his God and His Father because He had a human nature as well as a divine nature.

2. Explaining The Bolded Parts. Remember that it was a vision. Not a narration of how it would directly happen.

Mary was pregnant. It's normal that John would see her crying in pain. Remember Gen 3:16.

She gave birth to Jesus. The one who is to rule with an Iron scepter. Rev 19:15 - 16.

When the dragon was thrown down to earth, he pursued the WOMAN who had given birth to the Male Child.
Why did the dragon pursue her? To destroy her. How? By causing a separation between her and God her strength.
Did he do this? He tried and he got the first Eve but he could not get Mary the second Eve. Rev 12:14 - She was given two wings......

The rest of her children, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.
Mary is the mother of all Christians based on this verse, the "Behold thy mother" on the Cross and some other linked verses.

3. Ark of strength.
This is why reading in context is correct and drawing out verses will always be wrong.
Psalm 132: 6 - 8: The Ark of the Covenant is what is called the Ark of God's strength.

4. I have already shown from the bible how Mary is the Queen Mother because Jesus is the King.

If someone else bore a title given to him/her by a different set of people, does that mean all who bear the title are the same.

Jesus' title, King of kings, was used for the pagan Nebuchadnezzer. "You, O King, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory,..." (Daniel 2:37).

But Jesus is still called The King of Kings. Does it make the authors of the bible or Christians pagans for using that title?

5. The image of Mary is not part of worship. We only worship God especially in the Eucharist.

It is used as a reminder of events. Same as all other christian arts.

We did not see any form but we know they were humans and so we paint them with the human form we know they had. Same as those in the Catacombs.

We have similar physical features with God made flesh, Jesus. And our souls are also made in his image.

6. Images kept away from the people? What about those in the temple?
The images and designs Solomon put in the temple in 1 Kings 6, were they directly instructed by God? No!

Did God accept to be in the temple? Yes!

So your talk of direct oral or written command is not even applied in the bible.

dolphinheart:


not talking about topology bro, you said Mary pushed jesus to his first glorious deed
now did Jesus do any glorious deed before turning water into wine? e.g the selection of his disciples. is that a glorious deed or just an ordinary deed? and turning water unto wine at a wedding is more glorious.

Jesus said God gave him his brothers.



you gave a wrong summary of rev 12 and deliberately omitted some few things.



Bro, answering a question with a question will get us knowhere. just tell me you dnt want to answer the question and ill not ask you again. and if you feel you want to answer, pls do so in ur next reply. dnt forget to quote the verse.



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.



again, I tell you, there sin was for disobedience, not disbelief.


who is talking about an adamic covenant here? but since you mentioned it, pls tell, what and where is the ark of the Adamic covenant since you say all covenant has ark.


good, can you now see where your topology is flawed?. Jesus is not the old Adam, Jesus is a new Adam, but not because of similarity in features or words. likewise Mary and the ark, it is flawed cus God did not dwell in the ark and God does not dwell in houses made by man, and Mary did not give us any covenant and neither was any covenant agreed on between Mary and God.

Ill tell you they where punished for disobedience ,not for lack of respect or reverence!

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)




did God instruct you to make an image of Mary? answer : NO.!
pictures are taken from the appearance of the real person, they are not venerated and the puctures are not used for religious purposes. all pictures, statues ,images, used for religious worship purpose in the scriptures are there by God's direct command and instructions.
reading about the activities of someone you have never met is better than having a picture of that same per son, and that is exactly what the disciples did. They wrote about Mary, not make a statue of her.


pictures of relatives I've not met goes into the achieves. but I've seen humans and pagan worshipers put the image of those they venerate in special places.


give me an example and we will look at it.

pls show me.


Until, to and unto does not serve the same purpose.
"to" indicates direction, it does not have a time frame. she did not have a child till she died. full stop. looking or adding what happened to her after she died is a wrong understanding of that statement. and who is to say she wunderkind have a child if she is ressurected.


use the scriptures to explain or support the bold.
"Our father in heaven" jesus prayed!


very wrong.

9. There were not brothers of Jesus or children of Mary.
Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic/Hebrew and in that language and there was no word for cousin or nephew. They would have to say "son of my father's brother" and to avoid that they simply said kinsman or brother. The disciples who wrote the bible wrote it with that sense and even Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic/Hebrew.
pls tell us, in what language was the english gospel translated from? aramaic/Hebrew or greek.
where the gospels written originally by the original writers in Greek?
is there a word for cousin in Greek?
If there is,then why did the disciples not use the greek word for cousin when writing an original book in Greek.

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.

Also, we know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross:
"among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56);
"There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).
are you trying to say that the Mary that wanted to see jesus was his aunty and not his mother?
This james(the younger) is not jesus half brother. The scripture told us who his father was. Jesus half brothers believed in Jesus only after his death.

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.
you are right, but not the mother of James and Joseph mentioned Earlier in Jesus hometown.
you are trying to merge 3 different james together.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s foster son.
pls direct us to where you got this info from, especially that of
historian Hegesippus.
The 3 differ James have different parents.
Wat of Simon and Judas.

10. Sinlessness.
Mary like all humans was bound to fall into sin. But God saved her from grace from the very creation of her and so she has been sinless right from her creation, birth till now.

stop passing unbiblical information, you have done enough damage with her elivation, now you want to make her perfect from birth. An act that cannot be achieved by humans through any means except jesus. you are now saying she had achieved it before jesus was even born.
you saw had to happen before jesus had to be born perfect, maybe you have prove that Mary was born the same way.

Look at it this way.
A woman on a boat is carrying a baby in her arms and then she trips and throws the babies as she falls. If one baby land in the water and I jump into the water and bring the baby out, I saved the baby.
If I catch the baby before he falls into the water, I still saved the baby.

All fell into sin from birth thanks to Adam (Original sin). And Christ saved them by his Death.
Christ saved Mary from falling into the sin as Noble And Perfect Gate which he was to pass through. God cannot stay near sin. His eyes are too holy to behold sin.
So Mary was born in sin before she was saved by Jesus!


Angel Gabriel said "Hail, full of grace".
Full of Grace = Empty of Sin.

In fact, the angel said Kecharitomene, which is a past perfect participle.
This means:
Full of Grace in the past and forever(continuously) full of Grace.
luke 1:28
New International version
...... went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! [/b]The Lord is with you."
new American Standard Bible
.... "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
King James Bible
.....Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee:....


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
28. highly favoured—a word only once used elsewhere (Eph 1:6, "made accepted": compare Lu 1:30, "Thou hast found favour with God." The mistake of the Vulgate's rendering, "full of grace," has been taken abundant advantage of by the Romish Church. As the mother of our Lord, she was the most "blessed among women" in external distinction; [b]but let them listen to the Lord's own words. "Nay, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it." (See on [1537]Lu 11:27/b]

1. Calling disciples is not a miracle or a glorious deed. All rabbis and teachers called disciples. Even John the baptist had disciples.
turning water into wine is a miracle and a glorious deed.

2. Mary brought forth the person who undid what Adam did. Very similar to how Eve brought Adam to the tree. Just as eve was present at the tree where Adam sinned, Mary was present at the Cross where Jesus undid it.
Stop arguing against what i didn't say.

3. Bros, if Eve belived that eating the fruit would kill her, would she have eaten it? She disbelieved God and believed the devil. The disbelief led to disobedience.

4. Adamic covenant = Gen 1:27 - 30
27 So God created man in his image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky, over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 God said, "I have given you every seed-bearing plant which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree that bears fruit with seed. It will be for your food.
30 To every wild animal, to every bird of the sky, to everything that creeps along the ground, to everything that has the breath of life, I give every green plant for food." So it was.

Adam was the first man. Eve was created to be his companion and was to be the one to bring forth the children. Adam cannot increase by himself na, can he?
Eve carried the covenant(the children). Which is why she was the ark.


5. CATACOMB IMAGES.
Visit the link below
churchpop.com/2015/03/13/8-of-the-oldest-images-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary

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.

7. Disobedience and not irreverence or lack of respect? Seriously? How do you disobey and claim to respect at the same time?
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?

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.

8. Bros, to, unto, till and until when used to represent time (especially in the bible) do not mean that something different occured after. Bringing up the issue of giving birth after her ressurection is extremely funny and irrelevant to the subject matter.

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."

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.

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.

OLAADEGBU:


'Bloody Mary' enforced the Roman Catholic religion in England and not adhering to it will bring adverse consequences so Elizabeth adhered to the Roman Catholic faith during this time. Click on the link and educate yourself.

http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/religion-elizabethan-england.htm

And once again, you bring argunments from people that don't know the subject matter.

"Qoutes from your link"--
Queen Mary I (r.1553-1558), Elizabeth's sister, believed
passionately in the Catholic religion and persecuted
Protestants who were burned alive for their beliefs ( hence
her nickname Bloody Mary )

Queen Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603) succeeded her sister
Queen Mary and adhered to the Protestant religion and
restored Protestantism as the official religion. She did,
however, firmly believe that people should be allowed to
practice the Catholic religion without fear of recrimination
so long as it presented no threat to peace in the realm and
her rule over England.

Funny how I saw the term "Elizabethan Catholics". Who else outside this website has ever mentioned "Elizabethan Catholics". Because I no know which day them start to bear and that title.

The article never mentioned Elizabeth as a catholic o. Only thing I saw was the lie that Elizabeth allowed Catholicism. Elizabeth even went as far as banning The Holy Mass.

JMAN05:


"After his elevation to the See of Rome, Boniface obtained a decree from Phocas, against Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople, by which it was ordained, that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches", and that the title of "Universal Bishop" belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Rome" from Catholic encyclopedia

It was in Boniface favor that the decree was made. However, the main issue is that he had a title declared by Gregory as antichrist. Those were the unity of infallibles.



Ask your scholar, Strossmayer for a document of what he said. I believe he doesnt know ur church more than you do.



Whats it about the sermon? Pius II revoked what another infallible accepted. Both of the positions cannot be right at the same time no matter the reason for the decision. No reason should such position be changed cos Eugenius made his decision by the spirit of your god.

Of course you and I know the controversy that came from the council of Basle. I believe that was an example of unity of belief, hilarious.



Of course, your catholic trained scholar Strossmayer know nothing about your church. You know it more than he does. Never knew that a person of that caliber was an empty head in the famous council of vatican, yet known as learned.

You dont get the point do you? The issue is that the pope is infallible, the dogma he enacted cant be changed on the guise of ignorance. Or was the popes that were part of the State inspired by the demons, before another popes inspired by your god came and separated the church from the state? That must be one thought among the infallibles. (I dont even belief that your church is separated from the state)

So circumstances is the exception to the infallibility doctrine, is that how you understood it?

1. Universal Bishop as head of all bishops or universal Bishop as the only bishop in the World?
Because Pope Gregory condemned the latter and Pope Boniface obviously accepted the former.

Same title: Different meaning and Jurisdiction.

2. All your arguments come from a speech that people claimed was made by Bishop Strossmayer at Vatican I.
Suprisingly (to you,that is), he never made that speech. He was not against the dogma of infallibility but against the timing just like Cardinal Newman was.

The problem with the speech is a forgery. Karl Keating, in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, points this out (on page 34), referencing the Catholic Encyclopedia.
You can see that article in the Encyclopedia here.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm

Believe it or not, there is an entire book written about the man, by Ivo Sivric, which also confirms that the speech is a forgery, perpetrated by a man named Jose Agustin de Escudero.

So if you want to prove anything provide documents for your accusation and stop making reference to Bishop Strossmayer.

Show me a document by these popes.

3. Permissions are not DOGMAs. Study what s DOGMA is,bros.