dolphinheart:


genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

These verse was talking about the creation of the heaven and the earth, therefore the part of the sentence " in the beginning" refers to the beginning of the heavens and earth, or more accurately to the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word

"the word here refers to jesus and these statement is saying that the word existed in the beginning.

now to compare the two verses
1. is the beginning in John the same as the beginning in genesis? no
2. did Jesus exist before the creation of the heaven and earth ? yes
3. did the heaven and earth exist at the same time with jesus? no
4. where there spirit creatures created prior to the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth?yes

therefore bro, the two beginnings are not the same. If you have a contrary view, pls tell us what you know about " in the beginning".


it's not that hard to copy and paste the verses, u dnt even have to type the whole verse, just Copley the statement or main part of the sentence if there is nothing to hide.


The scriptures never taught us so, an attempt to use an example outside the scriptures shows that the trinity is man made and the scriptures does not support it.
without the fire there is no light or heat, so who is the fire among the three,? so we can know who created the other two!
dnt worry, the three will soon become million GOD'S in one God when humans share in the divine nature and [b]become one [/b]with jesus and the father.



What does it mean to be baptized “in the name of the Father”? It means that the baptismal candidate recognizes our heavenly Father’s office and authority. Jehovah God is thus acknowledged as our Creator, “the Most High over all the earth,” and the Universal Sovereign.—

ps 83:18King James Bible
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

isa 40: 28
American Standard Version
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no searching of his understanding.

acts 4:28
King James Bible
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Being baptized ‘in the name of the Son’ means what? To be baptized ‘in the name of the Son’ means to recognize Jesus’ office and authority as God’s only-begotten Son.
1 John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Those qualified for baptism accept Jesus as the one through whom God has provided “a ransom in exchange for many.”
1 ti 2: 5,6
King James Bible
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

read also matt 20:28
Baptismal candidates must also acknowledge the “superior position” to which God has exalted his Son.


Phil 2:8-11
And being found in fashion[b] as a man,[/b] he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: : That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord( not God), to the glory of God the Father.

read rev 19:16

What is signified by being baptized ‘in the name of the holy spirit’? This indicates that the baptismal candidates recognize that the holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force, used in various ways in harmony with his purpose. gen 1:2 , 2 Sam 23:1,2 , 2 Peter 1:21
Those qualifying for baptism acknowledge that the holy spirit helps them to understand “the deep things of God,” to carry on the Kingdom-preaching work, and to display the spirit’s fruitage of “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.”

Jesus’ early followers drew clear distinctions between God, Christ, and the holy spirit. In fact, they baptized disciples (1) in the name of the Father, (2) in the name of the Son, and (3) in the name of the holy spirit, not in the name of a trinity.

Firstly, God's name is YAHWEH and not Jehovah.

1. The beginning.
Yes. Jesus as the Word and God existed before creation. The two beginnings are the same.
If you say that Genesis is the beginning of Creation, then John is the beginning of God. And God has no beginning.

Like I always say. In context,there is a union in both beginnings. Verses 2 and 3 of John 1 shows this clearly.


2. The Trinity.
Oh! So now all examples must come from the BIBLE. Wow! Okay!

You are still using singular individual and disconnected verses. Do a bible study. Show us a connection from the bible not just different verses that you like and want to twist.

NOTE: Jesus did not say in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Spirit. But "In the name of the father, and of the Son and of The Holy Spirit".

He says, ‘in the name’, not ‘in the names’, to show the unity of essence; but by adding three names, he indicates that there are three persons.

Once again, the OR mentality comes up. You rightly believe just as Catholic do that there is one God. But you think it is either Yahweh or Jesus.
The mentality that Jesus and his apostles uses is an AND mentality.
Jesus says "I AND the Father are one" - John 10:30.

You say Jesus is a god meaning a lesser God than God the Father. You seem to think that Jesus is a lesser God but that is unbiblical.

For we know that "God" (singular) created the heavens and the earth. - Gen 1:1.

And we also know that "God" said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

Since there can only be one Creator or "God" then the "us" in Gen 1:26 must refer to the Persons of the Holy Trinity (co-equal and co-eternal).
If the "us" in Gen 1:26 were other gods (lesser gods). Then why does God in Exodus 20:2-3 say:"I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods besides me.

Jesus Followers = The early christians.

Quote one early christian who taught or wrote against Trinity

brocab:
Mary the Mother of Christ was never a Catholic in those days.
She believed in Christ, and Christ had nothing to do with that old Roman pagan religion.
Pagan religion had murdered the disciples Peter and Paul, "why" because they believed in the truth about Christ.

This is why the protestants and the Catholic's have so many different viewpoints, I have never met a Catholic-who's just faithful to Christ-but I have met a Catholic-who's more faithful to Mary and their Church.

Lol. We are talking of Mary and Elizabeth (Queens of England). You are talking about Mary, Mother of God. Very Funny.

To your issue of Christ and Mary:
There is no Church or faith community that elevates Christ the way he asked us to apart from the Catholic Church. With all the grammar everyone speaks about the Catholic Church, we are the only ones who maintain the Truth about The Eucharist which Jesus said is His Body and Blood.
That is the highest worship possible. Read Revelations.

The twenty four elders bowed and worshiped the Lamb sitting on the Throne. The same Lamb of God (John 1:29) who gave us himself as our food (John 6) and The Last Supper and asked us to do it in memory of him.

But apart from us, everyone says it is merely a symbol. Or that anybody who calls himself Pastor can turn bread to Jesus' body.

When Jesus said "This is my body. This is my blood." And took only the 12 Apostles with him.

And you without understanding the Church at all says we are more loyal to Mary. Lol.

Have you ever seen a Priest say "This is the Body of Mary" or "This is the Blood of Mary"?

You define worship as singing, preaching and praying. Jesus and his apostles defined it as singing,preaching, praying and The Breaking of the Bread (Consecration and Reception of the Eucharist).

Do you not find it interesting that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus could not identify Jesus by what he was teaching them? He taught them for long and yet they didn't know it was him until He took bread and consecrated it.

The Eucharist is The Body And Blood of Christ. That is the Highest form of Worship humans can give.
We don't even give 1% of that to Mary so bros, being loyal to Mary and the Church (Which is the Mystical Body of Christ) always brings us back to Christ.

Christ is the focal point of the Catholic Faith. I'm sure you don't even know why we are called Catholic.

Google Theotokos and read about why that title was given and you will understand better.

dolphinheart:
@ Jolliano

continued.......


You need to read rev 12 again .



American Standard Version
Arise, O Jehovah, into thy
resting-place; Thou, and the
ark of thy strength.

Darby Bible Translation
Arise, Jehovah, into thy rest,
thou and the ark of thy
strength.

World english Bible
Arise, Yahweh, into your
resting place; you, and the ark
of your strength.


Dnt know why you omitted parts of the verse.



You should have given us a scriptural example na.

1. I have. Still seeing the same things the Early Christians saw in it.

2. Quoting it completely doesn't change its meaning.

3. Even if all queen mothers were bad in character, it doesn't destroy or condemn the office.
Jesus is the New Adam doesn't Jesus committed the same sins or any sin at all.

4. The full commandment is in Deut 4:15-20
15 “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you
saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,
18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.
19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.
20 But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day."

In context, worshiping anything other than God is idolatry. Don't build images and worship them. Not don't build images at all.

You forget that we are all images made by God.

4. When the early christians were making these carvings and images, there was no bible. So this was how they remembered those who had gone before them.

Images are of two types (Statues which are carved and pictures which are painted,drawn or snapped). They are all the same.

Some are 3 dimensional while others are 2 dimensional.

Some are geometrical and some are plane.

this difference doesn't change the fact that they are images.

dolphinheart:
@ Jolliano

continued.......


Good.


So the appointment of disciples is less glorious than turning water into wine.?


The scriptures never made reference to such, christians are jesus brothers and jesus said they where giving to him by God, not by his association to mary. Remember who jesus himself calls his mothers, or was he lying?!

Are you saying the "woman in genesis 3:15 is mary?

”And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over
you.”



Bro, all that jesus did was from the father, even jesus did not do anything by his own initiative, that mary gave birth to jesus does not mean she was the one who told jesus what to do.


Disobedience Bro, not disbelief.


False analogy, eve did not carry any ark or covenant.
Eve never had any covenant with God.
Mary is not the ark of any new covenant. The scripture never said so.
You had tried to link mary with the ark of covenant using similarities, now you are on ur
Own trying to give mary a new ark.


1. Did the ark marry like mary did?
2. Did those who touched mary die?
3. Did God instruct you to venerate and honour mary?
4. Did God instruct you to make an image of mary.?
If the ark of the covenant was an image, was mary an image? How can she now be compared to an image?
5. Was any of these venerations you do to mary's image done to mary during her life time?


Look at what you said again, they treated the ark anyhow ? Or they broke the laws concerning the ark?
Now what laws where giving concerning touching mary, since you are looking for similarities.

Na lie, mary gave birth, had other children. Joseph did not touch her until....


I have mentioned it, "until" means "until"
Until : up to (a particular time)
—used to indicate the time
when something will happen,
become true, etc.
—used as a function word
to indicate continuance (as of
an action or condition) to a
specified time <stayed until
morning>.

but knew her not until she had
given birth to a son. And he
called his name Jesus.
It means that after these events he knew her!

Stop twisting the scriptures.

2 Sam 6 (Still ark of the covenant chapter) verse 23 - "Michal had no child until her death". Does it she gave birth after she died?
Will you stop this, looking for a particular translation to suit ur views will not help.

And Michal daughter of Saul
had no children to the day of her death.


Psalm 110:1- "My Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I have made your enemies your footstool".
Does it mean that he will leave the right hand after the enemies are made his footstool?
That question will be answered by you when you tell me if jesus was still sitting at Gods right hand when he came back to earth?


You are wrong.


At bold, it therefore means that the context will determine the true meaning of brother, if it is of the same parent or not.

Mat 12:46
While Jesus was still talking to
the crowd, his mother and
brothers stood outside,
wanting to speak to him

Is the mother the literal mother mentioned here? If yes, why are you not believing that the brothers are not jesus literal brothers.?

Jesus would not have made the statement he made in verse 48 to 50 if the brothers in verse 48 where not literal like the mother in verse 48 .

People who knew jesus family said
Matt 15:55:57
“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James,
Joseph, Simon and Judas?
56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man
get all these things?”

If mary is the literal mother of jesus, wonder why you view that those mentioned here are not jesus' literal brothers and sisters. Mary had up to 30 years or little less to give birth to them.

"For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples.
The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.
Some Roman Catholics
claim that these “brothers”
were actually Jesus’
cousins. However, in each
instance, the specific
Greek word for “brother” is
used. While the word can
refer to other relatives, its
normal and literal meaning
is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” (anepsios),and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to
see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-
brothers.
Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers
and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical. Mary was a married woman, and the scriptures did say a wife should not deny her husband his due, and their is no record of any injunction that mary or Joseph should not know each other or have children .

you re wrong.


Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.


Unless your traditions teaches you that mary is not a descendant of adam , then this scripture applies to her.

Romans 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.


To be continued......

PART 2:

1. Turning water to wine is a miracle and you want to compare it with calling disciples?

2. Firstly, your arguments show that you know nothing about typology and I'm suprised because it was used a lot by Jesus and the Apostles in the NT.
Read Revelations 12 again.

3. Again, TYPOLOGY. Which woman's seed(Child) crushed the head of Satan? This one is too obvious for you to try arguing against.

4. I never said Mary told Jesus what to do. The First Eve and First Adam sinned on a tree. The Second Adam undid it on a wooden Cross(Tree of Life) and the Second Eve was there beside him.

5. Believing the devil means Disbelieving God. She could not have believed both of them at the same time, could she?
Or did she still believe God and obeyed devil at the same?

6. You have never heard of the Adamic or Edenic covenant? With all the bible you are quoting here! Read Genesis 1 and 2.
God had a covenant with all humans which was carried and represented by Eve and Adam. That is why all humans share in the sin and punishment which occur as a result of the broken covenant.

7.

A. Did the ark marry like mary did?
B. Did those who touched mary die?
C. Did God instruct you to venerate and honour mary?
D. Did God instruct you to make an image of mary.?
If the ark of the covenant was an image, was mary an image? How can she now be compared to an image?
E. Was any of these venerations you do to mary's image done to mary during her life time?

A. Irrelevant question. Jesus is the new Adam according to the bible. Did Jesus marry and have children like Adam?
B. Again, irrelevant question. The point is not touching but defiling and irreverence. The ark was attached with poles for the Priests to carry it with. That was reverence. Knowing that arrangement, doing something else would be irreverence.
C. "Honour your father and mother". Physically? Yes. Spiritually? Yes.
D. Irrelevant question. Did God instruct you to snap a picture of anyone? Images and statues are used to remember people and events. I don't know how you think that God who gave us a brain and memory will be against us using them to remember ourselves.
E. Firstly,we don't venerate Mary's image. We venerate Mary. I could use this argument against the bible but that is irrelevant.
We treat the image specially, yes. Because of who it represents. Would you throw a picture of a relative you love on the floor? Or would you keep it in a special place?
A major part of the veneration given to Jesus was not given to him during his lifetime on earth. Same for Mary. I don't see how that is a problem.
The early christians (without whom you would never have heard of Jesus, being a Christian or seen the bible and yet you chose to disregard and ignore) show all these things in their writings and their carvings and paintings in the Catacombs.

8. You seriously want to argue Theology with a dictionary?
Well, until, to and unto serve the same purpose. They show a range or period of time.
So "to the day of her death". What happened after her death? Did she have children? No.

Jesus was always in heaven. Even when he came in human form, he was still in heaven. The Trinity cannot, has never and will never be seperated. You forget that God(The Trinity) is everywhere.

So till,until,to and unto does not mean something different occured.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Elizabeth had always been Protestant. Mary tried so many times to make her accept Catholicism but Elizabeth never did.

So how did she denounce or renounce a faith she never had?

This is what happens when people study history from Wikipedia.

dolphinheart:

Bro again I say, stop jumping into the discussion between me and pastor. You have not quoted my reply to you and you keep quoting my reply to someone else post.


The above is not true.


So they dnt quote what is written? Pls what do you understand by the word "quote"?


Bro, they are talking about two different begginings.
All these connections and similarities you are looking for will not allow someone to know what the scriptures really says.
The scripture is not understood by similarities, it is understood by context and meanings Bro.


Failure to quote the whole sentence shows you are wrong and trying to prove something that does not exist. There are a lot of similarities in the scriptures, but it does not mean that they are talking about the same thing.


So God was with God, then we have two Gods.


Bros pls provide proof that God created eve on the seventh day .


You are looking for similarities in woman abi, pls add this people.

Luke 13:12
When Jesus saw her, he
called her forward and said to
her, "Woman, you are set free
from your infirmity."

John 4 :21
must worship is in Jerusalem.”
“Woman,” Jesus replied,
“believe me, a time is coming
when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

John 20:15
He asked her, “Woman,
why are you crying? Who is it
you are looking for?”

And if you still believe that the woman in rev 12 is mary , pls tell us

1.when did mary become pregnant in heaven and who give her belle?
(2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.)

2.when did mary give birth to a second son?
(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.

3. When did mary have offprings
(17 Then the dragon was
enraged at the woman and
went off to wage war against
the rest of her offspring—
those who keep God’s
commands and hold fast their
testimony about Jesus.)

To be continued.......

1.So John and Genesis are talking about 2 beginnings. Wow? Can you tell me the difference between the two beginnings? And tell me which of the Apostles or Early Christians believed or taught this blasphemy you are spewing?

2.I don't quote completely because it would make it longer. That is why I put the verses of the bible for everyone to check the full sentence from the bible.

3. One God, 3 persons. Simple illustration is A candle. When you light a candle, you originally have fire. But the fire brings light and the light brings heat. You cannot seperate the fire from the light,the light from the heat or the heat from the fire. Though they look different, they are ONE.
Why did Jesus ask them to baptize in the name of The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?
He did not say names. He said name. That shows you that they are one.

4. I never said Eve was created on the seventh day. The first time Adam saw Eve was on the Seventh day.

5. I didn't say Jesus referred to Mary everytime he said woman. I said Jesus referred to Mary as WOMAN which is suprising since she was his MOTHER.

6. Your questions about REV 12, I have already answered.

Actually, you ought to restart. But continue if you want.

Why are these guys never consistent in their talk?

First, Catholics added books to the Bible which is very funny because Jesus quoted from those books.
Now, Catholics removed verses and chapters from the bible.

When The Catholic Church was fighting against the wrong translations and destroying them. You say the Church was anti-Bible and so we were destroting bibles.


Bros, the official bible of the Catholic Church is the Douay Rheims bible and the Latin and Clementine Vulgate.

dolphinheart:

Bro you have not, pls go back to our discussion, quote me there and show how you have answered the questions. This one is a discussion between me and pastor.

[qoute]But you keep repeating burn people and kill people..........

Go to that post and let know if I'm right or wrong.

There is no other Gospel written by actual disciples and apostles. What you have are rubbish books written by Gnostics and attached with an apostolic name e.g The Gospel of Peter and The Gospel of Thomas.
Thus they where not inspired since they are rubbish! I'm asking for an inspired scripture that is not included in the compilation and why?


They were not trying to compile an encyclopedia so they did not need to include all books. If they had done so,they would have never finished the bible because everyone more than ten people would write new books which they would also have to add and so, they use a limit to choose those books.
Bro, how did they do the selection, what is the criteria for selecting one and removing another.?

The Didache is one of them. The Apology of St Justin Martyr is another.

Like I said, they read through all the books, selected all the inspired ones and then from the inspired ones chose those written by Peter, The Apostles, Paul and the Gospels.

they did this because producing and reproducing the bible would require people sitting down to write all of the books again and again. They would write with feather and ink on animal skin or papyrus. Their alphabets were very different from ours. The work would have been too much. So they limited the number to that which I have mentioned.

dolphinheart:

You well know that the discussion is based of if the scriptures contains all we need for salvation. Such knowlege, devoid of the scriptures will prove me wrong.


Bro, again I feel you should look at what I've been saying since to understand my views. Remember the issue started with the request for scripture on the use of the image of mary and the attempt to find it outside the scriptures. Ill probably have kept quiet if I've been told that the reasons for making the image of mary is from outside the scriptures.


Ok , maybe jolliano will give me details on that.


Ok, no problem.
As to the question, I feel that some of their doctrines do not follow scriptural injunctions,examples and directives. An example is the use of the image of mary.


I like ur view. I feel I should not have or continue to ask the questions over and over again .why? Since they already view that I will reject or classify any of their answers as OCCultic. Ill try not to ask for answers on the source for the use of the image again.

But if they tell me and I say its occultic, then we will enter another phase to see if my statements are true or false.


The traditions recorded down in the scriptures.

Those souls will be judged with justice.



Its just to show that that state church is doing something very very wrong.

You don't nEed arguments but a simple bible study.

Let Me Show You Who Mary Is From Scripture using typology as Jesus and his Apostles used.
Remember,the OT is a Prefiguration of the NT. All or most israelites knew the OT by Heart which is why they never quoted it. They would simply say it is written in the Scriptures because they expected that the other person knew what the OT contained.

Look at Gen 1 and John 1.
Anybody with even small sense can see that John is connecting his Gospel directly to Genesis.

"In the beginning" and "In the beginning". Verse 1.
"God saw that the light was good..." And "The light shined in the...... " Verse 5.
"Spirit and water" Gen 1:2 / "Spirit and water" John 1:32-33.

First, John shows that The Word was God and that the Word was made flesh. This shows that Jesus is the Word and since the Word is God, Jesus is God.

Back to Mary:

Genesis 1 and 2:
God created Man (Adam) on the sixth day, saw that he was lonely, put him in a deep sleep and then created the woman. On the Seventh day, Adam saw her and called her "WOMAN" because they were "Flesh of flesh and blood of blood".

John 1 and 2:
(Please count with me)
John's first mention of the Messiah- Day 1
John 1:29- The next day - Day 2
John 1:35- The next day - Day 3
John 1:43- The next day - Day 4
John 2:1- On the third day - Day 7

On the seventh day at Cana, Jesus calls Mary "WOMAN" - John 2:4. Mary and Jesus are "flesh of flesh and blood of blood".
Note, that everytime Jesus talks to Mary, he calls her WOMAN even at the cross- John 14:26. Do you now see why John would refer to her as The WOMAN in Revelations 12.

NOW, Looking at Mary and Eve:
Eve listened to an evil angel and brought sin and death.
Mary listened to a good angel and brought grace and life.

Eve pushed adam to his first sinful deed.
Mary pushed Jesus to his first Glorious deed.

Eve - Mother of all living. - Gen 3:20
Mary - Mother of JESUS in whom was life - John 1:4 and through Jesus,mother of all Christians (people living in Christ) - Rev 12:17 and specially symbolized through John in John 14:26.
(Remember the reference to the WOMAN and her seed in Gen 3:15).

What Eve Caused adam to do at a tree.
Mary brought forth Jesus and he undid it on a WOODEN CROSS(Tree of Life).

Eve was cursed by God for disbelief. - Gen 3:14
Mary was blessed for believing. - Luke 1:45

I have already shown that she is the Ark of the Covenant.
Eve carried the old covenant and brought forth children. One of which was killed by his brother (Jesus betrayed by Judas). "The blood of Jesus and the blood of Abel...."- Luke 12:24.
Mary is the Ark of the New and everlasting covenant.
(All covenants had and have Arks).

Read 1 Chronicles 15 and 16 and you will see the high honour and veneration the Israelites including David payed to the Ark of the Covenant which was so holy that touching it caused Uzzah's death.

That same honour and veneration is what we pay to Mary (The Ark Of The New Covenant). The same honour payed to her by the Early Christians and even the first Protestants (Martin Luther even has an image of Mary at his grave till now, Zwingli and Calvin).


EXTRAS:-
1. Mary was ever virgin.
A. The Ark was too holy to be touched by humans (Count how many people died for treating the Ark anyhow). We understand from this that Joseph understanding this would not try to sleep with her.

B. Before you mention Matthew 1:25 "....until...".
Until in the bible does not mean it occured after that time.
2 Sam 6 (Still ark of the covenant chapter) verse 23 - "Michal had no child until her death". Does it she gave birth after she died?
Psalm 110:1- "My Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I have made your enemies your footstool".
Does it mean that he will leave the right hand after the enemies are made his footstool?

So you see, until does not mean it occured.

C. Brothers of Jesus:
They were called adelphos of Jesus and was translated as brother.
The word "Adelphos" is used to represent close relations whether from the same parents, related by blood or not.
Lot was called Abraham's adelphos but we know they were not brothers.
Acts 1:13 - 15 - "the 12 apostles, Mary, the women and the brethren of Jesus..... And they were 120 in number".
12 + 1 + 20(assuming the women were twenty) = 33.
That would mean the brothers of Jesus were 87. How Mary take born 87 children wey don grow up when Jesus him first born still dey 33 to 34 years old?

Obviously, Jesus had no brothers.

2. Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless. From Rev 12, the dragon(devil) chased(tempted) her but he never caught her because she was given two wings of a great eagle (very symbolic of holiness and purity) to fly into the wilderness, into her place.
Ever wondered why the dragon could not follow her into the wilderness? She went to her place in heaven and the dragon cannot chase her there. So he comes to chase her children on earth.
Psalm 132:7 - 8 - "Arise, O LORD... You and Your Ark."

3. Mary as Queen.

Jesus was of Royal blood. A descendant of David. In the Davidic Kingdom(Kingdom of Israel), the queen was always the mother of the king and not the wife. All mention of Queens in Israel were Queen Mothers (Mother of the King).

Read luke 1:32. Jesus is The KING. And as a King from David's generation. The queen is His Mother, Mary. Rev 12:1 shows her with a crown of 12 stars. The same number as the tribes of Israel!

Read Psalm 45:9, 1 Kings 2: 19 and especially 2 Chron. 15:16.

The Mother of The King is the Queen.

You see the beauty of Bible Study (Treating the bible as a whole) and not just taking one verse and giving it any meaning you like.

IMAGE OF MARY:
When you read commandments from Exodus, you read a summary. The full version is in Deuteronomy chapter 4.
Deut 4:15-16 -- "Because you did not see any form.....".
It means you do not know my form so making an image of me would be foolish and wrong. Don't make an image of the Sun and anyother thing thinking that they are my image or form. That is what the commandment means.

Jesus is God and the people saw Jesus. They made diagrams of him in the caves and catacombs. And not just Jesus but Mary, Peter, the Apostles and a lot of other things.
When we use images, we don't worship them. That would be foolish. We use them as a reminder of the people in them or the events they represent.

When you look at a relative's picture, is it the picture you're fond of or the person whose picture you are holding?

dolphinheart:
bro pls stick to our discussion , ur reply changes the direction of my discussion with pastor

Give us an example.
Are there no gospels in the others?
Why did they chose the books of those people and left others.


Never said they wrote down all they taught! So I dnt know why you are asking me the question.


Burning people on a stake for not following ur doctrine shows you are not perfect .


Bro, I did not claim to compile the scriptures, you did! So I want to know about how the selection went.


Bro , you just read the scripture again, this time about what to do in finding peace with your brother.
The scripture is fully equippt for every good work!

You trying to change direction again? Wunt do that again with you on these thread . And Pls go back to our own discussions.

LOL. I already answered all the questions you wrote.

But you keep repeating burn people and kill people..........

There is no other Gospel written by actual disciples and apostles. What you have are rubbish books written by Gnostics and attached with an apostolic name e.g The Gospel of Peter and The Gospel of Thomas.

They were not trying to compile an encyclopedia so they did not need to include all books. If they had done so,they would have never finished the bible because everyone more than ten people would write new books which they would also have to add and so, they use a limit to choose those books.

PastorAIO:


Oral means by word of mouth. abi? Now I believe that you are saying you accept that the church has traditions but not oral traditions. Well Jolliano has addressed that adequately here:



Is that enough for you or must you hear one such oral tradition spelt out before you accept what the bible says about the church having oral traditions.




I'm not talking about the inspiration of the books. I'm stating that the very bible that you're talking about is a part of the church tradition.



Not you specifically but I've heard it said a lot here and elsewhere. I was being presumptuous, Sorry. Perhaps you can set me straight by stating your position clearly. Simply say: I, Dolphinheart, do not believe that Catholics disregard the bible.





Thank you. Now think about this carefully. Read what you've said once again. And then ask yourself the question that you've been asking in your last couple of post. 'Is there an instance of Oral tradition that Catholics teach'? You see that you don't need to go round and round in circles. As the catholics here have pointed out, if they tell you, you will say it is occult. Are you not demonstrating exactly what they predicted of you. Even since the start of this thread?



You are free to interpret the bible any which way you choose. You asked for an oral tradition.

What tradition necessary for salvation was eventually written down, and what happened to the poor souls who practiced christianity before it was written down?



I don't know what is the relevance of killing people with contrary view to state church, but I'm glad that you're not condemning illiterate christians because they cannot read bible.

Again, he leaves the topic to talk about killing people which I have shown was done not because of Christianity by Emperor Theodosius. It is irrelevant but he must talk against Catholicism.

PastorAIO:


All that is not half as interesting as considering what the psychological motivations for such behaviour would be.

I find it so fascinating. Is it compensation for a deep inner feelings of inadequacy? Feelings of inadequacy assuaged by pointing out someone else that can be seen to be even less adequate.

Is it a deep inner feeling of (self) hatred and (self) revulsion that needs to be projected outwards? And when he reads some tracts that offer the Roman Catholic Church as an hate object he jumps at the opportunity and is grateful from the relief he feels from finding something to hate.

Exactly. My advice to him is this.

Pour out all hatred and anger at the Catholic Church. The Mystical Body of Christ can take it. Then allow that vacuum be filled with the Eucharist, the Bread of Life. Allow him come and dwell in you in the way HE wants to and not the way you want him to.

dolphinheart:


You have now removed the "oral " from "oral traditions" so as to fit the scriptures in. At the moment We are talking about oral traditions!. And I want to be shown just one of them that is not know from the scriptures.


Are all these many books inspired ? If yes why where they not included in the compilation, and pls mention one of these inspired books not compiled.


At bold, pls show me where I said those words and let's look at it.



Bro, the discussion was on the use of the scriptures to defend the use of the image of mary.
I've asked on occasions to show me how the scriptures support the use of the image. All I've seen is to point to some similarity between when mary got pregnant and some occassions involving the ark. This does not mean mary is the ark of covenant!, and the scriptures never implied so!
Then there was an attempt to use the perfection of the church to say you have right to use the image, I thus showed you instances where the church is not perfect.
Then the claim went on that since the church compiled the scriptures it has the knowledge to make the Image. On these I asked: show prove that ur church compiled the scriptures ? Are all the scriptures ur church compiled inspired? Did your church compile all the inspired books? If not why?

Now its on oral tradition.
You are the one that's jumping left and right just to find justification for the use mary's image. Show me one oral tradition that is neccessary for salvation that is not initially or eventually written down in the scriptures!.

I do/will not condemn illiterate christians. I dnt have such power or authority. And I will never support the killing, imprisonment, burning of people just because they have a contrary view to the state church!

1. yes, some of them were inspired. They were not added because the Church decided to choose only books from Peter, the Apostles, Paul and the four Gospels.

2. Is it not part of what they heard (Oral tradition) that they wrote down as Scripture? Where was it stated that they wrote down all they taught? Just a straight answer please.

3. Please show me from the Scriptures how the Church is not perfect.

4. Show me from the scriptures which books are to be regarded as scripture. Dont point to table of content o. Because Moses who wrote the first book did not write table of content.

5. According to Jesus, in order to offer God an offering/worship/e.t.c. , you must be at peace with your brother. This peace is therefore necessary for salvation. Where did Jesus say that he peace will come from? Read for yourself.

"Mat 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican"

Jesus did not say take your brother and do bible study and you will find peace. SO this Peace which is necessary to worship God, which makes it necessary for salvation is not found in Scriptures.

6. By the way, i thought you guys said the world supposed to end in 1914, then, 1925 , then e.t.c. Why are we still here? Where did you see it in the bible?

PastorAIO:


you're missing the point. The bible itself is part of tradition that has been handed down from generations upon generations. There are many books in this world but the bible was compiled, copied and given special TLC by the church and handed down along with the sacraments and other oral traditions.

You contradict yourselves when you say that catholics only know what they know because 'scriptures told them'. Only a minute ago all I was hearing was how Catholics never read the bible and disregard the bible. So it is either they got their knowledge from the bible or they didn't. You have to decide which one it is that you believe, because there are still many christians in this world who are illiterate and I hope you are not condemning them because they cannot read the bible.

To make it clearer;
2 Thessalonians 2:15--- "Because of that, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the traditions that we taught you by word or letter."

The Bible is a compilation of those letters. Which makes it a part of the Apostolic Tradition Paul was talking about.

JMAN05:


Gregory I (785-90) calls anyone Antichrist who takes the name of universal bishop, and contrariwise Boniface III (607- made the parricide Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. Paschal II (1088-99) and Eugenius III (1145-53) authorized duelling; Julius II (1509) and Pius IV (1560) forbade it. Eugenius IV (1431-39) approved of the Council of Basle and the restitution of the chalice to the church of Bohemia; Pius II (1458) revoked the concession. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII (1800-23) condemned them. To mention but a few.

So, which of the Popes had the true spirit, and which has the false?

2. When Protestant, who you interfaith with come, they will answer you. What is the difference between Catholic and protestants? Do they not interfaith? What then is the point of shouting protestants?

1. UNIVERSAL BISHOP?

DURING THE REIGN OF GREGORY THE FIRST, THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE TAUGHT THAT THE WAS THE UNIVERSAL BISHOP which means that all other bishops are bishops in name only and only Him had the authority over all the Church.
Pope Gregory I excommunicated him and stated that all bishops were truly bishops and had authority and that the pope was the head of all bishops. So Gregory I said in response to That bishop (Bishop John the faster), "Anyone who claims to be UNIVERSAL BISHOP is a precursor to the AntiChrist."

Pope Boniface III due to claims being made by another bishop (patriarch Cyracius) of Constantinople got a decree that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches".

The decree never made mention of Boniface III being universal bishop. People just assume that that's what it said.

2.DUELING? Seriously, DUELING?
A)
That's more political than anything else. If one pope forbade billiards, and another did not, I'll bet these people would say the same thing!
Two popes can reform the rules on any type of recreation they want, if they have the political sway to do so; it has nothing to do with defining doctrines.
If one Pope says people should not play football and years later another Pope says people can if they want, does that mean they contradict each other? Sport and faith are not the same thing o. Neither are discipline and doctrine the same thing.
When Jesus fasted, does it mean he declared food to be evil?
When he ate, does it mean he declared fasting to be evil?

"Whatever you bind and whatever you lose". Bound things can be loosed and loosed things can be bound. There is no contradiction here.

B) A is not really relevant here. In a letter to Charles the
Bald, Nicolas I (858-67) condemned duelling (monomachia) as a tempting of God. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others.

Show a document from any pope authorizing Duels.


3. Pope Martin V called the council and put Caesarini in charge and died the same year. Eugenius IV became the pope in that same year and confirmed Caesarini as the Person in charge.
The Council had a lot of arguments but what concerns your accusation is the fact that in 1436, people from Bohemia were given permission to allow both lay and clergy drink from the Chalice at Mass.
Due to excesses and the heresy that arose from Bohemia where people were teaching that The Bread does not contain Jesus fully and The Chalice(Blood) does not contain when the Church has always taught that
the Bread or Blood,whichever is received, contains Jesus fully.
Pope Pius II in 1458 cancelled the permission and stopped the lay people from drinking from the cup.

4. All marriages are valid in the eyes of the Church until proven otherwise. Civil marriage at a time when Church and State were fully together(when Civil law was Church law) was permitted. Catholic Weddings are valid because a Priest is there as a witness representing Christ. "What God has joined ....."

Now that The Church is fully seperated from the State, the Courts do not have priests working in them. So any marriage in Court (due to the absence of the Priests) is invalid.

How is that a contradiction?

Whoever came up with this list clearly does not understand what we even MEAN when we say the pope is infallible; so why would we trust that he has proven a contradiction?

The worst part is that he can not provide any document to prove all his claims. And yes, I have read the full list of arguments from the original source and there is no proof or document for any of them.

semasir:
Please read Colossians 2.8-10. The OP isn't immature to discern this. In the meantime, baptism is for remission of sins and never applicable to infants anywhere; please learn how to apply a Biblical passage with the previous chapter/verses/content to get the message and not lift a passage to suit your claims. Thanks

When Peter said baptised all the household of Cornelius, was it written "He baptized all the household except for the children."?

When God told Abraham in Gen 17 to circumcise his household, was Ishmael circumcised? Yes.
At what time did God ask them to circumcise new born children? When they were eight years old.

Baptism is the New Circumcision. Why would children be excluded from it.

Read Gen 17 well and see what it meant for those who were uncircumcised.

semasir:
Sir, may I ask you if there was any church before the Catholic Church?

No,there wasn't.
Except you are using Typology and then we can say Israel was the Old Testament Church.

semasir:
The truth don't actually cost anything and that's exactly what you just said. The Catholic Church is a denominational setup that really have got a bigger share if not the biggest to deceiving many.

Their doctrine are purely man-made placing their opinions over Biblical standards. Please search thru the Bible very and you'll know what is right even more.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus on Peter and The Apostles.
The Catholic Church is the only Church that trace its Histiory back to Christ even protestant and atheist scholars know this.
No other church(faith community) can do that.

Name one doctrine and let us see if it is biblical or not.

dolphinheart:

Bro, what is to be interpretated is recorded in the scriptures. You are not going to say or interpret something different from what is recorded or are you.? Even the things to be revealed later are recorded so that some group of people with political powers will not come up with something claiming its divine and has oral tradition .

Very funny. So a list was needed to compile the bible abi? Someone gave you a list and you started looking for the scriptures in that list right? Abeg were that list come from?
So if the bible where not compiled from a list, it definitely shows the work of the holy spirit in compiling the books, so that you can be fully equipped for every good work.

What is the difference between the two "word of God." Never knew it has different definitions. Has jesus ever told you what the father did not tell him to tell you?
Is there part of the scriptures that was recorded and its not by Gods inspiration.?

Never said the scriptures gives you salvation, the scriptures shows you all that you need and need to do to gain salvation. It tells you all you need to do in other to gain evalasting life which is the knowledge of the true God, the father, and the one he sent to us, jesus Christ.
so what other knowledge do you have that is neccessary for salvation that is not in the scriptures.

Bro pls, tell me what is needed for salvation that is not in the scriptures and stop talking about interpretation of what is already written in the scriptures. The holy spirit will give you understanding, but it wunt tell you something different for salvation that is not already recorded in the scriptures. That is one way to seperate fake people who claim their utterances is through the holy spirit.

1. You are overlooking the difference in many protestant teachings all formed from reading the bible and claiming the right to personal interpretation. E.g. Females should not wear trousers/Females should not wear trousers.
There is no hell because God is merciful/ There is hell because God is just.
Jesus is God/ Jesus is not God.

2. Jesus as the Word in John 1:1 is not the same as the bible (word of God). Abi was it through the bible that all things were made?

3. To be saved requires worshipping the TRUE GOD (THE MOST HOLY TRINITY). God asked us to worship him in truth and in Spirit.(John 4:24) The truth is revealed by the Spirit. The bible does not contain the fullness of the truth(God's Revelation) but points to the Church which is The Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

And here are some examples:
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene"
cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was
"spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this
prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word," was passed down orally rather than through
Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches
a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:. These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (cf. Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

4. Baptism is necessary for salvation/Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Both claim to inspired by the Holy Spirit (although the first one is correct).
The Eucharist is the Body And Blood of Jesus and is necessary for Eternal Life(John 6)/ The Eucharist is just a symbol. (Although we know the first is correct).

dolphinheart:


To say I understand you, na lie.

Are you saying that these events where passed through oral tradition and not recorded down?

Yes. Luke and Mark were not direct disciples of Christ so they could not know what exactly happened and was said at The last supper unless some one told them.

It was later that they were recorded down in written form.

rosalieene:
NOTICE!! TO ALL CATHOLICS.
Arguing with all this pentecostals is not just worth it. The time you'd use to do something better, you use it to argue with ignorant people. Whatever they think is their cup of tea!. Not your business. I still say it, its until when you attend the church and have a better view, that's when you ll know what the church is like and not staying from afar to condemn it. Catholics, the most important thing now is to do the will of God and make heaven! simple!!. Stop arguing with jobless people..

At least, the people who read this thread can see and judge for themselves. Unlike allowing the threads be filled with Anti-Catholicism

dolphinheart:

No sir, mary is not the ark of the covenant. Mary had nothing to do with the old covenant other than following it.



Oops! , I've said something, but I've read it sha.


Bro one thing I dnt like is trying to ascribe words or statements to scriptures in which the scriptures never made mention of those words or implied them.
The verses did not say "God the holy ". It did not say "the ark bacame the dwelling place of the presence of God"
Why are you now ascribing those words to the scripture when the scriptures says otherwise.
Ex 40:34-38
Then a cloud covered the tent(or tebanacle, definitely not ark) of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.(it did not say "God the holy spirit".
And Moses was not able to enter into the tent(not ark) of the congregation, because the
cloud abode thereon, and the
glory of the LORD filled the
tabernacle. [b]And when the
cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle,[b](these shows you that it did not dwell in there) the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys: But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle(not ark) by day,
and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel,(everybody saw the cloud and fire, it cannot be in the ark or tebernacle cus there are restrictions as to who can enter the tebernacle.) throughout all their journeys.

Read Exodus 25:8 - 22.

The tabernacle is a tabernacle because of the Ark of The Covenant. The Ark is what differentiated the tent from every other tent. The Ark of the covenant is the main object in the tabernacle. On it was placed the mercy seat, from the cherubim on it God spoke. The Holy Spirit overshadowed the Tabernacle and it didn't overshadow the ark that was inside.

[Quote]
Another wrong analysis

Luke 1:35
The angel answered, "The
Holy Spirit will come on you,(her whole self, not just her womb. Remember, jesus was concieved) and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.[/b]
The holy one is the son of God not the "presence of God".
[/quote]

Good. So did God dwell in Mary or not? When Jesus, the son Of God, who is God himself was inside Mary's womb, was Jesus(God) present?

[Quote]
Moreover, its on record that David prayed to God that he should not take the spirit away from him, that means the holy spirit dwells in David, does that make him the ark of the covenant too?
[/quote]

The Holy Spirit is not the new covenant, Jesus is.
Matthew 26:27 - 28 --- ".... For this is my blood, the blood of the Covenant......."

JESUS IS THE COVENANT. The ARK from which he came to us is THE ARK OF JESUS which means it is THE ARK OF THE COVENANT.

[Quote]
Nice one , but it does not make mary the ark of the covenant but rather attempts to make jesus the ark of the covenant.
Is the attempt true, no.
Let's look at some verses in the chapter of the verse you quoted again.
heb 9: 1,6-7,9, 11-12
"1 Now the first covenant had
regulations for worship and
also an earthly sanctuary.
6 When everything had
been arranged like this, the
priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on
their ministry. 7 But only the
high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for [b]the sins the people had committed in ignorance.
9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.
11 But when Christ came as
high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is
not made with human hands,
that is to say, is not a part of
this creation.
12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

Bro , as you can see, even jesus is not the ark but the high priest who brings blood into the tebernacle.
[/quote]

Please read the whole of Hebrews 9. Not just some selected parts and also Luke chapter 1.

"He has passed through a sanctuary more noble and perfect, not made by human hands, not created" - Heb 9:11.

What does that tell you about Mary? MORE NOBLE AND PERFECT!

"The LORD told me, "This gate is to remain shut. It will not be
opened. No man is to enter through it, because the LORD God
of Israel entered through it, so it is to remain shut." - Ezekiel 44:2

[Quote]

Bro, the ark went to many places that mary did not go to, before having a final place. Likewise mary. Using one of there journeys that look similar does not make mary the ark of covenant.


Haba bros, when did David become a priest equate his jumping with that of john.?
When did john become a priest ?

[/quote]

Treating them individually, you can criticise and interprete as you want. But treating them together in Context, the meaning comes out. Remember they are all in the same chapters, 2 Sam 6 and Luke 1.

Levitical Priesthood. Passed down by blood. John a son of a Priest is a Priest. Whether he functions as one does not change who he is. Wearing skirts doesn't make a man into a woman, does it?

[Quote]
The verse says :
41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
leaped in her womb. And
Elizabeth was filled with the
Holy Spirit, 42 and she
exclaimed with a loud cry,
“Blessed are you among
women, and blessed is the
fruit of your womb! 43 And why
is this granted to me that the mother of [b]my Lord should come to me?
Bro, look at those words again, with the holy spirit inside her, she said, "mother of my lord" and not "mother of God". Stop changing the words of the scriptures.
And neither did those words or actions imply mary was the ark of covenant.
[/Quote]

Oh. So when she said MY LORD, she was not referring to GOD. Who was she calling my Lord then? Or is Jesus not GOD?
One more thing, she spoke Hebrew. MY LORD in HEBREW = ADONAI. Guess who is Adonai? GOD.

[Quote]
Even the translations you quoted did not say the same thing Bro. The context and the reasons for saying those words are also different.
And if it is "come to me," you are trying to bring out, Bro , there are many "come to me" in the scriptures.
[/quote]

The usual method of isolating quotes from their context for easy twisting?

[Quote]
Another similarity , but for different reasons.

haha!, you for say the scriptures say that the house of Elizabeth was blessed na.
[/quote]

I did not say anything. It is the Scriptures that is speaking.
Anyway, the presence of Jesus blesses everywhere that he is.
Just like his presence in Mary makes Elizabeth full of the holy Spirit.

[Quote]
The ark stayed in the temple mary did not. mary did not present God the son, she presented jesus, the son of God following customs.
[/quote]

The ark was moved out of the temple many times. The Old Ark and its content was to stay in the Old Temple of Solomon. The New Ark just like its content (Jesus) doesn't.


[Quote]
Can you see how twisted ur explanation is.
Does jesus represent the rod or Aaron. cus he can't represent both.
Was the rod ever taking out of the ark to signify jesus leaving the womb of mary.
[/quote]

You are limiting TYPOLOGY (OF JESUS for that matter) to one thing alone?
And Jesus is not the representation, he is the fulfillment. He contains the FULLNESS of everything. Every representation converges in him who is the The ONE from which all things were made.

1 Kings chapter 8:9 answers your question.

[Quote]
Now you have left the scriptures to find similarities somewhere else.

In Revelation 11:19 John sees the Ark of the Covenant in
heaven [this is the last verse of chapter 11]
In Revelation 12:1 John sees Mary in heaven. It is the
same vision Juan Diego saw of Mary in 1531 — the
Woman clothed with the sun and standing on the moon.

What!!, the woman that john saw is mary?!
Ok pls tell us:
1. When did she become pregnant again and who give her belle. For verse 2 says
" She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

2. When will mary come back to earth to be pursued by Satan . For verse 13 says :
"When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth,
he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.
3 when did mary give birth to other children:
Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold
fast their testimony about Jesus.
[/quote]

1. I don't profess Sola Scriptura.
2. What John saw in Revelations especially chapter 12 was not seen in real time. In other words, his seeing a vision in about 90AD does not mean all what he saw occured in 90AD.

The vision in Revelations 12 was a revelation of what had already occured.

Rev 12:5 - "She gave birth to a male Child to rule the nations..... taken up to God and his throne". Obviously the male Child is Jesus.

Rev 12:7-8 -"The dragon and his angels fought back and they lost their place in Heaven"
. This event obviously occured before Adam and Eve.

Rev 12:13-16 - "The dragon came to pursue the woman...."
Remember Genesis, the devil caused the woman(EVE) and then the man(Adam) to fall. Remember God's word in Genesis 3:15 "you will bite her heel and She (or as in some translations HE) will crush your head".
JESUS is the New Adam and Mary is The New Eve. Even non-Catholics know that.

Rev 12:17 -- ".... Wage war on the rest of her children, those who keep God's commandment and bear witness to Jesus...."
Are you a biological child of Mary? No. Does that mean you don't keep God's commandment? No.

You call God Father. We are his children spiritually. So is Mary the Mother Of All Christians.

Remember the symbology at the Cross. "Behold Your Son" and "Behold your mother". Was Mary the biological mother of John? No!

[Quote]
Bro, "similarity" is not "same ".
The scriptures never said the ark is mary, and mary was not recorded to be in heaven.
[/quote]

Of course, similarity is not the same and that is the beauty of Typology. The Old Covenant is a type of the New Covenant but it is not the same.

The Scripture has given us enough evidence. It does not have to be directly written. A lot of things Christians believe are not written as statements in the Scriptures.

dolphinheart:

Bro, I asked for the source itself.
If you feel oral traditions are being passed down and not written in the scriptures and that you know it, pls let us hear one of them.


Do you need all revealed truth to gain salvation? What revealed truth do you know that was not in the scriptures and let's see if it is neccessary for salvation, not man made ritual, not taken from pagan worship and does not contradict the scriptures .


You are still quoting the scriptures Bro. Give us an example that is not included in the scriptures.

Oh. Pagan worship. So when Christ offered himself as a bloody sacrifice, He did not know what He was doing?
When he celebrated Passover, he didn't know abi?

dolphinheart:


Simple question I asked you Bro, u re turning it into something else . Pls tell us, what do we need for salvation that is not written in the scriptures.?

1. The interpretation of Scripture is not in scripture.
2. The list of books which actually make up the scriptures is not found in the scriptures.
3. The Word of God(JESUS) is not the same as the word of God(BIBLE). Jesus is centrally and mainly needed for salvation not the bible. And Jesus is present to us through his Mystical Body(Which according to the bible is the Church He built) and not through the bible.

Again, when Paul wrote that Letter, many new testament books had not been written. Paul wrote that letter to defend the use of the Old Testament(Books of Judaism) in teaching because Jesus used it also.

Understand that there was no New Testament when he wrote that letter.

dolphinheart:

And at another time,by someone/ some people different from the person people that wrote the first one.
Is it not part of the first book, but a different book entirely!.
So dnt say it is part of the book of Esther!.


John did not retell the gospel, he wrote his own version of the gospel, his own book, his own understanding and knowledge of the events that happened during his time. John did not write a part of the gospel , he did not write a part of mark, Mathew, or Luke. Each individual wrote based on what they know about the events they recorded. Therefore john was not doing a retelling, but was telling his own side, and because of that his own side will contain words that are not recorded by the other Gospel writers cus they too where trying to tell their own knowledge of events. The book of john is totally different in all ways than the greek book of Esther. The only similarity is that they are both books .


Sir give us the details I requested for and we will know if you are right or wrong.


Hebrew was not common, but it is now common. pls which one we go choose.?
Before the isrealites where conquered, which language did the general populace in which the sacred scrolls where meant for speak?, they spoke hebrew, therefore their sacred scrolls where written in hebrew.
After the isrealites where conquered and they later came back to there lands less than hundred years later, which language was the common language? Hebrew and aramaic , therefore they wrote their sacred schrols in greek and aramaic.
Hundreds of years later when their rulers changed from persia to greece and from greece to rome , what common language did they speak. They spoke hebrew, aramaic, greek and Latin .
Why did the disciples write in greek?, because it was the most common tongue understood by the majority. The romans dnt speak hebrew as common tongue in Rome and some other lands, the Hebrews prefer greek to Latin due to hatred for the romans, the far away lands of mercedonia (antioch Etc) where the gospel was taught extensively and had congregations used greek as a common language. Therefore it is sensible to write in that common tongue.
Centuries after the disciples wrote the scriptures, greek was still the common tongue spoken by menbers of the church, until political views set in to favour Latin.


Yep, it was about the house of judah and not about worshiping God. Who the message is for is more important than what is in the message.
God commanded Amos to "Go, Prophesy unto my people ISRAEL" (Amos 7:14-15) -- not "gentiles."
God commissioned Micah "to declare ... to ISRAEL his sin" (Micah 3:.
Ezekiel was told, "Son of man, I send thee to the children of ISRAEL" (Ez.2:3).
And as at that time, what language did the people of isreal speak.?

Christ said, "I was not sent but unto the LOST SHEEP of the HOUSE of ISRAEL". (Matt.15:24).
Christ told his disciples, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter not; But go, rather, to the LOST SHEEP of the HOUSE of ISRAEL". (Matt.10:5-6)

So Bro, why are you now following jesus words. Are you from the house of isreal? Cus I no understand why you quote these scriptures o.

It supports the translation to latin because
1. latin was the common language of their immediate environment.
That does not mean there will not be issues with translations as it is with English. Its a different language.
2. understanding that there were no dictionaries or google or translator, a latin speaking Bishop entering into a region where yoruba was the only language would have to find a translator(if one existed) or learn yoruba and then use the yoruba he has learnt to teach the people there. How hard do you think it would be to start learning yoruba to a level of perfection that a Latin speaking Bishop would know the exact yoruba word to use for any latin word which would convey the exact meaning the latin word had?
These same problem would occur to a bishop speaking greek.
Multiply how many languages they would have had to do that for?
Same problem with the translation of greek to Latin wound have occured in all other languages.

I'm a polyglot so i know how hard it is to learn a new language with our current technology. Imagine how hard it would be if our environment and technology was at their level.
I can imagine

So you see, using one language they were sure of was and is better than trying to compile the bible in all languages available to them then.
So that everyone who wants to read the bible in china would first have to learn how to speak Latin right?
Where they not sure of greek and hebrew, why did they now change their language to Latin?. Why did they stop using greek?

You are a christian, right? Does losing your life mean the same as losing your SOUL?
You are shifting again, shifting from how a word can be translated ,and if its trranslated right or wrong to what it means to me.
Does what it means to me affect how a word is translated or rather , how a word is translated determines what it means to me?

Already answered above.
Then I now Tell you that those word where inserted into the scriptures and should not be there!

GOOD. A god is another god or a false god. A God is the same as God. Hope you see the difference now?
Nop, God,god,GOD, mean the same thing. They are all translated from same greek word(s). But those that translated the greek word use those letterings to determing which person it is referring to. The small letters does not directly mean that such person or thing is a false god.


FIRSTLY, NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN ARGUES USING WIKIPEDIA because it is open to input by the general public and so is very inaccurate.
IM NOT AN HISTORIAN AND IM
NOT ARGUING!
It remains for you to prove that what I quoted are inacurate.
But since you brought it up. I will advise that you and any body following this thread do research from sources that Historians use and not a free for all place like Wikipedia.
I did not bring it up, you brought it up.
Wikepedia puts some of the sources of the information it posted on the same webpage.
I will advise that you and any body following this thread do research from those sources and detemine if the source is true or not.

Let us treat this issue of rome and the Catholic(which means Universal) Church/Christianity.

The Church existed before constantine was born.
Yep, the real one, even the one that later claim the state church.

Christianity was singled out for persecution because Christians believed in ONE GOD and therefore condemned all the other gods of the Romans and world in General.
True christians did that, the apostles taught so and recorded so. They even went as far as telling us who that one God is, the father, just as jesus has taught ealier.

They said that all other gods were not gods at all. This much is obvious from the Gospels and the Epistles. nop, they did not teach that.

Then Constantine (whose mother Helen found the true Cross) met with Lucinius. Remember that rome had divided and that Constantine and Lucinius were both Emperors of the two sections of the Roman empire. They met after the failure of the Great Persecution (initiated by the emperors Diocletian and Galerius in 303–304), the Christian church had begun to recover its stability. Constantine and Licinius turned their minds to matters affecting the general welfare of the Empire.

They met at Milan and came to an agreement that all romans were free to worship who they wanted and so none should be persecuted any longer. We only about this by a document from Licinius (not even Constantine). Here's what the rescript says:

“Our purpose is to grant both to the Christians and to all others full authority to follow whatever worship each person has desired, whereby whatsoever Divinity dwells in heaven may be benevolent and propitious to us, and to all who are placed under our authority. Therefore we thought it salutary and most proper to establish our purpose that no person whatever should be refused complete toleration, who has given up his mind either to the cult of the Christians or to the religion which he personally feels best suited to himself. It is our pleasure to abolish all conditions whatever which were embodied in former orders directed to your office about the Christians, that every one of those who have a common wish to follow the religion of the Christians may from this moment freely and unconditionally proceed to observe the same without any annoyance or disquiet.”
Pls provide source

So they did not establish the Church or Christianity but gave a decree to let it exist freely like other religions.
Never said they extablished the church or christianity, they established a state church!. How did he do that, by turning the already currupted church into a state apparatus or arm. And they loved it cus they now had political power.

NEXT:

Soon thereafter Christians in the Roman empire divided between Arianism (which denies the divinity of Christ) and Trinitarianism (which sees God as three persons in one being). A priest Arius started teaching heresy and said Jesus was not God(just like the JW).
A claim made by your church which the scriptures has shown as not true.
In order to be fair, the Church held a Council in Nicea in 325 AD to hear him out. (SIDE NOTE: It was in this council that Saint Nicholas punched Arius for insulting the divinty of Jesus. Now Saint Nicholas is actualy celebrated as Santa Claus because he defended the fact that right from Jesus's conception and birth He was God.)
Again you post false things .
First you refuse to tell the source of ur info( something you have been doing)
Secondly The church did not conveine the council of nicea like you are trying to imply. It was constatine that called the divided catholic church to hold a councll.

Excerps from a website.
"This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order.
He addressed letters to St.
Alexander and to Arius
deprecating these heated
controversies regarding
questions of no practical
importance, and advising the
adversaries to agree without
delay. It was evident that the
emperor did not then grasp the
significance of the Arian
controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by
Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.
The emperor himself, in very
respectful letters, begged the
bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in
convoking the Council acted
solely in his own name or in
concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement.......... The Council was opened by
Constantine with the greatest
solemnity. The emperor waited
until all the bishops had taken
their seats before making his
entry. He was clad in gold and
covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental
sovereign. A chair of gold had
been made ready for him, and
when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established.
He had opened the session as
honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the
ecclesiastical leaders of the
council......
The business of the Council
having been finished Constantine celebrated the
twentieth anniversary of his
accession to the empire, and
invited the bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of them received rich presents.
Several days later the emperor
commanded that a final session should be held, at which he assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance of peace; he
commended himself to their
prayers, and authorized the
fathers to return to their
dioceses. The greater number
hastened to take advantage of
this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

You can also check these

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/First_Council_of_Nicaea

At the council, it was agreed and proclaimed that Jesus was, is and will always be God. (Note, they was no bible yet.) From this council we get the Nicene Creed which starts with "I believe in One God...."
And there the false teaching was cemented by the chairmanship of a emperor who still worships pagan 3 in one gods.
There was no bible yet, but the scriptures where there for everyone to read. Abi was there any scripture written after then .
Shortly after he came to the Imperial throne(380 or 381AD), Theodosius made this edict which commanded everyone to be a Christian--but not just any kind of Christian because there were a lot of heresies already been spread. A Catholic Christian, it said, was one who held that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Godhead and equal in majesty. This, of course, was the position of the Nicene Creed. Theodosius' decision was the result of his upbringing: he was reared in a Christian home, perhaps the first emperor to enjoy that distinction.
And you say the church did not become a state church. Even jesus did not force anyone to follow him, but your church did!

This is the first time the legal code coerced people to become Christians.

Before then, Theodosius tried to ram through his choice for bishop of Constantinople, but the other bishops rebelled and demanded he appoint a bishop from a short list they created. It was the first of many instances in Theodosius's reign in which the church got the better of him.
He wanted to control the leaders of the church , but those guys where smarter, so the catholic church ended up controling the affairs of the government, a situation jesus warned about .

His behavior wasn't always Christian, however, as the premeditated massacre of thousands of civilians at Thessalonica in 390AD. When the city of Thessalonica rioted because a favored charioteer was imprisoned (for homosexuality). Theodosius ordered revenge: a chariot race was announced, citizens gathered in the arena, the gates were locked, and soldiers were set upon the crowd. By the end of the day, 7,000 had perished.

What he said in his edict of Thessalonica XVI, 1, 2 is:
It is our will that all the peoples whom the government of our clemency rules shall follow that religion which a pious belief from Peter to the present declares the holy Peter delivered to the Romans, and which it is evident the pontiff Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, follow; that is, that according to the apostolic discipline and evangelical doctrine we believe in the deity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost of equal majesty, in a holy trinity. Those who follow this law we command shall be comprised under the name of Catholic Christians; but others, indeed, we require, as insane and raving, to bear the infamy of heretical teaching; their gatherings shall not receive the name of churches; they are to be smitten first with the divine punishment and after that by the vengeance of our indignation, which has the divine approval.

Thus was Europe’s descent into intolerance, cruelty and control of the human conscience inflicted by a union of state and church.
Forgotten was Christ’s edict,
underlining their separation,
when He accorded the church
and the state separate arenas of influence:
Render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar’s;
and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matthew 22:21)
It was a small matter to move
from persecution of pagans to
persecution of devout Christians who opposed the increasing decline in faith and practice and the destruction of Bible doctrine among the Christian elite in Rome.

NO EMPEROR FORMED A STATE CHURCH. THEY ONLY ACCEPTED CHRISTIANITY AS THE MAIN RELIGION.
WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT NIGERIA OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY CAN DO.
Even ur post says otherwise.

"John did not retell the Gospel, he wrote his own version...."

You are contradicting yourself. Retellin a story means to tell a story again and that is what John did in His Gospel. He while retelling the Gospel decided to add some things which were not in the other ones. And everyone accepts it.

Same was done with Esther and you reject it. That is a double standard approach.

accountable:


No sir, from ur argument a catholic is one who accepts the primacy of the pope and takes his word as law wiout question. He is one who blindly accepts the teaching of the pope as infallible. One who does not bother to read the bible for himself but is spoonfed by the priest with tradition.
Jesus told us that when the holy spirit comes he will guide us into all truths. The holy spirit guides the individual believer. Not tradition. Any doctrine that contradicts scripture ought not be accepted on the bill of papal infallibility.

Lol.

A Catholic is one who accepts the authority of the Church built and sent by Jesus.

"He who rejects you rejects me and he who accepts you accepts me."

It is disgraceful to argue by saying Catholics don't read the bible. That thing don tire people to talk na. With 2 or 3 readings everyday, Catholics don't read the bible and are spoonfed with tradition. Wonder how many readings per day you want us to do.

Google Lectio Divina.

accountable:


I want to believe the second sentence a mistake. U don't equate God's holy word to a mere mortal:
*[[1Pe 1:24-25/KJV]]For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The pope is flesh and like grass will wither. But the word abides forever. Don't equate or even compare them.

Exactly. His (Peter) flesh does not make him infallible. The Holy Spirit (Which Christ said would lead them into all truth) acting on and in him makes him infallible.

So, the proper equation is : The Holy Spirit acting in, through and on The Catholic Church built by Jesus himself on Peter and the Apostles which Jesus promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against and that He would be with till the end of time > The Bible.

accountable:


Come to think of it, there was not catholic in the days of Jesus. In fact there was no denomination in the early church, and u r seeing a ' pope'. Isn't that absurd?

Ignatius of antioch (Disciple of Saint John The Apostle) wrote this about 97AD:

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.

He is the first person to call the church CATHOLIC and CATHOLIC means universal. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church does not even have a name. It was anglicans who even started calling us "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH".

accountable:


No sir, not everyone knew that. The definition even as at late as 1870 caused much discontent in the church. till date some catholics still disagree.

A 1989–1992 survey of young people of the 15 to 25 age group (81% of whom were Catholics, 84% were younger than 19, and 62% were male) chiefly from the United States, but also from Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland, found that 36.9% affirmed that, "The Pope has the authority to speak with infallibility," 36.9% (exactly the same proportion) denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know. Source wikipedia

A lot of christians still disagree with the belief that Jesus is God. That does not make Jesus not to be God. Neither does it make the belief a lie.

accountable:
The opinion of the church fathers differ regarding the interpretation of matt 16:18. Notably Augustine of hippo and john Chrysostom."On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built...St Augustine

God did not confine any important doctrine of the christian faith to a single passage of scripture. Every valid doctrine of the christian faith has at least a tripod of scripture. That is a simple principle of hermeneutic. To allow scripture to interprete scripture. Can u find other passage that agree with ur interpretation of matt 16:18. Anywhere else peter is called a foundation?. The overwhelming evidence from other scripture point to Christ as the rock and the foundation.1 Corinth 3:11, Ephesian 2:20

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On
him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very
frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said:
‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’
that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter
confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the
person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has
received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art
Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the
rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole
Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader
decide which of these two opinions is the more probable
(Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter
20.1).

Saint Augustine as a Catholic and just like the Catholic Church teaches an AND situation. The authority to bind was given to all Apostles but firstly to Peter. So they are like Peter but Peter still maintains his primacy.

You use an OR mentality. Pitching what is combined together as being opposite each other.

accountable:


Joliano's documents didn't show any reference to infallibility.they talked only about 'president' etc. And they are not scripture. Can u show me in the bible where it says that peter or any of the apostles was infallible.
what is the yardstick for truth and error? How do we know that the pope is not speaking error? by comparing his teaching with scripture. Dogma of infallibility is deceit and guise to propagate falsehood. All the apostles were willing to have their teachings scrutinised why should the pope be different?

Let us think for a moment.. If truly I have no ulterior motives, I would not ask you to believe that I am infallible. I would tell u to look to the scripture as a vindication of my doctrine because I know u will never find anything it contrary to my teaching. That is what the apostles did.

''the dogma of infallibility is neither true nor false but meaningless'' Garth Hallett..

"There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it."Brian Tierney

Both of them are catholics.

The way we know that the bible is infallible is the way we know that the Pope is infallible. They are both inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Pope doesn't ask you not to scrutinize. An enormous amount of scrutiny, study and discussion that is carried out before A Pope teaches.

A Person who is Catholic is a person who accepts the faith fully. One who chooses and picks doctrine or fights against an already defined doctrine is A PROTESTANT.