clefstone:


I bellieve u hv a bible

And your point is...?

OLAADEGBU:


And your point is...?

my point is tht u shud open ur Bible nd read Rev 12

clefstone:


my point is tht u shud open ur Bible nd read Rev 12

That is not a point, it's an advise. If you've read it go ahead and give us your point.

OLAADEGBU:


Yes, Jesus revealed His glory by performing a miracle of creation by turning water into non alcoholic wine but you cannot deny the fact that many folks have ended up drinking themselves to a state of stupor erroneously believing that Jesus sanctioned the drinking of alcohol drink and thereby losing their souls.

bros,I don't know where you got your info from but Jesus turned water into WINE not fruit juice.your novel interpretation goes against history. Drinking alcohol is not a sin,drunkeness and excessive drinking is what is sinful.
By your logic,are you saying Jesus promoted gluttony by multiplying the loaves and fish above what people required?

OLAADEGBU:


It is either your tradition is true and the bible is wrong or vice versa, there are no two ways about it.

the CC teaches 'both and' not 'either or'. 2 Thes 2:15 will give you an idea.

Ichiato:

Please, try to stay within the the topic of the argument. I was expecting you to show me how the bible condemns Mary as an intercessor not to state the above.

So, because the Bible doesn't mention Mary as an intercessor, it is right? The Bible only recognises Jesus as the only Mediator, so Mary has no place in Christian worship.

Anyway as per the above, please do not misunderstand my argument. I am not in anyway approving any addition to Gods word. My argument here is that the bible does not contain all of Gods words. God can pass messages to his people through revelation to selected persons and just because it is not in the bible does not make it wrong. Again if going by the passage you quoted above, that nothing is to be added to the scriptures, or whatever is not in the scriptures is wrong then the whole of the new testament would be fake as the books of the new testament were non existent when these scriptures carried such message. God latter had some revelations made known to the apostle and they were added to the scriptures by the early fathers which is what you now know as the new testament. Do you get my point? That the bible was silent on something does not make it wrong.

You certainly do not know the meaning of the "WORD OF GOD". The New Testament is consistent with the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, we have Israelites practising Judaism and in Judaism, High Priests make sacrifices on behalf of the people and himself. And the old Testament talks about a Messiah to come in several books. We only read about the coming and life of the Messiah in the New Testament, so the New Testament is the confirmation of the Old Testament, not an addition. The New Testament didn't teach anything new from the Old Testament. Even Jesus Himself practised Judaism all his life. Christianity as practised by the Apostles are a sect of Judaism, not as different religion. Jesus Christ has taken the place of High Priests by going into the heavenly temple, and sacrificed himself for us! He's the sole mediator between humanity and God and we do not need anybody as intercessor between us and Jesus. Jesus is our High Priest, and He's ever ready for us. As Israelites didn't need anyone as intercessor between them and the High Priest, so we do not need a Mary to intercede for us. I hope I made myself clear.
Bowing down and praying to an image against the commandments of God is enough to steer clear of it. Adding Mary Intercession in the doctrine is an addition to God's Word

Again you're here cruicifing the Catholic church for sins which she has apologized and asked for forgiveness while keeping silent on her on marthyrs who were killed by supposed Christian reformers. Where is the fairness in that? Do not suggest that after the roman empire the catholics took over. Emperor Constantine ruled in the 4th century while the Christian reformers stated in the 16th century. So which Christians did the roman Catholics kill between the 4th and the 16th century after taking over from the roman empire. Even during the 16th century reformation, catholics were also killed by the reformers for their believes. Why you choose to liken the Catholic alone to roman empire is beyond me.

The RomanCatholic-not even the Roman Empire- is responsible for killing of not less than 50million souls during the dark ages and inquisition. Go and make enquiry about catholic inquisition. Between 538 and 1798, Catholic Church killed millions with the Popes as the supervisors.

btoks:


bros,I don't know where you got your info from but Jesus turned water into WINE not fruit juice.your novel interpretation goes against history. Drinking alcohol is not a sin,drunkeness and excessive drinking is what is sinful.
By your logic,are you saying Jesus promoted gluttony by multiplying the loaves and fish above what people required?

Wherever alcohol is declared surplus you will not see or hear the name of the Lord glorified. The multiplication of loaves of bread and fish on the other hand is food that fed the hungry who were listening to the words of eternal life and we know that alcohol is not food. Jesus would not produce what would go against the glory of God.

"Thus says the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all" (Isaiah 65:8.)

As you can see in this verse, that the grace juice still in the cluster is said to be "the new wine." This cannot be the alcoholic wine that make you drunk. Jesus created the new wine to the glory of God.

btoks:
the CC teaches 'both and' not 'either or'. 2 Thes 2:15 will give you an idea.

Let us firstly find out what tradition mean:
1.The handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice:

In Theology:
(among Jews) body of laws and doctrines, or any one of them, held to have been received from Moses and originally handed down orally from generation to generation.

(among Christians) a body of teachings, or any one of them, held to have been delivered by Christ and His apostles but not originally committed to writing..

Now let's go to your reference:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle
Here the preacher was talking about the Christian tradition.Things that the apostles taught the beleivers,asking Ithem to hold fast to them by heart and by writing.
I am very happy you believe in Thess. and agree it has not been corrupted.You also admitted that the RCC make use of both the tradition and the bible. Do you make use of the traditions written in the bible or do you mean the traditions written outside the bible?. Please explain clearly.

btoks:


the CC teaches 'both and' not 'either or'. 2 Thes 2:15 will give you an idea.

Your church tradition can only be helpful if it supports the infallible Word of God. Your tradition is not infallible, even though you claim your pope is. If your tradition opposes the Word of God then it becomes an heresy that prevents you from obeying the Word of God. Listen to what Jesus Christ says about your traditions:

"Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3).

enigmaotr:

So, because the Bible doesn't mention Mary as an intercessor, it is right? The Bible only recognises Jesus as the only Mediator, so Mary has no place in Christian worship.

You're the one who believes everything has to be in the Bible, not me. So the question above is not for me.
Asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20). 

The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator

You certainly do not know the meaning of the "WORD OF GOD". The New Testament is consistent with the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, we have Israelites practising Judaism and in Judaism, High Priests make sacrifices on behalf of the people and himself. And the old Testament talks about a Messiah to come in several books. We only read about the coming and life of the Messiah in the New Testament, so the New Testament is the confirmation of the Old Testament, not an addition. The New Testament didn't teach anything new from the Old Testament. Even Jesus Himself practised Judaism all his life. Christianity as practised by the Apostles are a sect of Judaism, not as different religion. Jesus Christ has taken the place of High Priests by going into the heavenly temple, and sacrificed himself for us! He's the sole mediator between humanity and God and we do not need anybody as intercessor between us and Jesus. Jesus is our High Priest, and He's ever ready for us. As Israelites didn't need anyone as intercessor between them and the High Priest, so we do not need a Mary to intercede for us. I hope I made myself clear.
Bowing down and praying to an image against the commandments of God is enough to steer clear of it. Adding Mary Intercession in the doctrine is an addition to God's Word

The quote above nearly made me not reply you as its full of so many contradiction and misunderstanding. That the new testament was made to compliment or fulfill the old testament does not mean it wasn't an addition. The fact still remains that the new testament was non existent till it was later fulfilled and added accordingly. An addition certainly does not mean contradiction. I believe in earlier post I have given examples of images used in the worship of God. Such examples include the ark of covenant and the cherubim. There are good use of images and bad uses recorded in the bible. I have also given bible passages were apostle paul advises us to intercede for us. Intercession for one another in no way interferes with christ sole mediatorship neither does the bible contradicts the act.

The RomanCatholic-not even the Roman Empire- is responsible for killing of not less than 50million souls during the dark ages and inquisition. Go and make enquiry about catholic inquisition. Between 538 and 1798, Catholic Church killed millions with the Popes as the supervisors.

Until you explain why you chose to ignore the fact that Catholics were also killed by Christian reformers or the fact that the Catholic church had apologized for those actions or how this in any way proves the teachings of the Catholic church to be wrong, I won't be replying any post on this again.

Ichiato:

You're the one who believes everything has to be in the Bible, not me. So the question above is not for me.
Asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20). 

The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator


The quote above nearly made me not reply you as its full of so many contradiction and misunderstanding. That the new testament was made to compliment or fulfill the old testament does not mean it wasn't an addition. The fact still remains that the new testament was non existent till it was later fulfilled and added accordingly. An addition certainly does not mean contradiction. I believe in earlier post I have given examples of images used in the worship of God. Such examples include the ark of covenant and the cherubim. There are good use of images and bad uses recorded in the bible. I have also given bible passages were apostle paul advises us to intercede for us. Intercession for one another in no way interferes with christ sole mediatorship neither does the bible contradicts the act.


Until you explain why you chose to ignore the fact that Catholics were also killed by Christian reformers or the fact that the Catholic church had apologized for those actions or how this in any way proves the teachings of the Catholic church to be wrong, I won't be replying any post on this again.

Everything we need to a live pleasing to God is all in the Bible. We're talking about addition of doctrines, you're talking about addition of books into the Scripture. Does the New Testament contradict the Old Testament in its teachings and doctrines? The New Testament is not saying anything new from the Old Testament. The precepts are the same until the Catholics add Mary worship and sunday sabbath into their own doctrines. The fact still remains that both New and Old Testaments frown at image worship and commandment breaking. Catholics break the first law of God every time they bow and pray to images. That's that addition I'm talking about. The writers of New Testament made references to the Old Testament throughout their writings. Show me anywhere in the Scripture where image worship is allowed and I'd believe catholics are on track?
I can intercede for my loved ones in prayer only when I'm alive. The dead don't pray. Mary is sleeping in her grave. There are differences between sleeping and living saints. You can continue your Mary worship! I've been that road before and I've seen it all and I've made my choice to quit. Remember, all the words I write to you will be a witness against you in judgement.

Thou shall not kill? I condemn any act of murder! It is very wrong for the Reformers to kill catholics.
But do you know, this is not an excuse for killing 50 million souls before then?
It's even the catholics canon law to kill christians. According to Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii:
"Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons."
The church hasn't changed a bit. They will kill billions again when they come up with another religious law and this time, it will be the end.
I do not wish to waste more time with you any more on this topic. Peace.

enigmaotr:

Everything we need to a live pleasing to God is all in the Bible. We're talking about addition of doctrines, you're talking about addition of books into the Scripture. Does the New Testament contradict the Old Testament in its teachings and doctrines? The New Testament is not saying anything new from the Old Testament. The precepts are the same until the Catholics add Mary worship and sunday sabbath into their own doctrines. The fact still remains that both New and Old Testaments frown at image worship and commandment breaking. Catholics break the first law of God every time they bow and pray to images. That's that addition I'm talking about. The writers of New Testament made references to the Old Testament throughout their writings. Show me anywhere in the Scripture where image worship is allowed and I'd believe catholics are on track?
I can intercede for my loved ones in prayer only when I'm alive. The dead don't pray. Mary is sleeping in her grave. There are differences between sleeping and living saints. You can continue your Mary worship! I've been that road before and I've seen it all and I've made my choice to quit. Remember, all the words I write to you will be a witness against you in judgement.

Thou shall not kill? I condemn any act of murder! It is very wrong for the Reformers to kill catholics.
But do you know, this is not an excuse for killing 50 million souls before then?
It's even the catholics canon law to kill christians. According to Decreti, pars ii. causa xxiii. quaest v. can. xlvii:
"Those are not to be accounted homicides who, fired with zeal for Mother Church, may have killed excommunicated persons."
The church hasn't changed a bit. They will kill billions again when they come up with another religious law and this time, it will be the end.
I do not wish to waste more time with you any more on this topic. Peace.

I need to point out that you'll need to substantiate your claim of the CC killing 50 million people. Where did you get this figure from? While there were a number of killings during the inquisition, I'll like to know how you came about the figure of 50million. We need to be careful when we peddle certain information.

chysam:


Comrade,I argued the bible much better than you when I was still a RC.So much that my Cathecist shed tears uncontrolably when I saw the light and decided to leave in order to be salvaged.Like you now,I spent all my time learning how to twist the bible and evolve baseless reasons just to promote and defend the Maria Dogma.I pray you will someday receive this much needed understanding.

Psalm 69:5.This verse is not a confession of sin, but a protestation of innocence, He maintains that he is a sufferer, not for his sins, but for his piety.The sins of those for whom Christ died, by being imputed to him, no doubt became his in the eyes of the law, in such a sense as to make him answerable for them. But the Scriptures, be it observed, while they speak of him as "wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities," and as "bearing our sins in his own body on the tree," as if afraid to use any forms of expression which would even seem to derogate from his immaculate purity, speak of the sins of those for whom he died as his own sin. Please see Psalm 69:7 to lend credence to the above truth.

Bros, you may have been able to argue the bible more but that’s not the point. I don’t have to argue the bible, the church teachings are there and people more qualified and closer to events have already done the work. I don’t have to find novel interpretations to suit anything or learn how to twist the bible ( according to your words).
Your interpretation that 69:9 means Mary had other children holds no water as we do not have a reference to his mother’s children in the NT. Also, where historically has anyone talked about his mother’s kids. The CC looks at the whole of scripture and doesn’t just pluck verses here and there. The fact that the bible was only divided into chapters in the 13th Century by the church should give you an idea.

If I may ask, you said you saw the light, where is this light?

For the record

1 Sola scricpture is not a biblical concept but a creation of Martin luther

2.the bible writers did not observe sola scripture as many of them quoted and referred us to books outside the bible

3.the bible did not exist until the fourth century

4.the books of the bible are 73 and no 66

OLAADEGBU:


When I assert that the Scriptures are God breathed and verbally inspired you should realise that it has little or nothing to do with your church traditions. Even if you erroneously argue that the NT was compiled by your church has your church got anything to do with the Hebrew Scriptures? If your answer is yes then you should have known that All Scriptures, including the book of Revelation are verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit. The verses below shows that God is the author of the Scriptures, which excludes your man tradition:

(Deuteronomy 4:2).

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deuteronomy 12:32)

(Proverbs 30:6).

Now compare these verses with Revelation 22:18-19 and see whether the sin of blasphemy is not as serious as God says it is.

(Revelation 22:18-19).

This should warn us of the danger of adding or removing from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) by assuming or allegorising what is clearly written in the holy Scriptures. John was the last apostle to pen down the last book of the Bible and no church tradition or dogma should stand as a rival to it.

I have commented that it is the principle of ‘both and’ in the CC and not scripture against sacred tradition. You choose to deny this, that’s up to you.
So the fact that the church existed before a word of the NT was written has no value? Do you realise that the books where written to the existing church?
Are you aware that it is the church that is the foundation and Pillar of truth?
Are you aware that the church is the final arbiter as per Matthew 18:17?

OLAADEGBU:


Wherever alcohol is declared surplus you will not see or hear the name of the Lord glorified. The multiplication of loaves of bread and fish on the other hand is food that fed the hungry who were listening to the words of eternal life and we know that alcohol is not food. Jesus would not produce what would go against the glory of God.

"Thus says the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all" (Isaiah 65:8.)

As you can see in this verse, that the grace juice still in the cluster is said to be "the new wine." This cannot be the alcoholic wine that make you drunk. Jesus created the new wine to the glory of God.

It's amazing how you contradict your own source of knowledge!! - http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-water-wine.html

Your interpretation is way off the mark. Please let us know where this was taught historically. Nothing wrong with Alcohol, it is excess that is sinful.

btoks:
I need to point out that you'll need to substantiate your claim of the CC killing 50 million people. Where did you get this figure from? While there were a number of killings during the inquisition, I'll like to know how you came about the figure of 50million. We need to be careful when we peddle certain information.

I attached a file to my earlier post. You can read it. And goggle is your friend.

btoks:
Bros, you may have been able to argue the bible more but that’s not the point. I don’t have to argue the bible, the church teachings are there and people more qualified and closer to events have already done the work. I don’t have to find novel interpretations to suit anything or learn how to twist the bible ( according to your words).
Your interpretation that 69:9 means Mary had other children holds no water as we do not have a reference to his mother’s children in the NT. Also, where historically has anyone talked about his mother’s kids. The CC looks at the whole of scripture and doesn’t just pluck verses here and there. The fact that the bible was only divided into chapters in the 13th Century by the church should give you an idea.

If I may ask, you said you saw the light, where is this light?

You have now ran out of psalm right?. And now you want to open another chapter about light or no light. Don't bother about that for now so we do not digress following your unworkable tactics.
Remember that your refusal to accept the teachings of the gospel on the basis that it has been corrupted already has ruled out your Mary as even having existed at all.Are you aware of that?.So your believe in Maria is the only reason why you "MUST" believe every single word contained in the injil.it is tantamount to idiocrity for any Catholic to open his mouth and condemn the new testament scriptures because that is where her beloved Mary is.Furthermore,Mary was around when some of these books were being compiled.can you notice the folly here.Againher first encounter with the angel was strictly related to her virgin birth.I would no longer ask you where it is recorded she would be Catholics intercessor,but I would rather ask you to explain to us why the bible omitted this role which is equally as important as her giving birth to jesus since the writers as you also agree were led by the spirit in writing.Can you please tell us why the angel was missing at a time he was supposed to deliver this second message about Mary. Since you partially believe in christ,please can you also tell us why Jesus in all his teachings never for a minute advised his congregants of which Mary was part of to pray to him through he beloved mother.Remember you are very quick in telling us that even Mary advised his disciples to carry out jesus' orders.Can you please tell us why one of such orders was not to pray to him through Mary.

Those verses clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt that those men and women were jesus' step brothers and sisters.The reason is because why the jews may refer to just everybody as brother,the greeks are always specific about who they want to address.They give uncle to uncle,cousin to cousin and vice versa.In this record,the speaker meant jesus' direct blood brothers which the shared through Mary.Please check the greek version of that verse. Again and again,the speaker was expressing surprise over jesus' divine knowledge as something his blood brothers and sisters do not have.The surprise here is how come this man is mysterious when his mother,brothers and sisters aren't?. Otherwise the question would have been,"Is this not jesus?,is this not his mother Mary?,are these not his cousins?". Brothers and Sisters would have been completely eliminated. Since the catholics have falsely assigned the other children to a harlot who later became born again and had no husband even and was saved from a death sentence by the Christ, the questions could as well have been,"Is this not jesus?,is this not his mother Mary?,are those not the other Mary's children?,or are these not her sister's children?."

The bible never said anything about Mary in an honorable way after christ's birth.This is enough prove that her theory after her virgin birth is purely human evolution.Besides she was surbodinate to the apostles throughout her lifetime as she constantly followed other disciples in doing what the leaders advised.Giving birth to Jesus in no way made her immaculately born because she was a product of sex,was married,and was in a husband's home all her life.Are you aware that Jesus rated john the baptist way ahead of Mary and any creature?.Do you think christ is wrong?,and the RCC wiser than him?. Please explain to us we are waiting.
Astonishingly,the RCC .

btoks:

It's amazing how you contradict your own source of knowledge!! - http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-water-wine.html

Your interpretation is way off the mark. Please let us know where this was taught historically. Nothing wrong with Alcohol, it is excess that is sinful.

I think so much believe in human traditions has blindfolded the catholics that they no longer read the bible but rather quote it out of context even as partial christians they are.Bible did not condemn alchol drinking but advised against taking too much of it. In the OT,alchol was infact used and accepted by God in tithing. In the NT,an apostle advised a christian brother to take some due to his health condition. Let me know if you have any question.

chysam:


You have now ran out of psalm right?. And now you want to open another chapter about light or no light. Don't bother about that for now so we do not digress following your unworkable tactics.
Remember that your refusal to accept the teachings of the gospel on the basis that it has been corrupted already has ruled out your Mary as even having existed at all.Are you aware of that?.So your believe in Maria is the only reason why you "MUST" believe every single word contained in the injil.it is tantamount to idiocrity for any Catholic to open his mouth and condemn the new testament scriptures because that is where her beloved Mary is.Furthermore,Mary was around when some of these books were being compiled.can you notice the folly here.Againher first encounter with the angel was strictly related to her virgin birth.I would no longer ask you where it is recorded she would be Catholics intercessor,but I would rather ask you to explain to us why the bible omitted this role which is equally as important as her giving birth to jesus since the writers as you also agree were led by the spirit in writing.Can you please tell us why the angel was missing at a time he was supposed to deliver this second message about Mary. Since you partially believe in christ,please can you also tell us why Jesus in all his teachings never for a minute advised his congregants of which Mary was part of to pray to him through he beloved mother.Remember you are very quick in telling us that even Mary advised his disciples to carry out jesus' orders.Can you please tell us why one of such orders was not to pray to him through Mary.

Those verses clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt that those men and women were jesus' step brothers and sisters.The reason is because why the jews may refer to just everybody as brother,the greeks are always specific about who they want to address.They give uncle to uncle,cousin to cousin and vice versa.In this record,the speaker meant jesus' direct blood brothers which the shared through Mary.Please check the greek version of that verse. Again and again,the speaker was expressing surprise over jesus' divine knowledge as something his blood brothers and sisters do not have.The surprise here is how come this man is mysterious when his mother,brothers and sisters aren't?. Otherwise the question would have been,"Is this not jesus?,is this not his mother Mary?,are these not his cousins?". Brothers and Sisters would have been completely eliminated. Since the catholics have falsely assigned the other children to a harlot who later became born again and had no husband even and was saved from a death sentence by the Christ, the questions could as well have been,"Is this not jesus?,is this not his mother Mary?,are those not the other Mary's children?,or are these not her sister's children?."

The bible never said anything about Mary in an honorable way after christ's birth.This is enough prove that her theory after her virgin birth is purely human evolution.Besides she was surbodinate to the apostles throughout her lifetime as she constantly followed other disciples in doing what the leaders advised.Giving birth to Jesus in no way made her immaculately born because she was a product of sex,was married,and was in a husband's home all her life.Are you aware that Jesus rated john the baptist way ahead of Mary and any creature?.Do you think christ is wrong?,and the RCC wiser than him?. Please explain to us we are waiting.
Astonishingly,the RCC .

OK this is delusion. I mistakenly thought you'll debate genuinely and have considered responses.i choose to ignore your responses now.

chysam:


I think so much believe in human traditions has blindfolded the catholics that they no longer read the bible but rather quote it out of context even as partial christians they are.Bible did not condemn alchol drinking but advised against taking too much of it. In the OT,alchol was infact used and accepted by God in tithing. In the NT,an apostle advised a christian brother to take some due to his health condition. Let me know if you have any question.

this further proves delusion as you're stating the same things I have stated but attacking at the same time.!Dude I'll pray for you.

chysam:


I think so much believe in human traditions has blindfolded the catholics that they no longer read the bible but rather quote it out of context even as partial christians they are.Bible did not condemn alchol drinking but advised against taking too much of it. In the OT,alchol was infact used and accepted by God in tithing. In the NT,an apostle advised a christian brother to take some due to his health condition. Let me know if you have any question.

It is obvious you are the blindfolded one here, this your post should have been directed to the person totally condemning alcohol not the person who is saying same thing as you, but no! Because he is Catholic you chose to ridicule yourself in your quest to portray him as "the never say right Catholic"

SalC:
It is obvious you are the blindfolded one here, this your post should have been directed to the person totally condemning alcohol not the person who is saying same thing as you, but no! Because he is Catholic you chose to ridicule yourself in your quest to portray him as "the never say right Catholic"

I was only employing sarcasm to test your temparament which is also nothing to write home about when it comes to the issue of making Maria the 2nd God.Your ranting was my expectation.So you fell for it.
Any other question?

chysam:


I was only employing sarcasm to test your temparament which is also nothing to write home about when it comes to the issue of making Maria the 2nd God.Your ranting was my expectation.So you fell for it.
Any other question?

The earlier you tell yourself the truth, and stop clutching on straws; the better for you, that post has nothing to do with Mary. How difficult is it to admit you were wrong? Humility and truthfulness are the attributes of a good Christian.

Btw how is it your business if I choose to make Mary my second God, funny it is no longer that we worship Mary now it is "we make her 2nd God"

I know sarcasm when I see one, sorry your post is by no means sarcasm. You only wanted to claim a supreme Bible interpreter but ended up flip flopping

btoks:
this further proves delusion as you're stating the same things I have stated but attacking at the same time.!Dude I'll pray for you.

I was only employing sarcasm to test your temparament which is also nothing to write home about when it comes to the issue of making Maria the 2nd God.in any case,you are much better than the other guy ranting and displaying catholicism.in any case you passed my test. Don't pray for me but rather pray for catholics to be free and stop arguing with Jesus. Jesus says john the baptist is better than Mary,Catholics say Mary is equal to jesus.What a confused generation.Direct your prayers to the platform of wisdom and understanding of God. Please do you also have any tradition about the story of john the baptist?. We will be interested to hear it too.

SalC:
The earlier you tell yourself the truth, and stop clutching on straws; the better for you, that post has nothing to do with Mary. How difficult is it to admit you were wrong? Humility and truthfulness are the attributes of a good Christian.

Btw how is it your business if I choose to make Mary my second God, funny it is no longer that we worship Mary now it is "we make her 2nd God"

I know sarcasm when I see one, sorry your post is by no means sarcasm. You only wanted to claim a supreme Bible interpreter but ended up flip flopping

It's obvious you have not been following this thread since inception in order to understand the trend.certainly you are dabbling.FYI,it has everything to do with Mary. If only you can swallow your pride I will let you know how.Before I prove to you that Catholics make Mary a 2nd God,I want you to answer these questions for me if you can.Please don't tell me that Chinue Achebe or Shakespare say......,answer straight. Mary and Jesus who is greater?.John the baptist and Mary who is greater?

chysam:


It's obvious you have not been following this thread since inception in order to understand the trend.certainly you are dabbling.FYI,it has everything to do with Mary. If only you can swallow your pride I will let you know how.Before I prove to you that Catholics make Mary a 2nd God,I want you to answer these questions for me if you can.Please don't tell me that Chinue Achebe or Shakespare say......,answer straight. Mary and Jesus who is greater?.John the baptist and Mary who is greater?

You need to start reading and stop reading your imagination into my post, I have been following this thread from inception even before it made front page, and my post is there for all to see, I said "that post has nothing to do with Mary" not "this thread has nothing to do with Mary" so sorry it is you who need to swallow you pride and admit you directed your post to the wrong person.

And before you start diverting the issue here to save face, note that I wasn't debating you, so you even lied when you said you employed sarcasm to test my temperament. And when you said "Catholics quote scripture out of context", it is crystal clear it wasn't a Catholic who quoted the scripture as regards that but Ola, What other straw are you going to clutch on to claim sarcasm

And like I said before, how is it your business if I choose to make Mary my second God? In your other post to btoks you said we make her equal to Jesus, here you are telling me we make her our second God. You need to make up your mind bro, stop trying hard to score a point where there is non.

OLAADEGBU:


Wherever alcohol is declared surplus you will not see or hear the name of the Lord glorified. The multiplication of loaves of bread and fish on the other hand is food that fed the hungry who were listening to the words of eternal life and we know that alcohol is not food. Jesus would not produce what would go against the glory of God.

"Thus says the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one says, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all" (Isaiah 65:8.)

As you can see in this verse, that the grace juice still in the cluster is said to be "the new wine." This cannot be the alcoholic wine that make you drunk. Jesus created the new wine to the glory of God.

Sorry Oh Bt Youq www.Gotquesion.Com Said Taking Alcohol Is Nt A Sin Or Dnt u Agree With Them??

chysam:


I was only employing sarcasm to test your temparament which is also nothing to write home about when it comes to the issue of making Maria the 2nd God.in any case,you are much better than the other guy ranting and displaying catholicism.in any case you passed my test. Don't pray for me but rather pray for catholics to be free and stop arguing with Jesus. Jesus says john the baptist is better than Mary,Catholics say Mary is equal to jesus What a confused generation.Direct your prayers to the platform of wisdom and understanding of God. Please do you also have any tradition about the story of john the baptist?. We will be interested to hear it too.

We know lying lips when we see them, oh really Catholics said that? Or is it sarcasm too

btoks:


I have commented that it is the principle of ‘both and’ in the CC and not scripture against sacred tradition. You choose to deny this, that’s up to you.
So the fact that the church existed before a word of the NT was written has no value? Do you realise that the books where written to the existing church?
Are you aware that it is the church that is the foundation and Pillar of truth?
Are you aware that the church is the final arbiter as per Matthew 18:17?

The oral tradition Paul talked about is the same thing as what is written in Scriptures. Holy men of God were used to pen down the Scriptures and apostle John was the last apostle who wrote the last book. After this there is no more revelation, all else are illumination on what God has written in the 66 books by the prophets and apostles. If your church tradition contradicts or adds to what is written in the oracle of God that would mean that it should be discarded otherwise you will be placing yourself under a curse as stated in Scriptures.

btoks:


It's amazing how you contradict your own source of knowledge!! - http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-water-wine.html

Your interpretation is way off the mark. Please let us know where this was taught historically. Nothing wrong with Alcohol, it is excess that is sinful.

I agree to disagree with them on this point. The Scriptures cannot be broken.

vest:


Sorry Oh Bt Youq www.Gotquesion.Com Said Taking Alcohol Is Nt A Sin Or Dnt u Agree With Them??

I agree to disagree with them here. The article below articulates my position on this subject:

The Very Good Wine

"When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, . . . [he] called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now" (John 2:9-10)

The Lord Jesus performed many miracles during His brief ministry on Earth, and it seems rather surprising that the beginning of miracles (John 2:11) in His earthly ministry was to transform water into wine at a wedding feast in Galilee. It was quite a large amount of wine--six large waterpots full, "containing two or three firkins apiece" (John 2:6). Since a firkin is about ten gallons, Jesus created approximately 150 gallons of wine to give to a group of celebrants who already had "well drunk" (John 2:10),--that is, literally, were drunk.

But would Jesus really do something to increase the intoxication of a crowd of people who were already drunk? Would He really disregard such Scriptures as Habakkuk 2:15. "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, . . . and makest him drunken also, . . ." (among many others). He Himself had rebuked drunkenness (e.g., Luke 21:34), so this would be completely out of character.

But wine never becomes intoxicating until the decay process of fermentation has done its work. The wine He created was probably the same as "the fruit of the vine" that we shall drink "new" with Him in His "Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26:29). The Greek word oinos can apply either to the decayed, fermented liquid that intoxicates or to the healthful juice fresh off the grape vine, depending on context. And this wine He made was good wine, just as everything He had created was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) in that ultimate beginning of miracles when first He "created all things" (Revelation 4:11). HMM

For more . . . .