test

Wow.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I would be out for the day, and so it took a while to make my way through the posts written since my last.

The emotions evident are strong, and I can't help but wonder how effective the message sent was in actually getting through. It's no surprise in a way, since the Church in Rome and the Protestants have been at odds for a long time now, sometimes to the point of great violence. It concerns me that the Gospel is easily missed when arguments get noisy.

It's with that in mind that I consider Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan. A lot of people see the compassion of the protagonist in that story, and sometimes miss some of the subtler messages. It may help to be reminded about who the Samaritans were in the perspective of a Jewish rabbit such as Jesus.

From classroom.synonym.com:

"In the 10th century B.C., following the death of King Solomon, civil strife broke Israel in two, with Samaria the capital of the new northern kingdom. But an Assyrian invasion destroyed the north, exiling thousands. Those left behind were cut off from Jerusalem, capital of the south and home of Solomon's Temple, center of the Hebrew religion. In the 8th century B.C., the south suffered a Babylonian invasion and its own exile. This time, the exiles returned and rebuilt their destroyed Temple. To the returning Jews, Samaritans were outcasts. They spurned a Samaritan's offer to help with the Temple. The Samaritans retaliated by attempting to prevent construction of the Temple. The rift between the groups became irreparable."

"Unlike Jews, Samaritans have only one prophet, Moses. The later prophets created a revolution within Judaism the Samaritans reject. They built their Temple on Mount Gerizim, spiritual center of the Samaritan religion. Abraham's binding of Isaac and Jacob's dream of heaven took place on Gerizim, not Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, according to Samaritans, who also dismiss rabbinical interpretation of the Torah. The Mishnah and Talmud are also out. "

"Samaritans characterized Judaism as a false religion whose leaders practiced sorcery and stole the Ark of the Covenant from Mount Gerizim. So deep was Samaritan revulsion at the Jewish Temple that they once defiled it with human bones just before Passover. Jews had such disdain for Samaritans that they branded them gentiles, a label that remains to the present day."

Samaritans vs. Jewish Beliefs - Synonym

From this account, the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans tells us how we might avoid the same conflict when Catholics and Protestants debate the Gospel.

I find it telling that Jesus made a point of naming the compassionate man 'Samaritan', just as he was clear is praising the faith of the Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:10), and clearly said "many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 8:11)

While Christians often interpret that passage to reflect the broad reach of the Christian faith, it also warns us against imagining that we are secure just because we hold with good doctrine. The Bible has many stories of people who fell away into disaster, and indeed Jesus warned in Matthew 8:12 that "the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". This hardly means that Christ despised His own kingdom, but warned that arrogance and being too sure of ones self is a path to destruction.

It is for this reason, I believe, that we are cautioned to "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," (Philippians 2:12).


Thanks for reading.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

---

So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.

---

God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.

---

Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.

---

Definitely not.

These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

---

So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.

---

God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.

---

Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.

---

Definitely not.

These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.

---

"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.

The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.

Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wow.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I would be out for the day, and so it took a while to make my way through the posts written since my last.

The emotions evident are strong, and I can't help but wonder how effective the message sent was in actually getting through. It's no surprise in a way, since the Church in Rome and the Protestants have been at odds for a long time now, sometimes to the point of great violence. It concerns me that the Gospel is easily missed when arguments get noisy.

It's with that in mind that I consider Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan. A lot of people see the compassion of the protagonist in that story, and sometimes miss some of the subtler messages. It may help to be reminded about who the Samaritans were in the perspective of a Jewish rabbit such as Jesus.

From classroom.synonym.com:

"In the 10th century B.C., following the death of King Solomon, civil strife broke Israel in two, with Samaria the capital of the new northern kingdom. But an Assyrian invasion destroyed the north, exiling thousands. Those left behind were cut off from Jerusalem, capital of the south and home of Solomon's Temple, center of the Hebrew religion. In the 8th century B.C., the south suffered a Babylonian invasion and its own exile. This time, the exiles returned and rebuilt their destroyed Temple. To the returning Jews, Samaritans were outcasts. They spurned a Samaritan's offer to help with the Temple. The Samaritans retaliated by attempting to prevent construction of the Temple. The rift between the groups became irreparable."

"Unlike Jews, Samaritans have only one prophet, Moses. The later prophets created a revolution within Judaism the Samaritans reject. They built their Temple on Mount Gerizim, spiritual center of the Samaritan religion. Abraham's binding of Isaac and Jacob's dream of heaven took place on Gerizim, not Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, according to Samaritans, who also dismiss rabbinical interpretation of the Torah. The Mishnah and Talmud are also out. "

"Samaritans characterized Judaism as a false religion whose leaders practiced sorcery and stole the Ark of the Covenant from Mount Gerizim. So deep was Samaritan revulsion at the Jewish Temple that they once defiled it with human bones just before Passover. Jews had such disdain for Samaritans that they branded them gentiles, a label that remains to the present day."

Samaritans vs. Jewish Beliefs - Synonym

From this account, the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans tells us how we might avoid the same conflict when Catholics and Protestants debate the Gospel.

I find it telling that Jesus made a point of naming the compassionate man 'Samaritan', just as he was clear is praising the faith of the Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:10), and clearly said "many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 8:11)

While Christians often interpret that passage to reflect the broad reach of the Christian faith, it also warns us against imagining that we are secure just because we hold with good doctrine. The Bible has many stories of people who fell away into disaster, and indeed Jesus warned in Matthew 8:12 that "the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". This hardly means that Christ despised His own kingdom, but warned that arrogance and being too sure of ones self is a path to destruction.

It is for this reason, I believe, that we are cautioned to "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," (Philippians 2:12).


Thanks for reading.

---

It's really easy to sideline quarterback and not take the hits. Now get in the game - what do you think about those prayers to Mary that I posted? Do you think it's wrong for believers to pray them, and believe what they say? If so, why?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wow.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I would be out for the day, and so it took a while to make my way through the posts written since my last.

The emotions evident are strong, and I can't help but wonder how effective the message sent was in actually getting through. It's no surprise in a way, since the Church in Rome and the Protestants have been at odds for a long time now, sometimes to the point of great violence. It concerns me that the Gospel is easily missed when arguments get noisy.

It's with that in mind that I consider Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan. A lot of people see the compassion of the protagonist in that story, and sometimes miss some of the subtler messages. It may help to be reminded about who the Samaritans were in the perspective of a Jewish rabbit such as Jesus.

From classroom.synonym.com:

"In the 10th century B.C., following the death of King Solomon, civil strife broke Israel in two, with Samaria the capital of the new northern kingdom. But an Assyrian invasion destroyed the north, exiling thousands. Those left behind were cut off from Jerusalem, capital of the south and home of Solomon's Temple, center of the Hebrew religion. In the 8th century B.C., the south suffered a Babylonian invasion and its own exile. This time, the exiles returned and rebuilt their destroyed Temple. To the returning Jews, Samaritans were outcasts. They spurned a Samaritan's offer to help with the Temple. The Samaritans retaliated by attempting to prevent construction of the Temple. The rift between the groups became irreparable."

"Unlike Jews, Samaritans have only one prophet, Moses. The later prophets created a revolution within Judaism the Samaritans reject. They built their Temple on Mount Gerizim, spiritual center of the Samaritan religion. Abraham's binding of Isaac and Jacob's dream of heaven took place on Gerizim, not Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, according to Samaritans, who also dismiss rabbinical interpretation of the Torah. The Mishnah and Talmud are also out. "

"Samaritans characterized Judaism as a false religion whose leaders practiced sorcery and stole the Ark of the Covenant from Mount Gerizim. So deep was Samaritan revulsion at the Jewish Temple that they once defiled it with human bones just before Passover. Jews had such disdain for Samaritans that they branded them gentiles, a label that remains to the present day."

Samaritans vs. Jewish Beliefs - Synonym

From this account, the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans tells us how we might avoid the same conflict when Catholics and Protestants debate the Gospel.

I find it telling that Jesus made a point of naming the compassionate man 'Samaritan', just as he was clear is praising the faith of the Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:10), and clearly said "many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 8:11)

While Christians often interpret that passage to reflect the broad reach of the Christian faith, it also warns us against imagining that we are secure just because we hold with good doctrine. The Bible has many stories of people who fell away into disaster, and indeed Jesus warned in Matthew 8:12 that "the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". This hardly means that Christ despised His own kingdom, but warned that arrogance and being too sure of ones self is a path to destruction.

It is for this reason, I believe, that we are cautioned to "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," (Philippians 2:12).


Thanks for reading.

---

It's really easy to sideline quarterback and not take the hits. Now get in the game - what do you think about those prayers to Mary that I posted? Do you think it's wrong for believers to pray them, and believe what they say? If so, why?

---

** sigh **

You are still ignoring the point.

Do you really think Sam, Curtpenn or Coke Bear are going to roll over and say 'yes, you were right and we are wrong'?

And do you really believe these men are going to hell?

Let's start there, please.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Wow.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I would be out for the day, and so it took a while to make my way through the posts written since my last.

The emotions evident are strong, and I can't help but wonder how effective the message sent was in actually getting through. It's no surprise in a way, since the Church in Rome and the Protestants have been at odds for a long time now, sometimes to the point of great violence. It concerns me that the Gospel is easily missed when arguments get noisy.

It's with that in mind that I consider Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan. A lot of people see the compassion of the protagonist in that story, and sometimes miss some of the subtler messages. It may help to be reminded about who the Samaritans were in the perspective of a Jewish rabbit such as Jesus.

From classroom.synonym.com:

"In the 10th century B.C., following the death of King Solomon, civil strife broke Israel in two, with Samaria the capital of the new northern kingdom. But an Assyrian invasion destroyed the north, exiling thousands. Those left behind were cut off from Jerusalem, capital of the south and home of Solomon's Temple, center of the Hebrew religion. In the 8th century B.C., the south suffered a Babylonian invasion and its own exile. This time, the exiles returned and rebuilt their destroyed Temple. To the returning Jews, Samaritans were outcasts. They spurned a Samaritan's offer to help with the Temple. The Samaritans retaliated by attempting to prevent construction of the Temple. The rift between the groups became irreparable."

"Unlike Jews, Samaritans have only one prophet, Moses. The later prophets created a revolution within Judaism the Samaritans reject. They built their Temple on Mount Gerizim, spiritual center of the Samaritan religion. Abraham's binding of Isaac and Jacob's dream of heaven took place on Gerizim, not Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, according to Samaritans, who also dismiss rabbinical interpretation of the Torah. The Mishnah and Talmud are also out. "

"Samaritans characterized Judaism as a false religion whose leaders practiced sorcery and stole the Ark of the Covenant from Mount Gerizim. So deep was Samaritan revulsion at the Jewish Temple that they once defiled it with human bones just before Passover. Jews had such disdain for Samaritans that they branded them gentiles, a label that remains to the present day."

Samaritans vs. Jewish Beliefs - Synonym

From this account, the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans tells us how we might avoid the same conflict when Catholics and Protestants debate the Gospel.

I find it telling that Jesus made a point of naming the compassionate man 'Samaritan', just as he was clear is praising the faith of the Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:10), and clearly said "many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 8:11)

While Christians often interpret that passage to reflect the broad reach of the Christian faith, it also warns us against imagining that we are secure just because we hold with good doctrine. The Bible has many stories of people who fell away into disaster, and indeed Jesus warned in Matthew 8:12 that "the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". This hardly means that Christ despised His own kingdom, but warned that arrogance and being too sure of ones self is a path to destruction.

It is for this reason, I believe, that we are cautioned to "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," (Philippians 2:12).


Thanks for reading.

---

It's really easy to sideline quarterback and not take the hits. Now get in the game - what do you think about those prayers to Mary that I posted? Do you think it's wrong for believers to pray them, and believe what they say? If so, why?

---

** sigh **

You are still ignoring the point.

Do you really think Sam, Curtpenn or Coke Bear are going to roll over and say 'yes, you were right and we are wrong'?

And do you really believe these men are going to hell?

Let's start there, please.

---

It doesn't matter what I think they'll do. I'm only going to tell them the truth. What they do with that, is up to them.

And it's not for me to say whether they're going to hell. That will depend on their heart towards God, and none of us know that except them and God. But what I do know to be true, I say.

Now you. You tell us what you believe to be true: do you think it's wrong for believers to pray those prayers to Mary that I posted, and to believe what's in them? If so, why?

And before you tell me about my own faults and flaws, I will say plainly that I probably have done more wrong and less good than most of the people here.

But Jesus saved me anyway, out of love.

I see a lot of well-intentioned Christians get into useless bickering with other people, and Pride shows up before very long and good people act like asses.

And again, I include myself in that indictment. I get tired and pop off a comment that serves no good and only makes someone mad. We all would do better to take time to think what someone is trying to say, rather than shoot off a response as soon as we can.

We can and should be the people we want others to think we are.

Thanks for your patience.

BTD: "You tell us what you believe to be true: do you think it's wrong for believers to pray those prayers to Mary that I posted, and to believe what's in them? If so, why?"

My prior posts in this thread have already answered that, but I will say it again.

I understand the desire for Catholics to seek exemplars of faith, devotion, and piety they can point to as illumination for how Jesus wants us to live. But I am deeply uncomfortable with the prayers directed to Mary, and what seems to be a de facto deputization of Mary as gatekeeper to Christ.

Some of that, of course, comes from years of learning Southern Baptist doctrine. So I am aware that I have some bias here. But I have studied other faiths over the years, including Islam, Buddhism and Taoism. One thing I have seen over and over, is how humans can convince themselves to ignore errors if they like them,

Frankly, a plain reading of the Gospel accounts gives a lot more support to Mary Magdelene as a leader of the early church, rather than Mary Jesus' Mom as the woman we should most learn from.

It was Mary Magdelene who first learned from angels that Jesus had risen. It was Mary Magdelene who sat at the feet of Christ and learned along with the men called HIs disciples. It was Mary Magdelene who most often seems to have been there when Christ spoke of mercy and acted so.

And yet the Rome Church created a Patriarchy of leadership, relegating Mary Magdelene to the bench while using the Mother of Christ as a kind of mascot.

Uncomfortably similar to Isis worship in Egypt, or the worship of Hera in Rome.

But to the main point, I don't pray to Mary the Mother of Christ, not only because I never met the woman, so that asking her for help would be strange indeed, but also because I do not believe the dead act with the living in the way we can act towards and with other living people. Praying to a 'Saint' smacks of a spiritual Ouija board.

I do not mean that as disrespect to my Roman Catholic Church friends, but that is how I see it.

I certainly agree that we should also be careful to check our own assumptions. I grew up when the Baptist Church saw dancing and drinking as sinful, even though the Bible has many passages which show both can be good things, pleasing to God.

In the end, I believe we are mistaken in much that we argue about, but also that God is patient and forgiving, so long as we are also patient and forgiving.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BTD: "You tell us what you believe to be true: do you think it's wrong for believers to pray those prayers to Mary that I posted, and to believe what's in them? If so, why?"

My prior posts in this thread have already answered that, but I will say it again.

I understand the desire for Catholics to seek exemplars of faith, devotion, and piety they can point to as illumination for how Jesus wants us to live. But I am deeply uncomfortable with the prayers directed to Mary, and what seems to be a de facto deputization of Mary as gatekeeper to Christ.

Some of that, of course, comes from years of learning Southern Baptist doctrine. So I am aware that I have some bias here. But I have studied other faiths over the years, including Islam, Buddhism and Taoism. One thing I have seen over and over, is how humans can convince themselves to ignore errors if they like them,

Frankly, a plain reading of the Gospel accounts gives a lot more support to Mary Magdelene as a leader of the early church, rather than Mary Jesus' Mom as the woman we should most learn from.

It was Mary Magdelene who first learned from angels that Jesus had risen. It was Mary Magdelene who sat at the feet of Christ and learned along with the men called HIs disciples. It was Mary Magdelene who most often seems to have been there when Christ spoke of mercy and acted so.

And yet the Rome Church created a Patriarchy of leadership, relegating Mary Magdelene to the bench while using the Mother of Christ as a kind of mascot.

Uncomfortably similar to Isis worship in Egypt, or the worship of Hera in Rome.

But to the main point, I don't pray to Mary the Mother of Christ, not only because I never met the woman, so that asking her for help would be strange indeed, but also because I do not believe the dead act with the living in the way we can act towards and with other living people. Praying to a 'Saint' smacks of a spiritual Ouija board.

I do not mean that as disrespect to my Roman Catholic Church friends, but that is how I see it.

I certainly agree that we should also be careful to check our own assumptions. I grew up when the Baptist Church saw dancing and drinking as sinful, even though the Bible has many passages which show both can be good things, pleasing to God.

In the end, I believe we are mistaken in much that we argue about, but also that God is patient and forgiving, so long as we are also patient and forgiving.

---

I asked specifically about those prayers I posted. Do you believe they do more than just "deputize" Mary as a "gateway to Christ"? Do you believe they elevate Mary to the level of Jesus, or even close enough to Jesus, to where it becomes heretical and idolatrous?

Please focus your answer to the question asked. Extraneous tangents like Mary Magdelene is not at issue here.

I refer you back to my 434 pm post, specifically the last two sentences.

Thanks.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I refer you back to my 434 pm post, specifically the last two sentences.

Thanks.

---

How did I know that you would not answer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I refer you back to my 434 pm post, specifically the last two sentences.

Thanks.

---

How did I know that you would not answer.

---

Of course I answered.

You want to hear only the words you like? Go buy a dummy and learn to throw your voice.

By the way, I don't do interrogations. I respond to polite people, even when I disagree with them, like Coke Bear.

You could learn from him, but we both know you won't even try.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I refer you back to my 434 pm post, specifically the last two sentences.

Thanks.

---

How did I know that you would not answer.

---

Of course I answered.

You want to hear only the words you like? Go buy a dummy and learn to throw your voice.

By the way, I don't do interrogations. I respond to polite people, even when I disagree with them, like Coke Bear.

You could learn from him, but we both know you won't even try.

---

No, you didn't answer. I'll repeat - I asked specifically about those prayers to Mary that I posted. Do you think they elevate Mary to Jesus? Is that heretical and idolatrous?

This isn't an interrogation. You need to stop mischaracterizing things. You are very easy to set off. I've asked politely from you. When you didn't answer the specific question asked, I asked again. If you don't want to answer it, just say you don't want to answer it. That's better than attacking the questioner.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I refer you back to my 434 pm post, specifically the last two sentences.

Thanks.

---

How did I know that you would not answer.

---

Of course I answered.

You want to hear only the words you like? Go buy a dummy and learn to throw your voice.

By the way, I don't do interrogations. I respond to polite people, even when I disagree with them, like Coke Bear.

You could learn from him, but we both know you won't even try.

---

No, you didn't answer. I'll repeat - I asked specifically about those prayers to Mary that I posted. Do you think they elevate Mary to Jesus? Is that heretical and idolatrous?

This isn't an interrogation. You need to stop mischaracterizing things. You are very easy to set off. I've asked politely from you. When you didn't answer the specific question asked, I asked again. If you don't want to answer it, just say you don't want to answer it. That's better than attacking the questioner.

---

When you demand I answer using specific words or positions, then ignore whatever I write, yes son you are trying to interrogate.

You do that a lot.

This is a forum, not your personal site.

I have answered on topic, and explained my answers. You have fallen back on personal attacks, yet again.


You can be part of the conversation, or you can continue to act like this.

And I don't care if you keep blaming me for your arguments and unwillingness to understand the point. You saying it does not make it true, anymore than bullying our Catholic friends is going to change their mind one bit.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I refer you back to my 434 pm post, specifically the last two sentences.

Thanks.

---

How did I know that you would not answer.

---

Of course I answered.

You want to hear only the words you like? Go buy a dummy and learn to throw your voice.

By the way, I don't do interrogations. I respond to polite people, even when I disagree with them, like Coke Bear.

You could learn from him, but we both know you won't even try.

---

No, you didn't answer. I'll repeat - I asked specifically about those prayers to Mary that I posted. Do you think they elevate Mary to Jesus? Is that heretical and idolatrous?

This isn't an interrogation. You need to stop mischaracterizing things. You are very easy to set off. I've asked politely from you. When you didn't answer the specific question asked, I asked again. If you don't want to answer it, just say you don't want to answer it. That's better than attacking the questioner.

---

When you demand I answer using specific words or positions, then ignore whatever I write, yes son you are trying to interrogate.

You do that a lot.

This is a forum, not your personal site.

I have answered on topic, and explained my answers. You have fallen back on personal attacks, yet again.


You can be part of the conversation, or you can continue to act like this.

And I don't care if you keep blaming me for your arguments and unwillingness to understand the point. You saying it does not make it true, anymore than bullying our Catholic friends is going to change their mind one bit.

---

WHERE am I demanding specific words or positions?? I'm asking for YOUR position, using YOUR words. And you have yet to do that. You have only answered about prayers to Mary in general, i.e. that it "bothers you", that it's "strange" because you don't know her, and that it's like using a "ouija board". You've spent about four comments now complaining about how I'm supposedly acting, when you could have just answered the question, or just say that you don't want to answer it!

Now read carefully as to what I'm asking - I'll ask it politely again: do you think those prayers to Mary I posted elevate Mary to the level of Jesus, and is that heretical and idolatrous?

You ignore what I write, except for what you mock.

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ in that?

I hope Coke Bear or Curtpenn writes again in this thread. I am curious to read their thoughts on this matter.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You ignore what I write, except for what you mock.

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ in that?

---

Attempt #4:

Do you think those prayers to Mary I posted elevate Mary to the level of Jesus, and is that heretical and idolatrous?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You ignore what I write, except for what you mock.

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ in that?

---

Attempt #4:

Do you think those prayers to Mary I posted elevate Mary to the level of Jesus, and is that heretical and idolatrous?

---

Back to trying to play interrogator again, I see.

It's good to see such lively discussion here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Where do Catholics get this belief that Peter had primacy over the other apostles and Jesus' Church? Nowhere in the bible does it say this.

---

I don't have a great deal of time to deal with all of these throughouly because I need to wake up and do a training ride tomorrow before it gets to hot. Peter is mentioned 191 times in the Bible. John is only mentioned like 48 times. Peter is mention more than all the other apostles put together.
In Matt 16:16 confesses Christ's divinity
In Matt 16:17 he received divine knowledge by special revelation.
In Math 16:18 calls him the rock upon which he will build His Church.
In Matt 1:19 Gives him the Keys to the Kingdom - more in another post.
In Matt 18:18 gives him binding and loosening FIRST.
When listed, he is always first -Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13
In Matt 10:2 he call him "the first"
Only Peter gets a new name.
In Luke 22:32 Jesus says, "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." This was a singular prayer by Jesus for him.
In Lk 24:12; Jn 20 Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb
In Acts 1:15-22 Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
In Acts 14-36 Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era
In Acts 3:6-12 Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man
In Acts 5:2-11Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
In Acts 5:15 Peter's shadow works miracles
In Acts 9:40 Peter is the first to raise the dead after Christ arose

I've got several more for you if you'd like.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The same "binding and loosing" authority that Peter is supposedly given in Matthew 16 is also given to all the apostles in chapter 18.

---

I'll deal with this one when I'm not so tired.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the brother of Jesus is the one who has the final say.

---

Please note that it is Peter who speaks first here and what does he say, ""But we believe that ..." he is speaking for all. And when his finished it says, "And all the assembly kept silence…"

James affirms Peter's authority in saying, "My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has [declared] how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name…" He is giving credence to Peter's authority.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In his letters, Paul writes that he had to correct Peter because Peter was wrong, thus indicating that Paul was at least equal to Peter.

---

No Peter was NOT wrong. He was not acting properly. He should have dined with them. Paul is NOT equal to Peter. Paul rebuked Peter for not doing what he should. Just like Catherine of Sienna rebuke the Pope for note return to the Vatican.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even in his own epistles (1, 2 Peter) Peter doesn't indicate a primacy role.

---

SO he has to say that he's the man or he isn't the man? Not much humility in that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And in the book of Revelation, Jesus sends his message to the leaders of seven churches through John the apostle, who was exiled on the island of Patmos. Peter, or his "apostolic successor", isn't even involved.

---

I'm not sure if you are aware of your Bible timeline Peter was martyred around 64 AD. John wrote Revelation somewhere between 90-100 AD.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I hope Coke Bear or Curtpenn writes again in this thread. I am curious to read their thoughts on this matter.

---

I've been super busy with work and a few personal things lately. I'm trying to get to these. I will.

Oldbear83 said:

---

But to the main point, I don't pray to Mary the Mother of Christ, not only because I never met the woman, so that asking her for help would be strange indeed, but also because I do not believe the dead act with the living in the way we can act towards and with other living people. Praying to a 'Saint' smacks of a spiritual Ouija board.

I do not mean that as disrespect to my Roman Catholic Church friends, but that is how I see it.

I certainly agree that we should also be careful to check our own assumptions. I grew up when the Baptist Church saw dancing and drinking as sinful, even though the Bible has many passages which show both can be good things, pleasing to God.

In the end, I believe we are mistaken in much that we argue about, but also that God is patient and forgiving, so long as we are also patient and forgiving.

---

I certainly understand your concern here especially in light of Deuteronomy 18:9-12. But let's look quickly at the differences are:

When an idiot (not sorry for being harsh, but it's extremely unwise to use do this) uses an Ouija board, they are attempting to contact a spirit for information or special knowledge. Often times when people do contact something, it is a demon. I'm not ever missing with that.

When a person prays to a person in heaven or let me put it another way... when a person ask for the intercession of someone in heaven, they are asking that person (saint - anyone or being in heaven) to pray or intercede for them. We are NOT asking to know the future or for secret knowledge.

Please note that the saint are ALIVE in heaven. They are WAY more alive than we are. They are enjoying the beatific vision.

Mk 12:27 - "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living ...'

Daily I ask for many different patron saint to intercede for me, my family, and or my community. Some of them that I implore are:

St. Monica - patron saint of Mother's whose children who left Christianity (mother of Saint Augustine)
St. Peregrine - patron saint of cancer patients
St. Joseph the worker - patron saint of workers
St. Joseph (again) - patron saint of fathers
St. Dymphna - patron saint of Stress, Anxiety and Mental Health
St Sebastian - patron saint of athletes and umpires/referees
St. Jude - patron saint of the impossible
I daily thank my Guardian angel for keeping me safe with all the stupid stuff that I do.

Of course when I'm pushing at the end of a hard work out, I say or repeat Phil 4:13
When I'm on ride on the open roads I always ask the Blessed Mother to watch over me and keep me safe.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You ignore what I write, except for what you mock.

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ in that?

---

Attempt #4:

Do you think those prayers to Mary I posted elevate Mary to the level of Jesus, and is that heretical and idolatrous?

---

Back to trying to play interrogator again, I see

---

Can it really be an "interrogation" if I can't even get one question answered?

The good thing is, you've got the apostle Peter beat - you failed to defend Jesus from Mary idolatry, thus denying him, FOUR times!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Where do Catholics get this belief that Peter had primacy over the other apostles and Jesus' Church? Nowhere in the bible does it say this.

---

I don't have a great deal of time to deal with all of these throughouly because I need to wake up and do a training ride tomorrow before it gets to hot. Peter is mentioned 191 times in the Bible. John is only mentioned like 48 times. Peter is mention more than all the other apostles put together.
In Matt 16:16 confesses Christ's divinity
In Matt 16:17 he received divine knowledge by special revelation.
In Math 16:18 calls him the rock upon which he will build His Church.
In Matt 1:19 Gives him the Keys to the Kingdom - more in another post.
In Matt 18:18 gives him binding and loosening FIRST.
When listed, he is always first -Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13
In Matt 10:2 he call him "the first"
Only Peter gets a new name.
In Luke 22:32 Jesus says, "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." This was a singular prayer by Jesus for him.
In Lk 24:12; Jn 20 Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb
In Acts 1:15-22 Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
In Acts 14-36 Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era
In Acts 3:6-12 Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man
In Acts 5:2-11Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
In Acts 5:15 Peter's shadow works miracles
In Acts 9:40 Peter is the first to raise the dead after Christ arose

I've got several more for you if you'd like.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The same "binding and loosing" authority that Peter is supposedly given in Matthew 16 is also given to all the apostles in chapter 18.

---

I'll deal with this one when I'm not so tired.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the brother of Jesus is the one who has the final say.

---

Please note that it is Peter who speaks first here and what does he say, ""But we believe that ..." he is speaking for all. And when his finished it says, "And all the assembly kept silence…"

James affirms Peter's authority in saying, "My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has [declared] how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name…" He is giving credence to Peter's authority.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In his letters, Paul writes that he had to correct Peter because Peter was wrong, thus indicating that Paul was at least equal to Peter.

---

No Peter was NOT wrong. He was not acting properly. He should have dined with them. Paul is NOT equal to Peter. Paul rebuked Peter for not doing what he should. Just like Catherine of Sienna rebuke the Pope for note return to the Vatican.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even in his own epistles (1, 2 Peter) Peter doesn't indicate a primacy role.

---

SO he has to say that he's the man or he isn't the man? Not much humility in that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And in the book of Revelation, Jesus sends his message to the leaders of seven churches through John the apostle, who was exiled on the island of Patmos. Peter, or his "apostolic successor", isn't even involved.

---

I'm not sure if you are aware of your Bible timeline Peter was martyred around 64 AD. John wrote Revelation somewhere between 90-100 AD.

---

All the verses you mentioned still do not name Peter in a primacy role over the other disciples or the church. The meaning of the "rock" in Matthew 16 upon which Jesus would build his church just isn't that clear. It could mean Peter, but not as the ruling authority over the church, but only insofar as Peter's apostleship being used to build the foundation of the church, Jesus being the cornerstone: "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone," Ephesians 2:20. Jesus would be the ruling authority over his church, not a named apostle. This is in agreement with Jesus in Revelation holding in his right hand the stars, which represented the angels of the churches.


And how does "all fell silent" mean Peter was the leader? Maybe they were just convicted by what Peter said? Or, maybe they were silent because Paul and Barnabus was about to speak? "And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles." (ESV) The NIV has it as "The whole assembly became silent AS they listened to Barnabas and Paul".

You: "James affirms Peter's authority in saying, "My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has [declared] how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name…" He is giving credence to Peter's authority". Why did you bracket "declare"? Is this your own edit/translation? It seems like a big reach to say that just because Peter "declared" something in the assembly, it means he's the leader. It just means he said something. Other translations only say he "said" or "told us". The ESV version says that Simeon (Peter) "related how God first visited the Gentiles". Guess where it also says "related"? When Paul and Barnabus speak - "and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done". It uses the exact same word for when Paul and Barnabus speaks. So this doesn't seem to be indicating Peter's primacy.

And in the end, it was James who rendered the final decision: ""Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name....Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them......" And that's what they did, they followed James' judgement and they wrote letters.

The fact remains that in Peter's own epistles, you do not have any evidence of his primacy.

And did you not see in my comment about the churches in Revelation - "Peter, or his "apostolic successor..." Why isn't Peter's successor involved, then? Why didn't Jesus go through him, instead of the exiled apostle John? And also, how many stars were being held in Jesus' hands, the stars which represented the "angels of the churches" to whom the letters were being addressed? There were SEVEN. If there was only one church authority with one leader over all, why doesn't Jesus only have ONE star in his right hand, and go through the "Pope" for his ONE message, instead of having seven individually tailored messages to seven different "angels" who were head over seven distinct churches?

This just isn't a good case for the primacy of Peter and the institution of the papacy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

---

So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.

---

God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.

---

Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.

---

Definitely not.

These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.

---

"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.

The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.

Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?

---

No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:

1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You ignore what I write, except for what you mock.

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ in that?

---

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ by your being afraid to speak the truth to those who need to hear it?

Oldbear83 said:

---

I hope Coke Bear or Curtpenn writes again in this thread. I am curious to read their thoughts on this matter.

---

I have good intentions except real life has gotten in the way. Busy day yesterday and working up a new batch of sausage this weekend. 16 lbs of pork and brisket ground up, seasoned and mixed now in the fridge. Taking a break now. Trying to decide whether or not to stuff today or leave that for tomorrow when it will go in the smoker.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

But to the main point, I don't pray to Mary the Mother of Christ, not only because I never met the woman, so that asking her for help would be strange indeed, but also because I do not believe the dead act with the living in the way we can act towards and with other living people. Praying to a 'Saint' smacks of a spiritual Ouija board.

I do not mean that as disrespect to my Roman Catholic Church friends, but that is how I see it.

I certainly agree that we should also be careful to check our own assumptions. I grew up when the Baptist Church saw dancing and drinking as sinful, even though the Bible has many passages which show both can be good things, pleasing to God.

In the end, I believe we are mistaken in much that we argue about, but also that God is patient and forgiving, so long as we are also patient and forgiving.

---

I certainly understand your concern here especially in light of Deuteronomy 18:9-12. But let's look quickly at the differences are:

When an idiot (not sorry for being harsh, but it's extremely unwise to use do this) uses an Ouija board, they are attempting to contact a spirit for information or special knowledge. Often times when people do contact something, it is a demon. I'm not ever missing with that.

When a person prays to a person in heaven or let me put it another way... when a person ask for the intercession of someone in heaven, they are asking that person (saint - anyone or being in heaven) to pray or intercede for them. We are NOT asking to know the future or for secret knowledge.

Please note that the saint are ALIVE in heaven. They are WAY more alive than we are. They are enjoying the beatific vision.

Mk 12:27 - "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living ...'

Daily I ask for many different patron saint to intercede for me, my family, and or my community. Some of them that I implore are:

St. Monica - patron saint of Mother's whose children who left Christianity (mother of Saint Augustine)
St. Peregrine - patron saint of cancer patients
St. Joseph the worker - patron saint of workers
St. Joseph (again) - patron saint of fathers
St. Dymphna - patron saint of Stress, Anxiety and Mental Health
St Sebastian - patron saint of athletes and umpires/referees
St. Jude - patron saint of the impossible
I daily thank my Guardian angel for keeping me safe with all the stupid stuff that I do.

Of course when I'm pushing at the end of a hard work out, I say or repeat Phil 4:13
When I'm on ride on the open roads I always ask the Blessed Mother to watch over me and keep me safe.

---

Where is Jesus in all your prayers?
Who told you these saints have the position they hold? How do you even know they're in heaven?
How is this any different than the pagan idol worship that plaqued Israel, prompting God to severely punish them?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

---

So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.

---

God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.

---

Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.

---

Definitely not.

These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.

---

"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.

The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.

Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?

---

No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:

1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.

---

The most likely possibility is the one you left out:

3. Catholics are in complete, psychopathologic denial. Calling Mary "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God", the "salvation of the universe", "advocate", "ruler of my whole house", and saying "I give Mary my heart and soul" and "I put in her hands my salvation and to her I entrust my soul"....is so OBVIOUS to even the most remedially educated person as giving Mary the role, attributes, and accolades that the Bible gives to Jesus, even using the exact words used to describe God/Jesus, that it takes a completely duped, dishonest, or deceived soul, or a combination of all of them, to think otherwise.

Catholics, wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Denying this reality just makes you look either insane or like complete fools. The Catholics here seem like very intelligent people, so I KNOW you know this to be true.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I hope Coke Bear or Curtpenn writes again in this thread. I am curious to read their thoughts on this matter.

---

I have good intentions except real life has gotten in the way. Busy day yesterday and working up a new batch of sausage this weekend. 16 lbs of pork and brisket ground up, seasoned and mixed now in the fridge. Taking a break now. Trying to decide whether or not to stuff today or leave that for tomorrow when it will go in the smoker.

---

Sounds like a good plan. I will be spending today with family, the Internet should never get more time or attention than family.

Love the idea of brisket!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You ignore what I write, except for what you mock.

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ in that?

---

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ by your being afraid to speak the truth to those who need to hear it?

---

I serve Christ by following His lead.

When Jesus spoke with Roman soldiers, tax collectors, prostitutes, and all manner of people who were doctrinally wrong.

Jesus looked at people's hearts, as they revealed themselves. This is why Jesus could speak approvingly of a Samaritan but rebuke priests.

You have ignored/mocked most of what I wrote in this thread, but if you paid any heed at all you know I do not think the practice of praying to Mary is sound doctrine or wise. I also think that attacking a Catholic for their opinion regarding Mary is not going to persuade them.

I am never 'afraid' to speak truth; my many posts standing up against bigots and mob think over the years more than prove that. I have no interest in being the most popular member of the forum

Jesus said 'come, let us reason'. He did not demand he get his way, but was more gentle and meek than anyone.

I simply try to follow his method and practice as well as I may. .

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You ignore what I write, except for what you mock.

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ in that?

---

Where exactly do you think you serve Christ by your being afraid to speak the truth to those who need to hear it?

---

I serve Christ by following His lead.

When Jesus spoke with Roman soldiers, tax collectors, prostitutes, and all manner of people who were doctrinally wrong.

Jesus looked at people's hearts, as they revealed themselves. This is why Jesus could speak approvingly of a Samaritan but rebuke priests.

You have ignored/mocked most of what I wrote in this thread, but if you paid any heed at all you know I do not think the practice of praying to Mary is sound doctrine or wise. I also think that attacking a Catholic for their opinion regarding Mary is not going to persuade them.

I am never 'afraid' to speak truth; my many posts standing up against bigots and mob think over the years more than prove that. I have no interest in being the most popular member of the forum

Jesus said 'come, let us reason'. He did not demand he get his way, but was more gentle and meek than anyone.

I simply try to follow his method and practice as well as I may. .

---

The reason I kept asking you the question, was not to "interrogate", but to make a point. And I made it. I KNEW you would not answer the question. I knew you'd rather close your mouth to the truth because you didn't want to offend others.

Something you should take to heart is that Jesus didn't do that. He told the truth, and it offended others so he was killed for it. So were Peter, Paul, the other apostles, and the the prophets of the Old Testament. You think you "follow his method"? Then be prepared to take up your cross like he did. Like Jesus said, "if they hate me, they will hate you".

Bottom line, you cowered from telling the truth.....and that says a LOT.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question for the Catholics:

Here are the Ten Commandments according to the Catholic Church (just the first two):

• I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
• You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.

Now here are the Ten Commandments as they are written in the Bible (just the first part, for comparison):

""I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain"......

Question: why did the Catholic Church remove the whole part about graven images and bowing to them?

---

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

---

I'm not looking for a "just google it" response. Providing a link to support your own explanation is fine, but not a link just by itself. Give me your explanation how this link explains how Catholics justify removing a part of the Ten Commandments. There'd better be a really, really good explanation for removing something from God's word - if a good explanation can even exist for messing with Scripture. Especially since Catholics ostensibly deem Scripture to be supremely authoritative. The obvious appearance to any rational, intelligent person is that this is evidence of the Catholic Church's full knowledge of their guilt.

---

Well, they would never remove anything from Scripture. It's not taught as part of the commandment because it's part of the Old Dispensation.

---

How is that part of the "Old Dispensation", but not the others?

---

It's positive law rather than natural law. The Old Testament contains both, but only the latter is eternal and immutable.

---

So the Catholic Church believes God's word is mutable. This is as about the reddest flag that can be raised. This sounds like it's coming out the same hell that Waco1947 gets his beliefs from.

---

God made a new covenant, superseding the old. Christians have always believed this. I encourage you to read the encyclopedia article I linked yesterday. I chose it carefully. It has lots of good cultural context on early and medieval Christianity. See for example the various meanings of "worship." What you see as the plain language isn't always so plain.

---

Catholics give Mary the adoration, praise, and worship that is reserved for God and God alone.

---

Definitely not.

These teachings are anything but ad hoc. They existed long before modern churches were around to question them.

---

"No, no, we're not worshiping Mary, we're only hyperdulia-ing Mary" is about the most obvious ad hoc excuse ever generated by a religion.

The beliefs about Mary today were never unanimously held, especially in the early church, where they would not even have entered the minds of Christians. So to suggest they've only been recently questioned is false.

Even non-believers recognize those prayers as Mary worship. It's obvious to any rational, honest person. The only way Catholics try to get around it is to invent new vocabulary in order to create an "out" through a technicality. Question: do you honestly believe that God would be ok with a church that wants to worship an idol of their choice, so as long as they only give it, at most, hyperdulia?

---

No good Catholic "worships" Mary or believes she is in any way equal to God. If you see the Church endorsing a document that appears to elevate Mary in that way, there are two possibilities:

1. The Church is misinterpreting the text.
2. You are misinterpreting the text.

---

The most likely possibility is the one you left out:

3. Catholics are in complete, psychopathologic denial. Calling Mary "sovereign", "Mediatrix", "peacemaker between sinners and God", the "salvation of the universe", "advocate", "ruler of my whole house", and saying "I give Mary my heart and soul" and "I put in her hands my salvation and to her I entrust my soul"....is so OBVIOUS to even the most remedially educated person as giving Mary the role, attributes, and accolades that the Bible gives to Jesus, even using the exact words used to describe God/Jesus, that it takes a completely duped, dishonest, or deceived soul, or a combination of all of them, to think otherwise.

Catholics, wake up. Stop lying to yourself. Denying this reality just makes you look either insane or like complete fools. The Catholics here seem like very intelligent people, so I KNOW you know this to be true.

---

That goes back to interpretation. Again there are two ways:

1. Study the tradition and try to understand what these beliefs mean based on Catholic theology and history.
2. Insist on the "plain meaning," i.e. whatever TarpDuster thinks, regardless of what Catholics actually say.

I don't blame you for questioning. Some of the texts are confusing even for Catholics. That's why you need to look deeper into the context.