BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

History shows that there wasn't a singular, ruling bishop in Rome until about the 140-150's AD. Up until then, the church in Rome was presided over by a group of presbyters (elders). The first clear evidence of there being a single bishop shows that it was probably Anicetus.

---

What do you do with Irenaeus' list of the first bishops of Rome, "Against Heresies," written between 175-180 AD. He lists them all back to Peter. How do you address that Eusebius had the same list in his work "Ecclesiastical History" between 312 and 324 AD.

---

What do you do with the fact that Irenaeus' contemporary, Tertullian, doesn't agree with Irenaeus' or Eusebius' list? And what do you do with the fact that Irenaeus said that Jesus was over 50 years old when he was crucified? I'd say that in the least, the history is very unclear and unreliable. These writers and their lists are likely going by retrospective tradition where Peter, Linus, Clement etc were posthumously "promoted" to the office of bishop of Rome so that Roman Catholicism could make a traceable list going all the way back to Jesus. Here is an excerpt from a book by Roman Catholic scholar Roger Collins in his book Keeper of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy, describing this view about those lists of popes by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius:

"The late second century authors were probably reporting a tradition that had grown up in Rome in which leading figures amongst the elders of their day were retrospectively turned into bishops, to produce a continuous list of holders of the office stretching back to Peter."

He continues:

"... it would be helpful to ask which of the people named by Irenaeus and Tertullian should be regarded as the first real bishop of [Rome]. Most scholars now agree that the answer would be Anicetus, who comes in tenth on both lists, and whose episcopate likely covered the years 155 to 166 AD."

---

I actually viewed the book as a testament to the Holy Spirit keeping the Church alive throughout Man's incompetencies. Even with Man's imperfections, the Holy Spirit kept Christ's promise to Peter intact.

A lot of "probable's, most's, and ambiguity" in there... Understandable trying to piece things together with a limited, being generous, written record. I can see how each could take what they want.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Been away for awhile.
Don't have time right now to read everything here.

Had anyone addressed the 2nd commandment, and why it's missing from the catholic version of the 10 commandments?
I have heard Catholics defend this by saying that the 2nd is just part of the law against false gods... so it's redundant and doesn't need to be included. That seems lie a very weak excuse for eliminating something that God spoke. Why do Catholics need to edit God?
Is it because God specifically says not to bow down to graven images?
Exodus 20:4-5 NIV
[4] "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. [5] You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Of course the Catholics say that they don't bow down or worship the images of Mary, but...

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02ACJAiPbXqGojMeBDRvrS3P9YeSmj4EmwUGNUiAZaihTRTzTHYg85CwFD9PKMdpgMl&id=100068429748592

https://images.app.goo.gl/oN3ZKQssSKUy1EUAA

https://images.app.goo.gl/jiEa5fZ3dDHwhZec6

https://images.app.goo.gl/zXYjFmtm1edKd2sE8

But hey.... no prayers, bowing or worship to an image going on here, right?

---

The Catechism 2112 addresses the 1st Commandment and idolatry.

The Catholic Church uses St Augustine's numbering of the 10 Commandments. You know him, the guy earlier in the thread you guys were saying was the authority on either Mary, Sola Scriptura or one of the Protestant believes. It changes depending on the subject which ones any of us believe.

If I remember correctly Lutherans and Catholics use St Augustine, Catholic Orthodox and Protestants use Origen's version. They differ. We won't agree that the Catechism addresses it in 2112, as the Catholics and Protestants haven't for 1500 years.

My understanding is the difference lies in whether you are worshiping God or a false God. Once again, we won't agree.

So, do we want to continue to fight the Reformation? It will pretty much go as it has for 1500 years and the last 2 weeks. Both sides say something, the other side says they are wrong. The question is do we want to go to insults or skip that part?

---

Good Lord - what does the numbering of the Ten Commandments have to do with the fact that Roman Catholics are breaking the one about idols??

---

Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. the commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47


There you go, that is what Catholics believe, we do not believe in idolatry. Like it or not.

---

I am glad that the official statements do recognize that idolatry is a sin. That is good. However, the practice of bowing to statues, kissing statues, and especially doing this to statues of Mary... that is the text book definition of bowing to a graven image. Mary is not God... even the Catholic catechism agrees with that statement. However, many Catholics (including the Pope) pray prayers to Mary and pray more to Mary than to God. They sing songs to Mary. I know that the official statements claim that this is not worship, but "veneration"... but it is a distinction without a difference.

What is worship? The word is derived from the Old English weorscipe, meaning to venerate "worship, honour shown to an object or deity,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship#cite_note-Bosworth-2][2][/url] which has been etymologised as "worthiness or worth-ship"to give, at its simplest, worth to something.

So to venerate is to worship.

If you saw someone engaged in idolatry to a pagan god, what would they be doing? Offering up prayers, singing songs, declaring their devotion to the god, building altars & shrines to the god, creating statues & other forms of idols to the god..... yes, that is how we see someone engaged in idolatry to a pagan god... it is also exactly what hundreds of millions of catholics do around the world with Mary.

I know you want to believe that Catholics do not idolize Mary, but there is no difference between how Catholics treat Mary and Buddhist treat Buda.

We are supposed to pray to God for healing, protection, salvation, blessings,... and yet the Pope does this to Mary. Look again at these prayers offered up by the Pope, and show me where the Pope is asking Mary to ask Jesus for these things. He is not. He is directly asking Mary herself to give healing, blessings, forgiveness, etc.

I'm sorry to say it, but he Catholic statements and the Catholic practices do not line up. It is idolatry... unless you want to claim that Mary is part of the Trinity.

https://images.app.goo.gl/zXYjFmtm1edKd2sE8

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=767552940317488&set=a.146917329047722&__cft__[0]=AZX7p-9NCVn-rEor6zD8l7ybXshIzgoodGXwQAWt2ZMB9R3sWwHRYUj-mzD75xHmHjccTCj9Kf0VOzzRsTNOv4wmPi_VSm8QBeb5srryZDYGmWCnwL3RxKTVZ2h6wABlAUOYEXt00699EjD88GY7IKzVMOUxoR1W4aMrp_7xUVpiaA&__tn__=EH-R

How can you look at these images and read these prayers, and not see the obvious worship & devotion to a human woman... not God, a woman. Granted, she was very blessed & honored... but that doesn't make her God.

---

As I said early on, seems like months ago, it is a practice that I do not take part. I have never done a novena, the Hail Mary is the Magnificat from the Bible and I do not take part in that aspect of Catholicism. But, that is me.

I know A LOT of women that do feel a closeness to Mary and ask for intervention.

One of the things I like about the Catholic Church is that it is big enough to allow for people to come to God on different paths. Everyone is different, thinks differently and processes information differently. It makes sense to me that God would take that into consideration, call it a logical deduction.

As long as we are on THE road there may be different lanes. I think of yours as the Express Lane, not a lot of room for variation. My point is that I do not tell you yours is wrong or try to force you in a lane that does not work for how you process information. I hope we end up in the same place. Will we? Who knows, it has all been modified since 33 AD. I have faith we will.

---

I seriously do not think that idolatry of Mary is a path that God will accept.

And you didn't take a stance on it: IS it idolatry of Mary, or not?

---

The path is not the destination.

---

It's a path that God doesn't accept because of the destination.

---

Stupid assertion.

---

Coming from you, I should say thanks!

---

That's the sort of stupid response I would expect from you. Thanks for being predictable, at least.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Been away for awhile.
Don't have time right now to read everything here.

Had anyone addressed the 2nd commandment, and why it's missing from the catholic version of the 10 commandments?
I have heard Catholics defend this by saying that the 2nd is just part of the law against false gods... so it's redundant and doesn't need to be included. That seems lie a very weak excuse for eliminating something that God spoke. Why do Catholics need to edit God?
Is it because God specifically says not to bow down to graven images?
Exodus 20:4-5 NIV
[4] "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. [5] You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Of course the Catholics say that they don't bow down or worship the images of Mary, but...

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02ACJAiPbXqGojMeBDRvrS3P9YeSmj4EmwUGNUiAZaihTRTzTHYg85CwFD9PKMdpgMl&id=100068429748592

https://images.app.goo.gl/oN3ZKQssSKUy1EUAA

https://images.app.goo.gl/jiEa5fZ3dDHwhZec6

https://images.app.goo.gl/zXYjFmtm1edKd2sE8

But hey.... no prayers, bowing or worship to an image going on here, right?

---

The Catechism 2112 addresses the 1st Commandment and idolatry.

The Catholic Church uses St Augustine's numbering of the 10 Commandments. You know him, the guy earlier in the thread you guys were saying was the authority on either Mary, Sola Scriptura or one of the Protestant believes. It changes depending on the subject which ones any of us believe.

If I remember correctly Lutherans and Catholics use St Augustine, Catholic Orthodox and Protestants use Origen's version. They differ. We won't agree that the Catechism addresses it in 2112, as the Catholics and Protestants haven't for 1500 years.

My understanding is the difference lies in whether you are worshiping God or a false God. Once again, we won't agree.

So, do we want to continue to fight the Reformation? It will pretty much go as it has for 1500 years and the last 2 weeks. Both sides say something, the other side says they are wrong. The question is do we want to go to insults or skip that part?

---

Good Lord - what does the numbering of the Ten Commandments have to do with the fact that Roman Catholics are breaking the one about idols??

---

They are not. You argue by assertion and beg the question. Liar.

---

No, it's pretty evident that they bow to statues of Mary and the saints. You'd have to be an idiot to not see that.

---

You have to be an idiot to fail to see the difference between seeking intercession and idolatry.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Been away for awhile.
Don't have time right now to read everything here.

Had anyone addressed the 2nd commandment, and why it's missing from the catholic version of the 10 commandments?
I have heard Catholics defend this by saying that the 2nd is just part of the law against false gods... so it's redundant and doesn't need to be included. That seems lie a very weak excuse for eliminating something that God spoke. Why do Catholics need to edit God?
Is it because God specifically says not to bow down to graven images?
Exodus 20:4-5 NIV
[4] "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. [5] You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Of course the Catholics say that they don't bow down or worship the images of Mary, but...

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02ACJAiPbXqGojMeBDRvrS3P9YeSmj4EmwUGNUiAZaihTRTzTHYg85CwFD9PKMdpgMl&id=100068429748592

https://images.app.goo.gl/oN3ZKQssSKUy1EUAA

https://images.app.goo.gl/jiEa5fZ3dDHwhZec6

https://images.app.goo.gl/zXYjFmtm1edKd2sE8

But hey.... no prayers, bowing or worship to an image going on here, right?

---

The Catechism 2112 addresses the 1st Commandment and idolatry.

The Catholic Church uses St Augustine's numbering of the 10 Commandments. You know him, the guy earlier in the thread you guys were saying was the authority on either Mary, Sola Scriptura or one of the Protestant believes. It changes depending on the subject which ones any of us believe.

If I remember correctly Lutherans and Catholics use St Augustine, Catholic Orthodox and Protestants use Origen's version. They differ. We won't agree that the Catechism addresses it in 2112, as the Catholics and Protestants haven't for 1500 years.

My understanding is the difference lies in whether you are worshiping God or a false God. Once again, we won't agree.

So, do we want to continue to fight the Reformation? It will pretty much go as it has for 1500 years and the last 2 weeks. Both sides say something, the other side says they are wrong. The question is do we want to go to insults or skip that part?

---

Good Lord - what does the numbering of the Ten Commandments have to do with the fact that Roman Catholics are breaking the one about idols??

---

Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. the commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47


There you go, that is what Catholics believe, we do not believe in idolatry. Like it or not.

---

I am glad that the official statements do recognize that idolatry is a sin. That is good. However, the practice of bowing to statues, kissing statues, and especially doing this to statues of Mary... that is the text book definition of bowing to a graven image. Mary is not God... even the Catholic catechism agrees with that statement. However, many Catholics (including the Pope) pray prayers to Mary and pray more to Mary than to God. They sing songs to Mary. I know that the official statements claim that this is not worship, but "veneration"... but it is a distinction without a difference.

What is worship? The word is derived from the Old English weorscipe, meaning to venerate "worship, honour shown to an object or deity,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship#cite_note-Bosworth-2][2][/url] which has been etymologised as "worthiness or worth-ship"to give, at its simplest, worth to something.

So to venerate is to worship.

If you saw someone engaged in idolatry to a pagan god, what would they be doing? Offering up prayers, singing songs, declaring their devotion to the god, building altars & shrines to the god, creating statues & other forms of idols to the god..... yes, that is how we see someone engaged in idolatry to a pagan god... it is also exactly what hundreds of millions of catholics do around the world with Mary.

I know you want to believe that Catholics do not idolize Mary, but there is no difference between how Catholics treat Mary and Buddhist treat Buda.

We are supposed to pray to God for healing, protection, salvation, blessings,... and yet the Pope does this to Mary. Look again at these prayers offered up by the Pope, and show me where the Pope is asking Mary to ask Jesus for these things. He is not. He is directly asking Mary herself to give healing, blessings, forgiveness, etc.

I'm sorry to say it, but he Catholic statements and the Catholic practices do not line up. It is idolatry... unless you want to claim that Mary is part of the Trinity.

https://images.app.goo.gl/zXYjFmtm1edKd2sE8

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=767552940317488&set=a.146917329047722&__cft__[0]=AZX7p-9NCVn-rEor6zD8l7ybXshIzgoodGXwQAWt2ZMB9R3sWwHRYUj-mzD75xHmHjccTCj9Kf0VOzzRsTNOv4wmPi_VSm8QBeb5srryZDYGmWCnwL3RxKTVZ2h6wABlAUOYEXt00699EjD88GY7IKzVMOUxoR1W4aMrp_7xUVpiaA&__tn__=EH-R

How can you look at these images and read these prayers, and not see the obvious worship & devotion to a human woman... not God, a woman. Granted, she was very blessed & honored... but that doesn't make her God.

---

As I said early on, seems like months ago, it is a practice that I do not take part. I have never done a novena, the Hail Mary is the Magnificat from the Bible and I do not take part in that aspect of Catholicism. But, that is me.

I know A LOT of women that do feel a closeness to Mary and ask for intervention.

One of the things I like about the Catholic Church is that it is big enough to allow for people to come to God on different paths. Everyone is different, thinks differently and processes information differently. It makes sense to me that God would take that into consideration, call it a logical deduction.

As long as we are on THE road there may be different lanes. I think of yours as the Express Lane, not a lot of room for variation. My point is that I do not tell you yours is wrong or try to force you in a lane that does not work for how you process information. I hope we end up in the same place. Will we? Who knows, it has all been modified since 33 AD. I have faith we will.

---

These are the words of Jesus Himself:

13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

I am not trying to tell people that the path that leads to salvation is narrow, that is what Jesus said.

I'm very glad that you do not participate in the worship of Mary... that is a good thing. It sounds as if it just doesn't ring true to you... which sounds like the work of the Holy Spirit.

And just so you know, the leadership of the Catholic church doesn't agree with you. They teach, and have declared, that anyone who does not recognize Mary as sinless, born without sin, bodily taken into heaven, the giver of Grace, the intermediary between us and Jesus, and many other Catholic beliefs.... that person is to be Anathema.

I also hope we end up in the same place... but to do that means that we both must be on "the narrow path", and not on our own paths within the wide pathway.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

See Luke 1:30-34.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Been away for awhile.
Don't have time right now to read everything here.

Had anyone addressed the 2nd commandment, and why it's missing from the catholic version of the 10 commandments?
I have heard Catholics defend this by saying that the 2nd is just part of the law against false gods... so it's redundant and doesn't need to be included. That seems lie a very weak excuse for eliminating something that God spoke. Why do Catholics need to edit God?
Is it because God specifically says not to bow down to graven images?
Exodus 20:4-5 NIV
[4] "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. [5] You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Of course the Catholics say that they don't bow down or worship the images of Mary, but...

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02ACJAiPbXqGojMeBDRvrS3P9YeSmj4EmwUGNUiAZaihTRTzTHYg85CwFD9PKMdpgMl&id=100068429748592

https://images.app.goo.gl/oN3ZKQssSKUy1EUAA

https://images.app.goo.gl/jiEa5fZ3dDHwhZec6

https://images.app.goo.gl/zXYjFmtm1edKd2sE8

But hey.... no prayers, bowing or worship to an image going on here, right?

---

The Catechism 2112 addresses the 1st Commandment and idolatry.

The Catholic Church uses St Augustine's numbering of the 10 Commandments. You know him, the guy earlier in the thread you guys were saying was the authority on either Mary, Sola Scriptura or one of the Protestant believes. It changes depending on the subject which ones any of us believe.

If I remember correctly Lutherans and Catholics use St Augustine, Catholic Orthodox and Protestants use Origen's version. They differ. We won't agree that the Catechism addresses it in 2112, as the Catholics and Protestants haven't for 1500 years.

My understanding is the difference lies in whether you are worshiping God or a false God. Once again, we won't agree.

So, do we want to continue to fight the Reformation? It will pretty much go as it has for 1500 years and the last 2 weeks. Both sides say something, the other side says they are wrong. The question is do we want to go to insults or skip that part?

---

Good Lord - what does the numbering of the Ten Commandments have to do with the fact that Roman Catholics are breaking the one about idols??

---

Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. the commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47


There you go, that is what Catholics believe, we do not believe in idolatry. Like it or not.

---

I am glad that the official statements do recognize that idolatry is a sin. That is good. However, the practice of bowing to statues, kissing statues, and especially doing this to statues of Mary... that is the text book definition of bowing to a graven image. Mary is not God... even the Catholic catechism agrees with that statement. However, many Catholics (including the Pope) pray prayers to Mary and pray more to Mary than to God. They sing songs to Mary. I know that the official statements claim that this is not worship, but "veneration"... but it is a distinction without a difference.

What is worship? The word is derived from the Old English weorscipe, meaning to venerate "worship, honour shown to an object or deity,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship#cite_note-Bosworth-2][2][/url] which has been etymologised as "worthiness or worth-ship"to give, at its simplest, worth to something.

So to venerate is to worship.

If you saw someone engaged in idolatry to a pagan god, what would they be doing? Offering up prayers, singing songs, declaring their devotion to the god, building altars & shrines to the god, creating statues & other forms of idols to the god..... yes, that is how we see someone engaged in idolatry to a pagan god... it is also exactly what hundreds of millions of catholics do around the world with Mary.

I know you want to believe that Catholics do not idolize Mary, but there is no difference between how Catholics treat Mary and Buddhist treat Buda.

We are supposed to pray to God for healing, protection, salvation, blessings,... and yet the Pope does this to Mary. Look again at these prayers offered up by the Pope, and show me where the Pope is asking Mary to ask Jesus for these things. He is not. He is directly asking Mary herself to give healing, blessings, forgiveness, etc.

I'm sorry to say it, but he Catholic statements and the Catholic practices do not line up. It is idolatry... unless you want to claim that Mary is part of the Trinity.

https://images.app.goo.gl/zXYjFmtm1edKd2sE8

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=767552940317488&set=a.146917329047722&__cft__[0]=AZX7p-9NCVn-rEor6zD8l7ybXshIzgoodGXwQAWt2ZMB9R3sWwHRYUj-mzD75xHmHjccTCj9Kf0VOzzRsTNOv4wmPi_VSm8QBeb5srryZDYGmWCnwL3RxKTVZ2h6wABlAUOYEXt00699EjD88GY7IKzVMOUxoR1W4aMrp_7xUVpiaA&__tn__=EH-R

How can you look at these images and read these prayers, and not see the obvious worship & devotion to a human woman... not God, a woman. Granted, she was very blessed & honored... but that doesn't make her God.

---

As I said early on, seems like months ago, it is a practice that I do not take part. I have never done a novena, the Hail Mary is the Magnificat from the Bible and I do not take part in that aspect of Catholicism. But, that is me.

I know A LOT of women that do feel a closeness to Mary and ask for intervention.

One of the things I like about the Catholic Church is that it is big enough to allow for people to come to God on different paths. Everyone is different, thinks differently and processes information differently. It makes sense to me that God would take that into consideration, call it a logical deduction.

As long as we are on THE road there may be different lanes. I think of yours as the Express Lane, not a lot of room for variation. My point is that I do not tell you yours is wrong or try to force you in a lane that does not work for how you process information. I hope we end up in the same place. Will we? Who knows, it has all been modified since 33 AD. I have faith we will.

---

These are the words of Jesus Himself:

13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

I am not trying to tell people that the path that leads to salvation is narrow, that is what Jesus said.

I'm very glad that you do not participate in the worship of Mary... that is a good thing. It sounds as if it just doesn't ring true to you... which sounds like the work of the Holy Spirit.

And just so you know, the leadership of the Catholic church doesn't agree with you. They teach, and have declared, that anyone who does not recognize Mary as sinless, born without sin, bodily taken into heaven, the giver of Grace, the intermediary between us and Jesus, and many other Catholic beliefs.... that person is to be Anathema.

I also hope we end up in the same place... but to do that means that we both must be on "the narrow path", and not on our own paths within the wide pathway.

---

None of those equal worship, the Catechism specifically says do not worship. Intermediary means not the top. No one worship the intermediary.

Can't you guys ever take an olive branch without turning it into "I disagree" or you are wrong.

Wouldn't it be a ***** if Catholics are right and you have to do extra time in purgatory for arrogance? Jesus said all I told you was get along and you couldn't even do that... (Tongue in cheek, no need to go into Scripture interpretation or worse get the other guy going. Although listening to him is knocking years off purgatory as penance....)

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

History shows that there wasn't a singular, ruling bishop in Rome until about the 140-150's AD. Up until then, the church in Rome was presided over by a group of presbyters (elders). The first clear evidence of there being a single bishop shows that it was probably Anicetus.

---

What do you do with Irenaeus' list of the first bishops of Rome, "Against Heresies," written between 175-180 AD. He lists them all back to Peter. How do you address that Eusebius had the same list in his work "Ecclesiastical History" between 312 and 324 AD.

---

What do you do with the fact that Irenaeus' contemporary, Tertullian, doesn't agree with Irenaeus' or Eusebius' list? And what do you do with the fact that Irenaeus said that Jesus was over 50 years old when he was crucified? I'd say that in the least, the history is very unclear and unreliable. These writers and their lists are likely going by retrospective tradition where Peter, Linus, Clement etc were posthumously "promoted" to the office of bishop of Rome so that Roman Catholicism could make a traceable list going all the way back to Jesus. Here is an excerpt from a book by Roman Catholic scholar Roger Collins in his book Keeper of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy, describing this view about those lists of popes by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius:

"The late second century authors were probably reporting a tradition that had grown up in Rome in which leading figures amongst the elders of their day were retrospectively turned into bishops, to produce a continuous list of holders of the office stretching back to Peter."

He continues:

"... it would be helpful to ask which of the people named by Irenaeus and Tertullian should be regarded as the first real bishop of [Rome]. Most scholars now agree that the answer would be Anicetus, who comes in tenth on both lists, and whose episcopate likely covered the years 155 to 166 AD."

---

I actually viewed the book as a testament to the Holy Spirit keeping the Church alive throughout Man's incompetencies. Even with Man's imperfections, the Holy Spirit kept Christ's promise to Peter intact.

A lot of "probable's, most's, and ambiguity" in there... Understandable trying to piece things together with a limited, being generous, written record. I can see how each could take what they want.

---

Jesus kept the church alive through his Holy Spirit working on all true believers throughout time, not through a Romanized version of Christianity that compromised with the pagan world.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Been away for awhile.
Don't have time right now to read everything here.

Had anyone addressed the 2nd commandment, and why it's missing from the catholic version of the 10 commandments?
I have heard Catholics defend this by saying that the 2nd is just part of the law against false gods... so it's redundant and doesn't need to be included. That seems lie a very weak excuse for eliminating something that God spoke. Why do Catholics need to edit God?
Is it because God specifically says not to bow down to graven images?
Exodus 20:4-5 NIV
[4] "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. [5] You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Of course the Catholics say that they don't bow down or worship the images of Mary, but...

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02ACJAiPbXqGojMeBDRvrS3P9YeSmj4EmwUGNUiAZaihTRTzTHYg85CwFD9PKMdpgMl&id=100068429748592

https://images.app.goo.gl/oN3ZKQssSKUy1EUAA

https://images.app.goo.gl/jiEa5fZ3dDHwhZec6

https://images.app.goo.gl/zXYjFmtm1edKd2sE8

But hey.... no prayers, bowing or worship to an image going on here, right?

---

The Catechism 2112 addresses the 1st Commandment and idolatry.

The Catholic Church uses St Augustine's numbering of the 10 Commandments. You know him, the guy earlier in the thread you guys were saying was the authority on either Mary, Sola Scriptura or one of the Protestant believes. It changes depending on the subject which ones any of us believe.

If I remember correctly Lutherans and Catholics use St Augustine, Catholic Orthodox and Protestants use Origen's version. They differ. We won't agree that the Catechism addresses it in 2112, as the Catholics and Protestants haven't for 1500 years.

My understanding is the difference lies in whether you are worshiping God or a false God. Once again, we won't agree.

So, do we want to continue to fight the Reformation? It will pretty much go as it has for 1500 years and the last 2 weeks. Both sides say something, the other side says they are wrong. The question is do we want to go to insults or skip that part?

---

Good Lord - what does the numbering of the Ten Commandments have to do with the fact that Roman Catholics are breaking the one about idols??

---

They are not. You argue by assertion and beg the question. Liar.

---

No, it's pretty evident that they bow to statues of Mary and the saints. You'd have to be an idiot to not see that.

---

You have to be an idiot to fail to see the difference between seeking intercession and idolatry.

---

Right, because God was an idiot for not understanding that it wasn't idolatry, his people only wanted intercession from those graven images they were bowing to.

It's astounding how blind and bewitched you guys are.

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

I have repeatedly said that if the early church were shown what Roman Catholics believe today, they wouldn't even recognize it as Christian. They'd think it was a cult straight out of Hell. Roman Catholicism has been a frog in hot water, and it's due to her abandonment of sola scriptura long, long ago.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

See Luke 1:30-34.

---

We're looking at it - seeing absolutely nothing about perpetual virginity or sinlessness. A prime example of people reading what they want to be in there.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm asking a serious question - do you really not understand the stupidity of your point? Why wouldn't the "drafters" use exact quotes from their own Greek translation of the Tanakh??

---

No stretching here. The Septuagint had NO distinction between cannon and Deuterocanon.

The same men that wrote the Bible are the same men that used ALL of the Septuagint and considered it cannon.

When did the Catholic Church add the 7 books of the Deuterocanon to the Bible?

---

There are a lot of problems with the Masoretic text. Evangelicals, having rejected the actual history of Christianity, instinctively try to glue their religion onto the modern Phariseeism whose ancestors rejected Christ 2,000 years ago. In doing so they fall prey to the work of Christ-rejecting Jewish scribes who modified the geneaologies of Genesis to undermine Christ's claim to be messiah after the destruction of the temple. By removing the Wisdom of Solomon from their abbreviated bibles, they excise one of the better prophecies of Christ's trial and crucifixion.

As far as not citing the Septuagint, the New Testament writers clearly did cite the Septuagint. Luke 3:36 lists Cainan in the line of Christ, as does the Septuagint. The Masoritic text removes him from the Genesis chronology leaving Luke 3:36 uncited in the OT. If your Bible's OT is based on the Christ-denying Masoretic text, it makes Luke 3:36 a lie. If you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, or even simple preservation, this is an untenable position. It is also absolute objective proof that the writers of the NT cited the Septuagint, not the Jewish Masoretic text in NT scripture.



The Septuagint is the Old Testament Bible. It is what the apostles and prophets used. It is what the early church used.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

History shows that there wasn't a singular, ruling bishop in Rome until about the 140-150's AD. Up until then, the church in Rome was presided over by a group of presbyters (elders). The first clear evidence of there being a single bishop shows that it was probably Anicetus.

---

What do you do with Irenaeus' list of the first bishops of Rome, "Against Heresies," written between 175-180 AD. He lists them all back to Peter. How do you address that Eusebius had the same list in his work "Ecclesiastical History" between 312 and 324 AD.

---

What do you do with the fact that Irenaeus' contemporary, Tertullian, doesn't agree with Irenaeus' or Eusebius' list? And what do you do with the fact that Irenaeus said that Jesus was over 50 years old when he was crucified? I'd say that in the least, the history is very unclear and unreliable. These writers and their lists are likely going by retrospective tradition where Peter, Linus, Clement etc were posthumously "promoted" to the office of bishop of Rome so that Roman Catholicism could make a traceable list going all the way back to Jesus. Here is an excerpt from a book by Roman Catholic scholar Roger Collins in his book Keeper of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy, describing this view about those lists of popes by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius:

"The late second century authors were probably reporting a tradition that had grown up in Rome in which leading figures amongst the elders of their day were retrospectively turned into bishops, to produce a continuous list of holders of the office stretching back to Peter."

He continues:

"... it would be helpful to ask which of the people named by Irenaeus and Tertullian should be regarded as the first real bishop of [Rome]. Most scholars now agree that the answer would be Anicetus, who comes in tenth on both lists, and whose episcopate likely covered the years 155 to 166 AD."

---

I actually viewed the book as a testament to the Holy Spirit keeping the Church alive throughout Man's incompetencies. Even with Man's imperfections, the Holy Spirit kept Christ's promise to Peter intact.

A lot of "probable's, most's, and ambiguity" in there... Understandable trying to piece things together with a limited, being generous, written record. I can see how each could take what they want.

---

Jesus kept the church alive through his Holy Spirit working on all true believers throughout time, not through a Romanized version of Christianity that compromised with the pagan world.

---

You view it your way, I will view it my way.

I find it interesting the Holy Spirit was involved with your interpretation of the Bible and then went away... No further impact but what you say. How is it to walk on water? Toss any spirits in swine lately?

I know you have a real hard on for the Roman Catholic Church, but you are one of the most biased people I have ever interacted with. Hard to believe you are real, make the Inquisitors look Progressive.

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

St. Ambrose around 390 (65 years after Nicea) is writing about the ever-Virgin. It is doubtful he just came up with that himself out of thin air. Irenus refers to her as the new Eve 150 years before Nicea. Images of the blessed mother appear in the early church catacombs outside of the Roman walls. And, of course, the Bible itself tells us that all generations henceforth will call Mary blessed. Not to mention that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, herself shows reverence to Mary in Mary's capacity as mother of the Lord.

Mariology traces its roots back deep into Church history. I can see you disagreeing with Catholic conclusions about Mary (I still think you are wrong, but you have free will), but I'm not seeing where your deep hatred comes from.

I guess let me ask these questions: Do you call the Mother of God "blessed" when talking about her? What do you make of Elizabeth when Elizabeth concluded she was favored because the Mother of the Lord was visiting her?

BusyTarpDuster2017The Trump Bible made no distinction between Trump's foreword and the Bible with regard to canonicity.

The men who wrote the Bible did NOT use "all" the Septuagint - not once did they use the apocrypha.

Exactly right - the Catholic church "added seven books to the Bible".[/quote said:

---

I don't know why you are hung up on the Trump bible. Do you feel that you didn't get your money's worth when you purchased it. Your reference is annoying at best.

What proof do you have that they didn't use the deuterocanon?

No, I am asking you when they added the books (if they were added, a point in time should exist for you to prove your point.)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But by the same guidance of the Holy Spirit that led Martin Luther to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, it also led him to the Reformation. Your argument still fails.

---

Actually no. Your argument is silly. I presented a fact that A and B were always accepted and confirmed by early Councils. You presented a point at A was accepted and B was a change from what was previously accepted for 1500 year. Huge difference.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's no reason to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity because there's nothing biblical to support it. In fact, the bible goes against it. And the Church did NOT always believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It started in and around the 4th century. The only evidence of it earlier than that is from a Gnostic writing (a heresy) which was condemned by a pope in the 5th century. So most certainly it was not a belief from the early Christian church.

---

Where does the bible go against it? Jerome argued that the term "brothers" (from the Greek "adelphoi") was commonly used in the Hebrew tradition to describe not only biological sibilings but also broader familial relationships, including cousins and close kin.

He also pointed out that Aramaic and Hebrew lacked a specific word for cousin, often using "brother" or "sister" instead.

Ignatius of Antioch emphasized the reality of Christ's incarnation. His emphasis on the incarnation and laid the groundwork for doctrinal development in Mary's role in salvation.

The first time that someone even challenged he perpetual virginity was Helvidius. St Jerome, the man that gave us the Latin Vulgate, vigorously defended her perpetual virginity in "Against Helvidius."

Here is a small quote about how Jerome felt about having to even reply to Helvidius:

I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating.

Jerome thought it was a joke that someone wouldn't believe in the perpetual virginity.

The ONLY reason protestant reject the perpetual virginity is to be distance themselves from the Church.

They don't possess a full understanding of the bible and cannot understand the typology.

Having said that, the "Trinity" wasn't first mentioned until last 2nd century and it was officially doctrine until the 4th century also at the First Council of Nicaea. Using your "logic" we should throw this out too.

Why would it hurt you to believe that she maintained her perpetual virginity?

Another thread with Catholics looking to extra-scriptural sources and "tradition" in support of beliefs which contradict the holy scriptures and inspired word of God.

Same song, millionth verse.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What do you do with the fact that Irenaeus' contemporary, Tertullian, doesn't agree with Irenaeus' or Eusebius' list? And what do you do with the fact that Irenaeus said that Jesus was over 50 years old when he was crucified? I'd say that in the least, the history is very unclear and unreliable. These writers and their lists are likely going by retrospective tradition where Peter, Linus, Clement etc were posthumously "promoted" to the office of bishop of Rome so that Roman Catholicism could make a traceable list going all the way back to Jesus.

---

I see that Tertullian lists the same 4 bishops of Rome, as does Irenaeus and Eusebius.

With respect to Irenaeus and Jesus' age, that is a theological opinion, not an historical marker.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here is an excerpt from a book by Roman Catholic scholar Roger Collins in his book Keeper of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy, describing this view about those lists of popes by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius:

"The late second century authors were probably reporting a tradition that had grown up in Rome in which leading figures amongst the elders of their day were retrospectively turned into bishops, to produce a continuous list of holders of the office stretching back to Peter."

He continues:

"... it would be helpful to ask which of the people named by Irenaeus and Tertullian should be regarded as the first real bishop of [Rome]. Most scholars now agree that the answer would be Anicetus, who comes in tenth on both lists, and whose episcopate likely covered the years 155 to 166 AD."

---

I haven't had time to research this claim, but for the sake of the argument here, I'll run with it. Nothing here disproves apostolic succession. If anything, it proves that bishops have existed from the beginning of the Church starting with Peter and moving forward.

According to you, the papacy was in Rome in 155 to 166 AD. We do you belong to a false church that has NO bishops or apostolic succession.

When was your church founded, by whom, and what is your proof. Please provide that documentation. You given proof for the Catholic Church dating back to the mid-second century.

Why are you not part of Christ's Church? I'm happy to be your Confirmation sponsor. OCIA classes should start this fall at a parish near you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The "Roman" Catholic Church started when the Roman state entered the Church. ALL of the ecumenical church councils thereafter were convoked by the emperor of Rome, not by any pope. It started with Constantine. The Roman Catholic Church compromised with pagan Rome in order to incorporate the pagans and their worship into Christianity. That's why you have Mary and saint worship - they are merely converted pagan gods and goddesses.

The Roman Catholic Church did not have to invent "bishops" in order to become the Roman Catholic Church, just as they didn't have to invent the books of the New Testament or Jesus to become the Roman Catholic Church.

Constantine started the Romanization of Christianity. It was only made officlal later in the Edict of Thessalonica.

---

This is such a sad Jack Chick-level of historical denial and twisting of the historical truths.
The "Romanization" of Christianity produced the following doctrines that are accepted by most protestants:

First Council of Nicaea Divinity of Christ and dating of Easter
First Council Constantinople Confirming Nicaean Creed and expanding the doctrine of the Trinity
Council of Ephesus set the distinctness of Christ's human and divine natures
Council of Chalcedon Christ is fully divine and fully human
Second Council of Constantinople Answered questions of Chalcedon Christ' two natures
Third Council of Constantinople address the two wills of Christ
Second Council of Nicaea Adoration is reserved for God alone.

It would be a strawman argument for me to suggest that you reject these because of the "Romanization" of the Church, but I will ask, how else would the heresies be handled if the Church didn't resolve them?

Do you deny that the Catholic Church addressed the heresies and developed these doctrines?
Do you reject any of these key points of those listed?

It was the Catholic Church that resolved the heresies and established the development of doctrine. Not Luther and the rebels.

Mothra said:

---

Another thread with Catholics looking to extra-scriptural sources and "tradition" in support of beliefs which contradict the holy scriptures and inspired word of God.

Same song, millionth verse.

---

Another post with a protestant who believes in the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Another thread with Catholics looking to extra-scriptural sources and "tradition" in support of beliefs which contradict the holy scriptures and inspired word of God.

Same song, millionth verse.

---

Another post with a protestant who believes in the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

Prove it, if you can.

And you can begin by answering this: is it ok for traditions to contradict the inerrant holy scriptures?

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm asking a serious question - do you really not understand the stupidity of your point? Why wouldn't the "drafters" use exact quotes from their own Greek translation of the Tanakh??

---

No stretching here. The Septuagint had NO distinction between cannon and Deuterocanon.

The same men that wrote the Bible are the same men that used ALL of the Septuagint and considered it cannon.

When did the Catholic Church add the 7 books of the Deuterocanon to the Bible?

---

There are a lot of problems with the Masoretic text. Evangelicals, having rejected the actual history of Christianity, instinctively try to glue their religion onto the modern Phariseeism whose ancestors rejected Christ 2,000 years ago. In doing so they fall prey to the work of Christ-rejecting Jewish scribes who modified the geneaologies of Genesis to undermine Christ's claim to be messiah after the destruction of the temple. By removing the Wisdom of Solomon from their abbreviated bibles, they excise one of the better prophecies of Christ's trial and crucifixion.

As far as not citing the Septuagint, the New Testament writers clearly did cite the Septuagint. Luke 3:36 lists Cainan in the line of Christ, as does the Septuagint. The Masoritic text removes him from the Genesis chronology leaving Luke 3:36 uncited in the OT. If your Bible's OT is based on the Christ-denying Masoretic text, it makes Luke 3:36 a lie. If you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, or even simple preservation, this is an untenable position. It is also absolute objective proof that the writers of the NT cited the Septuagint, not the Jewish Masoretic text in NT scripture.



The Septuagint is the Old Testament Bible. It is what the apostles and prophets used. It is what the early church used.

---

No one is saying that the NT writers didn't quote from the Greek Septuagint. The argument that because they quoted the Greek Septuagint, it means they considered ALL the books in the Septuagint as canon, is a "canon by association" argument, and is false. It's like arguing that someone quoting from the Trump Bible means that Trump's foreword is canon. The Jews had two sets of books - one canon, and the other were books that were useful for reading and learning, but were NOT considered inspired and inerrant, and thus used for doctrine. BOTH these sets were translated into Greek (the Septuagint).

Luke did not "quote the Septuagint", he quoted the Greek translation of Genesis within the Septuagint. NOWHERE does Jesus or any of the apostles quote from the apocryphal books. The Hebrew canon simply did not contain those books, as has been extensively supported by history. In fact, this was the view held by Jerome and the majority of all church fathers, theologians, and scholars from Jerome's time up to the 1500's.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

History shows that there wasn't a singular, ruling bishop in Rome until about the 140-150's AD. Up until then, the church in Rome was presided over by a group of presbyters (elders). The first clear evidence of there being a single bishop shows that it was probably Anicetus.

---

What do you do with Irenaeus' list of the first bishops of Rome, "Against Heresies," written between 175-180 AD. He lists them all back to Peter. How do you address that Eusebius had the same list in his work "Ecclesiastical History" between 312 and 324 AD.

---

What do you do with the fact that Irenaeus' contemporary, Tertullian, doesn't agree with Irenaeus' or Eusebius' list? And what do you do with the fact that Irenaeus said that Jesus was over 50 years old when he was crucified? I'd say that in the least, the history is very unclear and unreliable. These writers and their lists are likely going by retrospective tradition where Peter, Linus, Clement etc were posthumously "promoted" to the office of bishop of Rome so that Roman Catholicism could make a traceable list going all the way back to Jesus. Here is an excerpt from a book by Roman Catholic scholar Roger Collins in his book Keeper of the Keys of Heaven: A History of the Papacy, describing this view about those lists of popes by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius:

"The late second century authors were probably reporting a tradition that had grown up in Rome in which leading figures amongst the elders of their day were retrospectively turned into bishops, to produce a continuous list of holders of the office stretching back to Peter."

He continues:

"... it would be helpful to ask which of the people named by Irenaeus and Tertullian should be regarded as the first real bishop of [Rome]. Most scholars now agree that the answer would be Anicetus, who comes in tenth on both lists, and whose episcopate likely covered the years 155 to 166 AD."

---

I actually viewed the book as a testament to the Holy Spirit keeping the Church alive throughout Man's incompetencies. Even with Man's imperfections, the Holy Spirit kept Christ's promise to Peter intact.

A lot of "probable's, most's, and ambiguity" in there... Understandable trying to piece things together with a limited, being generous, written record. I can see how each could take what they want.

---

Jesus kept the church alive through his Holy Spirit working on all true believers throughout time, not through a Romanized version of Christianity that compromised with the pagan world.

---

You view it your way, I will view it my way.

I find it interesting the Holy Spirit was involved with your interpretation of the Bible and then went away... No further impact but what you say. How is it to walk on water? Toss any spirits in swine lately?

I know you have a real hard on for the Roman Catholic Church, but you are one of the most biased people I have ever interacted with. Hard to believe you are real, make the Inquisitors look Progressive.

---

"I find it interesting the Holy Spirit was involved with your interpretation of the Bible and then went away... No further impact but what you say. How is it to walk on water? Toss any spirits in swine lately?"

^^^ what in the world are you talking about? This is incoherent.

If I'm biased, I'm biased towards biblical and historical truth and facts. If anyone's got the REAL bias, it's those who can look at all that is said and done about Mary (bowing to and kissing statues of her, praying to her, singing hymns to her in church, holding hundreds of festivals for her, prayers which call her "sovereign, peacemaker between sinners and God, our hope and our refuge, Mediatrix, god of this world, ruler of my house" and which say to "place your salvation in Mary's hands") and STILL NOT see the clear and obvious idolatry and heresy there. In fact, it's laughable that you'd even accuse anyone else of being "biased". That's epic level bias right there.

Quote:

---

I don't know why you are hung up on the Trump bible. Do you feel that you didn't get your money's worth when you purchased it. Your reference is annoying at best.

What proof do you have that they didn't use the deuterocanon?

No, I am asking you when they added the books (if they were added, a point in time should exist for you to prove your point.)

---

Looks like the insults have come, signifying a dying argument.

The proof that they didn't use the apocrypha.... is that they didn't use the apocrypha.

You don't need to specify a point in time to prove that something was added. You only need to show that something is there that previously wasn't. And besides, you've already provided that specific point, so why are you asking me? It's completely irrelevant.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But by the same guidance of the Holy Spirit that led Martin Luther to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, it also led him to the Reformation. Your argument still fails.

---

Actually no. Your argument is silly. I presented a fact that A and B were always accepted and confirmed by early Councils. You presented a point at A was accepted and B was a change from what was previously accepted for 1500 year. Huge difference.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's no reason to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity because there's nothing biblical to support it. In fact, the bible goes against it. And the Church did NOT always believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It started in and around the 4th century. The only evidence of it earlier than that is from a Gnostic writing (a heresy) which was condemned by a pope in the 5th century. So most certainly it was not a belief from the early Christian church.

---

Where does the bible go against it? Jerome argued that the term "brothers" (from the Greek "adelphoi") was commonly used in the Hebrew tradition to describe not only biological sibilings but also broader familial relationships, including cousins and close kin.

He also pointed out that Aramaic and Hebrew lacked a specific word for cousin, often using "brother" or "sister" instead.

---

You are claiming Holy Spirit guidance for the Councils, and I'm claiming Holy Spirit guidance for the Reformers. No difference.

- the natural reading of "adelphos" is natural brothers and sisters
-Luke 2:7 says that Jesus was Mary's "firstborn son", a term which implies she had others.
-Matthew 1:25 says Joseph didn't consummate his marriage to Mary "until she gave birth to a son", implying he did afterwards. It does not say that Joseph "never" consummated their marriage, something the Bible would say if that were what God wanted to tell us.
-The historian Hegesippus (mid-second century) identifies James the Just as the real half-brother of Jesus.

There just isn't any positive evidence in the Bible that Mary was a perpetual virgin, simply put. That's why Roman Catholicism had to draw it from Gnostic sources, and let the tradition build from there.

Cok said:

---

Having said that, the "Trinity" wasn't first mentioned until last 2nd century and it was officially doctrine until the 4th century also at the First Council of Nicaea. Using your "logic" we should throw this out too.

Why would it hurt you to believe that she maintained her perpetual virginity?

---

The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. The concept of Mary's perpetual virginity isn't. This isn't hard.

It hurts anyone to believe something that isn't scriptural. In your case, as it is for all Roman Catholics, it hurts you guys tremendously because it's a pretext to deify her, which has led you to damnable heresy and idolatry of her.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't know why you are hung up on the Trump bible. Do you feel that you didn't get your money's worth when you purchased it. Your reference is annoying at best.

What proof do you have that they didn't use the deuterocanon?

No, I am asking you when they added the books (if they were added, a point in time should exist for you to prove your point.)

---

Looks like the insults have come, signifying a dying argument.

The proof that they didn't use the apocrypha.... is that they didn't use the apocrypha.

You don't need to specify a point in time to prove that something was added. You only need to show that something is there that previously wasn't. And besides, you've already provided that specific point, so why are you asking me? It's completely irrelevant.

---

Nah, not a dying argument. You earned every insult. Don't sell yourself short. One thing is certain, you better hope heaven is full of *******s....

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cok said:

---

Having said that, the "Trinity" wasn't first mentioned until last 2nd century and it was officially doctrine until the 4th century also at the First Council of Nicaea. Using your "logic" we should throw this out too.

Why would it hurt you to believe that she maintained her perpetual virginity?

---

The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. The concept of Mary's perpetual virginity isn't. This isn't hard.

It hurts anyone to believe something that isn't scriptural. In your case, as it is for all Roman Catholics, it hurts you guys tremendously because it's a pretext to deify her, which has led you to damnable heresy and idolatry of her.

---

The Bible is not the only source, less hard.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

St. Ambrose around 390 (65 years after Nicea) is writing about the ever-Virgin. It is doubtful he just came up with that himself out of thin air. Irenus refers to her as the new Eve 150 years before Nicea. Images of the blessed mother appear in the early church catacombs outside of the Roman walls. And, of course, the Bible itself tells us that all generations henceforth will call Mary blessed. Not to mention that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, herself shows reverence to Mary in Mary's capacity as mother of the Lord.

Mariology traces its roots back deep into Church history. I can see you disagreeing with Catholic conclusions about Mary (I still think you are wrong, but you have free will), but I'm not seeing where your deep hatred comes from.

I guess let me ask these questions: Do you call the Mother of God "blessed" when talking about her? What do you make of Elizabeth when Elizabeth concluded she was favored because the Mother of the Lord was visiting her?

---

First of all, I do not have any hatred towards Mary.
My hatred is towards idolatry, and those who teach others to participate in idolatry.

Yes, a few people were involved in worship of Mary. In fact, it happened while Jesus was alive, and Jesus rebuked those who wanted to worship his mother.

I don't talk about Mary often, outside of Christmas time. I read the passage where the angel announces to Mary that she will be the mother of Jesus. That's about it. Yes, Mary was very honored & blessed. I have never disagreed with that obvious fact. Moses was honored & blessed too... and yet I don't see any Catholic shrines built to Moses. I don't recall any Hail Moses prayers at any of the Catholic services I have attended.

I don't call Mary "blessed" any more than I call Moses "blessed" or David or Samuel. Do you think it is some kind of sin to not call Mary "blessed" whenever discussing her?

What I make of Elizabeth is someone who was extremely excited about the arrival of her Messiah. It is a crazy mis-interpretation to think that Elizabeth was favored because she was in the presence of Mary. If Elizabeth was favored, it was because of the presence of her Messiah, not the mother of her Messiah.

ShooterTX said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

St. Ambrose around 390 (65 years after Nicea) is writing about the ever-Virgin. It is doubtful he just came up with that himself out of thin air. Irenus refers to her as the new Eve 150 years before Nicea. Images of the blessed mother appear in the early church catacombs outside of the Roman walls. And, of course, the Bible itself tells us that all generations henceforth will call Mary blessed. Not to mention that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, herself shows reverence to Mary in Mary's capacity as mother of the Lord.

Mariology traces its roots back deep into Church history. I can see you disagreeing with Catholic conclusions about Mary (I still think you are wrong, but you have free will), but I'm not seeing where your deep hatred comes from.

I guess let me ask these questions: Do you call the Mother of God "blessed" when talking about her? What do you make of Elizabeth when Elizabeth concluded she was favored because the Mother of the Lord was visiting her?

---

First of all, I do not have any hatred towards Mary.
My hatred is towards idolatry, and those who teach others to participate in idolatry.

Yes, a few people were involved in worship of Mary. In fact, it happened while Jesus was alive, and Jesus rebuked those who wanted to worship his mother.

I don't talk about Mary often, outside of Christmas time. I read the passage where the angel announces to Mary that she will be the mother of Jesus. That's about it. Yes, Mary was very honored & blessed. I have never disagreed with that obvious fact. Moses was honored & blessed too... and yet I don't see any Catholic shrines built to Moses. I don't recall any Hail Moses prayers at any of the Catholic services I have attended.

I don't call Mary "blessed" any more than I call Moses "blessed" or David or Samuel. Do you think it is some kind of sin to not call Mary "blessed" whenever discussing her?

What I make of Elizabeth is someone who was extremely excited about the arrival of her Messiah. It is a crazy mis-interpretation to think that Elizabeth was favored because she was in the presence of Mary. If Elizabeth was favored, it was because of the presence of her Messiah, not the mother of her Messiah.

---

First, in the Magnificat (hymn of praise to God, the recording of which was inspired by the Holy Spirit) Mary specifically sings, "from now on will all ages call me blessed." Are we just going to bypass that as some minor thing? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake when that made it in Luke's gospel?

Second, Elizabeth explicitly says , "and how does this happen to me, that the MOTHER OF MY LORD SHOULD COME TO ME?" [Luke 1:43; NIV uses "favored"]. How are you reading into Elizabeth's words anything other than Elizabeth feeling favored and blessed because Mary in her capacity as *Mother of the Lord* is visiting Elizabeth?

Are you really suggesting this is a "crazy mis-interpretation" of Elizabeth's own words? Especially when a few lines earlier John the Baptist is leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb because the Messiah is near. If Elizabeth's amazement and wonderment is about the Messiah the precedent for describing it as such is two sentences back. Not only that, Elizabeth is already referring to Mary's child as the Lord, so there is little doubt about what Elizabeth is saying here.

As an aside and interestingly enough, we are not told how Elizabeth knows that Mary carries the Messiah. Gabriel doesn't explicitly tell Zechariah in the scriptures about it. And we don't know how Elizabeth knew, but she knew.

Look, I'm fine with you disagreeing with us lowly Catholics. I will not return the favor by suggesting you are condemned to hell over your disagreement. But to suggest that Mariology is unprecedented in the Bible is to ignore The Visitation and Mary and Elizabeth's own words as recorded by Luke. The Visitation was no minor thing given that the angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah and Gabriel silenced Zechariah for just about a year for questioning what Gabriel revealed to Zechariah about John the Baptist. John the Baptist is of course a major player in the Gospels.

The Moses comparison is lazy and you know it.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

St. Ambrose around 390 (65 years after Nicea) is writing about the ever-Virgin. It is doubtful he just came up with that himself out of thin air. Irenus refers to her as the new Eve 150 years before Nicea. Images of the blessed mother appear in the early church catacombs outside of the Roman walls. And, of course, the Bible itself tells us that all generations henceforth will call Mary blessed. Not to mention that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, herself shows reverence to Mary in Mary's capacity as mother of the Lord.

Mariology traces its roots back deep into Church history. I can see you disagreeing with Catholic conclusions about Mary (I still think you are wrong, but you have free will), but I'm not seeing where your deep hatred comes from.

I guess let me ask these questions: Do you call the Mother of God "blessed" when talking about her? What do you make of Elizabeth when Elizabeth concluded she was favored because the Mother of the Lord was visiting her?

---

First of all, I do not have any hatred towards Mary.
My hatred is towards idolatry, and those who teach others to participate in idolatry.

Yes, a few people were involved in worship of Mary. In fact, it happened while Jesus was alive, and Jesus rebuked those who wanted to worship his mother.

I don't talk about Mary often, outside of Christmas time. I read the passage where the angel announces to Mary that she will be the mother of Jesus. That's about it. Yes, Mary was very honored & blessed. I have never disagreed with that obvious fact. Moses was honored & blessed too... and yet I don't see any Catholic shrines built to Moses. I don't recall any Hail Moses prayers at any of the Catholic services I have attended.

I don't call Mary "blessed" any more than I call Moses "blessed" or David or Samuel. Do you think it is some kind of sin to not call Mary "blessed" whenever discussing her?

What I make of Elizabeth is someone who was extremely excited about the arrival of her Messiah. It is a crazy mis-interpretation to think that Elizabeth was favored because she was in the presence of Mary. If Elizabeth was favored, it was because of the presence of her Messiah, not the mother of her Messiah.

---

First, in the Magnificat (hymn of praise to God, the recording of which was inspired by the Holy Spirit) Mary specifically sings, "from now on will all ages call me blessed." Are we just going to bypass that as some minor thing? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake when that made it in Luke's gospel?

Second, Elizabeth explicitly says , "and how does this happen to me, that the MOTHER OF MY LORD SHOULD COME TO ME?" [Luke 1:43; NIV uses "favored"]. How are you reading into Elizabeth's words anything other than Elizabeth feeling favored and blessed because Mary in her capacity as *Mother of the Lord* is visiting Elizabeth?

Are you really suggesting this is a "crazy mis-interpretation" of Elizabeth's own words? Especially when a few lines earlier John the Baptist is leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb because the Messiah is near. If Elizabeth's amazement and wonderment is about the Messiah the precedent for describing it as such is two sentences back. Not only that, Elizabeth is already referring to Mary's child as the Lord, so there is little doubt about what Elizabeth is saying here.

As an aside and interestingly enough, we are not told how Elizabeth knows that Mary carries the Messiah. Gabriel doesn't explicitly tell Zechariah in the scriptures about it. And we don't know how Elizabeth knew, but she knew.

Look, I'm fine with you disagreeing with us lowly Catholics. I will not return the favor by suggesting you are condemned to hell over your disagreement. But to suggest that Mariology is unprecedented in the Bible is to ignore The Visitation and Mary and Elizabeth's own words as recorded by Luke. The Visitation was no minor thing given that the angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah and Gabriel silenced Zechariah for just about a year for questioning what Gabriel revealed to Zechariah about John the Baptist. John the Baptist is of course a major player in the Gospels.

The Moses comparison is lazy and you know it.

---

You can't say John the Baptist is a major player. They will tell us who are the major players. That is what they are looking for to tell us what to believe and what is wrong about Catholicism. That is what this is all about. We have not discussed Pope Leo, as Busy and his buds have highjacked this thread.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

St. Ambrose around 390 (65 years after Nicea) is writing about the ever-Virgin. It is doubtful he just came up with that himself out of thin air. Irenus refers to her as the new Eve 150 years before Nicea. Images of the blessed mother appear in the early church catacombs outside of the Roman walls. And, of course, the Bible itself tells us that all generations henceforth will call Mary blessed. Not to mention that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, herself shows reverence to Mary in Mary's capacity as mother of the Lord.

Mariology traces its roots back deep into Church history. I can see you disagreeing with Catholic conclusions about Mary (I still think you are wrong, but you have free will), but I'm not seeing where your deep hatred comes from.

I guess let me ask these questions: Do you call the Mother of God "blessed" when talking about her? What do you make of Elizabeth when Elizabeth concluded she was favored because the Mother of the Lord was visiting her?

---

First of all, I do not have any hatred towards Mary.
My hatred is towards idolatry, and those who teach others to participate in idolatry.

Yes, a few people were involved in worship of Mary. In fact, it happened while Jesus was alive, and Jesus rebuked those who wanted to worship his mother.

I don't talk about Mary often, outside of Christmas time. I read the passage where the angel announces to Mary that she will be the mother of Jesus. That's about it. Yes, Mary was very honored & blessed. I have never disagreed with that obvious fact. Moses was honored & blessed too... and yet I don't see any Catholic shrines built to Moses. I don't recall any Hail Moses prayers at any of the Catholic services I have attended.

I don't call Mary "blessed" any more than I call Moses "blessed" or David or Samuel. Do you think it is some kind of sin to not call Mary "blessed" whenever discussing her?

What I make of Elizabeth is someone who was extremely excited about the arrival of her Messiah. It is a crazy mis-interpretation to think that Elizabeth was favored because she was in the presence of Mary. If Elizabeth was favored, it was because of the presence of her Messiah, not the mother of her Messiah.

---

First, in the Magnificat (hymn of praise to God, the recording of which was inspired by the Holy Spirit) Mary specifically sings, "from now on will all ages call me blessed." Are we just going to bypass that as some minor thing? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake when that made it in Luke's gospel?

Second, Elizabeth explicitly says , "and how does this happen to me, that the MOTHER OF MY LORD SHOULD COME TO ME?" [Luke 1:43; NIV uses "favored"]. How are you reading into Elizabeth's words anything other than Elizabeth feeling favored and blessed because Mary in her capacity as *Mother of the Lord* is visiting Elizabeth?

Are you really suggesting this is a "crazy mis-interpretation" of Elizabeth's own words? Especially when a few lines earlier John the Baptist is leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb because the Messiah is near. If Elizabeth's amazement and wonderment is about the Messiah the precedent for describing it as such is two sentences back. Not only that, Elizabeth is already referring to Mary's child as the Lord, so there is little doubt about what Elizabeth is saying here.

As an aside and interestingly enough, we are not told how Elizabeth knows that Mary carries the Messiah. Gabriel doesn't explicitly tell Zechariah in the scriptures about it. And we don't know how Elizabeth knew, but she knew.

Look, I'm fine with you disagreeing with us lowly Catholics. I will not return the favor by suggesting you are condemned to hell over your disagreement. But to suggest that Mariology is unprecedented in the Bible is to ignore The Visitation and Mary and Elizabeth's own words as recorded by Luke. The Visitation was no minor thing given that the angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah and Gabriel silenced Zechariah for just about a year for questioning what Gabriel revealed to Zechariah about John the Baptist. John the Baptist is of course a major player in the Gospels.

The Moses comparison is lazy and you know it.

---

Moses is a lazy comparison? So being visited by an angel is a bigger deal than being visited by God Himself?
Moses was given the law and a covenant and the God Himself passed before Moses... but yeah... he's nothing compared to Mary.
Tell me again that you guys aren't engaged in idolatry.

And FYI, there is a huge difference between calling Mary "blessed", and building shrines, saying prayers and singing praises to Mary.
Yes, Mary is blessed. No, that does not mean that you should turn her into a idol.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cok said:

---

Having said that, the "Trinity" wasn't first mentioned until last 2nd century and it was officially doctrine until the 4th century also at the First Council of Nicaea. Using your "logic" we should throw this out too.

Why would it hurt you to believe that she maintained her perpetual virginity?

---

The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. The concept of Mary's perpetual virginity isn't. This isn't hard.

It hurts anyone to believe something that isn't scriptural. In your case, as it is for all Roman Catholics, it hurts you guys tremendously because it's a pretext to deify her, which has led you to damnable heresy and idolatry of her.

---

The Bible is not the only source, less hard.

---

A belief that has led to damnable heresy and rank idolatry.

ShooterTX said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

-Given the fact that Pope Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, endorsed the full 73-book canon of the Bible, when do you argue that Catholics were "adding books" to the Bible? Were the Deuterocanonical books in the first addition of the KJV?

---> Evidently, then, at this time.

---

Well, this is the same time that the NT was ratified by the Church, so I suppose that you should accept the 46-book OT. Awesome! Welcome one step closer to the Truth of the Catholic Church! God Bless and Welcome Home! Please locate a Catholic Church near you and enroll in OCIA. Classes should start in September.

---

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church didn't officially canonize the apocryphal books until the Council of Trent in 1546. Less than 500 years ago.

And your point that you're trying to make is utterly confusing - since I think the RCC added books to the canon of the Bible when 73 books were endorsed in 382..... that means I should accept the apocrypha?? That is completely incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't be posting in the middle of the night. Were you drinking? Get some sleep.

---

No, you should accept the 73-book canon because that is the correct canon.

My point here is that the Council or Rome is the first to accept the NT as canon. If they got that right, then they got the OT correct.

---

You've got to be kidding with that logic. Fallacy of composition of the worst kind. By that argument, I can say (from a Roman Catholic's perspective) that since Martin Luther got the perpetual virginity of Mary right, then it means he got the Reformation right as well.

I can't believe you actually typed that.

---

You've made made another silly analogy again. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the same men that discussed and decided what the NT books should be are the same men that listed what the OT should be during that Council of Rome.

The Church has always believed the perpetual virginity of Mary. You should too.

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

St. Ambrose around 390 (65 years after Nicea) is writing about the ever-Virgin. It is doubtful he just came up with that himself out of thin air. Irenus refers to her as the new Eve 150 years before Nicea. Images of the blessed mother appear in the early church catacombs outside of the Roman walls. And, of course, the Bible itself tells us that all generations henceforth will call Mary blessed. Not to mention that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, herself shows reverence to Mary in Mary's capacity as mother of the Lord.

Mariology traces its roots back deep into Church history. I can see you disagreeing with Catholic conclusions about Mary (I still think you are wrong, but you have free will), but I'm not seeing where your deep hatred comes from.

I guess let me ask these questions: Do you call the Mother of God "blessed" when talking about her? What do you make of Elizabeth when Elizabeth concluded she was favored because the Mother of the Lord was visiting her?

---

First of all, I do not have any hatred towards Mary.
My hatred is towards idolatry, and those who teach others to participate in idolatry.

Yes, a few people were involved in worship of Mary. In fact, it happened while Jesus was alive, and Jesus rebuked those who wanted to worship his mother.

I don't talk about Mary often, outside of Christmas time. I read the passage where the angel announces to Mary that she will be the mother of Jesus. That's about it. Yes, Mary was very honored & blessed. I have never disagreed with that obvious fact. Moses was honored & blessed too... and yet I don't see any Catholic shrines built to Moses. I don't recall any Hail Moses prayers at any of the Catholic services I have attended.

I don't call Mary "blessed" any more than I call Moses "blessed" or David or Samuel. Do you think it is some kind of sin to not call Mary "blessed" whenever discussing her?

What I make of Elizabeth is someone who was extremely excited about the arrival of her Messiah. It is a crazy mis-interpretation to think that Elizabeth was favored because she was in the presence of Mary. If Elizabeth was favored, it was because of the presence of her Messiah, not the mother of her Messiah.

---

First, in the Magnificat (hymn of praise to God, the recording of which was inspired by the Holy Spirit) Mary specifically sings, "from now on will all ages call me blessed." Are we just going to bypass that as some minor thing? Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake when that made it in Luke's gospel?

Second, Elizabeth explicitly says , "and how does this happen to me, that the MOTHER OF MY LORD SHOULD COME TO ME?" [Luke 1:43; NIV uses "favored"]. How are you reading into Elizabeth's words anything other than Elizabeth feeling favored and blessed because Mary in her capacity as *Mother of the Lord* is visiting Elizabeth?

Are you really suggesting this is a "crazy mis-interpretation" of Elizabeth's own words? Especially when a few lines earlier John the Baptist is leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb because the Messiah is near. If Elizabeth's amazement and wonderment is about the Messiah the precedent for describing it as such is two sentences back. Not only that, Elizabeth is already referring to Mary's child as the Lord, so there is little doubt about what Elizabeth is saying here.

As an aside and interestingly enough, we are not told how Elizabeth knows that Mary carries the Messiah. Gabriel doesn't explicitly tell Zechariah in the scriptures about it. And we don't know how Elizabeth knew, but she knew.

Look, I'm fine with you disagreeing with us lowly Catholics. I will not return the favor by suggesting you are condemned to hell over your disagreement. But to suggest that Mariology is unprecedented in the Bible is to ignore The Visitation and Mary and Elizabeth's own words as recorded by Luke. The Visitation was no minor thing given that the angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah and Gabriel silenced Zechariah for just about a year for questioning what Gabriel revealed to Zechariah about John the Baptist. John the Baptist is of course a major player in the Gospels.

The Moses comparison is lazy and you know it.

---

Moses is a lazy comparison? So being visited by an angel is a bigger deal than being visited by God Himself?
Moses was given the law and a covenant and the God Himself passed before Moses... but yeah... he's nothing compared to Mary.
Tell me again that you guys aren't engaged in idolatry.

And FYI, there is a huge difference between calling Mary "blessed", and building shrines, saying prayers and singing praises to Mary.
Yes, Mary is blessed. No, that does not mean that you should turn her into a idol.

---

A. Moses is a lazy comparison because his is an OT figure and his applicability to any Christian is limited because the Mosiac covenant is fulfilled and superseded by Jesus.

Beyond that, LOL at you reducing Mary's role to just being visited by an angel. Just going to gloss over the whole part where she says yes to the monumental task she is asked to play a part in, she carries the Messiah (the covenant) in her womb for 9 months, God himself in the form of the Son passes through her, she along with Joseph her spouse is entrusted with his safety and earthly formation, and then nudges (some would say intercedes) Jesus into his public ministry. But yeah, she was just visited by an angel.

I am amazed that you can clearly understand the significance of " [Moses] being visited by God Himself. Moses was given the law and a covenant and the God Himself passed before Moses." and then just gloss over Mary's role in all of this. You are so close, my friend. I mean, you're describing Mary and the building blocks of Church Marian theology there with a few minor tweaks in your words (add in the parallels to the Ark of the Covenant and Mary's "yes" and you've basically got the foundation covered).

B. You are moving the goal posts: this is about whether Mariology has any precedent in the Scriptures and I don't see how you can possibly read the back half of Luke Ch. 1 and understand the ritualistic importance of Moses in his role and claim there is no scriptural precedent for Mariology. Again, you can disagree with the conclusions, but your baseline position of "nowhere in the scriptures" is just wrong.

C. Please tell us how Elizabeth believing she is blessed and found favor because the *Mother of the Lord* is visiting her is a "crazy mis-interpretation" of Luke.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cok said:

---

Having said that, the "Trinity" wasn't first mentioned until last 2nd century and it was officially doctrine until the 4th century also at the First Council of Nicaea. Using your "logic" we should throw this out too.

Why would it hurt you to believe that she maintained her perpetual virginity?

---

The concept of the trinity is in the Bible. The concept of Mary's perpetual virginity isn't. This isn't hard.

It hurts anyone to believe something that isn't scriptural. In your case, as it is for all Roman Catholics, it hurts you guys tremendously because it's a pretext to deify her, which has led you to damnable heresy and idolatry of her.

---

The Bible is not the only source, less hard.

---

A belief that has led to damnable heresy and rank idolatry.

---

Is that what you found last time you went to heaven, Catholics not there ?

Or do they just send you a monthly report?