What ever happen to this commandment...

2) You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 09, 2005

Answers

That Commandment still stands. We are not to carve and worship any graven image.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 09, 2005.

Nolan,

Do Hindu's read the Bible?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 09, 2005.

Daniel, all the Hindus (no apostrophe)I know are not idolaters. They worship the God or gods whom their statues represent, not the statues themselves.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 09, 2005.

"Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other. Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered." (Ex 25: 18-20)

"He gave also gold for the tables of proposition, according to the diversity of the tables: in like manner also silver for other tables of silver. For fleshhooks also, and bowls, and censers of fine gold, and for little lions of gold, according to the measure he gave by weight, for every lion. In like manner also for lions of silver he set aside a different weight of silver. And for the altar of incense, he gave the purest gold: and to make the likeness of the chariot of the cherubims spreading their wings, and covering the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All these things, said he, came to me written by the hand of the Lord that I might understand all the works of the pattern. And David said to Solomon his son: Act like a man, and take courage, and do: fear not, and be not dismayed: for the Lord my God will be with thee, and will not leave thee, nor forsake thee, till thou hast finished all the work for the service of the house of the Lord." (1 Para 18: 16-20) [Chronicles to new Bibles]

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "And even to the inner house, and without all the wall round about within and without, by measure. And there were cherubims and palm trees wrought, so that a palm tree was between a cherub and a cherub, and every cherub had two faces."

And many more examples...

Catholics use images and statues to recall Christ and how he is ever present with us in our everyday lives. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. How else would the faith spread, if 80% of the population in those days could not read or write. A picture speaks a thousand words.

It is interesting to note that Protestants have pictures of family memebers in their households. If one was to measure them by the same stick that they use to beat Catholics into confessing they are idols worshippers, then Protestants too are also idolaters. I mean doesn't it say, "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in.. the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth."

God cannot be contradicting himself if he used the brazen serpent to heal the blasphemous Israelites of the fiery serpents(Numbers 21: 8- 9) - "And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed."

I detect a little bit of 'double-standards' by Protestants

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), February 09, 2005.

I wonder if there is a cross anywhere in or on Nolan's church. Or if any members of his congregation wear a cross. I don't mean a real cross of course. Just a graven image of a cross.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 09, 2005.

Dear Paul,

One does not bow down or worship a cross or any other image, correct me if i am wrong, but cathoilics do bow down to mary, a mere women, a sinner like you and I.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 09, 2005.

Dear Nolan,

A Catholic does show respect for the mother of God, and a bow is a gesture of respect. Until recent times, a gentleman would bow to a lady. Therefore, some Catholics might feel led to use that gesture of respect toward the mother of God, though no-one is required or expected to do so.

In any case, your original post in this thread concerned graven (three- dimensional) images, not gestures of respect for persons. The point is, you have graven images in your church and we have them in ours; but no-one in our church worships the images, and presumably no-one in your church does either. We simply use images as visual reminders of the real persons they represent, just as you use pictures of your family members. We do honor those people, just as we honor members of our family. And we do ask them to pray for us, just as we would ask members of our family. But we worship God alone, and Him alone do we serve.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 09, 2005.

...but cathoilics do bow down to mary, a mere women, a sinner like you and I.

Not to nitpick, but Mary was in fact NOT a sinner like you and I. Chosen by God to be his own mother, She was born without original sin.

-- Mike (n@n.n), February 09, 2005.

...sure she was

and where is that said in the bible?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 09, 2005.

First we should address the more basic question - where is it said in the Bible that every truth of the faith is plainly stated in the Bible? If you can show me that passage, then your question makes sense. If you can't, then it doesn't.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 09, 2005.

Steve,

Do the Hindu's(silent apostrophe) you know read the Bible?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 09, 2005.

Sola Scriptura proved

Question Where does the Bible say that our beliefs should be based on the teaching of the Bible? 'Bible only' is plainly unbiblical.

Answer Every disciple of Christ is obedient to the Lord and is committed to believe and obey His Word. The Christian will not permit any man or creature to usurp the throne of his Lord. Moreover, every Christian believes that the Bible is the Word of God. He is therefore committed to its teachings, commands and instructions.

You may respond, 'Yes, the Christian should be obedient to the Bible. But why insist on the Bible alone as his ultimate authority?'

To answer, let me ask some questions myself. What would you add to the Bible? 'Sola Scriptura' is not whether the Bible is the infallible Word of God or not (we all agree that it is). The question is whether the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith or not; whether we should add something else of equal authority along with the Bible.

Well then, would you add human reason and philosophy, as the liberals do? No, because the word of man could never be equal to the word of God. 'Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar' (Proverbs 30:5). What then, would you add to the written Word of God? Let us consider three possibilities:

1. New revelations

Can we add new revelations? No, because God's revelation is complete. There was a time when God was giving new revelations as He was unfolding the plan of salvation. Indeed there was a time when there was no written Scriptures and God spoke audibly to people like Adam, Noah and Abraham. There was a time when God's Word came in the form of prophetic and apostolic speech as well as the written form. God's revelation reached its climax in Christ, who is the image of the invisible God. During the apostolic era, the Christian faith was delivered in full to the church, as Jude tells us. Christians should 'should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints' (Jude 3). It is therefore wrong to seek new revelations seeing that the Bible declares that the Christian faith is already delivered to us.

2. Tradition

What about tradition? Did God give a body of truth, different and apart from teaching of the Bible, which was transmitted intact through the centuries in an oral, unwritten form? Definitely not! We can compare the church with the Old Testament people of God, Israel. From the prophet Malachi to John the baptist, God did not give them new revelations. The Jews were responsible to obey the Word of God preserved in the Holy Scriptures, and nothing else. During His earthly ministry, the Lord Jesus did not expect the Jews to believe some extra-scriptural doctrine which was supposedly transmitted from the prophets of old by word of mouth. Jesus often appealed to the Scriptures - 'It is written' - but He never appealed to tradition as if it carried equal authority (see below). On the contrary, He rebuked the Jews for adding traditions which in effect undermined the plain teaching of the Scriptures: 'Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition' (please read Mark 7). Sadly, history repeats itself. Christians today should obey the Word of God preserved in the completed Scriptures, but they often go beyond what is written. Because of tradition, the Catholic church now has graven images, obligatory fasting, relics, indulgences, celibate ministry, the sacrifice of the mass, the confessional, purgatory and so on, all of which are absent from the Bible and indeed contradict the plain teachings of Scripture.

2. Bishops

Finally, can we place the teaching authority of the church on the same plane with the Bible? Certainly we should listen to and respect Christian teachers. Pastors (also know as bishops and elders) are God's gift to His church. They are appointed by God to teach and lead the churches, and Christians are commanded to submit to them. The leaders' responsibility is to study and teach God's Word as it is, without additions or change. They should study the Word carefully for they are liable to make mistakes (2 Timothy 2:15). And since they are not infallible, the apostle Paul advises us to 'test all things; hold fast what is good' (1 Thessalonians 5:21), while James warns us: 'My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many things' (James 3:1).

In short, the Bible is the Word of God and there is nothing of equal authority. Hence the Christian's commitment is to the Bible alone as the ultimate and absolute authority. Christ rejected tradition as an additional channel of revelation. Christ showed that the religious teachers were fallible - and how! Christ had absolute confidence in the Scriptures as the Word of God. I am His disciple and I share His convictions. That is why I believe in sola Scriptura.

The Bible reveals an infinite God who is perfect in holiness, love, wisdom and in all His attributes. The Bible teaches us how He created the world and how He rules all things by His wise providence. His Law reveals our sinfulness, and warns us about Hell and the wrath to come. Thank God, the Bible also has a good message of hope. God sent His Son who gave Himself as a ransom for many. He overcame death and He is now alive forevermore. The Bible calls us to repentance and faith in Christ for our salvation, and guides us by its precepts along the way of our pilgrimage. The Bible gives us precious promises, especially of His protection and His coming again to take us home. God's children are satisfied with the message of the God-breathed Scriptures because we are satisfied with the Saviour revealed therein.

-- sdqas (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 09, 2005.

"It is written!" - Jesus' absolute confidence in the divine authority of the Scriptures:

1. Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 2. Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 3. Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 4. Matthew 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 5. Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. 6. Matthew 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. 7. Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 8. Mark 9:12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. 9. Mark 9:13 But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. 10. Mark 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. 11. Mark 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 12. Mark 14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. 13. Luke 3:4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 14. Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. 15. Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 16. Luke 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 17. Luke 7:27 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 18. Luke 19:46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. 19. Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 20. John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 21. John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 22. John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 09, 2005.

sdqa ?????

Did you write all that yourself? Why are you trying to prove sola scriptura? Just curious---You're puttin us on right?

If you become a Bible Christian we're gonna have to run for cover--- or I will have to get a real big helmet.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 09, 2005.

and where is that said in the bible?

SDQA...Last time I checked, as a Catholic, the church was built upon the pope, not the bible (the bible came ~500 years later). Anyhow, here's one answer...amazing how well Google works, huh??

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm20.htm

-- Mike (n@n.n), February 09, 2005.

but that is all catholic bs

how do they know how mary was?

no references to the bible...

no historical proof...

i supposed to believe that ****?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 09, 2005.

no jim i didn't write that myself...i copied it from some site...

yes i am trying to prove sola scriptura because:

1/the manmade teachings of the RCC aren't correct

2/the RCC gave themselves the authority to make dogmas and teach whatever they want and i don't think that it's very good to rely blindly on a manmade instition with such a corrupt and bloody history

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 09, 2005.

I find it amazing that protestants would come to a catholic forum to throw rocks - as though they think catholics don't know scripture and don't know human history.

Yes, there is a massive double-standard being employed by Protestants who think Catholics are idol-worshippers. The double standard is both cultural and theological.

Cultural in that outward actions and things that THEY DO ALL THE TIME is considered by them to be innocent but instantly suspect when done by those they dislike (or as is the case most of the time were told by their elders to dislike "just because").

If they go beyond cultural misunderstandings (mistaking one action for something else) and dabble in theology, they tend to only make a mess of things...such as when they confuse "prayer" with "worship". It's not a minor thing that most Protestants only speak English, whereas most Catholics over 60 still remember some Latin and indeed the Catholic faith transcends (and pre-dates) the English language.

There are simply more nuances and concepts in other languages (such as Greek) than in English for some things.

English has one word like "Love" whereas the Greeks had 3 or 4 words with hugely different meanings such as "Eros", "Philia", and "Agape".

Protestants tend to lump all meanings into one word and then tie themselves in equivocal knots, whereas Catholics see the vast differences.

Thus in English the word "worship" is used by Protestants to cover prayer (private and public) singing accompanied by sermons, and public activities that are like liturgies.... but Catholics make the distinctions of Oratio (prayer) Liturgia (public prayer) Dulia (honor, such as rendered to saints or holy people) Hyper-dulia (honor rendered to Mary as the Mother of God) and Adoratio (translated as worship rendered to God alone).

No Catholic worships saints or Mary. Protestants routinely misinterpret "pray to" for "worship" because ALL THEY HAVE IS PRAYER, NO SACRIFICE.

Catholics only worship God in Mass, because only in the Mass is there sacrifice... just as the Jews only worshipped God in Jerusalem, in the Temple according to the prescribed sacrifices and not in their synagogues, where they only sang psalms and read from the Law.

Jesus nailed home this distinction in the Gospel of John while speaking with the woman at the well....acknowledging that Jews only worshipped God in Jerusalem...but would later worship the Father in spirit and truth (the same words he used later in chapter 6 with reference to eating and drinking his body and blood which is the sacrifice of the Mass).

Fact is, most Protestants are simply not prepared to deal with Catholics who know their faith and history... their whole preparation and cultural formation simply doesn't allow them to have the wherewithall to deal with the wider world.

Look at all the cultural things which Protestants in the USA have erected without the least thought of being idol-worshippers:

There is a massive statue to the goddess of liberty in New York Harbor, hundreds of stone and metal statues in our Nation's capital, incuding on the dome of the Capitol building...all put there by PROTESTANT elected officials... and no one says BOO.

Most State Capitol buildings have graven images on their Romanesque front pieces... most court houses have images of Roman deities on their shields etc.... with no pretense of Pagan worship at all...

We have graven images on our money, the 4 heads of dead presidents on a mountain in South Dakota...which people go out of their way to visit... and yet no PROTESTANT claims to be worshipping these images!

Of course there is a double standard - and appalling cultural ignorance.... for a protestant to think bowing = worship is the height of ignorance. You put flowers on the grave of loved ones to show respect and love for their memory. But when Catholics put flowers in front of an image our our Lady...we are claimed to worship her!

Who was it that mandated that American citizens salute the flag? Oh, yes, PROTESTANTS. Yet we're not idolizing the piece of cloth are we? Yet when we do anything analogous to a picture or statute of Mary or the saints suddenly we are worshipping them?

Can you say double-standard?

Fact is, most protestants are clue-less when it comes to culture. They don't realize what they don't know and assume way too much when it comes to other cultures.

Case in point: what is worship, strictly speaking? From time immemorial to the late 1500's "to worship" always and everywhere required a sacrifice.

Cain and Abel worshipped God with sacrificial offerings... Their prayer with God wasn't = to worship. Singing to or of God along with prayer was NEVER considered = "worship" in the Old Testament or the New.

Accordingly, when you claim to have "worship services" in which there is no sacrifice, you really are only having prayer services.

Ah but to catch the qualitative difference you'd have to know something of the meaning of words wouldn't you?

Then there's the whole "every man can interpret the scriptures for himself" fallacy proven ridiculous every time self-appointed "pastor bob" opens his mouth.

Seems St Peter put an end to that maddness in his letter in reference to St Paul... not that Protestants reflect on that proof text.

Time and again they will fall back on "well it's not explicitly mentioned in scripture so there". OK. Where does the scripture EXPLICITLY SAY THAT CHRISTIANS ARE TO BELIEVE THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY?

Where does it explicitly mention which books are canonical and which are not?

Where does it explicitly spell out that faith alone (defining exactly what faith means) and not works (again defined exactly) "saves"?

Paul does say that faith will (future tense) save. Jesus certainly says that faith is important...but he ALSO COMMANDS US TO DO CERTAIN THINGS... and in the account of the Last Judgment NO WHERE DOES HE ASK FOR THE SOUL'S FAITH...ITS ALL ABOUT WORKS.

But who wants to take Jesus' clear words for it when we can use Paul's more complex words to get a get out of jail free card eh?

-- anon (anonymous@yahoo.com), February 09, 2005.

SDQA....If you are against Catholic teachings and you believe they are wrong, then why do you place such trust in the bible? It was assembled by the church, how do you know that the early church did not manipulate it and twist it for their own benefit?

Sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

-- mike (n@n.n), February 09, 2005.

i don't...i'm not christian

i just despise the RCC and want to prove and i have proof and i already have proven that they are wrong...that they are a corrupt evil institution...and for those who choose to be christian...then be a real christian...and not a fake one...trusting in your manmade institution...that has caused so many problems...that did nothing to change this world and change the minds of the people...that used religion to manipulate and control and gain their own profits...that put useless burdens on the ppl just like the fariseers and make them focus on the details so everyone forgets the real thing... and this all based on the teachings of a man who gave his life up fithing these kinds of things...how ironic

i just despise religious fanaticism in general...i'm just like that...i don't have nothing personal against you guys as long as you don't judge me,try to convert me or have something against me...but i do have a whole lot against the RCC...bunch of liars and child molesters

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 09, 2005.

It's high time, moderator. Lower the boom on this panty- head.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.

Sdqa, oh how you show that you so EASILY buy into lies and especialy the media! You have proved the RCC wrong? Wow, of all men throughout history you have finaly done it. It shouldn't be much longer now before everyone listens to your concrete proof! I ask you, what have you done for humanity? Learn about how much GOOD, CHARITY, and HELP the RCC has given to the world. If you can't see that then you desperatly need a miracle friend!

Nolan, I bow down to World War 2 monuments when I see them, especialy the American soilders puting up the flag in the east. But I am not worshiping them, I am giving respect to the men who fought within that war. I bow down to Biblical statues as well but not to worship the material statue, but in HONOR to whom it represents. How is this so hard to understand. Many religous people are just fanatics and believe the silliest things. "Oh you bowed down to it so you must believe it's God, you idolter!" I just hope unreligous people realize that not all Christians are like that.

-- Jason (enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), February 09, 2005.

sdqa,

I was raised Catholic, and during those early years I never saw any fanaticism coming from any Catholics I knew. We went to Church on Sundays and Holy days of obligation. I was taught to love God and my neighbor, to say my prayers and be a good fellow. I'd hardly call this fanatic. There can of course be fanaticism anywhere, and in any group which can of course have positive or negative results.

I became agnostic/athieistic for over 20 years and found fanatisism mainly from "funamentalist" types. (Those who joyfully find their condemnation of others in bible verses.) I came to believe and bought into alot of what you believe about the Church. Not all though, I was never actually motivated to "hate" it; also I knew too many good people who were affiliated with the Church to believe it was inherintly evil.

Much of the bloody, historically corrupt image you have of the Church is overblown. It borders on book selling sensationalism. I'm sure you can identify all of the incidents in the Church's 2000 year history that lead you to, and supports your conclusions. No one here is unaware of them.

All institutions run by humans will make tragic mistakes, but this does not mean that the "substance" of the institution itself is evil. I think your information is coming only from one side. I've done this myself; I have from time to time studied only that which supported my preconceptions. If it didn't fit my view, I wasn't even interested. I'm as guilty as anyone of doing this. Its not easy, but it is not impossible to become more impartial.

Further investigation study and understanding may bring you to a more reasonable view. Maybe not now or soon because it strikes me that you are to some extent "in love" with hating the Church. You are approaching the subject with an almost "romantic" zeal. I don't expect you to become a Catholic, but you may want to take a few steps back, to see if you are really getting it right about Catholicism or just feeding your own passion.

I think you are a bright and interesting person. "BUT" you seem overly preoccupied with finding reasons to despise the Church. There's more to life!!!

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 09, 2005.

THAT is the best argument you can come up with for “sola scriptura”??!!

Our Lord didn’t come just to tell people to read the scriptures. He went around saying, “You have heard how it was said,….but I say to you….” (Matthew Ch 5).

And I’ve seen an awful lot of protestants bowing to the Queen of England, a sinner just like you and me. What’s wrong with bowing to the Queen of Heaven?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 09, 2005.

I guess most Hindus don’t read the Bible, Daniel, but I don’t see what your point is.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 09, 2005.

How do we know that Jesus was born....beacause the church fathers or pope told us...or

because it was wriiten, in the scriptures, and if it was not written, many of us, in fact all of us would have not believed.

You claim Jesus "appointed" Peter as the first head of the church....where did you find that out...dont you quote book of matthew, from the bible.

So when is it okay, and not okay to use the bible.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 10, 2005.

Nolan,

You just left yourself wide open with that last question.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), February 10, 2005.

sdqa..now that you have become such a bible scholar, I'll ask you the same question that I asked Nolan on another thread:

Please explain 2 Thessalonians 2:15

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 10, 2005.

Jim's right. You've destroyed yourself, Nolan. If there is Biblical support for Papal Infallibility (and despite numerous Protestant and Orthodox contortions there is no better interpretation of the original Greek of Mt 13-20). Now, if Jesus has promised that Peter is Rock and that He will build His Church on Peter, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church founded on Peter, then clearly the traditions of the Catholic Church, whose popes can trace themselves in a direct line back to Peter, are implicitly approved by the Bible. After all, if the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church founded by Christ on the Rock of Peter, then anything officially approved by Peter and/or his heirs must, of necessity, be congruous with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

-- Michael Healy, Jr. (temuchinkhakhan@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.

I guess most Hindus don’t read the Bible, Daniel, but I don’t see what your point is.

Steve,

LOL - no point actually... -- but then again --does reading the Bible make one a Christian? hmmmm.....

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 10, 2005.

SDQA,

you are really just as wrong as your counterpart cathaholics are!

Those "SCRIPTURES" that you refer to were not even written at the time of the Messiah. Those "scriptures" would be AND ARE the TNK-the writtings, the law, and the prophets, aka, the old testament.

-- whitestone (me@you.com), February 10, 2005.

whitestone,

Who is the Messiah you refer to?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 10, 2005.

“How do we know that Jesus was born....beacause the church fathers or pope told us...or because it was wriiten, in the scriptures, and if it was not written, many of us, in fact all of us would have not believed. “ Utter garbage. My parents and teachers told me and I believed them. Later many other people I trusted told me and I believed them. I certainly don’t believe it just because I see it written in the Bible. The millions of Christians who died before the New Testament was written and compiled certainly didn’t believe because they read it in the Bible. The 90+% of the Christian population who were illiterate until a century or two ago certainly didn’t believe because they read it in the Bible. You’ve unwittingly displayed the absurdity of your argument, Nolan.

To answer your question, It's "Okay" to use the Bible for the purpose for which the Catholic Church wrote and compiled it, i.e. to help us develop our Catholic faith. It's "not OK" to misuse the Bible to attack the Church which wrote it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 10, 2005.

It is sad to listen to man, including your teachers and parents, instead of God's Word.

Sorry, to inform you but the catholic church did not write the bible, it was written by Holy men, written under the spirit of the Holy Ghost.

NB: your parents and teachers also told you about Santa Clause...do you think they may have lied/

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 11, 2005.

“It is sad to listen to man, including your teachers and parents, instead of God's Word.” It's is sad to listen to a man preferring his own personal interpretations of God's word to the faith of the Church founded by God to teach him. Who do you think gave you “God’s word”? The Catholic Church.

“Sorry, to inform you but the catholic church did not write the bible” You seem remarkably UNinformed about the facts of history on which even secular historians agree.

“ it was written by Holy men, written under the spirit of the Holy Ghost.” Yes. Holy Catholic priests and bishops wrote the New Testament and compiled, edited and published the Bible, after first carefully checking that every word complies with the Catholic faith which they held and of which it is an expression.

“your parents and teachers also told you about Santa Clause...do you think they may have lied/” Yes, that’s why as I grew up I compared what they told me with what many other learned people told me. I tossed out what I found to be false and kept what I found to be true. Unlike your method of trying to find the truth by trying to patch together your own personal interpretations of a book which you think fell down to you straight from Heaven, while refusing to listen to its authors and publishers.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 11, 2005.

How do you claim that Jesus "appointed " peter as head of the church... Because if you quote the book of matthew, then i may accused you of been a Bible christian.

Anyway peters appointment as the head of the church, wells thats a whole new debate.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 11, 2005.

Yeah I noticed that. Every time one of your attacks on Christs’s Church is debunked, instead of admitting you were wrong you drop the subject and attack Christ’s Church on a whole new point of “debate”. The passages in the Bible about Peter being appointed head of the Church on earth are there for the same reason that every other verse of the Bible is there, BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PUT IT THERE to express what all Christians had already believed for centuries. You’ve got it totally the wrong way around. St Peter is not the head of the Church on earth because the Bible says so. No. The Bible says so because that is what all Christians had already believed for centuries before the Bible was compiled.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 11, 2005.

On this point I disagree.

The Bible beign "Compiled" centuries later is ntot he same as "written " cenutries later, and the verses wherent written after centiries of Christain beleif, but before there even was one centuriy past.

The ospel of Mathew was wrtten in the first Century, not the 4th, so the verses wherent writtne byt he Cahtolci chruhc to reflect what Christaisn beelived for centuries, btu where written centuries before the Cahtolci Chruch compiled the Bile into a sngle volume.

That said, the Bible only RECROS the beelifs, it is notthe basis of the beleifs, to prevent Nolan form jumping on htis.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 11, 2005.

Daniel,

that Messiah I refer to is the spirit of prophecy.

-- a son (me@you.com), February 11, 2005.

Zarove,

You are correct in what you said, as far as it goes; however, when it came time to compile the Canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church had available to it at least 150 different first century texts. After studying and discerning all of them, it finally selected only 27 for admission into the Canon. So, though the texts were not written to reflect what the Church had already believed for centuries, the texts which were allowed into the Canon most certainly were selected to reflect what the church had believed and taught for nearly three centuries.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 11, 2005.