Catholic Apostacy

[RND]

I ran across this at my nephew's first communion about 3-4 years ago. I asked a couple of people, a nun and an usher, why there was no "No graven image" commandment, but instead, two "no coveting" commandments. They didn't know. :-?

Is that a shame or what? But an Adventist knows! I guess instead of your hairdresser knowing for sure, it should be only your Adventist knows for sure.

A nun and an usher. Was the usher taking time out from a shoot for a video? :

OK, so now we know the answer to this scripture.....

Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Obviously, we know that the Dark Ages church set more funeral pires than carter's got pills...wiped out an estimated 100,000,000 million people in little more than 1,260 years and changed the commandments of God (laws) and the observance of the sabbath (times).

Wow, we have made progress today!

 

[francisdesales]

He didn't say that the RCC only has 9 - but rather they have a different numbering to theirs.

I did not realize that the RCC numbered the 10 commandments differently.

Oh, so that means we skip the second and have an 11th commandment so that we still have 10 numbered commandments???

If you look at the Catechism, you will see that the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions are a bit different. This is a big ado over nothing. It is just a matter of emphasis. The Catholic Church didn't "get rid of" the commandment of worshiping false gods, it is consolidated into the first commandment, since worshiping graven images is the same thing as making a golden calf and treating it as a god. On the other hand, we consider the coveting of a neighbor's wife as different from coveting a neighbor's goods, since wives are not property...

It is just a matter of emphasis.

All this talk about the Sabbath and moving the day to Sunday is ridiculous, anyway, because the Church has been given the authority to bind and loosen. We see it done in Acts 15!!! Is the act of binding Christians to celebrate the "Lord's Day" on Sunday any different than doing away with circumcision???

This is a golden example of how Sola Scriptura fails and is not supported by the Bible itself. Where exactly would the Apostles of 50 AD look to find the Scriptural warrant for doing away with circumcision? How do you explain that away? Is this different than Sunday worship???

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

If you look at the Catechism, you will see that the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions are a bit different. This is a big ado over nothing. It is just a matter of emphasis. The Catholic Church didn't "get rid of" the commandment of worshiping false gods, it is consolidated into the first commandment, since worshiping graven images is the same thing as making a golden calf and treating it as a god. On the other hand, we consider the coveting of a neighbor's wife as different from coveting a neighbor's goods, since wives are not property...

This I know from my studies. However, it is contradictory. Why have:

9 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
10 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house

Just as worshiping graven images is the same as your golden calf analogy; coveting is well, coveting. No need for two separate commandments.

 

[RND]

Oh, so that means we skip the second and have an 11th commandment so that we still have 10 numbered commandments???

B-I-N-G-O

If you look at the Catechism, you will see that the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions are a bit different.

Amazingly true is that the Bible versions are different too!

This is a big ado over nothing. It is just a matter of emphasis. The Catholic Church didn't "get rid of" the commandment of worshiping false gods, it is consolidated into the first commandment, since worshiping graven images is the same thing as making a golden calf and treating it as a god. On the other hand, we consider the coveting of a neighbor's wife as different from coveting a neighbor's goods, since wives are not property...

Um, they got rid of the 2nd commandment regarding "graven" images because they had a market for little dash board statues of Mary. OK, that's only an exaggeration.

Idols worship and graven images are two entirely different things.

It is just a matter of emphasis.

No, it's a matter of interpretation.

All this talk about the Sabbath and moving the day to Sunday is ridiculous, anyway, because the Church has been given the authority to bind and loosen. We see it done in Acts 15!!! Is the act of binding Christians to celebrate the "Lord's Day" on Sunday any different than doing away with circumcision???

Really? Did the church give the new converts the right to muder because muder isn't mentioned in Acts 15.

This is a golden example of how Sola Scriptura fails and is not supported by the Bible itself.

Yes, tradition is soooooooooooooo much beter. Who needs the Bible? We have tradition!

"Like two sacred rivers flowing from paradaise, the Bible and divine tradition contain the word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on acount of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe." Catholic Belief, by Joseph Faa di Bruno, p 45.

Where exactly would the Apostles of 50 AD look to find the Scriptural warrant for doing away with circumcision?

They didn't. I'm circumcised.

How do you explain that away?

Um, circumcision isn't mentioned in the 10 Commandments. Yeah, that's the ticket! Circumcision isn't written in stone like the sabbath is. Geez.

Is this different than Sunday worship???

What being hoodless verses what day to worship....? You can't be serious.

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

 

[francisdesales]

This I know from my studies. However, it is contradictory. Why have:

9 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
10 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house

Just as worshiping graven images is the same as your golden calf analogy; coveting is well, coveting. No need for two separate commandments.

I do not have access to my library, I am on assignment in Florida. However, I do remember that the Church has taken its cue from St. Augustine on his explanation of the interpretation of looking at coveting as two separate commandments and combining the idea of idolatry and graven images. For what it is worth, the idea of graven images falls away when we consider that God has now come in human form in the Incarnation. Before the Son took on flesh, no one could make an image of God and worship it. After the Incarnation, we now know that God took on a human image, so the command to not make graven images of God probably doesn't apply anymore.

The whole idea of making images PERIOD is an idiotic interpretation of Scriptures, because the Bible itself has God commanding men to make images...

That is my thoughts on the matter.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Amazingly true is that the Bible versions are different too!

Wonderful. That was my point.

Really? Did the church give the new converts the right to muder because muder isn't mentioned in Acts 15.

What are you trying to say? Are you attributing the action of a sinner to the entire Church? So whenever ANY Christian commits a crime, are we to say that Christianity is a worthless religion, a bunch of hypocrites? You are so desperate to tar the Catholic Church that you are merely dragging your own denomination into the sink hole of secular accusations. Atheists make the same accusations as you do vs. ANY AND ALL RELIGIONS!

Where exactly would the Apostles of 50 AD look to find the Scriptural warrant for doing away with circumcision?

They didn't. I'm circumcised.

And that explains what?

Um, circumcision isn't mentioned in the 10 Commandments. Yeah, that's the ticket! Circumcision isn't written in stone like the sabbath is. Geez.

So what? Where does the Bible say we ONLY NEED TO FOLLOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? Can you give me a verse that says that???

God gave Abraham an EVERLASTING Covenant to circumcise ALL Jewish men. Everlasting. Look it up.

ALL Jews were circumcised. Jesus was circumcised. The Apostles. Circumcised. The first Christians were by and large circumcised. So if you were living around 45 or so AD, why would you NOW think that the Church had the RIGHT to do away with an EVERLASTING command from God???

HMMM????

The only explanation is that God HIMSELF gave a NEW Covenant to mankind and that the Church correctly noted (without the Bible telling it so) that circumcision was merely a sign of the New Covenant to come (as Hebrews and Galatians mention)

Your verse from 1 Corinthians is pitiful and a chronologically out-of-order attempt to justify your sad idea that the Bible alone tells us what we are to believe and if it isn't in the Bible, we shouldn't do it. (Sunday worship). Paul wrote that AFTER Acts 15 even took place.... Geez.

Sit back and place yourself in 45-50 AD, BEFORE ANY NT Scripture was written and ask yourself why the Apostles did away with an everlasting command from God...

Either incredibly arrogant, or they really thought they were guided by the Holy Spirit to make this decision without any reference to the OT. They must have thought that what Christ said to them, as related later in Matthew 16 and 18, that they had the power to bind and loosen, to be upheld by heaven itself.

"It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit..." Acts 15:28

Regards

 

[RND]

What are you trying to say? Are you attributing the action of a sinner to the entire Church? So whenever ANY Christian commits a crime, are we to say that Christianity is a worthless religion, a bunch of hypocrites? You are so desperate to tar the Catholic Church that you are merely dragging your own denomination into the sink hole of secular accusations. Atheists make the same accusations as you do vs. ANY AND ALL RELIGIONS!

No you goober, pay attention, what I'm saying is that if you actually *read* Acts 15 you'll find the council that James was in charge of (Acts 15:13) stipulated that the new converts were to abstain from four things, strangled meats, fornication, idol worship and blood.

Does this mean, because they didn't mention any other commandment (sabbath, muder, stealing, etc) that they were giving their approval to those things?

And that explains what?

That I'm circumcised....people still get circumcised. It's not been abolished. I was answering this point you made" "Where exactly would the Apostles of 50 AD look to find the Scriptural warrant for doing away with circumcision?"

So what? Where does the Bible say we ONLY NEED TO FOLLOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? Can you give me a verse that says that???

Yes litterally hundreds. Psalm 40:8 Psalm 119:34 Psalm 119:70 Proverbs 3:1 Jeremiah 31:33 Hebrews 8:10 Hebrews 10:16 Psalm 19:7 James 1:25 Romans 2:13

God gave Abraham an EVERLASTING Covenant to circumcise ALL Jewish men. Everlasting. Look it up.

Um, there were no "Jewish" men in Abraham's day, Abraham was a Chaldean from the clan of "Eber" which is where the word Hebrew derives.

ALL Jews were circumcised. Jesus was circumcised. The Apostles. Circumcised. The first Christians were by and large circumcised. So if you were living around 45 or so AD, why would you NOW think that the Church had the RIGHT to do away with an EVERLASTING command from God???

HMMM????

The church never did do away with circumcision. Maybe the aposate catholic church did......but then again I'm not catholic so that might explain why they took my "hoodie" off.

For the record, circumcision avails nothing anymore.

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

The only explanation is that God HIMSELF gave a NEW Covenant to mankind and that the Church correctly noted (without the Bible telling it so) that circumcision was merely a sign of the New Covenant to come (as Hebrews and Galatians mention)

Um, that ain't from the church. Show me one verse, just one, that backs that up.

Your verse from 1 Corinthians is pitiful and a chronologically out-of-order attempt to justify your sad idea that the Bible alone tells us what we are to believe and if it isn't in the Bible, we shouldn't do it. (Sunday worship). Paul wrote that AFTER Acts 15 even took place.... Geez.

Spititual things are spiritually discerned brother. 1 Corinthians 16 says nothing about a worship service.

Sit back and place yourself in 45-50 AD, BEFORE ANY NT Scripture was written and ask yourself why the Apostles did away with an everlasting command from God...

They didn't.

Either incredibly arrogant, or they really thought they were guided by the Holy Spirit to make this decision without any reference to the OT. They must have thought that what Christ said to them, as related later in Matthew 16 and 18, that they had the power to bind and loosen, to be upheld by heaven itself.

"It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit..." Acts 15:28

Um, you might want to use the whole verse instead of just the parts that fit the apostate catholic view. Context is a beautiful thing....

I highted the parts you left out.

Acts 15:28
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So again I ask. Since the council headed by James said lay no more than these burdens on them were they giving their approval to break all the commands of God?

Hardly.

 

[RND]

I do not have access to my library, I am on assignment in Florida. However, I do remember that the Church has taken its cue from St. Augustine on his explanation of the interpretation of looking at coveting as two separate commandments and combining the idea of idolatry and graven images. For what it is worth, the idea of graven images falls away when we consider that God has now come in human form in the Incarnation. Before the Son took on flesh, no one could make an image of God and worship it. After the Incarnation, we now know that God took on a human image, so the command to not make graven images of God probably doesn't apply anymore.

The whole idea of making images PERIOD is an idiotic interpretation of Scriptures, because the Bible itself has God commanding men to make images...

That is my thoughts on the matter.

Regards

Probably doesn't apply anymore. Probably doesn't apply anymore. What scriptural proof in the New Testament do you suppose you could dazzle us with to substansiate this claim?

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

We ought not to think that the Godhead (not trinity) is like something graven by man.....

Ummmmmm

 

[aj830]

Yes. It's from the Vatican. I'm sorry, but you are not being honest. The 2nd Commandment has been taken away completely. There is no reference to making "graven" imagaes in the catholic version of the ten commandments. You are disingenuous at best, telling absolute lies at worst.

There is no different "Catholic" version of the Ten Commandmants. The Ten Commandmants are the Ten Commandmants and Catholics are to follow them just as the Bible says. Can you not see that Exodus and Deuteronomy lists are right next to it and that the entire Bible is part of Catholic teaching? I don't know howto put it any clearer. Catholics are forbidden to commit idolatry.

Now as far as images go, why would Godforbid the use of images if he himself commanded images to be used in many cases and sometimes for religious purposes(Bronze Serpent)? God condemns images that are to be worshiped but not images as a whole. If so whenever you took a picture, drew something, sculpted something, or whatever, according to your interpretation, you would be sinning because you are creating a image.

Nice try.

Well, I have tried to state that we believe in the Exodus and Deuteronomy lists and that we are to hold to them but you don't seem to believe the what the Church says it teaches.

If you don't mind me asking, is it official Adventist teaching that the Church is the "Whore of Babylon" and that Sunday Worship is the "mark of the beast"? I believe that I heard someone saying that Adventist believe this but I have never had it confirmed.

 

[francisdesales]

No you goober, pay attention, what I'm saying is that if you actually *read* Acts 15

ME read it???

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. The Council was called together OVER THE QUESTION OF CIRCUMCISION...

1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.†2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.†6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.â€Â

12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’

18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.â€Â

22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this, letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,


To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:


Greetings.


24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the lawâ€Â[f]â€â€to whom we gave no such commandment 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.


Clearly, the Council was over the matter of circumcision and whether it was necessary for Gentiles to become Jews FIRST before being saved. Paul over and over teaches, based on this Council, that circumcision is NOTHING. It is not required any longer. This was decided by the Church...Can it be made any more clear to you?

As to your childish name calling, it merely shows the fruit of your faith...

 

[francisdesales]

Where does the Bible say we ONLY NEED TO FOLLOW THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? Can you give me a verse that says that???

Yes litterally hundreds. Psalm 40:8 Psalm 119:34 Psalm 119:70 Proverbs 3:1 Jeremiah 31:33 Hebrews 8:10 Hebrews 10:16 Psalm 19:7 James 1:25 Romans 2:13

The Law does not equal the Decalogue ONLY in these Scriputural verses. Read my question again. It says ONLY the Ten Commandments are to be obeyed. "ONLY".

Where is this mandate?

 

[RND]

There is no different "Catholic" version of the Ten Commandmants. The Ten Commandmants are the Ten Commandmants and Catholics are to follow them just as the Bible says. Can you not see that Exodus and Deuteronomy lists are right next to it and that the entire Bible is part of Catholic teaching? I don't know howto put it any clearer. Catholics are forbidden to commit idolatry.

Now as far as images go, why would Godforbid the use of images if he himself commanded images to be used in many cases and sometimes for religious purposes(Bronze Serpent)? God condemns images that are to be worshiped but not images as a whole. If so whenever you took a picture, drew something, sculpted something, or whatever, according to your interpretation, you would be sinning because you are creating a image.

Well, clearly we can see that the romanist version eliminates God's 2nd commandment completely. Also, this is a standard romanist debating tool. Deny, deny, deny....it's not different, it's not different, it's not different. Again, if you look at the vatican's version you can clearly see that two coveting commandments have replaced the 2nd commandment.

If you'll recall, the bronze serpent, which represented Christ (John 3:14), was destroyed (2 Kings 18:4) because of idolitry. I like your logic about making images, but seriously, there has never been a commandment made in the Bible to suggest, even once that making images, and bowwing down to worship them is permitted.

Well, I have tried to state that we believe in the Exodus and Deuteronomy lists and that we are to hold to them but you don't seem to believe the what the Church says it teaches.

See, it is the 'official' church position that only the church hierarchy can interpret scripture, no one else.

“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.†Universal Catholic Catechism, #100.

"The [first] objective [or formal] principle (of Protestantism) proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII, "Protestantism", Section I, 1 - Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone"), Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912 by Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor, Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

If you don't mind me asking, is it official Adventist teaching that the Church is the "Whore of Babylon" and that Sunday Worship is the "mark of the beast"?

Publically, no. Privately......

Antichrist:
Denying Jesus Christ is Come in the Flesh

I believe that I heard someone saying that Adventist believe this but I have never had it confirmed.

Who is that purple and scarlet colored 'whore' sitting on the beast?

Click on the images:

 

[RND]

The Law does not equal the Decalogue ONLY in these Scriputural verses. Read my question again. It says ONLY the Ten Commandments are to be obeyed. "ONLY".

Where is this mandate?

Um, yes it do....

The mandate is to obey God's commandments.

Exodus 16:28
And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

Exodus 15:26
And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

Deuteronomy 4:13
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Deuteronomy 5:10
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Psalm 78:7
That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments:

Psalm 111:7
The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.

Psalm 119:115
Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Notice a pattern, see a theme?

 

[RND]

Clearly, the Council was over the matter of circumcision and whether it was necessary for Gentiles to become Jews FIRST before being saved. Paul over and over teaches, based on this Council, that circumcision is NOTHING. It is not required any longer. This was decided by the Church...Can it be made any more clear to you?

As to your childish name calling, it merely shows the fruit of your faith...

Brother/Sister francisdesales, why did you fail to read further down and quotes Acts 15:28-29? The issue was not singular.... it is so distressing to see you pick out whole verses that prove this point. Clearly in verse 20 the whole point that was to be shared with the church was this:

Acts 15: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The issue was not circumcision.

This is why you had to skip verses 19 through 21. This type of scripture quoting is typical of those wishing to "gloss" over an issue. Unfortunately, I see the romanist do this way too often.

It is extremely disingenuous.

 

[Vic C.]

RND, for the record and not just to humor us, is there such a commandment post-resurrection? Maybe somewhere in Paul's writings? Help us to understand why you attribute OT commandments to the ekklesia. Do you adhere to all 613 commands? Thanks. 8-)

 

[RND]

RND, for the record and not just to humor us, is there such a commandment post-resurrection? Maybe somewhere in Paul's writings? Help us to understand why you attribute OT commandments to the ekklesia.

Um, Vic is that the way God's word works, we obey it according to what time dispensation were are in?

There is neither a commandment to either abolish nor substitue the sabbath to sunday in the NT. That said, if there is nothing abolishing the sabbath it must be still in effect.

The "called out ones" were directed to walk in the ways of Jesus as an example. Jesus kept the sabbath. The two go hand in hand. The pot can't say why, it just does.

Colossians 2:6
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (of Jesus).

Do you adhere to all 613 commands? Thanks. 8-)

No.

 

[aj830]

Well, clearly we can see that the romanist version eliminates God's 2nd commandment completely. Also, this is a standard romanist debating tool. Deny, deny, deny....it's not different, it's not different, it's not different. Again, if you look at the vatican's version you can clearly see that two coveting commandments have replaced the 2nd commandment.

RND, the link you provided disproves your own claim. If you can not see that the Exodus and Deuteronomy Lists are right there and that the shortened one is a Catechetical Formula, I don't know what to tell you. I am denying nothing. Right there in the link you provided is the second commandment from the Exodus list. Here I will post it up for you.

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

If you'll recall, the bronze serpent, which represented Christ (John 3:14), was destroyed (2 Kings 18:4) because of idolitry.

Yes it was destroyed due to idolatry, but before the people started worshiping it was a image used in healing people. When people abused the image and started worshiping it and forgot the God who told them to make it it was destroyed. It is a good example of how images can be abused but the image was still used so you can not deny that the image had a purpose and that it cannot be wrong to make images because God ordered it to be made. What is wrong is when people worship images.

I like your logic about making images, but seriously, there has never been a commandment made in the Bible to suggest, even once that making images, and bowwing down to worship them is permitted.

You are correct that worshiping images is not permitted and Catholics totally agree with you on that and we condemn image worship. Images can be used to bring us closer to God. A crucifix is used to show us what Christ really had to go thorugh to die for our sins and gives us a deeper appreciation for what Christ did for us.

I have to go, but will finish responding to you tonight. Feel free to respond to this post in the meantime.

 

[RND]

RND, the link you provided disproves your own claim. If you can not see that the Exodus and Deuteronomy Lists are right there and that the shortened one is a Catechetical Formula, I don't know what to tell you. I am denying nothing. Right there in the link you provided is the second commandment from the Exodus list. Here I will post it up for you.

If the Bible is clear in two Books, why then the need to re-write the commandments?

Clearly the romanists rewrote the commandments to suit their theology.

You are correct that worshiping images is not permitted and Catholics totally agree with you on that and we condemn image worship. Images can be used to bring us closer to God. A crucifix is used to show us what Christ really had to go thorugh to die for our sins and gives us a deeper appreciation for what Christ did for us.

Yes it was destroyed due to idolatry, but before the people started worshiping it was a image used in healing people. When people abused the image and started worshiping it and forgot the God who told them to make it it was destroyed. It is a good example of how images can be abused but the image was still used so you can not deny that the image had a purpose and that it cannot be wrong to make images because God ordered it to be made. What is wrong is when people worship images.

I'm sure you'll also recall that the Brazen Sperpent was made and exhalted before the decoluge was introduced.

You are correct that worshiping images is not permitted and Catholics totally agree with you on that and we condemn image worship. Images can be used to bring us closer to God.

This statement seems you have you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Condemned images can still bring us closer to God. Odd.

You mean like kissing the feet of the pagan God Jupiter and thinking it's Peter?

A crucifix is used to show us what Christ really had to go thorugh to die for our sins and gives us a deeper appreciation for what Christ did for us.

Do you really need an image to remind you of that?

I have news for you, Christ came of the cross the day He was crucified. Romanist's can't seem to understand that and love keeping Him on it.

I have to go, but will finish responding to you tonight. Feel free to respond to this post in the meantime..

No doubt!

 

[francisdesales]

Um, yes it do....

The mandate is to obey God's commandments.

Exodus 16:28
the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

Wrong...

The Law is the Torah, ALL the commands given by God, to include the rite of circumcision. Tell me, if circumcision is not a commandment from God, why was it not optional? Why did the Jews circumcise EVERY man? For the heck of it??? Acts 15 waived this requirement of the Law.

I never said we COULDN'T get circumcised... I said it is no longer REQUIRED. This is a result of the Catholic Church exercising her God-given power as related in the Bible.

Circumcision was part of the Law given by God through Moses and the Torah, the law that the Judaizers claimed that Gentiles had to follow to become saved. Those who can read can see that Acts 15 loosen those binding rules on the People of God. That same Church also did the same thing in worshiping God on the "Day of the Lord", the eighth day, the New Creation.

 

[francisdesales]

Brother/Sister francisdesales, why did you fail to read further down and quotes Acts 15:28-29? The issue was not singular.... it is so distressing to see you pick out whole verses that prove this point.

I didn't include it for the same reason why I didn't quote from Romans 3. It has nothing to do with the point I am making: that the Church did away with the requirement of circumcision. If you also want to include dietary laws, further commandments of the Torah that Jews were to follow, you are merely making my case that much stronger!!!

One can see by reading Acts that Peter STILL abided in the dietary laws before Acts 15. It took a revelation by the Holy Spirit to break free from that - and thus, the Church decided, in addition to not requiring circumcision, that they would also loosen some of the dietary laws with the exception as noted in Acts 15:28-29.

Since we were talking about circumcision, I didn't include it. Do you have any other verses that I didn't include that you want to help in proving my case??? :P