But what about Pope...

[2ndGen]

The problem here is that there is a difference but many times Protestants don’t make that distinction. We kneel down in front of a statue or a crucifix and Protestants accuse us of idol worship… how hard is it to understand that we are not “worshiping” that hunk of rock or piece of wood? I guess when you have been brainwashed so long about it… you start to believe it.

For what it is worth… Guys… did you get down on one knee when you proposed to your wives? Were you worshiping her?

Ladies, did your husband get down on his knee and propose? Were you letting him worship you?

Of course not!!! So if a man can get down on his knees to ask for a woman to be his wife, why can’t Catholics get down on their knees and ask a saint or the Blessed Mother to pray for us? It does not mean we are worshiping a saint or our heavenly mother, it means we are showing reverence and humility as we ask for help.

B1,

I’d like to believe that it’s innocent ignorance, but to be honest, anyone can look up the word “worship” and see what it means before they slander someone with the word.

They don’t know (or maybe they do) that they are literally guilty of murder when they slander us and lie about what we do.

Not all of them of course, but definately those that state that we worship Mary. Either they are ignorant or just plainly black hearted individuals posing as Christians.

They will be among those gnashing there teeth and if I allow them to draw me into their lairs anymore, I may be finding myself joining them on the outside of the gates of heaven.

I’m beginning to feel that I am compromising my Christianity when I engage some of the anti-Catholics here. But I won’t blame them for this. I take all the responsibility for my words.

I am however going to work on my nature and work to be what I once was…holy.

Pray for me.



In nomine Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti.

Amen.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Since there is so much emphasis by “some” on something being inspired by God and the importance of the “perfection” of a person who has religious authority, I was just wondering how many of those who hold King James’ Translation as being, well, “inspired” by God considering that he was not only an unrepentant homosexual that lived his lifestyle openly, but was also a pedophile.

I am not exactly sure how to procede. King James authorized a new version of the Bible based upon a general disatisfaction is some circles with the existing choices.

Would God pick and unrepentant homosexual pedophile to “authorize” His Word?

 

[2ndGen]

I am not exactly sure how to procede. King James authorized a new version of the Bible based upon a general disatisfaction is some circles with the existing choices.

Well, if Protestants started The Reformation based on Papal Fallibllity because of their personal faults and sins, then how could they accept the authorization of a king to create a new version of the bible when he himself was abominable to God?

King James commisioned what the church in England was wanting, the obvious reasons being the perceptions of existing Protestat versions.

So it was not a version based on The Holy Bible, but on the Protestant version of the bible…in other words, a version of a version.

It should also be noted as a secular historian, which I was longer than I have been a Christian, your claims are not proven. You are making claims that people far far smarter than you and I would not frame in the manner you suggest.

Well, all these claims come from Protestant sources. I can’t see any bias there. And what proof would one require besides historical artifacts like letters he wrote to his male lover? It wasn’t uncommon for persons to be homosexual (especially among the sexually deviant royalty of Europe).

libchrist.com/other/homosexual/kingjames.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

infopt.demon.co.uk/jamesi.htm

Funny how non-Catholic Christians all of a sudden don’t want to look into the past when it deals with their leaders.

I do not know how much you care about or know about Protestant Bibles. I am curious why you care so much about our Bibles.

I only bring it up in relation to the topics I discuss.

I can’t tell another religion how to be or who to pick as their leaders.

 

[paarsurrey]

It should also be noted as **a secular historian, which I was longer than **

 

[paarsurrey]

They don’t know (or maybe they do) that they are literally guilty of murder when they slander us and lie about what we do.

Hi

This might be off the topic, so I apologize. Your above sentence reminds me of Matthew 23:35. DR

35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, **from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed **between the temple and the altar.

I understand that in fact no ProphestsMessengers of GodAllahYHWH has been killed, in my opinion, from Abel to Zacharias the son of Barachias , they ( the Jews) killed them with their slander. I have requested my friends in the forum to bring out a list of such ProphestsMessengers physically/literally killed by Jews but nobody has provided such a list.

How do you visualize this scenario?

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

;3203103]
Quote:

It should also be noted as a secular historian, which I was longer than I have been a Christian, your claims are not proven. You are making claims that people far far smarter than you and I would not frame in the manner you suggest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by** 2ndGen **
They don’t know (or maybe they do) that they are literally guilty of murder when they slander us and lie about what we do.

Paarsurrey wrote:

This might be off the topic, so I apologize. Your above sentence reminds me of Matthew 23:35. DR

35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

I understand that in fact no ProphestsMessengers of GodAllahYHWH has been killed, in my opinion, from Abel to Zacharias the son of Barachias , they ( the Jews) killed them with their slander. I have requested my friends in the forum to bring out a list of such ProphestsMessengers physically/literally killed by Jews but nobody has provided such a list.

How do you visualize this scenario?

Hi

Please don’t mind, since you are a secular historian;
Are there any secular sources to confirm or unconfirm the above interpretition?

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Not all of them of course, but definately those that state that we worship Mary. Either they are ignorant or just plainly black hearted individuals posing as Christians.

Hi

I have been reading here posts in which the Protestants/Reformist have been stating that Catholics do worship Mary and the Catholics have been denying it; both of course have a free will, nothing objectionable.

We Muslims respect Mary and I am not inerested in any anti-Catholic confrontations. But lately I came across some material in this connection, I want to get it clarified if possible from my Catholic friends here:

Mary Worship

remnantofgod.org/mry-a6.htm
POPE DECLARES CATHOLICS MUST WORSHIP MARY
May 7, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist News Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - On May 7 Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to “the Virgin Mary” and urged all Christians to accept Mary as their mother. He noted the words spoken by Jesus on the cross to Mary and to John–“Woman, behold thy son!” and “Behold thy mother!” (John 19:26,27), and he claimed that in this statement “IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE AUTHENTIC MEANING OF MARIAN WORSHIP in the ecclesial community … which furthermore is based on the will of Christ” (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997)

St Alphonsus De Liguori (who was given a doctor of the church label by Pope Pius IX) writes in his book “ Dignity and Duties of the Priest”. This book is an instructional guide for the clergy of the RCC.
Following words have been written by him about Mary( I have shortened the quotes):

page 409:
for without devotion to the divine Mother it is morally impossible for any one to be a good priest
page 415:
“As to her power. Cosmas of Jerusalem has called the intercession of our Queen not only powerful, but omnipotent. And Richard of St. Laurence has written: " From the omnipotent Son the Mother was made omnipotent.”
Hence St. Peter Damian has gone so far as to say, that when Mary goes to Jesus to ask a favor for any of her clients “she approaches the altar of human reconciliation; not asking, but commanding, not as a servant, but as a mistress; for the Son honors her by not refusing her anything.”
page 16:
Mary, being altogether transformed into God by grace and by the glory which transforms all the saints into Him
Heaven, earth and Hell bend, with good will or bad will, to the commandments of the humble Mary."
page 18:
“The most infallible and indubitable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic, a man of bad doctrine, a reprobate, from one of the predestinate, is that the heretic and the reprobate have nothing but contempt and indifference for Our Lady, endeavoring by their words and examples to diminish the worship and love of her.”

This was posted in a Protestants forum:Stephanie E. wants to know where we Protestants see
christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=2307842#post2307842
christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=2307842&postcount=58

Your comments as to the genuineness of the above are requested, please. Sorry it might be off the topic.

Thanks

 

[Rightlydivide]

=2ndGen;3203368]
Well, if Protestants started The Reformation based on Papal Fallibllity because of their personal faults and sins, then how could they accept the authorization of a king to create a new version of the bible when he himself was abominable to God?

How many English translations of the Bible, ie Protestant based, were there before the KJV?

So it was not a version based on The Holy Bible, but on the Protestant version of the bible…in other words, a version of a version.

it was based upon the Textus Receptus. What “Holy Bible” translation are YOU referrring to please?

Well, all these claims come from Protestant sources. I can’t see any bias there. And what proof would one require besides historical artifacts like letters he wrote to his male lover? It wasn’t uncommon for persons to be homosexual (especially among the sexually deviant royalty of Europe).

libchrist.com/other/homosexual/kingjames.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

infopt.demon.co.uk/jamesi.htm

Funny how non-Catholic Christians all of a sudden don’t want to look into the past when it deals with their leaders.

I only bring it up in relation to the topics I discuss.

I can’t tell another religion how to be or who to pick as their leaders.
Dr. Norton is a Protestant source?? Please prove that. The personal qualities of King James have absolutely nothing to do with the work of the translators. I have not read anyone who questions the scholarly credentials of the KJV translators.
Once again, you seem to, and I hope I am wrong, think there is a particular translation of the Bible that was somehow perverted by the KJV translators??
Checking, if so, what was that version and why?
Thanks

 

[BlestOne]

Hi

I have been reading here posts in which the Protestants/Reformist have been stating that Catholics do worship Mary and the Catholics have been denying it; both of course have a free will, nothing objectionable.

We Muslims respect Mary and I am not inerested in any anti-Catholic confrontations. But lately I came across some material in this connection, I want to get it clarified if possible from my Catholic friends here:

Mary Worship

St Alphonsus De Liguori (who was given a doctor of the church label by Pope Pius IX) writes in his book “ Dignity and Duties of the Priest”. This book is an instructional guide for the clergy of the RCC.
Following words have been written by him about Mary( I have shortened the quotes):
This was posted in a Protestants forum:Stephanie E. wants to know where we Protestants see
christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=2307842#post2307842
christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=2307842&postcount=58

Your comments as to the genuineness of the above are requested, please. Sorry it might be off the topic.

Thanks

Hi Paarsurrey,
Let me explain a few things about where you got this information from… they are all extremely anti-Catholic sites… the discussion board you linked to is CARM… very anti-Catholic and the Remnant of God site… same.

Any Catholic that knows his/her catechism will tell you that we have a very deep love and respect for the woman who was good enough to carry God in her womb. We do not believe that she is divine in the least… but because she was sinless (as one would have to be to carry God within), she is first among humans. Upon the cross Jesus said “Behold your mother” Thus sharing his mother with all of us. We are told by the annunciation that she is holy by the words Gabriel used to address her… meaning without sin not as in divine. She is the perfect role model for women and mothers… and as we are the adopted children of God by the work of her Son our Lord Jesus, she is also our mother. A mother is to be respected and loved for the sacrifices she makes to her children… and Mary made the ultimate sacrifice… she bore Jesus knowing that his fate was not in her hands and that he would have to suffer for us. All that in just about anyone’s book is worthy of love and respect.

I don’t know about you, but I have children… and I know that I have had to make sacrifices for them… albeit, not anything even as close to our Holy Mother did, and I would do it again in a heartbeat for my children… I suspect most mothers would. When my children look upon me with respect and love… I know I have raised them right, when they put God first and others second before themselves… I know all the sacrifices I made were not in vain… so as a mother, my greatest role model has been Mary. Every day I ask for guidance from her to help me to raise my children right.

That is not worship, it is asking your mother to teach you, to intercede for you to her Son… you see part of this stems from the Catholic belief in the Body of Christ… Protestants think that the only ones who are in the Body of Christ are those who are alive and here now… not their ancestors, or the apostles. The Catholic view is much different… Scripture tells us that God can hear the prayers of the saints in heaven… so we ask them to pray or intercede for us much as a person would ask another to pray for them. So Catholics believe there are 3 basic groups that make up the Body of Christ or what we also call the Communion of Saints… those in heaven (called the Church Triumphant), those in Purgatory being cleansed before they enter heaven (Called the Church Suffering) and those on earth (called the Church Militant). Together we all worship our God… together we ask for intervention. Many Catholics are devoted to praying for the souls of those going through purification. And since the Saints are those who are already in heaven, we know they have been purified and are close to God so we ask for them to pray for us to our Lord as they are closer spiritually.

Does any of this make sense to you Paarsurrey? I know it is difficult to understand, but be leery of what one group says about another. You wouldn’t go to a Catholic site to learn about Muslims or a Baptist site to learn about Hindu’s. KWIM?

 

[2ndGen]

Hi

This might be off the topic, so I apologize. Your above sentence reminds me of Matthew 23:35. DR

35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, **from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed **between the temple and the altar.

I understand that in fact no ProphestsMessengers of GodAllahYHWH has been killed, in my opinion, from Abel to Zacharias the son of Barachias , they ( the Jews) killed them with their slander. I have requested my friends in the forum to bring out a list of such ProphestsMessengers physically/literally killed by Jews but nobody has provided such a list.

How do you visualize this scenario?

Thanks

I would say that every prophet that was killed by a non-Gentile was killed by a Jew.

Wasn’t John The Baptist killed by Herod?

 

[2ndGen]

How many English translations of the Bible, ie Protestant based, were there before the KJV?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The first English Bible was in the early 1300s

Luther’s bible.

I do not think this is what you mean. What translation of the Bible are you saying did not need another translation?

Ok, I’ll ask him in an email to him.

Very good.

So you believe that God would choose a homosexual pedophile to create a new translation of His Word?

It has already been established that the Church of England was not entirely pleased with the translations they were using.

The whole book is perverted. It’s a “translation” of “men” that was based on beliefs of a new religion. No translation was needed for Christianity because The Holy Bible already existed. For 1100 years “before” KJ re-did it for his particular religion.

Once again, which translation are you referring to? There were already versions used by Protestants, why does this particular translation bother you. When the DR agrees with the KJV is that part “perverted” as well?

 

[2ndGen]

First bible in England was in 600AD (it was in Latin which was the common language of the educated who were the only ones who could read), but the first English bible was produced in 995 AD.

Prior to 600, The Holy Bible existed in over 500 languages, but was whittled down to one (Latin) in the 7th century.

I do not think this is what you mean. What translation of the Bible are you saying did not need another translation?

I didn’t say that a “translation” of The Holy Bible needed to be translated. The Holy Bible is The Holy Bible. The Protestants created their “own” translation of The Holy Bible to meet their needs in order to promote their new religion.

Once again, which translation are you referring to? There were already versions used by Protestants, why does this particular translation bother you. When the DR agrees with the KJV is that part “perverted” as well?

Any translation of The Holy Bible is bothersome to me that deletes books, add and subtracts words to change scriptural meanings.

And even a broken clock is right twice a day. The Protestant copied “our” Bible and created their own translation.

Now wait, which KJV are you talking about?

Aren’t there 40 versions of the KJV?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Rightlydivide]

First bible in England was in 600AD (it was in Latin which was the common language of the educated who were the only ones who could read), but the first English bible was produced in 995 AD.

We are confusing terms. Are you referring to the Wessex gospel or translation …

Prior to 600, The Holy Bible existed in over 500 languages, but was whittled down to one (Latin) in the 7th century.

That is completely not true. What about the Peshitta?

I didn’t say that a “translation” of The Holy Bible needed to be translated. The Holy Bible is The Holy Bible. The Protestants created their “own” translation of The Holy Bible to meet their needs in order to promote their new religion.

Which translation is the Holy Bible?

Any translation of The Holy Bible is bothersome to me that deletes books, add and subtracts words to change scriptural meanings.

Which translation is the Holy Bible??

 

[2ndGen]

We are confusing terms. Are you referring to the Wessex gospel or translation …

 

[Publisher]

Rightlydivide;3205306:

Tell me about it!
It’s probably my fault.
I’m in no way a theologian.
Sorry.


What about it? Again, you’re talking to a GoogleKing here.
You’re going to tell me what the Peshitta is.
Sounds like an Italian deli meat to me!



None. The Holy Bible is just The Holy Bible.

No “translations” existed until “after” the 16th century.

Say what???

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen;3205840:
Say what???

You heard it right!



There was always only “one” Bible.

After the 16th century, there were many bibles!

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;3205848:

You heard it right!



There was always only “one” B

ible.

After the 16th century, there were many bibles!

Hmmm…let’s see prior to the 16th century there were Greek translations and manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, the Coptic to name a few…there was one translation the Catholic church used in the Latin Vulgate, but it WAS a translation from the Greek. Greek is, 1 Latin is 2, Syriac is 3, Coptic is 4…not a large number, but more than “one”.

 

[2ndGen]

2ndGen;3205855:

Hmmm…let’s see prior to the 16th century there was the Greek translation, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, the Coptic to name a few…there was one translation the Catholic church used in the Latin Vulgate, but it WAS a translation from the Greek.

All after the canonization of The Holy Bible were the same book!

You’re talking about “language” translations, not religous translations.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;3205906:

All after the canonization of The Holy Bible were the same book!

You’re talking about “language” translations, not religous translations.

When you say “religious” translations, you mean one “translation” used by the church? There were still different “translations” with different “books” use by the Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Syriac churches…that’s still more than one “religious” translation.