The Ultimate Catholic Idol

[RGS]

As one who used to be a Catholic, I submit what I learned while there and after I left.


When discussing matters involving deep-seated beliefs about the Lord Christ, offenses will come. The purpose of this discussion is not to raise offenses; the purpose of this discussion is to reveal truth. So, why would anyone be offended by truth? Or, why are some offended and other enlightened? The Holy Bible tells us why in Proverbs 9 NIV 7 “Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. 8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. 9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning. 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”

The foundation of the Bible is Jesus the Christ. A building stone for the New Testament (NT) is the Old Testament (OT). Christ said, in John 5 KJV 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? Of course there were more authors than Moses in the OT, but the topic here - The Ultimate Catholic Idol - is directly related to these verses of Holy Scripture.

Moses copied the following from the stone tablets onto which God wrote: Exodus 20 KJV 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (parallel p***age is Deuteronomy 5:7-9). Four commands are given in these three verses.

(1) You shall have no other gods before me.

(2) You shall not make for yourself an idol (this does not mean only a graven image, but it means anything which is made by human hands).

(3) You shall not bow down to them.

(4) You shall not worship them.

A discussion of these four commands follows, by the numbers.

(1) You shall have no other gods before me. This can refer to any demon, another person, yourself, an object, a hobby, or even a philosophy. If you revere something so highly that it becomes your focus in life, then you have placed a god before the one true God. A workaholic may claim to be a Christian, go to his church club, teach Sunday school, serve on the board or be a deacon, but at the same time, devotes himself to his *** and work; so much so that he fails to fellowship, neglects his family’s need of attention, wakes up one day and finds his children grown and quite possibly his wife gone. This man has made a god out of his work, and disobeyed God’s command in Exodus 20:3. I could give a similar example for each item I have listed in this paragraph, but I will leave it to your own imagination.

(2) You shall not make for yourself an idol. An idol is not to be understood only as a graven image. An idol is like a god. An idol is anything in a person’s life that is a focal point of adoration or worship. In effect, anything that you can define as being a god in your life, you can subs***ute the word idol for god and say that you have an idol in your life. But, more specifically, an idol would more properly be an object that represents the god in one’s life. For example, I could make myself the god of my life by giving myself all credit for all my accomplishments, worshipping myself, and mistakenly thinking (as does the LDS) that I will eventually command and populate a world. If I take a picture of myself and expect my family and friends to kiss it and bow down to it and worship it, then the picture would be the idol and I would be the god. No matter how you look at it, one thing is very clear. God said, in Exodus 20:4, do not make an idol. Anything constructed by human hands, or any object period, can become an idol if a person obtains this item and uses it as such.


(3) You shall not bow down to them. The explanation of this is fairly straightforward. If you have a god or an idol, God covers both bases here, we are commanded according to Exodus 20:5 not to bow down to it.

(4) You shall not worship them. This explanation is also quite straightforward. If you have a god or idol, according to Exodus 20:5 you are not to worship it.

In the communion sacrament, when a Roman Catholic priest raises up the hosts and says his prayers, at this point the Catholic church organization teaches that the consecrated bread has become the actual physical flesh of Christ. Then, the priest lowers the bread back to the altar, and immediately bows down to it. Why is he bowing? Because, he is giving recognition that the miraculous transformation, transubstantiation, has taken place and he now holds in his hands the body of Christ. In like manner, every Catholic parishioner who enters his church organization’s building or p***es the center aisle will bow as he does so. Why? Because he is giving recognition to the actual presence of Jesus’ body in the box that the consecrated hosts are stored. Bowing, in this religious act, is an act of worship.

Now follows a recap of that which occurs in the communion sacrament. A person raises a piece of bread in the air, pulls it down, then bows down and worships it. Purposefully left out are the facts that the person was a priest, that a prayer was said, and the belief that transubstantiation has taken place; because these three facts are irrelevant. Scripture, God’s word, what Moses wrote, in Exodus 20:3-5 is relevant, not fables taught by men. A Catholic priest has no special powers or authority, a prayer used as a magical incantation has no power nor will the Holy Spirit honor it, and transubstantiation is nonexistent. Any priest, any Catholic, who bows down to bread, transubstantiated or not, is involved in idol worship because he is violating the command in Exodus 20:5 not to bow down before an idol (something made by human hands).





So what is one to think, if a person claims he is worshipping the one true God, yet still bows downs and worships a piece of bread? 1 Corinthians 10 KJV 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

For those in bondage to the Roman church organization, or one of similar ilk, remember what has taken place. The Roman Catholic church organization has taken the strong admonishments in Exodus 20:3-5 and has not only ignored them, but has turned them around and does the very thing they are commanded not to do.

[vladimir998]

An IDOL is a man-made thing that is worshipped.

Catholics do not worship (adore, give latria) to statues or paintings. Hence, no idol worship.


The Eucharist is Christ's body. Adoring Christ, who is God, is not idol worship.

Will RGS now claim that the Eucharist is NOT Christ's body?

[RGS]

An IDOL is a man-made thing that is worshipped.

Catholics do not worship (adore, give latria) to statues or paintings. Hence, no idol worship.


The Eucharist is Christ's body. Adoring Christ, who is God, is not idol worship.

Will RGS now claim that the Eucharist is NOT Christ's body?

Only a deceived person would claim that a eucharist is Christ's body. The RCC eucharist is a myth. It does not exist except in the mind of those who believe it. Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, He is not running around the world possessing little wafers. And yes, worshipping that which is made by the hand of man is idol worship. The wafer is made by the hand of man. And to claim that a god possesses this wafer idol is no different than the pagans who build and worship wood and stone idols and claim that the spirit of their demon god in inside the idol. It may look like stone or wood or bread, but by golly there's a god in there.:eek:

[vladimir998]

Only a deceived person would claim that a eucharist is Christ's body.

Christ did not deceive Himself, nor did He deceive His people.



The RCC eucharist is a myth. It does not exist except in the mind of those who believe it.

Such a relativistic attack only such the moral and philosophical bankruptcy of anti-Catholics like yourself.


Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, He is not running around the world possessing little wafers.

The fact that you can't even properly state what the Eucharist is, and yet claim to have once been a Catholic shows us that you either never were a Catholic or simply don't care for the truth. Such dishonesty is not unknown among anti-Catholics. It is actually quite common.


And yes, worshipping that which is made by the hand of man is idol worship. The wafer is made by the hand of man.


The Eucharist is not a wafer after the consecration.



And to claim that a god possesses this wafer idol is no different than the pagans who build and worship wood and stone idols and claim that the spirit of their demon god in inside the idol.

Christ is not a pagan god but that is what you are essentially claiming. In your desperation to attack Catholics you are apparently more than willing to stoop to such depths as to attack Christ Himself. I pity you. You don't mind your own dishonesty. You don't mind attacking Christ. And yet you p*** yourself off as a Christian.


It may look like stone or wood or bread, but by golly there's a god in there.

There is certainly no Holy Spirit dwelling in you - not if you are willing to attack Christ.

[RGS]

Christ did not deceive Himself, nor did He deceive His people.

Of course He didn't. But that has nothing to do with our discussion. The RCC eucharist is a lie and a deception, Christ did not teach it, as I have more than adequately explained in this thread and the other thread that you are responding in. But you refuse to address the Scriptures that refute the RCC eucharist, because you deny the Scriptures and have no respect for them.





Such a relativistic attack only such the moral and philosophical bankruptcy of anti-Catholics like yourself.

You speak of being anti-catholic as if it is a bad thing. It is commendable, because that one is not under the RCC deception. Besides, you like to talk without referring to the Scriptures, that way there is nothing but your opinion to support your hot air.




The fact that you can't even properly state what the Eucharist is, and yet claim to have once been a Catholic shows us that you either never were a Catholic or simply don't care for the truth. Such dishonesty is not unknown among anti-Catholics. It is actually quite common.

You're the only one being dishonest. You deny the Scriptures. The RCC eucharist is an abomination. And I have stated very plainly what the RCC view is of their eucharist. And their view is a farce, it is nonsense, and only a fool would believe it.





The Eucharist is not a wafer after the consecration.

Vlad, you know good and well that the eucharist is still a wafer after the consecration every bit as much as it is a wafer before the supposed consecration. It doesn't change, physically or spiritually. It does not become a god even though it still looks, feels, smells, and tastes like a wafer. The RCC eucharist is not god, never was and never will be. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quakes like a duck, chances are, its a duck(wafer). The RCC eucharist is a pagan belief and practise, it is anything but Christian.





Christ is not a pagan god but that is what you are essentially claiming. In your desperation to attack Catholics you are apparently more than willing to stoop to such depths as to attack Christ Himself. I pity you. You don't mind your own dishonesty. You don't mind attacking Christ. And yet you p*** yourself off as a Christian.

Christ is not a pagan god, but the RCC Christ is a pagan god. I have not attacked Christ in the least. I have attacked a spiritual bankrupt system of paganism currently know as Roman Catholicism and their non-existent wafer god.




There is certainly no Holy Spirit dwelling in you - not if you are willing to attack Christ.

Exactly. The Holy Spirit is not in the RCC, because it blasphemes Christ multiple times daily around the world as each of its priests engage in the mystical pagan practise of the RCC eucharist. It is all there in these two threads. There is no denying it or refuting it, that's why you do not even try. You have no credibility Vlad, you only want to exchange empty words. You refuse to address the Scriptures.

Matthew 12:31 KJV, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

Vlad, have you taken a death oath of obedience to the RCC Pope or the RCC, an oath that would even make you willing to blaspheme the Holy Ghost?

[vladimir998]

Of course He didn't. But that has nothing to do with our discussion. The RCC eucharist is a lie and a deception, Christ did not teach it, as I have more than adequately explained in this thread and the other thread that you are responding in. But you refuse to address the Scriptures that refute the RCC eucharist, because you deny the Scriptures and have no respect for them.

Christ did teach the Eucharist. He was clear about it: He told us it was His body. Also, I certainly have more respect for scripture than any Protestant since I actually believe what it says. Christ said it was His body. You deny that. Thus, you deny scripture.



You speak of being anti-catholic as if it is a bad thing. It is commendable, because that one is not under the RCC deception. Besides, you like to talk without referring to the Scriptures, that way there is nothing but your opinion to support your hot air.

1) Being a anti-Catholic is nothing to be proud of. The very fact that you are only tells us about what you're like as a person - and it ain't too pretty.

2) When I need to post verses I do so. From what I have seen over the years, anti-Catholics only twist scriptures. That's what you do.



You're the only one being dishonest. You deny the Scriptures. The RCC eucharist is an abomination. And I have stated very plainly what the RCC view is of their eucharist. And their view is a farce, it is nonsense, and only a fool would believe it.

No, all orthodox Christians believe it - that's why you don't. The only abomination here is your denial of Christ. Objectively you're the only one in the thread who is wrong. Remember you were objectively wrong about St. Ignatius of Antioch and his view of the Eucharist. You've been wrong numerous times.



Vlad, you know good and well that the eucharist is still a wafer after the consecration every bit as much as it is a wafer before the supposed consecration. It doesn't change, physically or spiritually. It does not become a god even though it still looks, feels, smells, and tastes like a wafer. The RCC eucharist is not god, never was and never will be. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quakes like a duck, chances are, its a duck(wafer). The RCC eucharist is a pagan belief and practise, it is anything but Christian.

I firmly believe and in fact know that the Eucharist is Christ's body. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html The fact that you have utterly failed to prove anything that you have claimed is indicative of your general failure and denial of Christ.



Christ is not a pagan god, but the RCC Christ is a pagan god. I have not attacked Christ in the least. I have attacked a spiritual bankrupt system of paganism currently know as Roman Catholicism and their non-existent wafer god.

And again, you fail to prove anything you claim. You're just as wrong now as you were about St. Ignatius of Antioch.



Exactly. The Holy Spirit is not in the RCC, because it blasphemes Christ multiple times daily around the world as each of its priests engage in the mystical pagan practise of the RCC eucharist. It is all there in these two threads. There is no denying it or refuting it, that's why you do not even try. You have no credibility Vlad, you only want to exchange empty words. You refuse to address the Scriptures.

1) Tealblue creamed you over John 6 so I need not do anything regarding it.
2) I have far more credibility than you do. Notice: I didn't get St. Ignatius completely wrong like you did. Quite frankly you have no idea of what you're talking about.



Vlad, have you taken a death oath of obedience to the RCC Pope or the RCC, an oath that would even make you willing to blaspheme the Holy Ghost?

There is no such oath nor has any Catholic ever taken it. Anti-Catholics blaspheme God every time they attack His Catholic Church. That's what you do RGS. And remember, you were wrong about Ignatius.

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1312&page=2

[RGS]

Vlad you just pile one lie on top of another. It is a waste of time to talk to a person such as yourself that has no understanding.

You said: "There is no such oath nor has any Catholic ever taken it. Anti-Catholics blaspheme God every time they attack His Catholic Church. That's what you do RGS. And remember, you were wrong about Ignatius."

I was not wrong about Ignatius and I have not accused Catholics in general from taking such an oath. But there are those who do take such oaths. And you have refused to answer the question. Why not just lie and say you haven't? Also, there is no such thing as blaspheming a church, any church. You reveal that your RCC is your god.

[vladimir998]

Vlad you just pile one lie on top of another. It is a waste of time to talk to a person such as yourself that has no understanding.

I have more understanding that you do. I knew - for instance - that Protestants translate Ignatius the same way as Catholics do. You, lacking understanding, falsely implied that Catholics got it wrong. What does that say about you?


You said: "There is no such oath nor has any Catholic ever taken it. Anti-Catholics blaspheme God every time they attack His Catholic Church. That's what you do RGS. And remember, you were wrong about Ignatius."


I was not wrong about Ignatius and I have not accused Catholics in general from taking such an oath. But there are those who do take such oaths. And you have refused to answer the question. Why not just lie and say you haven't? Also, there is no such thing as blaspheming a church, any church. You reveal that your RCC is your god.

Boy, how many errors did you make there? Let's count them:

1) You were wrong about Ignatius (translation; Eucharist, etc.).
2) No Catholic takes any such oath.
3) I did answer the question: I said no such oath exists and no Catholic takes it. Since it doesn't exist and I am Catholic that answer should have been clear to you. Apparently you are just as much a sciolist with English ad you are with Christianity.
4) The Church is Christ's Body and Bride. When you blaspheme against it, you blaspheme Christ. Thus, we see your understanding of the Bible and Christianity is so poor, so illiterate, that you are apparently completely unaware of Colossians 1:24 or that Christ gave Himself up for the sake of the Church (Ephesians 5:25).

And, if you really knew scripture, you would know about 1 Timothy 1:12-14. Read it closely. St. Paul admits that he was once not only a violent man and a persecutor but a blasphemer. He was those things all at the same time: as he persecuted the Catholic Church. His blasphemy was against Christ and as Christ Himself pointed out, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
And look at Acts 26:11: "Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them."


And yet you wrote: "Also, there is no such thing as blaspheming a church, any church. You reveal that your RCC is your god."

You are clearly implying only God can be blasphemed. In a certain sense that's true, but then again the same word is used to mean slander against holy things or saints. The two are even tied togther by scripture: Rev. 13:6: "He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven."


1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) (tr) to show contempt or disrespect for (God, a divine being, or sacred things), esp in speech
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) (intr) to utter profanities, curses, or impious expressions
[from Late Latin blasphēmāre, from Greek blasphēmein from blasphēmos blasphemous]
blasphemer n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

1. To speak of (God or a sacred en***y) in an irreverent, impious manner.
2. To revile; execrate.
v.intr.
To speak blasphemy.

[Middle English blasfemen, from Old French blasfemer, from Late Latin blasphmre, from Greek blasphmein, from blasphmos, evil-speaking, blasphemous; see bh-2 in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Even St. Paul said that he was blasphemed in the sense of slandered in 1 Corinthians 4:13.

But, of course, you probably never saw that verse either.

[RGS]

Vlad, it appears you are offended by my post. Instead of running all over the place with your empty rhetoric. Address the post. Why are you offended? Here's why, given at the beginning of this thread.

So, why would anyone be offended by truth? Or, why are some offended and other enlightened? The Holy Bible tells us why in Proverbs 9 NIV 7 “Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. 8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. 9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning. 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”

Vlad, do you fear God? There is no evidence in your postings that you do.

[vladimir998]

Vlad, it appears you are offended by my post. Instead of running all over the place with your empty rhetoric. Address the post. Why are you offended? Here's why, given at the beginning of this thread.

And there we see that RGS is ill-equipped to actually deal with what I posted. Please note that RGS often starts posting from his bigotry and then fails in responding to evidence that destroys his poorly thought out and deceptive attacks. This is how anti-Catholics act. They know they can't actually compete in terms of debate so they only launch attacks and then desperately try to avoid real debate when challenged. If you look in the other achive thread, you'll see RGS does EXACTLY the same thing there. Remember, anti-Catholics are almost always poorly educated and presumptive. They don't know what they're talking about. They don't know how to debate. They don't know about evidence. Their zeal is in attacking Christ's Church and not in presently good, sound, logical arguments. RGS' posts are proof of this. Again, you don't have to believe me. Just look at the other achive thread and you'll see it there too. And, just for the record, RGS, your sciolism and blasphemy are offensive, but I don't take it personally. I think God is offended that you hate Him and His Church far more than I am. I am so used to the hatred you and other anti-Catholics spout that I rarely think anything of it. I long ago realized that anti-Catholics hate God, hate His Church and hate Catholics but deceptively claim the exact opposite. There was an anti-Catholic at the old forum who even threatened me and another Catholic with violence. Afterward I had to ask myself why I wasn't surprised. I wasn't surprised because I had already seen the hatred anti-Catholics could dish out. The leap to threats of violence was a small one for such a person who would revile Christ, His Church and Catholics. For me your lack of knowledge and hatred of God and His Church is to be pitied and dealt with forthrightly.



So, why would anyone be offended by truth? Or, why are some offended and other enlightened? The Holy Bible tells us why in Proverbs 9 NIV 7 “Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. 8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. 9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning. 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.”

That too is a common tactic on part of haters of Catholics like RGS. Rather than deal with the argument that they already know they can't win they attack the Catholic poster's motivations and misuses Bible verses to cover their own hatred of God and Christ's Church.

And please note, none of what RGS has posted in this thread actually responds to any of the points I made in my post. RGS is desperate to cover his embarr***ment at not being able to actually respond to what was posted. This behavior is so typical in anti-Catholics that it was foreseen by me at the very beginning of the thread. I always knew that RGS would be a typical anti-Catholic.


Vlad, do you fear God? There is no evidence in your postings that you do.

I do fear God. There is no sign in your posts that you either fear Him or love Him. There is only evidence that you hate Him and His Church.

[RGS]

Vlad actually answered a question.


And there we see that RGS is ill-equipped to actually deal with what I posted.

then desperately try to avoid real debate when challenged.

anti-Catholics are almost always poorly educated and presumptive. They don't know what they're talking about. They don't know how to debate. They don't know about evidence.

There was an anti-Catholic at the old forum who even threatened me and another Catholic with violence.

misuses Bible verses to cover their own hatred of God and Christ's Church.

And please note, none of what RGS has posted in this thread actually responds to any of the points I made in my post.

not being able to actually respond to what was posted.

I do fear God.

Vlad, as in the other posts, accuses his adversary of the very things he himself is guilty of.

ill-equipped - yes Vlad you are

to deal with what (Vlad) posted - sorry, Vlad, I started the thread and you haven't addressed the issues.

avoiding debate - Vlad is the only one here avoiding debate, he refuses to address that which has been posted

poorly educated - yes, Vlad you are

Vlad now attempts to stereo-type those that would speak against his precious RCC that they are violent prone, but Vlad will not reveal his agenda and his oaths and his ***ociations.

There is nothing in my post that displays a hatred of God

please note, there is nothing in Vlad's responses, as he pretends to enter this debate, that are responses to the points that I have made in the original post

Vlad is unable to actually respond to what was posted

You actually answered a question. But that begs other questions: Who is this god that you fear, the RCC god or the God of the Bible? Do you fear a consecrated wafer? What is His name?

[vladimir998]

Vlad actually answered a question.

I usually do. I wish you could say the same, but everyone knows you struggle to make points, post a basic argument or answer questions.



Vlad, as in the other posts, accuses his adversary of the very things he himself is guilty of.

Nope. Not once. If I accuse anyone of anything it will not only be true, but it will not apply to me.


ill-equipped - yes Vlad you are

No, actually I'm quite well equipped. That's why you can't compete.


to deal with what (Vlad) posted - sorry, Vlad, I started the thread and you haven't addressed the issues.

I did in the second post. In a few short sentences I cut your post to ribbons by simply pointing out the obvious.


avoiding debate - Vlad is the only one here avoiding debate, he refuses to address that which has been posted

Again, the thread opener was ***led by you as "The Ultimate Catholic Idol". I addressed the issue of idols in post number 2. What is it about basic English that you do not understand?


poorly educated - yes, Vlad you are

No, I am quite well educated actually. Someone doesn't need multiple universities degrees to get St. Ignatius right, but I have those too.


Vlad now attempts to stereo-type those that would speak against his precious RCC that they are violent prone, but Vlad will not reveal his agenda and his oaths and his ***ociations.

My agenda is truth, I have no idea what oath RGS is rambling on about nor will be actually post what it is and my ***ociation is that I am Catholic. I don't know how that could possibly be anymore clear or specific. I think here we see the rampant paranoia that is so common among anti-catholics like RGS. Think about it, what does he mean that I will not reveal my "agenda and his oaths and his ***ociations"? This is just a foretaste of the weirdness we will see displayed by anti-Catholics as the months unfold here at WM.


There is nothing in my post that displays a hatred of God

Sure there is: 1) you deny the truth, 2) you attack His body - the Church, 3) you attack His loyal disciples - Catholics, 4) you make stuff up out of thin air to try and defame Catholics ("agenda and his oaths and his ***ociations"), etc.


please note, there is nothing in Vlad's responses, as he pretends to enter this debate, that are responses to the points that I have made in the original post

Actually there is. The thread is called "The Ultimate Catholic Idol". In the entire post you make only two or three points really:

1) Idol worship is sinful.
2) You consider the Eucharist to be idol worship.

That fact that you only make those two points is quite clear from the end of your argument (such as it is or is attempted):

"Any priest, any Catholic, who bows down to bread, transubstantiated or not, is involved in idol worship because he is violating the command in Exodus 20:5 not to bow down before an idol (something made by human hands)."

Thus, in my post (the second one in this thread, you know, the one you essentially claim doesn't exist) I demolished your argument by pointing out the obvious:

An IDOL is a man-made thing that is worshipped.

Catholics do not worship (adore, give latria) to statues or paintings. Hence, no idol worship.

The Eucharist is Christ's body. Adoring Christ, who is God, is not idol worship.

Will RGS now claim that the Eucharist is NOT Christ's body?

End paste

And RGS argument goes down in flames. It was just that simple. 1) The Eucharist is Christ's body and is therefore not man made and therefore cannot be a man-made idol. 2) Adoring Christ can never be idol worship.

Thus in three simple statements, your argument was destroyed RGS. And rather than actually deal with what I wrote you - so easily stumpted that it's hilarious - really just dismiss orthodox doctrine altogether rather than actually logically argue against it. Because you can't.



Vlad is unable to actually respond to what was posted

Already did. When you deal with the points I raised in post #2 you get back to me RGS.


You actually answered a question. But that begs other questions: Who is this god that you fear, the RCC god or the God of the Bible? Do you fear a consecrated wafer? What is His name?

I fear God. You loathe Him. His name is Jesus Christ. You deny Him and attack Him and His Church. Keep posting RGS. The more you post, the more people see your hatred for the truth.

[RGS]

Vlad full argument is that the wafer god is not an idol when I have shown with Scripture that it is. The term "eucharist" is an extra-biblical term: it is not taught in the Bible. But Vlad claims that it must be accepted without any Biblical support. And, no, His name is not Jesus Christ. Christ is not a name, it is a ***le. The RCC Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible, the RCC Jesus is a piece of bread. And you did not give the name of God the Father.

[vladimir998]

Vlad full argument is that the wafer god is not an idol when I have shown with Scripture that it is.

Actually you did not even remotely show that the Eucharist is an idol. Pray tell what Biblical verse discusses the Eucharist as an idol? None.


The term "eucharist" is an extra-biblical term: it is not taught in the Bible.

No, the root word for eucharist is found in the Bible. The Eucharist came from the use of that word as ***ociated with the central liturgical worship of Christians in the Lord's Supper.


But Vlad claims that it must be accepted without any Biblical support.

No, scripture supports it. That's why you don't know anything about it.


And, no, His name is not Jesus Christ. Christ is not a name, it is a ***le.

No. It was a ***le. Then it became His name in conventional language. You would know this if you had ever read Acts 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 15, 16; 1 Corinthians 1 or 6 or Ephesians 5, or 1 Thessalonians 1 or 3; or 1 John 3.

You are apparently unaware of any of those chapters in scripture. How embarr***ing. You p*** yourself off as knowledgeable about scripture and yet there are entire chapters of scripture with which you are apparently completely unfamiliar.


The RCC Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible, the RCC Jesus is a piece of bread. And you did not give the name of God the Father.

1) Jesus is Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus of the Eucharist.
2) The Eucharist is not bread. Christ tells us it is His Body. Christ does not deceive. RGS does.
3) I didn't have to give the name of the Father since you referred to the Eucharist is made sense to refer to the name of the Son. Since you are apparently unfamilar with the Son's name in scripture, it probably wouldn't have mattered if I had posted the name of the Father because you might not be familar with those chapters where His name appears.

[RGS]

For those with ears to hear, there is nothing in Vlad's last post that has any truth in it. If you can hear, then I need go no further. For those, such as Vlad, whose mind and conscience is seared, I can only tell him the truth, but it is not my *** to make him believe it.

[vladimir998]

take a good look at how RGS tries to deceice:


For those with ears to hear, there is nothing in Vlad's last post that has any truth in it. If you can hear, then I need go no further. For those, such as Vlad, whose mind and conscience is seared, I can only tell him the truth, but it is not my *** to make him believe it.

Here's just a portion of what I wrote that no Christian can deny is true:


"Christ tells us it is His Body. Christ does not deceive."

Now, is that true or not? Does Christ tell us it is His body or not? Yes, He does. Thus, I am telling the truth and RGS is not.

Am I telling the truth when I say that Christ does not deceive? Clearly I am. Again, RGS is not telling the truth.

"I didn't have to give the name of the Father since you referred to the Eucharist is made sense to refer to the name of the Son."

And that's absolutely true too. Again, RGS is not telling the truth.

Now, that is just a portion of the truths in my post. Again, RGS is not telling the truth.

In thread after thread, after the anti-Catholics get some resistance to their lies, they flee. That's all they can do. Remember, they don't know what they're talking about, they can only spread half-truths, lies and misrepresentations. They cannot conduct an honest debate. They lose and they run.

And I think everyone here knows it.

[RGS]

Once again, Vlad has difficulty in discernment. This time he fails to discern that he has been dismissed as one with only nonsense to write and therefore a waste of time to those who read what he writes.

[vladimir998]

Once again, Vlad has difficulty in discernment. This time he fails to discern that he has been dismissed as one with only nonsense to write and therefore a waste of time to those who read what he writes.

No, RGS, only other anti-Catholics might see it that way and even that is doubtful. The simple fact is that you have been shown to be ill-equipped in debate. You don't have the knowledge or the tools. This is why you run from the threads that even you started.

[Composer]

Christ did not deceive Himself, nor did He deceive His people.
Yes he did!

Ezekiel 18:20 RSV

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father."

Ezek. 18:20 proves the very alleged role and need for this biblical Jesus is a sham!

The Jews were correct in rejecting this biblical Jesus and his alleged role, but they figured this not based upon the Book of Ezekiel (because they only follow the Torah or first 5 books of what now cons***utes the Christian Bible. i.e (Gen. Ex. Lev. Numb. Deut.))

They rightly realised from the Book of Genesis that man was already subject to death = wages of sin (cf. Rom. 6:23) KJV story book, from the very beginning of their creation and it was NOT because of the christian tall tale of Adam & Eve's disobedience bringing death to all men, because of their disobedience. Ezek. 18:20 also unambiguously proves the various Christian churches and other false ideologies have promoted that furphy (lie) from the start.

So what did the Jews rightly discover to decimate the Christian deception?

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2: 9) KJV story book

NB: . . . . the tree of life . . . .

i.e. Man was already subject to death (wages of sin) even before they are said to have sinned and brought death upon themselves and every one else thereafter (Rom. 5:12) KJV story book, simply because they were always in need of the Tree of Life to save them from any form of death, even before this other biblical tall tale about them sinning and being the cause of bringing death on themselves and all others.

So -

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death p***ed upon all men, for that all have sinned: {for that: or, in whom} (Rom. 5:12) KJV story book

Is unambiguously contradicted by -

a) The inherent dependence of all men created dependent on the Tree of Life to save them from any form of death. (Gen. 2: 9) KJV story book

b) Ezekiel 18:20 RSV story book

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON . . . .

i.e. NO one else can suffer for their fathers' iniquities.

Christianity is proven to be based upon lies and the celebration of the christian saviour Jesus is total HUMBUG!

[RGS]

Composer,

Do you claim a belief in any god?

RGS

[vladimir998]

RGS,

Composer has posted this before, elsewhere:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/86973-christianity-based-upon-false-biblical-ideology.html

http://www.worldslastchance.com/8-trinity-and-godhead/10-trinityfalse/Page-19/Page-17.html

http://christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=38921

http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html




This is the supposed author of the screed: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html


And I think this article of his fairly gives an example of his depravity: Yahweh-Elohim (Jesus Christ) "The Fornicator God" who became _spiritually_ a "Eunuch God": http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehFornicatorEunuchGod.html

There is a very good chance that Composer IS Walter Mattfeld.

[vladimir998]

Here's Mattfeld's Amazon pages: http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A27D8OLERZ0GIT



http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A27D8OLERZ0GIT?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

Other posts by Mattfeld:

http://www.backtype.com/url/www.bibleorigins.net/comment/0001a14765d2076deb87c2e13df1787a

Although he adds a Spanish name to his name, here he just says he is a German-American of German ancestory: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:tRuJ6J7mbXAJ:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2000-January/006384.html+Walter+mattfeld&cd=22&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[RGS]

Thank you Vlad for the websites you put on your last two posts here.
RGS:)

[vladimir998]

Thank you Vlad for the websites you put on your last two posts here.
RGS:)

No problem!

[kentuckypreacher]

An IDOL is a man-made thing that is worshipped.

Catholics do not worship (adore, give latria) to statues or paintings. Hence, no idol worship.


The Eucharist is Christ's body. Adoring Christ, who is God, is not idol worship.

Will RGS now claim that the Eucharist is NOT Christ's body?

Yeah, right...and the Israelites didn't worship (adore, give latria) to the golden calf, huh?

[vladimir998]

KP,

You wrote:


Yeah, right...and the Israelites didn't worship (adore, give latria) to the golden calf, huh?

No, the Israelites did. Catholics don't.

Read what I wrote again:

"An IDOL is a man-made thing that is worshipped."

Was the Golden Calf a man-made thing that was worshipped? You betcha.

"Catholics do not worship (adore, give latria) to statues or paintings. Hence, no idol worship."

Exactly. Remember, God told us that the Israelites considered the object to be a god and worshipped it. Exodus 32 tells us:

"Up, make us gods, who shall go before us..."

"These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"

"When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to The Lord."

"Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves; they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" (Exodus 32:1-8 RSV)

We don't worship Golden Calfs. We don't worship any idols at all and never have.

[Illya_Kuryakin]

Yeah, right...and the Israelites didn't worship (adore, give latria) to the golden calf, huh?

No they actually did, that is why they were condemned. Catholics no more give latria to saints, paintings and Mary then Americans give the flag when they put their hands over their hearts and say the pledge of allegiance.


Illya

[kentuckypreacher]

No they actually did, that is why they were condemned. Catholics no more give latria to saints, paintings and Mary then Americans give the flag when they put their hands over their hearts and say the pledge of allegiance.


Illya

Whenever I see an American prostrate before, or on bended knee, and praying to the flag, I'll wonder what he's up to!:eek:

[vladimir998]

Whenever I see an American prostrate before, or on bended knee, and praying to the flag, I'll wonder what he's up to!:eek:

How about a man kneeling on one knee to ask his girlfriend to marry him?

[kentuckypreacher]

If he prays to her, he's already in trouble before the marriage even begins.:)

[kentuckypreacher]

Vlad - come on, now! Every non-Catholic reacts with suspicion (at the least) or outright horror to the pagan-esque and idolatrous practices in Romanism. In this country, perhaps, such is not as apparent in its more grotesque forms - but we have all seem examples in foreign countries of men bowing themselves to the idols of wood and stone.

Biblically, such is indefensible.

[tealblue]

Here is the difference. Catholics do not worship the statue as an idol. God never forbade images because he commanded moses to do the very same thing. The very same thing(arc of covenant) that he was asked to place the ten commandments. The reason why non-Catholics react this way is because of being taught that way. Imagine how people react when they find out the earth is round. Things like the eucharist, saint intercession, Mary, and statues are scrary to many non catholics because it is a foreighn idea and its not specific enough in scripture. You worship on sunday, celebrate easter, christmas, and accept the cannon of scripture. These are nowhere to be found in scripture but you accept them. You accept many Catholic traditions and don't even know it.

[kentuckypreacher]

I observe NO Catholic "traditions." Clear?

[tealblue]

I'm ***uming that you don't worship on Sunday, celebrate easter, celebrate christmas, believe in the trinity, Baptize in the name of Father, son and holy spirit or use the new testement canon. All of these are Catholic traditions and CAN'T be believed using ONLY the bible. Many scholars admit that Matt 29:18 was a later addition from the original text due to doctrinal reasons. If you go by bible alone and go by the fact that the original text probably was simply Baptize in my name then you would baptize that way going by bible alone.

[kentuckypreacher]

I'm ***uming that you don't worship on Sunday, celebrate easter, celebrate christmas, believe in the trinity, Baptize in the name of Father, son and holy spirit or use the new testement canon. All of these are Catholic traditions and CAN'T be believed using ONLY the bible. Many scholars admit that Matt 29:18 was a later addition from the original text due to doctrinal reasons. If you go by bible alone and go by the fact that the original text probably was simply Baptize in my name then you would baptize that way going by bible alone.

I worship on Sunday because the New Testament tells me to (Acts 20:7) I don't celebrate Easter or Christmas. The New Testament teaches us about the godhead, baptizing, and God's preserved Word.

So I stand by what I said: I don't observe any Roman Catholic traditions.

[tealblue]

I mean acts 20:7 isn't really a command to worship on sunday. It just says they gathered on the first day of the week to break bread. You really think that christians would change a day of worship based on paul saying this? Yes it may be an indication after the fact but I wouldn't say this is a proof text. You look at the new testement cannon. It was the council of Carthage and Hippo that ratified which books belonged here. There is alot of writings that didn't make it in. If christians today had to pick throught the over 200 writings I highly doubt that everyone would come up with the same 27 books. The very fact that Matt, Mark, Luke and John are named what they are is also through tradition. These books don't self identify. Most people I talk to believe that the holy spirit guided the asembly of the 27 book new testement cannon. If thats true it was guided by the Catholic church. Some of the oldest New Testement copies from the 4th century are held at the vatican.

[AwGusTeen]

I worship on Sunday because the New Testament tells me to (Acts 20:7) I don't celebrate Easter or Christmas. The New Testament teaches us about the godhead, baptizing, and God's preserved Word.

So I stand by what I said: I don't observe any Roman Catholic traditions.

Do you accept the canon of the New Testament? If so, then how can you disregard all "Romish" traditions on the one hand, yet on the other tacitly accept the Church's authority to set the canon that you yourself use?:confused:

Further, what about pagan traditions - do you recognize any of those? If you wear a wedding band then you most certainly do!

Just FYI:The name "Roman Catholic Church" is technically incorrect - the proper name is the "Catholic Church of the Roman Rite." There are many others rites as well.

† Pax †

[alanmolstad]

we are not under the Old testament law.

As Christians we are not bound under the OT laws.
So all of this back and forth over the question of who is or is not breaking an OT law is just a moot point.