about the Catholic Church

[Sirach]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Since Mioque regards the RCC to have an almost god-like stature when it comes to history ... here is what EWTN says about the enumeration of the Ten Commandments.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The enumeration of the commandants (which is number one, which is two etc.) are traditional and neither contained in the texts nor obvious.

The Catholic Church has traditionally used the Deuteronomy account and followed the division of the text given in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Scriptures made by second century BC Jews in Egypt and used by the early Church as its Old Testament. The Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church also use this account.

The other Reformation churches use the Exodus listing, and adopted the Jewish enumeration of the Hebrew text.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/ten_commandments.htm

"Notice" that even the RCC admits that this is the "Jewish Enumeration".

Here is the "real deal" historically "showing" why EVEN the RCC has to admit that the Protestant numbering is faithful to the Hebrew/Jewish rendering and the RCC numbering is not.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/decalogue.html

Notice that in the Jewish options the clear numbering of 2,3,4,..10 does not change at all!!

In the two Jewish options there is only a question of how much of the the introduction to include in commandment 1.

How "instructive" that the numbering was so settled and agreed upon by the time of the Apostles!!

How "informative" that Augustine saw a need to "change that".

In Christ,

Bob

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Bob,

What does the Ten Commandments enumeration mean?

I don't see a major differnce that we can cast judgement on someone or group, they're still the same commandments, and technically, there are more than ten. They still say the same thing.

We know that the Old Testament scolls didn't have verses and chapters, it was all written together. I believe that adding the verses and chapters came sometime around the 4th or 5th century (if memory serves me correctly).

A great way to win someone over is first talk about how we are like them, find the common ground, then brotherly discuss what we believe and why.

i.e. If Baptists are to try to win Catholics, then a good approach would be to talk about how we agree on the value of life. A prime example is the Terri Schivo case, both Baptists and Catholics have joined in this cause. We do this for Christ. For Christ we must show love of neighbor.


God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach

 

[Sirach]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
"anathema=ecclesiastical ban"(excommunication)

What is wrong with the literal primary meaning of the word: without God.

Most of the defense of false doctrine is based on remote to non-existant definitions of words. We are dealing with the same words--but with completely different meanings in practice. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons etal, do the same thing. This is typical when trying to harmonize the traditions of men with the doctrines of God--they just do not harmonize.

God is not the author of confusion.

Selah,

Bro. James

Bro. James,

What the problem is that you are apply your literal meaning to something that was written hundreds of years ago, in another language.

What we should be looking at is what someone meant by what they said. To many people get lost in translation and the meanings for words at the time they were said.

A good example (this is just an example) would be if someone from 400 years from now read that something was "bad" - when we know some people use to use 'bad' for something 'cool'.

The Catholic Church teaches that "Excommunication" has various levels... most of the time it means that the person cannot participate in the Catholic Church Sacraments, but still is considered a member of the Catholic Church. The extreme version of excommunication is where the Catholic Church actually bans a person from coming, which is rare, according to what I have read.


Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach

 

[daktim]

Sirach wrote:
Shouldn't we first seek to truly understand Catholic teachings before casting judgement on it? With so many people that are baptist that can't agree on the Catholic Church teachings, it shows that we all need to study it more from Catholic sources, so to understand it, then and only then can we help Catholics who do not have Christ.
Let's go back to the Bible and see how things should be done.

Acts 17:16 and following. "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Now Paul was an educated man, and being sensitive to the needs of the people, and rather new to the area, he went henceforth to the local library to look up the customs and traditions of the Athenians, lest he should misrepresent what they meant by their open idolatry. After this, Paul quietly approached unto the Athenians, and inquired as to their interpretation of their own writings and beliefs. This being done, and not wanting to cast judgement upon them, he left them to their idolatry." NOT HARDLY!!! Here's what it really says.

"Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection." Acts 17:16-18

Paul didn't use their traditions either, he used Scripture.

"And Paul, as his manner was , went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures , Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." Acts 17:2-3

It's nice to have common ground when speaking to someone. But what is the ultimate goal? It should be the salvation of the soul. In order for a person to be saved, they first have to understand that they are a hell-deserving sinner with no ability to save themselves. No matter how you slice it, that's not a very positive message. The world's salesman approach to soulwinning might be a good initial approach for some, but you still have to get around to the ugly truth. Sugar coating the Gospel was something Jesus didn't do. Just look how He addressed the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23. He called them "hypocrites!", said they would "...receive the greater damnation.", said their converts were "...twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.", "blind guides", "fools and blind", "full of dead men's bones, and all uncleanness", "outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity", "serpents", "generation of vipers", "how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Before you say, "But you're not God", I'm well aware of that. However, Jesus Christ is our ultimate example.

Understanding what Catholics believe from Catholic sources will not help a Catholic to see his need of the Saviour. Opening and alleging from the Scriptures will.

In Christ,
daktim

 

[Sirach]

daktim,

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is our savior. They do not teach idolatry.

Understanding what the Catholic Church teaches and Catholics believe will help us understand where Catholics are coming from so that we can talk to Catholics in a way that they understand in regards to Christ.

If we are saying what the Catholic Church teaches, to be able to say it truthfully, we must understand it. OR we have no right to talk about what the Catholic Church teaches.

Understand where I'm coming from?

I'm concerned with truth. Some people are spreading falsehoods about Catholic teachings. When we see our brothers with misinformation, we are our brothers keeper and must make an effort to correct them... or be corrected if we are wrong. With any religion, the only way to understand it, is to study it from those who know it best. If a Catholic wanted to know about Baptists, I would hope that they would get their information from a Baptist, instead of spread falsehoods about Baptists.

If we spread lies that we think are truths from rumors and in this day and age don't take the time to double check it, then we risk being as guilty as the original person who lied in the first place - or we are fools. I don't think it's a sin to be a fool. Some people can't help being a fool. I don't want to be guilty of being a liar and I'm not a fool. I want to do the will of the father, and if I am to address Catholics, I must know what the Catholic Church really teaches and why.


Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Sirach:

What does the Ten Commandments enumeration mean?

I don't see a major differnce that we can cast judgement on someone or group, they're still the same commandments, and technically, there are more than ten.

I am not trying to make a point other than the clear point that the numbering had already been established by the time of the first century writing of the NT text.

I am also pointing out that it is THAT same numbering that is accepted by the non-Catholic churches today.

Certainly you are right to point out that in either enumeration - all the same words, same commands are there.

AS for these being called "the TEN WORDS" of God - and "The TEN COMMANDMENTS" - it is too late to debate that point - the Bible already speaks of these TEN in that way and even says about them "AND God added NO MORE".

They are a complete - fully identified unit - a unit of TEN according to scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sirach said -
i.e. If Baptists are to try to win Catholics, then a good approach would be to talk about how we agree on the value of life. A prime example is the Terri Schivo case, both Baptists and Catholics have joined in this cause. We do this for Christ. For Christ we must show love of neighbor.

I agree that you can do more with honey than vinegar and that there are a lot of good examples of various Christian groups cooperating toward a positive goal and the Schivo case is a good example of one of them.

However if the Baptists are to "win" Catholics into the Baptis fold - they have to be able to point out the problems in Catholicism to show "why a move" would even be desirable.

But I would argue for more than just a nit picky practice of sniping at Catholics for transgressions of past generations or minor doctrinal flaws.

In my opinion the "substance" for motive to change would have to come from "real error" that is IN the RCC today.

For example - IF she still clings to the logic/rationalizing of the dark ages and inquisition - then though she may not "practice torture" today - she remains comitted to its principle argument as a valid form of "correction" in society.

That would be a HUGE problem - not some sniping little detail of no consequence - wouldn't you agree?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Living4Him]

Paul didn't use their traditions either, he used Scripture.

"And Paul, as his manner was , went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures , Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." Acts 17:2-3

Which part of the scriptures? It couldn't have been the NT as we have it now.

The Gospel of Mark was written between the year 65-70. It appears that the original audience may well have been gentile Christians faced with persecution.

The Gospel of Matthew was written between 80-85. Because of its attention to the OT, it appears to have been written for Christians who had converted from Judaism.

The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written between 80-90 and were a two part work, with Luke being the first half. The Gospel of Luke (and Acts) was for gentile Christians and shows how faithful Jews had accepted Jesus as the foretold Messiah from the OT. Luke also shows that Jesus is the Savior of all people.

 

[BobRyan]

Every time you see the phrase "it is written" or "Scripture says" or "According to the scriptures" in the NT - what are they quoting??

You are right - the OT.

They did not call it "the Old Testament" they called it "Scripture" and "The Word of God".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Sirach:
Something to think about for those who attack the Catholic Church unjustly...

If you think they're hellbound because you believe that they have the wrong interpretation of Scripture and misrepresent Christ, I want you to consider the following verses, very carefully...

I first ask you to think about if you are ever wrong about your interpretation of the Scriptures.

If you think they're hellbound because you believe they misrepresent Christ, you cast judgement on yourselves UNLESS you are ALWAYS right about Scripture.

Matt 7:1
"Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you .
3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

That is pretty interesting - but it is an invalid application.

In Matt 7 Christ said TO JUDGE those who come to you in sheep's clothing but are in fact wolves. He says "BY their fruits you SHALL know them".

But in Matt 7:1-4 he is talking about members INSDIE the church who nitpick at each other NOT over doctrine but over behavior.

However when it comes to the gross doctrinal errors of what Paul said to Timothy are "Doctrines of demons" - the NT authors were VERY strongly opposed and in 1Tim chapter 1 we see Paul telling Timothy to stay behind at Ephesus JUST to deal with the BAD doctrine question.

Titus is told to strongly denounce the bad doctrines being promoted in his church as well.

Then in 2Cor 11

3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
...
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
...
18 Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also.
19 For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly.
20 For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face.
21 To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect anyone else is boldI speak in foolishnessI am just as bold myself.

In Gal 5 Paul argues that the bad doctrine causes them to "Fall from Grace".

In Acts 20 Paul argues that wolves come from within promoting bad doctrine.

How can there be any doubt about the problem of inserting error into the Church??!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Living4Him]

The Catholic Church teaches a false gospel and promotes idolatry

Really? Please explain. Is it because the RCC has statues of Jesus, Mary, and the Saints?

Are you using Exodus 20: 4-5 (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. 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 as proof that we are not to have statues?


Idol - a representation or symbol of an object of worship; a false god.

Image - A reproduction of the form of a person or an object.
An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative
reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction of an object
formed by a lens or a mirror.
This is what the dictionary says an image is. It could be a statue, icon, or
even a photograph.


Do you have a photograph of a loved one? Do you worship it? I doubt it.
Maybe you only use the picture to remind yourself of that person. Isn't
that right?
What about the statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial?
Do you or anyone else worship it or any other statue? Of course not.
Then why is the statue there? It is to remind us of what a great man he was
and in an image to which we can relate.


It is the same situation in the Catholic Church. The statues in the Catholic Church are there to remind us of our founder, Jesus Christ, His mother,and the great saints of the Church.


Now let's look to see where God commanded a graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth to be made.

Numbers 21:8-9
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

GOD clearly said make an image.

Exodus 25:16-21 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.

25:17
And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.

25:18
And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

25:19
And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

25:20
And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

25:21
And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

Another clear message directly from GOD to make an image. Did you notice that these gold cherubim were to be mounted atop the most sacred object on earth, the Ark of the Covenant?


Chapters 5 and 6 of 1Kings tell of the building of Solomon's Temple as
commanded by GOD, and decorating it inside with...


I Kings 6:22
And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold.

6:23
And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high.

6:24
And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits.

6:25
And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size.

6:26
The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub.

6:27
And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.

6:28
And he overlaid the cherubims with gold.

6:29
And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.

6:30
And the floors of the house he overlaid with gold, within and without.

6:31
And for the entering of the oracle he made doors of olive tree: the lintel and side posts were a fifth part of the wall.

6:32
The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees.

6:33
So also made he for the door of the temple posts of olive tree, a fourth part of the wall.

6:34
And the two doors were of fir tree: the two leaves of the one door were folding, and the two leaves of the other door were folding.

6:35
And he carved thereon cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered them with gold fitted upon the carved work.


Do you see the pattern here? It is very clear.
GOD had said to make images that come from GOD but make no images that are against Him...

1. Angels are Saints, St. Michael, St. Raphael, St. Gabriel.
2. There are many Saints who never were Angels, St. Mary, St. Peter, etc.
3. Saints are of GOD so what is the problem of having a statue of them?
4. Jesus Christ is certainly of GOD, so what is the problem of having a crucifix to remind us of the passion He suffered for each of us?

We do not bow down and serve the statue as if it were god.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand.

Pagan prayer methods.

Catholic Digest 12/1994 pg 129

“The Rosary is, unsurprisingly, Not mentioned in the Bible. Legend and history place its beginning in the 13th century long After the Bible was completed. As a Pagan practice, praying on counting beads goes back centuries before Christ…

Buddhists use prayer wheels and prayer beads for the same purpose… Counting prayer beads is common practice in religious cultures”.

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129
Question:
“My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.

There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?”

Ans:
“Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosarylike beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worship with the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!
They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!

..

 

[BobRyan]

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC heresy?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"

So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church
and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy; the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection,
devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians
began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."
…
pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his
discretion.

How much influence did this have on the RCC “really”?

Ibid - Pg 39

"the alliance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life. It carried many advantages, but it also entailed
some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world."

 

[Sirach]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sirach said -
i.e. If Baptists are to try to win Catholics, then a good approach would be to talk about how we agree on the value of life. A prime example is the Terri Schivo case, both Baptists and Catholics have joined in this cause. We do this for Christ. For Christ we must show love of neighbor.

I agree that you can do more with honey than vinegar and that there are a lot of good examples of various Christian groups cooperating toward a positive goal and the Schivo case is a good example of one of them.

However if the Baptists are to "win" Catholics into the Baptis fold - they have to be able to point out the problems in Catholicism to show "why a move" would even be desirable.
</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Bob,

That is my point.

To be able to accuratly show what Baptists think is wrong with Catholicism, they have to first know what the Catholic Church teaches and why.


People here have demonstrated that they far from know what the Catholic Church teaches, as I have pointed out with the Catholic Church's own Catechism.


Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach

 

[Living4Him]

Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy; the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects

So are you saying the Jews were pagan? The kissed the Torah

 

[D28guy]

Sirach,

"What does the Ten Commandments enumeration mean?

I don't see a major differnce that we can cast judgement on someone or group, they're still the same commandments, and technically, there are more than ten. They still say the same thing."

The numbering is not the primary problem. The problem is that they removed the part about making graven images and bowing down to them.

The reason why they would have to do that obvious.

Mike

 

[daktim]

You're right, D28guy. I remember the first time I went to a Baptist church and somebody asked if anyone could name all Ten Commandments. I volunteered, and when I got done, I got some very strange looks. I was taught the same "restructured" ten that you were. Delete number two, and cut number ten in half, making each half a whole.

daktim

 

[Living4Him]

The problem is that they removed the part about making graven images and bowing down to them.

No one has addressed my above point with regards to the statues.

Also, we don't bow down to the images of the saints.

 

[daktim]

1. Angels are Saints, St. Michael, St. Raphael, St. Gabriel.

That's one I havent' seen in the Bible. Saints are redeemed ones, those who have been sactified or set apart because of salvation. I've never heard of an angel being referred to as a saint.

daktim

 

[Living4Him]

Angel is their job description (messenger), saint designates their holiness "sanctos" = holy in Latin.