What's with the statue of Peter in St. Peter’s Cathedral?

You aren't quite as learned as you think you are. The AoG doesn't handle snakes....you are thinking of the Snake Handlers which are mostly in the Southeastern US.

It's generally a good idea to be somewhat educated on a denomination before you attack them.

I do enjoy looking at the statues of the saints, Jesus etc. I also love the stained glass windows showing scenes from the Bible...they all help to remind me of my faith and the Bible. I also liked coloring picutres of these Bible figures while in Sunday School...I suppose that qualifies as idolotry in your book as well. Teaching by using pictures...how evil!

I might remind you that you need to stop singing those songs of worship at your Church (assuming you go) because I think you must of sung some of them over and over and by this time you are surely guilty of vain reptition.

As far as the pope is concerned...no he doesn't decide anything for me. I am responsible for my own salvation and as the Bible instructs I am to work it out with fear and trembling. I, nor anyone, will be able to use the excuse of 'my pastor made me do it'.

I trust that your Church is a replica of what Peter and Paul preached in?

I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that Peter and Paul preach to statues...that would be rather pointless I think.


LaRae

 

I don't remember lighting candles in front of any pictures I colored nor saying a prayer or kneeling in front of one. And tell me, Catholics don't do those sort of things? I guess they learned it from Peter or Paul. I don't remember Jesus doing such.

The building we have services in is adequate and doesn't pretend to be anything else. As for the songs----we don't sing them out of necessity and
our song book has well over 700 songs and they have alot of verses which we skip when we desire.

I notice that I was right on target about the Assembly of God believing in Tongues and Lost salvation. The snake thing was more a "rustic"
joke----as it is today...

 

Exactly what Christian virtues, A_Christian, have you been exhibiting that would allow the light of Jesus Christ to shine through you and bring others to the faith? I'm honestly curious to see what you can come up with.

 

Actually we don't know what all Jesus did during his ministry. The Bible doesn't cover everything that happened....just as we don't know about all of Peter and Paul's ministry.

I certainly hope you aren't praying with your Bible open...one might think you are worshiping a book!

Lighting candles in front of a picture is hardly sinister. It's merely a way to draw attention to it or put it into focus.

It doesn't matter what sort of building you worship in, as long as you worship. If it's a old farm house or the crystal cathedral, as long as the intention is right.

Yes the AoG does believe in tongues...what of it? Some are false some could be real.

As far as 'lost salvation' goes (if one doesn'st speak in tongues) The AoG did not teach that during my time in that faith.

LaRae

 

"I know of NO ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH that doesn't have IDOLS----marble, plaster, or plastic! "
I've seen one (1).
http://gelderlandchurches.tripod.com/heiliglandcenakel.html
There are no statues inside the church, only a number of murals depicting scenes from the book of acts and 3 mosaics one depicting the funeral of Mary ( she is quite dead in the scene depicted, not being resurrected or ascending towards heaven), another depicting a choir of angels, the last one is a depiction of the Last Supper.
This churchbuilding is a most unusual specimen.

 

If you check this thread carefully you will find that I have not quoted anyone or made any claims. All I have said is that those who are interested in actually "checking out the source" should at least "read it" since they have been so blatant in prejudging what they have no read to this point in time.

This is a novel concept to some here - but not usually a new idea to actual historians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So basically, Bob is "making no claims" so that if is wrong, he has an escape. In the meantime, he will continue to criticise and publically berate those who believe differently than he does, even though he claims to be "making no claims." In other words, Bob likes to spread chaos until the chaos is qualmed. Then he starts more threads with vague information that he obviously propogates but distances himself enough from actually standing for something that he can never be called out on it.

Kind of like his stance on 666 and the title "Vicar of Christ." Reading through his responses, you'll find him saying that he doesn't say that it is necessarily true, only that it seems highly probable. Of course, in reality, he doesn't believe that at all, as he berates all those who oppose them, and will bring in every piece of bogus scholarship to keep his personal belief (which he refuses to admit to holding) from dying off. That's why these threads go on for 20 pages, after all. He can deny it because he actually takes no real stands. When confronted with taking a stand, he simply pulls out a new trick from his hat and reverts to attacks on the Catholic Church, because, after all, if the Catholic Church is right, he's standing on sinking sand. And the only way to survive when you build your house on sand is to constantly take the sand in big bucketfuls and dump it on those who are on solid ground, turning even the most objective Catholic stance into pure subjectivity.

No argument from a Catholic will ever be convincing because, and onlys because, its a Catholic argument. Once that is his position, the means always justify the end.

How old could Bob support the hate-breeding Jack Chick (the humble man who makes millions of dollars of profit on the perversion of the Gospel message, and has been demonstrated, has no problem lining the pockets of those who so obviously support abortion).

Yes, folks, we'll spend pages arguing over who designed a statue, because frankly, no conspiracy is too wacky.

Beware of killer Jesuits! They're in your closets, under your beds, and even in your dishwasher. Jack Chick said so.

 

Please show me where.

And is this all you have to say after broad-brush so many groups and condemn them? I would like to see your response to Grant's question to you.

Am I understanding you correctly from your posts that there is something wrong with everyone besides you (and maybe your local congregation)?

In Christ,
Neal

 

I am glad you found a good church. However, I encourage you to not make generalized assumptions based on a few personal experiences. Some SBC churches I have been a part of have been far more doctrinally correct than IFB ones (no KJVO nonesense, spreading lies about other groups to make them look bad, etc.). I have been a part of a good IFB church as well. I have been a part of some bad churches in many different groups. Thing is, you can't make stereotypes and live according to them. I could stereotype many IFBs as rude, prideful, lying, KJV thumping, closed-minded people. But I don't do that because I know that all of them are not that way, as I have been a part of a fine IFB church before. But I am glad you found a good church.

In Christ,
Neal

 

neal4CHRIST:

First, you are upset that I seem to single out the "Roman" Catholic church. Then when I point out the failures of other churches you say I paint with a broad brush. I guess there is no pleasing you. There are people like that.

My point is that THE CHURCH of GOD, if indeed it is a specific demonination as some believe, should be near perfect. The fact is that the CHRUCH is a collection of ALL TRUE believers (those that are choosen of GOD) and not a specific demonination. I believe I have proven that with both my narrow and broad brush. You are just ignoring the TRUTH and looking to hang me.

LaRae:

My point is that your focus should ONLY be on CHRIST and HIS WORD. I see no problem in studying what GOD says in His WORD. I do see a big problem in directing one's focus towards the creations of human creativity. They will ALL one day be consumed in fire.

EVEN the Vatican with all its treasures will one day be obliterated.

 

Thank-you for more of your condescending attitude, but you didn't answer my request. Please show me where I have attacked your person.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Hi Bob,

This isn't a trick question, honestly. Back a couple pages ago on this thread, you made this statement:

This is a statement of fact, made by you. If you want to say it's not a "claim," and therefore you haven't "made any claims," that's fine -- but you can see how I would perceive this as a statement of fact by you, right?

Then, in the next post on the thread, you said to Mioque:

From this, I infer that you have some reason for referring Mioque to that particular source -- that is, that you have reason to believe it might say something relevant about the topic of this alleged statue.

If that's not a fair inference, please let me know why.

If it is a fair inference, please let me know why you referred to that particular source. My assumption (which, again, I believe is a fair one) is that either:

A) You've read the "V.I. II" yourself, and recall finding relevant information there; or

B) You've seen someone else (Mr. Rivera, perhaps?) cite the "V.I. II" with regard to the statue.

Please let me know which it was, and if it's the latter, what that source was. I don't see why this should be a problem; feel free to look back over any of my posts on this board and I'll be happy to provide my sources in the same way.

Or, if there's some third explanation (e.g., "It was divinely revealed to you to say 'Mioque, go look at V.I. II,'" or "you just thought it would be fun to send Mioque on a wild-goose chase," or whatever, please let me know what it is.

Checking sources is not a new concept to me -- and it's what I'm trying to do here. I will appreciate any help you can provide.

In Christ,

Mark H.

 

Please define "near perfect," because anything that is not wholly perfect is infinitely below true perfection. But, you seem to have a clear idea of how this should be, so I'm interested.

And, I see where Jesus says that we are to be perfect like our Heavenly Father, but I don't see a prerequisite of "perfection" to be a part of the Church.

 

If a denomination IS the CHURCH. There would be NO errors in authoritative judgement, in doctrinal
understanding, in application of God's money.

The Catholic church has admitted ITSELF that it made grave mistakes in passing harsh sentences.
It has placed in authority over its flock sexual preditors. It has spent GOD's money lavishly on things. It has changed mandated traditions to suit ITSELF (examples would include meatless Fridays, Latin mass, flip-flopping on married clergy, ending dress codes for nuns and monks).

In fact the Roman Catholic church has redirected an inward change into an outward display of piety
and works.

The Roman Catholic church has brought on itself ridicule, because it insists on being THE CHURCH and holds all authority of GOD's will. I know of few churches that make such claims unless they are CULTS.

 

Are you then saying then the CHRUCH as a collection of ALL TRUE believers makes no error in authoratative judgement, in doctrinal understanding, in application of God's money?

If yes, how do you explain all the differences in doctrine among those who claim to be TRUE believers? How do you know who is right or wrong?

If no, why the double standard?

 

Are you then saying then the CHRUCH as a collection of ALL TRUE believers makes no error in authoratative judgement, in doctrinal understanding, in application of God's money?

If yes, how do you explain all the differences in doctrine among those who claim to be TRUE believers? How do you know who is right or wrong?

If no, why the double standard? </font>[/QUOTE]The BIG difference is that each member of the body of Christ, who collectively is the CHURCH, are not AUTHORITATIVE. They are being nurtured by the Holy Spirit and not in charge of the nurturing. Each member of the body of Christ is being brought into conformity with CHRIST and isn't the conformist. Denominations MAY be made up of believers at various points of Christian maturity; however, when the AUTHORITIES of a denomination say that they possess special dispensations given to THEM, as it was to the Christ's choosen Apostiles, then they MUST demonstrate the VERY SAME INERRANCY OF SCRIPTUAL UNDERSTANDING and TEACHING.

 

I know of no denomination that says they are in charge of the nurturing.

Can the Holy Spirit not use someone to edify and nurture another person? Does your pastor not tend to you spiritual health and strive to edify you? You know what the meaning of a pastor is, don't you, and their job?

Is there a particular reason why you are ignoring my request I made twice from you? Could you show me where I attacked you person, or withdraw your accusation? I would greatly appreciate one or the other.

In Christ,
Neal

 

neal4CHRIST:

Let me say that this thread started over a statue
(one of many) in the Vatican.

I made remarks concerning not only the appropriateness of statues in "Christian" places of worship but also said that I think the said statue is UGLY.
Now a statue has no feelings, so my opinion of it should not effect it in the least. In fact, if people are concerned about my regard for a statue, perhaps they place too high a regard in mademade material objects and are well on the way of applying human characteristics to inanimate things-----which is the point of IDOL WORSHIP.

Now as for YOU! You have insisted on making my opinion of a silly bronze statue into a platform to insult me (as if I were a statue).

FIRST, you said that my opinion was sad.
SECOND, you called me tactless.
THIRD, you called me rude.
FOURTH, you called me offensive.
FIFTH, inconsiderate
SIXTH, mocking
SEVENTH, arrogant.
ALL IF THESE ARE PERSONAL INSULTS DIRECTED TOWARD A PERSON...

I treated the said statue far better then you have treated me, sir. The statue remains one of my least favorite things in GOD's universe----at least I didn't give my tithe money to errect it.

 

With some help of the Dutch chapter of the Società Dante Alighieri I've dug up somebody who owns Valentini's book.
Full report next tuesday.

 

Mioque,

Your diligence is much appreciated.

Mark