Why water into wine?

[perrero]

I am in good company perrero!!

I used scripture AND 2,000 years of Christian History to support infant baptism. So did the FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS who walked and talked with the Apostles so it was more than likely a COMMON PRACTICE when the Apostles were alive. The CHURCH FATHERS used scripture to support infant baptism. I am truly in good company.

You perrero, by your own admittance, are unable to produce NOTHING from scripture that says DO NOT BAPTIZE INFANTS. Your tradition of not baptizing infants is only 500 years old.

I will respond to your other false accusations later.

Love...Mary

You know Mary, the Word of God is above all. There is nothing in this world that trumps His infallible Word. No religion, no philosophy, no tradition can be held higher than the Word itself. Because the written Word of God is the actual revelation of the true Word who is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ Himself. When you add your traditions and try to add things to the Word through your religion and personal understanding you are attempting to change Christ Himself. Christ and His Word DO NOT change.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
When you use such words as "common practice" without biblical truth or "church fathers" without biblical truth", you end up doing just what I said and that is to lay more weight to that than the Word itself. Did you know, that for 2000 yrs now, the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 2:15, the only two times Jesus uses the word hate) has been in effect. And, according to your logic, because it has been in effect for 2000 yrs we should be embracing that doctrine even though Jesus clearly states He hates it. Do you not see that 2000 yrs of false doctrine still remains false doctrine?

I am letting you of the hook. You do not have to answer what you call, my "false accusations". First of all, I never accused you of anything. I simply put forward a list of false doctrines that are espoused by the C church. I did, however, ask you a simple question about what was the 2nd commandment given to Moses. I even made it easy for you by giving you the Bible references. I suspect that anyone on this board can answer that question in a second. Here let me spell it out for you:

"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" (Exodus 20:3-5)

Now I also suspect that the reason you did not answer such an easy question, even with me giving you the references, is because you knew that the 2nd commandment is non existent in the C bible. The C Church replaced the 2nd with the 3rd, the 3rd with the 4th, and so on and divided the last commandment in two in order to make the 9th and 10th. And if you agree with that kind of scheming and removal of scripture, ignoring those 3 verses above, then why not remove every other verse that doesn't suit you, or remove a chapter, a book or the whole Old Testament if it's not convenient. For that matter who needs the Bible, we can go on living as we see fit.
Yet according to your great logic, the original 10 commandments have been around for over 4000 yrs which is much longer than the C church who changed the 10 Commandments the their doctored version (1800 yrs) and therefore you should be using the older version. But you are NOT.
I guess it is all a matter of convenience.

So as I said, you're of the hook.
I don't think I want to continue a discussion on these topics with someone who doesn't hold The Word of God in highest authority. It's like talking with an atheist who doesn't believe in the authority of scripture and uses whatever reasoning, logic, persuasion, tradition and more to prove a BIBLICAL point.
1 Peter 1:8 kinda wraps it up "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 

[BreadOfLife]

You know Mary, the Word of God is above all. There is nothing in this world that trumps His infallible Word. No religion, no philosophy, no tradition can be held higher than the Word itself. Because the written Word of God is the actual revelation of the true Word who is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ Himself. When you add your traditions and try to add things to the Word through your religion and personal understanding you are attempting to change Christ Himself. Christ and His Word DO NOT change.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
When you use such words as "common practice" without biblical truth or "church fathers" without biblical truth", you end up doing just what I said and that is to lay more weight to that than the Word itself. Did you know, that for 2000 yrs now, the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 2:15, the only two times Jesus uses the word hate) has been in effect. And, according to your logic, because it has been in effect for 2000 yrs we should be embracing that doctrine even though Jesus clearly states He hates it. Do you not see that 2000 yrs of false doctrine still remains false doctrine?

I am letting you of the hook. You do not have to answer what you call, my "false accusations". First of all, I never accused you of anything. I simply put forward a list of false doctrines that are espoused by the C church. I did, however, ask you a simple question about what was the 2nd commandment given to Moses. I even made it easy for you by giving you the Bible references. I suspect that anyone on this board can answer that question in a second. Here let me spell it out for you:

"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" (Exodus 20:3-5)

Now I also suspect that the reason you did not answer such an easy question, even with me giving you the references, is because you knew that the 2nd commandment is non existent in the C bible. The C Church replaced the 2nd with the 3rd, the 3rd with the 4th, and so on and divided the last commandment in two in order to make the 9th and 10th. And if you agree with that kind of scheming and removal of scripture, ignoring those 3 verses above, then why not remove every other verse that doesn't suit you, or remove a chapter, a book or the whole Old Testament if it's not convenient. For that matter who needs the Bible, we can go on living as we see fit.
Yet according to your great logic, the original 10 commandments have been around for over 4000 yrs which is much longer than the C church who changed the 10 Commandments the their doctored version (1800 yrs) and therefore you should be using the older version. But you are NOT.
I guess it is all a matter of convenience.

So as I said, you're of the hook.
I don't think I want to continue a discussion on these topics with someone who doesn't hold The Word of God in highest authority. It's like talking with an atheist who doesn't believe in the authority of scripture and uses whatever reasoning, logic, persuasion, tradition and more to prove a BIBLICAL point.
1 Peter 1:8 kinda wraps it up "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

I always chuckle when anti-Catholics accuse the Church of idolatry because it does not condemn the creation of images - and neither does GOD.

God condemned the worship of images as gods - not the creation of them.
If that were true - He would never have commanded Moses to make 2 Golden Cherubim to place atop the Ark - or a Bronze Serpent to place on a pole so that the Hebrews would be cured.
He would have cursed YOU for carrying a driver's license or having pictures of grandma and the kids on your mantle.

As for the "renumbering" of the commandments - this is based on your own ignorance of Scripture..
Coveting a person's belongings and coveting their spouse are TWO different Commandments.

Chamad (תחמד), is used to describe the coveting a man’s wife as opposed to 'Avah (תתאוה), which is used to describe the desire for a man’s property. Chamad has a connotation of sexual desire and lust, whereas, ‘Avah means to crave or to be greedy for something material.

We now see that there are two different Commandments here and not one jumbled, all-inclusive commandment. Wives are not chattel - they make a husband WHOLE. We must remember that in Gen. 2:24, God declared that, in the union between a husband and wife, the two become ONE flesh. Jesus reiterates this fact in Mark 10:8.

Stop quoting the Scriptures until you understand what they are saying . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

As for the "renumbering" of the commandments - this is based on your own ignorance of Scripture.

at least you are good for comedy relief lol

 

[BreadOfLife]

at least you are good for comedy relief lol

In other words - you're stumped again and have NO response . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

In other words - you're stumped again and have NO response . . .

i'm only ever taking a swipe in the dark anyway lol

 

[BreadOfLife]

i'm only ever taking a swipe in the dark anyway lol

You said a mouthful . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

aren't you just a light lol. k gnight

 

[Marymog]

I have gone back to as far as post #142, which means I have checked post #242, #219, #203, #173, #170, #163, #156, #154, #148, #147, #142.
Out of these you have not quoted ONE passage of scripture in support of anything you have been saying or arguing. And you dare make the statement above??????
In post#142, and #147 you clearly state that, because you do not have any verse to support your belief you are using your OWN logic which was to conclude that Mary was right and JESUS was WRONG. And you dare make the statement above????? In post #148 you talk about a Gift of Interpretation of Scripture which doesn't exist at all in Scripture. And you dare make the statement above????? Post #148 I gave you 14 erroneous doctrines of the C church and you have not countered one of them with scripture to support them. And you dare make the statement above????? In Post #156 I answered your question in as much as you said "Thank you" but you have not answered me about the 2nd Commandment. And you dare make the statement above?????
Who is schooling who?
You accuse Sword of not doing his research when it is clear you don't do any yourself to defend your positions. All your posts are talk, talk, talk and talk is cheap. You need to start producing some evidence or try another forum where people will be less demanding.

You took a verse out of context in the scriptures and you want me to believe you are right on Infant Baptism.
You say my definition of the Greek Word Baptezo is narrow when you say that it means DIP.
Greek #907 Baptizo

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
   
   
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
   
   
3. to overwhelm

This word should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
βαπτίζω baptízō, bap-tid'-zo; from a derivative of G911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:—Baptist, baptize, wash.

You are far from schooling anyone Mary, especially when your arguments come from your new C friend.

You are right. Post #142 has no scripture in it. But it does have one FACTUAL statement in it: Nowhere in scripture does it say that you need scripture to back up everything you believe about scripture. YOU have failed to provide a single sentence from scripture that says one needs scripture to back up scripture. And why do I need to quote scripture in every post???

Post #147 is your post. Not mine.

You accuse ME of taking a verse out of context even though that same verse, for 2,000 years, has been used by Church Fathers and other Christians in the same context I use it. My dear perrero. Do you not see that YOU are in fact the one who is taking it out of context? Furthermore, who gives YOU the authority to say that 2,000 years of Christian teaching is wrong and you are right? Based on your own logic/theory it is possible that one week from now, one year from now or 5 years from now someone could approach you and convince you that infant baptism is biblical.

I never said Baptizo ONLY means DIP. If I did please quote me.

I don’t understand your 2nd commandment question and why it is relevant to this conversation.

I do not understand why you want me to defend the 14 doctrines of the Catholic Church that you listed? Shouldn’t you be asking one of our Catholic brothers on here?

 

[Marymog]

You know Mary, the Word of God is above all. There is nothing in this world that trumps His infallible Word. No religion, no philosophy, no tradition can be held higher than the Word itself. Because the written Word of God is the actual revelation of the true Word who is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ Himself. When you add your traditions and try to add things to the Word through your religion and personal understanding you are attempting to change Christ Himself. Christ and His Word DO NOT change.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
When you use such words as "common practice" without biblical truth or "church fathers" without biblical truth", you end up doing just what I said and that is to lay more weight to that than the Word itself. Did you know, that for 2000 yrs now, the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 2:15, the only two times Jesus uses the word hate) has been in effect. And, according to your logic, because it has been in effect for 2000 yrs we should be embracing that doctrine even though Jesus clearly states He hates it. Do you not see that 2000 yrs of false doctrine still remains false doctrine?

I am letting you of the hook. You do not have to answer what you call, my "false accusations". First of all, I never accused you of anything. I simply put forward a list of false doctrines that are espoused by the C church. I did, however, ask you a simple question about what was the 2nd commandment given to Moses. I even made it easy for you by giving you the Bible references. I suspect that anyone on this board can answer that question in a second. Here let me spell it out for you:

"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" (Exodus 20:3-5)

Now I also suspect that the reason you did not answer such an easy question, even with me giving you the references, is because you knew that the 2nd commandment is non existent in the C bible. The C Church replaced the 2nd with the 3rd, the 3rd with the 4th, and so on and divided the last commandment in two in order to make the 9th and 10th. And if you agree with that kind of scheming and removal of scripture, ignoring those 3 verses above, then why not remove every other verse that doesn't suit you, or remove a chapter, a book or the whole Old Testament if it's not convenient. For that matter who needs the Bible, we can go on living as we see fit.
Yet according to your great logic, the original 10 commandments have been around for over 4000 yrs which is much longer than the C church who changed the 10 Commandments the their doctored version (1800 yrs) and therefore you should be using the older version. But you are NOT.
I guess it is all a matter of convenience.

So as I said, you're of the hook.
I don't think I want to continue a discussion on these topics with someone who doesn't hold The Word of God in highest authority. It's like talking with an atheist who doesn't believe in the authority of scripture and uses whatever reasoning, logic, persuasion, tradition and more to prove a BIBLICAL point.
1 Peter 1:8 kinda wraps it up "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

My dear perrero,

I have been on vacation and do not need to be left off the hook.

It makes me sad that you have made your personal understanding of scripture infallible. You read scripture, interpret it, believe YOU are right until someone comes along and convinces you that you are wrong. If they can't convince you that you are wrong then you are still right and they are wrong. You are infallible. You have made yourself your own Pope, magisterium, Bishop, church leader etc. etc. of your own church.

According to your theory if a Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or Methodist follows the teachings of their Pope or Bishop or Church Council they can't possibly be right because they follow a religion based on traditions. They don't follow Christ or His word. Only perrero does because only perrero is infallible. Perrero is the only one who does not twist scripture. Scripture says take your differences to The Church and let The Church settle your differences and The Church is the pillar of Truth. Where does it say that perrero is the pillar of truth?

I went to catholic.com and the bible to research the 2nd commandment. The Catholics follow the same commandments you follow. The bible does not say THIS IS THE 1ST COMMANDMENT.... THIS IS THE 2nd COMMANDMENT....THIS IS THE 3RD COMMANDMENT...

Calvin and other Reformers (relying more on Exodus 20) listed the commandments in a different way than the RCC. Based on the Reformers re-presentation of the Decalogue many denominations in America now teach the commandments that is based on a 500 year tradition of the Reformers. They threw out the 1,500 years of Christian teaching before the reformation.

You have accepted the Protestant tradition/common practice of arranging the ten commandments. CONGRATULATIONS! You have your own tradition/common practice, just like the Catholic Church does.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED (Acts 2:38)

I'm glad you chose that verse because the very first word is the most important. REPENT and be baptized. Now repentance of ones sins requires 4 things, REcognizing you are a sinner, approaching God with a PENitent, a TANgible change in attitudes and of heart, and CEasing all sin and unrighteousness. An infant or child is incapable of understanding those 4 concepts and a sprinkling of water over their heads does nothing towards the goal of salvation.

Why is the very first word the most important? Are they not both important?

You are twisting Acts 2:38 to say, You must repent before you can be baptized OR You can only be baptized AFTER you repent. Scripture does not say that. It says repent AND be baptized. That was Paul's answer to their question "What shall we do?"

Furthermore, why would you deny a person baptism who has a medical condition that makes them unable to be submerged in water? Is baptism only for able bodied people?

The act of pouring or sprinkling has been practiced by Christians for 2,000 years (refer to the Didache). Scripture does not say submersion only. Scripture does not deny a person baptism who is unable to be submerged in water baptism with water. Only you and the 500 year protestant tradition of "submersion only" teaching denies those souls from being baptized.

Love Mary

 

[Marymog]

This is funny

Dear Sword,

I told perrero: I did prove you wrong. I just didn't share my proof with you.

You seem to think my response was "funny".

When I am able to do an internet search and find within 30 seconds that someone is not being honest about what they are stating as fact I don't waste my time with sharing my proof. If he wants to remain ignorant or play games that is on him.

A child in 2nd grade could have easily proven that perrero was not being honest. Why should I waste my time showing you or anyone else what took less than 30 seconds for me to find out?

It's like if he asked ME to prove to HIM the earth is round and not flat. I would not respond. I would not share my proof which would be a simple internet search with a link attached. Some things are common knowledge or EASY to learn. Perrero either does not have the common knowledge of our topic or has no desire to learn the truth about the topic we were discussing.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

The infallibility of the Pope, the Catholic Church has greater Authority than the Bible, You can only be saved in the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition equal to scripture, Purgatory, Mary was sinless, Mary is co-redeemer with Christ, Praying to the dead, praying for the dead, Idol worship, in order to accommodate idols they remove the 2nd Commandment and split the 10th one in two separate commandments, their eschatology doesn't allow for the millennial reign of Jesus, infant baptism totally eradicates your sins, Last Rights is an instant ticket to heaven or purgatory, Salvation through faith and works, Transubstantiation. Shall I go on? Having said that there are Catholic individuals who do come to the full revelation of the gospel and actually make a born again commitment to follow Jesus. Those who choose to remain in the C church probably do so in order to spread the new truth they have received and experienced in Christ Jesus. Others, like myself, chose to move on with the congregation that led them to the cross of Calvary for their salvation. Read my post, I said: Luther I have great respect for as he stood against all odds to bring reformation. However, none of us are perfect and neither was he. He was anti-Semitic, but then many Christians today are also. Through his stand he brought back the full gospel to the forefront, changing the course of history. Am I suppose to respect all his beliefs? Am I supposed to become anti-Semitic. If you were under a Pastor who at times you knew was wrong in his theology, would you drink the coll-aid when offered? I know doctrines are against scripture because I spend time in His Word, I pray over His Word and I diligently research His word so that I am not caught unawares.

OK...I will tackle the easiest one of them: Transubstantiation

Approximately AD57 in 1 Corinthians: "For this is what I received from the Lord and in turn passed on to you: That on the same night as he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it, and broke it, and he said, 'This is my body which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.' In the same way he took the cup after supper and said, 'This cup is a new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.' Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death. And so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup, because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation".

The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16).

I suspect you already know in John when Jesus emphatically states MULTIPLE TIMES: This is my body this is My blood and you must eat my body and drink my blood to have life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Some disciples walked away because the words He was using really meant EAT and DRINK his body and blood; not symbolically. That creeped them out so they walked away...like perrero is doing....walking away.

On the road to Emmaus their eyes were opened when He broke the bread; perreros eyes remained closed.

Approximately 110AD Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote: I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God..."

That covers the first 50 years of Christian teaching and beliefs. Your theory covers the last 500 years of Christian belief. Wonder who I should believe.

I could go on and on how every single one of the Apostolic and Church Fathers declared the bread and wine to be His body and blood but you have already decided that they are wrong and you, perrero, are infallible. You are smarter and a better theologian then they are.

2,000 years of Christian teaching thrown out by perrero. All the Church Fathers are wrong and you are right? You accept 500 years of tradition/teaching but you tell me not to accept tradition. How sad.

You have your 500 year tradition/teaching. Christianity has it's 2,000 year tradition/teaching backed up with scripture.

One thing that gives me hope in all this. Based on your theory by next week or next year or even 5 years from now you may actually agree with what I just wrote. According to your theory the truth is fluid and you someday may stumble upon The Truth of transubstantiation; that is if you decide what I said is true.

Mary

 

[perrero]

God condemned the worship of images as gods - not the creation of them.

Stop quoting the Scriptures until you understand what they are saying . . .

I always chuckle when people steeped in the C Religion quote certain verses while ignoring others to prove a point.
People like yourself who recognize the 1rst commandment:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt (1) have no other God's before.

But not the 2nd.
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt (2) 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.

God condemned the worship of images as gods - not the creation of them.

Your blatant ignorance of verse 4 only shows self-inflicted blindness to support something untrue.

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt (3) 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 for the "renumbering" of the commandments - this is based on your own ignorance of Scripture..
Coveting a person's belongings and coveting their spouse are TWO different Commandments.

If anything I can concede that their are 11 commandments, if you want to divide the 10th one in two.
But you don't get the right to delete Verse 4 just because it is inconvenient to your false teaching.
Stop omitting Scripture until you understand what they are saying...

Now I will say to you as I said to Mary, since you do not recognize the Scriptures as the final authority, which is obvious when you ignore it's content, you find yourself in the same camp as the atheist, and I therefore choose to ignore you instead of Scripture.

 

[Sword]

When I am able to do an internet search and find within 30 seconds that someone is not being honest about what they are stating as fact I don't waste my time with sharing my proof. If he wants to remain ignorant or play games that is on him.

So why you still coming after me?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I always chuckle when people steeped in the C Religion quote certain verses while ignoring others to prove a point.

People like yourself who recognize the 1rst commandment:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt (1) have no other God's before.

But not the 2nd.

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt (2) 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.

Your blatant ignorance of verse 4 only shows self-inflicted blindness to support something untrue.

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt (3) 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;

Ummmm, that's because it's ALL part of the SAME Commandment.
“I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.”

Time for a little Bible lesson:
In Exodus 20, where we first see the list of Commandments, we read in verses 3 and 5 that this is not simply a commandment against the making of statues and images. It is clearly talking about not making gods out of them and not bowing to them and serving them. The Church has always condemned this practice as well.

IF this were a Commandment against the creation of images and statues, then God would have violated His own law by commanding Moses just a few chapters later to create 2 golden images of Cherubim to place atop the Ark (Exod. 25:18-22). His supposed hypocrisy would have also extended to commanding Moses later on to create a bronze serpent and place it on a pole so that those who looked upon it would be healed (Num. 21:8-9). We also read other examples of God being pleased with the creation of statues (I Kings 6:23-28, 9:3). When we read those verses in context, we see that God’s prohibition is against making idols to worship and not the creation of images. This is ALL covered in the first Commandment about having “other gods”.

Exodus 34:28 tells us that there are “Ten” Commandments, even though Bible doesn’t number them. As a matter of fact, if you were to count all of the “You shall nots” alongside the other two that command the keeping of the Sabbath and honoring your father and mother – you would wind up with at least thirteen. Numbering them depends on exactly which “You shall nots” you group together and which ones you leave separate.

If anything I can concede that their are 11 commandments, if you want to divide the 10th one in two.
But you don't get the right to delete Verse 4 just because it is inconvenient to your false teaching.

Stop omitting Scripture until you understand what they are saying...

Now I will say to you as I said to Mary, since you do not recognize the Scriptures as the final authority, which is obvious when you ignore it's content, you find yourself in the same camp as the atheist, and I therefore choose to ignore you instead of Scripture.

No - you “choose” to ignore me because you’re obviously filled with spiritual pride and a shameful ignorance of Scripture. In short – You can’t defend your points very well, so you’re running.

This won’t stop me from exposing you at every turn.
Every time I read one of your posts where you spew lies in order to seduce people away from the Church – I will respond with the facts so that they won’t be duped by hateful people like you.

As for “ignoring” verse 4 – I already laid out the only logical rendering of this Commandment which encapsulates verses 3 – 6.

Now I suggest you get off your hypocritical high horse regarding images - unless you are willing to toss out your wallet which caries a graven image of you on your driver's license and all of the pictures of the kids and Aunt Winny on your mantle at home.

 

[bbyrd009]

...in a setting completely unconnected in any way to the worship of God, yes.

similar to the RCC apparently, which is why you do not see any difference, but a Christian can only see a commandment that is being broken.

 

[perrero]

Ummmm, that's because it's ALL part of the SAME Commandment.
“I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods besides me.”

Time for a little Bible lesson:
In Exodus 20, where we first see the list of Commandments, we read in verses 3 and 5 that this is not simply a commandment against the making of statues and images. It is clearly talking about not making gods out of them and not bowing to them and serving them. The Church has always condemned this practice as well.

IF this were a Commandment against the creation of images and statues, then God would have violated His own law by commanding Moses just a few chapters later to create 2 golden images of Cherubim to place atop the Ark (Exod. 25:18-22). His supposed hypocrisy would have also extended to commanding Moses later on to create a bronze serpent and place it on a pole so that those who looked upon it would be healed (Num. 21:8-9). We also read other examples of God being pleased with the creation of statues (I Kings 6:23-28, 9:3). When we read those verses in context, we see that God’s prohibition is against making idols to worship and not the creation of images. This is ALL covered in the first Commandment about having “other gods”.

Exodus 34:28 tells us that there are “Ten” Commandments, even though Bible doesn’t number them. As a matter of fact, if you were to count all of the “You shall nots” alongside the other two that command the keeping of the Sabbath and honoring your father and mother – you would wind up with at least thirteen. Numbering them depends on exactly which “You shall nots” you group together and which ones you leave separate.

No - you “choose” to ignore me because you’re obviously filled with spiritual pride and a shameful ignorance of Scripture. In short – You can’t defend your points very well, so you’re running.

As for “ignoring” verse 4 – I already laid out the only logical rendering of this Commandment which encapsulates verses 3 – 6.

Now I suggest you get off your hypocritical high horse regarding images - unless you are willing to toss out your wallet which caries a graven image of you on your driver's license and all of the pictures of the kids and Aunt Winny on your mantle at home.

You are so sanctimonious it ain't funny!
You know I really don't care which way you number the commandments. That is not the issue. The issue is that the C church totally ignores the 4th verse and so do you. And once you do that you lose total credibility. So whatever else you try to establish means squat. (Excuse me if that's spiritual pride on my part
Exodus 20:4 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.
And don't try to cover that up with your "Cherubim on the mercy seat" example. Moses was specifically told to make those things exactly as they were represented in the heavenly temple. The commandments and that portion of scripture are totally unrelated, so get it right.
Moses was told by God to specifically make a fiery serpent which again was an entirely different UNRELATED reason. The bronze serpent signifies judgment and yet healing and victory over death which is a foreshadowing of Christ's work at the cross. (John 3:14-15) "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

This won’t stop me from exposing you at every turn.
Every time I read one of your posts where you spew lies in order to seduce people away from the Church – I will respond with the facts so that they won’t be duped by hateful people like you.

Better that I introduce them to Jesus and His love for them than you trying to convince them of your religious cult.
Enough said, you are a false prophet spewing your religion on people like the Pharisees of old, a reprobate at best. I dust of my feet.

 

[Marymog]

So why you still coming after me?

I don't understand your question my friend.

I'm not going after anyone. Do you feel I am?

Curious Mary

 

[Sword]

I don't understand your question my friend.

I'm not going after anyone. Do you feel I am?

Curious Mary

We are told not to go on feelings. When Isee you quote almost every thrqad I am in and not talking to others its looking a little like it may be the case. Any way I think were are done.

 

[Marymog]

We are told not to go on feelings. When Isee you quote almost every thrqad I am in and not talking to others its looking a little like it may be the case. Any way I think were are done.

You should look closer my friend. I have many conversations going on. And most of them end up like my conversation with you.

I ask them/you legitimate questions based on scripture, Christian History and logic (not feelings). Since they/you can't answer with logic or without twisting scripture YOU end the conversation. How sad.

There is a idiom for this: You have been painted into a corner.

Sad Mary