The 'blessed virgin Mary'

[robert derrick]

Nowhere does the Church teach the divinity of Christ is contingent upon any creature. Cite it if you can.

The church of Christ doesn't.

This thread is about the reborn Roman religion mixed with the Christian, now called the Roman Catholic religion.

They have transplanted the Sacred Fire of ancient Rome into a Sacredised religion of the vestal virgins, with one Blessed Mother of them all called 'Mary'.

They teach that their christ cannot be worshipped as sinlessly holy and divine, unless their sinless Mother is also divine and holy, because it is she that imparted her sinlessly divine holiness into her christ child, while in her Sacred Womb.

Therefore, to question their Mother's divinity is to question their christ's divinity.

You see, their christ is not God's Christ, but their Mother's: and of course they call her 'Mary' and her christ, 'Jesus', in order to keep up Christian appearances.

She also becomes his wife, the new Eve, and his queen, the first one of heaven, since the new Adam and King must have a wife and queen.

Basically old Roman paganism has been exalted to 'Sacred' status in heaven, and is wedded to a christianity that is mythical, not Scriptural, except in name only.

She's the one standing on the moon in Rev 11, that gave birth to her christ and fled from the dragon on earth to Egypt, and then ascends with her son unto heaven, from which the dragon was cast out, and will one day return to earth with him as the New Eve, they call 'New Jerusalem'.

That is when the Mother marries her own son and becomes Sacred Wife of Christ and Queen of heaven.

It's when she willingly loses her virginity status for the greater good.

It's all in the book of the Mother Goddess Demeter and King Zeus, with the Eleusinian Mysteries finally revealed in Roman Catholic prophecy.

 

[Abaxvahl]

The church of Christ doesn't.

This thread is about the reborn Roman religion mixed with the Christian, now called the Roman Catholic religion.

A1) They have transplanted the Sacred Fire of ancient Rome into a Sacredised religion of the vestal virgins, with one Blessed Mother of them all called 'Mary'.
A2) They teach that their christ cannot be worshipped as sinlessly holy and divine, unless their sinless Mother is also divine and holy, because it is she that imparted her sinlessly divine holiness into her christ child, while in her Sacred Womb.
A3) Therefore, to question their Mother's divinity is to question their christ's divinity.
A4) You see, their christ is not God's Christ, but their Mother's: and of course they call her 'Mary' and her christ, 'Jesus', in order to keep up Christian appearances.
A5) She also becomes his wife, the new Eve, and his queen, the first one of heaven, since the new Adam and King must have a wife and queen.
A6) Basically old Roman paganism has been exalted to 'Sacred' status in heaven, and is wedded to a christianity that is mythical, not Scriptural, except in name only.
A7) She's the one standing on the moon in Rev 11, that gave birth to her christ and fled from the dragon on earth to Egypt, and then ascends with her son unto heaven, from which the dragon was cast out, and will one day return to earth with him as the New Eve, they call 'New Jerusalem'.
A8) That is when the Mother marries her own son and becomes Sacred Wife of Christ and Queen of heaven.
A9) It's when she willingly loses her virginity status for the greater good.

Prove every single one of these claims from the teachings of the Catholic Church or history. In detail, every single one of them. What is presented without evidence will be dismissed without evidence, and if you disagree with that I will believe things about you without evidence since clearly that is how the world works.

The Church of Christ does not believe that the divinity of Jesus is contingent on any creature, amen. I agree. I suppose I'm in the Church of Christ then, for that's what the Church of Christ has taught me (that His divinity is not contingent).

 

[robert derrick]

Oh goodness....Why are you following the 500 year old teachings of men and not the 2,000 year teaching of Christianity?

Matthew 1:25 demonstrates that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary before Jesus’ birth, thus establishing the doctrine of Jesus’ virginal birth. The verse does not mean that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born.

The verse does not mean that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Till is the older word for until, and in our Scripture, until still means until.

I appreciate you trying to understand our Bible, and I don't mind correcting you in it at all.

And if I ever wanted to read your traditional book, which I believe you call the book of Canons?, then I would certainly like you to do the same for me.

However, I am a Christian in the Christian religion called altogether the Church of Christ. And as a Christian, my faith is based upon the Scriptures of the Bible only. So any reading of your Sacred book of religion, would only be for curiosity and intellectual interest, not for matters of faith.

No offense to your Roman Catholic religion and faith intended.

What I do find interesting is how your founders have managed to make your religion both from that of ancient Rome, and some of that from our Bible, which you then call your 'Sacred' traditions.

It's very interesting. It has many words and names from our Bible, as well as certain partial truths of our Scriptures used for your own purposes. The result is a truly artistic neo-theology of human mysticism and old world practises ordained by your 'priests'. In Christianity we have 'ministers' who don't ordain anything to anyone else, but only preach and teach what is already written for us from our Lord to believe and do.

However, I can appreciate intellectually at least, how your founders have made quite and impressive combination of old world paganism and and new world 'christian' theology. That is no doubt why they chose to use the name of Roman and Catholic together for their religion, as a means of bringing altogether both pagans and 'christians' into common Sacred and most-Catholic union.

I also know you do not use parts of our Bible in order to 'prove' any of that Sacred union of your religion, as you have often said, and understand you just use certain parts, words, titles, and names out of it for drawing Christians to your faith.

This does not offend me in the least. Afterall, the words and names etc... on the pages of our Bible are not what we hold Sacred as you do, but rather we worship the One true God that is revealed by those words.

Also, if those that would believe in Jesus Christ prefer to convert to your Roman Catholic reunion of old and new, then they are certainly free to do so. We Christians are commanded by our Lord Jesus to let them alone (Matthew 15:14) in such cases, and let them go on to follow the guides and leaders they have chosen over our prophets and apostles of Scripture.

Now that I understand these things, I am no longer trying to correct you and your religion, but only want to confirm what we in Christianity know to be true according to our Scriptures, as well as showing how we differ from your Sacred Roman Catholic traditions.

Such as, we don't believe in an 'Ever-Virgin Goddess' nor a 'Mother of God', nor her 'Sacred Womb', because our Scriptures do not teach that. I see that your oral traditions do, and that's perfectly fine for you.

In our Scriptures, as I quoted above, the mother of our Christ child did give virgin birth to Him by the Holy Spirit of our God, and was blessed therein, but as with all good wives of faithful husbands, that believe in the true God, she did her marital duty to join him in the marriage bed to become one flesh, as Scripture commands us, so as not to defraud one another in marriage.

And since our Bible tells us to do all things as unto the Lord freely and without begrudging, then we believe she did so gladly, and was equally blessed therein, because our Scriptures plainly show how they had both daughters and sons together. (Mark 6:3)

I am only now provide you a service of distinction between us, and am in no way trying to convert you from your religion to ours.

I have repented for that error. Christians ought not be proselytizing people from other religions. Our Scriptures say so:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

That verse is from our Bible, so I must obey it.

I hope you have a happily Sacred day.

 

[Addy]

.

 

[David in NJ]

Exactly, and now it all ties together with their Mother of all vestal virgins, who were to watch over the 'Sacred' fire of Rome.

It's the religion of Rome usurping the name of Christ, who's divinity depends upon the Sacredness of their Mother's Womb.

The Sacred fire in the Sacred womb, which is their Sacred baptism of fire.

It all fits now. That is where they got their 'Sacred' title from.

I always wondered why they go on and on about how 'Sacred' everything is for them, without one hint of the Holy Scriptures.

They even had it in their name all along: Roman Catholic.

It is indeed the Catholic Roman religion: old paganism with a twist of christ added to it.

And this Harlot will be burned with fire - for God will put upon the hearts of man to do this.

A false christ is a twisted christ.

 

[Marymog]

The verse does not mean that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Till is the older word for until, and in our Scripture, until still means until.

I appreciate you trying to understand our Bible, and I don't mind correcting you in it at all.

And if I ever wanted to read your traditional book, which I believe you call the book of Canons?, then I would certainly like you to do the same for me.

However, I am a Christian in the Christian religion called altogether the Church of Christ. And as a Christian, my faith is based upon the Scriptures of the Bible only. So any reading of your Sacred book of religion, would only be for curiosity and intellectual interest, not for matters of faith.

No offense to your Roman Catholic religion and faith intended.

What I do find interesting is how your founders have managed to make your religion both from that of ancient Rome, and some of that from our Bible, which you then call your 'Sacred' traditions.

It's very interesting. It has many words and names from our Bible, as well as certain partial truths of our Scriptures used for your own purposes. The result is a truly artistic neo-theology of human mysticism and old world practises ordained by your 'priests'. In Christianity we have 'ministers' who don't ordain anything to anyone else, but only preach and teach what is already written for us from our Lord to believe and do.

However, I can appreciate intellectually at least, how your founders have made quite and impressive combination of old world paganism and and new world 'christian' theology. That is no doubt why they chose to use the name of Roman and Catholic together for their religion, as a means of bringing altogether both pagans and 'christians' into common Sacred and most-Catholic union.

I also know you do not use parts of our Bible in order to 'prove' any of that Sacred union of your religion, as you have often said, and understand you just use certain parts, words, titles, and names out of it for drawing Christians to your faith.

This does not offend me in the least. Afterall, the words and names etc... on the pages of our Bible are not what we hold Sacred as you do, but rather we worship the One true God that is revealed by those words.

Also, if those that would believe in Jesus Christ prefer to convert to your Roman Catholic reunion of old and new, then they are certainly free to do so. We Christians are commanded by our Lord Jesus to let them alone (Matthew 15:14) in such cases, and let them go on to follow the guides and leaders they have chosen over our prophets and apostles of Scripture.

Now that I understand these things, I am no longer trying to correct you and your religion, but only want to confirm what we in Christianity know to be true according to our Scriptures, as well as showing how we differ from your Sacred Roman Catholic traditions.

Such as, we don't believe in an 'Ever-Virgin Goddess' nor a 'Mother of God', nor her 'Sacred Womb', because our Scriptures do not teach that. I see that your oral traditions do, and that's perfectly fine for you.

In our Scriptures, as I quoted above, the mother of our Christ child did give virgin birth to Him by the Holy Spirit of our God, and was blessed therein, but as with all good wives of faithful husbands, that believe in the true God, she did her marital duty to join him in the marriage bed to become one flesh, as Scripture commands us, so as not to defraud one another in marriage.

And since our Bible tells us to do all things as unto the Lord freely and without begrudging, then we believe she did so gladly, and was equally blessed therein, because our Scriptures plainly show how they had both daughters and sons together. (Mark 6:3)

I am only now provide you a service of distinction between us, and am in no way trying to convert you from your religion to ours.

I have repented for that error. Christians ought not be proselytizing people from other religions. Our Scriptures say so:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

That verse is from our Bible, so I must obey it.

I hope you have a happily Sacred day.

Huh???? :::_O:::_O

I don't understand a word you just said. Catholics don't use part of YOUR bible is the most bizarre thing you said among all of it.

I'm sorry...I just can't go on with you.

Mary

PS...One sentence you said intrigued me though. Are you saying that you belong to the denominational Church of Christ? Or are you using the term "Church of Christ" in general?

 

[Marymog]

Ok... I've had my Catholic quota for the day... Learned something new... I did not realize the Catholic church teaches that
Mary was born without original sin... IMAGINE that !!!!!!

How could you, an ex-catholic who has attended ordinations, not know that?

Curious Mary

 

[robert derrick]

So, in the Roman religion of Catholics, they call the tabernacle of their covenant 'Mary'. And she has a Sacred Womb.

And so their Mary is the tabernacle, wherein is their holiest place of all, which would be her Sacred Womb, that all who believe in her Christ should boldly come and enter therein.

That is one cavernous womb.

 

[Addy]

How could you, an ex-catholic who has attended ordinations, not know that?

I was 14 years old when my mother returned to the church... previous to that ... I had NO Christian education.
and so I never took or learned the Catholic teachings... because I never went to Catholic public school or highschool.
I wanted to be a nun... and I tried to enter the convent ( Sisters of St. Joseph )... they told me I was too young at 17... they told me to
go out and experience life.... Sadly... I had abandonment issues from my father leaving without saying goodbye at age 14... as well as living with a mentally ill mother.

When I left home... my life went downhill very quickly... and so I never returned to church. My mother was a devout Catholic... until she died
in 2007... It was after this that I asked for a priest's blessing to never have to return to the Catholic church... and my interest in learning different basic doctrines has occurred since this time... when I was searching to understand who JESUS really is. It is mostly here over this last year that I have learned the doctrine of what the Catholic church teaches... As a teenager... I simply went to mass daily... without understanding much of anything.

That is why I did not know about the teachings of Mary.... and now I do.

I attended two ordinations of seminarians.... not sure why this should make me aware of all the Catholic doctrine.

See?? I am capable of having an intimate conversation.

 

[robert derrick]

Huh???? :::_O:::_O

I don't understand a word you just said. Catholics don't use part of YOUR bible is the most bizarre thing you said among all of it.

I'm sorry...I just can't go on with you.

Mary

PS...One sentence you said intrigued me though. Are you saying that you belong to the denominational Church of Christ? Or are you using the term "Church of Christ" in general?

I understand your consternation. Now that I know the full depth of your religion, I agree that we are not in the same religion; therefore, I no longer try to chastise you as a Christian with Scripture.

I am a Christian according to the Scriptures only, and you are a follower of the Roman religion of old mixed with Bible words and pseudo-christian mysticism.

You openly reject Scripture as the sole authority of Jesus Christ, and gladly look to other traditions for matter of faith.

So you see, our Bible and Scriptures are not yours. You refer to our Bible in certain places, names, and titles, but only as means of intermixing them with your Sacred traditions, which I openly reject as authority of Jesus Christ.

You have your traditions sprinkled with Scripture, and we have our Scriptures only.

Catholics don't use part of YOUR bible

You do use part of our Bible for your religion. That is evident. You claim a virgin birth for the Christ child, which is from our Scriptures.

Our Scriptures tell us that the mother of Jesus abstained from the marriage bed with Joseph until after that birth.

Your traditions then depart from Scripture and preach an ever-virgin for life. You therefore use part of our Bible in order to bolster the true aim of your faith: A sinfless Mother of God, Who's Sacred Womb is divine.

 

[Marymog]

I understand your consternation. ....

Lol...No, no I don't think you do. ;)

 

[robert derrick]

The religion of Rome called Catholics reject the humanity of Christ.

They agree He is the only begotten of God by the Spirit, but not made of a sinful human woman: one born of the blood of Adam, which is corrupted with sin.

Therefore, being born of God Himself and likewise of a sinlessly Sacred Mother, He had no humanity born of sinful flesh: He was not truly human. Therefore, He was not 'fully human'.

A Sacred Womb does not give birth to flesh and blood human beings, but only to demigods, even as the pagans knew of old.

The Roman Catholic religion was founded by pagan worshippers of the religion of ancient Rome, who had to redress it in Christian garb, due to imperial politics favoring Christianity.

It was the only way they could keep the Sacred hearth and fire of Vesta going.

So, they used the Nicaean creed as their letterhead for their religion, and then proceeded to use parts of Scripture to resurrect the Sacred Vestal religion of Rome, and called her 'Mary'.

Vesta was the Roman Virgin Mother Goddess of earth, called Demeter by the Greeks, who gave birth by King Zeus, and then remained virgin ever after.

Likewise, even as the gods and goddesses of old were named by many names, so is the Mother of the religion of Rome:

The Virgin Mary is known by many names, such as the Blessed Virgin, Mother Mary, Our Lady, Mother of God, Queen of Angels, Mary of Sorrows, and Queen of the Universe.

And so, they teach for Sacred tradition, the ever-virgin Mother 'Mary' of the Sacred Womb, wherein is the most holy Catholic fire burning for sacrifice in the tabernacle of Father Jupiter, which Scripture calls the tabernacle of Moloch. (Acts 7:43)

And finally, their Virgin Mother is the one they pray to for intercession with God, even as they did with Vesta of old.

 

[Marymog]

I was 14 years old when my mother returned to the church... previous to that ... I had NO Christian education.
and so I never took or learned the Catholic teachings... because I never went to Catholic public school or highschool.
I wanted to be a nun... and I tried to enter the convent ( Sisters of St. Joseph )... they told me I was too young at 17... they told me to
go out and experience life.... Sadly... I had abandonment issues from my father leaving without saying goodbye at age 14... as well as living with a mentally ill mother.

When I left home... my life went downhill very quickly... and so I never returned to church. My mother was a devout Catholic... until she died
in 2007... It was after this that I asked for a priest's blessing to never have to return to the Catholic church... and my interest in learning different basic doctrines has occurred since this time... when I was searching to understand who JESUS really is. It is mostly here over this last year that I have learned the doctrine of what the Catholic church teaches... As a teenager... I simply went to mass daily... without understanding much of anything.

That is why I did not know about the teachings of Mary.... and now I do.

I attended two ordinations of seminarians.... not sure why this should make me aware of all the Catholic doctrine.

See?? I am capable of having an intimate conversation.

Thanks Addy.

That is quit a life story. It makes me thankful for my childhood.

God Bless...Mary

 

[Marymog]

The religion of Rome called Catholics reject the humanity of Christ.

They agree He is the only begotten of God by the Spirit, but not made of a sinful human woman: one born of the blood of Adam, which is corrupted with sin.

Therefore, being born of God Himself and likewise of a sinlessly Sacred Mother, He had no humanity born of sinful flesh: He was not truly human. Therefore, He was not 'fully human'.

A Sacred Womb does not give birth to flesh and blood human beings, but only to demigods, even as the pagans knew of old.

The Roman Catholic religion was founded by pagan worshippers of the religion of ancient Rome, who had to redress it in Christian garb, due to imperial politics favoring Christianity.

It was the only way they could keep the Sacred hearth and fire of Vesta going.

So, they used the Nicaean creed as their letterhead for their religion, and then proceeded to use parts of Scripture to resurrect the Sacred Vestal religion of Rome, and called her 'Mary'.

Vesta was the Roman Virgin Mother Goddess of earth, called Demeter by the Greeks, who gave birth by King Zeus, and then remained virgin ever after.

Likewise, even as the gods and goddesses of old were named by many names, so is the Mother of the religion of Rome:

The Virgin Mary is known by many names, such as the Blessed Virgin, Mother Mary, Our Lady, Mother of God, Queen of Angels, Mary of Sorrows, and Queen of the Universe.

And so, they teach for Sacred tradition, the ever-virgin Mother 'Mary' of the Sacred Womb, wherein is the most holy Catholic fire burning for sacrifice in the tabernacle of Father Jupiter, which Scripture calls the tabernacle of Moloch. (Acts 7:43)

And finally, their Virgin Mother is the one they pray to for intercession with God, even as they did with Vesta of old.

Robert,

Your very first sentence is a complete lie or you are ignorant of Christian history. Which one is it? If you are willing to admit you lied then you should apologize. If it is ignorance I can't help you.

The rest of your post is a bizarre compilation of half truths and shows your ignorance of your own Christian history let alone the Catholic faith and the Nicene Creed.

I believe you are probably a good person with a good heart but your theology, Christian history and biblical interpretation is not very good.

You should run from whomever taught you this garbage. If you are self taught then I feel sorry for you.

Mary

 

[marks]

Thanks marks. @robert derrick wrote a lot of words in that post which got a bit confusing for me so I will only comment on his "conclusion": There can be no divinity of Christ to believe in, that is independent of Mary's Sacred Womb and eternally divine virginaity (sic). No Sacred Womb, no Divine Christ.

That 'conclusion' seems to be a fair explanation. Mary's womb had to have been sacred to carry God's son in it.

Respectfully, Mary

Yeah, I knew you'd have to do some sorting to get past the clutter . . . Thank you for taking a look and letting me know!

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

The Roman Catholic religion is the old pagan religion of Rome dressed with Christian names, tiles, and partial doctrine.

The founders did so to keep the Sacred fire of Vesta going, when the imperial government of Rome had turned Christian.

The first founder so named himself Pope, because it was an alternative title for Pontifex Maximus, the leading priest of ancient Roman paganism.

That is why he is also referred to as the Pontiff.

 

[marks]

Who was the mother of the new Adam?

Again, I appreciate your explanation! This would focus on my thinking, Who was the mother of the First Adam?

In being the Last Adam, I see Jesus' incarnation being a created body - a body you have prepared for me - in which He was born.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

Robert,

Your very first sentence is a complete lie or you are ignorant of Christian history. Which one is it? If you are willing to admit you lied then you should apologize. If it is ignorance I can't help you.

The rest of your post is a bizarre compilation of half truths and shows your ignorance of your own Christian history let alone the Catholic faith and the Nicene Creed.

I believe you are probably a good person with a good heart but your theology, Christian history and biblical interpretation is not very good.

You should run from whomever taught you this garbage. If you are self taught then I feel sorry for you.

Mary

your own Christian history let alone the Catholic faith

True. They are not the same.

In Christian history, the Roman faith of Catholicism made itself known, when the founders of your religion adopted the Nicene Creed as a face-saving necessity to keep the Sacred fire of the Roman Vestal Virgin from being extinguished.

Yes, it is true, that they had to give her another name out of the Bible, 'Mary', but necessity is the mother of invention. I am quite sure that Vesta, or rather Demeter, doesn't mind, so long as she is still worshipped as the Virgin Mother Goddess of earth and fertility.

Afterall, what's in a name.

your theology, Christian history and biblical interpretation is not very good.

I understand your reasoning, since I refer only to Scripture of our Bible, while you look to your religion's Sacred traditions, that are not in our Bible.

That is your choice, and that is fine.

I say 'our' Scriptures and Bible, because you do not accept them as sole authority of the true God's Word, and so they cannot be 'yours'.

'Yours' are the Sacred traditions of your religion. They are not 'mine'. I reject them, though no offence intended. I am only respecting your choice of faith, while keeping my own. Hey, live and let live, right?

And so, our faith and religion are not the same. I accept that. Why don't you? That is peculiar of you.

My only purpose is to show by Scripture, where your religion of Roman paganism filled with Biblical names and titles differ from Christianity preached according to the scriptures only..

Which differences you already know about, since you choose to follow an ancient, yet Sacred, Roman religion spoken in christian terms.

I have absolutely nothing against the Virgin Vesta that you like to call Mary, and I am certain that the Mary of Scripture, who is now present with her Lord Jesus, doesn't care either.

Afterall, the Sacred Vesta did quite well for Rome for almost a thousand years. Have you seen 'Gladiator'? I really like it.

If you are self taught then I feel sorry for you.

I am self taught in Scripture. Thank you for the compliment.

You should run from whomever taught you this garbage.

Frankly, I do not see why you speak of your Sacred traditions as garbage. I only reiterate what I am taught by you and your fellow worshippers of the revitalized Roman religion, called the Catholic faith.

If I am in error, please correct me. I enjoy learning the details of alternative religion.

And don't think for a moment, that I am trying to dissuade you nor proselytize you away from your reborn Roman paganism ouched in christian symbol. That is your Sacred tradition to follow, and your right to do so. I simply choose to only follow Jesus Christ and Him crucified according to the Scriptures.

You choose not to. That is fine for you. I don't have to answer for your choice. Only my own.

 

[robert derrick]

Again, I appreciate your explanation! This would focus on my thinking, Who was the mother of the First Adam?

In being the Last Adam, I see Jesus' incarnation being a created body - a body you have prepared for me - in which He was born.

Much love!

Absolutely true. The only thing the woman had to do was to believe enough to allow the Holy Spirit to conceive a body in her by faith, and she was blessed for it.

The God of Israel took over from there.

Also, Good job in correcting the errant title of 'new Adam'.

Those who rely on their own Sacred traditions often misquote our Scriptures.

But since they don't rely on Scripture anyway, it's understandable. It's just a bunch of written words to them, to use as they will for their own religion.

Which is fine. We don't degrade the religion of others. It's every person's right to believe what they want.

 

[robert derrick]

Huh???? :::_O:::_O

I don't understand a word you just said. Catholics don't use part of YOUR bible is the most bizarre thing you said among all of it.

I'm sorry...I just can't go on with you.

Mary

PS...One sentence you said intrigued me though. Are you saying that you belong to the denominational Church of Christ? Or are you using the term "Church of Christ" in general?

Catholics don't use part of YOUR bible is the most bizarre thing you said among all of it.

There is a simple clarification that is pretty apparent.

Since you reject the Scriptures I read as bein the sole authority for the Word of the true God, and also cast much doubt about the books and chapters of the Bible, that I read as being all Scripture, then plainly you do not claim the Scriptures and bible, that I do.

Therefore, it is my Bible and my Scriptures. Not yours.

That is not a cnfrontation with you, but only an acceptance of your wishes.