Scriptures and Deuterocanonicals part 2

Excerpts from a blog by By Michael E. Stone (his source:  Israeli Foreign Ministry):

“All the Apocrypha and most of the Pseudepigrapha are Jewish works (some contain Christianizing additions). They provide essential evidence of Jewish literature and thought during the period between the end of biblical writing (ca. 400 BCE) and the beginning of substantial rabbinic literature in the latter part of the first century CE.”

“Most of these works were written in the Land of Israel, in Aramaic or Hebrew. However, some of them, such as The Wisdom of Solomon, were written in Greek. These Jewish Greek writings were produced in the widespread Jewish Diaspora of the time, mainly in Egypt (Alexandria) and in North Africa. Although most of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts have been lost over the centuries, many of them, translated into Greek or Oriental Christian languages (such as Ethiopic, Syriac or Armenian) have been found.”

More excerpts:

“Scholarly interest was renewed after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. In the eleven caves near Qumran north-west of the Dead Sea, parts of more than 700 ancient Jewish manuscripts were discovered. These had been written in the same period as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, mostly in Hebrew, with a lesser number in Aramaic and even fewer in Greek. The Dead Sea Scrolls, as they came to be known, are assumed to have been the library of a sectarian community at Qumran. The scrolls survived the Roman ravaging of Judea in the years 68-70 CE, because they were hidden in caves. They have been a major focus of scholarly and general interest for the last half-century.

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were a number of manuscripts of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,…”

“Dating of the manuscripts by their script shows that certain parts of Enoch are at least as old as the third century BCE. Fragments of Ben Sira in Hebrew, Tobit in Aramaic, the Epistle of Jeremiah in Greek, and others were also found at Qumran.”
______________________________
The Apochrypa found in the dead sea scrolls were not purely Hebrew bec originally some were greek, so as the author revealed. The letter to jeremiah is greek, but actually, it was specified in the Apochrypa books that indeed majority were originally greek. There is no documentary proof that Apochrypa is purely Hebrew.

What do I want to prove?

That my first post about the old testament as must be written in Hebrew still stands. It must be that all old testament scriptures must be in Hebrew bec they were writing it to Jews. Majority were Hebrew speaking citizens therefore god must send his letter in Hebrew to cater to them all bec they never lost their Hebrew language even during the diaspora wherein they were captives in Babylon, and was Hellenized. Biblical evidences show that they never lost their Hebrew language.
Christ used Hebrew.

Mt 27:46 “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Hebrew was prevalent then as greek and Latin.

Lk 23:38 “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

Ac 26:14 “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

Re 9:11 “And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.”
 ___________________________________
The Jewish Diaspora began with the exile of Judeans to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 bc. The majority of Judeans remained in Babylonia even after the refounding of Jerusalem. Under Hellenistic rulers, large numbers of Jews settled in Alexandria, Egypt.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
An excerpt:
“All the Apocrypha and most of the Pseudepigrapha are Jewish works (some contain Christianizing additions). They provide essential evidence of Jewish literature and thought during the period between the end of biblical writing (ca. 400 BCE) and the beginning of substantial rabbinic literature in the latter part of the first century CE.”
_________________________________
The diaspora begun 586 BC.

Biblical writing of the Old Testament allegedly ends 400 BCE. Even then Hebrew language was the only prophets’ writing medium.

As a matter of fact Daniel was among those who were in the diaspora but he wrote his book in Hebrew which nullifies the reason that bec they were Hellenize, they must somehow wrote in Greek. As I said, it must be that ALL the old testament canons be originally written in Hebrew for it to be canonical bec how about the Israelites who never known Greek. Though they were Hellenized but thru the long years span til Christ it doesn’t imply a perpetual Greek language adherence. It got lost with some descendants of course, and as a matter of fact, the masoretes reformed the original Hebrew copies of the bible which were then pure consonant texts into voweled Hebrew texts called the masoretic text which means that indeed the Israelites retained their Hebrew language even with the influence of the greek culture. They can still read Hebrew, the renewed Hebrew language, that is, supplied with vowels-THE MASORETIC TEXTS.

As proof, the dead sea scrolls contained some of these Masoretic texts either dating from 250 BC-68 AD.

Excerpts from: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity

by	Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

“When the scrolls first were discovered in 1947, scholars disputed their dates of composition. Scholars now generally agree that although some materials are earlier,

the Qumran materials date primarily to the Hasmonean (152-63 B.C.) and early Roman periods (63 B.C.-A.D. 68). Several strands of evidence corroborate these conclusions. 

First, archaeological evidence from the ruins of the Qumran community supports these dates. After six major seasons of excavations, archaeologists have identified three specific phases of occupation at the ancient center of Qumran. Coinage discovered in the first stratum dates from the reign of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 B.C.). Such artifacts also indicate that the architecture associated with the second occupational phase dates no later than the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.). Also reflected in the material remains of the site is the destruction of its buildings in the earthquake reported by the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 15.5.2). Apparently, this natural disaster occurred around 31 B.C. a position that prompted the occupants to abandon the site for an indeterminate time. Upon reoccupation of the area—the third phase—the buildings were repaired and rebuilt precisely on the previous plan of the old communal complex. The community flourished until the Romans, under the military direction of Vespasian, occupied the site by force (see Cross, 1992, pp. 21-22). Such evidence is consistent with the second century B.C. to first-century A.D. dates for the scrolls.

The second strand of evidence is that the generally accepted dates for the scrolls are corroborated by palaeographical considerations. Palaeography is the study of ancient writing and, more specifically, the shape and style of letters. Characteristic of ancient languages, the manner in which Hebrew and Aramaic letters were written changed over a period of time. The trained eye can determine, within certain boundaries, the time frame of a document based upon the shape of its letters.

This is the method by which scholars determine the date of a text on palaeographical grounds. According to this technique, the scripts at Qumran belong to three periods of palaeographical development: (1) a small group of biblical texts whose archaic style reflects the period between about 250-150 B.C.; (2) a large cache of manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, that is consistent with a writing style common to the Hasmonean period (c. 150-30 B.C.); and (3) a similarly large number of texts that evinces a writing style characteristic of the Herodian period (30 B.C.-A.D. 70). This linguistic information also is consistent with the commonly accepted dates of the Qumran materials.”

“This second point is of particular importance since, prior to the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest extant Old Testament texts were those known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which dated from about A.D. 980. The Masoretic Text is the result of editorial work performed by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes. The scribes’ designation was derived from the Hebrew word masora, which refers collectively to the notes entered on the top, bottom, and side margins of the Masoretic Text manuscripts to safeguard traditional transmission. Hence, the Masoretes, as their name suggests, were the scribal preservers of the masora (Roberts, 1962, 3:295). From the fifth to the ninth century A.D., the Masoretes labored to introduce both these marginal notes and vowel points to the consonantal text—primarily to conserve correct pronunciation and spelling (see Seow, 1987, pp. 8-9).

Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MASORETIC TEXT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, 

since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, scholars often “corrected” the text with considerable freedom.
Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional Masoretic Text is based. A comparison of the Masoretic Text to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.

Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MASORETIC TEXT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some of the Prophets.”
_______________________

NO OLD TESTAMENT PROPHET EVER USED GREEK. BIBLICAL SCROLLS OF THE MASORETES ARE HEBREW. 

But of course, catholic apologists will ask, what proof do you have mr. yogi that old testament books must all be written in Hebrew? Even if the masoretic bible is Hebrew but what proof is there that it is requisite for prophets to write in Hebrew only?

Prophets had been using the Hebrew language in relaying God’s messages.
An example:

Ezk 3:4 “And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.
Ezk 3:5 For thou [art] not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, [but] to the house of Israel;
Ezk 3:6 Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.
Ezk 3:7 But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel [are] impudent and hardhearted.”

For thou [art] not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, [but] to the house of Israel

But some hard smarts may insist, but does that prohibit the use of greek?

GOD ONLY SPOKE TO PROPHETS.

Num 12:6 “And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, [I] the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, [and] will speak unto him in a dream.”

Am 3:7 “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”


ONLY PROPHETS WERE OLD TESTAMENT SPEAKERS OF GOD. ONLY PROPHETS THEREFORE WERE CREDITED THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITINGS. EVEN THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS WERE BY PROPHETS.

Hb 1:1 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”
 in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son

 Dn 9:10 “Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.”

 the voice of the LORD our God which he set before us by his servants the prophets
 Jer 26:4 “And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD; If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you,

Jer 26:5 To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending [them], but ye have not hearkened;”

If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you,
To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you

All those commanded to speak to Israel then were prophets. Nothing more, nothing less. Being prophets, they were the only spokesperson of god til Christ and as we see, all old testament writings by prophets were in Hebrew, this alone proves that indeed god relayed his messages to all Israel in Hebrew. It was never in greek.

NO OLD TESTAMENT PROPHET EVER USED GREEK.

In contrary, the apochrypa included in itself writings by non-prophets as the book of Sirach, Judith, Baruch and spurious Daniel writings as bel and the dragon, the book of suzanna etc… and most of them in Greek.

We must first establish that all scriptures inspired, are those pure words of God.

2Ti 3:16 “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

If Apochrypa is scriptures or inspired scriptures, meaning, the words of God, then it must have been written to us by prophets onlly prophets were the one given privilege to speak for god.

Hb 1:1 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,”

Fathers means Israel’s forefathers.

Ro 9:4 “Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises;

Ro 9:5 Who (greek “hon”: who) are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

The fathers are those also to whom Isaiah spoke to also, meaning, Israel in old testament times.

Ac 28:25 “And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

Ac 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:”

 Ac 7:52 “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:”

 God have been using only prophets in communicating to Israel in the past. And Apochrypa were not by prophets at all so how can Apochrypa belong to old testament’s only prophets writings then? TO QUALIFY AS PROPHETS OF GOD, THEY MUST FIRSTLY SPEAK NO ERROR, AND SECONDLY, THEY MUST SOMEHOW HAVE SPOKEN OF CHRIST.

Now, is apochrypa’s Sirach, Judith etc… by prophets?
It’s not.

Sirach is just a translator. He translated his grandfather’s works of allegedly biblical wisdom from moses’ law and other biblical canons.

SIRACH’S FOREWORD:

“Anyone who values learning should be able to help others by what he himself says and writes. That is why my grandfather Jesus devoted himself to reading the Law, the prophets, and the other books of our ancestors. After he had mastered them, he was led to write a book of his own inorder to share his wisdom and learning with others.

Let me urge you then to read this book carefully and with an open mind. And please be patient in those places where, inspite of all my diligent efforts, I may not have translated some phrases very well.”
SIRACH’S GRANDFATHER ADMITTED HE IS NOT A PROPHET.

SIRACH 24:32-33 “and so I present you with my learning, I hold it high, so that its light can be seen everywhere like that of a rising sun. LIKE AN INSPIRED PROPHET I POUR OUT MY TEACHINGS.”

LIKE AN INSPIRED PROPHET is not a prophet.

 This sole admission compromised the integral apochrypa false, bec as the bible said, god only spoke to Israel by no one else but prophets.

Hb 1:1 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”
 in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Dn 9:10 “Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.”
 the voice of the LORD our God which he set before us by his servants the prophets

Baruch likewise is not a prophet but  the secretary of prophet jeremiah. So how will his book be qualified as canonical when he was not a prophet?

Jer 36:4 “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.”
what?

It is still canonical?

Moreover, not all apochrypa’s writers prophesied of this: Jesus Christ.

Ac 3:20 “And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Ac 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”

Jesus Christ, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets
 by the mouth of “ALL” his holy prophets

Did Tobit spoke a single verse about Christ?
He did. he spoke of the church built by God in Jerusalem. As Christians know, Christ and the church are one so Tobit had indeed spoke indirectly of Christ.

TOBIT 1:4 “all the tribes in Israel were supposed to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem. It was the one city that god had chosen from among all the Israelite cities AS THE PLACE WHERE HIS TEMPLE WAS TO BE BUILT FOR HIS HOLY AND ETERNAL HOME.”
But then, he failed in this other aspect, he spoke contradictions with the truth.
TOBIT 4:17 “when one of god’s faithful people has died, prepare food for the family BUT NEVER DO THIS WHEN SOMEONE EVIL DIES.”

It says, not to prepare foods to families, as wife or husband and children of an evil person. Does god complies with it? Do children bear the iniquity of their parents to be included with the consequences of their parents’ evil?

Ezk 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

As you all know, even if a person is evil it doesn’t mean his wife and children are likewise. What if these families are righteous, will god forsake them? If god won’t forsake them then Tobit is lying when he said of not showing this specific goodness as preparing food to an evil person’s families.

Ro 11:22 “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness

That’s god’s assurance. Actually, god contradicted Tobit in many ways.

Ga 6:10 “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all [men], especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”
 let us do good unto all [men]

 They might stubbornly say, Tobit’s doctrine is the exception, we must not do this specific good to them, that is, preparing food for an evil person’s families.
If that is the case, then god contradicted himself.

Ho 2:19 “And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.

Ho 2:20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.”

I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies

Let’s quote god’s assurance again.

Ro 11:22 “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness

compare:

TOBIT 4:17 “when one of god’s faithful people has died, prepare food for the family BUT NEVER DO THIS WHEN SOMEONE EVIL DIES.”

 Another one,

TOBIT 1:8-10 “it is better to pray sincerely and to please god by helping the poor than to be rich and dishonest. it is better to give to the poor than to store up gold. SUCH GENEROSITY WILL SAVE YOU FROM DEATH AND WILL WASH AWAY ALL YOUR SINS. Those who gives to the poor will live full lives but those who live a life of sin and wickedness are their own worst enemies.”
Generosity done in faith will wash away all sins? Not so in the Christian dispensation. To say that generosity while you also pray to god will wash away all your sins is paradox statement bec mortal sins done by a believer merits unforgiveness, it can’t anymore be washed, even if you pray and give to the poor to please god.

Hb 6:4 “For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

Hb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

Hb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.”
Mortal sins and wickedness, as Tobit was referring to it, is forgivable by generosity, is a lie.
For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened If they shall fall away
to renew them again unto repentance, 

 Hb 10:26 “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,”

 there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins

This means, Christ will not again be sacrificed and shed his blood the 2^nd time for the remission of your sins, meaning, no 2^nd washing of mortal sins after receiving the knowledge of truth.

Hb 9:22 “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

Understand this:

 and without shedding of blood is no remission- (this is Christ’s sacrifice in the cross.)
For if we sin willfully… there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
compare to Tobit:

SUCH GENEROSITY WILL SAVE YOU FROM DEATH AND WILL WASH AWAY ALL YOUR SINS

On another thing,

Though Tobit indirectly spoke of Christ but on the contrary, Judith never spoke a thing about it or at least hinted about it. The book of Judith is not by a known prophet also. It is a war documentary but lacked the prophetic aspect about Christ therefore a false canon.

Ac 3:20 “And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Ac 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”
Jesus Christ, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets

by the mouth of “ALL” his holy prophets

In all these qualifiers, how to know Old Testament canons, Apochrypa failed. Did apochrypa’s writers all spoke of Christ? No, they didn’t therefore they failed to qualify as true biblical canons.
The four qualifiers. (sorry for being redundant, this is for the knuckleheads!)
Old Testament canons must be written by prophets.

Hb 1:1 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

 in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
 Dn 9:10 “Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.”

 the voice of the LORD our God which he set before us by his servants the prophets
 Jer 26:4 “And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD; If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you,

Jer 26:5 To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you, both rising up early, and sending [them], but ye have not hearkened;”

If ye will not hearken to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you,
To hearken to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I sent unto you

whom I sent unto you

It must have no contradiction with the other books.

2C 6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what participation hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
 for what participation hath righteousness with unrighteousness

It must be gathered with the book of the lord.

Isa 34:16 “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.”
 the book of the LORD… his spirit it hath gathered them
Lastly, it must speak about Christ in one way or the other.

Ac 3:20 “And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Ac 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”
Jesus Christ, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets

by the mouth of “ALL” his holy prophets

ALL PROPHETS OF GOD MUST SPEAKS OF CHRIST. This last qualifier is the sign of true prophethood also. Jonah is an exception of it though, he never talks about Christ but only prophesied to non-people of god, Nineveh, therefore is not a prophet speaking about the future of the people of god but specifically, to non-people of god. He was not an appropriate prophet to the people of God, therefore he would not speak anything concerning their future including Christ.
But they said Christ referred to the Apochrypa in some of his teachings therefore it qualifies as scriptures. Is that true?

Let’s check if indeed Christ has ever made any reference to any parts of the apochrypa.

an example:

Christ referred to Tobit 4:15 as he preached in Matt 7:12 so as catholics claimed. Let’s quote it.
Christ was allegedly quoting this:

TOBIT 4:15 “NEVER DO TO ANYONE ELSE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD NOT WANT SOMEONE DO TO YOU.”

 Christ preached:

Mt 7:12 “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
 Having that, did Christ ever refer to Tobit when he preached that certain doctrine, or he summarized the integral mosaic teachings and the prophets into one. Notice the verse: for this is the law and the prophets!

Perhaps Tobit invented his doctrine himself bec it was differently spoken with Christ. Christ said in the positive, DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT OTHERS TO DO UNTO YOU, whereas Tobit spoke in the negative, DON’T DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WANT OTHERS TO DO UNTO YOU. A clear huge difference of proverbial essence is it not? Now tell me, do you think you are now right with your other assumptions when you are wrong in this certain aspect? I’ll disprove you anyway.
Next post: more on the alleged christ’s quotation from apochrypa.

CONCLUSION: APOCHRYPA WAS NOT BY PROPHETS OF GOD BEC APOCHRYPAL WRITERS ARE PLAIN LIARS! THEY CONTRADICTED GOD IN SO MANY WAYS!

What kind of Israelites claimed that apochrypa is also of god?
Jer 8:5 “Why [then] is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? they hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.

Jer 8:6 I hearkened and heard, [but] they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.

Jer 8:8 How do ye say, We [are] wise, and the law of the LORD [is] with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he [it]; the pen of the scribes is falsehood.”

[but] they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness
God said to these wicked liar-jews:

How do ye say, We [are] wise, and the law of the LORD [is] with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he [it]; the pen of the scribes is falsehood

GOD SOMEHOW IMPLIED: THE PEN OF APOCHRYPA’S SCRIBES IS FALSEHOOD!
Clearly, apochrypa is an imposition not by god or by god inspired men but simply by the figment of lying minds or influence.

Clear?
Lastly,

I took this from another blogger.

“Why did the Catholic church accept them as canonical?

         In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic church has never had any biblical support for its teachings such as purgatory, prayers for the dead, works for salvation, etc. The events of the Reformation brought the Roman Catholic heresies into question and they had not scriptural authority for teachings. However, these false teachings are found in the Apocryphal books, so the Council of Trent in 1546, canonized them proclaiming them to be “sacred” books. This ruse gave them support for there erroneous teachings. It is always the clear mark of a cult or false church to add extra biblical revelations to the Bible in order to seek to justify their false teachings. Historically, the Roman Catholic church did not accept these books for the first 1300 years of their history. Clearly, the reason they changed their position was that during the Reformation the teachings of Catholicism came under scrutiny by people who were studying God’s word, they could find no mention in the Bible of a place called Purgatory, prayers for the dead, paying of indulgences and other practices of the Roman church.”

Deuterocanonicals and the Scriptures

God had a promise of gathering his book.

Isa 34:16 “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.”

And as proven by history, it was indeed gathered, firstly with the Old Testament as an already established scripture before the compilation of new testament canons in codex form as codex sinaiticus, vaticanus and alexandrinus during the 4^th-5^th century AD. It was then 66 books though the Apochrypa were already existing then but was not yet part of the scriptures til 16^th century at the council of Trent. This piece of information tells us that Apochrypa was not canon of the scriptures yet during 4^th-16^th century AD which suddenly becomes scriptural due to the correctness of those at the council of Trent and errancy of the catholic’s fathers who have opted not to include the Apochrypa.

Pr 30:6 “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
It cannot be that the word of god given initially to Israel was written in Greek bec they were not Greeks whereas Apochrypa has not any proof of Hebrew origin at all declarative of its non-scriptural structure. APOCHRYPA WAS GREEK.
 _______________________________
Apocrypha (Greek apokryphos, “hidden”), word coined by the 5th-century biblical scholar Saint Jerome for the biblical books received by the church of his time as part of the Greek version of the Old Testament (see Septuagint), but that were not included in the Hebrew Bible.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
______________________________
Dead Sea Scrolls, collection of more than 700 Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts discovered in a group of caves near Khirbat Qumrān in Jordan, at the northwestern end of the Dead Sea. The leather and papyrus scrolls, which survive in varying states of preservation, came to light in a series of archaeological finds that began in 1947. The manuscripts have been attributed to members of a previously unknown Jewish brotherhood. The scrolls include manuals of discipline, hymnbooks, biblical commentaries, and apocalyptic writings; two of the oldest known copies of the Book of Isaiah, almost wholly intact; and fragments of every book in the Old Testament except that of Esther. Among the latter is a fanciful paraphrase of the Book of Genesis. Also found were texts, in the original languages, of several books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. These texts—none of which was included in the Hebrew canon of the Bible—are Tobit, Sirach, Jubilees, portions of Enoch, and the Testament of Levi, hitherto known only in early Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Ethiopic versions.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
__________________________________

Apochrypa in its original languages was written either in early Greek, Syriac, Latin and Ethiopic versions but never in Hebrew language. Apochrypa was not Hebrew texts therefore was not a Judaic document bec the bible tells us that only the Jews were god’s people then, so by logic it must be that god delivers his words to them in Hebrew and not with other else.
The Apochrypa was only accepted and canonized at the council of trent 16^th century AD.

Deuterocanonical Books, writings included in the Roman Catholic canon of the Bible, and—with certain exceptions—in the canon of the Orthodox Church, but not in the Hebrew canon (see Canon). They were definitively introduced into the Roman Catholic canon by the Council of Trent in 1546. Until that time, their place in the Bible had been disputed for about 12 centuries.The Council of Trent decreed that the authentic canon was to be determined by what had been included in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Old Testament. The Vulgate Old Testament, in part a translation of the Greek Septuagint, which was in part an original translation by Saint Jerome of the Hebrew Scriptures, included certain books and parts of books that Jews and most Protestants today know as the Apocrypha. Catholics reserve that term for the works that Protestants call the pseudepigrapha—books that stand entirely outside the biblical canon.Many Jewish scholars accepted the books now considered deuterocanonical (a term derived from Greek words meaning “second canon”) until about ad 90. Then the Council of Jamnia ruled them to be outside the authentic Hebrew canon. The early Christian church and the Septuagint also accepted these books as part of the Old Testament. The books excluded by the Hebrew canon but included in the Septuagint and Vulgate are Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, not to be confused with the Book of Ecclesiastes), Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Council of Trent designated these books, and parts of Esther and Daniel, deuterocanonical. As the minutes of the council make clear, however, the prefix deutero-was not intended to indicate a secondary canonical status for this literature but rather to note the controversy over these materials during the church’s canonizing process.Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.______________________________  IT WAS BY CATHOLICS WHO DECIDED THE APOCHRYPA AS NOT CANONICAL AT THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA THEN IT WAS ALSO BY THEM THAT LATER ON DECIDED IT OTHERWISE AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. THERE SEEMS TO BE AN EVIDENT STRIFE AND CONFUSION BETWEEN THE TWO COUNCILS, IS IT NOT? 1C 14:33 “For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” These prove that the Apochrypa is a later addition to the already gathered 66 books of the bible and not a genuine scripture, firstly bec it was Greek, secondly bec it is not biblically moral. It contradicted the bible. Read on for the contradictions.

God’s way of compiling his book as fulfillment to his promise:

The idea in Israel of a sacred book dates at least from 621 BC. During the reform of Josiah, king of Judah, when the temple was being repaired, the high priest Hilkiah discovered “the book of the law” (see 2 Kings 22). The scroll was probably the central part of the present Book of Deuteronomy, but what is important is the authority that was ascribed to it. More reverence was paid to the text read by Ezra, the Hebrew priest and scribe, to the community at the end of the 5th century bc (see Nehemiah 8).

The Hebrew Bible became Holy Scripture in three stages. The sequence corresponds to the three parts of the Hebrew canon: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. On the basis of external evidence it seems clear that the Torah, or Law, became Scripture between the end of the Babylonian exile (538 BC) and the separation of the Samaritans from Judaism, probably by 300 bc. The Samaritans recognized only the Torah as their Bible.

The second stage was the canonization of the Nebiim (Prophets). As the superscriptions to the prophetic books indicate, the recorded words of the prophets came to be considered the word of God. For all practical purposes the second part of the Hebrew canon was closed by the end of the 3rd century, not long before 200 BC.

In the meantime other books were being compiled, written, and used in worship and study. By the time the Book of Sirach was written (circa 180 bc), an idea of a tripartite Bible had developed. The contents of the third part, the Ketubim (Writings), remained somewhat fluid in Judaism until after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in AD 70. By the end of the 1st century ad the rabbis in Palestine had established the final list.

Both positive and negative forces were at work in the process of canonization. On the one hand, most of the decisions had already been made in practice: The Law, the Prophets, and most of the Writings had been serving as Scripture for centuries. Controversy developed around only a few books in the Writings, such as Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon (Songs). On the other hand, many other religious books, also claiming to be the word of God, were being written and circulated. These included the books in the present Protestant Apocrypha, some of the New Testament books, and many others. Consequently, the official action of establishing a Bible took place in response to a theological question: According to which books would Judaism define itself and its relationship to God?
The second canon—what is now the Roman Catholic version of the Old Testament—arose first as a translation of the earlier Hebrew books into Greek.

The process began in the 3rd century BC outside of Palestine, because Jewish communities in Egypt and elsewhere needed the Scriptures in the language of their culture. The additional books in this Bible, including supplements to older books, arose for the most part among such non-Palestinian Jewish communities. By the end of the 1st century ad, when the earliest Christian writings were being collected and disseminated, two versions of Scripture from Judaism were already in existence: the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Old Testament (known as the Septuagint). The Hebrew Bible, however, was the official standard of belief and practice; no evidence indicates that an official list of Greek Scriptures ever existed in Judaism. The additional books of the Septuagint were only given official recognition in Christianity. The writings of the early Fathers of the Church contain numerous different lists, but it is clear that the longer Greek Old Testament prevailed.

The last major step in the history of the Christian canon took place during the Protestant Reformation. When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, he rediscovered what others—notably St. Jerome, the 4th-century biblical scholar—had known: that the Old Testament had originated in Hebrew. He removed from his Old Testament the books that were not in the Bible of Judaism and established them as the Apocrypha. This step was an effort to return to the presumed earliest—and therefore best—text and canon, and to establish in opposition to the authority of the church the authority of that older version of the Bible.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, he rediscovered what others—notably St. Jerome, the 4th-century biblical scholar—had known: that the Old Testament had originated in Hebrew. He removed from his Old Testament the books that were not in the Bible of Judaism and established them as the Apocrypha. This step was an effort to return to the presumed earliest—and therefore best—text and canon, and to establish in opposition to the authority of the church the authority of that older version of the Bible.”

This act of Martin Luther removing the apochrypa from the bible bec of the reason of its linguistic discrepancy with the old testament as it is greek whereas Judaic books were Hebrew, is sensible and justified. Can the old testament Jews comprehend Greek for them to have Greek apochrypa?
BUT THEN Apochrypa by the stubbornness of catholics was incorporated to their bible (not all bibles) during a convention in trent wherein they decided, that it is scriptural, but will such act redeem the fact that it was not scriptural 4^th-16^th century AD? Is that what god said as his way of gathering his book or was it only a demonic manipulation for deception? This is a clear hint that it was just an addition to authentic canons. But in order to really confirm it is to test or proves the veracity of its words if indeed it conforms to biblical truth bec if it fails the test of the scripture then it is false and unscriptural. It must be that if it is an authentic canon then it must profess no contradiction with the scriptures to be canonical.

1Jn 4:1 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
It is imperative then to test any claim if it is indeed pure good without any trace of evil.
Lam 3:38 “Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?”

Let’s test it then.

1. 1.     APOCHRYPA-WISDOM 8:16 “when I come home to WISDOM I will find contentment bec THERE IS NO CONFLICT OR PAIN IN LIVING WITH HER ONLY HAPPINESS AND JOY.”

This next verse is the biblical truth. Compare the two.

BIBLE-Ec 1:17 “And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.
Ec 1:18 FOR IN MUCH WISDOM IS MUCH GRIEF and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”

The Apochrypa: WITH WISDOM “ONLY” HAPPINESS AND JOY
The bible:FOR IN MUCH WISDOM IS MUCH GRIEF

It’s a clear contradiction, also this,

1. 2.     APOCHRYPA-WISDOM 10:17 “she rewarded god’s people for their hardships. She guided them a miraculous journey. She gave them SHADE DURING THE DAY AND BRILLIANT STARLIGHT AT NIGHT. She led them thru the deep waters of the red sea.”

She guided them a miraculous journey She gave them SHADE DURING THE DAY AND BRILLIANT STARLIGHT AT NIGHT
It contradicts this.

BIBLE-Neh 9:12 “Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they should go.”
Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a pillar of fire.
As you can see god guided their journey not by brilliant starlight but by a pillar of fire. A huge breach of discrepancy, is it not?

1. 3.     APOCHRYPA-TOBIT 13:16-17 “Jerusalem will be rebuilt and will be his home forever etc… your gates will be built with sapphires and emeralds and all your walls with precious stones. Your towers will be made of gold and their fortifications pure gold. YOUR STREETS WILL BE PAVED WITH RUBIES AND PRECIOUS JEWELS.”

It is not so, New Jerusalem’s street is not paved with rubies and precious jewels BUT ONLY GOLD.
BIBLE-Rev 21:21 “And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass.”

and the street of the city [was] pure gold

Pure gold? It means it is not mixed with anything as rubies and precious jewels.
How about this?

1. 4.     APOCHRYPA-ESTHER 4:4-5 “you are the lord of all and there is no one who can stand against you. YOU KNOW ALL THINGS.”

It contradicts this.
BIBLE-Jer 19:5 “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:

Jer 19:6 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.”
neither came [it] into my mind? How can this support the “you know all things” doctrine?
How about this also?

1. 5.     APOCHRYPA-WISDOM OF SOLOMON 1:13 “God did not invent death and when living creatures die it gives him no pleasure.”

God did not invent death? 

He did bec all things were of him.

BIBLE-1C 8:6 “But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.”

How did death come into being if it was not created?
Re 4:11 “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

for thou hast created all things
The apochrypa says wisdom was created.

1. 6.     APOCHRYPA-SIRACH 1:4,9 “Wisdom was created before anything else…etc… the Lord himself created wisdom.”

It was not so biblically bec Wisdom was brought forth from everlasting. If it was from everlasting then, how come it was created, how come it has a beginning?

BIBLE-Pr 8:12 “I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
Pr 8:23 I was brought forth (nacak in Hebrew: to pour out)from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.”

“I was brought forth” isnot made or created. WISDOM is one of the exceptions of all things created bec it is specified that it is not created whereas death has no specifications likewise, therefore it belongs to the category of all things created.

1. 7.     APOCHRYPA-TOBIT 4:15 “do not drink so much wine that you get drunk and do not let drinking become a habit.”

Implyingly, you can drink intoxicating wine but only not excessively to the point of drunkenness. That is not so biblically. There is total prohibition of intoxicant intake except in two exceptions, to one near death and as a medicine.

BIBLE-Pr 23:31 “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright.

Pr 23:32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.

Pr 20:1 “Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”

Look not thou upon the wine when it is red? If you are prohibited to even look then how will you drink it?

Fact is, bishops have total prohibition to it.

1Ti 3:2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;”

Not given to wine

Bec bishops have one mind with all Christians therefore all Christians have total prohibition regarding intoxicant intake.

Phl 2:1 “If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Phl 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.”

that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind

they have the same rule.

Phl 3:16 “Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.”

What is that same rule?
Not given to wine

How about christ’s miracle turning water into wine?

Mt 9:17 “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”

New wine implies there is also old wine, a preserved fermented wine or an intoxicant. Wine has two categories, an intoxicating wine or an old wine and a non-intoxicant or the new wine, like today, we have non-alcoholic wine and an alcoholic wine. Christ knowing Pr 23:31, will he be making intoxicating wine to contradicts it?

1. 8.     APOCHRYPA-WISDOM 5:15, 18 “the righteous live on forever…etc…Righteousness will be his armor, genuine justice will be his helmet, holiness will be his invincible shield.”

Incongruent with this:

BIBLE- Eph 6:16 “Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:”


APOCHRYPA: HELMET: JUSTICE

SHIELD: HOLINESS

BIBLE: HELMET: SALVATION
SHIELD: FAITH


And so on and so forth of blatant exhibit of numerous Apochrypal blunder…
Catholics have ridiculously included these to their faith as it is also their source of the Purgatory doctrine. They incorporated it to their faith as an insignia of their falsehood.

They deceive as they were also deceived by it but never wondering why Jesus or the apostles never at any instance had any mention in reference to it. Jesus kept referring to the Hebrew texts, the law and the psalms and the prophets etc… but never at an instance hinted its approval of the Greek Apochrypal books.

Why?
Bec it is Greek documents not meant for Israel and Christians alike. It was never part of the Hebrew bible given to the Jews bec as I said, how will they read Greek being Hebrews as that?

They might say, it was only added later when the Septuagint was made, or when the Hebrew old testament was Hellenized or made Greek implyingly, it was added for Greek speaking Jews.

Then how about Hebrew only speaking jews-THE MAJORITY OF JEWS, was it not also for them? Then where was the Hebrew Apochrypa for them then?

If there was no Hebrew Apochrypa then how would God convey his truth to whom he initially intended his words to –ALL the Israelites?

Ro 9:4 “Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law , and the service [of God], and the promises;

Ro 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
to whom [pertaineth] the giving of the law
to whom [pertaineth] the service [of God]

Only jews gave service to god then. They were initially the only god’s jurisdiction during old testament times.

Eph 2:11 “Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:”

Gentiles, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world

and without God in the world

Gentiles as greeks didn’t do service to god as they didn’t have god in the world as the verses above have proven, therefore god will not send them a greek old testament scripture bec they were not doing god service yet. He was not God to them. THIS MEANS THAT ONLY JEWS WERE PEOPLE OF GOD THEN therefore It must be that god’s “old testament” books were all written in Hebrew bec it was then initially intended FOR ALL JEWS.

2Ki 5:15 “And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that [there is] no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.”
now I know that [there is] no God in all the earth, but in Israel


Apochrypa being greek prove that it is not scriptural. The greek translation of the old testament, the Septuagint meant for greek speaking jews were just a translation from Hebrew therefore it must be also that if the Apochrypa was written initially for Israel then it must have Hebrew copies and/or origin, which it lacked, therefore explicitly confirming its incongruence to old testament canons.

Ps 81:13 “Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!
How will non-greek speaking jews hearkened to god’s greek Apochrypa then?
Fact is, Apochrypa was just an addition to Hebrew scriptures.

Septuagint, name given the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The term is derived from the Latin word septuaginta (“seventy”; hence, the customary abbreviation LXX), which refers to the 70 (or 72) translators who were once believed to have been appointed by the Jewish high priest of the time to render the Hebrew Bible into Greek at the behest of the Hellenistic emperor Ptolemy II.

The legend of the 70 translators contains an element of truth, for the Torah (the five books of Moses—Genesis to Deuteronomy) probably had been translated into Greek by the 3rd century bc to serve the needs of Greek-speaking Jews outside Palestine who were no longer able to read their Scriptures in the original Hebrew. The translation of the remaining books of the Hebrew Old Testament, the addition to it of books and parts of books (the Apocrypha), and the final production of the Greek Old Testament as the Bible of the early Christian church form a very complicated history. Because the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew text, became the Bible of the early church, other Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek were made by the 3rd century; these are extant only in fragments, and their history is even more obscure than that of the Septuagint.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

“The translation of the remaining books of the Hebrew Old Testament, the addition to it of books and parts of books (the Apocrypha), and the final production of the Greek Old Testament as the Bible of the early Christian church form a very complicated history.”

There is no convincing affiliation of the Apochrypa with the bible in terms of doctrinal harmony and in linguistic compliance, and as testified to by history, it was only an addition to the Old Testament when it was Hellenized therefore it is wrong to canonize such when in essence it lacked validity.

Ezk 13:7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith [it]; albeit I have not spoken?

Ezk 13:8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I [am] against you, saith the Lord GOD.”

“whereas ye say The LORD saith it albeit I have not spoken”

Think of that.

Lastly,
WHY IS THE APOCHRYPA CANONICAL FOLKS? WHAT MAKES IT CANONICAL?

Ask your priests and apologists, catholics, your reasons why, or better yet, consider the reasons why it is not then weigh it yourselves. I have this to say though, watch what you believe and what you have to believe! It might be poison in sweet coats!

Eph 4:14 “That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ:”

CATHOLIC WORSHIP IN THE HOLY BIBLE

Similarity of Catholic alibi of worshipping the saints (they say they dont worship but honor them) and Hindus worshipping the cow hahahaha!

"Hindus don't worship cows. We respect, honour and adore the cow."

SOURCE: http://www.nhsf.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=526

HOW DID/DO HINDUS WORSHIP COWS ?

Not more than 10% of Hindus do this today:

• They offer foods like roti (wheat flour tortillas) and gur (jaggery).
• Offer a necklace made of flowers and put a red dot (teeka) on cow's forehead.
• Recite holy prayers to honour cows.
• Offering cow's milk to God statues is considered lucky.

SOURCE: http://www.saching.com/Article/Hindus-and-sacred-cow---Why-do-Hindus-worship-cows-in-India--Beef-consumption-in-India/123

Do the Catholics recite prayers to their saints? YES.

There is similarity between the pagan Hindu worship and the Catholic worship.

ANOTHER ONE:

The symbolism discussed below includes major symbols that are common to all pictures and images of Shiva venerated by Hindus.

from: http://www.koausa.org/Gods/God9.html
 
The Catholics also say that they venerate images hahahaha!

LAST

In a similar way, a Christian may kneell before a crucifix of Jesus and pray. The worshipper is not worshipping the wooden cross, but instead he is approaching his object of devotion, Jesus, through the manifestation of the crucifix. This is a form of idol worship from a Hindu perspective.

FROM: http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/idols.html

Catholic catechism requires that members should have for themselves idols or images to worship:

“13. Is the worship of the saints confined to their persons?

 No; it extends also their relics and images…

15. Ought we to worship holy images?

-- We should have, particularly in our churches, images of our lord, as also of the blessed Virgin and the saints, and we should pay them due honor and veneration.”

(Catechism of Christian doctrine, no. 3, p. 87)

 

CATHOLIC EXPLANATION OF IMAGE WORSHIP IS SIMILAR TO THE EXPLANATION OF A HINDUISM DEVOTEE

Indian man (5): Swamiji, there is a school of thought amongst Hindus that condemns idol worship and the concept of avatara. Would you kindly elaborate on these concepts?

Prabhupada: Idol worship, that is not idol. Just like if you worship your leader in some picture or some statue, that is not idol worship. That is actually fact. You show your respect to your leader. Similarly, when we worship the Deity of the Supreme Lord, Krishna, it is not idol worship. It is worshiping Krishna. The difference is, as we have already discussed, Krsna is Absolute. In the ordinary case the picture of your father and the father is different because it is material body. But Krishna, being absolute, His form, Deity form, and He, there is no difference. It is Krishna's mercy that He comes before you in the Deity form made of so-called wood or stone because we cannot see at the present moment except wood and stone. We cannot see. Just like I was explaining we cannot see even our father, the spirit soul. And how we can see the supreme spirit? So when we worship Deity, it is not idol worship. It is worshiping Lord Krishna, and the Deity is not different from the person. This is the idea. We have to understand. It is a science. Just like the holy name of the Lord. It is as good as the Lord Himself. Nama cintamanih krsnas caitanya-rasa-vigrahah purnah suddho nitya-mukto 'bhinnatvan nama-naminoh. When we chant Hare Krsna, this means Krsna is dancing on my tongue. Otherwise why these people are chanting twenty-four hours, "Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna"? If you ask them to chant some other name, "Mr. John, Mr. John, Mr. John," it will be not possible. He will be tired: "No more." But you go on chanting Hare Krsna twenty-four hours. You'll never feel tired. That is the proof that the holy name of God and God is nondifferent.

Source(s): http://www.iskcondesiretree.net/group/iskconinthepathofkrishna/forum/topics/relatively-dirty-or-absolutely

P.S. Catholics and Hindus share in common. both are pagans.

Conclusion: Catholics are pagans who also believe in God. It was prophesied by Apostle Paul in Romans 1:21, 23, 25 THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW GOD BUT CREATED IMAGES AND WORSHIP THEM!

VICARIUS FILII DEI USED TWICE BY POPE PAUL VI

I will show you an evidence that the title "Vicarivs Filii Dei" was once used by the pope

VICARIUS FILII DEI USED TWICE BY POPE PAUL VI
IN OFFICIAL PAPAL DECREES

Vicarius Filii Dei was used twice by Pope Paul VI in documents found on the Vatican's web site. These are Apostolic Constitutions, which are the highest form of official Papal decree in the Roman Catholic Church and are issued with binding legal authority. Historically these decrees were known as papal bulls, the name referring to the lead metal seal (bulla) attached to authenticate the document. As a general rule, the superscription that opens papal bulls typically reads:

NAME (without ordinal number) EPISCOPUS, SERVUS SERVORUM DEI, AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM

So, the following Apostolic Constitutions begin:

PAULUS, EPISCOPUS, SERVUS SERVORUM DEI, AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM
PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, FOR EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE OF THE MATTER

Bafianae (January 11, 1968), Decree of Paul VI elevating the Prefecture Apostolic of Bafia, Cameroon, to a Diocese:

Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale, vol. LX (1968), n. 6, pp. 317-319. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. ISBN 8820960680, 9788820960681.
Scans: Title page - 317 - 318 - 319.

Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator, quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit, ...
As the worshipful Son of God's Vicar and Caretaker, to whom the eternal divine will has given the highest rank of the holy Church, ...

Sacred Image of Catholic Church in John 3:14-15

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

REFUTATION:

The Catholic Apologetic say that the Catholic Church should make statues of Christ the same way the bronze serpent was erected.

If you will notice very well, you will never see an image of bronze serpent in any churches of the Catholic Church so the alibi they used here is they do not do also.

because in the verse the statue lifted up is not the graven image of Christ but the bronze serpent statue.

and the Son of Man is not a statue also that was lifted up to heaven.

Let's find the reason why God ordered to Moses to make that bronze serpent

Numbers 21:8 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.

Numbers 21:9 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.

Now Was the bronze serpent created to be used in religious worship like in this picture below? NO!

In fact, God ordered Hezekiah to destroy it when the Jews burned incense of it

2 Kings 18:4 Brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

What God says about offering incense?

Isaiah 66:3 he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol.

See, that's the reason why God wants it to be destroyed. It is tantamount to giving blessing to an idol which is an abomination to God

If burning of incense to the bronze serpent is an abomination to God, it is also more abomination if you kneel and pray on it.

besides you will not burn incense if you do not worship it.

God's servant burned incense also when he worships God. read the verse below:

Luke 1:9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
The same those who burned incense to the bronze serpent that Moses made before.

they worshipped it.

It means burning incense is an act of worship. Since God alone should be worshipped (read Matthew 4:10) It is not right to burn incense to the bronze serpent or worse to any image which God never told to Moses to make like you can show in this picture:

Now we will allow the Catholic interpretation of the verse? NO.

Since Jesus Christ is also God in the belief of the Catholic Church, making a statue of Him (since he is a God) is not good in the sight of God as mentioned in the following verses:

Isaiah 40:18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

Isaiah 40:22 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.

God said that the man is impoverished if you'll create an image of a God and Jesus is God.

God even said that making an image in the likeness of male and female is CORRUPTING YOURSELF

Deuteronomy 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

So making an image of Jesus Christ in male image is included here.

Besides God forbids his servants to make graven images in the likeness of any thing especially an image of a man which you can see a lot of them on the Catholic altars of the churches and Catholic worshippers' homes.

Deuteronomy 4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

Jesus said to worship God IN SPIRIT (read John 4:24)

A spirit has no form, unseen and has no flesh and bones to be touched so IT MEANS YOU CAN NEVER TOUCH A SPIRIT (read Luke 24:39)

It means Christians should worship God w/o using visual aids. like what the Catholics are doing on the statue of Mary shown above.

Rosary Beads and the Bible

THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF ROSARY BEADS
 
THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF ROSARY BEADS
PRAYER BEADS - OR - ROSARY BEADS

The Pagan Roots
of "Prayer Beads"

Rosary beads come in all shapes, colors, sizes and
quality.Some rosaries are strung with pearl, crystal,
wood and even plastic. But where did the ritual of
the rosary come from? And what exactly is the
significance of rosary beads?

The rosary in simplest terms is said to be a tool
used to aid prayer and meditation. The beads of a
rosary count the prayers as they are recited out loud
or in the mind. The user relies on the rosary beads
to keep track of how many times you’ve said a
particular prayer.

"Most commonly recognized in the United States
as a symbol of Catholicism, other religions including
Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism and Islam employ
rosary beads as well."

-The Meaning of Rosary Beads
What Do Rosary Beads Symbolize?
By Jessica Ciosek

"Prayer beads, or prayer rosaries, are really
another form of the "witch's ladder," a knotted
rope or cord used to count repetitions during
a spell or ritual. Praying with beads is a spiritual
practice with a long history in most of the world's
religions."

-Sacred Mists Shoppe
Janet Farrar & Gavin Bone

"prayer beads originated with the Hindu faith.
Using beads for devotions dates to the 8th century BC
in the cult of Shiva. In India sandstone sculptures,
statues ca 185 BC, show Hindus with prayer beads.
The names of Hindu gods and prayers are repeated
on stringed beads, called mala, separated by larger
or different colored beads."

-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
  Patricia A. Dilley

"Hindu converts kept their traditional use of
prayer beads. Buddhist monks always carry a strand
of prayer beads, or rosary, usually of 108 beads."

-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
  Patricia A. Dilley

Prayer beads are used by : Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims,
and Catholics among others.
"Often, when religions sought converts,
they allowed them to retain some of their
pagan ways: ceremonial garb, heathen rituals
and traditions; in order to add to their numbers.
This led to spiritual pollution."

-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
  Patricia A. Dilley

"Before the 12th century, rosaries were used for
talismans (amulet or occult charms). Rosaries and
prayer beads were intended by the catholic church
hierarchy, for use by the ignorant."

-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
  Patricia A. Dilley

"Pagans had used prayer beads even before the
8th century before CHRIST, and they still use
them today."

-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
  Patricia A. Dilley

The Bible warns us against use of prayer beads -
Matthew 6:7 says - "But when ye pray, use not vain
repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that
they shall be heard for their much speaking.
"And when you pray, do not...repeat the same
words over and over as the Gentiles (pagans) do,
for they think they will be heard for their much
speaking."

(Matthew 6:7)(AMP)-BibleGateway

"But when praying, do not say the same things
over and over again,  just as the people of the
nations do, for they imagine they will get a
hearing for their use of many words."

(Matthew 6:7)(NWT)

Origin of Relic worship of the Catholic Church

    In addition to what God’s holy Word the Bible says on the matter there are other very good reasons why true Christians should not venerate or worship religious relics. The practice and custom did not originate with Christ or his apostles or with God’s chosen nation of Israel. It is clearly a pagan invention and hence of the Devil, pure and simple, and the Catholic Encyclopedia admits as much. It says that the veneration of relics is “a primitive instinct” and is associated with many other religious systems besides that of Catholicism. It goes on to tell how the ancient Greeks superstitiously worshiped the bones and ashes of their heroes, how the Persians “treated with the deepest veneration” the remains of Zoroaster, and how “relic-worship amongst the Buddhists of every sect is a fact beyond dispute”.

    Other authorities have shown that the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians likewise venerated the relics of their lords and princes. “In the realms of Heathendom the same worship had flourished for ages before Christian saints or martyrs had appeared in the world. . . . From the earliest periods, the system of Buddhism has been propped up by relics, that have wrought miracles at least as well vouched as those wrought by the relics of St. Stephen, or by the ‘Twenty Martyrs’ [mentioned by Augustine].” (Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons, pages 177,178) In Kandy, Ceylon, a 400-year-old temple contains what is said to be Buddha’s tooth, “venerated by many millions of people.” (The Ceylon Daily News, April 1, 1950) Into the presence of this relic the British foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, was brought on January 1, 1950, in the hope it would miraculously cure his ailments.—New York Times, Jan. 16, 1950.

    The heathen idea of attributing magical powers to bones, skulls, teeth and skins is so much older than Christianity, the above Catholic authority chooses to call it “a primitive instinct”. In reality it is nothing more than fetishism, concerning which the Encyclopedia Americana (1942 ed., vol. 11, p. 158) says: “It is the lowest of the unsystematic forms of worship found among uncivilized tribes, and exists especially among the Negroes of Africa, but also among the natives of both Americas, the Polynesians, Australians, and Siberians.” When Catholic Portuguese mariners sailed down the west coast of Africa they could see little difference between the worship of “sacred” bones, skulls and charms by the natives, and their own worship of religious relics and amulets which they called feitiços, and from which we get the name fetish.

    M’Clintock & Strong’s Cyclopœdia (vol. 8, p. 1028) well sums up the whole matter when it says: “There is no doubt that the worship of relics is an absurdity, without the guarantee of Scripture, directly contrary to the practice of the primitive Church, and irreconcilable with common-sense.”

The Catholic way of worship

Catholicism's FALSE Worship!

When Is Worship Not Worship?

Those who would defend Roman Catholicism persistently press the illogical and invalid assertion that the Roman cult neither teaches nor in fact practices worship of Mary. They argue that, as concerns Mary and the other ghosts in the RCC pantheon, worship does not mean worship and venerate does not mean worship and render homage does not mean worship and pray to does not mean worship and sacrifice to does not mean worship. Words can be used to convey many meanings, a fact the Magisterium has consistently used to its own purpose. 

Regardless of what those who speak in Rome's cause may claim or of how they redefine word meanings, the Roman Catholic hierarchy indeed do foster mariolatry, worship of things and the spirits of the dead. When the Ladies' Sodality meets every night in the chapel to toll their beads and pray the Rosary, they are rendering worship to Mary. When a little old man struggles up to a statue of Mary and, falling to his knees before it, places coins in a box, lights a candle and offers prayers to her, that is worship. When a Blackrobed Benedictine oblate prays to St. Maurus and calls upon him to heal a dying child, he is not only praying to a spirit for a miracle but actually is rendering a low-level of worship. When the Catholic faithful genuflect or cross themselves when passing in front of the tabernacle where a consecrated host is kept, they might claim they are rendering honors to Christ, but the fact is they are paying homage to a cracker. 

As one Christian theologian wrote:

"The same worship is rendered to Mary as to Christ. Churches are built to her honour; her shrines are crowded with devotees; enriched with their gifts; and adorned with their votive offerings. To her prayers are addressed as to a divine being, and blessing are asked as from one who has power to bestow them. Her votaries are taught to pray, 'Spare us, good Lady,' and 'From all evil, good Lady, deliver us.' Five annual festivals celebrate her greatness, and keep alive the devotion of her worshippers. In Roman Catholic countries the dawn is ushered in with hymns to her honour; her praises are again chanted at noon, and the day is closed with an Ave Maria sung to the Lady of Heaven." (James A. Wylie, The Papacy, London (1852) p. 370)

At this point, perhaps it would be well to define a few terms. The words veneration and worship are used often in catechisms and other RCC documents. Surely the meanings of these words are clearly understood by Catholics, religious and laity alike. One older Catholic dictionary provides these definitions:

"VENERATION. The word commonly used to express in English that worship given to saints either directly or through images and relics

"WORSHIP. Adoration and reverence paid to God…also for the honor paid to the saints….veneration." (William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, Eds., A Catholic Dictionary containing some account of the doctrine, discipline, rites, ceremonies, councils and religious orders of the Catholic Church, Catholic Publication Society:New York (1884); w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

Interesting that this Catholic dictionary uses the word worship to define veneration and then goes on to define worship as adoration, reverence and veneration. Granted, the dictionary does draw distinctions between levels of worship rendered to God and to saints. However, this source does clearly give the lie to ill-informed Catholic apologists who would assert that Catholics do not worship their saints. Perhaps the problem lies with the age of this dictionary. A more recent Catholic dictionary provides no definition of worship but does address veneration:

"Veneration of the Saints: Devotion to the saints, who are invoked in recognition of their presence before God and thus capable of intercession on behalf of the living and those suffering in purgatory; they are particularly honored as patron saints because of their example in this life…The reverence shown the saints, called dulia, must be distinguished from latria, the worship and adoration given to God alone." (Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ed., Catholic Dictionary, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc:Huntington (1993)

In this Catholic dictionary, the words devotion and reverence are used to help define veneration while worship and adoration are used to distinguish between the service rendered to saints and that given to God. Should one press the issue and seek to learn how this Catholic source defines the terms used, the issue becomes more clouded.

"Adoration: An outward act of giving worship to a person or object. Both the Old and New Testaments give clear indications that God requires exclusive adoration from His creatures…Adoration may also be internal (e.g., contemplative prayers." (Stravinskas, Op. cit.)

So, adoration is an outward act of worship that may be internal. It is giving worship to a person or thing but should be rendered to God alone. Yeah, that's clear. 

Some Catholic apologists might be quick to point to the differences between dulia and latria as evidence that Catholics do not worship Mary or any of the saints in the Roman Pantheon. However, this is playing with word meanings – semantics, if you will.

"WORSHIP. The unique adoration and reverence paid to God, called latria; the word is sometimes used for the honour paid to the saints (dulia), but this is better distinguished by some word such as "veneration." (Donald Attwater, Ed., A Catholic Dictionary, The MacMillan Company:New York (1942); w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur).

Given the above definitions, it would appear that one is not in error when claiming that Catholics worship Mary, as well as things and other ghosts. This may be simply innocence on the part of ill-prepared Catholic apologists who do not understand that latria, hyperdulia and dulia are but various levels of worship, as is clearly explained by a trusted Catholic source:

"The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; from worth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Lat. cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

"There are several degrees of this worship:

? if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.

? When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).

? As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728)." (F. Cabrol,Worship, The Catholic Encyclopedia

Once again, it bears noting that words such as devotion, veneration and honours are used in defining the term worship. Perhaps this is not convincing for, trustworthy Catholic source that it may be, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official source of Catholic teaching. Let us turn now to the Catechism:

"971. "'All generations will call me blessed': 'The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.'[Lk 1:48 ; Paul VI, MC 56.]The Church rightly honors 'the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.'[LG 66.] The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an 'epitome of the whole Gospel,' express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.[Cf. Paul VI, MC 42; SC 103.]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, (1994); United States Catholic Conference, Inc – Libreria Editrice Vaticana)

Notice that in this official source, we are taught that devotion to Mary is a vital part of Catholic worship. In the citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia, devotion was used to define the special worship rendered to God alone.

"2132. "The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, 'the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,' and 'whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.'[St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18, 45: PG 32, 149C; Council of Nicaea II: DS 601; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825; Vatican Council II: SC 126; LG 67.] The honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration,' not the adoration due to God alone:

"Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.[St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 81, 3 ad 3.]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Op. cit.)

Sonuvagun! Here, the Catechism talks of the veneration rendered images and such. The Catholic Encyclopedia used the same word to describe the worship tendered saints. 

The thinking Catholic might acknowledge that, in the face of the foregoing evidence, Catholics indeed do worship Mary, saints and things. However, he likely then will seek to dismiss this clear infraction of the First Commandment by pointing out that the Catholic sources that use the word worship in reference to things and saints and such clearly define that it is not the adoration they give only to God. 

Let me draw a parallel from the real world to demonstrate the flaws in the above argument. Notice my use of the word in these statements: 1) I love my wife; 2) I love cheesecake; 3) I love sleeping late. Each of these is a true statement; however, each expresses a different degree of love. All are accurate uses of the word, which has many applications. 

One wonders why Roman Catholics have such a difficult time admitting that the word worship similarly has multiple levels of application. Rome has an arsenal of definitions for worship and draws from it according to the needs of the moment. The Catholic apologist is quick to point out that, should the RCC declare that the worship or veneration given to the saints is not the adoration that belongs to God, it shows that a clear line has been drawn as to what the church wants. 

At this point it is worth noting that most Christians who post to this board have demonstrated a consistent literal/historical/grammatical hermeneutic, whether looking at a passage in the Word of God or a logia from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I do not recall any Christian post here that adamantly argued that Catholic teaching required worship be offered to Mary and other spirits and things in the same manner or at the same level as that rendered to God. Like the cult of Mithra, from which so much of RCC doctrine and practice is derived, Catholicism is explicit in declaring three levels of worship for her gods and sacred objects. Rome has declared, in her Catechism, in her Code of Canon Law, in her councils and papal pronouncements, in her breviaries, liturgies and church calendars, that worship is tendered, at different levels, to God Almighty, Mary and all the pantheon of saints and to their leavings. 

In an interesting sidebar, the Second Council of Nicea elected to use the word proskunei in addressing the veneration to be rendered to images rather than dulia, the preferred word for such veneration. Proskunei is found in Acts 10:25-26, where it is recorded for all time as the word used to describe the worship the Centurion Cornelius sought to render Peter. (Definition of the Sacred Images and Tradition, Council of Nicea II, (787), Denzinger 302)

Acts 10:25-26, "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [proskunei] him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man."

Golly gee! A council of the Catholic Church used the word to describe the worship due objects that the Holy Spirit used to describe the inappropriate worship Cornelius attempted to give Peter. Guess there are times when the RCC indeed does teach that things are to be worshipped. 

This passage is made more interesting when one considers the RCC fantasy of apostolic succession. In Acts 10, Peter refused to permit people to bow down to him or to worship him in any way, yet those who claim to be his successors offer their hands or rings or feet to be kissed and seem to enjoy being carried about on the shoulders of men, just like those idols the churches parade through the streets every now and then. 

Has the Roman Catholic Church in fact, if not in their written word, elevated Mary to the level of deity? I believeit has.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. 

Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. 

Isaiah 45:20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. 

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.