Aieno Wrote:

How does a woman publicly pray and prophesy in church without speaking in church? What is the purpose of the gift of prophecy? The edification of the church, which means those who prophesy teach the church and includes men (1st Corinthians 14:3). Now, I agree that women should not have authority over men in that they should never serve as a senior pastor but there are many offices in churches that are filled with priests (pastors) that do not give them authority over the whole church.

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." 1 Cor 11:5

1 Corinthians 14:34 is not commanding women to be absolutely silent in the church all the time. It is only saying that women should not participate in the actual service, they cannot conduct the church service. If they are to be silent and under authority of men, how do you expect them to be priests? This is in agreement with 1 Timothy 2:11-12

"A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet".

1 Timothy 2:11-12 says that women should not teach or have authority over men. Priests both teach and have authority over all in the church, hence why a women can not be ordianed to the priesthood.

Aieno Wrote:

The whole church is a "royal priesthood".

1st Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
NAS

So you see Rome your whole argument just fell apart.

First Peter 2 indicates that all Christians are priests, but not ministerial priests. The ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), elders (Jas. 5:14), bishops (1 Tim. 3:1), and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8ff). They are not referred to directly with the typical Greek word for "priest," which is hiereus.

So you see Aieno, your whole argument just fell apart.

Aieno Wrote:

Who was the man who forgave sin; Jesus. Have you checked the Greek in vs. 8? Translators do not translate "tois" (this) that precedes "anthropoois", which is "man" not "men". BTW, if you limit "men" in general teachings to "men only" you just excluded all women from God's promises.

Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

I would like to note that Jesus breathes on his disciples. This is the second time in all history that God breathes on man.

"For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"-he then said to the paralytic-"Rise, take up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men".

Leviticus 5:5-6:

"When a man is guilty in any of these [sins], he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin".

James 5:14-16:

"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects".

2 Cor. 5:17-20:

"Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God".

Confession is very important for our spiritual life. The Bible teaches it, and it also follows from simple logic.

Aieno Wrote:

Your poor attempt to justify transubstantiation is exposed when you finish reading John 6.Quote:
John 6:60-71

60 Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? 62 "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before? 63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father."

66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 Jesus said therefore to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" 68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God." 70 Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
NAS

When the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper the bread and the wine were symbolic of his flesh and blood.

Jesus is not speaking about His Flesh ("My Flesh"), in verse 63 but "the flesh" which is very different and which is missed by many Protestants, like you. When you claim "My flesh" profits nothing, you claim way too much! you are claiming that the Incarnation of Jesus in the flesh and the bodily resurrection has no profit.

What Jesus means by ""the flesh profits nothing" is simple because he uses the phrase again in John 8:15, let the Bible interpret the Bible

"You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one." (John 8:15)

When Jesus uses the phrase "the flesh" he is referring to human understanding apart from divine revelation. You judge the Eucharist by human standards. It "Looks like bread" and it "tastes like bread" therefore "it must be bread".

This statement of Jesus affirms what he has said about eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood and tells us it is a great mystery. With these words Jesus castigates the unbelieving Protestants along with the unbelieving Jews for judging spiritual things with earthly minds "by the flesh" and failing to understand the deep mysteries of God in the Eucharist.

And by the way, this “symbol only“ mentality about Scripture and this passage in particular is only as old as the Protestant Reformation.

From the beginning of the Church Christians have understood that Jesus was speaking of his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist after all Jesus did not say, “This represents my body.“ he said “This is My Body!“

Why do you want to erase the words of Jesus or add to them your own
interpretation? Too bad the mystery goes right over your head.

Aieno Wrote:

As to images used in worship, you are using what men have done to justify an act that God labels a capitol sin. You see Rome I can appeal to the tabernacle and the temple to show that using images for decoration is not prohibited to the Jews since the tabernacle, temple and there furnishings were decorated with images of angels, bulls, flowers, and fruit. However, no Jew bent the knee before these images. And before you deny that any Catholic bends the knee to any image I suggest you check out all the pictures of your popes who did. The fact is that God not only prohibited worshiping images, He prohibited bending the knee before an image.

When Abraham was buying a burial site for Sarah, he “bowed himself to the people of the land, even to the children of Heth” (Genesis 23:7)

(Gen 27:29; 33:3-7; 37:10; 41:43; 42:6; 43:26; 47:31; 48:12; 49:8; Ruth 2:10; 1 Sam 20:41; 24:8; 25:23, 41; 28:14; 2 Sam 9:8; 14:22, 33; 18:21; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:15, 23 (obeisance), 31(reverence), 47, 53; 2:19; 2 Kings 2:15; 4:37; 1 Chr 21:21; Est 3:2 (reverence); Isa 60:14).

Unless there is an internal bowing down in the heart, bowing down and kissing are not worship. The essence of worship, then, is nothing outward.

Your argument holds no water.

Aieno Wrote:

However, Catholicism by teaching Mary is the mother of God has denied the above by acknowledging Jesus had a beginning and separating the essence of the Son from the essence of the Father. Catholicism has also acknowledged that the Son is a created being since he had a mother. You are also saying that the one God had a mother. Catholicism tries to get around this dichotomy by teaching the Trinity is a mystery.

God in human form (flesh) did have a mother, and that was Mary. A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses. I suggest you keep your Nestorian beliefs to yourself. If you deny that Mary is God’s mother you imply doubt about Jesus’ divinity, I have no doubt that Jesus Is God.

The Trinity is biblical, you go against the Word of God by denying it.

Aieno Wrote:

As to appealing to the OT to show that “brothers” does not mean “brothers” is ludicrous since Greek has words for brother (adelfos), sister (adelfee), cousin (anepsior), kinsmen (sungenees) and kinswomen (sungenis).

That is my point. If a Greek word for "brother" is available (adelfos), then why did the Jewish scribes who tranlated the greek septuagint, translate Lot as Abrams "brother" (Genesis 14:12,14) using the word "adelphos" instead of the word "adelfos"? Because we know that Abram is the uncle of Lot (Genesis 11:26) NOT his brother. You claim that the word "adelphos" is only used for a "biological child from the same womb"? That is incorrect.

Here is the greek version from the Septuagint that was translated by Jewish scholars about a century before Jesus'.

akousas de abram hoti Echmalwteutai lwt ho adelphos autou ErithmEsen tous idious oikogeneis autou triakosious deka kai oktw kai katediwxen opisw autwn hews dan Genesis 14:14

Your argument is ludicrous.