Today on the Painfully Obviously Dividing Line Part 5

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

And then the final thing is and I don't recommend that you give this to her. I recommend this for you. I participated in a very spirited debate with a Protestant called James white and This man, I guess the best way I could describe it is he has many different debates that he's done with with various Religious groups including Catholics and I debated him two times one in particular on this very subject.

It was in 2002. We debated the communion of Saints and it also included a section dealing with the issue of venerating Crucifixes and images marital in video and audio format at my website Patrick Madrid comm and I would recommend that you Get that and listen to it.

You can download it directly to your iPod if you want. It's called the great debate and I recommend it primarily because it shows so painfully obviously Really unbiblical the arguments were that were raised against the Catholic Church's teaching.

I mean there were many Bible verses cited but they were in no way coherent or cohesive in terms of a meaningful argument against the communion of Saints and that Shows it very very clearly to learn how to respond to those types of arguments that might seem forceful on the surface.

But in fact really don't hold any water. I strongly recommend it as a teaching tool for Catholics to understand. How many many non Catholics? Misunderstand the communion of Saints and some of the arguments that they attempt to make against it against this truth.

So there you have Patrick Madrid and Catholic answers live and he is talking about our 2002 debate which we have been reviewing now and for about two weeks and in fact have come to the closing statements and audience questions of that debate.

There we heard Patrick say that is painfully obviously clear that the arguments against The Roman Catholic position are unbiblical Incoherent and that this is a training mechanism. This is how you as a Catholic it can demonstrate these things and We're up to closing statements now, so we're still waiting for the painfully obviously part and the incoherent biblical part.

I was gonna say you gotta give him kudos on one point and that was he didn't call you a rabid anti-catholic. Uh.

He was thinking about it. I can I can see on the waveform here this this long pause. So. Anyway, we have been listening to this for quite some time now as I said. We are to the closing statements. Each one is 10 minutes long and let's dive right in.

Patrick Madrid’s Closing Statement on Catholic Authority and Tradition

Well It's been a long night. It's been a good night though, I think. Because it's done a couple of things first of all It's given me a chance to Present the case for the Catholic Church, even though it was an abbreviated case.

I recognize that the constraints of time work against us. Jim probably has a lot more that he'd like to say. I certainly have a lot more I'd like to say a lot more evidence to bring out but the fact is I think we've been able to at least show the General parameters of what divides us on this subject and I'd like to recap those in just a moment.

But first I want to point out what we have here tonight. We have a problem. We have no more more pointedly. We have a controversy and I think the controversy really stems from the question of who is really able to Determine what the church believed in the early centuries.

Now I would argue that not only were the councils Those mechanisms that were able to do that. We read about the first council that did that in Acts chapter 15 When the the council was able to deliberate on the subject of Gentile believers being permitted into the church without undergoing all the Circumcision laws and kosher food laws.

We see the in the New Testament itself the church operating in council. To make these determinations and my brothers and sisters those determinations were binding on the Christians who received them. So the thing I'd like to point out here is that The early church had the authority to be able to interpret the biblical data and Apply it to the way in which it lived out its life including the liturgies including the prayers including the way in which the church Expressed her belief in the importance of the Saints now.

I know that Jim Says that that is not Appropriate or that is not true that is not to be believed or accepted tonight.

But I am standing here of course what I said was there is no unanimous understanding. I pointed to not only her church fathers but to the Council of Elvira that said otherwise and that they have to. What you see then is they are being Reinterpreted in light of later teaching and light of sola ecclesia.

I I Presented the facts and all he's doing is demonstrating that in light of sola ecclesia we can ignore.

Contradictory evidence. Because well because the church says so tonight to say that when Jesus said in Luke 10 5th 10 16 He who listens to you listens to me. He who rejects you rejects me. He was imparting authority to somebody To speak in his name now.

I've heard this claim so many times before that the early church was not the Catholic Church. I Defy anybody including Jim. To really examine What the early Christians believed and taught. Just read their words for themselves.

James White’s Rebuttal on the Early Church, Nicaea, and the Canon

Yeah, and of course I have done that and I Defy Patrick Madrid to show me a single bishop the Council of Nicaea that believed as dogma. What Patrick Madrid Demands you believe is dogma today. One just one.

Give me a name. You'll never get a name because there was nobody there who believed everything the Roman Catholic today believes is dogma. That's fact. You can you can jump around that fact ignore that fact.

Close your ears close your eyes. What do you want to do? But that's fact and We have documented on this program many times before. Where Roman Catholic apologists like Steve Ray? Tim Staples will claim make this very same claim.

If you just read what there's look at what Ignatius said about the Eucharist and Then you actually get into it and do and I do with it what those guys can't do with it and actually Translate it in its context.

And it's not talking about that all it's talking about Gnostics. And it's talking about Gnosticism and why they deny What the Christians believe. Because well Jesus doesn't have a physical body you see he's just a phantom.

And so we when I can engage in all this stuff that he really didn't die on a cross and all the rest that stuff and So, you know, it's it's very Common, you know, they have to make this claim. Just just ignore the the problems with just just go with whatever we tell you it is.

So, you know, he defies me. Show me one bishop at the Council of Nicaea that believes what Patrick Madrid believes today as dogma. Defines the gospel. And if they believed something differently and something considerably less than what he believes today.

Then that sort of makes my point and you will find.

That far from what he asserted a moment ago that the Nicene Council Christians Didn't believe all these different things that the Catholic Church teaches. They did believe them such as they wrote about them and not only that.

Yeah, really.

Where did they write about? The bodily assumption papal infallibility. Where did they write about? purgatory Indulgences, where did they write about transubstantiation? I'd like to see these things I've looked and I keep challenging folks show me these things and when they come up with you know a phrase here.

You go and look at and go. Wait a minute. They're actually talking about this over here. That's all you've got.

Again. Facts are facts and fictions fiction and but for centuries and centuries prior to The second Council of Nicaea in the year 787 It's amply documented. This is what we just heard a moment ago. This is a claim That will not stand up to the scrutiny of history.

Did we have anything other than that statement made like providing some documentation? No, we didn't. We just simply had it said no, we're right because we're right.

Sola Ecclesia, and I don't ask you to take my word for it. I ask any of you. All of you I believe are fair-minded people. I ask you to examine it for yourselves. Go down to the local Barnes and Noble and Start reading.

I'd write in the library church and you'll see what I'm talking about. There are many many other issues that we want to try to cover but let's at least deal with the issue of the one mediator argument.

That was raised a little earlier first Timothy 2 5. I believe that Jesus is the one mediator now.

Let's for those of you who maybe forgotten Remember this is the gentleman who's now claiming that it's painfully obviously unbiblical and incoherent to argue against his position so at this point remember what I said and That is first Timothy.

It says there's one God and one mediator and the term one is the same in the Greek and So I pointed out that it really doesn't make any sense That if you could say one mediator means one main mediator.

With the possibility of lesser mediators, then it would follow that that's one main God with the possibility of lesser gods and Then I point out that if you continue on the basis of mediation and first Timothy 2 is the fact that he lives to intercede.

He is the intercessor that intercession of course comes from his Sacrifice his role as the high priest. These are things that the Saints do not possess and hence cannot function as mediators and I drive that from what from the context of The actual writing so this must be because we haven't gotten it to now.

So it must be here in the closing statement that Patrick demonstrates. What he's now claiming and that is that this is Painfully obviously where the incoherence of my biblical presentation will be seen so let's let's see if he goes in the same depth Here in first Timothy 2 that I did in making my presentation.

He is the one and the only one who can bridge the gap of sin. Between where we are stranded in alienation and where God is in all holiness only Christ can do that. Why. Because only Christ is God? Mary is not God.

St. Stephen is not God. St. Michael the archangel is not God. None of them have the ability to be the one mediator but notice that Jesus shares The different unique roles that he has in subordinate ways with his friends.

For example. Jesus is the king of kings isn't he?

Did we. Did I did we just leave for 72 I? Think we just left first Timothy 2 and and didn't even touch on the actual text of first Timothy 2 so I think what's painfully obvious here is.

Painfully obvious. He's leaking. I believe. And. Yet, Jesus says that the Apostles that all Christians are going to reign as kings in heaven wearing crowns sitting on thrones. Jesus is the creator the book of Hebrews tells us.

But he shares that procreative role with us with human mothers and fathers. We have a subordinate share in the way in which God ultimately creates. He creates through men and women.

Okay, now. I hope you're following this. Because if you're in Christ, and you reign with him According book revelation that means you're participating in kingship and If you have children, then you're participating in creation now.

I would call that means and don't. Non-christians have kids too. Could you check on that could you google that. I think non-christian people have children. Does that mean that they like that Jesus is sharing his creative powers with unbelievers.

I Guess that's that's guess. That's what it means. We'll have to maybe non-christians don't have children. We'll have to check that out. Jesus is the supreme judge isn't he?

Do you believe that I do? But Jesus says that Christians are going to judge in heaven. We will judge the angels. There is a subordinate share that believers have in the ministry of Christ and.

Did someone miss maybe? Maybe my headphones aren't working right. Let me let me. Can we test these things. I missed the part about intercession. Did you. Did you catch that I? Didn't I. Hmm well it must have been in there because without it, then it would be painfully obvious.

That he's really stretching things here big time. But it must have been in there because you know it's well.

He says painfully obviously never taking away from what Jesus has done never taking away the uniqueness of his role. But we see over and over and over again that Jesus shares these roles with his followers.

That's why my friends in first Timothy 2 verses 1 through 4. That's why st. Paul can say not what Jim was implying a few minutes ago. Pray for people on earth. Pray only when you're on earth. Pray for Kings.

Pray for the people who are persecuting Christians. That's not what the passage says. Wow.

Okay, I mean think about this. What could you do with the text of Scripture when it becomes this kind of absolute Plato? It doesn't say anything about on this earth. I mean, it's just like the Mormons when they say well that stuff about one God's only for this planet that doesn't say there aren't gods elsewhere.

It's the exact same argumentation, isn't it? It's a reference to the people on Kolob. There you go. I mean, come on. Wow. Talk about painfully obvious. There's something that's really painfully obvious and that is one of us can go to the text and read it in its context and in the context of the people who would have originally received these words and.

They are told to pray for those who are in positions of authority and it's so. Painfully obvious who that is and what does the Catholic do? Well, it doesn't just say here on earth. I mean it could it could mean it, you know after you're dead.

What is there a postal service in heaven Paul wrote? Well, it's Timothy dead. This is written to Timothy for crying out loud. He was alive. Hello. I mean talk about Tearing the scriptures apart. Whoa, there's there's painfully obvious for you.

The passage says pray for everyone Everyone. And this command to pray is not restricted just to those of us here on earth.

Nothing in the context would imply that nothing in the context would apply. Think about this folks. This man is standing in front of an audience of people. He's saying what that means is you need to pray for everyone, you know I'll just took on a whole just took on.

Not even the Armenians thought of this one not even Dave Hunt came up with this one. Wow. I mean you not you not only do you need to pray for everybody you need to get out the Ephesian phone book. But you need to send out for the Philippian phone book and the Roman phone book and you need to go to Africa and you need to get all their names and you need but that that's just the beginning because you got to go back in time and you got to pray for Everybody who's ever lived Wherever they are.

You gotta pray for everybody. I've never heard of anything like this. It's just ridiculous. It is beyond ridiculous. Let's go to Salt Lake and get out the genealogy. That's what you got to do that blood and we couldn't have done that and so the Mormons were kind enough to put all that stuff on to you know genealogy .com for us, so.

Wow, okay. There you go. There's Painfully obvious exegesis of 1st Timothy chapter 2.

Unbelievable, this is a standing command in Scripture that Christians are called upon to pray for and Assist as st. Paul says to bear one another's burdens and by so doing we will fulfill the law of Christ.

You and I have burdens here.

Isn't it fascinating that Paul actually defines that they are praying for unbelievers in that context and Somehow that can turn into bearing one another's burdens. There once you accept sola ecclesia the meaning of the words of the text of Scripture becomes Irrelevant.

It's no longer your ultimate authority. It must bow to whatever the church says We're on earth, don't we?

We struggle with sin we struggle with all kinds of adversity here on earth and we rely on one another's prayers. Don't we. I asked a whole lot of people to pray for me tonight in the days and weeks leading up to this debate.

Why. Because I need prayer. This is a challenging setting. You need prayer and the thing that separates so sadly This is this is a tragedy. Really the thing that separates us is that every Sunday millions of Christians around the world recite the words of the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and Those words include the words we believe in the communion of saints.

Now as a Catholic I believe that that communion Transcends time and space. And as I pointed out to you in my opening remarks Through those seven points there is nothing in Scripture that would indicate That the unity that you and I have in and through Jesus Christ is somehow severed or somehow Restricted or in some other way diminished.

If you and I have the capability even I would add The admonition the exhortation from Holy Scripture to pray for one another and to assist one another here on earth We have all the more Reason to do that when we're in heaven perfected in righteousness.

And I'm afraid to say that Jim has not offered us a single example from Scripture or the early church and Remember that was the that was the thesis for tonight's debate. That this act of asking for the intercession of the Saints venerating them Etc is not consistent with Scripture in Christian tradition.

That's called wishful thinking That's called stating facts that are directly contrary to the truth in hopes that somebody sitting in front of you has such a short Memory that they won't remember what happened only At this point about eight minutes earlier When I did well all of exactly that that's Truly amazing it is yes.

And the seven points that I laid out remember showed it was like it like links in a chain plan that there's one body. Not one in heaven and one on earth all members of the body are united in Christ. Death does not separate us, etc.

That's the real issue here tonight. If the Bible is to be understood according to its plain reading then all Christians including those in heaven are part of that organic body of Christ and contribute to the to the lifting up to the Improvement of the spiritual well-being of everyone else remember what st. Paul said in 1st Corinthians chapter 12.

This is really a forceful passage and it pains me when I hear my friend Jim here Saying well that that just refers to the local assembly. No. It refers to the whole church. St. Paul said I'll read it again.

Verse 12 as a body is one though. It has many parts and all the parts of the body though many are one body. So also Christ. For in one spirit we were all baptized into the one body. Whether Jews or Greeks slaves or free persons and we were all given to drink of one spirit.

Now the body is not a single part. But many if a foot should say because I am NOT a hand I do not belong to the body. It does not for this reason belong any less to the body or if in your should say because I am NOT an eye I do not belong to the body.

It does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye where would the hearing be if the whole body were hearing? Where would the sense of smell be? But as it is God has placed the parts each one of them in the body as he intended if they were all one part.

They were where would the body be? But as it is there are many parts yet one body the eye cannot say to the hand. I do not need you nor again. Can the head say to the feet? I do not need you tonight. We have witnessed here is one of the members of the body of Christ saying to all those Members of the body of Christ in heaven.

I do not need you. Wow. I Do need our brothers and sisters in heaven. We do need their prayers and they are there praying for us. And I thank you for your patience. Good night and God bless you. Of course, it is sadly a very obvious.

James White’s Rebuttal on the Communion of Saints, Idolatry, and Worship

Misrepresentation that that is what I have said. I pointed out the first Corinthians chapter 12 is about the use of the gifts the Holy Spirit within service in the ministry the body of Christ and. Obviously as I have pointed out in no reference no reputation has been offered that changes when a person enters in the presence of God.

When the passage in first simply to speaks of praying for everyone. It is pure eisegesis to mean and that means for saints in heaven. Because as I've pointed out if I pray for someone that they would strive against sin.

That's irrelevant to a person who's in heaven that shows the change that takes place. When a person enters into rest and peace in Christ, I Have been defied to show Mr. Madrid. Anyone who denied the thing?

He said I would like to challenge instead of defy. Mr Madrid to find me one council father at the Council of Nicaea and I was talking about 325. One council father at Nicaea who believed what? Mr. Madrid dogmatically believes today about the papacy purgatory indulgences the priesthood and all the Marian dogmas.

Not a one did and Roman Catholic historians admit it. We were told the issue tonight is about what the early church believed it's not. The thesis was about Christian tradition as I've pointed out. That is a very selective thing.

Rome just says that's tradition that isn't. I showed you councils have showed you statements and Roman Catholic sources admit that these were a part of the patristic sources. How about we allow Peter to interpret things in Acts 10 25 to 26 when Cornelius bowed before him?

He was just showing him honor, right? I mean Peter is worthy of honor. Isn't he was down the monitor amount of transfiguration. Apostle when Cornelius bows before him. What does Peter do? Don't do that.

I'm just a man. When in Revelation chapter 19 their angel has shown John all these tremendous things and that angel deserves honor. And so John bows down before the angel and the angels don't do that worship God alone.

Let's let those early church fathers Interpret for us because we know what they believed because it's been provided for us in Scripture. True worship is determined in its nature solely by what God says is pleasing to him.

Man has no place determining what is right and proper worship. Only God can and has revealed what is proper and true worship. So seriously. Does God take the matter of our acknowledging him as our creator and him alone that he identifies?

Idolatry is one of the most heinous and grievous sins in his sight. Two very very unpopular passages. Unpopular in the sense that they do not fit with today's man-centered religions. Solemnly testified to the importance of offering pure and proper worship to God.

Both these passages speak to the importance of obeying what God has revealed concerning how he is to be worshipped first. Leviticus chapter 10. Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron having been fully instructed in the proper form of worship took liberties going beyond What God had ordained?

We read in verses 1 through 3. Now David Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron took their respective firepans and after putting fire in them placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord which he had not commanded them and Fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them and they died before the Lord.

Then Moses said to Aaron it is what the Lord spoke saying by those who come near me I will be treated as holy and before all the people I will be honored. So Aaron therefore kept silent. Modern man might make many excuses for Nadab and Abihu man might say that they were new to the job.

That they were simply expressing freedom in worship. Such things may impress post-modern Americans, but obviously did not impress the Almighty. By those who come near to God, he will be treated as holy to violate God's own revealed Will concerning how he is to be worshipped is to treat him as unholy.

There is no neutrality here. Violate God's commands and you engage in idolatry. The punishment may not come as quickly as it did for Nadab and Abihu, but it will be just as certain anyway. Nadab and Abihu went beyond what God commanded as We've seen this evening.

Rome has as well. The second passage is even more striking when David is taking the ark back to Jerusalem after God strikes the Philistines for keeping possession of it. An incident takes place that illustrates our point this evening with great force.

In 2nd Samuel 6 beginning of verse 3 we read they placed the ark of God on a new cart that they might bring it from the house Of Abinadab which was on the hill and Uzzah and Ahio the sons of Abinadab were leading the new cart.

So they brought it with the ark of God from the house of Binadab which was on the hill and Ahio was walking ahead of the cart. Meanwhile of the ark meanwhile David and all the house of Israel were Celebrating before the Lord with all kinds of instruments made of firwood and with lyres harps tambourines castanets and cymbals.

When they came to the threshing floor of naked Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it for the oxen nearly upset it and The anger of the Lord burned against Uzzah and God struck him down there for his irreverence and he died.

There by the ark of God David became angry because the Lord's outburst against Uzzah and that place is called Perez Uzzah to this day. You see God had told Israel to carry the ark on poles not on a cart.

David and the people were in violation of God's revealed will. Oh surely. They were having a grand time. David and the people were dancing and having a wonderful worship experience at least from the human standpoint.

But the human standpoint is irrelevant member. We were told the key of this debate tonight is intention. Not from God's perspective modern men. Want to excuse Uzzah for what he did. Wasn't he just trying to help.

Wasn't his intention to do something good. How could God hold him accountable for what he did. Didn't someone else tell him to walk where he was walking. Wasn't it really David's fault or the priest's fault?

Maybe this was how Uzzah had been taught. Maybe he was following a tradition of the elders or the infallible Jewish magisterium. It didn't matter. He touched the ark of God which represented his holy presence with the people of Israel and despite the fact that it ruined David's party God struck Uzzah dead.

There is no biblical difference between worshiping someone and serving someone in the religious context. Lottery and duly are both terms that go back to a single concept in the Bible as we have seen. To worship is both to bow down and to serve.

You cannot separate them. There is no biblical distinction between Lottery and Julia either in usage or in logical meaning in the context of our religious attitude and posture. Which is surely what prayer and veneration of Saints angels or images involves.

The Lottery a Julia distinction is without substance or meaning. Pleading the Lottery a Julia distinction would not have saved a Jew caught bowing before a statue of an ancestor and pleading it Before a holy God today will have no more benefit.

God's holiness has not changed with our cultural change. The Bible knows nothing of offering prayer to anyone but God. For prayer is an act of worship acknowledging the authority and power of the one being prayed to.

This is why though. The New Testament is still being written. Well after Christian martyrs are entering into the presence of God. There is no unambiguous reference to any communication with them. Misused apocalyptic passages in the book of Revelation do not provide a sound foundation.

The violation of God's command against idolatry. The 24 elders were not the objects of prayer or veneration by people on earth. You may well be able to honestly say That you were ignorant of the biblical facts concerning Lottery a Julia prosecute ne 'o of odd, whatever God has been merciful to you.

Allowing you to know the truth this evening. It is quite possible that the men who met at the second Nicene Council were likewise ignorant of the biblical facts. Their error may have led to the tradition that you have held that has nullified the Word of God on this vital issue.

They will bear their burden before God, but you will bear yours as well. Jesus warned us about following allegedly divine traditions that nullify the scriptures. It will be no excuse my friends to say but but I thought the church was infallible.

Jesus Did not accept that idea when the Jews pressed the traditions of the elders upon him. Which they thought came from Moses. Nor should you? What will you do now? Will you acknowledge God's absolute right to determine what is and what is not pleasing worship before him?

My friends I believe very firmly only God's Spirit can make us willing and desirous of worshiping him a right. I Pray he will grant to all here this evening that gift of grace that leads to just such obedience.

Thank you very much now that's the end of the formal debate and Again if someone would like to claim that it was made painfully obvious That the arguments Against the Roman Catholic position are unbiblical and incoherent.

I simply say to you what debate were you listening to. Do you have the version where my part was taken out is That that's about the only way I can come up with it. I'm sorry Since mr. Madrid clearly thinks that he won the debate.

I think very clearly that I won the debate and it wasn't even very close from any meaningful angle. Now it seems that the Roman Catholics have adopted the idea that as long as they don't end up Collapsing like Stravinsky's did that that's a victory as long as you stay up there, and you're still talking at the end of three and a half hours.

Somehow you win. I? Would like to suggest to you that if the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church on earth the infallible Church the Vicar of Christ leads it and all the rest of this stuff I should be the one up there drooling at the end of three and a half hours.

I Should not be able to make the kind of case that I make. So I suggest that maybe a meaningful standard might be what you need to adopt now at this point We began audience questions, and I'm going to skip past bills instructions which basically are please ask questions and Get right to the audience questions themselves, so let's Let's listen to them.

There was one there were two cheap shots in the audience questions. We were asked to be succinct and at one point I I made the stupid mistake of Doing exactly what I've been asked to do and mr. Madrid took full advantage of it.

And I thought it was really cheesy. And then we'll talk about the other one we get to it if we get to it in this half hour.

Audience Questions on Images, Divine Attributes, Satan, and Canon

Multitude millions at the same time is this not an attribute that only belongs to God is problematic. Every is problem.

Okay, I thought that was. Let's go back here. Let's try this one of venerating.

The wrong image, no guess not I.

Know one person there. We will give the other speaker an opportunity to respond. I'm asking that both mr. Madrid and mr. White be concise so that in the 45 minutes that we have we can do catch that he asked us to be concise.

In other words.

Don't take the full time if you don't need to. Well I will rue obeying that a little bit here in a couple minutes as many questions as possible.

James you ready. The first questioner, please. The microphone is not on with the one two one two there. We go hear you Mr.. Madrid.

Suppose your Version of Mary or one of the Saints is wrong in terms of its actual picture. What consequence would there be for example? Let's say Jesus is black or Hispanic in his physical appearance?

Let's say one of the Saints is likewise. In your theology, what would be the consequence of venerating? The wrong image.

No consequence whatsoever because the veneration does not is not for the image itself. The veneration goes to the person that the image represents and When we get to heaven we'll find out what Jesus looked like and what a given Saint looked like.

The fact that we have Representations of them is for our benefit to remind us of those people but there is no problem whatsoever if we depict st. Luke with Dark hair, and it turns out he had blonde hair for example.

For white you care to make a comment and just very briefly my whole concern about this whole issue is the fact that all believers are Saints and Hence the idea of even worrying about what they look like is is problematic.

Every believer in Jesus Christ has the righteousness of Christ which is perfect and therefore Goes directly into the presence of Christ when he dies. This distinction doesn't exist. Our next question.

Hi. An answer from both if you could. My question is how can Mary hear the prayers of multitude millions at the same time. Is this not an attribute that only? Belongs to God.

Mr.. Madrid. It is not an attribute that belongs only to God. I think you're referring to the the two characteristics of Omnipotence and omnipresence. Omnipotence meaning that God is all-powerful. There's nothing he cannot do.

Omnipresence means that he's everywhere and we have to remember that because God is infinite those attributes themselves are infinite. So that means there's no end to what God can do. There's no end. There's no limit.

Let's say to what God knows. Now in the case of let's say People are praying to Mary as an example. You may have untold millions of people at any given moment in the world Praying to Mary all sorts of different languages English Spanish etc.