The Reformation is over. Catholics 0, Protestants 1

triablogue ^ | April 13, 2015 | Jerry Walls

[Resettozero]

R2z : You will need to ask another.

Lurk : Ask another who?

You will need to ask another FReeper or someone else who practices not gathering with Christian believers often.

I cannot meet your demand to give you an answer regarding what non-churchgoers do about their support of Christian ministries. Our fellowship has many irons in the fire.

[knarf]

They argue just like .... Catholics

[rwa265]

The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early 3rd century, who says the text, like that of a Gospel of Peter, was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the “brethren of the Lord” were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

---

One has to be careful with Wikipedia to separate what the contributor writes from what is actually cited by the contributor. While it is true that the contributor wrote
that the text “was of dubious, recent appearance,” the citation does not show Origin questioning the authenticity of either gospel. Footnote [6] shows Origen writing “But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gospel_of_James&redirect=no#cite_note-Origen-6

Moreover, the very fact that the gospels are included in the apocrypha attests to their authenticity and that they are considered useful for instruction.

You can believe what you wish. I personally don’t think its worth arguing over. But there is no basis in stating that the belief is incorrect or that it is a false teaching. While the gospels do not rise to the level of absolute certainty about the perpetual virginity of Mary, neither is there evidence that proves the belief is incorrect. What the historical record clearly shows is that, as early as the mid-100’s, some early Christians believed that Mary was a virgin to the end.

Peace

[af_vet_1981]

Why did the RM delete the scripture that I posted ?

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
First Corinthians, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses nine to ten,
Galatians, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses nineteen to twenty one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good morning, Faith Presses On. I have no criticism of your excellent post. It's well-said.

But did you think I would object?

[ealgeone]

Moreover, the very fact that the gospels are included in the apocrypha attests to their authenticity and that they are considered useful for instruction.

I was not aware that the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of James, aka Protoevangelium of James was a part of the catholic apocrypha.

You can believe what you wish. I personally don’t think its worth arguing over. But there is no basis in stating that the belief is incorrect or that it is a false teaching. While the gospels do not rise to the level of absolute certainty about the perpetual virginity of Mary, neither is there evidence that proves the belief is incorrect. What the historical record clearly shows is that, as early as the mid-100’s, some early Christians believed that Mary was a virgin to the end.

Well, it is important in that this "belief" either proves the Bible correct or incorrect.

The Bible text, on more than one occasion notes Jesus has brothers and sisters and that these were through Joseph and Mary.

You are correct though, there were some in the early Church who believed this. This shows the constant need to correct error before it reaches the proportion it has reached today in Catholicism regarding Mary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good morning, Faith Presses On. I have no criticism of your excellent post. It's well-said.

But did you think I would object? You say, for instance, "fleshly concerns - which then focus on and elevate mere sinful humans - were allowed back into what became the Catholic Church." I don't get that.

The Psalmist himself says that God has crowned man with glory and honor:

Psalm 8: 5-10

"What is man that you are mindful of him,
and a son of man that you care for him?
Yet you have made him little less than a god,[e] crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him rule over the works of your hands, put all things at his feet:
All sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field,
The birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatever swims the paths of the seas.
O Lord, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!"

Can we not say, with Mary, "God who is mighty has done great things for me"?

So man is not entirely contemptible. That would be to say that the "image and likeness of God" is contemptible.

[rwa265]

This Catholic does his best to provide cogent responses to comments about the different beliefs of our FReeper sisters and brothers in Christ, using Scriptural references to support Catholic teachings and using Catholic documents to correct untrue statements about Catholic beliefs.

Call it whining if you want, but please recognize that the following comments in your post are very hurtful:

Roman cult
off-the-wall beliefs
Silly and carnal superstitions
Eating bread and whine (deliberate)
Empty gilt halls
pride and fancily-gowned men
warm fuzzies

You also made several comments that are untrue, including:

Seeking some goddess
Jesus is not the one that they have at the top!
They want to show him as a baby in His mother’s arms
or leave Him on the Cross.

You did make some statements that every Catholic believes. They are:

There is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved!!!
Jesus is the Reason!
Jesus is the way. Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is the life.
Thanks be to God, He promises us eternal life with Him. Praise God, from Whom ALL blessings flow!

Please allow me to share with you the Catholic Greater Doxology:

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will.
We praise you,
we bless you,
we adore you,
we glorify you,
we give you thanks for your great glory,
Lord God, heavenly King,
O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.
you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For you alone are the Holy One,
You alone are the Lord,
You alone are the Most High,
Jesus Christ,
With the Holy Spirit,
In the glory of God the Father.

Amen.

[rwa265]

In looking over my post, I want to make one correction. We do show Jesus as a baby in His mother’s arms. But isn’t this Scriptural?

[Mark17]

Show me where the command to attend church is. Or even that we are to gather on Sunday for church or that we’re sinning if we don’t

You are not wrong mom. When I was a Catholic, I went to mass on Sunday, because I was afraid God would zap me with a mortal sin and send me to Hell if I didn't go. Now, being as I am not a catholic anymore, I go to church, out of gratitude to God, not out of obligation. The bottom line is, let each Christian be fully convinced in their own mind about church. I do not esteem one day over any other. Everyday is the same to me. We are allowed to be our own priest in this area. (I can see heads exploding, 🇵🇭🙈🙉🙊 such is life) keep up the good work.

[ealgeone]

In looking over my post, I want to make one correction. We do show Jesus as a baby in His mother’s arms. But isn’t this Scriptural?

When He was an infant, yes.....but for crying out loud, He's a grown up now.

Most of the catholic art I've seen with Mary has her holding Jesus and His resembles a man's.

It sure gives the appearance that the catholic goal is to elevate mary and minimize Jesus.

[CynicalBear]

>>If he does not reflect what you believe then why don’t you reject him?<<

How many times do I have to say I don't follow Luther and that he was a Catholic who held on to Catholic error for you to understand that I reject much of what he taught? Catholics seem to have block when it comes to "following man". The attempts to correct error within Catholicism started long before Luther. Most Protestant "churches" are simply daughters of the Catholic Church and retain many of her errors.

Be that as it may true followers of Christ don't look to denominations or organizations.

>>Another facet is that to admit he was wrong is to allow the Catholics were right<<

Not even close.

[rwa265]

Most of the catholic art I’ve seen with Mary has her holding Jesus and His resembles a man’s

---

Most art work of Mary holding Jesus are images reflecting the infancy narratives, e.g., the birth of Jesus, the shepherds visiting Jesus, Nativity scenes, the presentation, the flight into Egypt.

There are images of Mary holding Jesus when He was taken down from the cross. Is there art work other than this showing Mary holidng a grown up Jesus?

[CynicalBear]

What is ironic is that Catholics can’t show where Sunday or any other day is ever called the “Lord’s day” in scripture.

[af_vet_1981]

Including LurkingSince'98 whose question you have posted and answered. I agree you are one of the very few who do not defend Luther. You may admit, though, that Protestants often lift Luther up in posts. I highlighted your sentence below to emphasize your break from Protestantism, so to speak. Do you see the emerging church as still evolving or progressing ?

>>If he does not reflect what you believe then why don’t you reject him?<< How many times do I have to say I don't follow Luther and that he was a Catholic who held on to Catholic error for you to understand that I reject much of what he taught? Catholics seem to have block when it comes to "following man". The attempts to correct error within Catholicism started long before Luther. Most Protestant "churches" are simply daughters of the Catholic Church and retain many of her errors.

[Gamecock]

If you would take the Roman Catholic plank out of your eye and reread what Metmom posted you will see a huge distinction, that being what a regenerated heart wants to do.

That is a regenerate heart, out of a proper response to what God had done for us, versus the Roman Catholic scheme of salvation, which you identified as works.

Regenerate people WANT to go to church and be with Abba. Roman Catholics, based on your post, go to mass to avoid Hell. You can stay on the Roman Catholic treadmill, which is just spinning faster and faster, or you can rest in the finished work of Jesus. His burden is light. Which is it? It matters for eternity.

[Resettozero]

whatever

unless you missed it I wasnt the one who over stepped and had my posts deleted by the RM.

Not true. You had at least one personal attack post removed from this thread.

[MamaB]

Does not make them right. Numbers are not important. I have been in tiny churches where the presence of God was felt as soon as we walked in the door and have walked in fairly large churches where it could have been just another building. It is a shame that so many are being led astray.

[Religion Moderator]

Post 423 was removed because it quoted a removed post. There was no problem with the Scripture being posted.

[ealgeone]

Does not make them right. Numbers are not important. I have been in tiny churches where the presence of God was felt as soon as we walked in the door and have walked in fairly large churches where it could have been just another building. It is a shame that so many are being led astray.

God has never been impressed with big numbers. Remember Gideon. Remember God did not want David (?) to conduct a census of the fighting men.

Recall that Jesus at one time had 70 some disciples.....that number dropped to 11 who were really followers.