A Historical Dare to Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How can you “find Mary” if she doesn’t exist as the Catholic Church says she does? We believe she has ascended into Heaven. If you think of her as dead, then how would you be in danger of “finding” her? lol
I think you can go to ANY church and never “find” Christ, if you are mislead into having an attitude such as, “Well, it wasn’t specifically spelled out in Scripture, and I don’t trust this Pope guy’s revelations or interpretations, so I’m going to go with what my gut tells me.” or “I just don’t like it, it must be wrong.”
How can somebody find Mary? I ask the same question. Mary is in our hearts, and She leads us to Her Son. If protestants dont behold their heavenly Mother, that is something they have to deal with and figure out why they dont. We take the words from the Cross very seriously.
 
elvisman;:
Pretty soon, you have what we have now - thousands of differing Protestant belief systems. This is not what Jesus wanted and I’ll show you that from scripture.
I can’t post it here (copyright violation) but I’ve got a short book that explains, using Scripture why God planned for there to be a number of different denominations. (Title is Why God planned for Different Denominations.)

It takes pericopes from the Torah, The Writings, The Gospels, The Pauline Epistles, and the Non-Pauline Epistles, to make its case.

jonathon
 
Benjamin8o8;:
I don`t know what you are trying to say.
Rome had no influence on the development and growth of 景教, or, as some have claimed, 神道 as a branch of Christianity.

Furthermore, based on the extant manuscripts, neither Rome nor Nicea had any influence on which books were Canonical as Sacred Scripture.

jonathon
 
I can’t post it here (copyright violation) but I’ve got a short book that explains, using Scripture why God planned for there to be a number of different denominations. (Title is Why God planned for Different Denominations.)

It takes pericopes from the Torah, The Writings, The Gospels, The Pauline Epistles, and the Non-Pauline Epistles, to make its case.

jonathon
you can use that book and we`ll use the Bible for our case I suppose.
 
Rome had no influence on the development and growth of 景教, or, as some have claimed, 神道 as a branch of Christianity.

Furthermore, based on the extant manuscripts, neither Rome nor Nicea had any influence on which books were Canonical as Sacred Scripture.

jonathon
I already asked, then who did?
 
I admit I have not read all the posts on this thread, but so far, I have seen very few attempts by Protestants to answer the dare fully. Disproving the Catholic Church does not prove your own denomination:

Prove, from history, that your denomination can trace itself back to the Apostolic/Scriptural Era.

Without history, it turns Protestantism into a **** shoot (the dice game). Just roll the dice: Baptist, Evangelical, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Pentecostal, Messianic Jewish, Methodist, etc. Just roll them dice Billy-Bob and take yo’ pick. Reminds of that old McDonald restaurant ditty: “Have it your way today.”

Some people need to get it through their heads: a Source document (i.e. Scripture) alone HAS NEVER WORKED TO FOUND AN ORGANIZATION AROUND. There has to be a body that has interpretive authority, otherwise you have a big unruly mess.

EDIT: Otherwise, why does America need a government, we have a Constitution after all! SOLA CONSTITUTIONALISTS UNITE!
 
The Catholic Church has done a lot of bending to the will of Protestants in recent decades. Even had a pope apologize for wrongs in the past. What exactly has to change before anyone returns to the fold, I wonder? Would the pope kneeling and kissing the feet of a picture of Luther or Calvin suffice? It would get a good laugh maybe, but would you really return?
I don’t think ANY changes we ever make will satisfy the Protestants, and I believe that is the message that Benedict is trying to make by trying to return of bit of lost traditions that were rashly removed mid 20th century.
I think he is aware that pride, greed, glutton, and lust are at the heart of the true “WHY” behind the continued separation. Even though the history of the Catholic Church is far from squeaky-clean, you can’t deny that their own deadly sins are what keep Protestants away to this day.
 
I can’t post it here (copyright violation) but I’ve got a short book that explains, using Scripture why God planned for there to be a number of different denominations. (Title is Why God planned for Different Denominations.)
It takes pericopes from the Torah, The Writings, The Gospels, The Pauline Epistles, and the Non-Pauline Epistles, to make its case.
FOUL! FOUL! I CALL FOUL!

How dare you use anything besides Scripture to prove your point! After all, you’re saying that the author(s) of that book have authority to interpret Scripture validly and that their authority supersedes mine or anyone else’s!

FOUL! FOUL!
 
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I find it slightly hypocritical that Protestants challenge Church authority and then they turn to their own authority (i.e. some Protestant author or pastor, etc.) to back up their words.
 
How can somebody find Mary? I ask the same question. Mary is in our hearts, and She leads us to Her Son. If protestants dont behold their heavenly Mother, that is something they have to deal with and figure out why they dont. We take the words from the Cross very seriously.
LOL!
You didn’t get it!
My question was how can one be in danger of “finding” a truth that they believe is wrong, if said truth supposedly isn’t real?
Get it?
 
I’ve looked at the history of the bible.

The earliest formally defined Canon of books, which became the current Bible was constructed by Gnostic Christians.
I bet you have… Was this information in that same book that said Jesus wanted multiple denominations that believed different things?

If not could you please give us the reference to where you got the information that the current Biblical canon was formed by Gnostics? Thanks

SD
 
nsper7;:
Some people need to get it through their heads:
Some people live in worlds where self-responsibility is a foreign concept, and as such, one that they are unable to grasp, much less master.
a Source document (i.e. Scripture) alone HAS NEVER WORKED TO FOUND AN ORGANIZATION AROUND. There has to be a body that has interpretive authority, otherwise you have a big unruly mess.
a) Most of the organizations that are based around a book, and have no interpretive authority, do not not have a formal,legal structure. This does not mean that they do not have longevity. They do. (The largest one I am aware of is roughly forty years old. The oldest one I am aware of, is more than a century old. )

b) The Church of All Worlds is an example of an organisation that is based upon a book, and has a formal, legal structure, but no interpretive authority.
Otherwise, why does America need a government, we have a Constitution after all! SOLA CONSTITUTIONALISTS UNITE!
a) Roughly 120 years, Lysander Spooner ( The Constitution of No Authority ) demonstrated why the Constitution of the United States of America was not binding upon anybody who was then living.

b) Christian Anarchism argues that the only ethical,moral, and Christian form of government is one of anarchy. (The major problem with anarchy, is that it requires more of people, than people are capable of doing.)

c) Study Leo Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You.

jonathon
 
Benjamin8o8;:
I already asked, then who did?
They had very occasional contact with Antioch, but for the most part fended for themselves, and what was taught them by their spiritual fathers, traced back to St Thomas, the disciple.

Probably the most significant influence on their theology was Buddhism, since they had to devise a theology to counter it.

jonathon
 
Benjamin8o8;:
you can use that book and we`ll use the Bible for our case I suppose.
From that, do I conclude that The Torah, The Writings, The Gospels, The Pauline Epistles, and The Non-Pauline Epistles are not part of the Bible?

Or do I conclude that the use of pericopes is unacceptable, because it doesn’t enable one to take things out of context.

Or do I conclude that simply doing such a study is unacceptable, because it produces results that are unacceptable, even if scripturally based?

Or do I conclude that using material created by other people is unacceptable?

jonathon
 
Sorry, pal. That doesn’t wash.
You cannot be part of the Catholic Church when you don’t accept her.

What do you think the Protestant Rebellion (Reformation) was all about? Nothing was "reformed" - new ideas and new beliefs were formed. New churches with new belief systems were formed. That’s not the Universal Christian Church. It’s tens of thousands of break-off churches with their own sets of beliefs.
And most of all, the protestant “deformation” was a schizm
 
Tom you found it necessary to PM me and call me out here so you can talk about justification?
No where on this thread do I talk about justification.

I was addressing the false notion that
The Church= The Roman Catholic Church
and
the catholic(universal) church = The Roman Catholic Church.
Take the time to re-read those posts. Justification was not the only thing I was referring to.

The main jist of those posts was to clarify as succinctly as possible the history and errors of Protestantism and why Protestantism and all of its offshoots cannot be the one true Church.

Selective reading of those posts on your part is just another example of how Protestants pick and choose (which is a characteristic of heresy by the way) what they want to hear and what they do not want to hear.
 
Marcion

jonathon
Is this a joke? Either you’re purposely trying to misinform us or you haven’t studied it. Marcion was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 144 AD for starting schisms within the Church… He had his own ideas on what should be included as inspired Scripture and it was NOT the same canon we have today…

So on 2 points you are wrong. For starters he took Scripture that had already been collected and used by the CC and formed his own Gnostic religion (split from the CC)… Next it was a different canon as he refused to accept books that had already been declared inspired by the Catholic Church.

So… try again

SD
 
I admit I have not read all the posts on this thread, but so far, I have seen very few attempts by Protestants to answer the dare fully. Disproving the Catholic Church does not prove your own denomination:

Prove, from history, that your denomination can trace itself back to the Apostolic/Scriptural Era.
Why? Even if we could, what would it prove?
Without history, it turns Protestantism into a **** shoot (the dice game). Just roll the dice: Baptist, Evangelical, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Pentecostal, Messianic Jewish, Methodist, etc. Just roll them dice Billy-Bob and take yo’ pick. Reminds of that old McDonald restaurant ditty: “Have it your way today.”
Actually it’s a Burger King ditty as I recall. FWIW.

Do you actually think I am what I am because of rolling dice? Maybe I actually have reasons for being what I am.
Some people need to get it through their heads: a Source document (i.e. Scripture) alone HAS NEVER WORKED TO FOUND AN ORGANIZATION AROUND. There has to be a body that has interpretive authority, otherwise you have a big unruly mess.

EDIT: Otherwise, why does America need a government, we have a Constitution after all! SOLA CONSTITUTIONALISTS UNITE!
I don’t know of any Protestant church that claims the Bible is all you need. If they did they would be telling me that me 'n my Bible in my camp in Clayton Lake Maine is the way to go.
 
SD Catholic;:
He had his own ideas on what should be included as inspired Scripture and it was NOT the same canon we have today…
a) Marcion was the first individual to construct a list of what was canonical for Christianity. Prior to him, there were no lists of books that were canonical for Christianity.

b) All of the books in his Canon, are canonical for all branches (and denominations ) of Contemporary Christianity;

c) If you want to get really picky, one vote is the reason why Gnostic Christianity and Catholic Christianity are no longer congruent;

jonathon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top