You really like this subgroup. If this is so then it must be sub to something else. What might that be?
Catholicism is a subgroup of Christianity.
Of course, it is a view not shared by Catholics.
Protestantism is made of denominations of Christianity, not the Catholic Church.
Of course, it is a view not shared by Catholics.
The Catholic Church was the sole denomination, for over a thousand years.
Of course.
Catholic Church is the first church. EO second, and all the thousands of different denominations and self-declared pastors make up protestantism
Catholicism is a subgroup of Christianity.
Of course, it is a view not shared by Catholics.
Protestantism is made of denominations of Christianity, not the Catholic Church.
Of course, it is a view not shared by Catholics.
The Catholic Church was the sole denomination, for over a thousand years.
Of course.
By suicide? lol you can not be serious. Saying Jim Jones was a reformer as well a Jesus. I think I just sinned by mentioning Jesus with him, in one sentenceJim Jones presented the gateway to Heaven, with a new portal.
In 1538, . . . Luther “Who would have begun to preach, if we had known beforehand that so much unhappiness, tumult, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have been the result?” Walch. VIII. 564
Reformation is seeing the same view, with different eyes.
Jesus showed the view of adultery, with different eyes, as per John 8:7.
Jim Jones presented the gateway to Heaven, with a new portal.
I have a question. What makes one want to antagonize a group of people?
Seems that you have some handy information there, if it were only relevant to the discussion at hand.
Do not under any circumstances read any of this. Others will be reading it. I am no genius trust me.
Genius thinking !
I am sure, if I only chose to read it.
How Ironic. A Jim Jones follower saying I do not have wit.
I think you have clearly lost the thread of context, my dear brother.
Also, sarcasm is best left to those with wit.
It is considering someone is trying to say Catholic Church is only a sub-group or denomination lol
Seems that you have some handy information there, if it were only relevant to the discussion at hand.
I think you have clearly lost the thread of context, my dear brother.
Also, sarcasm is best left to those with wit.
These are your answers to questions about what you believe, questions asking for further explanation, and what you do is answer flippantly and acuse others of sarcasm when you are sarcastic. Do you think you have wit? Do you see yourself as so intelligent? You have no excuse to pass judgement and judge another, you condemn yourself for you who judge practice the same things and we know that judgement of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. Now that was Paul and this is me. You have a serious problem in communication.
You may want to consider that you are on a site called Catholic Answers and that the Catholics believe we were here first and you aren’t going to convince anyone that is Catholic otherwise.
Ok, you started well, but then digressed into Luther bashing, etc.
But, still, the broached subject matter is paramount in importance.
Since, biases run deeply in all the Christian denominations: Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc., let’s address some of your thinking from another perspective. A perspective that is sufficiently analogous to the religious view, as to be pertinent, but avoids skewing biases.
Is it true that originators, who hold the historic keys, are – due to origination and history – forever valid?
The answer is no.
Take mathematics.
For centuries, the concept of space rested upon the mathematical understanding of point.
Until, Descartes.
With his reformed thinking, the concept of space rests upon the mathematical understanding of plane.
So then, there were the point believers and the plane believers.
The plane believing came out of the roots of the point believing.
To this day, the point believers think the plane believers are wrong, and vice versa.
Who’s view is valid?
The point believers because they were the originators, who have history on their side?
The plane believers because they are the reformers, who are not bound by the past?
Today, the latest thinking is that neither are correct.
The takeaway on this is that though one’s thinking is original and historical and even foundational to future different thought, it is not – due to that – necessarily still valid thinking.
History is replete with centuries held beliefs that were shown by the “reformers” as invalid.
But, reformation is not – due to being reformation, per se – necessarily valid thinking either.
Now, let me return to the religious slant on this.
Jesus Christ was a reformer.
Martin Luther was a reformer.
Jim Jones was a reformer.
Regardless, of each’s belief, their “reformation” was from an earlier, historical view.
The Catholic Church is by far the most prolific contributor to the Christian faith: a treasure, for all who love Christ.
But, the argument We were here first, so We know best, is specious.
I find your treatment of the Christian/Jewish parallel rather odd, because your claims about the beginnings of Protestantism are dubious and many Protestants would claim that there is indeed “the testimony of many to the Gospel” showing that medieval Catholicism had messed up God’s intentions every bit as badly as the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day, and that Protestantism was the true revival of the Gospel.
Check out Micah 6:8, Matt. 25:46-50, and I Cor. 13.
My extended family had witnessed many conversions, though mainstream Protestants are less likely to use that term than Catholics. They are apt to treat Catholicism as another room in the same house.
A few examples. The father of a sister-in-law was slated by his family to become a priest. He ran away from seminary years ago, ended up marrying a Protestant and becoming an active Baptist.
A sister-in-law was raised in a strict Irish-Catholic home, attended parochial school, etc. She thought of becoming a nun. She married one of my brothers who had left religion altogether and they eventually raised their family in a Methodist church. It was nearby, some close friends went there, and the minister was warm with a great sense of humor in the pulpit. Theology played little or no role.
A cousin went to an outstanding college where he had a liberal Protestant roommate, then a stridently liberal Protestant girlfriend who upon graduation became his wife. They started out in the UCC, then became Presbyterian when they moved, and now are in a Disciples of Christ church in the midwest.
One of my shirt-tail relatives married an Hispanic who was raised Catholic. Somehow the family had been drawn into a Pentecostal church when he was a teenager and they converted. My cousin could not stomach Pentecostalism so they compromised and attend a mega-nondenominational church where they are very active. It is clearly evangelical, but not pentecostal.
Another distant relative left Catholicism for Unitarianism. He had majored in philosophy in college and decided that traditional Christianity was basically primitive, pagan and offensive to reason. God killing his son to atone for our sins? No way. He wanted to keep the teachings of Christ (as he understood them) central to his life but tossed aside most of the rest. He married a former fundamentalist who had totally rebelled against religion herself but found Unitarianism broad enough to satisfy her.
On the other hand, another distant relative, who had been raised Protestant, married a Catholic and became deeply involved in his church. They send their children to parochial school, etc.
A few illustrations to show how mixed this 'conversion' phenomenon is.
Let us work to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier. May God bless people of every creed, color, culture and country.I am not sure what it is you want or how you want things to be. The entirety of Micah, not just one passage is a message about the Covenant. I do not know if you are aware of or have studied Covenants or not. Matthew, the entirety of Matthew 25 has to do with the kingdom. The Jew as you recall as Paul points out in Romans, being of the Covenant, was to follow the Moral Law. Many were following Ceremonial law and sinning and in this case not following all the commandments. Corinthians is about dissent as to which person within a unified community, not a divided commnity, people were adhering to.