Martin Luther supported polygamy...

  • Thread starter Thread starter why_me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How long do you intend to avoid answering the question?

I think you are long over-due. You ask one question after another in attempt to avoid answering anything yourself.

After you answer, then I will respond to your new question.

I’m waiting…
Some time ago you raised this issue of Augustine and polygamy, and you have been demanding that I provide some kind of quote from the august Father of Grace, wherein he condemned polygamy.

Time and time again I told you “it aint going to happen, Ginger”. Why you came up with this demand I don’t know, or I don’t remember (I am old, and senile, and allowed some forgetfulness). Yet, you don’t seem to believe me. Out of principle, I will not fall back into some sort of Protestant trap to quote anything to you. You continue to malign the great Fathers of the Church. Fine, that’s for your own condemnation. Augustine and polygamy? Aint no where.

Nice dodge, though, Ginger.

peace
 
Luther was an awful and bloodthirsty despot. Go to unitypublishing.com and read a great apologeticist name Richard Salbato’s info. about him. He is a very large reason for the chasm between Catholics and protestants and the lies that are in some bibles because he changed the wording in many verses.
 
None of the great Catholic church doctors have contradicted God’s church here on earth. Luther was excommunicated after many years and chances to turn away from his iniquity, which he boldly thumbed in the face of God. Saint Peter was handed the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and there can only be one true church, not fifity thousand different protestant churches that don’t even agree on doctrine.
Take your protestant beliefs and false accusations somewhere else. We don’t care and don’t want to hear your ugly slander Ginger.
 
I like to read apologists because they seem just like a historian only specialized in a certain distiction like religion. Mr. Salbato I believe has a degree in theological history as well as other degrees to boot. He’s a good source check him out and see for yourself.
 
Why not read historians instead of apologists? They’re more interesting as well as more trustworthy.

Edwin
Like what you say about scriptural experts, and apologists, the same applies to historians. I know you have reason to be prejudiced regarding your profession, but historians are just as likely to be influenced by their theology as are scriptural experts and apologists.

You can’t trust anyone nowadays.

peace
 
Luther was an awful and bloodthirsty despot. Go to unitypublishing.com and read a great apologeticist name Richard Salbato’s info. about him. He is a very large reason for the chasm between Catholics and protestants and the lies that are in some bibles because he changed the wording in many verses.
I agree. Luther was an apostle of hate. You can’t read a sermon of his, or his commentary on St. Paul without coming away with his vitriolic, near violent ranting against the Pope, ‘papists’ in general, and members of the Catholic Church. He was outside and he knew as a result of “Exsurge, Domine”, he was likely to go to hell. He constantly feared the Devil, that he was coming to take him away to everlasting torment.

I pray that God forgave him.

peace
 
I like to read apologists because they seem just like a historian only specialized in a certain distiction like religion. Mr. Salbato I believe has a degree in theological history as well as other degrees to boot. He’s a good source check him out and see for yourself.
Salbato has has nothing but stories told without any sort of referencing. Some of it tabloid fare. I wouldn’t know know from that what is true, legend, myth, lies. It is useless.
 
I am sorry Rebecca you feel that way, I myself have reference his material with historical records at Harvard university online and found them to be right on with one another. I don’t know why you think it is useless.🤷
 
I like to read apologists because they seem just like a historian only specialized in a certain distiction like religion. Mr. Salbato I believe has a degree in theological history as well as other degrees to boot. He’s a good source check him out and see for yourself.
There is an interesting article in Catholic Encyclopedia on Henry Denifle.

His work on Luther pre-dates us, but it is an original work, which totally exasperated Lutheran historians.

Firstly, he says that Luther knew nothing of the Scholastics, like St. Thomas.

Secondly, he says that Luther’s theology was the result of his immorality. Wow.

Thirdly, "He makes Luther exhibit himself. Protestant writers, he remarks betray an utter lack of the historical method in dealing with the subject, and the notions commonly accepted are all founded on fable.

He caused quite a stir on Luther at the time, and totally ‘crushed’ Lutheran historians. Denifle had access to original sources in the Vatican archives that people had never seen before.

So, Lutheran historians apparently are unreliable.

Read the article in C.E. Very interesting.

peace
 
“None of the great Catholic church doctors have contradicted God’s church here on earth.” end quote

:rotfl:

Mary’s sinlessness is Catholic dogma.
Origen, St. Basil. both taught that Mary sinned. It’s in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I’m done.
 
I am sorry Rebecca you feel that way, I myself have reference his material with historical records at Harvard university online and found them to be right on with one another. I don’t know why you think it is useless.🤷
“Isabella became Queen of Spain and, although constantly pregnant, she rode her horse all over Europe to defeat the Turks and the Tartars, pushing Mohammed out of Europe, stopping the King of France and saving the Holy Father. She brought peace to Spain and Portugal. A pregnant woman on a horse saved the world from the first of the Antichrists of the world, Mohammed. She, and she alone, financed Christopher Columbus to discover the new world of the Americas.”

As an example, this, like all religious apologists presents a truth. But is is not the truth.

Queen Isabella was not a pregnant woman on a horse galloping all over Spain defeating armies, stopping Kings and saving Popes and the world itself from the Antichrist. This portrays some sort of legend that is seriously lacking in the full truth.

And neither was she was the lone financier of Columbus.
 
You are a complete liar Ginger I have read the Catholic Bible and it says nothing of this anywhere by any church doctor in any catholic theologians writings.
Don’t make yourself look like a fool and try to make something up to prove an already idea.🤷
 
Mary was created and set apart eons before humanity for the purpose of carrying God’s seed and to defeat Satan through God the Fathers son Jesus Christ. Mary is the immaculate conception and born without original sin and remained forever faithful to her son and God while having never sinned. She is the most perfect created being God ever set on earth or anywhere for that matter bar none.
Now that is the end of discussion no need for you to reply, I have no further interest in speaking to you.
 
“None of the great Catholic church doctors have contradicted God’s church here on earth.” end quote

:rotfl:

Mary’s sinlessness is Catholic dogma.
Origen, St. Basil. both taught that Mary sinned. It’s in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I’m done.
Basil
Basil explains that the meaning of Luke 2:34-35 is clear. Mary sinned, and she needed to be restored after Jesus’ resurrection, just as Peter was restored:

“About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation…By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, ‘All ye shall be offended because of me.’ Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man–to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. ‘That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.’ He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shewn.” - Basil (Letter 260:6, 260:9)

Origen
“While if by those ‘who were without sin’ he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who ‘did no sin.’…God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin…For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception.” - Origen (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)
“Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)
You are a complete liar Ginger I have read the Catholic Bible and it says nothing of this anywhere by any church doctor in any catholic theologians writings.
Don’t make yourself look like a fool and try to make something up to prove an already idea.🤷
This is unsubstatiated and quite vile I think you owe Ginger an apology! PS which Catholic Bible did you read that speaks of church doctors?:eek:
 
“None of the great Catholic church doctors have contradicted God’s church here on earth.” end quote

:rotfl:

Mary’s sinlessness is Catholic dogma.
Origen, St. Basil. both taught that Mary sinned. It’s in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I’m done.
That’s all you got, Ginger? Then you are done, like a left over steak on the barbie.

Quote from CE:
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).

In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).

So, Mary had a little doubt according to Origen. Is Doubt a sin in Protestantism.

Did you forget about the prophesy of Simeon in the Temple, about seven sorrows piercing the heart of Mary. It all fits in.

As for Basil, some doubt, more sin???

BTW, the Immaculate Conception was declared a doctrine of the faith in 1854. Have you checked out when Origen and Basil lived?(about 1200 years before)

Wow, you set your standards pretty hard when it comes to Catholics, but not very high at all when it comes to Luther.

Dig a little deeper, Ginger and come up with a real error.

BTW, Catholicism allows for liberty of thought, e.g. on Predestination. But…when the Church says so and so is the truth you have to fall in line. Something Luther refused to do, hence his excommunication, and endangerment of losing his soul.

BTW, I love what Denizer had to say about Luther, something I’ve have held for ages:
Luther’s theology was the result of his immorality.

Amen to that.

peace
 
“None of the great Catholic church doctors have contradicted God’s church here on earth.” end quote

.
Who are you quoting and where is this quote?

If you read your quote carefully. It never said that any of the Doctors contradicted church doctrine. Luther, for example contradicted Church doctrine, and separately, contradicted the Church by disobeying her.

Your quote refers to the act of contradicting by disobeying the Church.

You have to be more careful, Ginger.

Your apology will be forthcoming, I know.

peace
 
mgrfin,

Mary’s perfect sanctity
Some few patristic writers expressed their doubts as to the presence of minor moral defects in Our Blessed Lady. …But these Greek writers cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. …=Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, **almost **unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.

If this was in line with Catholic teaching, why is it necessary to denounce their words saying, “.But these Greek writers cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. .”

BTW St. John Chrysostom accuses Mary vainglory so it is not just doubt. And there were others not mentioned in the encyclopedia.
 
the quote is from "fierysword post # 202

I do apologize for not providing a reference.

Sorry :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top