Protestants and Mary

[elvisman]

You have given many sound arguments on this thread that the term brothers doesn’t neccesarily mean sibling. You have convenced me, thats one of the many things I have learned here. However while you have made the point that Jesus may not have had siblings, you have not proven that as fact from scripture. I’m not bringing this up to say that your position is wrong, only to say that there isn’t enough evidence to say for fact that He didn’t have siblings.

I can appreciate your position, but there also isn’t enough evidence to the contrary.
Those who teach that Jesus indeed had uterine siblings MUST prove ot.

I have proven that (or rather, Scripture has) those named as his siblings were NOT uterine brothers and sisters - but instead kinsman, as the Bible teaches.

We also must establish - which we have - that ALL truth is not contained in Scripture - as Scripture itself teaches:
**2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14.

---

The Bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth - not Scripture (1 Tim. 3:15).
You can argue that point all day long and still come to the same conclusion.

---

The Bible itself says that the CHURCH is the final authority - NOT the Bible.
Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23.
This can also be argued all day long, but in the end you still come to the same conclusion - in the *context *of Scripture.
**

 

[elvisman]

You are write I don’t have much faith in a church that is being ran by men.I instead rely on Christ for my faith and hope and not what the church says or prescribes. When it comes to morals and when it comes to scripture I listen but after that I am struggling with these outside concepts that to me are extremely speculative and subjective in nature. Example of this is the assumption of Mary…the church assume that Mary was lifted up to heaven bodily and spiritually. But again this is assumption and can’t be rendered as a dogmatic stance that one HAS to believe to be saved.

What makes you think that Mary didn’t believe. you forget that God is outside of time and can apply his saving grace ANY TIME HE WANTS**.**

---

**As for the Church – it’s run by the ****Holy Spirit **– but it is REPRESENTED by men who are guided BY the Holy Spirit.

---

**When Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth – and that the Holy Spirit would take from what belonged to Jesus and declare it to the Church - what *****exactly ***do you think he meant by that?

I am not going to bash the chuch but the church just has all here would agree has had a very dark past and present (situations arising infidelity in the church and they aren’t removed from there posts but not limited that some might have lost there preist hood) Therefore, that this shows that the church is NOT as perfect as some proclaim but is NOT as evil as others proclaim. Like I said before the early church writings the book of Anna regarding Mary are all speculation and can’t be taken as well ooo I like this but I don’t like that or man this is really cool to naw that can’t be correct and then say here you go this is the truth. Come on there is something out of place with this type of theology. New age thinkers and philosophers do this, Christians should be far off of this type of anamorphic thinking.

You’re absolutely correct – almost.**
There are no perfect men who represent the Church. BUT, you cannot say that the Church is flawed because it is the Body of Christ, and HE is the head.

---

**As for the writings of the Early Church Fathers – who are *****you *****to say that they are fraudulent? Do you know better than they? ****Some **of them were taught by the Apostles or students of the Apostles, yet you claim to know better.
How do you figure this?
*You don’t offer any proof that they are wrong – just opinion. ***
Please enlighten me.

---

PS –** If you don’t have faith in Jesus through his Church – you really shouldn‘t identify yourself as Catholic.**

 

[Dokimas]

In Acts entire household were Baptized. Jesus said we were not to refuse children. The Early Fathers baptized children.

Any evidence the households in Acts included babies? Any evidence when Jesus said not refuse children, He was speaking of baptism? Any evidence that the of early baptism of children included babies?

 

[Dokimas]

Please answer this question: WHY was scripture compiled and who did the compiling ?

There were letters circulating around the churches of the 1st century written by early disciples and apostles.​

The letters that were finally put together are what we call the New Testament Scriptures.​

Our hope is that God wanted them to be found and kept so later generations would learn about the Gospel.​

Over a couple of centuries, there were many such letters. In about 300 AD, a council desided whick of the letters would be Scripture and which would not be Scripture. Those not chosen still had value as historical.​

Again, our hope is that God had His hand in the decision. It is His Gospel and His church. Was that council or part of it going to one day be called the Roman Catholic Church - sure. Do they get all the credit, or any for that matter - well I guess they should if they want to share in the glory that only belongs to God. You see God has used sinners since the very beginning and He still uses sinners.​

The question is will you give God all the glory or will you userp some for your church?​

I dare to say here that Mary would say of how many of you venerate her that she does not want any glory for all goes to her Savior. She would not want any special treatment; she was given all the special treatment she would want by her God as she gave birth to the Savior of mankind. She would be glad to be a sinner because that would prove her need for her Savior. Remember Jesus came for sinner, not for the self righteous.​

I’m sure you’ll disagree with me but I hope what I’ve said is said in an understandable way.​

God open our eyes to His Truth and draw us into His service.

 

[elvisman]

Any evidence the households in Acts included babies? Any evidence when Jesus said not refuse children, He was speaking of baptism? Any evidence that the of early baptism of children included babies?

It’s silly, and quite frankly foolish to think that households didn’t include children.
As for the Early church - infant Baptism WAS the norm:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
**“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]). **

Origen
**“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, *baptism is given even to infants. *If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]). **

**“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]). **

Cyprian of Carthage
**“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (*Letters *64:2 [A.D. 253]). **

Gregory of Nazianz
**“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (*Oration on Holy Baptism *40:7 [A.D. 388]). **

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly , if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (*Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian *1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (*The Literal Interpretation of Genesis *10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). **

 

[Dokimas]

I can appreciate your position, but there also isn’t enough evidence to the contrary.
Those who teach that Jesus indeed had uterine siblings MUST prove ot.

I have proven that (or rather, Scripture has) those named as his siblings were NOT uterine brothers and sisters - but instead kinsman, as the Bible teaches.

We also must establish - which we have - that ALL truth is not contained in Scripture - as Scripture itself teaches:
2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14.

---

The Bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth - not Scripture (1 Tim. 3:15).
You can argue that point all day long and still come to the same conclusion.

---

The Bible itself says that the CHURCH is the final authority - NOT the Bible.
Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23.
This can also be argued all day long, but in the end you still come to the same conclusion - in the *context *of Scripture.

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2Th 2:15 NKJV)

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2Th 3:6 NKJV)

“And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Ti 2:2 NKJV)

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” (1Co 11:2 NKJV)

“For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day. Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.” (2Ti 1:12-14 NKJV)

“"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”” (Mt 18:15-20 NKJV)

“"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” (Joh 16:12-15 NKJV)

“So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”” (Joh 20:21-23 NKJV)

 

[Dokimas]

I took the liberty to add a couple of verses to Elvis’ list.​

Looks to me that you’ve just made a case for Paul to be the leader of the church; you quote him about his teaching and traditions.​

These are wonderful verses. The question is: is the church implied here the RCC or CC? Are the traditions mentioned here referring to the traditions added by the RCC or CC after the 1st century - like not eating meat on Friday or that Mary conception was ‘immaculate’?​

Jesus told Peter and the disciple to forgive 490 times a ‘brother’ that sins against them. So when He gave them the authority to forgive or hold seems insignificant. All repented of sins are forgiven; all unrepented of sins are held. Peter could not ‘hold’ a sin just because he had the ‘authority’ to.

 

[Dokimas]

Elvis: It’s silly, and quite frankly foolish to think that households didn’t include children.
As for the Early church - infant Baptism WAS the norm:

If you read carefully I didn’t say that housefholds didn’t include children but asked for the evidence that they included infants (babies).​

Just because the 2nd century writers spoke something doesn’t mean it’s what Jesus meant in the early 1st century.

 

[elvisman]

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2Th 2:15 NKJV)

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2Th 3:6 NKJV)

“And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2Ti 2:2 NKJV)

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” (1Co 11:2 NKJV)

“For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day. Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.” (2Ti 1:12-14 NKJV)

“"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”” (Mt 18:15-20 NKJV)

“"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” (Joh 16:12-15 NKJV)

“So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”” (Joh 20:21-23 NKJV)

Again, Dokimas - your vagueness is overwhelming.
Just WHAT does this have to do with my post about the siblings of Jesus?

 

[elvisman]

I took the liberty to add a couple of verses to Elvis’ list.​

Looks to me that you’ve just made a case for Paul to be the leader of the church; you quote him about his teaching and traditions.

WRONG again. Don’t you ever tire of being wrong?
Paul says, "…whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us."

These are wonderful verses. The question is: is the church implied here the RCC or CC? Are the traditions mentioned here referring to the traditions added by the RCC or CC after the 1st century - like not eating meat on Friday or that Mary conception was ‘immaculate’?

EASY - the ONLY Church established by Jesus that can be traced back to Matt. 16:15-19.
Can YOURS be traced to that moment?
NOPE.
the Holy Spirit has been revealing truth to the Church ever since Jesus promised he would (John 16:12-15).

Jesus told Peter and the disciple to forgive 490 times a ‘brother’ that sins against them. So when He gave them the authority to forgive or hold seems insignificant. All repented of sins are forgiven; all unrepented of sins are held. Peter could not ‘hold’ a sin just because he had the ‘authority’ to.

And you have no idea what it means to bind sin.

**Jesus PROMISED the apostles they had this power (Matt 16:15019 - 18:15-18, John 20:21-13). It is through the true contrition of the penitent and the and discernment of the confessor that sin is either forgiven or held bound. **

**For example, if a person is cohabitating with their girlfriend and living as a married couple and the priest knows about it - they cannot be forgiven until they stop.

**Even Paul, when speaking of the ministry of reconciliation says IF I forgive someone. **Read and weep, my friend:

2:Cor. 2:10
Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ, so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes.

 

[elvisman]

If you read carefully I didn’t say that housefholds didn’t include children but asked for the evidence that they included infants (babies).

Yeah - household NEVER included babies. Everybody came out of the womb at the age of reason.
Ummmm . . . right.

Just because the 2nd century writers spoke something doesn’t mean it’s what Jesus meant in the early 1st century.

This is the usual answer you get from anti-Catholics.
The Early Church was wrong - but WE’RE right - 1500 years later . . .**

 

[Dokimas]

Again, Dokimas - your vagueness is overwhelming.
Just WHAT does this have to do with my post about the siblings of Jesus?

To the best of my ability, I just quoted the verses you told us about. I thought that the actual verses were better than just commentary.

 

[Dokimas]

Yeah - household NEVER included babies. Everybody came out of the womb at the age of reason.
Ummmm . . . right.

This is the usual answer you get from anti-Catholics.
The Early Church was wrong - but WE’RE right - 1500 years* later* . . .

Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I’ve written makes me wonder if you really understand your church as well as I thought. I guess I was mistaken. I NEVER said every family never has babies. I challenged you to prove that the families mentioned in Acts had babies at the time when all the family was baptised.​

You continue to call me anti-Catholic. Please stop bearing false witness. To the person that wondered why I don’t answer some question, Mr Elvis is part of the reason.

 

[Dokimas]

Elvis:

Even Paul, when speaking of the ministry of reconciliation says IF I forgive someone. Read and weep, my friend:

2:Cor. 2:10
Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ, so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes.

Speaking of being wrong: you said that Paul said, ‘If I forgive someone’ then you quote the Bible verse and it says, ‘for **indeed what I have **forgiven, if I have forgiven anything’. Notice Paul did forgive the offense and he did so so Satan could not take advantage (could that happen when we don’t forgive = Satan gets an advatage?). Your implication of what Paul actually said to support you understanding seems quite wrong.

 

[Dokimas]

Elvis: WRONG again. Don’t you ever tire of being wrong?
Paul says, “…whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us.”

Have you not seen how Paul starts or finishes his letters? Studying Paul’s letter could lead us to realize he refered to those with him and not the other apostles like PETER, etc.

Romans 16:
21 ¶ Timothy, my fellow worker, and Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, my countrymen, greet you.
22 I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.
23 Gaius, my host and the host of the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, greets you, and Quartus, a brother.
24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1 Corinthians 1:
1 ¶ Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

1Corintians 16:
19 ¶ The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
20 All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
21 The salutation with my own hand––Paul’s.

2 Corinthians 1:
1 ¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:

2 Cor 13:
13 All the saints greet you. (this can’t mean all everywhere but all that were with Paul)

Galatians 1:
1 ¶ Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),
2 and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

Phil 1:
1 ¶ Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Eph 6:
21 But that you also may know my affairs and how I am doing, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, will make all things known to you;

Do I need more? There are more.

 

[Seraphim25]

Mary’s predestination to the divine maternity does not depend on any foreseen merits of hers, although God intended to become incarnate by her free consent. If she had merited the divine maternity, then she would have merited the incarnation as well, which is impossible since the incarnation is the principle of all our merits since the fall of Adam and Eve. Thus her immaculate conception was a gratuitous gift resting strictly on the merits of her divine Son so that she would be a worthy mother of our Lord.

“He has looked with favour on his lowly handmaid.”
Luke 1, 48

PAX :heaven:

Faith or Merit go hand in hand. Abraham had faith that Sarah should bear a son and therefore that act was counted to him as righteous. So the merit of his faith that he believed God would do this was an act not just a blind set of accomplishments. Therefore, to prove whether or not we are truly christian is by our love for others and for God. Ones faith can not be secure without some type of demonstration on which one believes the book of James is a perfect example. However, it is NOT us who are doing the good works but God in us. Also, note that Paul tells us that we are crucified with Jesus to be resurrected in newness of life to live not according to the flesh (sin) but according to the spirit (life).

By the mere act of Mary stating let it be done to me according to your word. Is a faithful statement and by that statement it was merited to her as a righteous act. Unlike John the baptists father who disbelieved and doubted was counted to him as sin and the penalty was becoming a mute for however long God willed.

 

[elvisman]

Speaking of being wrong: you said that Paul said, ‘If I forgive someone’ then you quote the Bible verse and it says, ‘for **indeed what I have **forgiven, if I have forgiven anything’. Notice Paul did forgive the offense and he did so so Satan could not take advantage (could that happen when we don’t forgive = Satan gets an advatage?). Your implication of what Paul actually said to support you understanding seems quite wrong.

Wrong.
In this case he DID forgive, but goes on to say, “if I have forgiven anything”, implying that he doesn’t ALWAYS forgive.
they were given the power - BY JESUS to forgive sins or hold them bound.

What do you make of Matt. 16:19, 18:18 and John 20:21-23?
**CAN you explain what Jesus meant?
If not, your posts on this matter shouldn’t be taken seriously.

 

[elvisman]

Have you not seen how Paul starts or finishes his letters? Studying Paul’s letter could lead us to realize he refered to those with him and not the other apostles like PETER, etc.

Romans 16:
21 ¶ Timothy, my fellow worker, and Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, my countrymen, greet you.
22 I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.
23 Gaius, my host and the host of the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, greets you, and Quartus, a brother.
24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1 Corinthians 1:
1 ¶ Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

1Corintians 16:
19 ¶ The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
20 All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
21 The salutation with my own hand––Paul’s.

2 Corinthians 1:
1 ¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:

2 Cor 13:
13 All the saints greet you. (this can’t mean all everywhere but all that were with Paul)

Galatians 1:
1 ¶ Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),
2 and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

Phil 1:
1 ¶ Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Eph 6:
21 But that you also may know my affairs and how I am doing, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, will make all things known to you;

Do I need more? There are more.

**Oh - so NOW you’re saying that Paul was a Lone Ranger Apostle who had his *own *crew and own rules? ****That is patently ABSURD.
**The apostles - Paul included - taught that they spoke as one and sent out presbyters as ONE.

Read Acts 15:23-26:
**"The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and origin: greetings. **
**Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. **

 

[Seraphim25]

What makes you think that Mary didn’t believe. you forget that God is outside of time and can apply his saving grace ANY** TIME** HE WANTS**.**

---

**As for the Church – it’s run by the **Holy Spirit – but it is REPRESENTED by men who are guided BY the Holy Spirit.

---

**When Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth – and that the Holy Spirit would take from what belonged to Jesus and declare it to the Church - what *****exactly ***do you think he meant by that?

You’re absolutely correct –* almost*.
There are no perfect men who represent the Church. BUT, you cannot say that the Church is flawed because it is the Body of Christ, and HE is the head.

---

**As for the writings of the Early Church Fathers – who are *****you *****to say that they are fraudulent? Do you know better than they? ****Some **of them were taught by the Apostles or students of the Apostles, yet you claim to know better.
How do you figure this?
*You don’t offer any proof that they are wrong – just opinion. ***
Please enlighten me.

---

PS –** If you don’t have faith in Jesus through his Church – you really shouldn‘t identify yourself as Catholic.**

Hmmm then what renders ones salvation if one believes on the name of Jesus then I wonder? Okay you tell me who you are to agree with what these men say and talk about that convinces you to the understanding that what they say as factual? Agian that is a weak argument to pin it to me. You can clearly see that it is in no way shape or form presented as a factual ideology. Most of it is very subjective.

But agian I question this statement that says if you don’t have faith in the church then how can you render yourself Catholic. Is there something required of me in scripture other than believing that Jesus is lord who died, buried, rather raised from the dead and is now sitting at the right hand of the father. And that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and love God with all our hearts and minds?

 

[elvisman]

Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I’ve written makes me wonder if you really understand your church as well as I thought. I guess I was mistaken. I NEVER said every family never has babies. I challenged you to prove that the families mentioned in Acts had babies at the time when all the family was baptised.​

You continue to call me anti-Catholic. Please stop bearing false witness. To the person that wondered why I don’t answer some question, Mr Elvis is part of the reason.

**And I gave you about a dozen quotes from the Early Church stating that infant baptism was an APOSTOLIC practice. You haven’t given one speck of evidence that the household *didn’t *include babies.
**The text, coupled with the teachings of the Early Church pretty much concludes that entire households - INCLUDING babies were baptized.

Now - wanna get back to the topic about Protestants and Mary?