# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, in any case I’d think Augustine meant that one should become perfect in order to achieve perfection.

But listen to the Thomists. Imputed righteousness, as it’s employed in the Protestant doctrine on justification, is wrong-it’s an “escape clause” which can, for all practical purposes, result in man remaining where he often prefers to be-in his own imperfections. So now we have people preaching in the name of Christ that man cannot, of necessity, do the will of God. It’s like saying that God created laws for man, knew man couldn’t obey them, held him responsible for disobedience anyway, and then at some point in time said, Oh well, I think I’ll forgive and save some of them, my Sons righteousness will be forever theirs now. This would be capriciousness on the highest level.

Well said! It’s like i’m back in an Evangelical church listing to an all-too-familiar sermon on trusting only in the righteousness of Christ. But what Evangelical Ed’s pastor says with conviction you say with derision. Can you demonstrate, FH, that achieving sinless perfection in this life is God’s goal for you and me?

Catholic theology says that God created laws for man, man could obey them, God justly held man responsible for disobedience, and then He enacted a new covenant when the time was ripe, apparently after His chosen people had struggled long enough at trying to put on an outward show of holiness or obedience-trying to obey the law on their own- and then offered His plan of reconciliation and salvation to all, where He would help them obey. In this case there’s reason behind the struggle between good and evil that we face personally, reason for the experiences of pain, suffering, and death that this world inevitably delivers. Man can learn, experientially, viscerally, the reality of good and evil and the necessity of running towards the good when he sees it, he can be confronted, through the finality of death, with the absurdity in thinking he has any real control or power-and come to understand ultimately, simply, that he needs God –but not only to believe in Him but to know and love Him-in order to have life and have it abundantly, in order to have a life worth living eternally. In this new covenant, God promises to write His laws on our hearts and in our minds. He doesn’t merely overlook our sins-He molds us into beings who no longer will to sin. But this cannot be done without our cooperation because without it our wills would otherwise not be involved. This is how we become “worthy”-He’s always wanted us authentically, willfully, perfect, not “pretend” perfect-and He’ll settle for nothing less. Adam & Eve chose wrongly-and acted accordingly. He wants us to choose rightly now, and act accordingly. But, again, He doesn’t want people who merely act holy. And He doesn’t want people whose holiness is only imputed either-who’ve given* up* on the necessity for holiness for all practical purposes. He wants people who’re changed-who’ve come to love Him with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbor as themselves. This is-and always* was*-perfect justice, and perfect fulfillment of the Law.

**“It is love alone that gives worth to all things.” - St. Theresa of Avila

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matt 22:36-40

If you love Me, keep My commandments.” John 14:6-15

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Rom 13:10

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
We’re told in 1Cor 6:9 and Rev 21:27 that nothing wicked, impure, or unjust will enter heaven.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt 5:48

…for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” 1Pet 1:16**

Once again, sounds like a good Evangelical sermon. Well said!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The difference between the old and new covenant is not the difference between having to literally fulfill the Law vs.not having to literally fulfill it. It’s a matter of *how *the Law is to be fulfilled-what motivates its’ fulfillment. One can only satisfy the Law when its’ fulfilled by love. And this is the difference between abiding by the Spirit and abiding by the flesh.

I think Evangelical Ed’s pastor would end the sermon differently, and perhaps something like this:
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. …
Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:19-26)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

LOL…

The reason for the question was to ask whether you were addressing the Evangelical argument, or making up a straw man of an argument which could be easily knocked down. The question was just a segway to making that point. You are saying i should trust the God-made religion instead of a man-made one. That does not answer the objection of Protestants that the Catholic religion has become a man-made one and the real God-made religion is Protestantism.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

it does not appear that you are trying to be honest and straightforward with your rebuttals… Your evasive action is an apparent ploy which seems a bit too familiar…It seems we take one step forward and 3 steps backwards; perhaps this is a dance we are destined to do forever…

You are quite clever at accomplishing nothing, while seeming to accomplish something…LOL…Of course, this leads to nothing…

kudos…and no sarcasm intended:thumbsup:…I am genuinely impressed…Still looking forward to your answers to my recent posts…

I suppose Socrates would be proud and he’d comfort me with words saying that people misunderstood his search for truth, too.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Carl: When Christ was resurrected, did he come back as someone different, with different beliefs?

Ed: No, he even bore teh marks of the Crucifixion, which he showed to the doubting apostle, Thomas.

Carl: Then how do you make the extension that the Catholic church died and came back as something different?

Ed: It came back as something better, more aligned to Christ

Carl: How do you substantiate that statement?

Ed: From the Bible.

Carl: Which Protestant denomination is the one that is supported by the Bible?

Ed: Mine, of course. There are others, but they got it wrong just as the Catholic Church did.

Carl: So what in the Bible suggests that The Catholic Church has got it wrong. After all, the Bible was put together by Catholics after the Nicene Creed, which you deny.

Ed: The Bible was put together by Christ

Carl: Through the Catholic church, which was the only Christian Church that existed in 382AD

Ed: There was always a remnant that understood the True faith, even though they were suppressed by the Catholic Church. By God’s will, they survived until the reformation

Carl: Where are the writings of this remnant?. Where is the evidence that any of the Protestant reformers drew from this remnant?

Ed: Well, I don’t personally have the evidence, but if God didn’t want the Protestants to succeed, they wouldn’t have been successful in the reformation

Carl: What do you consider success? The Protestants, even after 500 years, are a distinct minority in Christianity, numbering less than half of the Catholics. Furthermore, the biggest single denomination group, the Anglicans, are less than 7% of the size of the Catholics and they are splintering rapidly and many are likely to re-enter the Catholic Church.

Ed: Well, evangelicalism is growing

Carl: and splintering…

Ed: They are all united in Christ, who teaches us through the Holy Spirit

Carl: Then wouldn’t they all beleive the same thing.?

Ed. They believe mostly the same things, and everything that is important.

Carl: Really? Some beleive Baptism is required for salvation, others don’t. Some believe that you can sin indescriminately because Jesus saves all that believe, while others beleive that those that sin were never really saved. What is important to an Evangelical?

Ed: Faith in Jesus.

Carl: Doesn’t Faith in Jesus mean having to follow in his footsteps, doing the Father’s will?

Ed: Well, yes…

Carl: So why doesn’t every Evangelical get the same message from the Holy Spirit?

Ed: Some aren’t really getting the message from the Spirit?

Carl: How would you know who is getting the true Christian message?

Extremely well put.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Interesting perspective Ed…

ED: Tell me, Carl, did death prevail against Jesus?

Joe: I’ll speak for Carl; he’s on vacation. LOL… No!

ED: Just hear me out, my Catholic critic. Are you saying Jesus never died?

Joe: I am no critic; just a faithful follower of the church built by Jesus Christ. Jesus defeated death for all, by dying on the cross!

ED: So He WAS dead, yet death did not prevail against Him?

Joe: Death did not prevail against Jesus 2000 years ago, and death did not and does not prevail against His established church today.

ED: Then if His Church were to die, would that mean death had prevailed against it? It would not, you see, if it were resurrected just as Christ was. That’s exactly what God did during the Reformation–He resurrected a dead Church.

Joe:Yup! If His Church was to die, that would mean that death had prevailed against His ministry of teachers. If the holy spirit was/is guiding Jesus’ established church until the end of time, then it would be silly to suggest that she, as the bride of Christ, would die, necessitating the need for a resurrection. Jesus was resurrected once; the protestant reformation has been reputedly resurrection Jesus’ church repeatedly for 500 years, giving way to nothing more than a multifarious fracture of Jesus’ one Body. If as you say Ed, the holy spirit failed to guide Jesus’ church into all truth, then perhaps you will be so kind as to identify Jesus’ resurrected church, stemming from the reformation? Furthermore, what happened to the reputed true church (remnant) - that spanned the centuries side by side with the reputed apostate C.C.? Is that remnant still with us today, spanning the centuries side by side with both the C.C. and the myriad P.C.'s? Surely that is the “true church,” as opposed to any church stemming from the protestant reformation. Right Ed???

ED: Just like Paul–out of my mind for Christ! Socrates knows i speak the truth.

Joe: Hard to really tell what Soc believes? He is quite deft at rigmaroling.

SOC: I–i am at a loss to say who speaks the truth! Continuous life since birth, or death and resurrection–either way the gates of Hades do not prevail. But who speaks the truth and who tells a lie i cannot tell. All i want is to know the truth! Won’t someone save me from this Socratic hell?

Joe: Continues life until the great harvest, otherwise the devil wins. Right Ed??? Perhaps the church built by God is where truth can be found, as per the bible, codified by Jesus’ established church, which was guided by the holy spirit to achieve that task. Clearly the gates of Hades could NEVER prevail against Jesus’ body, the church, to which Jesus is the head and savior. Right Ed??? If hell can prevail against Jesus’ body, then Jesus failed to be the savior of His body, the church.

Ed, did Jesus fail to be the Savior of His body, the church, which, according to your bible, is forever guided by the holy spirit???

Hmmm. Not so sure i agree with the premise that a resurrection of a dead religion (i’m not saying a agree with Ed, now, just saying i understand him) would be a failure. I mean, isn’t that what Christianity was? A resurrection of the dead Jewish religion?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Ed,

            your interpretation is perfectly acceptable.

His Church is Sacramentum Salutis, sacrament of salvation, and the believer who keeps obeing her and receiving the sanctification power which Our Lord entrusted to her, is not to die.

You might be right, P7. Still don’t know for certain.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Comparing the Resurrected One and protestantisms, proposing that Reformation was the resurrection of His Body which is His Church, is profoundly unplausible.

What resurrected the third day, Ed, His whole Body, or a fragment of it ?
And in the second case, was at least this fragment united within itself, or splitted and ever splitting into sub-fragments ?

Have I to understand Ed, that your comparison is with protestantisms as a whole, or just with your peculiar branch of them , however you define it ?

BTW what is your branch exactly ? Did you jettison the faithful remants model, which tells us the true Church was always alive ?

See you Ed.

Well, you might think Mr. Ed is a horse’s arse (and yes, sometimes he does affectionately call me Wilbur)! But to be fair to him, he is quite creative. I mean, you are a bright fellow, P7, as are the other participants in this discussion. Yet none of you have tried to argue that the gates of Hades http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/images/01/not-equal-to.gif death

This being the case, his line of reasoning is possible, if not provable.

http://cache.deadspin.com/images/2006/05/mr.Ed.jpg

 

[pneuma07]

You might be right, P7. Still don’t know for certain.

That’s the reason of these threads Soc, I suppose.

BTW if you prefer to save your time, forget 861, but I do hope you to address post 863

Bless you

 

[pneuma07]

Well, you might think Mr. Ed is a horse’s arse (and yes, sometimes he does affectionately call me Wilbur)! But to be fair to him, he is quite creative. I mean, you are a bright fellow, P7, as are the other participants in this discussion. Yet none of you have tried to argue that the gates of Hades http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/images/01/not-equal-to.gif death

This being the case, his line of reasoning is possible, if not provable.

http://cache.deadspin.com/images/2006/05/mr.Ed.jpg

My humble position on Ed’s line, as per the last two posts, is that the equation is acceptable. I do not have reasons to disprove it, if I get it correctly.

It is the application he develops which is IMHO really implausible, for the reasons I offered in the post you are quoting. You may want to address them Soc .

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

• God is the source of legitimate authority, as well as of the Bible, of our reasons. The question is whether He delegated authority to a living source guarding and interpreting His Revelation.
• We had already settled that the Bible cannot be that authority. It is Revelation, not its guardian and interpreter.
• supernatural revelation. It is a part of Sacred Tradition, accepted by protestantisms, that public Revelation ceased after the First century.
• all of us have reason. What individual reason should I consider the best interpreter of Revelation ?

We have to look for something else Soc.

By now we agree there is an original model, Christ sending Apostles, who send …

Isn’t the legitimate authority you’re looking for there ?
You could just assume for a moment it is, and then we can consider all the possible objections.

In Christ
P7

Sure, i’ll make the assumption, with the understanding that it’s not a proven fact, yet, just an idea i’ll try on to see if it fits. What’s next?

 

[joe370]

**…ED: And does death ever prevail against these people?

SOC: Not if they retain eternal life.

ED: Well, there you have it!**

That was quite a debate. I wonder if Ed believes that the C.C. as the Mystical Body of Christ, is in no need of a 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st century resuscitation?

I would add: Jesus’ established church as a whole will retain eternal life, (and continue to teach all that Christ taught so many years ago, thanks to the never ending guidance of the holy spirit) - for she is the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. But certainly this does not apply to the wolves in sheep’s clothing, masquerading as holy men (past, present or future) - in Jesus’ established church or any of the churches built by mere men?

I wish Ed would tell me why he doesn’t belong to the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, if in fact he believes that “death” cannot ever prevail against the church built by Jesus Christ?

Like P7 said:

Jesus’ established Church is Sacramentum Salutis, sacrament of salvation, and the believer who keeps obeying her…

*“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you…”
*

…and receiving the sanctification power which Our Lord entrusted to His established church leaders, will not die. After all, Jesus is the savior of His body, the church. According to the bible, we must belong to Jesus’ established church, if we are to be saved. Sure are an awful lot of churches (outside the C.C. and the E.O.C.) - in the world today, bouncing conflicting truths off one another. Phew…

Prior to Jesus’ death and Resurrection, He established one Church on the earth, built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Himself as the chief cornerstone. After Jesus’ Resurrection, He guided His Apostolic church through revelation, making the church of Jesus Christ a church led by God as opposed to men.

Perhaps Ed could enlighten us as to where this church led by god, as opposed to men - is, in the world today? she’s got to still be here, as per the holy bible.

Perhaps you could remind Ed that Jesus selected officers who were given the priestly authority directly from Him (as the father sent me, so I send you) - to do the work of Christ in His stead, and they in turn passed that priestly authority to the next generation, and this was/is to be done in perpetuity. Jesus’ established church leaders perpetuate Jesus’ priesthood and missionary work, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, and as long as those ministers who keep Jesus’ “perpetual priesthood” alive, surely Ed, Jesus’ church will thrive, otherwise, Jesus’ “perpetual priesthood” would die, and surely Jesus did not die on the cross just to see His “perpetual priesthood” fade into oblivion?

Furthermore, if Jesus abandoned His body, the church, to which He built, for another church built by men, and established a “perpetual priesthood” with one of the many protestant churches, then which one and where is this “perpetual priesthood?”

Hope you can pass this on to Ed.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

**… ** That was quite a debate. I wonder if Ed believes that the C.C. as the Mystical Body of Christ, is in no need of a 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st century resuscitation?

I believe Ed would call such a resuscitation a revival of the living Church rather than a resurrection of a dead one. Indeed, Protestant history claims to have had several, two of which they fondly call the First Great Awakening of the 18th century, and the Second Great Awakening of the 19th Century.

I wish Ed would tell me why he doesn’t belong to the church built by Jesus, on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, if in fact he believes that “death” cannot ever prevail against the church built by Jesus Christ?

Perhaps he would say the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s was a resurrection of the original Church.

Perhaps Ed could enlighten us as to where this church led by god, as opposed to men - is, in the world today? she’s got to still be here, as per the holy bible.

Ed would probably reply that there were many Churches in the 1st century AD, but all had one common set of core beliefs. Just read the Epistiles:To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(1 Corinthians 1)

**To the churches in Galatia: ** Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

(Galatians 1)

** To the church of the Thessalonians** in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace to you.

(1 Thessalonians 1)

"To the angel of the church in Ephesus write … **
"To the angel of the church in Smyrna write …
"To the angel of the church in Pergamum write …
"To the angel of the church in Thyatira write …
“To **the angel of the church in Sardis write …
"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia [the Phillies?] write …
"To the angel of **the church in Laodicea **write … .”

(Revelation 3-4)

Many churches–one in belief and purpose, Ed would say.

…and surely Jesus did not die on the cross just to see His “perpetual priesthood” fade into oblivion?

“Why not?” Ed likely would ask.

Furthermore, if Jesus abandoned His body, the church, to which He built, for another church built by men, and established a “perpetual priesthood” with one of the many protestant churches, then which one and where is this “perpetual priesthood?”

Hope you can pass this on to Ed.

Ed is the kind of guy horse’s arse who might throw that hot potato right back at ya’ like so:

"So, Joe, you know, Jesus cried on the cross, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ But did God forsake Him? No! Even though He died, the Father did not abandon Him, as Peter preached on Pentecost: ‘Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.’

“And just as God did not forsake Christ by abandoning Him to the grave, so too He did not forsake His dead Church by abandoning it to the grave. He rose it from the dead with the Protestant Reformation! Or can you find a better meaning of the Lord’s words, ‘And the gates of Hades (or death) will not prevail against’ my Church?”

 

[joe370]

Soc, you said:

**That does not answer the objection of Protestants that the Catholic religion has become a man-made one and the real God-made religion is Protestantism.
**

Proof is in the pudding. Another claim I often made as a former Lutheran, but with very little follow up, for I could not back it up. Every non-Catholic church was built on the foundation of the reformers, as opposed to the Apostles. This is a historical fact. If the real God-man church is one of the protestant churches, then show me historically, where one of these churches can be found, prior to the protestant reformation? As I said before: give me the name of any protestant church and I can give you the name of the man who established it, and when, and the date will not precede the 16th century.

I’ve heard claims such as: the Arian movement (denied the trinity) - or the Nestorian movement (believed that God was not man) - and many other groups were the true churches built by God, and that the apostolic Church was Protestant, but zero proof for such outlandish claims. Clearly heretical movements such as these do not count; the C.C. still pre-dates these movements:

Montanists, Donatusists, Paulicans, Catharists, Waldenese, Nestorian, Bogomil, Bohemian Brethren, West Deutsche Brethren, Anabaptists, Heuguenots, Moravian Brethren, Arianism, Donatists, Manichaeism, Marcion, Nestorianism, Pelagianism.

Furthermore, if the C.C. is a man-made church, as so many protestant churches suggest, could you please give me the name of the man who established it, and when? This was crucial to me becoming a catholic.

 

[joe370]

Socrates4Jesus - I believe Ed would call such a resuscitation a revival of the living Church rather than a resurrection of a dead one.

Where can I go to find this revived living church? If it’s merely a revival of the same church then this church should be the same church built by God circa 33 Ad??? I mean if she as the bride of Christ, never died, then she is still in tact! I’ll buy that. The Catholic Reformation in the 16th century was committed to reforming Jesus’ established Church from within, e.g. - get rid of the indulgence abuses. The Catholic Reformation was a necessary revival that made changes where changes were needed! Perhaps we are getting somewhere!

Indeed, Protestant history claims to have had several, two of which they fondly call the First Great Awakening of the 18th century, and the Second Great Awakening of the 19th Century.

Ok…Do you embrace these awakenings as necessary? If so, which one and which church?

Perhaps he would say the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s was a resurrection of the original Church.

Ok…So please identify this resurrected church, stemming from the reformation?

Ed would probably reply that there were many Churches in the 1st century AD, but all had one common set of core beliefs. Many churches–one in belief and purpose, Ed would say.

How very catholic of Ed. The same applies to these churches today, within the one catholic church. It’s when we venture outside the C.C. that we fail to see this.

Ed is the kind of guy horse’s arse who might throw that hot potato right back at ya’ like so:

"So, Joe, you know, Jesus cried on the cross, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ But did God forsake Him? No! Even though He died, the Father did not abandon Him, as Peter preached on Pentecost: ‘Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.’

“And just as God did not forsake Christ by abandoning Him to the grave, so too He did not forsake His dead Church by abandoning it to the grave. He rose it from the dead with the Protestant Reformation! Or can you find a better meaning of the Lord’s words, ‘And the gates of Hades (or death) will not prevail against’ my Church?”

Is this what you believe? I wouldn’t attempt to find a better meaning of our Lord’s words. I simply believe Him. Ed insists that Jesus rose His church from the dead with the protestant reformation; Jesus used the reformation to revive His one church; again, please identify Jesus’ one revived church, stemming from the reformation, that “has one common set of core beliefs. Many churches–one in belief and purpose.”

 

[joe370]

Soc, little confused. Here you said:

** - I believe Ed would call such a resuscitation a revival of the living Church rather than a resurrection of a dead one.**

Then you say:

Perhaps he would say the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s was a resurrection of the original Church.

Well, is it a resurrection of a dead church, or a revival of a living church? If it’s a dead church, then the gates of hell prevailed against Jesus’ body, the church, as a whole, making Jesus a liar) - necessitating the need for a start over, with new management. If it’s a revival, then the devil only prevailed against Jesus’ body, the church on an individual basis, necessitating the need for a restructuring of Jesus’ one church.

Perhaps we are beginning to merge…

 

[pneuma07]

Sure, i’ll make the assumption, with the understanding that it’s not a proven fact, yet, just an idea i’ll try on to see if it fits. What’s next?

We have to look for something else Soc.

By now we agree there is an original model, Christ sending Apostles, who send …

Isn’t the legitimate authority you’re looking for there ?
You could just assume for a moment it is, and then we can consider all the possible objections.

OK. We did the assumption the original model, the apostolic model is there.

Now we’ll have to see whether our assumption can resist Ed’s powerful broadsides.

But before that, just rest there a few minutes. Isn’t it everything simpler, from this new point of view ? We’re just assuming Christ’s original model was not a failure.

We do not have to establish what failed, why, when, as all the Eds and Freds have to, or at least should.
We do not have to work out ideas about faithful remnants, where they are or with whom they merged … We do not have to propose church resurrections, resuscitations, to detect which denomination preaches the soundest faith. No more teachers teaching us we do not need any teacher…

Just breath, and live for a while this new linearity. His Church coming from Him to us.

And after these new, intense moments…let Ed and Fred now open the fire, and let us see, whether Soc and his virtual friends here can resist.

In Christ
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, you said:

**That does not answer the objection of Protestants that the Catholic religion has become a man-made one and the real God-made religion is Protestantism.
**
Proof is in the pudding. Another claim I often made as a former Lutheran, but with very little follow up, for I could not back it up. Every non-Catholic church was built on the foundation of the reformers, as opposed to the Apostles. This is a historical fact. If the real God-man church is one of the protestant churches, then show me historically, where one of these churches can be found, prior to the protestant reformation? As I said before: give me the name of any protestant church and I can give you the name of the man who established it, and when, and the date will not precede the 16th century.

I’ve heard claims such as: the Arian movement (denied the trinity) - or the Nestorian movement (believed that God was not man) - and many other groups were the true churches built by God, and that the apostolic Church was Protestant, but zero proof for such outlandish claims. Clearly heretical movements such as these do not count; the C.C. still pre-dates these movements:

Montanists, Donatusists, Paulicans, Catharists, Waldenese, Nestorian, Bogomil, Bohemian Brethren, West Deutsche Brethren, Anabaptists, Heuguenots, Moravian Brethren, Arianism, Donatists, Manichaeism, Marcion, Nestorianism, Pelagianism.

Furthermore, if the C.C. is a man-made church, as so many protestant churches suggest, could you please give me the name of the man who established it, and when? This was crucial to me becoming a catholic.

Yes, i see what you mean.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates4Jesus - I believe Ed would call such a resuscitation a revival of the living Church rather than a resurrection of a dead one.

Where can I go to find this revived living church? If it’s merely a revival of the same church then this church should be the same church built by God circa 33 Ad??? I mean if she as the bride of Christ, never died, then she is still in tact! I’ll buy that. The Catholic Reformation in the 16th century was committed to reforming Jesus’ established Church from within, e.g. - get rid of the indulgence abuses. The Catholic Reformation was a necessary revival that made changes where changes were needed! Perhaps we are getting somewhere!

Indeed, Protestant history claims to have had several, two of which they fondly call the First Great Awakening of the 18th century, and the Second Great Awakening of the 19th Century.

Ok…Do you embrace these awakenings as necessary? If so, which one and which church?

Perhaps he would say the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s was a resurrection of the original Church.

Ok…So please identify this resurrected church, stemming from the reformation?

Ed would probably reply that there were many Churches in the 1st century AD, but all had one common set of core beliefs. Many churches–one in belief and purpose, Ed would say.

How very catholic of Ed. The same applies to these churches today, within the one catholic church. It’s when we venture outside the C.C. that we fail to see this.

Ed is the kind of guy horse’s arse who might throw that hot potato right back at ya’ like so:

"So, Joe, you know, Jesus cried on the cross, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ But did God forsake Him? No! Even though He died, the Father did not abandon Him, as Peter preached on Pentecost: ‘Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.’

“And just as God did not forsake Christ by abandoning Him to the grave, so too He did not forsake His dead Church by abandoning it to the grave. He rose it from the dead with the Protestant Reformation! Or can you find a better meaning of the Lord’s words, ‘And the gates of Hades (or death) will not prevail against’ my Church?”

Is this what you believe? I wouldn’t attempt to find a better meaning of our Lord’s words. I simply believe Him. Ed insists that Jesus rose His church from the dead with the protestant reformation; Jesus used the reformation to revive His one church; again, please identify Jesus’ one revived church, stemming from the reformation, that “has one common set of core beliefs. Many churches–one in belief and purpose.”

Good questions! Not sure how Evangelical Ed would answer.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, little confused. Here you said:

** - I believe Ed would call such a resuscitation a revival of the living Church rather than a resurrection of a dead one.**

Then you say:

Perhaps he would say the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s was a resurrection of the original Church.

Well, is it a resurrection of a dead church, or a revival of a living church? If it’s a dead church, then the gates of hell prevailed against Jesus’ body, the church, as a whole, making Jesus a liar) - necessitating the need for a start over, with new management. If it’s a revival, then the devil only prevailed against Jesus’ body, the church on an individual basis, necessitating the need for a restructuring of Jesus’ one church.

Perhaps we are beginning to merge…

Yes, perhaps.