Here's the pattern....

[JacktheCatholic]

If you are talking about those cut and paste rationalizations of Rome's for those, there is nothing to refute.

You have YET to produce the Aposolic teaching recorded and preserved in the Scriptures or the early church fathers teaching those dogmas.

All you have done is restate that Rome declared them dogmas.

Rome declared them based on nothing but their own claims to be able to, just as the Gnostics and other heretical cults.

Yep their own claims as provided from our Lord Jesus Christ.

All I posted is proof that Catholicism is the ONE CHURCH and you agreeing is proof as well.

Thanks for not refuting that which is not refutable.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But the question is: Does this protoevangelium tell the truth? How can we know? Per your own established canon it is NOT a document inspired by the Holy Spirit. So??? You may as well believe the "Da Vinci Code".

We know because it is the Church started by the Apsoltes and all of it's teachings are from God.


Where is that EASY button.

 

[holdon]

We know because it is the Church started by the Apsoltes and all of it's teachings are from God.


Where is that EASY button.

"All of its teachings are from God"??? When was it that the popes and bishops were arians? (so much for "apostolic succession" claims, when it clearly shows heresy (=doctrinal error) was in their own ranks).

But Mary had more than 1 son. It is proven by Scripture (and therefore proves your document false).

"and she brought forth her first-born son," Luke 2:7

 

[JacktheCatholic]

"All of its teachings are from God"??? When was it that the popes and bishops were arians? (so much for "apostolic succession" claims, when it clearly shows heresy (=doctrinal error) was in their own ranks).

But Mary had more than 1 son. It is proven by Scripture (and therefore proves your document false).

"and she brought forth her first-born son," Luke 2:7

I am not mad at your false statements for I know that it is out of ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches.


To shed some light where their is darkness (ignorance) I will start by clarifying that the Church is united to Christ as One and it is the bulwark and foundation of the Truth. This means that the Church cannot teach falsely anymore than God could teach falsely.

Jesus gave us the Church and set it up with leaders who hold the bishopric and it is a dynastic leadership with a bishop that comes first and holds the chair. Jesus made it this way and Jesus can not make mistakes.

 

[Catholic Christian]

"All of its teachings are from God"???

Yes. You finally got one right.

When was it that the popes and bishops were arians? (so much for "apostolic succession" claims, when it clearly shows heresy (=doctrinal error) was in their own ranks).

Most heretics start out as clergy. Luther is one example, according to the June 15, 1520 Papal Bull of excommunication issued from Rome. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, like all Sacraments, gives grace, but just as with the grace given by baptism, God's free gift of grace can be thrown away.

But Mary had more than 1 son. It is proven by Scripture (and therefore proves your document false).

No she didn't, and no it isn't. Read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

"and she brought forth her first-born son," Luke 2:7

Fundamentalists insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

source:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[holdon]

I am not mad at your false statements for I know that it is out of ignorance of what the Catholic Church teaches.


To shed some light where their is darkness (ignorance) I will start by clarifying that the Church is united to Christ as One and it is the bulwark and foundation of the Truth. This means that the Church cannot teach falsely anymore than God could teach falsely.

Jesus gave us the Church and set it up with leaders who hold the bishopric and it is a dynastic leadership with a bishop that comes first and holds the chair. Jesus made it this way and Jesus can not make mistakes.

"But I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel, she who calls herself prophetess, and she teaches and leads astray"

The Church was never to teach but be taught....

 

[holdon]

Yes. You finally got one right.

Most heretics start out as clergy, Luther being a fine example. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, like all Sacraments, gives grace, but just as with the grace given by baptism, God's free gift of grace can be thrown away.

No she didn't, and no it isn't. Read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Fundamentalists insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

source:
[URL="http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp[/URL]

Hey, I'd rather stick to the fundamentals of the Inspired Word of God. When Luke writes "first born" he indicates that there were others after....

 

[TraderJack]

Yep their own claims as provided from our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus nor the Apostles, or the ECFS ever taught the immacualte conception of Mary(quite the opposite), the assumption of Mary(which came from Gnostic teachings) or any Roman papal infallibility, and to say they did is to put words in the mouth of God that God has never said.

All I posted is proof that Catholicism is the ONE CHURCH and you agreeing is proof as well.

All you did is restate Rome's claim, which when tested is found to be a false claim.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

"But I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel, she who calls herself prophetess, and she teaches and leads astray"

The Church was never to teach but be taught....

The church was never to teach but be taught???


Where did this come from?

Sounds very anti-scriptural to me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jesus nor the Apostles, or the ECFS ever taught the immacualte conception of Mary(quite the opposite), the assumption of Mary(which came from Gnostic teachings) or any Roman papal infallibility, and to say they did is to put words in the mouth of God that God has never said.


All you did is restate Rome's claim, which when tested is found to be a false claim.

As usual we are supposed to take your word for your claim based only on your word.

When will you substatiate one of your claims with some kind of evidence to it holding any truth at all?

 

[ScottBot]

Jesus nor the Apostles, or the ECFS ever taught the immacualte conception of Mary(quite the opposite), the assumption of Mary(which came from Gnostic teachings) or any Roman papal infallibility, and to say they did is to put words in the mouth of God that God has never said.




All you did is restate Rome's claim, which when tested is found to be a false claim.

Maybe you need a better test.

 

[Rick Otto]

Maybe you need a better test.

Maybe you need a rest.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Maybe you need a rest.

"Cheeky"!

 

[ScottBot]

Maybe you need a rest.

Surely you jest.

 

[simonthezealot]

Surely you jest.

Reformed theology is the best...

 

[ScottBot]

Reformed theology is the best...

In the Catholic Church, we are truely blessed.



Its about time you joined the fracas here. What kept you?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Reformed theology is the best...

Your a poet

and you know it


LOL

 

[Rick Otto]

Jest with the best & do penance like the rest.

 

[Ave Maria]

Any thread started by a Catholic questioning or pointing out errors in Protestantism is derailed and closed. It's quite easy, really. All you have to do is start fights that proceed into flaming, personal attacks, mocking, baiting, way off topic posting, etc.

Consequently, there are now numerous anti-Catholic threads that dominate this fora. And you can't even point that out without the thread getting closed. I must congratulate some of our Protestant brethren for their crafty tactics. We Catholics should take a page out of your playbook! I hope we don't, however.

Now, the big question is, how long will this thread stay open?

Yes, unfortunately General Theology is dominated by anti-Catholic threads 99% of the time. Sometimes I think General Theology should be renamed "Anti-Catholic Theology".

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jest with the best & do penance like the rest.

Penance you say?

This must be your day

Be Catholic and pray

And Jesus will say

repentant and contrite are needed

if His words be heeded

For Jesus will say

You are forgiven this day