Same-sex marriage chapel demolished
By Julius Strauss in Moscow09 October 2003 12:00am

"The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted a marriage ceremony between two men.

The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was apparently knocked down after local churchmen decided it had been defiled.

The "marriage" of Denis Gogolyev and Mikhail Morozev in Nizhny Novgorod scandalised the Orthodox Church and created outrage among ordinary Russians. The priest, Fr Vladimir Enert, was unfrocked after the men said they paid him a 300 bribe to ignore a ban on same-sex marriages.

A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go as it had been desecrated."



Meanwhile, in the LCMS, one of the most historically accurate and conservative bodies in Protestantism...

205 Days To Reconcile an LCMS Pastor Modeling a Transgender Stole in the Chancel?

And in the RCC...

In major doctrinal shift, Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

Seriously, what is the deal with the churches of the west trying to look the other way when it comes to this poison?

Some churches are so desperate to fill their pews....they will embrace any lie.

Realitybites said:

---

Same-sex marriage chapel demolished
By Julius Strauss in Moscow09 October 2003 12:00am

"The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted a marriage ceremony between two men.

The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was apparently knocked down after local churchmen decided it had been defiled.

The "marriage" of Denis Gogolyev and Mikhail Morozev in Nizhny Novgorod scandalised the Orthodox Church and created outrage among ordinary Russians. The priest, Fr Vladimir Enert, was unfrocked after the men said they paid him a 300 bribe to ignore a ban on same-sex marriages.

A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go as it had been desecrated."



Meanwhile, in the LCMS, one of the most historically accurate and conservative bodies in Protestantism...

205 Days To Reconcile an LCMS Pastor Modeling a Transgender Stole in the Chancel?

And in the RCC...

In major doctrinal shift, Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

Seriously, what is the deal with the churches of the west trying to look the other way when it comes to this poison?

---

approving a father giving a personal blessing to a gay couple isnt the same as getting married in the catholic church. None of the stardard liturgy and ceremony of a Catholic wedding is allowed.

4th and Inches said:

---

approving a father giving a personal blessing to a gay couple isnt the same as getting married in the catholic church. None of the stardard liturgy and ceremony of a Catholic wedding is allowed.

---

Nobody is saying it is the same.

Blessing this in any form is the issue. A union that is cursed by God cannot be blessed by His Church. God damns people who do this, and die impentient. There are far better than coin flip odds that the priest who does this ends up well done in addition to the participants.

It is interesting.

Churches catering to folks who won't procreate and almost certainly won't raise devoted progeny. Hoisting themselves on their own petard.

4th and Inches said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Same-sex marriage chapel demolished
By Julius Strauss in Moscow09 October 2003 12:00am

"The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted a marriage ceremony between two men.

The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was apparently knocked down after local churchmen decided it had been defiled.

The "marriage" of Denis Gogolyev and Mikhail Morozev in Nizhny Novgorod scandalised the Orthodox Church and created outrage among ordinary Russians. The priest, Fr Vladimir Enert, was unfrocked after the men said they paid him a 300 bribe to ignore a ban on same-sex marriages.

A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go as it had been desecrated."



Meanwhile, in the LCMS, one of the most historically accurate and conservative bodies in Protestantism...

205 Days To Reconcile an LCMS Pastor Modeling a Transgender Stole in the Chancel?

And in the RCC...

In major doctrinal shift, Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

Seriously, what is the deal with the churches of the west trying to look the other way when it comes to this poison?

---

approving a father giving a personal blessing to a gay couple isnt the same as getting married in the catholic church. None of the stardard liturgy and ceremony of a Catholic wedding is allowed.

---

Yet, it is still wrong - a sinful act.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 states, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths".

Indeed, we are seeing these verses fulfilled in our world today.

Robert Wilson said:

---

It is interesting.

Churches catering to folks who won't procreate and almost certainly won't raise devoted progeny. Hoisting themselves on their own petard.

---

Wife grew up in a neighborhood Presbyterian Church in the Balcones area of Austin. We were married there. Teaching was never great, but it had a lot of good people and committed Christians. And then about a decade or so ago, when the Presbyterians voted to allow same-sex couples into leadership positions, it slowly started to change. Most of the committed Christians left, though a few misguided ones remain.

We decided to visit the 11 p.m. Christmas Eve service this year after not visiting in about 8 or so years, and it was incredible. Hardly anyone at the church, and about half in the meager audience were same sex couples. Pastor has a rainbow sash and made positive reference to homosexuality on several occasions. We ended up walking out.

Robert Wilson said:

---

It is interesting.does this include heterosexual couples)"?

Churches catering to folks who won't procreate and almost certainly won't raise devoted progeny. Hoisting themselves on their own petard.

---

Childless heterosexual couples?

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

It is interesting.

Churches catering to folks who won't procreate and almost certainly won't raise devoted progeny. Hoisting themselves on their own petard.

---

Wife grew up in a neighborhood Presbyterian Church in the Balcones area of Austin. We were married there. Teaching was never great, but it had a lot of good people and committed Christians. And then about a decade or so ago, when the Presbyterians voted to allow same-sex couples into leadership positions, it slowly started to change. Most of the committed Christians left, though a few misguided ones remain.

We decided to visit the 11 p.m. Christmas Eve service this year after not visiting in about 8 or so years, and it was incredible. Hardly anyone at the church, and about half in the meager audience were same sex couples. Pastor has a rainbow sash and made positive reference to homosexuality on several occasions. We ended up walking out.

---

Smart choices sir.

Happy New Year to you and your Family.

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

It is interesting.

Churches catering to folks who won't procreate and almost certainly won't raise devoted progeny. Hoisting themselves on their own petard.

---

Wife grew up in a neighborhood Presbyterian Church in the Balcones area of Austin. We were married there. Teaching was never great, but it had a lot of good people and committed Christians. And then about a decade or so ago, when the Presbyterians voted to allow same-sex couples into leadership positions, it slowly started to change. Most of the committed Christians left, though a few misguided ones remain.

We decided to visit the 11 p.m. Christmas Eve service this year after not visiting in about 8 or so years, and it was incredible. Hardly anyone at the church, and about half in the meager audience were same sex couples. Pastor has a rainbow sash and made positive reference to homosexuality on several occasions. We ended up walking out.

---

I have made the point before myriad times - there is really no option to allow for simply accepting the gheys. The Gaystapo will accept nothing less than celebration to the point of turning the church from the Gospel to Gaystapo and subverting all church doctrine and orthopraxy to butt sex. So-called "accepting" and even "affirming" never are enough: you have to have trainey "clergy" constantly flying Big Gay Flags.

Realitybites said:

---

Same-sex marriage chapel demolished
By Julius Strauss in Moscow09 October 2003 12:00am

"The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted a marriage ceremony between two men.

The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was apparently knocked down after local churchmen decided it had been defiled.

The "marriage" of Denis Gogolyev and Mikhail Morozev in Nizhny Novgorod scandalised the Orthodox Church and created outrage among ordinary Russians. The priest, Fr Vladimir Enert, was unfrocked after the men said they paid him a 300 bribe to ignore a ban on same-sex marriages.

A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go as it had been desecrated."



Meanwhile, in the LCMS, one of the most historically accurate and conservative bodies in Protestantism...

205 Days To Reconcile an LCMS Pastor Modeling a Transgender Stole in the Chancel?

And in the RCC...

In major doctrinal shift, Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

Seriously, what is the deal with the churches of the west trying to look the other way when it comes to this poison?

---

The version of the story I heard was that the choir director mentioned to the priest that he needed two more sopranos who could also dance lightly on their toes.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And it doesn't corroborate your tradition, it's a source of it. What a circular argument. And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And it doesn't corroborate your tradition, it's a source of it. What a circular argument. And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

Pseudonymity was common in the ANE. They did i not have the same post-Enlightenment view of authorship / history / etc.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

---

Not when it comes to divine inspiration. Therein lies the difference between man-inspired tradition, and God's word. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy errantly blends the two.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And it doesn't corroborate your tradition, it's a source of it. What a circular argument. And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

Pseudonymity was common in the ANE. They did i not have the same post-Enlightenment view of authorship / history / etc.

---

Not good enough for God's word, though. Pseudonymity was a disqualifier, as it should be.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

---

Not when it comes to divine inspiration. Therein lies the difference between man-inspired tradition, and God's word. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy errantly blends the two.

---

No one's claiming the Protoevangelium is divinely inspired. Like I said, it's a historical document.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And it doesn't corroborate your tradition, it's a source of it. What a circular argument. And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

Pseudonymity was common in the ANE. They did i not have the same post-Enlightenment view of authorship / history / etc.

---

Not good enough for God's word, though. Pseudonymity was a disqualifier, as it should be.

---

Incorrect.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And it doesn't corroborate your tradition, it's a source of it. What a circular argument. And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

Pseudonymity was common in the ANE. They did i not have the same post-Enlightenment view of authorship / history / etc.

---

Not good enough for God's word, though. Pseudonymity was a disqualifier, as it should be.

---

Incorrect.

---

Name a New Testament book that was canonized with the knowledge that it was a pseudonymous work.

Apostolic origin was a requirement.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

---

Not when it comes to divine inspiration. Therein lies the difference between man-inspired tradition, and God's word. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy errantly blends the two.

---

No one's claiming the Protoevangelium is divinely inspired. Like I said, it's a historical document.

---

No one is claiming that you're claiming that it's divinely inspired. But it means you're basing your tradition on uninspired sources, and putting it on par with Scripture. That's the error I'm talking about.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

---

Not when it comes to divine inspiration. Therein lies the difference between man-inspired tradition, and God's word. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy errantly blends the two.

---

No one's claiming the Protoevangelium is divinely inspired. Like I said, it's a historical document.

---

No one is claiming that you're claiming that it's divinely inspired. But it means you're basing your tradition on uninspired sources, and putting it on par with Scripture. That's the error I'm talking about.

---

Your error is to assume all tradition must be based on an extant written text.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

It is such a curious belief. All one can do is share facts and hope they listen and think

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

---

Not when it comes to divine inspiration. Therein lies the difference between man-inspired tradition, and God's word. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy errantly blends the two.

---

No one's claiming the Protoevangelium is divinely inspired. Like I said, it's a historical document.

---

No one is claiming that you're claiming that it's divinely inspired. But it means you're basing your tradition on uninspired sources, and putting it on par with Scripture. That's the error I'm talking about.

---

Your error is to assume all tradition must be based on an extant written text.

---

This written text is primarily how your church tries to tie this specific tradition (Mary's perpetual virginity) to the apostles and the early church.

Realitybites said:

---

Same-sex marriage chapel demolished
By Julius Strauss in Moscow09 October 2003 12:00am

"The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted a marriage ceremony between two men.

The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was apparently knocked down after local churchmen decided it had been defiled.

The "marriage" of Denis Gogolyev and Mikhail Morozev in Nizhny Novgorod scandalised the Orthodox Church and created outrage among ordinary Russians. The priest, Fr Vladimir Enert, was unfrocked after the men said they paid him a 300 bribe to ignore a ban on same-sex marriages.

A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go as it had been desecrated."



Meanwhile, in the LCMS, one of the most historically accurate and conservative bodies in Protestantism...

205 Days To Reconcile an LCMS Pastor Modeling a Transgender Stole in the Chancel?

And in the RCC...

In major doctrinal shift, Vatican officially OKs Catholic blessings for gay couples

Seriously, what is the deal with the churches of the west trying to look the other way when it comes to this poison?

---

To be clear, the Catholic article about Francis / Bergoglio's actions is 2 years old and is the exact thing true Catholics have been waging war on for years and years. He intentionally weaponized ambiguity as part of the lavender mafia. Same as Pope Leo is doing (several examples already). Until this group burns out in time and the younger generation takes over they will attempt to rot the Church from within as has always been the case.

Heres the trick. Nowhere does he say priests can bless gay marriage. But the headline suggests it….because he didnt say you couldnt. Same as what all democrats do etc

I dint really want to be in the position of defending Bergoglio but " This is also the understanding of marriage that is offered by the Gospel. For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex". But theres a bit of double speak in the document if you look at it cross eyed and know how obama democrats lavender mafia types drive wedges and sew discord,,,

Jesus even spoke specifically of it. (Matthew 7:15)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

---

Not when it comes to divine inspiration. Therein lies the difference between man-inspired tradition, and God's word. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy errantly blends the two.

---

No one's claiming the Protoevangelium is divinely inspired. Like I said, it's a historical document.

---

No one is claiming that you're claiming that it's divinely inspired. But it means you're basing your tradition on uninspired sources, and putting it on par with Scripture. That's the error I'm talking about.

---

Your error is to assume all tradition must be based on an extant written text.

---

This written text is primarily how your church tries to tie this specific tradition (Mary's perpetual virginity) to the apostles and the early church.

---

Not really. I don't think Constantinople II even mentions it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

---

Not when it comes to divine inspiration. Therein lies the difference between man-inspired tradition, and God's word. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy errantly blends the two.

---

No one's claiming the Protoevangelium is divinely inspired. Like I said, it's a historical document.

---

No one is claiming that you're claiming that it's divinely inspired. But it means you're basing your tradition on uninspired sources, and putting it on par with Scripture. That's the error I'm talking about.

---

Your error is to assume all tradition must be based on an extant written text.

---

This written text is primarily how your church tries to tie this specific tradition (Mary's perpetual virginity) to the apostles and the early church.

---

Not really. I don't think Constantinople II even mentions it.

---

It didn't have to, for the fact to remain that it's the primary claim of your church for the belief's origination in the early church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But was that Orthodox church defiled when it married two men..... or when it was named and dedicated NOT to Jesus but rather to the idolatrous practices of iconography and marian veneration/devotion, practices which did not come from the apostles or the early church, but rather originated from pagan and gnostic beliefs and practices?

---

Careful...if icons and veneration are pagan or gnostic corruptions, then the biblical canon Protestants rely on today must also be a pagan/gnostic product.

By the time the canon is clearly recognized (4th century), icons already exist in the 2nd-3rd century, martyrs are venerated universally, prayers for the dead are attested and liturgical worship is fully embodied. If the Church was already "corrupted", the canon is implicated. Your axiom must agree that pagans/gnostics canonized the bible.

Do you really think Jesus setup the Church to be full of pagans and gnostics until Luther and Calvin came along? 1500 years...do you honestly believe that?

---

This is really bad logic. It'd be like saying the belief in Jesus as Savior must be a corrupt belief, since that was believed by those who also held to the pagan-originated beliefs in iconography and marian idolatry. It's a logical fallacy. But in actuality, yes, since RC and Orthodoxy both canonized the apocryphal books, their view of the canon is indeed corrupted. Scripture was not decided on and canonized by the church - it was decided and canonized by God, and only recognized to be so by the church. In the case of RC and Orthodoxy, it was recognized incorrectly.

Iconography was universally shunned by the early church, and it is completely absent in Scripture. And marian beliefs such as her perpetual virginity are drawn from gnostic sources like the Protoevangelium of James, rather than from Scripture.

And churches never should be named/dedicated to an icon of Mary, but only to Jesus. How this isn't exceedingly obvious to anyone who is a Christian is beyond me. But since neither Roman Catholicism nor Orthodoxy don't seem to have a problem with crediting Mary with salvation either, I guess it's no surprise.

---

The Protoevangelium of James is not a Gnostic source. You are confusing it with the Apocryphon of James.

---

A good number consider it to be gnostic. Regardless, it isn't Scripture. It's a work whose authorship is attributed to James, which it is not. So it's a work that starts off with a lie. And THAT's what your belief is sourced from. Open your eyes.

---

It's an interesting historical document that corroborates what's in Scripture and tradition. Nothing more than that.

---

Except for the fact that it wasn't written by James as it claims. Thus making it unreliable from the get-go.

And since when did Jesus "beaming" out of Mary intact, instead of naturally passing through her birth canal as in all natural births, "corroborate" Scripture? What an interesting claim.

---

No, it doesn't make it unreliable from the get-go. They need to be read critically, but pseudonymous texts often preserve valuable information. In any case, the source of the dogma is Church tradition and Scripture, not a single document of unknown authorship.

---

Therein lies the error of RC. If falsely attributed authorship is not evidence of unreliability, then nothing is. At the very least it should be clear that it is NOT inspired by God. And this work is your church's main claim for the dogma being tied to the early church. It's what your tradition bases itself on. You can't base it in Scripture, because it's not in Scripture at all.

And the "preservation of valuable information" of course, is really deciding what parts are valuable, and what parts aren't. Like, for instance, picking the part where Mary is chaste her whole life.... but conveniently disregarding the part where she "beamed" out Jesus. If double talk wasn't a main feature of RC, then picking and choosing from early church history and writings certainly are.

---

What you call an error is just a fact of historical research in general. There are degrees of reliability.

---

Not when it comes to divine inspiration. Therein lies the difference between man-inspired tradition, and God's word. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy errantly blends the two.

---

No one's claiming the Protoevangelium is divinely inspired. Like I said, it's a historical document.

---

No one is claiming that you're claiming that it's divinely inspired. But it means you're basing your tradition on uninspired sources, and putting it on par with Scripture. That's the error I'm talking about.

---

Your error is to assume all tradition must be based on an extant written text.

---

This written text is primarily how your church tries to tie this specific tradition (Mary's perpetual virginity) to the apostles and the early church.

---

Not really. I don't think Constantinople II even mentions it.

---

It didn't have to, for the fact to remain that it's the primary claim of your church for the belief's origination in the early church.

---

No, it's just the most obvious textual source we can offer to those who demand obvious textual sources. The tradition itself was deeply and widely established by the time of the council.