«Home

Protestantism: Biblical?

I am starting this thread because I believe that the Protestants need to clarify their beliefs. As you all very well know, the protestants have attacked the Catholics for what they think the Catholics believe.

So I think it will be only fair for protestants to explain their beliefs based on what they belief.

But here's how this will run. Only ONE protestant is needed to answer the questions. I am doing this to be fair and to keep the thread clear of all insults and ridiculous statements. I have noticed that when people randomly post things the point of the thread gets diminished, and there is no outcome of the thread, and it become meaningless, and I would like this to be a very respectful thread.

So I am asking that either A_K_O or Seun moderate this thread without bias. The only ones allowed to post are myself and the Protestant who takes up the challenge, every other post should be deleted. I really want this to be very fair and just.

I will be the ONLY Catholic asking the questions.

So can the moderator agree please and can the protestant accept the challenge?

Thank you

Avatar
Newbie
58 answers

Hmmmmm, Christians fighting Christians, Such a shame.

0
Avatar
Newbie

LMAO. The Bible has no authority. It is a book. An inanimate object has no authority whatsoever. The only person who can really judge it's importance is the individual. Perhaps you're too dumb to understand that though? After all, you have to have other men interpret it for you and tell you what it says.

LMAO again. Sure they are. A really terrible and misleading argument from you again but won't get any disagreement from me. Christians through the ages have committed some of the worst atrocities known to mankind. But dya know which section of Christians were responsible for the majority of those crimes? CATHOLICS.

LOL. What sort of logic is that you dipshit. If atrocities are sanctioned or carried out by clergy within the Catholic Church, it's way different from a normal worshipper carrying out the same atrocity. I dunno if you noticed in your drunken daze, but the worshipper is a follower. The clergy are the leaders. They set the standard. But like I said, there are plenty of followers who have acted like blood-thirsty barbarians on the orders of their leaders. Guess what? Most of those followers were CATHOLICS. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I really have to laugh in your face.

Nope, it doesn't show my ignorance. It shows I enjoy attacking mugu imbeciles like you!!!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@bastage

I actually laughed when I finished reading your post, leave yeye lady jare I think she's a devil's advocate! well thanks for those links but there are more horrible links, I still will not be be pushed to paste them here. the crimes are endless both in time past and in present day have you guys ever thought of what made the US go to vietnam and massacre millions of souls?

0
Avatar
Newbie

LADY u will never listen, now tell me should we now copy the actrocities now cos i mean if they re really good men of God they should do good so others can emulate them,for example if any of them is reading the GOSPELand smoking ciga, we should overlook it and lit ours up in front of him since u will never accept their errors as bad, i wonder when u will learn, praiser of hellish church u are jare, u said rubbish to his post abi cos u re rubbishly supporting your hellish church.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Did you even bother to read the article?

Let me post a part of it for you

The purification of memory is thus “an act of courage and humility in recognizing the wrongs done by those who have borne or bear the name of Christian.” It is based on the conviction that because of “the bond which unites us to one another in the Mystical Body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God, who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us.” John Paul II adds: “As the successor of Peter, I ask that in this year of mercy the Church, strong in the holiness which she receives from her Lord, should kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters.”(1) In reiterating that “Christians are invited to acknowledge, before God and before those offended by their actions, the faults which they have committed,” the Pope concludes, “Let them do so without seeking anything in return, but strengthened only by ‘the love of God which has been poured into our hearts’ (Rom 5:5).”(2)

Notice the words bolded. The Church as a whole did not commit those sins, people in the Church committed those sins. Now Bastage since you have already noted that the Catholic Church isn't the true church because members have sinned, do u mind letting me as well as Nlers know whether you are a part of the true body of Christ?

And if you are a part of the true body of Christ, whether or not you have sinned?

If infact you have sinned, as per your reasoning that the true church wouldn't commit atrocious acts, wouldn't it mean that you as a sinner are not a member of the true body of Christ?

And would you kindly show to us in the Bible where it states that members of the Church will not be sinners and will be perfect?

Like I have siad many times, the Catholic Church has not committed an atrocious crime, members of the Catholic Church have committed these crimes.

THOU HYPOCRITE REMOVE THE LOG IN YOUR OWN EYE FIRST.

So because some people in the Catholic church did something all of a sudden the Whole Church is guilty?

In that case, you as a Nigerian are guilty of 419 abi, you as a man are guilty of molest, no be so?

Don't we all get blamed for the sins of other people?

RUBBISH.

.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'm laughing my Bottom off at your ridiculous post.

Let's just answer one of your pathetic questions:

Even your own Pope recognises the crimes that the Catholic church has committed.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html#The%20Problem:%20Yesterday%20and%20Today

Argue with it all you like. It was written by the Vatican.

Shhh, let's not even talk about these (all just in the last century. I'm not even going to bother going back further or I'll be typing all night):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1671540.stm

http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/catholic-church

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4263426.stm

http://libcom.org/library/role-catholic-church-yugoslavias-holocaust-se-n-mac-math-na-1941-1945

http://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/10/16/argentinas-catholic-church-linked-to-human-rights-abuses/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sex-crimes-and-the-vatican/

http://www.speroforum.com/a/15761/Australia-Pope-apologizes-for-churchs-sex-crimes

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=6151

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/appropriation9.htm

Read 'em and weep, dipshit.

0
Avatar
Newbie

maybe you're the one admitting that i'm right and i've won, because i've never done that.

My arrogance, ha you make me laugh. What truth has become arrogance for u? SO when ppl don't know what they're talking about it becomes humility, but when they do it becomes arrogance? Ha what logic, no wonder the atheists on this board take you guys for a spin all the time. None of you can hold water with your argument.

ok sure, now answer the questions. or abi u've forgotten about them? do u need me to remind u?

1900 of catholic atrocities that were not really catholic atrocities. can u name me one atrocious thing that was pronounced from the chair of peter?

no u guys can't. u guys make claims that haven't been backed up. back up your assertions from credible sites. go and get with the modern historians and they will let u know that truly the catholic church wasn't the problem, but actually the solution.

scientists such as A.C. Crombie, David Lindbergh, Edward Grant and co will attest that the Church built western science, pls don't delude yourself anymore, actually go and do some research.

I am not saying that the members of the Catholic church has never done wrong, but the Church itself has never done wrong.

Why are you angry that someone is finally making you guys accountable for what you say?

Plain and simple, non-christians can say how confused christians are because the lot of you quote bible passages and misinterpret it and all your pastors contradict each other. abi no be so? you cannot hold down a logical debate, truly indeed logic has become relative. ppl are beginning to define for themselves what logic is.

There isn't a catholic that was converted by force. Nope it never happened, if it did, then sir you will have to use credible sources to back up your claims, check with historians and see if they'll agree with you.

Look simply opening your mouth and saying things does not make it true. Citing credible historians and statistics will give your argument much weight. But I can guarantee you won't find one credible source. Try it.

Oh but see I want u to paste links, that is what I've been asking for, post your sources to your claim. Prove to us that your assertions come from credible sources.

Like I said above, simply making assertions doens't make it true.

I can shout that the sky is no longer up for as long as I want, but it doesn't make it true.

Back up your claims sir.

Now when will u guys start answering questions, back up your beliefs from the Bible.

Judas' chair? Now I know you're not even going to any credible site

Iron virgin Mary? ha this is laughable

torture rooms?

burnings?

hmm cite your sources sir.

Come down for men, last I checked men and women were created equally. We all have our roles, but one isn't better than the other.

What do u want from me "YESSA MASSA"

HA KEEP DREAMING.

YOU ARE NOT EVEN WORTH ANYONE REPLYING TO. NOW I KNOW YOU ARE TRULY A MUSLIM. IS THIS OLABOWALE?

0
Avatar
Newbie

thanks for making her know shes always wrong until she learn how to talk cos women are supposed to come down for men in most cases except ur life is in danger, cos most of this men shes rude to are family men and shes making men feel bad towards women, pls let her know women are not suppose to be wagging their tongue according to st paul, a good xtian don't behave the way she does.

0
Avatar
Newbie

lady you are failing woefullyO! This is half % (not even up to one) there is no use arguing with you, the harm the RCC has done on earth is ALMOST IRREVERSIBLE man has lost any idea about what God really said and Who He really is no thanks to the RCC. you paganistic church has EDITED HISTORY, CREATED MYTHICAL PEOPLE (Christopher Columbus and father patrick to name a few) pls I said b4 dont let me paste links here, your attrocities and not hidden but its relatively difficult to observe, like I said there's are some things some people cant afford to know I beg dont push me to the wall to expose you, just keep your hellish church, to yourself I repeat!

Oga you never explain the judas chair , iron virgin mary, torture rooms and senseless burnings you did over the years or have you forgotten St Bartholomew's day Massacre?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Don't kid yourself. You're not in Pilgrim's league.

For all her failings, Pilgrim was a very, very good debater. You on the other hand are an .

You post nothing of substance - just a load of claptrap and then you burble "I'm right. I've won".

The only place you are superior to anyone is in your arrogance and self-conceit.

You don't hear - let alone understand. You are deaf.

And with that sweeping statement you wipeout 1900 years of Catholic atrocity. No Lady. The Catholic church caused more damage to the reputation of Christianity than Bin Laden could ever cause to the Muslim faith even if he lived to be 1000 years old.

Protestantism didn't sully the reputation of Christianity. If anything, it started dragging it out of the gutter once Martin Luther nailed his note to the door.

Why do you think people turned to Protestantism? They weren't forcibly converted as in Catholism, they converted by choice. Could it be because they were sick and tired of the lies and corruption of the Catholic church? Lies that vermin like you and your ilk still propogate?

The answer is a resounding "YES".

0
Avatar
Newbie

So people cannot beg others for mercy? I am trying to see you logic here.

You mean Pilgrim1 that couldn't keep her points straight sure.

Others sha cannot face me, what?

Since when did NL become a group for gangstas, who's trying to show power here? Are you alright?

Nobody sees me here?

and yet you see me enough to reply to my post? i guess you're nobody

0
Avatar
Newbie

God is the only merciful except him no other person on earth is merciful, am not arguing with u based on this topic but just on ur unladylike and unchristlike ways shogbo? u know that i will be the last to be hurt by u,why should i? maybe others sha that cannot face u.oh i remembered how PILGRIM 1 lashed u with koboko on previous topics, oh shes so sweet in replying i missed her, kudos to her jare.and who wants to know if u wont stop or will never get tired?keep that to urself okay nobody sees u here

0
Avatar
Newbie

So people cannot be merciful?

You call it idolatry, I call it the fullness of the christian truth, I can back it up with the Bible and it makes sense. You however cannot.

Like Christ said not everyone who hears will understand. I hear I understand, you hear you don't.

Why would I want to relate to someone who comes to insult me, and then tell me he loves me, wth? Where have u ever heard that before. Because I refuse to give u a chance so now ur feelings are hurt, get ova urself. Call it arrogance, truth still stands, it will never waver, it is one way and not 33,000 ways.

Last I checked it is protestants that can't get their truth straight that give Christianity a bad name. When will u guys start agreeing on doctrine, does the Bible teach that baptism is salvific or does it teach that it is symbolic. You guys can't agree on that one, and you all base your own beliefs on the Bible so which is it? Is the Bible contradicting itself or are you guys contradicting the Bible with your own personal interpretations.

Like I said unless you want to have a respectful discussion with me with logic cease from relying to my posts.

@ rich_john

thanks for that, but I won't keep quiet. You guys say you have the truth, then prove it. Answer the questions.

My hellish church, funny enough, the Pharisees said the same thing about Jesus. I guess people who don't want to hear the truth attribute it to the devil. You can try but I won't keep silent, now the tables are turned and you guys can't answer a single question. Why are you afraid? Is it because you already know you don't know the truth?

You guys can point and blame and throw insults but can you defend your own faith with your own Bible? No ofcourse not.

HA THIS IS SERIOUS O, I MUST HAVE STRUCK A NERVE IN YOU GUYS, YOU'RE ALL RUNNING AROUND LIKE CHICKENS WITHOUT HEADS NOW EH!!!

[size=18pt][b]DEFEND YOUR FAITH, YOU ARE A BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN RIGHT? YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT!!![/[/b]size]

0
Avatar
Newbie

u know already ure a disgrace to christiandom as u dont know how to relate to people,nobody can get converted through ur arrogant ways,u make fool of urself all the time,and make people ridicle christians with ur ill mannered ways, i wont join u in using abusive words like u do cos my faith doesnot permit such act and personally am not trained like that, am very sure u delight joy in calling Mary merciful when God is the only merciful, humm idolatory of the highest order,u dont av to be sorry for me cos i cant partake in idolatory with u, wake up , and am sure ure amongs those that set up altar at home for mary woshiping, continue okay. logical thinking girl indeed.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Where does the Bible say that Peter wasn't the first Pope?

Who told you marraige was the criteria for the Pope?

DId you know that there were married Popes and they were still Popes?

Do you know that Jesus talks about giving up marriage and being celibate for the sake of the kingdom?

Do you know that Paul wasn't married and he defended why he wasn't married and why he chose not to marry, this is the same paul that you quoted above, so is Paul contradicting himself?

The Catholic church doesn't forbid anyone to marry, all Priests chose to become a Priest, they are ppl who wish not to marry for the sake of the kingdom, the Church gave them a home.

God doesn't change ppl's name for no reason. Jesus won't call Peter and then refer to him as not a rock, Jesus isn't illogical.

You do not love me, you do not know me, never ever in your life say such a thing to me.

I join the Church in saying

HAIL HOLY QUEEN, MOTHER OF MERCY

OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS, AND OUR HOPE!!

TO THEE DO WE CRY, POOR BANISHED CHILDREN OF EVE

TO THEE DO WE SEND UP OUR SIGHS, MOURNING AND WEEPING

IN THIS VALLEY OF TEARS. TURN THEN MOST GRACIOUS ADVOCATE,

THINE EYES OF MERCY TOWARDS US; AND AFTER THIS

OUR EXILE SHOW UNTO US THE BLESSED FRUIT OF THY WOMB, JESUS;

O CLEMENT, O LOVING, O SWEET VIRGIN MARY

PRAY FOR US O HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

THAT WE MAY BE MADE WORTHY OF THE PROMISES OF CHRIST

Now uplawal, if you do not understand the above, I feel sorry for you. If you can't handle the above, that is your problem, not mine, open your eyes and see the truth Jesus taught. Stop reading the Bible with a blind eye, ask God to open your eyes and reveal to you his truths.

And yet as Paul he still sinned, he says he's a sinner many times, so when he got his name changed he stopped sinning? I guess that destroys you guys claim that all are sinners. Learn to keep your beliefs in line and stop floating all over the place. Learn to make sense of what you say pls. I don't do with illogical ppl. If you do not know how to apply logic do not reply to me.

0
Avatar
Newbie

u are too rude girl ,a good xtian lady don't act the way u do, as per what u said concerning paul,he massacred then when he was SAUL remember, then became a changed person when God intervened in his life and got his name changed to PAUL

0
Avatar
Newbie

lady u and this ur catholic doctrine u berra seize from being one and serve a living God and dont deceive urself in it cos catholic church wont take u any where, and who told u peter was the first pope,the bible peter was never a pope cos he was married and even if he was the first pope i think he's sucessors should av emulate him instead of making it a mandate for every preist not to marry and remember it was said in the bible we should becarefull of this teaching that forbids marrying, also about what JESUS said to peter that on this rock i will build my church,is a figure of speech not the catholic church. i love u so much pls leave the church that says HAIL HOLY QUEEN, MOTHER OF MERCY, cos God is the only one thats merciful cos he will never share his glory with any one, peace!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Now stop trying to sway the topic, and stick to answering questions. Only the devil wants to hide and point blame where blame isn't due.

0
Avatar
Newbie

How does there being three ppl who claim to be pope change the church's teachings?

I asked you for your source because those names you posted are not names of the Pope but fabrications by your source, we already told you the titles for the pope, take it or leave it.

Since when did your sins become the teachings of christianity?

Don't forget that Paul whom you love to quote massacred christians, why don't you start calling Paul a false prophet?

No where does Paul state that it is by faith alone. Infact the only place where faith alone is mentioned in the Bible is when St. James is disputing faith alone.

No you are against traditional teachings that do no agree with what you want God to say and not what God actually says. We have provided you with sufficient rebuttals to your claims however you choose not to see.

Who all derive different teachings from the same scripture. It is either the scriptures are wrong, or you guys are wrong, which is it?

You've got to be kidding me right? Religious superstition? Last time I checked it was the protestants that decided to go with witch hunting and all. Last time I checked this took place in America with the protestants.

It wasn't only printed in latin, check your source. lol, you are deluded.

Really let me see, so because I refuse to rely on protestant websites and do rely on secular websites for my information all of a sudden my info is wrong?

hmm

The disciples did literaly eat his flesh. Can you prove that they didn't, because I can prove that they did. I can prove that in those times the secular world viewed christians as cannibals because they believed they were eating the flesh and drinking the blood of christ.

So once again can you prove that they weren't eating it?

Oh but they did, infact some of them walked away remember? They knew exactly what Jesus was saying and Jesus did not stop to correct them because he knew what he was saying too. So dear just because you can't accept it doesn't mean they didn't accept it. Unless you can prove that they thought it was symbolic.

No I see exactly what Jesus is talking about. You fail to see exactly what Jesus is talking about. He uses literal words and he drives the point home so no one will misunderstand that he was literally talking about his body and blood. If Jesus meant it symbolically he would have said "this is a representation of my body" no instead he says "this IS my body"

WRONG WRONG WRONG. It is not a re-creation, it is a re-presenting of the same exact sacrifice. It is a perpetual sacrifice, never ending. Anything done by God is never ending, God is eternal, never ending.

so what about this?

James 2

14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be Unclad, and want daily food:

16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

Was James disagreeing with Paul?

I say no. I say you misinterpret what Paul says. Paul in speaking about works speaks about works without the faith. James in speaking about speak about works with the faith. They both speak of the same thing. The Catholic church teaches that if you do not have faith in christ, your works no matter how good will not save you. The Church also teaches that if you do have faith in Christ and you do not do good works, your faith alone will not save you. Even the demons have faith and are still demons. They do believe that Christ is the Son of God, and yet they are not in heaven, they believe God is real yet they are not in heaven. They do believe in God yet they are still demons. It doesn't matter if you just call Jesus Lord, You will have to show that Jesus is your Lord by your good works. You will have to act upon that faith. And that is what the Church teaches.

I have never boasted about any good works of the RCC, do not bear false witness against me, I defend the RCC, and not just the RCC the whole Catholic Church, I bet you have no idea what the Whole Catholic Church is. Christ himself calls us to penance, if you do not do penance how do you expect him to forgive you, or is it that you do not know what penance is?

0
Avatar
Newbie

LOLOL OH BASTAGE.

All you have done is shown that you lack english comprehension skills, and that you refuse to see what you clearly wrote. Abi no be you talk say if we no follow man we no fit follow God?

You haven't answered my questions oh?

Did God write the Bible?

Are mathew, mark, luke, john, and co, God?

pls try answering questions, it makes you look unintelligent when you don't

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who is lying? Anyone can read this thread and see what I've said and compare it to your gibberish.

You say that the scriptures are the work of fallible men, chosen by infallible men and then you use them as proof that the Catholic church is the only way to God.

Do you realise how illogical and dumb you are being?

A negative and a positive make a negative.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hahaha you can't even keep your lies straight. Sorry for you. I have posted what the scriptures say, either you want to believe it or not. It is up to you. You can shout foul till thy kingdom come, it doesn't change the fact that you are unbiblical in your beliefs. Sorry sir you can't force the Bible to say what you want it to say. PLease allow it to say what it says. Thanks.

0
Avatar
Newbie

That proves absolutely nothing.

You've said yourself elsewhere that the Bible is not the word of God but was written by men.

Either you're a follower of the words of men or you're a follower of God. Which is it?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Maybe you missed it, but this thread isn't about defending the Catholic belief it is about defending the Protestant belief, if you wish to know what the Catholic belief is please use the serach button and you will see that the questions you asked have already been answered several times. Now because I follow the rules that says do not derail the thread, I wish not to derail the thread by answering your questions as this thread isn't about Catholics answering questions but about Protestants answering questions.

It does make one wonder why it is Protetants can't answer a simple question, and they feel they need to resort to derailing the thread. Incase you are confused as to what this thread was started for, kindly go back to the first page and read the first post, hopefully if you are well versed in the english language you will understand the purpose for this thread. Thank you.

Please answer the questions that have been posed for you or is it that you are not capable of answering the questions?

Well you say you can't find the passages that show that the bread is the body of Christ.

How about here when Christ says the Bread and Wine are his body and blood.

John 6

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. (Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat? )

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (The jews knew he was talking about his flesh)

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever

(Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically)

John 6:51-53 however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque (I believe you called that Carnibalism and do not wish to partake in it, it's ok, it's not for everyone, only for those who want to follow Christ, word for word)

You asked who gave the priests the power to turn the bread and blood into the body and blood of christ. The answe Jesus Christ, he does so right here when he instituted the Eucharist (Holy Communion)

Matthew 26

26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body

27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

(Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood. the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood)

1 Corinthians 11

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me

(the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so)

to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

1 Corinthians 10

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?" Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word "koinonia" describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread

in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Corinthians 11

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord

in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Would you like to explain how it is?

Wine is fermented grape juice.

Bread is made from wheat, sugar and yeast.

Nothing more.

Explain how they are literally the body and blood of a possibly mythical figure.

Simple answer - you can't. It's simply a representation taken from older pagan beliefs that were around a long time before Christianity.

Oh the smugness, ignorance and arrogance of a "true believer".

The Catholic Church has done more To Molest, pillage and plunder this planet than almost any other organisation on this planet and yet you have the temerity to preach about how it is the only way to find God?

Get back under your rock.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@lady

oga madam, I asked 3 questions you didnt answer any instead you threw 3 questions to me. well let me start with the civilization aspect, most of the scientific inventions that changed the world was discovered after the reformation (1517). encarta can prove this so how did the RCC help civilization? infact it was the invention of the printing press that that freed men (to an extent) from your hellish bond, no wonder you burnt william tyndale, john huss, john wycliffe but mysteriously only God knows how you couldnt burn Luther (am not saying luther is a good man). if not for sir isaac newton that prevented universities being handed back to the catholic church you would dragged the world back to the dark ages.

from the bible you gave us(both protestant and catholic) I cant find anywhere that says the bread is christ's actual body (remember you burnt people in scotland and some other areas who denied this hellish doctrine) by the way who gave the priest power to turn bread in christ's body and finally, when I take communion in a catholic church, I'm chewing Jesus HA! I REFUSE TO BE A CANNIBAL! Its a crazy doctrine.

I dont believe in the doctrine of once saved forever saved, hebrew 11:6 (in the bible you gave us) says 'if anyone draws back' its possible to draw back. Perharps your church's belief in this draw back is why your church/popes excommunicate people! thank God, THEY ARE NOT GOD.

ABEG I no know the doctrine of faith alone OH! I know (in the bible you gave us) St James said Faith without works is dead

As per the RCC been the world's headache is not hearsay its glaring, there are some things I cant say here and if you notice I havent given any link cause I know some minds are very fragile you cant afford to let them know or hear some things. Please dont lets start what we cant finish, am an engineer but some much in love with history, (not the one you find in those lying encyclopaedia) your RCC is the world's biggest fraud

Remember I told you I am not a protestant, catholic or any group men has divided christianity into, I'm been lead with the intellect God has given me and that inward voice(some say Holy Spirit) God has put in man. have a great day, my phone has been beeping!

0
Avatar
Newbie

The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (I'm not talking about those fools in Evangelical Protestantism) is that Catholics answer to men - ie: the Popes.

Protestants answer to God.

One can't even claim that Catholicism is the "Universal" and original church. It usurped it's way to power by murdering and destroying everything it disagreed with by way of power and money.

0
Avatar
Newbie

well before you scream heretic how about you look up what the word Catholic means. and did you not read the rest of my post or did you just see that and jump to conclusions?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Well since I'm back does anyone mind telling me more about the Protestant doctrine of Once saved, Always saved?

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is my point. However, everyone in heaven is Catholic, but that doesn't mean that they had to have been a member of a Catholic Parish on earth. Get my drfit?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@lady

the point I'm making is that been a catholic member is not a guarantee to heaven.Being in any church no matter how holy the church's story is is not a guarantee to heaven.The individual needs to have repented and to live according to the dictates of God.Ecumenism is just holding programs together and listening to different people.The different people having their different beliefs.Thats not Jesus' unity.The one serving Jesus and the one serving Allah and the one serving gboiu and the one serving mary and the one serving Pastor soso all seated together in the same fellowship singing and saying grace,That is hypocrisy and a waste of resouce,not unity.Unity is a unity in belief

0
Avatar
Newbie

You're welcome

I am aware of the books mentioned in the Bible, actually you just proved that sola scriptura is unbiblical because there are sources in the Bible about books that are not in the Bible, thanks for that.

But as I was saying, I am aware of the books mentioned in the Bible, but that in no way states that the Bible is incomplete. As I stated before, to state that the Bible is incomplete is to say that the Bible was already in existence before its canonization which would be contradictory, because it was after canonization that the Bible came to be.

If those books were canonized and are missing from the Bible, then you can correctly say that the Bible is incomplete, but if they were never canonized then you are incorrect in saying that the Bible is incomplete.

Let me put it like this.

You have 50 books written, and they are read by different communities, but they are not all put together by the appointed authorities and defined as scripture. Those books would be equivalent to books written today for inspiration, we can learn from them, they are not scripture.

But let's say that 30 of those books were now defined as scripture, does that mean that the remaining 20 books are scripture? No, they weren't defined as scripture. They can be referenced, they can be regarded as good moral readings, but they are not scripture. If they were not defined as scripture they were never scripture.

So now from those 30 books that were defined as scripture, if 10 were taken out after being defined as scripture, then you can say that the Canon is incomplete, because scripture was taken out.

So the ones defined as scripture are the only scripture, the ones not defined as scripture are not scripture, therefore just because they are mentioned does not mean that they are scripture.

So in reality the Bible is not incomplete (catholic bible), because those that were defined as canon are still canon.

Now for the ethiopian church (not coptic church) they do not have the authority to define scripture, what they define is for themselves and not scripture for christians, they were not apostolic and therefore had no say so as to which books were to be included. They can regard them as scripture all they want, but I can guarantee you that in heaven those books are not regarded as scripture. They do not hold any key to bind and loose.

You make the statement as if it was a conspiracy by the Catholic Bishops, are you not aware that even Paul and several other apostles asked that the christians beware of those who preach a false doctrine?

Would you then say that they too were trying to teach what their idea of christianity was?

Are you aware that there were many writings that denied the divinity of Christ and his humanity?

How would you expect that the Church should have handled the situation of false prophets at that time?

The reason the Bible was put together was because there were many false doctrines passing around and saying that they were holding on to the true teachings of Christ. So the church decides to put together the canon or measuring stick to tell people what the teaching of Christ is. If it didn't align with the Bible it wasn't the teaching of Christ. How were they to know which one was true, they stuck to the ones that were written earlier and were written by the apostles or by the direct disciples of the apostles themselves, and were in line with the traditions of the apostles.

Constantine comes into the picture, not because he actually cared for what happened to the church but because he didn't want a riot, he wanted a rule or measuring stick for the christians to go by so that people won't start riots fighting for who was teaching the truth about Christ. Dude just didn't want his city to burn down.

The books could have probably changed the teaching of Christ because most of them taught that Christ wasn't divine, or that he wasn't human, or that one side of his nature had supremacy over the other side, and so on and so forth. So yeah it would have changed everything. But thank God, he stuck to his promise to guide us into all truth.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Image123

I was not quoting you directly, I summed up what you were saying, which really is "it doesn't matter what church you belong to" when you stated that being a protestant or catholic isn't what will get u to heaven. And I was stating that while that may sound like a good speech, it is unbiblical. It does matter, being in the church Christ founded does matter, as long as you choose to be a Christian. Christ prayed for ONE CHURCH, with ONE BELIEF, not different Churches with different belief.

You also mentioned that it is about you yourself, and that in itself is unbiblical, we are called to be a christian community. What you speak of is selfishness, one that focuses on his own salvation alone is selfish.

How are the believers supposed to be one if they do not join hands together in ecumenism? Not joining hands together in ecumenism is not being one, and that is exactly what Christ prayed against.

How are people supposed to have the same belief about God and the way of salvation if everyone is going their own way and doing their own thing, and telling themselves that it doesn't matter if they are protestants or catholics (i wonder do u know what catholic is?)

0
Avatar
Newbie

@kunleoshob

What do you mean by unscriptural.There were no long term factions of christians in the new testament.There was seperation from unbelievers though.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I just feel i should remind you that church denominations as we have it today is unscriptural and against the teachings of the Apostles. Here is what paul as to say about it:

1 Corinthians 1:10-17:

Divisions in the Church

10 I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11 For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your quarrels, my dear brothers and sisters. 12 Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter” or “I follow only Christ.”

13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16 (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) 17 For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speech, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

From what i learnt some books were kept away from the public becos it did not fit the idea of christianity was being promoted by the catholic bishops of that time and emperor constantine who ordered the compilation of the bible. also some books were considered of "higher spiritual value" hence not meant for public consumption and to be used by a select few. I don't think the books would fundermentally change the gospel of christ but i believe we would be able to see things in a new perpective. Even from the bible we have, if you study it with an open mind you would discover that a lot of doctrines and practises held as true in today's churches lack biblical basis. they are merely doctrine of men.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@kunleOshob

I've been following your posts 4 a while now and its obvious to me that you're convinced the bible (that is, what we protestants call the bible) is incomplete. I'm aware that there are several books which have not been included in the books which make up the bible and also the Vatican is supposed to have books which have been concealed.

question is, in your opinion why have these books been kept away from public knowledge and what difference will they make to our beliefs if we get our hands on them?

0
Avatar
Newbie

He prayed and taught that believers should be one,not that believers and unbelievers should join hands together in ecumenism.When people do not believe the same things especially about God and the way of salvation,they're not likely to walk together.I don't remember saying the boldened phrase above

0
Avatar
Newbie

@lady

thanx for the extra info, i would do more reseacrh meanwhile check out this list of books that were referenced in the bible and missing from it.

Books Mentioned, But Not Found, In The Bible

There are between eighteen to twenty-four books mentioned in the Bible, but not included. The variation is due to possible double mentions using differing names for the same book.

Book of the Covenant

♦ Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. There are no authoritative sources for this text.

Book of the Wars of the Lord

♦ Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

Certain sources believe that this is to be found by drawing text from several Old Testament books. There are no authoritative sources for this text.

Book of Jasher

♦ Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

♦ 2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

The Manner of the Kingdom / Book of Statutes

♦ 1 Samuel 10:25 Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.

Book of Samuel the Seer

♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

Nathan the Prophet

♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

Acts of Solomon

♦ 1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?

Shemaiah the Prophet

♦ 2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

Prophecy of Abijah

♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

Story of Prophet Iddo

♦ 2 Chronicles 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.

Visions of Iddo the Seer

♦ 2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

Iddo Genealogies

♦ 2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually

Book of Jehu

♦ 2 Chronicles 20:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel.

Sayings of the Seers

♦ 2 Chronicles 33:19 His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sin, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.

Book of Enoch

♦ Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Book of Gad the Seer

♦ 1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

Epistle to Corinth

♦ 1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

Epistle to the Ephesians (Missing)

♦ Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians (Missing)

♦ Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Nazarene Prophecy Source

♦ Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene

Acts of Uziah

♦ 2 Chronicles 26:22 Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write.

The Annals of King David

♦ 1 Chronicles 27:24 Joab son of Zeruiah began to count the men but did not finish. Wrath came on Israel on account of this numbering, and the number was not entered in the book of the annals of King David.

Jude, the Missing Epistle

♦ Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Are you confusing the Church of Ethiopia with the Coptic Church?

The Coptic Church is the one that has existed since the time of the apostles, from the apostle Mark (I tbelieve that's the one)

But the Ethiopian church claims that it was founded by the eunuch that was baptised by Philip. Those are different churches, although they came to an agreement later.

That church was not included in THE CHURCH, they are monophysites (research that and the come back and tell me what you found about their belief)

And I am telling you that the only real canonized books of the Bible are those canonized by the council of carthage. Ethiopia canonized its own set of books in addition to those that were canonized by the Church (East and West).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

As I stated there was no Bible until it was compiled and canonized by the Church (East and West) remember at that time there was no schisms between east and west so everyone was in union with Rome, including the Ethiopians. Each region went by the traditions of the apostles that founded them, and the writings of the church fathers in their regions. at the councils that were held that discussed the bible all these books were disputed and then decided upon by unanimous vote.

As for the book of enoch it is neither found in the Alexandrine Canon or the Palestinian canon. So who knows where it came from. Like I said be very careful. Do some more research on the belief of the coptic church, God bless them, we love them, and we all hope to be united soon. no more schisms, please.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Lady

I said it is not complete becos there were some books such as the book of enoch which was considered scripture by the early christians is conspiciously missing from the bible and we all know from the book of genesis tht enoch was very close to God. The book of enoch is included in the ethopian bible. There are several other books considered scripture in the bible that are not included as well. I could supply you with a list if you so desire

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ KunleOshob

Sorry I forgot to touch on this point you made. You said something about the Bible being incomplete.

The Catholic Bible is complete, the Protestant Bible isn't.

Remember there really wasn't a Bible until the Church put it together. So to say that the Bible or the Catholic Bible is not complete is to say that the Bible as we know it today was in existence before the Church put it together, as in it was already called the Bible before the Church put it together and we know that isn't correct.

Just wanted to point that out.

Ok have a blessed day.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Image123

Well see that sounds really good and all, and while I agree that even though you are in the Church it doesn't mean you are being a true christian, but the whole it doesn't matter, it relly does, especially since the Church isn't about individualism, it is about being a community. Yes you as an individual have to make sure that you are always in the State of Grace with God, but you also have a duty to the community, and this community that Christ prayed for is the Church and he prayed for unity. He prayed that the Church may be ONE. Even St. Paul speaks of the Church being one, and he tells us that the Church is the body of Christ, and in a body you don't have different beliefs. A leg cannot say I want to believe in A and then the arm say I want to believe in B. Look at it like this, we have different blood types, type A, B, O (I think that's correct) well, a leg cannot have type A while the arm has type B. I hope you see what I am saying.

So while it's a good speech to say it doesn't matter what Church you belong to, all that matters is that you're a good Christian, it doesn't agree with Christ's prayer and Paul's teaching.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Being a protestant or a catholic is not the criteria for taking anybody to heaven.It is being a christian.A real christian,because we now have false christians,false teachers,false pastors and so on.The question is are you a real christian? Catholicism and protestamism and charismatism and all the other isms all started after Christ ascended to heaven.Even the believers were not called christians until after the ascension of God.Its not the name we bear that really matters.Its us.Are you a bride of Christ?Are you as an individual ready for the coming of Jesus.Let's not swerve into vain jangling.If there's something important o correct,lets do so instead of employing political gimmicks to downplay the other.

0
Avatar
Newbie

quote]@Lady

Thanx for your response, i was able to learn a thing or two from your post, however it still remains a fact that the ethopian church and the coptic church precede the roman catholic church and there bibles are substantially different from the bible passed down by the catholic church.

It wasn't for Political reasons, it's not like it's some sort of conspiracy theory, having examined these books myself, most are incomplete, most were not written by the people that it claims as its author, and most were written well after the 1st century. Also there were gnostic writings as well, and the Church ofcourse had to check these writings and make sure that they are in line with the traditions that the apostles taught them. The gnostic writings are not in line with the traditions of the apostles, and they can be very convincing so when you read them be careful.

ok seriously these books are online, so it's not hidden in a secret archive in the Vatican, if I can get access to them you can. You know about them because the Vatican isn't trying to hide anything from anyone, that's why protestant theologians have copies of them. They're very much accessible.

If anything the Catholic Church has been nothing but truthful. People need to stop looking at the Vatican as some kind of secret service agency, it is not the FBI, and does not intend to be. It really is not that serious.

If you can't find them they are nonexistent. Remember that the dead sea scrolls were found recently, I bet people that lived before then were saying the same thing as you are, "the vatican has them hidden somewhere" and what happens? they're discovered

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Lady

Thanx for your response, i was able to learn a thing or two from your post, however it still remains a fact that the ethopian church and the coptic church precede the roman catholic church and there bibles are substantially different from the bible passed down by the catholic church.

@talks, davidlyan &bobbyaf

Isn't it weird that you are arguing about the completeness and infallability of the bible with a catholic? if i must remind you the bible which we all use today is a compilation of the catholic church albeit editted by Martin luther. If the catholic church tells us that the bible is not complete we don't have a choice but to accept that as fact. I know for a fact from bible history and evidence within the bible it self that several books were deliberately left out of th bible for political reasons when it was being compiled by the catholic church. This books remain in their archives in the vatican till this day. I also learnt that over thirty gospels of christ were written but only four found there way into the bible. For people suspicious of the catholic church, i would expect you would want to know why these other books were excluded. (that is apart from the story we were told that the editors of the bible did not deem them as divinly inspired)

0
Avatar
Newbie

sigh!

@lady,

This is all I will be saying here.

The answer u seek is already in the verse u quoted above:

2Thessalonians 2:15

(15)  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I can't imagine why u can't see that the verse above is asking to hold unto one particular thing/message; not different things,but different mediums of communication(by word or our epistle).

It simply means that the same message;communicated by word or by letters(epistles),have to be held unto.It doesn't mean that the message delivered by the differing mediums differ in one way or the other;or that the medium used introduces different stuff from the other medium.

Which simply takes us back to what we've been saying all along that any tradition called Christian must be supported 100% by the bible.Anything not supported or backed by the bible is false.

And a lot of Catholic tradition have been found wanting by the bible.They've all been stated one way or another through Bobbyafs thread.

Conclusion:

Scripture alone is perfectly fine cos we are assured that it contains all we need and also contains everything which was taught orally by the apostles(2 thessalonians 2:15).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ofcourse you need the Holy Spirit first and then after that does it contiue to not make any sense?

Dude I asked you a question, you siad you would answer so please answer.

Does the Bible say we should go by scripture ALONE?

Now not to be redundant but I already provided that for Bobbyaf

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

So you see we should go by what they said not just what they wrote. Not everything they said was written was it?

Really? by not answering the questions?

thank God.

thou hypocrite, when you guys start 10 new threads on bashing Catholics you are quick to jump in and bash catholics with the same redundant falsehoods, but when questioned about your own faith you simply allude it to the same old questions.

Why haven't you been able to stand firm in the faith and answer questions, you do the same thing over and over again David it is a pattern and everyone knows it now. When asked todefend your belief, you simply turn around say the other person is the problem, David answer the questions.

Did the verse in 2 Timothy say that we should go by Bible ALONE?

Does any verse in the Bible say we should go by Bible ALONE?

You want to follow Bible ALONE, prove that it is biblical, and when you are able to do that, I will gladly follow Bible ALONE. And yes I will accept defeat. Can you prove that Bible ALONE is biblical?

Dude I specifically asked you not to post, because David already started posting and I wanted it to not get off track. If you'd posted first, David would have been asked not to post. But he beat you to it. Simple.

But since you insisted on posting, answer the questions.

You guys have a nice way of avoiding the issue and facing the truth. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

0
Avatar
Newbie

she's not asking anything new, its the same recycled falsehoods.

She's not the type open to alternative viewpoints . . . i wonder how her husband (if she has one) copes with her . . . i'm out of the thread as well. Good luck finding "answers" lady.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Lady

So when you were asking for my input to this thread did you not expect me to have posted in it? So what is this utter nonsense about my not respecting your request for not posting in your thread?

@ Davidylan

I'd have to agree with you. Its really a waste of time discussing anything with Lady, because all she has actually done was to start a thread of her own to continue what she and others have been discussing for ages without coming to any conclusions.

This is my last post here.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If it "made sense" all scientists, philosophers and nobel laureates would be christians today. Did the phrase "eat my flesh and drink my blood" in John 6 make sense to the disciples? Paul was a "learned man" but he had thought Christ was a heretic until his journey to Damascus, Peter was a mere fisherman, an illiterate and yet he understood the gospel well enough to give his earthshaking speech on the day of pentecost. Faith cannot be obtained by logical reasoning . . . the bible says that much.

You need the Holy Spirit first.

pray tell, what does the bible tell you to take along with scripture? history? Provide bible verses to support this pls. Remember Joshua's command to the jews . . . this book of the law (the books of Moses) shall not depart out of thy mouth . . .

We already know Peter was no pope, you cant prove that Peter was ever in Rome and whether he had any significant influence there.

I'm trying . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.