A question for all Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To me the fact that people believe in the bible is the key, why are you trying to prove a point like that why can’t we all share like God wants us to do? How can we be brothers and sisters if we knock each other around and battle against each other when there is a real enemy out there seeking whom ever he can devour? Why do you look at the splint in your brothers eye when you have a log in your own eye? Can you hear the Lord crying from heaven? Can you see his tears? Do you know he loves you and me? Black and white? We all love Him so why the battle i am just glad there is a bible to share with others who believe and to share with those who never cared to read the good news of the eternal life they have, and don’t even know? how can we teach if we reject the very thing Jesus came here for? Hmmm, this is not good, be still, and know that i am God! raggetyann Love is the key!🙂
 
No arguments from me that Catholics and Protestants (me included for sure) could stand to spend more time and effort in looking for common ground and following the Great Commission as well as living out the Gospel instead of constantly arguing church polity, theology, and who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s kind of like government. If Democrats and Republicans would get out of the party-team mindset and back to being an American we’d all be better off.
raggetyann said:
To me the fact that people believe in the bible is the key, why are you trying to prove a point like that why can’t we all share like God wants us to do? How can we be brothers and sisters if we knock each other around and battle against each other when there is a real enemy out there seeking whom ever he can devour? Why do you look at the splint in your brothers eye when you have a log in your own eye? Can you hear the Lord crying from heaven? Can you see his tears? Do you know he loves you and me? Black and white? We all love Him so why the battle i am just glad there is a bible to share with others who believe and to share with those who never cared to read the good news of the eternal life they have, and don’t even know? how can we teach if we reject the very thing Jesus came here for? Hmmm, this is not good, be still, and know that i am God! raggetyann Love is the key!🙂
Click to expand...
 
chessmane4e5 said:
St Jerome did compile the Latin Vulgate (and he was unsure of whether or not to include the Apocrypha because their were Jews who did not consider it part of the Old Testament), but he also played a big role in choosing what would be in the New Testament.

“St Jerome has worked closely with Pope Damascus in Rome, aiding him in preparing a list of all the books rightly to be included in the canon of Scripture (later) proclaimed by St. Augustine in Africa.” Warren Carroll “The Building of Christendom, A history of Christendom Vol 2.” page 57.

where we got the bible

But I guess I should have more clear that the New Testament was not finally settled until 397.
Click to expand...
If the Bible came from the Catholic church then why were there so many versions of the Canon almost immediately during the late 4th century and soon after?
 
Justy90 said:
The Trinity is all throughout Scripture. Paul speaks of each person of the Trinity when preaching to the Corinthians about all the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are spoken of in Scripture, but that is not the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Trinity holds that all 3 are the same God. Where in the Bible do you find this teaching, 3 beings which are all the same 1 God.
 
Justy90 said:
Regardless of how you view Scripture, if the beliefs do not parallel Scripture, they then are wrongful.
Click to expand...
The Traditions existed before Scripture and all the Traditions of the RCC do parallel Scripture.
 
Justy90 said:
If the Bible came from the Catholic church then why were there so many versions of the Canon almost immediately during the late 4th century and soon after?
Click to expand...
Can you provide some source evidence of this?

My first instinct would be because the Apostles never intended to put into writing all the Teachings of Jesus. The Apostles did what Jesus told them, which was to go out and proclaim the Good News. Writing things down, like the Acts or Gospels, were after thoughts. All the Letters we have were not intended to teach the Gospel message but to amplify or correct it. Every single Letter (from Paul or James or John) were written to people that had already been taught by Word of Mouth. The Apostles wrote the letters because they could not be there in person.

Also, we know of other writings which, like the ones I just mentioned, were being read in various church’s. For example we know that Pope Clement wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians around 96 A.D. or Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Romans around 106 A.D. These were read aloud at those Churches. Although it appears clear that when St Jerome and Pope Damascus, or St Augustine or whomever finally decided what would be canon, they limited the Letters and Epistles to those written by the Apostles.

Now, I have historical evidence of the Church deciding what would be in the Bible. Can you provide evidence for your claim, that the Bible came from somewhere else?
 
The foundation for the trinity was present in Gen 1:1 the word for God is elohim which is a singular plural. It’s like calling you your name as a plural but you are only one person. Incidentally elohim is the third word of Gen 1:1 1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים . That’s no coincidence. Dt 6:4 the shma is calling God ONE but in the plural form. Gen 1:26 God says let US make man in OUR own image. The Holy Spirit is seen as the agent of creation and is revealed in the masculine form and is given personal identity. The formula for baptism has the trinity present. This is significant because God will share His glory with no one. They are equally equated with God therefore they are God. They are portrayed as three separate distinct persons yet are one in being.

The word trinity does not appear in the bible but the trinity clearly does.

There are definite clear and evident teachings of scripture. These we hold to. We hold scripture as the final arbiter of truth. When scripture is the final authority man made traditions hold no sway.

There are a plethera of examlpes of the doctrine of the trinity in the bible that would fill many pages here. We don’t have time enough to discussthem all.
 
jericho777 said:
The foundation for the trinity was present in Gen 1:1 the word for God is elohim which is a singular plural. It’s like calling you your name as a plural but you are only one person. Incidentally elohim is the third word of Gen 1:1 1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים . That’s no coincidence. Dt 6:4 the shma is calling God ONE but in the plural form. Gen 1:26 God says let US make man in OUR own image. The Holy Spirit is seen as the agent of creation and is revealed in the masculine form and is given personal identity. The formula for baptism has the trinity present. This is significant because God will share His glory with no one. They are equally equated with God therefore they are God. They are portrayed as three separate distinct persons yet are one in being.

The word trinity does not appear in the bible but the trinity clearly does.

There are definite clear and evident teachings of scripture. These we hold to. We hold scripture as the final arbiter of truth. When scripture is the final authority man made traditions hold no sway.

There are a plethera of examlpes of the doctrine of the trinity in the bible that would fill many pages here. We don’t have time enough to discussthem all.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. Basically what you are saying is that God has always been 3 person, but it was not explicitly revealed until by Jesus Christ, although He never used the word Trinity.

Which means the word “Trinity” although not in the Bible and invented by man, merely describes the reality that God has revealed to us.

Is that a fair way to describe it?
 
chessmane4e5 said:
You make a good point. Basically what you are saying is that God has always been 3 person, but it was not explicitly revealed until by Jesus Christ, although He never used the word Trinity.

Which means the word “Trinity” although not in the Bible and invented by man, merely describes the reality that God has revealed to us.

Is that a fair way to describe it?
Click to expand...
Hi chessmane4e5
Yes you’re correct He was revealed as triune but never defined Himself as that. I saw a messisnic rabbi talk about Dt 6:4 showing how God was manifested in singular plural form in the OT. We also know that Jesus is YHWH ben YHWH.
 
I did hear on the history channel that there was indeed a woman Pope Jean i think but she didn’t stay to long.I think she had a baby in main sreet and since then there is a chair with a hole in it to see if the Pontific is realy a male? Am i on the right track? raggetyann
 
jericho777 said:
Hi chessmane4e5
Yes you’re correct He was revealed as triune but never defined Himself as that. I saw a messisnic rabbi talk about Dt 6:4 showing how God was manifested in singular plural form in the OT. We also know that Jesus is YHWH ben YHWH.
Click to expand...
So does that mean that even though Peter never defined himself as Pope, scripture still reveals him to be the Pope? Matt 16:13-19
 
chessmane4e5 said:
So does that mean that even though Peter never defined himself as Pope, scripture still reveals him to be the Pope? Matt 16:13-19
Click to expand...
Peter is not revealed in scripture as Pope. 1 Peter 2:4-8 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,

a chosen and precious cornerstone,

and the one who trusts in him

will never be put to shame.”

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected

has become the capstone,

8and,

“A stone that causes men to stumble

and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Is a continuation and explanation of Matt 16:13-19. Remember it is Peter himself making this statement. He does not use this scripture to refer to himself as Pope or any other supreme type of leader. He calls all believers living stones built on Christ that is the same thing as Mat 16 because it is our faith in Christ that will build the body.
 
chessmane4e5 said:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are spoken of in Scripture, but that is not the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Trinity holds that all 3 are the same God. Where in the Bible do you find this teaching, 3 beings which are all the same 1 God.
Click to expand...
How specific do you need it spelled out? John 1:1 does a pretty good job amongst many others.
 
chessmane4e5 said:
The Traditions existed before Scripture and all the Traditions of the RCC do parallel Scripture.
Click to expand...
Can you give me one single example of an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Scriptures are silent about and prove that it is Apostolic in nature.
 
chessmane4e5 said:
My first instinct would be because the Apostles never intended to put into writing all the Teachings of Jesus. The Apostles did what Jesus told them, which was to go out and proclaim the Good News. Writing things down, like the Acts or Gospels, were after thoughts. All the Letters we have were not intended to teach the Gospel message but to amplify or correct it. Every single Letter (from Paul or James or John) were written to people that had already been taught by Word of Mouth. The Apostles wrote the letters because they could not be there in person.

The letters had to be written because so often the churches fell out of line or were ignorant of the teachings. It’s pretty clear whether you want to admit it or not that the Scriptures are to serve as the supreme authority. Jesus said so many times when he was preaching, “It Is Written”.
Click to expand...
 
jericho777 said:
Peter is not revealed in scripture as Pope. 1 Peter 2:4-8 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,

a chosen and precious cornerstone,

and the one who trusts in him

will never be put to shame.”

7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected

has become the capstone,

8and,

“A stone that causes men to stumble

and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Is a continuation and explanation of Matt 16:13-19. Remember it is Peter himself making this statement. He does not use this scripture to refer to himself as Pope or any other supreme type of leader. He calls all believers living stones built on Christ that is the same thing as Mat 16 because it is our faith in Christ that will build the body.
Click to expand...
I don’t see this as Peter saying they are the same “rock” as Jesus called him. He says in verse 5 “Like living stone” which is a simile. I could tell a Boxer to be like a Butterfly.

The fact that Peter is humble is more of a reason to think that he is Pope, as it was Jesus that told the Apostles

"42Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:42-45

Since Peter was the leader, I am sure He listened to Jesus and tried to be a servant.
 
Justy90 said:
The letters had to be written because so often the churches fell out of line or were ignorant of the teachings. It’s pretty clear whether you want to admit it or not that the Scriptures are to serve as the supreme authority. Jesus said so many times when he was preaching, “It Is Written”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top