Another Nail for the Sola Scriptura Coffin

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonFrere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonFrere said:
Of course. BUT you used Jesus’ raising people from the dead as proof that He was God. THIS is not proof; because other men also raised people from the dead. From this miracle we do not have proof that Jesus was God – because Elijah, St. Peter and St. Paul also raised people from the dead and were not God.

Now, when Jesus raised Himself from the dead – now THAT’S something NO MAN has ever done and is a proof of Jesus’ Divinity.

MonFrere
Click to expand...
I am correct; Elijah prayed to god to raise the child and He did. The apostles were given the power of god, so what is the only source for raising the dead? Which is my point.
 
Timothy_Piper said:
I am correct; Elijah prayed to god to raise the child and He did. The apostles were given the power of god, so what is the only source for raising the dead? Which is my point.
Click to expand...
Invalid point because Christ had two natures man and God, thus Christ was man but also God, and acted as such according through the whim of his Father, in fact the whole argument is just silly try again Tim. Also I would love to know what Bible you are using, as that makes a huge difference as some Protestant Bibles have been butchered from the real thing. (Yes Catholic Church has been guilty of excluding or changing certain Scripture at times but on a MUCH minor scale than Protestantism and it is much harder to prove this and for varying reasons none of which were to spite any particular entity as Protestants do to the Mother Church.)
 
It’s interesting that you can have a conversation about the Bible. I asked a question on the bible on the Apologetics board and have yet to get an answer. I pm’ed Michelle Arnold and have yet to get a response. Of course, my question was not about masturbation, NFP or having sex when the moon is full - so I guess it was regarded as unimportant and not worthy of her answer.

I think it’s embarrassing for a Catholic forum to ignore questions, even if they are difficult to answer. What is the Catholic faith about anyway if we can’t ask questions.
 
adamsapple said:
It’s interesting that you can have a conversation about the Bible. I asked a question on the bible on the Apologetics board and have yet to get an answer. I pm’ed Michelle Arnold and have yet to get a response. Of course, my question was not about masturbation, NFP or having sex when the moon is full - so I guess it was regarded as unimportant and not worthy of her answer.

I think it’s embarrassing for a Catholic forum to ignore questions, even if they are difficult to answer. What is the Catholic faith about anyway if we can’t ask questions.
Click to expand...
Step one: forum search, see whether your question is already answered.

Step two: start a thread with the topic. See who answers.

You can pm men if you like.
 
MonFrere said:
Nice try. These scriptures say that Jesus was both God and man. It doesn’t state at all HOW this takes place. None of the scriptures speak of Jesus having two distinct natures and being at the same time just one person. Some people spoke of two modes of being. The scriptures “could be” taken to mean this. Scripture does NOT clarify the exact meaning because it does not go deep enough into this mystery. How can scripture tell me that Jesus didn’t simply have two different modes of being each one coming to the forefront as necessary? Where does scripture tell us there is no confusion between these two modes or natures or souls or whatever Christ had two of? Do you want to try again? All the scriptures have identified so far is the human quality of Jesus and the divine quality of Jesus. This isn’t the definition of the Hypostatic Union.

Tim - On the Hypo static Union ---- Take Two!

MonFrere
Click to expand...
Look if you cannot read the Scripture and see both natures on the “God-man” called Jesus Christ, then you have a disease called “Scriptural Dysfunction” and in some cases can be deadly, but their is a cure for it.

I can’t help it if you cannot see by the Scriptures in which divine and human natures are united. This is part of the disease I was speaking of above.

Perhaps John 1 will help you?
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power F2 to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
  1. In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.
 
VerumAdInfernos said:
One of the most ridiculous statements ever have I seen on this forum Kudos for that. I shall back up my fellow compratriot Monfere on this issue. Before I delve into the nitty gritty detail of this argument I would like to point out that Bert, the principal Protestant critic has frequently cited many sources, but cited wikipedia. Sir while I do realize wikipedia has valid information and cites other outside sources to be checked. It should be frown upon for use in a scholarly debate, as it simply cannot be thoroughly trusted as to its accuracy. And is universally regarded as an unscholarly source. That said, I perhaps I shall clear this issue up and broaden some view points? Let’s get down to buisness CAF’ers.
Code: 
 Ahhh Sola Scriptura, just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? In fairness Protestant fellows this is a Catholic designation of the "Bible-alone" doctrine and at times can seem a pejorative one. So let's take a look at why this "Bible-alone" doctrine is embraced, why it is illogical, and really contrary to Christian Faith shall we?

 Sola Scriptura teaches that of course as has been established by the thread, is the sole rule of Faith as interpreted by the individual believer for a Christian. We Catholics on the other hand hold that the direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church, the Church in turn takes her teaching from divine Revelation which is both the Written Word, or Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition". The teaching authority or "Magesterium" of the Church, is not itself a source of divine Revelation. However it does have a God charged mission to interpet and teach both Scripture and Tradition. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther a 16th century German monk who started the Protestant Reformation. Luther was passionate in his beliefs and in spreading them but this of course does not make them correct.

 One of the most notable reasons to reject Sola Scriptura is that there is not one verse in the Bible(any version no matter how butchered) in which it is taught. It therefore becomes a self-refuting doctrine, completely illogical. Now keep reading before you get up in arms with Scripture quotations please. Protestants will often refer to 2 Tim 3:1-17 or The Apocalypse 22:18-19 in Sola Scriptura defense. So let's examine them. 2 Tim 3:16-17 reads: "All Scripture,inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." The Greek word "Ophelimos" ("profitable") used in verse 16 means "useful" not "sufficient". An example would be that water is useful for our existence actually necessary, but not "sufficient". The Greek word "pasa" which is often rendered as "all" actually means "every" and it has the sense of regerring to each and every one of the class denouted by the noun connected with it. In other words it reads that each and every Scripture is profitable. If Sola Scriptura were true, then based on the Greek in verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on it's own as the sole rule of faith, completely and utterly ABSURD! The "Scripture" St. Paul refers to is the OT. This is made known by his reference to Scriptures' being known by Timothy from "infancy". See verse fifteen please. The NT as we know it did not exist, or was incomplete, so it could not have been included in St. Paul's understanding of what "Scripture" was. If we take St. Paul's words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian's sole rule of faith! This is a premise that all of us as Christians can reject. (See Cont..)
Click to expand...
You shouldn’t think so highly of yourself because if you applied the same standards you are to sola scritpura, then toss out you priesthood, immaculate conception, papal authority, speaking excathedra and a bunch more doctrines that are not contained, even in a remotely implicit manner. in any revelation given us by God.

Furthermore you seem to want to define sola scriptura on a false premise which implies that any interpretation will do. where the truth is sola scriptura speaks only to the fact that the Bible is sufficient for all Christian practices and provides all the moral guidlines we need and of course it does and always has. I have mentioned before that whether Scriptur is read or listened to or can’t be read nor understood does not change that fact that it is what God revealed to all of us.
 
VerumAdInfernos said:
(Cont…)

Protestant and Catholic Bibles differ there is no question about that. Another argument against Sola Scriptura is that most Protestant versions of the Bible are historically inadequate, I shall elaborate.
Code: 
 A Catholic Bible has "more books" than a Protestant Bible. While each NT has the same amount of books the Catholic Old Testament has 46 whereas the Protestant version has 39, why? Many Protestants will claim the CC added seven books to the OT: Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 2 Maccabees and parts of Daniel and Esther. Actually a one, Martin Luther departed from 1500 years of Christian tradition and subtracted these books. These missing books are called the Deuterocanonicals or in Protestant circles, "The Apocrypha". Now CAF'ers in Christs day the OT had NOT been determined. Different groups in Palestine honored different canons of Scripture. The Sadducees for example held that only the Pentateuch or the first five books of the Bible (Gen-Deut) were canon. The Samaritans the same with their own versions. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition roughly the same as the Protestant one today though the boundaries were not set. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls considered a few more books Scriptural however. Finally you had some Jews who honored a canonical tradition that is best represented today in the Septuagint translation of the OT. This Greek translation was made between 250-125 B.C. and is called Septuagint because of the number of translators that compiled it. Septuagint coming from the Latin word for 70. They compiled it's Pentateuch according to tradition.

 The real question in play here CAF'ers is which canon did Christ and His apostles use? In the time of Jesus, Hebrew as a language was dead, Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic as many know and Greek was the common tongue. Not suprisingly the NT writers used the Greek Septuagint. According to Protestant authors, Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, the VAST majority of quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint but only 33 places does it cite the Hebrew canon. SOURCE: Gleason Arhcer and G.C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago, IL, Moody Press, 1983) xxv-xxxii. 
 Guess what CAF'ers?, that means that OVER 90% of the time by that count, the NT writers quoted the Septuagint, and remember the entire NT was written in Greek.
Now in 1529 Martin Luther proposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism of 39 books as OT canon, Luther justified this by citing the concerns of St. Jerome. However UNLIKE St. Jerome who humble submitted his opinon in private and accepted full authority of the Church, Luther arrogantly challanged them and made his opinion public, maybe Luther forgot humility with all the Penance he was so famous for?

Another REAL question fellow CAF’ers is this, Which OT canon would you rather use, the OT used by the apostles and the NT writers, and the early Church, OR, the OT used by the later Jewish peoples who rejected Christ? If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow the apostles amd the other NT writers and the early Church. If your Bible omits them, you follow the NON-CHRISTIAN rabbis and Martin Luther, a man whose view of Sacred Scripture allowed him to deliberately add the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28. in an attempt to throw out even more books of the Bible, including Esther, Revelation!!!=O and EVEN JAMES??? Which he dismissed as “an epistle of straw”. SOURCE: Stoddard’s Rebuilding a Lost Faith (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1990), 137

Glory be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, may God bless her and grant us strength to be great Apologists in her favor. God bless, you all, God bless the Church, and God bless Catholicism,…Verum out.
Click to expand...
Now I know you do not know what you are saying, the word of God contains no errors; your Bible has known errors - pretty much clears the air on that difference. Apologist in favor of your church in obstinance toward the bible…congratulations you win and the bible looses. viva your church.
 
VerumAdInfernos said:
Invalid point because Christ had two natures man and God, thus Christ was man but also God, and acted as such according through the whim of his Father, in fact the whole argument is just silly try again Tim. Also I would love to know what Bible you are using, as that makes a huge difference as some Protestant Bibles have been butchered from the real thing. (Yes Catholic Church has been guilty of excluding or changing certain Scripture at times but on a MUCH minor scale than Protestantism and it is much harder to prove this and for varying reasons none of which were to spite any particular entity as Protestants do to the Mother Church.)
Click to expand...
I use the variety pack and the guide is super natural and has made residence inside of me; otherwise I couldn’t understand anything about God.
 
VerumAdInfernos said:
Haha that’s funny considering Martin Luther was, where these silly erroneous views originated from.

Those last two posts do a pretty good job debunking if you ask me, let’s ask the others? So your citationg to back you up here is that because the Trinity is a n implicit truth given by God Sola Scriptura is? That’s interesting, not very scholarly, influential or helping your argument but interesting.

Excuse me good sir WHAT FACTS? are you talking about so far all you have done is quote Scripture and your interpretation of that Scripture I reiterate unless you can provide documented proof as an authority on those matters please cite proper authorities in the mean time. As for quoting every person who disagrees? I cited two fundamentalist Protestant authors who accept sola scriptura to back up my argument against it. Thus it is quite a slam when the research and findings of people on your own side of the argument dig up evidence against it.

How sad Timothy that you make a classic Protestant error here. Focusing on little sections of Scripture to mean bigger things. Like the “Living Word” and the Scripture being “sharper than a two edged sword”. And interesting you should bring that up as a double edged sword has a draw back, it can be pressed against you. Maybe a bad analogy?

The Bible is Jesus? No Jesus speaks to us through the Bible, huge mistake there. The NT writers never even knew Christ the gospels were written in A.D. And there is not a serious Christian out there that will dispute that so there again you tread on historical information that is becoming your downfall. It’s not that you are not articulating well it’s that you haven’t evidently had any classes in argumentation, or literature classes that teach you how to write critical papers. Because you have not provided ONE compelling argument for sola scriptura other than your opinion of Scripture itself. I said the thread should be closed and debate ended because I knew this probably to be the case that you would not fall in line with that mode of debate, and so far I have been proven correct sir, God bless you!
Click to expand...
Ya knaw what; I’ve had enough of yew; you are one of those “self deceived know it all’s” . I’m done with this thread; the point has been proven and you disagree, so not much more to say is there? God bless and good night…time to get those much needed zzzzzzzz’s

Apologies to the rest to whom I will not get to on this thread, but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the dialogue.
Timothy
 
Either keep it charitable or I will close the thread.

Thank You

Tom Casey
Moderator
 
Timothy_Piper said:
Now I know you do not know what you are saying, the word of God contains no errors; your Bible has known errors - pretty much clears the air on that difference. Apologist in favor of your church in obstinance toward the bible…congratulations you win and the bible looses. viva your church.
Click to expand...
Apologies dear moderator our friend out of sheer desparation has turned to personal attack, though I have been obtuse myself at times. Notice fellow CAF’ers that Timothy in this post quotes my post and says the Catholic Bible contains “known errors” but does not state what those errors are or what scholar Protestant or otherwise has criticized them. That, I believe is because he can’t. The last sentence Tim in particular I do not understand the way it is worded it makes no sense. We are not in obstinance toward the Bible, and the Bible hasn’t lost. The Bible is an important part of faith, we read from it every Liturgy, present and kiss it even. I have never observed such deep reverence for the Bible in a Protestant Sunday gathering. Again more statements made without any clear indications it really is quite sad Tim.I suggest you call your Pastor to help you with this issue.
 
Timothy_Piper said:
I use the variety pack and the guide is super natural and has made residence inside of me; otherwise I couldn’t understand anything about God.
Click to expand...
Please define. “The variety pack” as I am not familiar with that Biblical translation. Also you are saying you have a super natural guide in you to help you understand God? Tim, you are starting to worry me, I think you may need the help of an exorcist.
 
Timothy_Piper said:
You shouldn’t think so highly of yourself because if you applied the same standards you are to sola scritpura, then toss out you priesthood, immaculate conception, papal authority, speaking excathedra and a bunch more doctrines that are not contained, even in a remotely implicit manner. in any revelation given us by God.

Furthermore you seem to want to define sola scriptura on a false premise which implies that any interpretation will do. where the truth is sola scriptura speaks only to the fact that the Bible is sufficient for all Christian practices and provides all the moral guidlines we need and of course it does and always has. I have mentioned before that whether Scriptur is read or listened to or can’t be read nor understood does not change that fact that it is what God revealed to all of us.
Click to expand...
Ohhh really? So the Bible doesn’t talk about the Papacy?, the Priesthood?, or the
Immaculate Conception. Hmm O.K. Well let’s start with the definite error of that statement. The Papacy is indeed biblical. let us attend!!

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,b and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesc will not overcome it.d 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bee bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bef loosed in heaven.” Matthew16:18-19 (NIV)
Code: 
 I quote this from a Protestant Bible on purpose. Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19). In giving Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader, but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority, or “ex cathedra”). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking “ex cathedra” was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the Church an infallible guide on earth. The purpose of the papacy is to lead the Church unerringly. Peter later became the first Bishop of Rome. As Bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the Bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman Bishop. Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next Bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained, and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

 To combat this Protestants will cite Scripture of:  Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5 and Ephesians 2:19-20. These Scriptures are however not a valid argument against these things and when presented as such are grossly  taken out of context.
As for the last few things you mentioned, I did not define it on a false premise, you yourself say you use “the variety pack” which is I assume many translations or interpretations of the Bible so how is that wrong? Those are YOUR own words Tim.
 
Timothy_Piper said:
Is the NT the word of God? The point was and you inadvertently agreed, that the writers and Jesus referred to the OT and nothing outside of it - sola scriptura, which is the point.

The “we” are Christians.

The pillar and support of the truth is the true church of God, which upholds, proclaims and protects the Word of God - Sola Scriptura. 🙂
Click to expand...
The “We” (if you read the text in context) was actually the “bishops” (the Apostles) of the church. You have to read from the first chapter to get the context…I’m sure you’ve read it before…perhaps you just forgot.

Jesus went outside of scripture all the time to radically challenge the cultural practices of the day…ie the OT definition of adultery versus Jesus’ statement that if you even look at a woman lustfully then you have broken the commandment. Jesus’ condemnation of divorce versus the then-common practice (supported by the OT Law). Then Jesus went to really radical extremes by making marriage a virtually unbreakable union. Jesus was most certainly NOT sola Scriptura.

The Pillar and foundation of the truth is the Catholic Church. The church that has Peter as the Rock…You have inadvertently agreed with me that the true church is the one that “upholds, proclaims, and protects the Word of God.” Throughout history the Catholic church has done just exactly that. When the Huns were burning convent and monastery libraries, it was the Catholic church that preserved and protected the integrity of the Word of God. It passed the scriptures down and made sure that Bibles were made available to all those who could read and that those that couldn’t read were instructed in the Christian faith through whatever medium was available. Throughout time the Church has been proclaiming the Word of God from her pulpits.

If we can trust the true church to pass down the scriptures to us then we can also trust her to pass down the Sacred Tradition that the Apostles passed down to her…Using this authority she passed down such Traditions as using non-biblical words to express Christian concepts such as Trinity, Incarnation…etc. Sola Scriptura? Nah!
CC
 
I was doing a little reading last evening on some of the historical information regarding the Church’s doctrine of the person of Christ and I thought it very interesting to note that when Arius was presenting his idea that Jesus was in fact a created being he was using SCRIPURE ALONE (and his own warped reasoning). The Church told him that he was departing from the orthodox understanding of the Church (i.e. TRADITION) on the scriptures regarding Jesus as being uncreated and eternal; AND GOD. So, here we have a clear case of TRADITION being the means that SAVED THE CHURCH FROM ERROR. The Church appealed to Her** traditional understanding of scripture** and not to “scripture alone” as Arius was doing.

Protestants, and in this case, Tim, needs to understand that HISTORICALLY tradition has SAVED the Church from error and not brought the Church into error. It is SACRED TRADITION that keeps the Church ROCK SOLID in its doctrinal understanding where it isn’t tossed to and fro by every whim of doctrine whether it be an Arius or a Martin Luther. Sacred Tradition is the ANCHOR of the Catholic Church that keeps her from error.

MonFrere
 
MonFrere said:
I was doing a little reading last evening on some of the historical information regarding the Church’s doctrine of the person of Christ and I thought it very interesting to note that when Arius was presenting his idea that Jesus was in fact a created being he was using SCRIPURE ALONE (and his own warped reasoning). The Church told him that he was departing from the orthodox understanding of the Church (i.e. TRADITION) on the scriptures regarding Jesus as being uncreated and eternal; AND GOD. So, here we have a clear case of TRADITION being the means that SAVED THE CHURCH FROM ERROR. The Church appealed to Her** traditional understanding of scripture** and not to “scripture alone” as Arius was doing.

Protestants, and in this case, Tim, needs to understand that HISTORICALLY tradition has SAVED the Church from error and not brought the Church into error. It is SACRED TRADITION that keeps the Church ROCK SOLID in its doctrinal understanding where it isn’t tossed to and fro by every whim of doctrine whether it be an Arius or a Martin Luther. Sacred Tradition is the ANCHOR of the Catholic Church that keeps her from error.

MonFrere
Click to expand...
I remember reading something about the creation of the Nicene Creed that stated basically the same thing. Every attempt to refute Arius by using Scripture would be met with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge from the various Arian bishops. The orthodox bishops realized that to combat this heresy they needed a creed that explained the faith in orthodox terms, but didn’t necessarily rely completely on language used in the Scriptures. This way the Arian bishops would be forced to vote “no” on the creed instead of voting “yes” but adding “yes, but.”

ChadS
 
OK, so i’m not a scholar or anything, i’m just a lay man with a lot of interest in God.

I just read the entire thread and it is very educational, and sometimes very dense.
I don’t think that there is an easy way to convince someone that the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is not valid. Sometimes people are very stuborn.
I would like to ask if someone out there is willing to help me with the following questions:

1.- Where is it in the Bible that Jesus approves the establishment of many, many different churches with different believes (like the protestant denominations).

I might be wrong, but i feel that sometimes Protestantism is very “relative”.
If someone doesn’t like something or disagrees on something then there is another Church for that person.
I recently heard on the news a couple of days ago that there is now an “online church” they interviewed the Pastor and he said that church members could take “juice and crackers” from the fridge in order to have comunion.
I heard also from a Protestant friend that there was a service for pets on a Protestant Church he knew. (Where is this in the Bible?).

2.- Why, if protestantism is so “scripture based”, can’t they understand John 6?
I think Jesus is very clear on the message of the gift of the Eucharyst.

Don’t get me wrong here i have protestant friends and some of them i admire even, but some of their Churches and their believes are contradictory.
It is confusing to me because they say: “Where is it in the Bible” , making it sound like they are really conservative and orthodox, when in real life some of them do really strange things.

Thanks

MM
 
marcomass said:
OK, so i’m not a scholar or anything, i’m just a lay man with a lot of interest in God.

I just read the entire thread and it is very educational, and sometimes very dense.
I don’t think that there is an easy way to convince someone that the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is not valid. Sometimes people are very stuborn.
I would like to ask if someone out there is willing to help me with the following questions:

1.- Where is it in the Bible that Jesus approves the establishment of many, many different churches with different believes (like the protestant denominations).

I might be wrong, but i feel that sometimes Protestantism is very “relative”.
If someone doesn’t like something or disagrees on something then there is another Church for that person.
I recently heard on the news a couple of days ago that there is now an “online church” they interviewed the Pastor and he said that church members could take “juice and crackers” from the fridge in order to have comunion.
I heard also from a Protestant friend that there was a service for pets on a Protestant Church he knew. (Where is this in the Bible?).

2.- Why, if protestantism is so “scripture based”, can’t they understand John 6?
I think Jesus is very clear on the message of the gift of the Eucharyst.

Don’t get me wrong here i have protestant friends and some of them i admire even, but some of their Churches and their believes are contradictory.
It is confusing to me because they say: “Where is it in the Bible” , making it sound like they are really conservative and orthodox, when in real life some of them do really strange things.

Thanks

MM
Click to expand...
You ask good questions. Protestants do not believe that the Bible approves of denominational splits but rather that when the Bible refers to the Church it refers to Christian people. They often say “The Church is not brick and mortar” to back up their rejection of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You see the main problem on this thread as was well illustrated by Timothy is that all Timothy could ever provide us with were a couple of lousy wikipedia sources, and his own OPINION about Scripture. Not once was a scholarly resource or authority or any proof that he had credentials enough to say what he said with any valid consideration. This is why he ultimately resorted to personal attacks, got frustrated and left the thread. As my fellow compatriot Monfere actually put it to me once, all one can hope for is that seeds are being planted and he will again read the thread and do actual research of history. It is there they will see the first error of accepting such a silly doctrine. As for not understanding about the Eucharist, sadly most Protestants claime to take the Bible literally except the verses they don’t agree with, like “This is my body,… this is my blood…”. It really is quite a shame, and I believe that we should pray marco, God Bless…
 
Thank you for replying Verum!.
I look forward to many more interesting reading and sometimes participation on the forum.
God bless us all 👍

PAX

Marco
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top