Arguing with a Protestant?

[Azygos]

How is it that the only time you look to the Bible is when you refere to Matthew 16:18, the verse that you have incorrectly interpreted? What about Exodus 20:4? What about 1 Timothy 2:5?

Why is it that you don’t examine your own hypocrisy?

 

[Reuben_J]

The cross is empty! Jesus rose from the dead.

If you want to symbolize that Jesus rose from the dead then it should be an empty tomb; not an empty cross. The cross was empty because Jesus was taken down from it to be buried. Or does your church not believe that Jesus was buried?

 

[Azygos]

Quote:
Originally Posted by m3rc3d3s190 View Post
The cross is empty! Jesus rose from the dead. That is why I said that sometimes we have a cross and sometimes we do not. The cross in our church, when it is displayed, does not have Jesus on it, like in your church. He doesn’t live in tabernacles like the ones you have in your church, because “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.” (Acts 17:24).
**Close Quote.
**

Tisk, Tisk. If you followed out your own logic then you would have no image. No where in the Bible does it say that a cross without Jesus is acceptable. In fact exodus 20:4 says not in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth. So with that I call you a hypocrite. In all love and charity of course!

You also said that God does not live in temples built by hands then what does that make your Church? Was it not built by hands? Seems to me you haven’t followed out your logic and yet again you are guilty of being a hypocrite. Also the Catholic Church was not built (Established) by hands of men but by God himself.

Matthew 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will Build (Establish) MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Why don’t you tell me which Church you attend so I can look up the date it was Established. I place all my bets that it was not established around 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ.

 

[guanophore]

This is a great post! There are "thousands of sects" in Christians, and the Roman Catholic church is 100% united, or so you think. Reality is always different.

There is One Faith, one Doctrine in the CC. This doctrine is the Divine Deposit of Faith given once for all to the Church by the Apostles. The fact that some, or even most, may depart from it does not change the One Faith. This is one of the biggest differences between Catholicism and “bible churches”. Catholics believe that Jesus is Head of the Church, and that she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that make her One, and infallible.

Please give me your thoughts

I believe you said

The answers are all based on fabrications/contortions.

Why would anyone want to share their “thougths” with anyone who took this tone? Would that not be akin to throwing ones pearls before swine?

Please give me your thoughts on the holy prepuce. Why exactly was it venerated, and was it reasonable to do so?

Despite your stated lack of openess to answers, I could not help but ponder this question.

It seems to me from my human sexuality class that the prepuce is the fold of skin around the clitoris. I must confess that I have never had any thoughts on such a thing as the “holy prepuce”. Are you suggesting that, since Catholics honor Mary as “holy” that we also venerate the fold of skin around her clitoris? I can confidently say that this is no part of the Catholic faith.

What about La Santa Muerte?{/quote]

This figure is an outgrowth of Mexican indiginous pagan beliefs, and is also not part of the Catholic faith. One has to wonder where you are getting your information about Catholicism.
m3rc3d3s190;10126106:

Are the folks who venerate that saint in communion with your church or not?

Only God knows if they are in a state of grace, or not. It is possible that they are ignorant, and if they don’t know any better, they would not be guilty of a mortal sin. This figure is not considered a Catholic saint, and is not held up by the CAtholic Church as a figure worthly of modeling one’s life after.

If they are not, do you think this suggests that there are sects in the Roman church as well?

No, there are no “sects” in the Catholic church. Those who do not receive the One Faith have lost their Catholicity.

What about Saint Guinefort? How did this saint become a saint in the first place?

This local legend was investigated by Fr. Etienne de Bourbon, a Dominican inquisitor, who determined that the whole affair was a superstitous tool of the devil. A group of people declaring someone, or something, a saint does not make it so. It has about the same level of validity as your invention of a “holy prepuce”!

When praying to a saint who is later invalidated, what happens to the so-called “faithful”?

Clearly you have no understanding of how the Church determines that a soul is in heaven with Jesus. If you did, you would know that Guinefort was never considered a saint by the Church. Therefore, one cannot “invalidate” that which was never valid in the first place. What happened to the “faithful”(if indeed they were such) is that they were led into supersitition and, according to Fr. Etienne, seduced by the devil.

Any thoughts about Jose Rizal, or have you not heard about him? When people worship Jose Rizal as God, are they in communion with your flavor of Catholicism?

What is our “flavor of Catholicism”?

Worship of anyone but God is idolatry.

It would also help for you to reflect on the validity of women as priests, and consider the fact that some Roman priests accept it while the majority do not. Apparently, sects are more common in your church than you knew.

No, they are not, m3. People who depart from the faith do not define the faith. There will always be apostates, heretics, and wolves among the sheep. The Catholic doctrines come to us from Jesus, through the Apostles. They are not a matter for majority vote, or majority opinon.
However I find it curious that you seem to be bent upon finding division where none exists. What might be the goal of this? It seems like an effort to discredit Catholicism.

And as far as “thousands of sects” in Christianity is concerned, you probably need to do some introspection at this point and ask why the Roman church persecuted people whose beliefs were different from its pagan beliefs. Jesus’ own disciple asked “Master, we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us,” and Jesus said “Do not stop him, for whoever is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:49-50). Not sure when Jesus said to burn people at the stake but that’s what the Roman church did and when that happened, groups of people separated and worshiped in secret, and the so-called “sects” that you refer to were born.

Actually sects have been present since the NT was written, as we can clearly see. There have always been people, and groups of people who have departed from the One Faith. You still have not identified any “pagan beliefs” present in the Catholic faith. Unless maybe you are referring to the veneration of the “holy prepuce”. That certainly does sound pagan to me.

I agree with you, I don’t think Jesus approves of burning people at the stake, or of persecuting people who believe differently.

 

[guanophore]

 You don't merit any responses from me so this will be my last one to you: I know everything .....

Yes… I think I might have noticed that vacancy under the bridge!

Do you realize how AWFUL it is to tell a Catholic they don’t merit!?

 I prefer to use enthymemes when discussing with someone so as not to insult their intelligence.

Oh! THAT explains the “holy prepuce”!

 All of your references are correct, but the arguments that you have built on them are false and misleading.

Our faith comes to us in paradosis from the Apostles. It is not “arguements built around” the Holy Scriptures. Rather, the Scriptures REFLECT the faith of the Church. You understand them differently because you have been exposed to false and misleading ideas from those who have drifted very far from the Apostolic Faith that produced the NT.

I will not address all of them because I don’t think it’s worth my time and yours,

You can certainly take the arrogant stance that rebuttles to your attacks are “not worthy” of your time, but it is beyond the pale for you to make that decision for anyone else. Catholics are on this forum for a number of reasons, but those who choose to post here do so because it is worthy of our time.

…look at Acts 1:20 again. You have referenced it in order to support the Roman Catholic notion of apostolic succession. Peter was not referring to apostolic succession but to Psalm 109:8 which was a prophecy specifically related to Judas.

It is very likely that all the Apostles believed Jesus would return during their lifetimes. Certainly Bishops were not appointed immediately (only Deacons, so far as we can tell) and presbyters.

However, the meaning has been creatively distorted to included every single Roman Catholic priest.

It is true that every ordained minister, deacons, priests, and Bishops are part of the Apostolic Succession. Why would this need “creative distortion”? You seem to object to it for some reason.

If you stop at verse 20, it’s possible to actually be convinced of this amazing concept of apostolic succession. But read verse 21 and understand that the successor to Judas had to be someone who was involved with Jesus’ ministry when He was on earth. Do you think that applies to the Roman Catholic priests of today?

No. Matthias had t meet the requirements to be “one of the twelve”. This required that:

Acts 1:21-24
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.

After the death of the first generation of disciples, no one could meet these requirements of apostleship. At that time, the successors of the Apostles were called Bishops.

Do they heal the sick and raise the dead? If they cannot, it’s rather odd because that’s what Jesus’ disciples did. (See Acts 3:7-8 and Acts 20:9-10).

Are we to assume that you consider yourself a disciple of Jesus? Do you heal the sick and raise the dead?

Or are you just here to ply detractions?

When Jesus turned the water into wine it was the master of the banquet who validated the exceptional quality of the wine (John 2:9-8). It was water that had been changed into wine, not water that looked like water, and tasted like water, but was intended to be wine.

John 20:29
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

 You want verses? I can give them to you from memory. You are looking for John 6:55, where Jesus said "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."

Not necessary. The New Testament reflects the faith of the Church. It is not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source. We know He held bread and wine in His Holy Hands on the night before he died, and said “this IS MY BODY”. And we believe Him.

Of course, in trying to prove the doctrine/concept of transubstantiation, nobody bothers to read ahead to verse 63 where Jesus says “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

You are making two inaccurate assumptions. The first is that we need to “prove” the doctrines handed down to us from the Apostles. They are not a matter for mere human scientific evidence. They are part of divine revelation.

The second is that “nobody bothers to read”. This is false. We believe that Jesus was not talking about His flesh in this passage, because His flesh counts for the life of the world. We believe He was referring to the natural carnal ability of human beings to understand divine mysteries. Those who are in the flesh cannot understand the myteries of God. His Words are Spirit and Life because we take them as Peter did, on faith.

 

[4tytwo]

Concerning 4tytwo post.

I wonder what his explanation is concerning Jesus healing the sick. I believe Jesus healed the sick so by his logic I must be a materialist. If it wasn’t so stupid it would almost be laughable. There are only a couple conclusions to all of this. One being Jesus is God and performed these mighty deeds including changing water into wine or Two Jesus was not God. Of course if Jesus is God then we are speaking now in spiritual terms that a naturalist doesn’t understand. I wouldn’t expect a naturalist to understand how and why God turned water into wine. Yet your claiming people as materialist when you are actually the materialist (Or Naturalist). Interesting…

not at all. if you want to claim that jesus had to restore the eyesight of that man to make him see you apply materialist thinking. Jesus presence would have made you see in ways that are never accessible to your eye.
so why would your God have to turn water into wine? Does he need to bragg about his powers to make others belief?

 

[guanophore]

 not at all. if you want to claim that jesus had to restore the eyesight of that man to make him see you apply materialist thinking. Jesus presence would have made you see in ways that are never accessible to your eye.

so why would your God have to turn water into wine? Does he need to bragg about his powers to make others belief?

The fact is that Jesus did restore physical eyesight. He did so to make a spiritual point. I agree,Jesus does make us “see” in ways that are beyond the physical eye.

Jesus did not “have” to turn water to wine. He chose to do this to manifest Himself to His Apostles.

You don’t sound like any Lutheran I have ever conversed with. Are you just a “nominal” Lutheran? Your beliefs do not reflect the faith of the confessions.

 

[Azygos]

not at all. if you want to claim that jesus had to restore the eyesight of that man to make him see you apply materialist thinking. Jesus presence would have made you see in ways that are never accessible to your eye.
so why would your God have to turn water into wine? Does he need to bragg about his powers to make others belief?

One day I will ask him but for the now I will take his WORD for it. You also said your God as if we do not worship the same God. If that is the case then I will make it clear I worship the True God so then what God do you worship?

 

[4tytwo]

I must say I am very surprised to read this. I thought Lutherans accepted the NT as the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

the word is inspired by God but comprehended / or not / by humans.

how can a word be inerrant? It has to be translated by human mind and if it lacks the holy spirit it will not understand the word however divine it’s inspiration

 

[4tytwo]

The fact is that Jesus did restore physical eyesight. He did so to make a spiritual point. I agree,Jesus does make us “see” in ways that are beyond the physical eye.

Jesus did not “have” to turn water to wine. He chose to do this to manifest Himself to His Apostles.

You don’t sound like any Lutheran I have ever conversed with. Are you just a “nominal” Lutheran? Your beliefs do not reflect the faith of the confessions.

would not describe me as nominal anyhow as I am sure I would be a pain in the proverbial of any conformist religion, thus my point
Why would he manifest himself to his apostels that way. How did anyone gain knowledge of the affair and would it make sense to bragg about it to anyone like like I tought them a lesson by turning water into wine. If jesu would have tought his deciples anything it would have been not to make alcohol to get people drunk and deluded by miracles but to face reality and see what the real values are.
just havent found a lutheran discussion forum like this and would hope to find some here that convince me that it would make sense that he would have made grape juice.

 

[irisfromohio]

To be perfectly clear, I am not quite sure why there is such an ongoing “dialogue”, the use of the term being applied extremely loosely, with Mr. mp3 <–not an insult nor belittling of the man and his sincerely held perspectives. Rather, I am just too lazy to type all of that and there is too much to quote.as well. I admit, I find his posts to be convoluted, contradictory, ill informed, riddled with myths and prejudice, rambling and, most significantly, ignorant in the literal (not cruel) sense,.

When a response is given that is well studied and its truth is well documented, it is rejected as “myth that has been force fed by some malevolent and secret society whose objective is world domination”… uck… Illuminati. As the Swedish might say, “Blergh!”

Quotes from Sacred Scripture which support the teachings, dogmas and traditions of the Holy Catholic Church are dismissed with rather condescending responses.

Therefore, I must conclude that there are many among us who enjoy the exercise of verbal sparring. Or, there may be some who sincerely feel that they can achieve “one up” at some point in time. Unfortunatley, I feel that mp3 thinks he achieves that all of the time. However, I shall continue to follow this thread. There are the occasional rays of absolutely brilliant light that bring warmth to my heart and a perpetual smile to my face. I wish all threads could be this intelligently active

 

[4tytwo]

One day I will ask him but for the now I will take his WORD for it. You also said your God as if we do not worship the same God. If that is the case then I will make it clear I worship the True God so then what God do you worship?

should have said “in your understanding”. We most likely worship the same God, but as we will all have a personal mental image of God they will be diffrent. Mine is actually female. How do you know yours is the true one, e,g what qualities would make your image of God more true than mine?

 

[4tytwo]

not at all. if you want to claim that jesus had to restore the eyesight of that man to make him see you apply materialist thinking. Jesus presence would have made you see in ways that are never accessible to your eye.
so why would your God have to turn water into wine? Does he need to bragg about his powers to make others belief?

still leaving open the question as to why in your God understanding it would make sense for Jesus to turn water into wine

 

[Reuben_J]

still leaving open the question as to why in your God understanding it would make sense for Jesus to turn water into wine

Why he turned water into wine? As for most miracles we don’t know why. Sometimes Jesus said it is for the glory of the Father. But most of the times, we are not to look for miracles.

The best thing and perhaps the most practical conclusion out the Cana miracle is Jesus’ obedience to his mother. Other things else are merely speculation. Remembering that honoring thy father and mother is a very serious commandment and culture for the Jews, it is not surprising that he performed the miracles simply out of obedience even though his time might not be ready yet.

We can learn a lots though from this miracle. First is the effective intercession of Mary and second of course is a reminder for us to be obedient to our parents too, especially our mothers. It is easy to obey the father figure of a dad with all his authority but sometimes we can be more independent with our mums. However, mums are also parents and we are commanded to obey them too.

 

[4tytwo]

Why he turned water into wine? As for most miracles we don’t know why. Sometimes Jesus said it is for the glory of the Father. But most of the times, we are not to look for miracles.

The best thing and perhaps the most practical conclusion out the Cana miracle is Jesus’ obedience to his mother. Other things else are merely speculation. Remembering that honoring thy father and mother is a very serious commandment and culture for the Jews, it is not surprising that he performed the miracles simply out of obedience even though his time might not be ready yet.

It is not about obedience but trust in God
Mary trusts in God to let Jesus take the appropriate measure. He actually rebukes her for burdening him with mundane worldly problems and that he has not yet the authority to adress the crowds. Thus he exercises his faith in the holy spirit by serving the master of ceremony the water. You have to now that those containers could only be filled with living water thus the master would have understood what it meant - and there was the miracle. With his comment he questioned the expectations of the entire wedding party and as with his comment they woud have had to face their own hypocrisy if they were not true guests of a wedding. Jesus could not have done that as his time had not yet come, the master of the banquest however could and did

 

[Reuben_J]

It is not about obedience but trust in God
Mary trusts in God to let Jesus take the appropriate measure. He actually rebukes her for burdening him with mundane worldly problems and that he has not yet the authority to adress the crowds. Thus he exercises his faith in the holy spirit by serving the master of ceremony the water. You have to now that those containers could only be filled with living water thus the master would have understood what it meant - and there was the miracle. With his comment he questioned the expectations of the entire wedding party and as with his comment they woud have had to face their own hypocrisy if they were not true guests of a wedding. Jesus could not have done that as his time had not yet come, the master of the banquest however could and did

That is a good way of seeing it too. You can look at it that way about trust in God. This is what I say speculation and sharing of personal opinion; and you are never wrong in that.

I was reading from what is mentioned in the passage and the closest that I can see there is Jesus obedience to his mother because he did it anyway even though his ‘hour is not yet come’. v.4 The other thing mentioned there is so that ‘his disciples believed in him.’ v.11

So nobody is right or wrong here. We can learn a lot from this passage though.

John 2: 1-11(DRA)
1And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece.
7 Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it.
9 And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom,
10 And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.

 

[guanophore]

the word is inspired by God but comprehended / or not / by humans.

how can a word be inerrant? It has to be translated by human mind and if it lacks the holy spirit it will not understand the word however divine it’s inspiration

The Word of God is inerrant because He does not err. The capacity of the human mind to err has no effect on the immuntablity of His Divine Word.

 would not describe me as nominal anyhow as I am sure I would be a pain in the proverbial of any conformist religion, thus my point :-)

I am glad your are aware that your beliefs are not consistent with the Lutheran faith you claim to espouse.

Why would he manifest himself to his apostels that way. How did anyone gain knowledge of the affair and would it make sense to bragg about it to anyone like like I tought them a lesson by turning water into wine. If jesu would have tought his deciples anything it would have been not to make alcohol to get people drunk and deluded by miracles but to face reality and see what the real values are.

What I see is the clay saying to the potter “why hast thou made me thus”. God gets to decide how He wishes to manifest HImself in the world.

just havent found a lutheran discussion forum like this and would hope to find some here that convince me that it would make sense that he would have made grape juice.

Good luck with that.

Jesus Himself is bringing New Wine, the Gospel of grace, to fill new wineskins.

 

[4tytwo]

The Word of God is inerrant because He does not err. The capacity of the human mind to err has no effect on the immuntablity of His Divine Word.

What I see is the clay saying to the potter “why hast thou made me thus”. God gets to decide how He wishes to manifest HImself in the world.

Good luck with that.

Jesus Himself is bringing New Wine, the Gospel of grace, to fill new wineskins.

do you want to say the bible was written by god so it is inerrant? Thought that was islamic tradition whilst Christians believe it was written and in particular translated by man and not God. Think high of Luther but definitely not that he was God and he clearly didn’t claim to be either.

sounds like you feeling a bit clay like today. Does God in your understanding not want his children to ask questions or are you afraid of questions because it might be uncomfortable to the church? Looks like your God picture is more the authoritarian than the loving God. Only those who haven’t claim or insist on authority

If you wish me good luck with finding somone here who can make a rational case for why it would make sense that Jesus would made wine was a good thing and how it would be coherent with his teachings instead of thinking that he would have been seen as having spoilt the ritual cleaning vessels in the eyes of the jews by putting wine into them and that it would make him look like being ashamed of poverty, do you mean it needs luck to find someone for a rational discussion about it?

 

[Cranch]

It is not about obedience but trust in God
Mary trusts in God to let Jesus take the appropriate measure. He actually rebukes her for burdening him with mundane worldly problems and that he has not yet the authority to adress the crowds. Thus he exercises his faith in the holy spirit by serving the master of ceremony the water. You have to now that those containers could only be filled with living water thus the master would have understood what it meant - and there was the miracle. With his comment he questioned the expectations of the entire wedding party and as with his comment they woud have had to face their own hypocrisy if they were not true guests of a wedding. Jesus could not have done that as his time had not yet come, the master of the banquest however could and did

That is a good way of seeing it too. You can look at it that way about trust in God. This is what I say speculation and sharing of personal opinion; and you are never wrong in that.

Reuben J: Just to be clear, you have described a version of the wedding at Cana that claims Jesus DID NOT change water into wine as “a good way of seeing it too.”

So nobody is right or wrong here.

I have to say I disagree. This version is a fabrication that flies in the face of Scripture. And so again with this latest retelling, even in the small details:

“those containers could only be filled with living water thus the master [chief steward] would have understood what it meant.” How does that match Scripture?:

And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water.

 

[Rosinante]

No, you didn’t touch any nerve. But this is not the church that Jesus founded. The household of God has been "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." (Ephesians 2:20) Your contorted stories have been reverse-engineered to perpetuate lies.

Are you suggesting that Martin Luther was an Apostle?

…or a prohet???