Bible Christians: If you claim that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of authority, then how do you convert those who cannot read?

[Mannyfit75]

One thing, among many, that your infallible teaching seems to overlook is that Jesus said, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life…” Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe,… And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Jesus knew some would not believe and turn away. Jesus often spoke in parables so they would not understand.

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Luk 8:10)

Yes, I believe and take that verse literally. But I also know Jesus is God, but God is not Jesus. Catholics are not literally eating human flesh and if they read the Bible without thinking they already know everything, but instead looking to the Holy Spirit to guide them, maybe they would have a clearer understanding of these verses.

Catholics are eating the Body and Blood of Jesus. The appearance may remain bread and wine, but after the Consecration of the Eucharist, the Bread and Wine are no longer bread and Wine. They are the Body and Blood of the Lord. In a sense, we are literally eating the Body and Blood of Jesus.

The passage which you quote have been used by Protestants to claim the symbolic meaning of the Eucharist.
*
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.*

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, St made a commentary on this passage.
*
He tries to remove their difficulties in another way, as follows, It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing: that is to say, You ought to understand My words in a spiritual sense: he who understands them carnally is profited nothing. To interpret carnally is to take a proposition in its bare literal meaning, and allow no other. But we should not judge of mysteries in this way; but examine them with the inward eye; i.e. understand them spiritually. It was carnal to doubt how our Lord could give His flesh to eat. What then? Is it not real flesh? Yes, verily. In saying then that the flesh profits nothing, He does not speak of His own flesh, but that of the carnal hearer of His word.
*

St. Augustine also commented.

Or thus, the flesh profits nothing. They had under stood by His flesh, as it were, of a carcass, that was to be cut up, and sold in the shambles, not of a body animated by the spirit. Join the spirit to the flesh, and it profits much: for if the flesh profited not, the Word would not have become flesh, and dwelt among us. The Spirit has done much for our salvation, by means of the flesh.

For the flesh does not cleanse of itself, but by the Word who assumed it: which Word, being the principle of life in all things, having taken up soul and body, cleanses the souls and bodies of those that believe. It is the spirit, it, then, that quickens: the flesh profits nothing; i.e. the flesh as they understood it. I do not, He seems to say, give My body to be eaten in this sense. He ought not to think of the flesh carnally: The words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Catholics never loverlook the passage which you states. When it is read in the context the time it was written as well as taking into the account of the culture, language. Protestantism idea that it is symbolic did not came about until the Reformation…

The Early Church Fathers, and the Apostolic Fathers affirm the Real Presence, and the Apostolic Fathers, like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and Clement of Rome were taught by the Apostles themselves. Don’t tell me the Apostles taught them erroneous doctrines. If they have, the Apostles were either deceived by Jesus.

I don’t think they were. Jesus is the Son of the Living God proclaimed by St. Peter. Jesus also promised to preserve his Church from the gates of hell.

 

[DanB]

"sola scriptura’, what a concept. Since you can’t read about it in the Bible, it must be a “Protestant” type of oral tradition.

Hear that!!!

 

[Ginger2]

Mannyfit,
I already told you I take it literally. Why do you argue suggesting otherwise?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ginger, where?

 

[St_Violet]

what I am trying to understand is that if the bible is the only thing that is nessecary for salvation then why is it that we still have thousands of Protestant denominations out there with different understanding of the bible and of salvation, for example some Protestants believe baptism is nessecary for salvation while some Protestants do not, some believe keeping the Jewish Sabbath is nessecary while other protestants do not, some protestants even believe speaking in tongues is nessecary for salvation ,etc etc. and yet we know that the apostles had the same understanding and didn’t even have a bible that we have now.

We have to realize that Christ does not have more then one spouse, there is not doubt in my mind that we are saved by Grace acknowledging that Christ died for us and many others, but misunderstanding the bible can effect our walk with Christ

 

[Ginger2]

Post # 239

I anticipated your next comment and stated in the last paragraph that “I take that verse literally”, but now that I look back, I see I did not specify which verse.

Sorry.

 

[Bishopite]

Why do they think Luther is an authority? Because *he *said so?

Right. And do they agree with Martin Luther? Nope.

 

[Ginger2]

St. Violet,

I have not said that “the bible is the only thing that is nessecary for salvation…” nor have I noticed any other protestant on this thread make that claim.

In fact I specifically said that Jesus is essential for salvation.

It is a little frustrating to have discussions with people who debate with you what they think you believe, instead of what you say you believe.

Please refer to post # 154

 

[Ginger2]

St. Violet,

Quote: “Protestants believe baptism is nessecary for salvation while some Protestants do not, some believe keeping the Jewish Sabbath is nessecary while other protestants do not, some protestants even believe speaking in tongues is nessecary for salvation ,etc etc. and yet we know that the apostles had the same understanding and didn’t even have a bible that we have now.”

Can you name the specific denominations for these claims? I am not trying to challenge you - just want to know which ones do or don’t do these things.

 

[Sixtus]

OK.

Transubstantiation is not just a word.

To compare the Trinity, which is easily proven from scripture, to the irrational claim of transubstantiation, which has no scriptural basis, is specious.

QUOTE]

Sandusky like all good heretics lie about scripture when it does not support their point of view.

St Paul, he was suffering from mental ill health according to Sandusky but sadly they did not have access to modern day councillors so they had to suffer without hope of a cure, least that is what Sandusky believes.

 

[Montalban]

Qoute Montalban post # 32:
“How about ‘is slavery wrong’? as an example!”

This is exactly why Christians should read their Bibles. There are different types of “slavery” in the Bible. None of them (supported in God’s Word) fit the Old South scenario.

Why should we be surprised when people twist Scripture to justify what they do? The Bible warns us they will do just that.

Who said anything about the “Old South” scenario?

What about slavery, per se?

 

[Ginger2]

Those who use the Bible to justify slavery are twisting Scriptures. They take one verse here and another verse there to ease the conscience.

There was no welfare in biblical times - no food shelf, no WIC, no rent assitance…

God, in His great mercy, supplied many different ways to care for the poor. The best most clear example is Deu 15:11-17

11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

12 ¶ [And] if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty

14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: [of that] wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;

17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust [it] through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.

The guidelines are a little different for Hebrew than for foreigners, but, I see no where in the Bible that God justifies holding a person prisoner and forcing him to work without compensation. Being sold into slavery was usually because the poor man borrowed from the rich in hopes of making a decent living. But if he failed and was unable to pay off his debt, he was still let go in the seventh year or in the year of jubilee. And the rich man, even tho he had not been repaid all that was due, was commanded not to send the slave away empty handed, but to give to him generously.

Some sacrifices are like this too. The offering wasn’t just left on the alter to rot. Poor people came and took the food home. And the offering was supposed to be the best of the best. This was grade A food being given to the poor.

 

[cazayoux]

Read the book.
… remember that you asked for the list … approved or not.
any opinions on the interpretations?

(crickets)

Let’s take just one of them.

(1) Romans 5:12 (“By one man sin entered into this world”) refers to original sin.

Would you agree or disagree with this interpretation?

michel

 

[rlg94086]

Those who use the Bible to justify slavery are twisting Scriptures. They take one verse here and another verse there to ease the conscience.

***12 ¶ [And] if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. ***

13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty

14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: [of that] wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;

17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust [it] through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.

So, you believe it is okay to sell someone into slavery, as long as they are freed after 6 years? Is that correct?

 

[Ginger2]

rig,

Now you are twisting Scripture. Go to your Bible and read Deut 15.

This is what it is saying:
I borrow money from you and agree to work for six years to pay off the debt. I am selling myself to you and you are buying my services for that six years. That’s what they are calling slavery.

Here’s the really great part. If I become wealthy using the money I borrowed, I can pay back the debt early. You can’t force me to work out the entire six years, but you have to accept the payment.

It gets better! If I can’t pay off the debt and the six years end with me still owing you money, you have to forgive the balance.

It gets even better!!! I still owe you money, but when I leave you can’t send me away broke. You have to give generously to me.

Or, if I feel I will only ends up in poverety again, I can ask to stay and work for you the rest of my days. But it’s my decision, not yours.

Now, as I said, there are different situations that are translated “slavery” in the Bible. This is only one.

 

[rlg94086]

rig,

Now you are twisting Scripture. Go to your Bible and read Deut 15.

How am I twisting Scripture by asking you a question?

This is what it is saying:
I borrow money from you and agree to work for six years to pay off the debt. I am selling myself to you and you are buying my services for that six years. That’s what they are calling slavery.

Here’s the really great part. If I become wealthy using the money I borrowed, I can pay back the debt early. You can’t force me to work out the entire six years, but you have to accept the payment.

It gets better! If I can’t pay off the debt and the six years end with me still owing you money, you have to forgive the balance.

It gets even better!!! I still owe you money, but when I leave you can’t send me away broke. You have to give generously to me.

Or, if I feel I will only ends up in poverety again, I can ask to stay and work for you the rest of my days. But it’s my decision, not yours.

Now, as I said, there are different situations that are translated “slavery” in the Bible. This is only one.

But, it gets even better! If after seven years the servant says he doesn’t want to leave, you can thrust an awl through his ear, and then he is your slave for life.

Can you find a passage in the Bible that says man should not be enslaved?

 

[Ginger2]

Can you find a passage that say paedophilia is wrong?

Then you must think God endorses 45 year old men molesting 3 year olds.

 

[rlg94086]

Can you find a passage that say paedophilia is wrong?

Then you must think God endorses 45 year old men molesting 3 year olds.

Of course not. The Church clearly teaches that slavery and paedophilia is wrong. Why would I need to find a passage in scripture to support that?

However, you don’t believe in extra-biblical teaching correct? If another Christian told you they believed that slavery is okay, how do you respond? How does your personal interpretation of the Bible back up your belief that slavery is wrong?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Can you find a passage that say paedophilia is wrong?

Then you must think God endorses 45 year old men molesting 3 year olds.

Do you really must bring up Molesters up? Molesters isn’t a Catholic issue. It’s a society issue. There were teachers in public schools molest children.

 

[rlg94086]

No worries, Mannyfit. Ginger was just asking a hypothetical. I’m sure it wasn’t an attack on the Church. That would be unChristian.

Besides, pedophilia as a sin can easily be supported with only the Bible, so she used a bad example. Slavery on the other hand is a little tougher for the Magisterially impaired.

Do you really must bring up Molesters up? Molesters isn’t a Catholic issue. It’s a society issue. There were teachers in public schools molest children.