"Bible interprets itself."

[Bob_McKissick]

to Protestant 101: I fell somewhat like a blind man walking into a bar fight, but I would like to interject two questions that may have been asked before my entering. 1st. Which came first, the synagog or the Old Testament? 2nd. Which came first the Church or the New Testament. I believe you will find that in both case the synagog and the Church came before the Scripture. If this is so, the Church, from which the NT came by the Teaching Authority given by Christ to the Church under the guidance Holy Spirit, has the sole right to judge the truth or falsity of any interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Like the Phenix, I rose up out of the ashes of a pagan house hold and by the grace of Our Lord was taken into His Mystical Body, The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome. Joyful Easter!!!

 

[Hisalone]

to Protestant 101: I fell somewhat like a blind man walking into a bar fight, but I would like to interject two questions that may have been asked before my entering. 1st. Which came first, the synagog or the Old Testament? 2nd. Which came first the Church or the New Testament. I believe you will find that in both case the synagog and the Church came before the Scripture. If this is so, the Church, from which the NT came by the Teaching Authority given by Christ to the Church under the guidance Holy Spirit, has the sole right to judge the truth or falsity of any interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Like the Phenix, I rose up out of the ashes of a pagan house hold and by the grace of Our Lord was taken into His Mystical Body, The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome. Joyful Easter!!!

If the Torah was written by Moses as Jesus has said then scripture came first.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hisalone,

I think Bob McKissick has a valid point that actually preceeds Moses.

If the Torah was written by Moses as Jesus has said then scripture came first.

God announced to Abram that he had found favor with God and a convenant would be established. While it is a little hard to establish an exact date (best I can do is: Abraham was the tenth generation from Noah and the 20th from Adam) Moses, however, arrives on the scene about 230 years AFTER the arrival of Jacob in Egypt.

Since the Hebrews were worshiping God since the time of Abraham - and Moses was well aware of the elements of their faith prior to him leading the Chosen People out of Egypt - it can be honestly concluded that their worship preceeded anything written by Moses. Actually, their worship preceeded anything written by God! (Moses did not received the 10 Commandments until after their successful escape from Egypt.)

But, in my opinion, your statement really begs a much larger question: does the written word FOLLOW the oral traditions? Yes, indeed. If in doubt - just look at how we learn our own language: we hear it spoken and then speak it ourselves - AND THEN learn to read. And, to carry this one step forward - language is not something coming out of an inamimate machine - we also learn from watching others HOW to speak, how to use inflection, tone and gestures to enliven our presentations. Watching others (observing traditions) is an integral part of the culture of language. Now, just connect the dots - we learn our Faith from our family before we are ever exposed to the written word.

Bob McKissick, I think you did a good job on your post…

Hope this helps, Hisalone.

And a very blessed Easter to all

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Enjoyed your post - and thanks for the list of the early guys who missed the boat…!

As I have said above, if you were around longer than us then your church is obviouisly not a Christian Church since the Catholic Church was born only at Pentecost.

The other protestant Churches are still Christian although in an imperfect way because they still are branches of the Catholic Church even though cut off from it.

I have been pondering this claim about Genesis Christianity for a while… it seems like P101 was out in the sun too long… or may be trying to hatch out still another religion … or, at least another interpretation. This may be just another example of the practical problems associated with individual interpretation. Hmmmm… I must admit, the dynamics of denial here are nothing short of incredible - rather then just look at the history of the groups he(?) claims (along with the dates of the respective founders) he(?) wants to lead us on an imaginary trip back to Genesis!

You know, maybe I am just stuck on this item - and if so, tell me how to more forward… As I see it, Christ kept on saying that He was the Son of God, performed great miracles, told everyone to believe in the One God had sent and that He would suffer, die and then rise from the dead. The Pharisees challenged Him on every point - but, their arguments failed… so they murdered Him using the Roman authorities - and then He rose for the dead - just like He said He would. Christ proved He was God. During this time (c33A.D.) Christ founded His Chruch (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter. Not once is it recorded that He took this authority away from Peter!

None of the ‘Protestant Reformers’ (at least the 16th Century variety…I don’t know anything about the Genesis variety!) performed any miracles. And none - including E. G. White - rose from the dead. So, who has the proof of The One True Church? It did not come from Martin, or John or Ellen - it came from Christ who delegated His Divine Authority to Peter and his successors - right the present Pope Benedict XVI.

I have yet to receive a response from any of the separated bretheran on this really vexing point: why continue to follow the traditions and teaching of men (and Ellen) when Christ has given us the Catholic Chruch which is the Answer to our salvation?

Again, enjoyed reading your post, Benedictus2,

May everyone have a blessed Easter

 

[Bob_McKissick]

Tom: I think P101 maybe confused by the promise of a redeemer when God told Satan that He would put enmity between Satan’s seed and her(The Woman’s) Seed(Christ) and that she(ipsa or ipsum) would crush his head and he would bruise her heel.
Personally, I lean to ipsa(feminine) because for it to be ipsum(masculine) would imply that Satan would bruise Christ’s heel which would be something Satan could brag about for all eternity while ipsa would be the final humiliation for Satan’s sin of pride by a woman, the Woman, the Queen of Heaven, Our Mother Mary.
This is the promise of Christ and His Catholic Church but how in God’s Name, would that be a Protestant church and if so which one?

QUOTE=tqualey;5072274]Hi, Benedictus2,

Enjoyed your post - and thanks for the list of the early guys who missed the boat…!

I have been pondering this claim about Genesis Christianity for a while… it seems like P101 was out in the sun too long… or may be trying to hatch out still another religion … or, at least another interpretation. This may be just another example of the practical problems associated with individual interpretation. Hmmmm… I must admit, the dynamics of denial here are nothing short of incredible - rather then just look at the history of the groups he(?) claims (along with the dates of the respective founders) he(?) wants to lead us on an imaginary trip back to Genesis!

You know, maybe I am just stuck on this item - and if so, tell me how to more forward… As I see it, Christ kept on saying that He was the Son of God, performed great miracles, told everyone to believe in the One God had sent and that He would suffer, die and then rise from the dead. The Pharisees challenged Him on every point - but, their arguments failed… so they murdered Him using the Roman authorities - and then He rose for the dead - just like He said He would. Christ proved He was God. During this time (c33A.D.) Christ founded His Chruch (and, that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter. Not once is it recorded that He took this authority away from Peter!

None of the ‘Protestant Reformers’ (at least the 16th Century variety…I don’t know anything about the Genesis variety!) performed any miracles. And none - including E. G. White - rose from the dead. So, who has the proof of The One True Church? It did not come from Martin, or John or Ellen - it came from Christ who delegated His Divine Authority to Peter and his successors - right the present Pope Benedict XVI.

I have yet to receive a response from any of the separated bretheran on this really vexing point: why continue to follow the traditions and teaching of men (and Ellen) when Christ has given us the Catholic Chruch which is the Answer to our salvation?

Again, enjoyed reading your post, Benedictus2,

May everyone have a blessed Easter

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bob McKissick,

Thank you for the explanation - it really wasn’t what I was expecting … but, come to think of it, I had not idea what was going to be claimed by the ‘Protestant Reformers’ as coming from Genesis!

By the way, it looks like old P101 fell asleep… is there an alarm button to press…or, maybe a bucket of cold cyber water to pour over him?

Tom: I think P101 maybe confused by the promise of a redeemer when God told Satan that He would put enmity between Satan’s seed and her(The Woman’s) Seed(Christ) and that she(ipsa or ipsum) would crush his head and he would bruise her heel.

Have a Blessed Easter,

 

[Protestant101]

Hi, Bob McKissick,

By the way, it looks like old P101 fell asleep… is there an alarm button to press…or, maybe a bucket of cold cyber water to pour over him?
Have a Blessed Easter,

No. I am quite awake. I am diligently watching for some decent Biblical theology to reply to instead of moldy drivel like this. I don’t want the kind of “blessed easter” that involves being talked to or about like this. You can keep it. I’d be better off going on an “Easter egg hunt.” And that goes for the other dude who so righteously accused me of being out in the sun too long. “Holy Holy Holy!” Right guys??!!

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Benedictus2,

Enjoyed your post - and thanks for the list of the early guys who missed the boat…!

thanks!

I have yet to receive a response from any of the separated bretheran on this really vexing point: why continue to follow the traditions and teaching of men (and Ellen) when Christ has given us the Catholic Chruch which is the Answer to our salvation?

People will follow traditions of men unless they do a critical study of history and scripture.

A study on the Canon of the Bible alone will readily prove false the doctrine of SS and expose it for what it is - a tradtion of man.

The sad thing is a lot of people will not undertake that kind of critical questioning.

 

[benedictus2]

Tom: I think P101 maybe confused by the promise of a redeemer when God told Satan that He would put enmity between Satan’s seed and her(The Woman’s) Seed(Christ) and that she(ipsa or ipsum) would crush his head and he would bruise her heel.
Personally, I lean to ipsa(feminine) because for it to be ipsum(masculine) would imply that Satan would bruise Christ’s heel which would be something Satan could brag about for all eternity while ipsa would be the final humiliation for Satan’s sin of pride by a woman, the Woman, the Queen of Heaven, Our Mother Mary.
This is the promise of Christ and His Catholic Church but how in God’s Name, would that be a Protestant church and if so which one?

In this passage, “he” is the correct word. St Jerome made an error when he did the latin translation. The more literal word for this is actually “they”.

Here is an explanation from the NAB
] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, “They will strike . . . at their heels.” However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because “the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

As for the “bruising”, Christ was indeed bruised by Satan. But that was all Satan could do and the bruising was one permitted by the Father.

 

[pipper]

No. I am quite awake. I am diligently watching for some decent Biblical theology to reply to instead of moldy drivel like this. I don’t want the kind of “blessed easter” that involves being talked to or about like this. You can keep it. I’d be better off going on an “Easter egg hunt.” And that goes for the other dude who so righteously accused me of being out in the sun too long. “Holy Holy Holy!” Right guys??!![/Qoute]

And I was thinking you were just taking your Jewish-SDA sabbath off was why you haden’t responded

If you were “diligently watching for some decent biblical theology” you are apt to be in for a long wait indeed. You see Catholics (your hosts) do not recognise sola scriptura (bible only). You just can’t invade a Catholic forum, and expect to ruun it by your personal rules.

And you have little right to complain about the way you are talked to or about here, with your churches extreme hatred for the Catholic church “whore of babylon” the great beast" so-on and so-far. Pot meet kettle.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Protestant101;5074638:

And you have little right to complain about the way you are talked to or about here, with your churches extreme hatred for the Catholic church “whore of babylon” the great beast" so-on and so-far. Pot meet kettle.

Yeah, nothing like giving one a taste of his own kind’s medicine eh?

 

[Cinette]

I refer to Benedictus’ posting #40.

P101 has said his Church can trace its origins to Genesis and Benedictus said that if this is so it cannot be called a Christian Church since this is long before Jesus who founded the Church in 33 AD.

P101 asked for names of “false religions” before Protestantism and Benedictus gave several names and the timelines.

I think Protestant101 was stumped and could not respond and that is why he did a duck.

Someone on the thread made the comment that he thought that the purpose of coming on the Catholic Answers Forum is to seek answers and discourse. People who have a genuine desire to grow and learn and exchange view points and knowledge. Protestants, Atheists and people of other Faith are welcome. In this way we learn more about each other. Although we may not agree with other beliefs we can show respect for the individual.

Anyone who comes onto these threads to insult and jeer are wasting everybody’s time including their own.

 

[tqualey]

Well, hello, there P101,

“Quite awake…”, eh? By the way, I am the one who both wondered if you had been out in the sun too long and had fallen asleep. If you don’t like what I have to say about your silly statements, you may want to go to Pipper… I think that last post was right on target.

Honestly, if you do not start producing something besides inane complaints about banter… I am going to start wondering about your sincereity. Yeah, tiger, time to grow up and either fish or cut bait… JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW. (You pathetic stab at #1 did not even get close…and you managed to avoid my follow-upchallenge that supplied you with multiple biblical quotes - so, if you want to try again, that is fine. Evasion is something you are developing into an art form - but, pretty soon, other posters will fatigue of your game and just not respond. I am about there now.

No. I am quite awake. I am diligently watching for some decent Biblical theology to reply to instead of moldy drivel like this. I don’t want the kind of “blessed easter” that involves being talked to or about like this. You can keep it. I’d be better off going on an “Easter egg hunt.” And that goes for the other dude who so righteously accused me of being out in the sun too long. “Holy Holy Holy!” Right guys??!!

So, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

**OK… if the bible actually does explain itself very well… and Catholics believe that:

1.) Christ founded His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18),

2.) Christ required His Followers be Baptized (not as a ‘nice idea’ or gesture, but as a requirement) to be part of Him (John 3:5, Matt 28:19, Gal 3:25-27),

3.) Christ (Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity) is really present under the appearance of bread and wine (John 6, Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:15-20, 1Cor10:16),

4.) Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sin (John 20:21, Matt 18:18, James 5:16 ) and

5.) Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church He founded [and, that would be the Catholic Chruch] for all time (John 14:26)

WHY don’t Protestants believe the clearly written words of Scripture?**

Now, are you off to a PROLONGED Easter Egg Hunt - or do you plan to actually work to be considered a SERIOUS adult on this list?

God bless

 

[Protestant101]

I refer to Benedictus’ posting #40.

P101 has said his Church can trace its origins to Genesis and Benedictus said that if this is so it cannot be called a Christian Church since this is long before Jesus who founded the Church in 33 AD.

P101 asked for names of “false religions” before Protestantism and Benedictus gave several names and the timelines.

I think Protestant101 was stumped and could not respond and that is why he did a duck.

Someone on the thread made the comment that he thought that the purpose of coming on the Catholic Answers Forum is to seek answers and discourse. People who have a genuine desire to grow and learn and exchange view points and knowledge. Protestants, Atheists and people of other Faith are welcome. In this way we learn more about each other. Although we may not agree with other beliefs we can show respect for the individual.

Anyone who comes onto these threads to insult and jeer are wasting everybody’s time including their own.

Actually, the way I worded it was to say that BOTH Catholics and Protestants have always been around, as long as time has existed. You haven’t proved me wrong yet. Characterize me all you want. I will be waiting for definitive proof that I am wrong.

 

[Protestant101]

Well, hello, there P101,

“Quite awake…”, eh? By the way, I am the one who both wondered if you had been out in the sun too long and had fallen asleep. If you don’t like what I have to say about your silly statements, you may want to go to Pipper… I think that last post was right on target.

Honestly, if you do not start producing something besides inane complaints about banter… I am going to start wondering about your sincereity. Yeah, tiger, time to grow up and either fish or cut bait… JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW. (You pathetic stab at #1 did not even get close…and you managed to avoid my follow-upchallenge that supplied you with multiple biblical quotes - so, if you want to try again, that is fine. Evasion is something you are developing into an art form - but, pretty soon, other posters will fatigue of your game and just not respond. I am about there now.

Where is “Pipper?”

 

[Bob_McKissick]

No. I am quite awake. I am diligently watching for some decent Biblical theology to reply to instead of moldy drivel like this. I don’t want the kind of “blessed easter” that involves being talked to or about like this. You can keep it. I’d be better off going on an “Easter egg hunt.” And that goes for the other dude who so righteously accused me of being out in the sun too long. “Holy Holy Holy!” Right guys??!!

If I have offended you in any way, I ask your forgiveness. To continue, you quote the KJV of the Bible. I have often wondered why there are no versions by the kings of Germany, Russia, France, Italy, etc., etc…bob mckissick

 

[tqualey]

What a shame - all this nonesense you continue to babble and look what you finally produce: nothing to the topic, no response to any question asked, no biblical response - just evasion, just trivia, just classic P101.

But, don’t worry, I won’t bother you any more… you may wake up before it is too late… then again, you just may continue to play these games of yours until it is too late.

Interpret this: Matt 10:11-14 and Luke 9:4-5.

Where is “Pipper?”

God bless

 

[NDfan]

I am going to do some truly dangerous now … let’s ‘switch sides’. Let’s just pretend that you wanted to write down a set of sentences that would establish Peter as the ‘rock’ (that was cute about the ‘Rolling Stone’) on which Christ would build His Church. Just what would you say? Now, there are some limitations - you can not use the words that Christ used - because - as you say, they don’t mean that. So, come up with a convincing ‘quote’ that you would find acceptable to establish Peter as the head.

I realize this is a very unfair assignment… I know I would have trouble doing it - I mean, the words are so clear in the original that coming up with something different that means Peter is really in charge… well… good luck. You see, my part is really the easy one. All I have to say is, "Nope! It does not mean that …! and that would end it… you know, something like you just did. But, give it a try. Surprise me.

Sorry to barge in Tom but as someone pretty well versed in Greek all I can say is your posts are completely untrue with regard to Matthew 16:18 being pretty clear. The Greek does not support this at all as evidenced by the use of 2 different words petra and petros. I can provide a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong on this but I first would like to respond to this challenge of establishing Peter as the rock without using Christ’s words. Actually this is quite simple. If Christ wanted to reveal Peter and I stress the word reveal as the rock then HE would not have used 2 different words. If Christ wanted to establish Peter as the rock the church was founded upon then HE quite simply would have said you are Petros and on you Petros I will build my church. Or in English you are Peter and on you Peter I will build MY church. GOD is the only one ever called the Rock in scripture going back to the OT. So in establishing HIS church Christ, responding to Peter properly identifying who Jesus was/is, states on this rock (meaning who Jesus is, meaning Jesus is GOD) HE Christ will build HIS church. You are petros and on THIS Petra (GOD the rock) the identity Peter just gave for ME I will build my church.

Some other notes Peter was not singularly given the power to bind and loose. In speaking to all HIS disciples Christ gave this power when HE describes the steps to be taken when a brother sins against you. Also the keys in which you are referencing speak to the opening of the Gospel to everyone. Christ establishing The Davidic kingdom which is the rubbish Scott Hahn loves to spew is so false it’s actually pathetic. I call your attention to Revelation 3:7

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Hmm seems Scott Hahn doesn’t even understand scripture. He constantly beats the drum that Matthew 16 is a reference back to Isaiah 22:22 in which Christ confers upon Peter the keys to the Davidic kingdom.

And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

So let’s see is Scott Hahn and the RCC correct in saying Peter has the key and passed it forward or is scripture? My bet is scripture.

PEACE

 

[Protestant101]

If I have offended you in any way, I ask your forgiveness. To continue, you quote the KJV of the Bible. I have often wondered why there are no versions by the kings of Germany, Russia, France, Italy, etc., etc…bob mckissick

No! You haven’t offended me! Takes a lot more than that! I am just stating an opinion, using a cryptic approach to make a point. LOL I do that often…ask my lovely wife. LOL I will say so with some “internet yelling” (large colored fonts etc) if I am offended.

I like your question re the King James Bible. That would be an interesting point to look into. I do have 16 different versions of the Bible here at home; but my favorite is the KJV.

 

[Protestant101]

Sorry to barge in Tom but as someone pretty well versed in Greek all I can say is your posts are completely untrue with regard to Matthew 16:18 being pretty clear. The Greek does not support this at all as evidenced by the use of 2 different words petra and petros. I can provide a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong on this but I first would like to respond to this challenge of establishing Peter as the rock without using Christ’s words. Actually this is quite simple. If Christ wanted to reveal Peter and I stress the word reveal as the rock then HE would not have used 2 different words. If Christ wanted to establish Peter as the rock the church was founded upon then HE quite simply would have said you are Petros and on you Petros I will build my church. Or in English you are Peter and on you Peter I will build MY church. GOD is the only one ever called the Rock in scripture going back to the OT. So in establishing HIS church Christ, responding to Peter properly identifying who Jesus was/is, states on this rock (meaning who Jesus is, meaning Jesus is GOD) HE Christ will build HIS church. You are petros and on THIS Petra (GOD the rock) the identity Peter just gave for ME I will build my church.

Some other notes Peter was not singularly given the power to bind and loose. In speaking to all HIS disciples Christ gave this power when HE describes the steps to be taken when a brother sins against you. Also the keys in which you are referencing speak to the opening of the Gospel to everyone. Christ establishing The Davidic kingdom which is the rubbish Scott Hahn loves to spew is so false it’s actually pathetic. I call your attention to Revelation 3:7

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Hmm seems Scott Hahn doesn’t even understand scripture. He constantly beats the drum that Matthew 16 is a reference back to Isaiah 22:22 in which Christ confers upon Peter the keys to the Davidic kingdom.

And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

So let’s see is Scott Hahn and the RCC correct in saying Peter has the key and passed it forward or is scripture? My bet is scripture.

PEACE

An excellent post, containing points which I was intending to also bring up when time permits. I agree, Scott Hahn needs to go back to the drawing board on this issue.