canabalism

[Teflon93]

Which part of this passage tells us that Jesus turned Himself into a loaf of bread or, in this case, a fish?

What is the reason for this passage’s inclusion at the start of John 6, if the climax of the chapter does not reveal a similar miracle?

No, I’m not talking about anybody’s tradition.

I’m talking about what the Bible says.

No, you are not. The plain text of the Bible is quite clear. I will post it again, as perhaps repetition will equate you with it, and possibly teach the distinction between “says” and “means”, as it is the latter which you mean:

24: When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25: And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26: Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27: Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28: Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29: Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30: They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31: Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33: For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34: Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35: And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36: But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38: For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39: And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40: And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42: And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43: Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48: I am that bread of life.
49: Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50: This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54:** Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day**.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59: These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60: Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61: When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64: But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65: And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66: From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67: Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68: Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69: And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70: Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71: He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

That is what the Bible says. Your false tradition claims it means something else, a false meaning which did not appear on the scene till 1,500 years after the events of the Bible.

Don’t look at me. You’re the one claiming that this passage tells us that Jesus turned Himself into a loaf of bread.

That is precisely what it tells us, as anyone plainly reading it can see. It is no different than God becoming man, than Christ turning water into wine, than Christ creating bread and fish from nothing, than God feeding the nation of Israel in the desert with manna from heaven, than Christ raising the dead and being raised from the dead.

You do not mock these miracles, I suppose, so why mock you the Eucharistic miracle?

Honestly? I don’t care. We don’t get our doctrine from what other men do.

Yes you do. The other men were the Reformers, centuries dead now. Pastors likewise pass on the doctrine they have learned. You did not crack the Bible, read straight through, and walk away with your doctrine which just coincidentally matched that of your community. You were taught the doctrine first, and read those portions of the Bible which supported it in light of the doctrine you were taught.

What the Early Church Fathers believed matters because they were taught by the Apostles, something you have not been. The fact that they were Catholics and didn’t hold to the various heresies you hew to is dispositive, which is why you denounce them. Your apathy is passing strange.

Probably because some misguided people told them that Christianity teaches that they’re eating the literal flesh of Christ.

And yet these “misguided” people have more Scriptural support for what they teach than you do, as evidenced by this thread, which consists of nothing more than your mere opinion in support of your own tradition.

Weak tea, indeed.

 

[Teflon93]

First of all, I never offered an interpretation.

Second, I don’t believe that the orthodox Christian teaching on this doctrine is “strange” or “new” at all.

Third, assuming that we are talking about my “interpretation”, if you’re going to claim that my interpretation is wrong, then you take on the responsibility of showing me how my interpretation is wrong and why your interpretation is correct.

You refuse to do so.

Such sophistry.

Follow your own logic:

1. You have not offered your interpretation.
2. You claim the interpretation you have not offered is “orthodox Christian teaching” and neither strange nor new.
3. You challenge others to refute the interpretation you claim not to have offered.
4. You chide them for not doing so.

Is this what passes for argumentation in your circles?

Why not take the honest path and offer your interpretation, including your evidence in support of it?

 

[Mickey]

First of all, I never offered an interpretation.

Yes, you did. You have been denying the Real Presence of apostolic communion and replacing it with your false interpretations of your false theology-----relatively new and innovative interpretations as set forth by relatively new reformers.

I don’t believe that the orthodox Christian teaching on this doctrine is “strange” or “new” at all.

You are correct here. It is not new. The orthodox interpretation is clear from sacred Tradition over the past 2000 years-----beginning from Sacred Scriptures to the earliest Christians and Church Fathers (such as Ignatius of Antioch) until this very day. But here you come along and attempt to claim that it has been in error for 2000 years. You have adopted the postion of some fringe post Luther reformers in an attempt to deny the blessed sacrament of the apostolic Church. For shame!!!

We will pray for you.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

No, I’m not talking about anybody’s tradition. True! Scripture comes from God thru the Catholic Church. You can choose not to accept that fact if you like, but you won’t be able to disprove it using only the bible.

I’m talking about what the Bible says. Yes! Your getting it, Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Honestly? I don’t care. We don’t get our doctrine from what other men do. Protestant services use way to much of the Catholic liturgy to make this statement anything but false.

Care to explain how the bible came into existance by God’s inspiration thru the Tradition of the Catholic Church?

 

[Des]

Catholics actually believe when we worship at mass we are worshiping with the angels and the saints in heaven.

I’ve always loved the message where this painting is describing what you just said takes place during the Sacrifice at Mass.

http://web.mac.com/cicdc/iWeb/KStreet/Images/holymass.jpg

 

[Pastor_Jim]

What is the reason for this passage’s inclusion at the start of John 6, if the climax of the chapter does not reveal a similar miracle?

Chapters in the Bible routinely address more than one topic.

In this case, the point of this passage isn’t that Jesus can turn Himself into a fish, but to demonstrate that His claims to be God are true.

No, you are not.

Yes, actually that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

That is what the Bible says.

Yes, that is what one passage of the Bible says. However, when we look at the Bible, we are to employ something called the “analogy of scripture”, which simply means that we don’t interpret one verse or passage at a time, but look at the whole of the Bible to get a complete picture.

You’re not doing that.

Your false tradition claims it means something else, a false meaning which did not appear on the scene till 1,500 years after the events of the Bible.

First of all, we’ve never claimed it to mean anything else than what it says.

Second, I don’t believe that orthodox, Biblical Christianity is a “false tradition”.

That is precisely what it tells us, as anyone plainly reading it can see.

OK. Which verse tells us that Jesus is a loaf of bread? Which verse tells us that Jesus is a fish?

You do not mock these miracles, I suppose, so why mock you the Eucharistic miracle?

When I did that do?

Yes you do.

OK. Name one of our doctrines that comes from anyplace other than scripture.

You did not crack the Bible, read straight through, and walk away with your doctrine which just coincidentally matched that of your community.

You’re absolutely right. I became a Christian, looked at the doctrines that Christianity teaches and went to the Bible to see if they’re true. They are.

You were taught the doctrine first, and read those portions of the Bible which supported it in light of the doctrine you were taught.

I disagree. That isn’t what happened at all.

And yet these “misguided” people have more Scriptural support for what they teach than you do

And yet, they can’t show any.

as evidenced by this thread, which consists of nothing more than your mere opinion in support of your own tradition.

I disagree. I don’t believe that the passages I’ve cited are my own opinion.

Weak tea, indeed.

Better weak tea than poisoned Kool Aide, I suppose.

teflon:

Such sophistry.

Follow your own logic:

1. You have not offered your interpretation.
2. You claim the interpretation you have not offered is “orthodox Christian teaching” and neither strange nor new.

Actually, that isn’t what I said at all.

1. You challenge others to refute the interpretation you claim not to have offered.

Actually, what I said is that, while I did not offer any interpretations, if the poster is going to claim that I did offer an interpretation, then he should explain why this “interpretation” is wrong.

1. You chide them for not doing so.

No, I challenged them to be consistent in their arguments.

Is this what passes for argumentation in your circles?

What? Asking somebody to be consistent? Yes, that’s considered acceptable.

Why not take the honest path and offer your interpretation, including your evidence in support of it?

Because my interpretation is just my opinion. I’m not concerned about opinions. I get my doctrine from what the Bible says, not how somebody interprets what the Bible says.

Mickey:

Yes, you did…

OK. Please give some example of me giving an interpretation.

I did not offer an interpretation but, if I had, then I should also point out the fact that you cannot correct it, only shout “that’s your interpretation” over and over.

You are correct here. It is not new. The orthodox interpretation is clear from sacred Tradition over the past 2000 years-----beginning from Sacred Scriptures to the earliest Christians and Church Fathers (such as Ignatius of Antioch) until this very day. But here you come along and attempt to claim that it has been in error for 2000 years. You have adopted the postion of some fringe post Luther reformers in an attempt to deny the blessed sacrament of the apostolic Church. For shame!!!

Ironic that you insist that the Bible is a “Catholic book” and then, when I rely on the Bible, you say that it’s really just “fringe post Luther reformers”.

We will pray for you.

And I will pray directly to God for you.
SeanBoyle:

True! Scripture comes from God thru the Catholic Church. You can choose not to accept that fact if you like, but you won’t be able to disprove it using only the bible.

OK. If scripture comes through the Catholic church, how do you explain the fact that at least 2/3 of the scriptures were written long before the Catholic church even existed?

Protestant services use way to much of the Catholic liturgy to make this statement anything but false.

Really? Most of the churches I’m familiar with aren’t liturgical in any way.

 

[trrocks03]

No, I’m not talking about anybody’s tradition.

I’m talking about what the Bible says.

So are we.

Don’t look at me. You’re the one claiming that this passage tells us that Jesus turned Himself into a loaf of bread.

Please direct me to where a Catholic says “we Catholics believe that John 6 says Jesus turned into a loaf of bread”

Honestly? I don’t care. We don’t get our doctrine from what other men do.

That is very evident. You don’t get your doctrine from what other men do, you get your doctrine from what you want the bible to say. If personal interpretation was what Christ wanted, then every person who interpreted the bible on their own would read it the exact same way (through the Holy Spirit).

I would reconsider saying you don’t get doctrine from what other men do. That would throw out the entire bible because it is a collection of stories of other men. Especially Jesus. You are only proving that you are reading the bible the way you want to read it, not the way it is supposed to be read.

 

[trrocks03]

First of all, there is no analogy in scripture.

Yes, that is what one passage of the Bible says. However, when we look at the Bible, we are to employ something called the "analogy of scripture", which simply means that we don’t interpret one verse or passage at a time, but look at the whole of the Bible to get a complete picture.

Which is it? No analogy or yes analogy?

 

[Teflon93]

Regarding Scriptural support for what’s going on with the Eucharistic teaching of John 6, I urge you to read Numbers 11.

Just read it:

1: And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
2: And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.
3: And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the LORD burnt among them.
4: And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
5: We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
6: But our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.
7: And the manna was as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium.
8: And the people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it: and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil.
9: And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.
10: Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent: and the anger of the LORD was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased.
11: And Moses said unto the LORD, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?
12: Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?
13: Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat.
14: I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me.
15: And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness.
16: And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
17: And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
18: And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat.
19: Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days;
20: But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?
21: And Moses said, The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand footmen; and thou hast said, I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month.
22: Shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them, to suffice them? or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them?
23: And the LORD said unto Moses, Is the LORD’s hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.
24: And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.
25: And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
26: But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.
27: And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.
28: And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.
29: And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
30: And Moses gat him into the camp, he and the elders of Israel.
31: And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day’s journey on this side, and as it were a day’s journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.
32: And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp.
33: And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
34: And he called the name of that place Kibroth-hattaavah: because there they buried the people that lusted.
35: And the people journeyed from Kibroth-hattaavah unto Hazeroth; and abode at Hazeroth.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

OK. Name one of our doctrines that comes from anyplace other than scripture. The doctine that states that the bible is your only source of christian knowledge. Oops your biggest doctine goes away. Now what?

OK. If scripture comes through the Catholic church, how do you explain the fact that at least 2/3 of the scriptures were written long before the Catholic church even existed? The Church existed at the very latest, at the death of Christ. Nothing written in the bible before then. Where do you get you information regarding the existiance of the Church? Is it biblical or extra biblical?

You give way to many self defeating arguments to be believable.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

And I will pray directly to God for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Jim forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Where in the Bible does it say that God shows mercy to sinners based on the prayers of others?

According to you, what good would praying for us do???

Another extrabiblical doctine?? In which post were you mistaken? It has to be one of these.

 

[Teflon93]

As for the challenge regarding one Protestant doctrine not supported by Scripture, “sola Scriptura” is just that—an unsupported doctrine. Scripture neither defines itself nor claims to stand alone from Tradition, nor supercedes the Church. There have been many threads on this topic.

Dispensationalism is likewise unsupported, in that Scripture emphasizes the unity of the whole rather than of dividing itself based upon phony divisions drawn up in the 19th century. As with all heresies, the dispensationalists warp a truth—in this case, the covenantal relationship between God and men—into untruth by failing to account for the whole of Scripture and Tradition.

As David Currie has shown in his excellent book “Rapture”, some Protestant communities likewise distort Revelation and Daniel through some completely unsupportable interpretations of Scripture. Their eschatology rests on such falsehoods.

Since Pastor Jim has not seen fit to identify his denomination, I cannot know precisely which doctrines he holds to, which makes his last post vie with the prior one I criticized for sheer sophistry.

Perhaps this is what passes for argumentation in whatever tradition he hews to. Catholics, in contrast, boldly proclaim our faith and the teachings of the Church. Our Catechism is available to all.

This is the great advantage of having the fullness of Truth within the Church. The theologians-by-subtraction which shadow the true Church are much more circumspect, it seems.

 

[Des]

Second, I agree. Contextual clues do tell us when He is speaking metaphorically. For instance, when the Bible says that Jesus holds up a piece of bread and says, “this bread is my body”, obviously, we know that He is speaking metaphorically because we know that men are not made out of bread and we know that Jesus’ body was right there in front of them, so if He meant His literal body, He would not have held up a piece of bread, but pointed to His own body.

Why would Christ point to His own body since during Holy Communion, His His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity isn’t becoming His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

And show me one verse where people walked away because they literally thought Jesus was a vine or a piece of wood?

These men were living the language and culture yet without a doubt KNEW Jesus meant it in the literal sense and couldn’t handle the teaching. Why would it be hard to understand after everything they were taught leading up to that event if it was only symbolic? If it indeed was symbolic, like you say, it should have been very easy to ‘Get’ what he meant.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Which is it? No analogy or yes analogy?

There is no analogy in scripture. However, there is a hermeneutic principle called the “analogy of scripture”.

It does not refer to the existence of analogy in scripture, but to the harmony of scripture.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Why would Christ point to His own body since during Holy Communion, His His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity isn’t becoming His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Why would He hold up a piece of bread?

And show me one verse where people walked away because they literally thought Jesus was a vine or a piece of wood?

I’m not asking you what they thought. I’m asking you what you think.

These men were living the language and culture yet without a doubt KNEW Jesus meant it in the literal sense and couldn’t handle the teaching.

And these men were fallible. That’s why we follow what God’s infallible word says and not what fallible men say.
seanboyle:

The doctine that states that the bible is your only source of christian knowledge.

Actually, that’s not one of our doctrines. We don’t believe that at all.

The Church existed at the very latest, at the death of Christ. Nothing written in the bible before then. Where do you get you information regarding the existiance of the Church? Is it biblical or extra biblical?

The book of Acts describes the church as being estabished about forty days after Christ’s ascension into Heaven.

2/3 of the books of the Bible were written long before this.

 

[trrocks03]

There is no analogy in scripture. However, there is a hermeneutic principle called the “analogy of scripture”.

It does not refer to the existence of analogy in scripture, but to the harmony of scripture.

Thank you for clearing that up…

But if it is the harmony of scripture and not the analogy, why call it the “analogy of scripture” and not the “harmony of scripture”

 

[trrocks03]

I’m not asking you what they thought. I’m asking you what you think.

And these men were fallible. That’s why we follow what God’s infallible word says and not what fallible men say.

Pastor Jim,

Serious question here.

Are you not a fallible man as well? Why should anyone listen to you over anyone else? I understand that you are basically saying we need to read the bible for ourselves. Okay, so lets say we do. And we interpret the bible to saying that Jesus is actually transposed into the bread at the Eucharist, because thats what we read. Now how can you say that we are wrong? You believe in sola scriptura and personal revelation. Would Holy Spirit lead us to interpret the Bible incorrectly? And in that situation, who are we to believe, you or the Holy Spirit?

I don’t understand how you can tell us our thinking is wrong, when we have been doing it for 2000 years, since Jesus himself was around. Your teaching has only existed since the 1500s. So since we are both “personally interpretting scripture”, then I am going to use the trump card of “my tradition is longer and more complete than yours”. Thats really the only way I can know which method is right.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Are you not a fallible man as well?

Yes, I’m fallible, just like your pope.

Why should anyone listen to you over anyone else?

Because I can back up what I say with scripture.

Okay, so lets say we do. And we interpret the bible to saying that Jesus is actually transposed into the bread at the Eucharist, because thats what we read. Now how can you say that we are wrong?

By examining what you say in light of scripture.

You believe in sola scriptura and personal revelation. Would Holy Spirit lead us to interpret the Bible incorrectly? And in that situation, who are we to believe, you or the Holy Spirit?

I don’t believe you’re being led by the Holy Spirit.

I don’t understand how you can tell us our thinking is wrong

Because it contradicts the Bible.

Your teaching has only existed since the 1500s.

I disagree. Christianity was founded about 2,000 years ago.

So since we are both “personally interpretting scripture”, then I am going to use the trump card of “my tradition is longer and more complete than yours”. Thats really the only way I can know which method is right.

If that’s your standard, then I suppose so. However, for the Christian, the word of God is our standard.

 

[trrocks03]

Yes, I’m fallible, just like your pope.

Because I can back up what I say with scripture.

By examining what you say in light of scripture.

I don’t believe you’re being led by the Holy Spirit.

Because it contradicts the Bible.

I disagree. Christianity was founded about 2,000 years ago.

If that’s your standard, then I suppose so. However, for the Christian, the word of God is our standard.

Your answers are not substantial. You again are just saying I interpret the Bible incorrectly and the Holy Spirit is not leading me. How can I trust that He is leading you? How do I know you ARE reading the bible correctly? Wouldn’t there be 1.3 billion people that think the same way you do if you were right? Wouldn’t the correct way be illuminated through God’s presence? Why would God allow so many people to be misled? I am trying my hardest to read the bible correctly, so how could I be misled? Why is your way better than my way?

You are saying that I am reading the bible incorrectly, therefore you are the all-knowledgable bible expert. Why are there millions more out there, with differing views, all claiming the same thing? How are any of them more or less accurate than you?

 

[Mickey]

Ironic that you insist that the Bible is a “Catholic book” and then, when I rely on the Bible, you say that it’s really just “fringe post Luther reformers”.

Mama Mia!!! Are you really a pastor!?!

Your interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is fringe post Luther reformation.