Choosing a non-Catholic denomination?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really seven literal 24 hour days of creation, Adam and Eve being directly created by God not evolving from monkeys or something else and Noah and the ark with all the animals in it? A global flood that killed every human being except Noah and his family? People living to 800-900 years?
 
Last edited:
When scripture is subjected to third party sources for its intrinsic meaning you get erroneous interpretations.
 
Yes you used that talking point already but still failed to contest or even acknowledge my point. If the Bible is to be taken 100% literally then why are literal, straight forward verses ignored and called figurative when it fits the Protestant narrative? The points I listed above are not “third party sources” they are straight from the Bible.
 
Last edited:
It’s what you are using to interpret scripture. Tradition, Book of Mormon or scripture itself to interpret scripture. These will give different meanings.
 
Yes I understand your premise. I am saying that the Protestant position is scripture alone but they ignore scripture when it proves them wrong. They are using scripture to interpret scripture but do so with absolutely no consistency.
 
They are interpreted that way because of the method used to ascertain their meaning. We’re not doing anything we can to be against Catholic teaching. I think we both want to know what scripture really means.
 
jericho777 said:
I would think Baptists are very much in sync as their interpretation of scripture goes especially on fundamental issues of faith.
Click to expand...
Then please explain how John 6: 51-57 is interpreted? It is one of the most fundamental issues on faith.
 
If you want to know what Scripture really means, you ask the Holy Spirit for guidance when reading. If you want the Catholic view, you ask Catholics. If you want the Protestant view, you go to Protestants.
 
You do realize that Christians don’t believe that the Bible was given to us from God. In other words while the Bible is divinely inspired it is definitely not all the literal word of God.
 
If I told you you would still disagree. You are missing the greater point. The methodology shapes and reveals the meaning. That’s why we arrive at a different interpretation.
 
You stated that Catholics don’t believe in a literal translation of the flood and creation and they are wrong. The implication being that a literal view of the Bible is the correct methodology. The problem is that there are parts of the Bible that when taken literally make Catholic beliefs the only viable choice. Many examples have been given in this thread. You have so far failed to address any of them instead choosing to continually speak cryptically about methodology and interpretation.

Back to the first point, you imply that a literal translation is the correct methodology. When trying to prove themselves right many Protestants reverse the methodology and say that a particular part is figurative. Methodology must be consistent. Switching back and forth in order to fit one’s own narrative is intellectually dishonest.
 
Well done you just taught us that Jesus taught that His flesh was not profitable. Do you have any idea what kind of impact that would have on the Gospel?
 
Last edited:
Why do you think the words you highlighted must mean that Jesus was not being literal in John Chapter 6?
 
Jesus said the flesh, not my flesh. When he says “the flesh is of no avail”, he does not mean “my flesh”-that would contradict his immediately prior remarks. He means instead carnal understanding, as distinguished from spiritual(see John 3:6). The contrast is between unaided nature and nature elevated by grace.

If Jesus’ remarks are not to be taken literally, how would one reconcile 1 Corinthians 11:26-30? “So it is the Lord’s death that you are heralding, whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until he comes. And therefor, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood. A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup; he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and drinks unworthily, not recognizing the Lord’s body for what it is.” How could receiving a symbol or metaphor unworthily make one accountable for the body and blood of the Lord?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for proving my point. You disregard the entire chapter and cherry pick two words to try to prove you are right. The Apostle Paul believed it was truly the body of Christ but what does he know? I don’t see any reason to trust him over you 😐

1st Corinthians 11:29 - For whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks a sentence against himself, not discerning it to be the body of the Lord.
 
Because he knows better than Jesus, Paul, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and the list goes on.
 
He’s going to have to say the accountability is symbolic. Or run to another verse. I’m going to back away for a minute I’m guilty of not having mercy here. I know I’m no better just a human being.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top