Protestant interpretations...

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evolving is something that comes about after the firm foundation has been laid, such as praying to saints, papacy, peterine primacy, perpetual virginity, a levitical self-styled priesthood etc. Discovery is that which has existed and later qualified; such as the Trinity or sola scriptura. Try not to confuse the differences.
It is you who have done the assuming… And, your arrogance will be your undoing. Its on mighty display.

Tell me plainly, how do you determine your core doctrinal beliefs? If those beliefs come in conflict with other Protestants, who (how) determines who is correct?

If you and a friend disagree on salvation… Let’s say he believes that you must speak in tongues to be saved and you believe you must be baptized in the name of Jesus only, both can not be right? Both can be wrong… Or, one of you could be right. Who determines who is right?

Can you be wrong in your core doctrinal beliefs? Is it possible that you can read something incorrectly or through the vision of your history, culture, etc.

Finally, are you infallible? If you are not, then, how do you know the doctrines that you hold are correct… Doctrines that many other Protestants do not agree with and who say you are wrong. And, those same people review and study the same Bible… Both invoke the Holy Spirit… Does the Holy Spirit get it wrong, or are you?
  • Michael
PS: Sola Scriptura is one of the doctrines I suggest you spend some time reviewing. Start by reading this: geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html
That man-made doctrine is wholly without merit and should be discouraged.

NOTE: I am NOT saying the Bible is horrible, its AWESOME… I’ve got to watch myself with you.
 
Evolving is something that comes about after the firm foundation has been laid, such as praying to saints, papacy, peterine primacy, perpetual virginity, a levitical self-styled priesthood etc. Discovery is that which has existed and later qualified; such as the Trinity or sola scriptura. Try not to confuse the differences.
One more thing… It was the Roman Catholic Church who declared the Trinity valid. Under the supreme guidance of the Holy Spirit in 325 we got a wonderful Creed. Have you read it? Do you disagree with anything in it?

Arias used various Scriptures to put forward his doctrine, but it was put down by the Bishops and these same Bishops said that the followers of Arias were “aliens” to the Catholic Church. It was the Church (with Christ as its leader), who determined that Arias was off his rocker…
  • Michael
 
That is also what I have always heard.

So I’ll give you Matthew 16:18 is singular and speaking directly to Peter.

I will also concede Matthew 18:18 is not speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles.

Now, before you get too happy about my concessions,…

In Matthew 18:18 where Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles, this is where you have stated proof for papal infallibility:

I never saw that before! This we know all the Apostles wrote and spoke truth or they could not be considered divinely inspired. They were protected from error.

But it disproves papal infallibility as Peter was not the only one protected from error.

(I should acknowledge this doesn’t settle the issue of the keys.)

Ginger
You will not find an instant in Scripture where “key” is not singular, even when at first glanse it looks that way. For instance, Jesuse said He has the “keys” to death and hades". There are two separate doors; therefore “keys” is used to explain 1 key for death and 1 key for hades, thus “keys”. The same thing is true with Matthew 16:19, keys is used and appears to be plural, but it is the same single key, given to multiple people, thus “keys”. The only way it can be otherwise would be several fold. First, a new Greek term, because the definition is literally “a key”, not “key”, but “a key”. The other would be if you had 2 or more different locks on the same gate/door; therefore you would need “keys”, but you still have the issue with the definition “a key”. The other possibility would be to have more than one gate or door to the Kingdom of God or heaven that had different locks and needed a separate key for each lock; similar to the previous example of 1 door with several locks or the exapmle of death and hades.
You know there are 12 gates into the new heaven; perhaps that is the “key”, forgive the pun, but that would also destroy the Peterine “key”.

Then there is reality; the key is inseperable from the “loose and bind”; therefore at a minumun it applies to all of the disciples, but it applies to every Christian according to Matthew 18, which I am somewhat disappointed to see Ginger conceded that since the evidence proves beyond doubt that Jesus was preaching to a crowd. Notice the child right there he used as an example and the parents must have been there unless they had a sitter service n the side. :rolleyes:

Matt 5When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, (Who is the them? the crowd-doesn’t look that way at first apperance)

"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

End of Sermon on mount: cptr 7-beg ch 8
When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
When Jesus came down from the mountain, large crowds followed Him.

Matt 18At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, (now He is in full preaching mode for the next 30 plus verses)

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to ave two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

Ch 19 starts:
When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there.

It really is troubling that no one recognizes when Jesus is in full preaching mode here in Chapter 18; oh well, we can only point it out and allow the Holy Spirit to do His work if He so choses.
 
One more thing… It was the Roman Catholic Church who declared the Trinity valid. - Michael
The Trinity doctrine is a way to help explain the nature of God revealed thru the Scriptures in a way human beings can understand.

The RC did not figure it out thru revelation. They did not declare something that wasn’t already known. It is clearly found in Scripture that God reveals Himself to mankind in three ways.

The word “Trinity” was only coined to help explain God and dispute those who claimed otherwise.

We accept the term Trinity because it is found in Scripture. Not the word “trinity” but** the concept.**
 
The Trinity doctrine is a way to help explain the nature of God found in Scriptures in a way human beings can understand.

The RC did not figure it out thru revelation. They did not declare something that wasn’t already known. It is clearly found in Scripture that God reveals Himself to mankind in three ways.

The word “Trinity” was only coined to help explain God and dispute those who claimed otherwise.
Ginger, as a student of Church History I am surprised by this statement. You know there were quite a number of Bishops who followed Arias and his heretical view. It was only after the Church settled the issue that we moved on. If it was so plain, why did so many Bishops follow Arias. Also, why would Peter write 2 Peter 3:16.
  • Michael
 
You miss the point. The Church was not arguing about whether infants should be baptized or not; infants were baptized and there was no dissent about that. The only question to concern the early Church was HOW QUICKLY INFANTS SHOULD BE BAPTIZED. Sadly, modern Christians who think they know so much more than those were taught by the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles now deny baptism to infants based on the teachings of men.

Then start a thread and do so.

What ego we moderns have…to think that we are so much superior to the ignorant fools of ancient days who had nothing but the words of the Apostles themselves still ringing in their ears. :rolleyes:

Well, you have me there. I can’t deny that scripture nowhere teaches that we are saved through the “blood of water” - whatever that may be. 🤷

However, scripture does teach that we are saved by baptism plainly enough.

[1 Peter 3:21](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter+3:21&version=NIV)
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
You start the baptism thread and I’ll join, 1 peter 3:21 is not in the context or water baptism and Peter actually makes it clear by stating, not the removal of dirt, which water would do. The water in that passge represents God’s judgment, hardly anything to do with baptism. The Ark was supernaturally sealed, if you recall, by God, which is a prefigure to “baptism of/by the Holy Spirit” a totally different and foreign to many type of baptism, which John the baptist said Jesus would baptise in that manner, which is why Jesus never water baptized. Peter claims it was the way all the apotles were baptised. I can demonstrate from Scipture and prove every bit of what I just stated.

I don’t expect any one to believe what they actually see and read though; I won’t hold mt breath in other words.
 
You start the baptism thread and I’ll join, 1 peter 3:21 is not in the context or water baptism and Peter actually makes it clear by stating, not the removal of dirt, which water would do. The water in that passge represents God’s judgment, hardly anything to do with baptism. The Ark was supernaturally sealed, if you recall, by God, which is a prefigure to “baptism of/by the Holy Spirit” a totally different and foreign to many type of baptism, which John the baptist said Jesus would baptise in that manner, which is why Jesus never water baptized. Peter claims it was the way all the apotles were baptised. I can demonstrate from Scipture and prove every bit of what I just stated.

I don’t expect any one to believe what they actually see and read though; I won’t hold mt breath in other words.
How do you know your “context” is right? Are you infallible?
  • Michael
 
You know there were quite a number of Bishops who followed Arias and his heretical view. If it was so plain, why did so many Bishops follow Arias.
  • Michael
Maybe they didn’t know how to read Latin. 😃
 
You start the baptism thread and I’ll join, 1 peter 3:21 is not in the context or water baptism and Peter actually makes it clear by stating, not the removal of dirt, which water would do. The water in that passge represents God’s judgment, hardly anything to do with baptism. The Ark was supernaturally sealed, if you recall, by God, which is a prefigure to “baptism of/by the Holy Spirit” a totally different and foreign to many type of baptism, which John the baptist said Jesus would baptise in that manner, which is why Jesus never water baptized. Peter claims it was the way all the apotles were baptised. I can demonstrate from Scipture and prove every bit of what I just stated.

I don’t expect any one to believe what they actually see and read though; I won’t hold mt breath in other words.
Could you maybe do a bio on yourself? Education? Greek reading abilities… etc. That would be helpful to give your words merit against people who do not agree with you.

What do we observers like me do when we got two Protestants disagreeing??? Let’s see… Johnny, he know’s Greek, but Ginger doesn’t. But, you know, that Ginger sure seems to know Early Church Fathers. Man, too bad they disagree. Oh me!! What do I do… Which Protestant do I follow??? Who’s right???
  • Michael
 
No man is infallible; but God knows me and I know Scipture because God knows me.
But, a person sitting on the keyboard in Egg, Florida who disagrees with you on key doctrines says the same thing… Why is he wrong and you right?

WHAT DO I DO!!!??

I CAN"T TAKE IT… Which Protestant is right???
  • Michael
PS: I know I am absurd! but… I think I’m trying to make a point… and… hopefully you will see it.
 
Folks, I am way behind in this thread, page 55 or 56 and falling further and I must log out and may not make it back till tomorrow. If someone has questions or comments that went unanswered, then shoot me a PM or soething. If you decide to start a new thead on Baptism or whatever topic, please shhot a PM with a link…thanks and God bless each one of you! (2nd person singular) …LOL 🙂
 
But, a person sitting on the keyboard in Egg, Florida who disagrees with you on key doctrines says the same thing… Why is he wrong and you right?

WHAT DO I DO!!!??

I CAN"T TAKE IT… Which Protestant is right???
  • Michael
PS: I know I am absurd! but… I think I’m trying to make a point… and… hopefully you will see it.
By the way, there really is an Egg Florida!
  • Michael
 
[SIGN][/SIGN]
[SIGN]No man is infallible[/SIGN]; but God knows me and I know Scipture because God knows me.
Again there you go. NO MAN IS INFALLIBLE. What about Jesus Christ. Was he not a Man. God knows me too, and he knows that I know that Jesus Christ was truly Man. He was born of the Virgin Mary and became MAN! God from God, Light from Light. True God from True God. Begotten not MADE! One in BEING with the Father. How about the Holy Spirit. You remember the HS don’t you. The Advocate that promises the Pope that when he teaches us faith and morals in the Church he can’t be wrong! Remember that? Or do you ignore the advocate alltogether? Does the HS not exist the way Jesus promised.

Why Did Jesus promise us the Advocate the HS? Did he lie? Was he just kidding or what?

Or did Jesus Christ mean when he said You are Peter and I give to you the keys to the Kingdom. And I will send you the Advocate the HS to guide you to the fullness of the truth?

To say that the RCC is not led into the fullness of the truth is to deny the Power of the Holy Spirit. Why can’t you see this?
 
But, a person sitting on the keyboard in Egg, Florida who disagrees with you on key doctrines says the same thing… Why is he wrong and you right?

WHAT DO I DO!!!??

I CAN"T TAKE IT… [SIGN]Which Protestant is right???[/SIGN]
  • Michael
PS: I know I am absurd! but… I think I’m trying to make a point… and… hopefully you will see it.
[SIGN][/SIGN]

It depends on what Protestant you ask:rotfl:

Now speaking for myself they all are right. They all claim to have the Power of the HS themselves:eek: Yep they do I tell you.

If they disagree with their Preacher, NO PROBLEM. they just go out, and make their own Church.🤷

There is no Authority! None whatsoever! Never was in the Protestant Church never will be!:confused:

They all claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit. But how in the world could the same HS lead them all in different directions? Beat the heck out of me!

See I thought ONE TRUTH!:confused:

This reminds me of a customer of mine. She was 83 going to her grandsons wedding. Their Son was giving away the bride. She said when I was young, we got married, them we had kids. Today they have kids then they get married. She said see! We were doing it wrong back then:eek::rotfl:
 
Reference to what? The letter that have been debated as forgeries?
Which letters are debated as forgeries? I was referring to the following comments that I believe belong to you:
Just do a thorough study of your saints you pray to; they can’t wipe them away without admitting error; yet a detailed study shows a good portion are based on myth or legend. Rather than admitting they made a mistake in calling a saint that does not exist and remove it; they continue to publish the names and the myths and the legends. If you were to study greek and roman mythology you would find quite a few saints that really reseemble Roman saints. The question is why? Do you know when must of the praying to the saints originates? Anyway I want to avoid Catholic bashing it makes no sense and helps no one and is not Christlike. I believe it is worth pointing out that it.
I was wanting to know your source(s)/ evidence to back these claims up.
 
No man is infallible; but God knows me and I know Scipture because God knows me.
Jim Jones said the same thing!!

You are leaning on your own understanding.

You are rejecting the Church that Jesus gave us in order that we be unified in faith and morals.
 
Jim Jones said the same thing!!

You are leaning on your own understanding.

You are rejecting the Church that Jesus gave us in order that we be unified in faith and morals.
Great point… Someone has to be leaning on their own understanding with all the different doctrinal positions that Protestants hold… Which, in Proverbs really does frown upon.
  • Michael
PS: The leaning not on your own understanding is a daily battle that I have to fight on a whole variety of topics…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top