Protestant interpretations...

[SimonArizona]

Oh, I forgot to mention that I was not intending to engage in “Marion bashing.” What I meant was that you seem to have a hard time looking at the whole passage in question and deriving the teaching from that; and the RC teachings on Mary illustrate the fact that the RC practice is to cram as much predetermined theology into a verse that in no way account for the mountains of inferences made over the years.

SO, I would like to adress the Biblical data in light of the Biblical data instead of some theological construct imposed upon the Biblical data.

What you are doing is arguing by attacking the debater. You must focus on the subject of the debate, and not pick apart the poster.

 

[SimonArizona]

and the RC teachings on Mary illustrate the fact that the RC practice is to cram as much predetermined theology into a verse that in no way account for the mountains of inferences made over the years.

“all generations shall call me blessed.”

just a simple verse, what do YOU think it means?

 

[whm]

If you are limited by “the Church”; it is no different that saying the “Church” has the only authority to interpret Scripture. The “Church” you would refer to in this regard would be the Magesterium aspect…correct me if I am wrong.

So you do not belong to a formal church?

Yes, you are wrong because you extended a boundary into an absolute. If I interpret 2+2 to equal 5 and the Church says no it has to be 4, then therefore to Church controls every thought I have about what I read in the Bible? Are you saying that Baptist, Lutherans, etc. also have the sole authority to interpret Scripture since they too have boundaries, in other words things that must be believed and adhered to by their members?
JohnnyBeth;5733399:

I used the John vese to show that the Word was before the church; you said the church was before the word of God; not so.

I said no such thing, you must have me confused with someone else. And I am not aware of anyone else saying it other then a few protestants trying to erect straw men.

 

[Jason_1977]

Oh, I forgot to mention that I was not intending to engage in “Marion bashing.” What I meant was that you seem to have a hard time looking at the whole passage in question and deriving the teaching from that; and the RC teachings on Mary illustrate the fact that the RC practice is to cram as much predetermined theology into a verse that in no way account for the mountains of inferences made over the years.

SO, I would like to adress the Biblical data in light of the Biblical data instead of some theological construct imposed upon the Biblical data.

its all truth no matter what you call it.

 

[plain_me]

On one had you say he’s not central to any belief, yet it’s important enough to defend him?

My wife is not a determiner of my faith in Christ and His word, but I will not allow anyone to slander her or exaggerate her words or actions to suit their agenda. The same goes for anyone. I had to correct someone the other day for pointing out the fact that the pope was a Nazi. Slander is sin. Doesn’t matter who the object of disdain is.

 

[plain_me]

Why do you believe what you believe the bible says. Opposed to say, why don’t you believe what someone else says the bible says? There are 1,000 of different interpretations of the bible that contradict each other. So why do you believe yours?

I don’t disagree with everyone’s interpretation of the Bible and sit in my yoga position as the all-enlightened one. I have been corrected before, and I have corrected others–both by means of the Scriptures. The reason I believe what I believe about the Bible (besides the obvious answer that the Holy Spirit has given me affirmation of God’s word as the truth) is because I’m convinced by the Bible itself when considered in its context. I do not take your words and pluck them out of the context in which you speak them in order to use them for my own agenda or to explain why I believe this or that about you (atleast I hope I don’t). Ask me why I believe this or that about a particular Biblical teaching, and I’ll show you from the Bible (though we may need other threads for that).

I can have Christian fellowship with other believers who I disagree with as long as it’s not a disagreement about the Gospel (which would include a false understanding of who Jesus is or maybe some other things that would distort the Gospel).

 

[plain_me]

“Limited by the Church.” it is rather, kept in the correct understanding of the Faith Christ taught through the Church. The individual is the least qualified to interpret the Bible, so 2,000 years of One. constant, unbroken, understanding of the Scriptures, really shines light onto what the Sacred Scriptures are really meaning to say.

What is the only Church God entrusted with authority to declare which books belong in the bible?

I’m sorry, Somin, but these are preposterous claims. This is a myth that you are adhering to concerning some “One. constant, unbroken, understanding” of anything that the RCC teaches. I can only assume that you are ignorant of history, and I would like to encourage you to read for yourself instead of allowing yourself to be spoon-fed these myths.

Tell me, what did John Chrysostom believed about Matthew 16:18? For that matter, what did the majority of the ECFs believe about Matt. 16:18? How about how consistently the church held to the doctrine of the Trinity after the council of Nicaea? Ask Augustine what he thought about John 6 and the real presence of Christ in the eucharist.

These are things that keep being repeated but are absolutely NOT TRUE! That’s why the whole illustration of an acorn growing into an oak tree was developed to explain the way the RCC came up with new doctrines along the way. It’s rather disappointing.

 

[Ginger2]

At some point in time, you’ll realize the world isn’t always wrong. THIS is well known that he basically butchered the bible. Its very well known. His bibles were reassembled in the correct manner AFTER his death. Everyone can see this but protestants. I was a protestant my whole life up until a year and a half ago & I knew this. So does my father who remains protestant, my mother, honestly.

It is true that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. The lies about Luther have been frequently repeated for nearly five hundred years. Many, many people believe them.

But believing a lie does not make it true.

 

[whm]

Ask Augustine what he thought about John 6 and the real presence of Christ in the eucharist.

Okay here is the first thing that I found about Augustine. I suggest you read “Confessions”, I read it in college classic lit before becoming Catholic. Great stuff.

Augustine Sermons, [227]

" … I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received."

 

[Ginger2]

On one had you say he’s not central to any belief, yet it’s important enough to defend him?

It’s really not a matter of defending Luther. It’s a matter of defending truth.

Luther is misquoted and falsely accused to discredit Protestants.

Examples are false Sola Scripture claims, false Sola Faith claims, false Bible claims.

RECAP:
Luther did not teach Sola Scriptura
"Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture **or…by manifest reasoning, **

Luther did not teach Sola Fide
“…Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever…Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! .”

Luther did not change the Bible
It is obvious the claims about Luther changing the Bible adding words, and taking away books are ridiculous. The easiest proof is the false claim Luther added the word “alone” in Romans.

Since the word “alone” is not found in the English translations of Protestant Bibles, it is obvious Luther did not add a word to change the meaning of Scriptures thereby creating a new doctrine - a doctrine he himself did not believe (see above).

Protestants are forced to waste time correcting these false accusations because Catholics keep insisting we believe in them because “Luther taught them”

But Luther did not teach any such things.

Ginger

 

[TertiumQuid]

Luther is the one who, on his own ‘authority’, removed 7 books from their rightful place in the Old Testament, and placed them in an appendix. They had references in them which did not agree with ‘his’ teaching, mainly 2 Maccabees and Purgatory.

I would take a look at LW 35. Luther gives his reasons for rejecting the book, and he doesn’t mention Purgatory. Interestingly, during the Leipzig debate, Luther still believed in purgatory, yet doubted the validity of 2 Maccabees, so this would imply that his reasoning for rejecting the book was primarily based on other historical factors. For more information:

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#1)

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2)

Regards,
James Swan

 

[plain_me]

What you are doing is arguing by attacking the debater. You must focus on the subject of the debate, and not pick apart the poster.

I can argue the points that I want to all day, but if you are not seeing the forest for the trees then you will never see the point I’m making. Case in point is my pointing out the fact that the discussion never centers upon the text so much as it centers upon the presuppositions that come to the text and filter the text through the argument of that presupposed theology, and immediately after my using the text in Luke as an example I get accused of Marion bashing :doh2:

 

[Ginger2]

I would take a look at LW 35. Luther gives his reasons for rejecting the book, and he doesn’t mention Purgatory. Interestingly, during the Leipzig debate, Luther still believed in purgatory, yet doubted the validity of 2 Maccabees, so this would imply that his reasoning for rejecting the book was primarily based on other historical factors. For more information:

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#1)

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2)

Regards,
James Swan

Thanks for those links.

Luther’s 95 Thesis is really all about purgatory and condemning those who would extort money the people.

 

[Jason_1977]

It is true that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. The lies about Luther have been frequently repeated for nearly five hundred years. Many, many people believe them.

But believing a lie does not make it true.

hmmm…maybe removing books is the wrong word. I should have said rearranged. That is accurate. THAT is fact. Removing…yeah…by definition, ya got me. Rearranging, that most certainly did happen. Been reading all day.

 

[teak421]

I don’t disagree with everyone’s interpretation of the Bible and sit in my yoga position as the all-enlightened one. I have been corrected before, and I have corrected others–both by means of the Scriptures. The reason I believe what I believe about the Bible (besides the obvious answer that the Holy Spirit has given me affirmation of God’s word as the truth) is because I’m convinced by the Bible itself when considered in its context. I do not take your words and pluck them out of the context in which you speak them in order to use them for my own agenda or to explain why I believe this or that about you (atleast I hope I don’t). Ask me why I believe this or that about a particular Biblical teaching, and I’ll show you from the Bible (though we may need other threads for that).

I can have Christian fellowship with other believers who I disagree with as long as it’s not a disagreement about the Gospel (which would include a false understanding of who Jesus is or maybe some other things that would distort the Gospel).

Selection on salvation topic:

Must Speak in Tongues to be saved
Can lose your salvation (after salvation experience)
Must be baptized in Jesus name only
Must be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Is pre-destined (Calvin)
Eternal Security (once saved, always saved)

Which one of the above is right?

 

[Jason_1977]

Thanks for those links.

Luther’s 95 Thesis is really all about purgatory and condemning those who would extort money the people.

Check out Isaiah Ch 6 Verse 7, you’ll see an act of purgatory “HE TOUCHED MY MOUTH WITH IT, “SEE”, HE SAID, “NOW THAT THIS HAS TOUCHED YOUR LIPS, YOUR WICKEDNESS IS REMOVED, YOUR SIN PURGED”” another from a deuterocanon reading would be 2Maccabees 12:45-46. “IT WAS A HOLY AND PIOUS THOUGHT. THUS HE MADE ATONEMENT FOR THE DEAD, THAT THEY MAY BE FREED FROM THIS SIN.” Here’s the kicker. The rapture is defined but the word isnt used in Luke. Purgatory is defined but the word not used. RCC doesnt teach the rapture but it is in protestant sects. Purgatory is taught in RCC and considered ridiculous to protestants. Purgatory is the final sanctification for those souls on their way to heaven that were not in a state of grace when they died. That’s it. It’s like taking your shoes off or wiping your feet before entering God’s turf.

 

[rinnie]

I mean, 2 different people heard him say the same thing. Did Jesus say it twice? I dont think so.

Hi Jason, I wrote this earlier today but don’t think it went thru so I will write it again.

You actually almost had the answer. Almost

But there is how it happened we know Jesus was a rabbi and his teaching and speaking in a semitic dealect as a rabbi until his last breath.

Here is how we know. Jesus loved the Jews and they were of course the chosen people. Now as we see standing at the foot of the cross would indeed be observing Jews. THey understand Jesus last words. My God My God why have you forsaken me. a a remez back to psalm 22:1 and since 22 23 abd 24 always follow the are united as a whole in first-century jewish mind.

Now note some did not CLEARLY hear those last words and mistook eloi as Elijah (both phonetically very similar in semitic pronouncation) knew Jesus was invoking the 3 psalms into his final prayer.

By doing this it was his last chance to indentify hinself as the Messiah and how he would die.

We have 3 final things here

22 showed he was the Messiah
23 his trust in God
24 envisioned his triumpt return to heaven.

Now either Jesus knew just what he was saying and took his last shot to show the Jews who he was. Or Jesus messed up in Psalms and said it wrong. We both know the answer to that. Jesus knew just exactly what he was saying and some heard him wrong. But the Jews heard him right, and knew exactly what he meant. BUt then it was too late he took his last breath. That is why they all got scared and said we just killed an inocent Man. This man was indeed the Son of God.

Thats our Proof that Jesus last words were indeed in Aramaic.

 

[plain_me]

“all generations shall call me blessed.”

just a simple verse, what do YOU think it means?

Um… I would definitely call Mary blessed. EXTREMELY blessed. Blessed like no other person in history to be so closely associated with the Lord. So blessed to have the intimate experiences and conversations with Jesus that people to this very day would desire to have. Blessed by God not only to have been chosen to accomplish His purposes in this world (everyone is being used in that way in one way or another), but to have such an amazing and incredible calling and purpose. Make no mistake, Mary is an outstandingly important person in history because God used her for such a high purpose–to bring the redeemer Godman into the world to die on the cross and take the punishment for my sins and the sins of every last person who calls on His name in his/her desperation as a hopeless sinner in need of a perfect Savior (2 Cor. 5:31) who will advocate for him/her throughout all of the rest of his/her life (Heb. 4:14; 8:6; 9:25-28; 10:14; I Jn. 2:1) and who trusts that He is the perfect Savior (Rom. 10:11) who can accomplish all that He has promised to do (Rom. 8:29-39).

Although, Mary is not the focus in any way shape or manner. I’m sure that she would be appalled for all the attention that she gets by so many devotees.

I digress… This is off topic, so I won’t pursue this any further. You can inform me of another thread if you’d like to continue the discussion.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Thanks for those links.

Luther’s 95 Thesis is really all about purgatory and condemning those who would extort money the people.

Hi Ginger- Yes.

The 95 Theses does not deny the validity of the indulgence. Rather, Luther attacked and exposed the abuse of the sale of indulgences and its relation to purgatory (which he believed in at that time).

 

[Des]

Selection on salvation topic:

Must Speak in Tongues to be saved
Can lose your salvation (after salvation experience)
Must be baptized in Jesus name only
Must be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Is pre-destined (Calvin)
Eternal Security (once saved, always saved)

Which one of the above is right?

You can add the literal understanding of the Eucharist as well. My non denominational friend’s entire church believes in it. And yes, I was shocked to hear this too.