Protestant interpretations...

[Luke65]

That’s an example of eisegesis…

The reason why purgatory is ridiculous to protestants is not because the word isn’t found in the Bible. It’s because the teaching contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ’s perfect, finished, sufficient, and efficient sacrifice in behalf of all who believe. There is no further cleansing to be had! Christ has accomplished everything for our salvation!

Now that is eisegesis…

“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” (Colossians 1:24 NIV)

Don’t make Scripture contradict Scripture - harmonize them! Which is what the Catholic Church has been doing for 2000 years.

 

[Jason_1977]

Now that is eisegesis…

“Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” (Colossians 1:24 NIV)

Don’t make Scripture contradict Scripture - harmonize them! Which is what the Catholic Church has been doing for 2000 years.

AWWWW MAN…,…ya beat me to it, LOL!!!

 

[JohnnyBeth]

“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?

That is totally contrary to the Word of God. The Bible teaches the only way to understand Scripture is to have that Truth Teacher inside of you, whcih leads and directs each individual to the truth of Gods Word. He never gave or instituted the receiving of the HS to a physically located ruling Body, which you call the Magesterium. I would challenge you to prsent clear evidence fro the Bible.

 

[Luke65]

AWWWW MAN…,…ya beat me to it, LOL!!!

What? The old guy beat the young guy to the punch? Sorry, I see your hands are full, I’ll just be lurking…

 

[JohnnyBeth]

JohnnyBeth;5733399:

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?

I belong to the body of Christ, which is the true truch and the only church where Christ is the head; whether on earth or heaven. I attend a church building on Wednesdays and Sundays, but I’m pretty sure the tares are among us at every service.

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?

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.

I know what scripture teaches and the only way to know the absolute truth concerning salvation is by the work of the Holy Spirit. Ask Peter he can tell you a little about a confession he made, which Jesus confirmed.

 

[plain_me]

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.

Am I sposed to answer this one too?

I’d say that they may not be understanding it in the same way as the RCC. I hope not. They may be misguided and intruiged by the mystical nature of the whole thing. They are treading on dangerous ground here. The Scriptures make it very clear that Christ’s one sacrifice was all that was necessary for His whole church (all true believers–I’ve already cited the verses).

By the way, what do you mean by “literal understanding of the Eucharist?” Are you referring to a literal understanding of this or that passage in the Bible?

 

[Des]

I actually have Confessions on audiobook, and it’s one of the best books in my collection. This quotation is not from Confessions, though, is it?

Here’s another quotation from Augustine:

As I said before, everything that newcomers here bring up, have been done so numerous other times on this board. Here’s a very charitable and brilliant explanation by pneuma07 starting with post #8 which I feel is an excellent analogy of the Catholic teaching, unified perfectly with St. Augustine’s assessment of that verse. I believe St. Augustine is the most quoted of all the Doctor’s when it comes to the Holy Eucharist.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=267774

2 Maccabees is an example of someone praying someone out of purgatory after they died for having committed idolatry (v. 40)? Is someone eligible to enter heaven (or purgatory) after dying in mortal sin?

That would be judging his soul to condemn a man and deny him of prayers he may possibly be needing. Nobody truly knows what happens in the last moments of someone’s conscience between himself and God.
.

 

[panevino]

Am I sposed to answer this one too?

I’d say that they may not be understanding it in the same way as the RCC. I hope not. They may be misguided and intruiged by the mystical nature of the whole thing. They are treading on dangerous ground here. The Scriptures make it very clear that Christ’s one sacrifice was all that was necessary for His whole church (all true believers–I’ve already cited the verses).

By the way, what do you mean by “literal understanding of the Eucharist?” Are you referring to a literal understanding of this or that passage in the Bible?

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 1 Corinthians 11:26

catholic church officially teaches that the eucharist is a re - presentation of the one sacrafice.

 

[Des]

Am I sposed to answer this one too?

I’d say that they may not be understanding it in the same way as the RCC. I hope not.
They may be misguided and intruiged by the mystical nature of the whole thing. They are treading on dangerous ground here. The Scriptures make it very clear that Christ’s one sacrifice was all that was necessary for His whole church (all true believers–I’ve already cited the verses).

By the way, what do you mean by “literal understanding of the Eucharist?” Are you referring to a literal understanding of this or that passage in the Bible?

They understand it to literally be the Body and Blood of Christ in the way Catholics believe. And it doesn’t really matter what you think of how dangerous the ground they tread on is, for you are no authority. Their authority is the Bible and they interpret it not as a symbol like most protestants but very literal as we do.

 

[plain_me]

plain_me;5734808:

We are promised by Jesus Christ that he will send us the Advocate the Holy Spirit to the Church to lead us to the fullness of the truth. Jesus promised us that. What are you saying that the Holy Spirt does not guide the CC into the fullness of the Church as Jesus promised?

Jesus said He would send to Spirit to lead the church into all truth, correct. The Bible says that all believers have the Spirit (Rom. 8:9), so this promise of the Holy Spirit leading into all truth is meant for all believers. Just take a look at what John says when speaking to believers:

But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie–just as it has taught you, abide in him.
(1Jn 2:27 ESV)

But yes, I would say that the Holy Spirit does in fact guide the CC into all truth. I would not say, however, that the Holy Spirit leads the RCC into all truth–nor did Jesus promise that He would.

 

[plain_me]

The CC is still here and still teaching the same way as it did over 2000 years ago.

Your Luther comments aside, you do keep spouting off the same falsities that have been proven to be falsities. Understood properly I would probably agree with the above statement, but I probably wouldn’t even be naive enough to do that. Understanding it the way that you mean it, however, is not something I can call naive since you know that this claim has been properly refuted. It’s just stubborn.

 

[plain_me]

You know gingER its a shame when you continue to assume for People what they mean and are talking about instead of asking them.

They were afraid because they knew that when all of that happened it happend for a reason. Not because Jesus died. Because Jesus was indeed the Son of God. As I said they knew at that moment that Jesus was indeed the son of God. They knew they crucified a inocent man. I really did not think I had to finish the scripture how darkness fell, the earth shook etc to get my point across. I am sure everyone know’s this happened right after.

Though I don’t intend to get involved in this side of the discussion, I do find it funny that Rinnie accused Ginger of something and then continued on to do the same thing he charged her with.:whacky:

 

[Luke65]

Your Luther comments aside, you do keep spouting off the same falsities that have been proven to be falsities. Understood properly I would probably agree with the above statement, but I probably wouldn’t even be naive enough to do that. Understanding it the way that you mean it, however, is not something I can call naive since you know that this claim has been properly refuted. It’s just stubborn.

I guess I must have missed where it was “proved” that the Catholic Church has changed any of Her teachings. Would you mind giving me an example?

 

[Jason_1977]

I like the isaiah6 reference regarding purgatory, the picture painted is very much like that in revelation, and appears to illustrate cleansing before God.

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 And the posts of the door F37 moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; F38 because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. 6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. 8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send F39 me.

im a novice here so Im sure this can be refuted by protestants… It does not appear as though he has died and is going to heaven, but he is clearly in close vicinity of God “Posts of the door” and his sin is “purged”.

you got it kiddo. Purgatory is purging. It’s a final purification or sanctification. It happened in Isaiah. You seem to get it. Strangely, it’s happening on earth in Isaiah. It happened to a living person. He was sanctified & had his sins purged. I am trying to make heads or tails of the whole thing myself, but the fact sill remains that that was an act of purging sin, regardless of the plane of existence.

 

[Des]

Jesus said He would send to Spirit to lead the church into all truth, correct. The Bible says that all believers have the Spirit (Rom. 8:9), so this promise of the Holy Spirit leading into all truth is meant for all believers. Just take a look at what John says when speaking to believers:

But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie–just as it has taught you, abide in him.
(1Jn 2:27 ESV)

In context, this was spoken to actual members of the Church (Catholic Church) and not to Bible alone believers in disunity with Her. As a matter of fact, the same thing is said to us today even though we know our place in the Church and who has the Authority.

When Paul went to Jerusalem, the purpose of the meeting, was to resolve the disagreement in Antioch regarding circumcision. They didn’t leave it up to the Holy Spirit leading individuals independently to this truth but actually went to a Council with the Apostles and elders where Peter eventually stood up after lots of discussion to make a decision and once and for all put it to rest.

And let me ask you something. Where is this Holy Spirit when Christians differ on whether divorce is acceptable under certain conditions or not? Even if I ask you your thoughts on this teaching, it really won’t matter since you’ve got as much authority as the next Bible reader. There is no easy way around it. Without a visible authority to put a final stamp on arguments and heresies floating around in the Church, these matters will never be resolved yet continue to go round and round till Christ returns.
That to me is not leading one into “All Truth”. Not even close. Not with something Christ made such a decisive teaching on.

 

[plain_me]

Very funny, why not answer the question? I made the example to be clear not be mocking. What happens in your church if somebody has a fundamental disagreement on something considered essential? What if it is a Sunday school teacher?

Then they get called to account based on the testimony of Scripture. The essential teachings (or fundamentals) are essentials because of their clear demonstrability by the Scriptures. The Sunday school teacher would be taken out of his position until the matter could be settled, and would not be reinstated to his position as a teacher or a member if it could not be settled. The church does have authority in this matter (and responsibility, for that matter), but the ultimate authority comes from the word of God.

I didn’t realize I was avoiding a question, by the way. Sorry.

 

[plain_me]

I’m interested in what YOU think it means, and why God’s word can easily go dismissed as “just another verse”? It doesnt strike a chord with you, that’s ok, I have heard of people that read the book of numbers when they have a hard time falling asleep. She is the most important woman in the new testament. She bore the messiah. She’s pretty senior in the ranks of women in the bible. She IS blessed. Why is that disputable?

Huh? I said that she is EXTREMELY important. What’s the dispute? What are you asking me? I didn’t say that this is just another verse. I didn’t say that about any other verse either. The first poster said that about some protestants. What should this verse strike in me? Feelings of worship and the urge to pray in expression of that worship? Please clarify for me, Jason.

 

[plain_me]

That makes sense to you? Even tho it doesn’t even correspond to what is written in the Scripture?

OK, do all Catholics here think rinnie has proven beyond a doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic?

Not asking if you believe Jesus spoke Aramaic, as you all do.
**
I am asking if rinnie’s explanation absolutely proves this belief in your minds.**

No need to explain your answers. …I’m just curious.

Ginger

I almost posted responded to Jason’s reply with “As long as you two know what’s going on…” I think that your explanation shows great insight (as I said before), and I don’t see how anyone else could see Rinnie’s explanation as something that comes from the text. It seems more like he came up with an idea he thought sounded pretty cool in defense of his position and decided to try to make it fit into the text. Kinda like squeezing a load of clowns into a VW Rabbit. The text plainly says that the Romans were the ones who were effected by the events–not the Jews. They clearly misunderstood what Jesus said, though what He said was in fulfillment of prophecy and very magnificent–the JEWS were still blinded by their wickedness, though. That’s what the text shows, but you can only lead a horse to water, Ginger.

 

[plain_me]

Ginger, your explanation was a good one, except that you’re missing some key points. First of all, there is a variation in mss, so we don’t even know for sure if Matthew has “Eli” or “Eloi”. Secondly, you seem to have completely missed the fact that the rest of this saying is in Aramaic, not Hebrew, in both Matthew and Mark. So the question is: why would they have recorded it in Aramaic unless that is what Jesus said? Matthew could have had “Eli” in Hebrew because he was directly quoting the Psalm and because his primary audience was the Jews. But Mark’s primary audience were Greek speakers, so if Jesus said it in Hebrew then why would Mark record it in Aramaic? If he was going to translate it, then why translate it into Aramaic instead of Greek? That makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus said it in Aramaic, and Matthew and Mark left it untranslated, although Matthew may have written “Eli, Eli” for the reasons I gave.

And so we’re right back to the original point: the overwhelming opinion of scholars, both believing and unbelieving, both Protestant and Catholic, is that the plain and obvious meaning is that Jesus founded His Church on Peter the Rock; and that our Lord spoke Aramaic, and called Peter, “Kepha”. And that He didn’t decide to all of a sudden speak Greek in the middle of that passage! It’s really very simple. There’s no need to jump through hoops in order to deny what God has done, especially since it’s confirmed in Eph. 2:20 and Rev. 21:14. Not to mention, that it doesn’t even matter if you call Peter a “pebble” - that “pebble” holds the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and has the power to bind and loose all of us on Earth, and it’s enforced by God! Some pebble!

And if your next attempted escape is to say that that power and authority was not passed on to Peter’s successors, then you’re in luck - somebody just started a new thread on that very topic. See you there!

Well, I’m sure glad you came along to clear all this up, Luke. Now that it’s been laid to rest, maybe you can start to support all those assertions you just made. You can start by explaining why you claimed there to be a variation in the Matthew passage when there is no variation of the words ηλι ηλι (Eli Eli). The variation is on the following words Aλεμα Bλιμα TSλαμα (lema, lima, or lama).

I confess that I don’t know exactly what you’re arguing part of the time, but it seems like you may not have read this whole interaction. I confess further that I haven’t read all of it either, but that’s why I haven’t really been getting involved.

 

[Luke65]

Well, I’m sure glad you came along to clear all this up, Luke. Now that it’s been laid to rest, maybe you can start to support all those assertions you just made. You can start by explaining why you claimed there to be a variation in the Matthew passage when there is no variation of the words ηλι ηλι (Eli Eli). The variation is on the following words Aλεμα Bλιμα TSλαμα (lema, lima, or lama).

I confess that I don’t know exactly what you’re arguing part of the time, but it seems like you may not have read this whole interaction. I confess further that I haven’t read all of it either, but that’s why I haven’t really been getting involved.

NIV:

"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?”

c. Some manuscripts Eli, Eli