Protestant saying hello

[wisdomseeker]

It certainly does not signify the Catholic Church; but whichever Church we decide this means; it only means that the Church was/is entrusted with the truth; but was not appointed to originate that truth. The catholic Church, when it began after Christ has not been faithful in carrying out this trust EXACTLY AS GOD GAVE IT and this is why they broke away from Protestants of the day to become the Catholic Church. After all; jesus was a Protestant.

Blaphemy! heresies!
Jesus was a protestant of what?

 

[Protestant101]

really! where were you or your church when the Scripture were being put together?

The Scriptures were not “put together by Catholics;” Catholics only translated them into a vernacular of their choice. The Scriptures were put together by God.

 

[jmcrae]

Such a denigrating answer only reinforces the fact that Catholics do not want to get their “Traditions” cornered by the Bible and proven wrong by the Bible.

The Bible, in and of itself, isn’t going to “prove our traditions wrong.” The Bible is, in fact, one of our Traditions. Without Tradition (which is the passing on of information from one generation to the next), we could not have a Bible, and there would also be no reason for the Bible even to exist, in the first place.

There are many people who isolate verses and take things completely out of context, and then proclaim that they have the “Bible truth” - this sort of thing goes on all the time - but the Bible itself, when taken as a whole and in its proper context, supports the Catholic way of life and way of thinking.

The stated purpose of this forum is to “compare and contrast differing religions.” Most of us here want to do that. If you don’t, then why are you here?

I thought the purpose of this Forum was to give Catholic answers to questions; hence the name “Catholic Answers.”

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Scriptures were not “put together by Catholics;” Catholics only translated them into a vernacular of their choice. The Scriptures were put together by God.

you mean God came down Himself and put the Book together?

 

[Protestant101]

The Bible, in and of itself, isn’t going to “prove our traditions wrong.” The Bible is, in fact, one of our Traditions. Without Tradition (which is the passing on of information from one generation to the next), we could not have a Bible, and there would also be no reason for the Bible even to exist, in the first place.

There are many people who isolate verses and take things completely out of context, and then proclaim that they have the “Bible truth” - this sort of thing goes on all the time - but the Bible itself, when taken as a whole and in its proper context, supports the Catholic way of life and way of thinking.

I thought the purpose of this Forum was to give Catholic answers to questions; hence the name “Catholic Answers.”

If you will go to the front page of the forums, you will see that the apologetics forum is more oriented towards “Catholic Answers” as you describe; but in the Non-Catholic religions; it specifically says in the description:

Comparing and contrasting beliefs

The Bible alone does refute those Catholic Traditions not found in the Bible. (NT). Dare I mention an example. Boy, the accusations of “blasphemy” would really fly then, I am sure.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If you will go to the front page of the forums, you will see that the apologetics forum is more oriented towards “Catholic Answers” as you describe; but in the Non-Catholic religions; it specifically says in the description:

The Bible alone does refute those Catholic Traditions not found in the Bible. (NT). Dare I mention an example. Boy, the accusations of “blasphemy” would really fly then, I am sure.

tell me please what traditions in the catholic church is not found in the Bible?

 

[whatevergirl]

The Scriptures were not “put together by Catholics;” Catholics only translated them into a vernacular of their choice. The Scriptures were put together by God.

‘Catholic’ means universal. I’m sure Jesus would have wanted one central Church to carry out a universal message of love, etc. The Scriptures were enlightenments and revelations of God, working through men–and the Catholic Church published them into the Bible.

When Luther ‘protested’ against the Church–it was largely due to some misconceptions on his part, but not entirely. The clergy is made up of fallible (sinners like you and me) men, who some, over the decades, have erred in ways they carried out rules, etc within the Church. No one would dispute that, but just looking at this from a logical point of view–it seems incredible to believe that Jesus would have ‘wanted’ thousands of denominations–with varying beliefs and interpretations. (Protestants disgaree with Protestants…such as Baptists disagreeing with Lutherans and so on and so on) It just doesn’t seem likely that Jesus would have wanted such chaos within His Church. The RCC isn’t without its problems, but the core faith is unchanging–mass is unchanging (the basic tenets) – the RCC always takes the high moral ground. Always. I don’t imagine that Jesus would have wanted the interpretation of Scripture to be left to lay people. If he did, He wouldn’t have asked 12 men to be His Apostles–he would have just randomly threw out some information and whoever grabbed it–they would have started preaching. That is somewhat like what the Protestant faith has become–a mish mosh of information that means different things to different people–and then …poof…another ‘church’ is formed.

It doesn’t seem likely, that’s all I’m saying.

 

[jmcrae]

The Bible alone does refute those Catholic Traditions not found in the Bible. (NT). Dare I mention an example. Boy, the accusations of “blasphemy” would really fly then, I am sure.

You can make it appear to do so, by cherry-picking verses and mistranslating them, but there is no way you could do so by means of a legitimate, holistic, contextual interpretation of the Scriptures.

The accusations would be of “heresy,” by the way; not “blasphemy.”

 

[Protestant101]

‘Catholic’ means universal. I’m sure Jesus would have wanted one central Church to carry out a universal message of love, etc. The Scriptures were enlightenments and revelations of God, working through men–and the Catholic Church published them into the Bible.

When Luther ‘protested’ against the Church–it was largely due to some misconceptions on his part, but not entirely. The clergy is made up of fallible (sinners like you and me) men, who some, over the decades, have erred in ways they carried out rules, etc within the Church. No one would dispute that, but just looking at this from a logical point of view–it seems incredible to believe that Jesus would have ‘wanted’ thousands of denominations–with varying beliefs and interpretations. (Protestants disgaree with Protestants…such as Baptists disagreeing with Lutherans and so on and so on) It just doesn’t seem likely that Jesus would have wanted such chaos within His Church. The RCC isn’t without its problems, but the core faith is unchanging–mass is unchanging (the basic tenets) – the RCC always takes the high moral ground. Always. I don’t imagine that Jesus would have wanted the interpretation of Scripture to be left to lay people. If he did, He wouldn’t have asked 12 men to be His Apostles–he would have just randomly threw out some information and whoever grabbed it–they would have started preaching. That is somewhat like what the Protestant faith has become–a mish mosh of information that means different things to different people–and then …poof…another ‘church’ is formed.

It doesn’t seem likely, that’s all I’m saying.

I enjoyed your post; and the signature you have. “The devil’s favorite color is grey.” Isn’t that the truth!! But you know; there are so many things God has said or done that seem similarly “incredible.” What an opportunity for faith!!

 

[whatevergirl]

I enjoyed your post; and the signature you have. “The devil’s favorite color is grey.” Isn’t that the truth!! But you know; there are so many things God has said or done that seem similarly “incredible.” What an opportunity for faith!!

I guess I meant…not credible. ha!

I think that we are all more similiar than we think…I mean, we all long for Truth–and there are many similiarities that our faiths share. I hesitate to dispute over that–but I have always been intrigued by Protestants’ views of ‘sola scriptura.’ I guess my question to that is…where in the Bible does it specifically say that the way to salvation lies through Scripture only?

 

[6YRSHOME]

It certainly does not signify the Catholic Church; but whichever Church we decide this means; it only means that the Church was/is entrusted with the truth; but was not appointed to originate that truth.

.

That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.

So basicly you are admitting that the Bible means whatever YOU decide it means.

The catholic Church, when it began after Christ has not been faithful in carrying out this trust EXACTLY AS GOD GAVE IT and this is why they broke away from Protestants of the day to become the Catholic Church. After all; Jesus was a Protestant

And of course you have proof of this.

 

[Protestant101]

You can make it appear to do so, by cherry-picking verses and mistranslating them, but there is no way you could do so by means of a legitimate, holistic, contextual interpretation of the Scriptures.

The accusations would be of “heresy,” by the way; not “blasphemy.”

There goes that “cherry-pickin’” machine again. A favorite standby when there is no Bible explanation. Now, consider too, if you have ever actually picked REAL CHERRIES ON A REAL FRUIT TREE!! I have; and I wouldn’t let anyone tell me I was “wrong” for picking out the biggest and juiciest ones to enjoy or share when I was done picking.

 

[jmcrae]

After all; Jesus was a Protestant.

Was He a Calvinist, a Lutheran, a Baptist, an Anglican, or a Mennonite?

 

[Protestant101]

Was He a Calvinist, a Lutheran, a Baptist, an Anglican, or a Mennonite?

Jesus loves all of these equally. You will have to decide for yourself what he was, in the context which you have been oriented to here.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Originally Posted by Protestant101
After all; Jesus was a Protestant.

Please tell me what was Jesus protesting against? i am very interested to know more about it>

 

[whatevergirl]

There goes that “cherry-pickin’” machine again. A favorite standby when there is no Bible explanation. Now, consider too, if you have ever actually picked REAL CHERRIES ON A REAL FRUIT TREE!! I have; and I wouldn’t let anyone tell me I was “wrong” for picking out the biggest and juiciest ones to enjoy or share when I was done picking.

I’m lost.

Anyways…lol

Why would the RCC ‘make up rules’ that didn’t have Scriptural basis? And may I ask what ‘traditions’ we are discussing? If you really examine the CCC for example–there is not one thing in there that that is not for your or my own welfare. Not one. I think where Protestants (and even some Catholics) differ–is say, for example–Catholics know that to willingly, with consent and fore thought–not go to mass on Sunday for no valid reason–is a mortal sin. But, according to the Bible (to a non Catholic or maybe a lukewarm Catholic) one might not easily find it in the Bible. It is in there. We are to honor the Sabbath–thus an effort to avoid mass would appear as though one is dishonoring the Sabbath, no? So, this is why it’s viewed as sinful.

But–that Commandment can be found in the Bible, and other references to mortal and venial sin. I think it makes more sense to say…(from a Protestant point of view)…those things are in the Bible, but just are not easily found. Some Scripture, etc does not just jump out immediately to back up our traditions–but it’s all in there.

So again–back to our traditions, our rituals, our prayers, our CCC–there is not one thing done that doesn’t have the fullness of faith, or the best intent of all of us. Non Catholic faiths seem well and good on the surface, but after digging a little–one can see that they lack the fullness of the faith. Missing some key points that Jesus taught–thus, not making those faiths ‘wrong’ just incomplete. That has always been my way of describing the core differences between Catholics and Protestants.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus loves all of these equally. You will have to decide for yourself what he was, in the context which you have been oriented to here.

Jesus loves everybody; that is not the point. I am asking, Which Protestant theological system did Jesus teach?

 

[whatevergirl]

Originally Posted by Protestant101
After all; Jesus was a Protestant.

Please tell me what was Jesus protesting against? i am very interested to know more about it>

ha–that’s very clever.

I like this thread–it’s nice to see everyone having a good discussion on this.

 

[jmcrae]

There goes that “cherry-pickin’” machine again. A favorite standby when there is no Bible explanation. Now, consider too, if you have ever actually picked REAL CHERRIES ON A REAL FRUIT TREE!! I have; and I wouldn’t let anyone tell me I was “wrong” for picking out the biggest and juiciest ones to enjoy or share when I was done picking.

Every verse of the Bible, though, is just as important and just as necessary for our salvation as every other verse. There are no “biggest, juciest,” etc., when it comes to the Bible. The entire thing came from the mind of God and was transmitted into the Bible by means of the Holy Tradition. Not one single word of the Bible was ever added for “filler” or “entertainment value.”

 

[6YRSHOME]

Jesus loves everybody; that is not the point. I am asking, Which Protestant theological system did Jesus teach?

---

He would like you to believe Jesus was an Adventist. After all, they are the rement church, right?:nope: