Protestant

[Yerusalyim]

Trelan,

In Christian Brotherhood, we welcome you. I think most here would agree that Baptists are indeed fellow Christians…it’s a shame more Baptists don’t accord the same honor to Catholics as fellow Christians…but that’s another story. I think “Church Militant” has by far given you the best answers to date.

You asked.

The Bible is God Breathed. Where does it say not to follow only the bible?

We agree, the bible is the inspired word of God. I take you to 1 TIM 3:15 where we are told the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth…more on that in a second…

next I take you to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul mentions “holding fast to the traditions you received from us whether orally or written.”

OK, the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth…the question has to be, which came first, the Church or the Bible? The answer is, of course, the Church, which was born on Pentecost following the Resurrection. Therefore, it was the Church which defined scripture, not vice versa. And part of what was used to determine which of the many competing books and letters flying around was scripture and which weren’t was by using the traditions received from the apostles…whether orally or written.

Not picking a fight here…just showing you where Catholics get their doctrinal authority. Again, in Christ, welcome to the board.

 

[Montalban]

The Bible is God Breathed. Where does it say not to follow only the bible?

It doesn’t say to follow only the Bible. Even the Apostles didn’t. How could they? The Bible wasn’t completed in their own day.

Did the Apostles teach by Scripture alone? No. They also taught from the Old Testament because the New Testament did not exist.

It is clear that even the New Testament, when it was compiled was not all encompassing. See the last verse of the last chapter of the Gospel of John.

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
In other words, the Bible doesn’t cover everything.

Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.

He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thessalonians 4:2)

Paul himself handed on faith…
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Corinthians 15:3,11).

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle”
(II Thessalonians 2:15)

 

[Montalban]

Another interpretation issue. We believe that it is representing his body and blood, not physically is.

Jesus said that it is His blood. Even when he’s asked for clarification, he says it is.
John 6:25ff He says “I am the Bread” and He is comparing Himself to the heavenly manna that the Jews actually did eat.

And He repeats this further on
53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

I don’t know how more forcefully Jesus could have stated this then with saying “I tell you the truth… unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood…”
If that is not enough we can endeavour to look at how the early church actually worked… And we find it is confirmed by the early church; by writings of those who were taught by the Apostles, and which pre-dates the compilation of the Bible…

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

We take in the bread because it is no longer mere bread…
Epistle to the Ephesians
20:2 especially if the Lord should reveal aught to me. Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David’s race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that ye may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

Justin Martyr, in his First Apology writes…
“CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

See also CHAP. VIII of
TERTULLIAN
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian16.html

The early church was observed by pagans who thought that the Christian church were practicing cannibalism BECAUSE the Christians were partaking of the real flesh and blood of Christ…
(see the article “Why Early Christians Were So Despised” at gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps139.shtml)

Thus the evidence comes from;
The Gospels,
The 1st Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians
other works of the early church
and even from pagans who misunderstood the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ.

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

Where is the word “Trinity” in the Bible?

“I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.

That’s not the word ‘trinity’. It’s not a describer of the concept of the Trinity, either.

 

[Montalban]

Another interpretation issue. We believe that it is representing his body and blood, not physically is.

To reiterate the words of Jesus Himself…
In John 6: 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If
anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, **“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Note again the Jews took Him to mean a literal eating of His flesh, verse
52. Jesus confirms this interpretation. He says in truth. He says (55) “My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink”

Jesus goes to great lengths here to confirm that it is a real meal.

con’t…

 

[Montalban]

St. Paul confirmed this by stating that the Eucharist is not a communal get
together to eat and be merry.
1 Corinthians 11
The Lord’s Supper
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.

Specifically they missed St. Paul saying it’s not just a ‘meal’
20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat
It is NOT the “Lord’s Supper”. If you want to ‘eat’ a meal, do so at home…

21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?

He repeats that this was ‘received’ from Jesus
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:

Then in the same passage he repeats Jesus’ words (having already said that it is NOT a ‘communal meal’; the Lord’s Supper)
The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

And it has a sacred purpose…
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

And He again associates it with the actual body and blood of Christ
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
To sin against the body and blood you drink and eat is to sin against the very body and blood of Christ; they are alike. To sin against one is the same as to sin against the other…

Most telling of all he says you must recognise this when you partake of them…
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
If you don’t recognise that it’s the body and blood of the Lord, you bring judgment upon yourself.

And, he repeats again that it’s not just a communal meal…
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

So in short Jesus says what it is. He goes to some lengths to explain the ‘context’ of it. Paul does this too.

 

[Mary3]

Welcome to the forums, Trelan! While my husband and his family are Baptists, I’ll leave it to others to discuss the Baptist vs. Catholic positions. I’m from a Presbyterian background myself. I hope we can learn from each other in charity and Christian love.

Tonight there is a program on the Catholic network EWTN that may interest you. Patti Bonds, a former Baptist and sister of Baptist apologist James White, will be interviewed about her conversion to Catholicism. If you don’t receive EWTN via your cable company, you can watch it live on the internet at ewtn.com, or pick up the recorded version a few days after the live show. Check the audio library at ewtn.com. The live show airs at 7:00 pm Central time on Monday 5/7.

Welcome, and peace be with you!

 

[Montalban]

Welcome to the forums, Trelan!

Where’d Trelan go? I posted a fair bit of information

 

[Trelan]

Hi. I read all of your posts and I guess I didn’t intend it to sound exactly like that. Now to repond to stuff.

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

We interpret it that his body is the drink and the food, but not literally. As in, you must treat the items carefully and believe in Jesus while remembering Him. You can respond with more verses, but since the Bible uses all truth, but also a lot of symbolism, interpretations can vary.

From gotquestions.org:

Question: “What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?”

Answer: The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean it is not true or not based on the teachings of the Bible.

So, although the word “Trinity” is not in the bible, we believe that it is only represented throughout the bible. All three are God, but there are not three Gods.

 

[MariaG]

Hi. I read all of your posts and I guess I didn’t intend it to sound exactly like that. Now to repond to stuff.

We interpret it that his body is the drink and the food, but not literally. As in, you must treat the items carefully and believe in Jesus while remembering Him. You can respond with more verses, but since the Bible uses all truth, but also a lot of symbolism, interpretations can vary.

The problem with using only a symbolic or figurative interpretation of Scripture is that the figurative use of “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” meant to do harm to someone.

So one would have to think that Christ was saying anyone who hurts me and reviles me will have eternal life.

And here we can look at the writings of Christians who were taught by the apostles themselves and see that they in no way considered Christ’s words to be symbollic.

So while scripture can be interpreted in different ways, scripture itself warns us of people who will twist scripture. If one goes back and looks at the writings of the early Christians, it is clear that a symbolic only interpretation is not the one that was taught by the apostles.
God Bless,
Maria

 

[djrakowski]

The problem with using only a symbolic or figurative interpretation of Scripture is that the figurative use of “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” meant to do harm to someone.

So one would have to think that Christ was saying anyone who hurts me and reviles me will have eternal life.

Hey, Maria! I’m glad you posted this.

There’s also this testimony from Ignatius of Antioch, indicating that the earliest Christians believed the same things about the Eucharist that the Catholic Church teaches today:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

This is rather strong language in defense of the Real Presence from someone who learned from the men who ministered together with Our Lord while he walked the earth.

If you’re interested, Trelan, this quote was taken from the Catholic Answers article entitled “The Real Presence.”

By the way, welcome to the forums, Trelan!

 

[MariaG]

Hey, Maria! I’m glad you posted this.

There’s also this testimony from Ignatius of Antioch, indicating that the earliest Christians believed the same things about the Eucharist that the Catholic Church teaches today:

This is rather strong language in defense of the Real Presence from someone who learned from the men who ministered together with Our Lord while he walked the earth.

If you’re interested, Trelan, this quote was taken from the Catholic Answers article entitled “The Real Presence.”

Hi Dan! Missed you!

And thank you for posting this. I was running short on time and so I did not want to bring up Ignatious, a discipline of John, without giving the quotes and links.

Although it is true that Ignatious was not in any way protected from teaching error in the same manner John was, I find it odd that people would choose to listen to themselves, their pastors or anyone else who is also not protected from error over the man who learned from John, the man whom God inspired to write and teach it.

The Holy Spirit can use different people and things to convict us of the truth. If the Holy Spirit can use a person’s pastor, why not the man who was taught by John?

God bless,
Maria