Protestantism summed up in a simple verse from scripture

[Thal59]

Good stuff, although I am a bit surprised that nobody seems to have noticed that the entire Epistle of Saint Jude, which warns against false teachers and heretics, is also a beautiful prophecy against Protestantism.

1. “…the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.” (Catholics have been receiving, and handing down this faith for 2,000 years, Protestants keep re-inventing it with each new denomination.)
2. "…certain men stealthily entered in… ungodly men who turn the grace of God into wantoness, and disown… Jesus Christ. (Luther, etc., and those who disown the Lord by denying the real presence through which saving grace is channeled.)
3. “In like manner do these men,… disregard authority…” (Self explanatory.)
4. “But these men deride what they do not know; and the things they know by instinct, like the dumb beasts, become for them a source of destruction.” (Protestantism defined to the letter.)
5. “Woe to them for they have gone in the way of Cain…” (Killing their Catholic brother because they are jealous that his sacrifice is more acceptable to God?)
6. "…rushed on thoughtlessly into the error of Balaam for the sake of gain… (Can you say Jimmy Swaggert or James Baker?)
7. “…perished in the rebellion of Core.” (When was the last time you shook hands with a Quaker, Shaker, Puritan, Huegenot…etc.?)
8. “These are grumbling murmurmers walking according to their lusts…” (“If I commit adultery 100 times today, it will not affect my justification before God.” Martin Luther.)
9. “And haughty in speech, they cultivate people for the sake of gain.” (Yeaaah, brothers anda sisters!!!)
10. “…who kept saying to you that at the end of time there will come scoffers, walking impiously according to their own lusts. These are they who set themselves apart, sensual men, not having the spirit.” (“Set themselves apart” sometimes rendered in some Greek texts as… “who bring about division.”)

Read Jude as if he were intentionally talking about the Reformation and those who would follow its lead and you might be surprised.

Thal59

 

[ScottH]

JoyToBeCatholic:

Wish I had reflected more on that passage when I read it during my latest “faith crisis”. It did strike a chord with me, though I’d wage a bet protestants use the same passage to defend their own beliefs.

Indeed we do.

 

[dumspirospero]

Good stuff…I will read this in detail later on…thanks.

Thal59:

Good stuff, although I am a bit surprised that nobody seems to have noticed that the entire Epistle of Saint Jude, which warns against false teachers and heretics, is also a beautiful prophecy against Protestantism.

1. “…the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.” (Catholics have been receiving, and handing down this faith for 2,000 years, Protestants keep re-inventing it with each new denomination.)
2. "…certain men stealthily entered in… ungodly men who turn the grace of God into wantoness, and disown… Jesus Christ. (Luther, etc., and those who disown the Lord by denying the real presence through which saving grace is channeled.)
3. “In like manner do these men,… disregard authority…” (Self explanatory.)
4. “But these men deride what they do not know; and the things they know by instinct, like the dumb beasts, become for them a source of destruction.” (Protestantism defined to the letter.)
5. “Woe to them for they have gone in the way of Cain…” (Killing their Catholic brother because they are jealous that his sacrifice is more acceptable to God?)
6. "…rushed on thoughtlessly into the error of Balaam for the sake of gain… (Can you say Jimmy Swaggert or James Baker?)
7. “…perished in the rebellion of Core.” (When was the last time you shook hands with a Quaker, Shaker, Puritan, Huegenot…etc.?)
8. “These are grumbling murmurmers walking according to their lusts…” (“If I commit adultery 100 times today, it will not affect my justification before God.” Martin Luther.)
9. “And haughty in speech, they cultivate people for the sake of gain.” (Yeaaah, brothers anda sisters!!!)
10. “…who kept saying to you that at the end of time there will come scoffers, walking impiously according to their own lusts. These are they who set themselves apart, sensual men, not having the spirit.” (“Set themselves apart” sometimes rendered in some Greek texts as… “who bring about division.”)

Read Jude as if he were intentionally talking about the Reformation and those who would follow its lead and you might be surprised.

Thal59

 

[reggie]

The reason so many turned away after Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is that for the Jews this was absolutely forbidden. They understood Him to be speaking literally and found this too hard to comply. It is signifigant that Jesus never called them back with an attempt to allay their misgivings by explaining how He meant them to do this.

Just as we today do not fully comprehend how it is that Jesus is present in the Eucharist and we consume His body and blood, neither did the Jews of His time. We must remember that we have the advantage of 2000 years of church theology to go by, but those present at the time did not. And still today, people reject this teaching. Why would Jesus have spoken in the terms He did? If the Eucharist was meant to be simply a symbolic ritual, why would He not have said so? For me, these questions go to the heart of faith not only in Jesus, but in His church as well. Jesus said there was much more to teach them but that there was no time therefore, He would send them the Holy Spirit who would lead them to all truth. I believe that He has done exactly as He promised and that through the years, the truth has been revealed to us through the teaching of the church with the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible can be used to defend and condemn the church as has been demonstrated by several posts in this thread and others. Both positions cannot be right and for me this is the final answer as to which is the true church. When using the Bible alone, the differences in interpretation number almost as many as the number of people reading it. Each claims authority to interpret and claims that their interpretation is the truth. They can’t all be right since most contradict each other. That is why I believe in Tradition and the magisterium of the church in conjunction with Scripture.

 

[Angainor]

malcolm_davies:

I know many protestants who use this (and other) scripture quotes against the catholics

ie they say that it is the catholics who go against scripture by using tradition + pope rather than what the bible says alone

Very good point. It doesn’t take a huge leap to make a connection from “diverted by myth” to “Catholic tradition”.

 

[Paris_Blues]

malcolm_davies:

I know many protestants who use this (and other) scripture quotes against the catholics

ie they say that it is the catholics who go against scripture by using tradition + pope rather than what the bible says alone

Yes, good point. This is what made discerning should I be Catholic or stay a Protestant extremely hard to figure out! It’s like they both ‘stab eachother in the back’ so to speak and that causes MORE confusion!

When I was a Protestant, I heard all this about Catholics and thought, okay, maybe they’re false. But then, I heard Catholics say stuff about Protestants, and that made me think twice and thought, okay maybe they’re (Protestants) false! I was almost in pain to figure out which one is the Truth! Luckily, I had the Holy Spirit to guide me to the 2,000 year history Church! And now since I’m in RCIA, I don’t regret it! I’m glad I found the Truth!

And thanks for your help guys answering some pathetic and stupid questions I had! I’m still learning and all!

 

[sonseeker]

reggie:

The reason so many turned away after Jesus spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is that for the Jews this was absolutely forbidden. They understood Him to be speaking literally and found this too hard to comply. It is signifigant that Jesus never called them back with an attempt to allay their misgivings by explaining how He meant them to do this.

That is absolutely true, the Jews were forbidden from doing those things. You say that they understood him to be speaking literally; I agree. But you are assuming that they were right in their understanding. Were they right in their understanding? It is significant that Jesus never called them back to allay their misgivings (misunderstanding?). How is it significant?

 

[dirtydog]

sonseeker:

How is it significant?

It’s significant because in the instances where He recognized misunderstandings of his parables or statements, he took a step back and presented Himself in a new way - to clear up the misunderstanding. For such a great multitude to walk away without Him deciding to clear up the misunderstanding is certainly out of character - unless there was no misunderstanding.

There is also the point that the Greek words used signify more than “to eat,” but rather to chew or gnaw on flesh.

How can one claim the Eucharist is figurative given that to eat or drink of it unworthily is to eat and drink condemnation upon oneself?

 

[Milliardo]

sonseeker:

Do you mean it was hard to understand how the real presence was within the elements that Christ was talking about. What was it that was “hard for them to accept?”

Jesus said that His body is real food and His blood is real drink. This was not a concept easy for them to accept. Note that Jesus was not speaking in a figurative sense; if He was, usually He will reveal what He meant with His Disciples. Not this one. He did not back down, but indeed instead turned to the 12 and asked if they wanted to go as well. Jesus was willing to let them even go then! But Peter replied that they have nowhere to turn but to Him–if one were to unpack what Peter said, it would sum up this way: we don’t understand either what You meant, but what you said is the truth, and we cannot but follow it. Isn’t it a tragedy that this very thought left the mind of Protestantism, and instead of reflecting on the Eucharist, they rejected what is the truth because it is a concept that cannot be fathomed?

 

[ScottH]

Its threads like this that i need to teach myself to avoid.

 

[reggie]

It is significant because as stated previously, whenever Jesus felt that He was not being understood, He clarified for the Apostles what He was trying to say. Also, He was aware of what the disciples understood and why they left, yet He didn’t try to soften or water down what He said. Jesus knew that this would be hard for many to understand muchless accept and yet He said what He meant and accepted that some would turn away. This is true of many of His teachings, something people of today don’t seem to get.

But it is most significant because Jesus leaves the meaning of one of the most important aspects of the church to be discerned by the church through the prompting and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus could have laid it all out for them, but He didn’t. He told them that He would leave them but not without an Advocate that would guide them to all truth. He did what He had to do and then left the rest up to the Holy Spirit and the church. What caused some to reject Him even while He was on earth, is still causing some to reject Him (by unbelief in His presence in the Eucharist) 2000 years after His death. Yet, now as He did then, He says what He says and lets us decide for ourselves whether this is too hard to believe. And now, as then, He leaves it to the Holy Spirit and the church to guide us to the truth.

 

[pkmksk]

Its threads like this that i need to teach myself to avoid

ScottH,
Why would you want to avoid this thread? Surely you must have the protestant translation of the aforementioned text. I am aware of your position, what I am unaware of is how you would deal with the subject of this thread.

I think that transubstantiation is one of the stronger scripturally supported beliefs of Catholicism, and I have often wondered how someone of your faith would answer.

I can’t believe that your response is to avoid the subject because in essence you are saying that you have no answer. I have seen you post on other threads and your responses are very well thought out and scripturally based. You are one of the leading voices of Protestant beliefs on these boards, which must be frustrating at times. In addition, the ability to deliver your point without resorting to open hostility lends credibility to you. I am most interested to hear your interpretaion of the above mentioned passage because I am confident you can come up with an answer without resorting to verbal bashing or name calling.

 

[sonseeker]

dirtydog:

It’s significant because in the instances where He recognized misunderstandings of his parables or statements, he took a step back and presented Himself in a new way - to clear up the misunderstanding. For such a great multitude to walk away without Him deciding to clear up the misunderstanding is certainly out of character - unless there was no misunderstanding.

There is also the point that the Greek words used signify more than “to eat,” but rather to chew or gnaw on flesh.

How can one claim the Eucharist is figurative given that to eat or drink of it unworthily is to eat and drink condemnation upon oneself?

On the contrary, Jesus almost never clarifies anything except to the 12 (Mk4:34), and then not always immediately to the 12. This is illustrated in His oft-repeated refrain, “Those who have ears to hear, let them hear!” He is not interested in those who do not have “ears to hear.”

The greek word translated eat is esqiw. It is used 158 times in the N.T. 99 times in the Gospels, 59 times in the epistles and Revelation. There is nothing special about it; it means to eat for sustenance, or nourishment.

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

Milliardo:

Jesus said that His body is real food and His blood is real drink. This was not a concept easy for them to accept. Note that Jesus was not speaking in a figurative sense;…/QUOTE]The Scripture does teach that Jesus uses figurative language (Jn 10:6; 16:25,29 etc.)

The language of John 6 with respect to His flesh and blood is a figure of speech, known as an idiom, or in the greek—idiwma—an idiom is a peculiar usage of words or phrases.

(definition of Peculiar: Belonging solely to, particular, singular, strange, belonging to one person, thing, class or people).

The word, then, is used in three significations:

1. The language peculiar to the vulgar, as opposed to what is classical, or proper language
2. The language peculiar to one nation or tribe, as opposed to other languages or dialects.
3. The language peculiar to any particular author or speaker.

It is the second of these significations (language peculiar to one nation or tribe) that it becomes important in this passage as a figure or speech.

Why is that?

Because the writers of the testaments were, with the exception of Luke, Hebrews, they employed the use Hebrew idioms in their speech.

With respect to the Jn 6 passage:

“To eat or drink’’—As the Hebrews used the nouns eat and drink of knowledge (by Metonymya figure of speech by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation), so they naturally used the verbs eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, as we speak of “digesting’’ what is said, or of “inwardly digesting’’ it.

Thus with Jn 51: I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever

The idiomatic meaning: just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

So with v 53: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves

The idiomatic meaning: except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (by faith, belief in Him), you have no life in you.

(continued below)

 

[vern_humphrey]

sonseeker:

It is the second of these significations (language peculiar to one nation or tribe) that it becomes important in this passage as a figure or speech.

Why is that?

Because the writers of the testaments were, with the exception of Luke, Hebrews, they employed the use Hebrew idioms in their speech.

With respect to the Jn 6 passage:

“To eat or drink’’—As the Hebrews used the nouns eat and drink of knowledge (by Metonymya figure of speech by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation), so they naturally used the verbs eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, as we speak of “digesting’’ what is said, or of “inwardly digesting’’ it.

Nice, but no cigar.

Luke 22,17-20

17 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
This is clearly not figurative language – He tells them to eat His body and drink His blood and personally hands them the bread and the cup.

Matthew 26,26-28

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Very clearly, WHILE THEY WERE EATING He gave them bread and wine, and told them to eat His body and drink His blood – no metaphore here.

Mark 14,22-23

22 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
Here we have it three times – once from Matthew, who was there, once from Mark, who got it from Peter, and once from Luke, who had access to those were theree and “carefully investigated.”

And from Paul, also. 1 Corinthians 11,23-25:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

As I said, “Sola Scriptura but not Wholla da Scriptura.”

Anyone who reads the whole scripture on this point cannot reasonably claim that He did mean the bread and wine were to be His literal body and blood, to be eaten and drunk regularly by His followers.

 

[sonseeker]

(sorry, I was interrupted trying to post this second part
continued from post #35)
Other verses using Idioms of “eating” for “knowledge”:

Jeremiah 15:16 (NASB95)
16 Your words were found and I ate them*, And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; For I have been called by Your name, O Lord God of hosts. *

Ezekiel 3:1-3 (NASB95)
1 *Then He said to me, “Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” *
2 **So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. **
3 *He said to me, “Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you.” Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth. *

Psalm 19:8-10 (NASB95)
8 *The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. *
9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.
10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.

Psalm 119:103 (NASB95)
103 How sweet are Your words to my taste*! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth*!

Revelation 10:9-10 (NASB95)
9 *So I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he said to me, “Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey.” *
10 *I took the little book out of the angel’s hand and ate it, and in my mouth it was sweet as honey; and when I had eaten it, my stomach was made bitter. *

The significance of Christ’s blood is that it was shed to atone for sin (Lev 17:11)—literally. It need not (indeed cannot) be drunk literally.

For more info on figures of speech, I recommend Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Explained and Illustrated) by E.W. Bullinger; it is a great resource.

Bill

 

[sonseeker]

vern humphrey:

Nice, but no cigar.

Anyone who reads the whole scripture on this point cannot reasonably claim that He did mean the bread and wine were to be His literal body and blood, to be eaten and drunk regularly by His followers.

I’m not sure what you are saying hear?

Bill

 

[banjo]

sonseeker,

1Cor 11:29 “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
Judgment because of a figure of speech?
What were the Jews told to do with the passover lamb whose blood was used to mark their houses? Eat its flesh. Christ is the new passover lamb. There are also early writings indicating the Church believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, I would like to leave you with this quote from David B. Currie’s book, Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic. “Lest we not understand whether he means “flesh” in a real, physical touchable way, he tells us next that it is the same flesh that will be given up on the Cross! He goes on to say that this flesh must be eaten by his followers. The analogy has been clearly explained. There is no doubt about its meaning. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a “figurative way”, or “spiritually speaking”, then so is the flesh of the crucifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal or they are both figurative.” (pgs 37-38)

 

[Thal59]

Sonseeker:

You have beautifully demonstrated how attempting to translate scripture with scripture alone can be folly. Yes, while it is true that Jesus, at times, used figures of speech, allegory, parables, etc., one cannot assume that Jesus was speaking idiomatically in John 6. It would be irresponsible for Jesus as a teacher, to miscommunicate so vital a teaching by using figures of speech when straight, literal talk is demanded. (…unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, you shall not have life in you. This is too important and too central a point regarding salvation for Jesus to even risk confusion with artful speech.)

In order to understand this issue more fully, one must look at the subject in light of the fulfilling action of Christ’s ministery and crucifixion as it regards the original Jewish sacrifices. I could elaborate, but it would be quite a lengthy post. To put it in a nutshell, the “flesh and blood” oration given by the Lord is a proclamation of the future fulfillment of the “Todah” sacrifice; something that will be fulfilled by His death on the cross.

Besides, Sonseeker, if the bread and wine were symbolic in the OT, then how could it be possible that after Christ fulfilled the OT that the bread and wine can still be symbolic?

Thal59

 

[vern_humphrey]

sonseeker:

I’m not sure what you are saying hear?

Bill

It’s quite simple – I cited multiple passages where Christ is clearly telling His Apostles to literally eat His body and drink His blood. He actually gives them the bread and cup with His own hands.

Quoting a selected passage and pretending to interpret that passage AS IF IT STOOD ALONE and was the only passage on the subject so as to “refute” the literal command is what I call “Sola Scriptura but not Wholla da Scriptura.” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif