Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[Howie01]

josie L:

Can you not see the difference between using a word like “should” rather than using a word, for example like “will” in the scripture you quoted:

"that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.

or

"that I will not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I will raise it (on) the last day."

Do you notice how with the word “should” there is a conditional aspect involved, implying that there is a possibility of losing what was given to us. This is how the word “should” is defined in a dictionary:

1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.

Now, the word “will”, in the above scripture connotes something stronger, an absolute, implying therefore no possibility of losing what was given to us. However, John specifically uses the word “should” not “will” has inspired by God to do so.

And the other thing you must remember, Jerry, is that if there was no possibility of losing our gift of salvation, then why bother even stating that God should not want us to lose what was given to us.

OSAS is heretical.

It doesn’t work that way, Josie. The subjunctive is used with hina indicating the purpose, or reason, that Christ should not lose any.

IOW, the reason that He should not lose any is, it’s the will of the Father that He should not, because it’s the will of the Father that He raise up on the last day, all of those given to Him by the Father.

He won’t lose any. It’s impossible. Jesus has eternally kept the will of the Father perfectly.

To say that Jesus hasn’t eternally kept the will of the Father perfectly is heretical.

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

hahahaha
Thank you for making my day… of course there is no Matt 29. The point I was trying to make is that for the Scriptures to mean what protestants often think they mean… there would have to things like Matt 29 to refute or recind the teachings of Christ.

.

The bottom line is the catholic church is so concerned about ‘tradition’ it has lost sight of the Word of God, which will never pass away.There is a reason why God gave it to us.

Go and make fun of me if you’d like, laugh and do whatever makes you happy. That doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care what you or anyone else thinks about it. I know that at the end of the day, I have the truth, which is Jesus Christ. The truth has nothing to do with Mary, a pope’s imagined infallibility or anything like that. It is Jesus Christ and Him alone. And you know? I am really happy about that and I don’t need a priest or a cardinal or a pope to tell me that God is happy about that too. I put Christ first, just as I should.

 

[josie_L]

Can you not see the difference between using a word like “should” rather than using a word, for example like “will” in the scripture you quoted:

"that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.

or

“that I will not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I will raise it (on) the last day.”

Do you notice how with the word “should” there is a expectant quality, implying that there is a possibility of losing what was given to us. This is how the word “should” is defined in a dictionary:

1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
   2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
2. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.

Now, the word “will”, in the above scripture connotes something stronger, an absolute, implying therefore no possibility of losing what was given to us. However, John specifically uses the word “should” not “will” has inspired by God to do so.

And the other thing you must remember, Jerry, is that if there was no possibility of losing our gift of salvation, then why bother even stating that God should not want us to lose what was given to us.

OSAS is heretical.

God Bless you, Jerry, please come back home.

Guys I just realized something, a mistake on my part , but the word “should” connotes probability or expectation in this instance, not conditionality has I originally thought, this, of course doesn’t change anything as both definitions leave room for the possibility of loss, but I just wanted to rectify my error.

 

[josie_L]

The bottom line is the catholic church is so concerned about ‘tradition’ it has lost sight of the Word of God, which will never pass away.There is a reason why God gave it to us.

Go and make fun of me if you’d like, laugh and do whatever makes you happy. That doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care what you or anyone else thinks about it. I know that at the end of the day, I have the truth, which is Jesus Christ. The truth has nothing to do with Mary, a pope’s imagined infallibility or anything like that. It is Jesus Christ and Him alone. And you know? I am really happy about that and I don’t need a priest or a cardinal or a pope to tell me that God is happy about that too. I put Christ first, just as I should.

Are you saying that we has Catholics put Mary and the infallibity of our pope, before Jesus, because if you are, you insult every past, present Catholic who has devoted his/her whole life to God. There have been countless saints who served and loved Jesus to the point wherein they suffered the wounds of Christ. The audacity of your statement smacks of ignorance and you should reflect on the harshness of your words.

 

[MrS]

Are you saying that we has Catholics put Mary and the infallibity of our pope, before Jesus, because if you are, you insult every past, present Catholic who has devoted his/her whole life to God. There have been countless saints who served and loved Jesus to the point wherein they suffered the wounds of Christ. The audacity of your statement smacks of ignorance and you should reflect on the harshness of your words.

Don’t hold your breath josie… We are only obligated to present the Truth, not force it down their throats. I can not convert anyone. That is God’s job, and thank God that God is God.

These posters are no different than the ones who came before, and the ones who will join tomorrow to “save” Catholics.

We have the Real Presence. It is the source and the summit of the Faith. And unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.

I am not ashamed of the gift of Catholicism which God has given to me. I don’t know why I am so fortunate… but I pray, like Paul, that I do not lose what I have gained.

After that, I pray for those who do not have eyes to see or ears to hear… not because they are lacking, but because I pray that they will be ready to accept the fullness of the faith when God deems them ready.

.

 

[Howie01]

MrS:

We have the Real Presence. It is the source and the summit of the Faith. And unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.

**John 6:50, 51, 54, 58
50 “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”**If you have the Real Presence, in eating the bread you have eternal life, and you will live forever.

So says the Lord.

But those you claim to be “appointed by the Lord to discern the Scriptures” disagree with the Lord, saying if you die in mortal sin, you are condemned to hell.

What I see is contradiction, upon contradiction, upon contradiction. How do you resolve that such that you still believe both in Real Presence, its guarantee of eternal life, and the contradiction of the guarantee by the appointed ones?

 

[josie_L]

Don’t hold your breath josie… We are only obligated to present the Truth, not force it down their throats. I can not convert anyone. That is God’s job, and thank God that God is God.

These posters are no different than the ones who came before, and the ones who will join tomorrow to “save” Catholics.

We have the Real Presence. It is the source and the summit of the Faith. And unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.

I am not ashamed of the gift of Catholicism which God has given to me. I don’t know why I am so fortunate… but I pray, like Paul, that I do not lose what I have gained.

After that, I pray for those who do not have eyes to see or ears to hear… not because they are lacking, but because I pray that they will be ready to accept the fullness of the faith when God deems them ready.

.

Agreed, but he implied that we Catholics do not put Jesus first, and that MrS is a lie.

 

[SteveGC]

John 6:50, 51, 54, 58
50 “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”If you have the Real Presence, in eating the bread you have eternal life, and you will live forever.

So says the Lord.

But those you claim to be “appointed by the Lord to discern the Scriptures” disagree with the Lord, saying if you die in mortal sin, you are condemned to hell.

What I see is contradiction, upon contradiction, upon contradiction. How do you resolve that such that you still believe both in Real Presence, its guarantee of eternal life, and the contradiction of the guarantee by the appointed ones?

Probably going against my better judgment to respond to a post of yours, but here goes nothing. In response to the ‘contradiction’…

Because to eat of the bread, there is a prerequisite state of grace, as noted in 1 Corinthians 11:29 >> For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightlyTo judge rightly is to properly discern the presence of Christ, which cannot be done if there is a willing, grave rejection of God (mortal sin) in the recipient.

 

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

Because to eat of the bread, there is a prerequisite state of grace, as noted in 1 Corinthians 11:29 >> For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightlyTo judge rightly is to properly discern the presence of Christ, which cannot be done if there is a willing, grave rejection of God (mortal sin) in the recipient.

**1 Corinthians 11:20-2120 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,

21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.**First, v29 says nothing about a “state of grace.”

Second, Paul insists that though the Corinthians believe they’re gathering to celebrate the Eucharist, they’re truly not (v20), (Or, do you despise the Church of God and shame those who have nothing (v22)?) I believe the body not being discerned is not the real presence, but the Church as the body of Christ.

Paul does not say it’s the body and the blood not being discerned, but the body only (v29).

And he doesn’t refer to the “real presence,” but to the bread and the cup.**1 Corinthians 11:29-3229 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord SO THAT we will not be condemned along with the world.**Also, many are weak, sick and dead because of not rightly discerning the body.

The reason for that is so they will not be judged with the world. IOW, though the discipline is severe for some, even death, they’re salvation is secure salvation (cf Jn 3:18, 5:24).

 

[josie_L]

It doesn’t work that way, Josie. The subjunctive is used with hina indicating the purpose, or reason, that Christ should not lose any.

IOW, the reason that He should not lose any is, it’s the will of the Father that He should not, because it’s the will of the Father that He raise up on the last day, all of those given to Him by the Father.

He won’t lose any. It’s impossible. Jesus has eternally kept the will of the Father perfectly.

To say that Jesus hasn’t eternally kept the will of the Father perfectly is heretical.

Of course, it is our father’s will that I should not lose anything (the anything being His gift of salvation to us), no one disputes this, however the word “should” in and of itself does not mean or imply that I “can’t” lose my salvation (through exercising my own will). For example, it is God’s will that I should not sin, does that mean I will not or cannot sin?

 

[Howie01]

Of course, it is our father’s will that I should not lose anything (the anything being His gift of salvation to us), no one disputes this, however the word “should” in and of itself does not mean or imply that I “can’t” lose my salvation (through exercising my own will). For example, it is God’s will that I should not sin, does that mean I will not or cannot sin?

The passage says nothing about what you should do, but what Christ should do—the will of the Father, namely, not losing any given to Him, but raising them up on the last day.

 

[josie_L]

1 Corinthians 11:20-2120 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,

21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.First, v29 says nothing about a “state of grace.”

Second, Paul insists that though the Corinthians believe they’re gathering to celebrate the Eucharist, they’re truly not (v20), (Or, do you despise the Church of God and shame those who have nothing (v22)?) I believe the body not being discerned is not the real presence, but the Church as the body of Christ.

Paul does not say it’s the body and the blood not being discerned, but the body only (v29).

And he doesn’t refer to the “real presence,” but to the bread and the cup.1 Corinthians 11:29-3229 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.

32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord SO THAT we will not be condemned along with the world.Also, many are weak, sick and dead because of not rightly discerning the body.

The reason for that is so they will not be judged with the world. IOW, thought the discipline is severe for some, even death, they’re salvation is secure salvation (cf Jn 3:18, 5:24).

During the Passover, the Jews would slaughter the lamb and then eat it, this is a prefiguring of the Eucharist wherein Jesus becomes the lamb which we must eat.

 

[Howie01]

During the Passover, the Jews would slaughter the lamb and then eat it, this is a prefiguring of the Eucharist wherein Jesus becomes the lamb which we must eat.

That has nothing to do with 1 Cor 11, and nothing to do with what I’ve just posted.

 

[josie_L]

The passage says nothing about what you should do, but what Christ should do—the will of the Father, namely, not losing any given to Him, but raising them up on the last day.

It is the will of the father that I should not lose anything, that is definitely a " you should do."

The second point I made which neither you nor Jerry ever addressed, is that, if has you say we could not lose our gift of salvation, why then would John need to state that God should not want us to lose anything, do you not find this redundant?

 

[josie_L]

That has nothing to do with 1 Cor 11, and nothing to do with what I’ve just posted.

I was just adding to the credibility (by incorporating another passage from the Bible) of the doctrinally correct “real presence” in the eucharist.

 

[Howie01]

It is the will of the father that I should not lose anything, that is definitely a " you should do."

The second point I made which neither you nor Jerry ever addressed, is that, if has you say we could not lose our gift of salvation, why then would John need to state that God should not want us to lose anything, do you not find this redundant?

The one speaking in the passage is Christ, and He’s speaking of the will of the Father that He should lose no one, but raise him up on the last day.

It’s not about what you should do, but what Christ will do.

 

[Howie01]

Probably going against my better judgment to respond to a post of yours, but here goes nothing. In response to the ‘contradiction’…To judge rightly is to properly discern the presence of Christ, which cannot be done if there is a willing, grave rejection of God (mortal sin) in the recipient.

One other thing from John 6: Christ gives no caveat concerning mortal sin. He simply says, the one who eats and drinks has eternal life, and will live forever.

 

[josie_L]

One other thing from John 6: Christ gives no caveat concerning mortal sin. He simply says, the one who eats and drinks has eternal life, and will live forever.

He does not need to give a caveat it is understood by the audience that they need to live righteously.

 

[Howie01]

He does not need to give a caveat it is understood by the audience that they need to live righteously.

I think it abundantly clear, the audience didn’t understand anything.

 

[josie_L]

The one speaking in the passage is Christ, and He’s speaking of the will of the Father that He should lose no one, but raise him up on the last day.

It’s not about what you should do, but what Christ will do.

Howie, I just noticed my mistake, I did not realize from the excerpt Jerry had posted that this was Jesus speaking. Whoops. But don’t get any ideas, I still think OSAS is heretical.