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

[elvisman]

elvisman:“How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

Now your getting to what was difficult. They are voicing the difficulty right here. They thought that he meant they would have to eat his literal flesh and drink his literal blood.

What a kooky concept they thought.

Of course, they did not have ears to hear, just like all the other parables he spoke they didn’t have ears to hear.

If it were not then why did Jesus refer to what you claim was his actual blood as ‘the fruit of the vine’ right after drinking it? Mark 14:25 and the other gospel accounts of this.

And of course you have claimed God only for yourself in saying only your priests have the power to do this. The veil was ripped in two representing that the way to God was open to all men and no need of a priest to offer sacrifice in behalf of the people’s sin was necessary. All those who called upon the name of the Lord could be saved and ALL those who were saved had the Holy Spirit and the right to all of God’s power. And you arrogantly stand in between me and God forbidding my partaking in this commanded observance, unless I partake in your church. All because I believe that the bread was a symbol of the real thing??? What must God think of this?

You hit the nail right on the head, my friend.
John 6:63 tells us that Jesus said:
"It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
In other words, the mystery of the Eucharist is something that must be revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. Look what he says a few verses earlier:
John 6:44
**“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.”

If you don’t believe in the Real Presence - you SHOULD.**

 

[christian1]

Steve Gc said: The specific gift of TEACHING (and hence, earthly shepherding of) the Christian faithful, is NOT needed by anyone but a hand-select few whom Christ Himself ordained. The gift of teaching and shepherding houses within itself the authority to properly interpret the Word of God (both Scripture and Tradition) for all the followers of Christ.

This is unscriptural. No not just unscriptural, anti-scriptural. The Holy spirit decides how many teachers and who.

Eph 4:11 And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Eph 4:13 And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
Eph 4:14 so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.

You cannot judge all the protestant religions. God does not judge on such a basis and neither should you. A man is a temple of God as scripture says and each individual will be judged given the amount of truth revealed to him.

That is why it is SO WRONG for me or you to judge by DENOMINATION. For there are many protestants that adhere to the core principles of the Catholic doctrines and are among protestant denominations. Men who are seeking such a unified body that believes the core doctrines of salvation and high moral living.

God does not look and say: "They belong to the first true church, therefore they must be one of mine.

We know from scripture, that many will fall away being led away of their own lusts, following seducing spirits, but for me or for Catholics to say: 'yea, that’s all those protestant religions, is HYPOCRISY. For how can they know what is in a mans heart? I have not spoken anything anti-scriptural here.

However, many doctrines and ideas here are anti-scriptural ESPECIALLY the Mary doctrines.

I have given plain scripture that the Church has chosen to ignore and go on with her elevated position as co-redemptrix.

In scripture she was a sister to Christ spiritually. A mother to Christ physically. You MIX the two as though they are one and the same.

Physical relation HAS NOTHING to do with SPIRITUAL! You are BOUND to know this.

She is not elevated spiritually because of her relation to Christ physically. She is elevated SPIRITUALLY, AS WE ALL ARE, for the scriptures say God is no respector of person.

You say that I do not have to embrace the doctrine of Mary or the devotion to her in order to be Catholic. HOW CAN WE STAND SO DIVIDED on such important issues AND CALL OURSELVES UNTIED???

My church lies about her unity. The only unity is in her numbers. She is not in unity spiritually.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**In defense of the Virgin Mary, the Blessed Mother of our Lord and Queen of Heaven, Remember, according to Mark’s Gospel, NO ONE really understood Jesus or his mission, not even His closest apostle’s, until His Crucifixtion.
However, the later writings of the NT, especially the Gospels of Luke and John, present Mary as having a positive and even a PROMINENT role in God’s plan of salvation. Apparently the Holy Spirit guided the authors of these Gospels into an understanding of Mary and her role that is fuller than the earlier NT writings.
We Catholics view this development as a work of the Holy Spirit. Later doctrinal definitions concerning Mary by church councils and popes are a continuation of the Holy Spirit’s work, leading the church into the fullness of truth about Mary and her role in God’s plan of salvation.
God honored Mary by eternally predestining her to be the Mother of the Savior—the one through whom God Himself would enter into human history. What greater gift or dignity could God give to a human being?
Remember that Mary’s role is also foretold in the OT when God tells satan:
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” the offspring of the woman (Mary) is Jesus, who came to crush the head of the serpent, to defeat satan and his work. The prophet Isaiah spoke of a sign that the Lord would give to Israel:
“The virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel” (God with us)
**

 

[josie_L]

it wasn’t to wash away his sins cause as we all agree on he is without sin, but you all say that water baptism washes away sin which i disagree on, the blood of Christ has made atonement for our sins, that is the gospel my friends.

God bless you.

You still haven’t answered the question: why did He choose to be baptized, if has you said He was without sin, what example do you think he was trying to set for future generations of Christians by being baptized?

God bless you too.

 

[christian1]

To DavidCatechumen: I am still waiting for you to tell us where the Bible:

Teaches that Mary is NOT Queen of Heaven

*Luk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the servant of the Lord. Let it be to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her.

Joh 19:27 Then He said to the disciple, Behold your mother! And from that hour that disciple **took her into his own home. ** (to take care of her as an earthly son would)

Now I have given you scripture as you said I couldn’t, showing Mary WASN’T the queen of Heaven. But a SERVENT of Christ and physical MOTHER to Jesus.

What about you??? Where now are your scriptures to support her being something CONTRARY to what the Bible has revealed her to be.*

you said: Teaches that Mary is NOT ever-virgin

*I will kindly re-post the scripture proving this.

Mat 1:24 And Joseph, being roused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife,
Mat 1:25 and **did not know her **until she bore her son, the First-born. And he called His name JESUS.

Any student of the scripture knows full well what the term ‘know her’ means. But if there be some that are ignorant, please ask and I will provide sufficient proof that ‘to know’ meant to have ‘intercourse’*

you said: Teaches that Mary was NOT raptured

Sorry, no evidence of ANY KIND indicating such. But I will not claim she wasn’t anymore than you should claim that she was, seeing as you have no evidence either.

You said: I predict that you aren’t going to find a thing. Sorry.

Good one Nostradamus.

** you said:** But searching the Scriptures will start you on your journey home.

*It was in searching the scriptures that led me to where I stand now. So I suppose you are correct in this one thing.

you said: Oh, and I would also like to hear your answer to the Orthodox Churches and their hyperdulia of the Theotokos.

Your sister church is included in Christs admonition to the “Churches” found in Revelation friend.

Christ was addressing ALL His churches.*

 

[christian1]

Davidcatechumen: Your inability to cite the Bible for your appeal to fear is very telling.

Php 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, cultivate your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Happy now?

 

[DavidCatechumen]

I see you missed my apology, since you are now attacking me ad hominem.

But seeing as you are attacking me AND the Blessed Mother, I am in very good company, and for this, I thank God.

I also forgive you and hope that you will forgive me if I offended you. I have already said that you have been a great help to me in preparing for my conversion, and I am sticking to that–regardless of what you think of me, or how much you get angry at me.

I am not out to change your mind as I do not think that I can do that–however, others will come along who will resolve your concerns about what Jesus meant when He said, “Behold YOUR mother!”

God bless you!

 

[christian1]

**To Elvisman: **

If it were not then why did Jesus refer to what you claim was his actual blood as ‘the fruit of the vine’ right after drinking it? Mark 14:25 and the other gospel accounts of this

What of this??

 

[christian1]

To JosieL

You still haven’t answered the question: why did He choose to be baptized, if has you said He was without sin, what example do you think he was trying to set for future generations of Christians by being baptized?

Jesus tells why. To fulfill all righteousness.

 

[elvisman]

**To Elvisman: **

If it were not then why did Jesus refer to what you claim was his actual blood as ‘the fruit of the vine’ right after drinking it? Mark 14:25 and the other gospel accounts of this

What of this??

Because you don’t understand Transubstantiation. I guess you could say, it hasn’t been revealed to you yet.

**It retains the appearance of wine. **
The Flesh we eat and the Blood we drink at mass retains the appearance or accidents of bread and wine - but the substance is flesh and blood.

 

[jlhargus]

**To Elvisman: **

If it were not then why did Jesus refer to what you claim was his actual blood as ‘the fruit of the vine’ right after drinking it? Mark 14:25 and the other gospel accounts of this

What of this??

JL: What was that fruit of the vine if not the blood of Christ, who said, Jn15:1 "I am the true VINE, and my Father is the gardener.

 

[SteveGC]

Steve Gc said: The specific gift of TEACHING (and hence, earthly shepherding of) the Christian faithful, is NOT needed by anyone but a hand-select few whom Christ Himself ordained. The gift of teaching and shepherding houses within itself the authority to properly interpret the Word of God (both Scripture and Tradition) for all the followers of Christ.

This is unscriptural. No not just unscriptural, anti-scriptural. The Holy spirit decides how many teachers and who.

Eph 4:11 And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Eph 4:13 And this until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
Eph 4:14 so that we no longer may be infants, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the dishonesty of men, in cunning craftiness, to the wiles of deceit.

Fair enough, you found the word ‘teacher’ in the Bible in reference to the gifts of the Holy Spirit that “some” will receive, and it appears to be separate from the gift of apostleship. Good for you. Now, lets remember what I said specifically about “teaching”. I didn’t say that the word “teacher”, nor even the role of “teacher” is limited to the apostles and their ordained successors. What I say is that the AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING ON THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH IS A GIFT PRESERVED ONLY FOR THE APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS. The Deposit of Faith is the fullness of truth of the teachings of Christ regarding the Christian faith, the means of salvation, and specific clarification of divinely inspired morality. This is the teaching gift I refer to.

Now, we still can have the gift of teaching for people other than those of apostolic origin. Certainly. These can teach many things…how to align ourselves with apostolic teaching, what Scripture means within the context of apostolic teaching, historical tradition, liturgical practices, clergy formation, examination of conscience. Notice though, that this “teaching” is not outside the framework of authoritative teaching and shepherding done exclusively by apostolic men (and their ordained successors). This apostolic “teaching” is INCIPIENT to all of Christian development through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is the Gift that precedes ALL others, and that all others must align with.

You cannot judge all the protestant religions. God does not judge on such a basis and neither should you. A man is a temple of God as scripture says and each individual will be judged given the amount of truth revealed to him.

Amen. I don’t judge anyone. Show me where a comment of mine even remotely suggested judgment.

As for the rest of your post, you must’ve been referring to some other discussion I have not joined.

God Bless

 

[Ginger2]

**I would challenge your notion that Apostolic Tradition wasn’t infallible. **
What of the The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? This is supposed to have taken place around the year 50 A.D.] - about 16-17 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven. This was BEFORE much of the New Testament was written. The infallible decree was made that Jews needn’t be circumcised to be saved. There was no scripture called upon - only Apostolic decision led by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, referred to Old Testament Scriptures to settle the dispute.

Acts 15:
In verses 13-19 James responds using the Old Testament to support his decision:

Specifically in verse 15 James states, “The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:”

They did not use Tradition to settle the matter - they used Scriptures. The Jews that were in decent on the issue would not have respected Tradition, but they could not argue against the Torah because they accepted it as the word of God.

Ginger

 

[christian1]

JL: What was that fruit of the vine if not the blood of Christ, who said, Jn15:1 "I am the true VINE, and my Father is the gardener

You guys HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING me.

He is also called ‘The Lion of Judah’ am I to think Him a literal lion?

The lamb of God… a literal lamb?

He said that we would have rivers of living water flowing out of our bellies too.

Was that literal?

WHERE do you get off calling this ONE particular thing LITERAL, when all other such symbolism, you understand as symbolic???

He did just about EVERYTHING in parables which was prophesied. The bread was bread and a SYMBOL of His flesh. The wine was 'the fruit of the vine; JUST AS JESUS CALLED IT, right after He called it His blood.

Do you guys have any idea what SYMBOLIC means???

Go and read the old testament, that’s just about ALL GOD EVER USES, to represent the spiritual.

Why have you chosen to abandon your reason in this particular scripture that you have applied for all others just like it???

You’ve shoved meaning that doesn’t exist into it and condemn man if they do not partake with your idea.

Amazing.

 

[christian1]

SteveGC:

What I say is that the AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING ON THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH IS A GIFT PRESERVED ONLY FOR THE APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS

The real problem with YOUR statement here steve, is that YOU say. Please show me in scripture where this is the case.

 

[jlhargus]

JL: What was that fruit of the vine if not the blood of Christ, who said, Jn15:1 "I am the true VINE, and my Father is the gardener

You guys HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING me.

He is also called ‘The Lion of Judah’ am I to think Him a literal lion?

The lamb of God… a literal lamb?

He said that we would have rivers of living water flowing out of our bellies too.

Was that literal?

WHERE do you get off calling this ONE particular thing LITERAL, when all other such symbolism, you understand as symbolic???

He did just about EVERYTHING in parables which was prophesied. The bread was bread and a SYMBOL of His flesh. The wine was 'the fruit of the vine; JUST AS JESUS CALLED IT, right after He called it His blood.

Do you guys have any idea what SYMBOLIC means???

Go and read the old testament, that’s just about ALL GOD EVER USES, to represent the spiritual.

Why have you chosen to abandon your reason in this particular scripture that you have applied for all others just like it???

You’ve shoved meaning that doesn’t exist into it and condemn man if they do not partake with your idea.

Amazing.

JL: Did I say he meant it literally? Those are your words. He meant figuratively, he was the TRUE VINE, just as he meant figuratively, 'FRUIT OF THE VINE”, when it was literally his blood.

 

[jlhargus]

Here is how I see the scriptural evidence for the IMMACULATE CONCEPTIONS:

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent Because thou hast done this thou art cursed… 15 And I will put ENMITY between THEE AND THE WOMAN and between THY SEED AND HER SEED it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel [Mary would always be at enmity with Satan, as she was never of his seed, therefore not under sin. Like Mary’s seed there was never a time when Mary or her SEED was not at enmity with Satan.

ROM 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace 7 Because the CARNAL MIND IS ENMITY against God [Mary was always at enmity with Satan as God said I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN THEE (SATAN) AND THE WOMAN.] JAS 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith God resisteth the proud but GIVEGTH GRACE UNTO THE HUMBLE…

LK 1:46 And MARY SAID MY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour 48 For HE HATH REGARDED THE LOW ESTATE OF HIS HANDMAIDEN for behold from henceforth ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED 49 For HE THAT IS MIGHTY HATH DONE TO ME GREAT THINGS and holy is his name. …52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats and EXALTED THEM OF LOW DEGREE

LK 1:28 And the angel came in unto her and said Hail thou that art HIGHLY FAVOURED the LORD IS WITH THEE blessed art thou among women 29 … 30 And the angel said unto her Fear not MARY for THOU HAST FOUND FAVOUR WITH GOD [Hail, the angel salutes Mary as a dignitary, or as one of importance. He calls her, Highly favoured or “full of grace”, Mary was in a state of grace and the Lord was already with her before the angel came. Usually angels are shown reverence, by one falling on their face, but this time an angel shows reverence to a person.]
[John the Baptist, was santified in the womb, by the Holy Spirit, therefore JOHN was BORN WITHOUT SIN.] Lk1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, even FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB. Lk1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth HEARD THE SALUTATION OF MARY, the babe leaped in her womb; and ELISABETH WAS FILL WITH THE HOLY GHOST: [The same God who sanctified John the Baptist in the womb sanctified Mary at conception, with God nothing is impossible.]
bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm KECHARITOMENE, FULL OF GRACE.

 

[brkn1]

Here is how I see the scriptural evidence for the IMMACULATE CONCEPTIONS:

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent Because thou hast done this thou art cursed… 15 And I will put ENMITY between THEE AND THE WOMAN and between THY SEED AND HER SEED it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel [Mary would always be at enmity with Satan, as she was never of his seed, therefore not under sin. Like Mary’s seed there was never a time when Mary or her SEED was not at enmity with Satan.

ROM 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace 7 Because the CARNAL MIND IS ENMITY against God [Mary was always at enmity with Satan as God said I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN THEE (SATAN) AND THE WOMAN.] JAS 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith God resisteth the proud but GIVEGTH GRACE UNTO THE HUMBLE…

LK 1:46 And MARY SAID MY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour 48 For HE HATH REGARDED THE LOW ESTATE OF HIS HANDMAIDEN for behold from henceforth ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED 49 For HE THAT IS MIGHTY HATH DONE TO ME GREAT THINGS and holy is his name. …52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats and EXALTED THEM OF LOW DEGREE

LK 1:28 And the angel came in unto her and said Hail thou that art HIGHLY FAVOURED the LORD IS WITH THEE blessed art thou among women 29 … 30 And the angel said unto her Fear not MARY for THOU HAST FOUND FAVOUR WITH GOD [Hail, the angel salutes Mary as a dignitary, or as one of importance. He calls her, Highly favoured or “full of grace”, Mary was in a state of grace and the Lord was already with her before the angel came. Usually angels are shown reverence, by one falling on their face, but this time an angel shows reverence to a person.]
[John the Baptist, was santified in the womb, by the Holy Spirit, therefore JOHN was BORN WITHOUT SIN.] Lk1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, even FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB. Lk1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth HEARD THE SALUTATION OF MARY, the babe leaped in her womb; and ELISABETH WAS FILL WITH THE HOLY GHOST: [The same God who sanctified John the Baptist in the womb sanctified Mary at conception, with God nothing is impossible.]
bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm KECHARITOMENE, FULL OF GRACE.

There are even MORE “Immaculate Conceptions”?
This can’t be RCC doctrine, but one can never be sure anymore.

 

[elvisman]

The Apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, referred to Old Testament Scriptures to settle the dispute.

Acts 15:
In verses 13-19 James responds using the Old Testament to support his decision:

Specifically in verse 15 James states, “The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:”

They did not use Tradition to settle the matter - they used Scriptures. The Jews that were in decent on the issue would not have respected Tradition, but they could not argue against the Torah because they accepted it as the word of God.

Ginger

Welcome back to the conversation Ginger/Hisalone.

James pointed to Amos 9:11-12. The rest of them could have shot holes the size of watermelons right through that because there are MANY more verses supporting the keeping of the Mosaic Law and circumcision. they didn’t because the Old Law was null and void.

**It was the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 6:13-15) and not the Scriptures that guided them in this decision. James may have used these verses to placate them but the decision of the Council - as is the case today - appealed to the Authority given them by Jesus. **
To state differently is to render Jesus a liar.

 

[elvisman]

JL: What was that fruit of the vine if not the blood of Christ, who said, Jn15:1 "I am the true VINE, and my Father is the gardener

You guys HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING me.

He is also called ‘The Lion of Judah’ am I to think Him a literal lion?

The lamb of God… a literal lamb?

He said that we would have rivers of living water flowing out of our bellies too.

Was that literal?

WHERE do you get off calling this ONE particular thing LITERAL, when all other such symbolism, you understand as symbolic???

He did just about EVERYTHING in parables which was prophesied. The bread was bread and a SYMBOL of His flesh. The wine was 'the fruit of the vine; JUST AS JESUS CALLED IT, right after He called it His blood.

Do you guys have any idea what SYMBOLIC means???

Go and read the old testament, that’s just about ALL GOD EVER USES, to represent the spiritual.

Why have you chosen to abandon your reason in this particular scripture that you have applied for all others just like it???

You’ve shoved meaning that doesn’t exist into it and condemn man if they do not partake with your idea.

Amazing.

**The fact that you lack the faith to understand Transubstantiation is no reason to get snippy, my angry friend. Like I said, it probably hasn’t been revealed to you. Remember, Jesus said, “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.” John 6:63

If you feel that you have such an iron-clad case against the Real Presence in the Eucharist, please explain the Bread of Life Discourse to me - in a civil manner, please.

Maybe you can change my mind with your eloquence.

PS - the Early Church Fathers are UNANIMOUS on the Real Presence, but I’m sure you and your pastor know better . . .