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

[orange_man]

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 . . .

Just to clarify … objection to “real presence” is a MINORITY position within protestantism. My own denomination has no objection to it (indeed we affirm and defend the doctrine), nor do most mainstream protestants.

The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation … that’s another matter (and one I’ll leave alone).

 

[orange_man]

I would challenge your notion that Apostolic Tradition wasn’t infallible.

I never mentioned apostolic tradition … I only referred to Catholic tradition (there’s a big difference).

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.

that’s an illogical anology (actually it’s quite absurd). When you look to the infallible traditions (as you call them) promulgated by the Apostles … these events were recorded in scripture. It’s ridiculous to say that scripture is divinely inspired (and hence infallible) but yet try and separate the events scripture describes from the text itself. I hope you see why your logic is fallacious here?

**Also - don’t **forget that Paul instruct the early Christians several times to adhere to the Traditions taught by them (2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 12:14), even calling the church the “Pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Pillar and foundation of truth could hardly be fallible. Afterall - this is God’s truth we’re talking about.

of course the church was centered in Jerusalem at that time; and there were also the numerous churches planted by Paul – predominantly in Asia Minor (none of which were governed by any central institution). All of these things you cite actually bolster my argument, not yours??

PS - the Catholic Church nowhere teaches that you are to pray to an icon.
**The reason certain saints are chosen for various things is because they either struggled **with or solved the problems in question.

I understand the distinction between veneration & worship. Moreover, I also understand saints are viewed as sort of sub-mediators (pray to a saint, he or she puts in a good word for you before Christ, who then mediates for us before the Father). None of this, however, finds any support in any apostolic tradition, letter, Gospel, or early Christian practice. These practices all sprung up slowly, over the course of centuries (in fact the dogma of papal infallibility was promulgated in the 19th century, the immaculate conception in 1950, and so on).

 

[josie_L]

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.

For whom, Jesus?

 

[DavidCatechumen]

Syele, I failed to reply to you. I apologize.

IF I want a rational discussion with a Catholic about veneration of Mary, the proper way to start is not by announcing rudely that all Catholics worship her and do not know the difference between respect and worship.

You are correct. Unfortunately, this guideline is frequently violated on this forum as it is in real life. It has already been violated in this thread. Probably several times.

Likewise if you want to talk to Protestants about Unity you dont announce that each of us is our own denominations and that we dont care about the unity or authority in Gods Church.

I took objection with the concept of the invisible church as not being supported by Scripture and with the effect of the resulting disharmony on society. I then took further care to qualify my remarks to indicate that neither I nor the Catholic Church think that all Protestants are “wrong.”

I took great care not to cause offense. I don’t know what else you expected me to do, besides keep my mouth shut. In any event, I apologize for offending you.

I will also grant your wish. Having found my home, I have nothing further to pursue here. And so, I quit.

Goodbye and God bless you.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

What The Apostles taught by word of mouth. The Bible wasn’t even written until hundreds of years after Christ. The Apostles taught us the N.T. That is what Jesus told them to do.

rinnie, the torah has been around for ages before the time of Christ Jesus that is what they taught my friend.

God bless you.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

If she is not a queen then why does she need a crown?

i have a crown am i a king?

good morning david

God bless you

 

[Jerry_Marino]

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.

to show the world you are a follower of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

and what do you think He did it for?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

i have a crown am i a king?

good morning david

God bless you

Jerry Marino, you seem to be ignoring me. You were a former Catholic and you must then know what this all means, so why sit there and act as if you don’t know who the Blessed Virgin is or why we call her the Queen of Heaven when you in fact already know?

 

[Jerry_Marino]

i know what the church says it to be and i don’t buy into it my friend. the Jesus i believe doesn’t need help and what the church teaches is of works to gain eternal heaven and that my friend is false no one and i say no one can get into heaven lest he put his trust in Christ alone.

there is only one King and one Lord no queen if you want to give mary equal billing to your show go right ahead, who am i to stop you?

i still say the pope is not holy, only God is Holy!

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

i know what the church says it to be and i don’t buy into it my friend. the Jesus i believe doesn’t need help and what the church teaches is of works to gain eternal heaven and that my friend is false no one and i say no one can get into heaven lest he put his trust in Christ alone.

there is only one King and one Lord no queen if you want to give mary equal billing to your show go right ahead, who am i to stop you?

i still say the pope is not holy, only God is Holy!

But like I say, you **a former Catholic **knows these answers already. And if you don’t, then you were a Catholic who had no knowledge of your church, so why would we assume you’d have it now? And in defense of the millions of Catholic priests around the world, and our pope, are the holiest people on earth. Could you give your life up for God like they do? No, obviously you couldn’t.
The Blessed Virgin is Queen of Heaven. She is not equal to God, but she is still Queen. It’s too bad you, **a former Catholic **should already know these answers.

 

[SteveGC]

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.

Look, my friend. Everything we are bantering back and forth about is “I say” or “you say”. Even if I show you scripture, which I can, you will still say, “that is what YOU say”, and then you will proceed to “correctly” interpret the Scripture for me, and then deny that this is what YOU say…and instead, claim that this is what SCRIPTURE says.

You see, I don’t have to worry about that. You do. For everything that you interpret from Scripture will always be what YOU say. Whereas I, first and foremost, DON’T interpret Scripture. So when I say, “I SAY”, I am echoeing The Church’s teaching, which is authoritative. So, nothing interpretive about faith and morals is what I SAY.

Furthermore, as much as I can reveal Scripture which contextually, implicitly, and/or directly supports Catholic teaching, I don’t normally bother with such troddle. I am within the bosom of The Church, so my interest is in demonstrating to you, and others, why The Church is authoritative, not your Bible (which The Church gave you)…and also why your Bible-alone mantra is a cover-up. It covers up the truth of every one of you who shout that the Bible is the sole authority. And that truth is that you are human-taught, and put your faith for teaching in the hands of humans, not a book. Whether you admit it or not, this is the truth. It’s true for ALL of us. The difference is, you use your Bible to somehow validate what humans tell you, and, latching onto whatever falsely interpreted teaching that feels good to you, you build up your arsenal of verses, passages and books that prove the point that someone else taught you. Whereas, Catholics don’t try to validate anything from the Bible. We connect ourselves to authentic Christ-appointed human teaching. The Bible is consistent with all the teachings because the Bible is a unified element of Christ’s deposit of faith entrusted to The Church He established.

When you can come around and see the reality in your own life that it has always ultimately been a catechesis from humans for your Christian development, you will see that the Bible as sole authority is a doctrine of error. And you will see that the core issue lies with where to find infallible human teaching on the true faith of Christianity as taught by Christ Himself.

So, continue on with your “clear and obvious” translations and interpretations of your sole-authoritative Bible if you must. But don’t expect any knowledgable Catholic to buy into the idea that you, outside The Church, have some divine interpretive and faith-morals teaching authority. It’s all we can do but completely discredit you with that waste of our time.

God Bless

 

[Jerry_Marino]

And in defense of the millions of Catholic priests around the world, and our pope, are the holiest people on earth.

your soooo holey i can see right through you, ok bad joke.

i am glad that you all are the holiest of people, may you all continue to grow in your holiness.

 

[jlhargus]

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

JL: You misunderstand, because you do not want to see. There is ONE, Immacuate Conception, Mary was conceived without sin. John the Baptist was sactified in the womb six months after his conception. Both were born without sin. And if you do not hold to original sin, then you believe all are conceived and born without sin.

 

[Hisalone]

But like I say, you **a former Catholic **knows these answers already. And if you don’t, then you were a Catholic who had no knowledge of your church, so why would we assume you’d have it now? And in defense of the millions of Catholic priests around the world, and our pope, are the holiest people on earth. Could you give your life up for God like they do? No, obviously you couldn’t.
The Blessed Virgin is Queen of Heaven. She is not equal to God, but she is still Queen. It’s too bad you, **a former Catholic **should already know these answers.

Mary is not queen of heaven biblically that name has been given to someone else. I have too much respect of Mary to give her that name.

 

[ICA04]

Mary is not queen of heaven biblically that name has been given to someone else. I have too much respect of Mary to give her that name.

Good point. Also, how can she be Queen of Heaven unless she was given that title by the King of Heaven? Makes sense doesn’t it? Since when does the magisterium of the RCC dictate that?

 

[elvisman]

i know what the church says it to be and i don’t buy into it my friend. the Jesus i believe doesn’t need help and what the church teaches is of works to gain eternal heaven and that my friend is false no one and i say no one can get into heaven lest he put his trust in Christ alone.

there is only one King and one Lord no queen if you want to give mary equal billing to your show go right ahead, who am i to stop you?

i still say the pope is not holy, only God is Holy!

Then you don’t unserstand the Scriptures.

The word “saint” (hagios), is used by both Paul and and Jude to address the early Christians here on earth (Phil 4:21, Eph 2:19, Rom 12:13, Rom 16:15, 1 Cor 16:1, 1 Cor 16:15, 2 Thess 1:9-10, Jude 14-15).

---

**Hagios means “holy one of God”, so that puts a huge hole in your statement that only God is holy. We are ALL called upon to be holy. **

---

Yet another Protestant misinterpretation of Scripture . . .

 

[rinnie]

rinnie, the torah has been around for ages before the time of Christ Jesus that is what they taught my friend.

God bless you.

What! You said that the Apostles taught the Torah Correct? If that is true how come the N.T. is not the Torah?

 

[rinnie]

Good point. Also, how can she be Queen of Heaven unless she was given that title by the King of Heaven? Makes sense doesn’t it? Since when does the magisterium of the RCC dictate that?

I would say when Pope Pius XII officially designated Mary Queen of Heaven and Oueen of the World. Is that good enough for you?

 

[orange_man]

**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.

can you elaborate on the history of this doctrine? Was it enumerated by Christ, Paul, John, or any apostle? Let me save you the time … NO it wasn’t. When Catholic apologists defend these sorts of doctrines they will always take a phrase written by an apostolic father, such as Clement or Ignatius, and build a theology around it.

For instance, Ignatius affirmed the real presence in the Eucharist (that it is the flesh and blood of our Lord). However, he never elaborated beyond that. Clement mentioned the virgin birth in one of his epistles, yet Catholic apologists use that to bolster perpetual virginity (though I don’t necessarily have a problem with the idea that Mary remained a virgin, there’s so much confusion over the matter within Catholicism it’s obvious there is no unbroken continuum of information passed down between the apostolic era and today). For instance, some RC theologians will say the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in scripture were actually His cousins, while others side with the EOC (who believe they were His step siblings, children of Joseph from a prior marriage e.g. Joseph was a widower – which is IMO at least plausible). Some of this stuff comes from apocrypha (like the protoevangelium of James). However, even the RCC affirms that these are NOT canonical works (meaning they are NOT inspired, but rather merely maintain important historical value).

With all this confusion it is somewhat bothersome that the RCC insists on such a rigid dogma in these areas?

 

[christian1]

To Steve GC

you said that we think: the Bible is the sole authority.

This is a misunderstanding. You know, the kind that I have had about many things concerning the catholic religion.

This is what I believe. I cannot speak for anyone else. I consider myself a ‘christian’ and that title is sufficient for me.

I believe that the Bible is NOT the only authority, BUT THAT those who are IN SPIRITUAL authority ARE SUBJECT TO IT and not the Bible subject to them.

Do you understand what I believe now? But as I said, I can only speak for myself. To me it seems like common sense.