Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[MommaduckofMany]

I’m sorry, but I do fully understand that the Orthodox are joined, but the way I used the words is similar to the phrase in Revelation, and I wasn’t implying that they were separate either. Different physical locations, different Bishops, and even slightly different canons. Once more, I think everyone from every persuasion seems too ready to take simple straightforward phrases to be slights. Protestants as well as Catholics and Orthodox. Again, no slight meant, but my words were accurate as meant.

I’ve been in three very different jurisdictions; they all had the same canon.

 

[drblank1]

Excellent. Then you can see that conversing with someone, and asking for their intercession, does not equal worship.

PR, EXACTLY. TALKING to someone is not prayer/worship. Prayer is. All worship is due God. That is why Protestant do not pray to spirits.

 

[drblank1]

Can you tell me where the Gospel of Mark says it was written by an Apostle?

You asked how did the early church know how to conduct themselves. I didn’t say the Gospels but the Epistles.

 

[drblank1]

This is very Catholic. If you are baptized in the trinitarian formula, using water, then you are a member of our Catholic church, although imperfectly joined to us.

What about a Christian church that says that we must obey the laws of the OT? Are they also filled with the Holy Spirit, drblank?

PR, you must have misread what I wrote. I said we are freed from the OT Law.

 

[Kliska]

I’ve been in three very different jurisdictions; they all had the same canon.

This is borrowed from another active thread “Catholic or Orthodox canon?” Hopefully James’ won’t mind. I’ve seen another list on the net, but didn’t bookmark it for comparison.

Different regional traditions trust different manuscripts. For example:

The Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches recognize the following:
3 Maccabees
1 Esdras
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151

Georgian Orthodox Churches include:
2 Esdras
4 Maccabees (which is only accepted as canonical in the Georgian Orthodox Church)

The Syriac Orthodox tradition includes:
Psalms 151–155
The Apocalypse of Baruch
The Letter of Baruch

The Ethiopian Biblical canon includes:
Jubilees
Enoch
1–3 Meqabyan

 

[PRmerger]

PR, EXACTLY. TALKING to someone is not prayer/worship. Prayer is. All worship is due God. That is why Protestant do not pray to spirits.

But if they were simply talking to a soul that is in heaven, that would be permissible, right? As long as it wasn’t worship?

 

[PRmerger]

PR, you must have misread what I wrote. I said we are freed from the OT Law.

But you also said that all professed Christians are part of the church, and have the Holy Spirit in their congregation.

So do you believe that even Christians who demand that we keep the OT laws have the HS in their congregation?

 

[PRmerger]

You asked how did the early church know how to conduct themselves.

I didn’t ask that. I asked how one could compare the writings of the early Christians to the New Testament, when they didn’t have the NT yet.

It’s like saying, “You must conform to this 12 inch ruler!” when the ruler hasn’t been made yet.

I didn’t say the Gospels but the Epistles.

Which Epistles tell us which Epistles belong in the canon of the NT?

Can you cite the book, chapter and verse that tells us that Hebrews belongs in the NT?

 

[PRmerger]

You asked how did the early church know how to conduct themselves. I didn’t say the Gospels but the Epistles.

Can you tell me why you believe that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired Word of God?

Please give me the chapter and verse in Mark that tells you that it belongs in the New Testament.

 

[drblank1]

Be careful, drblank. For with this type of reasoning you cannot argue with some of the Jesus Seminar folks who claim that Jesus’ resurrection was merely a metaphorical or symbolic resurrection.

And do you know what they use to point to this alleged symbolic resurrection? They say, “Jesus was not really a door. He was not really living water. So what makes you think his resurrection was real?”

With all due respect, no I don’t need to be careful. My examples are only within the bounds of Jesus’ method for conveying his message. Methophor was His primary teaching tool, as in John 6. Again, if you take the whole harmony of Jesus’ teaching, it is easy to see he was speaking in methophor, and not actually promoting caniballism.

 

[PRmerger]

With all due respect, no I don’t need to be careful. My examples are only within the bounds of Jesus’ method for conveying his message. Methophor was His primary teaching tool, as in John 6. Again, if you take the whole harmony of Jesus’ teaching, it is easy to see he was speaking in methophor, and not actually promoting caniballism.

Then he was speaking metaphorically when he said he was going to rise in 3 days?

Is that your position?

 

[drblank1]

My statement was “The disciples left because it was to hard a saying”

My statement is about the disciples and you answered there were “many” times He let disciples. The rich man wasn’t a disciple so you haven’t provided one time that Jesus said something that wasn’t explained in fact you just admitted that He explained them to the disciples.
The one who ignores is you
No one walked away from Jesus because He said He was a door but they did walk away when He told them" For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. "

The reaction of the disciples that they walked no more with Him and Jesus did not correct them, shows that they did not misunderstand Jesus and Jesus meant it literally. Furthermore Jesus states at the Last Supper that this IS not represents not a symbol but IS. Like the rich young man you go away because it is to hard a saying for you.

The reaction of those diciples were hard because they did not understand and He let them go because they were not with Him from the beginning because He knew their heart. The 12 that stayed knew what He meant. What I meant to say is in other teachings, He let others leave without fully understanding His message as in my examples provided. Taking the harmony of Jesus’ teachings is of the utmost imprortance in understanding His teachings.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

This is borrowed from another active thread “Catholic or Orthodox canon?” Hopefully James’ won’t mind. I’ve seen another list on the net, but didn’t bookmark it for comparison.

The Ethiopians are Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox. The Georgian I’ll have to look up as I’m not familiar with them. Thank you again for making my point. Please be clear if you are speaking about the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, or some other.

 

[drblank1]

Please accept my most sincere apologies. I am not trying to convert anyone. I am only defending why I am not and will not be Catholic.

Ultimately, PR has really been strongly challenging me (in a friendly manner I do believe) about the our differing beliefs in Communnion. Do I believe if a Catholic believes in the actual converstion of the elements that will somehow disqualify them. Absolutely not. Salvations comes from our faith in Jesus Christ alone. I only try to convert non-believers.

 

[Kliska]

The Ethiopians are Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox. The Georgian I’ll have to look up as I’m not familiar with them. Thank you again for making my point. Please be clear if you are speaking about the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, or some other.

That wasn’t the point of what I said, and I’ve provided a partial list here in displaying what I meant. Just because they recognize a different canon doesn’t make them “separated,” even if referred to, as in Revelation, as plural “churches.”

 

[PRmerger]

Ultimately, PR has really been strongly challenging me (in a friendly manner I do believe) about the our differing beliefs in Communnion.

Yes, indeed, I have been challenging you. I don’t think you’ve ever considered the questions that we Catholics are posing here for you, so it is good for you to digest them and entertain them.

Main point: you would not know what belongs in the New Testament, except that you defer to the authority of men.

Secondary point: you seem to be saying that we can believe a lot of differing doctrines, but as long as we are a congregation that follows the Bible, we have the Holy Spirit. If this is true, then you have to accept the folks who say that the OT laws must be followed–and accept that the HS guided them to this doctrine as well.

Another point: if Jesus spoke metaphorically only, then you must believe that he meant only metaphorically that he was going to die and rise in 3 days.

What say you?

 

[drblank1]

Then he was speaking metaphorically when he said he was going to rise in 3 days?

Is that your position?

Of course I believe in the resurrection.

But brilliant point and I’m glad you brought that up. He also spoke methophorically about these actual events when he taught about the temple being torn down and rebuilt in 3 days. John 2:13-22. Thanks for the tip.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I believe in the resurrection.

So sometimes Jesus *did *speak literally.

Interesting…

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:50-60
[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[drblank1]

Yes, indeed, I have been challenging you. I don’t think you’ve ever considered the questions that we Catholics are posing here for you, so it is good for you to digest them and entertain them.

Main point: you would not know what belongs in the New Testament, except that you defer to the authority of men.

Secondary point: you seem to be saying that we can believe a lot of differing doctrines, but as long as we are a congregation that follows the Bible, we have the Holy Spirit. If this is true, then you have to accept the folks who say that the OT laws must be followed–and accept that the HS guided them to this doctrine as well.

Another point: if Jesus spoke metaphorically only, then you must believe that he meant only metaphorically that he was going to die and rise in 3 days.

What say you?

Following OT Law would be in serious contradition to Jesus’ teaching. What I am saying is that I would not follow anything someone says is a SACRED tradition that is not supported by the Bible or even worse, is in conflict with the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus Christ as documented in God’s Word.

As I said, we are free from the OT Law.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

That wasn’t the point of what I said, and I’ve provided a partial list here in displaying what I meant. Just because they recognize a different canon doesn’t make them “separated,” even if referred to, as in Revelation, as plural “churches.”

You either don’t get what is being said or you are intentionally acting as you don’t. Perhaps I should start referring to “the Catholic churches” from now on?