Protesting the words of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Paul_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_Paul_III

Guest
As a former Protestant I used to say

All God ask of us is to believe, not know with certain, if I am right and you are wrong about Christianity then what do you have to lose?

If your right and I am wrong then we both lose anyways?

In a protestant way about I was talking about hope.

Now a a Catholic I ask this question.

Jesus Christ said trully trully this is a my flesh and this is my blood whoever believes in me and eats my flesh and drinks my blood will inherrit the kingdom of God.

Now Jesus never let go of this point, he continued to state this belief as fact, even when many of the disciples did not believe because the teaching was too hard and they went back to their own beliefs, Jesus stayed firm.

Jesus even mentioned that up until now I have taught in parables but this is bread is my body, and this drink is my blood.

now i ask the question again if we are right and you are wrong, what do you lose?

If you are right and we are wrong and it is just symbolic what do we lose.

Do we get punished because our faith in Jesus’ words were stronger, or are the protestants forgiven for the lack of faith?

After all who is protesting Jesus own words in the bible?
 
As a Catholic, I believe the Eucharist is the most important aspect of our faith. Paul is pretty adamant about those who don’t recognize the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. So are the early church fathers.

I would recommend for all Protestants who still believe the bread and wine are just symbolic to take a more in depth study. Because, you are now rejecting the Presence. You won’t have any excuse at the end, when you are asked, “But why did you reject the body and Blood?” You have been given the information, by us here at the Forum. The Bible is perfectly clear. The early Church clearly taught this. Don’t risk harsh judgment at the expense of your protestant defense argument.

Look at it in a more positive light, my protestant friends, you don’t know what you are missing. For those of us who truly believe in the Presence in the Eucharist, the experience is unbelievable. Check it out.
 
40.png
Pjs2ejs:
As a Catholic, I believe the Eucharist is the most important aspect of our faith. Paul is pretty adamant about those who don’t recognize the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. So are the early church fathers.

I would recommend for all Protestants who still believe the bread and wine are just symbolic to take a more in depth study. Because, you are now rejecting the Presence. You won’t have any excuse at the end, when you are asked, “But why did you reject the body and Blood?” You have been given the information, by us here at the Forum. The Bible is perfectly clear. The early Church clearly taught this. Don’t risk harsh judgment at the expense of your protestant defense argument.

Look at it in a more positive light, my protestant friends, you don’t know what you are missing. For those of us who truly believe in the Presence in the Eucharist, the experience is unbelievable. Check it out.
Click to expand...
There is a HOT discussion going on in the Apologetics form about JOhn 6 and the Eucharist. A non-Catholic is very adamant that the literal turns figurative after verse 48. I’m not too sophisticated when it comes to Apologetics, but maybe someone here is better versed and can defuse the arguments of the thread writer, sandusky.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86477
 
Protesting the words of Jesus are the protestants isn’t it?
 
40.png
sainted:
Protesting the words of Jesus are the protestants isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Yes!!!

Protestants are protestors against the Church on one thing or another, and in the case of the Eucharist they are protesting on the very words of Jesus Christ.
 
What a fitting name. Did they invent it themself or was it God given?
 
40.png
sainted:
What a fitting name. Did they invent themself or was it God given?
Click to expand...
I believe that the origin of “Protestant” is that it is a form of “Protest” in that they were protesting against any Catholic. I htink that, recently, most try to ditch “Protestant” for the more positive “Christian” moniker. Naturally, they do not think Catholics are Christians, but that is another story.
 
40.png
sainted:
What a fitting name. Did they invent it themself or was it God given?
Click to expand...
Today is you ask a Protestant what that means, an informed one would say Pro Testament meaning for bringing the new testament forward maiking it known. this is where they get into scripture alone arguement and they forget the real history.

I say as converted protestant and new Catholic with this menatality any athiest could easily win an arguement. As a Catholic we rely not only on the bible as evidence, but actual evidence through our traditions, without historic tradtion I might side with an atheist.

Bottom line is whether todays protestant know it or not they are protesting against the word of God, this really gets to them and shuts them up whenever they tell me that I am apart of the anti christ church and I need to be saved.
 
John Paul III:
Today is you ask a Protestant what that means, an informed one would say Pro Testament meaning for bringing the new testament forward maiking it known. this is where they get into scripture alone arguement and they forget the real history.

I say as converted protestant and new Catholic with this menatality any athiest could easily win an arguement. As a Catholic we rely not only on the bible as evidence, but actual evidence through our traditions, without historic tradtion I might side with an atheist.

Bottom line is whether todays protestant know it or not they are protesting against the word of God, this really gets to them and shuts them up whenever they tell me that I am apart of the anti christ church and I need to be saved.
Click to expand...
The nice thing about Protestantism is that, like actors, it is a allows for the flexibility to constantly reinvent itself. Without an authoritive interpreter of Scripture, there is…well…misinterpretation and subsequent chaos.

Here is one group, Mainstream Baptists, that allow for individual, i.e. subjective, interpretation: George W. Truett expressed Baptist beliefs most succinctly: “Religious Liberty is the nursing mother of all liberty. Without it all other forms of liberty must soon wither and die. The Baptists grasped this conception of liberty in its full-orbed glory, from the very beginning. Their contention has been, is now, and must ever be, that it is the God-given and indefeasible right of every human being, to worship God or not, according to the dictates of his conscience; and, as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others, he is to be held accountable to God alone, for all his religious beliefs and practices." Dr. Truett was pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, TX 1897-1944, president of the Southern Baptist Convention 1927-1929, and president of the Baptist World Alliance 1934-1935. The quotation is from Truett’s famous sermon, “Baptists and Religious Liberty,” preached on May 16, 1920 to 15,000 people from the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

Then there is the issue of “Congregational Autonomy”: Mainstream Baptists believe in congregational autonomy – that every local congregation is under the direct Lordship of Christ. We are opposed to ecclesiastical hierarchies. Our churches are not subordinate to the rule of any denomination, convention, association, fellowship or any other religious body. We believe that Christ is in and is the head of every congregation of his people (Matt. 18:20). Our churches operate democratically because we believe every other form of church government infringes on the Lordship of Christ. Every member is responsible for seeking and following the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they participate in the deliberations and work of the church. Each member has equal right to voice their convictions and to vote according to their conscience when the congregation makes decisions. We trust the spiritual discernment of the majority and act on it. When we are at our best, we also realize that majorities can be mistaken and act with respect toward the consciences of a sometimes prophetic minority.

mainstreambaptists.org/index.html
 
It appears to me that you are making a bunch of assumptions about protestants that are made with glaring generalizations. To say that protestants believe such and such is to assume they all believe the same thing. As a protestant, I can tell you that I don’t believe much of anything you said on this thread. As a matter of fact I don’t know many protestants who do. Just my two cents worth.
 
The thing is with Protestant Martin Luther was - that he decided to deny the teachings of the church and make up his own theory.

This man was a heretic. He denied the truth that Christ taught, and therefore by making a firm decision to deny the Catholic faith and make up his own, he turned his back on the Church and probably put himself in danger of losing his soul.

As Catholics, we must believe all the truths that the Catholic Church teaches. We are not allowed to pick and choose which ones we are going to believe in and which ones we will not believe in.

Christ, while on earth, established His church. He commanded the apostles and gave them the authority to teach. No other church possesses this authority. The Catholic Church (even though it is going through a major crisis) is the true church. It may be in its time of suffering right now, but Our Lord and His Mother will triumph.

My point is, is that Jesus was God. Martin Luther was a man. I know that I would rather follow God than a mere Human who has sinned out of intellectual pride.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top