Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hiedi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you mean “blessings?”

You asked, “What is the problem with people?”
Ok if the Pope and Bishops have come up short, and the bible doesnt need intepreting why does it say that it does. What is your answer to that? I would really like to hear from you what that means. Also what does 2Thess 2:15 mean when it says we our to obey teachings both oral and written. Also when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said what God has given me I have given you, and he gave them authority, what does that mean? So are you saying that the Holy Spirit wasnt enough? Because if they came up short, something is missing. I believe the Holy Spirit was all they needed and all they still need today. But you seem to be saying something is missing, or I am misunderstanding you. So could you explain how the Pope and Bishops come up short? Also how does all have sinned and come up short apply only to the Pope and Bishops. I cant wait to hear this. I believe i saw the word ALL.
 
Ask him to prove that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. If he tries to quote Bible verses to you, that’s circular reasoning, trying to prove the Bible from the Bible.

He must prove first of all that the Bible is God’s word. Why should we take his word for it?

Get back to us with his answer.
Forgive me brother but what you just said sounds a lot like blasphemy. Yes there is a difference as previously mentioned between the Word of God (Jesus) and the word of God (his words written down for us), but to say that one has to prove that the bible has the words of God is to say that you don’t believe in the Catholic Church or the catholic church or any form of Christianity. If you want proof, all you have to do is look at all of the prophecies that have come true from both the old and New Testament. If what is written down is not true and our faith is only in this life, than we of all people should be pitied. The word of God stands as truth and although God clearly communicates to us in many ways, we must use the written word as the measure of what is true and what is not. As the Paul wrote, if anyone preaches any Gospel other than the one we have given you, let him be accursed. If we didn’t have his letters the attacks of the enemy would have made it nearly impossible to pass the truth along the last 2000 years. You don’t believe me try playing a game of telephone with your family. See how long it takes to mangle what was started….
 
Psalm 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

What might “word” in these scriptures be referring to? The New Testament had not been penned at that time, but could it have been foreseen?

I especially like the second one. That which takes the name of Christ is never justified in contradicting or perverting to His word. I know we are “allowed to read the Bible now, so long as our interpretation does not contradict the Church,” but such a system rarely produces mature/perfect Christians in the way the original system was intended to produce: Eph 4, not to mention the Roman Church justifying frank error and idolatry.

Authority and Infallibility are very different. I have the authority to beat my child senseless, but I will also have to answer for it to a higher authority, be it Child Protective Services, or God Himself. Would we expect the Roman Church to be less responsible? Has she not made herself drunk with the blood of the saints?

Where is Christ in all of this? Does He does not have a right to expect a faithful testimony of Himself by those He gave up His life for? If you have really believed in Him, and love Him, the state of the Church is a very heartbreaking thing.
 
That is why you can’t prove your beliefs about salvation based on the scripture alone because, if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, the pillar and support of the truth, you would not even have a Bible. Your church falls short.
1 Timothy presents the Church in order. I’m pretty sure what we are seeing now is more like what is in 2 Timothy, a great house. A responsible Christian will act on 2 Tim 2 and “depart from iniquity,” and fellowship “with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”
What you claim to be the “text” of the Bible is nothing more than your interpretation. You are deciding what it means.
John 7:17. That’s the key. Ignorance is not the problem here. Disobedience is a big problem, for all of us.
  1. It condemns infants and those who, for whatever reason, are not able to understand it and act accordingly. If this passage is sufficient, then you are condemning them to Hell even though they are not guilty of any actual sin.
“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 18:10.
Then I guess that Jesus made a mistake when He instituted the papacy. Protestantism teaches a lie about salvation which the Bible exposes. They say you are saved by faith alone but St. James wrote in his letter that we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24). This is the only place in the Bible where you will find the phrase “faith alone.” So not only is Protestantism insufficient, it’s false.
Cain and Abel had the same dillema. Cain showed God his works, and Abel showed God the Lamb. “Woe unto them that have gone the way of Cain.” - Jude – another sad but encouraging last-days epistle.

Don’t go the way of Cain. “Woe” means it makes God cry. It makes God sad that He sends His only Son to die for you, and you say it’s not good enough. I have to do this, and that. It’s very hard to receive free grace, and yet also so wonderful. I pray your eyes will be opened, and you can “shew me” your works, as James says. One of your works would be making that painful separation from the Catholic Church. I wouldn’t recognize you as a believer without you doing so. Your works and Mary/Saint/wafer idolatry “shew me” otherwise. Be very clear. James is not asking you to “shew God” your works. Don’t you dare. He’s not impressed with your filthy rags, and is of purer eyes than to behold evil. He must see that burnt offering in your place if you will only repent and admit He must be there for you, or you have nothing.

Christ is everything, or Christ is nothing.
 
Authority is not our truth, truth is our authority.

[Authority is not our truth, truth is our authority.
[/QUOTE] This is a quote from someone who is a protestant.

“Truth is our authority.” The truth that you read and self interpret is from the bible right? Where did your “truth” actually come from? It came from the fathers of the early church - EVERYONE’s ONE, unified church, who complied all the orally spoken word, determined whether it was inspired, closed the canon and wrote them for all of us. They wrote ONE bible for all of us. Who were the early fathers? They were Jesus Christ, his apostles and the people his apostles orally taught and so forth. What I don’t understand is why any protestant who says they believe in the bible, doesn’t already know where the bible came from (apostolic authority.) Their churches don’t teach WHO the bible came from. Who compiled the inspired material, closed the canon and wrote it down in ONE OT and ONE NT. Not 35,000 OT’s or NT’s, not the soon to be 55,000 OT’s or NT’s. Most of my protestant friends are totally unaware of any of what I have just written. There are a few (one - a wonderful protestant minsiter of a very large church) that concede that it had to come from the Catholic Church, but won’t go any further to admit what that really means. They have never been taught the real truth because it goes against core beliefs. It isn’t taught because then it would have to be accepted that the Catholic church had authority at all. There wouldn’t be a bible at all if it weren’t for the early churth - the Catholic Church. Prostestants wouldn’t have any Word, Scripture, to read or believe at all if it weren’t for those who through the holy spirit created the Word to begin with - the Catholic Church. What I find amazing is that the protestant church has even changed - doesn’t practice - core beliefs of Martin Luther. Are protestants in general taught that Martin Luther was a Catholic priest? Are you taught in general that HE decided he didn’t like seven books of the bible and parts of a few other books and threw them out? Are protestants taught that Martin Luther believed in the seven sacraments? Do any of you protestants know what the seven sacraments are? How many sacraments do you celebrate? Martin Luther believed in honoring Mary just as the Catholic Church continues to do to this day! He knew the importance of Mary. Marian beliefs have been questioned in this very thread, he believed. He BELIEVED in Sacred Tradition!!! So, why is there any debate at all from protestants regarding sacred tradition at all going on in this thread? How did the protestant church get so removed from the founding beliefs of their own church? Just because the three pillars of the reformation didn’t like certain teachings, threw out books of the bible because they didn’t like them, and decided they knew better what any verse/teaching in the bible meant (individual interpretation), doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, that there is not a “truth” out there. Just because you haven’t been taught it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Just because you don’t know what all the truth is, doesn’t negate your responsibility to learn it. There is just too much debate and proof out there for each of you to at least question “Why are my beliefs do different?” Scott Hahn and many others great men and women set out to prove the catholic faith, it’s beliefs, it’s doctrines, or it’s authority wrong and they couldn’t! Surely, you must ask, “What am I missing?” You know Jesus taught ONE truth. Why is it that you don’t question why there are different beliefs on Jesus’s one truth that was written down and practiced THAT way for 1,500 years? How could so many different denominations have been created? Each one thinks IT is the correct interpreter of the bible. What about the knowledge of those who were taught by Jesus and spread the truth who subsequently determined what was inspired and wrote it down for US. How could they be wrong 1,500 years later? Why is it you don’t question individual interpretation just a tiny bit? How could Luther or anyone know something different from what was taught by Jesus and his disciples and believed for 1,500 years. The canon was closed. He only could have added to it or taken away from it to change it! Which we all can agree is not something you can do. You can’t pick and choose scripture to believe and ignore the rest because it doesn’t teach what your church believes. It is written and meant something - the same thing - to the christians for 1,500 years before MAN decided to change things.
 
" I was just saying we Protestants don’t have any “teachings” other than the Bible.

You most certainly do have “teachings” other than the Bible. Every time you go to your church service, your pastor/preacher stands on the pulphit and gives his “version”, his interpretation of what he believes the bible is saying. Growing up, I have heard many a preacher speak negative/wrong ideas. Bad mouthing everything about the Catholic Church. The Protestant denominations have changed so much over the lat 500 years. Most believed in the Marian dogma, sacred tradition, confession, for example until the last 200 years or so. Why did these beliefs change or get dropped? If you have to bad mouth the Catholic Church because you can’t come up with a valid reason other than that is what your church has always taught you, or that is what you have interpreted the bible to mean for yourself, that is sad because it shows that you don’t know the truth as it has been taught, handed down, for 2,000 years.
 
Are you trying to say that the subsequent followers of the founders of the reformation are smarter and more correct than the founders?

Wow, that is a great question? Well said. If Protestants could really open their mind to what that means, they would at least be concerned because their “beliefs” that come from the bible, were changed in 1500’s by the reformers to mean what they wanted them to mean. They just don’t know that or can’t admit it because it would prove Sola Scriptura wrong and the founding of Protestantism was wrong.
 
I don’t think it’s the Catholic Church’s role to interpret it for us,"

It has been explained so many times here… Jesus Christ gave Peter and the other apostles authority to go teach. What they taught, which is what Jesus taught, and they experienced while with Jesus, is what was determined as inspired teachings and is what was recorded as the Bible that all Christians including Catholics and Protestants use. Only, the Protestants changed theirs, omitted inspired books to suit their own doctrine. It isn’t the Catholic Church that interpreted it, it is the Catholic Church that recorded it for all to read.
 
Authority is not our truth, truth is our authority.
[Authority is not our truth, truth is our authority.
[/QUOTE] This is a quote from someone who is a protestant.

“Truth is our authority.” The truth that you read and self interpret is from the bible right? Where did your “truth” actually come from? It came from the fathers of the early church - EVERYONE’s ONE, unified church, who complied all the orally spoken word, determined whether it was inspired, closed the canon and wrote them for all of us. They wrote ONE bible for all of us. Who were the early fathers? They were Jesus Christ, his apostles and the people his apostles orally taught and so forth. What I don’t understand is why any protestant who says they believe in the bible, doesn’t already know where the bible came from (apostolic authority.) Their churches don’t teach WHO the bible came from. Who compiled the inspired material, closed the canon and wrote it down in ONE OT and ONE NT. Not 35,000 OT’s or NT’s, not the soon to be 55,000 OT’s or NT’s. Most of my protestant friends are totally unaware of any of what I have just written. There are a few (one - a wonderful protestant minsiter of a very large church) that concede that it had to come from the Catholic Church, but won’t go any further to admit what that really means. They have never been taught the real truth because it goes against core beliefs. It isn’t taught because then it would have to be accepted that the Catholic church had authority at all. There wouldn’t be a bible at all if it weren’t for the early churth - the Catholic Church. Prostestants wouldn’t have any Word, Scripture, to read or believe at all if it weren’t for those who through the holy spirit created the Word to begin with - the Catholic Church. What I find amazing is that the protestant church has even changed - doesn’t practice - core beliefs of Martin Luther. Are protestants in general taught that Martin Luther was a Catholic priest? Are you taught in general that HE decided he didn’t like seven books of the bible and parts of a few other books and threw them out? Are protestants taught that Martin Luther believed in the seven sacraments? Do any of you protestants know what the seven sacraments are? How many sacraments do you celebrate? Martin Luther believed in honoring Mary just as the Catholic Church continues to do to this day! He knew the importance of Mary. Marian beliefs have been questioned in this very thread, he believed. He BELIEVED in Sacred Tradition!!! So, why is there any debate at all from protestants regarding sacred tradition at all going on in this thread? How did the protestant church get so removed from the founding beliefs of their own church? Just because the three pillars of the reformation didn’t like certain teachings, threw out books of the bible because they didn’t like them, and decided they knew better what any verse/teaching in the bible meant (individual interpretation), doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, that there is not a “truth” out there. Just because you haven’t been taught it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Just because you don’t know what all the truth is, doesn’t negate your responsibility to learn it. There is just too much debate and proof out there for each of you to at least question “Why are my beliefs do different?” Scott Hahn and many others great men and women set out to prove the catholic faith, it’s beliefs, it’s doctrines, or it’s authority wrong and they couldn’t! Surely, you must ask, “What am I missing?” You know Jesus taught ONE truth. Why is it that you don’t question why there are different beliefs on Jesus’s one truth that was written down and practiced THAT way for 1,500 years? How could so many different denominations have been created? Each one thinks IT is the correct interpreter of the bible. What about the knowledge of those who were taught by Jesus and spread the truth who subsequently determined what was inspired and wrote it down for US. How could they be wrong 1,500 years later? Why is it you don’t question individual interpretation just a tiny bit? How could Luther or anyone know something different from what was taught by Jesus and his disciples and believed for 1,500 years. The canon was closed. He only could have added to it or taken away from it to change it! Which we all can agree is not something you can do. You can’t pick and choose scripture to believe and ignore the rest because it doesn’t teach what your church believes. It is written and meant something - the same thing - to the christians for 1,500 years before MAN decided to change things.

AMEN…and pass the CATHOLIC BIBLES!!!
 
Hi! Please help me. I am Catholic. I told a Baptist relative that the Church came before the Bible, because the Bible was put together by the Church. Then he cleverly responded that the Bible is God’s Word, and thus existed before the Church, because the book of John indicates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore, he says, the Bible came before the Church.

I already pointed him to the pillar of truth bible verse, but how do I refute this argument? (Besids pointing again to 1 Tim 3:15).

Thanks and God Bless you eternally.

Hiedi
Bible passages are taken from King James Bible…

My sister said the same thing; the Bible is all we need, not the Pope, not the Church! Unfortunately, the Bible alone theory is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches us and shows us that the Church came before the Bible. After all, what books did Jesus write? None! Jesus deliberately chose NOT to write. Instead He chose to establish a Church to teach in His name!

The Catholic Church believes that both the Bible and Church are both necessary and one cannot exist without the other. Here are some questions non-Catholics, like your Baptist relative must consider…

(1) The Bible was not put under one cover until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. It took a monk 10 months to hand copy the Bible. Prior to the Bible being put under one cover, who was the authority figure for the early church? Remember, the Bible did not exist as we know it today. There is NO denying the fact that authority was the church–not the Bible.

(2) How did the early Christians each own a Bible if the printing press wasn’t developed until the 1500’s? Even after the printing press was developed how many Christian could afford to own a Bible?

(3) Why does JESUS state the final authority is the church in Matthew 18:15-17?

(4) Where in the Bible does it state that the “Bible” is the only authority for Christians?

(5) How did the majority of the people who were uneducated read the Bible prior to 1500 and even to this day?

(6) What is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)?

(7) What books of the Bible did Jesus write?

(8) Where in the Bible does Jesus command the Apostles to write?

(9) How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct?

(10) How did the Bible know what books to include under its cover?

The only logical conclusion is that the Bible as our only guide is unbiblical!! The Church came first!!

When did Jesus establish His Church? Jesus establishes His church when He states the following in Mt. 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Let us look at several verses that state that Jesus established a teaching Church not a Bible reading Church.
Code:
        (Mt. 28-19) Jesus states - Go ye therefore, and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

        (Mk. 16-15) Jesus states - And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and PREACH the gospel to every creature.

        (Mk 16-20) - And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
The apostles did not read from the New Testament, which was yet to be written, instead they taught by “word of mouth” and by tradition, as shown in the following verses:
Code:
        (2 Thes. 2-15) - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

        (2 Tim. 2-2) - And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Where did the Bible come from? The Bible came from the Catholic Church. The New Testament was put under one cover in 397 A.D. this was decided at the Council of Carthage. Prior to this date the different books of the Bible were not under one cover, but they were scattered in different places. So this means, that for over three hundred years the members of the early church were taught be means of tradition because the Bible as we know it did not exist.

Who decided what books belong in the Bible? The Catholic Church thoroughly examined all the books that were in question to be used in the New Testament and it was the Catholic Church that decided what books were inspired and which were not. Catholic monks spent their lives copying scripture over and over again until printing was developed in 1440 AD. So this means that for over 1,400 years the Church taught the members by tradition. Even after the invention of printing, it was far too expensive for every member of a household to own a Bible. John Gutenberg printed the first edition of the Catholic Bible. It wasn’t until 1534, that Luther’s translation of the Bible appeared.

Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the only authority? It doesn’t! Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible say that it is the only source of information available to a Christian. A matter of fact, the Bible states that we must look to the Church for the proper interpretation. After all, the Bible cannot interpret itself, can it? Let look at some verses that show us that private interpretation is frowned upon.
Code:
        (2 Peter 1-20) - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

        (2 Peter 3-16) - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

        (Acts 8-30) - And Philip ran thither to him, and read him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Then who is the teacher of the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit, acting through the Catholic Church. The reason why there are so many non-Catholic churches is because there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. The Holy Spirit cannot be responsible for such mass confusion. There is not a “universal” Protestant Church. Some Protestants believe in infant baptism while others do not. The Catholic Church, however is universal, we have one belief system, and one leader to guide us.
Code:
        (Jn 14:26) - Jesus states: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

        (John 16:13) - How be it when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.

        (Acts 1-8) - But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. When decisions had to be made in the early Church, a council, along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was gathered to decide crucial questions that needed to be answered.

        (Acts 15:1-2) - When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this questions (this verse shows that Council did not use scripture to settle this difference)

        (Acts 16:4) - As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem so the churches were strengthened in the faith and they increased in numbers daily.
I am often told that Catholics act as if the Bible means nothing! Not so! The Bible is very important to the Catholic faith. The Catholic Mass is saturated with scripture. Catholics believe that the Bible is very necessary along with the teachings of the church-one cannot exist without the other.👍
 
[Authority is not our truth, truth is our authority.
This is a quote from someone who is a protestant.

“Truth is our authority.” The truth that you read and self interpret is from the bible right? Where did your “truth” actually come from? It came from the fathers of the early church - EVERYONE’s ONE, unified church, who complied all the orally spoken word, determined whether it was inspired, closed the canon and wrote them for all of us. They wrote ONE bible for all of us. Who were the early fathers? They were Jesus Christ, his apostles and the people his apostles orally taught and so forth. What I don’t understand is why any protestant who says they believe in the bible, doesn’t already know where the bible came from (apostolic authority.) Their churches don’t teach WHO the bible came from. Who compiled the inspired material, closed the canon and wrote it down in ONE OT and ONE NT. Not 35,000 OT’s or NT’s, not the soon to be 55,000 OT’s or NT’s. Most of my protestant friends are totally unaware of any of what I have just written. There are a few (one - a wonderful protestant minsiter of a very large church) that concede that it had to come from the Catholic Church, but won’t go any further to admit what that really means. They have never been taught the real truth because it goes against core beliefs. It isn’t taught because then it would have to be accepted that the Catholic church had authority at all. There wouldn’t be a bible at all if it weren’t for the early churth - the Catholic Church. Prostestants wouldn’t have any Word, Scripture, to read or believe at all if it weren’t for those who through the holy spirit created the Word to begin with - the Catholic Church. What I find amazing is that the protestant church has even changed - doesn’t practice - core beliefs of Martin Luther. Are protestants in general taught that Martin Luther was a Catholic priest? Are you taught in general that HE decided he didn’t like seven books of the bible and parts of a few other books and threw them out? Are protestants taught that Martin Luther believed in the seven sacraments? Do any of you protestants know what the seven sacraments are? How many sacraments do you celebrate? Martin Luther believed in honoring Mary just as the Catholic Church continues to do to this day! He knew the importance of Mary. Marian beliefs have been questioned in this very thread, he believed. He BELIEVED in Sacred Tradition!!! So, why is there any debate at all from protestants regarding sacred tradition at all going on in this thread? How did the protestant church get so removed from the founding beliefs of their own church? Just because the three pillars of the reformation didn’t like certain teachings, threw out books of the bible because they didn’t like them, and decided they knew better what any verse/teaching in the bible meant (individual interpretation), doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, that there is not a “truth” out there. Just because you haven’t been taught it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Just because you don’t know what all the truth is, doesn’t negate your responsibility to learn it. There is just too much debate and proof out there for each of you to at least question “Why are my beliefs do different?” Scott Hahn and many others great men and women set out to prove the catholic faith, it’s beliefs, it’s doctrines, or it’s authority wrong and they couldn’t! Surely, you must ask, “What am I missing?” You know Jesus taught ONE truth. Why is it that you don’t question why there are different beliefs on Jesus’s one truth that was written down and practiced THAT way for 1,500 years? How could so many different denominations have been created? Each one thinks IT is the correct interpreter of the bible. What about the knowledge of those who were taught by Jesus and spread the truth who subsequently determined what was inspired and wrote it down for US. How could they be wrong 1,500 years later? Why is it you don’t question individual interpretation just a tiny bit? How could Luther or anyone know something different from what was taught by Jesus and his disciples and believed for 1,500 years. The canon was closed. He only could have added to it or taken away from it to change it! Which we all can agree is not something you can do. You can’t pick and choose scripture to believe and ignore the rest because it doesn’t teach what your church believes. It is written and meant something - the same thing - to the christians for 1,500 years before MAN decided to change things.
[/QUOTE]
AMEN…and pass the CATHOLIC BIBLES!!!

As a former Lutheran, it was people like you, once I removed my myopic glasses, that revealed the obvious; the C.C. is indeed the apostolic church.👍 Well said…

This is an amazing site, approved by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. Atheists, agnostics, scientists, protestants, people of all walks of life tried to debunk this apparition but walked away, changed forever!

All protestants at this thread, what do you have to lose by investigating the matter for yourselves? Read the testemonials by the debunkers, which happen to include the author, who’s job is to debunk Marian apparitions…

catholicdigitalstudio.com/miracleofdamascus.htm
 
Joe370, WOW, you really inspire me. You just knocked it out of the park with your most recent post! I have read it 5 times and just see the truth in the way you are saying everything. Also, I am glad that you liked my post. I hope it helps other Protestants take off their myopic glasses!!! 🙂 I can’t add any more information or scripture to support/prove the CC’s beliefs than the ones who have already posted, but I feel that with the knowledge that I do have, maybe I can state it a little more simply as to help others see a bigger picture. You just trumped me on that 10-fold!!! I love it!!! Thank you for your wonderful post!
 
This is a quote from someone who is a protestant.

“Truth is our authority.” The truth that you read and self interpret is from the bible right? Where did your “truth” actually come from? It came from the fathers of the early church - EVERYONE’s ONE, unified church, who complied all the orally spoken word, determined whether it was inspired, closed the canon and wrote them for all of us. They wrote ONE bible for all of us. Who were the early fathers? They were Jesus Christ, his apostles and the people his apostles orally taught and so forth. What I don’t understand is why any protestant who says they believe in the bible, doesn’t already know where the bible came from (apostolic authority.) Their churches don’t teach WHO the bible came from. Who compiled the inspired material, closed the canon and wrote it down in ONE OT and ONE NT. Not 35,000 OT’s or NT’s, not the soon to be 55,000 OT’s or NT’s. Most of my protestant friends are totally unaware of any of what I have just written. There are a few (one - a wonderful protestant minsiter of a very large church) that concede that it had to come from the Catholic Church, but won’t go any further to admit what that really means. They have never been taught the real truth because it goes against core beliefs. It isn’t taught because then it would have to be accepted that the Catholic church had authority at all. There wouldn’t be a bible at all if it weren’t for the early churth - the Catholic Church. Prostestants wouldn’t have any Word, Scripture, to read or believe at all if it weren’t for those who through the holy spirit created the Word to begin with - the Catholic Church. What I find amazing is that the protestant church has even changed - doesn’t practice - core beliefs of Martin Luther. Are protestants in general taught that Martin Luther was a Catholic priest? Are you taught in general that HE decided he didn’t like seven books of the bible and parts of a few other books and threw them out? Are protestants taught that Martin Luther believed in the seven sacraments? Do any of you protestants know what the seven sacraments are? How many sacraments do you celebrate? Martin Luther believed in honoring Mary just as the Catholic Church continues to do to this day! He knew the importance of Mary. Marian beliefs have been questioned in this very thread, he believed. He BELIEVED in Sacred Tradition!!! So, why is there any debate at all from protestants regarding sacred tradition at all going on in this thread? How did the protestant church get so removed from the founding beliefs of their own church? Just because the three pillars of the reformation didn’t like certain teachings, threw out books of the bible because they didn’t like them, and decided they knew better what any verse/teaching in the bible meant (individual interpretation), doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, that there is not a “truth” out there. Just because you haven’t been taught it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Just because you don’t know what all the truth is, doesn’t negate your responsibility to learn it. There is just too much debate and proof out there for each of you to at least question “Why are my beliefs do different?” Scott Hahn and many others great men and women set out to prove the catholic faith, it’s beliefs, it’s doctrines, or it’s authority wrong and they couldn’t! Surely, you must ask, “What am I missing?” You know Jesus taught ONE truth. Why is it that you don’t question why there are different beliefs on Jesus’s one truth that was written down and practiced THAT way for 1,500 years? How could so many different denominations have been created? Each one thinks IT is the correct interpreter of the bible. What about the knowledge of those who were taught by Jesus and spread the truth who subsequently determined what was inspired and wrote it down for US. How could they be wrong 1,500 years later? Why is it you don’t question individual interpretation just a tiny bit? How could Luther or anyone know something different from what was taught by Jesus and his disciples and believed for 1,500 years. The canon was closed. He only could have added to it or taken away from it to change it! Which we all can agree is not something you can do. You can’t pick and choose scripture to believe and ignore the rest because it doesn’t teach what your church believes. It is written and meant something - the same thing - to the christians for 1,500 years before MAN decided to change things.
AMEN…and pass the CATHOLIC BIBLES!!!

As a former Lutheran, it was people like you, once I removed my myopic glasses, that revealed the obvious; the C.C. is indeed the apostolic church.👍 Well said…

This is an amazing site, approved by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. Atheists, agnostics, scientists, protestants, people of all walks of life tried to debunk this apparition but walked away, changed forever!

All protestants at this thread, what do you have to lose by investigating the matter for yourselves? Read the testemonials by the debunkers, which happen to include the author, who’s job is to debunk Marian apparitions…

catholicdigitalstudio.com/miracleofdamascus.htm

What a wonderful site, Joe. I added the home page to my favorites to explore later in more detail as time permits me. I will pass this site on to others.
 
Forgive me brother but what you just said sounds a lot like blasphemy. Yes there is a difference as previously mentioned between the Word of God (Jesus) and the word of God (his words written down for us), but to say that one has to prove that the bible has the words of God is to say that you don’t believe in the Catholic Church or the catholic church or any form of Christianity.
No, it’s not to say any such thing. Traditional Christians (not just Roman Catholics) believe that the Bible is God’s Word because it has been handed down to us as such by the Church. If you don’t trust the Church, it’s entirely reasonable to ask “then why do you believe it in this case?” You need to give a rationale for why you accept one particular part of Church tradition. (There may well be such a rationale, but you need to provide it—you can’t just assume it.)
If you want proof, all you have to do is look at all of the prophecies that have come true from both the old and New Testament.
So you would define the Word of God as “anything containing true prophecies”? How do you go about the arduous task of sorting through all the texts in the world that claim to contain true prophecies and discerning which of them are true and which are not?
As the Paul wrote, if anyone preaches any Gospel other than the one we have given you, let him be accursed.
But Paul is writing to the Galatians in that passage, clearly referring to the Gospel message that he had preached. He is not talking about written Scripture–he was writing to them now for the first time!

Edwin
 
Amen…What a great post. ‘Joe’ So well put together. I’ve printed it out to give to my fundamentalist Christian friend who INSISTS on solo scriputura when it comes to HER interpretation, but somehow slips in “symbolishm’ when it comes to the words of Christ Himself, when He said…“This IS my body…This IS my blood…” Your post AUTHENICATES the origination of the ORAL teaching that came to us through the EARLY church fathers who rubbed shoulders with and trodded the dusty paths with Jesus Himself…to the presesnt day, through apostolic progression. Seems to me, that SOMEWHERE along the way, at least ONE OF THEM would have made the ‘correction’ of what Jesus REALLY meant,… that He was misunderstood. CERTAINLY, if Jeus meant His words symobically, and so MANY were taking it literally, this would have been a MAJOR point to be clarifed for ALL TIME, lest the faithfu be TOTALLY confused…FOR ALL TIME!!! To leave the faithful in such confusion would have been a dastardly thing to do to them, FOR ALL TIME. The confusion that did occur and which continues until today, is NOT due to Jesus’ lack of concern for the future of TRUTH, it is due to lack of faith of the early people to whom He spoke…to those who were aghast that He should say…Unless you EAT my Body,…DRINK my Blood…(and walked away) The lack of faith that caused the confusion THEY displayed ‘back in the day,’ is perpetuated until today by the solo scriptura proponents who PICK AND CHOOSE (through their PRIVATE interpretation) and thus feel FREE TO IGNOR the FACT that Jesus NEVER said…'This is a SYMBOL …of my body or a SYMBOL of my blood” No such thing happened. Sometimes I wonder how those that would INSIST on their SYMBOLISM interpretation cannot see their own error, when they are confronted with their own INSISTENCE that the Bible must be interpreted for what it SAYS…FUNDAMENTALLY AND LITERALLY…as THEY pick and choose…and make THEMSELVES the AUTHORITY…Sorry, strange…and…I kinda get a bit embarassed for them at refusing to see the OBVIOUS…exhorting listeners to believe in THEM,…THEIR self imposed AUTHORITY, but not that of the apostolic progression of the TRUTH, the DEPOSIT OF FAITH that has been taught to ALL nations…WITHOUT ERROR.
 
Nousername, what a great post as well. I have wondered that myself - Why do Protestants quote so literally certain things from the bible and ignore other pretty obvious scripture because it isn’t what their denomination’s teaching and tradition has taught them their whole life?

This post on The Eucharist will actually span two posts because it is too long.

I have had conversations regarding whether or not the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. Most every Protestant denomination believes that Christ is only present symbolically in the Eucharist. Read all of John 6 - read Jn4:31-34. Read Mt. 16:5-12 which describes Jesus speaking about food in a symbolic or figurative way. The disciples interpret Him to mean real food. Note how Jesus s hows them in plain, unmistakable language that He is only speaking figuratively then.

Contrast this with Jn 6:51. Jesus says we must eat His flesh in order to have life. In Jn 6:52, the Jews interpret Him literally. Jesus then repeats again and again (verses 53-56) in the clearest possible language, that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life.

Take special note of verse 55: “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” - this is not the language of symbolism.

When Protestants cite John 6:35, they claim that when Jesus calls Himself the “bread of life” He is simply saying that if we believe in Him, He will nourish us spiritually, just as bread nourishes us physically. They say we “eat” and “drink” Jesus, our spiritual food, by coming to and believing in him.

However, we must read the rest of this Eucharistic discourse, especially verses 48-58, where Jesus tells us exactly what He means by calling Himself “breat.” The bread Jesus is speaking of is not merely a symbol for spiritual nourishment. Jesus tells us plainly that the bread is His own flesh (verse 51), which we must eat in order to have eternal life. When Jesus explains that the bread of life is literally His flesh, we must accept His clear words.

Many Protestants claim that, in John 6:60-70, Jesus explains that He was only speaking symbolically in the previous verses. They focus on verse 63, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Jesus’ Eucharistic talk ends with verse 58 (see verse 59). The dialogue of verses 60-70 occurs later and deals with faith, not the Eucharist.

The word “spirit” is nowhere used in the Bible to mean “symbolic.” The spiritual is just as real as the material.

In verse 63, Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man (“the flesh”) with the spiritual or faith-filled man. Read 1 Cor 2:14-3:4 for a good explanation of what Jesus means by “the flesh.” Note that Jesus says “my flesh” when discussing the Eucharist. He says “the flesh” when referring to the carnal man who will not believe anything beyond his senses and reason.

Note that the unbelieving disciples LEAVE Jesus AFTER verse 63 - THEY WOULD NOT HAVE LEFT AT THIS POINT IF JESUS HAD ASSURED THEM THAT HE WAS ONLY SPEAKING SYMBOLICALLY. This is the ONLY time recorded in the New Testament that any of Jesus’ disciples left Him because they found a doctrine of His too hard to accept. Of the twelve Apostles, apparently only Judas rejected the Eucharist (Jn 6:70-71.)

Again and again the biblical language indicates the Real Presence of Christ in teh Eucharist. Note the strong language of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:27, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”
 
continued…
In the Aramaiz language that Our Lord spoke, to symbolically “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute and assault him. See Ps 27:2; Isaiah 9:18-20; Isaiah 49-26; Micah 3:3; 2 Sam 23:15-17; and Rev 17:6, 16. Thus, if Jesus were only only speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as Protestants say, then what He really meant was “whoever persecutes and assaults me will have eternal life.” This of course, makes nonsense of the passage!

Consider Christ’s use of bread and wine at the Last Supper. Bread and wine are not normal or natural symbols of flesh and blood. Yet in all four Last Supper accounts, (Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-14; Lk 22:17-20; 1 Cor11:23-25) Jesus tells us plainly that “this IS my body” and “this IS my blood.” Never is there a hint that He is speaking symbolically. Either the symbols would have been clearly explained if He were speaking symbolically (which is not the case) or Jesus spoke literally (which is the case.)

Protestants will insist that we Catholics engage in cannibalism and violate the biblical prohibition on the drinking of blood. It was exactly this misunderstanding that led the unbelieving Jews and disciples in John 6 to reject Jesus when He spoke about the need to eat His body and drink His blood. The believing disciples were rewarded for their faith at the Last Supper. Jesus revealed to them that they would receive His body and blood in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, not in the bloody, cannibalistic way the unbelievers had imagined.

ALL THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS BELIEVED IN THE REAL PRESENCE. Until the Reformation, all Christianity accepted the Real Presence of Christ in teh Eucharist. Even Martin Luther affirmed the doctrine. Note that all the Churches that broke away BEFORE the Reformation (Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian) still believe in the Real Presence.

This information is from San Juan Catholic Seminars publications of Apologetics.
 
Martin Luther himself confirms that the early Church Fathers unanimously taught the Real Presence:

His actual words: “of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them u ses such an expressioni as, ‘It is simply bread and wine,’ or ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’ Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, ‘It is simply breat,’ or ‘Not that the body of Christ is physically presnet,’ or the like, since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted the Christ’s body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually the all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side.” Luther’s Works (St. Louis, MO; Concordia Publishing, 1961), Volume 37, 54. This is also from San Juan Catholic Seminars Apologetics.

How could the Protestant church’s beliefs have changed so much since the founding of Protestantism? Individual Interpretation, maybe?
 
The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ but they are still bread and wine. I just except the words of Christ and the gospel writers and hope that one day everyone else will.
 
The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ but they are still bread and wine. I just except the words of Christ and the gospel writers and hope that one day everyone else will.
Actually that is not right, the bread and wine are not just bread and wine they really are the living God, that is what he said. Take this bread and eat it this is my body which is given up for you and Drink this blood which has been shed for you, When he said this he changed over the bread and wine into the real presense of our Lord. When we receive living bread and wine we receive Christ. Its not just bread and wine, its the mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ, just like he said it, it is. He never said this bread and wine are a symbol he said this is my body, this is my blood, its as simple as that. You either believe him or you dont… I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top