Talking To Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter Will_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ttg said:
OK, I’ll be honest. I don’t like anyone calling the Pope the Anti-Christ. This is not a stretch for me for me to say so. And anyone who says the Pope is the Anti-Christ is either a liar, a fool, or is abusing scripture and history for the sake of turning a buck.

Half of my family is Baptist. They buy all the “Left Behind” books and can quote them like scripture and just like you they believe “the books are written very close to what will happen.” The problem is that the books are fiction, and some people are gullible enough to believe them.

Since the Protestant version of rapture is twisted from Revelations, I stand by my statement that those who produce and read the “Left Behind” series are adding to the very book that John warned against in REV 22:18-19.
Click to expand...
I would want to say that all the Protestants don’t ascribe to one version so there is no “Protestant version of rapture.” That being said I find the Left Behind series ludicrous and Kirk Cameron as well.
 
40.png
Mommyof02green:
Well Sandusky are you saying that Scripture has ONLY one meaning or MORE then one meaning?

I don’t mean to be nit-picky I just want to be sure what you “believe” re: scripture. First you say that Scripture has only ONE meaning
Click to expand...
As I said, one meaning.
40.png
Mommyof02green:
Now you are saying that the Scripture can have more then one meaning
Click to expand...
That is a possible logical argument, relying on the Catholic use of idea of the polyvalence of scripture, in support of those Will Pick wants to correct.
40.png
Mommyof02green:
So what do you TRULY believe re: scripture?
Does it have only one meaning and that’s it?
Or, does it have multiple meanings?
Or does your opinion on scripture change with a flip of a coin to suit your needs?

I just want to be clear on what you believe or do not believe re: scripture.
Click to expand...
You are nit-picking.

My point is, that in order for the Catholic to be consistent, then what is permissible for the Catholic to use in defense of doctrine, the Catholic must also allow others to use in defense of doctrine; namely, the polyvalence of scripture.
 
That statement applies only to revelation. But it can be extended to the rest of the canon as well. But one has to look at history as well, John’s Revelations remained a separate writing until the 4th century.

It was risky enough translating the book from the original Greek. Translating can either add to it or take away from it inadvertantly. The only safe English version of Revelations is a transliteral translation. In the KJV and other context oriented versions, words have been added for clarification. This in itself is dangerous and risky. Even more so, Strong’s Greek definitions contain errors as well. Some things are best left alone.

Also one of the reasons the RCC does not try to interpret Revelations is because the mere attempt to interpret it at all will either add to or take away from the meaning that John wrote.

Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins mortal souls are in danger. They books are in essence have taken away and added to the book. Their books are a fictional translation of the the book of Revelations. Dangerous indeed.
 
sandusky said:
My point is, that in order for the Catholic to be consistent, then what is permissible for the Catholic to use in defense of doctrine, the Catholic must also allow others to use in defense of doctrine; namely, the polyvalence of scripture.
Click to expand...
Well I believe you are confusing 2 different issues!

Do passage have more then one "meaning/sense” vs. “who has the right interpretations”??

I have already shown when it comes to reading the Bible there is the “Literal” sense (meaning) and the “Spiritual” sense (meaning).

You, Sandusky I believe agree with this because you came back and said okay this is the meaning of Rev:
OK. Literally John was talking about Revelation; spiritually, John was talking about the whole of scripture; one wouldn’t want to change any words in scripture, correct? And, revelation is placed at the end of the canon; it is a logical, literal, spiritual conclusion.
Click to expand...
Clearly you applied “2 meanings” to the passage from Rev a “literal” meaning and a “spiritual” meaning! Therefore how can you say that scripture has only one meaning??? If you believe that Scripture only has one meaning than you can’t say that John was only talking about Revelations and is talking about the ALL of scripture. Which is what you have done.

I believe that you want to affirm that everyone is entitled to interpret the “spiritual” mean of Scripture any way they want, or in some cases even the “literal” meaning.

If you want to make those kind of “rules” fine, but don’t belly ach when another Christian comes along and see a different meaning than you! After all everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions right???

After all everyone has to play by the same rules. You want Catholics to allow you to see it your way. You want Catholics to accept YOUR INTERPRETATION. Well, why don’t you accept the Catholic INTERPRETATION???

I know you don’t “Believe” it! Well Catholic’s don’t Believe what you “see” in scripture either! There might be time when what Catholic sees in Scripture and what you see in Scripture agree. Praise God when it does!! However, this is one of those moments were you will have to agree to disagree! After all we just don’t see it the same way. And I’m entitle to have MY Interpretation, as much as you are entitled to yours 🙂

Thank God, there is only ONE Spirit of TRUTH!
The ultimate question is WHO has the Spirit of TRUTH?

The ultimate question is more important when Christian A says the Literal and Spiritual meaning of this passage is this, and Christian B gives a told counter diction of what Christian A said. That is when you have to totally discern yourself to the Spirit of Truth, and allow the Spirit of Truth to speak to you and lead you.
 
Mommyof02green said:
Well I believe you are confusing 2 different issues!

Do passage have more then one "meaning/sense” vs. “who has the right interpretations”??

I have already shown when it comes to reading the Bible there is the “Literal” sense (meaning) and the “Spiritual” sense (meaning).

You, Sandusky I believe agree with this because you came back and said okay this is the meaning of Rev:

Clearly you applied “2 meanings” to the passage from Rev a “literal” meaning and a “spiritual” meaning! Therefore how can you say that scripture has only one meaning??? If you believe that Scripture only has one meaning than you can’t say that John was only talking about Revelations and is talking about the ALL of scripture. Which is what you have done.

I believe that you want to affirm that everyone is entitled to interpret the “spiritual” mean of Scripture any way they want, or in some cases even the “literal” meaning.

If you want to make those kind of “rules” fine, but don’t belly ach when another Christian comes along and see a different meaning than you! After all everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions right???

After all everyone has to play by the same rules. You want Catholics to allow you to see it your way. You want Catholics to accept YOUR INTERPRETATION. Well, why don’t you accept the Catholic INTERPRETATION???

I know you don’t “Believe” it! Well Catholic’s don’t Believe what you “see” in scripture either! There might be time when what Catholic sees in Scripture and what you see in Scripture agree. Praise God when it does!! However, this is one of those moments were you will have to agree to disagree! After all we just don’t see it the same way. And I’m entitle to have MY Interpretation, as much as you are entitled to yours 🙂

Thank God, there is only ONE Spirit of TRUTH!
The ultimate question is WHO has the Spirit of TRUTH?

The ultimate question is more important when Christian A says the Literal and Spiritual meaning of this passage is this, and Christian B gives a told counter diction of what Christian A said. That is when you have to totally discern yourself to the Spirit of Truth, and allow the Spirit of Truth to speak to you and lead you.
Click to expand...
I apologize for the confusion, I was merely playing Devil’s Advocate, and I presumed that you would understand that.

Forgive my presumption.
 
sandusky said:
I apologize for the confusion, I was merely playing Devil’s Advocate, and I presumed that you would understand that. Forgive my presumption.
Click to expand...
There’s already enough disunity between Christians. Why do we need to play “Devil’s Advocate” just to have an argument for argument sake???

We should be spending our time coming together on our “Agreements” and “Build” on them. 👍

Christ established ONE Church, ONE Faith. We should be building bridges to Unite the One Church and One Faith, not tearing them down.

And Yes: I forgive you!
 
RCCDefender said:
I would want to say that all the Protestants don’t ascribe to one version so there is no “Protestant version of rapture.” That being said I find the Left Behind series ludicrous and Kirk Cameron as well.
Click to expand...
What you said is true. I studied the book of Revelation (as part of the Little Rock Scripture Study which is a Catholic Bible study. The commentary was actually written by a Protestant who did not believe in any kind of rapture. There is no such thing if one looks at Revelation in its historical context (which is the true meaning of Scripture). The whole idea of the so-called “rapture” is an idea that came about in the 19th century with the Scofield Bible. Prior to that, none of the Protestant denominations believed in a “rapture”.
 
Mommyof02green said:
There’s already enough disunity between Christians. Why do we need to play “Devil’s Advocate” just to have an argument for argument sake???

We should be spending our time coming together on our “Agreements” and “Build” on them. 👍

Christ established ONE Church, ONE Faith. We should be building bridges to Unite the One Church and One Faith, not tearing them down.

And Yes: I forgive you!
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
lak611 said:
Do you know the chapter and verse in Deuteronomy?
Click to expand...
Try Deut. 4:2 and Prov. 30:6, but also you could look at Deut. 8:3 and Matt.4:4 (or Luke 4:4 in a KJV). They all line up with Rev.22:18-19.
God Bless,
Benaiah
 
benaiah said:
Try Deut. 4:2 and Prov. 30:6, but also you could look at Deut. 8:3 and Matt.4:4 (or Luke 4:4 in a KJV). They all line up with Rev.22:18-19.
God Bless,
Benaiah
Click to expand...
Thank you for those Bible verses! That really helps me. :love:
 
JoeyWarren said:
Also one of the reasons the RCC does not try to interpret Revelations is because the mere attempt to interpret it at all will either add to or take away from the meaning that John wrote.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The RCC interprets Revelation all the time. Much of mass is linked to it. Mary’s role as the mother of Christians is derived from Revelation 12.

Jeremy
 
I read a book by a man named Hahn (I think was his name) and it was how Mass and Revelations are totally linked together. It was very good.
 
Will_Pick said:
REV 22:18-19 , I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this
book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues
described in this book,
19 and if anyone takes away from the words in this
prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of
life and in the holy city described in this book.

How do you prove to a protestants that Rev, 18-19 is talking about the book John had just written and not the whole bible, HELP please and please comments from protestants.
Click to expand...
I think the words in the text. He says, “this book” not “the books of the Bible.” Historically, you can point to the fact that there was no set canon of Scripture at the time Revelation was written, so “this book” St John is referring to is only the book of Revelation.
 
UBERROGO said:
I read a book by a man named Hahn (I think was his name) and it was how Mass and Revelations are totally linked together. It was very good.
Click to expand...
The Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn and yes it is an excellent book! 👍
 
It would help if I knew what kind of protestant you mean!! (As well as what you & he were talking about…)

I have heard this verse used by some people to try to skewer the Catholic Church for “adding” books to the Bible, when it was the Catholics (& Eastern Orthodox) who were sticking to the original canon, while some Protestant groups were removing books.

But, the most common way I have heard this used more recently, is by King-James-Onlyists, who say that all other translations are “taking away” (or “adding to”) the words of Scripture…
I am thinking of one man in particular, who believes that reading any version other than KJV is the sign of the antichrist. He also thinks that the Left Behind books are being written to turn Protestants into Catholics, but I digress…(No, I am not kidding!!! He’s a fundamentalist Baptist, by the way…go figure!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top