Talking To Protestants

[Will_Pick]

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.

 

[Pacbox]

Time line of when the books in the NT were written helps. Though most if not all the non-Catholics I have has discussions about these verses already believe that these verses only pertain to Revelation.

 

[Steadfast]

You’re right, it’s a silly and irresponsible use of Scripture. John is clearly referring only to his apocalypse.

It could be argued than an attempt to use the passage to refer to any addition to Scripture as a whole violates the intent of John more drastically than the mere exegesis of the text.

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.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Actually there are 2 places in the Bible where it’s said not to add/remove to this book etc.

One place is clearly in Revelation. The other is found in the Old Testament.

Lord, help me, I can’t remember what book or where now…but I know it will come to me. Sorry!

Putting that aside the other thing is you can have them answer these Questions for you.
Have them find the answers and do the “research” for themselves. Just tell them “Okay, this is clearly YOUR interpretation. So do me a favor, answer these questions please. If you don’t know them, its okay I’ll give you time to find the answers for me.”

1. What years where the individual books of the New Testament written???
2. Who wrote the individual books???
3. When was the bible, as we know it today, put together???

After, they come back with the answers. Tell them it’s because of their answers that you can’t accept THEIR interpretation of Revelation. Then explain to them why is etc.

 

[rr1213]

Though most if not all the non-Catholics I have has discussions about these verses already believe that these verses only pertain to Revelation.

Agreed

 

[ttg]

I think John was speaking specifically about the “Left Behind” series which has become some Protestants newest testament.

 

[Lillith]

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.

I don’t understand why a protestant would want to “go there”…Martin Luther took books from the Bible, and so what does that say about the reformation??? I think it is an argument that would turn around and bite them.

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.

 

[Deus_Vult]

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.

Everyone is talking about this as if Roman Catholics have added to the Bible. Not so…for sake of argument even if Revelation is referring to the whole Bible where have we added. I think you all are confusing adding to the Bible with Sola Scriptura. Two different things all together. The argument for Sola Scriptura is that there can be no other teaching or authority other than the Bible. This of course can be refuted with scripture. Adding to the Bible as Revelation speaks to is referring to adding text and or verses to the Bible…this has not been done. Well not by Roman Catholics anyways.

 

[DShreffler]

I don’t understand why a protestant would want to “go there”…Martin Luther took books from the Bible, and so what does that say about the reformation??? I think it is an argument that would turn around and bite them.

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.

This is another main reason I remain a Catholic. Martin Luther had absolutely no right to edit the Bible. He wanted to remove the entire book of James, but others put it back. I just read on some Protestant website where they call the Catholic Church a CULT. Funny, it has been around 1500 years before their post-Luther faith (one of 10,000) and without all the documents of the Catholic faith, they wouldn’t have their edited version at all, yet they call us a cult!
Martin Luther’s Line Item Veto of scripture is a CULT!

 

[sandusky]

Will Pick:

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.

Catholics teach that Scripture is POLYVALENT [loosely, having more than one meaning], which I don’t believe.

Nevertheless, if Scripture can be polyvalent in your theology, why can it not be polyvalent in a Protestant’s theology?

Is Polyvalentism another RCC exclusive?

 

[UBERROGO]

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.

Show them the two other places it says that in the Bible. I think that is in leviticus and in one of the prophets.That convinced me. BTW I am Lutheran.

 

[julebenn]

I think John was speaking specifically about the “Left Behind” series which has become some Protestants newest testament.

That is not true at all… Although the way the books are written are close to what will happen… Just just be honest you don’t like the part where the Catholic (POPE) is considered the Anti-Christ.

 

[Deus_Vult]

That is not true at all… Although the way the books are written are close to what will happen… Just just be honest you don’t like the part where the Catholic (POPE) is considered the Anti-Christ.

Left behind series…now that’s not very Sola Scriptura now is it?

 

[Lillith]

That is not true at all… Although the way the books are written are close to what will happen… Just just be honest you don’t like the part where the Catholic (POPE) is considered the Anti-Christ.

This sounds like an excellent topic for a new thread…there are so many different forms of the rapture…pre-trib. post-trib …mid-trib…And I didn’t know that the Pope was the anti-christ

Would you mind if I started a thread? Are you interested?

 

[Mommyof02green]

Catholics teach that Scripture is POLYVALENT [loosely, having more than one meaning], which I don’t believe.

Nevertheless, if Scripture can be polyvalent in your theology, why can it not be polyvalent in a Protestant’s theology?

Is Polyvalentism another RCC exclusive?

Well the term POLYVALENT is new to me! I did a search for it and it only popped up a bunch of medical web sites…

The Church teaches that Scripture has 2 senses the literal and the spiritual. The spiritual being subdivided into the following categories: Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical Sense.

Which honestly makes “sense” to me. After all what good are the stories of Noah and Jonah if you don’t know how to apply them to your life. It needs the literal meaning and a spiritual meaning. This is what happen (literal) and how to apply it your life (spiritual).

The thief at the crucifixion got told that he would be in paradise that day with Christ. Literal meaning is just that the fact, nothing more, nothing less. You are left with the feeling: Well isn’t that nice for him! It’s like reading the wedding announcements in the newspaper. It’s good to know, but doesn’t apply to me.

However we know, do to the spiritual sense that it does apply to us. We know that what the thief received is possible for all of us. We have hope that when we meet the end of our Earthly Life, like the thief, Christ will be there to say “Today you will be with me in Paradise”. We know from the thief that having a contrite heart is important. This is the spiritual meaning of the passage.

Honestly you need both!

 

[julebenn]

This sounds like an excellent topic for a new thread…there are so many different forms of the rapture…pre-trib. post-trib …mid-trib…And I didn’t know that the Pope was the anti-christ

Would you mind if I started a thread? Are you interested?

I’m getting ready to go to luch, but will check back later… does sound intresting

 

[sandusky]

Well the term POLYVALENT is new to me! I did a search for it and it only popped up a bunch of medical web sites…

The Church teaches that Scripture has 2 senses the literal and the spiritual. The spiritual being subdivided into the following categories: Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical Sense.

Which honestly makes “sense” to me. After all what good are the stories of Noah and Jonah if you don’t know how to apply them to your life. It needs the literal meaning and a spiritual meaning. This is what happen (literal) and how to apply it your life (spiritual).

The thief at the crucifixion got told that he would be in paradise that day with Christ. Literal meaning is just that the fact, nothing more, nothing less. You are left with the feeling: Well isn’t that nice for him! It’s like reading the wedding announcements in the newspaper. It’s good to know, but doesn’t apply to me.

However we know, do to the spiritual sense that it does apply to us. We know that what the thief received is possible for all of us. We have hope that when we meet the end of our Earthly Life, like the thief, Christ will be there to say “Today you will be with me in Paradise”. We know from the thief that having a contrite heart is important. This is the spiritual meaning of the passage.

Honestly you need both!

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.

(Search polyvalent on this forum; I am certain you will get hits here that show its theological use.)

 

[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:

Catholics teach that Scripture is POLYVALENT [loosely, having more than one meaning], which I don’t believe.

Now you are saying that the Scripture can have more then one meaning:

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.

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.

 

[Steadfast]

It’s starting to get really funny…no matter how many times I and others correct you, you persist with the nonsense.

Here you go:

1. Luther translated all the books of the Bible, including James and Revelation and the OT Deuteros.
2. He didn’t omit any one and no one added them later.
3. His opinions on these books were permissible for scholars in his day and didn’t stop being permissible for Catholics until Trent defined the canon after he was already dead…
4. No one raised an eyebrow when he put the OT deuteros in an appendix, neither should we.
5. The majority of his comments about these questionable books were made not in theological works but either in private conversation or in prefatory remarks.
6. Your real ire should be reserved for St. Jerome who not only didn’t like the OT deuteros, he never translated them for his Editio Vulgata. They were added from existing Old Latin texts by redactors.

 

[ttg]

That is not true at all… Although the way the books are written are close to what will happen… Just just be honest you don’t like the part where the Catholic (POPE) is considered the Anti-Christ.

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.