M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Here are Scriptural Reference or Bible Cheat Sheet for Catholic Doctrines and belief.
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/biblecheatsheet.html
Non Biblical. Really now? I don’t think so.
"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th
- Status
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/biblecheatsheet.html
Non Biblical. Really now? I don’t think so.
S
SusanL
Guest
“Methinks you protest too much.”
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
That’s why they are called Protestants.
S
SusanL
Guest
Yes but I had another Shakespearean meaning.
N
ncgolf
Guest
The point you make that I disagree with is they are hard … and from an outsider’s point of view they are ridiculous precisely because the claims are so large. People left Jesus at Capernum because of your last word … they too found Christ’s words ridiculous.
S
sandusky
Guest
It was charitable, Manny; it was also an honest response; would you have me leave ncgolf in his misconception that Christians find those teachings merely, ”hard?”
While some do, others do not.
I am surprised that the numbers are that low.
Manny I’ve been on this forum going on two years now, and add to the posts I’ve made to date, more than 600 others that were lost in the crash last year, I’ve discussed these things over, and over again, and refuted most of those verses; at this time, I have no desire to engage in what usually reduces to a spitting contest concerning those issues; I was answering ncgolf’s question, that’s all.
S
sandusky
Guest
Lord, why am I not surprised by that question?
It’s really scary that you have read into my statement that I dispense with scripture.
S
sandusky
Guest
Yes, they did.
N
ncgolf
Guest
I have no problem with your answers … I don’t agree with you but respect your candidness. I still disagree with your saying some teachings are not hard, they are hard even for Catholics, we don’t get a free understanding card. One can never be convinced by pure intellectual arguements. It is just how far faith is willing to take you.
S
SusanL
Guest
I agree. They are extremely hard. There are a lot of people, Catholic and Protestant alike, that struggle with Christ’s teachings. He was popular and unpopular in his day **because **of his teachings. To say otherwise would be foolish.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Wow. There’s one I haven’t heard before. (above in bold)Quote:
Originally Posted by dessert forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Absolutely, are the scriptures suppose to be filtered through Sand no pun sanduskey, what makes you the authority ? Were you a disciple or and an apostle in the NT?
As you can say you don’t think the Church has the right to say we have an interpretation you think you do and everyone else that just reads the bible. the apostles lived the real walk and talk and Peter had the keys. Dessert
Hi,
Actually the scriptures are not suppose to be filtered through anything. The scriptures are absolute truth regardless of how someone intreprets them. Everything that we hear and are told to be true should be filtered through scripture not the other way around.
You can’t possibly be saying that it’s impossible to misinterpret scripture,… so where does that leave us…
The scriptures ARE objectively absolute truth, as long as they’re NOT interpreted at all, because only by NOT being interpreted (by an infallible interpreter) can they be free of the possibility of being misinterpreted.
But,… unless they are read (interpreted) they are useless.
Therefore, according to your logic, the scriptures are either unreadable (as reading them would introduce error) and/or useless (as they must be unread to avoid misinterpretation).
How can you filter your experience through a thing that is unreadable and/or useless?
I know I’m being a bit preposterous, but the idea that you can judge human actions on possible misinterpretation of scripture, because you have no ULTIMATE authority to do the interpreting, is judging human actions by YOUR measure and not God’s.
Though you will claim that you CAN infallibly interpret scripture, which if true would make you a rightful authority to do the interpreting.
But why should anyone believe you are infallible?
Only an infallible interpretation of scripture can make scripture useful for God’s work.
The only difference between us in this is where we place that “infallibility”.
We do agree that infallibility is necessary,… right?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes, that’s right. The Scriptures themselves (not talking about the footnotes or the study helps) contain no explicit definition of the Trinity, and no explicit definition of the Hypostatic Union.
To you and me, John 1 seems plain, and the I AM statements of Christ seem plain, and the references to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are so remeniscent of the Glory Be and the Sign of the Cross that we can’t help but hear these formulae in our minds as we read those statements, but that’s because we are looking at them through the lense of Apostolic Tradition.
These things are not at all obvious to those Christians who don’t believe in the Trinity, have never recited or ever even heard of the Glory Be, and who don’t believe in the Hypostatic Union - they genuinely don’t “get” how John 1 or the I AM statements definitively prove Christ’s divinity, nor how references to “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” have anything to do with three persons in one God - they would tell you that “the Father” is God, and the other two were created by God, but are not, themselves, God. And there’s nothing in Scripture that gives a definition of what is meant by “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” so they stick with their own interpretation - and I have even been told that if the Apostles believed in the Trinity, then they were heretics, and are now in Hell.
(Welcome to my world … 
)But there are Catholics who can’t believe that anybody could read the first two chapters of Luke and not know Mary as we Catholics know Mary - they are just as surprised to find out that it’s possible to read the Gospel of Luke and not discover the meaning of the Hail Mary, as you are to find out that it is possible to read the Gospels and not know the divinity of Christ or the Trinity - it really is true that how we read the Bible has a lot to do with what we expect to find there - and we won’t find anything that we’re not expecting to find.
Even explicit statements like “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26) are overlooked by those not expecting to find such a statement in the Scriptures, so it’s not all that surprising that those not expecting to find things that are less clearly stated also never find them, either.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Not to me it wasn’t. Calling what we believe is Ridiculous is a mockery of Catholic belief and doctrines. I sure you could have come up with a better word.
While some do, others do not. Suppose someone told you that the Alter Calls is ridulous practice and should be not allowed in the Church.
I could discuss or debate this with your objection with the CC if you wanted it. However, the comment you made to called our Catholic faith on the major issues is Ridiculous is disrespectful, and to say that in this forum is not charitable.
Next time pick your words carefully because you just OFFENDED one Catholic by calling our beliefs unbiblical and ridiculous.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Really? So, you would have expected more Protestants to convert to Catholicism? Around here, we seem to get a lot more who have little or no religious background at all, and not as many from Protestant churches.
At our parish, eight of the original 12 that I sent from RCIA Inquiry to the RCIA Catechism classes succeeded in completing the Catechism classes, and were accepted for the Rite of Election/Call to Full Communion at the Cathedral last weekend - two men and six women. Both men are unbaptized, and three of the women are unbaptized - the other three women come from the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church, and the Church of the Nazarene.
In our Diocese this year, the number of converts from Protestantism at the Cathedral last weekend was about 40% of the total, which I was told was about 900 people altogether (this is for the whole Diocese. For our city it was about 650). The reason is that we have a lot of immigrants from Asia who were Buddhist or else not practicing any religion, and there was a huge number of these Asians at the Cathedral this year.
S
sandusky
Guest
ALLFORHIM said:
How do you get that understanding from that statement?
ALLFORHIM’s statement is a true statement.
:whacky:
You are the one making all of the assertions concerning that statement; therefore, it is not only your reading comprehension skills that are questionable, but your logic is questionable as well.
According to your logic it is unreadable and useless; not mine. :nope:
A bit preposterous understates it; and your admission of your preposterousness means that you don’t even believe what you are saying.
But on the off-chance that you do believe your statements, Keikiolu, then neither do you have any way of knowing anything scriptural for certain.
Because you, being fallible would have no way of determining anything concerning scripture.
You would not even be able to determine whether or not an infallible interpreter was even necessary for understanding scripture, and you would certainly not have the ability to recognize it, if, and when you found it.
G
guanophore
Guest
If you think that the Eucharist is not scriptural, then it seems essential that you find another way to interpret these passages. Perhaps dispense is not the best word?
R
RNRobert
Guest
I was referring to “faith alone,” aka ‘Sola Fide’ which is an unbiblical doctrine and the reason why I left Protestantism. A Catholic member on another thread made a valid point that Protestants claim to follow Scripture Alone, yet ignore and distort the very same Bible to fit their beliefs.
G
guanophore
Guest
Oh! That is just what I have been waiting for! When will you begin?
R
RNRobert
Guest
We started- see here.
S
sandusky
Guest
The Eucharist is scriptural as inaugurated by Christ at the last supper.
With that said, I don’t believe in the “real presence” of Christ in the elements, as the RCC teaches, but in a “remembrance of me,” as Jesus, and Paul teach (Lk 22; 1 Cor 11).
I believe that the events of John 6—events which took place well before the last supper—should not be connected with the last supper. Using one event to explain the other event distorts both events.
John 6 is about “eternal life,” not the Eucharist.
Jn 6:26-51 is a plain language teaching; vv52-58 is a figurative language teaching of the plain language teaching.
Coming, seeing, and believing are equated with slaking of hunger, slaking of thirst, and receiving eternal life.
6:40, and 54 are parallel verses; v40 is plain language, v54 is figurative language. Lay them side-by-side and one sees this:
…everyone who <> He who
beholds the Son <> eats My flesh
and <> and
believes in Him <> drinks My blood
may have eternal life <> has eternal life,
and <> and
I Myself will raise him up <> I will raise him
On the last day <> on the last day.
When the apostles were asked if they also wanted to leave, Peter responded, “…You have words of eternal Life….We have believed [Jesus’ words], and [by that belief in His words have] come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
words of eternal life is a genitive of possession; IOW, the words, when believed, possess eternal life (cf Jn 5:24; 6:63; 12:49ff; 17:8).
So, Peter got it.
He did not say, “we have come to know you have flesh and blood of eternal life….” It’s the plain teaching of His words, when believed, that impart eternal life.
Catholics also erroneously cite 1 Cor 11:27ff as support for the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they must take the verses out of context to do so.
The context of 1 Cor 11:27ff begins a conclusion of the greater context of the passage as indicated by the word hōsteh—Therefore in the English; therefore, the context begins in v17.
Reading the context from v17, one understands that the “body” that is not being judged rightly is the Church, or the body of believers (cf 10:16, and read vv12ff in the very next chapter for a fuller explanation of the church as the body of Christ).
Paul is not correcting the Corinthian Church for not rightly judging the body of Christ in the elements (because Paul knows no such thing); Paul is warning them for not rightly judging that it is their fellow believers who are are the true body of Christ; that is the unworthy manner that is being spoken of; the malefaction that makes them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and that has caused many of them to be weak, sick, and dead, is their lack of respect, and mistreating of one another (cf Rom 12:10, 16; 13:8; 14:13, 19, and all of the “one another” passages).
That they were divided, and quarrling, and squabbling with one another is the context of the whole letter (cf 1 Cor 1:10).
But that’s another topic; go to thread link RNRobert provided above, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
- Status