Why do protestants believe in Bible only?

[Geo17]

Greetings All,

This thread has become more of an argument than a meaningful discussion.

I’m trying to learn some things, and I’m not sure reading most of this helped. Since these forums are so huge, I have an issue and I don’t know where else to put it. So I’m going to put it here for now.

I just turned the TV which is on the Telecare Catholic channel. Someone is saying the Rosary and it reminded me to ask this. I have been slowly watching the road blocks to rejoining Catholicism come down.

This is 1 that remains. I see Mary as the Mother of Jesus, and a very special woman. I even believe she has been appearing on Earth and working wonders when she does. But I don’t see why she is called the Mother of God? Yes Jesus is and was God even before He was Jesus. But I still can’t see Mary as the Mother of God because God is more than just Jesus. I also read some where Mary is called the Queen of Heaven. I don’t know where that comes from neither. I think the various pagan religions of old had a queen of Heaven. So this looks like something of pagan origins that got into the early church somehow. And I think there are other issues about Mary too. But my old brain doesn’t recall them at the moment. Can someone address this?

 

[decjlc]

Kendra, 1Cor2: For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified., confirms the fact in 2Thess.2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle., that the traditions taught by word or epistle are one and the same thing. This is a matter of logic and takes no interpretation. So if you or your church disagree you are disagreeing with the bible not my interpretation. I think I will stick with the bible.

God is love
Remnant1

Former Protestant (Pentecostal, actually) here…
in 1 Corinthians 2, when he says he was resolved not to know anything save Christ crucified…he means that he was focused on delivering that message simply. You’ll note that he said he did not rely on eloquence and human wisdom. There were people at that time who were teaching false doctrines that many people bought into because their speech was eloquent. He means that he resolved himself to speak simply and truthfully about Jesus Christ and his crucifixion. He was not saying that these are the ONLY things the Corinthians needed to know.

 

[Nicea325]

Remnant1;10914477:

Okay…where did you get the definition or interpretation of “knowing” in your statement above, that “knowing” in the context of the passage is talking about preaching by oral or by letter?

I think you are confused with the word “knowing”. It does not say anything about preaching. Verse 2 is about what Paul was resolved to doing himself, and is silent on oral or written tradition.

So it seems you are forcing an interpretation here.

Reading and thinking about the passage…1cor 2:

1 Corinthians 2
And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power

Paul was focused solely on preaching and teaching about Jesus.

So where does Paul say anything about tradition in the context of the passage

?

He does not need to mention it. You know why? Because he was PREACHING orally…a Tradition later to be penned. So much for your argument-eh? Just went up in smoke!

 

[Remnant1]

[SIGN]

[/SIGN]

 

[Nicea325]

Kendra, 1Cor2: For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified., confirms the fact in 2Thess.2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle., that the traditions taught by word or epistle are one and the same thing. This is a matter of logic and takes no interpretation. So if you or your church disagree you are disagreeing with the bible not my interpretation. I think I will stick with the bible.

God is love
Remnant1

Go ahead and stick with your “me and my Bible” argument because it is no where mentioned or taught. You adhere to a man-made tradition founded centuries later and you have been taken by a false belief. Time to some history on the background of the Bible and laying off false notions that the Bible is THE only means or authority.

 

[Remnant1]

pablope;10914525:

He does not need to mention it. You know why? Because he was PREACHING orally…a Tradition later to be penned. So much for your argument-eh? Just went up in smoke!

Well first of all this “So where does Paul say anything about tradition in the context of the passage?” is not my statement. And whether he was preaching orally or writing it down makes no difference because the message was and is the same. Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins.

 

[decjlc]

[SIGN]

Ok, if you insist we will have to keep beating this till one of us gives up. Here is1Cor2 again
1And I, brethren, when I came to you

, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Notice Paul says “when I came to you” This is in the past tense so Paul is writing to the Corinthians after he came to them. So, you’re statement “He is not talking about what he has handed down yet, but what he is about to hand down.” is not accurate. He has preached to them and the only thing he has preached, known among them is Christ and Him crucified

The whole point of my bringing this up in the first place is to show that Paul in all his preaching whether to the Corinthians or the Thesselonicans was the same. Whether oral or written it was all the same and that was Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Which is exactly what the bible teaches

God is love
Remnnt1

This type of thing is precisely why there are so many Protestant denominations. You are putting emphasis on words in the strangest of places to support some idea YOU have privately interpreted as a truth. The fact that no one else here can even understand your argument should tell you something. I grew up in Protestant churches and my father was even a minister…and I have never heard this “argument” that you are making that focuses on the word “know” in these particular verses. This is why an authoritative body is needed (the Church) to interpret the scriptures for us.

If the Bible was the only thing that was needed because it teaches the entire Truth, tell me…is it your church or the Pentecostal church across the street that has rightly interpreted the Bible? Perhaps it is the church a few blocks away that disagreed with your church about the interpretation of a certain verse and decided to start their own. And no, I’m not exaggerating to make a point. I have seen it happen.

 

[jmcrae]

Don’t just confess, repent. You don’t need to ask for forgiveness, that was the whole reason Jesus did on the cross.

The entire New Testament talks about repenting and renewing our lives in the Gospel.

If you are right and we need to reconsolidate with a priest every time we sin and only our original sin was forgiven. Then why did we need Christ?

To wash away Original Sin so that our particular sins could be forgiven on the Cross as well … ?

That seems a lot like what the Israelites did for generations. Every time you sin you had to sacrifice an animal with a priest in order to be forgiven. I don’t think God would give his only begotten son so that we could do the exact same thing we have been doing for generations

.

Today, it is Christ’s Sacrifice that atones for our sins, and instead of sacrificing an animal and eating its flesh when we receive the Absolution, we instead receive Holy Communion at Mass - the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of the Sacrifice who died for our sins.

It’s true that the Sacrifice happened on the Cross, but how we get access to the Cross today is by means of the Sacraments of Jesus Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

So, the church teaches what will eventually be written down. Right? Isn’t that the same as the bible only?

The teaching of the Church precedes the Bible by about 350 years or so, and contributed to what was included in the Bible (since obviously the Bible is a Catholic book, being penned and compiled by Catholic Bishops and priests, along with at least three Popes) but the Bible doesn’t contain everything that Jesus said or everything that the Apostles taught. For example the Dormition of Mary happened outside of the writing of the New Testament - St. John the Evangelist alludes to it in Revelation 12, but he doesn’t spell it out, and if you don’t know the story beforehand, you would not glean it from Revelation 12 - but it is something that happened in his own house.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. 1Cor2:2Says that Paul says that he knew nothing among the Corinthians save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

And yet, he gives them the Catholic Mass. (I Cor. 11)

The same would be true in thessalenica. So the traditions taught by word or mouth would be one and the same and that would be Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Which we gain access to by means of the Sacraments that Jesus gave to the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Greetings All,

This thread has become more of an argument than a meaningful discussion.

I’m trying to learn some things, and I’m not sure reading most of this helped. Since these forums are so huge, I have an issue and I don’t know where else to put it. So I’m going to put it here for now.

I just turned the TV which is on the Telecare Catholic channel. Someone is saying the Rosary and it reminded me to ask this. I have been slowly watching the road blocks to rejoining Catholicism come down.

This is 1 that remains. I see Mary as the Mother of Jesus, and a very special woman. I even believe she has been appearing on Earth and working wonders when she does. But I don’t see why she is called the Mother of God? Yes Jesus is and was God even before He was Jesus. But I still can’t see Mary as the Mother of God because God is more than just Jesus.

No. And this is precisely the heresy that the title “Mother of God” was designed to address.

Jesus is one Person - God. He is not two persons. He is one person with two natures - a Divine nature, which He has always had, and a human nature, which He inherited from Mary when He took her flesh unto Himself in her womb.

Mary is “Mother of God” because Jesus is and always was God, before, during and after His time on earth, including His time spent in her womb, at her breast, and toddling in her nursery.

I also read some where Mary is called the Queen of Heaven. I don’t know where that comes from neither.

Jesus is the Son of David. In David’s line, it is the mother who becomes Queen; not the wife. (Ahab broke with tradition when he made his wife Jezebel to be Queen, and that is part of why he was cursed out of David’s lineage.)

So, to show that Jesus is really the Son of David, and not just taking that title without any meaning to it, His Mother becomes the Queen of His Kingdom - which is Heaven - thus, she is Queen of Heaven, because He is truly and really the Son of David, and not just in pretend.

 

[chero23]

Every single person on this planet is lead by the Holy Spirit. It is whether we choose to accept or disobey his teaching. Also Catholics need to get over this argumnt that they are allowed to do what ever they want because Jesus said the Holy Spirit guides the church. It does guide the church, but the Catholics are choosing to disobey him. I’m sorry but did Jesus have some sort of private conversation with the future popes telling them to disobey him. Was Jesus just misguiding us when he said, “for god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, and if you believe in him you will not parish but have everlasting life” John 3:16. Did Jesus give some sort of addition to this in a private conversation. It doesn’t say if you believe in him and do other works the pope says you should do and confess your future sins to a priest and you shall not parish but have everlasting life? The only people infallible and able to create rules outside what Jesus said were the apostles. Not a self proclaimed " vicar of Christ". If the pope is infallible then were the evil popes of the past right in what they did. Am I the only one that remembers when the borgias basically bought out the church to make laws that benefited them. Those popes were guided by the Holy Spirit just like all of us, and they disobeyed him. Also, the Holy Spirit guides, it doesn’t control you so you do not abuse your power. God gives us free will, he doesn’t force us to follow him.

Whenever you make arguments like the ones you did here you gotta back them up. Besides even people from the Old Testament, like Moses he was a murderer, king David an adulterer, ppl committed grave sins, but god allowed them to repent. Has the church had bad leaders, unfortunately we have, but our teachings, faith and doctrine has not.

 

[chero23]

Jesus Christ alone saves us. Works do not save us, although we are commanded to do works, so we do them. You hardly addressed anything I typed.

So like other ppl have said, the devil also knows scripture, and he knew who Jesus was that’s why he was tempting him? Are you saying he’s saved bc he believed in Jesus? Bc you believe in Jesus does not help you, your works, have to back that up, of knowing and putting into effect what god taught.

 

[chero23]

The Church I belong to is non-denominational. This means we do not have someone we answer to like the Baptist or Methodist. We don’t focus on the controversial things, we allow everyone to have their own opinion at their own risk. We simply focus on Jesus’ messages. Though I am very interested in the Catholic faith and am thinking about converting. But some of the view of the church don’t seem to match up to some of the things Jesus taught; but I agree more with Catholics that I do with protestants.

Look if you agree with more with Catholics, why don’t you put your faith in the church? I know me and you have had some discussions on this board, but look, go to scripture catholic, John salza does a heck of a job, not only does he show you bible verses about x,y, and z, but he also puts what the early church fathers were saying.

Look into the church that has existed since Pentecost, Jesus built our church. With sinners and all but were still marching forward bc god said that the Holy Spirit will guide it, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it.

 

[chero23]

I am diffidently willing to learn. Actually, in the beginning I disagreed with everything the church taught. But in the past month I have learned a lot and have come to follow most of what the church teaches. As for what I think doesn’t match up is how some things are required by the church but not by Jesus. One of these things is how the church requires that you confess your mortal sins to a priest in order to be saved. Jesus never mentioned this; the bible does say that confessing your sins publicly is a good thing. I agree that you should confess your sins to a priest, but it is not necessary to be saved. Also priests don’t have the power to forgive sins. The only people on earth who could forgive your sins was Jesus and the apostles. Jesus not the apostles said that the gift to forgive sins was to be passed down to all futures priest. It seems that the things Jesus said that you should do to be a good Christian are now required by the church to be saved.

Cak7711, like I told you in the post before this, check out scripture catholic, don’t torment yourself. If theirs a verse that says that the apostles were the only ones who forgave sins, then the church has gotten it wrong for some 1900 yrs.

Look I think a great verse is in James, were he says that if somebody is sick, call the elders and have them anoint oil on them and forgive their sins. No were does it say, you must call one of the apostles, it says clearly speak to a priest. That’s bc the apostles abilities had been passed on to others.

 

[chero23]

I was answering Isaiah 45-9 as to who Matt.28:19,20 is talking to. What you are talking about here is way off topic and doesn’t even address anything said here. What’s your point?

Ok I was talking about in order to be Christians we must follow gods word. Like I told you, the SDA allows for women to take contaception pills. Well in the bible it clearly states to be open to god, bc their a gift from. Yet, your church allows women to be on the pill, which first of all tells god, I will get pregnant when I want to, it allows you to closed to life, and, this is the big and, the pill causes pulmonary embolisms, mental issues, basically it’s a drug. But your church says yes, to it.

See that’s the problem with a lot of these Protestant denominations, they quiver to society, and allow abortions, divorce, gay marriages, the pill, and say to be Christian and inspired by god through the bible. But their contradicting the bible.

 

[rfournier103]

This thread was HOPPIN’ last night! Where’d everyone go?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This thread was HOPPIN’ last night! Where’d everyone go?

They are checking references

 

[rfournier103]

This thread was a total shark-tank last night and today. Since we’re the last ones standing, does that mean we win???

 

[jmcrae]

They are checking references

We can only hope.