Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?

[PRmerger]

God is the one who authored the Bible. The Bible might have been written by men but they were moved and inspired by God. The Bible says that all scripture is God-breathed. I will accept that the church put together the New Testament but not authored.

Well, this is a bit like saying that I did not have 4 children, but that God did.

God uses people. And in the case of the Bible, God used Catholic people to discern what books belonged in the Bible and what books didn’t.

So each and every time you quote from 1 Timothy you are giving tacit acknowledgment to the authority of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

Exactly. The flesh. Not HIS flesh.

If HIS flesh profits nothing, then your sins are not forgiven.

So if HIS flesh does indeed profit us something, then John 6 clearly is talking about the Eucharist, and our needing to eat HIS flesh and drink HIS blood.

Hi PR,
This is why I think it is* always* necessary to speak of John 6 only in support of the Last Supper accounts. John 6 only becomes clear regarding the real presence when He speaks the words in the upper room, “Take and** EAT **. This is my body.”

Clearly, more than spiritual food.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,
This is why I think it is* always* necessary to speak of John 6 only in support of the Last Supper accounts. John 6 only becomes clear regarding the real presence when He speaks the words in the upper room, “Take and** EAT **. This is my body.”

Clearly, more than spiritual food.

Jon

Well, if I may tweak a bit.

I don’t believe it is ALWAYS necessary to speak of John 6 ONLY in support of the Last Supper.

Indeed, the CC teaches that there are multiple layers to Scripture and that there is not an ALWAYS and ONLY for each and every verse.

 

[Kristin234]

God uses people. And in the case of the Bible, God used Catholic people to discern what books belonged in the Bible and what books didn’t…

Exactly. That is what I said.

I have no problem that the Church chose what books would go in the Bible.

Men however did not author it. God is the author of the Bible.

And I acknowledge that it is God’s word. That is why I quote it.

 

[JonNC]

Well, if I may tweak a bit.

I don’t believe it is ALWAYS necessary to speak of John 6 ONLY in support of the Last Supper.

Indeed, the CC teaches that there are multiple layers to Scripture and that there is not an ALWAYS and ONLY for each and every verse.

Let me then add a preface to my statement regarding “always” and “only”, and that would be, “when speaking with a brother or sister Christian who does not discern the real presence of in the Supper,…”

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I have no problem that the Church chose what books would go in the Bible.

Excellent!

Then you are, I presume, not a Bible-alone Christian?

And you, then, believe in the infallibility of a church?

 

[PRmerger]

Let me then add a preface to my statement regarding “always” and “only”, and that would be, “when speaking with a brother or sister Christian who does not discern the real presence of in the Supper,…”

Jon

Ah, very good then!

 

[Luvtosew]

If Jesus’ flesh profits nothing then your sins are not forgiven,
for it was only by Jesus’ flesh that the gates of heaven were opened.

So you surely can’t mean that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing.

6:63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

If then you shall see, etc. . .Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time orrect their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and onsequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.
6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The flesh profiteth nothing. . .Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to ay, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of hrist (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing.

For if Christ’s flesh had profitedus nothing, he would never have taken lesh for us, nor died in us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. Are spirit and life. . .By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall eceive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

6:65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray

This is from the DR bible a Catholic Bible. I didn’t write it Pr. No I don’t believe in the infalliabilty of the RCC, not do I think the Eucharist is the flesh and blood,

 

[PRmerger]

6:63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

If then you shall see, etc. . .Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time orrect their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and onsequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.
6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The flesh profiteth nothing. . .Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to ay, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of hrist (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing.

For if Christ’s flesh had profitedus nothing, he would never have taken lesh for us, nor died in us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. Are spirit and life. . .By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall eceive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

6:65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray

This is from the DR bible a Catholic Bible. I didn’t write it Pr.

Amen!

And Catholics are free to give a hearty amen to this commentary in the Douay-Rheims bible.

What is there in this commentary that you think refutes the dogma of the Real Presence?

No I don’t believe in the infalliabilty of the RCC,

 

[Luvtosew]

Ok lets change gears here for a minute PR if you can

Please explain Transubstantiation according to Aristotle, not the CC please, I want Aristotles difination. thank you.

 

[Luvtosew]

Hi PR,
This is why I think it is* always* necessary to speak of John 6 only in support of the Last Supper accounts. John 6 only becomes clear regarding the real presence when He speaks the words in the upper room, “Take and** EAT **. This is my body.”

Clearly, more than spiritual food.

Jon

Jon, does your church believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and do you reperpetuate the sacrifice of Christ at communion?
Also does your Church have Adoration Chapels.

I see your Catholic but Lutheran, is that right? answer only if you want, but I see that in your signature,
And what scripture are you talking about in the upper room? Thank you.

 

[Newsy]

Ok lets change gears here for a minute PR if you can

Please explain Transubstantiation according to Aristotle, not the CC please, I want Aristotles difination. thank you.

Stop. Stop now before it gets any worse. You have ceased to make sense.

You claimed a few posts back, that since Christ Ascension, we cannot partake of His flesh and Blood. Could the Apostles at the Last Supper, since He had not Ascended yet?

 

[JonNC]

=Luvtosew;8957025]Jon, does your church believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and do you reperpetuate the sacrifice of Christ at communion?
Also does your Church have Adoration Chapels.

Lutherans do not use the metaphysical constructs - transubstantiation and consubstantiation - to describe His real presence. We rely on His words, and believe that when He says, “This is my body”, He meant just that.
Not sure what you mean by reperpetuate, but I assume you mean the Catholic belief in the re-presentation. Generally, Lutherans do not use the terminology.
Adoration chapels are not used by Lutherans as we, again, attach His presence in the Eucharist to His words, “take and eat”. Generally, Lutherans restrict adoration to during the sacramental act.

I see your Catholic but Lutheran, is that right? answer only if you want, but I see that in your signature,

I’m a Lutheran who, like many, consider myself evangelical catholic. Catholic, but not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

And what scripture are you talking about in the upper room? Thank you.

I am talking about the Last Supper.

Jon

 

[Luvtosew]

Lutherans do not use the metaphysical constructs - transubstantiation and consubstantiation - to describe His real presence. We rely on His words, and believe that when He says, “This is my body”, He meant just that.
Not sure what you mean by reperpetuate, but I assume you mean the Catholic belief in the re-presentation. Generally, Lutherans do not use the terminology.
Adoration chapels are not used by Lutherans as we, again, attach His presence in the Eucharist to His words, “take and eat”. Generally, Lutherans restrict adoration to during the sacramental act.

I’m a Lutheran who, like many, consider myself evangelical catholic. Catholic, but not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I am talking about the Last Supper.

Jon

Thanks Jon,
I think my beliefs are more in line with yours, about the sacrifice at the altar and the adoration chapel.
Do yous take Communion every Sunday? Is it a host like the Catholics use? and do you take wine also?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok lets change gears here for a minute PR if you can

Please explain Transubstantiation according to Aristotle, not the CC please, I want Aristotles difination. thank you.

First let’s get this straight: the dogma is the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is the theory–you understand that, right?

While we are 100% certain that Jesus is present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, the process of how this happens (transubstantiation) is the working theory. It’s not the dogma, but it’s the best we have so far.

As far as explaining Transubstantiation according to Aristotle, you do know that Aristotle did not define the Real Presence, as he lived 300 years before Christ, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Jon, does your church believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and do you reperpetuate the sacrifice of Christ at communion?

I hope that you are not under the misapprehension, Luv, that Catholics re-sacrifice Christ at Mass.

You know that this is not the correct understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, right?

 

[Luvtosew]

I hope that you are not under the misapprehension, Luv, that Catholics re-sacrifice Christ at Mass.

You know that this is not the correct understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, right?

Yes I know when Aristotle lived, but that is where the word transubstantiation comes from.

Another quest.

1. Now does the person who receives the Eucharist need to believe that it is the real flesh, real blood, soul and divinity of Christ to receive any benefit? (I know we are not to take unworthingly)
2. Or does it matter if the person who receives doesn’t believe it is the flesh and blood, would that person still receive the benefit?

and also can you explain the sacrifice of the Mass to me. thank you.

 

[JonNC]

=Luvtosew;8957092]Thanks Jon,
I think my beliefs are more in line with yours, about the sacrifice at the altar and the adoration chapel.

Certainly, ours is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. As for adoration outside the sacramental act, I’m personally not opposed to it.

Do yous take Communion every Sunday? Is it a host like the Catholics use? and do you take wine also?

I am diligently working within my parish to see to it that we offer it weekly, as I believe that it is the responsibility of the Church to do so. Currently, it is every 1st, 3rd and 5th Sundays, and other important holidays.
Not sure what you mean by “host”, but yes, we use unleavened bread (a wafer) and wine, as Christ used. However, I wouldn’t say we “take” wine. We* receive* the true body and blood of Christ.

Jon

 

[Newsy]

Yes I know when Aristotle lived, but that is where the word transubstantiation comes from.

Huh? Aristotle came up with the term transubstantiation? I would like a reference please.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks Jon,
I think my beliefs are more in line with yours,

Just a friendly word of advice, Luv: in your faith journey, looking for a church that espouses “beliefs [that] are more in line with” your* own* is treading on dangerous waters, IMHO.

Is that not the essence of creating a god in one’s *own *image?

Rather, should not a Christian conform her beliefs to Christ’s?

YOU (and I) should be changing our beliefs, not finding a church that agrees with us!