Why so many Protestant denominations

[c659smith]

Justforasking 4

In John chapter 14 p 12

Jesus states Amen amen I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do and still do greater ones than these.

Now do not give me a translation of what you beleive but tell me where the bible states in plain english, greek, etc… where you are saved by faith alone. Give me the clear cut sentence and not something added in by Martin Luther who was no prophet or Aapostle or something perceived to mean.

I have given you the truth

Jesus states eat my body and drink my blood and you shall have eternal life, for my Body is true ( food) and my blood is true ( Drink )

Now this was not a parable and was mentioned over and over again by Jesus. He did not say this is a symbol but a fact

Amen Amen I say to you.

If you do not eat my body and drink my blood you shall have no life within you. Again he did not ever refer this as a parable or say this is a symbol but a fact and was repeated over and over.

Now thats the truth

Jesus lost many a follower because of this truth. Are you saying then Jesus lost thousands of sheep rather than explain that He meant symbolism and let them go to hell?

Now that’s not truth.

John 19-42 p 21-23 In speaking with the Apostles Jesus breated on them and said

Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins they are forgiven. If you don’t forgive them they are not forgiven.

Well this sounds serious to me and not sybolism. Sounds like I better go to confession.

Now this is truth.

This is not conjecture.

This is the Bible

My body is true ( truth ) food and my blood is true (truth) drink whoever eats my body and drinks my blood shall have eternal life. If you do not eat my body and drink my blood you shall have no life within you.

This is what the bible says and this is what is followed by the Catholic Church,

 

[2ndGen]

It is the protestant denoms which support Bible reading and Bible believing. Carry a Bible to your church and read the Bible and believe every word literally unless…the Bible supports the Catholic Church on any issue. Then and only then the reader must find a reason that the words don’t mean what they obviously mean. When one goes that route …well as Martin Luther said; " I didn’t want a pope but now I have a hundred."

LOL!

Sans the “demon” quote, you’re spot on!

LOL!

 

[COGHOBDOJ]

It is the protestant denoms which support Bible reading and Bible believing. Carry a Bible to your church and read the Bible and believe every word literally unless…the Bible supports the Catholic Church on any issue. Then and only then the reader must find a reason that the words don’t mean what they obviously mean. When one goes that route …well as Martin Luther said; " I didn’t want a pope but now I have a hundred."

This is a great mischaractature. I don’t prescribe to this line of thinking.

There are great debates that I won’t rehash that deal with, “Then and only then the reader must find a reason that the words don’t mean what they obviously mean.”

 

[COGHOBDOJ]

Justforasking 4

Jesus states eat my body and drink my blood and you shall have eternal life, for my Body is true ( food) and my blood is true ( Drink )

Now this was not a parable and was mentioned over and over again by Jesus. He did not say this is a symbol but a fact

Amen Amen I say to you.

If you do not eat my body and drink my blood you shall have no life within you. Again he did not ever refer this as a parable or say this is a symbol but a fact and was repeated over and over.

My body is true ( truth ) food and my blood is true (truth) drink whoever eats my body and drinks my blood shall have eternal life. If you do not eat my body and drink my blood you shall have no life within you.

I’m not mad at you. I’m not trying to argue. I just like understanding the beliefs. I’m asking these things to understand, not to prove you wrong or prove me right. I’d really like to understand.

What indicates it was not a parable? Why can’t that be compared to a mustard seed of faith can move mountains? Or tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days? What indicates what is a parable and what isn’t?

Some examples of salvation scriptures not mentioning works:

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Free gift is important here, isn’t it?

**Romans 10:9-10 **“That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

No mention of works, but confession with mouth and belief with the heart resulting in righteousness and salvation.

Romans 14:16-17 “Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the Kindom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

Righteousness comes from faith. It was Abraham’s FAITH that he was credited with righteousness. Not his acts.

Ephesians 2:8-10 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

We are created for good works and should walk in them, but its not needed for salvation.

Strangely enough, I think once saved, we should have fruits of good works. I believe faith without works is dead. That scripture seems to me a warning and encouragment to have a healthy fear of The Lord. Sort of like spiritual maintenance.

As for the Eucharist, I don’t understand why we have to believe it is actually His Body and His Blood? We celebrate communion at my church. Why is it required each Mass or weekly?

Thanks for your consideration and comments.

 

[jmcrae]

As for the Eucharist, I don’t understand why we have to believe it is actually His Body and His Blood?

Because He held up the communion bread and said, “This is my Body,” and then He held up the chalice of wine and said, “This is my blood,” that’s why. Is not Christ’s word good enough for you?

We celebrate communion at my church. Why is it required each Mass or weekly?

Because this is our worship. The Jews in the Temple offered lambs for the forgiveness of their sins, and they had to eat the meat of the lamb in order to receive the forgiveness of their sins.

In the same way, we offer up the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ on our altars, and Jesus told us that in order to receive eternal life, we must eat it. (John 6:57)

 

[2ndGen]

This is a great mischaractature. I don’t prescribe to this line of thinking.

There are great debates that I won’t rehash that deal with, “Then and only then the reader must find a reason that the words don’t mean what they obviously mean.”

Teach him COG!

 

[estesbob]

I’m not mad at you. I’m not trying to argue. I just like understanding the beliefs. I’m asking these things to understand, not to prove you wrong or prove me right. I’d really like to understand.

What indicates it was not a parable? Why can’t that be compared to a mustard seed of faith can move mountains? Or tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days? What indicates what is a parable and what isn’t?

If it was a parable by did the Apostles tell him it was a hard teaching and why did he lose so many followers. And why was the belief that he was speaking literally believed by nearly all from the earliest Christin for over a thousand years? i know you dont like to talk about Church history but what happened to prove all who went before the “reformers” wrong?

 

[COGHOBDOJ]

If it was a parable by did the Apostles tell him it was a hard teaching and why did he lose so many followers. And why was the belief that he was speaking literally believed by nearly all from the earliest Christin for over a thousand years? i know you dont like to talk about Church history but what happened to prove all who went before the “reformers” wrong?

Maybe it was a hard teaching because they were trying to understand it literally?

I don’t know why He lost so many followers. Probably same reasons some today don’t follow Him at all, or why some today hear His teachings and deny Him of Who He Is. Or give up following Him before recieving Him as Savior.

Please restate your last sentence. I don’t understand your intent.

 

[estesbob]

Maybe it was a hard teaching because they were trying to understand it literally?

I don’t know why He lost so many followers. Probably same reasons some today don’t follow Him at all, or why some today hear His teachings and deny Him of Who He Is. Or give up following Him before recieving Him as Savior.

Please restate your last sentence. I don’t understand your intent.

If those who stood by his side took him litertally why would you doubt it?

That Jesus was speaking literally was universally beleieved by all Christans for over a thousand years. What specal insight did the “reformers” have that escaped all who went before them?

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe it was a hard teaching because they were trying to understand it literally?

If they were wrong about trying to understand it literally, then why didn’t He correct them?

Instead, a few days later, He held up the Communion bread and said, “This is my body,” and then He held up the chalice of wine and said, “This is my blood,” and passed them around for the Apostles to eat and drink them, just as He had commanded them to do, on that earlier day. Then, He said, “Do this in memory of Me,” using the same word that is used for the memorial of the Passover, so, we do this, for the same reasons that the Jews continue to participate in the Passover.

Just as Jews in the Temple offered lambs for the forgiveness of their sins, and ate the meat of the lamb in order to receive the forgiveness of their sins, so also, we offer up the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ on our altars, and eat it for the forgiveness of our sins. (John 6:57)

 

[2ndGen]

If they were wrong about trying to understand it literally, then why didn’t He correct them?

Jesus doesn’t impose Himself.
He speaks in ways that only those who seek, will find.
In other words, He meets you 1/2 way.
The worker must earn his keep.
We have to meet Him the rest of the way.

The Pharisees had it all layed in their laps and look at what they did with it.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus doesn’t impose Himself.
He speaks in ways that only those who seek, will find.
In other words, He meets you 1/2 way.
The worker must earn his keep.
We have to meet Him the rest of the way.

The Pharisees had it all layed in their laps and look at what they did with it.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say, here. Are you trying to say that Jesus did not mean it literally? Or what?

 

[COGHOBDOJ]

Jesus doesn’t impose Himself.
He speaks in ways that only those who seek, will find.
In other words, He meets you 1/2 way.
The worker must earn his keep.
We have to meet Him the rest of the way.

The Pharisees had it all layed in their laps and look at what they did with it.

As Stephen Colbert would say, “Get off the fence! We’re at WAR!!!”

 

[c659smith]

COGHOGDOJ

Jesus is not saying there once was.
Jesus is not talking about an inanimate subject.
Jesus is not telling a story.

Jesus is stating a fact here.

Why is it that you profess us Catholics do not read the Bible and when we give you facts on what the bible states the protestants
have a million and one excuses or translations on what the bible should mean or tell me what facts are suppose to mean.

Jesus was plan as fact in what I have quoted and yet you still do not believe…

 

[COGHOBDOJ]

Why is it that you profess us Catholics do not read the Bible and when we give you facts on what the bible states the protestants
have a million and one excuses or translations on what the bible should mean or tell me what facts are suppose to mean.

Why is it that you put words into my mouth? You are mistaking me for someone else.

Don’t project yesterday’s arguments and accusations with some other poster on me.

 

[c659smith]

coghobdoj

is the below post not your?

If the shoe fits

I guess I just think you and I can walk our walks and be secure enough in ourselves and where God has us to talk openly about it. Your responses to my post indicate to me that you are more worried about my walk than I am. You seem to have something to prove to me because you are telling me to change and I am saying if you are growing where you are, stay there.

I’m not surprised that churches split and many denominations exist. Why wouldn’t they when churches are made up of people who are saved, but still live in the flesh in a sinful world. Where you and I disagree is the ramifications or the consequences of different church denominations.

My priority is spiritual development, growing closer to Christ and having my spirit and my mind transformed into that of Christ. I don’t believe I have to take part in Sacraments to do that. The bible teaches me to do that.

Now, sure, we disagree on the details about Sacraments. I know that’s a big deal. But, we’ll just have to allow ourselves to have that difference.

My constant argument for that, should you choose to read on is that why would practice of the sacraments be important if I can do those things with the wrong heart? The Pharisee’s fulfilled the law PERFECTLY, but Jesus “slapped” them around constantly for not having the right heart.

I’m not rehashing the debates for or against requirement of sacraments. We will disagree, that will not change. But, I know I’m on the road to having a spiritual change in the environment I’m currently in. That’s good enough for me, I see the fruits, I’m secure in Christ, I’m working my own deal out with God, I’m not convicted or condemned, I’m AT PEACE.

I’m not hurt by your words. I respect your faith and where you’re at.

I’m not explaining why I’m here anymore to you. I’ve answered your question, you’ve ignored my answer and substituted your own answer for yourself. Conversation with you is not fruitful.

Be Blessed

 

[O.S.Luke]

Of course you cant explain it. The very nature of being a Protestant requires one to ignore the history of the Church from the the monent Jesus acscended until the “reformers came along”

Untrue, bigoted, and vitriolic.

 

[O.S.Luke]

No, but in order to be a Protestant, you would have to believe that Martin Luther was better than God at setting up a Church, since they are members of a church that follows the idea of Martin Luther that any man can read the Bible and set up his own church;

This is a factually untrue statement.

 

[Kay_Cee]

2nd Gen:

Please answer my question. Post #437.

Thank you.

 

[lucy212]

Of course you cant explain it. The very nature of being a Protestant requires one to ignore the history of the Church from the the monent Jesus acscended until the “reformers came along” Your denomination is in no way comprable to what was beleived prior to when these men started creating new religions.

No, but in order to be a Protestant, you would have to believe that Martin Luther was better than God at setting up a Church, since they are members of a church that follows the idea of Martin Luther that any man can read the Bible and set up his own church; they are not members of God’s Church that Christ Himself set up, with St. Peter in charge.

Contrary to what you may think, the Lutheran Church was not “made up from scratch”. The full Matrix of the Deposit of Faith handed down ,including the Liturgy of the Mass, the Communion of Saints, the entire history of the Church, her struggles to keep the faith in the face of many heresies, trials, and corruptions, and (surprise) Mariology…and that’s just for starters.

The Book of Concord contains documents which Christians from the early Church to the 16th that represents the Deposit of Faith. It includes, first, the creeds which originated in the ancient church, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. It contains, secondly, the Reformation writings known as the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms, and the Formula of Concord.
And this is just the beginning.
There is also the Appendix: Catalog of Testimonies…(1580)
by Jakob Andreae, 1528-1590 and Martin Chemnitz, 1522-1586.
sections include:
Scripture, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Damascenus.
Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Cyril, Theodoret, Leo, Vigilus, Nicephorus.
Eustachius, Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Eurissa, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Crysostom, Theophylact, Cyril, Theodoret, Leo, Damascenus, Nicephorus.
Hillary, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Epiphanius, Cyril, Augustine, Thodoret, Damascenus.
Cyril, Epiphanius, Augustine, Council of Ephesus, Theophylact, Damascenus.
Athanasius, Cyril.
Athanasius, Theophylact, Cyril, Theodoret, Damascenus.
Origen, Augustine.
Theophylact, Leo.
Theophylact, Chrysostum,