Know church history well but stay protestant

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus said the church needed authority on doctrine ( power to bind and loose) and structure ( succession, office of keys). It’s also clearly reflected in early letters, describing sacraments and episcopal authority.

Indeed the prime Protestant doctrine “ sola scriptura “ is a problem, scripture says the church ( not scripture) is the “foundation of truth” and New Testament canon, was not only a product of the church ( both what was selected and deselected), it wasn’t there for early Christians which “ handed down the faith” “ as Jesus handed to me, I hand down to you”. The present meaning of the word “tradition “ confuses what it really meant “ paradoseis” teachings handed down. The church was not even sola scriptura in Old Testament times. As witness the Mishnah.

Sadly without authority and tradition Protestant churches drift apart, and schism endlessly, they have no means to resolve their differences in interpretation of scripture.
Scripture is God's breath, according the bible. Who says who we don't have authority? There's bishops in every protestant group, you think each of the protestant is the king of their own? When there's 10 believer gathered as a church, we don't need a pope to tell us what to do, there will be leader among us, we live our lives base on God's words.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes but what is scripture? Who chose the canon? Look it up.
Apostolic succession matters.
Not random selection of bishops.
Go back to first principles :
If sola scriptura worked, why are you all poles apart , even opposite on doctrine?

. There can only be one truth. You can’t all have it.
There is one eucharist. Profaning it can be fatal. The meaning of scripture was truth handed down with it. Eg Read johns disciples to see what it was.

Scripture is God's breath, according the bible. Who says who we don't have authority? There's bishops in every protestant group, you think each of the protestant is the king of their own? When there's 10 believer gathered as a church, we don't need a pope to tell us what to do, there will be leader among us, we live our lives base on God's words.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes but what is scripture? Who chose the canon? Look it up.
Apostolic succession matters.
Not random selection of bishops.
Go back to first principles :
If sola scriptura worked, why are you all poles apart , even opposite on doctrine?

. There can only be one truth. You can’t all have it.
There is one eucharist. Profaning it can be fatal. The meaning of scripture was truth handed down with it. Eg Read johns disciples to see what it was.
It was someone from the roman church corrupted first you remember? Did Jesus approve selling indulgences teaching sins can be forgiven using money?!
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It was someone from the roman church corrupted first you remember? Did Jesus approve selling indulgences teaching sins can be forgiven using money?!
No but neither did the Catholic Church approve it. The pope spoke out at the council of Trent against it.

If luther had not been such a hot head , he might have waited, instead of which he fractured Protestantism to bits with the falasy sola scriptura,

The Catholic Church has lots of sinners! In all ranks! Including bishops fund raising efforts. Not surprising it is bigger than most.

But it was empowered to choose the New Testament which it did over centuries. It handed down the tradition which said what scriptur means. You don’t get to choose what the Eucharist is. Jesus decided that.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The problem with that favorite argument--it took tradition to create the Bible--is that once we have it, we have it. You are trying always to say that the way Scripture was delivered by God to Mankind eliminates Scripture's value. That is simply untrue.

For example, if drillers hit a gusher and find oil...they have oil! And it does all that oil does for us. You cannot say that because it took some work and some time to find it, that once we have it we actually DO NOT have it or, worse, it doesn't work like energy does! o_O It is what it is.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The problem with that favorite argument--it took tradition to create the Bible--is that once we have it, we have it. You are trying always to say that the way Scripture was delivered by God to Mankind eliminates Scripture's value. That is simply untrue.

For example, if drillers hit a gusher and find oil...they have oil! And it does all that oil does for us. You cannot say that because it took some work and some time to find it, that once we have it we actually DO NOT have it or, worse, it doesn't work like energy does! o_O
I never said tradition eliminated scriptures value.
I said it gave meaning to it.
like - you no longer have a choice on whether eucharist is real presence - tradition said it is “real flesh”
Also. Scripture is not written as a manual or easy to understand .
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I never said it eliminated scriptures value.
That's true, and it is what your own church says also--that the Bible is the word of God, divine revelation. However, your argument against Sola Scriptura takes the form of denigrating Scripture, not just criticizing the "Sola" part of the term.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That's true, and it is what your own church says also--that the Bible is the word of God, divine revelation. However, your argument against Sola Scriptura takes the form of denigrating Scripture, not just criticizing the "Sola" part of the term.
How long have we known each other? I have never denigrated it.

But i do think even translators have made mischevious alteration of meaning! To suit their own purpose.

We have discussed handing down - paradoseis - translated as handing down, teaching one place , elsewhere “ traditions” ( could it be the Kjv was a Protestant endeavour, wanting to down play paradosis? )

What about John 3:36 which kjv says is “believe “ , a Greek word which normally means obey ( as of ordinances some are works)
Could it be sleight of hand by a “ sola Fidei” believer, worried about the connotations of obey?

there are lots of these if you know where to look!


Paradosis is needed to know what it all means, not just says!
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But i do think even translators have made mischevious alteration of meaning! To suit their own purpose.
Well, of course we have to deal with proper translations. But if this is a concern of yours, there is no doubt at all but that "tradition" is much less tidy, uniform, agreed-upon, identifiable, etc. than is the Bible!

The various Catholic-type churches (RC, EO, OO, OC, etc., etc.) all claim to follow Sacred Tradition and yet no two of them have come up with the same list of dogmas that are attributed to that Sacred Tradition.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No but neither did the Catholic Church approve it. The pope spoke out at the council of Trent against it.

If luther had not been such a hot head , he might have waited, instead of which he fractured Protestantism to bits with the falasy sola scriptura,

The Catholic Church has lots of sinners! In all ranks! Including bishops fund raising efforts. Not surprising it is bigger than most.

But it was empowered to choose the New Testament which it did over centuries. It handed down the tradition which said what scriptur means. You don’t get to choose what the Eucharist is. Jesus decided that.
Protestant are bunch of catholic, the small 'c' means we hold to the teaching of the apostle, according the bible aka the words of God. Regarding authority, nope we don't recognise one person as our sole Bishop. If you study the early church there are 12 apotoles,and even after that did any of the students of the apostle became the head student? Yes but there are all over the places, no single authority raised up and claim authority over other groups.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Protestant are bunch of catholic, the small 'c' means we hold to the teaching of the apostle, according the bible aka the words of God. Regarding authority, nope we don't recognise one person as our sole Bishop. If you study the early church there are 12 apotoles,and even after that did any of the students of the apostle became the head student? Yes but there are all over the places, no single authority raised up and claim authority over other groups.
Slow down. Read. Edit. Punctuate. I’ve no idea what you are trying to say in places!
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There are many reports of bleeding hosts and weeping icons, etc. I haven't carefully researched any of them or of flowers blooming at the wrong time of year, but you can basically list me as a skeptic when it comes to these kinds of "miracles."
You should study them.

They are backed by top league forensic scientists, who say inexplicable. Not just one group but a lot of scientists in a lot of countries, many phenomena, many kinds. Fraud is ruled out. Journalists who have spent a lifetime exposing frauds ended up convinced and converting.
 
Upvote 0

FaithT

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2019
2,349
646
Midwest
✟153,209.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You should study them.

They are backed by top league forensic scientists, who say inexplicable. Not just one group but a lot of scientists in a lot of countries, many phenomena, many kinds. Fraud is ruled out. Journalists who have spent a lifetime exposing frauds ended up convinced and converting.
That’s what I’ve been thinking about. Lutheranism doesn’t acknowledge these miracles, although one of my pastors didn’t deny them, saying God can do anything (I think my other pastor disbelieves them). If they’re NOT miracles, then how do disbelievers explain them?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Some of the claims may be bogus. Others may be unexplained, but that doesn't mean they're proven true.

There are, in fact, all sorts of mysteries of nature or oddities involving optical illusions, etc. etc. and science remains baffled.

We do not automatically believe all of these to be miracles. They might be miracles, but if a person doesn't state, flat out, that he is convinced that they are exactly that, some other people are going to conclude that that person is hostile to the idea of God performing miracles even if he believes that some other events were indeed miracles (as often is the case).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That’s what I’ve been thinking about. Lutheranism doesn’t acknowledge these miracles, although one of my pastors didn’t deny them, saying God can do anything (I think my other pastor disbelieves them). If they’re NOT miracles, then how do disbelievers explain them?
My experience is they don’t explain them.

They call it “ woo woo” - they refuse to even read the science and they assume they can be faked, but never explain how. Same as the shroud.

( I have a lot of such discussions on the atheist parts of this forum, and elsewhere)

There are many problems with the assertion of fake.
1/ the bread is so intermingled with flesh at the edges it is impossible to see how it could be faked. ( on tixtla blood was believed to have pushed out of bread not in)
2/ they test positive for human flesh , are validated as beaten heart myocardium, and blood but they don’t yield nuclear DNA ( which they would With a fake) but some yield mitochondrial ( maternal ) DNA( also true of such as the statue of cochabamba)
3/ white cells cannot survive in vitro or post mortem for more than hours, but are visible years on in vivo! That is proof of life, and forensic scientists say it is inexplicable/ impossible . (It also disproves Darwin’s theory by the criteria. Darwin set!)
4/ the development of flesh is always progressive over a period. It doesn’t suddenly appear.

I simply can’t get non believers to look at the forensics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
There are many problems with the assertion of fake.
1/ the bread is so intermingled with flesh at the edges it is impossible to see how it could be faked. ( on tixtla blood was believed to have pushed out of bread not in)
2/ they test positive for human flesh , are validated as beaten heart myocardium, and blood but they don’t yield nuclear DNA ( which they would of the victim) but some yield mitochondrial ( maternal ) DNA( also true of such as the statue of cochabamba)
3/ white cells cannot survive in vitro or post mortem for more than hours, but are visible years on in vivo! That is proof of life, and forensic scientists say it is inexplicable/ impossible . (It also disproves Darwin’s theory by the criteria. Darwin set!)
4/ the development of flesh is always progressive over a period. It doesn’t suddenly appear.

I simply can’t get non believers to look at the forensics.
On the other hand, if the science does prove a change in the elements to literal flesh and blood, the doctrine of Transubstantiation is disproved and a significant part of the Roman Catholic Church's theory of Sacred Tradition and "ecumenical" councils other than the original seven along with it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
On the other hand, if the science does prove a change in the elements to literal flesh and blood, the doctrine of Transubstantiation is disproved and a significant part of the Roman Catholic Church's theory of Sacred Tradition and "ecumenical" councils other than the original seven along with it.
Albion. Even you believe in transubstantiation. Assuming you believe water turned into wine at Cana. As for what something looks like, senses are easily deceived.

Had you considered how demeaning it is to God to tell Him, that he can’t possibly make something look different?

You are putting limits on God. He made the universe. He made it look how He wanted. He can change what it is, or how it looks, or both.

He tells us it “ is” his flesh. It is changed.
We know it looks like bread.
That is transubstantiation.That is all it means.
Catholics just have faith He can do what He says.

Im guessing He is so annoyed that people have so little faith, once in a while He shows it for what it is! He knows if he normally let it look like flesh as well as be flesh, you would be squeamish, and not eat it,
Or as the early fathers said : metaousiosis
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0