Sola Scriptura defined....

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Fidelibus

That verse has to do with the very intrinsic nature of Scripture.... which is a foundation basis of the historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You should go an dread the OP. As to 1 Thess 2:13 in order to engage this verse as you have chosen to do so and be relevant to the topic there are a few things that I hope you can do.

1 Thess 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Please provide some objective evidence that what Paul delivered and they received "the word of God" is not contained with in what is normally considered Scripture by the historical proponents of Sola Scriptura.

Please provide exactly what is was that Paul told them and they heard, so it can be validated objectively against the clear teaching of said Scripture as being outside of.

In Him,

Bill

Excellent response Bill!

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

Fidelibus said:
Boring????? Moi?? That's a first!

What part of your position do you beleive I am misrepresenting?

It was you that said:

You even went on to give the definition:

Then you went on to say:

That's why I asked if your understanding/belief of "ALL" included the passages I provided. (Which I might add, you failed to address.)

So you mean that the verses I posted are not to be taken literally, but the the verses you posted are? By who's or what authority do you make this distinction?

Again, by who's "proper understanding" do we find them "necessary to be true?" Yours? your Pastor's? A T.V Evangelists?

You mean the truth as YOU see it? So all/any Catholic bloggers are in error? If memory serves me correctly, I recall you saying over on my "sign of the cross" thread. Let me see if I can find it.........

Oh yeah, here it is, post # 162:

Well, you seem to suggest Maj1 that your opinion takes precedence over PeaceB' when you say to her in post #114 reguarding John 6:

By what authority can you even suggest such a thing? And then, back on the 'sign of the cross' thread, posts 146 and 170 you say:

And you have the gall to tell PeaceB, (or anyone else for that matter) her understandings and beliefs are flawed and in error?? I hate to say it Major1, but you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth, eventually folks will start to take notice, if they haven't already.

Anyone, and I mean anyone who has been reading our conversations know exactly who is being deceitful and working to support an agenda that can not be supported rationally.

Every single person has seen how you pose straw man positions so as to try and force answers and responses from others so as to make it look like they are inept in some way.

If you do not agree with me, all you have to do is exactly what I have done to you.........
"I do not agree with your opinions my friend. You are free to believe as you choose to do so as well as am I and everyone else."

Now make sure you get this clear my friend. When I have said that..........
"You or anyone else are in error or your understanding is flawed, it is always in reference to the Protestant positions of Bible doctrine and teaching and has nothing to do with a personal situation which YOU and only YOU are trying to make it."

That is what I meant by the word ......"Tedious."

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

PeaceB said:
No, John 6 does not state "our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith" (although this is true).

This is what our Lord said:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

And this what our Lord said:

“This is my body, which is given for you."

Jesus did not state "whoever spiritually eats the flesh". Nor did Jesus state "this is a symbol of my body."

If you had more faith, you would take our Lord at what he said as true, instead of engaging in all types of eisegesis to get around the plain and obvious truth of what he said.

Look at it this way. If Jesus pointed to his chest and said "This is my body" you would not be like "No. No. When Jesus pointed to his chest he did not mean to indicate that he was referring to his body. He must have meant something else." You would simply take Jesus at his word because it "makes sense" to you when a person points to his chest and refers to it as his body. When Jesus points to bread and then states "This is my body" you cannot accept what Jesus said on faith, because such a thing does not "make sense" to you logically.

I will tell you this as a friend. If you apply less human logic, and have more faith in our Lord, you will be able to take him at his Word.

You can start by approaching our Lord in honest prayer tonight, and asking him with an open heart to teach you whether he truly meant what he said.

Thank you for your concerns and your opinion. I am also very blessed to know that we are friends!!!!

However, I have to disagree on your teachings and opinions on the Scriptures given to you.

You correctly posted John 6:54-56 which say...........
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

And this what our Lord said:
“This is my body, which is given for you.

Jesus did not state "whoever spiritually eats the flesh". Nor did Jesus state "this is a symbol of my body."

My dear friend and sister, allow me to say to you that just like Protestants, you and Catholics do not take Jesus' words, “This is my body...this is my blood” in a strictly literal sense, for they do not really believe that the bread is Jesus’ body or that the wine is Jesus’ blood.

The literal meaning – “This bread is my body; this wine is my blood” -- is a contradiction in terms. Bread is bread, not a human body; wine is wine, not blood. To explain away the obvious empirical facts, clever Catholic theologians many years ago came up with this idea of transubstantiation.
In other words, what appears to be bread is not bread at all, and though it has all the characteristics of bread, it is in reality (or in substance) the body of Christ! Although this is usually considered a literal interpretation, it is strictly speaking not so.

It is a great misconception, and deception that the words of Christ, “This is my body...this is my blood,” prove the doctrine of transubstantiation, because those words are more naturally understood......... “This bread represents my body...this wine represents my blood,” rather than “This apparent bread is my substantial body...this apparent wine is my substantial blood.”

I apologize for the length of my response to your comment, but I felt it necessary. If you choose not to read all of this I completely understand. However, as always there may be others that have the same understanding as you and they may need to read this.

I think that everyone can agree that the purpose of the Eucharist is a remembrance, a memorial, of Christ. After His bodily ascension into heaven, Christ is physically absent from His disciples on earth for many centuries until His second coming. So at the last supper with His disciples, He gave us a memorial that is both simple and profound in its significance:

1 Cor. 11:24-25 tells us that fact.............
"When He had given thanks, He broke [the bread] and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” .

Just as the Passover meal was a reminder of God's deliverance of His people from the slavery in Egypt, even so in the Lord's Supper shows the story of our redemption from the slavery of sin by the sacrifice of Christ. Bread and wine are appropriate symbols to remind us of His crucified body and the blood shed on Calvary.

Now please consider that when Jesus said, “This is my body,” He was physically present with the disciples. They could see, hear and touch him. John was actually leaning on His bosom. So when Jesus took bread and said, “This is my body,” it was only natural for the apostles to understand that the bread was the symbol rather than His actual body. The tangible proof that the bread did not become Jesus’ body, is the bodily, physical, substantial and material presence of the man Jesus Christ standing with the apostles.

Similarly, when He said, “This is my blood,” Jesus added, “…which is shed for you.” Which blood shed for us? The wine in the cup or the blood in Jesus' veins? Since the wine was never shed, it must represent the blood that was actually shed on the cross.

It is impossible to consistently interpret Jesus words literally. We have four slightly different accounts of Jesus' words relating to the cup and blood:

1). “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).

2). “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many” (Mark 14:24

3). “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).

4). “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25).

Now you are welcome to disagree with me and I expect that you will, but I ask you to please consider the Bible meanings of the four accounts correspond to each other. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul are essentially saying the same thing using different words.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to take “This is my blood” in Matthew and Mark either literally or figuratively. But could we say the same for Luke and Paul? Definitely not! “This cup is the new covenant.”

The literal interpretation is absurd and meaningless -- certainly the cup is not literally the new testament! The wine is not transubstantiated into the new testament. The Holy Spirit who inspired these words employed a phraseology that simply cannot be understood literally. We should forced to acknowledge that the cup is the sign of the new testament in Christ's blood and not literally the testament or the blood.

If you do not accept that, it is fine with me. I am NOT condemning you in any way for what you believe, only explaining to you from the Bible what I and most all Protestants understand and believe.

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

PeaceB said:
Here is what Martin Luther said about the epistle to the Hebrews:

Hitherto we have had the right certain chief books of the New Testament. The four following had, in ancient times, a different reputation. In the first place, that this Epistle is not St. Paul’s, nor any other apostle’s is proved by the fact that it says, in Hebrews 2:3, that this doctrine has come to us and remains among us through those who themselves heard it from the Lord. Thus it is clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom this doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after them. For St. Paul, in Galatians 1:1, testifies mightily that he has his Gospel from no man, neither through men, but from God Himself.

Again, there is a hard knot in the fact that in chapters 6 and 10 it flatly denies and forbids to sinners repentance after baptism, and in Hebrews 12:17, it says that Esau sought repentance and did not find it. This seems, as it stands, to be against all the Gospels and St. Paul’s epistles; and although one might make a gloss on it, the words are so clear that I do not know whether that would be sufficient. My opinion is that it is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it does not deal with any one subject in an orderly way.

However that may be, it is a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and thoroughly, out of the Scriptures, and interprets the Old Testament finely and richly. Thus it is plain that it is the work of an able and learned man, who was a disciple of the apostles, learned much from them, and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in Hebrews 6:1, he does not lay the foundation of faith, which is the work of an apostle, nevertheless he does build finely thereon gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12. Therefore we should not be hindered, even though wood, straw or hay be mixed in with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.

Who wrote it is not known, and will not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should be satisfied with the doctrine that he bases so constantly on the Scriptures, showing a right fine grasp upon the reading of the Scriptures and the proper way to deal with them. (Luther's Works, Volume 35, pp. 394-395)

As you can see, Martin Luther rejected Hebrews as the inspired word of God (as well as Jude, Revelation, and James, which he called an "epistle of straw".)

So why don't you tell me. Did Martin Luther, who invented Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and many of the other Protestant doctrines that you hold, not have the Spirit of God, or did he not have a desire to know? Why is it that the father of the Protestant Reformation got wrong something that is "so simple" to understand?

And why do you not recognize 7 books of Scripture that the vast majority of Christians throughout history have recognized? Is it because you do not have the Spirit of God, or is it because you do not have a desire to know?

From what I remember, none of these books makes an explicit claim to be part of the NT canon, but please correct me if I am wrong. I would be interested in seeing the chapters and the verses if I have missed them.

The Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church also holds Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to be the inspired word of God, of course.

I already answered this question, but I will answer it again in a way that should be more clear to you.

Doctrine: The books known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 -3 John, Jude, and Revelation, and only these books, comprise the inspired word of God known as the New Testament.

That is "doctrine from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about". The text of the Bible itself does not contain any such doctrinal statement, yet all Christians are required to believe this doctrine.

Your question was............
"Did Martin Luther, who invented Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and many of the other Protestant doctrines that you hold, not have the Spirit of God, or did he not have a desire to know? Why is it that the father of the Protestant Reformation got wrong something that is "so simple" to understand?"

I am always amazed at how Catholic will use Martin Luther, whom that despise to support something that they want to promote.

My first thought is the same one I have always said. The fact is that Luther DID NOT remove Hebrews from the canon because it was God Himself who decided what books would be in the canon no matter who said anything.

Then second thought is that with a little study, it can be found that Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon because he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide.

Then you asked me...........
"And why do you not recognize 7 books of Scripture that the vast majority of Christians throughout history have recognized? Is it because you do not have the Spirit of God, or is it because you do not have a desire to know?"

Have YOU actually read the books in the Apocrypha???? WHY do I reject them???? Many reasons.......

1). Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

2). Just to show you how things can be twisted for ones own purposes, My friend @Fidelibus has argued that the book of Hebrews should not be in the canon because IT NEVER CLAIMS IT IS INSPIRED.
BUT-----None of the apocryphal writers claim to the inspiration of their productions.

3). The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

4). The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion).

5). The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

6). The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7). It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.

8). No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

Now the question must be asked to YOU.....Why do Catholic want the Apocrypha in the canon???????

The ONLY reason is that is supports Catholic doctrines which are not found anywhere else and even condemned in the Bible itself......some of those are.................

1). Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

2). Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

3). Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.

4).Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

Open Heart said:
Please illustrate the circle of my so called circular reasoning.

I completely accept 2 Tim 3:16. I'm simply saying that it the verse doesn't specify which books are God breathed. We know from other verses in the New Testament that at the time Paul wrote, that the Torah and the Prophets were the books considered Scripture.

You HAVE to have an authority that God speaks through declare the canon of scripture, in order to apply 2 Tim 3:16.

I disagree with you respectfully.

Post #131......
"We cannot say that the NT is without error if we cannot agree on which books are without error."

But we can say that sister. The Scriptures do IMO "Specify" which books are in the canon........"ALL" means that ALL the books in the canon were put there by God as THEY were inspired by God.

Fidelibus · Nov 16, 2017

Major1 said:
Why would you need to copy and paste questions from a 2007 forum site, Word for word.

I know Maj1 that being unified with others in ones faith is foreign among your non-denominational sects. Like I've said to you time and time again....why wouldn't or shouldn't I use use words from my fellow Catholics which I am in full communion with? Sheesh!

Besides.... can you honestly say you have never ever copy and pasted from other web-sites to use here?

IF you had the time to do that, why not spend the time in actual Bible study????

How do you know I'm not...... some kind of crystal ball or something?

Please read comment #138 as it explains the answer to the question you used from others to ask.

Really Maj1.....can you honestly say you have never ever copy and pasted from other web-sites to use here? Remember...... lying is a sin.

Besides......Why do you always ignore my questions by whom or what authority makes your understanding of scripture believable?

Fidelibus · Nov 16, 2017

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Fidelibus

That verse has to do with the very intrinsic nature of Scripture.... which is a foundation basis of the historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You should go an dread the OP. As to 1 Thess 2:13 in order to engage this verse as you have chosen to do so and be relevant to the topic there are a few things that I hope you can do.

1 Thess 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Please provide some objective evidence that what Paul delivered and they received "the word of God" is not contained with in what is normally considered Scripture by the historical proponents of Sola Scriptura.

Please provide exactly what is was that Paul told them and they heard, so it can be validated objectively against the clear teaching of said Scripture as being outside of.

In Him,

Bill

Hey Bill. Hope you don't mind me providing some info from the Catholic Church and Her members like a certain person on this forum does. From Scripture Catholic web site:

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 – Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 – Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 – the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 – Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 – Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 – Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 – continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 – James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

PeaceB · Nov 16, 2017

Major1 said:
Thank you for your concerns and your opinion. I am also very blessed to know that we are friends!!!!

However, I have to disagree on your teachings and opinions on the Scriptures given to you.

You correctly posted John 6:54-56 which say...........
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

And this what our Lord said:
“This is my body, which is given for you.

Jesus did not state "whoever spiritually eats the flesh". Nor did Jesus state "this is a symbol of my body."

My dear friend and sister, allow me to say to you that just like Protestants, you and Catholics do not take Jesus' words, “This is my body...this is my blood” in a strictly literal sense, for they do not really believe that the bread is Jesus’ body or that the wine is Jesus’ blood.

The literal meaning – “This bread is my body; this wine is my blood” -- is a contradiction in terms. Bread is bread, not a human body; wine is wine, not blood. To explain away the obvious empirical facts, clever Catholic theologians many years ago came up with this idea of transubstantiation.
In other words, what appears to be bread is not bread at all, and though it has all the characteristics of bread, it is in reality (or in substance) the body of Christ! Although this is usually considered a literal interpretation, it is strictly speaking not so.

It is a great misconception, and deception that the words of Christ, “This is my body...this is my blood,” prove the doctrine of transubstantiation, because those words are more naturally understood......... “This bread represents my body...this wine represents my blood,” rather than “This apparent bread is my substantial body...this apparent wine is my substantial blood.”

I apologize for the length of my response to your comment, but I felt it necessary. If you choose not to read all of this I completely understand. However, as always there may be others that have the same understanding as you and they may need to read this.

I think that everyone can agree that the purpose of the Eucharist is a remembrance, a memorial, of Christ. After His bodily ascension into heaven, Christ is physically absent from His disciples on earth for many centuries until His second coming. So at the last supper with His disciples, He gave us a memorial that is both simple and profound in its significance:

1 Cor. 11:24-25 tells us that fact.............
"When He had given thanks, He broke [the bread] and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” .

Just as the Passover meal was a reminder of God's deliverance of His people from the slavery in Egypt, even so in the Lord's Supper shows the story of our redemption from the slavery of sin by the sacrifice of Christ. Bread and wine are appropriate symbols to remind us of His crucified body and the blood shed on Calvary.

Now please consider that when Jesus said, “This is my body,” He was physically present with the disciples. They could see, hear and touch him. John was actually leaning on His bosom. So when Jesus took bread and said, “This is my body,” it was only natural for the apostles to understand that the bread was the symbol rather than His actual body. The tangible proof that the bread did not become Jesus’ body, is the bodily, physical, substantial and material presence of the man Jesus Christ standing with the apostles.

Similarly, when He said, “This is my blood,” Jesus added, “…which is shed for you.” Which blood shed for us? The wine in the cup or the blood in Jesus' veins? Since the wine was never shed, it must represent the blood that was actually shed on the cross.

It is impossible to consistently interpret Jesus words literally. We have four slightly different accounts of Jesus' words relating to the cup and blood:

1). “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).

2). “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many” (Mark 14:24

3). “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).

4). “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25).

Now you are welcome to disagree with me and I expect that you will, but I ask you to please consider the Bible meanings of the four accounts correspond to each other. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul are essentially saying the same thing using different words.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to take “This is my blood” in Matthew and Mark either literally or figuratively. But could we say the same for Luke and Paul? Definitely not! “This cup is the new covenant.”

The literal interpretation is absurd and meaningless -- certainly the cup is not literally the new testament! The wine is not transubstantiated into the new testament. The Holy Spirit who inspired these words employed a phraseology that simply cannot be understood literally. We should forced to acknowledge that the cup is the sign of the new testament in Christ's blood and not literally the testament or the blood.

If you do not accept that, it is fine with me. I am NOT condemning you in any way for what you believe, only explaining to you from the Bible what I and most all Protestants understand and believe.

No, the words are best understood just as our Lord stated them: “This is my body.” Jesus meant exactly what he said, and there is no reason to alter the words of our Lord.

Jesus knows the word “represents” and he could have said “This represents my body” if he wanted to. But that is not what Jesus said.

If Jesus says “This is my body” then it is his body. There is nothing else for you to do except believe.

But so you may understand, when our Lord speaks, what he says immediately becomes reality, whether it makes sense to you or not. “Let there be light” and there was light. “This is my body” and it is his body. That is the power of God.

What you need to do is believe what our Lord said, instead of trying to rationalize and explain away his words because you cannot make logical sense out of them, or because they do not fit your theology.

BBAS 64 · Nov 16, 2017

Fidelibus said:
Hey Bill. Hope you don't mind me providing some info from the Catholic Church and Her members like a certain person on this forum does. From Scripture Catholic web site:

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 – Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 – Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 – the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 – Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 – Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 – Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 – continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 – James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

Good Day,

I guess I will have to wait for my question... did you read the op?

To address yours I don't not say oral revelation(OR) is authoritative nor does Paul for that matter I know of nobody that does. OR is the means by which passed down the Word of God to them...

I would reccomend John Chrysostom to help you understanding of Thess.... Timothy is easy Paul shared Luke's writings with him... and those things are in scripture so gospel of Luke and Acts.

Ok your turn... answer mine please... you say they are out side the bible well prov it do not argue from baseless assertions, and silence. Objective facts please....What did Paul teach Timothy that is out side of Scripture

1 what was it,
2when did he do it,
3. how did that happen.

Good luck.

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 · Nov 16, 2017

PeaceB said:
No, the words are best understood just as our Lord stated them: “This is my body.” Jesus meant exactly what he said, and there is no reason to alter the words of our Lord.

Jesus knows the word “represents” and he could have said “This represents my body” if he wanted to. But that is not what Jesus said.

If Jesus says “This is my body” then it is his body. There is nothing else for you to do except believe.

But so you may understand, when our Lord speaks, what he says immediately becomes reality, whether it makes sense to you or not. “Let there be light” and there was light. “This is my body” and it is his body. That is the power of God.

What you need to do is believe what our Lord said, instead of trying to rationalize and explain away his words because you cannot make logical sense out of them, or because they do not fit your theology.

Good day, Peace

There are various historical views of this passage, you may want to at least consider some others:

Clement of Alexandria
"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

Augustine

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Also recommend reading Augustine on John 6

Cyprian

"For when Christ says, 'I am the true vine.' the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. For we find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, this same thing was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord's passion; that he drank wine; that he was drunken; that he was made naked in his household; that he was lying down with his thighs naked and exposed; that the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son, and was told abroad, but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest; and other matters which it is not necessary to follow out, since this is enough for us to embrace alone, that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord....For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood?...Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon shows before the type of the Lord's sacrifice, making mention of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, and, moreover, of the altar and of the apostles, and says, 'Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars; she hath killed her victims; she hath mingled her wine in the chalice; she hath also furnished her table: and she hath sent forth her servants, calling together with a lofty announcement to her cup, saying, Whoso is simple, let him turn to me; and to those that want understanding she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.' He declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord's passion which had been before predicted....To which things divine Scripture adds, and says, 'He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape.' But when the blood of the grape is mentioned, what else is set forth than the wine of the cup of the blood of the Lord?...The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink....In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup...the divine Scripture in the Apocalypse declares that the waters signify the people, saying, 'The waters which thou sawest, upon which the harlot sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations of the Gentiles, and tongues,' which we evidently see to be contained also in the sacrament of the cup. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord's cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated....But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ." (Letter 62:2-7, 62:9, 62:12-13, 62:15)

In Him,

Bill

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

PeaceB said:
No, the words are best understood just as our Lord stated them: “This is my body.” Jesus meant exactly what he said, and there is no reason to alter the words of our Lord.

Jesus knows the word “represents” and he could have said “This represents my body” if he wanted to. But that is not what Jesus said.

If Jesus says “This is my body” then it is his body. There is nothing else for you to do except believe.

But so you may understand, when our Lord speaks, what he says immediately becomes reality, whether it makes sense to you or not. “Let there be light” and there was light. “This is my body” and it is his body. That is the power of God.

What you need to do is believe what our Lord said, instead of trying to rationalize and explain away his words because you cannot make logical sense out of them, or because they do not fit your theology.

I can not agree with your opinion and I am so very sorry that we can not come to an agreement over this subject.

I am sure that you are a wonderful person and I pray for you that the Lord bless and I am also very sorry that you think I have a theology which is not completely based in the Bible.

There is just nothing else that I can say to you at this point.

PeaceB · Nov 16, 2017

Major1 said:
I can not agree with your opinion and I am so very sorry that we can not come to an agreement over this subject.

I am sure that you are a wonderful person and I pray for you that the Lord bless and I am also very sorry that you think I have a theology which is not completely based in the Bible.

There is just nothing else that I can say to you at this point.

I believe what Jesus said: “This is my body.” Simple as that. Good day.

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

PeaceB said:
I believe what Jesus said: “This is my body.” Simple as that. Good day.

I am do not believe that to be the case. That is only Catholic teaching. It is not Biblical but you are free to believe it if you wish to.

Again, blessing to you.

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

Fidelibus said:
I know Maj1 that being unified with others in ones faith is foreign among your non-denominational sects. Like I've said to you time and time again....why wouldn't or shouldn't I use use words from my fellow Catholics which I am in full communion with? Sheesh!

Besides.... can you honestly say you have never ever copy and pasted from other web-sites to use here?

How do you know I'm not...... some kind of crystal ball or something?

Really Maj1.....can you honestly say you have never ever copy and pasted from other web-sites to use here? Remember...... lying is a sin.

Besides......Why do you always ignore my questions by whom or what authority makes your understanding of scripture believable?

The point which you missed is not that you copied and pasted the question posed. Every one copy and pastes information from time to time.

What I was trying to show you was that IF you had the time to investigate and look for a question to ask me, why in the world would you simply not use that same amount of time to do the work required to read the Bible and search it for your answers.

I find it very suspicious that YOU my friend DO NOT answer questions at all but you are quick to say that other do not answer your questions.

I will say to you that most everyone here has caught on to your plan of asking questions in order to illicit a response which you can twist into what YOU want it to say. I say again to you that what you are doing is deceitful.

Actually, you do the same thing with the Scriptures of the Bible.

PeaceB · Nov 16, 2017

Major1 said:
I am do not believe that to be the case. That is only Catholic teaching. It is not Biblical but you are free to believe it if you wish to.

Again, blessing to you.

The Catholic Church did not say “This is my body.” Jesus said “This is my body.” The words are right there in your Bible. You just refuse to believe them. God bless you too.

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

PeaceB said:
The Catholic Church did not say “This is my body.” Jesus said “This is my body.” The words are right there in your Bible. You just refuse to believe them. God bless you too.

Of course He did my dear friend. That is NOT in question at all.

The question is.....Do you believe that He meant YOU should eat his literal flesh and drink His literal blood.

That is what you say you believe. That is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
That is a Catholic doctrine, NOT a Bible doctrine.

Radbertus first made up this doctrine in the 9th century. Radbertus was a French monk who taught the bread and wine are not merely symbolic of Christ’s body and blood but are parts of the actual human body that housed the Son of God while on earth. Despite there being no biblical foundation for his claim, Radbertus declared that, upon consecration by a priest, the elements become “nothing but Christ’s flesh and blood”.

YOU as a Catholic support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29........
"Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

The Protestant understanding is that the bread and wine are symbols and it is the view I believe because it is rooted in the Word of God and not a man.

Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ's body and blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.

1.
Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grape juice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.

2.
Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols, yet why equate Him with the symbol in these Scriptures?
John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean He was literally wooden? No.
John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean He was literally a road? No.
John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean He was literally a tree? No.
John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean He was literally a torch or a sun? No.
John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean He was literally a loaf of dough? No.

Now please PeaceB, notice the words of Jesus in John 6:63 where He states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT and they are life."

Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes:........
"This do in remembrance of me."

If you will take the time to look it up you will see that this is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it's similarity. You see, A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, he shall eat his words.

3.
The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:

A. Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.
B. To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20, 29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."
In Deuteronomy 12:16, "Only ye shall not eat the blood."

4.
The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL. The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit.

Do you realize why YOU are so adamant on believing the body and blood is literal??????
It is because Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.

Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Therefore in Galatians 1:6-9 Paul puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.

5.
Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter):............
"He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU."

Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26..........
"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."

Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

6.
At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withhold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: .....................
"Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." (v.27) Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses.

Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.

So then, how do we then do we eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Answer : THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD.
John 6:63. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
John 1:14. "And the Word was made flesh."
John 5:24. "He that heareth My Word and believeth on Him that sent Me, has everlasting life."

The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34..........
"I will put my law in their inward parts".

Jeremiah 15:16..........
"Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one's inner being.

Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:
"Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." (John 6:68)

"Being born again ... by the WORD of God." (1 Peter 1:23-25) Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood.

Question:
If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?

Question:
What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell?

PeaceB · Nov 16, 2017

Major1 said:
Of course He did my dear friend. That is NOT in question at all.

The question is.....Do you believe that He meant YOU should eat his literal flesh and drink His literal blood.

That is what you say you believe. That is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
That is a Catholic doctrine, NOT a Bible doctrine.

Radbertus first made up this doctrine in the 9th century. Radbertus was a French monk who taught the bread and wine are not merely symbolic of Christ’s body and blood but are parts of the actual human body that housed the Son of God while on earth. Despite there being no biblical foundation for his claim, Radbertus declared that, upon consecration by a priest, the elements become “nothing but Christ’s flesh and blood”.

YOU as a Catholic support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29........
"Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

The Protestant understanding is that the bread and wine are symbols and it is the view I believe because it is rooted in the Word of God and not a man.

Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ's body and blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.

1.
Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grape juice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.

2.
Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols, yet why equate Him with the symbol in these Scriptures?
John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean He was literally wooden? No.
John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean He was literally a road? No.
John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean He was literally a tree? No.
John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean He was literally a torch or a sun? No.
John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean He was literally a loaf of dough? No.

Now please PeaceB, notice the words of Jesus in John 6:63 where He states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT and they are life."

Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes:........
"This do in remembrance of me."

If you will take the time to look it up you will see that this is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it's similarity. You see, A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, he shall eat his words.

3.
The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:

A. Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.
B. To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20, 29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."
In Deuteronomy 12:16, "Only ye shall not eat the blood."

4.
The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL. The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit.

Do you realize why YOU are so adamant on believing the body and blood is literal??????
It is because Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.

Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Therefore in Galatians 1:6-9 Paul puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.

5.
Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter):............
"He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU."

Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26..........
"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."

Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

6.
At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withhold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: .....................
"Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." (v.27) Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses.

Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.

So then, how do we then do we eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Answer : THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD.
John 6:63. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
John 1:14. "And the Word was made flesh."
John 5:24. "He that heareth My Word and believeth on Him that sent Me, has everlasting life."

The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34..........
"I will put my law in their inward parts".

Jeremiah 15:16..........
"Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one's inner being.

Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:
"Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." (John 6:68)

"Being born again ... by the WORD of God." (1 Peter 1:23-25) Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood.

Question:
If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?

Question:
What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell?

I believe that Jesus meant “This is my body.” You believe that Jesus meant “This represents my body.”

I believe that Jesus meant exactly what he said. You believe that Jesus meant something other than what he said.

I take Jesus at his word, and you do not. Simple as that.

Major1 · Nov 16, 2017

PeaceB said:
I believe that Jesus meant “This is my body.” You believe that Jesus meant “This represents my body.”

I believe that Jesus meant exactly what he said. You believe that Jesus meant something other than what he said.

I take Jesus at his word, and you do not. Simple as that.

I believe what the Bible says and you believe what a French monk said.
It is actually that simple my sister.

PeaceB · Nov 16, 2017

Major1 said:
I believe what the Bible says and you believe what a French monk said.
It is actually that simple my sister.

No, a French monk did not say “This is my body.” Jesus said “This is my body.” You refuse to believe that Jesus meant what he said. Simple as that.

Meowzltov · Nov 16, 2017

Major1 said:
I disagree with you respectfully.

Post #131......
"We cannot say that the NT is without error if we cannot agree on which books are without error."

But we can say that sister. The Scriptures do IMO "Specify" which books are in the canon........"ALL" means that ALL the books in the canon were put there by God as THEY were inspired by God.

Let me try to give more detail so that what I'm saying will become clear to you.

Joe accept the standard Bible. Sally doesn't. She believes that what is God breathed are the gospels, and she includes some of the Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas. Therefore Joe thinks that Romans is inerrant and Sally does not, and Sally thinks that the Gospel of Thomas is inerrant and Joe does not. Each of them builds their theology on a different set of authoritative books and they end up with very different theologies.

Sola Scriptura defined....

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Freylekher Yid

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency