MC Just Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 It's not ignorance it's truth. Other wise there would be no protestantism and people would submit to Christ's church. Protestantism is like that. They submit to nonone but there own personal belief. Sorry If I sound Anti-Protestant, that's just me.
MC Just Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 (edited) Plus try and compare the Anti-Catholic Protestants to Anti-Protestant Catholics. There are far more Anti-Catholic Protestants than Anti-Protestant Catholics. Sheesh our Church even accept protestants "As part of the body of Christ" Ok anyways I'm done. Edited July 22, 2003 by Mc-Just†
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 OOOH... Hey I know what a Bible is... I play Castlevania (the videogame) and when you get the bible and use it, it flies all around you destroying demons and when you have enough hearts the pages fly off and they form a circle in which a huge beam shoots out killing anything standing in your way.... Am I right? Am I? I didnt know there was such a thing in real life! Where can I get one of these? I sure hope I got enough hearts to do the beam thing.... Cool... LOL
dUSt Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Just, I don't think Protestants believe they are teaching themselves. To my understanding, most Protestants believe that the Bible is their guide and with the help of the Holy Spirit (God), they will be able to interpret the Bible and obtain truth from it. Maybe not perfect truth, but perfect truth, in their minds, is not neccesarily required. We only have to really know, understand and believe in the very basics of truth in order to be saved. So, this statement, "God you cannot teach me, I'll teach myself", labeling Protestants, is unfair. They DO believe that God is teaching them. The hurdle is to get them to understand that God wants us to know the fullness of truth, and not just bits and pieces. Bro Adam, Mulls--correct me if i'm wrong. God bless.
littleflower+JMJ Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 but the bible doesn't have any pictures in it, i can't read it.....i onl'y read books that have pictures...colorful pictures too! im justkidding....
littleflower+JMJ Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 well, no........BUT thats what the pictures are FOR! and plus someone should make the bible on aRead-A-Long Tape....with a little *ding* whenever your suppose to turn the page.... yeah, that would be soo kewl B)
mulls Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 dUSt, yea you pretty much hit it right, except for one or two things. I don't necessarily think the Bible needs to be interpreted, know what I mean? It's not like it's in a foreign language that I can't understand...I guess you are referring to the discrepancies that many denominations argue about. Personally, nothing in the bible has ever really confused me, and anything that has I was able to clear up with a little research and answers from people I trust. Also, the bible is perfect truth....and presents the perfect truth of salvation, and sanctification, rather easily. I don't know what "bits and pieces" you are referring to, but right now I don't believe I'm missing out on anything that the bible can't, and eventually won't, show me. let's see if I know how you crazy Catholics will respond... *cue the Eucharist defense* am I right? lol
Cure of Ars Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Personally, nothing in the bible has ever really confused me, and anything that has I was able to clear up with a little research and answers from people I trust. Also, the bible is perfect truth....and presents the perfect truth of salvation, and sanctification, rather easily. Mulls, How do you understand 1 Cor 15:29 when it talks about "having themselves baptised for the dead? This one personaly confused me for a long time until I found the traditional Catholic understanding of the passage.
mulls Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Cure, I ignore it. jk. I should not have stated that nothing has ever confused me. Of course things have, the bible is a big book. But I've never had a question that I've never found an answer to. As for 1 Cor 15:29... "If the total supremacy of God is not ultimately established, then the Gospel is worthless, and those who believe it deluded dupes. Relative to their being “baptized for the dead,” the obvious meaning is that as believers “fall asleep,” and others come along to take their places, the baptism of the new converts, like that of those who have preceded them, is a meaningless rite, for the baptismal candidate is declaring symbolically that he has not only died with Christ, but that he also lives with Him, and will be resurrected from physical death, to live and reign for ever with Him in heaven. All of this is a mere myth if the undisputed supremacy of God isn’t eventually established. If God lacks the power to raise the dead, then the Gospel, and all that pertains to it, is a myth, a delusion. " 1 Cor 15:29 This commentary helped me with it. The author has taught bible studies at my school in the past, he is quite brilliant. I know that Mormons use this passage to defend actual baptisms for the dead...in which as person will actually be baptized in the name and place of a dead person, so that God's grace will take affect on the deceased. What is the traditional Catholic understanding?
marielapin Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 Cure, I ignore it. jk. I should not have stated that nothing has ever confused me. Of course things have, the bible is a big book. But I've never had a question that I've never found an answer to. As for 1 Cor 15:29... "If the total supremacy of God is not ultimately established, then the Gospel is worthless, and those who believe it deluded dupes. Relative to their being “baptized for the dead,” the obvious meaning is that as believers “fall asleep,” and others come along to take their places, the baptism of the new converts, like that of those who have preceded them, is a meaningless rite, for the baptismal candidate is declaring symbolically that he has not only died with Christ, but that he also lives with Him, and will be resurrected from physical death, to live and reign for ever with Him in heaven. All of this is a mere myth if the undisputed supremacy of God isn’t eventually established. If God lacks the power to raise the dead, then the Gospel, and all that pertains to it, is a myth, a delusion. " 1 Cor 15:29 This commentary helped me with it. The author has taught bible studies at my school in the past, he is quite brilliant. I know that Mormons use this passage to defend actual baptisms for the dead...in which as person will actually be baptized in the name and place of a dead person, so that God's grace will take affect on the deceased. What is the traditional Catholic understanding? But Mulls, how do you know that this person is right in his interpretation of this passage, and the Mormons are wrong?
Joyful Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 nothing in the bible has ever really confused me, and anything that has I was able to clear up with a little research and answers from people I trust. Mulls, How do you know who you should trust when it comes to understanding the passages that confuse you? and as Marielapan stated, how do you know what bible commentary to use? Have you ever seen 20/20 or 60 minutes when they show controversial court cases? Well my mom is the type of person that believes whichever side is being presented at the time. I love her dearly, but she doesn't have a lot of analytical ability. If she were protestant how would she decide which commentary to use or which people to trust?
mulls Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 the whole chapter is dedicated to the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. the verses immediately following the one at hand show Paul talking about why Christians go through the trials that they do...because the dead in Christ will eventually be raised. also, if one is confused about this 'baptism for the dead thing,' they can look at Jesus' quote of "Let the dead bury the dead," and OT warnings of not getting your body marked for the dead and such as evidence that rituals involving dead people are forbidden.
MC Just Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 I have a certain anger towards Non-Catholic christians I have a hard time controlling it and I have no clue why. But I know it's bad when my own brothers and sisters tell me i'm wrong and un-fair. Anyways I apologize.
hyperdulia again Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 no baby. they were dead because of their sins, because they were under the old law.
ironmonk Posted July 22, 2003 Posted July 22, 2003 (edited) dUSt, yea you pretty much hit it right, except for one or two things. I don't necessarily think the Bible needs to be interpreted, know what I mean? It's not like it's in a foreign language that I can't understand...I guess you are referring to the discrepancies that many denominations argue about. Personally, nothing in the bible has ever really confused me, and anything that has I was able to clear up with a little research and answers from people I trust. Also, the bible is perfect truth....and presents the perfect truth of salvation, and sanctification, rather easily. I don't know what "bits and pieces" you are referring to, but right now I don't believe I'm missing out on anything that the bible can't, and eventually won't, show me. let's see if I know how you crazy Catholics will respond... *cue the Eucharist defense* am I right? lol mulls, It is a foriegn language. The Apostles spoke Aramaic. The bible's books and letters where in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. They were written in first century. It wasn't in english until sometime before 700 AD. Think of the word "bad"... is "bad" as in 'bad', 'good', or 'cool'?! Looking at it alone we can't tell because the meaning has slightly changed over the years. This happens in every language. Someone who of our day and age cannot possibly comprehend the context by just picking up the bible and reading. We need to study what the First Christians taught about them to understand them. I think Acts 8:27-31 says it best.... Acts 8:27 So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, 8 that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot." 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. The Christian faith is very deep, not shallow. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in teaching us. The Holy Spirit DOES NOT guide us in our self interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Acts 20:30 - And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them. Knowing that people will come out of the True Church to draw true believers away from Christ, then we must find the Church that Christ built. Who better to know what the Scriptures mean than the Church that gave them to us? "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all." ~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary ironmonk Edited July 22, 2003 by ironmonk
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now