True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > Bible principles and Protestantism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-01-2011, 01:32 PM
SwissGuard
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unbiblical Practices in Protestantism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Moderation: I am changing the name of this thread. "Unbiblical practices in Protestantism" is inflammatory
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissGuard View Post
And this thread as well?: Unbiblical Practices in the RCC and EOC

That is the thread I was making a counterpoint to (see attachment thumbnail):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Yep, I'm getting there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaomega View Post
why not just change it to
LET'S FIGHT
Interesting.

Something else that's intertesting is that in the thread formerly titled "Unbiblical Practices in the RCC and EOC" you offered no comment. I wonder why?

A third interesting thing is that you offer no explanation or rebuttle for the points mentioned in the first post.

Last edited by SwissGuard : 03-01-2011 at 01:36 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-01-2011, 01:47 PM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bible principles and Protestantism

Let's just say, "We'll meet again...."

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:11 PM
alphaomega
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unbiblical Practices in Protestantism

[quote=SwissGuard;107967]Interesting.

Something else that's intertesting is that in the thread formerly titled "Unbiblical Practices in the RCC and EOC" you offered no comment. I wonder why?



YOU ARE RIGHT ; HOWEVER

I DID STATE MY FEELINGS WHEN I STARTED THIS POST

ARE WE FINISHED YET?


all Catholics & Orthodox are .......................
yea ; but Protestants are .........................

get over your-self's

who here says
if your not a catholic then you are not a christian ?
--------------or------------------------
if you are not a protestant then you are not a christian ?


WHO IN THIS FORUM IS TIRED OF THIS ?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:22 PM
alphaomega
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unbiblical Practices in Protestantism

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissGuard View Post
Interesting.



A third interesting thing is that you offer no explanation or rebuttle for the points mentioned in the first post.

REBUTTAL---?

THROWING MANURE ONLY MAKES YOUR HANDS STINK !
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:44 PM
Amadeus's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,171
Default Re: Bible principles and Protestantism

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissGuard View Post
What the Bible says, what Catholics say, what Protestants say:


The Bible says: "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21). Catholics say "AMEN!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."


Baptism simply means immersion! Is it only immersion in water? Is it the baptism in water or the baptism in the Spirit that makes salvation a possibilty?

Quote:
Swissguard: The Bible says: "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Catholics say "AMEN!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."


Any Bible believer, protestant or catholic would say "Amen" to the verse you quoted. Actually, both faith and works are needed, the latter being the result of the former:

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." James 2:17-18

Quote:
Swissguard: The Bible says: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life" (John 6:53). Catholics say "AMEN!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."
Again, you putting words into the protestant's mouth and leaving the catholic with only an "Amen". Any protestant Bible believer would also say, "Amen" to the scripture quoted!

Quote:
Swissguard: The Bible says: "Take eat, this is my Body" (Matt 26:26). Catholics say "Amen, it is his body!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."
And the protestant Bible believer would also say "Amen"!

Quote:
Swissguard: The Bible says: "handkerchiefs or aprons ("Relics") were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them" (Acts 19:12). Catholics say "AMEN!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."
Your definition of the word "relic" does not fit your scriptural example.

The origin of the word "relic" follows: Middle English relik, from Anglo-French relike, from Medieval Latin reliquia, from Late Latin reliquiae, plural, remains of a martyr, from Latin, remains, from relinquere to leave behind.

One definition of the wrod "relic" would be: a survivor or remnant left after decay, disintegration, or disappearance

In Acts 19:12 there were no old surviving remnants or artifacts of old used as is suggested by the definitions. Get another dictionary defintion if you like, but as it is you seem to be stretching the definition to fit your example or stretching your example to fit your definition.

Quote:
Swissguard: The Bible says: "Thou art Rock (Petros) and upon the rock I will build my Church". Catholics say "AMEN!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."
And Bible believing protestants also say "Amen" to the quoted scripture. Do you suppose that all of the Old Testament scriptures speaking of the "rock", [and there are many], were referring to Peter, rather than to Jesus?

Quote:
The Bible says: "I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven". Catholics say "AMEN!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."
And all of the Bible believing protestants also say "Amen" to the quoted scripture.

Quote:
The Bible says: "whatever you (Peter) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (Peter) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". Catholics say "AMEN!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."
And all of the Bible believing protestants also say "Amen" to the quoted scripture.

Quote:
The Bible says that it is the CHURCH which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Catholics say "AMEN!" Protestants say, "Well that doesn't really mean what it says."

And all of the Bible believing protestants also say "Amen" to the quoted scripture.

Quote:
Conclusion: The Bible says what Catholics say, Protestants say what they want it to say. (Coming soon: "Anti-historical beliefs in Protestantism".)
All the catholics said was "Amen". So did the protestants! Conclusion: There are Bible believers who are catholics and there are Bible believers who are protestants.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-01-2011, 03:16 PM
Josiah
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bible principles and Protestantism

.

There CAN be disagreements on the exact HERMENEUTIC of the words of a text. Classic example: "This is my Body." The word "is" CAN be - and often is - interpreted variously. "I am the door" is not understood by Catholics to mean that a Catholic priest can turn doors into Jesus. But, in this case, there is a valid disagreement over the meaning OF WORDS IN THE TEXT. This, in my opinion, is quite different than saying, "There is no text that even mentions the body of Our Lady at the moment of Her death - or was it Her undeath - or even Her death at all, but if Elijah could be taken up into heaven, Mary could too!" One is a valid disagreement OVER THE WORDS - those letters forming words on a page - (exegesis) and simply imposing a theory into a text and insisting that the view does not exactly contradict anything or is seen as "implied" by invisible words admittedly not there (eisegesis). I'm not saying this is always "clear cut" or easy, but I do think there is a significant difference.

Additionally, in Protestantism, one's interpretation is embraced as accountable. But in the RCC, the RCC alone insists that the RCC alone is the sole interpreter of Scripture (CCC 85) and such is simply to be embraced "with docility" as "unto Jesus (CCC 87, etc.) - making the interpretation of itself alone as unaccountable. What is more, the "Scripture" that it itself alone permits it itself alone to "intepret" in an unaccountable way is not found in words we ALL can read but in the 'heart' of itself (CCC 113, for example). So, it's not only eisegesis but it's unaccountable, individual and not of words that all can read.

Apples and oranges, IMO....








.

Last edited by Josiah : 03-01-2011 at 03:21 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-01-2011, 03:18 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: Unbiblical Practices in Protestantism

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaomega View Post
why not just change it to


LET'S FIGHT
Well, I didn't think of that option. Its a tough choice, but I think I'll keep it the way it is now.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-01-2011, 03:40 PM
alphaomega
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unbiblical Practices in Protestantism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Well, I didn't think of that option. Its a tough choice, but I think I'll keep it the way it is now.


THINK ABOUT IT ;


it is a fight many in here want

but i would suggest

have them ............

to enter have them sign up

present their cases

state their beliefs


------ all before they are allowed to respond back to any post
------ they may not add to anything outside of their "stated beliefs"


------ they are allowed only one respond post per day

( this should help avoid the of yeah responses)

no ; i repeat no !!! links

their own words only ( except bible quotes)


hey ; many want this
why not let them go at it ?


ps
2 points
1- my suggestions are only suggestion ; so improve upon them and go for it
2- i am not interested in participating; i have grown tired of this unproductive, anti-christian, anti-gospel, anti-social intercourse.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-01-2011, 04:04 PM
SwissGuard
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bible principles and Protestantism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
There CAN be disagreements on the exact HERMENEUTIC of the words of a text. Classic example: "This is my Body." The word "is" CAN be - and often is - interpreted variously. "I am the door" is not understood by Catholics to mean that a Catholic priest can turn doors into Jesus.
True, BUT: We have no other verses where Jesus says repeatedly that you must eat a door to have life.

On the other hand, we have this lengthy statement from Jesus: "'I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.' The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?' Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.' These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum." (John 6:51-59)

Now, if you had some verses where Jesus was this passionate about eating and drinking a vine or a door, then you might have a point. But in the context of ALL the scripture, and in the wider context of him being the Lamb and the fact that Lambs were eaten at Passover, this is obviously an entirely different matter than his vine & door analogies.

Last edited by SwissGuard : 03-01-2011 at 06:36 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-01-2011, 04:09 PM
Josiah
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bible principles and Protestantism

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissGuard View Post
True, BUT:.
IMO, you entirely missed the point.

There's a difference between valid EXEGESIS - possible hermeneutics OF THE WORDS ACTUALLY IN THE TEXT and EISEGESIS - a theory or speculation imposed on a text as "implied" by invisible words not there.

And there's a difference between self appointing self as the sole individual and unaccountable interpreter (CCC 85, 87) of the "Scripture in the heart" of self (CCC 13) and being accountable for interpretation of the words all can see and read.





.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Bible doesn't say that I should... Linsinbigler General Discussions 61 01-10-2011 06:23 AM
The Bible! blujon1 Bible Chat 23 03-20-2009 05:33 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:46 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29