Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not talking about the phrase "canon," I'm talking about the canon of scripture itself. Much of the New Testament has been contested over the years by various factions, books have been put in and taken out, books and letters have circulated among churches which were not included in the canon of scripture, many stories were handed down orally before finally being written down hundreds of years later, books and lettes were translated from various languages into many different languages and versions...yet you believe in your 21st century Protestant version of the canon of scripture ONLY.
I just find that interesting.
It’s simple. Those books the RCC has added into their Bible are not God-breathed. If you want to discuss that, then maybe you should consider starting a new thread.
What I find interesting is how you keep blowing off the very words of Jesus that tell you your worship in worthless if you teach doctrine that isn’t God-breathed.
It’s simple. Those books the RCC has added into their Bible are not God-breathed. If you want to discuss that, then maybe you should consider starting a new thread.
What I find interesting is how you keep blowing off the very words of Jesus that tell you your worship in worthless if you teach doctrine that isn’t God-breathed.
You are missing Kathryn's point completely.
But aside from Kathryn's point, I'd like to address your post on its own with two questions:
1) When did the RCC add these books?
2) By what authority do you claim that those "additional" books are "not God-breathed"?
It’s simple. Those books the RCC has added into their Bible are not God-breathed. If you want to discuss that, then maybe you should consider starting a new thread.
What I find interesting is how you keep blowing off the very words of Jesus that tell you your worship in worthless if you teach doctrine that isn’t God-breathed.
They were part of the original canon of scripture. Catholics didn't add them - Protestants removed them.
And some Protestants wanted to remove even more books of the canon - books that other Protestants still read and consider to be "God breathed."
But aside from Kathryn's point, I'd like to address your post on its own with two questions:
1) When did the RCC add these books?
2) By what authority do you claim that those "additional" books are "not God-breathed"?
Good questions. And I think she surely must be intentionally not addressing my point. She's either missing it or being duplicitous. Neither is a good sign.
They were part of the original canon of scripture. Catholics didn't add them - Protestants removed them.
And some Protestants wanted to remove even more books of the canon - books that other Protestants still read and consider to be "God breathed."
Please start a thread on this topic. I will happily participate. I have lots to say about it. Transubstantiation is what this particular thread is about. Let’s stick to it.
If Jesus was being metaphorical or symbolic about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, how could that be considered a "hard saying"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
What does John 6:60 say?
What does Jesus ask these disciples in verse 61 when He knew in Himself that they were complaining?
What does Jesus say about the flesh in verse 62?
What does Jesus say about the words He speaks in verse 62?
Why do you think some didn’t believe in verse 64?
And finally, why in verse 65 does Jesus use this moment to say, “…no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father?
That's not an answer to my question. We both have access to the text of John 6:60-65. We do not disagree about the content of the text. What we disagree on is how the text ought to be interpreted.
If Jesus' listeners at the time as well as ourselves are to interpret this teaching as being symbolic, then how could it be considered a "hard saying"?
I’ve dealt with it, but you blew it off as “nonsense” even though I gave you Scriptures in context. You refused to see the spiritual lesson Jesus was teaching.
Jesus’ sayings were hard because He wanted people to seek Him with a sincere heart. He knew the hearts of the Jews in John 6 were not right, and no one can understand the hard sayings of Jesus if their heart isn’t earnestly seeking the truth. It’s only when we are willing to honestly and sincerely let our hearts open up to the Lord that the Holy Spirit will open our eyes to the truth.
I think I’ve about beaten this horse to death with you. Time to move on. Maybe we’ll actually find a topic we can agree on. Have a great day Mr Nate.
No you have not directly addressed why you think Jesus would let people leave him over a misunderstanding. You are attributing those who left with false motives of “hard hearts” by the age old trick of mixing scripture to come up with what you want . The Bible is very clear . Believers left BECAUSE Jesus told them his flesh and blood was food and drink, and refused to amend that statement to a symbolic meaning . So people left thinking he was off in the head or something . But they didn’t leave because of your claim of hard hearts . The Bible is clear . They left when Jesus told them his flesh and blood was food and drink. But you insist they simply misunderstood him, and he let them leave over a mere misunderstanding.
I don’t blame you for leaving when you can’t find a way to directly address the question. It is standard procedure. Have a nice Friday . The weekend is upon us!
The truth often hurts, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Quote:
You said it is pretty clear that I am not educated.
No. I said you are not well-educated, and that is plainly the case. How am I wrong? Can you read Greek? Can you read Latin? How closely or thoroughly have you read the Early Church Fathers? Did your quotes come from your own research, or were they (as I suspect...) something you mindlessly cut and pasted from some other website?
Quote:
I stopped reading your post at that point.
Because your vanity was offended? That's unfortunate, as you might have learned something.
Quote:
Is this how you bring people to the Lord?
Do you think being corrected is bad, and that no one should criticize what you say, when it is plainly wrong? Scripture tells us otherwise: He who winks the eye causes trouble, but he who boldly reproves makes peace. (Proverbs 10:10) Furthermore, when criticism is justified, it is a good idea to listen to it: A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. (Proverbs 17:10)
Quote:
My guess is that you would never say something like this to someone’s face just because they disagree with you.
Your "guess" is unfounded and incorrect; I would gladly say what I said to your face.
Quote:
I suppose hiding behind a screen makes you think you can say say whatever you want.
Why? Is that the way you look at it? I hope not.
Quote:
I doubt Jesus would approve of your tactics.
What I do not doubt is that Jesus said "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven." I may be wrong, but there seems to be an awful lot of condemning, and no forgiveness, in your tone. Perhaps you may want to think about that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
