Read the Bible as the first Christians did!
Sometimes I get Protestants who challenge me on Twitter because – you’d never guess a priest would do this – I say something Catholic. Usually, it seems like it revolves around a few issues: where’s that in the Bible (Sola Scriptura), the Eucharist isn’t the Body and Blood of Christ (just symbolic), we shouldn’t honor Mary (she’s a sinner), or we don’t need Baptism or anything other works (Sola Fide).
Some I think are simply trolling. Often they’ll quote a stack of verses that they think are in their favor. However, these verses still need interpretation (even putting them in that order is an interpretation). Unfortunately most Evangelicals or “Bible Christians” fail to see this obvious reality that they themselves are interpreting the Bible in their tradition not just reading it.
I have a simple challenge to all 4 claims. Protestants, if you want to question me on Twitter, please do one of the following 2 things:
- Show me a single Christian alive before 1000 AD who believed:
- Everything is directly and literally in the Bible (not just that every dogma is at least implied in the Bible which I would agree with), or
- The Eucharist was merely symbolic or not necessary, or
- Mary was a sinner and nobody should pray to her, or
- Salvation is by faith alone so neither Baptism nor Christian moral behavior is needed.
- Explain to me how Jesus died for everybody’s sins in about 33 AD but it was over 1000 years before anybody understood what he wanted. Explain why the Holy Spirit, in his providence, decided to wait over 1000 years before revealing to anyone the right way to understand the Bible.
If you don’t do these things, I’ll continue “just read” the Bible as Christians have done for 2000 years – the Catholic way!
I know this post will probably be trolled but I think it might be a good discussion.
No trolling here. Very good points Father……oops I am not supposed to call you Father according to the trollers.
Thanks. I came back to see if there were troll comments to reply to but I found only yours.
No trolling here. Very good points Father……oops I am not supposed to call you Father according to the trollers.
Thanks. I came back to see if there were troll comments to reply to but I found only yours.
I’m a Christian, Methodist by christening. I like to talk to all religious people about God. I can see by the different denominations that we all view the Bible differently and have a different way of interpreting what we read. Just as you say something Catholic, others will say something Protestant. I have heard some say, as you have said, that the Eucharist isn’t the Body and Blood of Christ, which I understand is just symbolic, and that we shouldn’t honour Mary because she was a sinner, and that being Christened or Baptised means you will be a good Christian. But the one thing we all do believe in is that there is a God and that Jesus
existed. In some religions I learned that being christened and baptised are two different things.
Matthew 3:16 After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water and look, the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him. So some Christian baptisms means to them, to be fully dipped or immersed in water like John the Baptist did to Jesus. Others believe a sprinkling on the forehead with water blessed by a Priest, Reverend etc is still being true to Jesus’s commandment to be so,and to show their belief in Him.
Many don’t follow Mary because they feel she was a “surrogate” for Jesus or God to be born; a chosen person likely from many. And while she gave birth to him, in the Jewish religion they refer to her as the “birth-giver of God.”
Other Protestants believe that Mary was merely the “earthly mother of Jesus”, not the eternal mother of “God”, thus not to imply that’s she had a role in ‘creating’ Jesus which is a “divine creation.” That “Creation” John 1:2:’He was in the beginning with God.’ So Jesus was not created by man and a woman, but incarnated, meaning that his existence and personhood indwelt man. Motherhood denotes a much greater role in the creation of the child than
incarnation would suggest.
I personally think Mary is a very ‘special woman’ (and I hold her dear to my heart whether she is “fleshly” part of Jesus or not, and I am not Catholic) I would consider it an honour to bare Gods child. Perhaps Mary was deliberately chosen to bare Jesus? But are her genes within Jesus? Or is Jesus solely the ‘creation” of God and God alone?
I agree with a lot of what you say but there must be one way to interpret the Bible – for example if the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ, worshiping it is sacrilege but if it’s just symbolic not worshiping it is sacrilege.
While I as a Christian view it that the term ‘Body of Christ’ has two separate ways of looking at it. One it refers to the statement of Jesus’s at the Eucharist at the Last Supper which denotes the piece of bread that represents the “This is my body…” The second is the Apostle Paul where he says through the name of Christ, that all should speak in agreement and therefore we should not be divided, and that we all should have the same mind and line of thought.
Let’s take the JW’s for instance. They acknowledge the bread breaking of the Last Supper with a service once a year around the anniversary date. They bake bread baked as it may well have been made back in those days. They call it Nisan 14 and its done around sundown.
As it says in Luke 22:29 “I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom.” They were all persons who were being invited to share with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom. (John 14:2, 3) All who partake of the bread and wine today should also be persons whom Christ brings into that ‘covenant for a kingdom.’
So only those who think they are worthy to share of it take a piece of the bread. Same with the red wine, only a sip is taken if they feel they are the ones who feel that God had brought them into that ‘covenant’ for a Kingdom. Their verse in Corinthians 27 says: “Consequently whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord.”
I went with a JW friend this year just out of interest.
Now others look at it differently and interpret it that all should partake which I think the Catholic Church does. And my understanding is that Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and said, “This is my body.” In the same manner, he took wine, gave thanks, and said, “This is my blood.” Jesus didn’t say “This represents my body and blood,” or “This is a symbol of my body and blood”
But because of the Aramaic it was written in it had many verbs which meant the word “represent”. So I think this is why it is looked at it differently as some interrupt the words in different meanings.
Now others look at it differently and interpret it that all should partake which I think the Catholic Church does. And my understanding is that Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and said, “This is my body.” In the same manner, he took wine, gave thanks, and said, “This is my blood.” Jesus didn’t say: “This represents my body and blood,” or “This is a symbol of my body and blood”
But because of the Aramaic it was written in it had many verbs which meant the word “represent”. So I think this is why it is looked at it differently as some interrupt the words in different meanings.
When I use to follow and attend my local church I remember the Reverend did the Eucharist himself from the front of the church once a year. Other than that time of the year it wasn’t mention other than in conversation or debate.
But as it was said by Paul about having the same mind and line of thought, I feel given things get interrupted differently, we are all thinking much along the same line and have the same thoughts, aren’t we?
Our beliefs are similar but wouldn’t it be better if we agreed 100% and were united visibly not just in spirit.
Yes, but who has it right? Everyone will say ‘they’ do. Those who follow Christ and God already are united in the fact that they ‘honour’ the Eucharist in their own way. Does God really mind how its done? He doesn’t pick sides so I believe.
In John 6:28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” and Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God…that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
As i understand it, the word ‘church’ is a universal word. This refers to the body or group of all ‘saved’ people
everywhere because, when God saves people, He puts them in the
‘church’. In this sense, the church is always singular.
The “local” church refers to a congregation of
Christians in a region who have ‘united’ themselves to work and
worship together. According to the Bible, they have a pattern of
organization, work that they are to do, and funds they use to do
this work. (God’s 1 church for all.)
Jesus was born into a Jewish family. So Jesus was a Jew. What religion was God? God was no religion and didn’t invent religion, man did. God doesn’t want sacrifices, or burnt offerings etc, he just wants people’s heart and to follow in his examples for a good life. Churches were man made to have somewhere to teach others these things about God. There could be 1 church for all, with no name, who teach the exact same thing. So yes, Father, why can’t we all agree 100% and be united.
Or there could be no church, but people live their lives with Jesus and God in their hearts and doing exactly the same thing that the church teaches its ‘flock.’ Would God/Jesus love you any less if you’re doing and living the same life? This is why many people say they don’t belong to a church but still find they can live the same life as a ‘church goer.’
Matthew 16-18: Jesus promised to ‘build His church’. The church
is built on Jesus and God and belongs to Him. ‘Church’ meaning his ‘flock’ or his ‘followers’. There is no denomination that he has said that I am aware of. So when God returns at Armeggedon, which religion is he going to say is the winner? I don’t know if ‘Christianity’ was never meant to be a divided ‘religion’, butof the spiritual life of how Jesus and God were and how others were to follow in that path.
In Ephesians 5: 23-25 Jesus is ‘Head’ of the church, and He is
Savior of His body. He gave Himself for ‘the church’. So ‘the church’
is the body of all people who have been saved for Christ and God. ‘The church’ is the congregation.
Its hard for a lot of people who have never been taught about religion, and having Faith or a belief in something you can’t see, and is of the supernatural kind.
This is just my opinion.
“This is just my opinion.” <– exactly the problem, opinions do not save us, truth does.
…and only Catholics know the truth? Opinions are, and should be valued by all. All those who believe in Jesus and God are united together and they all have something in common. To know and understand the truth. 1Peter 3 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Being “Like-minded” means to think in the same way, but not necessary have the exact same taste or the exact same opinion, but still can agree on the same thing but in slightly different ways. To be understood.
There are certain things, it’s perfectly fine to have opinions on: who will win the Superbowl, whether this or that type of music is better in church, etc.
However, certain things are truths we can’t have opinions on: that France is a country, that water freezes at 0 degrees Celcius, that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.
It’s not that “only Catholics know the truth” – many Catholics are also not very well educated. But it is the Catholic Church that was established by Jesus Christ, who trained His disciples for three years in the Doctrine and teachings. The Catholic Church alone contains the whole teaching of Christ that was preserved by the Apostles. The other different forms of Christianity came about by means of rejecting some portion of the Apostles’ teachings – quite consciously, as we see how the Reformers cut the heads off of the statues of the Apostles at St. Andrews in Scotland, to signify their rejection of the Holy Tradition and make clear that they were inventing a new religion of their own based on the Bible alone, without the teachings that came from Jesus.
It was started by Simon Peter who became the first Pope of what became known as the Catholic Church. Jesus didn’t say to call it anything by name. The word Catholic means universal as Jesus created one ‘universal’ church for all mankind.
And if you are another Non-Catholic Christian, you or your forefathers separated from the “universal” Church.
Jesus was a Jew but he never said you had to be Jewish or any religion at all. He just wanted people to follow him. Matthew 16:18 – Jesus promised to build His church. The church
is built on Jesus and belongs to Him. Ephesians 5:23,25 – Jesus is Head of the church, and He is
Savior of His body. He gave Himself for the church. So the church
is the body of all people who have been saved by Christ. There is only one ‘holy Christian Church,’ of which
Christ is the Head, but it is now made up of many denominations
. But faith in Christ is the first criterion of membership in
the holy Christian Church, and I feel that such believers can be
found in all Christian denominations. So which verse in the Bible says you have to be Catholic?
We’ve made the complete loop: read the article. Name one Christian before 1000 AD who said everything had to be in the Bible. The point of this article was to avoid continual debates with Protestants online.
Unless you respond to the original challenge in the article, I will no longer respond to you.
It was Jesus who named Peter with the title “Rock” and established him as the chief Shepherd of His Church. Jesus certainly intended for the Apostles to be the leaders of His Church; that’s why He spent three years teaching them and training them. It was called Catholic because Jesus’ commandment was to go out into all the world (the “katholikos”) to teach and baptize.
As Father pointed out that the point of the article was to AVOID debates with PROTESTANTS I no longer wish to participate. Thank you for your answer.
I’m a Christian, Methodist by christening. I like to talk to all religious people about God. I can see by the different denominations that we all view the Bible differently and have a different way of interpreting what we read. Just as you say something Catholic, others will say something Protestant. I have heard some say, as you have said, that the Eucharist isn’t the Body and Blood of Christ, which I understand is just symbolic, and that we shouldn’t honour Mary because she was a sinner, and that being Christened or Baptised means you will be a good Christian. But the one thing we all do believe in is that there is a God and that Jesus
existed. In some religions I learned that being christened and baptised are two different things.
Matthew 3:16 After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water and look, the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him. So some Christian baptisms means to them, to be fully dipped or immersed in water like John the Baptist did to Jesus. Others believe a sprinkling on the forehead with water blessed by a Priest, Reverend etc is still being true to Jesus’s commandment to be so,and to show their belief in Him.
Many don’t follow Mary because they feel she was a “surrogate” for Jesus or God to be born; a chosen person likely from many. And while she gave birth to him, in the Jewish religion they refer to her as the “birth-giver of God.”
Other Protestants believe that Mary was merely the “earthly mother of Jesus”, not the eternal mother of “God”, thus not to imply that’s she had a role in ‘creating’ Jesus which is a “divine creation.” That “Creation” John 1:2:’He was in the beginning with God.’ So Jesus was not created by man and a woman, but incarnated, meaning that his existence and personhood indwelt man. Motherhood denotes a much greater role in the creation of the child than
incarnation would suggest.
I personally think Mary is a very ‘special woman’ (and I hold her dear to my heart whether she is “fleshly” part of Jesus or not, and I am not Catholic) I would consider it an honour to bare Gods child. Perhaps Mary was deliberately chosen to bare Jesus? But are her genes within Jesus? Or is Jesus solely the ‘creation” of God and God alone?
I agree with a lot of what you say but there must be one way to interpret the Bible – for example if the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ, worshiping it is sacrilege but if it’s just symbolic not worshiping it is sacrilege.
While I as a Christian view it that the term ‘Body of Christ’ has two separate ways of looking at it. One it refers to the statement of Jesus’s at the Eucharist at the Last Supper which denotes the piece of bread that represents the “This is my body…” The second is the Apostle Paul where he says through the name of Christ, that all should speak in agreement and therefore we should not be divided, and that we all should have the same mind and line of thought.
Let’s take the JW’s for instance. They acknowledge the bread breaking of the Last Supper with a service once a year around the anniversary date. They bake bread baked as it may well have been made back in those days. They call it Nisan 14 and its done around sundown.
As it says in Luke 22:29 “I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom.” They were all persons who were being invited to share with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom. (John 14:2, 3) All who partake of the bread and wine today should also be persons whom Christ brings into that ‘covenant for a kingdom.’
So only those who think they are worthy to share of it take a piece of the bread. Same with the red wine, only a sip is taken if they feel they are the ones who feel that God had brought them into that ‘covenant’ for a Kingdom. Their verse in Corinthians 27 says: “Consequently whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord.”
I went with a JW friend this year just out of interest.
Now others look at it differently and interpret it that all should partake which I think the Catholic Church does. And my understanding is that Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and said, “This is my body.” In the same manner, he took wine, gave thanks, and said, “This is my blood.” Jesus didn’t say “This represents my body and blood,” or “This is a symbol of my body and blood”
But because of the Aramaic it was written in it had many verbs which meant the word “represent”. So I think this is why it is looked at it differently as some interrupt the words in different meanings.
Now others look at it differently and interpret it that all should partake which I think the Catholic Church does. And my understanding is that Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and said, “This is my body.” In the same manner, he took wine, gave thanks, and said, “This is my blood.” Jesus didn’t say: “This represents my body and blood,” or “This is a symbol of my body and blood”
But because of the Aramaic it was written in it had many verbs which meant the word “represent”. So I think this is why it is looked at it differently as some interrupt the words in different meanings.
When I use to follow and attend my local church I remember the Reverend did the Eucharist himself from the front of the church once a year. Other than that time of the year it wasn’t mention other than in conversation or debate.
But as it was said by Paul about having the same mind and line of thought, I feel given things get interrupted differently, we are all thinking much along the same line and have the same thoughts, aren’t we?
Our beliefs are similar but wouldn’t it be better if we agreed 100% and were united visibly not just in spirit.
Yes, but who has it right? Everyone will say ‘they’ do. Those who follow Christ and God already are united in the fact that they ‘honour’ the Eucharist in their own way. Does God really mind how its done? He doesn’t pick sides so I believe.
In John 6:28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” and Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God…that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
As i understand it, the word ‘church’ is a universal word. This refers to the body or group of all ‘saved’ people
everywhere because, when God saves people, He puts them in the
‘church’. In this sense, the church is always singular.
The “local” church refers to a congregation of
Christians in a region who have ‘united’ themselves to work and
worship together. According to the Bible, they have a pattern of
organization, work that they are to do, and funds they use to do
this work. (God’s 1 church for all.)
Jesus was born into a Jewish family. So Jesus was a Jew. What religion was God? God was no religion and didn’t invent religion, man did. God doesn’t want sacrifices, or burnt offerings etc, he just wants people’s heart and to follow in his examples for a good life. Churches were man made to have somewhere to teach others these things about God. There could be 1 church for all, with no name, who teach the exact same thing. So yes, Father, why can’t we all agree 100% and be united.
Or there could be no church, but people live their lives with Jesus and God in their hearts and doing exactly the same thing that the church teaches its ‘flock.’ Would God/Jesus love you any less if you’re doing and living the same life? This is why many people say they don’t belong to a church but still find they can live the same life as a ‘church goer.’
Matthew 16-18: Jesus promised to ‘build His church’. The church
is built on Jesus and God and belongs to Him. ‘Church’ meaning his ‘flock’ or his ‘followers’. There is no denomination that he has said that I am aware of. So when God returns at Armeggedon, which religion is he going to say is the winner? I don’t know if ‘Christianity’ was never meant to be a divided ‘religion’, butof the spiritual life of how Jesus and God were and how others were to follow in that path.
In Ephesians 5: 23-25 Jesus is ‘Head’ of the church, and He is
Savior of His body. He gave Himself for ‘the church’. So ‘the church’
is the body of all people who have been saved for Christ and God. ‘The church’ is the congregation.
Its hard for a lot of people who have never been taught about religion, and having Faith or a belief in something you can’t see, and is of the supernatural kind.
This is just my opinion.
“This is just my opinion.” <– exactly the problem, opinions do not save us, truth does.
Interesting challenge. I’ll have to look into it more.
Question; Do you hold to the council of Trent which declares Protestants (especially calvinists) cursed?
Btw I think your 1.4 point is a misleading repensentation of protestants. Justification by faith alone but faith is never alone
Some Protestants are that strong in their belief; those who hold a more moderated belief like you often hold something Catholics can accept. Read the Catholic-Lutheran joint declaration from the late 90s.
Ryan,
I had no idea what the Council of Trent was and I see it is a council of people from Italy which began in 1545. The primary purpose of the council was to condem and refute the beliefs of the Protestants such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also to make the set of beliefs in Catholicism even clearer. Below is a note that was written.
Note: The declarations and anathemas of the Council of Trent have never
been revoked. The decrees of the Council of Trent are confirmed by both
the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the official “Catechism of
the Catholic Church” (1992).
Don’t know if that answers your question or not.
To have the idea that Protestants are cursed is ludacrious, and surely no longer a held belief. I could understand it being a prejudiced idea back in the 1500’s but not one of today.
Interesting challenge. I’ll have to look into it more.
Question; Do you hold to the council of Trent which declares Protestants (especially calvinists) cursed?
Btw I think your 1.4 point is a misleading repensentation of protestants. Justification by faith alone but faith is never alone
Some Protestants are that strong in their belief; those who hold a more moderated belief like you often hold something Catholics can accept. Read the Catholic-Lutheran joint declaration from the late 90s.
Ryan,
I had no idea what the Council of Trent was and I see it is a council of people from Italy which began in 1545. The primary purpose of the council was to condem and refute the beliefs of the Protestants such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also to make the set of beliefs in Catholicism even clearer. Below is a note that was written.
Note: The declarations and anathemas of the Council of Trent have never
been revoked. The decrees of the Council of Trent are confirmed by both
the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the official “Catechism of
the Catholic Church” (1992).
Don’t know if that answers your question or not.
To have the idea that Protestants are cursed is ludacrious, and surely no longer a held belief. I could understand it being a prejudiced idea back in the 1500’s but not one of today.