- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:12 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus Christ is the source of all life, and He and His benefits are received by faith.
The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. So I agree he is the source of all life
2
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:14 pm to gaetti15
quote:If you or others would like to challenge anything I've said, please do so. That's what discussion and debate is about.
Yeah but yall like to pluck phrases or verses out of the Bible and state that they indefinitely prove your point...without taking any context of the paragraph or multiple paragraphs they are included in.
Not saying you do it all the time, but it is frequent in Protestant circles.
However, I'm pretty careful to read the surrounding context before using a verse as a proof text. I did a lengthy but incomplete exposition of Romans 9 a few posts ago to show that I'm not just pulling these things out of thin air.
It's a shame when anyone uses texts out of their context. I try to be consistent with treating the text appropriately, but if you find that something I say isn't accurate, please challenge me on it.
quote:I do realize that there are different interpretations, even if God only intends one to be true. That's why we have the discussions to show which interpretations make the most sense of the most Scripture.
And ya'll fail to realize that in some cases their can be multiple interpretations.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:16 pm to gaetti15
quote:I completely understand the effort involved in these discussions. I've been doing this for years and sometimes I can spend an inordinate amount of time researching and rephrasing a particular response to be more clear or accurate. I get it.
I understand somethings but dont claim to be an expert in anything.
Anything in Catholic answers that I have posted os sonething that I agree is a good representation of how I feel, else I wouldn't share. I would do a disservice explaining these things in my own personal words as folks like you will rip me up because of a miniscule error. Thus, read the shite i post.
I almost never get responses from folks when I post those links. Because in most cases yall dont bother to read them.
Champagne can hopefully attest that I do actually read most if not all of what he posts from CA or elsewhere. Unless it's like a 3-hour-long video, or something like that, I'm likely going to read it and engage with it to some degree. I just don't like to only engage with materials like that because they aren't going to respond back to me.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:19 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:quote:
the first temple was polytheistic
Laugh all you want. The fake history written by the second temple priests records just about every king except Hezekiah and Josiah as worshipping many gods. David laments being exiled in Philistia and being forced by Saul to worship other gods. The Bible itself records all the other deities they had in the temples over and over - Asherah, Nehushtan, Baal (in reality this was another name for Yahweh), Chemos, Milcom, etc. The king - the messiah - set the religious practices of the people in his control and led by example.
Also the first temple cult was just evolved Canaanite mythology. You’re free to say the scriptures discourage polytheism, but the scriptures don’t reflect reality because they were written by the scribes and priests who wanted to consolidate power in Jerusalem in one city at one temple so they could collect their share of the offerings. So the first temple was polytheistic despite what was later written about it hundreds of years later.
quote:quote:Prove it
The Hebrew Bible records a false history
I doubt there’s anything that could convince you, but let’s start with the first book. Humans didn’t start from a single pair of humans. There was never a global flood. Go from there.
Read the Torah and then read Samuel and Kings. There’s supposed to be just one temple according to Deuteronomy in the first temple period. But archaeologists have unearthed scores of altars and even whole temples all over the place with inscriptions of El, Yahweh, Asherah, and other gods.
We have the letters sent by the Jews in the elephantine fortress in Egypt during the Persian period to the Jerusalem temple asking for more funding to rebuild their temple to Yahweh and Anat that the Egyptians sacked, and there was no indication of them being aware of the Deuteronomist rule of their being only one temple. All verifiable with a simple google search.
quote:
It was never considered canonical other than by some extremists who barely qualify as Jewish
The Roman Catholic Church which was the authority during the establishment of the Nicene Creed which I’m sure you confess was the same authority which declared 2 Maccabees canonical. And it was in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jewish bilingual scribes). Though there was no established Jewish canon until the first century CE, the Greek speaking Jews and the Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Jews all kept copies of 2 Maccabees. Hardly an extremist view, and you know it.
quote:
Does NOT equal divinely authoritative. But you knew that didn't you?
Nah but your boy Jude, which you surely view his work as divinely inspired, quoted from 1 Enoch saying Enoch prophecized. So that author believed 1 Enoch was inspired scripture and that’s recorded in your Bible.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:20 pm to gaetti15
quote:And here is where we disagree. While Christ is present spiritually, His human, physical body remains in Heaven, where He remains the source of all life. Bread is bread and wine is wine.
The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. So I agree he is the source of all life
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
And here is where we disagree. While Christ is present spiritually, His human, physical body remains in Heaven, where He remains the source of all life. Bread is bread and wine is wine.
Yep no getting over that.
John 6.
You have your interpretation and I have mine.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I hope my thinking is sound, considering it is based on the infallible word of God rather than the fallible traditions of men.
We have a Bible passage in which a young man is before Jesus and directly asks Him: "Teacher, what must I do to inherit Eternal Life?"
The answer that Jesus gives is nothing like your Faith Alone doctrine. The answer that Jesus provides is very close to my Africa hypothetical character's reasons for doing the Lord's work in Africa.
I find it remarkable that your Faith Alone doctrine would condemn someone that Jesus says is Saved.
We have a Bible passage in which a young man directly asks Jesus: "How can I be Saved?" and Jesus's answer is nothing like your Faith Alone doctrine. What am I to conclude here? That Jesus gave an incomplete answer or one that requires further explanation?
Luke 10 25-37. "What must I do to inherit Eternal Life?" Jesus's answer doesn't mention Faith Alone or Scripture Alone or this interesting notion of God's Elect going to Heaven by Predestination and the rest going to Hell.
Nor does Jesus's answer speak at all about how a person can have Faith in Christ and do the Lord's work but still go to Hell because God hates him and his filthy rag good deeds.
None of your Faith Alone doctrine is in this Bible passage in which a man directly asked Jesus Himself - How can I be Saved?
Nor does Jesus say anything like "Everything you need for your Salvation is in Scripture. "
I find that to be extremely remarkable.
Can you understand how somebody like me might wonder whether Faith Alone/Bible Alone might not be correct?
This post was edited on 10/7/25 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
completely understand the effort involved in these discussions. I've been doing this for years and sometimes I can spend an inordinate amount of time researching and rephrasing a particular response to be more clear or accurate. I get it.
You are probably 50+ no?
Im 35. I was raised Catholic for 4 years of my life in a mixed household (mom's side Baptist, Dad side Catholic). They left the faith after i was 4. Didn't rediscover my faith until in my mid-20s. I tried baptist, non-denom, etc. Nothing felt right, Catholicism did.
I was baptized a Catholic as an infant, and confirmed in my early 30s.
I've been through it. I found my way.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:31 pm to gaetti15
quote:I suppose there is no getting over Jesus being literal water, a literal vine, or a literal gate, either, because He described Himself in those ways.
Yep no getting over that.
John 6.
You have your interpretation and I have mine.
John 6 follows after the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus eve tells the crowds that they just want their bellies to be filled again (v. 26), so He tells them that He is the true bread of life and that if they feed on Him, they will have life. It's the same way of speaking He used with the Samaritan woman at the well, where she, too, didn't understand what He meant when He said He gives living water that those who drink of will never thirst. She thought He was talking about a well or stream of water, rather than Himself.
Catholics do the same thing as the woman at the well. You even think that passage was supposed to be a clear expression of the Eucharist when the Eucharist wasn't even instituted until much later in the upper room.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
John 6 follows after the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus eve tells the crowds that they just want their bellies to be filled again (v. 26), so He tells them that He is the true bread of life and that if they feed on Him, they will have life. It's the same way of speaking He used with the Samaritan woman at the well, where she, too, didn't understand what He meant when He said He gives living water that those who drink of will never thirst. She thought He was talking about a well or stream of water, rather than Himself.
Catholics do the same thing as the woman at the well. You even think that passage was supposed to be a clear expression of the Eucharist when the Eucharist wasn't even instituted until much later in the upper room.
I've heard it all before, if you believe that then fine. But ive read the interpretation in Koine Greek. Its perfectly rational for me to believe in transubstantion.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
He gives living water that those who drink of will never thirst. She thought He was talking about a well or stream of water, rather than Himself.
Guess what gets added to the wine before it turns into the blood? Mhm water
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:38 pm to Champagne
quote:Jesus wasn't telling the man that he could actually work his way to Heaven. He knew the man's heart and knew that he was an idolater, so he was showing him that he actually couldn't keep the law like the man thought. After Jesus tells him to keep the law, the man says he's already done that since he was a child. Jesus then redirects him to the first commandment by telling him to sell everything and follow Him. He couldn't do it because he made an idol out of his possessions.
We have a Bible passage in which a young man is before Jesus and directly asks Him: "Teacher, what must I do to inherit Eternal Life?"
The answer that Jesus gives is nothing like your Faith Alone doctrine. The answer that Jesus provides is very close to my Africa hypothetical character's reasons for doing the Lord's work in Africa.
Jesus wasn't saying he could actually be saved by keeping the law. Jesus was showing him that he couldn't even keep the first commandment.
quote:Who? The rich young ruler walked away sad because he realized that he was being asked to give up his idol (his possessions).
I find it remarkable that your Faith Alone doctrine would condemn someone that Jesus says is Saved.
quote:I just answered this. Jesus wasn't affirming works righteousness, but highlighting that the man thought he could obey the law to be saved but couldn't even obey the first commandment.
We have a Bible passage in which a young man directly asks Jesus: "How can I be Saved?" and Jesus's answer is nothing like your Faith Alone doctrine. What am I to conclude here? That Jesus gave an incomplete answer or one that requires further explanation?
quote:It's remarkable because you clearly haven't studied the passage.
Luke 10 25-37. "What must I do to inherit Eternal Life?" Jesus's answer doesn't mention Faith Alone or Scripture Alone or this interesting notion of God's Elect going to Heaven by Predestination and the rest going to Hell.
Nor does Jesus's answer speak at all about how a person can have Faith in Christ and do the Lord's work but still go to Hell because God hates him and his filthy rag good deeds.
None of your Faith Alone doctrine is in this Bible passage in which a man directly asked Jesus Himself - How can I be Saved?
Nor does Jesus say anything like "Everything you need for your Salvation is in Scripture. "
I find that to be extremely remarkable.
That's one of the many pitfalls of lay Catholics having implicit faith in the RCC. It removes all sense of need to study the Bible, themselves.
quote:I can, which is why I have been going out of my way to explain the Scriptures to you.
Can you understand how somebody like me might wonder whether Faith Alone/Bible Alone might not be correct?
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:41 pm to gaetti15
quote:I would suggest you not let your feelings dictate what is true. Too many people converting to other faiths and religions based on some subjective experience. The Mormons have their burning in the bosom, too. I saw that a Protestant apologist recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy because of some sort of subjective experience, as well. Those things cannot show us what is true.
You are probably 50+ no?
Im 35. I was raised Catholic for 4 years of my life in a mixed household (mom's side Baptist, Dad side Catholic). They left the faith after i was 4. Didn't rediscover my faith until in my mid-20s. I tried baptist, non-denom, etc. Nothing felt right, Catholicism did.
I was baptized a Catholic as an infant, and confirmed in my early 30s.
I've been through it. I found my way.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I would suggest you not let your feelings dictate what is true. Too many people converting to other faiths and religions based on some subjective experience. The Mormons have their burning in the bosom, too. I saw that a Protestant apologist recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy because of some sort of subjective experience, as well. Those things cannot show us what is true.
How dare you bastardize the dwellings and uprising of the holy spirit that was implanted in me upon my baptism. The same that I saw in my wife who was just a stubborn as you.
This post was edited on 10/7/25 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:43 pm to FooManChoo
The irony here is that your beliefs are based on your own subjective experience.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:44 pm to gaetti15
quote:I don't think it's rational to think that Jesus' body is both in Heaven and in your belly. Jesus as the God-man resides in Heaven right now. His body and blood are not transported all over the world at any given time.
I've heard it all before, if you believe that then fine. But ive read the interpretation in Koine Greek. Its perfectly rational for me to believe in transubstantion.
But that aside, the book of John shows over and over Jesus explaining who He is and what He provides through word pictures, and His hearers don't understand it because they take Him literally. And what do Catholics do? They take His words here literally, even when He just explained to the crowds that they want to feed on the miracle bread He provided but don't want Him as the bread of life.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:44 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
The irony here is that your beliefs are based on your own subjective experience.
Thank you.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
His hearers don't understand it because they take Him literally. And what do Catholics do? They take His words here literally, even when He just explained to the crowds that they want to feed on the miracle bread He provided but don't want Him as the bread of life
Because repeatedly states he is literal.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:46 pm to gaetti15
quote:Where is the vine added? Are there pieces of a gate or door added to the bread?
Guess what gets added to the wine before it turns into the blood? Mhm water
Christ said He was the good shepherd, and yet no one thinks He was a literal shepherd by occupation. It speaks to His relationship to His people, just as Him being a door speaks to Him being the entrance to eternal life, and feeding on Him by faith provides nourishment that physical food and drink cannot provide.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 9:48 pm to gaetti15
quote:I can just as easily say that the Holy Spirit testifies the Protestant and Calvinistic understandings of the Scriptures to me, even though I truly believe the Spirit confirms the truth.
How dare you bastardize the dwellings and uprising of the holy spirit that was implanted in me upon my baptism. The same that I saw in my wife who was just a stubborn as you.
That's the danger in saying that your personal experience is paramount, though. How do you tell the Mormon that his or her experience or burning of the bosom is wrong while yours is right?
Page 19 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News