It isn't obvious?

Those verses get used by Protestants with the implication that Catholics are the one who arose later than they and started teaching different doctrines. Not only is this anachronistic, but it accomplishes little.

Suppose me and another Catholic are discussing a theological speculation. I get angry with him for not believing me, so I say "Jesus said there would be people who arose teaching false doctrines!" If my Catholic friend here has any wits about him, he'll just look puzzled, because whether or not he or I are teaching false doctrines isn't proved by who can reference that Scripture.

IOW, Protestants can quote that at Catholics as if it means something, and Catholics can do the same to Protestants, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

But I dont give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. Also, I dont cheat anyone through philosophy and empty deciet, according to the tradition of men or basic principals of the world and not according to Christ. Thats why my question is how that verse can be attributed to Protestant's, not why it isn't attributed to Catholic's.

Dispute is edification.



You can't cheat someone through philosophy. You can cheat someone through sophistry, but not philosophy.



"Be aware, there will come among you those who teach false doctrines."

It's just a history lesson; who came first, the Catholic or the Protestant?

Since Protestants came later than Catholics, and it doesn't make sense for Catholics to come among Catholics, its obviously about Protestants.

See how much that didn't accomplish?

The Protestant reply is of course that there were proto-Protestants before the Catholic Church arose, meaning that the Catholics arose out of the proto-Protestants, and Protestants are just restoring Christianity to it was before Catholicism ruined it. (Of course, this ignores history, but that's the difference between Catholics and Protestants)

You need to keep in mind that Protestant actually means in protest of the Catholic Church's beliefs. So no, there were no Protestant's back then. There was the Gospel that Jesus Christ spoke and was written down.

There was the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ that they all spoke of outside of the letters. So because the term protestant comes from not agreeing with Catholic's, no there could not have been Protestant's before Catholic's.

Aren't you? "One person esteems [one] day above another; another esteems every day [alike]. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." (Rom 14:5)
The only thing is, I'm not hardening my heart towards it, That's why I'm still open for discussion.




So you're saying it's the simple way?(Pro 1:22) Even though, they could be lying to you(1Jo 4:1), at least you didn't have to search for your answer. (Ecc 1:13)




No but it doesn't mean it was ether, I was just pointing that out.




It's funny I had the same reaction to your illustration. xD My point was, even though it looks plausible (Like the earth being flat), it's no proof that it's correct. However it does mean that it should be looked into.




Ouch, that kind of hurt, may I ask where the love was in you saying that? Now.. So, you don't think we should think it strange to take a bite out of someone? Even though it's written more than twice not to do it in the law of moses?




Again, even though it was an absolute statement, it doesn't mean He meant absolutely that. Are we to assume then that the fathers ate Jesus in the desert, even though The Word had not yet become flesh?




Instead of just making that statement, would you mind quoting scripture? That way I might also profit from this discussion?




You mean destroyed? Because that's the only way Jesus could have gone in complete contradiction. It's kind of like; "Do not murder" and then Jesus telling you to go out and murder; That kind of contradiction.




So in other words; you don't understand how it works, it takes your complete faith, in the church alone, to believe in it?
For surely the scriptures do not teach it, and, No one can apparently, hear nor interpret God's word except the church.




So in other words; Only though the Roman Catholic church can anyone gain salvation? For only through their communion can you obtain the will of God.




That's an interesting statement, you're right. It does say eats, eats meaning to continuously eat, so doesn't that mean that only while you're eating it you have eternal life? Now I see why people eat it so slowly. Because once you stop eating it, you've stopped eating it, therefore not continuously eating anymore.
And plus why would God make something so worldly, so worthless as eating something to have any value towards your eternal salvation? Some churches can't afford bread and some not wine, so what of those? Can they now not take part in the trinity, because they could not afford the worldly supper? That's something to think about.


--------------------------------------------


@ Maria_AMDG



I personally prefer medium, to medium rare, depending on the place, I don't like it with any red; the juices have to run clear, for me.
lol No, I know what you're asking, you're asking about: (Romans 14) and (1 Cor 8) That was the last subject I studied actually. I find it funny, when sometimes God's mysteries blend together, to come to the ultimate truth. anyway, that answer to your question, My answer would be, based on those two scriptures, that it depends on your conscience. If eating it goes against your conscience, then don't eat it because for you, it is a sin, However if you feel no condemnation, and by eating you are not causing another, who cannot eat, to stumble, then by all means eat, for it is written: "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that [there is] nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean." (Romans 14:14)

I'll get to my own personal responce in a second, but you guys need to cool down in here on both sides. This is not an us verse them discussion, please stop pulling each other down. It this continues to be a denominational battle, I will close this thread. Please keep it on the discussion of the Eucharist/Communion/the verses that the OP posted.

She's right, I have a lot of reasons why I trust the bible over the church, however I think the most blatant reason here, is that: We're on a bible discussion board, so why aren't we discussing the bible? That makes sense right? so just ignore the following, that were in my post...








I think the rest are enough, on topic.. but Like Zabby said, just watch to make sure that we don't start talking about denominations, but about the bible. You said that it does say it in the bible, well don't just tell me, show me! It seems like the taking of communion is a good work wouldn't you say? well here's some scripture for you:

there you go.

God Bless!

Do you know why it was forbidden to consume blood in the Old Law?