Yet, we endure it.
|How come her Bible says something|
different than his Bible?
How Protestants (or “non-Catholics”) miss this and call it “symbolic” I will never understand. After all, they are Sola Scriptura, right? And there it is – right in the Bible.
So, Protestants, how do you read John 6, Matthew 26, 1 Corinthians 10 & 11?
This is just one of many questions I have for Protestants. More after the jump.
In no particular order:
Where in the Bible does it say that faith can be acquired from the Bible alone? I noticed John 21:25 where it is clear that what is in the Bible is not complete – that Jesus did and said many other things. Also, there’s 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul says to hold fast to both written AND oral traditions. So, where are those oral traditions now that were so very important to Paul, and the things Jesus did and said that John saw fit to mention?
If Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone) is true, then why does St. Paul say that love is greater in 1 Corinthians 13:13?
And if Sola Fide is true, then how do you explain James 2:24 (“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only”)?
Many Christian groups believe differently about many things. Take, for example, the Eucharistic verses from earlier in this post. If the Bible is all we need for salvation, how come people interpret the Bible differently, including what it says about salvation?
In other words, how can a reading of the Bible create several variations on what is true about salvation? If Jesus is THE way, truth, and life (John 14:6), how can there be many, which goes against the will of Jesus that we all be one (John 17)?
If the prayer of a righteous man avails much (James 5:16), but none are righteous (Romans 3:10), then who’s prayer is it exactly that avails anything?
After Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter (Matthew 16:19), what happened to them? Does the Bible record Jesus taking them back?
|"Yeah, I'll need these back before dinner next Passover...."|
In the Epistle of Jude (Jude 1:14, to be exact), the author quotes from a non-canonical book, the Book of Enoch. If this was circulating at the time of early Christians, who decided, and why, and under what (or whos’) authority, that it was not part of the Bible (Enoch, that is)? And who decided that Jude, in quoting non-canonically, IS part of the Bible?
That’s it for now. Of course, I have my own answers (as does the Catholic Church, which, really, are where my answers come from), but I’m very curious how non-Catholics would answer one or all of these questions.