MahogonySnail: The catholic bible is a bit different on key areas that catholics differ from protestants. eg. the nature of the wine turning into Christ's actual blood etc. Which makes it difficult to prove the point when their bible supports their own doctrine, and vice versa.
Test_F_i_2_Luv: Luke 22: 19-21 - "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you. But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table."
RCs and most Eastern Orthodox believe this verse is to be taken literally and believe the elements turn into or transfer(theological term: transubstantiation) into the body/blood of Jesus Christ.
Lutherans and some Orthodox believe the elements take on or contain(theological term: consubstantiation/"sacramental union") the body/blood of Jesus Christ.
Protestants believe this passage is not to be taken literally. As in other cases, Jesus is using an analogy. Communion is a memorial observance and a time to reflect on how one is living.
There are at least 3 views, then, on this issue. Lutherans share the same Bible as other protestant denominations. RCs and Orthodox share a similar Bible.
What's the difference in the RC Bible that causes the difference in theology with protestants and why is Lutheran theology different than both that of the RC church &
other protestant denominations?
MahogonySnail: I was thinking more of John 6 actually, not Luke, eg
John 6:54[DR] - "Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
KJV: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
If you are debating with a Catholic, the slant put on "except" or "whoso eateth my flesh" makes a world of difference in trying to prove your point.
Test_F_i_2_Luv: I wonder what RC you are talking about who would do such a thing. It's not a proper comparison because the same verse isn't being compared in the two
versions of the Bible.
Biblos.com didn't break down the DR correctly. I'm shocked about this and hope I can remember this for future reference!
John 6:54 in the Douay Rheims is the equivalent of John 6:53 in other translations. For whatever reason, what is verse 51 in other versions is broken down into verse 51
& 52 in the Douay Rheims. The chapter ends up having 72 verses in the DR compared to the 71 verses in other versions of the Bible.
KJV 6:53 reads a lot like DR 6:54:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
That taken into account, there isn't really much of a difference between the various versions for John 6:53:
"So Jesus said again, "I assure you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. " -New Living Translation
"Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves."
-American Standard Version
"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. " -New International Version
"So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;" -Revised Standard Version
So, going back to what you had said:
The catholic bible is a bit different on key areas that catholics differ from protestants. eg. the nature of the wine turning into Christ's actual blood etc.
Which makes it difficult to prove the point when their bible supports their own doctrine, and vice versa.
And my resulting questions:
There are at least 3 views, then, on this issue. Lutherans share the same Bible as other protestant denominations. RCs and Orthodox share a similar Bible.
What's the difference in the RC Bible that causes the difference in theology with protestants and why is Lutheran theology different than both that of the RC church &
other protestant denominations?
MahogonySnail: I did not say the bible differences "causes the difference in theology with protestants" I said their version makes it difficult when you debate
with them. All cults have their own version of the bible. So do Catholics. And that's not to mention the Catholic commentary that goes with it, which indoctrinates
the person into R.C doctrine should they read it. How can they say it is wrong if it is in their bible? When it comes down to it, it will come down to the literal
interpretation of the different words. It would be easier if everyone used the same bible version.
Test_F_i_2_Luv: Of course you didn't say those words...those were my words. Strange thing is, you had no issue with my questions until after you tried to back up your
point with an example which doesn't work.
If I was misunderstanding you and my questions were suggesting that you said something other than what you actually did say, you should have corrected me
immediately. You didn't. Instead, you tackled one of my questions as though my questions made complete sense & were right on track with the point you were trying
to make.
MahogonySnail: umm I really didn't attempt to answer or tackle your question because it was flawed in the first place, but to explain the verses I was referring
to and clarify my response. Then when you persisted with your question, I told you that you have misunderstood what I was saying.
Test_F_i_2_Luv: You originally said "The catholic bible is a bit different on key areas that catholics differ from protestants. eg. the nature of the wine turning
into Christ's actual blood etc. Which makes it difficult to prove the point when their bible supports their own doctrine, and vice versa."
I asked "What's the difference in the RC Bible that causes the difference in theology with protestants and why is Lutheran theology different than both that of
the RC church & other protestant denominations?"
Your verse didn't clarify squat. If my question was "flawed" you could have demonstrated great wisdom by showing me the flaw in my question. You didn't.
Instead, you treated it like there was no problem/flaw/issue.
Perhaps it is in my best interest to demand that, when you respond to my questions with something you actually consider to be an answer, you make a declaration in the
post to affirm that the post is, in fact, an answer. If you going to respond to a question by clarifying your own previous thought(s), tell us that's it's a
clarification of something you've said and not an answer to a question that's been addressed to you.
If my question is so flawed, show the flaw. Clarify your original statement. Rephrasing the thought could make a world of difference.
You said: "The catholic bible is a bit different on key areas that catholics differ from protestants. eg. the nature of the wine turning into Christ's actual blood etc. Which makes it difficult to prove the point when their bible supports their own doctrine, and vice versa."
My question remains: "What's the difference in the RC Bible that causes the difference in theology with protestants and why is Lutheran theology different than both that of
the RC church & other protestant denominations?"
