Can a "normal Joe" interpret Bible passages/scripture?

[eaglesmark]

Well that clears that up.

So since a bishop MUST be married then I guess he’d have to leave his
post immediately if his wife died. Since He MUST have a wife.

Couldn’t possibly be that the MUST refers to the clause it is contained
in or that the Bishop must have no more than one wife?

Well at least the OP has been answered. For Proof that normal Joe’s
cannot correctly interpret scripture see the above thread.

looks for a wall to bang his head against

Chuck
Chuck,
To wrap things up… normal Joe can do interpret the bible… just like any book you would read, how or what do you do to understand that book. The, who is talking question, what is he talking about, why did he talk such about such thing, when is it applicable, or could the event occur again?
Those type of questions we have to apply to understand and interpret what is written in the bible.

And before i forget, the bible did not say, the bishop should have to maintain a wife or else if his wife dies, being a bishop dies also with his wife. But if his wife is still alive then he must be a model husband to everyone, his wife should stick on his side.

nope won’t look 4 a wall

 

[Nicene]

eaglesmark:

Here Paul gives the qualifications of a bishop.
You must have noticed the word “MUST” haven’t you? What does it show if there is a “MUST” word. Is it to be lightly taken into account? or a command? When you write something and placing a “MUST” word, it shows that it has to be followed. The verse you just gave me clearly shows that a bishop must be married. Not just a married man, but he must have a good report, an exemplary man in the curch. He is to be the model of the congregation.

And Oh, don’t stop in verse 3, continue reading to the following verses… 4 and 5…

4)One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5)(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The verse is a clear instruction, how to choose a bishop. For one to be an overseer in the church, this is the qualifications. Can an unmarried man rule his own house?, and put his children in subjection? He doesnt even have a wife how can he have children… except for some who have children whom they secretly kept from the society.

So in other words you didn’t do your homework. Typical. So much for being able to interpret the bible on your own. The perfect example of why average Joe can’t interpret the bible.

*2 Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
*

I would read what the apostles had to say about all you splinter groups who left us, Jude, John, Peter and Paul.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Doreen]

Good Morning, Friends!

Hurst,
Thanks for your insight. I came across related Scriptures yesterday, and this has been enlightening.

I am in agreement that we have some who are called to be teachers and preacher, prophets, apostles (see Eph. 4:11-13) “so that the body of Christ may be built up.” And I am beginning to see the root of the Catholic counsel and priesthood.

And I am starting to realize that what I experienced as a young Catholic got confused and blurred somehow.

The idea that the priest was there to build me up got lost somehow. The devil’s work, I am sure.

I think it is a beautiful (are any of God’s ideas anything less than beautiful btw?) idea to have some who are “called” to specifically pray and study and teach/preach the Word.

But here’s another place where that beautiful idea was tainted by man and did damage to me. I grew up believing that the Word of God was not for me directly, but that I had to have it explained by a priest. Now, will you agree with me that this simply is not so.

This breaks my heart, now…because you have to agree, He calls us all to devotion to His Word. And how can we be devoted if we’re told it’s not really for us to understand?

Again…One Tin Soldier…a song I sang and loved for years just became totally clear to me:

Listen Children to a story that was written long ago
'bout a kingdom on a mountain and the valley folk below
On the mountain was a treasure buried deep beneath a stone
And the valley people swore they’d have it for their very own

So the people of the valley sent a message up the hill
Asking for the buried treasure, tons of gold for which they’d kill
Came an answer from the kingdom, “With our brother we will share
All the secrets of our mountain, all the riches buried there”

Now the valley cried with anger, mount your horses, draw your sword
And they killed the moutanin people, so they won their just reward
Now they stood beside the treasure on the mountain dark and red
Turned the stone and looked beneath it, “Peace on earth” was all it said.

CHORUS
Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven, you can justify it in the end
There won’t be any trumpets blowin’ come the judgement day
On the bloody morning after ONE TIN Soldier rides away.

by Dennis Lampert and Brian Potter c)1969

Christ came to offer us an incredible gift…He was the WORD in the flesh come to give us new LIFE…and so are we not all supposed to “partake” of the Word by examining our hearts and then communing with it…feeding on it. Allowing it to fill us up?

There’s such a beautiful picture there…and the really amazing thing — I’ve been posting on this thread about the Scripture and I have been also debating the Eucharist on another thread…and after a few days, I’m starting to forget which thread
I’m on…

Does that not draw a perfect picture of how the Word and the “flesh” (Eucharist) are one and the same?

Which makes me think of SolaChristo’s comment abiut “chewing”.

But then I won’t even go there on this thread…

Bottom line: can we say we are all called to His Word…though some are called to the vocation of the study and sharing of it?
D.

 

[eaglesmark]

Nicene:

So in other words you didn’t do your homework. Typical. So much for being able to interpret the bible on your own. The perfect example of why average Joe can’t interpret the bible.

*2 Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
*

I would read what the apostles had to say about all you splinter groups who left us, Jude, John, Peter and Paul.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

See the unlearned and unstable?

1. First let’s try to examine unlearned… - to be learned does not mean that we have to go to several years in a semenary or special school or be a bible scholar to know how to understand the bible. Unlearned would mean, that a person would just simply look a certain passage in the bible and think that that passage is only until there, period. However as i have said earlier that to read the bible one must have to ask the interogative questions like, Who is talking? What is he talking about? Why did he say such? When did he say that? Is it restrained for that time frame only or could it possibly re-occur?
   And also, we have to note, that the passages in the bible never contradict with each other. One verse, is supported by another. Some would say the bible is conflicting, it is not. The reader must check if the events in the sorroundings were the same, the audience is the same, the speaker is the same.
2. The word unstable - most of us read the bible haphazardly, having our own ideas. At times, we just read it as if it is not the final authority of practice and morals and there are other books that are of higher importance and degree. This mind set is wrong. Why? Because if we see some passage of the bible that contradicts what was written in the bible, we would stick to what we believe is right and not adhere to what the bible is teaching, Because sometimes we elevate our traditions above the bible.
   We already have some biases on whom should I obey? Rome or Bible? Like as catholics stand on interpreting the bible, “WHEN IT AGREES WITH ROMAN CATHOLICISM (OR VATICAN), THEN YOUR INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT”. Its just like saying that “IF YOU SEE BLACK, HOWEVER ROME TELLS YOU IT’S WHITE, THEN IT’S WHITE”.
   This attitude in reading the bible will never lead us to the truth, but will make understanding the bible difficult. But if we open our minds and search for the truth apart from the biases of our background, interpreting the bible would not be as difficult as we think, but it would set us free.
   We become unstable if we would let our own biases interfere with our reading the bible. It will lead to our destruction, since satan would then try to impregnate us with new doctrines which are not God’s.

We must note that the bible is the word of God. And God’s word is the same yesterday, today and forever…

 

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

Good Morning, Friends!

Hurst,
Thanks for your insight. I came across related Scriptures yesterday, and this has been enlightening.

I am in agreement that we have some who are called to be teachers and preacher, prophets, apostles (see Eph. 4:11-13) “so that the body of Christ may be built up.” And I am beginning to see the root of the Catholic counsel and priesthood.

And I am starting to realize that what I experienced as a young Catholic got confused and blurred somehow.

The idea that the priest was there to build me up got lost somehow. The devil’s work, I am sure.

I think it is a beautiful (are any of God’s ideas anything less than beautiful btw?) idea to have some who are “called” to specifically pray and study and teach/preach the Word.

But here’s another place where that beautiful idea was tainted by man and did damage to me. I grew up believing that the Word of God was not for me directly, but that I had to have it explained by a priest. Now, will you agree with me that this simply is not so.

This breaks my heart, now…because you have to agree, He calls us all to devotion to His Word. And how can we be devoted if we’re told it’s not really for us to understand?

Again…One Tin Soldier…a song I sang and loved for years just became totally clear to me:

Listen Children to a story that was written long ago
'bout a kingdom on a mountain and the valley folk below
On the mountain was a treasure buried deep beneath a stone
And the valley people swore they’d have it for their very own

So the people of the valley sent a message up the hill
Asking for the buried treasure, tons of gold for which they’d kill
Came an answer from the kingdom, “With our brother we will share
All the secrets of our mountain, all the riches buried there”

Now the valley cried with anger, mount your horses, draw your sword
And they killed the moutanin people, so they won their just reward
Now they stood beside the treasure on the mountain dark and red
Turned the stone and looked beneath it, “Peace on earth” was all it said.

CHORUS
Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven, you can justify it in the end
There won’t be any trumpets blowin’ come the judgement day
On the bloody morning after ONE TIN Soldier rides away.

by Dennis Lampert and Brian Potter c)1969

Christ came to offer us an incredible gift…He was the WORD in the flesh come to give us new LIFE…and so are we not all supposed to “partake” of the Word by examining our hearts and then communing with it…feeding on it. Allowing it to fill us up?

There’s such a beautiful picture there…and the really amazing thing — I’ve been posting on this thread about the Scripture and I have been also debating the Eucharist on another thread…and after a few days, I’m starting to forget which thread
I’m on…

Does that not draw a perfect picture of how the Word and the “flesh” (Eucharist) are one and the same?

Which makes me think of SolaChristo’s comment abiut “chewing”.

But then I won’t even go there on this thread…

Bottom line: can we say we are all called to His Word…though some are called to the vocation of the study and sharing of it?
D.

We are all called to His word, of course! The idea that it is not for you to understand is simply wrong. What is the correct idea is that you, or I, or anyone else may not understand it as God intended without guidance from those to whom God has given the vocation of sharing it (see Acts 8:27-39). However, we are all absolutey meant to understand it.

In fact, it is even possible to read the Word of God and see what it has to say to you specifically. We must always be careful to make sure that what we get out of it does not contradict the teaching of the Church, but it is a wonderful thing to do, to read the Bible and try to take something personal out of it.

 

[Lazerlike42]

eaglesmark:

See the unlearned and unstable?
We already have some biases on whom should I obey? Rome or Bible? Like as catholics stand on interpreting the bible, “WHEN IT AGREES WITH ROMAN CATHOLICISM (OR VATICAN), THEN YOUR INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT”. Its just like saying that “IF YOU SEE BLACK, HOWEVER ROME TELLS YOU IT’S WHITE, THEN IT’S WHITE”.
This attitude in reading the bible will never lead us to the truth, but will make understanding the bible difficult. But if we open our minds and search for the truth apart from the biases of our background, interpreting the bible would not be as difficult as we think, but it would set us free.
We become unstable if we would let our own biases interfere with our reading the bible. It will lead to our destruction, since satan would then try to impregnate us with new doctrines which are not God’s.

We must note that the bible is the word of God. And God’s word is the same yesterday, today and forever…

You are incorrect that the Catholic Church would claim that it is able to teach anything contradictory to the Bible. If the Church ever were to say anything contrary to the Bible, She would be wrong. However, She will not teach in contradiction to the Bible because it is the same speaker (God) whom speaks through both.

Let me ask you this. Would you agree that whatever is true about God can not be contradicted by what happens in our world? For instance, say somebody interprets Acts chapter 5 to mean that any Christian who is not a communist will be struck down by God. (I’m not saying this interpretation is correct, I am just saying that some person has read it this way.) One could in fact reasonably conclude from the chapter that this is the case. However, there have been many non-communist Christians in our world who have not died. Since the truth of God cannot contradict what happens in our world, we know that this interpretation is wrong. Say a second person interprets the passage to mean that God will strike down any person who secretly witholds money from the Church (or a church, whichever way you want to go). Well, we also have had many times in this world where men have secretly witheld money from the Church (or a church) and have not died. So we know that this interpretation is wrong, because it does not mesh with what happens in the world.

So my question to you is this: In our world, we have thousands of different denominations of Christians. Let’s not worry about that though, and take only two. Let’s take Baptists and, oh the Salvationists, just to through in a weird (uncommon) one. Between those two, there are millions of Christians. There have got to be hundreds of thousands in each denomination who are really, truly commited to Christ, and really, truly seeking the truth. Buuuuttt let’s not worry about that. Let’s just take one person from each. I think it’s more than fair to say that there’s at least one person in each of these denominations who is really truly seeking God. Now we have a problem. These two denominations have some very different theological ideas. Baptists, for instance, would say you must be dunked in the creek to be baptised, whereas the Salvationists don’t even baptize at all.

So we know from what happens in our world that the interpretation that the Holy Spirit was promised to all believers to guide them into all truth is wrong. It contradicts what happens in our world. What happens in our world is the truth of God. It can’t be otherwise, or God either A) is a liar or B) does not exist. If you want to say that this interpretation is correct, you have a huge problem here, because the interpretation does not at all mesh with what really happens.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Years ago I read a very picaresque novel called “If Nothin’ Don’t Happen.” Set in rural Florida around the end of the 19th Century, it was composed of family stories and anecdotes woven into a story.

The mother was a very religious lady (a fundamentalist, if that matters) and the oldest son liked to tease her about religion. They had one discussion which she won by showing him that Jesus said, “It is such-and-such.”

She knew Jesus emphasized the word “is” because it was printed in italics in the Bible.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[eaglesmark]

Nicene:

So in other words you didn’t do your homework. Typical. So much for being able to interpret the bible on your own. The perfect example of why average Joe can’t interpret the bible.

*2 Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
*

I would read what the apostles had to say about all you splinter groups who left us, Jude, John, Peter and Paul.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

maybe we can talk about the celibacy issue on the celibacy thread.

But i think you got me… Maybe normal joe can’t really interpret the bible.

The reason is not that God gave special talents to other people for them to interpret the bible. Therefor those people are more in somewhat of authority to interpret the bible and just leave it to them and our job is to blindly accept their interpretation.
I think however, that the reason why regular joe have difficulty understanding the bible is written in

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

A lot of regular joe dont believe that the bible is the final authority with regards to faith, practice and doctrine. I guess that wraps it up. Why regular joe has difficulty interpreting the bible, it is simply that satan blinded them. What do you think satan would use to blind regular joe? Our own biases… if we regard the bible as a secondary tool and not authoritative tool, we’ll never interpret the bible correctly.
If we use our biases to interpret the bible, this shows that we are not yet learned and are unstable, since it would cause us to think that the bible contradicts itself.

But if you believe the bible as the sole and final authority, good… your on the right track in search for the truth.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Hope you can know the truth and be free.

 

[Unfinished]

eaglesmark:

But if you believe the bible as the sole and final authority, good… your on the right track in search for the truth.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Hope you can know the truth and be free.

Not to be sarcastic, but which of the 30000 denominations holds the truth?

Adam

 

[eaglesmark]

Lazerlike42:

You are incorrect that the Catholic Church would claim that it is able to teach anything contradictory to the Bible. If the Church ever were to say anything contrary to the Bible, She would be wrong. However, She will not teach in contradiction to the Bible because it is the same speaker (God) whom speaks through both.

Let me ask you this. Would you agree that whatever is true about God can not be contradicted by what happens in our world? For instance, say somebody interprets Acts chapter 5 to mean that any Christian who is not a communist will be struck down by God. (I’m not saying this interpretation is correct, I am just saying that some person has read it this way.) One could in fact reasonably conclude from the chapter that this is the case. However, there have been many non-communist Christians in our world who have not died. Since the truth of God cannot contradict what happens in our world, we know that this interpretation is wrong. Say a second person interprets the passage to mean that God will strike down any person who secretly witholds money from the Church (or a church, whichever way you want to go). Well, we also have had many times in this world where men have secretly witheld money from the Church (or a church) and have not died. So we know that this interpretation is wrong, because it does not mesh with what happens in the world.

So my question to you is this: In our world, we have thousands of different denominations of Christians. Let’s not worry about that though, and take only two. Let’s take Baptists and, oh the Salvationists, just to through in a weird (uncommon) one. Between those two, there are millions of Christians. There have got to be hundreds of thousands in each denomination who are really, truly commited to Christ, and really, truly seeking the truth. Buuuuttt let’s not worry about that. Let’s just take one person from each. I think it’s more than fair to say that there’s at least one person in each of these denominations who is really truly seeking God. Now we have a problem. These two denominations have some very different theological ideas. Baptists, for instance, would say you must be dunked in the creek to be baptised, whereas the Salvationists don’t even baptize at all.

So we know from what happens in our world that the interpretation that the Holy Spirit was promised to all believers to guide them into all truth is wrong. It contradicts what happens in our world. What happens in our world is the truth of God. It can’t be otherwise, or God either A) is a liar or B) does not exist. If you want to say that this interpretation is correct, you have a huge problem here, because the interpretation does not at all mesh with what really happens.

You’ve got a good point there. I would agree to your point. as i have said earlier, each of us has a biased idea already in our minds. these biased ideas won’t lead us to the truth. And o, did you know that the word baptism came from a greek origin “Baptizo”, meaning to immerse, submerged, burried under water and not sprinkling. This is just a bit of information incase you dont know. But if you do, dont bother…

And before i go to bed, since its already almost 1 am here in my country, i would like to mention again that there can never be a communist and at the same time a christian since the ideology of a commy is that theydon’t believe in God. Just another fyi.

i agree to you though… there is only 1 correct interpretation of the bible… so whose interpretation could it be?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unfinished:

Not to be sarcastic, but which of the 30000 denominations holds the truth?

Adam

Whichever one the guy you’re talking to is a member of. And it will continue to hold the truth until he switches to another sect.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[eaglesmark]

Lazerlike42:

You are incorrect that the Catholic Church would claim that it is able to teach anything contradictory to the Bible. If the Church ever were to say anything contrary to the Bible, She would be wrong. However, She will not teach in contradiction to the Bible because it is the same speaker (God) whom speaks through both.

Let me ask you this. Would you agree that whatever is true about God can not be contradicted by what happens in our world? For instance, say somebody interprets Acts chapter 5 to mean that any Christian who is not a communist will be struck down by God. (I’m not saying this interpretation is correct, I am just saying that some person has read it this way.) One could in fact reasonably conclude from the chapter that this is the case. However, there have been many non-communist Christians in our world who have not died. Since the truth of God cannot contradict what happens in our world, we know that this interpretation is wrong. Say a second person interprets the passage to mean that God will strike down any person who secretly witholds money from the Church (or a church, whichever way you want to go). Well, we also have had many times in this world where men have secretly witheld money from the Church (or a church) and have not died. So we know that this interpretation is wrong, because it does not mesh with what happens in the world.

So my question to you is this: In our world, we have thousands of different denominations of Christians. Let’s not worry about that though, and take only two. Let’s take Baptists and, oh the Salvationists, just to through in a weird (uncommon) one. Between those two, there are millions of Christians. There have got to be hundreds of thousands in each denomination who are really, truly commited to Christ, and really, truly seeking the truth. Buuuuttt let’s not worry about that. Let’s just take one person from each. I think it’s more than fair to say that there’s at least one person in each of these denominations who is really truly seeking God. Now we have a problem. These two denominations have some very different theological ideas. Baptists, for instance, would say you must be dunked in the creek to be baptised, whereas the Salvationists don’t even baptize at all.

So we know from what happens in our world that the interpretation that the Holy Spirit was promised to all believers to guide them into all truth is wrong. It contradicts what happens in our world. What happens in our world is the truth of God. It can’t be otherwise, or God either A) is a liar or B) does not exist. If you want to say that this interpretation is correct, you have a huge problem here, because the interpretation does not at all mesh with what really happens.

i ask you to be open minded… regarding the statement in the first paragraph… but just to say, try to look at the whole history of the roman catholic church… and open your eyes… i dont intend to offend you… but just to say, ill give you one good example,

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Have you read about crusades and wars declared by the roman catholic church? . I guess i won’t say more of that but just check out the internet you might find somethings out there.
P.S. If you would like to know the truth check the sites that are not biased with your own and also check those that are, and examine both of them together.

 

[Unfinished]

vern humphrey:

Whichever one the guy you’re talking to is a member of. And it will continue to hold the truth until he switches to another sect.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Yeah, thats my point. And the crux of the problem with Sola Scriptura.

 

[eaglesmark]

Unfinished:

Not to be sarcastic, but which of the 30000 denominations holds the truth?

Adam

It’s a good question. Some people find it with in a few days, and people find it almost there whole life… But to give you some advice if you should wish to know the truth… Believe that the bible is the word of God. Then try to ask other people which is not biased with your own opinion and beliefs. Be open minded. And most importantly, check if the denomination you belong, is in accordance with the bible, through it’s whole history… Not just at the present but from when it started up to the present. Have this denomination which i know belong, adhere to the teachings of Christ.
the truth is never revealed to those who shut their eyes and mind, and refuse to accept the truth.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unfinished:

Yeah, thats my point. And the crux of the problem with Sola Scriptura.

Actually, what you always find is “Sola Scriptura but not Wholla da Scriptura.” They pick and choose, and throw out what doesn’t confirm their pre-concieved ideas.

For example, we have had guys recently attack the Peterine Text in Matthew by saying you don’t find it in other Gospels. (Ahhh – so you reject Matthew, do you? But he wouldn’t answer that one.)

I have had these guys try to tell me that 1 Peter really meant Babylon, not Rome because the first use of Babylon for Rome is in Revelation. (No, the first use of Babylon for Rome is in 1 Peter.)

 

[eaglesmark]

vern humphrey:

Actually, what you always find is “Sola Scriptura but not Wholla da Scriptura.” They pick and choose, and throw out what doesn’t confirm their pre-concieved ideas.

For example, we have had guys recently attack the Peterine Text in Matthew by saying you don’t find it in other Gospels. (Ahhh – so you reject Matthew, do you? But he wouldn’t answer that one.)

I have had these guys try to tell me that 1 Peter really meant Babylon, not Rome because the first use of Babylon for Rome is in Revelation. (No, the first use of Babylon for Rome is in 1 Peter.)

I have just 1 short comment on that one. If it’s what they do then they are hidding something. And the truth does not belong to them. The bible is in harmony with it self.

But in the regard with Peter and Rome and Babylon and Revelations… you will see a lot of evidences that peter never went to rome. as i have said, check out articles that are not biased with your own beliefs and compare it with what you believed. Find out what is the truth.
I wana share my own experience to you…
I was in search for the truth, i used articles that even attacked my beliefs, i compared it with the bible… i was glad God lead me to the truth and my faith became stronger to what i believed because from those articles i’ve justified what i believe is right in the sight of God according to the bible.

 

[Unfinished]

eaglesmark:

It’s a good question. Some people find it with in a few days, and people find it almost there whole life… But to give you some advice if you should wish to know the truth… Believe that the bible is the word of God. Then try to ask other people which is not biased with your own opinion and beliefs. Be open minded. And most importantly, check if the denomination you belong, is in accordance with the bible, through it’s whole history… Not just at the present but from when it started up to the present. Have this denomination which i know belong, adhere to the teachings of Christ.
the truth is never revealed to those who shut their eyes and mind, and refuse to accept the truth.

Oh trust me, I have. I actually went through a HUGE faith crisis. What I kept going back to is 1 Tim 3:15.

God…what church? Well, lets open the phone book.

Alright, Mormons and Church of Christ. An apostacy? Lets look at history. Oh wait, it never happened. They are out.

And I can do that with every single Protestant denomination. After reading the Bible…trying to make the Bible fit some concepts such as the Rapture were just silly. And faith…alone? If it is faith alone why does the Bible mention we are saved by other things? (Baptism, hope, motherhood…just to name a few.) And what about James? Why was he such a big advocate of NOT faith alone?

Trust me, I wanted to be Baptist with all my heart, soul and strength. My relationship at the time depended on it.

But, what it really came down to is this. Why did the Holy Spirit change his mind and start teaching a completely different truth in the 16th century? Well, the short answer is, he didn’t.

The Bible sure is the Word of God. But like the eunch in Acts, who will you have explain it to you?

That might be how you read the Bible, but do you claim your interpretation is infallible? I know someone who does. And they could back it up.

Adam

 

[Doreen]

Lazerlike42:

Since the truth of God cannot contradict what happens in our world, we know that this interpretation is wrong. Say a second person interprets the passage to mean that God will strike down any person who secretly witholds money from the Church (or a church, whichever way you want to go). Well, we also have had many times in this world where men have secretly witheld money from the Church (or a church) and have not died. So we know that this interpretation is wrong, because it does not mesh with what happens in the world.

Lazer,
Here’s the rub…the Bible uses figurative speech OFTEN…and when it says that a person will be “struck down” for their unrepented sin…this doesn’t necessarily mean RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT…it can, and often does, mean when the Judgement Cometh. We CAN’T say that this interpretation is wrong.

Thus…this can’t be depended upon as evidence for the case.

 

[vern_humphrey]

eaglesmark:

I have just 1 short comment on that one. If it’s what they do then they are hidding something. And the truth does not belong to them. The bible is in harmony with it self.

But in the regard with Peter and Rome and Babylon and Revelations… you will see a lot of evidences that peter never went to rome. as i have said, check out articles that are not biased with your own beliefs and compare it with what you believed. Find out what is the truth.

In which book of the Bible will I find those articles?

Were they written by in Inspired Writer and accepted into the Canon?

I thought we were Sola Scriptura around here – and accepted the Bible as the Word of God.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

eaglesmark:

I wana share my own experience to you…
I was in search for the truth, i used articles that even attacked my beliefs, i compared it with the bible… i was glad God lead me to the truth and my faith became stronger to what i believed because from those articles i’ve justified what i believe is right in the sight of God according to the bible.

But you reject 1 Peter?

 

[Lazerlike42]

eaglesmark:

i ask you to be open minded… regarding the statement in the first paragraph… but just to say, try to look at the whole history of the roman catholic church… and open your eyes… i dont intend to offend you… but just to say, ill give you one good example,

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Have you read about crusades and wars declared by the roman catholic church? . I guess i won’t say more of that but just check out the internet you might find somethings out there.
P.S. If you would like to know the truth check the sites that are not biased with your own and also check those that are, and examine both of them together.

Yes, I have read about them. The crusades were defensive wars. Even when things that ought not to have been done were done, this does not discredit the Church for several reasons.

First is the point that at the time of the crusades the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church. It was the only one that had existed for over a thousand years. It had the teachings that had been taught for a thousand years. In other words, if the crusades disprove tje Catholic Church, then they disprove all of Christianity, because there were no other Christians around at the time who one could claim were the “true” Christians who didn’t participate in the crusades.

Secondly, and more importantly, is that sin does not discredit a church as being the Church of God. If so, then the true Church does not exist. I am a Christian, yet I have sinned many times. Haven’t you? If you wish to say that the crusades were wrong and that they prove that the Catholic Church is not the true Church, then your sins prove that you are not a Christian.

But most importantly is that the verse from Ephesians you listed is being taken completely out of context. Watch this:

1 Timothy 5:23
“Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.”

Do you drink wine? I guess I won’t say more, but does your church make everybody drink wine?