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

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

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.

Let me say that the person interprets the passage to mean that a person will die immediately. We can say for sure that this person’s interpretation is not correct. My point was not about that one passage, I was just using an example. I could find other passages that give a much better example if I want.

My point was only that the interpretation that God will guide every sincere believer into all truth cannot be correct, because many sincere believers differ greatly in their beliefs. I have never seen an answer to this objection that even comes remotely close to working.

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.
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.

That is not the only evidence that Pete was in Rome. There is tons of evidence that he was there. There is archaeology, there is history, there are the writings of people that lived at the same time as he did. There is tons of evidence. (Not to mention the fact that even if he never even heard of Rome that the basis of the papacy would not be hurt one bit.)

 

[hurst]

eaglesmark:

in @ Peter 1:10, real christians are incouraged to do good, because they are the workmanship of God unto good works. Not do good to be saved. But do good because God has given you grace.

It says to do good “to make sure your calling and election”. You seem to be sidestepping that point. I agree we do it with the grace God has given us.

eaglesmark:

Paul admitted that he had sinned.

He also claimed he was not conscious of any sin (1 Cor 4:4). Now we are down to an interpretation issue.

eaglesmark:

But does this mean he lost his salvation because he has sinned.

Apoc 2 is clear that faithful believers can still sin, and that Christ wants us to do penance for it or else suffer loss. Therefore, we can know that we are given time to repent. Furthermore, scripture says explicitly that God shows His goodness to us in order that we may do penance.

Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance?

eaglesmark:

Are you trying to say that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross not sufficient for Him to save you? Is His sacrifice temporary just as those in the old testament patriarchs sacrifices. That they have to sacrifice daily, because their blood sacrifice of animals were just temporary.

His sacrifice is indeed sufficient, but only for those who do penance and return to the first works of charity. God is not mocked. Just because He is able to save you, doesn’t mean He will do so against your will. If you are determined to depreciate His goodness, He will let you be cut off.

The following verse implies that those who do not return to penance will perish.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.

Of course, someone wishing to believe OSAS will try to interpret this to fit their perspective. And that is why any joe cannot interpret scripture authoritatively. We are free to try to see how it applies to us, but we have to be guided by what has always definitively been taught by the Church because they have been given that duty and authority.

eaglesmark:

As you have said, “You have to use it or loose it”. I beg to disagree. As in Eph. 2:10, those who really were truly saved by the grace of God can really do good.

Yes, they can really do good. But they can also decide not to do good. We are more free after believing, but we are still able to use that freedom against ourselves.

eaglesmark:

Salvation that God has given is secure John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand…

Other scripture supplements this and says we can fall by our own fault. Compare John 10:28 to Apoc 2.

The average joe would have to know the whole scripture to accurately interpret one passage, and even then, he would be lacking the authority and gifts to do anything about much of it. Once someone knows the whole scripture thoroughly, they are no longer an average joe.

Even in society we do not trust an average joe to service our car, clean our carpets, fix our plumbing, install our phones, or anything else that requires experience and expertise. That is why we have division of labor - everyone does what they are good at, and we trust the expert in his field.

eaglesmark:

The bible that you used, the term repentance is replaced with “Penance”. Jesus never taught anyone to seek the forgiveness or to confess to a priest, (that is penance). What he taught is to ask God directly for forgiveness ang to turn away from sin, that is repentance.

Regardless of that, it still shows you have to “do” something to avoid losing your salvation.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Doreen:

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.

St. Jerome says “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”.

Scripture contains more than one level of knowledge. It contains literal truth and history, but it also contains spiritual truths on top of that. And that includes God speaking to us personally through His Word in scripture.

However, we must keep balance by placing one foot on the general meaning and one foot on the particular meaning. The general meaning is the authoritative interpretation provided and maintained by the Church. The particular meaning is what we understand God to be speaking to us at our point in the spiritual life. We should never use our private understanding to oppose the authority of the Church. Instead, we should use it to grow in grace and faith, establishing a method of living for God. This is what many saints did.

So the priest is right in one sense, because he is the one who has been trained in the general and authoritative aspect of Church teaching. But at the same time you are correct, because the Church does not have an authoritative declaration on every line of scripture, and even says there are spiritual meanings on top of the literal ones.

Doreen:

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?

Not everyone can possibly be called to actually read scripture, though. For one thing, not everyone has had access to a Bible. For another, not everyone can read.

While we are children, we are not expected to understand in the sense that we take charge. Consider your own children, or even the time when you were a child at home. We can only understand so much, and for the rest we submit ourselves to explanation of authority.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Doreen:

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?

We should partake of it, yes. But that is not the only reason Christ came.

Christ came as Prophet, King, and Savior. In other words, He came as Teacher, Ruler, and Priest. As a Teacher and Prophet, we must follow His guidance to live our lives properly. As a King and Ruler, we must submit to His governance. As Savior and Priest, He offers the sacrifice of Himself for our reconciliation and spiritual food.

How can a Protestant claim Christ as a King on earth. How do they envision His prayer “Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven”, or “One fold, one shepherd”? How do they rule?

How do Protestants “feed” His lambs and sheep - a duty entrusted to Peter in John 21? Christ established pastors for this work, and this is mentioned in various places:

1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily:… 4 And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory.

Christ is the prince of pastors, who will reward His pastors. So we are not “left as orphans”, nor are we all expected to have only a private relationship with Christ - though the private and personal part is certainly very important and needed! In order to practice the virtue of obedience, we need to be answering to someone besides ourself and our own interpretations.

1 Peter 2:25 For you were as sheep going astray; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.

There is a bishop in charge of every region of the earth, and the one covering the geographical area where we live is the spiritual shepherd of our souls. Yes, Christ is the main Shepherd of all souls, but He has appointed men to minister to His sheep to feed them, govern them, and teach them.

1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God …

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine

Matthew 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Matthew 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain … 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you …

Protestants are only doing the teaching portion, because they have a Bible; yet they do not have an authoritative interpretation for the true faith. For the many denominations have a different faith from each other based on the same scriptures.

Doreen:

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?

I think the very fact that some are called to spread it indicates that we are all meant to receive it.

hurst

 

[vern_humphrey]

hurst:

So the priest is right in one sense, because he is the one who has been trained in the general and authoritative aspect of Church teaching. But at the same time you are correct, because the Church does not have an authoritative declaration on every line of scripture, and even says there are spiritual meanings on top of the literal ones.

Not everyone can possibly be called to actually read scripture, though. For one thing, not everyone has had access to a Bible. For another, not everyone can read.

More importantly, not everyone had the Karisma of the Magisterium. In fact, even the priest doesn’t have it – it’s reserved to the bishops.

He does, however, as you say, have the training. And he is supervised by the bishop who does have the Magisterium.

There are only a few authoritatively pronounced interpretations of specific issues – the meaning of much of scripture can be debated even among the laity.

Anyone who can read and has access can read the and can interpret it. However the quality of the interpretation will be contigent on his training and his following the Magisterium.

 

[Doreen]

Hurst,
This is HUGE! You just uncovered something extremely important for my understanding of our differences. You shared:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.

And I just read the same verse in my NIV and the term “penance” is “repentance.”

THIS IS HUGE! This helps me to deal with something I had not understood in the Catholic church. Why the priest would tell me to go say some prayers after each confession. I had always understood this as “penance”…which I thought of as “my consequences for my sin” …and it always boggled my mind how this was supposed to change my heart somehow.

Now I see that we are translating this term out of the term repentence, which to me, now, is a totally different thing.

Repent = turning away

as in to completely renounce the sin and pray sincerely for a deliverance from it

I really wondered (after I learned about true repentance and grace) whether the Catholic church taught these things. Isn’t that sad?

Now, I know “deliver us from evil” is stated in the Our Father, and therefore, I “stated my desire to be delivered” while doing my “penance”…but is anyone hearing me? I spoke those prayers, without really contemplating on what I was saying. I am sure I’m not the only one who lived in this totally disconnected state.

So here’s a question I have: When and where do the teachers of the Catholic church teach this stuff. Did I hear it in CCD and just not get it? Did I get it explained to me in 2nd grade, but it was too abstract for my thinking at that time? How is it that the people of the church didn’t make this a serious priority in the teaching? Help me understand how I missed it.

This has truly been some of the most fruitful dialogue I’ve had in a LONG time. Thanks for engaging in it with me.
D.

 

[MrS]

Doreen, for so many years our seminaries were lacking in what they taught, and in what and how they groomed new priests to teach and preach.

You rarely heard a good homily on the reality of sin… so is it any wonder why we missed homilies on repentance?

Bishop Sheen often said that among the greatest sins of the 20th Century, was the idea that the devil no longer existed.

The Catholic Church never believed this… but many of its teachers led us down dangerous paths. Thankfully that is changing for the better.

You are on a great path, because you want to walk with the Lord.

A Jewish convert to Catholicism, anticipating his first confession was understandably nervous. However, he was advised to enter the confessional, close his eyes, and imagine if he could that he was walking down the shore of Galilee, hand in hand with Jesus… and just talk to him. He looks forward to each confession now… knowing he is repenting to the very one he has offended… through His ministerial priest.

 

[Doreen]

THIS IS HUGE! This helps me to deal with something I had not understood in the Catholic church. Why the priest would tell me to go say some prayers after each confession. I had always understood this as “penance”…which I thought of as “my consequences for my sin” …and it always boggled my mind how this was supposed to change my heart somehow.

Wow, and I just had another revelation come to me…I am now a parent of 5 little ones…between ages 8 and 11 months. My husband and I are very careful in selecting consequences appropriate to the misbehavior of our children. Every poor decision should have a natural or logical consequence, or a swift and severe (but loving) disciplinary action.

One thing we learned is that we should not make certain things a punishment … like “go to your room” --we feel this is NOT an appropriate thing to line up as a “negative consequence” because we want them to see their rooms as good places, where they can have some space of their own, (with some parental limitations, of course) and so, we’ve determined that sending a child to their room as a negative result of an action is not appropriate. See? We do send them to their room if they need a cooling off period, but we don’t make the act of going to the room the negative result, because we want them to think of their bedroom as a good place to be…this way we don’t imply that being alone is a terrible thing/a punishment, either.

So…here’s the connection I made from the sacrifice of “penance” as a child: It being designed and presented to me as a sacrifice taught me that praying is supposed to be some terrible, difficult thing that you HAVE to do when you’ve done something really bad. Sure I was also taught by my parents to “say a prayer” when I lost something, but really there were few other places for prayer in my instruction. Yeah, we had the dinner prayer and the bedtime prayers…all memorized, and not terribly personal. So do you see how one could miss out on one of the greatest gifts the Lord gave us…or how the devil could paint it out as something you only did when you were desparate or really naughty?

Man, I have just been having all kinds of lightbulbs going off here.
I can’t thank you enough for working through all this with me.
D.

 

[Doreen]

MrS, you just painted a picture of my moment of conversion/transfiguration/commitment to Christ:

A Jewish convert to Catholicism, anticipating his first confession was understandably nervous. However, he was advised to enter the confessional, close his eyes, and imagine if he could that he was walking down the shore of Galilee, hand in hand with Jesus… and just talk to him. He looks forward to each confession now… knowing he is repenting to the very one he has offended… through His ministerial priest.

It was truly the most significant day/decision of my life…and I don’t anticipate any more significant days but the one in which I stand face to face with my God and King. (I love the Mercy Me song: “when I stand in your presence will I be able to speak at all? I can only imagine!” – brings me to tears everytime)

This experience of dialogue on here with you and the others who are willing to have a friendly discourse has been some wonderful therapy for my soul. Thanks, friend!
D.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

Wow, and I just had another revelation come to me…I am now a parent of 5 little ones…between ages 8 and 11 months. My husband and I are very careful in selecting consequences appropriate to the misbehavior of our children. Every poor decision should have a natural or logical consequence, or a swift and severe (but loving) disciplinary action.

One thing we learned is that we should not make certain things a punishment … like “go to your room” --we feel this is NOT an appropriate thing to line up as a “negative consequence” because we want them to see their rooms as good places, where they can have some space of their own, (with some parental limitations, of course) and so, we’ve determined that sending a child to their room as a negative result of an action is not appropriate. See? We do send them to their room if they need a cooling off period, but we don’t make the act of going to the room the negative result, because we want them to think of their bedroom as a good place to be…this way we don’t imply that being alone is a terrible thing/a punishment, either.

So…here’s the connection I made from the sacrifice of “penance” as a child: It being designed and presented to me as a sacrifice taught me that praying is supposed to be some terrible, difficult thing that you HAVE to do when you’ve done something really bad. Sure I was also taught by my parents to “say a prayer” when I lost something, but really there were few other places for prayer in my instruction. Yeah, we had the dinner prayer and the bedtime prayers…all memorized, and not terribly personal. So do you see how one could miss out on one of the greatest gifts the Lord gave us…or how the devil could paint it out as something you only did when you were desparate or really naughty?

Man, I have just been having all kinds of lightbulbs going off here.
I can’t thank you enough for working through all this with me.
D.

Here’s something else that may help you to further understand this. If a person confessed a sin like stealing $100, the priest would likely give the penance of paying back that $100. The reason is that penance is supposed to, in a certain way, make up for the sin. So, paying back stolen money does make up for it in a certain way.

But when you do something like commit adultey, there isn’t anything you can really do to “pay it back” in the way you could with the money. You’ve sinned against your husband or wife, and you can’t just pay that money back. So the priest may as part of your penance tell you to spend some time with your spouse, or to do something special with them. That does, in an albeit very incomplete way, help you to make up for the sin. It also helps you to grow closer to your spouse so you won’t sin again.

Now say you are not married and commit fornication. You have sinned against really only God (and yourself of course) here. So the priest gives you as your penance prayers. In other words, he is telling you to spend some time with God. This does the same two things with you and God that it did with you and your spouse: helps to make it up by spending some time together, and helps you to grow closer to God so you won’t sin again.

But the thing is, whenever we sin, we really are sinning against God, even if we’re also sinning against someone else. When we steal that $100, we’re sinning against the victim and God. When we commit adultery, we’re sinning against our spouse and God. Any sin is against God at least, and then possibly another victim. So any sin we commit is going to need us to make it up with God on top of any possible victims. Now God has forgiven us before any “making up,” no question. But as you seem to understand, even when you forgive your children, they still need to make it up in some way. And even if they didn’t it would be good if they spent some time with you to grow closer to you and hopefully farther from the wrong they did.

This is especially true because any sin is a result of being somewhat further from God than we should be. So the prayers that you get as pennance aren’t meant necessarily as punishment. That is part of it. But what is even a more important part of it is growing closer to God, and just spending time with Him, so that we won’t sin again, and so that we can know Him more.

 

[Philthy]

eaglesmark:

hi…
The catholic doctrine reafirms it’s stand on Celibacy of the priests… but how do you think this verse should be interpreted?

1 Timothy 4:1-3, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and** doctrines of devils**; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Aren’t priests forbidden to marry?
thanks,
Eaglesmark

Hi Eaglesmark!

You have committed a few errors here.
First, you have been quite selective in your quotations.
Second, you have been quite broad in your application of your selected text.
Third, you have confused forbidding with selectively limiting.
Lastly you have failed to communicate what you believe these verses to say and to whom apply and in what circumstances.
Lets start with the criticism of selectivity:
Celibacy is touched upon in a variety of places in the NT as has already been shown by others. Do you really think these verses can be understood apart from those other teachings? For example:
Chapter 7 in 1 Corinthians has much to say about the value of being married and the value of celibacy. It describes the choice as follows: “everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one.” He also says that,“An unmarried man is anxious aout the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.” And again, “So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.”
Certainly if your wish is to simply believe Priestly celibacy to be erroneous regardless of the facts, then you will isolate verses to support such a belief. But you will miss the Truth and lose credibility in the end when the full Gospel is revealed and your bias/ignorance is clearly exposed. Dontcha think?
On to the criticism of overapplication/lack of selectivity:
Is it always wrong to forbid marriage? I mean that is your implication, right? Well I think that that is an oversimplification of the verse. It isnt wrong to forbid two people of the same sex to marry, it isnt wrong to forbid marriage to someone already married, it isn’t wrong to forbid marriage to animals etc, etc, etc
On to the criticism of confusion regarding forbidding:
The Church does not forbid marriage outright - it promotes and has promoted marriage better than any other institution, and regards it incredibly high. I mean, come on, marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church! And technically, the Church does not forbid ANYONE to marry, it simply limits the priesthood to the celibate like Paul recommends.
**On the criticism of being evasive **
You should be more coherent with your thoughts. What good is done by tossing a verse out without saying what you think it means? And it doesnt need to be complicated. Like this:

• This verse says marriage should never be forbidden
• The Catholic Church forbids priests to marry
• Therefore the Catholic Church is counter Scriptural

I would still have picked apart the two premises and the conclusion, but at least we would know where you are coming from…

 

[MrS]

Doreen:

MrS, you just painted a picture of my moment of conversion/transfiguration/commitment to Christ:
It was truly the most significant day/decision of my life…and I don’t anticipate any more significant days but the one in which I stand face to face with my God and King. (I love the Mercy Me song: “when I stand in your presence will I be able to speak at all? I can only imagine!” – brings me to tears everytime)

This experience of dialogue on here with you and the others who are willing to have a friendly discourse has been some wonderful therapy for my soul. Thanks, friend!
D.

now I feel that I can give you a proper apology for being a bit “harsh” with you a number of posts back… thanks for not shutting me/us out (I really felt you wouldn’t). I really felt it would help me to know if you had some agenda other than looking for fair and balanced dialgue… thank you

 

[eaglesmark]

Philthy:

Hi Eaglesmark!

You have committed a few errors here.
First, you have been quite selective in your quotations.
Second, you have been quite broad in your application of your selected text.
Third, you have confused forbidding with selectively limiting.
Lastly you have failed to communicate what you believe these verses to say and to whom apply and in what circumstances.
Lets start with the criticism of selectivity:
Celibacy is touched upon in a variety of places in the NT as has already been shown by others. Do you really think these verses can be understood apart from those other teachings? For example:
Chapter 7 in 1 Corinthians has much to say about the value of being married and the value of celibacy. It describes the choice as follows: “everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one.” He also says that,“An unmarried man is anxious aout the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.” And again, “So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.”
Certainly if your wish is to simply believe Priestly celibacy to be erroneous regardless of the facts, then you will isolate verses to support such a belief. But you will miss the Truth and lose credibility in the end when the full Gospel is revealed and your bias/ignorance is clearly exposed. Dontcha think?
On to the criticism of overapplication/lack of selectivity:
Is it always wrong to forbid marriage? I mean that is your implication, right? Well I think that that is an oversimplification of the verse. It isnt wrong to forbid two people of the same sex to marry, it isnt wrong to forbid marriage to someone already married, it isn’t wrong to forbid marriage to animals etc, etc, etc
On to the criticism of confusion regarding forbidding:
The Church does not forbid marriage outright - it promotes and has promoted marriage better than any other institution, and regards it incredibly high. I mean, come on, marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church! And technically, the Church does not forbid ANYONE to marry, it simply limits the priesthood to the celibate like Paul recommends.
**On the criticism of being evasive **
You should be more coherent with your thoughts. What good is done by tossing a verse out without saying what you think it means? And it doesnt need to be complicated. Like this:

• This verse says marriage should never be forbidden
• The Catholic Church forbids priests to marry
• Therefore the Catholic Church is counter Scriptural

I would still have picked apart the two premises and the conclusion, but at least we would know where you are coming from…

I guess average joe cant really interpret the bible…
When you read Chapter 7 of 1 Cor., did you look the historical background and events why Paul writes the stuff?
Have read “hard times” in the passage? try to look what are the events that occured during this time.

The bible is also a historical book. So don’t just read it flatly, try to look for the events that happened during those time.

 

[MrS]

I like Pat Madrid’s idea:

Suppose a verse in the bible said:

“I did not say that you stole the money.”
Most would come to the same interpretation of this simple sentence.

But using the bold font to place emphasis on one word, we see"

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(perhaps someone else did)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(an strong denial)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
( perhaps I wrote it or just made a gesture of indication)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(I might have said he or she stole it, but not you)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(I really said you borrowed it, moved it, etc)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(I said you stole the boat, or food, or etc)

If we are left without an authoritive, consistent voice to interpret for us, we could not agree on what this sentence, simple as it is, really should be telling us.

So we go back and ask directly of the person who first said or wrote it. Let’s do that with the scriptures. Oh, we can’t… that person is long dead.

Well, let’s ask someone who knew him well… they should be able to help… nope they are dead too…

And so on…

Thankfully the Catholic Church has the only reliable means of knowing what a verse is telling us… the Apostles, the Early Fathers, the Saints, The Church Doctors…

We need to listen to them more than the burning in the boosom.

 

[eaglesmark]

Lazerlike42:

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?

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

Maybe average joe, really dont know how to interpret the bible…
Look at the verse properly, read it again correctly. Paul, did not say don’t drink anymore water just for non-sense… You must remember, that wine has medicinal properties. That is why you will see the reason written in there Paul told Timothy: “…because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.”

When you read the bible, ask the question, what is happening in there? Use proper application of the verses…

I beg to disagree… Maybe you should read more about the crusades, and who most of the time they were after.

And also, have you read about this one crusade… They killed all the Christians in Antioc.
you said…
" 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."

Have you read about “Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, etc.” and in later they were called Ana-baptist? They all existed, long before Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther did.

They all have been persecuted by the roman empire and the Catholic church, that is why most of them, would hide in woods. And if you will know their doctrine, you will see what they teach is not different from what Jesus and the apostles taught in the bible.

 

[eaglesmark]

Lazerlike42:

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?

The verse in eph. is not way out of context. It is plainly showing us, that the battle of a true Christian, is never with sword and force. It is principles against principles…

If you should look the example of the apostles, did they use force against the pagans? did they fought back and take revenge when most of them were taken to the arena or drawned? Remember Peter, when he tried to rescue Jesus and cut the ear of the soldier? Did Jesus said, “Go Peter Go! Struck his head, slice him apart”? Remember that Jesus rebuked him. Thus we can see that Jesus taught “Never resort to violence”. And i guess, the head of the catholic church those time during crusades, were “in my opinion”, a bit ignorant about this teaching of christ.

 

[eaglesmark]

Lazerlike42:

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.

When you say you sinned, that is personal. It is with you and God. But crusades, were declared by Popes and taught it to the whole roman catholic church and even blessed those crusaders in the name of God. Was God hapy that his name was used to such senseless action? Therefore it is not a mere sin… It had became a doctrine. A doctrine that is very opposite to what Jesus taught.

 

[eaglesmark]

MrS:

I like Pat Madrid’s idea:

Suppose a verse in the bible said:

“I did not say that you stole the money.”
Most would come to the same interpretation of this simple sentence.

But using the bold font to place emphasis on one word, we see"

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(perhaps someone else did)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(an strong denial)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
( perhaps I wrote it or just made a gesture of indication)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(I might have said he or she stole it, but not you)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(I really said you borrowed it, moved it, etc)

“I did not say that you stole the money”
(I said you stole the boat, or food, or etc)

If we are left without an authoritive, consistent voice to interpret for us, we could not agree on what this sentence, simple as it is, really should be telling us.

So we go back and ask directly of the person who first said or wrote it. Let’s do that with the scriptures. Oh, we can’t… that person is long dead.

Well, let’s ask someone who knew him well… they should be able to help… nope they are dead too…

And so on…

Thankfully the Catholic Church has the only reliable means of knowing what a verse is telling us… the Apostles, the Early Fathers, the Saints, The Church Doctors…

We need to listen to them more than the burning in the boosom.

MrS:

Thankfully the Catholic Church has the only reliable means of knowing what a verse is telling us… the Apostles, the Early Fathers, the Saints, The Church Doctors…
QUOTE]

Maybe…

Like the Catholic Church said execute those who are not catholics (crusades, inquisition, etc.)… and Dr De Luca of the University of Rome was commended by pope Leo XIII in 1901 when he said, “The Catholic Church has the right and duty to kill heretics by fire and sword.” (Eph. 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”
(Matthew 5:44) “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
"Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

"Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.

“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints…” Ephesians 6:10-18

The Crishtian Armor and Christian Battle…

Did Jesus commend Peter when he cut the soldier’s ear when Jesus was caught? No! He rebuked Peter

 

[hurst]

Lazerlike42:

Here’s something else that may help you to further understand this. If a person confessed a sin like stealing $100, the priest would likely give the penance of paying back that $100. The reason is that penance is supposed to, in a certain way, make up for the sin. So, paying back stolen money does make up for it in a certain way.

Actually, that would be restitution, and is required in order to be forgiven (unless you are unable to pay it back).

The penance that is given is actually a work of faith imposed “in atonement for the temporal punishment that remains after the guilt of sin and its eternal punishment have been forgiven” (Ott, p.434).

“The penance is directed at expiation and amendment.” (Ott, p.435)

It helps weaken our evil inclinations.

hurst