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

[Michael_Francis]

Last Warning:
Stay on topic. (Sola Scriptura)
Maintain the very soul of charity in all posts . (Avoid personal attacks)

I am monitoring this thread and if it drifts off topic again I will close it.

 

[MrS]

eaglesmark:

e./

I did not mean to attack anybodies religion here. But since you have written there “Thankfully, we have the catholic church…” What i just showed you is that, the catholic church has a history in which she directly disobeyed the commandments of Jesus Christ.
My drive here actually was if regular joe cant interpret the bible, then who should be in authority. Like when those crusaders marched because they followed the orders of the popes and the church, since they believe its all up to rome and what rome says this is what the bible and God says.

Personally, I grew up as a catholic, and studied in a catholic school from my elementary up until i finished high school. And i personally would go to our library during break time to read catholic encyclopedias back then…

Yes the Church has a history…and a lot of blots in that history. Over time, we have seen the purpose of even some of those blots.

Over time, scripture becomes more clear because of the time and effort Church leaders put into it. But nowhere in the Church History, has the Church definitively taught doctrinal error as Truth. The “average joe” can’t say that. We can read and study what has come before… but none of us could start from scratch and arrive at consistent, clear Truth. If we could, Jesus would not have given us the Church to “…lead us into all Truth…” through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No average joe was given this promise.

 

[Doreen]

We now see how important it is to love and serve God as our highest priority, how valuable His Church is for our spiritual well-being, and how terrible our apathy and error and neglect.

Hurst,
These are BEAUTIFUL words. (I mean, they can be generalized for all of us…we ought not be apathetic, we ought care to not be in error, and especially we should not neglect the teaching of our children)
Thank you!
D.

(Applaud everyone, I kept this one short!!) :clapping:

 

[MrS]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_34.gif … permission to post again is now granted

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Try this:

John 9,25 “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala.”

How many women were standing by the cross?

The original read something like this “standingbycrossofJesus hismotherhersisterMaryofClopasMaryofMagdala.” No spaces and no punctuation, with some connecting words missing.

It could be read “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and her sister and Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala.” (Four women.)

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala.” (three women)

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and her sister Mary, the wife of Clopas (Mary of Magdala.)” (two women)

 

[MrS]

vern humphrey:

Try this:

John 9,25 “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala.”

How many women were standing by the cross?

The original read something like this “standingbycrossofJesus hismotherhersisterMaryofClopasMaryofMagdala.” No spaces and no punctuation, with some connecting words missing.

It could be read “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and her sister and Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala.” (Four women.)

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala.” (three women)

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and her sister Mary, the wife of Clopas (Mary of Magdala.)” (two women)

and we can’t ask them directly who/how many were there can we…

Good thing the CHURCH say…:bowdown:

 

[Doreen]

MrS:

We can read and study what has come before… but none of us could start from scratch and arrive at consistent, clear Truth. If we could, Jesus would not have given us the Church to “…lead us into all Truth…” through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No average joe was given this promise.

MrS,
I stand on the promises of God, and one of the promises is that if I seek wisdom, I will find it. And the other is that if I am immersed (baptised) in Christ, He will send me the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.

This, I guess, is the crux of the debate. I am a normal “Jane” who takes those promises literally and personally…and as much as I am aware of my need to have my convictions line up with all truth, and when uncertain, with the interpretations of my elders, I feel that I DO have the Spirit’s guidance, and so I feel that I CAN apply Scripture directly to my life.

This is a beautiful thing…to be able to sit alone and prayerfully study the Scriptures, and I would hate to deter anyone with a sincere heart for God from doing such a thing.

That’s just the way I see it…and I know we’ve been through the whole “show me where it says that” discussion…but isn’t THAT the trouble? You don’t trust my interpretation, so I can show you where I get this idea, but since you don’t believe Jane can know the meaning of Scripture…we find ourselves at a stand-off.

Ahhhh…what to do? What to do? …

 

[Philthy]

eaglesmark:

Ok… ok…

We see here that Paul might have suggested celibacy… That is if we are unaware of the events that were happening at those time.

Ahhhh - but are these events recorded in the bible? Where would our average Joe, limited to the bible alone, find these events infallibly recorded and determined to be important contextually for the 1Corinthians letter?

eaglesmark:

Paul did not actually suggest celibacy in this verse.

Actually he did. There is no question of that. The ONLY question is in WHAT CONTEXT he recommends it. He explicitly states and infers that - for some- celibacy is better than marriage. Again, the only question is in what circumstances he meant it to apply.

eaglesmark:
Let’s look what was happening during this time.>> Corinth is suffering from famine during those time.

How do we know this, and how do we know it is contextually relevant?

eaglesmark:

That is why, Paul suggested that “it’s hard to feed a lot of mouth as of the moment”.

And before i forget, Paul was not actually who suggested it. The Corinthians wrote about this stuff, and ask Paul about it. That is why in the 1 Cor. 7:1- Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.
As you see, it clearly shows that Paul answered the letter of the corinthians. it was the corinthians who were asking if it be OK if they won’t get married yet because of the famine.

Yes he responds to their querie - but that doesnt change the reality of what he said in the slightest. His answer is still Scripture - even when he says that it is “not a command of the Lord…but my opinion as one who is trustworthy” He goes on to say, “A married man/woman is anxious about the WORLD, whereas an unmarried - ie celibate- man/woman is anxious about pleasing God.” That is pretty stong stuff, and although Paul uses the Corinthinians querie to transition his discussion, that fact in no way alters the reality of what he says, and the continued validity of it.

Excellent job BTW stating what you think. This is much better than throwing a verse out and saying, “What do you think this means?”.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

MrS,
I stand on the promises of God, and one of the promises is that if I seek wisdom, I will find it. And the other is that if I am immersed (baptised) in Christ, He will send me the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.

This, I guess, is the crux of the debate. I am a normal “Jane” who takes those promises literally and personally…and as much as I am aware of my need to have my convictions line up with all truth, and when uncertain, with the interpretations of my elders, I feel that I DO have the Spirit’s guidance, and so I feel that I CAN apply Scripture directly to my life.

This is a beautiful thing…to be able to sit alone and prayerfully study the Scriptures, and I would hate to deter anyone with a sincere heart for God from doing such a thing.

That’s just the way I see it…and I know we’ve been through the whole “show me where it says that” discussion…but isn’t THAT the trouble? You don’t trust my interpretation, so I can show you where I get this idea, but since you don’t believe Jane can know the meaning of Scripture…we find ourselves at a stand-off.

Ahhhh…what to do? What to do? …

Consider this. One of the things that the proponents of the Holy Spirit guides everyone into all truth interpretation keep mentioning is that the Catholic attitude of looking to the Church is sortof a lazy person’s excuse for not wanting to take the time to study the Bible and its textual and historical context to find out what it really means. They say that the average Joe can understand the Bible if he or she simply takes the time to study the context.

But then when the context shows Jesus promising the Holy Spirit’s guidance to the Apostles but not to the other desciples, the same folks say that we have to interpret that passage as being intended for all of us and not just the men Jesus was speaking to in the context.

So when their own interprative strategy points toward the Catholic interpretation, they suddenly start violating their own principles.

 

[MrS]

Doreen:

MrS,
[1] I stand on the promises of God, and one of the promises is that if I seek wisdom, I will find it. And the other is that if I

[2]am immersed (baptised) in Christ, He will send me the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.

I am a normal “Jane” who takes those promises literally and personally…and as much as I am aware of my need to have my convictions line up with all truth, and when uncertain, with the interpretations of my elders, I feel that I DO have the Spirit’s guidance, and so I feel that I CAN apply Scripture directly to my life.

[3] Ahhhh…what to do? What to do? …

[1] I agree totally… however… do I trust in myself to be the vehicle of that wisdom
do I trust in the same Holy Spirit who guides some one else in a different direction?
or do I Trust in all Jesus said… including His gift of His Church to help me find that wisdom.

regardless, Jane, without the New Testament the young Church must have been desparate to find a source of the wisdom. If it was themselves, they didn’t need any NT … if it was the NT, how many were left orphans for decades?

[2] which leads to a problem… if Baptism replaced circumcision, would the same God that provided both then choose to with hold it from infants, the infirmed, the disabled etc, and anyone who did not first “do” something to “earn” the baptism? Outside the Catholic Church, all kinds of theories exist. In the Catholic Church, baptism, like the other 6 sacraments are the external signs of God’s Grace…AND the actual vehicle of the Grace… not symbols.

[3] keep asking and discussing…is seems to be the spot where you are at in life as you seek the Lord and what He wants for you. Perhaps it is to challange us so that we actually get stronger in the defense of One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism (I know I read that somewhere )

 

[Philthy]

Doreen:

MrS,
I stand on the promises of God, and one of the promises is that if I seek wisdom, I will find it.

Not just Wisdom, though, but perfect wisdom in faith and morals.
There are degrees of Wisdom, and when you claim that if you seek Wisdom you will find it, there remains some ambiguities:
Will ALL wisdom be given you IMMEDIATELY, or will you gradually grow in Wisdom to the degree that you continue to pursue it? I think we grow in Wisdom, which means we don’t know it all.

Doreen:

And the other is that if I am immersed (baptised) in Christ, He will send me the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.

Doreen, without detracting from the beauty of this promise, be a little more realistic. How do we reconcile the REALITY that various Christians who believe EXACTLY what you believe arrive at different truths? What is your answer? Dont run away from this question - it may be God’s way of leading you into all truth. Betcha never thought of it that way did ya?

Doreen:

This, I guess, is the crux of the debate. I am a normal “Jane” who takes those promises literally and personally…and as much as I am aware of my need to have my convictions line up with all truth, and when uncertain, with the interpretations of my elders, I feel that I DO have the Spirit’s guidance, and so I feel that I CAN apply Scripture directly to my life.

Of course you can, we all can, and do! But there will be areas that we will stumble on due to our fallen nature and Satans desire to separate us from God. My favorite example is contraception. Up until the early 1900’s, ALL CHRISTIANS rejected artificial contraception as a heinous sin. Luther, Wesley, Calvin, All of them Doreen. Every single one. And they weren’t equivocal on the subject. That is what Scripture revealed to them and what they believed the holy Spirit to be saying to them. It was the constant teaching of every sigle Christian since the beginning. The Lutheran Lambeth conference in 1930 changed all that. They opened the door for artificial contraception and there has been no turning back since. The pastor at the Evangelical church I attend believes condom use is not sinful. But God does not change He is not man that He should speak falsely or change his mind.
How do you reconcile this reality with your understanding of being led into all truth? Please be specific.

**

Doreen:
This is a beautiful thing…to be able to sit alone and prayerfully study the Scriptures, and I would hate to deter anyone with a sincere heart for God from doing such a thing.**

Of course its beautiful! Nothing in this discussion should have been misconstrued as a deterant to prayerfully reading Scripture and seeking Gods will in our lives through it. Where did you come up with that silly idea? The Church proclaims that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” and implors the faithful to read Scripture. The only question is what happens when someone “feels” that they have come to a Truth which contradicts the Apostolic version of the Truth. What do they do?

Doreen:

That’s just the way I see it…and I know we’ve been through the whole “show me where it says that” discussion…but isn’t THAT the trouble? You don’t trust my interpretation, so I can show you where I get this idea, but since you don’t believe Jane can know the meaning of Scripture…we find ourselves at a stand-off.
Ahhhh…what to do? What to do? …

Exactly Doreen, what do you do? This is the all important question that you dont have an answer to, do you? I suggest you prayerfully consider this question - it is a pivotal point.
The Catholic answer, BTW, is that if the Church has not definitively spoken, then you are free to follow your conscience provided it is formed through what Scripture and the Church have revealed - just as you are doing. If, however, the holy Spirit has spoken on the matter through the Church then the matter is closed and you obediently follow the Bride of Christ. “He who listens to you, listens to me”

 

[Doreen]

Lazerlike42:

Consider this. One of the things that the proponents of the Holy Spirit guides everyone into all truth interpretation keep mentioning is that the Catholic attitude of looking to the Church is sortof a lazy person’s excuse for not wanting to take the time to study the Bible and its textual and historical context to find out what it really means. They say that the average Joe can understand the Bible if he or she simply takes the time to study the context.

But then when the context shows Jesus promising the Holy Spirit’s guidance to the Apostles but not to the other desciples, the same folks say that we have to interpret that passage as being intended for all of us and not just the men Jesus was speaking to in the context.

So when their own interprative strategy points toward the Catholic interpretation, they suddenly start violating their own principles.

You lost me here, Lazer…I am not sure where the protestant contradiction lies…I see that you’re trying to show one, but I lost you in your text…

Can you reframe your thought another way?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

You lost me here, Lazer…I am not sure where the protestant contradiction lies…I see that you’re trying to show one, but I lost you in your text…

Can you reframe your thought another way?

Well I am not trying to necessarily show a Protestant contradiction as I am a contradiction in the specific arguement that the Holy Spirit will help any believer understand the Bible and come to all truth.

You see, as Catholics we are saying that we have the Church to help us to understand Scripture. We are also saying that relying on this guidance helps people to understand what can otherwise often be difficult to comprehend passages, and prevents them from coming to all sorts of different interpreations like so many non-Catholics have over the years.

Those who disagree with us have said several times that any normal Joe can interpret these difficult passages if he or she takes the time to study the context of the passage. In other words, if the average Joe looks at the overall context of what is going on in that section of the Bible, and also at what was going on in history at the time that that passage happened, then the normal Joe can understand it. They have also said that Catholics are simply lazy and do not wish to take the time to look at the context but instead want to take the easy way of listening to the Church.

Now there is a problem with the idea of using only the Bible for one’s beliefs, and that is that it is possible to interpret it in many different ways. Non-Catholics say that this is not a problem because the Holy Spirit will guide a believer into the right understanding of the Bible. They base this on a few passages where Jesus says He will send the Spirit of Truth to guide people into the truth.

The problem is that when you use their method of reading the context to figure out the right interpretation of the Bible, the context of these passages shows that Jesus was only making this promise to the Apostles. He did not promise the Spirit would guide everyone into truth, but He made the promise specifically to the Apostles when nobody else was around. This is what the context indicates. However, this would mean that the notion of the Spirit guiding any believer in interpreting the Bible is not actually taught in the Bible.

So when it comes to this passage, the same people who say that the context is the key to helping the the average Joe understand the Bible ignore the context and instead favor the interpretation that Jesus’ words are directed at anyone who reads them. So it comes down to this dialouge:

Catholic: We need the Church to help us to understand the Bible properly. Without this guidance, how do we know what is correct?

Non-Catholic: We know what is correct because the context tells us so.

Catholic: How do you know you don’t make a mistake?

Non-Catholic: Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide us. We know this from this Bible quote: ________________

Catholic: But the context of that shows that Jesus was promising the Spirit’s guidance in this area to the Aspostles, not everyone.

Non-Catholic: The context isn’t important here. Jesus’ words are for everyone.

That is the contradiction I am trying to show. Does it make more sense now?

 

[Doreen]

MrS:

I agree totally… however… do I trust in myself to be the vehicle of that wisdom
do I trust in the same Holy Spirit who guides some one else in a different direction?
or do I Trust in all Jesus said… including His gift of His Church to help me find that wisdom.

Great questions. I’d say I trust the Holy Spirit, and in the event the Spirit leads someone else in another direction, I go back and pray hard about it, and seek confirmation and further discernment.

A great example of this is in the dispute between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:36-41. It appears the author of this text believes Paul to have a better gauge of the Spirit than Barnabas as he states later, “Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended (committed) by the brethren to the grace of God.”

Would you say that means that Barnabas was wrong? That he didn’t have a correct leading of the Spirit regarding John called Mark?

I just happened upon this text last night and I thought: Wow, so the church was splitting from the very beginning??? Would this be considered a division of the early church?

How does it play out? Do Barnabas and Paul resolve things later? I can’t recall, but these seem like good questions and possibly pertinent to this discussion.

regardless, Jane, without the New Testament the young Church must have been desparate to find a source of the wisdom. If it was themselves, they didn’t need any NT … if it was the NT, how many were left orphans for decades?

Unless you believe that as Christ said, He would not leave us as orphans, AND you believe the Holy Spirit can speak to our hearts OUTSIDE of the Word of God??? Another interesting question!

which leads to a problem… if Baptism replaced circumcision, would the same God that provided both then choose to with hold it from infants, the infirmed, the disabled etc, and anyone who did not first “do” something to “earn” the baptism?

My understanding is that God does not judge those who are not “of age” … which Biblically is defined as “those who by reason of use (practice) have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

So this would cover any who are ignorant of the truth or babes. Re: the disabled, I’d have to submit to my earlier idea, that the Spirit can teach us in our thought life. (After all, most of us believe the devil can mess with our heads, why not the Spirit??)

Outside the Catholic Church, all kinds of theories exist. In the Catholic Church, baptism, like the other 6 sacraments are the external signs of God’s Grace…AND the actual vehicle of the Grace… not symbols.

And the second half of this is the part that I am really struggling with…that these can be vehicles of grace…things we do to obtain salvation.

I’m okay with it if you mean that they’re available that the human heart might come in contact with an understanding of grace, just as we might say studying, fellowship and listening to testimonies can be vehicles to bring our hearts to an awareness of truth…

but if you mean that, without these things, one cannot have salvation, then I am stopped in my tracks, and fearful that such a teaching might be adding to the work of the cross — that is, teaching that we have to do more than submit our will and trust God for His love and forgiveness and promise of eternal life.

keep asking and discussing…is seems to be the spot where you are at in life as you seek the Lord and what He wants for you. Perhaps it is to challange us so that we actually get stronger in the defense of One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism (I know I read that somewhere )

I am certain that this has been an edifying experience for me. I love your departing thought, that this might be challenging you as well. To God be the glory!
D.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Doreen:

MrS,
I stand on the promises of God, and one of the promises is that if I seek wisdom, I will find it. And the other is that if I am immersed (baptised) in Christ, He will send me the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth.

But if you reject His Church and deny the authority of those He appointed, then what?

 

[Philthy]

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.

All christians - including Catholics- believe this - what is your point? Although some might, I am not calling you a moron. You have not narrowed the search one bit.

eaglesmark:

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.

You mean the history of the bible or the history of the denomination? If its the denomination, I challenge you to name one denomination that has maintained a consistent interpretation of the bible for more than ONE generation. I fully expect you to ignore this challenge.

eaglesmark:

Have this denomination which i know belong, adhere to the teachings of Christ.

Gospels only? Well lets conduct a test of your claim, shall we?
Christ said that if you dont forgive others their trespasses(sins), that God will not forgive you yours. Here’s the question: do you believe that the forgiveness of sins is conditional and requires you to forgive others like Christ said? Yes or No, please.

eaglesmark:

the truth is never revealed to those who shut their eyes and mind, and refuse to accept the truth.

Oh really? I suppose Saul had an open mind when he was persecuting the Christians and Christ revealed himself? I dont think so, and we know not from the bible. And, by the way, to claim that WE have to open OUR OWN eyes and mind implies that it is under OUR POWER to accept or reject God - is that really what you meant to say? I dont think so. Wouldnt that deny Grace its proper place? I dont think you understand the things you are saying and the implications they have. Its hard to place any confidence in your recommendations for finding the truth. You just made up your little thought regarding open eyes and mind to bolster your original line of reaasoning, but its all purely subjective opinion and nothing more.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Doreen:

Great questions. I’d say I trust the Holy Spirit, and in the event the Spirit leads someone else in another direction, I go back and pray hard about it, and seek confirmation and further discernment.

A great example of this is in the dispute between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:36-41. It appears the author of this text believes Paul to have a better gauge of the Spirit than Barnabas as he states later, “Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended (committed) by the brethren to the grace of God.”

Would you say that means that Barnabas was wrong? That he didn’t have a correct leading of the Spirit regarding John called Mark?

I just happened upon this text last night and I thought: Wow, so the church was splitting from the very beginning??? Would this be considered a division of the early church?

How does it play out? Do Barnabas and Paul resolve things later? I can’t recall, but these seem like good questions and possibly pertinent to this discussion.

This story is not one of splitting in terms of doctrine. This is a story of sin and/or simple disagreement. Mark was probably sinning by being lazy, but that is not really important. It is possible that Paul was sinning in the way he got mad at Mark. In this case, the reason they split up was so that they would avoid sin by being angry at one another or by continuing to fight. This is what Catholics call avoiding the near occasion of sin: avoiding situations where you might sin. If Paul was sinning, then its not really a big deal because everyone sins as we all well know!

The other way to look at it is that this is just a disagreement. Paul and Barnabas simply disagreed with one another on how to handle a situation, and they decided to each handle the situation in their own way. So long as they were’nt violating a doctrine of Christ’s teaching, there would have been nothing wrong with them doing this. I would view this in the same way as I view the Latin rite of the Church and the Byzantine Rite. Both are Catholic, but they just have different views of how to do certain things. They are united where it matters, however, and each listen to the bishop of Rome.

In any case, Paul and Barnabas did not leave one another with anger at one another. They left caring about one another and hoping the best for each other.

My understanding is that God does not judge those who are not “of age” … which Biblically is defined as “those who by reason of use (practice) have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

So this would cover any who are ignorant of the truth or babes. Re: the disabled, I’d have to submit to my earlier idea, that the Spirit can teach us in our thought life. (After all, most of us believe the devil can mess with our heads, why not the Spirit??)

Actually to the best of my knowledge the idea of an age of reason is very poorly supported in the Bible (only very vaguely referenced in Isaiah) and that Evangelicals and other Protestants have essentially assumed the idea even though it has no Biblical support. Where did this quotation come from? Perhaps I can learn something from you!

 

[Philthy]

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,

while we are opening our eyes would it be too much for me to request you do the same? Has it ever occured to you that there is no history to look at for your denomination? It has no power, the world does not notice it and it couldn’t effect a crusade if its life depended on it. Open your eyes…

eaglesmark:

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? .

No, we’re just stupid Catholics - we wouldn’t know anything about that sort of stuff. How interesting that you find the crusades relevent to the question of whether the average joe can interpret the bible - itll be interesting to see you pull it all together.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philthy:

No, we’re just stupid Catholics - we wouldn’t know anything about that sort of stuff. How interesting that you find the crusades relevent to the question of whether the average joe can interpret the bible - itll be interesting to see you pull it all together.

It’s all part of a religon called Notacatholic. Notacatholics believe Catholics are bad – and dredge up everything they can find to support that. Their doctrine is whatever the Catholics don’t believe.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Doreen]

Lazerlike42:

Actually to the best of my knowledge the idea of an age of reason is very poorly supported in the Bible (only very vaguely referenced in Isaiah) and that Evangelicals and other Protestants have essentially assumed the idea even though it has no Biblical support. Where did this quotation come from? Perhaps I can learn something from you!

Hebrews 5:14 “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use (practice) have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

Thanks for your clarification. Yes, it helped me understand perfectly what you were saying.

Gotta go shovel snow.

D.