Do Catholics ignore these scriptures?

[Rightlydivide]

QUOTE=wanner47;3034441]By the way, if the Bible is the **only **infallible source of Truth, do you mean to say that from 34 A.D. to when the Bible was first compiled, all Christians went to Hell since they didn’t have that source of infallible Truth to rely on?

Not at all. I do not think the teachings of the Apostles conflicted with would become the Bible. Do you?

Actually, Jesus decided that. I just chose to follow the Truth when I found it – and my decision was primarily based on the overwhelming evidence available that the Catholic Church has the only true claim to the authority of Christ.

I find the evidence absolutely, underwhelming.

But how am I supposed to know that God has really and truly spoken to you, and that I should listen to what you say as opposed to the Catholic Church?

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not think you have to listen to me. Heck, YOU dont really think you HAVE to listen to me. I think that one should read the Bible. I am giving my interpretation. It is not about me. Listen to the Bible. I am scum and deserving of hell until Christ reached me. Listen to the Bible.
I do not want to make this about “me”. However, I am going to give my opinion, that is what people do on these kind of forums as you may have noticed!

 

[Milliardo]

I think you should follow the Bible, I have already answered your question, you just do not like my answer or agree with it. God has spoken and I will listen.

How can one follow the Bible since the Bible itself does not even speak? Remember, Jesus commissioned men to teach the Gospel, not a book. It was only on hindsight that some of the Apostles decided to write anything, after years of preaching orally. And even after writing, dissemination of information was through men; St. Ignatius of Antioch admonished first century Christians to follow the bishop–“where the bishop is, there let the people be”. This admonition echoed on for four centuries before the final canon of the Bible came about in 419 A.D. And if we follow the Bible, whose interpretation are we to follow? See, any Christian you talk to will say he follows the Bible, yet where people differ is in the interpretation of it.

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not think you have to listen to me. Heck, YOU dont really think you HAVE to listen to me. I think that one should read the Bible. I am giving my interpretation.

In essence, what I highlighted is what you want people to follow; you are contradicting yourself when you say we don’t have to listen to you, and yet you say you are giving your own interpretation of it. It follows then that you are actually saying that we should follow what you advice people. Again, unless you think the Bible talks by itself…

 

[Rightlydivide]

How can one follow the Bible since the Bible itself does not even speak? Remember, Jesus commissioned men

to teach the Gospel, not a book.
The only knowledge you have of anything that Jesus said is because of the Bible. You are using the Bible to argue against using the Bible, that would be funny, but it isnt.

It was only on hindsight that some

 

[Milliardo]

The only knowledge you have of anything that Jesus said is because of the Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

taught us who He is. Yes, they use the Bible, but we were taught by men. I believe you go to church and have a pastor, right?
Yes, we have pastors, plural.

Does your pastor say, “Open your Bibles and read chapter so and so, and then we can go home afterwards”? No, right? He explains

what it means.
Yes, that is what the Bible teaches.

And your pastor learned about it from his

pastor, etc.
He was an atheist like me. He went to a house church prior to starting this church. But sure, he has training from other Godly men, that is biblical.

The earliest Pauline writings was 2 years after

Jesus’ crucifixion; the earliest Gospel written was 3 years after Paul wrote anything. So, the first Gospel written was 5 years after our Lord was crucified. This is known by many Bible scholars and historians.
“Known”. No way. Scholars do not know. They think. They do not know.

Is this even a serious comment?

It was not.

 

[Milliardo]

Yes, that is what the Bible teaches.

If that is so, then you contradict yourself, since one listens to what men teach. We see this from the Old Testament onwards–God sends His prophets to teach His people, and in the New He sends His Apostles to teach men. The Apostles in turn teach those who would succeed them, and so on. The process isn’t merely, 'Read the Bible, and that’s it". It goes more like, “Read the Bible, and then we shall discuss what it means.” And one leads that discussion, usually one’s pastor.

He was an atheist like me. He went to a house church prior to starting this church. But sure, he has training from other Godly men, that is biblical.

Which only proves then–what? That one needs the Bible alone? No–one needs the guidance of men to know what the Bible is saying.

“Known”. No way. Scholars do not know. They think. They do not know.

If they think, they know. Simple as that. Again, it’s a process. Knowledge comes from thinking and disseminating information, based on the evidence at hand.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If that is so, then you contradict yourself, since one listens to what men teach. We see this from the Old Testament onwards–God sends His prophets to teach His people, and in the New He sends His Apostles to teach men. The Apostles in turn teach those who would succeed them, and so on. The process isn’t merely, 'Read the Bible, and that’s it". It goes more like, “Read the Bible, and then we shall discuss what it means.” And one leads that discussion, usually one’s pastor.

Which only proves then–what? That one needs the Bible alone? No–one needs the guidance of men to know what the Bible is saying.

If they think, they know. Simple as that. Again, it’s a process. Knowledge comes from thinking and disseminating information, based on the evidence at hand.

We have the words of Christ and his apostles in the Bible. You are arguing for…a different interpretation of the same book I believe but that I should also listen to how many years of conflicting interpretations? Tell you what, if you have read all the Ante-Nicene fathers, the whole nine volumes, and still think that tradition has a coherent message, knock yourself out. No way Jose.

 

[Milliardo]

We have the words of Christ and his apostles in the Bible. You are arguing for…a different interpretation of the same book I believe but that I should also listen to how many years of conflicting interpretations?

Yes, we have the words of Christ and His Apostles, but do you just read them, or were you taught what they mean by your pastor? See, if you just read them, then you contradict yourself in saying we should go to church, because by doing so, then you’re saying that we should go to church because that is where we learn what God’s Word is all about. So what I’m saying is that men teaches us what God’s Word is, not the Bible in itself, or else we can forget about going to church, listening to our pastors, etc. In fact, we should not even be having this conversation in the first place, for as you said, why should we even listen to you? We don’t need then to discuss anything at all. But the mere fact that you are here, discussing this, means that you want others to listen to what you have to say. So, there again you have contradicted yourself by your mere presence on this subject, or else we have no further need for this discussion.

Tell you what, if you have read all the Ante-Nicene fathers, the whole nine volumes, and still think that tradition has a coherent message, knock yourself out. No way Jose.

Again, that is why the basic principle follows–what does the Church teaches? There then you see the coherence of it all. It is the Church which makes sense of it all, so that there is a logical flow.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes, we have the words of Christ and His Apostles, but do you just read them, or were you taught what they mean by your pastor? See, if you just read them, then you contradict yourself in saying we should go to church,

The Bible says to go to church.

because by doing so, then you’re saying that we should go to church because that is where we learn what God’s Word is all about. So what I’m saying is that men teaches us what God’s Word is, not the Bible in itself,

 

[Rightlydivide]

This is fun!

 

[Milliardo]

The Bible says to go to church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I forgot what I was talking about.

 

[exoflare]

This is fun!

Well they do say ignorance is bliss…

 

[exoflare]

1 Cor. 11:16: But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.

usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians11.htm

There’s also Titus 3:10

Yeah, look it up.

 

[Rightlydivide]

There’s also Titus 3:10

Yeah, look it up.

Is it argumentative to point out that I am being argumentative? I think it is!!
I am always in a good mood after church, I cannot help it.

 

[jmcrae]

I have answered this already time after time.
It changed my life. I was an atheist.

There are many works of literature that can be life-changing - in my case, reading* How To Win Friends and Influence People* by Dale Carnegie had a life-changing effect on me (and I noticed that it has had the same effect on lots of other people, too), but I don’t elevate it to the Word of God.

I don’t want to dissuade you from believing that the Bible is true and that it (unlike many other good books) is the Word of God, but the “how” of how we know that the Bible is, in fact, the Word of God, is that the Catholic Church told us so, with the authority given to it from God.

We don’t say that it is the Word of God because of the effect it has on people’s lives; otherwise we would have to say that every powerfully-written book that has the ability to change people’s lives is the Word of God, which is obviously not the case.

 

[Rightlydivide]

There are many works of literature that can be life-changing - in my case, reading* How To Win Friends and Influence People* by Dale Carnegie had a life-changing effect on me (and I noticed that it has had the same effect on lots of other people, too), but I don’t elevate it to the Word of God.

I don’t want to dissuade you from believing that the Bible is true and that it (unlike many other good books) is the Word of God, but the “how” of how we know that the Bible is, in fact, the Word of God, is that the Catholic Church told us so, with the authority given to it from God.

We don’t say that it is the Word of God because of the effect it has on people’s lives; otherwise we would have to say that every powerfully-written book that has the ability to change people’s lives is the Word of God, which is obviously not the case.

Please respond

How did people prior to the NT “know” the OT was inspired?

Do you believe that early Christians, for example the writers the Ante-Nicene fathers (prior to Carthage and Hippo), did not know what scripture was?
Elaborate at length.

 

[wanner47]

He sent the comforter. He has given us the Bible. It makes perfect sense to me.

Yes, it makes perfect sense to you. But it also makes perfect sense to, for example, Pope Benedict XVI. What makes your interpretation better than his? What about people like Fred Phelps, who preaches a gospel of hate against homosexuals? The Bible makes perfect sense to him as well. With those three drastically different interpretations, who decides which one is correct?

There is no way to get around fallibility in terms of the decisions that people make outside of faith in that God’s will is done. I am not stumbling. I WAS blind but now I see

This doesn’t answer my question. I’m talking about people inside the faith. How are we to know that our fallible interpretation of Scripture is correct if there are, say, 15 other people with different interpretations, who also claim to be right? They can’t *all *be right, can they?

I do believe the Bible is self interpreting when people do not come into with preconceived notions.

Where is this found in the Bible?

Lets face facts. Division is all around us. From the get go, the churches in Revelation had fallen into error in some ways. I do not get to create what I think is how God should do things.

But that’s what you’re doing when you take it upon yourself to interpret Sacred Scripture. You’re deciding what God meant when he inspired a particular message.

People are always determining these things. God has sent his Holy Spirit to guide us. I cannot go beyone what the Bible teaches.

And if 50 different people with 50 different interpretations each claim that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, how do you decide who is right?

No. They are not all right. Who is right among all these denominations that have conflicting traditions? You cannot get around that you have to make a decision.

And how do you know that your decision is right? Do you think Jesus left us with no way to know?

 

[wanner47]

Not at all. I do not think the teachings of the Apostles conflicted with would become the Bible. Do you?

No, I don’t, which is why I’m Catholic. It is the only Church that has remained true to Sacred Tradition (what the Apostles taught before the Bible was compiled). I think that the teachings of most fundamentalist Protestant sects do conflict with what the Apostles taught.

I find the evidence absolutely, underwhelming.

I don’t think you’ve studied it very clearly or in depth, in that case.

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not think you have to listen to me. Heck, YOU dont really think you HAVE to listen to me. I think that one should read the Bible. I am giving my interpretation. It is not about me. Listen to the Bible. I am scum and deserving of hell until Christ reached me. Listen to the Bible.

I do listen to the Bible. The Bible tells me that the Catholic Church has the authority to teach from and interpret the Bible.

I do not want to make this about “me”. However, I am going to give my opinion, that is what people do on these kind of forums as you may have noticed!

Of course. But why give your opinion if I’m as equally right in my beliefs if you are in yours, given that I am following the Bible to the best of my ability?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to you

. But it also makes perfect sense to, for example, Pope Benedict XVI. What makes your interpretation better than his? What about people like Fred Phelps, who preaches a gospel of hate against homosexuals? The Bible makes perfect sense to him as well. With those three drastically different interpretations, who decides which one is correct?
I have already answered this. You decide based upon your fallible fallen nature the correct interpretation.
I am not impressed with the person of Pope Benedict. Is his schooling better than other men of God? Perhaps, perhaps not. He is trained in Catholicism. He knows his own faith quite well.
Likewise, I have read great men of God, known great men of God, who are also wise and do not agree with Pope Benedict.
Let me give you an example, one can respect the office of the President, or lets say the Pope, not that I do to be honest but that is not germaine, and not think they are correct.

This doesn’t answer my question. I’m talking about people inside the faith. How are we to know that our fallible interpretation of Scripture is correct if there are, say, 15 other people with different interpretations, who also claim to be right? They can’t *all *