How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[inkaneer]

Very interesting discussion. The problem for me is that when I answered the questions as I understood them, I was told that my admission that I am not infallible basically negates my entire argument, and that I didn’t answer the question. When I asked for clarification, I was told in no uncertain terms that my postings were nothing more than “red herrings”. Even AlanFromWichita got jumped on for “sounding” like a Protestant. Why are you surprised that Protestants are responding to this thread?

In regard to “infallibly” knowing the interpretation of Scripture, did the Jews have an “infallible” magisterium? Did they “infallibly” know the Scriptures? The obvious answer is “No”, yet Jesus held them accountable for what was written in the Scriptures. Why do you think we need an “infallible” interpretation? Here’s the problem I see with the Catholic Church (and part of the reason I left) - once the “infallible” magisterium defines what a specific scripture verse means, YOU have to accept it as true. For example - how do you know the teachings of the Church are infallible? Think about this - who defines what Scripture is, and what it means? Who defines what Tradition is, and what it means? If the Magisterium defines and interprets both Scripture and Tradition, and claims that these things give it the infallibility it claims to have, how can you test this claim? If you examine the Scriptures, you will not find any promise of infallibility to the Church. True, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us (ALL Christians), and He will lead us into His Truth, but that is not a promise of infallibility.

I guess it comes down to this - I have complete trust in my ultimate authority, which is the God-breathed Scriptures. If I am proven wrong on a particular point, the fault is mine, not the Scriptures. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, have (or are supposed to have) complete trust in their ultimate authority, which is the teaching Magisterium of the Church. The difference is, my authority doesn’t change. Your authority makes changes in the form of dogmatic decrees (such as Mary’s immaculate coneption, made dogma in the 1800’s, papal infallibility, made dogma at Vatican I, also in the mid 1800’s, and the bodily assumption of Mary, made dogma around 1950, and there is talk of making Mary co-redeemer and co-mediator a dogma).

Having said all that, I will leave this thread and leave you to do what you feel is appropriate.

Pax!

Jesus also said that the Jews should follow what the Pharisees said. He said for they sit on "Moses’ seat’. This concept of a seat or chair as being a position of authority is still with us today not only in the church but in academic circles as well. In colleges and universities the head of a dept. of study is known as the “chair”. As for the Jews they had a reliable authority in Moses and the prophets.

As for The Catholic Church making changes in doctrine that is a complete falsehood. Doctrines such as the immaculate Conception and the Assumption are not changes but rather formal definitions of doctrines long held but never formally defined. For example, in 1547 the canon of scripture was formally defined as comprising 73 books. Was that new? No. Th every first Bible, Jerome’s Vulgate had the very same 73 books in it asdid every Bible from 400 AD on until the 16th century when Luther removed seven books. Did we change doctrine? No. In the early church there was controversy anbd confusion over the nature of Jesus Christ and also the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church defined the natures of Christ and the nature ofthe Holy Spirit. If you believe in the Trinity you have accepted the Catholic Church’s formal definition of the Trinity. And no, you did not get it from scripture alone. The Trinity doctrine is stated in Greek philosophical terms that are completely foreign to the scriptures. So let’s be truthful here the allegation that the Catholic church has changed doctrines is an absolute falsehood, in other words, a lie.

But you are correct in one thing. When you say , “…my authority doesn’t change” you are indeed correct. For once a train goes off the track it never goes back on. Similarly once wrong your authority will always be wrong. And don’t tell me your authority is the scriptures. You authority is your interpretation of the scriptures. There is a very big difference between the two.

 

[inkaneer]

We must all rightly divide the word.; 2 Timothy 2:15.
Come let us reason together; Isaiah 1:18. Today, it is hard to find true apostles chosen of God that have the true message. The disciples had the truth directly from Jesus and the disciples passed it on to faithful men which passed it on to others who were faithful. However, satan always has a plan to muddy the waters. The book of Jude recites about the common salvation and that they should contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Normally, the longer the transmission of things go on it can run the risk of getting thinned out if not preserved well enough. This is usually associated with oral interpretation. The same can be of written interpretation because of cultral change and language differences that stem. from a breakdown of transmission. If this happened in Jude’s day when some of the original apostles were still living, how much more would it be after they were gone.
Constantine was favorable in the eyes of christians when he made christianity the national religion because they were no longer fed to the lions, or any other kind of persecution. The problem was that Constantine made some man made traditions that weren’t a part of the apostolic doctrine.
We all have to be pliable to God, especially those who say they are aposles. And we have to try those who claim to be apostles. We hve to be pliable, exhort, reason, callenge and edify each other as the body. We need to be set in what we believe in but surrender to the truth when we. Are wrong for the truth will set us free, We have a personal responsibility that is summed up as being like bereans to see wheter they are telling the truth.2 Timothy 3:16.; talks abot scripture is profitable for doctrine,reproof,correction, and instruction in righteousness…
There are other things such as history,hermeneutics, and reconciling all the scriptures and there contexts on a given subject Having a. website such as this should be about learning from each other. Yet, it is also about challenging, and contending for the faith. Paul said we’re to say the same thing and yet we say different things.
If I said that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation or it is not a new testament ordinance would you be surprised or curious to find out or would you automatically think I’m crazy and label me a heretic and not hear me out at all. We are perfect in love not knowledge
The Holy spirit is our teacher but even hermeneutics can filter through at the same time.
t. Better communication. with the Holy Spirit and better knowledge of hereneuttics would definiely be a start. God Bless! Jerry Kelso

.

Hold on on cotton pickin minute. You say,

“Constantine was favorable in the eyes of christians when he made christianity the national religion because they were no longer fed to the lions, or any other kind of persecution. The problem was that Constantine made some man made traditions that weren’t a part of the apostolic doctrine.”

First of all Constantine did not make christianity the national religion. What he did do is end the persecution by making christianity a religion acceptable under Roman Law. Prior to this christianity was outlawed. This idea perpetuated by protestants that Constantine somehow took over Jesus’ church is ludicrous.

Secondly show which of the “man made traditions that weren’t a part of the apostolic doctrine” did Constantine make. Please list them. My study of Constantine indicates he was preoccupied with affairs of state and as long as things were going smoothly in the empire he did not meddle in church affairs.

 

[jerry_kelso]

Hold on on cotton pickin minute. You say,

“Constantine was favorable in the eyes of christians when he made christianity the national religion because they were no longer fed to the lions, or any other kind of persecution. The problem was that Constantine made some man made traditions that weren’t a part of the apostolic doctrine.”

First of all Constantine did not make christianity the national religion. What he did do is end the persecution by making christianity a religion acceptable under Roman Law. Prior to this christianity was outlawed. This idea perpetuated by protestants that Constantine somehow took over Jesus’ church is ludicrous.

Secondly show which of the “man made traditions that weren’t a part of the apostolic doctrine” did Constantine make. Please list them. My study of Constantine indicates he was preoccupied with affairs of state and as long as things were going smoothly in the empire he did not meddle in church affairs.

Inkaneer; Constantine converted to christianity in 312.
Edict of Milan legalized christian worship
Edict of Thessalonica-christianity made state religion
Paganism was still allowed
Constantine did many great things for christianity much by his mother’s influence and a dream he had that he felt helped him win the battle of Milvian Bridge
He righted the wrongs of Diocletian
It seemed the church was prospering but was mixed in with paganism
Constantine was never baptized til the end of his life. This was because of fear anh needed to be forgiven of his sins. This is where Baptismal regeneration began.
Eusebius baptized him and his beliefs were like the Jehovah Witnesses and Christadelphians which was arianism.
The church was corrupted from the outside with diocletian but under Constantine was from the inside.
Pagans were going through baptisms and claiming they were saved. Heathen customs and practices crept into the church. Christian names were given to images and statues. Artemis (5iana) worship was changed to Mary worship. Isis, the Egyptian Goddess was changed into Mary. Worshipperrs of Isis called her the great virgin and Mother of the God. Heathen temples were consecrated and changed into churches. Heathen feasts were given christian names. Paganism with new clothing.
Revelation 2:13 mentions Satan’s seat. Satan’s seat began in Babylon in the days of Nimrod. The mighty hunter out of Genesis 10:8-10. His queen was Semaris. Babylon was satan’s seat til Xerxes in 487 b.c… The babylonian priesthood was forced to leave babylon and was moved to Pergamos.
The conditions of many things in the churches in Revelation stemmed from people asociated with the mystic practices like the false prophetess Jezebel at the church of Thyatira.
In conlusion; Constantine did many good things for christian’s. He still practiced paganism so he certainly could not be a true folLower of Christ. Like the churches in Revelation allowing paganism in he allowed the church tobe corrupted. I have given you secular history that harmonizes with the scripture. God Bless! Jerry Kelso

 

[inkaneer]

Inkaneer; Constantine converted to christianity in 312.
Edict of Milan legalized christian worship
Edict of Thessalonica-christianity made state religion
Paganism was still allowed
Constantine did many great things for christianity much by his mother’s influence and a dream he had that he felt helped him win the battle of Milvian Bridge
He righted the wrongs of Diocletian
It seemed the church was prospering but was mixed in with paganism
Constantine was never baptized til the end of his life. This was because of fear anh needed to be forgiven of his sins. This is where Baptismal regeneration began.
Eusebius baptized him and his beliefs were like the Jehovah Witnesses and Christadelphians which was arianism.
The church was corrupted from the outside with diocletian but under Constantine was from the inside.
Pagans were going through baptisms and claiming they were saved. Heathen customs and practices crept into the church. Christian names were given to images and statues. Artemis (5iana) worship was changed to Mary worship. Isis, the Egyptian Goddess was changed into Mary. Worshipperrs of Isis called her the great virgin and Mother of the God. Heathen temples were consecrated and changed into churches. Heathen feasts were given christian names. Paganism with new clothing.
Revelation 2:13 mentions Satan’s seat. Satan’s seat began in Babylon in the days of Nimrod. The mighty hunter out of Genesis 10:8-10. His queen was Semaris. Babylon was satan’s seat til Xerxes in 487 b.c… The babylonian priesthood was forced to leave babylon and was moved to Pergamos.
The conditions of many things in the churches in Revelation stemmed from people asociated with the mystic practices like the false prophetess Jezebel at the church of Thyatira.
In conlusion; Constantine did many good things for christian’s. He still practiced paganism so he certainly could not be a true folLower of Christ. Like the churches in Revelation allowing paganism in he allowed the church tobe corrupted. I have given you secular history that harmonizes with the scripture. God Bless! Jerry Kelso

Well you got your facts wrong. Constntine died in 337 AD. Whether he converted to christianity in 312 AD is debatable. Like you said, he wasn’t baptised until 337 while he was on his deathbed. The Edict of Milan did legalize christianity as a form of worship and formally ended the persecution. It did not outlaw paganism. The Edict of Thessalonica occurred in 380 AD long after Constantine was dead. It did not make christianity the state religion. What it did was a follow on to the Council of Nicea and the problem of Arianism. Arianism did not die out after the council of Nicea. Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian bishop twelve years after the council. What the Edict did was to define who was christian as the Arians were claiming that title. The Edict stated that only those christians who were aligned with the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Alexandria [Arianism got its start in Alexandria and was opposed by its bishop] Notice that the Edict mentions only Catholic Christian and heretics [Arians]. There is no mention of pagans or any other religions presumably because the other religions either died out or were so small in number as to be insignificant.

Constantine’s “dream” is regarded as a myth. In actuality christianity, despite its persecution was a growing force in the empire. Many of Constantines own family as well as members of the military and prominent Romans had converted. Constantine was a politician and he needed the christians to be on his side if he was to defeat Lucientius.

As for the church mixing with paganism that is a protestant pipe dream. It is also unscriptural. If the church mixed with paganism then hell prevailed over the church and that is something that Jesus said would never happen [see Mt 16:18]. Recall that the mission of the church, as given by Jesus in the Great Commission, was to preach the gospel and baptize the nations. So anyone saying that the gospel was diluted by mixing with paganism is, in effect, calling Jesus and scripture liars. I don’t think you want to do that and therefore you may want to rethink your position. I know that this allegation is frequently made by protestants but cannot be supported scriptually. The years after the Edict of Milan saw the church emerge from the catacombs where it hid during the persecutions, the first true churches were built and Mass was offereed in public. Roman temples were converted to churches much the same way that Roman pagans were converted. It was Rome that was christianized not christianity that was Romanized.

As for the book of Revelation I have heard many different interpretations of it and its symbolism. It is almost a “pick 'em as you like 'em” situation. I’m at the point that I tune out anyone who is definitively preaching on the Book of Revelation as I think its true meaning is still sealed.

 

[jerry_kelso]

Well you got your facts wrong. Constntine died in 337 AD. Whether he converted to christianity in 312 AD is debatable. Like you said, he wasn’t baptised until 337 while he was on his deathbed. The Edict of Milan did legalize christianity as a form of worship and formally ended the persecution. It did not outlaw paganism. The Edict of Thessalonica occurred in 380 AD long after Constantine was dead. It did not make christianity the state religion. What it did was a follow on to the Council of Nicea and the problem of Arianism. Arianism did not die out after the council of Nicea. Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian bishop twelve years after the council. What the Edict did was to define who was christian as the Arians were claiming that title. The Edict stated that only those christians who were aligned with the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Alexandria [Arianism got its start in Alexandria and was opposed by its bishop] Notice that the Edict mentions only Catholic Christian and heretics [Arians]. There is no mention of pagans or any other religions presumably because the other religions either died out or were so small in number as to be insignificant.
Constantine’s “dream” is regarded as a myth. In actuality christianity, despite its persecution was a growing force in the empire. Many of Constantines own family as well as members of the military and prominent Romans had converted. Constantine was a politician and he needed the christians to be on his side if he was to defeat Lucientius.
As for the church mixing with paganism that is a protestant pipe dream. It is also unscriptural. If the church mixed with paganism then hell prevailed over the church and that is something that Jesus said would never happen [see Mt 16:18]. Recall that the mission of the church, as given by Jesus in the Great Commission, was to preach the gospel and baptize the nations. So anyone saying that the gospel was diluted by mixing with paganism is, in effect, calling Jesus and scripture liars. I don’t think you want to do that and therefore you may want to rethink your position. I know that this allegation is frequently made by protestants but cannot be supported scriptually. The years after the Edict of Milan saw the church emerge from the catacombs where it hid during the persecutions, the first true churches were built and Mass was offereed in public. Roman temples were converted to churches much the same way that Roman pagans were converted. It was Rome that was christianized not christianity that was Romanized.

As for the book of Revelation I have heard many different interpretations of it and its symbolism. It is almost a “pick 'em as you like 'em” situation. I’m at the point that I tune out anyone who is definitively preaching on the Book of Revelation as I think its true meaning is still sealed.

Inkaneer: There are things that scholars debate and as always some will differ.
One thing that is not debatable is that after the victory of Milvian Bridge the Arch of Constantine was erected. It had decorations of victoria, sacrifices to Gods like Apollo, dianna and Hercules but no christian symbolism.
He instructed the venerable day of the sun for christians and christians both. His coins carried symbols of the sun cult. When Constantine dedicated Constantinople; the seat of byzantine christianity for a millenium, he did so by wearing the Apollonian sun rayed diadem.
This is secular history that is a fact. The worship of the sun began long before his enlightment about what role christianity would play in his rise to power. And of course his old mindset with the Dontatists because they didn’t agree with his positions on christianity of the abuses of the eucharist among other things. This is secular history and not from a protestant bias.
It is clear you cannot mix in pagan customs with serving the Lord. Constantine did just this and will be judged. By God. For those that claim he’s a saint like he was a soldier of the Lord must know you cannot straddle the fence with God.
Once again I have given you secular history that coincides with bibical history. This also includes Satan’s seat began which was in Babylon and eventually was moved to Pergamos. God Bless! Jerrt Kelso

 

[Wesley7]

You practice reading scriptures and do the best you can.

 

[inkaneer]

Inkaneer: There are things that scholars debate and as always some will differ.
One thing that is not debatable is that after the victory of Milvian Bridge the Arch of Constantine was erected. It had decorations of victoria, sacrifices to Gods like Apollo, dianna and Hercules but no christian symbolism.
He instructed the venerable day of the sun for christians and christians both. His coins carried symbols of the sun cult. When Constantine dedicated Constantinople; the seat of byzantine christianity for a millenium, he did so by wearing the Apollonian sun rayed diadem.
This is secular history that is a fact. The worship of the sun began long before his enlightment about what role christianity would play in his rise to power. And of course his old mindset with the Dontatists because they didn’t agree with his positions on christianity of the abuses of the eucharist among other things. This is secular history and not from a protestant bias.
It is clear you cannot mix in pagan customs with serving the Lord. Constantine did just this and will be judged. By God. For those that claim he’s a saint like he was a soldier of the Lord must know you cannot straddle the fence with God.
Once again I have given you secular history that coincides with bibical history. This also includes Satan’s seat began which was in Babylon and eventually was moved to Pergamos. God Bless! Jerrt Kelso

I do not doubt that Constantine was no christian. He was a politician and probably the most prominent politician of the last two millenia. He was extremely pragmatic. His only goal was to unite the Empire under his rule and move the capital to Byzantium. Anything that impeded those goals had to be dealt with in a pragmatic way. Results counted not the means. So he was not against using christianity to further his own agernda. But his agenda was not religious in nature. When the Arian heresy threatened to split the empire Constantine dealt with it in a very pragmatic manneer. He requested the pope to call a council. He even offered to host it and pay for it. Constantine made a grand entrance into the council then left the bishops to do their work. He apparently was not interested in the outcome just as long as peace was maintained in the empire, which it was. The council [Nicea 325] condemned Arius and his heresy but twelve years later Constnatine is baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop.

As for his arch there are three usual reasons given for why it does not contain any christian imagery. First is that the Romans lost the art of marble sculpting. Second is that Constantine the politician did not want to offend the pagan Romans and the third reason is that Constantine’s arch has no christian symbols because it was dedicated in 315 AD just three years after the victory at the Milvian bridge. That is a very short time for such structures if they are made from scratch. However, Constantines arch was not made of original artwork. The arch incorporated pieces from other sources notably Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. Some of the older, reused parts have been changed to give the images of former emperors the semblance of Constantine. The third reason is the one most scholars accept. Constantine the politician wanted this arch up in a hurry because he was about to leave Rome behind and wanted the Romans to have this reminder of who their emperor really was.

 

[wfr]

Hi All,

Interesting discussion. This whole issue of Constantine corrupting the Church with paganism was central to my conversion to Catholicism. When I was in Protestant seminary I was taught this very thing in my church history classes. This blanket statement is made with no regard for the social-political aspects surrounding Constantine’s rule. The truly ironic part of the charge that Constantine corrupted Christianity is that he is most likely the one responsible for preserving the faith from heresy.

It is true that for most of his rule as emperor Constantine was no Christian, but he was smart enough to realize that the Arian heresy was tearing the Church apart and thus destabilizing the empire. God used Constantine to save His Church just as He used the pagan Cyrus, (not Billy Ray) to restore the Jewish people to Jerusalem.

First, let’s be clear, Constantine did not interfere with Church doctrine. As has already been stated, he got the Council of Nicaea organized and then stepped out of the way. We can recount the many things that Constantine did that were pagan, after all that’s he was. Also note that Rome was still a pagan empire although Constantine ended the persecutions, the Church (as always) still existed in a world that opposed their beliefs.

As for the Council of Nicaea, it affirmed Apostolic Christianity rather than change it. Here’s an interesting study (and one that I made while considering my conversion to the Church), read the pre-Constantine Early Church Fathers. You will find that they were Catholic in every way. It is sad but true that Martin Luther and John Calvin changed Christianity more than Constantine ever did or desired to.

PAX CHRISTI.
Bill