How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[david_ruiz]

Yes, david, the Church’s proclamation* extra ecclesia nulla salum *
has been the constant teaching of the Church.

I really don’t understand what the big fuss is over this teaching. It’s really just another way to say what *all *Christians say: there is no salvation outside of Christ.

Are you kidding ?Your latin has no “Roma” in it, the pope’s quote does. Is this the same pope (1800’s who condemned freedom of conscious , and bible societies ? The same pope who lost the Papal states and his army ? For the first time since Constantine ,having no political powers, he flexed his spiritual muscle , and declared what other popes refused-the Immaculate Conception,and later Papal Infallibility.I do not know if you misqoute him , but it seems he might say something like no salvation to souls outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course we know today,salvation is recognized by Rome for orthodox and protestants ,just not in “fullness”,(second class)…The church and Jesus are NOT interchangeable in this context. It does show your emphasis on "church " , just as the Jews had difficulty seeing past their Judaism when Jesus was in their midst.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Quote:
Here is another one: “I know the Bishop of Rome is infallible because the Church tells me he is and the Church is infallible because the infallible Pope tells me so.”

The bishop of Rome is not infallible. Ask him some quantum physics questions just to prove my point. LOL…

Joe370 hehe, I know the teaching of the Church…the Bishop of Rome is “infallible” when speaking excathedra to the whole church in a matter of faith and morals…

• What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or ex-cathedra?

A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra:

1. He must speak on a subject of faith or morals;
2. He must speak as the Vicar of Christ and to the whole Church;
3. He must indicate by certain words, such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak infallibly.*

*Q. 530. When does the Church teach infallibly?

A. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.*

why did you bring up Physics? did you assume I was a fundy? LOL I know the pope is not considered infallible when not proclaiming a doctrine of faith and morals…e.g. the pope is not infallible on the issue of the stockmarket…Unless you know something I don’t LOL kidding

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .I believe in God, God’s essential goodness and mercy. I believe that Christ has shown us the way in his Sermon on the Mount. I believe in loving God and helping one another, as Jesus commanded. I also believe in eternal life in some form - just how I’m not ready to say.
Roy5;6965190:

Beyond that, frankly, I don’t need all sorts of doctrines and dogmas to fill in the gaps. Was Mary a virgin? That really doesn’t engage my attention all that much.

How do you interpret the Scriptures that say Christ was born of a virgin. What do you think they mean?

. . .I suspect that Marilogy was heavily influenced by some paganism - the various virgin and virgin births that were believed by different mystery religions at the time. . . . .

I will tell you that it is very trendy right now to attempt to discredit Christianity by making comparisons with pagan religions. Most of us who have done any study at all, are aware of pagan history. There are current Gnostic writers who “play fast and loose” in forcing a connection between paganism and Christianity. Sadly, our culture is ripe for soaking up such claims.

As for the Bible, there is enormous inspirational material therein. But to say that it is the infallible and inerrant Word of God - forgive me, but I simply cannot bring myself to believe that God who created us in his image was sorry he had made us, decided to drown everybody but eight adults, had Noah bring two of every creature into the ark for 150 days. . .

You are acknowledging “enormous inspirational material” in the Bible; but question infallibility and inerrancy. I would agree that there are many translations of the Bible that are indeed errant. We have no original manuscripts for any Book in the Bible, yet we do know that transmission has continued with a surprising consistency. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a testament to that. I believe God speaks to us through the Bible, in spite of any errors in transmission.

. . . .God ordering Joshua to murder everyone in Jericho or telling Saul that he had to murder every remaining Amalekite. Such an insult to God!

I can see the violence in the Bible is a big concern for you. It is for many people. Yet, these accounts, however they are to be interpreted, are contained within the inspired Word of God.

. . .Christianity should be a religion that allows diverse opinions rather than force it adherents to salute every single doctrine that comes to us from ancient times.

Christianity contains quite a bit of diversity, especially in the Protestant sector. There are plenty of liberal churches that would welcome you. Whether or not they hold the truth is another issue entirely.

. . .I believe in life eternal, as I said, but doubt very seriously that our bodies resurrect. This is so unnecessary, to begin with, since I don’t assume that we will live in our earthly bodies in the life to come.

Why do you think we will live in our “earthly” bodies in the life to come? That is not a Biblical teaching.

I am not easily persuaded by such attempts to enforce conformity. Maybe I’m just too interested in thinking ‘outside the box’ as they say.

These kinds of statements tend to sound a bit condescending, as if you are the only one to question things or think “outside the box.” Many people here have gone through years of doubts, questioning, and thinking outside the box. If this were not the case, you would not find Protestants converting to Catholicism, or Catholics converting to Protestant faiths, etc. I left the Baptist Church of my upbringing and have been on a journey of prayer, study, discussion, and debates. I’ve gone through plenty of doubts, questioning, and thinking outside the box. I’m still working on it, as you can see by my religious designation.

My point is that you are not the first person to question things or to “think outside the box.”

I’m sure that God isn’t troubled when we feel that he is too awesome, too magnificent, too huge, too almighty, and too wise for us mortals to comprehend him. If that is heresy, I am guilty of it. . . .

Indeed God is awesome, magnificent, and almighty; but it’s not like God hasn’t made contact with mankind. He sent His Son into the world. Christ walked among us and gave the ultimate sacrifice so that we can know God. The Bible is a testament to God’s interaction with mankind, His incomprehensible love, and His plan of salvation.

Roy, it sounds like you are going through a period of questioning; and there is nothing wrong with testing and questioning. However, it is risky to question without a solid connection with the Word of God; and fellowship with Christians who are faithful to God’s Word.

Otherwise, you may end up like so many in our culture, who have lost their connection with God. Many have traded a relationship with the living God, for a doctrine of “selection”—they “select” what they want to believe and discard anything that is outside what they want. This can lead to a quick descent into narcissism and idolatry. So, please be careful. I fear you may be on a slippery slope.

In Christ,
Anna

 

[Nicea325]

Please go to the Vatican website and look for yourself…MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION: Now go look at the references to scripture in the endnotes…

ENDNOTES

1. Rom 8:28.

1. Gal 4:4.
2. Cf. Hentrich-Von Moos, Petitiones de Assumptione Corporea B. Virginis Mariae in Caelum Definienda ad S. Sedem Delatae, 2 volumes (Vatican Polyglot Press, 1942).
3. Acts 20:28.
4. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, in the Acta Pii IX, pars 1, Vol. 1, p. 615.
5. The Vatican Council, Constitution Dei filius, c. 4.
6. Jn 14:26.
7. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor Aeternus, c. 4.
8. Ibid., Dei Filius, c. 3.
9. The encyclical Mediator Dei (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXIX, 541).
10. Sacramentarium Gregorianum.
11. Menaei Totius Anni.
12. Lk 22:32.
13. Liber Pontificalis.
14. Ibid.
15. Responsa Nicolai Papae I ad Consulta Bulgarorum.
16. St. John Damascene, Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.
17. St. Germanus of Constantinople, In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem, Sermo I.
18. The Encomium in Dormitionem Sanctissimae Dominae Nostrate Deiparae Semperque Virginis Mariae, attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem, n. 14.
19. Cf. St. John Damascene, op. cit., Hom. II, n. 11; and also the Encomium attributed to St. Modestus.
20. Ps 131:8.
21. Ps 44:10-14ff.
22. Song 3:6; cf. also 4:8; 6:9.
23. Rv 12:1ff.
24. Lk 1:28.
25. Amadeus of Lausanne, De Beatae Virginis Obitu, Assumptione in Caelum Exaltatione ad Filii Dexteram.

27.** Is 61:13.**

1. St. Anthony of Padua, Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus, In Assumptione S. Mariae Virginis Sermo.
2. St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 132.
3. St. Albert the Great, Sermones de Sanctis, Sermo XV in Annuntiatione B. Mariae; cf. also Mariale, q. 132.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., I, lla; q. 27, a. 1; q. 83, a. 5, ad 8; Expositio Salutationis Angelicae; In Symb. Apostolorum Expositio, a. S; In IV Sent., d. 12, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 3; d. 43, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 1, 2.
5. St. Bonaventure, De Nativitate B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo V.
6. Song 8:5.
7. St. Bonaventure, De Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 1.
8. St. Bernardine of Siena, In Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 11.
9. Ibid.
10. St. Robert Bellarmine, Conciones Habitae Lovanii, n. 40, De Assumption B. Mariae Virginis.
11. Oeuvres de St. Francois De Sales, sermon for the Feast of the Assumption.
12. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 2, d. 1.
13. Eph 5:27.
14. I Tim 3:15.
15. St. Peter Canisius, De Maria Virgine.
16. Suarez, In Tertiam Partem D. Thomae, q. 27, a. 2, disp. 3, sec. 5, n. 31.
17. Gen 3:15.
18. Rom 5-6; I Cor. 15:21-26, 54-57.

46.** I Cor 15:54.**

1. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, loc. cit., p. 599.

48.** I Tim 1:17**.

To a reader who is not a member of the Magisterium—since these documents are generated by the Magisterium and addressed to the church at large? Doesn’t such an appeal assume that the reader is able to connect the content of the proof text with the content of the dogma? The same applies to papal pronouncements like “Munificentissimus Deus.”

Okay? So you mean those 18 scriptural verses is proof-texting? Care to show me how many verses explicitly define the three distinct person’s of the Trinity?

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Anyone reading my posts please forgive my typos…ugh…Im sory Joe…I put…I have read the early ANF and there is no Immaculate Assumption nor Assumption statements in them.

I meant Immaculate Conception…dang I hate typos…lol I don’t want any misconceptions LOL

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy5
. . .I suspect that Marilogy was heavily influenced by some paganism - the various virgin and virgin births that were believed by different mystery religions at the time

Care to show me chapter and verse where it states people should get married at a church and use wedding rings? Oh let us not forget the best-man and bride’s maids?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would definitely agree with Anna Scott’s reply to you in this department. I would encourage you to open your mind to pagan thought. Now I know what you’re going to say, “A Catholic Christian trying to get me to open my mind to paganism?” I don’t mean it like it sounds. Remember that the GREAT Early Christian Fathers (ECF’s) were mostly pagans converted to Christianity. Men like Justin Martyr for example. But the best example is the great Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine. His years as a manichean and a neo-platonist and pagan thinker actually helped him to fully develop Christological and soteriological as well as moral understandings of Scripture, Church, and Christianity in general. Paganism isn’t all bad. The worship of false gods and earth mothers and magic spells, and other nonsense in paganism is absurd but the philosophical disciplines of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and the terminology and praxis of them are often outstanding. Augustine used these disciplines to help explain Christianity in an era where it was truly finding itself spiritually and philosophically. I agree with Anna that it’s a touch of a cop-out by contemporary folks to try and discredit everything with pagan citations and accusations. I myself have NO problem with Aristotlean language in the Church for, say, Transubstantiation? What’s wrong with it? The Reformation guys were shouting at the top of their lungs mad about the terms because they weren’t in the Scriptures but were pagan understandings. But they sure weren’t mad at Augustine’s pagan understandings of just about everything else! The Reformers loved Augustine!

As far as the Church declaring Mary Immaculate and Assumed so ‘late in the game,’ that is not a huge problem for me either. There were traditions in Christianity that believed these things centuries before the papal proclamations and there were also many learned men like Aquinas and Bernard who did not! From a Catholic point of view, the matter finally needed to be put in writing. What I don’t necessarily totally understand is why they are de fide and attached to anathemas and necessary for salvation. I’m still working on that.

May God bless you on your journey! Keep an open heart and an open mind. Blessings!

Anna Scott

 That really doesn't engage my attention all that much. I tend to doubt the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, two come-lately doctrines, one defined in 1864 as I recall, the other in 1950. I suspect that Marilogy was heavily influenced by some paganism - the various virgin and virgin births that were believed by different mystery religions at the time. But none of that particularly offends me. If people can believe it, God bless them.

.

 

[Just_Me_Andrew]

Nicea 325…You wan’t explicit verses on the doctrine of the Trinity…Do you realize the Bible is not a systematic theological textbook…I don’t expect there to be such language in the bible as laid out in the councils…However I can show you from Scriptures when taken together as a whole that scripture does teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Is the literal word Trinity in the bible? No.

Can you show me any explicit verses on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? Some verses when taken together that don’t wrench the context of a verse(s) and as a whole I can say…“I see the doctrine of the immaculate conception” Try it sometime…

When I quoted the Vatican document…I was showing that in the endnotes are verses of Scripture refered to…which are used and is this not an appeal to the reader? Can I check those verses in their contexts, using hermenutics and exegesis, historical context etc…and see if they are being used properly? How about this…If those verses were taken out of the end notes…would that make a difference fore you? If Not why Not?

 

[PRmerger]

Paul is writting to Timothy and the Church of Ephesus, the entire Church body at Ephesus. Paul is saying that every Christian as Christ’s representatives to the world must be the pillar and foundation of the truth.

That is certainly your interpretation, schaick. It’s your fallible, non-authoritative interpretation.

It seems to be a peculiar one. Quite.

Every Christian must be the pillar and foundation of Truth? Must be? So how do you know if he is or not?

 

[PRmerger]

**We are taking about the **fruit of the vine ****and whether it matters if it is fermented or not.

It does indeed matter.

What Scripture verse says it doesn’t?

 

[PRmerger]

I am saying Catholics before the ‘rules’ were changed back were simply not enjoying the full experience, they were being limited to just one part of the Eucharist.

Yet we have always received the* entire* Jesus–body/blood/soul and divinity. Nothing less and nothing more.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea 325…You wan’t explicit verses on the doctrine of the Trinity…Do you realize the Bible is not a systematic theological textbook…I don’t expect there to be such language in the bible as laid out in the councils…However I can show you from Scriptures when taken together as a whole that scripture does teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Is the literal word Trinity in the bible? No

.

Teaches the Trinity…IMPLICITLY,not explicitly! Ever heard of the Arian heresy? Apparently not! If knew you would not asking such elementary questions answered and settled centuries ago.

Does the Bible define explicitly the three distinct persons? Who defined and made the Trinity official? The Bible? Nope! So you can accept the doctrine of the Trinity and yet reject the Marian dogma? Why? Because it clahes with your Protestant novelties? By the way, why do you even follow a 27 NT canon of scripture? Where does Scripture say to adhere to only 27 NT books? Tell me Just_Me_Andrew why are you following a 27 NT canon? Who decided that?

Can you show me any explicit verses on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? Some verses when taken together that don’t wrench the context of a verse(s) and as a whole I can say…“I see the doctrine of the immaculate conception” Try it sometime…

After you show me where scripture explicitly defines the three distinct persons of the Trinity. Where does the Bible define the doctrines of the Trinity and Canon of Scripture?

When I quoted the Vatican document…I was showing that in the endnotes are verses of Scripture refered to…which are used and is this not an appeal to the reader? Can I check those verses in their contexts, using hermenutics and exegesis, historical context etc…and see if they are being used properly? How about this…If those verses were taken out of the end notes…would that make a difference fore you? If Not why Not?

You suffer from selective reasoning. So I see, it is okay to quote verses for the Trinity,but the one’s in support of the Marian doctrines are being used as proof-texting? Just a bit biased there-eh?

 

[PRmerger]

I find it fascinating that many Catholics feel so confident in their acceptance of a supposed infallible authority

Interesting that you as a Christian deny this “supposed” infallible authority, yet submit to this infallible authority each and every time you quote Scripture.

Now, of course, if you believe that the Catholic Church was fallible and could have erred when it declared the Gospel of Mark theopneustos and the Gospel of Phillip not inspired…then you have no way to know what God’s Revelation is.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me_Andrew
I find it fascinating that many Catholics feel so confident in their acceptance of a supposed infallible authority

And even more fascintating you accept with such confidence a book called the Bible, compiled by a so-called fallible church called the Catholic Church.

 

[fhansen]

My point here wasn’t really addressed which was in brackets (btw how could one even prove that in any sense without using private judgement and private interpretation)
The question remains how could you prove in any sense that the RCC is an infallible authority apart from using private judgement and private interpretation? Which is the very thing Rome frowns upon…Private interpretation.

We have to ask ourselves a simple question: would we prefer that the doctrines/teachings of the Christian faith were* fallible*? Would God leave us with ambiguity concerning major tenets?
Two questions, actually.

 

[KathleenGee]

fhanson,

What you are missing is the point that the Holy Spirit would come Who would teach us many things…

I don’t know if you missed my point or not, but for 2,000 years people in the spirit of the Church have produced the same fruit: Jesus Christ. There have been doctors of the church who further defined the spiritual life…Pentecost was only the beginning.

What comes after the last book of the Bible is the new reality of the Church…more to learn within the Church.

You have to see the dates regarding Mary…1800 to almost 2000, certainly not jumping to any conclusions I would say…and beliefs people have held for just as long…but through the doctors of the church, theologians, and much debate lasting centuries…it was the Holy Spirit that moved in these two dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and her assumption into heaven…

What may help you understand is to go beyond the Bible, you are well versed enough and find a doctor of the church discussing the walk of perfection…here you will go in depth to study the common walk we must all take in purging us of ourselves, and allowing Christ the New man to be formed in us…

The Bible does not stand alone; it can be easily used as an idol or tool to further divine and malign…that is why we were given the Church. The Word of God and the Church…how the Word is most fully realized.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

These were excellent posts! They were a pleasure to read!

God bless

Andrew, if Jesus founded the CC and this is a historical fact,* (if not then prove me wrong) *- and the CC canonized the bible then there is no circular argument. If Jesus did not found the CC then you my friend are right. To be circular the CC mus be assuming what it is attempting to prove in order for there to be room for circular argumentation and this is not the case. However, every church not founded by Jesus, claiming that the bible is to be the Christians final authority is in fact assuming what they are attempting to prove for nowhere in the bible is this fact stated - right, or am I wrong?

Clearly this would be circular argumentation if the CC was/is not the church founded by Jesus, and you would be correct.

The CC teaches error free doctrine regarding Jesus’ teachings by virtue of the fact that the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ church; if not the CC then which church? Surely you agree with scripture regarding the fact that the holy spirit is forever guiding Jesus’ one church into all truth as opposed to many churches into some truth as ell as opposing truth - right??? Andrew, just find that church in the world today and you are good to go!!!

Again, give me the name of the man or men that founded the CC and when and I will concede your point. I can certainly give you the name of the man or men that founded each and every protestant church and when, and it won’t be Jesus and it won’t be the 1st century, not to impugn the wonderful works of these man-made churches - never!

The bishop of Rome is not infallible. Ask him some quantum physics questions just to prove my point. LOL…

Andrew, if the CC is not the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, in Jerusalem circa AD 33, forever guided by the infallible holy spirit, into all truth as opposed to partial truth, until the end of time then you ARE RIGHT.
Are you right?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would definitely agree with Anna Scott’s reply to you in this department. I would encourage you to open your mind to pagan thought. Now I know what you’re going to say, “A Catholic Christian trying to get me to open my mind to paganism?” I don’t mean it like it sounds. Remember that the GREAT Early Christian Fathers (ECF’s) were mostly pagans converted to Christianity. Men like Justin Martyr for example. But the best example is the great Bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine. His years as a manichean and a neo-platonist and pagan thinker actually helped him to fully develop Christological and soteriological as well as moral understandings of Scripture, Church, and Christianity in general. Paganism isn’t all bad. The worship of false gods and earth mothers and magic spells, and other nonsense in paganism is absurd but the philosophical disciplines of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and the terminology and praxis of them are often outstanding. Augustine used these disciplines to help explain Christianity in an era where it was truly finding itself spiritually and philosophically. I agree with Anna that it’s a touch of a cop-out by contemporary folks to try and discredit everything with pagan citations and accusations. I myself have NO problem with Aristotlean language in the Church for, say, Transubstantiation? What’s wrong with it? The Reformation guys were shouting at the top of their lungs mad about the terms because they weren’t in the Scriptures but were pagan understandings. But they sure weren’t mad at Augustine’s pagan understandings of just about everything else! The Reformers loved Augustine!

As far as the Church declaring Mary Immaculate and Assumed so ‘late in the game,’ that is not a huge problem for me either. There were traditions in Christianity that believed these things centuries before the papal proclamations and there were also many learned men like Aquinas and Bernard who did not! From a Catholic point of view, the matter finally needed to be put in writing. What I don’t necessarily totally understand is why they are de fide and attached to anathemas and necessary for salvation. I’m still working on that.

May God bless you on your journey! Keep an open heart and an open mind. Blessings!

gurney,

Good points about the contributions of Christian Philosophers who converted from paganism. The study of Philosophy has always fascinated me.

Centuries ago, Philosophy, Theology, and Science were pretty much a package deal in education. Though Philosophy and Theology are still taught Seminaries; it’s just not the same as in the days of the Early Church Fathers.

I think it is dangerous for Christians to go through life without studying Philosophy, Greek Mythology, and the history of paganism. It’s difficult to turn in any direction in our culture without bumping into pagan influences. We need to know the origin of ideas and symbols; and how to separate myth from truth.

When The Da Vinci Code came out, ministers and evangelists were scrambling to educate their congregations. Many people read the book/saw the movie and couldn’t separate fact from myth. It was such a strange phenomenon, since the book came out as a Novel—clearly a work of fiction. It was really crazy. The lack of education among Christians caused many to fall prey to an author’s vivid imagination.

I guess we can never read enough books. At least, that’s the way I feel.

Anna

 

[tqualey]

At ease, JustMeAndrew,

Calm down and read Luke 1:26-33… in fact, here it is:

Can you show me any explicit verses on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? Some verses when taken together that don’t wrench the context of a verse(s) and as a whole I can say…“I see the doctrine of the immaculate conception” Try it sometime…

Let’s try it now - with the actual scripture
26
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
27
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.
28
And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
29
But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
30
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
32
He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, 11 and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,
33
and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

So, here we have an angel of God making an announcement like no other announcement made in the entire Bible. Mary is to be the MOTHER OF GOD (keep on reading Luke to see what Elizabeth says under the direct inspiraiton of the Holy Spirit if you question that, too). MARY IS FULL OF GRACE - by a special Grace of God she was preserved from Original Sin - although she was conceived by her parents in the usual manner. Mary did not earn this - God bestowed this on her as a special favor - the Son of God was to have a spotless human tabernacle to live in for nine months. His Mom was special!

When I quoted the Vatican document…I was showing that in the endnotes are verses of Scripture refered to…which are used and is this not an appeal to the reader? Can I check those verses in their contexts, using hermenutics and exegesis, historical context etc…and see if they are being used properly? How about this…If those verses were taken out of the end notes…would that make a difference fore you? If Not why Not?

You know, I took the time to show you the first and last end note - and they fit perfectly. If you just want to gather up a document and someone do the research for your theories, you may want to find an anti-Catholic list where this type of activity goes on all the time without benefit of anyone doing any work - it is all shoot from the hip! The Pope defined a Doctrine of Faith - Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail - that it can not deceive others by teaching false doctrine because the Holy Spirit would guide the Catholic Church (check out Acts 1 & 2 … and read the entire two chapters to make sure that there is no context lost and all hermenutics and exegiesis are maintianed. Bottom line: Christ’s Church - and that would be the Catholic Church has the Power of God to teach without error. And, the proof of that pudding is that for over 2000 years they have not reversed a Doctrine of Faith. Now, this may come as a surpirse - but, the Bible you are holding so tightly - even the abridged version you have - came from the Catholic Church in about 400AD. You really ought to think about that before you get so carried away with flights of fancy and so-called higher criticism.

God bless

 

[Roy5]

Two very quick responses.

1. Contrary to what you fear, I am very God-centered. Daily I marvel at the beauty and magnitude and miracle of creation. I often recite scriptures that I know by heart, such as  Psalm 23, 90, 100 and 121.  So don't worry about me cutting any link to God. He surely is 'my strength and my salvation'. It is quite a jump, however, from worshiping God to accepting thoss hundreds of ancient doctrines and Bible passages that - from my point of view - limit the freedom of our God-given brains to search, examine, weigh, accept, reject, consider, investigate and otherwise grapple with all manner of issues. 

 Some people apparently want and/or need a neatly arranged, cookie-cutter faith handed to them by some church. I don't criticize them if that have that need, but I don't. What I do require is a reasonable faith, and I resist believing the unbelievable because that what "i'm supposed to do'. 

  There is much about the church - nearly any church - that I admire. One of my brothers became an atheist some years ago, though we were raised in a very faith-oriented family. He put it this way. The church provides for millions not only a source of strength through faith but also an extended family. So, ironically, he believed in the church. What he rejected were many of the teachings which he considered passe. He is a graduate of Cornell and MIT, with a scientific mind, and he thought most doctrines of most religions were man-made. He honestly believed that they once served a purpose when people didn't understand thunder and lightning, so they thought the gods were angry. Or they knew nothing about germs, so they had 'religious' healers of one sort or another. Etc.

  One other thing. I spent some time in India with a Hindu family. They had an altar with all sorts of gods. Naturally, I wasn't impressed.  What did impress me was that I doubt if there is a more 'Christian' family in all the world than that family. If they don't get rewarded in the world to come, the rest of us should be nervous!

 2. Okay. Now, I am accused of selecting what I want to believe. Well, not exactly. Yes, I both have and exercise the right to select and that's what I am doing. I'm selecting what I honestly can believe. How can I keep my integrity and honor a man like David - praised because "Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his ten thousands" - an outrageous reason to be praised!  Anyway, how can I honor a David who, in addition to other wives, lusted after Bathsheba and had her husband deliberately killed so he could have her as his wife!? What kind of morals does that teach us? And that wisest of all men, according to scripture, King Solomon with his 1000 wives and 600 concubines. Talk about immorality today. What lesson in morality are such Biblical tales???! 

 That's it. Time to tend to some pressing matters here at home. God bless everybody! A special blessing if you have an open mind. So much of our loyalty is based on tribalism rather than calm, cool and creative thought. Loyalty is not all bad, of course. My first loyalty is to God, not to any church or book or evangelist or pope.