How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by tqualey

This too needs to be put in context, Araninski. Honest. Jesus Christ willingly died for the salvation of every human soul - past, present and future. His sacrifice opened the Gates of Heaven to all - no one individual or group or race was excluded from His Redemptive Act. The issue is not: “Is the Gate open?” Rather, the issue is: “Will you work with the Grace of God to walk through it?” There will come a time when there will be a Last Day - no more days after this one (at least as we have known them) and that Gate will close. On which side of the Gate do you want to be? OK. Now, how can you reject some words - like those Christ gives in John 6, that are spoken by Him at the Last Supper and recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke, and through private revelation as given in 1Cor 11 to St. Paul (who was not at the Last Supper).

You are quite right to claim that belief is essential. But, this is only part of the picture. A painter may say that paint is essential, but, he also needs burshes, and a canvas and hands that can hold the bursh and do what his mind tells it to do - if he is to have a complete picture. Paint, by itself, is just paint. You must do something with the paint if anything is to happen.

God bless

Many catholics have abandoned the Christian Faith and they were believers of everything the CC teaches. The essential believe is in Faith in Christ, without this you have nothing. There’s no other essential believe. If you have faith in Christ all of your life, the grace of God will be with you, and you will not be cast aside. If I were a Catholic I would think the Eucharist is a less important believe, than believing in Christ.

Secondly I haven’t reject words of Jesus, I just don’t interpret them as you interpret them or the CC does. This is my final statement so there is no confusion, I eat of Jesus blood and body, by surrendering to Him, and following Him faithfully. With this I can enjoy a State of Grace which lets me preach,what Jesus commanded and live according to His will and what He sees good. The Lord’s Supper or Eucharist is an act were I , by participating, in this act, show that I accept Jesus, and do this in remembrance of all He has done, therefore, eating from Him spiritually

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick,

Please believe me when I say that I am happy that you are happy I admit I would be happier if you put all of this in context and stopped grabbing at out-of-context verses. What we really need is full view of the picture that God has given to us… so… let’s take another look.

NO! I am happy to see someone is actually understanding the topic.

What translation is that for 1Timothy 3: 15? It is actually helping me explain.

Yes the church is the bulwark of truth - It is to allow nothing added or subtracted from Scripture. It is the Guardian of Scripture.

Believe it or not, you have misread this Scripture … so let’s go back and re-read it. Now, the first 13 verses of 1Tim 3 are Paul telling Timmothy about the requirements for someone being a bishop and a deacon.

14
I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
16
Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

It says nothing here about Scripture, does it? Now, if you don’t like my translation, try your own … and it will not say anything about Scripture, either. Honest. I think you got carried away on this one…

But, if not Scripture - what does it mean? Glad you asked! Do you realize that when Paul wrote his epistles the only Scripture that would have been known would be the OT? The general thinking is that pen was not put to paper to write the first words of the NT until about 60AD - or about 27 years after Christ ascended into Heaven. Paul would not have been talking about observing OT law - but, rather the fact that Christ has given us a NEW promise from God - a New Testament.

The Bible you are holding so tightly in your hands - even though it is abridged - came from the Catholic Church in about the year 400AD. So, not only does the Bible depend on the Church for its origin - but for it being the inerrant Word of God. This means that the Bible did not give us the Church - just the opposite. Honest.

bul·wark   
–noun

1. a wall of earth or other material built for defense; rampart.
2. any protection against external danger, injury, or annoyance: The new dam was a bulwark against future floods.
3. any person or thing giving strong support or encouragement in time of need, danger, or doubt: Religion was his bulwark.
4. Usually, bulwarks. Nautical . a solid wall enclosing the perimeter of a weather or main deck for the protection of persons or objects on deck.
   –verb (used with object)
5. to fortify or protect with a bulwark; secure by or as if by a fortification.

A good definition - but, please note, it applies to the Catholic Church! Why? Well, that is the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18), the Church blessed by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2) and the Church that St. John wrote about in the Book of Revelations. There were only three basic religious groups at the time: Pagans - who believed all kinds of things, Jews - who believed in some or all of the OT, and followers of “The Way” - the group persecuted by Saul of Tarsus. Not in the NT eek but the name Catholic replaced “The Way” in about 140AD. It should be noted that names like: Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, etc did not come about until the 16th Century. I always wondered how these groups explain how the very concept of Christianity was kept for 1,600 years without their efforts… do you ever wonder about that?

Yes and I think the idea of multiple interpretations is completely false. GOD is not a god of confusion. There is only one, there might be fuller, but never contradicting interpretations.

You are sooooooooooo right about this! Ever wonder how all of these various interpretations essentially spawned 20,000+ different Protestant groups - all claiming to be ‘true’ yet all claiming the ‘other guys’ aren’t true? About the only thing they are united in (and it isn’t any doctrine) is their claim that the Catholic Church is wrong. Intersting isn’t it?

God bless

 

[Tommy555]

I have a question that I would be interested in the interpretation. On the night that our Lord instituted the Eucharist, He gave thanks for both the bread and the wine on separate occasions. When He gave thanks, was He giving thanks for the bread and wine themselves–the fruit of the earth, or was He giving thanks to the Father for sending Him, Jesus, as the true bread from heaven, to die on the cross for the redemption of mankind? Scripture says “as they were eating” (Matt 26.26). If He was giving thanks for them as the fruit of the earth, would He have not given thanks before they started eating?

Also, previously, in the garden, when He asked that the cup be taken from Him, was He referring to the crucifixion or being forsaken by the Father? Many people, probably, during this period were crucified but did not sweat blood prior to being crucified. Jesus did. He, for the week, had set His face towards Jerusalem and the cross, determined to die for our salvation. This is why He took on human flesh. On the cross, He cried out, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” The dregs of the cup–I am thinking–are our sins which were going to necessitate the Father forsaking the Son on the cross. Although Jesus knew He was going to rise again, being forsaken even for a while caused Him to sweat blood and desire the cup be taken from Him. If this was the outcome of being forsaken for a little while, what will be the outcome of being forsaken for eternity?

 

[onenow1]

**B]

Yes the church is the bulwark of truth** - It is to allow nothing added or subtracted from Scripture. It is the Guardian of Scripture.

The Church is to make sure:.

The Church is indeed the guardian !

You and I schaick are not the head of the body !

St.Paul instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by US, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Now all we have to do is find out the church that is the guardian of all truth, in matters of faith and morals ?

Some mainline churches to choose from: Methodist _ Luthren _ Presbyterian._

And many break off cummunities also.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tommy555,

You have asked some interesting questions - and, to be honest, I had never thought of them before. So, let me offer my thoughts and see what the others on the list have to say.

I have a question that I would be interested in the interpretation. On the night that our Lord instituted the Eucharist, He gave thanks for both the bread and the wine on separate occasions. When He gave thanks, was He giving thanks for the bread and wine themselves–the fruit of the earth, or was He giving thanks to the Father for sending Him, Jesus, as the true bread from heaven, to die on the cross for the redemption of mankind? Scripture says “as they were eating” (Matt 26.26). If He was giving thanks for them as the fruit of the earth, would He have not given thanks before they started eating?

My understanding was that Christ and the Apostles were celebrating the Passover meal, and as such, they started out as all of the Jews do on such occasions - with a blessing. It is only when the meal is well under way that He makes the consecration of common bread and wine into His Body and Blood. So with that as the basis, I would say that Christ was giving thanks for the food for the meal. But, why limit a thanks to only one focus?

Also, previously, in the garden, when He asked that the cup be taken from Him, was He referring to the crucifixion or being forsaken by the Father? Many people, probably, during this period were crucified but did not sweat blood prior to being crucified. Jesus did. He, for the week, had set His face towards Jerusalem and the cross, determined to die for our salvation. This is why He took on human flesh. On the cross, He cried out, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” The dregs of the cup–I am thinking–are our sins which were going to necessitate the Father forsaking the Son on the cross. Although Jesus knew He was going to rise again, being forsaken even for a while caused Him to sweat blood and desire the cup be taken from Him. If this was the outcome of being forsaken for a little while, what will be the outcome of being forsaken for eternity?

My understanding about condemned Roman prisoners is that they did not have a long time to contemplate the associated horrors of their deaths - no lenghty prison sentences or appeals processes for the condemned. Things usually moved with deliberate speed and the Roman idea of justice.

Christ is God and as God knows all things. When we are about to undergo something (like maybe a visit to the dentist…) we can easily agonize about the experience from the time the apt is made until we are actually sitting in the chair - naturally this is a crescendo effect in terror with our imaginations working very hard…and then he starts the drill! ) Christ, conversely, KNEW what was going to happen - no guess work here - all the pain was known in advance. But, physical pain was only one element - there was experiencing the horrors of sin’s effects to the Perfect Love of God.

Now the feeling of the loss of God’s Presence while Jesus was on the cross was truly the worst of all. The total loss of God’s Presence is truly Hell.

Those were my thoughts, let’s see what develops…

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

OK we have discussed -Eucharist. Is it real or merely symbolic.

REAL!

Still don’t believe any of you are understanding my point.

We discussed this way back at the beginning: Confession. Can the priests forgive or not.

Yes they can because Jesus said so.

The next one: Mary. Must we venerate her or not

Yes we should because we are only following Jesus in what He did. He honored His Father and His mother.

I don’t see how interpretation plays a role here.

Because you interpret that relates to these in the wrong way ?

I see this as simply an application of the knowledge/fact that Mary is the mother of our Lord and Saviour. The best example of an obediant servant of GOD. Someone that we should model our lives after.

How can you apply the knowledge properly if you have the wrong knowledge? The knowledge must first and foremost be TRUE knowledge.

It is also a matter of whether we take God at His word or not.

 

[benedictus2]

Oh really how are you sure it is true? Did you lived on the 1300s?

Because it is well documented and they did scientific tests on it.

Actually you are wrong, I might be wrong or I might correct. I don’t know if what I believe is true, but I am sure of something Jesus Christ paid my soul with His blood, and saved me,

Hang on. You said you may be wrong or you maybe correct and you don’t know if what you believe is true. Then how can you be sure that “Jesus Christ paid my soul with His blood, and saved me,?”

If you don’t know that what you believe is true, then why do you believe it?

because He said whosoever believes and follows Me is saved. I am saved and I can see Him working in me (Thanks God) . He wants me with the weakness I have even if I am wrong. He knows I am not perfect, someday (God willing) in Heaven I will be perfect.

But how can you know that for sure. I mean how do you know that the Bible is indeed the word of God since according to you you don’t know what is true and what is not true?

 

[benedictus2]

Spiritual Food is the food which endures to Eternal Life.

So where do you get this Spiritual Food. Will Scripture endure to Etnernal Life? Will you still have the Bible in Heaven?

Flesh will not inherit the Kingdom of Heavens.

So you do not believe in the resurrection of the dead?

The Word does not spoil.

So you are saying that Christ’s Body spoils?

 

[Pitcharan]

… Mary. Must we venerate her or not

I don’t see how interpretation plays a role here.

I see this as simply an application of the knowledge/fact that Mary is the mother of our Lord and Saviour. The best example of an obediant servant of GOD. Someone that we should model our lives after.

Excerpt from The Sinner’s Guide by St. Louis of Granada
Who will remember you when you are dead? Who will pray for you? Do now, beloved, what you can, because you do not know when you will die, nor what your fate will be after death. Gather for yourself the riches of immortality while you have time. Think of nothing but your salvation. Care only for the things of God. Make friends for yourself now by honoring the saints of God, by imitating their actions, so that when you depart this life they may receive you into everlasting dwellings.

 

[benedictus2]

LOL this is ironic, I am eating His flesh and blood but you can’t get it.

Too right it is ironic. There you are starving and you think you are eating.

Because eating from the Bread of Life is eating from the Eucharist, .

And isn’t that exactly what we have been saying. Which is exactly what we do and which you do NOT do.

This is a hard teaching to understand.

Is that the reason you don’t understand it?

We’re patient, we can take you through it slowly till you get it. Just shoot the questions.

By surrendering to Him, His blood cleanses me, by following Him, I am eating from His body.

Nope.
Lesson 1. His blood cleanses a person through baptism, confession and the Eucharist.

This is my last post on this thread.

So you have run out of rebuttals?

Hmmm, you are afraid because you know you are wrong so rather than learn the truth you exit.

BTW There are no more sacrifices for sins left

Who says there are?

 

[benedictus2]

I thought post 450 was your last post

But I am glad you stayed.

I didn’t said this, I said: Eating the flesh is following Christ (truly), not eating from the Eucharist (which is just something physical, and the spiritual food which Christ gives us accounts for much more).

Actually you said eating from the Eucharist.

And no you’re wrong, Eating the flesh is eating the flesh. Jesus said this over and over again for emphasis so that we will not be left in any doubt as to what He meant.

Good Catholics follow Christ and without acknowledging it, they are eating from Him, because you think eating from Christ is eating from the Eucharist, you don’t see this.

Good Catholics follow Christ COMPLETELY because they follow His command to eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. You follow Christ hesitantly because like the disciples who found the teaching too hard, you stopped following Him at this point.

Well now last post really on this thread FOR REAL (some posters are getting angry),

We’ll see you around.

 

[shaky]

I have been in various ecumenical Bible study groups with Protestants as well as Catholics.

It was my observation that most Protestants in such groups don’t require an absolute and true interpretation of most verses. It’s not so much a matter of different denominations. It’s a certain mindset that more and more Catholics seem to have now.

Here's the way it goes. So, three members of the study group give three different interpretations of a verse. Maybe "thou shalt not kill". A Mennonite might believe that this requires him to be a conscientious objector in war, serve in the medical corps but not carry a gun. A Catholic might argue the 'just war' theory. Someone else might say that war in our modern time has become just too murderous and that unless we are attacked we cannot go to war - for example, we were wrong to invade Iraq. Etc.

 Or, let's see, what about abortion - as murder? A Catholic might say that under no conditions is abortion justified. It always is murder. Most liberal Protestants would make exceptions - rape, save life of mother, some others perhaps. A fundamentalist Protestant might agree with the Catholic. Another Protestant might say the whole matter is private, the mother (and father) together with a doctor make the decision, certainly if an abortion is within the first trimester. Etc. 

   Protestants, I have found, are quick to say: "Fine. We don't agree. Let's agree to disagree." Protestants usually put much more emphasis on individual interpretation without a dogmatic edge. Well, I think those ecumenical groups have attracted more liberal (mainline) Protestants than staunch evangelicals. Evangelicals are nearer the Catholic position on many moral issues, despite major differences in doctrine.

  Speaking of theology, Catholics receive theirs from the magisterium. Here it is. Believe it. Protestants in these groups were much more likely to think individually and reach various conclusions, regardless of their denomination. Like Mary. Catholics, of course, might speak up for the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Protestants honor Mary but see nothing in scripture to support either of those doctrines, one defined in 1854, the other in 1950. They also ask: if Mary should be so central - Queen of Heaven and much more - why is it that St. Paul, in all of his letters, discusses theology in much detail but never once mentions her?

   I have found Protestant vary considerably on the Eucharist, too. They may not accept transubstantiation, but some view it as very central to worship, maybe offer it every Sunday. Others see it as symbolic and may not give it that much attention - usually the first Sunday of each month. Quakers and the Salvation Army don't have it at all. As I understand it both may view every meal together with family and Christian friends as communion. All of life, in fact, is seen as a sacrament (of sorts?). Not quite sure I understand though I heard it eloquently explained one time.

  Enough for now. Protestants I know don't seem that concerned about having one interpretation of scripture. They seem pleased to entertain various ideas with animated discussion but without argument. My guess is that more evangelical Protestants are more likely to adhere to a stricter set of doctrines, which is why we have so many small evangelical denominations. High-church Anglicans, Missouri-Synold Lutherans and a variety of others are apt to be more theologically conservative, too. 

  God bless all of his children of every color, creed and country. May religion become a bridge and bnot a barrier..

I was invited and went to a Jehovah witness meeting where they did the passover meal. I think they do it once a year. As they was passing it round. Somebody said to me do not take this. Because it is wrong. I said why. They said only the special ones that have got the holy spirit can take it. {They are the ones in the 144,000} The rest of the church the crowd have to hold it the pass it on.
It seemed like to me this is rejecting the body and blood of christ. I asked God to forgive
forgive me afterwards.
The better not invite me next year. Because i will eat and drink the lot next time.

 

[Roy5]

Shaky.

Interesting experience with the Jehovah Witnesses. They are not Protestants, of course, but substantially different from all other Christians.

 If one is to take the 144,000 literally, of course, they have to be 12,000 'virgin men' from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. See Rev. 7:4ff. Rev. 14:3-5. Jehovah Witnesses will not cooperate with any other Christians as they believe they are the only real Christians, the policy Catholicism followe dup until Vatican II. Thank God for John XXIII!

 I am a little surprised that they know who the 144,000 are and who should receive communion. I'll have to look into that as I admit to a hankering to learn about all religions as time permits. I know that the JWs teach that there will be a paradise on earth for the faithful JWs. I'm not sure anyone else will be admitted??? As I recall, they don't believe in a hell or a purgatory. Those who don't make it to the earthly paradise will be destroyed permanently. Before that there will be the horrific Battle of Armageddon which they have been looking forward to for over 100 years now. They are quite convinced that they alone are the only true faith, the faith established by Jehovah.

 Back to the thread. I really don't know for sure whether my interpretation of scripture to also correct. But I don't believe that we are saved by our theology but by the grace of God, I am confident that God does not condemn sincere people of any religion who love the Lord and love one another. Wasn't that how Jesus responded to the lawyer who asked him how he could enter eternal life?

 I do know that I reject certain passages of scripture as to be taken literally, including the first 11 chapters of Genesis. The Noah story! Give me a break. Surely God would not regret that he made humankind (Gen. 6:6) and then proceed to drown all but eight people. Think of all the innocent little ones, even babies in the womb, that he would have killed. How does that stack up against the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount?

Besides feeding all those animals for 150 days on that ark of the given dimensions? Silly.
To totally subject our God-given brains to a book or a church or a creed is to misuse what the Lord has provided us. We are meant to wonder and ponder and question and seek and examine and weigh - and also respect the views of others as long as they respect our views, too. Conviction in our beliefs is fine. Arrogant intolerance is not.

 

[benedictus2]

Back to the thread. I really don’t know for sure whether my interpretation of scripture to also correct. But I don’t believe that we are saved by our theology but by the grace of God, I am confident that God does not condemn sincere people of any religion who love the Lord and love one another.

While I agree that we are saved by God’s grace, good and true theology IS GOD’S GRACE. Bad theology is from the devil.

Example:
“Christian” denominations who teach abortion is okay is teaching very bad theology.

We cannot separate our actions from our beliefs. If you believe it permissible to kill the unborn, then that is your theology.

Do you seriously think that this will get you “saved” and that this is in accord with God’s will?

 

[Pitcharan]

… To totally subject our God-given brains to a book or a church or a creed is to misuse what the Lord has provided us. We are meant to wonder and ponder and question and seek and examine and weigh - and also respect the views of others as long as they respect our views, too. Conviction in our beliefs is fine. Arrogant intolerance is not.

To totally depend on our God-given brains is dangerous. It is capable of making one imagine oneself to be the author of one’s own goodness. Whether we like it or not the Bible contains God’s Word and there has to be a way to receive it. The one true way instituted by God’s own Son is the way of the Catholic Church which is led by God’s own Spirit

 

[davec66]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

---

Well, they both believe in Baptism they just differ on when you are saved. We need to look at all the scriptures not just some. The Baptist believes you are saved when you believe and the Lutheran believes you are not saved until one is Baptized. So, if both believe and are baptized they both have the same opportunity for salvation. The Bible clearly teaches Baptism is an act of belief.

So, Let me ask you this question. If you are baptized before you are of an age to believe are you saved, using only scripture to show why or why not?

 

[dosdog]

Well, they both believe in Baptism they just differ on when you are saved. We need to look at all the scriptures not just some. The Baptist believes you are saved when you believe and the Lutheran believes you are not saved until one is Baptized. So, if both believe and are baptized they both have the same opportunity for salvation. The Bible clearly teaches Baptism is an act of belief.

So, Let me ask you this question. If you are baptized before you are of an age to believe are you saved, using only scripture to show why or why not?

That depends if you think G-D takes his Commandments Serious - Honor thy Mother and Father

The Child dies as an Infant will G-D grant salvation to that child because of the obedient act of the parents?

Bible says “You must be Baptized”

Water- Normal
Blood- Martyr​

Yes St Paul was baptized by The Church -read Acts 9

 

[benedictus2]

To totally depend on our God-given brains is dangerous. It is capable of making one imagine oneself to be the author of one’s own goodness. Whether we like it or not the Bible contains God’s Word and there has to be a way to receive it. The one true way instituted by God’s own Son is the way of the Catholic Church which is led by God’s own Spirit

Brilliant!

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Araninski,

I am doing great, thank you! I just noticed you are a New Member - Welcome to CAF! Now, let’s see if I can share an idea or two with you…

Sorry to say, I got a bit wordy on this response … so, let me call this Page 1 of 2

*I think that it is not such as a lack of understanding as a lack of Faith. To accept the Eucharist, one must do so by Faith.

Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

You did say this:

With your understanding of “eating His flesh” being following Christ, I am curious as to how you know I, or any other Catholic for that matter, cannot “get it” (i.e. Christ’s flesh)?

Define good Catholic? Are they faithful to what the Catholic Church teaches?

God bless you

*Araniski has left the thread but if he is lurking I would like to ask a question:

If you were present when Jesus gave this teaching of the Eucharist (John 6) would you have turned your back shaking your head as the disciples did or would you have remained with the Apostles who remained?

I would really like to know this.

Blessings
Cinette*