How To Read and Understand The Bible

[kepha1]

Hi Ed.

. Hi SteveGC, thanks for your reply. My post #70 reads as follows:—1 John 2:26," I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. v27 As for you, the anointing you received from Him {Holy Spirit} remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His { Holy Spirit} anointing teaches you about all things and as His {Holy Spirit} anointing is real, not conterfeit----just as it has taught you, remain in Him. It’s very clear to me what that means. If I’m to believe the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture, which I can not find even one Scripture that supports it, I then have to ignore what 1 John 2;26-27 states. E D O.

2 Timothy 3:12-17: Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION)and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURES)which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Note verse 14. It admonishes Timothy to do three things:

1. Remember what you have learned and firmly believed (Tradition)
2. Know from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3. Know you have the Scriptures

The Bible on St. Paul’s list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic teaching on the three sources of sound teaching.
In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used in the pre-revolt Church as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:
Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity

The ‘reformers’ abandoned this in favor of a more literal/historical interpretation, and 2 Tim. 3:16 was reduced to a defensive slogan after the damage had been done. (italics mine)

The analogical, anagogical and moral senses of the Bible were known collectively as the spiritual senses.

Now also note that St. Paul says that St. Timothy has known the Scriptures “from childhood.” We know that Timothy was of Jewish extraction through his mother and that St. Paul circumcised him as an adult (the pagan Greeks thought that circumcision was a horrible mutilation of the perfection of the human body and even some Greek Jews did not do it at that time).

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Consequently, St. Timothy had known the Bible from childhood because he was Jewish. There was no New Testament at the time this epistle was written or when Timothy was a child, so it is the writings of the Old Testament that are being recommended to him, NOT our two testament Bible.

Now we must take this section as a whole to understand St. Paul’s teaching here. He told St. Timothy that he should hold to sound doctrine and not be led astray by “impostors” and “deceivers.” He gives the sources of sound Christian doctrine to be the traditions of the Church as handed on by its authoritative teachers (including himself) along with the OT scriptures. He admonishes St. Timothy not to ignore the Jewish Scriptures because they were inspired by God and are full of good information on how to live in accordance with God’s will.

It is by adding the teaching of the OT Scriptures to the traditions and the authoritative teaching of the Apostles that the man of God is made “fully equipped for every good work.” It is not by the Scriptures alone.

The “man of God” is never used to describe each and every individual bible reading believer. It is either one who is ordained or one who is called directly by God, followed by signs and wonders. (italics mine)

 

[kepha1]

The supernatural sense of faith
91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them(53) and guides them into all truth.(54)

92 “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”(55)

93 “By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.”(56)
53 1Jn 2,20,
54 Jn 16,13
55 LG 12 cf. St. Augustine, De praed. sanct. 14, 27: PL 44, 980.
56 LG 12 cf. Jud 1,3

Growth in understanding the faith
94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

- “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;(57) it is in particular “theological research (which) deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.(58)

- “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which (believers) experience”,(59) the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”(60)

- “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(61)

95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”(62)
57 DV 8# 2; cf. Lc 2,19, 2; cf. Lc 2,19,
58 GS 62# 7; GS 44# 2; DV 23 DV 24 UR 4 UR 7; GS 44# 2; DV 23 DV 24 UR 4.
59 DV 8# 2.
60 DV 8# 2.
61 St. Gregory the Great, Hom. in Ezek. 1, 7, 8: PL 76, 843D.
62 DV 10# 3.

IN BRIEF

96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

98 “The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes”“Benedict XVI Homilies 20212”>DV 8# 1).

99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Ed, you don’t have to ignore what 1 John 2;26-27 states. What you have to ignore is Individualism, which is implicitly refered to in 2 Tim. 3:12

 

[EdOsiecki]

]

Actually Ed, if you’ll back up a few verses in that chapter, what you’ll find is basically that I, a Catholic within the Apostolic heritage of the faith, having been born again through baptism and faith, and subsequently received the anointing of the Spirit, need not have YOU teach ME.

Hi SteveGC, Thanks for your reply. I very respectfully disagree with your above statement on these basis. I too, as a non-Catholic within the Apostolic heritage (I’m included in that heritage too) have been saved (born again Mk 16:16) by my belief in the gospel. Upon doing so, Jesus died in my place and His BLOOD (Heb 9:22 “without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO forgiveness”) atoned for my sins, something water baptism can’t do.

God’s salvation plan started by re-clothing with animal’s skins Adam & Eve Animals/substitution death/ BLOOD… In Moses’ time, Lev 17:11, “for the life of every creature is in the BLOOD. I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar.” Animals/substitution death/BLOOD continued throughout the O.T. and finished with Jesus. Lamb/substitution death/BLOOD in the N .T… Have you noticed, two requirements (substitution death & BLOOD for sin atonement) were/are necessary in God’s plan. (1) Sin caused humanity’s death. In the O.T.,animals died in people’s place as in the N.T Jesus died for us. (2) In the O.T. animal’s BLOOD atoned for sins, as in the N.T. Jesus BLOOD atones for our sins. As you can see, baptism is not mentioned, yet, they too, had the original sin.problem. I can understand their circumcision identified them into their faith, just as baptism does for us. However; their circumcision never forgave sins as our baptism doesn’t either.

The Catholic Magisterium interpret Jn 3:5 as baptism and being born again which it is not so! Jesus explains to Nicodemus the duality of a person. “born of water” (physical birth) and the Spirit (spiritual birth). The latter is what has to be born again. Born of water, water is a metaphor alluding to people Ps144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15 The Catholic Duoay/Rhiems Bible adds to the mis-interpretation thusly: “----unless he is born again of water and the Spirit.” Jesus didn’t say that, he said, “—unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” They added the word “again” which violates Scripture. In Mat 3:11 John very clearly explains what baptism does. It’s a sign of repentance. Mat 28:19 Jesus commands baptism which it then becomes works. Works have no part in receiving salvation Eph 2:8-9 otherwise it’s not a free gift.

The above is not only my personal interpretation, it’s what being taught by Evangelicals, Baptists and other mainline Protestant denominations. On other threads in this forum, Catholics says they are born again and they received the Holy Spirit at baptism, but when I asked why didn’t that happen in Acts 8:12 & v16 some then say that the Holy Spirit is received at confirmation? Confirmation is not in the Bible. I know in your above statement “need not have YOU teach ME” isn’t meant to be any sarcasm because I know that you are a gentleman. ED O.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Hello ED! I alway’s thought that conformation was a laying on of hands to show you are going or ready to lead a christian life and you confirm to take an oath ,not to do certain things ,as I remember. Baptism was to be saved from birth and to be brought up in a christian teaching by your parents. They were responsible to bring you up Catholic and see to your education of the faith,. Now i am not saying a baby dedication, it is differnt then that it is a salvation at birth, but at conformation you yourself take the oath to be a christian. That is what I think I could be wrong because I came back not to long ago and thatn is the way I remember it. Love of Christ Nancy PS You are a christian if you know Jesus and were baptised.

 

[SteveGC]

] Hi SteveGC, Thanks for your reply. I very respectfully disagree with your above statement on these basis. I too, as a non-Catholic within the Apostolic heritage (I’m included in that heritage too) have been saved (born again Mk 16:16) by my belief in the gospel. Upon doing so, Jesus died in my place and His BLOOD (Heb 9:22 “without the shedding of BLOOD there is NO forgiveness”) atoned for my sins, something water baptism can’t do.

God’s salvation plan started by re-clothing with animal’s skins Adam & Eve Animals/substitution death/ BLOOD… In Moses’ time, Lev 17:11, “for the life of every creature is in the BLOOD. I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar.” Animals/substitution death/BLOOD continued throughout the O.T. and finished with Jesus. Lamb/substitution death/BLOOD in the N .T… Have you noticed, two requirements (substitution death & BLOOD for sin atonement) were/are necessary in God’s plan. (1) Sin caused humanity’s death. In the O.T.,animals died in people’s place as in the N.T Jesus died for us. (2) In the O.T. animal’s BLOOD atoned for sins, as in the N.T. Jesus BLOOD atones for our sins. As you can see, baptism is not mentioned, yet, they too, had the original sin.problem. I can understand their circumcision identified them into their faith, just as baptism does for us. However; their circumcision never forgave sins as our baptism doesn’t either.

The Catholic Magisterium interpret Jn 3:5 as baptism and being born again which it is not so! Jesus explains to Nicodemus the duality of a person. “born of water” (physical birth) and the Spirit (spiritual birth). The latter is what has to be born again. Born of water, water is a metaphor alluding to people Ps144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15 The Catholic Duoay/Rhiems Bible adds to the mis-interpretation thusly: “----unless he is born again of water and the Spirit.” Jesus didn’t say that, he said, “—unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” They added the word “again” which violates Scripture. In Mat 3:11 John very clearly explains what baptism does. It’s a sign of repentance. Mat 28:19 Jesus commands baptism which it then becomes works. Works have no part in receiving salvation Eph 2:8-9 otherwise it’s not a free gift.

The above is not only my personal interpretation, it’s what being taught by Evangelicals, Baptists and other mainline Protestant denominations. On other threads in this forum, Catholics says they are born again and they received the Holy Spirit at baptism, but when I asked why didn’t that happen in Acts 8:12 & v16 some then say that the Holy Spirit is received at confirmation? Confirmation is not in the Bible. I know in your above statement “need not have YOU teach ME” isn’t meant to be any sarcasm because I know that you are a gentleman. ED O.

Alrighty, Ed…slow down partner.

Go back to my post…look at your post which I quoted, and to which mine was a response. Read your post fully. Then read mine fully. then come back and look at this one you just wrote. Notice anything? You just spent alot of time explaining the atonement to me (no need to try to teach me anything there)…and then the remaining time debating baptism with me. See a problem there, Ed? Do you see that we were talking about interpreting Scripture, about the need, or lack of need, for teachers… we’re not debating atonement, not debating baptism. Let’s stay on target. I’d like to request from you a targeted response to my post, staying relevant to the topic you and I were discussing…which happens to unify nicely with the title of this thread. I know you are being debated on multiple issues on here, Ed…and I commend you for trying to multi-task. Seems as though you brought an unrelated debate into our discussion?

Granted, you did open this post on target by claiming you are part of the apostolic heritage. And I do think you are, Ed…albeit quite imperfectly…and that is no fault of your own I’m sure. It’s typically effected by either your cultural upbringing, a history of poor Catholic catechesis if you were a former Catholic, and/or an ascent of your intellect toward anti-Catholic rhetoric. Either way, you are separated substantially from the apostolic heritage, but are united in a mysterious way. Bottom line, John 2 is a message for believers fully within that heritage, to be on lookout for teachers coming to them with anything less than full connection to that heritage.

Looking forward to continuing our little discussion on **our **topic

 

[EdOsiecki]

]Alrighty, Ed…slow down partner.

Ed? Do you see that we were talking about interpreting Scripture, about the need, or lack of need, for teachers… we’re not debating atonement, not debating baptism. Let’s stay on target. I’d like to request from you a targeted response to my post, staying relevant to the topic you and I were discussing…which happens to unify nicely with the title of this thread.

Hi SteveGC, thanks for your reply. I can very well see your frustration of what I had posted. I’m sorry and I apologize! After I had submitted it, I then realized that I forgot to end that post by saying, “Since the Catholic Magisterium is so wrong on interpreting John 3:5 which deals with baptism and being born again, why then should I or anyone believe in any of their interpretations?” That would have unify nicely with the topic of this thread. ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

]Alrighty, Ed…slow down partner.

Hi SteveGC, thanks for your reply. I can very well see your frustration of what I had posted. I’m sorry and I apologize! After I had submitted it, I then realized that I forgot to end that post by saying, “Since the Catholic Magisterium is so wrong on interpreting John 3:5 which deals with baptism and being born again, why then should I or anyone believe in any of their interpretations?” That would have unify nicely with the topic of this thread. ED O.

How so? Who has the authority to determine that your interpretation is more accurate than the 2000 years of Catholic Biblical Scholars who thought differently?

 

[kepha1]

The Catholic Magisterium interpret Jn 3:5 as baptism and being born again which it is not so! Jesus explains to Nicodemus the duality of a person. “born of water” (physical birth) and the Spirit (spiritual birth). The latter is what has to be born again. Born of water, water is a metaphor alluding to people Ps144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15 The Catholic Duoay/Rhiems Bible adds to the mis-interpretation thusly: “----unless he is born again of water and the Spirit.” Jesus didn’t say that, he said, “—unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” They added the word “again” which violates Scripture. In Mat 3:11 John very clearly explains what baptism does. It’s a sign of repentance. Mat 28:19 Jesus commands baptism which it then becomes works. Works have no part in receiving salvation Eph 2:8-9 otherwise it’s not a free gift.

The latter is what has to be born again. Born of water, water is a metaphor alluding to people Ps144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15

If water is a metaphor, then so must be spirit. “Spirit” in the Bible is never used as as symbol or a metaphor, and regarding baptism, nowhere in Scripture is water separated from spirit. I don’t know what “infallible” translation of the Bible you prefer, but even the King James Version, in verse 3, is thus:

John 3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. KJV

John 3:5 is simply translated to reflect Jesus’ teaching, there is no deceptive attempt to “mistranslate” or twist the meaning of the whole discourse that Jesus had with Nichodemus. Separating spirit from matter in your case is just another form of Protestant Gnosticism, which you summarize quite well. The word “again” in Jn 3:5 changes nothing.

Martin Luther’s added word “alone” in Romans 3:28 changes the whole meaning of the verse, and totally contradicts the meaning of James 2:26, which clearly and explicity states: “you are not justified by faith alone”. No “faith alone” Protestant can honestly accept James 2:26.

Works have no part in receiving salvation Eph 2:8-9 otherwise it’s not a free gift.

Sorry, Ed. this is a very common misunderstanding of what Christians from the very beginning believed and taught even before they had scriptures. Nowhere does Eph 2:8-9 condemn good works.

 

[kepha1]

edit to the above post

The Catholic Magisterium interpret Jn 3:5 as baptism and being born again which it is not so! Jesus explains to Nicodemus the duality of a person. “born of water” (physical birth) and the Spirit (spiritual birth). The latter is what has to be born again. Born of water, water is a metaphor alluding to people Ps144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15 The Catholic Duoay/Rhiems Bible adds to the mis-interpretation thusly: “----unless he is born again of water and the Spirit.” Jesus didn’t say that, he said, “—unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” They added the word “again” which violates Scripture. In Mat 3:11 John very clearly explains what baptism does. It’s a sign of repentance. Mat 28:19 Jesus commands baptism which it then becomes works. Works have no part in receiving salvation Eph 2:8-9 otherwise it’s not a free gift.

The latter is what has to be born again. Born of water, water is a metaphor alluding to people Ps144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2, Rev 17:15

If water is a metaphor, then so must be spirit. “Spirit” in the Bible is never used as as symbol or a metaphor, and regarding baptism, nowhere in Scripture is water separated from spirit. I don’t know what “infallible” translation of the Bible you prefer, but even the King James Version, in verse 3, is thus:

John 3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. KJV

John 3:5 is simply translated to reflect Jesus’ teaching, there is no deceptive attempt to “mistranslate” or twist the meaning of the whole discourse that Jesus had with Nichodemus. Separating spirit from matter in your case is just another form of Protestant Gnosticism, which you summarize quite well. The word “again” in Jn 3:5 changes nothing.

Martin Luther’s added word “alone” in Romans 3:28 changes the whole meaning of the verse, and totally contradicts the meaning of James 2:26, which clearly and explicity states: “you are not justified by faith alone”. No “faith alone” Protestant can honestly accept James 2:26.

Works have no part in receiving salvation Eph 2:8-9 otherwise it’s not a free gift.

Sorry, Ed. this is a very common misunderstanding of what Christians from the very beginning believed and taught even before they had scriptures. Nowhere does Eph 2:8-9 nullify the importantce good works.

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; Eph. 2:8-9 - many Protestants err in their understanding of what Paul means by "works of the law” in his teaching on justification. Paul’s teaching that we are not justified by “works of the law” refer to the law of Moses or to any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul’s mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the “works of the law.” Here is the proof:

James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to Gal. 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and Rom. 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.” James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself. This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g.,clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment. Here is more proof:

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul’s phrase for “works of the law” in the Greek is “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent (“hrvt ysm”) meaning “deeds of the law,” or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use “ergon nomou.” He uses “ergois agathois.” Therefore, Paul’s “works of the law” and James’ “works” are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
Rom. 3:29 - Paul confirms that works of the law in this case refer to the Mosaic law by rhetorically asking “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” It does not mean “good works.”

Rom. 4:9-17 - Paul provides further discussion that righteousness God seeks in us does not come from Mosaic law, but through faith. But notice that Paul also never says “faith alone.”
Rom. 9:31-32 - righteousness is pursued through faith, not works of the law. Again, “works of law” does not mean “good works.”
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html#justification-II

 

[EdOsiecki]

how so? Who has the authority to determine that your interpretation is more accurate than the 2000 years of catholic biblical scholars who thought differently?

Hi NotWorthy. Thanks for your reply. The 2,000 years of Catholic scholars doesn’t impress me one bit when you fail to mention the corruption that goes along with it. Now let’s get back to the issue of interpretation. In Acts 16: 30, the jailer asked Paul/Silas, “What must I do to be saved?” They replied. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-----you and your household.” THIS I UNDERSTAND It’s the gospel that Jesus mentions in Mk 16:16. -------- What Paul/Silas did not say to the jailer was: You first must be baptized which will wash away your sins and by so doing, that will get you started on your way to salvation and become a member of the church. You’ll then be taught about Penance, Transubstantiation, Confirmation and other Sacraments. Along with all of that, you should do some Novenas to the various saints, light candles, give money for indulgences, wear a brown scapular,say the rosary and attend Mass. All of these things are necessary works for salvation. But very importantly, you must pray for the dead people in purgatory because when you get there, you’ll certainly want someone to pray for you too so that you can get out. How many prayers will it take? No one knows but have faith . THIS I DON’T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE MOST OF IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.

In the O. T. God was very specific in getting all the Commandments and rules written down so that they could be used and acted upon accordingly. But after much time, the Pharisees and Sadducees added so many more rules and demands that Jesus said, they, themselves, could not follow them. In the N. T. God had all what is necessary for salvation and other matters all written down in letter form. They were then circulated among all the churches. That’s how the churches got started. But after some time, the Magisterium added so much more that is not in the Bible. Do you see the parallel? Here’s my point! If the first century church didn’t need all those extra things which are not listed in the Bible and they received eternal life, why should you then be burdened to do so?

I’m being accused of personally interpreting Scripture. That’s no so, Protestants have many good Bible scholars and excellent teachers too! ED O.

 

[Ginger2]

I’m being accused of personally interpreting Scripture. That’s no so, Protestants have many good Bible scholars and excellent teachers too! ED O.

Perhaps what is more important to remember is that Catholic Scholars are fallible humans, too. They are giving there personal interpretation according to what they already believe.

As Jerome did in the Vulgate concerning the Deuteros. And even tho Catholics today say he was wrong, the Pope allowed him to write his opinion smack dab in the text of the Vulgate for all to see.

Ginger

 

[SteveGC]

]Alrighty, Ed…slow down partner.

Hi SteveGC, thanks for your reply. I can very well see your frustration of what I had posted. I’m sorry and I apologize! After I had submitted it, I then realized that I forgot to end that post by saying, “Since the Catholic Magisterium is so wrong on interpreting John 3:5 which deals with baptism and being born again, why then should I or anyone believe in any of their interpretations?” That would have unify nicely with the topic of this thread. ED O.

I think this is very telling of the problem. The Church doesn’t have an interpretation of John 3:5, Ed. Any more than they have an interpretation of Mt 16:18. I mean, individual Catholics might provide for you an interpretation of a particular verse, but only inasmuch as it fits into how the Church accomplishes its aggregate interpretations for the faithful, which is not a verse by verse interpretation. The Church provides a complete interpretation of the sacred deposit of faith from it’s historical, personal lineage of teaching tradition, part of which is a comprehensive and thorough understanding of Sacred Scripture as an entire story, not even book by book, much less verse by verse, but rather the whole canon, the whole story from start to finish of salvation history.

So to say that the Church interprets John 3:5 wrong, and therefore you won’t believe anything else they interpret, is to completely misunderstand how to interpret Scripture in the first place, and to erroneously hold the Church accountable to a verse-by-verse interpretation.

Neither verse by verse, paragraph by paragraph, chapter by chapter, nor even book by book interpretation will produce the authentic story of who God is, much less His plan for our salvation and guidance on Christian morality. It must be read as a full story, a full canon, and must be done in light of the tradition that was set aside to accompany it throughout the ages. Otherwise, there’s far to many “stories” out there about what it all means…and that’s dangerous because salvation is one of the big things being debated. Someone has to hold the infallible truth about that here and now. We’re not just supposed to be satisfied with our disagreements and hope we all figure it out before we die. God knew that that’s what could easily happen. Why do you think He built a Church in the first place? I mean, what IS a church that is significant enough for Christ to build, if it’s just an invisible scattering of the faithful?? That only sets us all up for chaos and disunity of our belief. Modern Christian history is the proof in the pudding of that - reject the Church…live in chaotic disunity.

 

[mary1173]

I second this suggestion. To really understand any given passage of Scripture, you need to understand it both in it’s immediate context (try reading 4 or 5 verses right before it and the 4 or 5 right after it), and also have a good grasp of the overall “big picture” of Scripture. You don’t need exhaustive knowledge, but enough that you know what’s going on.

The resources recommended above are excellent, if you have access to them. Also, there is another audio series based on a Catholic textbook called “Understanding the Scriptures.” The textbook is by Dr. Scott Hahn, but the 30 part audio series is by a student of his. It is found here.. You can also find it for free on I-Tunes.

Hope that helps. For more info about Scripture study, please visit my humble website, linked below.

I also agree with NotWorthy, you need to understand the OT before you can move on to the NT writings.

 

[NotWorthy]

[Hi NotWorthy. Thanks for your reply. The 2,000 years of Catholic scholars doesn’t impress me one bit when you fail to mention the corruption that goes along with it.

I’d love to talk about the corruption that goes along with it. Well, actually I’d hate to, for it is a disgrace, but I’m perfectly willing to. Especially, if you can show me where that corruption has influenced Biblical Interpretation.

For instance, I’m not sure that St. Irenaeus was even remotely involved in, let’s say the corruption of the 12th or 13 centuries. As a matter of fact, I don’t know of any corruption accusations that have ever been thrown at St. Irenaeus. He certainly taught that Jesus was talking about Baptism in John, chapter 3. The Church has consistently reflected the teachings of St. Irenaeus in these 2000 years. Even corrupt officials didn’t conflict with these teachings. One could argue (and praise God) that these officials were too busy being corrupt instead of messing with scriptural interpretations!

But hey, that was a nice red-herring you tossed out there!

EdOsiecki:

Now let’s get back to the issue of interpretation. In Acts 16: 30, the jailer asked Paul/Silas, “What must I do to be saved?” They replied. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-----you and your household.” THIS I UNDERSTAND It’s the gospel that Jesus mentions in Mk 16:16. -------- What Paul/Silas did not say to the jailer was: You first must be baptized which will wash away your sins and by so doing, that will get you started on your way to salvation and become a member of the church. You’ll then be taught about Penance, Transubstantiation, Confirmation and other Sacraments. Along with all of that, you should do some Novenas to the various saints, light candles, give money for indulgences, wear a brown scapular,say the rosary and attend Mass. All of these things are necessary works for salvation. But very importantly, you must pray for the dead people in purgatory because when you get there, you’ll certainly want someone to pray for you too so that you can get out. How many prayers will it take? No one knows but have faith . THIS I DON’T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE MOST OF IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.

Its interesting that you mention this scene, for the first thing that Paul does is baptize the jailor and his household - his entire household!!! BTW, doesn’t it bother you that Paul says he and his household will be saved if the jailer believes in the Gospel? Pretty solid argument for infant baptism, which the 1st century Christian Church practiced, my brother!

BTW, “believe in the Gospel” means believe in what Christ preached. One of the things Christ preached was Baptism. That’s why Paul immediately baptized the jailer.

In the O. T. God was very specific in getting all the Commandments and rules written down so that they could be used and acted upon accordingly. But after much time, the Pharisees and Sadducees added so many more rules and demands that Jesus said, they, themselves, could not follow them.

The Pharisees and Sadducees did have legal authority to do that, also. Jesus never questioned there authority to make those rules. Never. He simply questioned their motives (You make them twice as fit for hell as you are…). Jesus, in Matthew 16 and 18 would give this very same authority to Peter and the Apostles. The Apostolic Church still has that authority. Look it up! It’s in the Bible!

In the N. T. God had all what is necessary for salvation and other matters all written down in letter form.

Where does it say that?!? I know of no Scripture that says that, and it would seem that Scripture would make that point abundantly clear.

I’ll give you a hint. 2nd Timothy 3:16 does not say that all that is necessary for salvation and other matters will written down in letter form.

They were then circulated among all the churches. That’s how the churches got started. But after some time, the Magisterium added so much more that is not in the Bible. Do you see the parallel? Here’s my point! If the first century church didn’t need all those extra things which are not listed in the Bible and they received eternal life, why should you then be burdened to do so?

First of all, you may want to thank the Catholic Church, corruption and all, for preserving those Scriptures for you to read and enjoy today! Second of all, Jesus gave this authority to the Apostles - not to the Bible.

You see, Jesus knew that the Church would grow and mature, hence the reference to the mustard seed. This growth would necessitate the need for changes, not in doctrinal changes, but in understanding and management of the Church. That’s why He gave authority to the Church to adjust to changing situations. The Church doesn’t make up new things, such as our Protestant brothers who have changed their teachings on contraception and homosexuality (some churches, not all). But the Church has to have authority to handle some things that arise, like stem cell research, which is not in the Bible.

I’m being accused of personally interpreting Scripture. That’s no so, Protestants have many good Bible scholars and excellent teachers too! ED O.

And do any of these excellent scholars and teachers (and I agree, there ARE some excellent ones out there, I certainly don’t mean to impugn) claim to have authority? Because the Bible clearly gives the Apostolic Church that authority? Even when She has members who are corrupt, which is something that Jesus had predicted (the parable of the mustard seed).
[/QUOTE]

 

[NotWorthy]

Perhaps what is more important to remember is that Catholic Scholars are fallible humans, too. They are giving there personal interpretation according to what they already believe.

As Jerome did in the Vulgate concerning the Deuteros. And even tho Catholics today say he was wrong, the Pope allowed him to write his opinion smack dab in the text of the Vulgate for all to see.

Ginger

Yes, Catholics Scholars are fallible. St. Jerome was in error, but had the sense to acquiesce to the Pope in this matter. You see, St. Jerome had the sense to understand that to follow the Church is to follow Christ, her Bridegroom.

The teaching Magisterium teaches infallibly, however.

 

[Ginger2]

Yes, Catholics Scholars are fallible. St. Jerome was in error, but had the sense to acquiesce to the Pope in this matter. You see, St. Jerome had the sense to understand that to follow the Church is to follow Christ, her Bridegroom.

The teaching Magisterium teaches infallibly, however.

tee. hee, hee…

Actually, it looks more to me like the pope “had the sense to acquiesce to” to Jerome by allowing Jerome to print his preface stating the deuteros were not inspired.

The RC does not allow translators, publishers nor even scholars to write commentaries within the pages of the Bible that disagree with Catholic teaching. Yet, Jerome was allowed to write comments, not just on history or interpretation of the seven books, but outright deny their inspiration and append them apart from the universally accepted Scriptures.

Here is Jerome’s statement: “As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon."

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

tee. hee, hee…

Actually, it looks more to me like the pope “had the sense to acquiesce to” to Jerome by allowing Jerome to print his preface stating the deuteros were not inspired.

The RC does not allow translators, publishers nor even scholars to write commentaries within the pages of the Bible that disagree with Catholic teaching. Yet, Jerome was allowed to write comments, not just on history or interpretation of the seven books, but outright deny their inspiration and append them apart from the universally accepted Scriptures.

To make this statement means that you have never opened up the commentary on an NAB translation. The Pope allowed St. Jerome’s comments on the Scriptures, just as he demanded that St. Jerome puts those books in the Latin Vulgate. If it was up to St. Jerome, we would have had the 66 books that are regularly mis-used today.

Here is Jerome’s statement: “As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.” Jerome(340-420) - Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon."

Ginger

Are you sure of this statement above? It seems that Jerome wrote this before the Church settled on a fixed Canon.

 

[Ginger2]

To make this statement means that you have never opened up the commentary on an NAB translation.

So you are trying to tell me Catholic Bibles allow the translators to interpret Scriptures contrary to Catholic doctrine?

Show me one example - a Catholic approved Bible like the DR - not a Protestant Bible.

Are you sure of this statement above?

Absolutely.

It seems that Jerome wrote this before the Church settled on a fixed Canon.

The RC didn’t set their canon until the Council of Trent and declared a canon different from the original Vulgate. Uh, you did know the Vulgate has been revised a few times, didn’t you?

 

[NotWorthy]

So you are trying to tell me Catholic Bibles allow the translators to interpret Scriptures contrary to Catholic doctrine?

Show me one example - a Catholic approved Bible like the DR - not a Protestant Bible.

Simply do a quick search and open up just one of the threads on the NAB on this site. I sometimes think that the NAB commentary was written by Protestants.

Absolutely.

I do understand that he wrote this, but St. Jerome also quotes these books as Scriptural numerous times. If you wish to go down this rabbit hole, we could open up a new thread.

 

[Ginger2]

Simply do a quick search and open up just one of the threads on the NAB on this site. I sometimes think that the NAB commentary was written by Protestants.

Give me an example.

I do understand that he wrote this, but St. Jerome also quotes these books as Scriptural numerous times. If you wish to go down this rabbit hole, we could open up a new thread.

scriptures simply means writings.

Holy Scriptures is the book of the Bible.

Jerome’s statement clarifies he does not believe the deuteros are are Holy inspired Scriptures.