A
AugustTherese
Guest
Your personal, private interpretation? Reading the text is fine if you read and understand it correctly.
- Status
S
SnowRose
Guest
We answered a direct question. Very politely.
Going to mute this otherwise intriguing thread, bc I have better things to do.
Going to mute this otherwise intriguing thread, bc I have better things to do.
Oh, I thought mine was an EO interpretation.
H
Hodos
Guest
No, it sounds like someone actually reading the text and providing the context that Jesus actually spoke about. Hence the quotes referencing the loosing and binding. That’s called hermeneutics. That is very different than the JW approach which is to change the translation at every place where Jesus deity is spoken about. One is deriving theology from the text being examined. The other approach is to edit out those parts of the text that disagree with our theology.
Last edited:
M
mch4970
Guest
Again, it all comes down to authority. What’s to be said of two different interpretations of the same passage by two knowledgeable folk? This unanswered question is what caused me to lose my faith 15 years ago. The Holy Spirit called me back just last December. I gave my life back to Him. I joined the Baptist Church right away, as that is how I was raised. I opened my life to his will, begging not to lose faith again. When I did surrender, the Lord led me to the doors of the Catholic Church. It was not my will but His (and a separate tale in itself).
Funny thing though, learning the history of Christianity and Catholicism showed me an absolute need for authority. How can I understand Isaiah unless someone explain it to me? Suddenly, the clouds cleared and I understood the purpose of a unified church, of the keys of the kingdom, and apostolic succession. It’s necessary to retain unity and faith, Jesus’ last prayer. Christ gave us the unified church to carry on. And what church has THE ability and pedigree to claim as such? The Catholic Church
I’m not even confirmed in the church yet, and I’m in love and dedicated. Just another two cents from a humble servent.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
The 16th century, Protestant context? Or, the Catholic and Apostolic context? I’ll choose the latter.
H
Hodos
Guest
There is one context. I actually read it to you. Anything else is innovation.
This on top of the JW comment seems to indicate an end to any real dialogue.Hodos:
The 16th century, Protestant context?
H
Hodos
Guest
I would agree.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
The context that attempts to devoid the divine institution of the Papacy, which was unfounded for an entire millennium?! Yeah, must be innovation.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Then why comment?
H
Hodos
Guest
Again, I have no issue with a hierarchical polity (although there is no divine institution of a Churchwide polity – the only thing that comes close is Paul’s institution of overseers in local congregations) as I stated in my initial post. Scroll up. You continue to argue straw men.
Last edited:
I think it important to point out that resorting to those kinds of comments usually are intended to end the conversation. Neither Hodo nor I made disparaging or disrespectful remarks of the Catholic Church or the pope.JonNC:
Then why comment?
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
You have not, at least explicitly, and I appreciate that. However, when one uses their interpretation of Scripture to attempt to discredit the Supreme Pontiff and the charism he holds, that is disparaging in-of-itself. Whether you or @Hodo are personally culpable, I leave that up to God.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
And that is your understanding. To claim that your interpretation is parallel with the Apostles, without claiming any authority, is quite audacious.
H
Hodos
Guest
Actually, it is the clear reading of the text. Also, I have not attempted to discredit the Pope in our conversation. I have only stated that we disagree with investing the Papal office with infallibility or placing its authority above God’s word. I have great respect for the Papal office as a pastoral ministry. The issue is whether one is providing an appropriate level of reverence. The same could be said of our differing opinions on what is the appropriate level of reverence for Mary or the saints. If you choose to take that as an insult, then that’s on you.
Last edited:
No it isn’t. It is expressing a viewpoint that is, effectively, as old as the Church, as old as the council in Acts and beyond.
I think it can be argued that the orders of the Church have a divine influence, more than just the good order of the Church set out by men.
But if I were to join the Catholic Church while in good conscience not accepting universal jurisdiction That would be dishonest, a true disparaging the pope in Rome
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Where do you get that from? Scripture alone states that Scripture is hard to understand. If Scripture was all-sufficient and ‘clear’ in your use of that term, then there would be no need for preachers to aid us in interpreting God’s written Word. Our Lord might has well have wrote letters, complied them into one collection, and handed it out to be copied.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
That is begging the question and you have no evidence. How ironic you bring up a Council in Acts where Peter alone makes a binding decision regarding the faith.
You have told me repeatedly that you belong to the Catholic Church. Perhaps a subconscious reality slipped right there?
H
Hodos
Guest
That would be because in the context of the passage it is James who renders the decision of the Church. Paul and Peter were the ones providing the testimony and reasoning. As you can see in the passage Peter refers to the experience with Cornelius as his reasoning for not making distinctions between Gentiles and Jews. Paul and Barnabas join in with their testimony afterward. As you can see in verse 19, it is James who renders the judgment.That is begging the question and you have no evidence. How ironic you bring up a Council in Acts where Peter alone makes a binding decision regarding the faith.
JonNC:
- Status