Is The Holy Bible "scriptural"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2ndGen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So Ginger was right, some catholics believe the scripture to be made of dead words?
That was my own personal opinion. When I said that scripture is composed of dead words on the page,I meant in the sense that the printed word does not actually speak for itself,or rather interpret itself when it is read – it remains just words on the page and is interpreted rightly or misinterpreted according to the person who reads it. Scripture is mute and defenseless in that sense. It needs an infallible interpreter that has the word of God written on his heart. Jesus Christ was the living Word incarnate,and he wrote no scriptures,but only spoke. When he interpreted scriptures he was,in a sense,interpreting himself.
Persons are living,and the Word of God that resides in a person’s heart is living,but printed words on a page are not. Anything that doesn’t have movement doesn’t live.

The difference between scriptures and the living word of God is like the difference between a printed score of music and a performance of the score well-interpreted according to the composer’s wishes.
 
That was my own personal opinion. When I said that scripture is composed of dead words on the page,I meant in the sense that the printed word does not actually speak for itself,or rather interpret itself when it is read – it remains just words on the page and is interpreted rightly or misinterpreted according to the person who reads it. Scripture is mute and defenseless in that sense. It needs an infallible interpreter that has the word of God written on his heart. Jesus Christ was the living Word incarnate,and he wrote no scriptures,but only spoke. When he interpreted scriptures he was,in a sense,interpreting himself.
Persons are living,and the Word of God that resides in a person’s heart is living,but printed words on a page are not. Anything that doesn’t have movement doesn’t live.

The difference between scriptures and the living word of God is like the difference between a printed score of music and a performance of the score well-interpreted according to the composer’s wishes.
Thanks for clarifying your post but the highlighted section above stood out.

It is my understanding that your church has only infallibly interpreted a few verses of scripture. If an infallible interpreter is needed to understand scripture, what do you do with the other 99.9% of the scriptures?

Also, what did the Jews do since they didn’t have the benefit of the papacy, the magesterium or anything of the like?
 
< Thanks for clarifying your post but the highlighted section above stood out. >

It is my understanding that your church has only infallibly interpreted a few verses of scripture. If an infallible interpreter is needed to understand scripture, what do you do with the other 99.9% of the scriptures?

I don’t agree that the Church has only infallibly interpreted a few verses. What is the standard by which the Church can be judged to be interpreting scripture infallibly? For me it is that the Church always teaches the necessity of repentance,of forgiveness,and works of mercy and charity. If the Church is always teaching and emphasizing those things,it must be right about the scriptures as a whole. Scripture must be interpreted with humility,and fear of God. As it says in the Book of Wisdom,the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord. People,and churches,who don’t have real humility and fear of God also don’t emphasize repentance,forgiveness,works of mercy and charity.
But the Catholic Church,in her wisdom,does emphasize these things.

Anyway,much of scripture does not pertain directly to matters of faith or morals.

< Also, what did the Jews do since they didn’t have the benefit of the papacy, the magesterium or anything of the like? >

The Jews did have the Chair of Moses and the Sanhedrin,although they did not always have the Holy Spirit to guide them in their interpretation of the scriptures.

catholic-legate.com/qa/chairofmoses.html
 
The Jews did have the Chair of Moses and the Snahedrin,although they did not always have the Holy Spirit to guide them in their interpretation of the scriptures.

catholic-legate.com/qa/chairofmoses.html
Thanks for your reply Anthony, I thought that was a good reply. It may not matter to you what I think but I did think it was pretty good.

I very quickly looked at the link you provided but didn’t see them claim that the chair of moses was infallible.
 
Thanks for your reply Anthony, I thought that was a good reply. It may not matter to you what I think but I did think it was pretty good.

I very quickly looked at the link you provided but didn’t see them claim that the chair of moses was infallible.
Thank you.

It wasn’t infallible. That’s why I said that they didn’t always have the Holy Spirit to guide them in their interpretation of scripture – hence,the High Priest didn’t recognize the Messiah who was written about in the scriptures.

Catholics have the Chair of Peter as the ultimate point of reference on doctrine,and the Holy Spirit does guide the Church’s teaching.
 
Thank you.

It wasn’t infallible. That’s why I said that they didn’t always have the Holy Spirit to guide them in their interpretation of scripture – hence,the High Priest didn’t recognize the Messiah who was written about in the scriptures.

Catholics have the Chair of Peter as the ultimate point of reference on doctrine,and the Holy Spirit does guide the Church’s teaching.
So, you agree that you don’t have to have an infallible interpreter?
 
So, you agree that you don’t have to have an infallible interpreter?
We do need an infallible interpreter. It was partly because of their fallible interpretation of scriptures that the Jewish priests and scribes and Pharisees had Jesus put to death. They mis-read the scriptures and they mis-read the incarnate Word who spoke through the prophets that wrote the scriptures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top