It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[joe370]

RedBert, you responded to my question: Is the bible, authoritatively speaking, the self-interpreted Word of God, with something totally unrelated. You said:

you offer a false dilemma. The principle “Scripture interprets Scripture” of hermeneutics (The Science and Art of Biblical Interpretation) ** is just one among many helpful principles

Individual passages of Scripture must always be in harmony with Scripture as a whole. The biblical interpreter must keep in mind that all of Scripture — though communicated through various human instruments — has a single Author (God). And, of course, God does not contradict Himself.

**Agreed! **

It is right to say that no passage will ultimately contradict the rest of the canon, for there is a divinely inspired unity to the Bible.

Is there a divinely inspired unity to the myriad non-Catholic churches? No! There should be if you believe that the holy spirit is the divine guide, as per the bible. Why would the holy spirit be responsible for divinely inspired unity to the Bible, which is the protestants sole authority, and yet allow the protestants sole authority to be the cause of all the disunity we see in the protestant world? He wouldn’t; he didn’t.

However, this does not mean that we should neglect near context interpretation in favor of distant context interpretation.

OK…

What a writer means by a word or phrase should be evaluated in light of the sentence, the paragraph, the section, the book, the other books by the same writer, the other books from that time period, the other books in that “Testament” and the other books in the Bible – in that order! Like concentric circles around the bull’s-eye, the closer the context, the more weight we should give it. So a term used in a letter by Paul does not automatically mean the same as that term in Matthew or John or Ezekiel.

OK…

One exception to this hierarchy of correlation would be to go to a text evidently in the thoughts of the author prior to others that may technically be “closer contexts” but were unknown to the author. For example, when an NT writer is obviously leaning on an OT passage, that passage may be technically the most distant context, but it actually may be more helpful than another NT writer. So I’d look more carefully at the prophet Paul is quoting than Matthew’s use of the same term. We should correlate carefully.

**Couldn’t agree more; you are right. Now, back to my question:

Is the bible, authoritatively speaking, the self-interpreted Word of God?

This is a simple question…****

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

One needs to be a Berean Christian. In Acts 17:11 we read about the noble bereans in Thessalonica who searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul and others taught were true. To see if it lined up with what God revealed in His Word.
So to answer your question, Joe, if you and I disagree on something, instead of one of us saying my church is correct, go to the source of all Truth: God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures.
Romans 3:4 let God be true, but every man a liar

O.K. I’m opening my Bible to see what Jesus has to say;
'and you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved (Mt 10:22)

Sorry, I’ll read it again. Nope, not one word about running to search the Scriptures or Biblical commentaries. Only, ‘he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.’ I don’t think he was meaning someone who liked to quote Scripture.

Wasn’t there someone who liked to quote Scripture? Yes, I remember now, Mt 4:1-11;Lk 4:1-13

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Yankee-Drifter, I regret to inform you your logic casts every dislexic into Hell as acursed by God. And I’m sorry, I can’t find this in Scripture either.
No I’m not going to be cynical enough to think you interpret dyslexia to be the mark of Cain. But dear fellow, this is where your logic is leading.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

RedBert, you responded to my question: Is the bible, authoritatively speaking, the self-interpreted Word of God, with something totally unrelated. You said:

you offer a false dilemma. The principle “Scripture interprets Scripture” of hermeneutics (The Science and Art of Biblical Interpretation) ** is just one among many helpful principles

Individual passages of Scripture must always be in harmony with Scripture as a whole. The biblical interpreter must keep in mind that all of Scripture — though communicated through various human instruments — has a single Author (God). And, of course, God does not contradict Himself.

**Agreed! ****

It is right to say that no passage will ultimately contradict the rest of the canon, for there is a divinely inspired unity to the Bible.

Is there a divinely inspired unity to the myriad non-Catholic churches? No! There should be if you believe that the holy spirit is the divine guide, as per the bible. Why would the holy spirit be responsible for divinely inspired unity to the Bible, which is the protestants sole authority, and yet allow the protestants sole authority to be the cause of all the disunity we see in the protestant world? He wouldn’t; he didn’t.

However, this does not mean that we should neglect near context interpretation in favor of distant context interpretation.

OK…

What a writer means by a word or phrase should be evaluated in light of the sentence, the paragraph, the section, the book, the other books by the same writer, the other books from that time period, the other books in that “Testament” and the other books in the Bible – in that order! Like concentric circles around the bull’s-eye, the closer the context, the more weight we should give it. So a term used in a letter by Paul does not automatically mean the same as that term in Matthew or John or Ezekiel.

OK…

One exception to this hierarchy of correlation would be to go to a text evidently in the thoughts of the author prior to others that may technically be “closer contexts” but were unknown to the author. For example, when an NT writer is obviously leaning on an OT passage, that passage may be technically the most distant context, but it actually may be more helpful than another NT writer. So I’d look more carefully at the prophet Paul is quoting than Matthew’s use of the same term. We should correlate carefully.

**Couldn’t agree more; you are right. Now, back to my question:

Is the bible, authoritatively speaking, the self-interpreted Word of God?

This is a simple question…**

Or in another way: Can a Bible (although divinely inspired is an object without a voice) can claim anything?

I ask this rhetorically but I believe with the how-to you’ve quoted, suggests you know that an interpreter is needed…and this interpreter must be infallible.

 

[Sister_Scribe]

Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed? Additionally, if tradition is God breathed then why can it chan, err I mean evolve?

Let me have a try at this one…

Yes, Paul tells Timothy that all Scripture is God-breathed.

But so many places in the Old Testament, it’s established that there must be more than one “witness”. Why is this important?

Scipture saying it is God-breathed is only self-validating. It took Tradition to witness to what was in fact Scripture. Then that statement gains validity.

The Church, the Body of Christ, is a living dynamic organism. In the first century, Holy Mother Church relied on eyewitnesses, who passed on the teaching given to them by Jesus Himself.

As the Church grew, so did the need for the writings. So the living dynamic organism that pulses with the precious blood of our Savior made sure that the writings were in line with the teachings.

This is a poor attempt to address your question Drawmack, but I hope it helps. Your heat is in the right place.

I was raised in the Baptist Church, and spent time with the churches of Christ - both very fundamental!! It was the love of the word of God I learned there that caused me to come into full communion with the Catholic Church. One of the things I most appreciate is the Magesterium, the teaching authority of the Church. Too many times in small fundamentalist congregations, I saw so much leavening. A single person could hijack a teaching. Not so in the Catholic Church…there is a rest in knowing that Godly men and women have devoted lifetimes to the correct teachings.

So good for me to be home!!

Sister_Scribe

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed? Additionally, if tradition is God breathed then why can it chan, err I mean evolve?

Acts 8:31
When the Ethiopian said, “How can I understand (the prophet Isaiah), unless someone guides me?” St Philip did not say (as a good Protestant may have), “The Holy Spirit will enlighten you, keep reading” he instructed him (according to tradition).

Development of doctrine is not evolution (which is the heresy of Modernism)

 

[Sister_Scribe]

Yankee-Drifter, I regret to inform you your logic casts every dislexic into Hell as acursed by God. And I’m sorry, I can’t find this in Scripture either.
No I’m not going to be cynical enough to think you interpret dyslexia to be the mark of Cain. But dear fellow, this is where your logic is leading.

Kevin, is that why the dyslexic with insomia sat up all night wondering if there really was a dog?

 

[RedBert]

Or in another way: Can a Bible (although divinely inspired is an object without a voice) can claim anything?

I ask this rhetorically but I believe with the how-to you’ve quoted, suggests you know that an interpreter is needed…and this interpreter must be infallible.

DOES THE BIBLE NEED AN INFALLIBLE INTERPRETER?

If yes, then the following statements must also be true.

1. God has given us a revelation which still has to be revealed. But God revealed the mystery unto Paul. Paul said that we could read and have his understanding, the understanding of an apostle of God. The Pope claims to have no greater understanding. Did Peter ever give Paul understanding? No, because they had the same God-given power to understand! If we can obtain the understanding of an apostle by reading the words of Paul, then we need no infallible interpreter!
2. God who made the mind of man cannot so address man in words which man can understand. This would be a reflection upon the power of God if this were true.
3. We cannot understand what the Spirit said approximately 1900 years ago but we can understand what He says today through the inspired Pope. Do you believe the Spirit of God can speak in a more understandable way today than He did through the writers of the New Testament years ago? Can the perfect Spirit of God improve?

The question is:** Why do we need an infallible interpreter, the Pope, the alleged successor of Peter, to interpret what Peter infallibly wrote for us?**
Surely, we can see that if we can understand what the present day Pope says, we can understand what Peter, allegedly the first Pope, said.
If we can understand what Peter said, then we can understand the Bible.
If we can understand the Bible, it really is a safe guide for mankind.

“…according to revelation, the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in a few words;** As you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ**, which in other generations was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit…” (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians 3:3,4).

The scripture above clearly states:

1. The mystery was revealed to the apostles.
2. The apostle Paul wrote it down.

**3. When you read you can understand it. **

It is agreed that Paul wrote things “hard to be understood” (The Second Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle 3:15,16). It is likewise true that many popes of the Roman Catholic Church have written things that are hard to be understood. The fact remains that this same Paul said, “As you reading, may understand…”

So who interprets the interpreter?

Friends just read the Bible , see what it says to YOU, there are so many main and plain things in it. you will find themes plainly repeated again and again.
so read it, you don’t have to get 100% right (Romans 14)

In Heaven , there will many mis-believers, but not any dis-belivers

“Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.”
-Mark Twain

 

[Dancelittleewok]

DOES THE BIBLE NEED AN INFALLIBLE INTERPRETER?

If yes, then the following statements must also be true.

1. God has given us a revelation which still has to be revealed. But God revealed the mystery unto Paul. Paul said that we could read and have his understanding, the understanding of an apostle of God. The Pope claims to have no greater understanding. Did Peter ever give Paul understanding? No, because they had the same God-given power to understand! If we can obtain the understanding of an apostle by reading the words of Paul, then we need no infallible interpreter!
2. God who made the mind of man cannot so address man in words which man can understand. This would be a reflection upon the power of God if this were true.
3. We cannot understand what the Spirit said approximately 1900 years ago but we can understand what He says today through the inspired Pope. Do you believe the Spirit of God can speak in a more understandable way today than He did through the writers of the New Testament years ago? Can the perfect Spirit of God improve?

The question is:** Why do we need an infallible interpreter, the Pope, the alleged successor of Peter, to interpret what Peter infallibly wrote for us?**
Surely, we can see that if we can understand what the present day Pope says, we can understand what Peter, allegedly the first Pope, said.
If we can understand what Peter said, then we can understand the Bible.
If we can understand the Bible, it really is a safe guide for mankind.

“…according to revelation, the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in a few words;** As you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ**, which in other generations was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit…” (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians 3:3,4).

The scripture above clearly states:

1. The mystery was revealed to the apostles.
2. The apostle Paul wrote it down.

**3. When you read you can understand it. **

It is agreed that Paul wrote things “hard to be understood” (The Second Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle 3:15,16). It is likewise true that many popes of the Roman Catholic Church have written things that are hard to be understood. The fact remains that this same Paul said, “As you reading, may understand…”

**So who interprets the interpreter?
**
Friends just read the Bible , see what it says to YOU, there are so many main and plain things in it. you will find themes plainly repeated again and again.
so read it, you don’t have to get 100% right (Romans 14)

In Heaven , there will many mis-believers, but not any dis-belivers

“Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.”
-Mark Twain

But one cannot interpret the one whom interpreted the interpreter?

A) Paul didn’t write the whole Bible and he certainly wasn’t alive in OT’s times…
B) Catholic read the Bible privately…it’s in fact considered a devotion.
C) “You don’t have to get it 100% right”…Bert, this are eternal live at stake. Our doctrine, what we believe affects what we do. Do you think Jesus would want his sheep lead by 90% right doctrine and 10% wrong when eternal lives are at stake?

I’m not sure what “misbelievers” and “disbelievers” are.

 

[RedBert]

But one cannot interpret the one whom interpreted the interpreter?

A) Paul didn’t write the whole Bible and he certainly wasn’t alive in OT’s times…
B) Catholic read the Bible privately…it’s in fact considered a devotion.
C) “You don’t have to get it 100% right”…Bert, this are eternal live at stake. Our doctrine, what we believe affects what we do. Do you think Jesus would want his sheep lead by 90% right doctrine and 10% wrong when eternal lives are at stake?

I’m not sure what “misbelievers” and “disbelievers” are.

A) so the Catholic Doctrine still has an interpretation issue: its just where they place it.

In other words:
do current Catholics need an interpretation of what the current Pope states?
do current Catholics need an interpretation of what the first Pope states?

We have what the first Pope has written in 1Peter and 2 Peter,
we have the first Pope’s speeches in Acts ,
we have the Pope’s companion John-Mark write the Gospel of Mark.

Do you need another Pope to interpret what the first Pope meant?
do you need a future Pope to intreptret what the current Pope means?

IF YOU can understand (interpret for yourself) what the current Pope means, can you do the the same thing for the first Pope?

If you CAN understand what the current Pope means , and you can understand what the first Pope means , can you apply the same principle of understanding to what Paul wrote, etc…

B) Reading that’s great, now can YOU interpret what it means do YOU or not?

C) please read Romans 14: and does your salvation depend on you being 100% right in thought and deed?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

A) so the Catholic Doctrine still has an interpretation issue: its just where they place it.

In other words:
do current Catholics need an interpretation of what the current Pope states?
do current Catholics need an interpretation of what the first Pope states?

We have what the first Pope has written in 1Peter and 2 Peter,
we have the first Pope’s speeches in Acts ,
we have the Pope’s companion John-Mark write the Gospel of Mark.

Do you need another Pope to interpret what the first Pope meant?
do you need a future Pope to intreptret what the current Pope means?

IF YOU can understand (interpret for yourself) what the current Pope means, can you do the the same thing for the first Pope?

If you CAN understand what the current Pope means , and you can understand what the first Pope means , can you apply the same principle of understanding to what Paul wrote, etc…

B) Reading that’s great, now can YOU interpret what it means do YOU or not?

C) please read Romans 14: and does your salvation depend on you being 100% right in thought and deed?

Bert, not likening the hostile tone.

A) Does understanding equate to “self-impretation apart from any authority?” An intellect is a basic human component like a nose. However, intellect isn’t inherently free from error. To say it clearer: I have an intellect to understand x, y, and z, but having one doesn’t entail understanding of all those concept free from error.

B) Please tell me what you think “intrepret” means to you or rather what us Catholic think we think it means. Then I will answer…

C) Romans 14 mentioned nothing about interpretation. Can you explain please?

 

[RedBert]

Bert, not likening the hostile tone.

A) Does understanding equate to “self-impretation apart from any authority?” An intellect is a basic human component like a nose. However, intellect isn’t inherently free from error. To say it clearer: I have an intellect to understand x, y, and z, but having one doesn’t entail understanding of all those concept free from error.

B) Please tell me what you think “intrepret” means to you or rather what us Catholic think we think it means. Then I will answer…

C) Romans 14 mentioned nothing about interpretation. Can you explain please?

no hostility indented : trying to clearly state points

a) I’m stuck on the words “self” and “any”:
is self referring to a personal self or the bible itself

because the Holy Spirit is the authority, do you mean any earthly authority?

B) what the words mean ,in context, weather a metaphor, simile, hyperbole , cultural reference, etc?
ex “eye of a needle” , is it the top of a needle , the actual name of a narrow street, or a type of gate.?
and then does that even matter to the point being made.

I teach senior high Bible study: the first lesson every year is this:
This is what I mean by interpret the Bible.
backtothebible.org/images/pdf/understanding.pdf

interpretation example: when Jesus said “it is finished”; what did He mean (not trying to debate this)

C) Romans 14 points out different believers can reach different conclusion about what is holy. and that is OK

 

[Lampo]

interpretation example: when Jesus said “it is finished”; what did He mean (not trying to debate this)

You might like to read this.

 

[Lampo]

“If I have written anything erroneous, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”
– Saint Thomas Aquinas

 

[nuntym]

DOES THE BIBLE NEED AN INFALLIBLE INTERPRETER?

If yes, then the following statements must also be true.

1. God has given us a revelation which still has to be revealed. But God revealed the mystery unto Paul. Paul said that we could read and have his understanding, the understanding of an apostle of God. The Pope claims to have no greater understanding. Did Peter ever give Paul understanding? No, because they had the same God-given power to understand! If we can obtain the understanding of an apostle by reading the words of Paul, then we need no infallible interpreter!

Wow, so you claim that each and every Christian has the same God-given gift to be a theologian of the same caliber as St. Paul?

And the Pope is above everyone else in understanding the Gospel? And he imparts this to everyone else? Where did you learn that?

1. God who made the mind of man cannot so address man in words which man can understand. This would be a reflection upon the power of God if this were true.

No, God made man’s mind so well that man can twist Scripture to mean whatever he wants it.

Did not the Scriptures warn us that even the devil can use scripture? (Matthew 4:6)

1. We cannot understand what the Spirit said approximately 1900 years ago but we can understand what He says today through the inspired Pope. Do you believe the Spirit of God can speak in a more understandable way today than He did through the writers of the New Testament years ago? Can the perfect Spirit of God improve?

The Holy Spirit has always been speaking in an understandable way then and now…through the Catholic Church. That is why the Church was able to write the books of the New Testament, know which books to include in the Bible, and know what the Bible means.

The question is:** Why do we need an infallible interpreter, the Pope, the alleged successor of Peter, to interpret what Peter infallibly wrote for us?**
Surely, we can see that if we can understand what the present day Pope says, we can understand what Peter, allegedly the first Pope, said.
If we can understand what Peter said, then we can understand the Bible.
If we can understand the Bible, it really is a safe guide for mankind.

The Pope is NOT an infallible interpreter of the Gospel. The Church’s Magisterium is, the Church’s teaching authority provided by the Holy Spirit, from which the Pope may use, when he speaks ex cathedra.

For the need for this teaching authority, I will let St. Peter answer you:

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. (2 Peter 3:15-17)

Continued…

 

[nuntym]

“…according to revelation, the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in a few words;** As you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ**, which in other generations was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit…” (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians 3:3,4).

The scripture above clearly states:

1. The mystery was revealed to the apostles.
2. The apostle Paul wrote it down.

**3. When you read you can understand it. **

The letter by St. Paul to the Ephesians was sent to “the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:1) in Ephesus, of whom St. Paul heard of their “faith in the Lord Jesus and [their] love toward all the saints” (Ephesians 1:15). That means they already had been taught at least the proper basics of the Gospel (by St. Paul himself and others, in fact: Acts 18:19-26 and the following chapter), and they have properly used the graces given to them by the Lord. That is why St. Paul was confident to tell them, “When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ:” they are not “ignorant” or “unstable” as warned by St. Peter. Besides, we can read in the end that he sent “Tych’icus the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:21). He was sent by St. Paul to give tidings to the Ephesians, but he can too answer the questions of the Ephesians, if any.

Now, compare that to the plight of the Protestants, who are taught erroneous basics of the Gospel and have no proper authority to correct their misinterpretations of the Bible, who make their own churches on disagreements with their interpretations of the Bible. Do you think St. Paul will tell them “When you read my letters I sent specifically for the needs of particular churches in my time you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ?”

It is agreed that Paul wrote things “hard to be understood” (The Second Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle 3:15,16). It is likewise true that many popes of the Roman Catholic Church have written things that are hard to be understood. The fact remains that this same Paul said, “As you reading, may understand…”

So who interprets the interpreter?

I don’t know why you are fixated with the Pope, but as I said, the teaching authority rests with the Church itself, not the Pope. Do you know that a Pope can become a heretic? “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Friends just read the Bible , see what it says to YOU, there are so many main and plain things in it. you will find themes plainly repeated again and again.
so read it, you don’t have to get 100% right (Romans 14)

RedBert, Romans 14 is talking about matters of no consequence: food and drink. We all know that.

In Heaven , there will many mis-believers, but not any dis-belivers

“Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.”
-Mark Twain

 

[Lampo]

I teach senior high Bible study:

Why do you do this? Can’t we all, guided by the Holy Spirit, just read the Bible for ourselves and decide what it means?? Surely the Holy Spirit won’t tell each one of us something different. What would you tell a student that says to you, “Mr. RedBert, I’ve read and studied the entire Bible and come to realize all Catholic Doctrines are found there and that the Catholic Church is correct in everything She teaches.”?

You are an extra-Biblical source in your role as a senior high Bible study teacher.

 

[nuntym]

Why do you do this? Can’t we all, guided by the Holy Spirit, just read the Bible for ourselves and decide what it means?? Surely the Holy Spirit won’t tell each one of us something different. What would you tell a student that says to you, “Mr. RedBert, I’ve read and studied the entire Bible and come to realize all Catholic Doctrines are found there and that the Catholic Church is correct in everything She teaches.”?

You are an extra-Biblical source in your role as a senior high Bible study teacher.

RedBert, I am curious as what would be your answer to that student.

 

[RedBert]

RedBert, I am curious as what would be your answer to that student.

" studied the entire Bible and come to realize all Catholic Doctrines are found there and that the Catholic Church is correct in everything She teaches"

really ALL doctrines are in there? because the Catholic Church doesn’'t teach that, but if they did it would be …SOLA SCIPTURA!!!

 

[RedBert]

Why do you do this? Can’t we all, guided by the Holy Spirit, just read the Bible for ourselves and decide what it means??..
You are an extra-Biblical source in your role as a senior high Bible study teacher.

Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’"

Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ