- Status
J
JGC
Guest
B
BouleTheou
Guest
J -
I have no desire to read the meanderings of Dave Armstrong or James Akin. Just give me a simple answer to my questions.
Thanks,
BouleTheou
I have no desire to read the meanderings of Dave Armstrong or James Akin. Just give me a simple answer to my questions.
Thanks,
BouleTheou
E
Exporter
Guest
Bible Private Interpretation, Will you read St. Peter,Luke & Paul?
There are many Bible verses which tell us that individual interpretation of the Bible simply cannot be done without divine assistance…
***Luke 24:45, “Then He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures.” **
*****So it took Jesus Christ to open the minds of the Apostles so that they could teach others in the truth.
Do you believe likewise that Jesus Christ opened the minds of each of the leaders of all those 28,000 protestant churches? If so, why is there so much disagreement between them?
***Acts 8:27-40, the eunuch was trying to read Isaiah when Philip asked him, “Do you understand what you are reading?” But he said, “Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?” **
*****Since Philip had been filled by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, he was able to explain the truth of Isaiah to the eunuch.
***2Pet 1:20, St. Peter said, ******“This then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.” ***I do not see how Peter could have said it any plainer than he did here. Why do Protestants ignore verses such as this one?
***2Pet 3:16-17, St. Peter said, *"…In these Epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, WHICH THE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE DISTORT, JUST AS THEY DO THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES ALSO, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, SINCE YOU KNOW THIS BEFOREHAND, BE ON YOUR GUARD LEST, CARRIED AWAY BY THE ERROR OF THE FOOLISH, YOU FALL AWAY FROM YOUR STEADFASTNESS."
******Here is a very clear warning that it is easy to fall into error by private interpretation of Scripture. **
Boule Theole, read 2Pet 1:20. What dont you understand about that simple verse? Please show me how you can distort that.
**
There are many Bible verses which tell us that individual interpretation of the Bible simply cannot be done without divine assistance…
***Luke 24:45, “Then He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures.” **
*****So it took Jesus Christ to open the minds of the Apostles so that they could teach others in the truth.
Do you believe likewise that Jesus Christ opened the minds of each of the leaders of all those 28,000 protestant churches? If so, why is there so much disagreement between them?
***Acts 8:27-40, the eunuch was trying to read Isaiah when Philip asked him, “Do you understand what you are reading?” But he said, “Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?” **
*****Since Philip had been filled by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, he was able to explain the truth of Isaiah to the eunuch.
***2Pet 1:20, St. Peter said, ******“This then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.” ***I do not see how Peter could have said it any plainer than he did here. Why do Protestants ignore verses such as this one?
***2Pet 3:16-17, St. Peter said, *"…In these Epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, WHICH THE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE DISTORT, JUST AS THEY DO THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES ALSO, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, SINCE YOU KNOW THIS BEFOREHAND, BE ON YOUR GUARD LEST, CARRIED AWAY BY THE ERROR OF THE FOOLISH, YOU FALL AWAY FROM YOUR STEADFASTNESS."
******Here is a very clear warning that it is easy to fall into error by private interpretation of Scripture. **
Boule Theole, read 2Pet 1:20. What dont you understand about that simple verse? Please show me how you can distort that.
**
E
Exporter
Guest
Boule Theou,
You seem very confident of all you write. Other posters have not brought out the fact that Protestants don’t have any reason to belive that the Books of the King James Version of the Bible are the ones that should be there.
In fact if Protestants hold to the “Bible Only” theory, then SINCE THE BIBLE DOES NOT DEFINE JUST WHAT BOOKS SHOULD BE IN THE BIBLE …then how are they sure that they didn’t leave some out?
**If you, Mr. Boule Theou don’t even have an authority to decide which Books are to be in the Bible, who are you to make “a circular argument” that you know which books belong and which do not belong? If you cannot resolve that then you cannot get out of the starting blocks. Sorry.:tsktsk: **
You seem very confident of all you write. Other posters have not brought out the fact that Protestants don’t have any reason to belive that the Books of the King James Version of the Bible are the ones that should be there.
In fact if Protestants hold to the “Bible Only” theory, then SINCE THE BIBLE DOES NOT DEFINE JUST WHAT BOOKS SHOULD BE IN THE BIBLE …then how are they sure that they didn’t leave some out?
**If you, Mr. Boule Theou don’t even have an authority to decide which Books are to be in the Bible, who are you to make “a circular argument” that you know which books belong and which do not belong? If you cannot resolve that then you cannot get out of the starting blocks. Sorry.:tsktsk: **
B
BouleTheou
Guest
exporter -
I’ll ignore most of you post as it is not worthy of comment.
Read my very first post of the thread.
BouleTheou
I’ll ignore most of you post as it is not worthy of comment.
Listen closely now and try to answer this. If no one can know what books are Scripture without an external authority made up of living men to give them infallible certainty of what books those were, then [pay attention now] ***why did Jesus hold men accountable during His own lifetime for knowing what books were in the Old Testament? There was no infallible authority to tell them what books were Scripture and yet, for some unknown reason, Jesus expected them to know not only what books were Scripture, but also the proper interpretation. ***
Read my very first post of the thread.
BouleTheou
R
RBushlow
Guest
Sorry I intended to say “harden his heart”. My prayer is still the same, however.
R
RBushlow
Guest
Peace be with you.
Could you please repeat the question? BTW, if you quote the post that yor are responding to, it will make it easier.
Yours in Christ
B
beng
Guest
Listen closely now and try to answer this. If no one can know what books are Scripture without an external authority made up of living men to give them infallible certainty of what books those were, then [pay attention now] ***why did Jesus hold men accountable during His own lifetime for knowing what books were in the Old Testament? There was no infallible authority to tell them what books were Scripture and yet, for some unknown reason, Jesus expected them to know not only what books were Scripture, but also the proper interpretation. ***
Read my very first post of the thread.
BouleTheou
When Jesus spoke to the Saducce He used Pentateukh
When Jesus spoke to the Pharisee He used Pentateukh+other.
Jesus used what is held accountable by both parties.
Your rhetoric once again inevitably fail.
E
enanneman
Guest
What you are asking is impossible to answer. The reasons the books of the Old Testament were determined to be inspired have been lost to the ages. We have to assume that the writings the Jewish faith have given to us are inspired, and we can take comfort from the fact that Jesus referred to them throughout his ministry.
However, in the centuries following the establishment of the church, there are clear instances of writings being produced that were both inspired and uninspired, examples of the latter being the Gospel of the Consummation, Revelations of Adam, Gospel of Judas and Ascension of Paul. Without a specific, authoritative, and spirit-led church in the early centuries to determine which writings were inspired and which were not, you would not have the Bible you hold in your hands today.
Peace and God bless!
Eric
C
Chris_W
Guest
Ahhh. I don’t recall you saying before that you did not determine for yourself what is to be included in the Bible (if you did, I missed it). All this while, I’ve been of the understanding that you are arguing we all, as individuals, have the ability and even the obligation to determine for ourselves what is and what is not Scripture.
So you merely accept what God’s people accepted in the past as Scripture? Which of “God’s people” would that be? The ones that adhere to the Catholic version, or those who believe in Martin Luther’s version (containing fewer books)?
The difference is big, Boule. First of all, the Catholic perspective doesn’t rule out the possibility that good Christians will disagree…as is verified by the facts you presented. This is why we need the Church to guide us. Whereas your theory, if it were true, **rules out the possibility of disagreement ** (which thereby proves your theory false).
Second, if the debates about Vatican II (for example) ever gets to the point where the people, for whom the Pope is responsible, are in jeopardy of heresy, potentially even the loss of salvation, there is an infallible authority physically present on earth, whom every Catholic acknowledges, and who has the ability to end the debate by clarifying the issue and correct misinterpretations.
Would you say such an authority visibly / physically present on earth exists to accomplish this for non-Catholics? Nope. In your theory each person just instictively knows what is true (claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit). That’s why Protestant churches can change doctrinal teachings as they see fit. Take divorce for example. It wasn’t very long ago that nearly every Protestant denomination prohibited divorce, but now almost without exception, they all permit it. What changed, Boule? Did truth (God) change? Nope. Those churches are not protected from error.
C
Convert97
Guest
In his original post, BouleTheou said Christ expected us to read and interpret Scripture on our own and listed four verses to support his theory.
He listed Matthew 12:3, 12:5, 21:16 and 21:42. In the first two, he is addressing the Pharisees. In the third, the chief priests and scribes. In the fourth, the chief priests and elders. He knows all have read the Scriptures. That is their job. All have challenged him. When Jesus asks them “Have you never read the Scriptures” or “Have you never read the texts?” it is a sharp rebuke. It is like asking a quarterback after four interceptions, “Have you never read the playbook?” These men have applied their learning incorrectly. In each case, Christ is correcting them and their interpretation. In another posting, BouleTheou asks what in special revelation is not in the Bible. They answer is: a study guide. There is no guide anywhere to tell us what Scripture means. Obviously, the Pharisees, scribes and elders didn’t know. We need to know what it means.
When Christ says we will not have life in us if we don’t eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, we need to know what it means. All Christians contributing on these forums are concerned about Eternal Life. That’s why they are Christians. So, we must know what this means if we are to have life in us. I believe it means one thing; BouleTheou believes it means another. Who is right?
Christ did tell some people what referred to him in the Scriptures. It happened in Luke, starting in Chapter 24. He told two disciples. If he said it, it must be true. And if he said it, there must be one interpretation of Scripture, His way. The disciples returned to Jerusalem and told the 11 what Jesus has said. So we know the Apostles were told how Scripture applies to Jesus. They went and wrote the New Testament. What is the meaning of what they wrote? That’s not in the Bible. They taught that to their followers. We have that meaning handed to us through the successors of the Apostles. Without the successors to help us we might be rebuked when we face Jesus at crunch time. I don’t want him to ask me, “Have you not read the Scriptures?” That would be a bad time to find out I was a Pharisee and, on my own came up with the wrong interpretation of Scripture. I’ll stick with the Apostles so I can have life in me.
He listed Matthew 12:3, 12:5, 21:16 and 21:42. In the first two, he is addressing the Pharisees. In the third, the chief priests and scribes. In the fourth, the chief priests and elders. He knows all have read the Scriptures. That is their job. All have challenged him. When Jesus asks them “Have you never read the Scriptures” or “Have you never read the texts?” it is a sharp rebuke. It is like asking a quarterback after four interceptions, “Have you never read the playbook?” These men have applied their learning incorrectly. In each case, Christ is correcting them and their interpretation. In another posting, BouleTheou asks what in special revelation is not in the Bible. They answer is: a study guide. There is no guide anywhere to tell us what Scripture means. Obviously, the Pharisees, scribes and elders didn’t know. We need to know what it means.
When Christ says we will not have life in us if we don’t eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, we need to know what it means. All Christians contributing on these forums are concerned about Eternal Life. That’s why they are Christians. So, we must know what this means if we are to have life in us. I believe it means one thing; BouleTheou believes it means another. Who is right?
Christ did tell some people what referred to him in the Scriptures. It happened in Luke, starting in Chapter 24. He told two disciples. If he said it, it must be true. And if he said it, there must be one interpretation of Scripture, His way. The disciples returned to Jerusalem and told the 11 what Jesus has said. So we know the Apostles were told how Scripture applies to Jesus. They went and wrote the New Testament. What is the meaning of what they wrote? That’s not in the Bible. They taught that to their followers. We have that meaning handed to us through the successors of the Apostles. Without the successors to help us we might be rebuked when we face Jesus at crunch time. I don’t want him to ask me, “Have you not read the Scriptures?” That would be a bad time to find out I was a Pharisee and, on my own came up with the wrong interpretation of Scripture. I’ll stick with the Apostles so I can have life in me.
A
ANWK
Guest
Hi BT,
you have asked everyone to put the Trinity question to bed. the reason why i asked the question in the first place was because you were of the opinion that the Trinity is a “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”. i take that to assume that it is clear as day in scripture what the Trinity is.
it should not be a problem for you then to explain whether you came to the understanding of the Trinity on your own accord or whether someone else told you about it, would it?
if we cannot even glean a “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”, what hope would we have of understanding the more difficult concepts of Christianity?
which again boils down to my question. did you understand the Trinity just by reading about it in the Bible or did someone tell it and explain the concept to you?
by the same token, are you saying that anyone who has never heard of Christianity can come to the truth about Christianity just by reading the Bible, without any guidance of sorts?
did that happen to you or did someone tell you about Christainity, then tell you that the Bible is the inspired word of God and then you come to believe??
please help as i’m really curious how you actually know???
regarding the books of the Bible, you seem to be of the opinion that Catholics added 7 books in 1546 to the Protestant Bible, which you obviously believe is the true Bible.
the Protestant reformation in the 1500s was the second big split in the Church. the first was when the Orthodox broke away in about 1000-1100 AD thereabouts. step into any Orthodox Church today and see what type of Bible they are using. it is the exact same Bible that Catholics are using today.
if as you say, Catholics added to the Bible in 1546, how is it that a good 500 years or so before this alleged event took place, the Orthodox Church was already using the “wrong” Bible when they split from the Church??
please help me…
you have asked everyone to put the Trinity question to bed. the reason why i asked the question in the first place was because you were of the opinion that the Trinity is a “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”. i take that to assume that it is clear as day in scripture what the Trinity is.
it should not be a problem for you then to explain whether you came to the understanding of the Trinity on your own accord or whether someone else told you about it, would it?
if we cannot even glean a “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”, what hope would we have of understanding the more difficult concepts of Christianity?
which again boils down to my question. did you understand the Trinity just by reading about it in the Bible or did someone tell it and explain the concept to you?
by the same token, are you saying that anyone who has never heard of Christianity can come to the truth about Christianity just by reading the Bible, without any guidance of sorts?
did that happen to you or did someone tell you about Christainity, then tell you that the Bible is the inspired word of God and then you come to believe??
please help as i’m really curious how you actually know???
regarding the books of the Bible, you seem to be of the opinion that Catholics added 7 books in 1546 to the Protestant Bible, which you obviously believe is the true Bible.
the Protestant reformation in the 1500s was the second big split in the Church. the first was when the Orthodox broke away in about 1000-1100 AD thereabouts. step into any Orthodox Church today and see what type of Bible they are using. it is the exact same Bible that Catholics are using today.
if as you say, Catholics added to the Bible in 1546, how is it that a good 500 years or so before this alleged event took place, the Orthodox Church was already using the “wrong” Bible when they split from the Church??
please help me…
A
Aris
Guest
He did not say all tradition. Only those tradition that were not of God.
He also said to follow the Pharisee’s teaching because they come from Moses’s seat. He cautions however not to follow their actions because they do not practice what they preach.
J
JPrejean
Guest
Exactly. For that matter, there is no way that one could have discerned the interpretation of the passages that Christ interpreted based on the “perspicuous meaning” of those passages, as would be required for them to provide a justification of sola scriptura. These issues have been raised to BouleTheou on several occasions, and he blithely ignores them and continues to build his case upon the unwarranted assertion that Jesus held men accountable to the perspicuous meaning of of Scripture in the manner of sola scriptura. It is telling that while the Catholics have offered a reasoned defense of our position, BouleTheou’s Protestantism appears to depend on saying something so many times that you start believing it’s true.
But keeping a view of the big picture, BouleTheou’s stubborn recalcitrance actually helps our case. In essence, the weakness and irrationality of BouleTheou’s defense is proving Catholicism for us, which is likely why his friend chose this particular challenge. Being able to say “Look, this guy won’t listen to reason” to a third party and actually proving it makes our arguments that much more persuasive.
C
Chris_W
Guest
So I’ve been doing a little more study into the origins of the Bible, especially the New Testament and have some more thoughts for Boule Theou:
Mention has been made in this thread of the differences between current Bibles, like the differences between the KJV and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles. This presents some differences that go back into the history of Christianity. But it appears that the questions about the canon go back much further even than that.
It appears that even prior to the second century there were controversies over the inspired character of several NT books, namely the Letter to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. Some of this controversy can be seen in the very oldest known canon, called the Muratorian Fragment (also called Bibliotheca Ambrosiana) written between 180 and 200 ad, from the region of Rome. This dispute was settled by the councils of Hippo and Carthage by the fourth century and reaffirmed again by Pope Innocent 1 in 405 ad. But I understand that Martin Luther removed these books from the NT. But then by about 1700 ad Luther’s followers reinstated those books.
So I have to ask the question again of Boule: You said you accept the books of the Bible as inspired, based on what past Christians accepted as inspired. Which past Christians exactly are you looking to for the answer to the canon? And how did you decide to follow those particular Christians?
Mention has been made in this thread of the differences between current Bibles, like the differences between the KJV and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles. This presents some differences that go back into the history of Christianity. But it appears that the questions about the canon go back much further even than that.
It appears that even prior to the second century there were controversies over the inspired character of several NT books, namely the Letter to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. Some of this controversy can be seen in the very oldest known canon, called the Muratorian Fragment (also called Bibliotheca Ambrosiana) written between 180 and 200 ad, from the region of Rome. This dispute was settled by the councils of Hippo and Carthage by the fourth century and reaffirmed again by Pope Innocent 1 in 405 ad. But I understand that Martin Luther removed these books from the NT. But then by about 1700 ad Luther’s followers reinstated those books.
So I have to ask the question again of Boule: You said you accept the books of the Bible as inspired, based on what past Christians accepted as inspired. Which past Christians exactly are you looking to for the answer to the canon? And how did you decide to follow those particular Christians?
E
Exporter
Guest
C
Chris_W
Guest
Are you still out there Boule Theou?
E
Ella
Guest
that’s funny - you should read the forums at Envoy mag website sometime. Boule/patrick disappears from threads there too, after someone makes a killer point about whatever they’re arguing.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
Boule,
What utter nonsense. The papacy, purgatory, piesthood (apostolic succession also), the mass, Marian doctrine and the Catholic concept of justification can all be found, at least, implicitly in Scripture. They absolutely, positively have basis in special revelation (and none of them are specifically denied by Scripture). It is simply that you chose not to see them. They are in Scripture and in the earliest post apostolic writings.
If they weren’t in Scripture Luther would not have felt the need to rip some pages out of his Bible and would not have desired to rip out James, Revelation and Jude. He did this because what he removed from the Bible supported doctrines HE decided were false. You don’t find that troubling in the least?
Lets just take a couple things you mentioned:
the mass–off the top of my head I would:
–Refer you to the Gospels and the last supper narratives–this is the focus of the mass and it is what is done at every mass.
–Refer you to Acts and the NT letters & epistles (cites can be provide later–but I’m sure you are familiar w/them) where we see the early Christians gather to read the word of God and break bread and this is what we do at every mass.
–Refer you to the book of Revelation and while to complex to go into in this post you can see the mass there–the liturgical celebration.
–Refer you to Justyn Martyrs 1st Apology–the description of the mass as celebrated then is so close to our mass today it is inconceivable that you could claim (as you did in one of these threads) that an early Church father would not recognize the mass down at our local parish today. Have you ever even been to a mass?
continued
- Status