Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[Ginger2]

“May be”. Not “MUST BE”.

Suppose I said, “I may hang a picture on any day this coming week.” But. . .for some reason, perhaps an illness, or an unexpected vacation, I don’t get to do it that week. Suppose I decide that I’d rather hang the picture in the spring. You can’t say, “But you said you were going to do it this coming week.” I said “May” and that’s a conditional that can be altered by me.

“may be”, not “maybe”

“May be” in this case means “is allowed” or “is permitted”

Regardless of that, since it says "it is recommended that normally it be celebrated on a Sunday or, if possible, on the vigil of Easter. ", there is no basis to refuse anyone. There are Sundays in every week during Lent just like there sre during the rest of the year.

 

[Ginger2]

P.S. From what I understand, you’re telling me that the “Bible says” that there can be different interpretations of Scripture,

No. That is not what I am telling you.

I am saying the Catholic Church allows for variations within specific doctrines. Your arguments against Protestant variations is hypocrisy in light of the fact you are not adhering to these same rules you have set for others.

…you’re not telling me which Christians are RIGHT. …

First tell me which priests are right.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, Ginger, you have been asked several times before. The cases are not comparable. Individual priests who may (or may not) be in error according to your anecdotes STILL point out that there IS a standard in Catholicism.

Now, you claim there is the same standard in Protestant teaching whereby there is a ‘correct’ interpretation of Scripture and that any Protestant teaching an incorrect interpretation is denying the correct one.

I ask again, where is the correct interpretation? What is the authority?

Simply saying, “the Bible” does not work. The point is that Protestants reading the same bible are arguing that John 6 is figurative and that John 6 is not figurative, or literal.

Now, where in the Bible does it say either that “John 6 is figurative, not literal” or "John 6 is literal, not figurative?: The ones arguing it’s figurative pull out Scripture about “the words I speak are Spirit and life” which they say prove, scripturally, their case. The ones arguing it’s literal pull out Scripture about Jesus saying it is His Flesh and blood and the Jews saying it is a hard saying and walking away which they say proves THEIR case Scripturally.

OK, the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. So which of the Scriptural ‘authorities’ for the two positions is correct and why?

 

[Ginger2]

OK, the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. So which of the Scriptural ‘authorities’ for the two positions is correct and why?

Exactly. Which is why Protestants reject RC extra-Biblical doctrines that contradict Holy Scriptures.

Have a nice day!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And once again, Ginger, a simple question gets no intelligible answer.

How can you respond to the question"which interpretation of John 6 is correct, that it is literal or that it is figurative" with “Exactly” followed by yet ANOTHER slam at Catholics for supposed extra-Biblical practices and an insincerely appearing flip ‘have a nice day.’

I don’t know about other people reading along on this thread, but I for one see your continued evasion of the question to reflect that you simply cannot give an answer and hope by redirecting, obfuscating, or ignoring it in favor of questions you think you CAN answer that others studying the topic won’t realize that you haven’t answered. And won’t stop to wonder WHY you don’t.

That you don’t–that you can’t–answer the question makes it crystal clear that you have no proof for your assertions regarding Scriptural interpretation. You may have a correct understanding of some, you may have a wildly incorrect understanding of others–but since you have no authority other than circular reasoning of “I think Scripture means this in this passage, I ask the Holy Spirit to clarify it, I ‘feel’ that He is answering me that I’m correct. . .therefore, since Scripture says the Holy Spirit will guide me, I KNOW the passage is correct.” Unfortunately, your ‘feeling’ regarding what you THINK the Spirit says may be wrong. And you won’t know it because your only ‘authority’ is your feeling on the Spirit–which is contradicted by any other given Protestant also ‘listening’ to what he thinks is ‘the Spirit’ and which tells him that HE is right, etc. etc.

1500 years of Christian teaching informed us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth–and that includes interpretation of Scripture. Catholics and Orthodox 500 years later still possess that fullness. Protestants have rejected it and set themselves up as their own authorities, in defiance of Scripture. . .and we see the result.

 

[Ginger2]

And once again, Ginger, a simple question gets no It seems the basic question here is simply:

It seems the basic question being asked is:

"How can two or more people read the same Scripture and come to two different understandings of what it means?

I have already answered this, but it seems obvious at this point you don’t seem to want to accept any answer that doesn’t jive with your biased opinion of non-Catholics. Here is what I have already posted on this question:
Ginger2;5495490:

The answer to that question is in the Holy Scriptures.

First:
If one person has an interpretation that contradicts Scripture, that interpretation is wrong.

And we know it is wrong because it contradicts the Holy Scriptures

.

The Bible says we can use the Scriptures to test for truth!!! Act 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

If God believes we can use the Scriptures to discern truth, He must also believe the Scriptures can be understood by laymen who are not even part of the church, yet!

Second, God gave His Spirit to the entire body of believers, not just a select few.

1 Cor 2:14-15 The man without the Spirit of God does not accept the things that come from the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
We who have the Spirit of God understand these things, but others can’t understand.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

From the above verse you can see it is the Spirit of God that brings clear understanding, not the magistrate. Those who are not of God will not understand and thus come up with a false interpretation that contradicts the Holy Scriptures.

However, God doesn’t give everyone perfect understanding in an instant.

I think all of us can testify that our understanding of various Scriptures has change as we have grown in our faith and God has revealed it to us little by little.

If a person is truly seeking God, in time God will make clear all the person needs to know. And none of us will know everything until we are taken to heaven in that promised whirlwind in the final perfection.

Finally, God says in His written Word that some people will chose to misinterpret the written word:

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

This is a freewill choice, however, people are not always aware of their motives.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

This doesn’t say Paul explained it to them. He used the Scriptures to demonstrate Jesus is the Christ. …some accepted the truth and some denied it.

They did not believe in the Scriptures because Paul explained the Scriptures - They believed what Paul said because the Scriptures proved Paul was telling the truth.

How could they know Paul was telling the truth if the Scriptures cannot be understood by the common man???

The above quote has red lettering where I made additional comments. This is a rather brief, but thorough answer to your question about different interpretations of the same verses.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Below is another post where I specifically addressed the basic question:

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ

This says “when we read we can understand” what we are reading.

In contrast,
No matter how clear and concise the RC or anyone else explains Scriptures, it’s useless unless God opens the mind of the listener to understanding and his heart to acceptance.

In-other-words, God opens the minds of His children to understand when they read the Bible, without any outside help from well-meaning Catholics

We all have freewill and some people will reject the truth, just because they want to.
This is a known fact. It says so in the Bible.

That means your “infallible” interpretations are worthless.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 4 Some of the Jews were persuaded …

This says Paul he explained/interpreted the Scriptures to them. Some accepted the truth and some denied it.

Those who believed did not believe in the Scriptures because Paul explained the Scriptures (ie infallible interpretation) - They believed what Paul said because the Scriptures proved Paul was telling the truth.
Those who did not believe, denied because they choose not to believe.

Again, this demonstrates the RC’s “infallible interpretation” is useless.
Faith, a matter of choice and understanding, only comes from God.

God reveals Himself to whom He will - with or without the help of any man or organization.

Just as Jesus revealed the Gospel to Paul, so can the Holy Spirit reveal it to the rest of us.

Paul did not need the Apostle’s to explain Christ Jesus to him - Jesus appeared to Saul and opened his mind to knowledge of the Christ and God’s plan for salvation without the assistance of a single Apostle.

Finally, God promises not to let His own be led astray.*

My sheep listen to my voice;* I know them,* and they follow me.* *
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish;
no one can snatch them from my hand.
John 10:27-28

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Again, in the quote below I addressed the basic question:

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ

This says “when you read you can understand” what you are reading…

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

[This] means some people will twist the Scriptures and there is nothing you can do to help them understand because God has hidden understanding from those who are condemned.

Likewise, only God can and does open a mind and heart to understanding.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

 

[Ginger2]

I just don’t see how I can be any clearer.

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are perishing, but it is God’s power to us who are being saved.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures said?

And Paul, who was not taught by any man - including Peter, received the gospel directly from Christ after Jesus ascended to heaven. In an instant this happened, yet Catholics deny anyone can understand with out their “infallible” help. :tsktsk:

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her. In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

Some because they are spiritually blind, or because they deliberately reject God.

Some because God has revealed the truth to them and not to others.

What you claim about the Catholics being unified in one belief of doctrines, is even more true of the heretic cult of Jehovah Witnesses. They all believe the WTS, without question.

Being unified in your beliefs is not evidence of being correct.

 

[benedictus2]

Very good, B. From this it is clear that Catholic priests may very on the issue without conforming to a specific time line.
One parish may allow it according to the “first few weeks rule”
while another may ignore that rule and wait longer.

Yet, Catholics can criticize for slight differences in Baptism???

Again, I see the written rule is that Baptism can be perform on any day, yet the RC allows priests to make their own rules differing from the ones laid out in the CCC.

Yet, Catholics deny this same privilege to Protestants who differ slightly on Baptism.

I think you miss the point here. The difference is not on DOCTRINE but rather on rubrics. And the Church has ALLOWED this leeway.

To illustrate: The Doctrine on the Eucharist and communion, is not affected by how you receive it (either by hand or straight on the tongue). The Doctrine (Eucharist) remains the same but there is no hard and fast rule on how you receive.

Same thing with Baptism. The doctrine (Baptism) remains the same but the other details are left to the bishop and priest.

 

[Tomb54]

I just don’t see how I can be any clearer.

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are perishing, but it is God’s power to us who are being saved.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures said?

*What part of scriptures were they using OT? Remember NT was not part of scripture at this time and only a couple gospel having even been put into writing yet so again I ask what scripture were they using and how do you know this?*Might help a few Protestants to help clear up the 30,000 different accurate interpretations they have

.

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her. In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

Then how do they know when they have the right interpretation?? The right one is where ever they are at the time? It seems they always say they are right and often differ from the protestant next to them.

Some because they are spiritually blind, or because they deliberately reject God.

*They do not say this and will say they follow the bible based on their interpretation and with no one to guide you can’t say they are wrong all you can say is that is not what I believe as they will say their interpretation is from the Holy Spirit. Who are you to say they are wrong or that their interpretation is wrong. You will say it is in the bible and they will say their interpretation is also in the bible./I]

Some because God has revealed the truth to them and not to others.

*How do you know to which ones? Because they agree with your interpretation? Because they believe in the minimalist beliefs?/*I]

What you claim about the Catholics being unified in one belief of doctrines, is even more true of the heretic cult of Jehovah Witnesses. They all believe the WTS, without question.

*You can ask when did the WTS come into existence? The time-line of history does not work for them and they do not believe what the ECF believed. Also how can Protestants say they are wrong because they say their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit? Why do they not have the right to their interpretation as they see it based on what they think the bible says. Why do SDA believe White had any special ability to to come up with her own doctrine based on her special interpretation of the bible? Why do they claim her infallible? I thought the bible says you tell a prophet by the truth and if what they predict come true. Has she had any prediction that have not come true if so she is a false prophet. But even proving this, who is to say they are wrong since they say their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit too?
In 1862 she predicted that “when England does declare war [against the North, during the civil war]. all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion.” The result will be that “this nation [the United States] will…be humbled into the dust”. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 259.

American history clearly shows that England did not “declare war” against the United States during the Civil War, and the United States was not “humbled into the dust”.*

Being unified in your beliefs is not evidence of being correct.*

 

[shoewindow3000]

I just don’t see how I can be any clearer.

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are perishing, but it is God’s power to us who are being saved.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures said?

And Paul, who was not taught by any man - including Peter, received the gospel directly from Christ after Jesus ascended to heaven. In an instant this happened, yet Catholics deny anyone can understand with out their “infallible” help. :tsktsk:

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her. In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

Some because they are spiritually blind, or because they deliberately reject God.

Some because God has revealed the truth to them and not to others.

What you claim about the Catholics being unified in one belief of doctrines, is even more true of the heretic cult of Jehovah Witnesses. They all believe the WTS, without question.

Being unified in your beliefs is not evidence of being correct.

For the first couple centuries, only the Old Testament was called Sacred Scripture.
And in the first 20 or so years, all the Christians had was the Old Testament and the Church that Christ established.
Look at the Protestant world. It is full of relativism and schism. Didn’t Christ say, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”?

Christ would not leave the church in open contradiction. There is an infallible authority in the Church, because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

---

Let me ask you this: The New Testament you have, where did it come from?

A CHURCH COUNCIL!!

just the fact that you accept the New Testament canon as Scripture means you accept church authority, without even realizing it!

If you were truly Protestant, you might as well create your own New Testament canon.* Why not throw in the books that were rejected by Church authority, since you don’t believe in it?*
I mean, early on in the Church, different regions had slightly different version of the New Testament. The Church, whose pope and bishops were guided by the Holy Spirit, came to the correct decision about which books to have as the official New Testament.

THERE IS A REASON WHY CHRIST GAVE US A CHURCH WITH INFALLIBILITY.

If you want to learn what the early Church was like, read the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. Both were bishops in the 1st century church, and both were disciples of the Apostle John. I will take their writings over Martin Luther any day. They talk about things like the sacraments, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, etc. In fact, it was Ignatius who first described the church as “catholic.”

 

[shoewindow3000]

Was Martin Luther guided by the Holy Spirit?

No.

Was he guided by* a* spirit?

Maybe.

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

“This is clearly seen in Paul’s commendation to Timothy: “… from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).”

You do understand that thisreference by Paul is to the Old Testament?

And though Paul received the Word directly from Christ like the rest of the Apostles, he handed down that knowledge through oral Tradition to Timothy, among others. The rest of the Apostles did the same. The Church was needed to ensure the continuity of that message of truth for two centuries before the Gospels were written. The disciples of the Apostles and their disciples spread the Word orallyand the Church rebuked those who fell into error or heresy. That happened often enough in the first centuries and that led to the authoritative compilation of Scripture, by the Church, deciding which were truly inspired and belonged in the Canon and which weren’t and didn’t.

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

I know from experience that unauthoritiative, personal i nterpretation of Scripture is a farce. I’m related to evangelical Christians and the crazy things that they come up with - based on Scripture - shows me that they clearly have no business trying to understand God’s Word without a teacher, as proscribed by Christ.

They go to these “small groups” and banter back and forth over what passages mean and there’s very little consensus and some outright whoppers that pass for interpretation. It’s like the Tower of Babel Bibloe study.

The Catholic Church provides us with Scriptural authority when these impasses arise about meaning. They’ve studied Scripture for many centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and it is Christ’s Church that was entrusted with the task of preserving the Truth of the Word. We can turn to the Church for the answer with confidence that this is how Christ intended it to be orHe wouldn’t have established a Church in the first place. He didn’t want us all going our separate ways, willy nilly, getting things wrong and corrupting the message that He gave His life for.

Thank God for the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for that! It provides a God given assurance that we are given the Truth as Christ intended,. binding and loosening on earth and in heaven as Christ empowered it to do.

 

[Ginger2]

The way you know what is right is to see whether or not the belief/doctrine is consistent with Scriptures.

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ

Those who are deceived do not know they are deceived, but that doesn’t change the fact the Bible is clear.

I spoke with Free Bible Students one time and they teach their are two deities which they refer to as One God. “God is one family with two members like the church is one family with many members”

They say the Father is one deity and the Son is another deity. the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.

I showed in Scripture where Jesus is called our Father and the response was “that’s just one verse”

So, you can see how the Bible dispels their myth, yet they choose to believe they are right and simply disregard what doesn’t jive with their beliefs.

In contrast, a child of God, would see this verse and accept it, even if he/she still didn’t understand how Jesus could be God.

So, this believer starts out misunderstanding some things, but God grows him/her from Christian infancy to maturity and so their temporary ignorance is not an indication they are not part of the true church as Catholics would accuse.

 

[Ginger2]

Thank God for the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for that! It provides a God given assurance that we are given the Truth as Christ intended,. binding and loosening on earth and in heaven as Christ empowered it to do.

Membership in the Catholic Church is not a guarantee of salvation. The RC admits this fact.

Lack of membership in the Catholic Church is not a guarantee of condemnation. The RC admits this fact.

I have shown a list of basic, essential doctrines which the Holy Scriptures declare one must believe to be saved, and are believed by all true Christians. These Scriptures are clear and plain to understand. I have asked which ones you think I misinterpret. The response has been silence, so you have obviously failed to prove your accusations.

In contrast, Catholics have certain extra-Biblical doctrines not supported by Scriptures, but rather based on “it makes sense to us” attitude. Some of these doctrines find there beginning in “falsely ascribed” documents and “pseudo writings”, as admitted by the RC.

Ginger

 

[estesbob]

Membership in the Catholic Church is not a guarantee of salvation. The RC admits this fact.

Actually it is a doctrine the Church has held from the day Jesus founded the Church

Lack of membership in the Catholic Church is not a guarantee of condemnation. The RC admits this fact.

Actually it is a doctrine the Church has held from the day Jesus founded the Church

I have shown a list of basic, essential doctrines which the Holy Scriptures declare one must believe to be saved, and are believed by all true Christians. These Scriptures are clear and plain to understand. I have asked which ones you think I misinterpret. The response has been silence, so you have obviously failed to prove your accusations.

Actually people disputed your persaonl interpetations in detail;. your response was that :

a. your interpetation of Scripture is superior to ours
b. any proeteatant denomination that disagreed with your personl list of essential doctrines were not true christians.

In contrast, Catholics have certain extra-Biblical doctrines not supported by Scriptures, but rather based on “it makes sense to us” attitude. Some of these doctrines find there beginning in “falsely ascribed” documents and “pseudo writings”, as admitted by the RC.

Ginger

ALL Catholic Doctrines are supported by:

a. Scripture
b. Sacred Tradition
c. The consistent teachings of the Magestrium.

Your “doctines” . OTH, are supported by nothing more than you personal interpreation of a book that was, ironically, given to you by the very Church you reject.

 

[ali_w]

Ok, so mostly at the moment I am simply reading the discussions here, but a question for other non-Catholics:

if personal interpretation is always through the Holy Spirit, why are there so many wildly differing interpretations of the Bible?

blessings

 

[Ginger2]

Actually it is a doctrine the Church has held from the day Jesus founded the Church

On the contrary, The RC admits it is possible for people to go to heaven without being a member of the Catholic Church

estesbob:

Actually people disputed your persaonl interpetations in detail;. your response was that :

a. your interpetation of Scripture is superior to ours
b. any proeteatant denomination that disagreed with your personl list of essential doctrines were not true christians.

I did not make any claims as to superiority.
I merely stated Scriptures are clear and can be understood without the help of the RC.
I provided a list of Scriptures and stated what I believe (interpret) them to say,
and asked which ones you thought I misinterpreted:

I interpret Holy Scriptures to assert:

There is Only One God
ISAIAH
43:10 …Before me there was no God, and after me there will be none
Jesus is the One God
JOHN
10:33 The Jews answered him, “…you, although being a man, make yourself God.
The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to be God.
**
Only one Savior who is the one true God**
ISAIAH 43:11 I am YHWH, and besides me there is no savior.
Only one Savior who is Jesus
LUKE 2:11 because there was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ [the] Lord,…
**
Only serve the one true God**
Luke 4:8 You shall worship the Lord Your God and serve Him only
We serve Jesus
Col 3:24 it is the Lord Christ whom you serve

Only worship the one true God
EXODUS 20:5….because I, YHWH, your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, …
Worship Jesus
MATTHEW
28:17 When they saw him (Jesus) they worshipped him;

Every Knee will bow to God
ISAIAH
45:23 ….that to me every knee shall bow, every tongue confess…
Every Knee will bow to Jesus
PHIL
2:10-11 …that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,…

God is the Creator of all things
ISAIAH 48:13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth and my right hand spread out the heavens;
Jesus is the creator of all things
JOHN 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
**
God is the source of life **
PSALMS 36:9 For by you is the source of life.
Jesus is the source of life
John 5:21 Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.

WHO IS THE FIRST AND LAST?
GOD
ISAIAH44:6 This is what YHWH has said, … “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.”
JESUS
REVELATION
1:17-18 ….I am the first and the Last, ….and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever,… Obviously, Jesus is the one who became dead but lives forever.

Who is our Father?
Isaiah 9:6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

I ended my post with this question:
Which of these facts spelled out clearly in Scriptures do you feel I’ve misinterpreted?

The answer from Catholics was silence.

Or do you think repeating an unsubstantiated accusation is an appropriate response:

estesbob:

Your “doctines” . OTH, are supported by nothing more than you personal interpreation …

If you believe my statements show a misunderstanding of those Scriptures, please answer my question:
Which of these facts spelled out clearly in Scriptures do you feel I’ve misinterpreted?

If you agree that I have not misinterpreted these verses, but that the verses are clear and understandable as shown in my ability to understand them, then please acknowledge so.