Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[estesbob]

Because Scriptures tell us so!

In your opinion-in their opinion they do not-how do we resolve that? What makes your insight superior to theirs?

For hopefully the last time: We can tell who has the correct interpretation by comparing the claims to the Holy Scriptures. We do not trust one verse quoted tells the whole story, not even that it is quoted accurately, but rather we check for ourselves as did the Bereans by searching the Scriptures.

Again you tell us the solution is to trust your personal interpreation of Scripture-why should we do so?

 

[Ginger2]

Again you tell us the solution is to trust your personal interpreation of Scripture-…

I said no such thing!!! :tsktsk: Cite the post, or admit your claim is false. (like that will ever happen )

I’m not asking you to trust my opinion/interpretation.
I suggest you read the Scriptures for yourself and trust God’s Word is truth.

Do not trust me, but follow the example of the Bereans who did not trust Paul’s words, but searched the Scriptures for themselves to see if Paul was telling the truth.

… why should we do so?

Surely you are not suggesting the Holy Bible not trustworthy or true

Ginger

 

[estesbob]

I said no such thing!!! :tsktsk: Cite the post, or admit your claim is false. (like that will ever happen )

I’m not asking you to trust my opinion/interpretation.
I suggest you read the Scriptures for yourself and trust God’s Word is truth.

I did-I came to a different conclusion than you did about John 6-how do we resolve that-and the JWs and Mormons disagree with both of us on what scripture says. How do we resolve that?

Do not trust me, but follow the example of the Bereans who did not trust Paul’s words, but searched the Scriptures for themselves to see if Paul was telling the truth.

Are you suggesting that the Truth can only be found in the Old Testament(that was all that was available to the Bererans).

Surely you are not suggesting the Holy Bible not trustworthy or true

Ginger

True based on who’s interpreation?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, Ginger, who is correct?

I gave you my examples earlier. Both Christians read John 6, both apply Scripture in context. . .

Yet one says, “literal”

One says, "figurative.’

The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. Two Christians, both prayerfully reading Scripture, both claiming the Holy Spirit’s guidance to all truth. How do you know WHICH is correct when both have the same credentials, the same reliance on Scripture, the same willingness and the same reliance on the Spirit?

Telling us that Scripture will demonstrate? But Scripture HAS demonstrated. . .and the interpretations are opposed.

 

[Ginger2]

I did-I came to a different conclusion than you did about John 6-how do we resolve that-and the JWs and Mormons disagree with both of us on what scripture says. How do we resolve that?

I assume you are speaking of verses:
53-55
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Are you saying you do not believe in the real presence? Because I have stated, I do.

Perhaps you are referring to post #1074. May I point out, I did not deny a literal interpretation, but clarified “flesh” does not always mean the physical body. If you disagree with that statement, you are denying its usage in some places such as when Jesus said husband and wife become one flesh.

I also pointed out that there were times the disciples did not understand or even misunderstood (at least two that I am aware of) and Jesus did not correct them. So the argument stating Jesus didn’t correct a misunderstanding is not proof there was no misunderstanding.

Still, I did not retract my confession of the real presence.

The Eucharist, like Baptism, is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace - invisible to the human eye, but very real just the same.

So, by your statement should I assume you deny the real presence???

Ginger

 

[estesbob]

I assume you are speaking of verses:
53-55
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Are you saying you do not believe in the real presence? Because I have stated, I do.

Baptists dont-yet they read the same Scrupture we do and pray to the same Spirit we do-how do we resolve that?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Now I firmly believe in the Real Presence. But millions of Christians read John 6:58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

And they argue, this proves Jesus was speaking of Himself as bread spirtually.

Now I know why I interpret those words differently. . .but tell me Ginger, why do YOU interpret them differently from the Protestant who says, “See, it says right in Scripture, and it is RIGHT AFTER Jesus has been speaking of FLESH.”

And why (since your authority of ‘scripture only’ is different from mine which is Scripture through the Spirit through the Church) is your Scriptural interpretation correct and the others not?

 

[holy_moly]

Now I know why I interpret those words differently. . .but tell me Ginger, why do YOU interpret them differently from the Protestant who says, “See, it says right in Scripture, and it is RIGHT AFTER Jesus has been speaking of FLESH.”

And why (since your authority of ‘scripture only’ is different from mine which is Scripture through the Spirit through the Church) is your Scriptural interpretation correct and the others not?

Yes, inquiring minds would like to know!

 

[shoewindow3000]

Besides, Where in Scripture does it say the angels who followed satan were deceived?

In the Book of Jude, did you ever notice Jude 1:14-15? It says…

• Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”*

Now what did he quote? THE BOOK OF ENOCH. (uh-oh, not scripture)

He also refers to a dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil about the body of Moses.
Now this is from a book called* The Assumption of Moses.* (uh-oh, not scripture)

According to your logic, we should not listen to the Epistle of Jude.

 

[benedictus2]

This is easily discerned using the Scriptures themselves by keeping the verses in context.

Correct interpretation requires keeping the comment in context. The sentence by itself could me misinterpreted. But when you look at the comments before and after, the meaning becomes clear.

Okay, if you reason this way, then how did you come up with an interpretation of Matthew 16:16-19 the way you did which is completely different to the way I interpret it.

Which of us has the correct interpretation and why?

Let me repeat an example used in a previous thread:

Someone said Matthew 2:16 “Then Herod, …slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, …” was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7. For instead of a fountain of an ever running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust.

If you only see one verse you might think there is a relationship between the Mat 2 and Wis 11.

However, the next verse in Matthew says it fulfills the prophesy spoken by Jeremiah: Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, (re: Jer 31:15 )

I don’t know who you were debating but this connection with wisdom is not made by Catholic exegetes. So that is one error on your part already.

Just because a Catholic makes an error does not mean that the Catholic church made the error. You must make that distinction.

It is very clear from this reading that it was Jeremiah’s prophesy that was being fulfilled. But verse 8 was a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1.

So while many Catholics have misinterpreted Matt, a nothing little Protestant like me was able to understand the correct interpretation by using Scripture Alone

Nope not many Catholics misinterpreted Matthew. Perhaps the one you were debating with, but NOT MANY. The Scripture is VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS PASSAGE.

I hate to disabuse you with the thought that you came up with the correct interpretation becuase we did as well way before even you thought of it.

So now I go back to asking you how you can possibly misinterpret Matthew 16:16-19 when you claim to take Scripture at its face value? As I have shown in a previous post, the only way you did that is because you have already formed a theology and what you did was to try to twist scripture to suit that theology.

So in that instance when Scripture was very clear as to what was being said, you had to be especially inventive and creative to make it say what you want it to say.

You keep saying that, but have not shown me which of the verses from the list I proved, you deny.

But indeed I have. The doctrines I mentioned are not in your list but they are points of disagreement among protestants even and between protestants and Catholic.

So here it is again: The Eucharist (John 6), The Church (Matthew 16), Salvation by Faith Alone, Confession (John 20:21-23.

These are the ones I am talking about which you have consistently failed to address.

Please either acknowledge you agree my understanding is correct or point out the one you deny.

Two things to remember here about me: If I don’t disagree with you on something I either a) agree with you or b) I have not read the points you raised in depth so have not formed an opinion.

In the case of your list, it’s a little bit of both.

 

[benedictus2]

You keep saying that, but have not shown me which of the verses from the list I proved, you deny.

Please either acknowledge you agree my understanding is correct or point out the one you deny.

Ginger

Reply No 2 to this last bit of your post.

Here is your list

1. There is Only One God
2. Only one Savior
3. We are to serve only the one true God
4. We are to worship only the one true God
5. God is the Creator of all things
6. God is the source of life.

There is nothing wrong with this list and I agree with it. But this is the MINIMALIST view.

Point 2. There is only one Saviour. The question is: Is this Saviour (God) or just a human being? There is nothing in your list that states whether Christ is God at all and How He effects salvation.

This HOW of Salvation goes to the very heart of our disagreement.

That is why even though there is truth in your list, I would not call it the fullness of Christian doctrine. This is NOT ALL that Christianity believes but only a A PART OF IT.

 

[Ginger2]

Reply No 2 to this last bit of your post.

Here is your list

1. There is Only One God
2. Only one Savior
3. We are to serve only the one true God
4. We are to worship only the one true God
5. God is the Creator of all things
6. God is the source of life.

There is nothing wrong with this list and I agree with it. But this is the MINIMALIST view.

Point 2. There is only one Saviour. The question is: Is this Saviour (God) or just a human being? There is nothing in your list that states whether Christ is God at all and How He effects salvation.

See post #'s 948 & 1108

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.

These Scriptures are clear and easily understood. So, it is obvious those who don’t understand are either spiritually blinded because they are perishing (as the Bible also clearly states) or they simply have not received the Gospel of Christ, yet.

Our mission is to spread the Gospel. It is up to God as to who will accept its message and who will reject it.

If someone has a misconception of a particular Scripture, we can show them the truth by showing/quoting the Scriptures as Jesus did with satan. It is up to the individual and God whether or not he/she will accept or reject the truth.

So one more time, look at my list. Do I have a correct understanding of these particular doctrines according to your infallible interpretation?

And do you agree these Scriptures are clear in there meaning?

 

[Ginger2]

Yes, inquiring minds would like to know!

I suppose it is because Catholics don’t understand it, either. That’s why the RC calls it a “mystery”

Funny how Catholics can criticize others for not having perfect understand, when they admit they themselves can’t understand.

Besides, Where in Scripture does it say the angels who followed satan were deceived?

In the Book of Jude, did you ever notice Jude 1:14-15? It says…

• Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”*

I do not see the words, “the angels were deceived by satan” in the Book of Jude.

 

[Ginger2]

Benedictus2,

In anticipation of your acknowledgment my list shows I have a correct understanding provided by clear Bible verses, I have decided to add a few more for your review:

Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Luk 1:35	And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
born of the Virgin Mary,  Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.
was crucified, Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. ..24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

died, Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
buried. Luk 23:52 This [man] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
rose to life on the third day. 1Cr 15:4 …he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Have I correctly understood the Gospel according to the verses I quoted? If not please feel free to correct my misunderstandings.

 

[benedictus2]

See post #'s 948 & 1108

These Scriptures are clear and easily understood. So, it is obvious those who don’t understand are either spiritually blinded because they are perishing (as the Bible also clearly states) or they simply have not received the Gospel of Christ, yet.

Ginger, don’t you get even the simplest point I am making here?

Here it is in Big Bold Letters : THE 7 LIST YOU COMPILED ( of which your posts 948 and 1108 are merely longer versions) ARE NOT IN CONTENTION HERE. SO I REPEAT, THAT LIST IS NOT THE ONE IN CONTENTION. THEY ARE FAR TOO BASIC AND IS NOT THE ENTIRE TRUTH.

That is why I said you list is very much a MINIMALIST VIEW of Christianity.

**What we are in disagreement with are about those issues that are specifically related to the HOW of Salvation such as the **
1) the Church (Mt 16:16-19)
2) Forgiveness of Sins/Confession (John 20-21-23)
3) Eucharist (John 6)
4) Baptism. (John 3, Mt 28, 1Pet 3.

These are the issues which we have been trying to get you to address which you keep AVOIDING and which we have painstakingly tried to bring to your attention.

**Please, please, please, PICK ONE OF THESE and then tell us how do you determine which interpretation is correct. **

Our mission is to spread the Gospel. It is up to God as to who will accept its message and who will reject it.

But we must spread THE CORRECT GOSPEL and not some chopped up, mangled version of it. By adhering to the minimalist view which you seem to be proposing, you are not proclaiming the gospel at all.

If someone has a misconception of a particular Scripture, we can show them the truth by showing/quoting the Scriptures as Jesus did with satan. It is up to the individual and God whether or not he/she will accept or reject the truth.

Maaan! But that is the whole point of this argument. We are trying to determine the TRUTH. Which one of us holds the TRUE interpretation as regards, Salvation, the Church, Baptism, the Eucharist and Confession? THAT IS THE QUESTION BEING ASKED HERE.

So one more time, look at my list. Do I have a correct understanding of these particular doctrines according to your infallible interpretation?

And for the umpteenth time, I am telling you that I have looked at your list and I have even addressed your list.

Now it is about time you addressed my list and give answers to the question I and others have raised.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2,

In anticipation of your acknowledgment my list shows I have a correct understanding provided by clear Bible verses, I have decided to add a few more for your review:

Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
born of the Virgin Mary, Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name [was] Mary.
was crucified, Luk 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. …24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.
died, Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
buried. Luk 23:52 This [man] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
rose to life on the third day. 1Cr 15:4 …he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Have I correctly understood the Gospel according to the verses I quoted? If not please feel free to correct my misunderstandings.

Your interpretation above is correct. But compiling another list is once again another attempt to avoid the issues.

I think it is about time you addressed my list for a change instead of coming up with another list yet again.

 

[Ginger2]

…The doctrines I mentioned are not in your list but they are points of disagreement among protestants even and between protestants and Catholic.

So here it is again: The Eucharist (John 6), The Church (Matthew 16), Salvation by Faith Alone, Confession (John 20:21-23.

These are the ones I am talking about which you have consistently failed to address.

As you addressed the Catholics who have misunderstandings,

Just because a Catholic makes an error does not mean that the Catholic church made the error. You must make that distinction.

so also, I address the question of Protestants who misunderstand **Just because a Protestant makes an error does not mean that the Scriptures made the error. Nor even that that particular denomination made that error. You must make that distinction.

Following the same reasoning, you must not assume every heretic cult is somehow related to Protestanism - especially since these false doctrines have existed since the time of the Apostles and before.

Ginger**

 

[tcm22]

As you addressed the Catholics who have misunderstandings,

so also, I address the question of Protestants who misunderstand Just because a Protestant makes an error does not mean that the Scriptures made the error. Nor even that that particular denomination made that error. You must make that distinction.

Following the same reasoning, you must not assume every heretic cult is somehow related to Protestanism - especially since these false doctrines have existed since the time of the Apostles and before.

Ginger
The analogy doesn’t hold. In the Catholic Church we have recourse to a single authoritative source, the Magisterium of the Church, to determine what is error and what isn’t. Any divergence between individuals and groups and the Church can be assessed based on a single authority – at least from a Catholic perspective.

In the Protestant context there is no way to objectively judge misunderstanding or error. What one denomination considers error is another’s version of truth based on their own interpretation of Scripture. Look at the chaos in the Episcopal and Lutheran Churchs. Last I checked, they were all referring to the same Bible. Once you open the can of personal interpretation, all you have is disagreements, but no means to judge error or misunderstanding. Who’s to say which one is right or wrong? 30K Protestant sects suggests no one can say.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, don’t you get even the simplest point I am making here?

In-other-words, you want to make me responsible for every single human being who has ever disagreed with you???

There was a claim in this thread (and probably ever other thread I have participated on in this forum) that I misunderstand the Scriptures and adhere to false doctrines.

That is my focus. If you want to talk about other people, I cannot answer for those I do not even know - just as you cannot answer for those Catholics who misunderstand Catholicism, except to say they misunderstand.

I realize my list was not a complete teaching and said so repeatedly. I have added a few more and will continue to do so until we get to the bottom of this false accusation.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2:

…The doctrines I mentioned are not in your list but they are points of disagreement among protestants even and between protestants and Catholic.

So here it is again: The Eucharist (John 6), The Church (Matthew 16), Salvation by Faith Alone, Confession (John 20:21-23.

*These are the ones I am talking about which you have consistently failed to address. *

As you addressed the Catholics who have misunderstandings,

Ginger, your reply above in NO WAY addresses my post that you quoted. It’s wayyyyy off tangent.

Read again the post you are replying to (I have embedded it above). What I am asking you to explain are the Scripture passages related to these doctrines which I have highlighted in blue above.

Please QUIT DODGING the issue.

so also, I address the question of Protestants who misunderstand **Just because a Protestant makes an error does not mean that the Scriptures made the error. Nor even that that particular denomination made that error. **You must make that distinction. ****

But the whole problem is that, the DIFFERRENT PROTESTANT CHURCHES HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS. SO WHICH ONE IS CORRECT AND WHY?

THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY EVADED FROM THE WORD GO.

Furthermore, this is exactly what goes to the heart of Sola Scriptura. If people can get the interpretations so completely wrong, then that means only two things:

1) They are not being guided by the Holy Spirit (which makes your claim wrong)

2) They are being guided by the Holy Spirit but that means the Holy Spirit does not really know what the truth is either (which makes your claim wrong as well).

There has to be a body that says the buck stops here.

---

The Catholic who got it wrong has the Church to go back to for reference so their erroneous perception can be corrected. You, do not.

**

Following the same reasoning, you

must not assume every heretic cult is somehow related to Protestanism - especially since these false doctrines have existed since the time of the Apostles and before.

:banghead:Where did I ever assume (give post number please) or even hinted that “every heretic cult is somehow related to Protestanism”? :banghead: Are you running out of steam that is why you have to manufacture words I never said?**