Personal interpretation

[Shannon9791]

Look at history, Doggg.

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Henry Graham (a Protestant)

Wikipedia:

Non-Catholic website:

.

That’s after a five-minute Google search, using entirely non-Catholic sources.

Those are all fine and good, but Dogg has already said history can be interpreted in different ways. I tried to show him through history and that’s the answer I got. It’s as clear as the nose on my face to me, but I’m just a fallible guy who can read a history book

 

[Cinette]

The Catholic Church determined the canon? If you are asserting this as a fact, are you able to substantiate it? What sources have you used to obtain this factual information?

If you are asserting this as a fact, are you able to substantiate it? What sources have you used to obtain this factual information?

*Doggg I am sure you know the answers to both questions. In fact, I bet you know the answers.

God bless
Cinette *

 

[Cinette]

Yes, you have “answered” it many times with the same unsupported assertion.

Agreed.

If Christians had the complete certitude that God has, what need is there for faith?

:tiphat::bowdown2: By Jove, you’ve got it! Yes! its all about Faith! You finally understand!:bounce:

 

[Cinette]

Those are all fine and good, but Dogg has already said history can be interpreted in different ways. I tried to show him through history and that’s the answer I got. It’s as clear as the nose on my face to me, but I’m just a fallible guy who can read a history book

Doggg was only kidding!:bounce::whacky::juggle:

 

[grannymh]

We are both interpreting Scripture to justify our belief. We both feel we are led by the Holy Spirit. How do we know who is right, me or her?

The heat wave (reaching into the 40’s) has gone to my head. Thus – dumb question.
Where are you guys being led to?

Blessings,
granny

:tanning:

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Yes, you have “answered” it many times with the same unsupported assertion.

Seriously? I just gave you BIBLICAL PROOF! See below! All I used was the Bible and a little bit reasoning and putting together some puzzle pieces. All you do is take the pieces apart and say “We cannot know for sure that this is how the pieces go.” Do better than that. What is so wrong with Catholic Church being the one Christ set up?

YOU are the one who has given no arguments. All you do is ask the question. We answer and give proof. You dismiss it and you ask. We answer and prove. You dismiss and ask. We answer and prove. Seems to be a vicious cycle.

If Christians had the complete certitude that God has, what need is there for faith?

Ok… What do you mean “complete certitude that God has”? If you think for one second that I mean we are omniscient, the next second you better cease that thought. But, what do you mean by that? We can know Truth as far as faith and morals goes. I am at loss for words with what you mean. I have a different take on faith than most people considering my pre-Catholic background. You will probably not understand it because it is based on Truth.

In any case, faith is not based on what is true and what is not. Nor is it based on having faith in what the Church teaches is true. Nor is it based on having certitude with doctrines to the letter. I can guarantee that most Protestants (if not all) actually LIVE by Faith and Works, Purgatory (believe it or not, they say “Rest in Peace”, “God rest his soul”, pray that the deceased be accepted into His Kingdom, etc…), the Communion of Saints (“Watch over me, dear mother”, “I miss you”, etc…), most Marian Doctrine at Christmas, non-vain repetitive prayer, authority outside Scripture, caricatures of the papal system and Magisterium, statues and artwork (not to mention churches named) honoring people in Heaven, crucifixes (MINUS OUR LORD which I think is blasphemy but that is my opinion), etc… You can deny all you want, but deep down inside the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church are inviting you. "Come."

Anyway, here is the support you said I did not give:

Revelations 22:17 - The Spirit AND the bride say, “Come.” Let the hearer say, “Come.” Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water.

The Bride is the Church. As Saint Paul explains in one of the Corinthians, wives must be subordinate to their husbands as the Church is subordinate to Christ. Husbands must be willing to lay down their life for their bride as Christ did for the Church. The Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable.

The Catholic Church is the only one who recognizes this and actually lives by it!

This is even MORE proof that the Church is FOR us and not us for the Church.

Need more proof?

Revelations 21: 14 - The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles, of the Lamb.

This city is the New Jerusalem. Revelations 21:2 says “I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”

This is even more proof for the “alleged” papal doctrine that Peter is the “rock” on which Christ built the Church. We consider Peter and the Apostles as the foundations of the Church.

Need more proof?

The Catholic Church is the only thing on this planet to claims this, justifies it and lives by it. Tell me which one of your thousands of denominations claims anything close to these:

1. Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable.
2. Christ is the head of His Bride, the Church.
3. Peter and the Apostles are the foundation (as Christ is the builder) of the Church.
4. Peter as the Pope.

You cannot legitimately say it and mean it. You will just say it without justification. If you do say it, give some kind of credible explication instead of your usual, “Yes, but how do YOU know.” The above is how I know with complete certitude about the Church. Either that or at least give things from my argument that the Church does not teach. Or find flaws in my argument. I do not care if you tell me I am wrong. However, I do care if you accuse me of making “unsupported assertions” when in fact I am making supported assertions against your usual, “Yes, but how do YOU know” junk. This is a debate for Truth.

I wish you the best with that.

 

[benedictus2]

The Catholic Church determined the canon? If you are asserting this as a fact, are you able to substantiate it? What sources have you used to obtain this factual information?

If you are asserting this as a fact, are you able to substantiate it? What sources have you used to obtain this factual information?

I hope that you are sincerely wanting t know and will go to this link that answers your question.

davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm

 

[wanner47]

The heat wave (reaching into the 40’s) has gone to my head. Thus – dumb question.
Where are you guys being led to?

Blessings,
granny

:tanning:

78 where I am. I love winter!

I have to admit I’m not sure what you’re asking. Can you clarify?

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic Church determined the canon? If you are asserting this as a fact, are you able to substantiate it? What sources have you used to obtain this factual information?

And if you’re asserting something else–some* other *church determined the canon, you’ll have to provide proof for that.

In fact, I think I asked you to do that here.way back on page 13.

 

[benedictus2]

And if you’re asserting something else–some* other *church determined the canon, you’ll have to provide proof for that.

In fact, I think I asked you to do that here.way back on page 13.

Would be interesting what he comes up with.

 

[fred_conty]

Which specific truths of Jesus are found only in the CC and not any other churches? How did you come to know that the CC is the one with the correct truths?

1. What truths are found in CC and not in others? This would depend on what each church holds because they all are different in what they hold or else they would be only one. Which means that some are incorrect in what they hold. This is why not everyone can be correct and therefore we need some final authority to tell us what is right. Some check with their pastor. But then that means some pastors are wrong because not every pastor can be right else all pastors would hold the same thing which is not the case. And in addition, no pastor has the final authority if sola scriptura is held because everyone is as authoritative as the next person. Which could result in thousands of different interpretations. All this leads to the same end, namely we need a one final authority. For example, some would hold a passage of scripture as symbolic, while others would hold the same passage as literal. There are quite a few situations such as this. So to answer the question, each denomination would have to be compared to the Catholic faith to know what is in the Catholic Church which is not in the Protestant denomination. But I can present one which Catholics hold, and that is pictures and statues of saints. Now the reason some protestants do not believe in communion of the saints is because they do not have saints as Catholics have them. Catholics believe that the soul is judged at the moment of death, and the soul of the person then receives reward or punishment. The Church sometimes, thru special investigations, and thru widespread acclaim by others, determine the person to be in heaven. These are real and living and see God face to face, who knows all and sees all. And just as we ask others to pray for us, we then ask them to pray for us since Caholics believe in the communion of the saints, whereby we are all one body of Christ on earth and in heaven. Now many protestants do not have this teaching on moment of judgement at death, since this is not specifically in the Bible. Therefore they have no communion of saints and therefore no statues to remember those who are alive in heaven and can pray for us. So a statue to them would be a false god no matter how it is explained since their teaching does not include the saints now in heaven. This is only one difference. If you want a little list of differences, see www.davidmacd.com.
2. Why is the CC the only one with the authoritative and true meaning of the scriptures? For many churches the only source of belief is only the Bible and nothing else. However, sola scriptura is nowhere found in the Bible itself, so they have it as a tradition. Those hurches have other traditions such as liberal or strict interpretations depending on each denomination. Since this is not found in the bible, it is passed on, especially in teaching institutions. For example, some hold that babies should be baptised and some disagree which is part of a tradition in a particular church which is not taught in another, and so on with other traditions.
3. There are 27 books in the new testament which both catholic and protestants in common. These 27 books did not exist until about 20 years after Jesus assended to the Father. And during that period of time there were hundreds of other gospels, letters and acts, and other writings being written from the teachings. All of these had to be looked at and then a decision had to be made which books belonged and which didn’t. The early church fathers used several criteria to determine 27 books over a number of years. The book had to be used in liturgy or prayer services at that time. It had to be accepted widely by a majority of Christians. It had to be in accord with the teachings of the early church. These 27 were determined in the first few centuries by only one church which subsequently continued on to the Reformation. It was the church who actually was responsible for giving us the New Testmant. And this list was not exactly defined for at least a couple of centuries. So up until that time when the church put this list together, there was no New Testment book as we have it today. But what we did have for certain was the teaching church which passed down the teachings of Jesus which the Apostles witnessed. And of course, there was no printing press then. And many people could not read. And the individual books were passed from hand to hand since there were not many complete bibles like we have today, as well as expensive. Paper was not yet invented. And it took a long time for a copy of a book to be made. There was no chapter and verse numbering. In many of them there were no spaces between sentences and paragraphs. The words were either written in all capitol letters or they were written in all small letters. Taking this all into account, the individual book was very difficult to read. If all 27 were put together, it would be huge and all but impossible to carry around. So it seems that some of the churches, which were large christian centers, may have had most of the 27, the smaller churches would have traded individual books around. During this time, the principle source of information was in vocal teaching. Peter and the Apostles started this at Pentecaust when they preached to the thousands, then baptised them. These 27 books are the result of the teachings being written down by the early church.

 

[Cinette]

And if you’re asserting something else–some* other *church determined the canon, you’ll have to provide proof for that.

In fact, I think I asked you to do that here.way back on page 13.

*Its one of the questions Doggg skipped over.:juggle:

Perhap now that you have reminded him he will oblige and answer your question. Yes please Doggg do enlighten us.

Cinette*

 

[Doggg]

And if you’re asserting something else–some* other *church determined the canon, you’ll have to provide proof for that.

As I said earlier, the canon is determined by God, who, by the Holy Spirit, breathed the Scriptures into the church by causing certain writers to write exactly as the Spirit led them. The church merely recognized God’s “voice” speaking through the written word.

As for the proof of which church God founded, and has protected by His word, there is only one universal church which consists of hundreds of denominations and so-called “non-denominations” that seek to worship God alone, draw close to Him through His word, under the guidance of His Holy Spirit, and desire to live by faith in the completed work of Jesus.

There are numerous false “churches” who are extremely authoritarian, heavy handed, and legalistic, that all end up practicing self-glorification because they MUST. The Mormons and the JW’s, like the RCC, MUST waste most of their time in the vain task of apologetics because so many of their bold claims lack any objective support, exactly as I’ve so thoroughly demonstrated here in this discussion.

False religions always have an uphill battle. They MUST continually persuade their followers and their potential followers that their own claims to authority are genuine. The real followers of Jesus don’t worry about such things. It isn’t a religion that they worship and serve, it is Christ Himself that they worship and serve. The bride of Christ worships Christ alone, and not herself.

 

[Doggg]

We are both interpreting Scripture to justify our belief. We both feel we are led by the Holy Spirit. How do we know who is right, me or her?

But how do we know who is “obviously” doing what is right vs. what is wrong?

I think Katherine Ragsdale is obviously doing what is wrong. She thinks I am obviously doing what is wrong. We are both interpreting Scripture to justify our belief. We both feel we are led by the Holy Spirit. How do we know who is right, me or her?

Would she really use Scripture to attempt to justify killing babies merely to avoid carrying an unwanted child? How? Are you suggesting that the bible is so vague on this issue that we can’t know which viewpoint is more in line with Scripture?

 

[atmmgraves]

As I said earlier, the canon is determined by God, who, by the Holy Spirit, breathed the Scriptures into the church by causing certain writers to write exactly as the Spirit led them. The church merely recognized God’s “voice” speaking through the written word.

As for the proof of which church God founded, and has protected by His word, there is only one universal church which consists of hundreds of denominations and so-called “non-denominations” that seek to worship God alone, draw close to Him through His word, under the guidance of His Holy Spirit, and desire to live by faith in the completed work of Jesus.

False religions always have an uphill battle. They MUST continually persuade their followers and their potential followers that their own claims to authority are genuine. The real followers of Jesus don’t worry about such things. It isn’t a religion that they worship and serve, it is Christ Himself that they worship and serve. The bride of Christ worships Christ alone, and not herself.

You have proven nothing here which would create even a second of questioning about the teachings of the Catholic Church among your respondents. What you have proven is that you do not want answers, as they have been given ad nauseum; you do not want true dialogue, you want to agitate. This thread should be closed, as (in my own opinion, of course) you have run the well dry of charity, patience, and answers.

God bless.

 

[grannymh]

78 where I am. I love winter!

I have to admit I’m not sure what you’re asking. Can you clarify?

Thank you for asking.

One of the ways to discern personal interpretation is to check where it leads to. “Leads to” means a variety of possibilities, primarily actions. In general, does one’s interpretation lead to a better life in accord with God’s will? What does the Sermon on the Mount mean in terms of one’s actions? Is the “narrow gate” a call to stop drinking? If the individual interpretation brings one closer to God, then it is a good interpretation.

Does the interpretation of John Chapter Six lead to the Catholic Church? I know this sounds biased, but the whole point of Scripture, especially the New Testament, is to bring people to Catholicism. Maybe personal interpretation only brings a person half way to Catholicism; but at least the person is using Scripture to seek truth. Don’t ever underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to touch a person who is holding a bible in her or his hands.

Another check point for personal interpretation would be how is a particular verse being used. Again, from my biased position, if a particular verse is being used to move away from Catholicism, then that is a bad interpretation.

Because I learned Catholic doctrine before I opened a bible, I have a different perspective which might be helpful to others. Instead of looking at a page of a bible and asking for an official interpretation, I start out with the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*. I use the footnotes to find the source for a particular teaching. Often these are Scripture verses. When I finally got around to reading the bible, I was totally amazed to find the sources for the seven Sacraments. And John Chapter Six was beyond everything else.

As for the life of Christ, I learned that by ear as a young child listening to the gospel and homily at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To read it on my own allowed me to meditate on it. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass keeps going from the Gospel to the moment of Consecration when Jesus becomes truly present and then on to Holy Communion when I am personally able to receive Jesus. Reading John Chapter Six on my own helps me to understand and to love Our Savior as Mass progresses.

Scripture and the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, are partners. When the partners work together to bring me into a closer relationship with God by being a member of the Catholic Church, then I know my personal interpretation is correct.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

 

[wanner47]

Would she really use Scripture to attempt to justify killing babies merely to avoid carrying an unwanted child? How?

Actually, many Protestants do so (see here). Dissident Catholics do so as well (see here).

Are you suggesting that the bible is so vague on this issue that we can’t know which viewpoint is more in line with Scripture?

I’m asking you, Doggg. By what authority do you say that their interpretation is wrong?

They claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation. How do you know they’re not?

 

[wanner47]

Scripture and the Sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, are partners. When the partners work together to bring me into a closer relationship with God by being a member of the Catholic Church, then I know my personal interpretation is correct.

I see.

However, there are thousands of ex-Catholics, now Protestants, who say that their new Protestant church has brought them into a closer relationship with God, and that they didn’t have a relationship with God while they were Catholic. For example, let’s say someone leaves the Church and becomes a Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptist feels his interpretation of Scripture and his new Baptist church has brought him into a closer relationship with God.

Now, by your definition, this man’s personal interpretation is correct, and your personal interpretation is correct. However, there are several issues upon which the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention disagree – the Eucharist, justification by faith alone, etc.

How can your personal interpetation a Southern Baptist’s personal interpretation both be correct? Either one is true or the other is true. Either Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist, or He’s not. It can’t be both. God is the God of Truth, not relativism.

 

[Doggg]

I’m asking you, Doggg. By what authority do you say that their interpretation is wrong?

I’m not sure that intentional abortion is directly addressed in the bible, but it is indirectly mentioned under the commandment against murder. And murder, as I understand it, is the unjust taking of a human life.

They claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation. How do you know they’re not?

Why does that matter? The US Supreme Court, in its reasoning FOR abortion (Roe v Wade) claimed to have Constitutional grounds for its ruling that women have a right to an abortion. There are others who will claim that the second amendment doesn’t provide for any right to own firearms. All that you’ve proven here is that people who have an agenda can, and often will, make some rather bold and unsupportable statements and “prove” such things from a document that says nothing like what they say it says. You are really helping me prove my whole point about personal interpretation. The fact that people wrongly interpret documents is no argument against the reliability of the Holy Spirit. It isn’t the Holy Spirit that leads people to the knowledge that a woman has a right to abortion, it is a sinful mind with a sinful agenda that leads a person to “know” what isn’t true.

 

[grannymh]

I see.

However, there are thousands of ex-Catholics, now Protestants, who say that their new Protestant church has brought them into a closer relationship with God, and that they didn’t have a relationship with God while they were Catholic.

For example, let’s say someone leaves the Church and becomes a Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptist feels his interpretation of Scripture and his new Baptist church has brought him into a closer relationship with God.

Now, by your definition, this man’s personal interpretation is correct, and your personal interpretation is correct.

My apology, But the huge area of personal interpretation cannot be squeezed into a one sentence definition. That is why I spent time on post 368.

Not knowing which Scripture passage you are referring to when you say “this man’s personal interpretation”, I would say that coming into a closer relationship with God is beneficial for Southern Baptist reverts. As for others, I consider that God is the judge of a person’s soul.

However, there are several issues upon which the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention disagree – the Eucharist, justification by faith alone, etc.

My apology. But I am unable to put all the several issues into a one sentence definition. Please consider all my comments in post 368.

How can your personal interpretation a Southern Baptist’s personal interpretation both be correct?

This is why I referred to starting with Catholic Doctrine. My apology, I cannot put all the paragraphs into one definition. Please refer to post 368.

Either one is true or the other is true. Either Jesus is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist, or He’s not. It can’t be both. God is the God of Truth, not relativism.

This is why I referred to Catholic Doctrine which belonged in a separate paragraph. Again I apologize that I did not string everything together into one concise sentence which would fit every possible situation.

Regarding the Eucharist.
I noticed that my question in post 368 – Does the interpretation of John Chapter Six lead to the Catholic Church? – was avoided. Was that because I asked a flat out question instead of referring to authority?

My sincere apology.
granny

John 3:16 & 17