Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter polgas733
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Yet, I challenge you to read through this thread and see who uses scriptures to support their beliefs, and who offers unsubstantiated opinions, with attempts at ‘snappy’ comebacks that do not convey anything except the condescending tones…
Click to expand...
The OP is actually asking what good is the Bible if you don’t have the CC to interpret it.

And you don’t see that as an issue?

So you tell me: is the Bible of any use at all without the CC?
 
RedBert said:
The OP is actually asking what good is the Bible if you don’t have the CC to interpret it.

And you don’t see that as an issue?

So you tell me: is the Bible of any use at all without the CC?
Click to expand...
there would be no bible if it wasn’t for the CC
you owe her that much
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Please provide the scriptures that state specifically that for ALL people. Then provide the scriptures that tell us which is wrong and which is right when there are differences between us all.
Click to expand...
The scriptures that you quote are for all regardless of your opinion. What you choose to believe is great with me. God Bless you. Scripture was meant for all believers. You can quote scripture until Jesus comes again and everyone of them is not only meant for the apostles or whoever, they are meant for all to read and understand.
 
back to the OP
The OP is actually asking what good is the Bible if you don’t have the CC to interpret it.

And you don’t see that as an issue?

So you tell me: is the Bible of any use at all without the CC?
 
If protestants actually read the bible correctly then they might as well be called Catholic. It seems to me as many of them read the bible, but are still very confused, even with their preachers translations.
 
RedBert said:
The OP is actually asking what good is the Bible if you don’t have the CC to interpret it.

And you don’t see that as an issue?

So you tell me: is the Bible of any use at all without the CC?
Click to expand...
You’re clearly not interested in an honest dialogue, or you cannot answer questions put forth to yourself without saying so. This will be my last post of the evening (I have a 48 hour shift starting at 8AM).

Christ built a Church, which gave us the Bible, in that order. They are clearly connected and shouldn’t be taken one without the other. Just as you continue to say read the Bible, you have failed to address how one is to know which interpretation is correct, when there are different interpretations.

For your edification, please read below, on how the Jews did it.
According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh) is the oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the “written Torah” (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The Mishnah is the record of the oral Torah.
Click to expand...
According to Rabbinic Judaism, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah (“teaching”) from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the oral law are a guide to that interpretation of the written law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) is the premise that the written law is inherently bound together with an oral law.
Click to expand...
The “oral law” was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and Midrash.
Click to expand...
The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).
Click to expand...
After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved.
Click to expand...
 
tweetymom said:
The scriptures that you quote are for all regardless of your opinion. What you choose to believe is great with me. God Bless you. Scripture was meant for all believers. You can quote scripture until Jesus comes again and everyone of them is not only meant for the apostles or whoever, they are meant for all to read and understand.
Click to expand...
As I’ve told you before, scriptures are for all, as long as they’re read in context. Who was being spoken too is part of the context, that we have to understand. Are we all Apostles? That is scriptures also.
 
RedBert said:
back to the OP
The OP is actually asking what good is the Bible if you don’t have the CC to interpret it.

And you don’t see that as an issue?

So you tell me: is the Bible of any use at all without the CC?
Click to expand...
well she picked what books to include in it
let her interpret it;)
 
RedBert said:
don’t buy that :

like there would be no America without Columbus?

-off topic
Click to expand...
Martin Luther conceded that the Bible came from the Catholic Church.
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
Click to expand...
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Martin Luther conceded that the Bible came from the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Surely they can’t argue with Luther since he is the foundation of the Protestant faith, or can they tell us he was wrong, and he said no such thing?
 
Roblox84 said:
If protestants actually read the bible correctly then they might as well be called Catholic. It seems to me as many of them read the bible, but are still very confused, even with their preachers translations.
Click to expand...
I have read the Bible many times and I am not confused.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
As I’ve told you before, scriptures are for all, as long as they’re read in context. Who was being spoken too is part of the context, that we have to understand. Are we all Apostles? That is scriptures also.
Click to expand...
We are all believers and the Bible is for all. How do you know that all you believe is in context?
 
tweetymom said:
I have read the Bible many times and I am not confused.
Click to expand...
Share with us the scriptures that tell us how to know which interpretations are incorrect when we are presented with different interpretations? Help remove everyone’s confusion.
 
tweetymom said:
We are all believers and the Bible is for all. How do you know that all you believe is in context?
Click to expand...
Because the teachings are contained within specific stories. Read John 13 to 18 and you’ll see discussions that only took place between the Apostles, that Christ appointed over His Church, and Christ Himself. Those are specific instructions to those men of the Church. We can learn through the examples provided, and understand the teachings from the men of the Church, we cannot however, assume ourselves authority not rightfully appointed to us.

Now, provide the scriptures that will assure us that you and only you have the correct interpretation over all others.
 
tweetymom said:
The scriptures that you quote are for all regardless of your opinion. What you choose to believe is great with me. God Bless you. Scripture was meant for all believers. You can quote scripture until Jesus comes again and everyone of them is not only meant for the apostles or whoever, they are meant for all to read and understand.
Click to expand...
I can’t disagree unless these verses exclude the NT from what became Scripture.

Acts 17:10-11 As soon as night came, the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived, they went to the synagogue. The people there were more open-minded than the people in Thessalonica. They listened to the message with great eagerness, and every day they studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was really true.

But even so the Apostle John begins his first epistle with, We write to you…

Who’s “you” if not the people reading what was written? Can’t be solely for the apostles because they were the “we”. 🤷
 
I’ve not read all the posts here, but some of the posts that caught my attention were:

Regarding the “2000” Catholic denominations. There are not 2000 Catholic denominations. There are not “denominations” within Catholicism. There are Catholic Churches that are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This is far, far different than the different denomonations within Protestantism that have many different doctrines. The Catholic Churches in communion with Rome have different liturgical practices, but agree on the same dogmatic and doctrinal issues. This is very different from the Protestant denominations which may or may not have very much in common. Now that we got that straight…

There also seems to be a notion that biblical interpretation isn’t really necessary, as biblical principles like “thou shalt not kill” are pretty straight forward. Perhaps, but for example, the UMC allows for abortions under certain circumstances, whereas the RCC does not. So it’s not really as clear as it seems, and that’s just one example just off the top of my head.

The other thing that really hasn’t been brought up, unless I missed it (and I didn’t read all the posts) is that there is often significant agreement between Protestant and Catholic biblical interpretations; in fact, Catholic biblical theologians quite often take advantage of much of the excellent work that has been done by Protestant biblical theologians.

But, where the rub comes usually is when Catholic doctrine is questioned on it’s biblical roots i.e. “such and such isn’t biblical”. Such accusations probably would be more accurately phrased as “such and such are based on biblical roots that I or my Protestant church doesn’t agree with”.

And there we have, methinks, a good reason for infallible interpretation of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top