Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[PRmerger]

but that bit of bile was a blusterous opinion.

What part was “bile”?

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that it’s disingenuous and hypocritical of a P to demand concrete scientific evidence from a RC while refusing to meet an atheist’s demand for concrete scientific evidence (wrt the same or wrt a similar matter). Further, I believe that it’s disingenuous and hypocritical of a RC to insist that a P accept the RCC’s claims of authority w/o offering any solid historical or scriptural proof while the RC refuses to accept the Mormon Church’s claims of authority unless the Mormon produces solid historical or scriptural proof. And finally, I don’t think that it’s disingenuous and hypocritical of a P to demand concrete historical evidence from a RC while refusing to meet an atheist’s demand for concrete scientific evidence b/c historical evidence can be applicable to matters that scientific evidence cannot touch.

Well, then, we are not “agreed” as you claimed.

 

[Radical]

I would like to ask you what evidence you have in the historical record for the bolded statement above.
The reason I ask is because in an earlier post you made this statement in relation to the infancy Gospel of James:
Doesn’t this teaching first appear in the historical record in the “Gospel of James” which was written around 150 AD? The first 100 years is missing from your “constant”
Since you are looking for “documented” evidence for the Marion belief prior to 150 AD, it seems fair of me to ask for Documented Evidence that Paul’s Gospel was “immediately recognized as possessing the authority of apostolic teaching”.

Tell you what, just as soon as you make it clear that you don’t believe that 1 Corinthians was immediately recognized as possessing the authority of apostolic teaching, then I think it is entirely fair that you should ask me to produce evidence of that claim…but if you share that belief with me, then I have no need to produce evidence…same as I indicated before wrt the scriptures…as between you and I there is no need for either of us to prove to the other that they are inspired.

St Ignatius and St Clements letters also were “immediately recognized” as having the authority of Apostolic teaching as these men were the direct successors of the Apostles. And their letters were also copied and distributed.

Here we don’t have a shared belief. Paul declared that he was an apostle and that he possessed such authority. Did either Clem or Iggy ( love those names )make such a declaration in their letters? Did anyone else claim that Clement and Ignatius were apostles or that they spoke with the same authority as an apostle? If so, why weren’t their letters treated as scripture? If so, was Clement speaking with apostolic authority when he claimed the phoenix bird existed and that it lived 500 years?

I pray that the spirit will eventually guide you home.
You will make a great Catholic Apologist,

thanks for your genuine concern and prayers

Peace

 

[SteveGC]

I am no more bound (by historical context) to accept the Jews’ interpretation of the OT than I am bound to accept the RCC’s interpretation of the NT.

You are obviously bound (as we all are) to someone’s interpretation of both the OT and NT. Whose interpretation would that be for you?

This question gets us appropriately back to the OP.

 

[JRKH]

Tell you what, just as soon as you make it clear that you don’t believe that 1 Corinthians was immediately recognized as possessing the authority of apostolic teaching, then I think it is entirely fair that you should ask me to produce evidence of that claim…but if you share that belief with me, then I have no need to produce evidence…same as I indicated before wrt the scriptures…as between you and I there is no need for either of us to prove to the other that they are inspired.

Your right we are both agreed that St Paul’s Letters carried proper authority. However we can also agree that this was not “Documented” and therefore, your assertion that it was immediately recognized and, presumably, universally adopted is based upon the same 100 years of tradition that you disclaim for the Traditional teaching of Mary’s virginity.

Here we don’t have a shared belief. Paul declared that he was an apostle and that he possessed such authority. Did either Clem or Iggy ( love those names )make such a declaration in their letters? Did anyone else claim that Clement and Ignatius were apostles or that they spoke with the same authority as an apostle? If so, why weren’t their letters treated as scripture? If so, was Clement speaking with apostolic authority when he claimed the phoenix bird existed and that it lived 500 years?

As to why theor letters weren’t included in the canon of the Bible has less to do with their Apostolic Authority and more to do with when they were written.
The purpose of the NT canon, when it was compiled, was to preserve the inspired works of those who were closest to the actual time of Christ. It was compiled with the express idea that it was to be used and understood within the context of the Tradition and teachings of the Church.

thanks for your genuine concern and prayers

Peace

No Problem.

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

Your right we are both agreed that St Paul’s Letters carried proper authority. However we can also agree that this was not “Documented” and therefore, your assertion that it was immediately recognized and, presumably, universally adopted is based upon the same 100 years of tradition that you disclaim for the Traditional teaching of Mary’s virginity.

You’ve misunderstood me. I didn’t say I couldn’t provide any evidence that 1 Cor was immediately recognized as having apostolic authority. If you want to know what I could offer, for starters I would refer to:

a) 1 Clement c. 47 where it reads: Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. (This last bit is a reference to 1 Cor 3: 22)

b) 2 Peter 3: 15-16 where it reads: So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

c) The bits from 1 Corinthians that can be found in the early works known as the Apostolic Fathers (demonstrating that at least some of the letter must have been copied and circulated at a very early time in order for those various authors to have familiarity with portions of it…likely it was copied in its entirety.)

There might be more, but that is what I’d offer offf the top of my head.

 

[MDK]

Unfortunately, this is exactly why Protestants want a concrete scriptural proof or a solid historical proof…it is b/c w/o any such proof all that one is offered is blusterous opinion

We Catholics know the falseness of the Protestant argument “show me in the Scriptures!” The reason is we can read the same Scriptures, but the difference is really in authority, which results in different interpretations. The same applies to early Church fathers, where Protestants interpret differently, because it fits what they want to believe, not what Christ taught and handed down. We Catholics can show you 70 x 7 times the Scriptures that were written by fellow Catholics, and the Protestants will deny every time the inerrant meaning preserved with the power of God for almost 2,000 years in His Church… until Protestants release themselves from the grip of false man made tradition and typically earthly pride that disables them from being free and seeing truth.

In reality, your expression is typical of exactly why one who clings to Protestantism will never really know the the fullness of revealed truth. What I have told you is the truth, formed from the true teachings including Scripture, Godly Tradition, and the Magisterium. That you object, simply shows your relation to the truth. If you knew the truth, you would not object to what I said. If you sought the truth, you would examine what I said, instead of asking someone to spoon feed you “proofs”. For instance, I would examine to determine what the real truth is, and that’s exactly what I have spent hours upon hours doing in relation to Protestant and other nonCatholic claims until each was determined to be true or false… A telling attitude is that if you were to share the truth of Christ with me, you would be my (and any true Catholic’s) great friend, and I would thank you profusely, as I can imagine no greater human friend. On the contrary, when we share the truth of Christ with Protestants, they typically treat us like enemies, even though we are true and charitable. The humble person who genuinely seeks Christ above all (including personal pride and earthly desires) would ask what that says about your relation to the truth, and the Truth?

 

[Radical]

You are obviously bound (as we all are) to someone’s interpretation of both the OT and NT.

Are you sure? I am not bound by my previous interpretations…I am not bound by EO interpretations…I am not bound by RC interpretations.

Whose interpretation would that be for you?

Or I guess you could be saying that we all decide for ourselves what it is that we will believe…and that we are all bound by our own beliefs and follow our own consciences. After all Christ asks, “Who do you say I am?” and not “Who did others tell you to say I am?”

 

[1beleevr]

Okay, when I read Hebrews 4:16, I cannot see where it implies that we have to be in church to enter the throne room of grace, or be necessarily holy, or consecrated! Anyone care to take a shot? By the way, good job of debating, Radical; it is obvious that you are doing your homework:thumbsup:

 

[SteveGC]

Are you sure? I am not bound by my previous interpretations…I am not bound by EO interpretations…I am not bound by RC interpretations.

Or I guess you could be saying that we all decide for ourselves what it is that we will believe…and that we are all bound by our own beliefs and follow our own consciences. After all Christ asks, “Who do you say I am?” and not “Who did others tell you to say I am?”

So, you’re saying that you’ve come up with who Christ is all on your own? Indeed we all do decide for ourselves what we believe, but all of us have been introduced to, and have learned the essentials of Christianity, from others who have provided us with scriptural interpretation.

As a Christian, you are bound to Christ’s teachings…to this you would agree. And therefore you bind yourself to those beliefs you have decided upon, and they have come from the scriptural interpretations of others. Hence, my question…to whose interpretations do you bind yourself to? Is it a specific ecclesial community? A specific individual? A group?

Most non-Catholics bind themselves to a mosaic of human teaching they’ve encountered throughout their lives, adding and subtracting from this mosaic as their conscience moves them. Unfortunately, our consciences are not geared to discern what is absolute truth, but rather are geared to our behavior in light of accepted beliefs. The key, therefore, is to ensure we are recipients of authentic truth regarding Christ, so that our consciences can properly guide us in our walk in faith.

You may disagree with all this, but as a former Bible-only Christian, I am interested in how you find comfort with the array of divergent human teachings that exist outside The Church. For me, I could not find such comfort, as I was perpetually compelled to ask myself, “by what authority is this person preaching to me Christian doctrine?”

 

[JRKH]

You’ve misunderstood me. I didn’t say I couldn’t provide any evidence that 1 Cor was immediately recognized as having apostolic authority. If you want to know what I could offer, for starters I would refer to:

a) 1 Clement c. 47 where it reads: Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. (This last bit is a reference to 1 Cor 3: 22)

b) 2 Peter 3: 15-16 where it reads: So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

c) The bits from 1 Corinthians that can be found in the early works known as the Apostolic Fathers (demonstrating that at least some of the letter must have been copied and circulated at a very early time in order for those various authors to have familiarity with portions of it…likely it was copied in its entirety.)

There might be more, but that is what I’d offer offf the top of my head.

Thank you for the references.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Are you sure? I am not bound by my previous interpretations…I am not bound by EO interpretations…I am not bound by RC interpretations.

Or I guess you could be saying that we all decide for ourselves what it is that we will believe…and that we are all bound by our own beliefs and follow our own consciences. After all Christ asks, “Who do you say I am?” and not “Who did others tell you to say I am?”

Something that has occurred to me is this:
The Bible is not so much a text book as it is a “speakers notes” type book. I may not have said that right, but it seems that most of what is written in the NT are things that are points of departure for discussion.
Let me explain:
Has Anyone ever seen a Priest or Preacher on a Sunday simply rise, read a passage of scripture and then sit down? Perhaps occasionally, but in the vast majority of cases the teacher uses some passage or other of scripture as a jumping off point for explaining, teaching, relating it to modern world, exhorting and so forth.

Now this may not seem to relate directly to the above post, but it does point out that none of us, whether Catholic or Non-Catholic Christian, is ever completely without outside influence. None of us ever simply read the Bible without others providing (name removed by moderator)ut. Mostly because we go looking for it by choosing to attend this or that church.

So to that extent we all certainly are, maybe not bound by but certainly influenced by, others interpretations.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

So, you’re saying that you’ve come up with who Christ is all on your own? Indeed we all do decide for ourselves what we believe, but all of us have been introduced to, and have learned the essentials of Christianity, from others who have provided us with scriptural interpretation.

As a Christian, you are bound to Christ’s teachings…to this you would agree. And therefore you bind yourself to those beliefs you have decided upon, and they have come from the scriptural interpretations of others. Hence, my question…to whose interpretations do you bind yourself to? Is it a specific ecclesial community? A specific individual? A group?

Most non-Catholics bind themselves to a mosaic of human teaching they’ve encountered throughout their lives, adding and subtracting from this mosaic as their conscience moves them. Unfortunately, our consciences are not geared to discern what is absolute truth, but rather are geared to our behavior in light of accepted beliefs. The key, therefore, is to ensure we are recipients of authentic truth regarding Christ, so that our consciences can properly guide us in our walk in faith.

You may disagree with all this, but as a former Bible-only Christian, I am interested in how you find comfort with the array of divergent human teachings that exist outside The Church. For me, I could not find such comfort, as I was perpetually compelled to ask myself, "by what authority is this person preaching to me Christian doctrine?"

Nicely put Steve.

I know that I too came back to the idea of authority in my journey as well.
A convert that I was listening to (Tim Staples maybe) said this very thing - That the issues between Catholics and non-catholics are not about Mary or the Pope but rather they all boil down to Authority. Who has the Authority to say what is correct? Where is “The Church” that we are supposed to tell things to?
This is also a theme I hear repeated over and over on the program “The Journey Home”. Protestants - Many of them ministers - who come to the same realization about “authority” and have to seek out the truth, which leads them back to Holy Mother Church. Which is usually the last place they thought the journey would lead.

This authority is the thing I keep coming back to over and over here on the board.
Are we supposed to “agree to disagree”? Are we supposed to, individually, ignore centuries of teachings and reinvent the wheel for ourselves as individuals? Is that what Christ wanted?
If it is then Christ certianly gave us a strange command when He told us to "Tell it To the Church.

It took a long time and a great deal of soul searching for me to humble myself enough to return to The Church. I am still Struggling with my pride and with questions but am willing to subject MY will to HIS will and obey The Church which HE founded.

It is my Hope and Prayer that Radical and others will come to this realization as well. What marvelous Apoligists for the faith will they make.

Peace
James

 

[Good_Fella]

Certainly God has seen me: in jeans, in shorts, in a bathing suit, wearing a hat, wearing nothing at all …

On the other hand, would you agree that, prior to the Burning Bush, God had many times seen Moses wearing sandals?

:clapping:

 

[1beleevr]

After 3 months in this forum, I have noticed that the catholic position seems to be, that if you didn’t hear it from “us”, it aint’ true! Hebrews 13:8 says that"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, as He is today, and will be tomorrow." He spoke to His followers,including those in the OT, and NT, and when we read His words today, in the 21st century, He is talking to us, many times in a small, still voice! I can’t 100% believe that Jesus"s commands(Matthew 28:19-20, among others, were directed soley to His apostles! They were to make disciples, and those disciples, were to make disciples, and so on, and so on! And it doesn’t, (or shouldn’t) stop there! We as Christians(42 years tomorrow),are charged with going forward with the Good News of the Gospel, making disciples of those who were once lost! And I also believe, that to say that God only speaks to and through those who are identified as being in the line of “apostolic succession”, is doing a disservice to Him Who of us can say that God is not capable of anointing anyone to teach, preach and lead the flock! But, we will continue in our own ways, and someday meet on that beautiful shore, united in Christ, no longer concerned with how each other is dressed, or whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, confessing our sins to a priest, etc. I believe it was Louie1983, who commented that"well, if you don’t want to live by Christ’s commands…", in regards to my offering that confession should be an option, rather than a mandate! I can’t find anywhere, that my Saviour tells me to confess my sins to a priest! James 5:16 is a bit vague on that issue! But I don’t fault or condemn anyone for doing it; I choose not too! Just one of the many reasons I can’t convert! Hey, the pope wasn’t really a member of Hitler Youth, was he?

 

[jam070406]

Hey, the pope wasn’t really a member of Hitler Youth, was he?

Is this a serious question or some kinda back handed insult?

 

[1beleevr]

Jam040706: I just read it in the news yesterday, in the story of his trip to Israel and Palestine! To be honest, I didn’t even remember that the pope was German

 

[PRmerger]

After 3 months in this forum, I have noticed that the catholic position seems to be, that if you didn’t hear it from “us”, it aint’ true!

Your position, 1beleevr, is “if you didn’t hear it in the Bible, it ain’t true”, correct? Well, then what you’re saying is the same as what Catholics are saying–if you didn’t hear it from us, it ain’t true. Because we gave you the Bible!

Hebrews 13:8 says that"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, as He is today, and will be tomorrow." He spoke to His followers,including those in the OT, and NT, and when we read His words today, in the 21st century, He is talking to us, many times in a small, still voice! I can’t 100% believe that Jesus"s commands(Matthew 28:19-20, among others, were directed soley to His apostles! They were to make disciples, and those disciples, were to make disciples, and so on, and so on! And it doesn’t, (or shouldn’t) stop there! We as Christians(42 years tomorrow),are charged with going forward with the Good News of the Gospel, making disciples of those who were once lost!

Amen!

Who of us can say that God is not capable of anointing anyone to teach, preach and lead the flock!

As long as what they’re teaching is True!

Right now we have thousands of folks out there claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit teaching things like:
-the Lord’s Day should be celebrated on Saturday, not Sunday.

-Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and never claimed to be God

-infants are not born with original sin

-Jesus and Michael the Archangel are the same person

-the more you love Jesus the wealthier you’ll be

-there’s no one in hell

-there’s only 3 people in heaven

etc etc etc! It’s just kooky what people can claim because they’ve “received the Holy Spirit.”

 

[JRKH]

Jam040706: I just read it in the news yesterday, in the story of his trip to Israel and Palestine! To be honest, I didn’t even remember that the pope was German

The serious answer is yes, he was a “member” because if you were required to be a “member” if you were attending school.
What this means is that he had certain paperwork only because it was required.

He was never in “the party” nor was any of his family.

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

Do you really understand what JRKH said? Simply, Protestants make the same claims about uniquely Catholic Christian doctrine, that atheists make about Christian doctrine which Protestants accept. Then, JRKH turns the tables and asks the Protestant to actually back up what they believe using these same standards, which cannot be done…thereby making the point. So, it’s hypocritical of Protestants to do use the same arguments as atheists when they can’t rise to that to defend things they support…, and it was exposed for using these false standards. There seemed to be no real Protestant effort to seek to be honest here, and learn what Christ taught. It was a teaching moment for Protestants, but there was apparently no learning that occurred on your part, just unhelpful defensiveness.

Sorry, but if the teachings of the CC are different from the Word of God, I will not accept them.

I discuss the faith using the Word of God. Most catholics here discuss, using the interpretation of the CC. Can you not look and discuss using the Word of God only, without the CC indoctrination?

Is it not your responsibility to be defenders of the faith, guarding against false teachings? Yet, to do this, one must be free of indoctrination, but will stand on truth alone whether it comes by way of any denoms or nondenoms.

Is the CC infallible, the only bearer of the truth of the Word of God?

Is the Methodist church infallible, the only bearer of the truth of the Word of God?

The point I am trying to make here is there are infallible truths alone which come only from God, the author of all truth.

How long will men hide behind their demoninations before they discover there are no denominations in heaven. There is only the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For did Christ die for all men or just for those destined to be part of this denom or that nondenom.

Are all who are born again only catholic or only methodist or only presbyterian.

It is written that God is not a respector of persons. So salvation comes by the Word of God, comes by the way of the Holy Spirit, not by the hands of an infallible religion.

For there is an infallible church and is it not all those who are born again, being baptized into Christ through faith?