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

[MDK]

On Friday, April 3, my wife and I watched the Glory of Easter, a production about the last week of Jesus’s life! In it, they portrayed such things as the healing of the blind man(John 9), the meeting with the accused adulteress, and the scene in the Temple, wher Jesus overturned the moneychanger’s tables. During the scene, depicting the Last Supper, Jesus , of course broke the bread, blessed it and gave each disciple a piece. He then drank from the cup and passed it around for each disciple to drink of.My wife turned to me, and asked,“If the catholic church believes that John 6:51-62, is the basis for how they do communion, then why don’t they hold their own bread(wafer), and why is the priest the only one who drinks the wine?” I told her I didn’t know for sure, but would put the question out for discussion on the forum

So, you’re asking if the Holy Spirit made this movie infallible?

God made His Church infallible. If you and your wife get your doctrine from movies, perhaps that’s a good place to begin repairing the problem.

 

[ckempston]

See, you’re already off on the wrong track… demonstrating the type of problem that occurs from private interpretation, and reinforcing exactly why this thread was formed.

LOL, you’re too funny. Go to a couple of the other forums on this site and observe Catholics arguing over what is correct Catholic teaching. It demonstrates that, as I pointed out elsewhere, Catholics who make this argument are engaging in special pleading, because they themselves have to interpret what the church teaches (e.g. the Catechism needs as much interpretation as the Bible does).

 

[ckempston]

Peter was so right on… the ignorant twist Scriptures to their own destruction. Sadly, it affects many who may otherwise really like to know Christ.

Yeah, and Solomon was so right that pride comes before the fall. Give me a break.

2 Peter 3:16 “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

I thank God that He established His one true Church, and has protected her from error in teaching faith and morals. This is truly a wonderful blessing. We are not left to flounder and flail about, with error upon error. We who humbly honor what He established are able to truly know Him as much as He has revealed in public revelation. I thank God for the Catholic Church, His Body, His Bride.

Yeah, me too. You just have the wrong definition of church.

 

[1beleevr]

MDK: Actually, it was more a play, than a movie, but that is beside the point! And we don’t get our doctrine from movies or plays; the issue was, my wife, making an observation that the catholic church, through their obervance of communion, do not replicate Christ’s actions with His disciples at the Passover, Last Supper!

 

[1beleevr]

Let me ask one question, SDcatholic: If the Bible doesn’t apply to us as Christians, then why bother reading it?I amnot so naive, that I believe that He was inviting all of us to the transfiguration, or the Last Supper, but I do believe that He showed us an example of communion through His disciples! And, everybody twists scripture at one time or another I mean, doesn’t the catholic church use James 5:16, and John 20:23, to justify confessing sins to a priest? “Faith does not dwell in the house of certainty”.

 

[SD_Catholic]

On Friday, April 3, my wife and I watched the Glory of Easter, a production about the last week of Jesus’s life! In it, they portrayed such things as the healing of the blind man(John 9), the meeting with the accused adulteress, and the scene in the Temple, wher Jesus overturned the moneychanger’s tables. During the scene, depicting the Last Supper, Jesus , of course broke the bread, blessed it and gave each disciple a piece. He then drank from the cup and passed it around for each disciple to drink of.My wife turned to me, and asked,“If the catholic church believes that John 6:51-62, is the basis for how they do communion, then why don’t they hold their own bread(wafer), and why is the priest the only one who drinks the wine?” I told her I didn’t know for sure, but would put the question out for discussion on the forum

Well from a Catholic perspective, I would say the Apostles are the “Bishops” of today… I would imagine their concecrated hands were just fine for the occasion…

As for the wine there are many CCs that offer both the bread and the wine, but sometimes only the bread is offered do to time or perhaps other “non-doctrinal” reasons…

Perhaps this may be of help

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

Let me ask one question, SDcatholic: If the Bible doesn’t apply to us as Christians, then why bother reading it?I amnot so naive, that I believe that He was inviting all of us to the transfiguration, or the Last Supper, but I do believe that He showed us an example of communion through His disciples! And, everybody twists scripture at one time or another I mean, doesn’t the catholic church use James 5:16, and John 20:23, to justify confessing sins to a priest? “Faith does not dwell in the house of certainty”.

Please understand my words as they are written… In no way did I infer that the Bible isn’t useful to Christians, but you must realize there are times when Jesus took his Apostles aside (for a reason)… Not all gifts and duties Jesus gave to his Apostles were meant for everyone (we can’t write Scripture)… Apostles hold different duties than the rest of the disciples and the disciples played a different role than the people they were teaching… Yes the teachings about living a Christian life are meant for us all, but all the authoritative gifts and duties were not (guided by the HS into all truth).

The CC was confessing their sins long before anybody could use Bible verses to “justify” the sacrament… But they can use verses to show that the practice is in Scripture as well.

SD

 

[JRKH]

I am speaking of exact quotes James.

And on we go - Evidence provided - Evidence ignored or dismissed.

(sigh)

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

And on we go - Evidence provided - Evidence ignored or dismissed.

(sigh)

Peace
James

This is referred to as moving the goal posts.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Is quoting by Jesus the only criteria for being canonical or not? Because your question suggested that is what you believe.

I suggest you go read about the Council of Jamnia (a.k.a. Jabneh). When the Jews “decided” their canon, part of their “problem” was refuting belief in Jesus as the Christ. Are you sure that’s who you want to use as your authority?

When it comes to the NT, I don’t believe the Jews can be trusted at all. Just remember friend, Jesus and the apostles were Jews and the gospel was first preached to the Jews. On top of that, when the Lord removes the church from off the earth, which is when what is known as the time of the Gentiles, the duty of preaching the gospel falls back into the hands of the Jews.

As for quotings by Jesus, if Jesus would have quoted from even one, it may have given the rest validity. Yet, none, not even one was used by our Lord.

And I still stand that the Jews had the authority when it came to the OT books, not the CC.

ON top of that, I believe that there are things in these canons that conflict with the accepted canons.

 

[heiscominginthe]

And on we go - Evidence provided - Evidence ignored or dismissed.

James, you provided a bunch of things, but I don’t see them as exact quotes. Were not the Words of our Lord exactly quoted from scripture? Not a close definition, exact.

 

[SD_Catholic]

James, you provided a bunch of things, but I don’t see them as exact quotes. Were not the Words of our Lord exactly quoted from scripture? Not a close definition, exact.

The following was taken from “This Rock” magazine…

“…examine Hebrews 11:35: “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life.” Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.”

but remember that if Jesus quoting is your only criteria than you should remove several more of your OT books as well.

SD

 

[1beleevr]

Since interpretation of scripture is part of the title of this thread, any body care to take a shot at interpreting 2 Samuel 14:14?

 

[rtibs]

Catholics worth their salt know that AUTHORITY comes from Jesus Christ handed down to St. Peter, the most prominent of the apostles and appointed leader of His Church (Matt 16:19) - the One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. No other church can claim that because, it would be building on the foundation of Christ Himself, a no-no even by St. Paul’s standards (1 Cor. 2:11)

One cannot fail to notice that most if not all Catholics do not argue among themselves based on their private interpretations of the Bible because they know it is the Church, strengthened by the faith of its leaders and backed by the wisdom of the ages who has the final say. Not that anyone’s freedom is curtailed. But even if the Church finds itself ''pushed to the wall" and have “Catholic Defenders” or apologists rush to its defense, seldom does it find believers argue on doctrines or scriptures because they recognize the finality and infallibility of the Church, regardless of the “human weakness” of its recognized leader, the Pope. It would be prudent I supposed to act and live the life of Christ based on the Gospels: The Salt of the Earth. The Light of the World (Matt.4:13-14).

 

[JRKH]

As for quotings by Jesus, if Jesus would have quoted from even one, it may have given the rest validity. Yet, none, not even one was used by our Lord.

We showed you where, not only Jesus but the other Apostles used from the DC and you rejected the evidence because - “they are not exact quotes”.

And I still stand that the Jews had the authority when it came to the OT books, not the CC.

Correction - Christian church. There was but one at the time.
Secondly - You made the following comment on the other thread:

Originally Posted by heiscominginthe
As for the reason the CC had control for nearly many decades is by the use of force which is not the ways of the Lord.

I will repeat my response here:
Let me ask you this - What was Paul/Saul doing before his conversion to Christ?
Was he not arresting and killing Christians at the behest of the Jews?
Was the Jewish Leadership not using “Force which is not the wasy of the Lord”?

You say that “force is not the way of the Lord”, as a reason to discount The Church and her teachings, then you accept the Jewish version of the OT that was codified after the time of Christ. If “force is not the way of the Lord” then the Jews were just as guilty of that particular sin as you believe the early church was.

On top of that, I believe that there are things in these canons that conflict with the accepted canons.

For 1500 years this was not the case. Jesus certainly did not find them to be conflicting, Paul, when He told Timothy (the bishop of a gentile church) that ALL scripture was God Breathed… could only have been refering to the scriptures that were used outside of Palistine, which was the Septuigent.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James, you provided a bunch of things, but I don’t see them as exact quotes. Were not the Words of our Lord exactly quoted from scripture? Not a close definition, exact.

In truth we cannot know for sure since Much of the OT was written in either Hebrew or Greek. Jesus Spoke Aramaic. Certainly there could have been parapharasing involved.
In addition we do not have ANY copies of the original Gospels. So ANY bible translations can necessarily go only so far.
Whether the references are exact or not, the sheer number of them, not only from Jesus mouth but also from the Apostles, demonstrates that not only were these books available to Jesus and the Apostles, but that He read and considered them valid.

As one more point that I made earlier,
St Paul in his letter to Timothy said “ALL Scripture is God breathed and useful…”,
Now ask yourself - Where did Paul Preach mostly? Where was His missionary work?
It was outside of Palestine - In the Greek world - Where the Greek OT was used.
In other words the Septuigent.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Catholics worth their salt know that AUTHORITY comes from Jesus Christ handed down to St. Peter, the most prominent of the apostles and appointed leader of His Church (Matt 16:19) - the One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. No other church can claim that because, it would be building on the foundation of Christ Himself, a no-no even by St. Paul’s standards (1 Cor. 2:11)

One cannot fail to notice that most if not all Catholics do not argue among themselves based on their private interpretations of the Bible because they know it is the Church, strengthened by the faith of its leaders and backed by the wisdom of the ages who has the final say. Not that anyone’s freedom is curtailed. But even if the Church finds itself ''pushed to the wall" and have “Catholic Defenders” or apologists rush to its defense, seldom does it find believers argue on doctrines or scriptures because they recognize the finality and infallibility of the Church, regardless of the “human weakness” of its recognized leader, the Pope. It would be prudent I supposed to act and live the life of Christ based on the Gospels: The Salt of the Earth. The Light of the World (Matt.4:13-14).

Nicely put

As I have consitantly tried to point out to our seperated Brethren, Church authority is clearly shown in the Bible, not only in Mt 16 as you mentioned but even further in Mt 18:15-18 and demonstrated in action in Acts 15:1-29.

Peace
James

 

[SD_Catholic]

Since interpretation of scripture is part of the title of this thread, any body care to take a shot at interpreting 2 Samuel 14:14?

But the title is asking why “Protestants” think their interpretation is correct. Shouldn’t you be the one explaining your interpretation in this particular thread?

SD

 

[heiscominginthe]

but remember that if Jesus quoting is your only criteria than you should remove several more of your OT books as well.

SD

I posted eariler the reason why the other OT books are accepted. I believe the books sactioned by the Jews are legitimate. Yet, this only applies to OT books.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I will repeat my response here:
Let me ask you this - What was Paul/Saul doing before his conversion to Christ?
Was he not arresting and killing Christians at the behest of the Jews?
Was the Jewish Leadership not using “Force which is not the wasy of the Lord”?

You say that “force is not the way of the Lord”, as a reason to discount The Church and her teachings, then you accept the Jewish version of the OT that was codified after the time of Christ. If “force is not the way of the Lord” then the Jews were just as guilty of that particular sin as you believe the early church was.

Jesus said to love our enemies. He said to bless them that do evil to us.

When nailed to the cross, Jesus asked for their forgiveness. He didn’t bring down lightening bolts and destroy his enemy.

Steven, the first martyr, as that those who were killing him be forgiven. When he looked into heaven, he saw Jesus, standing, not sitting at the right hand of the Father.

There is a hugh difference between OT and the New. Comparing the CC to the ancient Jews is not justification.

Or do you think a man who is against abortion, goes and blows up an abortion clinic killing everyone in it and says he is doing the will of the Lord, is actually doing the will of God?