Questions about Bible self interpretting

[2Rollin_Stoned]

I don’t get it at all…How can one read a book (or series of books in the case of the Bible) and expect to interpret it correctly with out some sort of historical context and commentary form the authors or in this case at least the guys who knew them and were their disciples and friends.

 

[Genesis315]

2Rollin'Stoned:

I don’t get it at all…How can one read a book (or series of books in the case of the Bible) and expect to interpret it correctly with out some sort of historical context and commentary form the authors or in this case at least the guys who knew them and were their disciples and friends.

Especially when it is written in a bunch of different styles by a bunch of different authors over different historical eras…

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

2Rollin'Stoned:

I don’t get it at all…How can one read a book (or series of books in the case of the Bible) and expect to interpret it correctly with out some sort of historical context and commentary form the authors or in this case at least the guys who knew them and were their disciples and friends.

It’s kind of like the guy who’s lost, but won’t admit it, and is too proud and stubborn to stop and ask for directions while driving during those “long misty days…”

 

[Milliardo]

Isn’t this the point “Martin Luther” is trying to make? It’s nonsense. If that’s true, then why do we have 28,000+ Protestant denominations? Why do Muslims read it and still think Jesus isn’t the Son of God? By this notion, Muslims and other people who read it will automatically become Christians because it’s self-interpreting; you’ll get its message at once and realize the truth in Christianity. But it doesn’t work that way. Most telling proof would still be Protestantism–they’re divided with so many interpretations of the Bible. Is that self interpreting?

 

[Zooey]

The right answer, IMHO, is both!! You study the Scripture, compare verse w/verse, & line w/line, and you also look to writing about the Scripture…

I am trying to draw the Wesley Quadrilateral with my keyboard…

tradition

​

reason I I experience
​

scripture

​

OK. You use all 4 of these. You can begin w/any one, but you proceed to each in turn:

1. 
   *]What does the Bible say? Compare scripture w/scripture.
   *]What makes sense? What is logical?
   *]What is the testimony of the early Fathers of the church?
   *]What do other believers (including the people who write commentaries,etc) understand about this? What do the mature Christians around you think /believe?
   
   (Yeah, I know; its a lousy quadrilateral. Art is not my subject…But the system works great.)

 

[Church_Militant]

Ofcourse who would NOT go with the guys who hung out with the apostles, and died for the faith.

 

[Ignatius]

Church Militant:

Ofcourse who would NOT go with the guys who hung out with the apostles, and died for the faith.

Let’s see, umm, Protestants!!!

 

[BayCityRickL]

Church Militant:

Okay,
If one reads a book that someone else wrote and one has questions about what parts of that book mean, what would you do?

A) Go to the book and expect it to explain itself?

or…

B) Go to the guy who wrote it and ask him what it means?

Now…who wrote the New Testament?
Then who would know what it means?

Which came first, the NT or the Church?

This question is just too loaded. The books of the Bible are related, even though they were written by many people over quite a span of time. VERBUM DEI from Vatican II says a lot about interpretation, but it says to go to the Bible itself for explanations, when you can.

So many people emphasize that you have to try to understand who wrote the book and who the book was written to. Unfortunately, the same people will readily admit that they don’t know, or aren’t sure. So, that’s sort of a dead end.

I think the translators should try to convey with the translations and footnotes what the meaning is. We should never forget that God is the “author” of Scripture. I wouldn’t bet a nickel that the original writer(s) knew that their works would be immortalized and interpreted forever. We definitely add meaning to the entire collection of Biblical writings. We’ve got the Spirit, too.

 

[Church_Militant]

Good points both from Ignatius & BayCityRickL.

The point I think I was trying to make is that one cannot rely upon the Bible all by itself to interpret its meanings on all things. Regardless, it can be a difficult task. Take for example the Eucharistic passages in John 6, 1st Cor.10:17, 11:23-31, and all the Last Supper passages. To us they are literal and fairly simple…but to those who follow Sola Scriptura it gets all convoluted and (to me) makes no sense at all. Even when I wasn’t a practicing Catholic these passages posed statements that I couldn’t justify from the theology of the churches I was part of at that time and communion just offered nothing compared to what I had known as a Catholic. If I had thought it through I have no doubt that I’d’ve come home to the faith far sooner.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

Church Militant:

Good points both from Ignatius & BayCityRickL.

The point I think I was trying to make is that one cannot rely upon the Bible all by itself to interpret its meanings on all things. Regardless, it can be a difficult task. Take for example the Eucharistic passages in John 6, 1st Cor.10:17, 11:23-31, and all the Last Supper passages. To us they are literal and fairly simple…but to those who follow Sola Scriptura it gets all convoluted and (to me) makes no sense at all. Even when I wasn’t a practicing Catholic these passages posed statements that I couldn’t justify from the theology of the churches I was part of at that time and communion just offered nothing compared to what I had known as a Catholic. If I had thought it through I have no doubt that I’d’ve come home to the faith far sooner.
Pax vobiscum,

The Eucharist brought me home about two years ago and brings me home every time I partake. Jesus calls each of us to himself. Didn’t he say that it would be our faith in him and love for each other that would bring others to him.

These discussions are good. If we are not living our faith it means nothing.

Sola Scriptura is merely rebellion against the ministerial priesthood of Christ. Giving rise to the church of the “Nicolaitans” Rev 2:5 - private interpretation?

I came to this conclusion after hearing two Baptist preachers give two different interpretations as to what Nicolaitan means. Of course one believed that it meant “ruler of the laity” by which he used it to attack the ministerial priesthood.

The other claimed it meant “conquerer of the laity” which is slightly more accurate and used it to refer to people following secular kings, a totally different interpretation.

But, from what little study I’ve done and how the Greek name “Nicholas” means “champion of the people,” the meaning of the apostle John’s prophetic writing becomes more apparent.

During these times past conquerers such as Alexander and Julius where regarded with admiration by the people. They were romanticized as champions. Hence couldn’t “Nicolaitan” mean “champion of the laity” or “church of the laity” of which we have 28,000 “churches of the laity” in existence today?

Now there are churches who are using Sola Scriptura as a barrier to prevent God’s children from coming into the fullness of their faith, preventing them from fully consumating their marriage to Christ through the Eucharist.

Sola Scriptura bears no logic or order. Isn’t our God logical? Doesn’t he represent order?

 

[Church_Militant]

Well stated M.A.C.

 

[Church_Militant]

Bump

 

[mikeabele]

MaggieOH:

The Scripture cannot interpret itself. Ancient Judaism had interpreters of the Scriptures, and they are called the Scribes. We see the evidence of this interpretation through the other texts that exist that are explanations of the Scripture. The Church has followed this tradition.

MaggieOH

The Scribes and Pharisees followed, oh my gosh, tradition not the Word of God!!!

Mark 2:16
16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him(Jesus) eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

Leviticus 19:18
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Also Scripture says “it is written” 80 times, the word tradition(s) is recorded 13 times in the whole Bible.

Matthew 15:6
6And honour not his father or his mother,he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Colossians 2:8
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

How many tradition references are positive?

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught(directly by an apostle), whether by word(directly by an apostle), or our epistle(written Word).

2 Thessalonians 3:6
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us(Paul and others).

Now as far as interpreting Scripture, who and how is to do it?

Acts 17:10-12
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

2 Timothy 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:15-16
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to** make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus**. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Stand on traditions of men if you want, I stand on the Word of God alone as my authority.

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick(living), and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Could this be said of your tradition? If not, why is the tradition viewed as equal or superior to the Word of God?

 

[Church_Militant]

mikeabele:

Could this be said of your tradition? If not, why is the tradition viewed as equal or superior to the Word of God?

Again… a lack of clear understanding of where the Bible comes from and what part Sacred Tradition plays in interpreting the Word of God. Allegations & proof texts from all over the place when the NT plainly says “the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” It doesn’t say the Bible…it says the church is the pillar and ground of the church, since the church wrote the NT under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

However, NOWHERE does it say that it interprets itself and that one should ignore the Sacred Traditions passed down to us from believers which show how they rightly divided the word of truth. In fact, St. Paul proves that Tradition is of equal import to the Canon in places like Acts 20:35, where he quotes Our Lord a phrase that is nowhere recorded in the Gospels.

Then again he tells the Thessalonian church to hold fast to the traditions they have been taught and to avoid anyone who wanders away from it. (2nd Thess 2:15 & 3:6)

In 2nd Timothy 3:8 he uses the names of 2 men who opposed Moses…but neither are named in the OT…and so he is clearly drawing from Tradition there.

Have a look at Jude 1:9. " When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee." Can you show me that in the OT? You can’t because it’s not there. It’s taken from the Jewish traditional book " The Assumption of Moses", yet St. Jude quotes it on equal footing as scripture, then goes on in verses 14 & 15 to quote from the Book of Enoch…another traditional Jewish writing. :bigyikes:

There’s a lot more New Testament that supports the use of Sacred Tradition to help us get the right meanings of the Word of God, but this will do.

Who would a wise man trust? The ECF and the NT itself, or the winds of doctrine that were conjured up by a pack of rebellious noobs less than 500 years ago, who still can’t agree on important stuff like Baptism and worse still reject the plain teaching of the NT on communion? :bible1:
Pax vobiscum,

 

[mikeabele]

Church Militant:

Okay,
If one reads a book that someone else wrote and one has questions about what parts of that book mean, what would you do?

A) Go to the book and expect it to explain itself?

or…

B) Go to the guy who wrote it and ask him what it means?

Now…who wrote the New Testament?
Then who would know what it means?

Which came first, the NT or the Church?

Don’t you really have to ask the question such as this:

If God “carried along” the NT authors to write down His Word(existing from eternity) into the form of 27 NT books, would you seek understanding from God(the author) or from another book?

or another way…

Would you expect God(through Paul and other NT writers) to send gospels/letters to individuals and church groups, and expect it to be written in such a way that they would not to be able to understand it in light of already revealed Scripture(OT)?

See Acts 17

And which church do you mean? Do you mean the open area in Acts 2 where 3000 were saved, the church in (insert name here)'s house, the Jewish synagouge? You will find people gathered together in all these places in the NT. The word church in the NT, means “called out” company. It is not a building or denomination but living, breathing believers.

Since the historical and political evidence for a supreme papacy begins in the 400-500AD, it must not be the Roman Catholic Church you are asking about.

God bless

 

[Church_Militant]

mikeabele:

Don’t you really have to ask the question such as this:

If God “carried along” the NT authors to write down His Word(existing from eternity) into the form of 27 NT books, would you seek understanding from God(the author) or from another book?

or another way…

Would you expect God(through Paul and other NT writers) to send gospels/letters to individuals and church groups, and expect it to be written in such a way that they would not to be able to understand it in light of already revealed Scripture(OT)?

See Acts 17

And which church do you mean? Do you mean the open area in Acts 2 where 3000 were saved, the church in (insert name here)'s house, the Jewish synagouge? You will find people gathered together in all these places in the NT. The word church in the NT, means “called out” company. It is not a building or denomination but living, breathing believers.

Since the historical and political evidence for a supreme papacy begins in the 400-500AD, it must not be the Roman Catholic Church you are asking about.

God bless

In YOUR interpretation… and according to your biased history.

 

[mikeabele]

Church Militant:

In YOUR interpretation… and according to your biased history.

Perhaps it is a topic for another thread, but the bishops of Rome’s power was not universal for centuries over the bishops of Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople from the 3rd century up until about the 5th century. My biased history? Ever heard of the inquisition, Crusades, antipopes? Not much of an “unbroken” line. Check out an unbiased source…

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/papacy_IntheEarlyChurch.asp:

There is no unequivocal evidence about the status of the pope in the earliest days of the church. That he was accorded special honor as the successor of St. Peter is acknowledged, but whereas Roman Catholic historians hold that the peculiar position of the Holy See was recognized and accorded authority, non-Catholic historians in general contend that the bishop of Rome was accorded honor over the other bishops, not authority

.

 

[DeFide]

mikeabele:

Perhaps it is a topic for another thread, but the bishops of Rome’s power was not universal for centuries over the bishops of Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople from the 3rd century up until about the 5th century. My biased history? Ever heard of the inquisition, Crusades, antipopes? Not much of an “unbroken” line. Check out an unbiased source…

.

Peter’s Primacy & Early Fathers:
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

It would be rediculous for Jesus to set up the Church as the final authority without having a final authority in the Church itself:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.

source: geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html

In your scheme, what would Christians accusing each other of heresy do if they lived under different bishops?

BTW, the Inquistion, false claimants to the papacy and the Crusades are irrelevant to the issue. In fact, false claimants to the papacy in early ages goes to show how important the papacy was and is.

---

21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

 

[Church_Militant]

mikeabele:

Perhaps it is a topic for another thread, but the bishops of Rome’s power was not universal for centuries over the bishops of Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople from the 3rd century up until about the 5th century. My biased history? Ever heard of the inquisition, Crusades, antipopes? Not much of an “unbroken” line. Check out an unbiased source…
.

Your source is a wimp since he just can’t say what is really true; that when it came time to appeal to authority in the early church, it rolled uphill to the Bishops and then to the Bishop of Rome for a final say.

Yeah, heard of all of it and the fact remains that you are wrong based on the writings of the early church that you ignore, such as Ignatius of Antioch who wrote in 107-110.

You wanna indict a religion for stupid behavior of it’s members? Fine, let’s talk about the Catholics that were martyred under Protestantism all over Europe and England. Ever hear of Thomas More and Henry VIII? Who’s the head of the Protestant churches according to Henry huh? Or the Irish, who only got some of their land and rights back in the 19th century and the “Know Nothings” and KKK here in this country, who burned our churches and murdered our clergy with impunity. Or the fact that no Christian denom ever approved artificial contraception until a Protestant one did in 1930 and only one condemns it now, for the moral evil that it is. I bet it’s “a matter of conscience” in your own church, right Mike?

So lemme just suggest that you not even approach us like that because your hands are just as bloody and there’s plenty of blood and wickedness to go around.

The BIble cannot interpret itself, and we need every good resource to assist in assuring that we are reading it the same way as the early church did. Sola Scriptura is not only not found in the Bible, but it’s self defeating. If it works so well (and is indeed from the Holy Spirit) then why is there no total agreement among it’s proponents on all doctrines? (Baptism just for a good example)

 

[mikeabele]

Church Militant:

Your source is a wimp since he just can’t say what is really true; that when it came time to appeal to authority in the early church, it rolled uphill to the Bishops and then to the Bishop of Rome for a final say.

So now unbiased sources aren’t good enough for you “apologists”?, noted.

You might want to re-check your history, and take off the spectacles of Romanist fog. What council(s) affirmed the already established books of the NT as part of the canon of Scripture?

The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

Now did Rome even have a part in these councils? No, they were regional in nature and did not appeal “uphill” as you call it to a Roman see. The power that the pope exercises today is not what the apostle peter exercised. This is proven both within and outside of the Scriptures. The supreme line of papal authority is broken and shaded in darkness at best.

You wanna indict a religion for stupid behavior of it’s members? Fine, let’s talk about the Catholics that were martyred under Protestantism all over Europe and England.

There is no excuse for the behavior like that on either side. No one can kill in the name of Christ. There is a big difference. You have a man, claiming to be the earthly representative of Christ, the figurehead and spokesman if you will. He told his followers that it is the will of God to kill the Muslim, that anyone dying in such a “holy war” would be instantly be taken to heaven. Sound familiar? If Catholics were Muslim we’d all call that a jihad. That is what the Crusades were a “christian” jihad.

The BIble cannot interpret itself

I’m still looking for the verse where Christ/Apostles/Paul points to Peter or the magistirium for the interpretation/meaning of either OT or NT Scripture. I’m still waiting on the official papal commentary on every verse in the Bible as well, since they have this gift of interpretation alone.

I have my instruction from the Word of God to interpret it MYSELF!!!

2 Timothy 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

James 1:22
22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

John 5:39-40
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Luke 1:1-3
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,