Scriptural support for private interpretation of Scripture?

[johannine]

I am familiar with some of the Bible verses that are used to try to defend “sola scriptura,” but I have never heard of any Bible verses used to try to defend private interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Are there any that have been used for this purpose?

 

[fcfahs]

Hi Johannie,

Before I even attempt to offer my “two cents,” I’d like to know what you mean by private
interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. As I understand 2 Peter 1 : 20-21, which say…
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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,” we must let Sacred Scripture interpret itself. That is, if
we find a word, or phrase, or construct that is symbolic, prophetic, unclear, we must then
search elsewhere in the bible (and only the bible) to find out what it means - we must not
impose OUR OWN meaning or interpretation on it.

I love your question, and hope there are a “ton” of replies.

Best wishes,
Frank

 

[Nikazu]

I cannot speak for the Catholic church here, but I believe the church makes a very solid line in the dirt about how far individual experience and interpretation can go. Of course, the Scriptures will work on our individual conscience depending where we are in our spiritual lives, etc, but we must also understand that we cannot make our own “dogma” out of any verse of Scripture. We must listen to the Church, which is God’s agent on Earth, to know what the scriptures mean for us as a body of Christians. However, I do believe that if a certain verse prods you do to do something for God and you listen to it, I don’t think the church disapproves of it. You might want to check with a wise preist or catechism before you do anything though. I remember the story of a saint who desired intensely to become a martyr. Then, she read the Pauline letter which reminded the community that each of us have different gifts. Immediately, her worrying went away as she realized that she did not need to become a martyr. That’s private interpretation if I’ve ever seen it…

I hope this makes my point clear. As with all my posts, feel free to rip me to shreds if you seen anything unorthodox…

 

[DVIN_CKS]

fcfahs:

That is, if
we find a word, or phrase, or construct that is symbolic, prophetic, unclear, we must then
search elsewhere in the bible (and only the bible) to find out what it means - we must not
impose OUR OWN meaning or interpretation on it.

This idea of only using the bible as a source to understand something that doesn’t seem clear never sticks with me. Simply because it means that all the early Christians were left scratching their heads in the dark since they didn’t have Bibles. The Bible (all the books that it contains) wasn’t cannonized until almost 400 years after Jesus’ death. The early Christians had no choice but to rely on oral teachings that were passed down from generation to generation. And if they didn’t understand a particular teaching they had a source of authority to go to…namely the Church where the successors of the Apostles taught what was handed down to them.

I agree that we should never impose our own meaning or interpretation on the Bible, but this doesn’t mean that we have no teaching authority to rely on for the truth.

 

[fcfahs]

Hi DVIN CKS,

I hardy meant to imply that I thought sacred Tradition isn’t a valid source of truth or that it’s
not an essential source Apostolic teachings, in addition to sacred Scripture. To be sure, I’m
not professing the Protestant’s theory of “sola scriptura,” for I know the bible itself tells us
that the Apostles were witness to many other works of Jesus (and no doubt to many other
teachings of Jesus) that were not written down.

I’m only saying I believe that if a scripture verse or passage, particularly those of the NT, is
meant to be comprehensible to our finite minds (and many are not,) then it will be either self
explanatory or explained by other verses or passages in the bible. This, of course, assumes
that one is willing to make an aggressive and diligent study of the bible, using all the avaiable
helpers, like a good bible concordance, a bible study guide, and bible footnotes…

When we encounter a verse in the bible which is too profound, seemingly contradictory to
another verse or amiguous ( and there are many of them, even when care is taken to read
each of them in its proper context), we must temporarily put it aside and patiently continue
to read (study) the rest of the bible ( the whole bible, ) comparing scripture with scripture,
spiritual things with spiritual, precept upon precept, line upon line; here a little, and there a
little, until its meaning becomes clear from other related passages.

As alluded to earlier, I realize that there are some unfathomable mysteries presented in the
bible, like those of divine foreknowledge, election, and the details of predestination, which
even the RCC doesn’t attempt to explain (and neither should we.) Notwithstanding, I still
have a problem believing that the church theologians are the only ones able to understand
the bible’s teachings. To say that the sacred Scriptures are divinely inspired, is not to say
that our understanding them must also be. To be sure, neither God nor the Apostles were
the authors of confusion.

I’ll end with the observation that Paul’s letters to the Ephesians et. al. were not written to
communicate with highly educated theologians of great profundity, but rather with the
everyman. Therefore, our only “hang up,” if any, in understanding these writings shouldn’t
be anything more than a failure to fully understand the culture, symbolism, semantics, and
language constructs of Paul’s day - a limitation that can be removed though research and
some diligent study. To be sure, Paul (a preacher and teacher) wouldn’t have been much
of a teacher if his audience needed another teacher to explain his teachings.

I’m very teachable, so feel free to turn my head.

Frank

 

[MariaG]

posted by fcfahs

As alluded to earlier, I realize that there are some unfathomable mysteries presented in the
bible, like those of divine foreknowledge, election, and the details of predestination, which
even the RCC doesn’t attempt to explain (and neither should we.) Notwithstanding, I still
have a problem believing that the church theologians are the only ones able to understand
the bible’s teachings. To say that the sacred Scriptures are divinely inspired, is not to say
that our understanding them must also be. To be sure, neither God nor the Apostles were
the authors of confusion.

I’ll end with the observation that Paul’s letters to the Ephesians et. al. were not written to
communicate with highly educated theologians of great profundity, but rather with the
everyman. Therefore, our only “hang up,” if any, in understanding these writings shouldn’t
be anything more than a failure to fully understand the culture, symbolism, semantics, and
language constructs of Paul’s day - a limitation that can be removed though research and
some diligent study. To be sure, Paul (a preacher and teacher) wouldn’t have been much
of a teacher if his audience needed another teacher to explain his teachings.

I’m very teachable, so feel free to turn my head.

Hi Frank,

Actually That is not true. I cannot find the exact spot, but I know Scripture tells us that specifically some of Paul’s teachings can be hard to understand. This was said to people who LIVED in the culture and times. I believe it was Peter who said it.

So even in the Bible, it tells us that we may have a hard time understanding things and to look to our teachers.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

I cannot find the exact spot, but I know Scripture tells us that specifically some of Paul’s teachings can be hard to understand.

See 2 Peter 3:15-16

Paul’s writing style was much different when writing to the “everyman” in Thessalonica as compared to his letters to Timothy and Titus who were both educated bishops of the early church.

Fundamentalist Christians that I’ve talked to will take the “Faith Alone” route (backed up by some scripture), tie it in using some quotes from the old testament that refer to the “Word of God,” then use passages that refer to “churches” in the NT i.e. Gal 1:2; to give themselves the ammo they need to justify independent churches.

This then gives them the avenue needed to attack the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” Church.

Of course the “Word of God” that we serve is Jesus Christ. We don’t serve or are slaves to the Bible.

Even an “everyman” epistle such as Ephesians clearly states that it’s through the church that the wisdom of God is made known to all. Eph 3:9-10

But when writing to the bishop Timothy, his “child in the faith,” Paul makes it very clear that it’s the church that upholds and defends the truth. 1Tim 3:15-16

 

[fcfahs]

Hi Maria,

Thanks for picking up on this thread - I truely appreciate any enlightening (name removed by moderator)ut.

Perhaps my previous post (#5) was so overly cluttered with words that one of
my most salient comments was completely missed. If not, perhaps it was read
to be nothing more than some spurious, impertinent slur. But, It was not meant
to be! The comment I’m referring to is…

“To be sure, Paul (a preacher and teacher) wouldn’t have been much of a
teacher if his audience needed another teacher to explain his teachings.”

With this comment, I wanted to emphasize that Paul was carrying around a
load of divinely inspired wisdom and truth in his head, and as a preacher and
teacher, his mission was to explain (teach) these truths as clearly as possible;
And that by studing Paul’s letters, so are WE taught these truths in the most
clear and concise manner that Paul (or anyone) could muster.

What’s so pervasive is that these explanation are coming to us first hand, from
the very mind and heart of man who was divinely inspired. How GOOD can
it get? Is it that we think Paul’s explanations are so inadequate or unclear that
we need the church to explain what Paul was explaining? How often do you
go to another encyclopedia to get an explanation of something that was already
explained to you by the best unabridged encyclopedia in print.?

As MarkAnthonyCozy already stated in post #7, the verse you’re referring to
is 2 Peter 3:16, but I’ve inserted verses 15 through 17, to make sure it’s read in
its proper context…

2 Peter 3
[15] And suppose that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our
beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given unto him wrote to you,

[16] As one, that in all his Epistles speaketh of these things: among the which
some things are hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and
unstable, wrest, as they do also other Scriptures unto their own destruction.

[17] Ye therefore beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware, lest
ye be also plucked away with the error of the wicked, and fall from your own
steadfastness.

I agree that Paul was throwing out some pretty hard to understand concepts in
his letters, but it was not because he was a poor communicator or using hard to
interpret symbolism ( as John uses in the book of Revelation. ) that they were
hard to understand. It was because these concepts were mysteries. To be sure,
1 Corinthians 15:45-53 is a classic example, where in verse 51, Paul actually
states to his audience that he’s presenting to them a mystery…

[51] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed,

Of course, for the fun-loving Corinthians, who worshiped money and the kinky
things it could buy and had adopted as their religious ideal, Venus, the Godess
of love, with a temple built in her honor - a temple which employed more than
1000 prostitutes, Paul’s message was probably harder to accept than it was to
understand. And, it’s this kind of thing, I believe, 2 Peter 3:16 was referring to
with the words…

“which they that are unlearned and unstable, wrest, as they do also other
Scriptures unto their own destruction.”

Yes, there are mysteries in Paul’s teachings that are hard (and even impossible)
to understand, particularly for those caught up in the carnal world and drunk
with its heretical philosophies, but being mysteries, they will not be resolved by
a “better” explanation of them than Paul himself provided.

“For those who believe, no explanation is required; for those who do not believe,
no explanation will suffice.”

Frank

 

[Mathetes007]

fcfahs:

Before I even attempt to offer my “two cents,” I’d like to know what you mean by private
interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. As I understand 2 Peter 1 : 20-21, which say…
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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,” we must let Sacred Scripture interpret itself. That is, if
we find a word, or phrase, or construct that is symbolic, prophetic, unclear, we must then
search elsewhere in the bible (and only the bible) to find out what it means - we must not
impose OUR OWN meaning or interpretation on it.

There doesn’t seem to be anything in the passage which says “let Sacred Scripture interpret itself.” Granted it also does not say “let the Church interpret Scripture.” This interpretation is drawn from outside this particular text. The text simply states that “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

fcfahs:

With this comment, I wanted to emphasize that Paul was carrying around a
load of divinely inspired wisdom and truth in his head, and as a preacher and
teacher, his mission was to explain (teach) these truths as clearly as possible;
And that by studing Paul’s letters, so are WE taught these truths in the most
clear and concise manner that Paul (or anyone) could muster.

What’s so pervasive is that these explanation are coming to us first hand, from
the very mind and heart of man who was divinely inspired. How GOOD can
it get? Is it that we think Paul’s explanations are so inadequate or unclear that
we need the church to explain what Paul was explaining? How often do you
go to another encyclopedia to get an explanation of something that was already
explained to you by the best unabridged encyclopedia in print.?

Frank

I certainly am not intelligent, nor wise, enough to read a translation of a copy, of a translation of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of what Paul wrote 1,930 years ago and claim to understand its full meaning without referring to that which Paul claimed was and still is the guardian of that meaning.

Was it Jesus’, or Peter’s, or Paul’s desire that there would be thousands of churches all claiming to be Christian with their own sets of beliefs?

 

[fcfahs]

Orignally posted by **Mathetes007:

**There doesn’t seem to be anything in the passage which says “let Sacred Scripture interpret
itself.” Granted it also does not say “let the Church interpret Scripture.” This interpretation is
drawn from outside this particular text. The text simply states that “no prophecy of Scripture
is of any private interpretation.”

You’re absolutely correct, Mathetes007. 2 Peter 1:20-21 does not state nor even infer that
we should “let Sacred Scripture interpret itself.”

What I was alluding to, albeit not implied by those verses, is that the Bible interprets its own
symbolism. For a classic example, we can look at Revelation 12, which begins by identifying
the woman clothed with the sun as “a great wonder in heaven.” Of course, “wonder” simply
means “sign” or “symbol.” But, who is the woman clothed with the sun? If we look elsewhere
in the Bible, we see that her setting in the midst of the sun, the moon, and twelve stars relates
to the dream of Joseph (in Gen. 37:9-10), which uses similar imagery to signify the family of
Jacob. Such scripture cross-referencing helps us realize that the woman is Israel. If we were
to read Revelation 12 alone, without referring to any other scriptures, we would intuitively be
inclined to conclude that the woman is simply The Virgin Mary, because of Rev. 12: 2 & 5,
but we must also account for the symbolism of the woman being “clothed with the sun,” the
“moon under her feet,” and her “crown of twelve stars.” As for who the dragon is, the Book of
Revelation, itself, says he is Satan (Rev. 20:2).

Sorry for the confusion.

Frank

 

[Reformed_Rob]

fcfahs:

Hi Johannie,

Before I even attempt to offer my “two cents,” I’d like to know what you mean by private
interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. As I understand 2 Peter 1 : 20-21, which say…
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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,” we must let Sacred Scripture interpret itself. That is, if
we find a word, or phrase, or construct that is symbolic, prophetic, unclear, we must then
search elsewhere in the bible (and only the bible) to find out what it means - we must not
impose OUR OWN meaning or interpretation on it.

I love your question, and hope there are a “ton” of replies.

Best wishes,
Frank

As a Reformed guy, let me say that “Sola Scriptura,” the Reformed doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is totally different than the mainstream, contemporary “Solo Scriptura” where all people are able to “privately interpret” the meaning for themselves. In the Reformed view (Calvinist, Lutheran, and that type), you **HAVE TO ** interpret Scripture according to the creeds and confessions. Now, those norms do not cover everything, but they give us the guidelines within which we interpret subordinate matters. Of course, there’s the question of “which creed and confession or set thereof” to follow. “No Creed But Christ” just doesn’t work. “No Creed But Christ” is NOT the Reformed “Sola Scriptura” belief.

Now, for II Peter 1:20,21 –
I’ve always just took that (I know what you’re saying and meaning though, and good point) to mean that the prophets and the writers of Scripture didn’t just speak or write on their own initiative (ie. private interpretation), but rather the did so as the Holy Spirit led them.

 

[porthos11]

As far as I know, no one is prohibited from interpreting Scripture personally and privately. The only thing is to interpret according to the living Tradition of the Church (i.e. nothing contrary to what the Church teaches, since she is the pillar and foundation of the truth). If our private interpretation goes against that of the Church, then our interpretation is wrong.

 

[fcfahs]

Orignally posted by **MarkAnthonyCozy:

**I certainly am not intelligent, nor wise, enough to read a translation of a copy, of a translation
of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of what Paul wrote 1,930 years ago and claim to
understand its full meaning without referring to that which Paul claimed was and still is the
guardian of that meaning.

Hi Mark,

Sorry you feel so unqualified to “take on” the bible. To say that you will have questions on the
meaning of some passages and have to seek help from a priest or a more enlightened Catholic
bible reader, is not to say you should consider bible study “out of your league” or an exercise
in futility. One thing is sure: you don’t need superior intelligence or profound wisdom to study
and ultimately understand God’s written word. And, if you’ve got any serious concerns about
the integrety of a “translation of a copy, of a translation of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a
copy of what Paul wrote 1,930 years ago,” please know that if you’re reading it from a bible
approved by the Catholic Church, you have the Vatican’s Word that it’s faithfull rendering of
Paul’s original works.

As for “why” we should read the bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, tells us to “Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good.” And, if we submit to the Bible’s authority and study it diligently,
we can understand the bible and teach it to others (Ephesians 4:11-16 ; Hebrews 5:12-14).
However, in our eagerness to contend for the truth, we must not forget the basic principles
of Bible study…

1. Here a little, there a little (Isaiah 28:9-13): The Bible is hardly organized so that all
   information on a given subject falls within one chapter or one book. The whole Bible must
   concur before we can truly call a theological concept “truth.”
2. A positive approach (Acts 17:11-12): God left us with a fine example of a people who
   sought to prove the truths of God, rather than disprove them. He can work with those who
   have submissive minds, receptive to His revelation.
3. A desire to please God (2 Timothy 2:15): The intent of our study should be to merit
   God’s approval of our lives. God is not impressed with scholarship or intelligence, but He
   does respect godly living and spiritual growth (Psalm 111:10; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 3:22).
4. No private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21): The Word of God and the understanding
   of it is revealed by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:6-16), and any personal understanding
   or interpretation of it must agree all pointsin with what’s in the Bible or spring without conflict
   from its principles (cf. 2 Peter 3:16) - otherwise an idea is nothing more than an opinion and
   liable to be dangerous one.
5. Humility (1 Corinthians 8:1-3): It is important to remember that many others, probably
   much wiser, have faced the same questions before us. We should consider the history of our
   church through the centuries and take the decisions of its leaders seriously.

Continued …

 

[fcfahs]

Continued from previous my post…

1. Seek counsel (Proverbs 24:6): Not only should we bring vexing questions to a priest,
   but we should also seek wise advice from our Christian brethren, both inside and outside
   our normal circle of friends (such as those on this Catholic forum.) After we’ve related our
   questions to others, we must give them sufficient time to study the subject thoroughly and
   reply before drawing any conclusions.
2. Prayer and meditation (Psalm 119:33-40, 97-99): Seeking God’s will and considering
   the ramifications of our ideas are vital to a proper understanding of the Bible. Others, weaker
   in faith, may not be able to survive our “spirituality” (I Corinthians 8:9, 11-13)

If we apply these basic principles to our study of the Bible, we will go a long way toward
diminishing the confusion over doctrine. And also, we will be heeding the advice of Jesus
related in Matthew 24:4, “Take heed that no one deceives you.”

For some additional commentary on “why” Catholics should study the Bible, I invite you to
read Fr. Hal Stockert’s Prologue to his Bible Study Guide on CIN.

Hope this is helpful.

Frank

 

[Mathetes007]

Reformed Rob:

Now, for II Peter 1:20,21 –
I’ve always just took that (I know what you’re saying and meaning though, and good point) to mean that the prophets and the writers of Scripture didn’t just speak or write on their own initiative (ie. private interpretation), but rather the did so as the Holy Spirit led them.

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impluse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

That interpretation seems plausible at first. However, the text is speaking of the present condition (“is”; present tense) of Scripture. It would have to say “no prophecy of scripture was [past tense] a matter of one’s own interpretation” in order to be speaking of the origin of Scripture at this point.

Then Peter turns to the reason as to why it should not be interpreted privately. “No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Scriptures are of divine origin (specifically from the Spirit). This implies that it is through the Spirit that its meaning is attained (see 2 Corinthians 3:12-18-4:6).

Additionally, although not apparent in this translation (RSV), this verse uses the phrase “man of God” (in this case the plural form “men of God”). In the OT this phrase was used only of prophets, such as in this very case, or ordained ministers of the Old Covenant. In the NT, its only other occurrence is for Timothy, a minister of the New Covenant (2 Timothy 6:11 and 1:18).

If we consider these implications, the Scriptures appear to be teaching us that it is only through ordained ministers or prophets that are guided by the Spirit that can give us its inerrant interpretation. This does not mean that we cannot understand Scripture on our own. On the other hand, it does mean though that only through this process can we have 100% assurance of the true meaning intended by the Spirit that wrote the Scriptures.

One last note, Peter speaks against “private” (one’s own) interpretation. This would imply that the opposite is true. Scripture must be interpreted “publicly” (recall that infallibility requires that the entire Church be addressed). This part would fit well with your notion that Scripture should be interpreted using the publicly received creeds or statements of faith.

 

[Mathetes007]

fcfahs:

What I was alluding to, albeit not implied by those verses, is that the Bible interprets its own
symbolism. For a classic example, we can look at Revelation 12, which begins by identifying
the woman clothed with the sun as “a great wonder in heaven.” Of course, “wonder” simply
means “sign” or “symbol.” But, who is the woman clothed with the sun? If we look elsewhere
in the Bible, we see that her setting in the midst of the sun, the moon, and twelve stars relates
to the dream of Joseph (in Gen. 37:9-10), which uses similar imagery to signify the family of
Jacob. Such scripture cross-referencing helps us realize that the woman is Israel. If we were
to read Revelation 12 alone, without referring to any other scriptures, we would intuitively be
inclined to conclude that the woman is simply The Virgin Mary, because of Rev. 12: 2 & 5,
but we must also account for the symbolism of the woman being “clothed with the sun,” the
“moon under her feet,” and her “crown of twelve stars.” As for who the dragon is, the Book of
Revelation, itself, says he is Satan (Rev. 20:2).

Sorry for the confusion.

Frank

Hey Frank,

I agree with this assessment if you put it that way. Scripture cannot contradict itself as it has God as its author. Since the Sacred Library has the same Author, we can anticipate that similar themes, symbols, truths, etc. are found throughout.

Regarding Revelation 12, or any other passage, we should keep in mind that the Spirit has many great truths to unfold. One passage of Scripture can have different levels of interpretation. For example, Psalm 2:7 is said to have been fulfilled at the Incarnation of Jesus (Hebrews 1:5), at the Crucifixion when Jesus offered Himself as High Priest and Victim (Hebrews 5:5), and at the Resurrection (Acts 13:33).

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

fcfahs:

What I was alluding to, albeit not implied by those verses, is that the Bible interprets its own
symbolism. For a classic example, we can look at Revelation 12, which begins by identifying
the woman clothed with the sun as “a great wonder in heaven.” Of course, “wonder” simply
means “sign” or “symbol.” But, who is the woman clothed with the sun? If we look elsewhere
in the Bible, we see that her setting in the midst of the sun, the moon, and twelve stars relates
to the dream of Joseph (in Gen. 37:9-10), which uses similar imagery to signify the family of
Jacob. Such scripture cross-referencing helps us realize that the woman is Israel. If we were
to read Revelation 12 alone, without referring to any other scriptures, we would intuitively be
inclined to conclude that the woman is simply The Virgin Mary, because of Rev. 12: 2 & 5,
but we must also account for the symbolism of the woman being “clothed with the sun,” the
“moon under her feet,” and her “crown of twelve stars.” As for who the dragon is, the Book of
Revelation, itself, says he is Satan (Rev. 20:2).

Sorry for the confusion.

Frank

Gee, I always thought that Joseph’s dream meant that Israel would one day bow down before Joseph as was fulfilled in Gen 42:6; the sun, moon, and stars bowing before Joseph symbolizing Israel.

In Rev 12 we have a woman clothed with the sun. In actuality this passage begins with Rev 11:19 “And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament; and there were lightenings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.” Rev 12:1 “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:”

Here a correlation is established between the ark of the testament (covenant) and this woman clothed with the sun. See Lk 1:35

Also compare Lk 1:39 to 2 Sm 6:2; Lk 1:41 to 2 Sm 6:16; Lk 1:43 to 2 Sm 6:9; Lk 1:46 to 2 Sm 7:18-29

Review of these passages establishes a very strong correlation between Mary’s visit to Elizabeth and King David bringing the ark of the covenant to the city of David.

If you doubt Mary’s consecration to the Lord please compare Lk 1:38 to Judges 11:37.

Rev 12 is essentially the fulfillment of the promise made by God to Eve in Gen 3:15 Here there are three individuals the serpent, the woman, and the seed or; Satan, Mary, and Jesus

The emnity between this woman and the serpent shows that she can’t be beguiled by the serpent as Eve was. Was Israel ever beguiled?

The remnant of the seed of this woman at war with the dragon are those who “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” Rev 12:17 Was Israel ever at war with the dragon (Satan)? Do the children of Israel have the testimony of Jesus Christ?

There is an immense wealth of information and cross referencing just from these few passages of scripture of which I am barely scratching the surface.

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

fcfahs:

Sorry you feel so unqualified to “take on” the bible.

You don’t need to feel sorry for me.

To say that you will have questions on the
meaning of some passages and have to seek help from a priest or a more enlightened Catholic
bible reader, is not

to say you should consider bible study “out of your league” or an exercise
in futility.
When did I say this?

And, if we submit to the Bible’s authority and study it diligently,
we can understand the bible and teach it to others

Where in the bible does it say that we must submit to the bible’s authority?

As for me I will continue to read scripture in light of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

 

[fcfahs]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

When did I say this?

Actuallly, you didn’t say that you felt unqualified to “take on” the bible, nor that you considered
bible study “out of your league” or an exercise in futility, as do so many of my fellow Catholics.
I therefore apologize for being so grossly presumptuous to think your post implied you also did.

MarkAnthonyCozy:

Where in the bible does it say that we must submit to the bible’s authority?

Have you checked the preface? __ In the preface of my 1951 standard English Catholic
Douay Bible, it says that the church itself submits [yields] to the authority or authenticity
of the bible, because it springs from Divine authorship, the inspired word of God. To quote
from my bible’s preface…

“Every thought and idea in the Bible is the result of such inspiration. There is no part of the
Scripture, even the slightest, that is not inspired. The Bible itself speaks of such inspiration**:**
Referring to the Old Testament, Saint Paul says that 'all Scripture is inspired by God.’
(2 Tim. 3:16). . . . According to the Bible itself, some of the New Testament books are no
less divine and authoritative than the Old Testament books. Saint Paul prefaces passages
from both with the phrase ‘The Scriptures says’ (1 Tim. 6:18). Saint Peter classes the
Pauline Epistles with ‘the rest of the Scriptures’ (2 Pet. 3:15-16). . . . Saint Ignatius of
Antioch, who lived in the first century, and Saint Justin Martyr, who lived in the second
century, both recognized the divine authority of the Bible, speaking of it as 'inspired by
God.’ . . . The best an only adequate proof that the Bible was written under the inspiration
of God is the infallible word of the Catholic church. On April 8, 1546, the Council of Trent
declared that God is the author of both the Old and New Testament.”

If our one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church submits to the authority of the Bible, what
does that say to you, me any other Catholics? To me it says we also must submit to it

MarkAnthonyCozy:

As for me I will continue to read scripture in light of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Sounds good to me.

May God bless and guide you in your efforts.

Frank