Scripture does not interpret itself

[Prodigal_Son1]

In reading through the thread a second time I saw one poster, who seemingly has an objection to the successors of the Apostles. This applies to what I was trying to articulate in my previous post.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

85 of the Catechism states, ‘This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.’ The bishops are the successors to the Apostles, who were in communion with Peter. Now where can we find this teaching being supported in the Bible?

**Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you. **

John 13 through 18 contains a specific discussion, instruction, between Christ and only His Apostles. This was not spoken to the multitudes, or lay people of the times.

Reading the story in context, I realize the conversation was spoken to men Christ appointed/ordained. This means when you read the word ‘you’ in the scriptures above, Christ was referring to the Apostles. It was not a universal you, representing all people, of all time.

Protestants will read the same passage and apply the word ‘you’ to themselves. Again, I have to ask where does the Bible tell us that everything written in scriptures is directed to every individual for each individual to apply directly to themselves?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You said the Bible is an object. How can an object speak?​

It’s easy believism when one says I believe it because I was taught it from my church.

Dokimas,

On another thread, you and I discussed the verses in John 14 and 16. I explained to you at that time that the conversation took place between Christ and only the Apostles. You asked me to prove that conversation took place between Jesus and only His Apostles. I directed you to John 13 and asked that you read, starting from, verse 1 through until others appeared in the story. I don’t remember you commenting on what you found.

I do see you’re still making the assertion that Catholics beliefs are based upon what is taught by the Church. Can’t you see the point I was, and am, making, and how it applies to the teaching of the Catechism, #85?

If we’re reading these chapters in the context of a discussion, instructions, between Jesus and only His Apostles, how does one ‘automatically’ apply the promises of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth, guiding and teaching, to themselves directly?

As you continue to assert Catholics only believe what the Church teaches us, as if the teaching is unfounded in scriptures, you need to show us where everything written in scriptures is to be applied to individually is found in the Bible. I believe I have provided a scriptural basis for your generalized assertion of Catholics only believe what the Church tells them to believe.

 

[CMatt25]

I fail to see theappropriateness of the emoticon you displayed. If you’ve got something to say,say it and be preprepared to back it up.Your hit and run emoticon usage is the equivalent of an "intellectual"grafito which contributes nothing but reveals voluumes adout such an intelectually limited poster.Don’t bother,you just make yourself appear credulous and rather a sycophant ramora fish to the poster i was originally spanking.

Thank you for judging my intellect and so forth.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I

85 of the Catechism states, ‘This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.’ The bishops are the successors to the Apostles, who were in communion with Peter."

Again, I have to ask where does the Bible tell us that everything written in scriptures is directed to every individual for each individual to apply directly to themselves?

Your “issue” seems to be with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter. I agree with you, btw - it’s a “problem” I have, as well. But what you seem to not realize is that there is only one on the entire planet and in all of Christian history that does what you are rebuking: You quoted from its Catechism where it alone designates it alone as the sole authoritative interpreter. You will find NOTHING like it from any other, your complaint is with just one - The Catholic Church.

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your “issue” seems to be with self designating self as the sole authoritative interpreter. I agree with you, btw - it’s a “problem” I have, as well. But what you seem to not realize is that there is only one on the entire planet and in all of Christian history that does what you are rebuking: You quoted from its Catechism where it alone designates it alone as the sole authoritative interpreter. You will find NOTHING like it from any other, your complaint is with just one - The Catholic Church.

.

I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying.

Christ gave the authority to His appointed/ordained men of the Church. This is demonstrated with the verses I provided, which you didn’t comment on, directly anyway. I have no complaint against the Catholic Church, since it was the Church established by Christ. Martin Luther did not deny this. This objection is ‘new’, or at least developed since he led the reformation. Through Apostolic succession, Christ’s promises are with the men of the Church today. He gave them the authority, inspired them to write scriptures, and continued to inspire them as they defined the canon of the New Testament. That guidance continued as the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures, so that we have them today, including Protestants.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying.

Christ gave the authority to His appointed/ordained men of the Church.

1. Quote for me the verse that says that the 14 Apostles were the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreters of Scripture and Tradition (is it corporately or individually?). If you find such, then The Catholic Church cannot be such since those 14 were the sole ones.
2. Quote for me the verse that says that The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively and perpetually - is the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture?
3. Again, you have often noted your rebuke of self appointing self as the sole, authoritative interpreter of Scripture. And I completely agree with you - for all the excellent reasons you have shared! But what puzzles me is why you are saying that, as a Catholic, at this Catholic website? The ONLY one on the entire planet, the ONLY one in all of the history of Christianity that does what you are rebuking is The Catholic Church. You even quoted one of the places where it does this! Left me scratching my head. Friend, there is NO OTHER that does what you are rebuking - just The Catholic Church.

This is demonstrated with the verses I provided, which you didn’t comment on

Um, no. I didn’t comment on them because while they seemed remarkably irrelevant to the issue before us, at MOST - they seemed to be supporting your view that self should not appoint self as the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter - a point I happen to agree with you concerning (it’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church).

I have no complaint against the Catholic Church, since it was the Church established by Christ. Martin Luther did not deny this. This objection is ‘new’, or at least developed since he led the reformation. Through Apostolic succession, Christ’s promises are with the men of the Church today. He gave them the authority, inspired them to write scriptures, and continued to inspire them as they defined the canon of the New Testament. That guidance continued as the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures, so that we have them today, including Protestants.

Let’s say that Christ did “found” The Catholic Church (and, obviously, you have nothing to substantiate that). That has NOTHING to do with it being designated by Christ as infallible, unaccountable. God founded the Hebrew Kingdom - even directly appointed some of the kings. Did that mean that the Kingdom was infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error or wrong? Did it mean that God held the Hebrew kings as unaccountable? God lead Adam and Eve, didn’t He? Did that mean that they were INCAPABLE of wrong or error and that God held them unaccountable for anything they did or said? You seem to be making some gigantic leaps - that are not only illogical but unbiblical.

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. Quote for me the verse that says that the 14 Apostles were the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreters of Scripture and Tradition (is it corporately or individually?). If you find such, then The Catholic Church cannot be such since those 14 were the sole ones.

Sorry, not into ‘cat and mouse’ games. I have provided scriptures, showing a conversation between Christ and ONLY His Apostles, promising the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth would guide/teach them all things and that He would be with them always. They were mortal men and would eventually die. Christ was speaking to men of His Church and those of Apostolic succession. The number, actually was designed to grow as the Church grew.

1. Quote for me the verse that says that The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively and perpetually - is the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture?

More ‘cat and mouse’ games? Christ started ONE Church and it was the Catholic Church. That’s the only Church in existence the first thousand years. Martin Luther didn’t dispute and I’m surprised and confused that Lutherans from the Church he founded are now ‘switching’ to that as an argument.

1. Again, you have often noted your rebuke of self appointing self as the sole, authoritative interpreter of Scripture. And I completely agree with you - for all the excellent reasons you have shared! But what puzzles me is why you are saying that, as a Catholic, at this Catholic website? The ONLY one on the entire planet, the ONLY one in all of the history of Christianity that does what you are rebuking is The Catholic Church. You even quoted one of the places where it does this! Left me scratching my head. Friend, there is NO OTHER that does what you are rebuking - just The Catholic Church.

Man, if you twist my words here, imagine what else you have trouble interpreting. I am not rebuking the Catholic Church. It has the authority to be the sole interpreter of scriptures. If this is the kind of games you wish to play, it’s not worth my time and I won’t be a part of it.

Um, no. I didn’t comment on them because while they seemed remarkably irrelevant to the issue before us, at MOST - they seemed to be supporting your view that self should not appoint self as the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter - a point I happen to agree with you concerning (it’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church).

Then it’s you that has an issue with the Catholic Church, not me as you falsely accused me. It’s not a ‘self’ that appointed them in authority, it was Christ, the head of the body, which is His Church.

Let’s say that Christ did “found” The Catholic Church (and, obviously, you have nothing to substantiate that). That has NOTHING to do with it being designated by Christ as the sole, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. God founded the Hebrew Kingdom - even directly appointed some of the kings. Did that mean that the Kingdom was infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error or wrong? Did it mean that God held the Hebrew kings as unaccountable? God lead Adam and Eve, didn’t He? Did that mean that they were INCAPABLE of wrong or error and that God held them unaccountable for anything they did or said? You seem to be making some gigantic leaps - that are not only illogical but unbiblical.

More ‘cat and mouse’ games? I have explained it as simply as I could.

If you wish to understand authority explaining scriptures to the people to cause them to understand, from an Old Testament perspective, please read Nehemiah 8.

Jesus displayed great confidence that God’s truth could be protected, even through sinful men.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

These thoughts are logical and scriptural. Your denial is only an opinion, based on what seems to be some personal issues you have with the Church.

Now, I’m only going to ask once that you stop the ‘twisting’ to try and make it appear I have issues with the Catholic Church and I would appreciate if you drop the condescending tone. If you cannot, then I won’t be responding to you as it appears you have no real interest in an honest dialogue.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I have provided scriptures, showing a conversation between Christ and ONLY His Apostles, promising the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth would guide/teach them all things and that He would be with them always.

1. Then The Catholic Church cannot do/be what you have claimed.
2. To promise to guide is not a promise of infallible/unaccountable FOLLOWING. You seem to be confusing guiding with following. This is the fatal flaw in your entire premise. You are making an entirely illogical and unbiblical position that if God leads, ergo all must infallibly follow and God holds such as unaccountable for all that is said or done. I asked you if God lead Adam and Eve (yes, infallibly - in a perfect, sinless world even!) and if your premise holds that THEREFORE, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Adam and Eve to do wrong, they can do no other but to INFALLIBLE follow that lead, and in any case, God would not hold them accountable but they would be exempt from all norming. Perhaps you should read Genesis chapter 3 in light of this foundational premise of yours.
3. You seem to be confusing the roles of teacher and student. A perfect teacher does NOT mandate a PERFECT, INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE student. Again - refer to Genesis Chapter 3. Refer to the entire Old Testament has God taught His people - and yet where they PERFECT, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE students?

Christ started ONE Church and it was the Catholic Church.

You can type WHATEVER you want - it just doesn’t make it true. You can BELIEVE whatever you want - and that’s just fine. But it doesn’t make it true.

Yes, Jesus founded one church. The church is still here. The church is one, holy and catholic. It is the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. Christians have always been, still are and ever will be PEOPLE. Thus the communion of believers is PEOPLE. The assembly of Christians is PEOPLE. It has nothing to do with The Catholic Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or The Syrian Orthodox Church.

I am not rebuking the Catholic Church. It has the authority to be the sole interpreter of scriptures.

You rebuke those who designate self alone as the sole interpreter.
The you quote where The Catholic Church alone designates The Catholic Church alone as the sole interpreter.
You honestly don’t see how you are rebuking The Catholic Church?
I accept that you don’t intend to.

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. Then The Catholic Church cannot do/be what you have claimed.
2. To promise to guide is not a promise of infallible/unaccountable FOLLOWING. You seem to be confusing guiding with following. This is the fatal flaw in your entire premise. You are making an entirely illogical and unbiblical position that if God leads, ergo all must infallibly follow and God holds such as unaccountable for all that is said or done. I asked you if God lead Adam and Eve (yes, infallibly - in a perfect, sinless world even!) and if your premise holds that THEREFORE, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Adam and Eve to do wrong, they can do no other but to INFALLIBLE follow that lead, and in any case, God would not hold them accountable but they would be exempt from all norming. Perhaps you should read Genesis chapter 3 in light of this foundational premise of yours.

Then you limit the power of Christ.

1. You seem to be confusing the roles of teacher and student. A perfect teacher does NOT mandate a PERFECT, INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE student. Again - refer to Genesis Chapter 3. Refer to the entire Old Testament has God taught His people - and yet where they PERFECT, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE students?

Those of authority are not the students. The laity is the students.

You’ve used this arguement before and at the same time refused to address Martin Luther’s view of the Catholic Church as being the Church Christ built.

You can type WHATEVER you want - it just doesn’t make it true. You can BELIEVE whatever you want - and that’s just fine. But it doesn’t make it true.

But your typing whatever you want makes it true?

Yes, Jesus founded one church. The church is still here. The church is one, holy and catholic. It is the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. Christians have always been, still are and ever will be PEOPLE. Thus the communion of believers is PEOPLE. The assembly of Christians is PEOPLE. It has nothing to do with The Catholic Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or The Syrian Orthodox Church.

See, where you err is, there was only one Church in the beginning, with one set of doctrines and teachings. Now, as you so aptly pointed out, there are many many Churches, with just as many doctrines, all differing from each other. That’s not what Christ started.

You rebuke those who designate self alone as the sole interpreter.
The you quote where The Catholic Church alone designates The Catholic Church alone as the sole interpreter.
You honestly don’t see how you are rebuking The Catholic Church?
I accept that you don’t intend to.

You honestly do not want an honest dialogue? You honestly want to twist people’s words against them, even though they can explain themselves? Last time I address this subject with you, I am not rebuking the Church. It’s your misconceptions, or interpretations, of what I’m communicating to you.

 

[wmscott]

Then you limit the power of Christ.

Those of authority are not the students. The laity is the students.

You’ve used this arguement before and at the same time refused to address Martin Luther’s view of the Catholic Church as being the Church Christ built.

But your typing whatever you want makes it true?

See, where you err is, there was only one Church in the beginning, with one set of doctrines and teachings. Now, as you so aptly pointed out, there are many many Churches, with just as many doctrines, all differing from each other. That’s not what Christ started.

You honestly do not want an honest dialogue? You honestly want to twist people’s words against them, even though they can explain themselves? Last time I address this subject with you, I am not rebuking the Church. It’s your misconceptions, or interpretations, of what I’m communicating to you.

Hi Prodigal Son1, I just wanted to tell you that I have followed many of your posts here and elsewhere in other threads and when I grow up I want to be an apologist like you. I am an amateur next to a giant and appreciate the efforts you do to correct the errors that abound out here.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Prodigal Son1, I just wanted to tell you that I have followed many of your posts here and elsewhere in other threads and when I grow up I want to be an apologist like you. I am an amateur next to a giant and appreciate the efforts you do to correct the errors that abound out here.

Thanks, but you are too generous with your compliments. I am only an amateur myself.

 

[Dokimas]

Pithy statemements and clever retorts do not an arguement make.I’ve read your posts on this board and they follow a discernable pattern.Challenging unsupported statement.Unsupported retort,Cutesy answering a question with a question.Disappearance.Reemergence with no additional substance and unwillingness to engage in debate.I’ve seen a hundred posters like you and I’ll see a hundred more.Don’t bother replying,I’m done with you.You commit the greatest sin on this board…you are BORING and an utter waste of bandwidth…

I understand my intelligence hasn’t nor will ever reach the heights your’s but I sure know that a two hour delay in resonding is not deserving the unkind remark like yours. You are not kind enough to know there may be and probably a good reason for the delay.​

A problem with this kind of discussing is that people like you don’t let people like me establish understandings by making the statements and asking the questions I do.

 

[Soutane]

I understand my intelligence hasn’t nor will ever reach the heights your’s but I sure know that a two hour delay in resonding is not deserving the unkind remark like yours. You are not kind enough to know there may be and probably a good reason for the delay.​

A problem with this kind of discussing is that people like you don’t let people like me establish understandings by making the statements and asking the questions I do.

But you just respond with zingers,bon mots that are clever in their construction but you never answer the hard questions .you just duck and weave.I stand by my previous comments.Please don’t waste my time.I’ve got bigger fish to fry…or rather…save.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Dokimas,

I’m reposting a post to you that you may have missed earlier.

On another thread, you and I discussed the verses in John 14 and 16. I explained to you at that time that the conversation took place between Christ and only the Apostles. You asked me to prove that conversation took place between Jesus and only His Apostles. I directed you to John 13 and asked that you read, starting from, verse 1 through until others appeared in the story. I don’t remember you commenting on what you found.

I do see you’re still making the assertion that Catholics beliefs are based upon what is taught by the Church. Can’t you see the point I was, and am, making, and how it applies to the teaching of the Catechism, #85?

If we’re reading these chapters in the context of a discussion, instructions, between Jesus and only His Apostles, how does one ‘automatically’ apply the promises of the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth, guiding and teaching, to themselves directly?

As you continue to assert Catholics only believe what the Church teaches us, as if the teaching is unfounded in scriptures, you need to show us where everything written in scriptures is to be applied to individually is found in the Bible. I believe I have provided a scriptural basis for your generalized assertion of Catholics only believe what the Church tells them to believe.

 

[TonyLayne]

**@ Dokimas:

Didn’t mean to sneer but use language to make my point clear. **

Using neologisms doesn’t necessarily clarify. “Believism” in this context doesn’t explain why belief in the infallibility of the Church is wrong; it merely acts as a pejorative category label, a verbal “circular file” into which you can throw an argument without completely answering it.

I can’t [explain how I know the Holy Spirit is guiding me to the correct interpretation] and neither can you and the CC.

Actually, we can: The promise given by Christ to be “guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth” (Jn 16:13) is given specifically to the Church, and is a necessary part of the commission to “teach [the disciples of all nations] to observe everything I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19). We can see from Mt 16:18 and Mt 18:17-18 that Christ intended to found an authoritative Church, and that the Church would speak with his voice from Lk 10:16. St. Paul did not call the individual conscience or revelation “the pillar and foundation of truth” but rather the Church (1 Tim 3:15). All these aspects necessarily call for guidance by the Holy Spirit, and therefore argue to the Church’s infallibility in matters of faith and morals. This is necessarily a thumbnail sketch of such a defense, but sufficient to the purpose.

**I guess you haven’t read much of what I’ve written on CAF. I don’t think I’m smarter. What I do think though is you are doing to me what you accuse me of doing – telling me I’m wrong because you and the CC are correct. **

Forgive me if what I wrote seems uncharitable. But you are not wrong because the CC is right; rather, you are wrong because your conclusion is built on faulty premises.

**I don’t think anyone except Jesus understands infallibally **(sic).

I can’t tell if you were going for “infallibly” or “infallibility”, a confusion which is understandable, considering how fingers can sometimes not behave on keyboards. The quick and dirty explanation is that infallibility, within the context of Church doctrine, simply means that the Church can not teach error in matters of faith and morals. It doesn’t mean that the Church can’t err in matters of discipline or devotion, or that the Church can’t err on matters that don’t touch on faith or morals, or that there isn’t room for doctrinal development, or that the bishops and Pope are all wise, good and zealous defenders of the Faith. It certainly doesn’t mean that the Church knows as much as God. If that’s your contention–that the Church doesn’t know everything–then you’re arguing from a faulty perception of the doctrine.

(I guess I’ve already answered this but in case anyone missed it, I know I’m fallible.)

I didn’t miss it. My point is that, if you’re not infallible, then you’re open to error as much as you assert that the Church is. Then why place confidence in your own interpretation to the extent of rejecting the Church’s? There is at least a Scriptural basis for relying on the guidance of an authoritative Church; there is none for relying on one’s own interpretation.

 

[TonyLayne]

1. To promise to guide is not a promise of infallible/unaccountable FOLLOWING. You seem to be confusing guiding with following. This is the fatal flaw in your entire premise. You are making an entirely illogical and unbiblical position that if God leads, ergo all must infallibly follow and God holds such as unaccountable for all that is said or done. I asked you if God lead Adam and Eve (yes, infallibly - in a perfect, sinless world even!) and if your premise holds that THEREFORE, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Adam and Eve to do wrong, they can do no other but to INFALLIBLE follow that lead, and in any case, God would not hold them accountable but they would be exempt from all norming. Perhaps you should read Genesis chapter 3 in light of this foundational premise of yours.

To expand on Soutane’s reply: Your argument “proves too much”. If those who are promised the guidance do not follow, then in what sense does the Holy Spirit “guide”? But more to the point, you seem to be insisting that it’s beyond the power of Christ to protect his Church and its leaders from error. (And I’d like to see your citation for that!) What then of his promise that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Mt 16:28)? Or his promise to be with his Church “until the close of the age” (Mt 28:20)?

1. You seem to be confusing the roles of teacher and student. A perfect teacher does NOT mandate a PERFECT, INFALLIBLE and UNACCOUNTABLE student. Again - refer to Genesis Chapter 3. Refer to the entire Old Testament has God taught His people - and yet where they PERFECT, INFALLIBLE, UNACCOUNTABLE students?

Which brings up the riposte: Which of the people of the Old Testament were promised that “the gates of Hades would never prevail against” them (cf. Mt 16:18)? When the prophets were given the power to speak in God’s name, did they speak His words faithfully, or is that open to dispute? (Lk 10:16: “Who listens to you listens to me …”) Who among the priests, Pharisees and scribes was ever referred to as “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15)? (BTW, where does perfection and unaccountability come into the claims of the Church?)

The fact of the matter is, you are caught in a dilemma: On the one hand, you can’t deny infallibility to the Church without denying infallibility to anyone–yourself included–which makes your implict belief that you are guided by the Holy Spirit disputable. On the other hand, once you admit that the guidance of the Holy Spirit can impart infallibility, you have no basis for rebellion against the Church, for only the Church is granted authority to teach on earth.

Yes, Jesus founded one church. The church is still here. The church is one, holy and catholic. It is the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers?]. Christians have always been, still are and ever will be PEOPLE. Thus the communion of believers is PEOPLE. The assembly of Christians is PEOPLE. It has nothing to do with The Catholic Church or The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or The Syrian Orthodox Church.

Talk about unscriptural! “I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissentions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom 16:17). “Do not be led away by strange and diverse teachings” (Heb 13:9). We are called to be one Church not just in some “mystical” fashion but visibly, in spirit and truth, and our continued infighting is a source of scandal for non-believers. Moreover, Jesus intended there to be a Church with leaders and teachers; you have yet to demonstrate that the faithful have “heckler’s rights”, that they can separate themselves from the teachings of the institutional Church without separating themselves from the Body of Christ. “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’” (1 Cor 12:21). By emphasizing “people” you haven’t dispensed with the necessity of an authoritative Church, nor of visible unity.

 

[MikeLurie]

The Catholic Church canonized the Bible…

So if you believe that everything you need is in the bible, you’re subscribing to a document that the Catholic Church assembled.

Seems a little ridiculous to me.

If I author a book on carpentry, and somebody buys that book, and then dismisses me as somebody who can interpret the book I authored. They’re probably going to come out of it with a lopsided deck.

I usually charge about $500 to come repair a deck, but for the moron who told me I had no right to instruct him on the proper construction of a deck, I might charge $5000…

Good luck building your deck Mr. Sola Scriptura.
I’ll see you in shop class. Odds are, I’ll be the guy teaching it.

 

[Soutane]

Bwahahahaha.Hoist by his own petard.You should write for Conan O’brien.

 

[Soutane]

I understand my intelligence hasn’t nor will ever reach the heights your’s but I sure know that a two hour delay in resonding is not deserving the unkind remark like yours. You are not kind enough to know there may be and probably a good reason for the delay.​

A problem with this kind of discussing is that people like you don’t let people like me establish understandings by making the statements and asking the questions I do.

A classic ad hominum attack which I forgot to include in my original assessment of your avoiding honest debate and sincere engagement with others on this board.What’s next,the Strawman gambit?

Come on engage-I won’t bite.I’m just a yappy little anklebiter whose bark is waaaaay worse than his bite.I promise to be less like people like me 'ummmkay?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since the subject of reading the Bible in context was ‘overlooked’, by some, on this thread, I did start a thread entitled ‘How should we be reading the Bible?’ One’s approach to reading the Bible affects their interpretation. I welcome everyone’s comments on that thread.