What is Christ's Church?

[jmcrae]

Because scripture is the only thing solid and concrete to refer back to when Jesus’ teachings are talked about. The scriptures are Christ’s infallible words.
As far as the different interpretations go, you have to expect that since the Bible has been translated a few times over the years.

At least half of the how-many-dozens (or hundreds, or even thousands, some say) of Protestant denominations (including Mormonism, the Seventh Day Adventist Movement, and Oneness Pentecostalism, who can’t even agree on what species of creature Jesus is) rely on the same translation of the Scriptures as the High Anglicans (our “nearest cousins” so to speak; they believe in everything we do except for the Papacy) - the King James Version.

So, no, the variety of interpretations is not caused by the variety in translation.

Furthermore, we Catholics use several different translations just within our own Church (I’ve got three different Catholic translations on my shelf, and I know of at least three others that are also available), without ending up with several different interpretations, so I don’t think translation is really that much of an issue, here.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

At least half of the how-many-dozens (or hundreds, or even thousands, some say) of Protestant denominations (including Mormonism, the Seventh Day Adventist Movement, and Oneness Pentecostalism, who can’t even agree on what species of creature Jesus is) rely on the same translation of the Scriptures as the High Anglicans (our “nearest cousins” so to speak; they believe in everything we do except for the Papacy) - the King James Version.

I feel sorry for them. I will remember them in my prayers.

jmcrae:

So, no, the variety of interpretations is not caused by the variety in translation.

You picked the most off-the-wall denominations to compare. The average trinitarian Protestant knows that the Bible is not 100% what it was when it was first written and was also written vaguely in some areas for a reason. Afterall, God gave us free will. We can choose whether or not we study His Word and try and live as He told us to or just completely ignore Him and do what we want.

jmcrae:

Furthermore, we Catholics use several different translations just within our own Church (I’ve got three different Catholic translations on my shelf, and I know of at least three others that are also available), without ending up with several different interpretations, so I don’t think translation is really that much of an issue, here.

Why would you have so many translations? The Bible is complex enough without trying to complicate the understanding of it more by trying to read multiple translations. I think two translations is sufficient!
Just my :twocents: .

 

[MrS]

You picked the most off-the-wall denominations to compare. The average trinitarian Protestant knows that the Bible is not 100% what it was when it was first written and was also [1] written vaguely in some areas for a reason. Afterall, God gave us free will. We can choose whether or not **[2] we study His Word and try and live as He told us to or just completely ignore Him and do what we want. **

Why would you have so many translations? The Bible is complex enough [3] without trying to complicate the understanding of it more by trying to read multiple translations. I think two translations is sufficient!
Just my :twocents: .

[1] written vaguely…??? The vague or difficult verses arise when they are isolated from all of the Scriptures… or when the personal bias of the reader pre-empts the authoritative teaching of the Church. Or even when the reader is unaware of the multiple levels/instructions of a particular passage.

[2] yes, we do choose to study or not… but most forget/ignore that the Word that He gave us (the Scripture) comes to us by way of the only Church which He also gave us. … the one we call Catholic, not any other, nor any other individual.

[3] as for translations… I think they fall into two categories…
{a} the ones written to help us understand ( I have quite a number, including parallel Bibles)
{b} the ones written to “justify” a personal, man made desire to promote ones’ agenda… the KJV, the New World etc.

If it is approved by the Church whose job it is to safeguard the Truth… go for it.

If is is not approved by the Church, founded on Peter the Rock, proceed with caution… and use only as a tool to better understand and correct the one who thinks it is authentic.

.

 

[jmcrae]

You picked the most off-the-wall denominations to compare.

By what authority do you know for sure that they are “off the wall?” Isn’t it equally possible that you are off the wall? After all, it is “only” a disagreement in Bible interpretation. Who decides that your interpretation is “correct” and that theirs is “incorrect?”

The average trinitarian Protestant knows that the Bible is not 100% what it was when it was first written and was also written vaguely in some areas for a reason.

There is nothing “vague” in the Bible. Every letter, space, dot and cross was put there by God for our instruction.

Afterall, God gave us free will. We can choose whether or not we study His Word and try and live as He told us to or just completely ignore Him and do what we want.

How is a person who perceives some parts of the Bible as “vague” supposed to study it and understand it, if they can’t trust other human beings to help them?

Why would you have so many translations? The Bible is complex enough without trying to complicate the understanding of it more by trying to read multiple translations. I think two translations is sufficient!
Just my :twocents: .

I was a Bible Study teacher for a long time, and the different courses I was teaching were based on different translations of the Bible. It was easier to teach by reading out of the same text as they had in the hand-out materials - just made things go faster. (The students were allowed to bring any Bibles they wanted, of course!)

 

[Blue_Serenity]

[1] written vaguely…??? The vague or difficult verses arise when they are isolated from all of the Scriptures… or when the personal bias of the reader pre-empts the authoritative teaching of the Church. Or even when the reader is unaware of the multiple levels/instructions of a particular passage.

I say from multiple translations.

[2] yes, we do choose to study or not… but most forget/ignore that the Word that He gave us (the Scripture) comes to us by way of the only Church which He also gave us. … the one we call Catholic, not any other, nor any other individual.

Ah yes, the Catholic way.

[3] as for translations… I think they fall into two categories…
{a} the ones written to help us understand ( I have quite a number, including parallel Bibles)
{b} the ones written to “justify” a personal, man made desire to promote ones’ agenda… the KJV, the New World etc.

I’ll agree with that.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Ah yes, the Catholic way.

But of course! If you trust the Holy Catholic Church to determine what was Scripture and what isn’t, then wouldn’t it only seem logical to trust her interpretation as well?

I can’t think of another person, church or institution on earth that would be a more logical choice. Even an atheist could agree with that logic.

 

[MrS]

But of course! If you trust the Holy Catholic Church to determine what was Scripture and what isn’t, then wouldn’t it only seem logical to trust her interpretation as well?

I can’t think of another person, church or institution on earth that would be a more logical choice. Even an atheist could agree with that logic.

and isn’t it strange, that when there is a moral crisis in the world, the world wants to know what the Pope thinks.

Not Jesse Jackson, not Billy Graham, not the free will
Baptist minister, not the Anglican Bishop…

even the “dummies” still have a sense of value for the authority of the Catholic Church.

.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

so I don’t think translation is really that much of an issue, here.

Hi, Although I would say there are some translations not as good as others, I agree it is not the translation. It is humans always wanting to put their spin on it.

Someone will intrepret scriptures to try and make it easier for people to understand. Sometimes in that process little ideas might be added in and that is why it is important to study scripture for yourself with the guidance of the HS. You have to ask the HS to guide you to the truth.If you never study scripture and just trust that the CC is telling you the truth, then you could very well be being taught the wrong thing.

If someone is intrpreting scripture without the HS in them well–you see all the cult groups and mormons, JW. They dont get it because the HS is not in them and therefore cannot see or even comprehend the spiritual truth. It is possible that some Popes down the line may not have had the HS and could have taught wrong doctrines and noone questioned it because they didnt read the bible. And whatever they taught stayed because noone questioned it because they didnt check with the bible.

Remember that the bible is a spiritual book. If a person doesnt understand that–then they will not get all of the layers of spiritual meaning in the bible.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

and isn’t it strange, that when there is a moral crisis in the world, the world wants to know what the Pope thinks.

Not Jesse Jackson, not Billy Graham, not the free will
Baptist minister, not the Anglican Bishop…

even the “dummies” still have a sense of value for the authority of the Catholic Church.

.

Hi,
That is because the Vatican has become very powerful.

 

[E.E.N.S]

ALLFORHIM:

Hi, Although I would say there are some translations not as good as others, I agree it is not the translation. It is humans always wanting to put their spin on it.

Someone will intrepret scriptures to try and make it easier for people to understand. Sometimes in that process little ideas might be added in and that is why it is important to study scripture for yourself with the guidance of the HS. You have to ask the HS to guide you to the truth.If you never study scripture and just trust that the CC is telling you the truth, then you could very well be being taught the wrong thing.

If someone is intrpreting scripture without the HS in them well–you see all the cult groups and mormons, JW. They dont get it because the HS is not in them and therefore cannot see or even comprehend the spiritual truth. It is possible that some Popes down the line may not have had the HS and could have taught wrong doctrines and noone questioned it because they didnt read the bible. And whatever they taught stayed because noone questioned it because they didnt check with the bible.

Remember that the bible is a spiritual book. If a person doesnt understand that–then they will not get all of the layers of spiritual meaning in the bible.

Actually, the protection from error was promised to the Church, not the individual. Everybody and their mother claims to have the Holy Spirit when interpreting Sacred Scripture, yet the all have differing (and often conflicting) intepretations - so who’s right?? (By the way, the Mormons will same the same thing as well…)

You will have no way of telling who is and who isn’t being led by the Holy Spirit, so then you can trust no one but yourself, and thus we come to what has already been happening since the “Reformation” (even Martin Luther realized this), everbody “becomes their own pope” interpretting for themselves what is to be believed. This is an extrememly dangerous position to hold and was certainly not indended by Our Lord.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Hi,
That is because the Vatican has become very powerful.

It is because people, when they truly look, see that the Church has been the only one to hold firm in these matters, all others have waivered. And in some degree they trust the Church to at least make the moral and upright choice.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

It is because people, when they truly look, see that the Church has been the only one to hold firm in these matters, all others have waivered. And in some degree they trust the Church to at least make the moral and upright choice.

Hi,
Yeah I would agree:thumbsup:

 

[SAINThoodSEEKER]

We can all split hairs over Sacred Scripture over and over again, but ultimately plain old vanilla history (even if from a secular lens) tells much. I once heard of an atheist history professor who absolutely loathed even the question of whether God existed or not. “BUT,” he claimed to a searching Christian student of his,“if you MUST believe, then there, from a logical standpoint, are only two valid religions…Judaism and Roman Catholicism.”
You see this man did not believe in Christ, but he knew from his studies that Jewish prophecy seemed to have much validity and logic to it. From here, Jesus Christ (the historical figure) seemed to fit all criteria from that previous Hebrew prophecy. Then from this, the Roman Catholic Church seemed to be the only “Christian” faith that embraced ALL of Christ’s teachings. Obviously, the Protestant divisions (even the oldest ones) couldn’t claim to be of Christ, because Christ told his apostles that He would be with them always, not being in 1,600 years or more…STARTING THEN until the end of time. Also, when you read about the practices…yes “practices” of the Early Church Fathers, you can’t deny that they upheld and followed through with all the religious observations that the Catholic Church does today. This sadly was witnessed by an atheist (however objective) , but not by many of those who claim to follow and study Christ.

“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
-Epiphanius of Salamis

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Does anyone here know the very first church that was planted and who established it?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Does anyone here know the very first church that was planted and who established it?

I am not sure what you are asking…could you please clarify?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Hi,
That is because the Vatican has become very powerful.

A truer statement would be that the Vatican is led by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ and in time of tragedy the world needs to hear the Truth as spoken by Christ’s earthly presents in our world.

See not really power, just Truth.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I am not sure what you are asking…could you please clarify?

Hi,
Im just wondering where the very first church(building)group of people were planted(so to speak).

My church was built in the 70’s in so an so NJ.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi,
Im just wondering where the very first church(building)group of people were planted(so to speak).

My church was built in the 70’s in so an so NJ.

The very first Church was Jesus and the Apostles. As far as buildings go, I suppose the house of Mother Mary would have been the first actual building used for Christian worship on a regular basis.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

You will have no way of telling who is and who isn’t being led by the Holy Spirit, so then you can trust no one but yourself, and thus we come to what has already been happening since the “Reformation” (even Martin Luther realized this), everbody “becomes their own pope” interpretting for themselves what is to be believed. This is an extrememly dangerous position to hold and was certainly not indended by Our Lord.

But who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong? Only God knows really, right?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

But of course! If you trust the Holy Catholic Church to determine what was Scripture and what isn’t, then wouldn’t it only seem logical to trust her interpretation as well?

I can’t think of another person, church or institution on earth that would be a more logical choice. Even an atheist could agree with that logic.

It IS logical and if the CC today was the same CC before 800 A.D., I would trust her interpretation of scripture. Since she had two divisions since then, she’s not the same church that influenced the composition of the Bible.