What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Church_Militant]

“Few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion—and if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.”
Bishop Fulton Sheen

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

Wow! How can you be sure of this interpretation? You are not part of the Magisterium are you?

Are you really saying that this is the exegetical way you come to this conclusion? You see things that are just not there.

If Peter is the fulfillment of these Prophecies, why doesn’t Matt draw attention to this? He is writing to the Jewish nation to show how the person, words and works of Christ are a fillfillment of the Old Testament system. He goes out of his way to say “This fullfilled” so and so, so that the Jew would know the connection with the Old Testament. His whole purpose was to make the connection evident to those whom he was writing. He does this more than any of the other Gospel writers. He has more quotes from the OT than anyone.

Why didn’t he say in Matt. 16 this fullfills the passages you just used to justify the Roman Papacy. Big mistake? Oversight? Or could it be that it is just not true.

Exegesis has to take into account all of this and make these decisions. To find these to justify a system to which you already describe is eisegesis. If I were to use this method, I could prove just about anything. You have to take the Scripture in its original context and then derive your theology, not the other way around.

Hope you see where I am coming from. Nice system, but not justified,

Michael

Michael,

I’m not a member of the magesterium. Even if I were it would make no difference whatsoever. You discount the quotes and connections I made in my post. I think you are mistaken. The OT verses are not a prophecy and I never claimed they were.

You claim rather weakly that the verses I presented are a form of eisegesis. I think you would be very hard pressed exegetically to refute the use of those scriptures and their relationship to one another. You make the false assumption that Matthew should have somehow made a statement about the fulfillment of the OT passages relative to the papacy as if this was the fulfillment of a prophecy. This is nonsense and you have no basis for your suggestion. No one claims that this is a prophecy. Instead, you should be seeing the OT connections and the consistency of the Divine plan throughout salvation history. Moreover, the language Jesus used in Matthew 16:18-19 would have been obvious to his disciples and any other Jewish listeners.

You need to understand that scripture is a high context set of documents and within the context of Jewish culture and the Christian Church you will recieve a better understanding of what it means. The disciples would have immediately connected Jesus words to the OT even though you do not. Also consider the fact that God never left the Jews with just the Torah. He sent Moses and the prophets. They always had leadership. Even though Christ rips the Jewish leaders for their hypocrisy, Jesus still tells the people in Matthew 23:1-3, " THEN SAID Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” The Jews had a form of magesterium just as we do.

You must understand and appreciate the fact that the Father loves His children and He does not want them being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” You claim that evangelicals agree on 95% of doctrine. I would like you to provide at least an approximate proof of that statement. My evangelical friends disagree on many of what I consider to be important teachings. I find them disagreeing on baptism, once saved always saved, the end times, repentance, and the meaning of grace. In fact Louis Harris, an evangelical himself, has routinely polled non-catholic Christians on the subject of grace and has concluded over and over again that most do not know or understand what “grace” is.

Non-catholic Christians disagree on many things. Moreover, what is disagreed on may be even more important than the actual number of things upon which they disagree . These divisions among Christians are extremely important. Carefully and prayerfully read the 17th Chapter of John. If there is a scandal and woeful disorder within Christianity it is our lack of unity. If you disregard the Catholic Church and just look at the believers that are left and examine the disunity therein you will begin to appreciate the problem. All of the divisions outside of the Catholic Church claim the same thing when it comes to their authority. They all agree that it is the bible alone, but they all have serious disagreements over what the bible says. These disagreements are serious and they fly in the face of the unity prayed for by Jesus.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

You really need to read this article. Or read the thread that I posted about the 30000 number. It shows that Evangelical Protestant and Catholics have a simular number of denominations (although we just call them something different). Get involved over there. I would glad to clear up this misconception.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=26434

Hi Michael!

There are absolutely no demoninations within Catholicism at all. There are differet rites, but all this refers to is differences in the practices due to cultural differences in different parts of the world, not in doctrine. All rites are under the common authority of the pope.

There are also other Protestant denominations, splinter groups which keep the word “Catholic” in their names, but are no more affiliated with the Catholic Church than the Baptists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Some writers, in an effort to paint the Catholic Church as divided as anyone else, take these different rites and splinter groups and lump them together under the heading of “denominations within Catholicism”. It is misleading and flat out incorrect.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

I can accept the 10% growth in converts in this nation. What I would like to see is number of converts worldwide. The stats you show (that I saw) whether these were converts worldwide or infant baptisms. If infant baptisms, that doesn’t tell us much about missionary work - which is my point. And no prot stats were shown. I will try to find the latest stats on conversions worldwide for prots. Thanks for the figures here.

Hi ahimsaman72!

I’m unclear on the point you are trying to make with this information. Help me understand what the number of converts to the faith worldwide or statistics about missionary work has to do with whether or not the Catholic Church teaches the truth that Jesus taught.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

Do you choose one, two, or give an alternate understanding.

Hi Michael!

Where did you get the idea that scripture is always a matter of “either/or” and never “both/and”? Who made the authoritative decision that this is the correct way to interpret scripture and by what authority did he do so?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

Where did you get the idea that scripture is always a matter of “either/or” and never “both/and”? Who made the authoritative decision that this is the correct way to interpret scripture and by what authority did he do so?

In Christ,
Nancy

I did not say that it is ALWAYS this way. Some Scriptures contain double reference or a double meaning. In the case above it cannot be both exegetically. In fact, it is number two.

To say that John 21 teaches that Peter is Pope is reading your theology into the text. Seriously read it yourself again. Set aside all your presuppositions and ask if this is what the original readers would have heard. Really. Read it and do this.

It is my humble contention that NONE of the original readers would have seen what your Magisterium sees. You have to look to the Authorial Intent of the passage. Heck, **even Raymond Brown admits this. (see quote above). **It is exegetically unjustified to see it referring to the Petrine authority.

If you say it does because the Church says it does, your are question begging (see illustration above about man who says he speaks for God).

Again, there is no justification for the RC system beyond pragmatics. No one has shown me otherwise.

If your Magisterium thinks that it can speak for God and interpret the Scripture infallibly, fine, but let them show the signs of an Apostle or Prophet (Deut 18; 2 Cor 12:12) and agree with previously revealed orthodoxy (Deut 13) and I will most certianly “come home.”

If not, there is no reason for you or I to believe them. This is the criteria God set up, not me. Really, how do you expect me to otherwise. I might as well follow anyone who claims to be from God or speak God’s word infallibly.

Thanks.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Hi Michael!

There are absolutely no demoninations within Catholicism at all. There are differet rites, but all this refers to is differences in the practices due to cultural differences in different parts of the world, not in doctrine. All rites are under the common authority of the pope.

There are also other Protestant denominations, splinter groups which keep the word “Catholic” in their names, but are no more affiliated with the Catholic Church than the Baptists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Some writers, in an effort to paint the Catholic Church as divided as anyone else, take these different rites and splinter groups and lump them together under the heading of “denominations within Catholicism”. It is misleading and flat out incorrect.

In Christ,
Nancy

But don’t you see. I don’t mind denominations. I don’t think that we have to agree on everything. Again, you and all the posters on this thread don’t agree on everything. You even disagree about **the essential **“Outside the Church . . .” Who is to say who’s interpretation is right. We disagree about eternal security. You have people who don’t accept Vatican 2. We have people who don’t even accept that Satan was really a snake in the Garden. You have people who are Charismatic, we have people who are Charismatic. On and on we could go. The name does not create the creedal unity. It is the teachings under which you fall. You fall under the Magisteriums teachings from their interpretation of Scripture, we fall under the Apostle’s teachings as recorded in Scripture. Your people stuggle to interpret the Magisterium. Our people struggle to interpret the Scripture. Your people divide because of individual interpretation of the Magisterium, but not in name. Our people divide over individual interpretation of the Scripture and call their expressions different names.

But you fail to understand that we are all united whether you like it or not. We are all (all who have trusted in Christ) part of the family of God, adopted as children, intergrated into the ontological unity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. WE ARE UNITED AND ONE whether we agree on EVERYTHING or not.

I hope that this helps you to see where I am coming from.

You see, I am hard to interpret, even though we live in the same time and speak the same language. You have been trying to interpret me and I you. But it take time and hard work to do so. But it is possible if we stick at it. You ought to try the same thing with Scripture. It is not that hard.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

I’m not a member of the magesterium. Even if I were it would make no difference whatsoever. You discount the quotes and connections I made in my post. I think you are mistaken. The OT verses are not a prophecy and I never claimed they were.

You claim rather weakly that the verses I presented are a form of eisegesis. I think you would be very hard pressed exegetically to refute the use of those scriptures and their relationship to one another. You make the false assumption that Matthew should have somehow made a statement about the fulfillment of the OT passages relative to the papacy as if this was the fulfillment of a prophecy. This is nonsense and you have no basis for your suggestion. No one claims that this is a prophecy. Instead, you should be seeing the OT connections and the consistency of the Divine plan throughout salvation history. Moreover, the language Jesus used in Matthew 16:18-19 would have been obvious to his disciples and any other Jewish listeners.

You need to understand that scripture is a high context set of documents and within the context of Jewish culture and the Christian Church you will recieve a better understanding of what it means. The disciples would have immediately connected Jesus words to the OT even though you do not. Also consider the fact that God never left the Jews with just the Torah. He sent Moses and the prophets. They always had leadership. Even though Christ rips the Jewish leaders for their hypocrisy, Jesus still tells the people in Matthew 23:1-3, " THEN SAID Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” The Jews had a form of magesterium just as we do.

You must understand and appreciate the fact that the Father loves His children and He does not want them being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” You claim that evangelicals agree on 95% of doctrine. I would like you to provide at least an approximate proof of that statement. My evangelical friends disagree on many of what I consider to be important teachings. I find them disagreeing on baptism, once saved always saved, the end times, repentance, and the meaning of grace. In fact Louis Harris, an evangelical himself, has routinely polled non-catholic Christians on the subject of grace and has concluded over and over again that most do not know or understand what “grace” is.

Non-catholic Christians disagree on many things. Moreover, what is disagreed on may be even more important than the actual number of things upon which they disagree . These divisions among Christians are extremely important. Carefully and prayerfully read the 17th Chapter of John. If there is a scandal and woeful disorder within Christianity it is our lack of unity. If you disregard the Catholic Church and just look at the believers that are left and examine the disunity therein you will begin to appreciate the problem. All of the divisions outside of the Catholic Church claim the same thing when it comes to their authority. They all agree that it is the bible alone, but they all have serious disagreements over what the bible says. These disagreements are serious and they fly in the face of the unity prayed for by Jesus.

If I were to interpret Scripture that way that you just did, disregarding the purpose of the writing, the context of the arguement, and what the original audience would have understood, I could make the Scripture say whatever I want. I could make Moby Dick say anything I want if I interpret this way. Raymond Brown even disagrees with the RC interpretation of John 21 believing it to be eisegesis.

Respectfully,
Michael

 

[michaelp]

Michael,
Also consider the fact that God never left the Jews with just the Torah. He sent Moses and the prophets. They always had leadership. Even though Christ rips the Jewish leaders for their hypocrisy, Jesus still tells the people in Matthew 23:1-3, " THEN SAID Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” The Jews had a form of magesterium just as we do.

This is fine. I agree, God did sometimes leave a prophet (but the Bible is not exhaustive history so we don’t have records of times when there was no prophet since God only had Scripture written when there was).

Let your Magisterium show the signs of an Apostle or Prophet (Deut 18l 2 Cor.12:12) and adhere to orthodoxy (Deut 13) and I will believe them . . . I promise. Really and TRULY. I have no problem with this.

But just to claim that they speak for God and then not require any signs and claim thier authority off of Jn 21 is a leap of faith and irresponsible for me to do.

Thanks for your continued diligence in this even though I can see you tearing your hair out.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Nah, we’re not alike there at all. In my mind the more important of the two jobs is not getting the words down on paper but making sure they are not misunderstood.

In YOUR mind??? Who is to say that you are right in you SUBJECTIVE mind???

It’s not a problem for God and in fact a very desirable situation. If you have a fallible translation but someone who cannot err in his interpretation you’re in a far better situation that having a fallible translation with fallible interpreters.

OK, so from this, you don’t even need Scripture, right? Seriously, what is the need if you may have it wrong. Maybe alot of it has been compiled from wrong manuscripts and then translated wrongly. You do not need Scripture then.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Thankyou moderators for deleting my post.I do not want to be misunderstood and offend anyone. I certainly, do not want to offend Michael. I didn’t mean to. Any way I will pm him and apologise for any misunderstanding.God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Catholic4aReasn:

Michael, Michael, Michael,
You do this often. You forget that the Church and therefore her teachings predate the bible.

You mean, the traditions of the Apostles predate the Bible. It makes not sense at this point in the argument to say that the Body of Christ predates the Bible.

And BTW: I agree. The traditions that the Scriptures contain predate the Bible. All Protestant agree. Most of the Bible was complete by 66 A.D. with few other writings that followed. So for the first 30 years the Church essential relied upon the Apostles testimony. After this, people relied upon their written testimony and spoken word. When they died, the traditions carried on. But they were only true to the degree that they adhered to Scripture. That is why it is necessary to have a written testimony, because, as we all know, written testimony is more reliable in everyday life than spoken. Why would you think it was any different then.

Even according to you, the spoken testimony of Papias, who sat at the feet of John, is already corrupted since he was a premillennialist.

The Bible even records the fact that IN JOHN’S DAY tradition had already been corrupted AMONG THE DISCIPLES THEMSELVES.
Read this:
John 21:23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but *only, *"If I want him to remain until I come, what *is that *to you?"24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Tradition is unreliable, that is why it needed to be written down. That is why God had it written down within 30 years, even though many of the Apostles were still alive.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

catholic.com/library/proving_inspiration.asp. It argues that Protestants use circular reasoning to defend the inspiration of Sacred Scripture, while our reasoning is spiral

But I don’t use circular reasoning to prove Scripture. It is ABSOLUTELY irresponsible to say that the Scripture is inspired because it says it is.

I am glad you admit (though in not so many words) that the RC justification for their system is circular and question begging. I can respect this. But I cannot do it.

 

[michaelp]

The measure in which scriptures were primarily proven to be inspired was LIVING DIVINE TRADITION. Without that, there would be no bible. The Bible IS Tradition. One mode of transmission being different from the other does not make one inferior over the other.

Wow! Try using that apologetic on some seeking skeptic. “How do you know the Scripture is inspired/” Answer, “Because the Living Divine Tradition says it is.”

I don’t think either I nor Aquanis could follow by this type of apologetics. I think you need something more. This is the simular agument that all the cults and other religions give. It is not the type of rational thinking that God prescribesin Isa 40-48 (read them).

I believe Scripture is inspired because history attest to the fact that Christ rose from the grave and because of predictive prophecy (expecially Isa 53), not becaus the Bible says so, nor because others have believed it before.

Michael
Michael

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

michaelp:

But you did not deal with the issue that this poses:

How do you justify it that trained Scholars, who are not part of the Magisterium, translate the Scriptures (which involves more interpretation than anything else). Why does the Magisterium allow this and how is it justified according to your system?

Michael

Hi Michael!

I disagree that translating scripture from one language to another involves more interpretation than anything. A translator, being true to his craft, is going to try to use the words which most “mean” what the other word means, as close to one-to-one as possible. They aren’t going to choose the phrases which best capture the intended meaning of the original author.

For example, if I was translating the phrase “It’s raining cats and dogs” into German I’d use the term that means “it’s raining” (whatever that might be) and the word that means “cat” (katz), the word that means “and” (und) and the word that means “dog” (hund). What I wouldn’t do, as a translator, would be to write “Rain is falling out of the sky really, really hard”. That would be the job of an interpreter, not a translator.

A translator is concerned with the meaning of individual words, whereas an interpreter is concerned with the over all idea that those words convey.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

I disagree that translating scripture from one language to another involves more interpretation than anything. A translator, being true to his craft, is going to try to use the words which most “mean” what the other word means, as close to one-to-one as possible. They aren’t going to choose the phrases which best capture the intended meaning of the original author.

Obviously, you have not done any translating. I have done very much. It requires increadible amounts of interpretation for all translation is is the INTERPRETATION form one language to another.

Just do a Google search on “All translation requires interpretation” and I bet you will see it express hundreds of time. Not just by religion, but any group that teaches how to translate. That is why we had to combine our Greek translation classes with exegesis. This is the first thing that I translator learns is that he has to understand the people groups, cultures, idioms, habits, attitudes of the people from whom he is translating. Then he has to know the same for the people to whom he is translating.

I understand that you are not a scholar in this area, but believe me, your illustation is very simplistic.

Respectfully,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

By the way, check out this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=26568

It doesn’t seem like everyone agrees with you about this essential doctrine. Who is to say you are right?

It is like the “Can a person lose their salvation” stuff that goes on with Protestants. Although, to me, a little more essential.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Lisa, there is something that you said earlier that interested me that I did not see your answer on. I think that it might cause me to misunderstand you all some. You said that the Catechism is not infallible. Is that true?

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

If I were to interpret Scripture that way that you just did, disregarding the purpose of the writing, the context of the arguement, and what the original audience would have understood, I could make the Scripture say whatever I want. I could make Moby Dick say anything I want if I interpret this way. Raymond Brown even disagrees with the RC interpretation of John 21 believing it to be eisegesis.

Respectfully,
Michael

Michael,

What you wrote in this post is absurd. Moreover, you might as well quit qouting Brown’s opinion. Look at the Early Church Fathers. They reflect Catholic teaching, but sometimes they disagreed. In those cases of disagreement, it was always the Church through Councils and Papal decrees that settled the matter, and that is the way it works today. Brown does not make decisions for the Church, nor does he have the authority to dispute any official Church teaching. His opinion on a particular passage of scripture is his own, and that is fine. If you choose to agree with him that’s fine, but that certainly doesn’t settle the matter.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

What you wrote in this post is absurd. Moreover, you might as well quit qouting Brown’s opinion. Look at the Early Church Fathers. They reflect Catholic teaching, but sometimes they disagreed. In those cases of disagreement, it was always the Church through Councils and Papal decrees that settled the matter, and that is the way it works today. Brown does not make decisions for the Church, nor does he have the authority to dispute with any authority Church teaching.

Absurd? You could be intellectually honest and say that it is less plausible, but to say that it is absurd is really discrediting (unless you are using argumentative hyperbole). It is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the text.

P.S. I just use Brown because he follows the same methodology that I do for interpreting Scripture. In fact, I find much I like in him. (. . . and you)

Let me just leave it at this: to me, not only is it not absurd, but it is the only plausible explaination for the context of Jn 17 and the rest of the book.

But, alas, we will just have to respectfully disagree. I appreciate your contribution to this thread that Lisa started.

I pray that you have a good evening.

Michael