"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th

[jmcrae]

Yes, that is your position.

I never said it did (cf Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18, 24, et al).

Actually the proclamation of the gospel is not one of authority, but one of compulsion; everyone who has truly believed the gospel will, at some point, be compelled by the indwelling HS to proclaim its truth; it is a simple message—believe…(Acts 16:31, et al).

The content of that belief is very specific, though. We must have faith in the Jesus Christ who became a real man, lived in real time, and whose story is recorded not only in the Scriptures but in history itself, in the Tradition that comes out of that history, and whom we find today alive and well in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.

We can’t just “have faith” in whatever we want the Gospels to say (whether they actually do, or not), and think that somehow, we are thereby saved.

 

[Kay_Cee]

No

Thank you for the response. I thought you would answer no since you’ve indicated as much in the past.

Next question:

7) So, since one who has the Holy Spirit and is a sincere believer is not infallible, his or her initial interpretation of a verse could be wrong?

Yes/no/I don’t know

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Thank you for the response. I thought you would answer no since you’ve indicated as much in the past.

Next question:

7) So, since one who has the Holy Spirit and is a sincere believer is not infallible, his or her initial interpretation of a verse could be wrong?

Yes/no/I don’t know

Yep

 

[deb216]

32 But I have prayed for thee (singular), that thy (singular) faith fail not: and when thou (singular) art converted, strengthen thy (singular) brethren.You, yourself, point out here all the “singulars,” yet you interpret this verse as referring not only to Peter but to his so-called “successors” in Rome.

(1) Does Christ, in the text, say anything about giving to Peter a throne in Rome?

(2) In respect to thrones, according to the text, does He single out Peter at all?

(3) Over whom are they to judge?

Let’s read number seven again, shall we?:7. Undue emphasis on tradition. Some churches claim to believe the Bible, but their interpretation is always filtered through the established tradition of their church. Where tradition and the teaching of the Bible are in conflict, tradition is given precedence. This effectively negates the authority of the Word and grants the church leadership supremacy.I see a lot of conflict between your established tradition, through which your interpretation of the text is filtered, and what the Biblical text actually states.

You cannot possibly arrive at a correct interpretation of the Scriptures when your interpretation is filtered through your already established traditions. In truth, it’s your established traditions that must be tested by the Scriptures.

Do not presume that my interpretation has been “filtered.” That is a Protestant myth. Like many Catholics, my faith journey took me through many Protestant churches. I have read your Bible. I have heard your preachers. I have been at your Bible studies and Sunday schools. I studied religion. I studied history. I studied human nature and language. I prayed for guidance and the truth was revealed to me. That is why I am Catholic.

All of the disciples heard Jesus preach with their own ears. All of the disciples witnessed miracles with their own eyes. All of them were first person witnesses to His ministry. Surely they were all worthy of distinction and able to teach the Word. Yet, time and again, Jesus singled out Peter to lead them. Why? Everything that He did had a purpose. It was not a meaningless gesture.

In my opinion, the reason is that Jesus understood human nature. We are a predictable lot. He knew that, over time, the message would be filtered through human understanding; our pride and prejudice, our arrogance and ignorance, our joy and despair, our hopes and fears, our wants and our desires. He knew that we are sheep, easily led astray. Many would claim to have the truth. Many would claim to know the way. In a cacophony of bleating, one strong voice was needed to act as shepherd and keep the flock together.

Jesus didn’t have to appoint a leader. He chose to. He chose Peter. He built His church upon Peter. He gave the keys to Peter. He gave the authority to bind and loose sins to Peter. He singled out Peter to strengthen his brethren. He asked Peter to feed His sheep.

Jesus established the leadership. Jesus granted the authority. It did not die with Peter. He passed it along to another so that the Church would continue to have one leader. Through the millenia it has passed. That one voice who speaks with authority is Benedict XVI. I know this to be true, even if there are Christians who deny it.

That I choose to listen to that one voice is not an indication of brainwashing. It is an indication of my faith and unfiltered understanding of the scriptures.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

The content of that belief is very specific, though. We must have faith in the Jesus Christ who became a real man, lived in real time, and whose story is recorded not only in the Scriptures but in history itself, in the Tradition that comes out of that history, and whom we find today alive and well in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.

That is your statement of faith, but that is not the gospel.

jmcrae:

We can’t just “have faith” in whatever we want the Gospels to say (whether they actually do, or not), and think that somehow, we are thereby saved.

Very true; we need an authority to define the gospel.

 

[mh22]

Scripture says there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). This passage emphasizes the unity that should exist in the Body of Christ as we are indwelt by “one Spirit” (verse 4). In verse 3, Paul makes an appeal to humility, meekness, patience, and love—all which are necessary to preserve unity. According to 1 Corinthians 2:10-13, the Holy Spirit knows the mind of God (verse 11), which He reveals (verse 10) and teaches (verse 13) to those whom He indwells. This activity of the Holy Spirit is called illumination.

In a perfect world, every believer would dutifully study the Bible (2 Timothy 2:15) in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s illumination. Alas, this is not a perfect world. Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit actually listens to the Holy Spirit. There are Christians who grieve Him (Ephesians 4:30). Ask any educator: even the best classroom teacher has his share of wayward students who seem to resist learning, no matter what the teacher does. So, one reason that different people have different interpretations of the Bible is simply that some do not listen to the Teacher. Here are some other reasons for the wide divergence of beliefs among those who teach the Bible:

see next post

The bible is the inspired word of God. I think that most Christians can agree on that.

How did it become the bible as we know it? You mentioned the guidence of the holy spirit is important with interpretation. I would say the holy spirit guided the church to put together all of the books we call the inspired word of God.

The holy spirit also guided the church on how to interpret the bible to help us understand.

Unfortunately we have many Christian religions that have many interpretations and all guided by the holy spirit. That can cause confusion.

So who is right??

If we trace it back to the fact that we all say the bible is inspired , we might want to take a look at what the people that God commissioned to put together the bible for us might think.

It sure does take away some of the confusion.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Okay, just to recap a bit, I asked:

7) So, since one who has the Holy Spirit and is a sincere believer is not infallible, his or her initial interpretation of a verse could be wrong?

You answered:

Yep

Next question:

8) When the believer checks his fallible interpretation against the Bible, are his interpretations of other verses, the ones he’s checking his first interpretation against, also fallible?

Yes/No/I don’t know

 

[apophasis]

Do not presume that my interpretation has been “filtered.” That is a Protestant myth. Like many Catholics, my faith journey took me through many Protestant churches. I have read your Bible. I have heard your preachers. I have been at your Bible studies and Sunday schools. I studied religion. I studied history. I studied human nature and language. I prayed for guidance and the truth was revealed to me. That is why I am Catholic.

All of the disciples heard Jesus preach with their own ears. All of the disciples witnessed miracles with their own eyes. All of them were first person witnesses to His ministry. Surely they were all worthy of distinction and able to teach the Word. Yet, time and again, Jesus singled out Peter to lead them. Why? Everything that He did had a purpose. It was not a meaningless gesture.

In my opinion, the reason is that Jesus understood human nature. We are a predictable lot. He knew that, over time, the message would be filtered through human understanding; our pride and prejudice, our arrogance and ignorance, our joy and despair, our hopes and fears, our wants and our desires. He knew that we are sheep, easily led astray. Many would claim to have the truth. Many would claim to know the way. In a cacophony of bleating, one strong voice was needed to act as shepherd and keep the flock together.

Jesus didn’t have to appoint a leader. He chose to. He chose Peter. He built His church upon Peter. He gave the keys to Peter. He gave the authority to bind and loose sins to Peter. He singled out Peter to strengthen his brethren. He asked Peter to feed His sheep.

Jesus established the leadership. Jesus granted the authority. It did not die with Peter. He passed it along to another so that the Church would continue to have one leader. Through the millenia it has passed. That one voice who speaks with authority is Benedict XVI. I know this to be true, even if there are Christians who deny it.

That I choose to listen to that one voice is not an indication of brainwashing. It is an indication of my faith and unfiltered understanding of the scriptures.

Yet NOTHING you claim in this post can be found in the Biblical text you provided. You have simply defended your personal opinion which is rooted in Catholic tradition through which your interpretation of the text is filtered. That’s why you avoided the few questions I asked in my post pertaining to the Biblical text you provided.

No, I wouldn’t call it brainwashing at all since you freely choose to shelve your brain and mindlessly accept the interpretation of others who clearly filter their interpretation of the Scriptures through their already established traditions. The greater fault, then, lies with you.

Do you, a Roman Catholic, even need to possess a Bible? Couldn’t you function perfectly well as a RC without one since RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based? And its interpretation of the Scriptures is filtered through its traditions anyway.

 

[apophasis]

Okay, just to recap a bit, I asked:

7) So, since one who has the Holy Spirit and is a sincere believer is not infallible, his or her initial interpretation of a verse could be wrong?

You answered:

Next question:

8) When the believer checks his fallible interpretation against the Bible, are his interpretations of other verses, the ones he’s checking his first interpretation against, also fallible?

Yes/No/I don’t know

The fact that NO MAN possesses infallibility is the reason ALL MEN need objective guidelines when interpreting the Scriptures. That’s what this thread is about. The idea that your Magesterium is infallible when interpreting the Scriptues is merely a matter of personal claim on their part and personal opinion on yours.

That fact that no man possesses infallibility renders your whole line of questioning moot.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Do you, a Roman Catholic, even need to possess a Bible? Couldn’t you function perfectly well as a RC without one since RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based? And its interpretation of the Scriptures is filtered through its traditions anyway.

Now that IS the question, isn’t it?

 

[mh22]

Yet NOTHING you claim in this post can be found in the Biblical text you provided. You have simply defended your personal opinion which is rooted in Catholic tradition through which your interpretation of the text is filtered. That’s why you avoided the few questions I asked in my post pertaining to the Biblical text you provided.

No, I wouldn’t call it brainwashing at all since you freely choose to shelve your brain and mindlessly accept the interpretation of others who clearly filter their interpretation of the Scriptures through their already established traditions. The greater fault, then, lies with you.

Do you, a Roman Catholic, even need to possess a Bible? Couldn’t you function perfectly well as a RC without one since RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based? And its interpretation of the Scriptures is filtered through its traditions anyway.

Who said that the catholic faith is not bible based? It most certainly is bible based and it is also not limited to what is found in the bible just as God is not limited to what is written in the bible. The bible is a very important gift that God has given us and remember if it was not important the holy spirit would not have guided the church to put the books together.

 

[Kay_Cee]

The fact that NO MAN possesses infallibility is the reason ALL MEN need objective guidelines when interpreting the Scriptures. That’s what this thread is about. The idea that your Magesterium is infallible when interpreting the Scriptues is merely a matter of personal claim on their part and personal opinion on yours.

That fact that no man possesses infallibility renders your whole line of questioning moot.

The questions are for AFH. I’m trying to figure out where she’s coming from.

You are, of course, welcome to make comments, but it’s her reply I’m interested in.

Even so, I have made no reference to the Magesterium in my line of questions addressed to her, nor have I expressed personal opinions. I have merely asked questions. You are, therefore, jumping to conclusions regarding this line of questioning.

 

[deb216]

deb216;1948081:

Do not presume that my interpretation has been “filtered.” That is a Protestant myth. Like many Catholics, my faith journey took me through many Protestant churches. I have read your Bible. I have heard your preachers. I have been at your Bible studies and Sunday schools. I studied religion. I studied history. I studied human nature and language. I prayed for guidance and the truth was revealed to me. That is why I am Catholic.

All of the disciples heard Jesus preach with their own ears. All of the disciples witnessed miracles with their own eyes. All of them were first person witnesses to His ministry. Surely they were all worthy of distinction and able to teach the Word. Yet, time and again, Jesus singled out Peter to lead them. Why?Everything that He did had a purpose. It was not a meaningless gesture.

In my opinion, the reason is that Jesus understood human nature. We are a predictable lot. He knew that, over time, the message would be filtered through human understanding; our pride and prejudice, our arrogance and ignorance, our joy and despair, our hopes and fears, our wants and our desires. He knew that we are sheep, easily led astray. Many would claim to have the truth. Many would claim to know the way. In a cacophony of bleating, one strong voice was needed to act as shepherd and keep the flock together.

Jesus didn’t have to appoint a leader. He chose to. He chose Peter. He built His church upon Peter. He gave the keys to Peter. He gave the authority to bind and loose sins to Peter. He singled out Peter to strengthen his brethren. He asked Peter to feed His sheep.

Jesus established the leadership. Jesus granted the authority. It did not die with Peter. He passed it along to another so that the Church would continue to have one leader. Through the millenia it has passed. That one voice who speaks with authority is Benedict XVI. I know this to be true, even if there are Christians who deny it.

That I choose to listen to that one voice is not an indication of brainwashing. It is an indication of my faith and unfiltered understanding of the scriptures.

Yet NOTHING you claim in this post can be found in the Biblical text you provided. You have simply defended your personal opinion which is rooted in Catholic tradition through which your interpretation of the text is filtered. That’s why you avoided the few questions I asked in my post pertaining to the Biblical text you provided.

I did not address your questions because they were irrelevant. I did not claim that that text established Peter’s authority in Rome. It established that Jesus prayed for Peter, it was Peter’s faith that He was concerned about, and it was Peter who would have to strengthen the other disciples. Jesus singled Peter out.

The relevant question is why. Nothing that Jesus did was meaningless. Why do you think He singled out Peter? Why did He change Simon’s name from “grain of sand” to “rock,” why did He give the keys to Peter, why did He give the power to loose and bind sins to Peter, why did He specifically pray for Peter’s faith so that he, alone, could strengthen the other disciples, why did He tell Peter to feed His sheep? Why?

No, I wouldn’t call it brainwashing at all since you freely choose to shelve your brain and mindlessly accept the interpretation of others who clearly filter their interpretation of the Scriptures through their already established traditions. The greater fault, then, lies with you.

You assume that I shelve my brain and mindlessly follow because my interpretation of the Bible is not the same as yours. If one must be wrong then it must be me. Why is that? Because you read the Bible and prayed for guidance from the Holy Spirit? So did I! So did billions of other people who disagree with you, Catholic and Protestant alike.

Do you, a Roman Catholic, even need to possess a Bible? Couldn’t you function perfectly well as a RC without one since RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based? And its interpretation of the Scriptures is filtered through its traditions anyway.

Argumentum ad hominem. Argumentum ad populum. Be careful, your ignorance is showing. I stated that I read the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant. Either you doubt me or you cannot read english. If my words confuse you, how can you understand scripture?

The Catholic Church is Biblically based. That means we base our beliefs on the Bible and apostolic teaching. We read the Bible. We own Bibles. Do not presume to tell a Catholic what Catholics are and what they believe until you know. It makes you look foolish.

BTW, I own my thoughts and opinions. They are mine. You may disagree with me but you may not imply that I do not have the capacity to think for myself. I am an intelligent, educated, rational person, not a puppet of Rome.

 

[Mickey]

you freely choose to shelve your brain and mindlessly accept the interpretation of others

This is shameful rhetoric.

 

[SusanL]

Yet NOTHING you claim in this post can be found in the Biblical text you provided. You have simply defended your personal opinion which is rooted in Catholic tradition through which your interpretation of the text is filtered. That’s why you avoided the few questions I asked in my post pertaining to the Biblical text you provided.

No, I wouldn’t call it brainwashing at all since you freely choose to shelve your brain and mindlessly accept the interpretation of others who clearly filter their interpretation of the Scriptures through their already established traditions. The greater fault, then, lies with you.

Do you, a Roman Catholic, even need to possess a Bible? Couldn’t you function perfectly well as a RC without one since RC’ism is not actually Biblically based but traditionally based? And its interpretation of the Scriptures is filtered through its traditions anyway.

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.

deb216’s post must have hit a nerve with you because you have shelved your Christian charity and logic.

Pope Benedict XVI has told us (again) that we are supposed to read the Bible. The Bible is critical to our faith. I am a convert, sir. We converts do not come to this decision on a whim. The Catholic Church does not permit us to enter the church without full knowledge which means taking classes for a year to understand what we are about to do. Now maybe there are other churches that do that but I’m not aware of one. Usually, if you’re baptized, you pick a Sunday and you’re accepted into that church during the service.

Please listen carefully:
The Bible is critical to our faith and we are supposed to read it. My family has 5 bibles which get read. My three children who are old enough to read each has one.

And nothing… Nothing in Catholic Tradition contradicts the Bible.

---

You, sir, need to get your facts in order.

 

[SusanL]

Now that IS the question, isn’t it?

Only if you have a skewed idea of what we believe.

 

[jmcrae]

Now that IS the question, isn’t it?

The reason that it is possible for a Catholic to practice his religion while being illiterate and/or not owning his own Bible (which I have yet to see, but I suppose it happens) is that the Scriptures are read out at Mass, recited and quoted extensively in the Rosary, in the Stations of the Cross, and in the majority of our other popular devotions and prayers, as well.

A person could be Catholic and never own or read a Bible, but a person would not be a good (well-catechized) Catholic who could not recount the story of the life of Christ in order, retell the story of His passion, death, and resurrection, and quote from memory the majority of His teachings, commandments, and sayings.

They would also be able to recount the whole of Salvation History, beginning with the Creation, and Adam and Eve, and ending with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and the Last Judgement.

A person who attends daily Mass would also become familiar with a great deal of the Old Testament, as well - for example, today we heard the story of the King of Nineveh, how he declared a fast, and commanded the people to repent of their sins in sack-cloth and ashes for 40 days.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Only if you have a skewed idea of what we believe.

Well, are all of your traditions based on Scripture? Doesn’t your catechism have Scripture in it?
If those are true, then it sounds to me like Catholics have everything under control w/o having to personally own or read a Bible.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Okay, just to recap a bit, I asked:

7) So, since one who has the Holy Spirit and is a sincere believer is not infallible, his or her initial interpretation of a verse could be wrong?

You answered:

Next question:

8) When the believer checks his fallible interpretation against the Bible, are his interpretations of other verses, the ones he’s checking his first interpretation against, also fallible?

Yes/No/I don’t know

Why would you assume their understanding of scriptures is wrong in the first place?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

A person who attends daily Mass would also become familiar with a great deal of the Old Testament, as well - for example, today we heard the story of the King of Nineveh, how he declared a fast, and commanded the people to repent of their sins in sack-cloth and ashes for 40 days.

What about those who can’t attend daily Mass, due to work or other obligations?
They would never know the OT without owning a Bible. :nope: