Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

[francisdesales]

What Francis wrote about contradicting opinions has great merit, yet his church has perhaps been the greatest contributor.

Is it "my church" causing the problems, or men who disagree with what God has taught His Church to teach? These are not new issues. Inspect Numbers 16 and look at the what was said against Moses and how it mimics what "heretics" say...

As for myself, I am neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish.

Ah, I hear this more often these days. Everyone wants to belong to a religion of their own making without having to identify it and subject it to any criticism...

How is it you are not Protestant or Catholic, yet Christian? Are you Greek Orthodox? Coptic? Or am I correct and you are "non-denominational", meaning, no principles...

Dadof10 asks me to elaborate on my statement that the "one body" ( Eph.4 ) of which I am a menber can have the same apostles as the church in the NT. Thank you! We have Peter, James and John etc., today in the sense that we have threir inspired writings to go by and not those of un-inspired men.

Does Peter, James and John claim to write "inspired literature", or does the Church, after the fact, RECOGNIZE it as such? I don't see the NT writers making the claim that "my writing is Scripture" or "in 30 years, please put this letter into a bound book and call it the New Testament".

As I said in a previous post, the Bible ONLY makes Christians ONLY---NOTHING more, NOTHING less and NOTHING different!

Where exactly does the Bible make that claim? Please cite verse and chapter, because I must have missed that one. IF the bible never makes that claim, you are inventing false doctrines.

GOD makes Christians, not the Bible, my friend. Understand that. Men do not HAVE to "read" the Bible to be Christian. Numerous Christians were able to love their neighbors and walk in Christ WITHOUT reading one verse of the Bible.

I believe (as Francis mentioned) in the Trinity (The word Trinity not found in scripture but the meaning is there) NOT BECAUSE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES IT OR ANY OTHER CHURCH, BUT BECAUSE THE BIBLE TEACHES IT.

The Bible teaches trinity ONLY when viewed THROUGH the lenses that the Church provides. I suggest you read ancient catholic history on the heresy of Arianism. I find many convincing verses that support the Arian proposition - that Jesus is not the substance of God. One must have a developed paradigm already established to INTERPRET such verses in light of what the Apostles already taught - that God is a trinity of Persons...

One does not arrive at "trinity" by merely reading the bible in a vacuum without input from the Church. Acts 8 provides a good clue on what happens when one reads the Bible without guidance. Second Peter also warns that uninstructed Scriptural reading can lead to DESTRUCTION! Mighty powerful words, don't you think? The Bible can destroy, if one interprets it themselves!

The all-important question for me in all topic discussions is not what some church teachesBUT WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH??

In other words, what does Duval intepret. You again are making yourself out to be the teaching authority in place of the Church. And yet again, I ask for your scriptural support that overturns Matthew 18, which no doubt will be ignored. We never did get that answered, did we...

Regards

 

[mondar]

GOD makes Christians, not the Bible, my friend. Understand that. Men do not HAVE to "read" the Bible to be Christian. Numerous Christians were able to love their neighbors and walk in Christ WITHOUT reading one verse of the Bible.

I agree with francisdesales in one way. When I see comments like the one above I too think some Roman Catholics should just give up their bibles.

I believe (as Francis mentioned) in the Trinity (The word Trinity not found in scripture but the meaning is there) NOT BECAUSE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES IT OR ANY OTHER CHURCH, BUT BECAUSE THE BIBLE TEACHES IT.

The Bible teaches trinity ONLY when viewed THROUGH the lenses that the Church provides.

Notice the claim! This is not the historical grammatical contextual approach. The claim here is that it does not matter what the bible says, the only thing that counts is what Rome says the bible says.

Second Peter also warns that uninstructed Scriptural reading can lead to DESTRUCTION! Mighty powerful words, don't you think? The Bible can destroy, if one interprets it themselves!

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Where is Peter asserting that one cannot interpret the scriptures themselves? That is a shocking misrepresentation of the passage. Could we have someone uninstructed reading this very verse wrong. The passage does not deny that anyone can read the bible if they are instructed and skillful. Now it is a major jump to assert that Peter is referring to Rome. At this point Peter is not even in Rome yet. Peter is not talking about the elders and apostles in Jerusalem. Such thinking is reading the scriptures by Roman lenses. It avoids the historical situation and grammar and syntax of the passage.

The proposition of Peter is that there are ignorant and unlearned men do not read Pauls writings correctly. That is not the same as Francisdesales proposition that only Rome can read the scriptures. Not the same thing my friend.

On the one hand, in the first part you seem to be saying we dont need our bibles, we only need Rome. Then you turn around and think others might be wresting the scriptures to their own destruction? Francis...Francis...Francis! Would your second statement not make more sense if you took a higher view of the bible?

 

[one_lost_coin]

Notice the claim! This is not the historical grammatical contextual approach. The claim here is that it does not matter what the bible says, the only thing that counts is what Rome says the bible says.

So what you are saying is we should listen to how you say we should interpret instead of the Apostles? Where in the bible does it say we to use the historical grammatical contextual approach to know the truth?

That is a shocking misrepresentation of the passage. Could we have someone uninstructed reading this very verse wrong. The passage does not deny that anyone can read the bible if they are instructed and skillful.

Of the two of you how do I know its not you who are misrepresenting the verse? The Jesus seminar is instructed and skillfull. Using your interpretation I guess they should be forming doctrine and I should live by what they declare too?

Such thinking is reading the scriptures by Roman lenses. It avoids the historical situation and grammar and syntax of the passage.

I thought Peter was the bishop of Rome. How could it be avoiding the historical situation and grammar when it is the same Church that is in the situation. Wouldn't listening to the interpretation of the Church that actually existed at the time and where the Chair of Peter still resides rather meet the criteria you propose? What other lenses are there? I guess there is my own lense and maybe I can use it to have a what is true for me moment.

 

[mondar]

Notice the claim! This is not the historical grammatical contextual approach. The claim here is that it does not matter what the bible says, the only thing that counts is what Rome says the bible says.

So what you are saying is we should listen to how you say we should interpret instead of the Apostles? Where in the bible does it say we to use the historical grammatical contextual approach to know the truth?

OLC, your argumentation is very shallow, and can only appeal to peoples emotions. Exaggerations like you just made above can only appeal to peoples emotions and might rally the mindlessly faithful of your religion, but is obviously not made to wrestle with the intellect. I notice you dont even address my assertions. Where did I assert that you should not listen to the apostles. Of course when I say that I am thinking of the apostolic record in the NT. I would suggest that it is a mammoth leap to jump to the conclusion that I recognize Rome as the voice of the apostles. The other emotionalistic statement you made is that I suggested that people should listen only to me. If yo wish, I could point you to many commentaries and books that I think are excellent sources. Not that any are infallible, but they are right. Maybe I should explain the difference between a person that thinks he is infallible and a person that thinks he is right. I fear I would be waisting my time. I am not seeing anything but emotionalism in your statements.

I guess I should be glad the internet is between us or you would poke me in the nose.

That is a shocking misrepresentation of the passage. Could we have someone uninstructed reading this very verse wrong. The passage does not deny that anyone can read the bible if they are instructed and skillful.

Of the two of you how do I know its not you who are misrepresenting the verse? The Jesus seminar is instructed and skillfull. Using your interpretation I guess they should be forming doctrine and I should live by what they declare too?

Again, such gut level emotionalistic thinking! There is probably several reasons for your lack of worthwhile argumentation. First, I will start with my faults. I must admit I can be provocative. Possibly your shallow emotionalistic argumentation in which you grossly exaggerate my statements might be anger at something provocative I said. Second, I think your tradition is most likely keeping you from looking at a text. Generally, I notice Rome's defenders do not like to work with the grammar and syntax of a passage. They do not like to do exegesis. Their preference is just to appeal to Rome's authority with assertions that are repeated over and over. Such a style of argumentation lends itself toward emotionalism.

Above you make things very personal. You went to a Jesus seminar (whatever that is)? Since you experienced what you think is instruction and exegetical skills or some skills, your feel what? Does this qualify you to read the verses under dispute without appealing to the syntax and grammar of the passage? The of course your normal exaggeration is in your statement that this "Jesus seminar" should listen to me too.

Such thinking is reading the scriptures by Roman lenses. It avoids the historical situation and grammar and syntax of the passage.

I thought Peter was the bishop of Rome. How could it be avoiding the historical situation and grammar when it is the same Church that is in the situation. Wouldn't listening to the interpretation of Church that actually existed at the time and the Chair of Peter still resides rather meet the criteria you propose? What other lenses are there? I guess there is my own lense and maybe I can use it to have a what is true for me moment.

As is normal when any verse is disputed by someone, you will appeal to Romes authority and just begin a recitation of Roman Catholic dogma. You dont even know what I am talking about with regard to the "historical situation" of a passage. I was talking about a subject commonly called "lower criticism." Such subjects can be found in the beginning of many commentaries. What was the historical context behind each verse. This would mean we ask the question who wrote 2nd Peter. To whom was it sent. What historical situations did the verse appeal to. Paul is mentioned in verse 15. you might be asking what book or book of Pauls is Peter referring to. So do you understand what I am saying when I write? Naaa, your clueless about some of the things I have said. You get enough of what I said to make some emotional response and to relate it to one of Romes dogmas, and then begin your recitation of Romes dogma. It does not even matter to you if the particular dogma you are reciting even applies to the subject we are discussing.

Well, I waisted enough time for now. Later.

 

[francisdesales]

I agree with francisdesales in one way. When I see comments like the one above I too think some Roman Catholics should just give up their bibles.

A joyous day indeed! Mondar agrees with me!

Not sure on which comments you mean, so we'll leave that one aside and continue reading our bibles.

Notice the claim! This is not the historical grammatical contextual approach. The claim here is that it does not matter what the bible says, the only thing that counts is what Rome says the bible says.

That is a curious tact, Mondar. Basically, it says that only scholars can figure out the REAL message from God. Frankly, the Scriptures doesn't support Bible study BY using the "historical grammatical contextual approach". That is a modern principle with precious little Scriptural support (as THE way of reading the Scriptures).

HOWEVER, the Bible DOES support the Church as a teaching authority. The Church provides the true paradigm within which we use the historical grammatical contextual approach.

I do not disagree with using this approach, per sec. We both use it and it helps us, no doubt. However, the Church is the teaching authority. It is the Bride of Christ that the Bible was written for - and SHE interprets this written deposit of the faith. Jesus makes that clear, as does Paul, and esp. so in the Pastorals.

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Where is Peter asserting that one cannot interpret the scriptures themselves?

Not themselves, but WITHOUT the Church. I have not said that we cannot read the Bible!

That is key. I can interpret Scriptures without a priest looking over my shoulder. But knowing the Bible is the Church's book, I read it within the paradigm that has been given to us. Those who do not, those who are IGNORANT or UNSTEADFAST are bound to be "destroyed". This is naturally addressed to those who have wandered outside of the Church's interpretation of what Paul wrote.

The proposition of Peter is that there are ignorant and unlearned men do not read Pauls writings correctly. That is not the same as Francisdesales proposition that only Rome can read the scriptures. Not the same thing my friend.

My friend, again, you are presenting something I have never said. I have not said "only Rome can read the Scriptures". I said (or am saying) that the Church is the teaching authority on matters where Christians disagree. This can be seen very quickly in Scriptures AND in Church history. Read St. Irenaeus (c 180), who points to the Church when Gnostics use the SAME SCRIPTURES to "prove" their ideas of God. Read the Athanasius (c 350) who relates what Arius writes on his use of the SAME SCRIPTURES to interpret that Jesus is not God. Read various Councils who defend the Catholic faith vs. various heretics, such as Calvin, using the SAME SCRIPTURES.

God did not leave us orphans to have NO ability to know what He teaches. He left us an authoritative Church with the power to bind and loosen Christians. And we all know Jesus' idea of leadership was of service. We teach that authority is for service - a paradoxial idea, no doubt, but we mimic our Savior.

It is fairly obvious that the Holy Spirit doesn't come to us all and interpret Scriptures for us, as their are countless different interpretations that differ. Otherwise, why does the eunuch call for Philip to help him interpret Scriptures, for example?

WHO does the Bible give teaching authority to, Mondar? Perhaps you are enamoured with our free, democratic society, one of rugged individualism where rational thought is king. However, this is anachronistic to project this mindset upon the charecters and time frame of Sacred Scriptures. The Bible clearly points out that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, that she is guided by the Holy Spirit to all truths. That she has the power to bind and loosen Christians - and this includes Scriptural interpretation - which would certainly make sense of Jesus' establishment of the heirarachy on "who to go to" where Christians disagree (Matt 18:16,17)

On the one hand, in the first part you seem to be saying we dont need our bibles, we only need Rome. Then you turn around and think others might be wresting the scriptures to their own destruction? Francis...Francis...Francis! Would your second statement not make more sense if you took a higher view of the bible?

[/quote]

I love the Bible, Mondar. I study it hours a week, and pray from it daily. I am trying to present a more balanced view, however. In their rush to put the Bible on a throne and worship it, some of my brothers tend to forget that Christ established a Church to HELP us follow Him. The false dichotomy bothers me. Why NOT both? God gave men BOTH to help men. God continues His work through the Church, continuing His ministry of reconcilliation, preaching, teaching, and bringing about opportunities of meeting God through visible signs. The Church enables us to participate in Divine Worship as seen in Revelation.

Because I am defending the Church, it may appear that I am putting the Bible aside. That is part of the double-edged sword when defending the necessity of BOTH. An example you would be familiar with or can appreciate is St. Augustine. In his defense of the faith vs. Pelagianism, readers could come up with the idea that Augustine did not believe man had free will. It is that Augustine (or I) are trying to show the utility of BOTH positions, grace and free will or Church and Bible. There is no need to oppose the two.

Regards

 

[duval]

FRANCIS on 9-4-8 @642p asked me: ''IS IT 'MY CHURCH' CAUSING TH PROBLEMS----" My answer is YES and any group or individual following the doctrines of men, Matt.15:3-9

FRANCIS WROTE; 'EVERYONE WANTS TO BELONG TO A RELIGION OF THEIR OWN MAKING WITHOUT HAVING TO IDENTIFY IT---" But Francis you may identify the "one Body" (Eph.4:4) to which I belong by simply reading the NT. Any criticism you make toward the Bible and that "one body" is really not criticism of me but God. No I am not Greek Orthodox, Coptic or non-denominational or any of the such. Just a Christian, nothing more, nothing less and nothing different.
You ask: Where in the Bible 'PETER JAMES AND JOHN CLAIM TO WRITE INSPIRED LITERATURE---?"My answer is, they didn't have to make such claims. Please note John 17:6-8. There Jesus prays to the Father: ''I HAVE MANIFESTED THKY NAME UNTO THE MEN WHICH THKOU GAVEST ME OUT OF THE WORLD; THINE THEY WERE AND THOU GAVEST THEM ME; AND THEY HAVE KEPT THY WORD. NOW THEY HAVE KNOWN THAT ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER THOU HAST GIVEN ME ARE OF THEE. FOR I HAVE GIVEN UNTO THEM THE WORDS WHICH THKOU GAVEST ME; AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED THEM, AND HAVE KNOWN SURELY THAT I CAME OUT FROM THEE, AND THEY HAVE BELIEVED THAT THKOU DIDST SEND ME.' Notice the following: ( 1 ) God GAVE the words to Jesus; ( 2 ) Jesus, Who had the Spirit without measure, GAVE the words to the apostles; ( 3 ) the apostles RECEIVED the words. Now, Francis, I call that INSPIRATION. Straight from the Father through Jesus to the apostles and then to us. That, Francis, is how God makes Christians, through the Word of God and remember faith comes by hearing and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD, Rom.10:17. Yes Francis, THE BIBLE ONLY MAKES CHRISTIANS ONLY AND IF NOT SO THEN PLEASE TELL US WHAT THE BIBLE MAKES IF NOT CHRISTIANS. Seed ALWAYS reproduces after ITS KIND, that has been God's law the early morning of time. See Gen.1:11,12 and compare that with Jesus' explanation of the sower who went forth to sow in Luke 8.
FRANCIS WROTE; ''MEN DO NOT HAVE TO READ THE BIBLE TO BE CHRISTIANS'' and ''NUMEROUS CHRISTIANS WERE ABLE TO ---WALK IN CHRIST WITHKOUT READING ONE VERSE OF THE BIBLE." Francis, that is PURE assumption WITHOUT any scriptural support. PLEASE tell us HOW God makes Christians WITHOUT the Bible. Thats one revelation I want to see!!!

FRANCIS WROTE; ''SECOND PETER ALSO WARNS THAT UNINSTRUCTED SCRIPTURE READING CAN LEAD TO DESTRUCTION!" Francis, it says NOTHING about "uninstructed Scriipture reading>" The verse says: IIPet. 3:16"---in which some things hard to be understood---" The verse in question says SOME ( not all ) of Paul's writings were HARD!! HARD!! to understand (not impossible) to understand!! I perceive a difference.
Best wishes-----Duval

 

[dadof10]

Dadof10 asks me to elaborate on my statement that the "one body" ( Eph.4 ) of which I am a menber can have the same apostles as the church in the NT. Thank you! We have Peter, James and John etc., today in the sense that we have threir inspired writings to go by and not those of un-inspired men. As I said in a previous post, the Bible ONLY makes Christians ONLY---NOTHING more, NOTHING less and NOTHING different!

Not all the Apostles wrote Scripture. What about the other Apostles' teaching? What about Nathaniel, Andrew, Phillip, Thomas, etc.? Certainly you would consider them "inspired" also. What about their teaching? Is it any less valid than the NT writers?

Do you think that over half of the kerygma was lost? Or maybe there were things that these Apostles taught (and other things the Writers taught) that were handed down by them to other men, just as Paul did to Timothy.

2Tim 2: "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Do you think that's possible?

 

[mondar]

Notice the claim! This is not the historical grammatical contextual approach. The claim here is that it does not matter what the bible says, the only thing that counts is what Rome says the bible says.

That is a curious tact, Mondar. Basically, it says that only scholars can figure out the REAL message from God. Frankly, the Scriptures doesn't support Bible study BY using the "historical grammatical contextual approach". That is a modern principle with precious little Scriptural support (as THE way of reading the Scriptures).

The bible does not have to give us a hermeneutical methodology. I believe the air contains oxygen, but that information is not in the bible either. We are talking about the difference between the bible containing all truth (solo scriptura) and the bible being the only infallible source of truth (sola scriptura).

Of course the point is... Hermeneutics is irrelevent if you dont go to the scriptures for infallible truth but you by pass the scriptures and go to the Church.

The problem I see with what you wrote before is that what you are claiming is not material sufficiency, neither the partim partim view, but you seem to be articulating a sola ecclesia position (Forget the bible-Rome alone is the voice of God). Just scroll up to your previous post and look at what you wrote.

HOWEVER, the Bible DOES support the Church as a teaching authority. The Church provides the true paradigm within which we use the historical grammatical contextual approach.

No one denies that the Church is a teaching authority. Everyone agrees that the bible calls for Shepherds and teachers to minister in the Church. The question is this--->Does the scriptures teach that there is an infallible teaching authority. Of course when I add the word "infallible" it puts a different twist on things. Such a proposition is not found in the scriptures. I am tempted to quote the verses myself quick that you will soon be quoting. Ahh, I think I will go first this time... :D
2 Thes 2:15--- the issue there is not the teaching authority of the Church but the oral teachings of the apostles. There is no mention in that context that the later Church will infallibly pass down the traditions of the apostles, but merely a challenge to hold fast to the oral teaching. Also, in that context the word tradition is explained in the context in verse 5. Verse 5 tells us that what Paul later wrote was the same revelation as what he first taught orally. So then, oral tradition and the written word had the same content.
1 Tim 3:16--- The issue here is that the Church should function to support truth. Again, everyone believes this. It is an exegetical leap to assume that this text teaches that the Church can judge truth or replace truth. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not a replacement or judge of truth.
Ephesiasns 4:11-12--- Certainly Churches agree that gifted men should serve in certain functions. Where is the mention that all the men mentioned in Ephesians are infallible.

 

[dadof10]

If yo wish, I could point you to many commentaries and books that I think are excellent sources. Not that any are infallible, but they are right.

According to whom?

I am not seeing anything but emotionalism in your statements.

With all due respect, OLC is not the one who is using all the exclamation points and his/her post seems tame to me.

 

[dadof10]

You ask: Where in the Bible 'PETER JAMES AND JOHN CLAIM TO WRITE INSPIRED LITERATURE---?"My answer is, they didn't have to make such claims. Please note John 17:6-8. There Jesus prays to the Father: ''I HAVE MANIFESTED THKY NAME UNTO THE MEN WHICH THKOU GAVEST ME OUT OF THE WORLD; THINE THEY WERE AND THOU GAVEST THEM ME; AND THEY HAVE KEPT THY WORD. NOW THEY HAVE KNOWN THAT ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER THOU HAST GIVEN ME ARE OF THEE. FOR I HAVE GIVEN UNTO THEM THE WORDS WHICH THKOU GAVEST ME; AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED THEM, AND HAVE KNOWN SURELY THAT I CAME OUT FROM THEE, AND THEY HAVE BELIEVED THAT THKOU DIDST SEND ME.' Notice the following: ( 1 ) God GAVE the words to Jesus; ( 2 ) Jesus, Who had the Spirit without measure, GAVE the words to the apostles; ( 3 ) the apostles RECEIVED the words. Now, Francis, I call that INSPIRATION. Straight from the Father through Jesus to the apostles and then to us. That, Francis, is how God makes Christians, through the Word of God and remember faith comes by hearing and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD, Rom.10:17. Yes Francis, THE BIBLE ONLY MAKES CHRISTIANS ONLY AND IF NOT SO THEN PLEASE TELL US WHAT THE BIBLE MAKES IF NOT CHRISTIANS.

You make a leap from "apostles recieved the word", to "THE BIBLE ONLY MAKES CHRISTIANS".

The "word" that Jesus gave them was ORAL, unless you think He wrote it down and gave it to them.

What you have just posted (JN 17) is an argument FOR the handing on of ORAL Tradition. "Straight from the Father through Jesus to the apostles and then to us."

If Jesus was able to keep the Apostles from writing error, couldn't He also keep them from teaching error orally?

 

[mondar]

Now concerning 2 Peter 3:16

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Where is Peter asserting that one cannot interpret the scriptures themselves?

Not themselves, but WITHOUT the Church. I have not said that we cannot read the Bible!

That is key. I can interpret Scriptures without a priest looking over my shoulder. But knowing the Bible is the Church's book, I read it within the paradigm that has been given to us. Those who do not, those who are IGNORANT or UNSTEADFAST are bound to be "destroyed". This is naturally addressed to those who have wandered outside of the Church's interpretation of what Paul wrote.

Where does the text talk about the necessity of a priest looking over your shoulder. There is no infallible teaching authority mentioned anywhere in the context.

The verse says that unlearned and unstable men wrest the scriptures ... not that all men without a priest wrest the scriptures. The fact that unlearned and unstable men are mentioned assumes that learned and stable men actually read the scriptures correctly. There is no mention that only priests are learned and stable.

I said (or am saying) that the Church is the teaching authority on matters where Christians disagree.

If you take the position that learned and stable men never disagree, peek again at the Church Fathers. They were like going into a book store with all sorts of different opinions. Contemporary Roman Catholicism is no better. Many American Jesuit's are very liberal and eccumentical. I used to read the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. It was very similar to many liberal protestant journels and theologies. Then there are the conservative Roman Catholic apologists at CatholicAnswers.com, Jimmy Akin, Jerry Matatics, Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid. I see evidence in what you write that you are familiar with some of these men. They are very far from the Jesuit's. Have you ever read Jusuit theology? If the Church has judge Jesuit's to be wrong, why are they still Roman Catholics?

There is yet another problem, there are precious few verses that Rome has even offered what it believes to be an infallible opinion. How many verses has Rome infallibly interpreted? 6, 7, 10?

This can be seen very quickly in Scriptures AND in Church history. Read St. Irenaeus (c 180), who points to the Church when Gnostics use the SAME SCRIPTURES to "prove" their ideas of God. Read the Athanasius (c 350) who relates what Arius writes on his use of the SAME SCRIPTURES to interpret that Jesus is not God. Read various Councils who defend the Catholic faith vs. various heretics, such as Calvin, using the SAME SCRIPTURES.

Is this not a little name calling here francis? Now your not ignorant that I am a Calvinist. Even if you believe I am a heretic, do you really have to throw it out when discussing a text?

I have not read all Church Fathers, just a few. But Your point is that heretics use the same verses that the stable and learned use. This would be in accord with 2 Peter 3:16. The unlearned and unstable use the same Pauline scriptures as the stable and learned. One gets it right, one gets it wrong. This does not set up the need for an infallible magisterium. Such a thing is simply not mentioned in the context of the verses.

Jehovah Witnesses (someone we both believe are heretics) read John 1:1. Of course they dop not read the predicate nominative as a predicate nominative. Actually they are reading it as a direct object which would demand an accusative case word--- and no accusative case is in the phrase "and the word was God." In other words, Jehovah witnesses do not read the grammar and syntax correctly.

Why do I say you are reading your tradition into 2 Peter 3 something that is not there? Because you are saying things that are not asserted in the text. Its about exegesis. Its about grammar and syntax. When a so called infallible magisterium teaches something that is simply not in the grammar and syntax. Well then the magisterium cannot be infallible, and 2nd Peter 3 does not teach anything about an infallible magisterium.

God did not leave us orphans to have NO ability to know what He teaches.

I can accept that the average man has some ability to understand scripture. Certainly many do not go to the effort of understanding the scriptures. IT is much easier to for everyone to bring our traditions and read them into the words of scripture. I personally think that is why original languages and exegetical skills are so important. With those skills one can be more discerning as to the correctness of biblical interpretations.

Certainly there are varied abilities to know what the scripture teaches. I think some even know the teaching of the scriptures and dont believe it anyway. The reason even an unbelieve can read the scriptures is due to the perspicuity of scriptures.

did you ever read Bart Erhman? Certainly he is an apostate. He brags about his apostacy and how he is a former Christian. He is knowledgable about many scriptures, but he simply does not believe them. He will say that there is no enough evidence to prove that the bible is true.

It is fairly obvious that the Holy Spirit doesn't come to us all and interpret Scriptures for us, as their are countless different interpretations that differ. Otherwise, why does the eunuch call for Philip to help him interpret Scriptures, for example?

It is obvious the Ethiopian eunuch understood quite a bit about Isaiah 53 as he read it for the first time. In Acts 9:34 he asks Phillip whom the prophet was speaking of. What was missing was that the eunich seems unaware of the events in Jerusalem related to Jesus.

I do not deny that people must learn and need guidance, but Acts 8 is not asserting the necessity of an infallible teaching magistrate.

Francis, I want you to know I did read the rest of what you posted. But I am falling asleep. I am going to quit and go to bed.

 

[francisdesales]

FRANCIS on 9-4-8 @642p asked me: ''IS IT 'MY CHURCH' CAUSING TH PROBLEMS----" My answer is YES and any group or individual following the doctrines of men, Matt.15:3-9

Doctrines of men. What does that statement mean in Scriptures? Traditions of men is something that circumvents the word of God, like Korban. NOT that a doctrine was thought out and fleshed out by men reading Scriptures. A "tradition of men" refers to something that is invented with the purpose of bypassing a command of God.

You see "traditions of men", but do not realize what that means, instantly jumping on the "attack Rome" bandwagon. That appears to be a daily-scheduled stop around here...

But hey, Jesus said His Church would be persecuted, so I shouldn't be surprised that the gates of hell would mightly strive to tear the Bride assunder from the Groom.

FRANCIS WROTE; 'EVERYONE WANTS TO BELONG TO A RELIGION OF THEIR OWN MAKING WITHOUT HAVING TO IDENTIFY IT---" But Francis you may identify the "one Body" (Eph.4:4) to which I belong by simply reading the NT.

You want your cake and eat it too. Why not, its the 21st century.

People want to eat like pigs and lose weight at the same time. WHY NOT belong to a "church" of your own making with you as the high priest WHILE STILL claiming to remain part of the visible Church established by Christ!

Excuse my sarcasm, you aren't the first who has taken such a line of reasoning before.

Before making claims about your membership to the Body, ask yourself - "Did Paul consider the Judaizers part of the Body? How about the Gnostics he refers to in Colossians"? Or John. The people who LEFT the community. Did they REMAIN part of the Body?

God is our judge, but the Scriptures do not paint a rosy picture for those who leave the community. Perhaps you may want to reference Numbers 16 and what those poor persecuted Israelites under Moses were asking for... Moses. Hmmm. Which side did God come down on again?

Any criticism you make toward the Bible and that "one body" is really not criticism of me but God.

Naturally. Anything I say about you reflects actually on God. Right. :D

Next, you'll be claiming to be god's mouthpiece, telling us what He REALLY means in Scriptures.
What did the Church do before you came along?

No I am not Greek Orthodox, Coptic or non-denominational or any of the such. Just a Christian, nothing more, nothing less and nothing different.

Ok, Protestant. Thanks for clearing that up. Don't worry, I will still consider you a separated brother and pray for your return.

You ask: Where in the Bible 'PETER JAMES AND JOHN CLAIM TO WRITE INSPIRED LITERATURE---?"My answer is, they didn't have to make such claims. Please note John 17:6-8. There Jesus prays to the Father: ''I HAVE MANIFESTED THKY NAME UNTO THE MEN WHICH THKOU GAVEST ME OUT OF THE WORLD; THINE THEY WERE AND THOU GAVEST THEM ME; AND THEY HAVE KEPT THY WORD. NOW THEY HAVE KNOWN THAT ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER THOU HAST GIVEN ME ARE OF THEE. FOR I HAVE GIVEN UNTO THEM THE WORDS WHICH THKOU GAVEST ME; AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED THEM, AND HAVE KNOWN SURELY THAT I CAME OUT FROM THEE, AND THEY HAVE BELIEVED THAT THKOU DIDST SEND ME.'

That tells me they received God's teachings. Naturally. Jesus tasked THEM with spreading His teachings at the end of Matthew's Gospel. But where in all of this does it talk about every word they WRITE ONLY as being inspired? You presume that God inspired the apostles to ONLY WRITE. The Bible clearly tells us to follow ALL their teachings, whether given orally or in written form. Why have you abrogated the Scriptures' own writings that you say are inspired and from the Holy Spirit?

Notice the following: ( 1 ) God GAVE the words to Jesus; ( 2 ) Jesus, Who had the Spirit without measure, GAVE the words to the apostles; ( 3 ) the apostles RECEIVED the words. Now, Francis, I call that INSPIRATION.

You are confusing "Word" with written letters in a book. Jesus didn't give any "written letters in a book" to the apostles (discounting the possible exception of the Apocalypse). The "WORD" refers to ALL the teachings, not just the written ones. And we have NO warrant from Scriptures that tells us that all oral teachings have been swallowed up by the Bible.

In addition, many men and women received the Word and accepted it, such as the man inhabited by Legion, or the Samaritan woman at the well. Were all their subsequent writings Scriptures, as well???

Furthermore, we do not even know who wrote much of the NT, without the witness of the Church. "The Gospel according to Matthew" is TRADITION, not inspired writing. The author HIMSELF never names himself. Same with quite a bit of the rest of the NT.

Straight from the Father through Jesus to the apostles and then to us. That, Francis, is how God makes Christians, through the Word of God and remember faith comes by hearing and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD, Rom.10:17.

We hear the Word of God from the Church...

Yes Francis, THE BIBLE ONLY MAKES CHRISTIANS ONLY

No, I have not found that passage yet. Keep looking.

AND IF NOT SO THEN PLEASE TELL US WHAT THE BIBLE MAKES IF NOT CHRISTIANS.

It makes us better Christians. But reading the Bible doesn't automatically convert people. I know a few atheists who are knowledgeable of Scriptures. Yet they are not magically changed into Christians. The Bible didn't make them Christians. The Bible is a tool that aides men in following Christ. NOT a magical talisman.

FRANCIS WROTE; ''MEN DO NOT HAVE TO READ THE BIBLE TO BE CHRISTIANS'' and ''NUMEROUS CHRISTIANS WERE ABLE TO ---WALK IN CHRIST WITHKOUT READING ONE VERSE OF THE BIBLE." Francis, that is PURE assumption WITHOUT any scriptural support. PLEASE tell us HOW God makes Christians WITHOUT the Bible. Thats one revelation I want to see!!!

Oh my Lord help me...

You obviously have no clue on Christian history, do you. The entire NT was written AT LEAST 20 years AFTER Christ rose from the dead. Nothing was written before 40 AD. Yet, Acts 2 relates a count of 3000 Christians baptized immediately following Pentacost. WITHOUT A NT BIBLE! Amazing. HOW COULD GOD DO THIS WITHOUT THE ALL POWERFUL BIBLE???

I am beginning to sense that you think the Bible is a god. This is idolatry.

FRANCIS WROTE; ''SECOND PETER ALSO WARNS THAT UNINSTRUCTED SCRIPTURE READING CAN LEAD TO DESTRUCTION!" Francis, it says NOTHING about "uninstructed Scriipture reading>" The verse says: IIPet. 3:16"---in which some things hard to be understood---"

It speaks about the uninstructed twisting Bible verses - whether they phyically read it or not makes no difference...

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Unlearned Scriptural interpretation can lead to destruction. You present a distinction without difference. The inspired word of God tells us this. Numerous people have looked at Paul's Romans and have become confounded. Luther is a shining example of a man led to destruction.

Stick to the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Otherwise, you take the chance of self-destruction.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Here's an interesting test to see how much you actually believe the Bible even in the little details: Do you believe that there were once a race of giants on the earth and that some of them had six fingers and six toes?

I sure do.

Of course another interesting question is how and/or why God allowed such Giants to exist: for what purpose? It seems by a purely external perspective such people would signify the epitome of human strength and power, and no doubt such people were given special recognition. It seems that for most of them though it went to their head, and God allowed His people to defeat such powerful men who opposed Him because of it.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

The bible does not have to give us a hermeneutical methodology. I believe the air contains oxygen, but that information is not in the bible either.

I believe this is apples and oranges. In the former, you tell us that the "proper" way - ney, only way, is by the "hermeneutical methodology". There is no evidence of this "methodology" in Scriptures, of course. In the later case, we are talking about something the Bible does not address except as background - the arena of science. There is a difference between "correct Bible reading", which, presumably, the Bible would explain THAT since it is a theological book, vs. scientific information - information that the Bible only discusses as background when developing a theological meaning.

Again, Mondar, I am not saying that the "hermeneutical" process is wrong because it is not in Scriptures. However, I am saying that the Bible has been read, and effectively, WITHOUT using such methodology. Whenever people pray from Scriptures (Yes, I'm Catholic and you think I am an exception by opening it for more than accounting for my relatives' marriage dates on the front cover!), they do not use such methodology. YET, we can grow spiritually by such reading. This is merely one example. We can also look at the majority of Christian history, where most people managed to only hear the Gospel, not having access to the actual Bible (very expensive things before the printing press, you know). Again, God's Word finds its way to God's People. The "hermeneutical" process is only one way - and not always the most effective in touching the hearts and minds of people, wouldn't you agree? Sure, it's good for study, but I find that study doesn't necessarily make us better lovers of our fellow man... An overemphasis on study, I have found, can swell up my pride.

We are talking about the difference between the bible containing all truth (solo scriptura) and the bible being the only infallible source of truth (sola scriptura).

You have confused me. Are you saying that solo scriptura means that everything in Scritpures is true (inerrant)? Or that all truths are found only in Scriptures? I agree with the former. The later, I believe the heart of our religion is found in Scriptures, but certainly not "alone".

Of course the point is... Hermeneutics is irrelevent if you dont go to the scriptures for infallible truth but you by pass the scriptures and go to the Church.

I don't believe I have EVER set up such a dichotomy. Ever. We don't bypass the Scriptures.

The problem I see with what you wrote before is that what you are claiming is not material sufficiency, neither the partim partim view, but you seem to be articulating a sola ecclesia position (Forget the bible-Rome alone is the voice of God). Just scroll up to your previous post and look at what you wrote.)

I think you are misinterpreting my writings. I am not advocating a "sola ecclesia" position. Why does it have to be one or the other with you, my brother? If I hold the Church up highly in the face of disparaging comments, does that imply that I hate the Bible??? That is unfair.

HOWEVER, the Bible DOES support the Church as a teaching authority. The Church provides the true paradigm within which we use the historical grammatical contextual approach.

The fact that I refer to Scriptures to speak of the Church's teaching authority speaks volumes on how I respect the Scriptures, correct? The Scriptures help to establish my paradigm, my viewpoint for helping me understand my personal experiences with God. The Church's teachings are my objective viewpoints.

History relates how important it is to have a teaching authority to prevent the spread of heretical and false teachings. Very early, even during the writings of the NT time, we find this is true, and no doubt, Jesus foresaw this when He gave the Church the power to bind and loosen. But again, the Church does not compete with the Bible! Both are divinely-established, and they stand or fall together. If the Church is proved wrong, the Bible is also wrong. And vice versus. They support each other and neither can survive if the other fails. Naturally, by faith, we believe this cannot happen, as God's Spirit breathed life into this Church AND inspired the writers of Scriptures.

No one denies that the Church is a teaching authority. Everyone agrees that the bible calls for Shepherds and teachers to minister in the Church.

Well, I know many of my brothers do, but some do not, such as the gentleman I have addressed immediately preceding my post to you... Some believe THEY are their own church and teaching authority.

The question is this--->Does the scriptures teach that there is an infallible teaching authority. Of course when I add the word "infallible" it puts a different twist on things. Such a proposition is not found in the scriptures.

Infallibility is a great gift given to the Church. that is a subject of another thread, no doubt. But I DO believe that the Apostles taught that THEIR Gospel was given to them by God Himself. When ever I consider such questions, Mondar, I think of Galatians 1 and Acts 15 right away. In the first, Paul seems to be adamant that even if an angel of light (remember who gave the law to Moses...) were to give a different gospel, Paul's would be the correct one. Either that is extreme cockiness or the knowledge that he was certain of himself and that God was protecting Paul's teachings as truth. Why not? He said the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, writing also that the Spirit enabled them to keep the doctrine intact.

On the later one, Acts 15, I wonder about the gall the apostles must have had to do away with circumcision, considering circumcision was a command from God - and these fishermen were saying "oh, the Spirit agrees with us - circumcision is no longer required". Again, either extreme cockiness or truth beyond the idea of sola scriptura (since there is absolutely no Scriptural warrant for the Apostles to make such a decision from Scriptures alone. It is based upon their authority given by Christ, and more importantly, RECOGNIZED by the community!)

In these two examples, either we disbelieve the apostles because of their extreme cockiness (which makes it difficult to believe anything else they write) OR that God was indeed guarding what they taught, to include the principle that God would continue to protect His Church from error in teaching the faith when Bishops were gathered together, such as at every Council since Acts 15 - because it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit. If it's good enough for the Spirit of Truth...

I am tempted to quote the verses myself quick that you will soon be quoting. Ahh, I think I will go first this time... :D

Ah, darn, you pre-empted me. :D

That's OK. I've used other Scriptures just to show you that infallibility is not a one verse doctrine, but is implied in many places.

2 Thes 2:15--- the issue there is not the teaching authority of the Church but the oral teachings of the apostles. There is no mention in that context that the later Church will infallibly pass down the traditions of the apostles, but merely a challenge to hold fast to the oral teaching. Also, in that context the word tradition is explained in the context in verse 5. Verse 5 tells us that what Paul later wrote was the same revelation as what he first taught orally. So then, oral tradition and the written word had the same content.

LOL! We have already addressed that some time ago. Verse 5 doesn't make oral teaching swallowed up by written. Go back to the hermenuetical context.

1 Tim 3:16--- The issue here is that the Church should function to support truth. Again, everyone believes this. It is an exegetical leap to assume that this text teaches that the Church can judge truth or replace truth. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not a replacement or judge of truth.

True.

Ephesiasns 4:11-12--- Certainly Churches agree that gifted men should serve in certain functions. Where is the mention that all the men mentioned in Ephesians are infallible.

Nowhere. I am not sure why anyone would use this passage to prove infalliblity. At any rate, the Church doesn't teach that individual men are infallible. Infalliblity is generally reserved for when the entire Church comes together (the bishops being the representatives of their community) and express what they believe to formulate doctrine in such a way that it is protected by God from error AND addresses the error of a heretical viewpoint (such as at an Ecumenical Council). Even the Pope Himself is not properly "infallible", only the office and when solemnly affirming something to be believed by all of Christianity. Not something done lightly...

I would use these verse to disprove sola Scritpura because it shows another means by which the saints can be made perfect.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Where does the text talk about the necessity of a priest looking over your shoulder. There is no infallible teaching authority mentioned anywhere in the context.

I said I didn't need to have a priest looking over my shoulder.

The verse says that unlearned and unstable men wrest the scriptures ... not that all men without a priest wrest the scriptures. The fact that unlearned and unstable men are mentioned assumes that learned and stable men actually read the scriptures correctly. There is no mention that only priests are learned and stable.

Again, I have not made such a statement that only priests can interpret Scriptures. I would appreciate you read what I write. I said we can read Scriptures - and do so within the confines of the Church's paradigm or viewpoint. We take into account the analogy of the faith, the entire teachings given. Priests individually are not "proof" of correct interpretation, as many priests go off the deep end on their "teachings". Our teachings are conveniently located in a systematic theology book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Individual teachings are explained and Scriptures are lavishly cited.

If you take the position that learned and stable men never disagree, peek again at the Church Fathers.

I don't. Individual men, even the greatest of saints, are not universally and always protected in their interpretations of Scriptures. The Church is. We know that Origen was the greatest Bible commentator of the first millenium - and was wrong about the existence of hell...

If the Church has judge Jesuit's to be wrong, why are they still Roman Catholics?

Because the Church hasn't excommunicated them yet. Don't ask me why that hasn't happened yet, I don't know.

There is yet another problem, there are precious few verses that Rome has even offered what it believes to be an infallible opinion. How many verses has Rome infallibly interpreted? 6, 7, 10?

See how wonderfully flexible we are? How unappreciative you are! "Rome" has given you a wide latitude to interpret Genesis 1-11 literally. Or not. "Rome" has given you the ability to read the Apocalypse literally or figuratively. Again, where the Church has not officially ruled on, we have freedom to pursue what we believe is truth.

This can be seen very quickly in Scriptures AND in Church history. Read St. Irenaeus (c 180), who points to the Church when Gnostics use the SAME SCRIPTURES to "prove" their ideas of God. Read the Athanasius (c 350) who relates what Arius writes on his use of the SAME SCRIPTURES to interpret that Jesus is not God. Read various Councils who defend the Catholic faith vs. various heretics, such as Calvin, using the SAME SCRIPTURES.

Is this not a little name calling here francis? Now your not ignorant that I am a Calvinist. Even if you believe I am a heretic, do you really have to throw it out when discussing a text?

Calvin was a heretic in that he taught false doctrine KNOWINGLY. He was a Catholic priest presumably knowledgeable about his Catholic faith. The Church is more willing to understand that you are not 100% culpable for following Calvin, since you may not have had the knowledge of the Catholic faith before becoming Calvinist. Trent addresses the leaders of these heresies more so than the rank and file.

However, if this bothers you still after this explanation, I apologize, I didn't mean to offend you personally, just using an example to press home my point - that WE use the same bible and come up with different opinions. I would like to think God would let us know which is the correct one?

I have not read all Church Fathers, just a few. But Your point is that heretics use the same verses that the stable and learned use. This would be in accord with 2 Peter 3:16. The unlearned and unstable use the same Pauline scriptures as the stable and learned. One gets it right, one gets it wrong. This does not set up the need for an infallible magisterium. Such a thing is simply not mentioned in the context of the verses.

I though we were on the same page until the second to last sentence. Why do you think that a book that can 'destroy' shouldn't have some sort of safety device like an infallible teaching authority? How would we judge which was stable and which was not? At the time, the unstable can sound pretty convincing, while being dead wrong...

Why do I say you are reading your tradition into 2 Peter 3 something that is not there? Because you are saying things that are not asserted in the text. Its about exegesis. Its about grammar and syntax. When a so called infallible magisterium teaches something that is simply not in the grammar and syntax. Well then the magisterium cannot be infallible, and 2nd Peter 3 does not teach anything about an infallible magisterium.

Scriptures teach that we are to "eat" God's Word, take it into our hearts and our minds. Meditate on it and let it permeate into our LIVES. Naturally, when we do this in the above verse, isn't it implied that God would ensure that men COULD know the truth, rather than going with what seems to be the best opinion of the time? Directly, 2 Peter doesn't mention infalliblity, but it CRIES OUT for it - who wants to be subject to the whims of unstable men? And are they so easy to set apart from stable men? I doubt Peter means mental health here, but rather, stable in maintaining the traditions once given.

I can accept that the average man has some ability to understand scripture. Certainly many do not go to the effort of understanding the scriptures. IT is much easier to for everyone to bring our traditions and read them into the words of scripture. I personally think that is why original languages and exegetical skills are so important. With those skills one can be more discerning as to the correctness of biblical interpretations.

As long as they do not lead us outside of what the Apostles have already taught us and doesn't ruin the analogy of the faith, you are correct.

did you ever read Bart Erhman? Certainly he is an apostate. He brags about his apostacy and how he is a former Christian. He is knowledgable about many scriptures, but he simply does not believe them. He will say that there is no enough evidence to prove that the bible is true.

Ugh. I have already wasted enough time arguing with atheists on this forum the past week and have found it is an exercise in futility. At least here, I can find some places of agreement and not have to argue over whether the sun shines or if the tree makes a sound when it falls...

It is obvious the Ethiopian eunuch understood quite a bit about Isaiah 53 as he read it for the first time.

Where do you get the idea that he understood quite a bit? The prophet, of course, is refering to the author, and it is not unusual to ask "what is the author talking about here?"

I do not deny that people must learn and need guidance, but Acts 8 is not asserting the necessity of an infallible teaching magistrate.

It does show, again, the necessity for a teaching authority. If we can secure that, I think a bit more thought would lead to God providing for an infallible teaching authority.

Francis, I want you to know I did read the rest of what you posted. But I am falling asleep. I am going to quit and go to bed.

Me too. Take care

 

[francisdesales]

Here's an interesting test to see how much you actually believe the Bible even in the little details: Do you believe that there were once a race of giants on the earth and that some of them had six fingers and six toes?

I sure do.

Josh,

I am relatively certain that you accept that the bible has a number of different literary genres, all of them NOT being literal. I think we have to examine whether the author intended on relating actual scientific knowledge, or whether this was a literary device, akin to: and the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs. Rev 14:20

I don't think one must believe in giants and such things actually existed, especially if the sacred authors INTENT was NOT to describe giants... What is inerrant is the INTENT of the author - what was his intention for writing about giants. This does take a bit of study, since we are not all well-versed in Semetic literature written thousands of years ago.

Regards

 

[one_lost_coin]

OLC, your argumentation is very shallow, and can only appeal to peoples emotions. Exaggerations like you just made above can only appeal to peoples emotions and might rally the mindlessly faithful of your religion, but is obviously not made to wrestle with the intellect. I notice you dont even address my assertions. Where did I assert that you should not listen to the apostles. Of course when I say that I am thinking of the apostolic record in the NT. I would suggest that it is a mammoth leap to jump to the conclusion that I recognize Rome as the voice of the apostles. The other emotionalistic statement you made is that I suggested that people should listen only to me. If yo wish, I could point you to many commentaries and books that I think are excellent sources. Not that any are infallible, but they are right. Maybe I should explain the difference between a person that thinks he is infallible and a person that thinks he is right. I fear I would be waisting my time. I am not seeing anything but emotionalism in your statements.

I guess I should be glad the internet is between us or you would poke me in the nose.

It's no exaggeration actually it is the logical conclusion of everything you are writing concerning the topic. There after all are only two choices The Magisterium of Apostolic Church or everyone becoming their own personal magisterium. You certainly aren't suggesting I listen to the Apostolic Church. If you check into the first century church you will find you aren't representing their teaching.

These Churches still exists after all these 2000 years still passing on what they have received. I myself am a member of the church at Antioch the very one mentioned in Acts and it is alive and well, still as it has always been, like the Apostles taught and the Church Fathers received and passed on, is still one in unity with Rome. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be.

You are in fact asking me to ignore St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a actual disciple of St. John and heard him with his own ears and saw him with his own eyes and spoke what he had received which is in direct opposition to what you are asking me to do and believe. You have never met an Apostle. The chances of you properly interpreting what St. John said with all your textual criticisms over St. Ignatius who just sat there and listened to St. John tell him how to interpret his words is not within the need for consideration. The choice between the Churches teaching and yours is not a hard one to make. It is however a humbling one to make at least it was for me in my conversion as in the face of this rock I was left with nothing but the words "I was wrong". Those are some of the most freeing words that could ever be uttered.

 

[one_lost_coin]

Second, I think your tradition is most likely keeping you from looking at a text. Generally, I notice Rome's defenders do not like to work with the grammar and syntax of a passage. They do not like to do exegesis. Their preference is just to appeal to Rome's authority with assertions that are repeated over and over. Such a style of argumentation lends itself toward emotionalism.

Here is what my Tradition teaches. From the Catechism.

In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture." Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, dosed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.
2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church." According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

(1) The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.
(2) The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".
(3) The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. - St. Augustine

Not bad, huh.

 

[one_lost_coin]

Mondar wrote You went to a Jesus seminar (whatever that is)? Since you experienced what you think is instruction and exegetical skills or some skills, your feel what? Does this qualify you to read the verses under dispute without appealing to the syntax and grammar of the passage? The of course your normal exaggeration is in your statement that this "Jesus seminar" should listen to me too.

I have never attended the Jesus seminar. It is a term used to describe the 150 scholars who did exactly what you say we all should do without the Church to guide us. Just me and the bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
This is the fruit of your teaching. One of the many possible outcomes. The Jesus seminar is no exaggeration of what you have been saying, it is it lived.

"No one is ignorant that the heresies proscribed by the Fathers of Trent, by which the divine magisterium of the Church was rejected, and all matters regarding religion were surrendered to the judgment of each individual, gradually became dissolved into many sects, which disagreed and contended with one another, until at length not a few lost all faith in Christ. Even the Holy Scriptures, which had previously been declared the sole source and judge of Christian doctrine, began to be held no longer as divine, but to be ranked among the fictions of mythology." - Vatican I.

In light of the Jesus seminar it's even more prophetic.

 

[dadof10]

You are in fact asking me to ignore St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a actual disciple of St. John and heard him with his own ears and saw him with his own eyes and spoke what he had received which is in direct opposition to what you are asking me to do and believe.

That's a great point. When Christians accept Scripture only they "skip over" the direct teaching of these giants of Christianity. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, etc. They are ones who Paul was talking about when he said "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

These men were either the "faithful men" or the "others", and what was "intrusted" to them was ORAL. Either way I don't think it's Biblical to ignore the ECF's teaching, whether written or oral.