Who has the Authority to Interpret Scripture?

[7angel]

What man can compare itself with the Holy Spirit? - Where inhabits the Spirit of God? - in a stone temple? or in the heart of the Man?

What man can guide us during 24 hours the day, even while you sleep as the Spirit does?

The man cannot be spiritual guide, is not Spirit, is flesh, And flesh is nothing

 

[francisdesales]

Actually, the Truth is found with and in GOD.

That is true. And God has revealed Himself to us through men. I thought all Christians believed that.

Interesting how the "church" (ie: Roman Catholicism) claims to "have" the Truth, but does not ACT out the Truth - yet that is what they (the RCC) complain about against Protestants.

First of all, why do you keep saying "Roman Catholicism" and "RCC" as the "Church"? Have I ever said that? Have I ever even called myself a "ROMAN Catholic"? We do not consider ourselves "Roman" Catholic. The way we celebrate our liturgy is based on the "Roman" rite, the rituals such as the Mass. But there are some 20 plus different rites that are considered Catholic. We are united with them all within the barque of Peter.

Secondly, I do not believe that indefectability and infallibility are related. Can you point to me in Scriptures any perfect man through whom God worked, besides Jesus of Nazareth? Nor should we judge the Church based on single, bad examples. Would you consider Jesus a failure because of Judas?

I do not want to argue, I am just presenting this for others... I would appreciate if you keep that in mind if you choose to respond.

Regards

 

[golfjack]

Fran. Don't you know that the Bible has withstood the test of times? Most read book ever. Did you know that Bible prophecy is one hundred percent accurate? And does your church do? For one and very important, it said that the Church replaced Israel when it doesn''t. Israel was established as a nation in one day, just like the Bible predicted. Shame on your church.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[francisdesales]

Fran. Don't you know that the Bible has withstood the test of times? Most read book ever. Did you know that Bible prophecy is one hundred percent accurate? And does your church do? For one and very important, it said that the Church replaced Israel when it doesn''t. Israel was established as a nation in one day, just like the Bible predicted. Shame on your church.

Yes, the Bible has "withstood the test of time". It has been printed more than any other book in history. On bible prophesy, that is a matter of faith.

Now, what does my Church do?

You mean ensure that we HAVE the Bible? Luther himself said if it wasn't for the Catholic Church, we wouldn't have Sacred Scriptures.

The Church has replaced Israel? Could you describe what you mean?

The idea of the nationhood of Israel as being important blew away with the writing of the New Testament. Christ has come to destroy all such walls and borders that keep out people. Thus, God's People are now "spiritual Jews", people who were Gentiles, since God is not a respecter of persons.

The idea that the Church and Israel are two separate things is a core misunderstanding of Scriptures, in my opinion. There are not TWO People's of God, brother, just one.

Regards

 

[Heidi]

So no, we don't go through priests any more to communicate with God. We go diresctly to Jesus through the indwelling Holy Spirit and Jesus answers us through scripture. Period. :D

Sure. :P :P

That is why so many people "indwelt with the Spirit" cannot agree on practically ANYTHING in the Bible... Either you are misunderstanding what Paul is writing, or there are numerous "spirits" telling you different things, because there is ONLY ONE Truth - found where? "the pillar and foundation of the truth" is the Church.

Regards

Sorry, but anyone can claim he has the Holy Spirit. : Jim Jones, David Koresch and even Charles Manson made that claim! But as Jesus says; "By their fruits you will recognize them." ;-)

Those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit will never disagree with the bible because it was also written by the Holy Spirit. And that's why paul said; "No doubt there will be divisions among you to show which of you has God's approval." ;-) Those who have God's approval don't diagree with scripture. Those who don't have God's approval will always disagree with scripture. Thus, the catholics try as hard as they can to convince people not to believe; Matthew 23:5-12, Matthew 1:25, Luke 1:47, Deuteronomy 18:11, Deuteronomy 4:15, Exodus 20:4 and as many verses of the bible they can find to disobey.

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry, but anyone can claim he has the Holy Spirit. : Jim Jones, David Koresch and even Charles Manson made that claim! But as Jesus says; "By their fruits you will recognize them." ;-)

Well, I don't know your "fruits" beyond what you write and how you write to others. My opinion of how you treat others, frankly, is that you need some work. Don't get upset, so do I. We are works in progress, Heidi. But I think it is safe to say that our "fruits" can be viewed by God from either angle. Are we living to our fullest potential? What sort of fruits does God see from us? People too often attribute to themselves all sorts of beautiful "fruits", looking at only the good things, presuming that the bad that they do is not a big deal. Personally, I don't think one needs to be a "charles manson" to be seen in God's eyes as "barren". Remember, Heidi, the Pharisees were not "charles mansons" either. They were religious hypocrites. Religious pride is very dangerous, and I think it is easy to fall into it. By proclaiming yourself "fruitful", how proud are you really? People who are humble do not do that. Consider the publican in prayer whom Jesus called justified in Luke's Gospel (vs. the Pharisee who thought highly of himself). Which camp are you in, Heidi?

This, coupled with your Scriptural interpretations of the past two weeks leaves me doubting that the Holy Spirit is working in you the ability to infallibly interpret Scriptures. I'm sorry, I hope you do not take this personally - I do not know you outside of here.

It is only the holiest of people who can make such claims. And neither of us are anywhere near that point. If you want to read such interpretations, I suggest reading the interpretations of the saints, those whom OTHERS considered very holy and wise in the ways of God. When we consider OURSELVES holy, we need to beware of pride. Those saintly person's spiritual opinions were highly regarded as being led by the Spirit. People rarely listen to someone who exalts themselves, because the Spirit is humble Himself and does not indwell within a proud person.

Those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit will never disagree with the bible because it was also written by the Holy Spirit. And that's why paul said; "No doubt there will be divisions among you to show which of you has God's approval." ;-) Those who have God's approval don't diagree with scripture. Those who don't have God's approval will always disagree with scripture. Thus, the catholics try as hard as they can to convince people not to believe; Matthew 23:5-12, Matthew 1:25, Luke 1:47, Deuteronomy 18:11, Deuteronomy 4:15, Exodus 20:4 and as many verses of the bible they can find to disobey.

True, and I have not found yet where the Catholic Church teaches something that "disagrees" with the Bible. If it was so, I would leave the Church, since it would be false. If even ONE "dogmatic" teaching is proven false, the whole structure crumbles, since she claims to be guided by the Spirit.

It is your OPINION that this is so, but you are not the Holy Spirit, nor are your interpretations necessarily guided by the Spirit. All of your verses above are just poor interpretations that you misapply to the Catholic Church - or, you are misunderstanding the Catholic point of view. I have seen a number of times that people (Catholic and Protestant) have explained your incorrect interpretations to you, but you refuse to listen. I would suggest that you take a step back and see if it is not hate that is blinding you and your attitude. Consider how the Pharisees acted towards Jesus. They could not see His point of view because they were blind to seeing anything else but THEIR point of view. Pride blinds, Heidi.

Regards

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but anyone can claim he has the Holy Spirit. : Jim Jones, David Koresch and even Charles Manson made that claim! But as Jesus says; "By their fruits you will recognize them." ;-)

Well, I don't know your "fruits" beyond what you write and how you write to others. My opinion of how you treat others, frankly, is that you need some work. Don't get upset, so do I. We are works in progress, Heidi. But I think it is safe to say that our "fruits" can be viewed by God from either angle. Are we living to our fullest potential? What sort of fruits does God see from us? People too often attribute to themselves all sorts of beautiful "fruits", looking at only the good things, presuming that the bad that they do is not a big deal. Personally, I don't think one needs to be a "charles manson" to be seen in God's eyes as "barren". Remember, Heidi, the Pharisees were not "charles mansons" either. They were religious hypocrites. Religious pride is very dangerous, and I think it is easy to fall into it. By proclaiming yourself "fruitful", how proud are you really? People who are humble do not do that. Consider the publican in prayer whom Jesus called justified in Luke's Gospel (vs. the Pharisee who thought highly of himself). Which camp are you in, Heidi?

This, coupled with your Scriptural interpretations of the past two weeks leaves me doubting that the Holy Spirit is working in you the ability to infallibly interpret Scriptures. I'm sorry, I hope you do not take this personally - I do not know you outside of here.

It is only the holiest of people who can make such claims. And neither of us are anywhere near that point. If you want to read such interpretations, I suggest reading the interpretations of the saints, those whom OTHERS considered very holy and wise in the ways of God. When we consider OURSELVES holy, we need to beware of pride. Those saintly person's spiritual opinions were highly regarded as being led by the Spirit. People rarely listen to someone who exalts themselves, because the Spirit is humble Himself and does not indwell within a proud person.

Those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit will never disagree with the bible because it was also written by the Holy Spirit. And that's why paul said; "No doubt there will be divisions among you to show which of you has God's approval." ;-) Those who have God's approval don't diagree with scripture. Those who don't have God's approval will always disagree with scripture. Thus, the catholics try as hard as they can to convince people not to believe; Matthew 23:5-12, Matthew 1:25, Luke 1:47, Deuteronomy 18:11, Deuteronomy 4:15, Exodus 20:4 and as many verses of the bible they can find to disobey.

True, and I have not found yet where the Catholic Church teaches something that "disagrees" with the Bible. If it was so, I would leave the Church, since it would be false. If even ONE "dogmatic" teaching is proven false, the whole structure crumbles, since she claims to be guided by the Spirit.

It is your OPINION that this is so, but you are not the Holy Spirit, nor are your interpretations necessarily guided by the Spirit. All of your verses above are just poor interpretations that you misapply to the Catholic Church - or, you are misunderstanding the Catholic point of view. I have seen a number of times that people (Catholic and Protestant) have explained your incorrect interpretations to you, but you refuse to listen. I would suggest that you take a step back and see if it is not hate that is blinding you and your attitude. Consider how the Pharisees acted towards Jesus. They could not see His point of view because they were blind to seeing anything else but THEIR point of view. Pride blinds, Heidi.

Regards

So then if the Catholics agree with the bible, then I trust they agree with Jesus in Matthew 23;5-12 not to call our religious leaders; "Father". Is that correct? If so, then I trust you'll stop calling your popes and priests 'fathers."

I trust that you also agree with Matthew 1:25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." If so, then I trust yo'll recant your statements that Mary was a virgin all her life. ;-)

I also trust that you agree with; Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4;15, Leviticus 1;26 not to carve for yourselves any image of a man or a woman and will not pray and bow down to them any more.

I also trust that you will believe Deuteronomy 18:11 and now stop trying to consult the dead.

So if the catholics agree with the bible, they have a lot of practices, rituals, and creeds to change. :

Or perhaps the catholics simply don't understand simple words like "father", "carve", "union"? If not, then they need to go back to elementary school so they can understand words that even children already understand :

So sorry, by changing all those verses around, the Catholics either think that others are stupid or the Catholics themselves really are too ignorant to understand simple words in the bible. Do you really think that you're fooling people? :o If so, then I have news for you; you're not fooling literate people and you're certainly not fooling God. The lies of the catholics aren't even good lies because they change simple words that we can all understand into the opposite of what they say! : So trying to change the bible into the opposite of what it says is a hopeless venture because it doesn't fool literate people.

But I already know that if the pope changes his mind about Mary's virginity, most catholics would change their minds right along with him. : So since the catholic religion has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the bible, you might as well throw the bible away and follow the pope as all cult followers follow their leaders. ;-)

 

[Devekut]

Heidi:

So then if the Catholics agree with the bible, then I trust they agree with Jesus in Matthew 23;5-12 not to call our religious leaders; "Father". Is that correct? If so, then I trust you'll stop calling your popes and priests 'fathers."

I find it interesting how many Protestants quote this passage as some kind of evidence against Catholics for calling their priests "father".

Of course Heidi says that Christ commands "not to call our religious leaders father" a very specific choice of words on her part so that she can continue to call her own father "father".

What does the text actually say?:

"and do not call anyone on earth "father" for you have one Father, and he is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9).

Obviously, Heidi calling her dad "father" is a violation of this passage as well, according to her literalism. There is no indication that this is isolated to our "religious leaders". It says "call no one on earth". I would assume Heidi's father is or has been on earth, Of course, Heidi does not call anyone "teacher" either nor would she call herself a "teacher" were she to be a pastor, which is also a title forbidden to the Apostle's in this text.

Of course, after saying this, Jesus calls the Pharisees "teachers of the law".

 

[francisdesales]

So then if the Catholics agree with the bible, then I trust they agree with Jesus in Matthew 23;5-12 not to call our religious leaders; "Father". Is that correct? If so, then I trust you'll stop calling your popes and priests 'fathers."

You are being obstinate in your pride. This has been explained to you on NUMEROUS occasions in the last 2 months. Paul and John called themselves spiritual fathers of their flocks. Obviously, Jesus is not saying that no one can LITERALLY not use the word "father". That is just silly.

I trust that you also agree with Matthew 1:25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." If so, then I trust yo'll recant your statements that Mary was a virgin all her life. ;-)

Again, obstinate refusal to listen to someone else. Nowhere does the Bible state that Mary gave birth to other children.

I also trust that you agree with; Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4;15, Leviticus 1;26 not to carve for yourselves any image of a man or a woman and will not pray and bow down to them any more.

As soon as you let God know that He should not disobey His own commandment according to Heidi when He had Moses carve an angel on the ARK, I'll be sure to listen to you...

Again, you are being obstinate, as this has all been said before. It is common sense that you are not correct in your interpretations, because IF one followed them to their natural conclusion, we would have God and Jesus breaking God's commandments. We would have Paul and John breaking the commandments. Sorry, us Catholics presume that God follows His own commandments. Thus, it is a safer bet to presume you are misinterpreting the meaning of those verses....

I also trust that you will believe Deuteronomy 18:11 and now stop trying to consult the dead.

Tell Jesus that, next time you get off your high horse...

Obstinancy, pride, all the same. What is sad is that you don't even realize how much you are mimicing the Pharisees by your constant self-righteous condemnations. What is worse is that your Scriptural interpretations are senseless and make a mockery of God.

 

[mondar]

So then if the Catholics agree with the bible, then I trust they agree with Jesus in Matthew 23;5-12 not to call our religious leaders; "Father". Is that correct? If so, then I trust you'll stop calling your popes and priests 'fathers."

You are being obstinate in your pride. This has been explained to you on NUMEROUS occasions in the last 2 months. Paul and John called themselves spiritual fathers of their flocks. Obviously, Jesus is not saying that no one can LITERALLY not use the word "father". That is just silly.

"You are being obstinate in your pride." This has been explained to you on NUMEROUS occasions in the last 2 months." ----------------> Ad Hominin attack

"Paul and John called themselves spiritual fathers of their flocks." -------->This could be useful, but without the references posted it is useless, and nothing more then an assertion. Who says Paul and Jon called themselves "spiritual father?"

"Obviously, Jesus is not saying that no one can LITERALLY not use the word "father". This is an appeal to an axiomatic truth that no everyone considers an axiomatic truth. Your assertion is based upon that the truth is "obvious." It might not be obvious to everyone. Do you think Heidi is unworthy to receive a defense of your assertions?

"That is just silly" -----> this is again an ad-hominim argument. In saying this you are demeaning Heidi's intelligence, not providing an argument of substance. If you wish to challenge Heidi's literal hermenetic, what do you intend to replace it with? Allegory? Some other hermeneutic?

So far the basis of your defense seems to be ad-hominim argumentation. If you wish some help, let me know. I think I could provide you wih more substantive arguments. Try consistency. Does Heidi call her preacher "reverend?" Maybe she does not, but you could ask. It would be a far better defense then your personal attacks.

I trust that you also agree with Matthew 1:25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." If so, then I trust yo'll recant your statements that Mary was a virgin all her life. ;-)

Again, obstinate refusal to listen to someone else. Nowhere does the Bible state that Mary gave birth to other children.

Here you complare apples and oranges. I forget the formal flaw of logic term.

Heidi seems to me to be asserting that Mary could not have been perpetually a virgin because of Matthew 1:25. Your defense is that there is no proof that Mary had no other children. Now francisdesales, I really dont want to explain the birds and the bees to you on this BB, but I must say that it is possible for any woman not to have children and yet not be a perpetual virgin.

No of course the tradition of Rome says Mary was a perpetual virgin. This view cannot explain the word "until" in the sentence "....But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." If so, then I trust yo'll recant your statements that Mary was a virgin all her life....."

I also trust that you agree with; Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4;15, Leviticus 1;26 not to carve for yourselves any image of a man or a woman and will not pray and bow down to them any more.

As soon as you let God know that He should not disobey His own commandment according to Heidi when He had Moses carve an angel on the ARK, I'll be sure to listen to you...

Again, you are being obstinate, as this has all been said before. It is common sense that you are not correct in your interpretations, because IF one followed them to their natural conclusion, we would have God and Jesus breaking God's commandments. We would have Paul and John breaking the commandments. Sorry, us Catholics presume that God follows His own commandments. Thus, it is a safer bet to presume you are misinterpreting the meaning of those verses....

Sigh, actually you came fairly close here to a reasonable responce. Had you asked Heidi that if no images are allowed why did God command the ark to have the image of angels on it... the quote the text. Unfortunately you bury a possibly reasonable responce in quite a large mound of ad-hominim attacks.

So far I wonder if you have the ability to address Heidi without all the ad-hominims. Do you?

Tell Jesus that, next time you get off your high horse...

Obstinancy, pride, all the same. What is sad is that you don't even realize how much you are mimicing the Pharisees by your constant self-righteous condemnations. What is worse is that your Scriptural interpretations are senseless and make a mockery of God.

I took Heidi's quote out of this on purpose. No one would even possibly know what subject is being addressed. There is absolutely no content in your answer. It does not futher the conversation in any way. It is nothing but name calling.

Heidi, thanks for the verses, francisdesales, well nice name calling.

 

[Devekut]

The verse in Matthew regarding the word "until" and Mary's perpetual virginity actually has a linguistic explaination that makes the phrase more or less neuteral. Mainly, the statement can be read as emphasizing the virginity of Mary at the time of birth without neccessarily implying she later had intercourse. Which is, of course, how the Church has always interpreted this passage since ancient times.

If someone wants to open a thread in the RCC forum regarding "Mary's perpetual virginity", then we can keep this thread on topic.

 

[mondar]

Devekut,
Good point, it spreads the topic out too much. I will start the new thread.
Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

"Paul and John called themselves spiritual fathers of their flocks." -------->This could be useful, but without the references posted it is useless, and nothing more then an assertion. Who says Paul and Jon called themselves "spiritual father?"

"Obviously, Jesus is not saying that no one can LITERALLY not use the word "father". This is an appeal to an axiomatic truth that no everyone considers an axiomatic truth. Your assertion is based upon that the truth is "obvious." It might not be obvious to everyone. Do you think Heidi is unworthy to receive a defense of your assertions?

Excuse me... I don't need to repost everything that was said to Heidi in the last few months on other threads just for the chance possibility that Mondar might show up. If you want, go back and review all that was said, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you are late to the conversation and your input is not needed, thank you very much.

As to name calling, maybe if you read my posts, you would see that I have also charged myself, so you can just be quiet. Secondly, perhaps you should look in the mirror. I could write a very long thread of your "chutzpah". But what is the point. We have already read your many condescending posts. Thankfully, we have such a good example here to look up to in "Mondar".

 

[mondar]

Excuse me... I don't need to repost everything that was said to Heidi in the last few months on other threads just for the chance possibility that Mondar might show up. If you want, go back and review all that was said, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you are late to the conversation and your input is not needed, thank you very much.

As to name calling, maybe if you read my posts, you would see that I have also charged myself, so you can just be quiet. Secondly, perhaps you should look in the mirror. I could write a very long thread of your "chutzpah". But what is the point. We have already read your many condescending posts. Thankfully, we have such a good example here to look up to in "Mondar".

Heh, francisdesales, do you think you should up your prozac a little?

 

[Devekut]

Hey everyone,

Why don't we slow down here before things get too heated. I know that these forums can be frustrating, especially with certain forms of fundamentalism not open to real discussion floating around.

Another factor is that there are so many people on these boards that our very good points sometimes get overlooked and people pose questions to us that we know we have already covered. Additionally, sometimes people just do not listen at all but proceed to post anyways.

I guess we all snap now and then and throw out some un-Christian remarks or make our arguments in snide ways. I have done this before as well.

For most of us here our passion is motivated by our real passion and love of Christ. Hopefully we can use that passion for Him in a way that honours Him.

So let us refresh and start this thread back on topic.

 

[francisdesales]

Heh, francisdesales, do you think you should up your prozac a little?

I don't know, is it in the Bible?

:P

 

[Heidi]

In response to Christ's word in Matthew 5:23:9, "And do not call anyone on earth 'father' for you have one Father and he is in heaven", first and foremost, Jesus was talking about religious leaders as the context of the passage shows. Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for showing off their long robes, phylacteries, tassels, and taking the most important seats in the Synagogues to show their authority, knowledge and power. Jesus was making the point that all wisdom and guidance comes only from God, our Father in heaven, not people who want to be seen as wise in the eyes of men.

Jesus was also warning us what happens when we call our religious leaders the same title which is only reserved for God. People then begin to see those "teachers' as the final authority instead of God alone. And that's what's happened to the catholics because they call the pope "Our Holy Father." The catholics now abandon Christ's words, including and especially this passage, in exchange for the teachings of the pope. So they prove what happens when we call our religious leaders the same title that is reserved for God; idol worship.

Secondly, once we ae born of God, instead of only born in the flesh, we have a new Father who is God. God now replaces our earthly father to whom we no come to for; guidance, protection, nurturing and wisdom. So those born again of the Holy Spirit are now sons of God which is why every born again Christian calls other born again Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ. So Jesus absolutely meant this literally a well as referring to religious leaders which only born again Christians know.

And thirdly, I have no more desire to listen to anyone justify why we shouldn't believe Jesus in this passage or any other passage in the bible. I have heard way too many people who call themselves Christiansargue with Jesus in this passage, claim he didn't mean it or try to change his words. His words are very simple and direct. But since only born again Christians understand why we are not to call anyone one earth 'father' then we are the only ones who don't argue with Jesus in this passage or any other passage.

So I'll leave people here to continue arguing with Jesus, show their confusion and lack of understanding of what he says, and personally attack others who disagree with them. If Christians don't believe the simple words of Jesus, they have no chance of understanding the deeper meanings of scripture.

So I no longer care if you rake me over the coals, personally attack me for believing the words of Christ as written because I didn't write the bible nor will it change one word that God says. So it's a waste of time. I simply no longer have a desire to be around it.

 

[unred typo]

quote by dadof10 on Thu Oct 11, 2007:
unred typo wrote: “Does that answer your question? If not, I'll try again.â€Â


Yes, it does. The way you phrased your post had me a little confused (not your problem, mine).

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying, in a nutshell, you read and interpret Scripture and use your conscience as guide. Is this about right?

If I've got it right, where does Scripture teach this concept and does Scripture even have to teach all true doctrine?

The scripture teaches that we should, as Paul said, deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These are the things that we should speak, and exhort other believers and all men everywhere to do. What other doctrines do we need?

1 Timothy 1:4-5
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned

This is not rocket science. Jesus made it simple. We are going to be judged by our works, not our doctrine. If your doctrine helps you to live godly and love one another, you’re not going to fail. Not all doctrines help all people to follow Christ, and what helps one person, doesn‘t do a thing for someone else. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Not everyone likes chocolate. The important thing is everyone get along and love one another, and follow what Christ taught. Beyond that are just things that occupy your mind and cause strife between believers, as we can see on this board.

1 Corinthians 2:12
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

What are the things of the spirit that he teaches us?

1 Thessalonians 4:7=9
For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. He therefore that despises, despises not man, but God, who has also given unto us his holy Spirit. But as touching brotherly love you need not that I write unto you: for you yourselves are taught of God to love one another.

We need to know that God wants us to live righteously, and to love one another. We are not supposed to have some ruling over others but those who are able should take it upon themselves to serve others and help those they can influence to live godly lives. We are supposed to be a support group to those who are weaker. Scripture should draw believers together, not divide us over who has the most authority and biblically correct knowledge.

Luke 22:24-26
24And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26But you shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that does serve.

Mark 10 :42-45
But Jesus called them to him, and said unto them, You know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
45For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

We will be judged by our works, our faith and our own consciences, and not by our perfect understanding of the doctrines of the Bible and/or tradition.

Romans 14:21-23
21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.
22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemns not himself in that thing which he allows.
23And he that doubts is damned if he eat, because he eats not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:

First, I think your idea that the bible and scripture are two different things is idle speculation. Thats another dog trail that I suspect will take away from the discussion at hand.

Also, the term theopneustos and the resulting concept of infallibility occurs in verse 16. The concept of sufficiency is taken from verse 17. The term implies that the scriptures (and bible which is a collection of all scriptures) has the authority of having its source in God.

All scripture in verse 16 doesn’t include Paul’s letters or it also includes all the writings of all the prophets before that we no longer have in our Bible. The Bible is missing the books of Enoch and Jasher and the apocatha to mention a few. Either way, it’s pretty lame proof of sole (infallible) authority. You’re stretching that passage to the limit and probably beyond. The thing Paul is saying is ‘read it, it’s good for you’ and not the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ where the Bible is given a special status of infallibility. Only God is infallible.

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

All scripture is profitable. I personally believe that means all inspired writings are profitable but I don’t believe anything man does is without errors, nor do I believe all inspired writings are profitable to all people. A person must decide for themselves what they believe is truth and live by it. That is not to say there is not an absolute truth but that God does not judge us by whether we understood all mysteries correctly, but by how we followed through on what we ‘knew’ to be true.

 

[dadof10]

So no, we don't go through priests any more to communicate with God. We go diresctly to Jesus through the indwelling Holy Spirit and Jesus answers us through scripture. Period. :D

First of all, I didn't even mention priests. Secondly, Catholics don't "communicate with God" through priests.

Heidi, I'd like for you to show me in Scripture where it teaches that "Jesus answers us through scripture". I don't think it's in there.