Well, this is my third time trying to ask a question. The first two times, my question was deleted and I have no idea why.

When posters here quote the Bible as a proof source for the Bible, how do they reconcile the non-logical and non-rational business of proving the Bible from the Bible?

For example, if I claim an absolute truth from the XYZ book, and prove what I claim from that same XYZ book, is that not a false claim?

Answers appreciated, unless I get deleted again.

I guess it's only a false claim to the one asking if they've already made up their mind that it's a false book. So, no matter how much "proof" is presented from that book the one asking will never take it as fact. In saying that, there are some who will give quotes as proof according to their own interpretations and not according to how it was originally intended to be understood. That's when the fun starts.

Well, this is my third time trying to ask a question. The first two times, my question was deleted and I have no idea why.

When posters here quote the Bible as a proof source for the Bible, how do they reconcile the non-logical and non-rational business of proving the Bible from the Bible?

For example, if I claim an absolute truth from the XYZ book, and prove what I claim from that same XYZ book, is that not a false claim?

Answers appreciated, unless I get deleted again.

Essentially, its circular logic. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that the Word of God is contained in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

The Catholic Church also does not deny that truth exists in non religious otherwise known as secular sources like history, archaeology and other sciences.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Essentially, its circular logic. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that the Word of God is contained in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

The Catholic Church also does not deny that truth exists in non religious otherwise known as secular sources like history, archaeology and other sciences.

Sincerely,

De Maria

That is the major problem with many religions today. They are relying on a book or books written by some human being to tell them what the Bible actually says or means in a passage. Depending on how that person is interpreting the scriptures it may be OK to down right cultism. Look to the book of Mormon as a classic example. Unless you truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that it is up to us to verify and prove or disprove what is being taught in our churches. If what your pastor/priest/rabbi is teaching is not in accordance with your understanding of the Bible it is up to you to confront them and try and get understanding. Remember what God says about the leaders in the church. They are going to be held to a higher standard than us laymen. And as such if they have led their flock astray they will be held accountable on Judgment day. But if we have not held them accountable here on earth I think we also will be held accountable on Judgment day. I for one do not want that burden to fall on my head. So I will and have confronted the church leaders on issues that I feel are being taught not according to scriptures.

Athos -

I agree that using the bible as a proof of truth when making claims about the bible is fundamentally circular in reasoning. So yes, you are detecting an irrational approach to truth from those people you are citing in your example.

If your starting point is that the bible is not true, then I wonder whether you'd agree that your end point will most likely be that the bible remains untrue. It is possible for our human subjectivity to hinder us from going in a certain direction, perhaps even when all of the evidence points that way.

Now I'm not trying to be snide and hint that you are already in the wrong... I don't know what you believe or why you believe it. But what I am saying is that all of us have a set of preconceptions about reality and what is true but our preconceptions need to be scrutinized and tested... every worldview is attempting to answer life's major questions: whether it's atheism, evolution, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and every conceivable faith-based philosophy.

The bible, as I personally hold to it, is a book which I believe answers 4 major questions that almost every worldview attempts to answer:

1) Where did I come from?
2) What is the meaning of life?
3) How should I live (morality)?
4) Where am I going when I die (my destiny)?

I believe that what makes the bible so compelling is that not only does it provide answers to the above questions but it makes the claim to have authority over every human being... I think because it claims to have that authority, it is compelling enough to investigate its claims and determine whether they are true.

That is how I see it anyway... not that it really matters but you are asking for an opinion so in that case it matters to you (or at least it should).

.... Remeber what God says about the leaders in the church. ....

Your message gives the impression we should distrust in the Church. But that isn't from Scripture:

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Apparently God wants us to have confidence in the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Your message gives the impression we should distrust in the Church. But that isn't from Scripture:

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Apparently God wants us to have confidence in the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Nope, NEVER said or implied that. You are reading into my comments what you want to see again. I was simply saying that we as Christians must test everything we are taught against the word of God. And if it does not stand up to that test, it is our duty to call our leaders on it. A classic example of doctrine going horribly wrong is that church that Mr Obama attended for 20 years. That wright character is spewing hatred and bigotry from the pulpit and no one in that church is or has called him on it. Why is that?

Well, this is my third time trying to ask a question. The first two times, my question was deleted and I have no idea why.

When posters here quote the Bible as a proof source for the Bible, how do they reconcile the non-logical and non-rational business of proving the Bible from the Bible?

For example, if I claim an absolute truth from the XYZ book, and prove what I claim from that same XYZ book, is that not a false claim?

Answers appreciated, unless I get deleted again.

You have a basic mis-understanding in what the Bible is. It is not a single book. It is a collection of 66 books which were penned by many different people over a period of thousands of years, all of whom were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

…[To] quote the Bible as a proof source for the Bible, how do they reconcile the non-logical and non-rational business of proving the Bible from the Bible?


Athos -I agree that using the bible as a proof of truth when making claims about the bible is fundamentally circular in reasoning. So yes, you are detecting an irrational approach to truth from those people you are citing in your example.

If your starting point is that the bible is not true, then I wonder whether you'd agree that your end point will most likely be that the bible remains untrue. It is possible for our human subjectivity to hinder us from going in a certain direction, perhaps even when all of the evidence points that way.

…The bible, as I personally hold to it, is a book which I believe answers 4 major questions that almost every worldview attempts to answer:

1) Where did I come from?
2) What is the meaning of life?
3) How should I live (morality)?
4) Where am I going when I die (my destiny)?

I believe that what makes the bible so compelling is that not only does it provide answers to the above questions but it makes the claim to have authority over every human being...I think because it claims to have that authority, it is compelling enough to investigate its claims and determine whether or not they are true.

Athos, jokester, et al:

My experience has been that there are two schools of thought among Christians in regard to the validity of Scripture and what weight they should have. The first holds that the bible was written by men inspired by God. As such it is a Holy book witnessing God's revelation to man. The other group holds that it was “written by the hand of God” and as such the sole authoritative source for God's revelation to man. These differences are small, but the seeming small distinctions creates a vast theological divide.

It seems to me that Jokester makes a leap to the assumption that the validity of the entire works of Holy Scriptures is being question; I don't. I read the question put to us as; how are we to discern whether the bible is THE “proof source” for God's revelation to man? Is it in fact the only “proof source” and if not what other would qualify? I would add one other question, are the scriptures the “only source” of God's revelation to man? You might think that this isn't really important because we can rely on our faith to guide us. But, remember that faith is part of the intellect, it requires objective proof, and objective proof requires an objective authority. Catholics hold 'faith' in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (an objective faith). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within the natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event intellectual reasoning is an element of faith. On the other hand, at least from my perspective, non-Catholics seem to have a standing around waiting for those predestined lightning strikes of faith. There are many Protestant denominations that have this type of faith. (Sorry - this isn't intended to be combative; I just can't figure a better way to say it.)

It's true; we look to the Scriptures for an authoritative view of our creation, the purpose of understanding our creation, our moral obligations to that creator and to our fellow man, and our final destiny. But, who authenticates the Holy Scriptures? It's my opinion that non-Catholics exhibit a hubristic ideology that an individual has an unconditional right to absolute independence, a self asserted authority, to a private understanding of Scripture. This "truth" is free of the restraint formed principles or ethics, to determine what is God's will. After all there are no respected authorities, so why should they be constrained.

I would agree that the desire to privately interpret the bible is found in the human nature, at least on the surface. However, what is even more prevalent in the human nature is conformity. For example, take a physics lab student who finishes an experiment. Before he even writes out his findings, what's the very first thing he does? I've observed, (and I've even done it myself), the first thing these students do is asks his lab partner what result he got, then he'll go to other class mates, he may even poll the entire room. When the lab student's findings don't conform, he'll dismiss his findings and re-run the experiment until he comes into conformity with his mates (whether or not the mates got the right answer.) Thus, if just one of these lab mates interjects a serious error, all of them will repeat it (with confidence). I think St. Thomas addresses a strong human desire to conform in several of his responses. I'd say our human nature is stronger to conform rather than to be independent. Thus, our human nature looks to an authority.

Without an authority we tend to apply rationalism along with relativism and naturalism to Church doctrine. This in turn synthesizes its own traditional morals for autonomous pre-determined conclusions based on the premises desired. Inductive reasoning founded on Christian faith weighing actions on traditional Catholic morals becomes slow, regressive, and narrow-minded. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn on private interpretation of Scripture become autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments become subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Catholicism brings.


Consequently, all Christianity looks to an authority. Non-Catholics, to maintain private interpretation, will assert that “the Bible claims its own authority.” It doesn't. There is not a single line, a single verse, a single chapter, that asserts that the bible is and of itself an “authority.”


So, what is the authority of Scripture? As a Catholic I can answer this question with the words of St. Augustine, “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5 Furthermore, of whose authority I rely that I'm getting, as it were, the “right stuff.” I would respond again in the words of St. Augustine, “I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes.” FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY


JoeT

Nope, NEVER said or implied that.

Good.


You are reading into my comments what you want to see again. I was simply saying that we as Christians must test everything we are taught against the word of God.

Very good. Do adhere to the belief that the Word of God is only in Scripture? Or do you admit that we also have the Word of God in Tradition? And do you admit that the Church teaches the Word of God?


And if it does not stand up to that test, it is our duty to call our leaders on it. A classic example of doctrine going horribly wrong is that church that Mr Obama attended for 20 years. That wright character is spewing hatred and bigotry from the pulpit and no one in that church is or has called him on it. Why is that?

Very good. Sorry if I misunderstood your first post.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Athos, jokester, et al:

Consequently, all Christianity looks to an authority. Non-Catholics, to maintain private interpretation, will assert that “the Bible claims its own authority.” It doesn’t. There is not a single line, a single verse, a single chapter, that asserts that the bible is and of itself an “authority.”

So, what is the authority of Scripture? As a Catholic I can answer this question with the words of St. Augustine, “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5 Furthermore, of whose authority I rely that I’m getting, as it were, the “right stuff.” I would respond again in the words of St. Augustine, “I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes.” FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY

JoeT

And I, being a child of God, walk to follow Christ. Doing all that the Father Wills by power and authority in the Name of Jesus. Christ told us His sheep hear His voice and follow. (John 10:27)

We also have Christ telling us that all power and authority was given to Him for both heaven and earth. And His disciples were to teach this to all nation to observe. Christ is the way, The Word made Flesh. (John 1:12) In communion we eat of both the body and blood. Christ tells us we will thirst no more when we drink of His Water. (John 4:14)

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen

When baptized in the manner that was commanded, we receive the Holy Spirit who will comfort and guide us.

~child of God

And I, being a child of God, walk to follow Christ. Doing all that the Father Wills by power and authority in the Name of Jesus. Christ told us His sheep hear His voice and follow. (John 10:27)

We also have Christ telling us that all power and authority was given to Him for both heaven and earth. And His disciples were to teach this to all nation to observe. Christ is the way, The Word made Flesh. (John 1:12) In communion we eat of both the body and blood. Christ tells us we will thirst no more when we drink of His Water. (John 4:14)

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen

When baptized in the manner that was commanded, we receive the Holy Spirit who will comfort and guide us.

~child of God

But, how do you know? Who or what validates? Augustine was addressing that issue, that validating authority is the Catholic Church. How do I discern that your Holy Spirit is the real McCoy? I can't look inside you and make that discernment. So, how do I authenticate your words? Who or what is the authority, your will? Your interpretation of Scripture? That's my point, without the Catholic Church we are without an authority.

I might point out, without the Catholic Church you wouldn't have a bibile.

JoeT

When I hear Catholics argue for guidance by church tradition, I am reminded of how Fr. Charles Chiniquy responded when it was demanded of him that he agree with the traditions of the Fathers. He said that it was impossible for him to do so, as the Fathers did not agree among themselves. He then proceeded to cite several contridictioins between the holy fathers.

(See Fr. Chiniquy's book Fifty years in the Church of Rome)

When I hear Catholics argue for guidance by church tradition, I am reminded of how Fr. Charles Chiniquy responded when it was demanded of him that he agree with the traditions of the Fathers. He said that it was impossible for him to do so, as the Fathers did not agree among themselves. He then proceeded to cite several contridictioins between the holy fathers.

(See Fr. Chiniquy's book Fifty years in the Church of Rome)

We’re not discussing Mr. Chiniquy. But if we were, I'd consider his views untrustworthy. He's broken solemn vows made to God, so how little effort would it be to mislead me? How much trust do you place in him? Or is it that you just like what he says because of his anti-Catholic view?

JoeT

When I hear Catholics argue for guidance by church tradition, I am reminded of how Fr. Charles Chiniquy responded when it was demanded of him that he agree with the traditions of the Fathers. He said that it was impossible for him to do so, as the Fathers did not agree among themselves. He then proceeded to cite several contridictioins between the holy fathers.

(See Fr. Chiniquy's book Fifty years in the Church of Rome)

Notice that the Fathers submitted themselves to the authority of the Church. Notice also that they defended the authority of bishops against the Gnostics and the authority of Rome against Gnostics, Donatists, Arians, and Monophysites.

They appear to me to set a wonderful example.

When I hear Catholics argue for guidance by church tradition, I am reminded of how Fr. Charles Chiniquy responded when it was demanded of him that he agree with the traditions of the Fathers. He said that it was impossible for him to do so, as the Fathers did not agree among themselves. He then proceeded to cite several contridictioins between the holy fathers.

Several errors in that statement.

First, the Church doesn't argue for guidance by Church Tradition. But for guidance by Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

Second, the Catholic Church doesn't agree with all the teachings of the Fathers. Some of which held heretic beliefs.

Third, the Catholic Church holds only the orthodox teachings of the Fathers, which were judged orthodox by the ecumenical Church in the Councils.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria, thanks for the reddie, I was getting sick of the colour green anyway. From my understanding circular logic is the same as logical fallacies. Fallacies being false claims. I do not see any part of the bible as false although many others do. :)

Several errors in that statement.

First, the Church doesn't argue for guidance by Church Tradition. But for guidance by Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

Second, the Catholic Church doesn't agree with all the teachings of the Fathers. Some of which held heretic beliefs.

As well at least one "infallible(?)" pope who taught heretical doctrine according to your denomination, and was excommunicated for it!


Third, the Catholic Church holds only the orthodox teachings of the Fathers, which were judged orthodox by the ecumenical Church in the Councils.

Your denominational councils.

De Maria, thanks for the reddie, I was getting sick of the colour green anyway. From my understanding circular logic is the same as logical fallacies. Fallacies being false claims. I do not see any part of the bible as false although many others do. :)

Circular logic is supporting the premise with the premise rather than other supporting evidence. The premise need not be false, but the proof of the argument is flawed.

JoeT

Circular logic is supporting the premise with the premise rather than other supporting evidence. The premise need not be false, but the proof of the argument is flawed.

JoeT

And the claim that using the Bible to interpret the or substantiate the Bible is circular reasoning is based upon false logic because the Bible is not a single document. It would only be circular reasoning if the Bible were a single document, written by one person.

The Bible:

1) Is made up of 66 books
2) Penned through inspiration of the Holy Spirit by many different people, of many different cultures, of many different layers of society, over thousands of years of time.

The only thing which is singular about the Bible is that the entire Bible is inspired by God and thus has a singular credibility that no other document in the world has or ever has had.

As well at least one "infallible(?)" pope who taught heretical doctrine according to your denomination, and was excommunicated for it!



Your denominational councils.


This isn't a correct statement. There was only one Pope that was excommunicated for heretical views and then only after he had died. That pronouncement was later found to be improper and withdrawn. I can post a short dissertation if you like?

JoeT

This isn't a correct statement. There was only one Pope that was excommunicated for heretical views and then only after he had died. That pronouncement was later found to be improper and withdrawn. I can post a short dissertation if you like?

JoeT

So you are telling me that the infallible(?) pope who excommunicated him erred.

So you are telling me that the infallible(?) pope who excommunicated him erred.

No but the fallible council did. But fear not, I'm looking it up for you now. I'll have the TRUTH for you in a few minutes.

JoeT

So you are telling me that the infallible(?) pope who excommunicated him erred.

Not every statement made by a Pope is infallible.

No but the fallible council did. But fear not, I’m looking it up for you now. I’ll have the TRUTH for you in a few minutes.

JoeT

Ah so your church that you use to infallibly(?) interpret scripture for you erred.

Not every statement made by a Pope is infallible.

We agree on that!! I very strongly agree. In fact I would say that none are unless the Bible is being quoted by him directly and in context.

And the claim that using the Bible to interpret the or substantiate the Bible is circular reasoning is based upon false logic because the Bible is not a single document. It would only be circular reasoning if the Bible were a single document, written by one person.

The Bible:

1) Is made up of 66 books
2) Penned through inspiration of the Holy Spirit by many different people, of many different cultures, of many different layers of society, over thousands of years of time.

The only thing which is singular about the Bible is that the entire Bible is inspired by God and thus has a singular credibility that no other document in the world has or ever has had.

Boy, you're stuck on 66 books! How do you know they have authority – those 66 books?

JoeT

Ah so your church that you use to infallibly(?) interpret scripture for you erred.

What has this to do with the interpretation of Scripture? I don't see the connection.

We agree on that!!! I very strongly agree. In fact I would say that none are unless the Bible is being quoted by him directly and in context.

Not every statement made by a Pope is claimed to be infallible.

Ah so your church that you use to infallibly(?) interpret scripture for you erred.

Have any copyists, redactors, or translators ever erred?

Not every statement made by a Pope is claimed to be infallible.

That is a good thing. Better is none were.

We agree on that!! I very strongly agree.

Great!


In fact I would say that none are

That's because you don't believe Scripture nor Jesus' promise:


Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Why did God call Moses God? Because He appointed Moses as His representative before Pharoa and the people:
Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

And what did God do in the New Testament? God also selected a man to represent Him. Simon Bar-Jonah.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Who is the Rock?

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Christ is the Rock!

And the Rock turned to Simon and said, "YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock will build my Church"

So God gave Simon the name that represents God.

2 Kings 22 2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.

Why? Because Simon now represents God before men.

Therefore Jesus also gave Him the keys to the Kingdom:
Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

And so, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is the representative of God before His People and therefore infallible.

Jesus said:
John 20 21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.

And Jesus was sent to preach and teach infallibly.


unless the Bible is being quoted by him directly and in context.

He does that quite often. I recommend his books.

Sincerely,

De Maria

What has this to do with the interpretation of Scripture? I don't see the connection.

What role does any specific denominational claim of infallible interpretation have to do with Biblical interpretation? None.

That is a good thing. Better is none were.

Your opinion is noted.

What role does any specific denominational claim of infallible interpretation have to do with Biblical interpretation? None.

We recognize that an infallible Bible needs an infallible interpreter. Otherwise, the grace is nullified.

What use is it to have an infallible record if there is no infallible interpreter to infallibly interpret the message?

What role does any specific denominational claim of infallible interpretation have to do with Biblical interpretation? None.

That doesn't anwer my question. You've answered a question with a question. Please explain.

That's because you don't believe Scripture nor Jesus' promise

God promised nothing to any denomination.




Why did God call Moses God?

He didn't.

Ex 7:1-2
7:1 So the LORD said to Moses: "See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
NKJV


And what did God do in the New Testament? God also selected a man to represent Him. Simon Bar-Jonah.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Odd that you always take that out of context of what was said in context prior to that statement.

Matt 16:15-18
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
NKJV

The question was who Jesus is, and Jesus said that it was the testimony on which He would build His church. Paul alter said that there can be no other foundation than Jesus Christ - not Peter, but Jesus.


Who is the Rock?

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Christ is the Rock!

Exactly - ONLY Jesus.

That doesn't anwer my question. You've answered a question with a question. Please explain.

Back into repeating a question after being answered, eh?

We recognize that an infallible Bible needs an infallible interpreter.

God provided the Holy Spirit, and multiple different books of the Holy Scripture which was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Do you think that we need opinions of men in addition to God?

Back into repeating a question after being answered, eh?

You dodged a bullet when the thread closed.

God provided the Holy Spirit, and multiple different books of the Holy Scripture which was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Do you think that we need opinions of men in addition to God?

You are an infallible interpreter?

You are an infallible interpreter?

How the heck could you possibly mis-represent anything that I said to come to such an off the wall conclusion. NO MAN according to scripture is an infallible interpreter, not even you or your denomination's pope.

You dodged a bullet when the thread closed.

What? You mean that you really have a strategy that you use in thread after thread to bore people to death by harassing them with the same question hundreds of times after they answer?

Strange way to proceed if you are really here to have straightforward honest discussions.

How the heck could you possibly mis-represent anything that I said to come to such an off the wall conclusion. NO MAN according to scripture is an infallible interpreter, not even you or your denomination's pope.


So, then, you err in your interpretation of Scripture?

But, how do you know?

JoeT

Why does one doubt?

Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.


Augustine was addressing that issue, that validating authority is the Catholic Church.

The scripture is Jesus talking, I don't question Christ or His authority. Why would the Catholic Church assume they are the authority? Jesus told His disciples, and they are the witness to what is written. Everything was to be done as Christ commanded them.



How do I discern that your Holy Spirit is the real McCoy? I can't look inside you and make that discernment.

My Holy Spirit? The Word clearly shows evidence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit..ONE Commandment #1 none other! And we are to discern by all that is done and by what is spoken in those that teach us. Does the Catholic Church follow by all that Christ has commanded?



So, how do I authenticate your words?

Did I contradict The Words which Christ spoke. Is it true that The Word was made Flesh? Was Christ given all authority of heaven and earth?


Who or what is the authority, your will?

Being Accountable to my God given free will. To follow Christ and walk as one with Him doing the Will of The Father. All soul belong to God, we are children of God when we follow Him.


Your interpretation of Scripture? That's my point, without the Catholic Church we are without an authority.

Joe you were given free will to follow God. To trust in all that is written. To hear Christ and know that He has all authority, and power. It is written that we have the ensample, that means the mold in which to follow. (Phil 3:11) And should we need help God is there to reveal, and a promise never to forsake us.



I might point out, without the Catholic Church you wouldn't have a bibile.

Rebuke that idea Joe... Scripture tells us clearly who brought us the bible.

My faith in in Christ.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, then, you err in your interpretation of Scripture?

I don't interpret scripture - do you?

What? You mean that you really have a strategy that you use in thread after thread to bore people to death by harassing them with the same question hundreds of times after they answer?

Strange way to proceed if you are really here to have straightforward honest discussions.

I'd like to know who validates your interpretations of Scripture. As I recall you once stated that scripture interprets scripture, where is this written?

JoeT

I don't interpret scripture

So I'm to take your word for it?

I'd like to know who validates your interpretations of Scripture. As I recall you once stated that scripture interprets scripture, where is this written?


Let start by asking who is qualified to interpret scripture:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

So the Holy Spirit is the interpreter, and 1 Cor 4:6 tells us not to go beyond what is written. Where is the written word of the Holy Spirit?

So I'm to take your word for it?

I couldn't care less if you do or not. I seek God's approval not yours. You seem to be somewhat obsessed with me. Why don't you concern yourself more with what God says in His word?

I don't interpret scripture - do you?

Do you err in your understanding of Scripture?

Do you err in your understanding of Scripture?

No man is perfect, not even you or your pope. It does not matter because I submit myself and my beliefs to God's word and God promised to guide me into all truth. You depend upon opinions of the leaders of your church.

Once again, You seem to be somewhat obsessed with me. Why don't you concern yourself more with what God says in His word?

So the Holy Spirit is the interpreter,

The same Holy Spirit that descended on Peter and the other Apostles in tongues of fire at Pentecost?


and 1 Cor 4:6 tells us not to go beyond what is written. Where is the written word of the Holy Spirit?

Where is it written? You just said we're not to go beyond what is written. Please explain.

No man is perfect

So you err in your understanding of Scripture?

So you err in your understanding of Scripture?

Answered.

Answered.

My question: Do you err in your understanding of Scripture?

Your answer: No man is perfect.

My question: So you err in your understanding of Scripture?

Your answer: Answered.

Please clarify: Yes or No?

Let start off by asking who is qualified to interpret scripture:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

So the Holy Spirit is the interpreter, and 1 Cor 4:6 tells us not to go beyond what is written. Where is the written word of the Holy Spirit?

Yes this proves my point; there is an authority over scripture. In verse 20 we see that scripture isn’t open to private interpretation. And in 1 Cor 4:5 ff we see that there is no written word of the Holy Spirit. This is quite different then what you’ve said in the past. In the past insisted that the indwelling Spirit interpreted scripture for you, thus scripture interpreted scripture. Maybe you could restate you stance once more.

But there is even more conflict with the above; when the second book of Peter was written, the new testament hadn’t been written. So which scripture are we talking about?

JoeT

My question: Do you err in your understanding of Scripture?

Your answer: No man is perfect.

My question: So you err in your understanding of Scripture?

Your answer: Answered.

Please clarify: Yes or No?

Answered. Do you harass everyone after they answer questions, or just those who don't agree with you? Were you one of those children who never stopped saying "are we there yet?..." or continually demanding everyone after your parents told you "no" but you refused to accept it because you didn't like it?

Do you know how to actually discuss something in a respectful intelligent manner?

This is for questions and answers not fighting and insulting back and forth,
If some of you wish to argue this is not the place for it.

This is getting old.

Closed