|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 9:55:27 GMT -5
The problem is not the Bible, the problem is one's interpretation of it. I will rather follow how the Church since the 1st Century interpret certain passages than what some Protestant preacher 200-300 years ago interpret a passage How about just accepting it as it is written, and believing what it says? Since there are so many "versions", which one do we accept then?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 9:57:57 GMT -5
How about just accepting it as it is written, and believing what it says? Scripture doesn't interpret itself. We dealt with that before. In IC.XC, Ramon Scripture interprets itself? Hey Ramon, is that even "in" The Bible? ? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 10:02:36 GMT -5
Scripture doesn't interpret itself. We dealt with that before. In IC.XC, Ramon All you have to do is believe it you do not need to interpret it. private interpretation is where we get in trouble. Ok, so bread becomes Jesus' muscle and skin right? (John 6) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 10:30:04 GMT -5
Man I searched for this forever it felt like...then hubby finds it in a few seconds...grrr, lol. Anyways... “We’re so full of ourselves and our intellect. How dare we, how dare we define the Words of God with our own concepts and our own ideals. We define God’s Words like in Romans chapter 9 in verse 13, we define the words “love” and we define the word “hate” the way we interpret them. How dare we do that; we should be ashamed of ourselves to apply human reasoning to the ways and works of Almighty God. You see our love isn’t the same as God’s love, and our hate it isn’t the same as God’s hate. Because you see God is absolutely perfect, and we are not.” - Pastor Tom ____ April 26, 2009 Yep...if the Bible was self interpreting, that wouldn't be neccessary!  It is The Holy Spirit that reveals truth to our hearts if we are deserving of that knowledge. We can't define it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 10:39:20 GMT -5
Yes you do. Scriptures doesn't interpret itself. Every Scriptures needs interpretation (how else you can know if a Scripture is figuratively or literally? etc). Please read my response to this on page 3 of "Proof that all interpretation is "personal"..." in the Salvation forum. I think we got way off-topic..... ;D In IC.XC, Ramon All scripture is literal unless the text itself tell you it is figurative. Or unless you personall interpret it to tell you it's figuratitve!  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 5, 2009 10:46:55 GMT -5
All you have to do is believe it you do not need to interpret it. private interpretation is where we get in trouble. Ok, so bread becomes Jesus' muscle and skin right? (John 6) You do not believe that the euchurist is the real body of Christ? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 5, 2009 10:48:43 GMT -5
All scripture is literal unless the text itself tell you it is figurative. Or unless you personall interpret it to tell you it's figuratitve! No one should ever personally interpret the Bible like you said in you above post. the Holy Spirit leads us into all truths. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 10:53:16 GMT -5
Not always. Take the concept of hell. YOU have to decide if the given passages that talk about hell are figuratively or literally, but Scriptures doesn't tell you which way to go. In IC.XC, Ramon Of course it does. Hell is real and if you do not believe it is real then you simply do not believe the Bible and for some reason must think Jesus is a liar. Jesus tells us the goats will burn with the demons. There is no reason to doubt that He meant exactly what He said. Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:This is obviously referring to the lake of fire but I assume this is what you meant by Hell. So now, Jesus had a flock of sheep that He told Peter to take care of in John? Like "actual" sheep (bahhhh!)? Since it doesn't say it was figurative! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:26:33 GMT -5
There are 1500 church fathers and they don't agree on everthing so how do you decide which of their doctrines you should follow? Excellent question! "We" don't. The Holy Spirit reveals this to The Magisterium as to what can and what cannot be believed (remember, it was given to The Church in Acts to guide her). No, The Cathechism literally "is" interpretation. It clears up any confusion as to what The Bible means. True, but we don't follow Apologists...we follow The Church. Remember, The Bible says that it is The Church that upholds The Truth (not The Bible). And, The Church came "before" The Bible. It is The Church that The Bible is talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:29:40 GMT -5
I do not disagree with these verses. However I do not think that church is the RCC. The First Century Christians did. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:32:06 GMT -5
I do not disagree with these verses. However I do not think that church is the RCC.[/quote] If history teaches us that Peter is The First Pope and The Bible clearly states that in John 21 Peter was commissioned as The Shephard to be in charge when Jesus left The Apostles physically, and Pope literally means leader, and Jesus made him The Leader, what's so hard to comprhend? It is what it is. There is no room for personal interpretation. Peter is the head of The Church and Christians have always known him to be The First Pope up until the 16th Century when a new sect of Christianity was birthed (Denominationalism). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:37:54 GMT -5
Neither do I, watchman. Watchman, who do you think that "rock" is? Peter is the american derivitive of the word "Petros" in Koine Greek=Rock! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:40:53 GMT -5
Neither do I, watchman. Watchman, who do you think that "rock" is? I believe the rock is the confession Peter made that Jesus is the Son of God, and even if Peter is the rock, that does not make Him the first pope or the RCC the true Church. So, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to a group of words? Can't be Peter's confession...know why? Because it wasn't Peter's confession, it was God's Revelation "to" Peter. Peter didn't own those words. God put them there. Remember, Jesus said "flesh" did NOT reveal that to him and Peter is flesh. But let's use the name that God gave him in English: Rock. Peter means rock. So from now on, let's use the English word for the derivitive Peter... Blessed art thou Simon Son of John...thou are Rock. Jesus never literally said the word "Peter". He said the word "Cepha" (Aramaic for Rock). But that's another topic... |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 5, 2009 11:41:57 GMT -5
Cepha- you refer back to the "early Christians" a lot...what makes you sure the early Christians in the Catholic church were doing things right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:42:12 GMT -5
Interesting. I had an idea in church awhile back, that the "rock" is Jesus Christ....since all through Scriptures He is refered to as the rock. But I would have to study that. He's referred to as a rock, but only Simon was called "the" Rock by Jesus Himself. And foundation for what? The Bible calls The Apostles and The Prophets The Foundation of The Church. Again, another topic. C U Guys there! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:44:30 GMT -5
Ok, so bread becomes Jesus' muscle and skin right? (John 6) You do not believe that the euchurist is the real body of Christ? Yes. But what I asked you is different...I literally spelled out muscle and skin. The Eucharist does not transform into muscle and skin, but if you take the bible literally without a figurative explaination or disclaimer, then by your own words you HAVE TO accept that Jesus said that bread turns to muscle and skin (His flesh)...right? [unless you can find where it says He was speaking figuratively there or is that "personal interpretation"?"] |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 5, 2009 11:50:39 GMT -5
I believe it says it's figurative in one of the Gospels, right after Jesus says it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:52:46 GMT -5
Cepha- you refer back to the "early Christians" a lot...what makes you sure the early Christians in the Catholic church were doing things right? Because it was the original Church and Jesus said that His Church would never be corrupted and The Catholic Church has never been corrupted. History meets scripture in The Catholic Church. Think about it, which is the only Christian Church has been around for 2,000 years (since Apostolic times)? Which is the Christian Church that God chose to reveal The Holy Bible to? Which first introduced The Doctrines of Salvation? Justification? The Holy Trinity? Etc...? Hint, all these beliefs existed before the 16th Century. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:53:34 GMT -5
I believe it says it's figurative in one of the Gospels, right after Jesus says it. Where? |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 5, 2009 12:00:12 GMT -5
Cepha- I can't think of one.
And I'm not sure, I will look for it.
|
|
