bible interpretation

mikeuk · Mar 9, 2015

But where do you get that assumption from - the word ALL in the phrase I highlight?
We all agree it is divine revelation, the words "all we need to know" is the question, and it took me ten years to answer it for myself , that scripture does not say that, indeed for early Christians it cannot have been true. Indeed it was not until recent times that the cost of a bible and incomes allowed most to own a bible - in early times all scripture was liturgical reading and for scholars, not the prime mechanism of passing the word on ( the meaning of tradition), and the NT as we know it was a couple of centuries in the making.

Jeff_56 · Mar 9, 2015

the early 'fathers' are not an authority in any case that supports the rcc abomination. if they thought what you think, they were demonically controlled.

it's quite possible, if not likely, that at least some of what some of them said was right, and

it is absolutely true that what you say is false. so, whether this is because you misread them or not, i don't know and it doesn't matter. the rcc is totally evil. there is no truth in it.

single minded in Christ Jesus, all the ekklesia know this experientially -

no one can know this unless the Father Yahweh Elohim in Heaven reveals this, same as everything known.

no one who trusts in man, the way rcc brags about it or in any way, can be a friend of Yahweh the Creator.

everyone who trust in the pope is absolutely without any doubt an enemy of Yahweh and Yahshua.

Yahweh curses everyone who puts their trust in the pope. they perish in their sin and die forever, unless

they repent, if Yahweh permits.

Jeff_56 · Mar 9, 2015

oldhermit said:

yes. the ekklesia immersed in yahshua have all seen this --- the rcc demonic trust in flesh authority

prevents them from trusting in Yahweh the Creator by faith in Yahshua, EVEN by GRACE !!! (because like Jerusalem, "they would not" ---- i.e. they chose deliberately NOT TO BELIEVE GOD.

if they are not committing a sin that leads to death, we can pray for them.

it doesn't look good for them as it is .

columbo · Mar 9, 2015

To Mikeuk, I have a few questions for you. I agree that there is more needed than Scripture to have a healthy, fulfilling relationship with God.

You have made a stink about sola scriptura and to some extent rightly so. God still provides prophecy, we still pray, God still does acts of miracles and of providence so clearly more than Scripture is needed.

You make it clear you have a problem with the " protestant" denominations. so lets say for the sake of argument that the Roman church is the correct church. (clearly I disagree by the manner in which i stated my proposition)

1. where in the bible is it taught that Christ has a co-reedeemer?
2. where in the bible is it taught that we need a mediator between man and Christ?
3. Where in the bible is the universality of christianity mentioned? (That worship is proscribed as fixed and immutable)
4. Where in the bible is the Roman Catholic church mentioned?
5. Where is Peter anointed OVER the other disciples?
6. Where did Jesus teach that believers should make much of Mary? ( all Christians agree Mary was blessed to be chosen to be the vessel to bring God to earth. Where does the bible hold her up as more than that?)
7. Where does the Bible teach us to make Icons which can be a stumbling block to others?
8. Where does the bible teach that other than the Lord there is another supreme head or vicar of the church?

I want to be clear I am not attacking the Roman church but simply pointing out the dangers of undocumented additions to something Jesus designed to be Holy and simple. I can tell you flat out from the opportunity I had of meeting Pope Benedict XVI and asking him one question which to my joy he answered. I asked, all the disputes between the roman church and the other denominations could be put to rest if only the Vatican would show the historical sources for those areas of dispute. Why has the Vatican done so? He said that there wasn't any historical evidence to support them that they were put in place as a result of challenges to the Mother Church.

I wish I could have asked more questions to better understand the specifics but that was not possible at that time. If you do not believe me try to provide the historical evidence your own pope (at the time) said did not exist.

mikeuk · Mar 9, 2015

Jeff_56 said:

yes. the ekklesia immersed in yahshua have all seen this --- the rcc demonic trust in flesh authority

prevents them from trusting in Yahweh the Creator by faith in Yahshua, EVEN by GRACE !!! (because like Jerusalem, "they would not" ---- i.e. they chose deliberately NOT TO BELIEVE GOD.

if they are not committing a sin that leads to death, we can pray for them.

it doesn't look good for them as it is .

You need help Jeff. You clearly have an obsessive phobia.

Jeff_56 · Mar 9, 2015

interesting , isn't it, and notable
that sexual perverts, homosexuals, liars, and child molestors say the

exact same thing about ekklesia(God's children) everywhere.

mikeuk said:

columbo · Mar 9, 2015

mikeuk said:

I apologize for i did not see you post. To answer your question regarding "all" because if it wasn't all we needed to know then God would have sent a prophet to tell us as is His established record.

I di have to say your very wrong about the early times . First, the bibles of the first century were hand written by believers as the letters of the apostles were circulated and read in the churches. There is a scripture tell us that very thing.

Second, very few in the early church were scholars. Intelligent yes but a scholar, no.

Third, bible written by clergical orders were too expensive but ink, something to write with and their version of paper was not. That are thousands and thousands of hand written bibles from the first and second century in various archives worldwide.

The NT in its final form was later. Most of these handwritten bibles had more than the standard books and many where missing some for various reasons. While it may have taken some time to correctly order and assemble the NT it was all there shortly after the death of the Apostle John.

mikeuk · Mar 9, 2015

Columbo, wrong thread for discussion of RCC indeed the myth and reality of those has been long the topic of another thread on here. I am not here promoting RCC , but questioning that if " sola scriptura" ( a very much 16th century doctrine) were true, why so many divisions?

One missing piece is tradition ie what were the teachings handed on by succession to apostles visible in the writings of ECF which whilst as writings they are not inspired, certainly are very illuminating on what the church taught eg real presence, as the fulfillment of the new covenant and last supper, predicated in john 6.55 etc.

The other missing piece is authority, something Luther despaired of in later years - if you lose as he did the the magisterium, then is it really true that any person can be their own authority ( Luther says " own pope" )?

So on that one issue the answer we give - love it or hate it - is matthew 16:18 etc, instituting Peter as rock of the church, and his supremacy flowing from that. Incidentally both Luther and I think Calvin agreed with the supremacy, just not the succession.

Speaking for myself only, when I cut through the anticatholic baggage and studied what RCC actually believes,mand the references in ECF, I discovered many anti RCC issues are myth, the rest are justifiable. But this is not the thread for that . conversation. In essence studying history is how I got to where I am.

But that is the RCC answer to authority, and it is interesting that the belief set has barely changed in other than emphasis for millenia.

Protestants have to answer for themselves ad I did - why all the divisions.

columbo said:

just-me · Mar 9, 2015

Enga said:

As you will see, even on this site, many say they follow the Holy Spirit's leading, yet refuse to take to heart certain parts of God's Word. One day I was reading the Old Testament with several others in the chat. We were taking turns reading. One elderly man came into the room and said we were sinning by reading that part of the Bible, and started to tell us that because of the New Covenant is was now a sin to even consider what God has done and how He responded to human actions and trespasses thousands of years ago. Another person said they followed the Holy Spirit and yet had now idea of the history concerning Israel and how they were instructed by God. That's why.

mikeuk · Mar 9, 2015

just-me said:

As you will see, even on this site, many say they follow the Holy Spirit's leading, yet refuse to take to heart certain parts of God's Word. One day I was reading the Old Testament with several others in the chat. We were taking turns reading. One elderly man came into the room and said we were sinning by reading that part of the Bible, and started to tell us that because of the New Covenant is was now a sin to even consider what God has done and how He responded to human actions and trespasses thousands of years ago. Another person said they followed the Holy Spirit and yet had now idea of the history concerning Israel and how they were instructed by God. That's why.

That is the problem, but what is the solution? Are we really destined to fragment into as many doctrines as there are people?

columbo · Mar 9, 2015

mikeuk said:

Actually you are the one the brought up sola scriptura and the roman contraversy surrounding it so the false things of the Roman church are very much part of this discussion for you make the claim that the roman church teaches the truth yet that denomination has added so much legalism, something Paul warned against, that had Luther not broken the chokehold of the roman church the people would still not be reading the bible but trusting a man in a black outfit to tell him what the bible says rather than meditating on it for himself and letting God through the Holy Spirit guide him.

I brought up all those questions for a reason and the reason is, the leadership of the roman church have messed up their denomination as bad or worse that the so called protestant denomination have.

Its bad enough the romans butcher true Sola Scriptura which holds that the scriptures are the whole and complete revealed revelation to mankind. Not that the bible is all we need. No one who think for half a moment would claim that for it is Jesus who saves so clearly we do need more.

What we don't need is the legalistic state church founded by Theodosius 1 in 384 today called the Roman Catholic Church. Nor do we need the evengelical denominated churches. What we need is a return to The Way the name of the Church in the days of the Apostles as recorded in the book of Acts.

mikeuk · Mar 9, 2015

columbo said:

You say "very wrong" but I cannot see how or where we disagree except on matters of detail.
The "comprehensive" set of scripture circulating was a gradual phenonmenon , indeed the first canon was actually a heretical one of the wealthy Marcion, who stripped out all jewish references before trying to circulate his "version" of it - and had his donations returned by the church (which presumes a church that returned them!). He got excommunicated for his trouble.
There were also other books in circulation , shepherd of hermas, various epistles, some later deemed uninspired, others actually heretical. So the determination of what of these were the "right" ones for a church to own or hold was a gradual process made all the harder by the fact that the church was essentially underground and illegal under Rome for at least two more centuries. You were put to death for just stating you were part of it. and documents were routinely destroyed, so were kept to a minimum.

So you come back to the obvious historic fact that faith was passed on by tradition (that is a handing down) passed by word of mouth and letter.

The kicking out of some books of bible, deciding others were canonical came much later. And was the function of councils in the fourth century on. By which time many books were in circulation (both right and wrong ones, Ireanaus notes the problem of "wrong ones" as early as second century.) So the councils of the late 4th/5tch century decreed the final form of 27 books. And had their decision not been inspired by God, neither could the new testament as we now know it.

Indeed even the word "kanon" was not in origin a name given to a collection of books or documents, but was a "rule" or yardstick of truth - in essence a creed. Just as the new testament was not in origin a book, that interpretation only came later. It was in origin a name given to the new covenant in christ's blood and body announced at the last supper. The word testament means "covenant" , referred to the book describing it much later.

Interesting history.

just-me · Mar 9, 2015

mikeuk said:

If all proclaiming Christians would read the Bible to prove what was right by the scriptures as the Berean's in Acts 17, and also followed the instructions that Paul gave to Timothy, and were of the same mind as Paul instructed the church, then we could edify each other without differences and grow in grace. The problem is that many cannot see how the devil interferes with the mind as pride is the main culprit. Luther started the reformation but Calvin hated Luther's doctrine as much as Luther was displeased with the Catholics.

mikeuk · Mar 9, 2015

just-me said:

If all proclaiming Christians would read the Bible to prove what was right by the scriptures as the Berean's in Acts 17, and also followed the instructions that Paul gave to Timothy, and were of the same mind as Paul instructed the church, then we could edify each other without differences and grow in grace. The problem is that many cannot see how the devil interferes with the mind as pride is the main culprit. Luther started the reformation but Calvin hated Luther's doctrine as much as Luther was displeased with the Catholics.

For the bereans and indeed earliesr Christians scripture was Old Testament.

4enlightment · Mar 9, 2015

In order for a person to hear the spirit of God, they must clear their minds from earthly desires that can get in the way and put their focus on God, to meditate only on Him. When God had came to the people to speak with them, God had told Moses to consecrate them (baptize) for two days and on the third day His spirit will come upon them so they can hear Him speak. I guess that was to cleared their minds into believing that they are cleansed, worthy; because a guilty conscience can get in the way as a distraction. You can't be focusing your minds about sex or bread while trying to meditate on Him, and which the devil will try to prevent a person all the time, because when a person mind is at idle (relaxed), the devil comes and start working on it by disturbing or distracting them, from focusing on God, into focusing on something else like worldly matters. If a person is hungry while focusing on God's word, they'll start to interpreting everything in the word that everything is all about eating foods. And so that is why God's word has so many interpretations, because some hasn't consecrated themselves.

14 After Moses had gone down the mountain to the people, he consecrated them, and they washed their clothes. 15 Then he said to the people, “Prepare yourselves for the third day. Abstain from sexual relations.”

Kaycie · Mar 9, 2015

There are those who claim to have the Holy Spirit but are in denial. There is no private interpretation of scriptures (2 Peter 1:20), we all equally have the opportunity to study God's word, and to find understanding. God says to ask, seek, and knock, and it WILL be given to you. God is truth, and He says if you search for Him with all your heart you WILL find Him. God does not lie. John 16:13 says that the Holy Spirit WILL guide us into ALL truth (if we have the Holy Spirit). And in John 10:27-30 Jesus says that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

When someone claims that God came to them personally (after Genesis-Revelation have been completed) and claim to have a new message from God that only they understand, do not follow them, for there is no private interpretation. This is how false churches branch off of the real church of Christ and deceive many. Jesus says if the blind lead the blind BOTH will fall into a pit (go to hell).

Make sure that what you practice matches what the new testament says, and that you are not following the doctrines of men. Even if you don't want to hurt your family's feelings. "Well my grand-pappy went to this church, how could I dishonor him by going to another, and so stating that he didn't know the truth?" Listen, no one is going to stand with you on the judgement day- you yourself are going to be judged by how well you knew the bible and how well you followed it, according to your best ability. If you refused to examine it to see what God wants you to do, God will refuse you. If you read "Call no man 'Father' for you have one Father, and He is in heaven." Yet you follow a doctrine that does, the bible says you are worshiping God in vain (your worship will not result in salvation).

fordman · Mar 9, 2015

oldhermit said:

No, oldhermit, I do believe in what the two verses (2Tim.3:16-17) you brought up tell me. What I don't believe is your personal interpretation of them. Not one of the two vs. uses the word "sufficient" – each one implies profitability or usefulness, (big differance) and are given at the same time as an exhortation to hold fast to the oral teaching of our Lord and the apostles.

Now what I am saying is is that nowhere does the Bible say, "Scripture alone is sufficient," and nowhere does the Bible imply it. You say.... "Showing you anything else would be a waste of time." Well, I disagree, If you know of any other bible verses that back up your claim that Scripture alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith..... please do so!

Pax Christi

"From henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." ----Luke 1:48.

Jeff_56 · Mar 9, 2015

there are all around the world ekklesia who are of one mind and one spirit and living in union in yahweh in yahshua by his grace. you won't see them here, nor on tv, nor in the news --- everywhere they are persecuted.

they are wherever believers are immersed in yahshua living yahweh's life and laying down their lives every day for the gospel's sake, for one another, and for others --- a very marked and opposite contrast to the "so-called" (false) believers who "stand up for their own rights"(or any such thing) .

also, the true ekklesia live the word, they do what yahweh says, not just talk about and not do it.
also, the true ekklesia speak with yahweh and yahshua daily, living in him moment by moment always.
they seek the truth from yahweh, by grace in yahshua, and receive living truth from yahweh in yahshua,
always in harmony with all of his word, his plan, and other ekklesia -
not man-made and not demonic lessons imposed from other than yahweh and opposed to yahshua.

any dis-harmony is with one another prayed through to 100% agreement as yahweh reveals truth,
and
any dis-harmony from outside (like the rcc heresy) is forbidden.

just-me said:

fordman · Mar 9, 2015

elf3 said:

Lol....Whats getting deep is your ignorance of Catholic beliefs. Lol!

Here, maybe this will help on the Catholic View of this.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
ARTICLE 3: SACRED SCRIPTURE.
II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture105God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”[SUP]69[/SUP]
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”[SUP]70[/SUP]
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”[SUP]71[/SUP]
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”[SUP]72[/SUP]
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”[SUP]73[/SUP] If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”[SUP]74

[/SUP]
69 DV 11.
[SUP]70[/SUP] DV 11; cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16.
[SUP]71[/SUP] DV 11.
[SUP]72[/SUP] DV 11.
[SUP]73[/SUP] St. Bernard, S. missus est hom. 4, 11: PL 183, 86.
[SUP]74[/SUP] Cf. Lk 24:45.

So as you can see elf3, God never handed anyone a complete Bible and said, "Here it is." Rather, over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God's revelation to us. As time went on, the Catholic Church compiled these books to form a Canon—an authoritative set of Sacred Scripture—and declared it "God's Word."

The books of the Old Testament were written probably between 1000 and 100 BC, an are usually distinguished as three sets: The Law (or Torah, our first five books of the Old Testament), The Prophets and The Writings. Even in the New Testament itself, we find references to the reading of the Law and the Prophets in synagogue services ( LK 4:16-19), Jamnia (90-100), at which time they established what books would be considered their Sacred Scripture.

Meanwhile, the writing of the New Testament books occurred between the time of our Lord's death and the end of the first century. (Recent studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls by some scholars suggest a date of the earliest writings closer to the time of our Lord's death, whereas much scholarship seems to place the writings between 50 and 100 AD). After the legalization of Christianity in 312, we find the Church striving to formalize what writings of the New Testament were truly considered inspired and authentic to the teachings of our Lord. St. Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle (367) presented the complete list of 27 books of the New Testament saying, "These are the sources of salvation, for the thirsty may drink deeply of the words to be found here. In these alone is the doctrine of piety recorded. Let no one add to them or take anything away from them." This list of 27 books along with the 46 books of the Old Testament (including) the deuterocanonical ones) was affirmed as the official canon of Sacred Scripture for the Catholic Church by the synods of Hippo (393), Carthage I and II (397 and 419). The letter of Pope St. Innocent I in 405 also officially listed these books. Although some discussion arose over the inclusion of other books into the Church's canon of Sacred Scripture after this time, the council of Florence (1442) definitively established the official list of 46 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New Testament.

Just refuted this claim. (see above)

yes.... it is God’s loving care for us, His plan for guiding creatures to their proper end.

lol!!!! This is so outrageous, it dosen't warrant a responce!! Lol!!!

Pax Christi

"From henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." Luke 1:48.

mikeuk · Mar 9, 2015

columbo said:

Nor do we need a rather creative restatement of history as that!
The reality is the early church was indeed liturgical, sacramental, appointed bishops in succession, believed In trinity, real presence and so on, and whatever creative theories there are on apostasy, little has changed in doctrine until the reformationists then shot of at a tangent ( the first to embrace sola scriptura as stated doctrine) - and little has indeed changed from then Into present day RCC.

The naming issue is later became RCC fundamentally to distinguish the eastern rite at the great schism over ."Filioque" , before that there was essentially only one church and doctrine and the odd heretical sect, spoken of by the church fathers from time to time. So the obvious question for " nay Sayers" is if they think the primacy of Rome is a heresy, why do none of the church fathers speak out against it as they do all other heresies - take for example modalism, rejected in the fourth century , mysteriously appearing again with Pentecostals! The point is those that considered matters a heresy spoke out about it , but whilst ECF occasionally grumble about a decision, they never speak of the papal see as a heresy. Considering it was going for millenia that is the clearest statement it was part of the church for them.

The question for Protestants is which small piece of the ever fragmenting hurch represents the true part you allude to, and I think all would answer "our bit". And that is a problem

What denomination if any are you?

Happy to discuss any doctrine you like, just not on this thread, which is about division on interpretation generally.

bible interpretation

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

Banned

columbo

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

columbo

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

columbo

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

Kaycie

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

mikeuk

Guest