bible interpretation

[oldhermit]

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.

I will offer this one last post on the matter then I will say no more because you will have no regard for whatever I show you from scripture so this exorcise will prove to be a complete waste of my time. I do not regard Catholocism in any of its forms as Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. Catholocism is not Christianity, it is a departure from Christianity and I have seen the futility of trying to teach the Word of God to someone who holds the traditions of its own history as a superior frame of authority to the written text.

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." 1Cor. 4:6 Again, this is something Catholocism has never learned from the Word of God. In fact it is a truth they despise. Please do not waste any more of my time.

 

[mikeuk]

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).

All good observation, but the problem remains that many denominations believe they tick all your boxes., and still disagree fundamentally with others.

That verse by the way about " no man father" illustrates the problem of cherry picking out of context.
Could write a long dissertation on that, but had you considered that Abraham was asked to change his name , to that name Abraham because it means " father of nations" so clearly calling someone father is a matter of context, because all were asked thereby to call him " father" at God's behest.

 

[mikeuk]

whatever I show you from scripture so this exorcise will prove to be a complete waste of my time.

It is for as long as you fail to answer the question.

Where does it say ONLY scripture, because all you come up with , indeed ,all that is there, is " scripture is valuable" quotes.

Nowhere does it say " only scripture " is the word of God, or valuable, whatever , an unscriptural,belief and invention of the reformationists , easily shown as biblically, logically and historically false. The reformationists cannot agree what it means precisely, because the definitions are a problem too, if you want to avoid self contradiction.

 

[oldhermit]

It is for as long as you fail to answer the question.

Where does it say ONLY scripture, because all you come up with , indeed ,all that is there, is " scripture is valuable" quotes.

Nowhere does it say " only scripture " is the word of God, or valuable, whatever , an unscriptural,belief and invention of the reformationists , easily shown as biblically, logically and historically false. The reformationists cannot agree what it means precisely, because the definitions are a problem too, if you want to avoid self contradiction.

My part in this conversation is over, or did you not understand that from my last post?

 

[4enlightment]

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).

The way that I were raised , that the saying that no man should be called father, was once said not to called anyone Rabbi. The Biblical scholars must couldn't find the rightful description for replacing the original Latin word into English or whatever language; they probably was able to replace it with a word that we could understand; it probably the word doesn't even existed in our English language. So each scholar are just assuming, replacing the word that they can relate to what it is saying. Nobody hasn't mastered the old languages, yet.

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

 

[4enlightment]

• [h=2]Wesley's Notes on Matthew 23:9[/h]23:8-10 The Jewish rabbis were also called father and master, by their several disciples, whom they required, To believe implicitly what they affirmed, without asking any farther reason; To obey implicitly what they enjoined, without seeking farther authority. Our Lord, therefore, by forbidding us either to give or receive the title of rabbi, master, or father, forbids us either to receive any such reverence, or to pay any such to any but God. http://www.godvine.com/bible/matthew/23-9

 

[4enlightment]

And Abraham means," Father of many", and God has given him that name.

 

[mikeuk]

My part in this conversation is over, or did you not understand that from my last post?

Up to you, but you still have not answered the question.
I am happy for you to believe in sola scriptura, indeed happy for all to believe what they will, just not happy they pretend it is there explicit in scripture which it is not. And that is a problem with all sorts of repurcussions.

 

[fordman]

I will offer this one last post on the matter then I will say no more because you will have no regard for whatever I show you from scripture so this exorcise will prove to be a complete waste of my time.

So in otherwords... you cannot. Not a surprise.

I do not regard Catholocism in any of its forms as Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. Catholocism is not Christianity, it is a departure from Christianity and I have seen the futility of trying to teach the Word of God to someone who holds the traditions of its own history as a superior frame of authority to the written text.

Wow.... I find this statement from a man of your respectable age interesting. For saying "Catholics are not Christians," is plain and simply ignoring the history of Christianity. Do you not relize that the name "Christian" predates all Protestant and Evangelical Churches by over a millennium? You may also be surprised to learn that you accept the authority of several Catholic councils every time you pick up their Bible. The Bible didn't fall out of the sky, spiral bound with an NIV sticker on it. It has a rich Catholic history. Any time spent studying the Church Fathers will make it abundantly clear that early Christian beliefs were Catholic. Their complete unity over the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is only one example.

Now maybe something you could answer for me... why do Baptists, Pentecostals, United, Methodist, Lutherans, or even any of the 30,000 plus Protestant/ nondenominational communities use those words and not simply say Christian?
So you see, like it or not, history proves that Catholics are Christian, but unfortunatly not all Christians are Catholic.

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

1Cor. 4:6 Again, this is something Catholocism has never learned from the Word of God. In fact it is a truth they despise.

Once again I disagree with your personal interpretation of this passage. The words “to go” are not in the Greek, but have here been added as the minimum necessary to elicit sense from this difficult passage. It probably means that the Corinthians should avoid the false wisdom of vain speculation, contenting themselves with Paul’s proclamation of the cross, which is the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Old Testament (what is written). Inflated with pride: literally, “puffed up,” i.e., arrogant, filled with a sense of self-importance. The term is particularly Pauline, found in the New Testament only in 1 Cor 4:6, 18–19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4; Col 2:18 (cf. the related noun at 2 Cor 12:20). It sometimes occurs in conjunction with the theme of “boasting,” as in 1 Cor 4:6–7 here.

Please do not waste any more of my time.

Sorry you feel that way, I quite enjoyed our discussions.



Pax Christi

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

 

[Kaycie]

All good observation, but the problem remains that many denominations believe they tick all your boxes., and still disagree fundamentally with others.

That verse by the way about " no man father" illustrates the problem of cherry picking out of context.
Could write a long dissertation on that, but had you considered that Abraham was asked to change his name , to that name Abraham because it means " father of nations" so clearly calling someone father is a matter of context, because all were asked thereby to call him " father" at God's behest.

I know this is hard to understand, and I may not be able to explain it real well, but I'll try. It is not wrong for us to say "our forefathers" and it is not wrong to call your biological dad "father" because this context is referring to physicality, not spirituality. We are descendants of Abraham physically, even though it is now through adoption. But in this context God is our only spiritual Father. We all have different roles to play, but we are all on the same level, but God, and only God is above us in matters of importance.

He is the only one to revere, we should never call anyone but God reverend. There is only one verse in the bible that uses the word reverend- Psalm 111:9 and it says holy and reverend is His name. We are MADE holy, but only God IS holy. A so-called priest is a sinner just like the rest of us, yet by being called 'father' he puts himself above us, when in reality any one of God's children are a saint and a priest, but only God is our father. Ephesians 4:12, depending on the translation, uses either God's people/saints. And Revelation calls us priests in verses 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6.

 

[mikeuk]

It is hard to know on threads like this who reads them, or who simply puts their position across.
But take the falacy in hermits post that he thinks 1 cor 4 - 6 relates adding to scripture in the sense of defending sola scriptura.
.
I suppose a sola scriptura buff would think that because they ignore history and tradition.

But If you take history 1 cor 4 -6 was written around 53-7 AD. The gospels written after 70 AD

So to take old hermits view in context he just decided the gospels are unwelcome additions to his idea of scripture!
Which is clearly nonsense, the reference was specific to the stature of people with reference to Old Testament only!

You cannot cherry pick verses or ignore history as oldhermit did, or read scripture without reference to history or tradition.
Sola scriptura is a false doctrine of reformation, as the above proves.

 

[mikeuk]

It is hard to know on threads like this who reads them, or who simply puts their position across.
But take the falacy in hermits post that he thinks 1 cor 4 - 6 relates adding to scripture in the sense of defending sola scriptura.
.
I suppose a sola scriptura buff would think that because they ignore history and tradition.

But If you take history 1 cor 4 -6 was written around 53-7 AD. The gospels written after 70 AD

So to take old hermits view in context he just decided the gospels are unwelcome additions to his idea of scripture!
Which is clearly nonsense, the reference was specific to the stature of people with reference to Old Testament only!

You cannot cherry pick verses or ignore history as oldhermit did, or read scripture without reference to history or tradition.
Sola scriptura is a false doctrine of reformation, as the above proves.

Actually just been checking - I was only partly right, but the issue is still good. Mark was possibly earlier, than Corinthians but acts was certainly after Corinthians, so by hermits reckoning acts cannot be canonical, as an addition to scripture. Point is the dates say that references 1 cor 4 cannot be a claim of sola scriptura for the NT as we know it.

 

[fordman]

I know this is hard to understand, and I may not be able to explain it real well, but I'll try. It is not wrong for us to say "our forefathers" and it is not wrong to call your biological dad "father" because this context is referring to physicality, not spirituality. We are descendants of Abraham physically, even though it is now through adoption. But in this context God is our only spiritual Father. We all have different roles to play, but we are all on the same level, but God, and only God is above us in matters of importance.

I know this post wasnt directed towards me, so I hope mikeuk and yourself don't mind if I cut in. With taht being said, Jesus was simply teaching (using the common Hebrew method of exaggeration or hyperbole (Mt. 19:24, 23:24; Lk. 6:42, 14:26) that God the Father is the ultimate source of all authority. He said this during the course of rebuking the Pharisees for spiritual pride (Mt. 23:2-10). Those who use this argument neglect to see that it would prohibit all uses of the word father whatsoever; even biological fathers. Since that is an absurd outcome, it is clear that the statement cannot be taken in an absolute sense. Beyond that, Jesus Himself uses the term father many times (Mt. 15:4-6; 19:5,19,29; 21:31; Lk. 16:24,27,30; Jn. 8:56, etc.). Several other passages from others utilize the term, too (sometimes twice), so unless it is believed that they were being disobedient to Jesus, the objection to calling Catholic priests father must be discarded.

He is the only one to revere, we should never call anyone but God reverend. There is only one verse in the bible that uses the word reverend- Psalm 111:9 and it says holy and reverend is His name. We are MADE holy, but only God IS holy. A so-called priest is a sinner just like the rest of us, yet by being called 'father' he puts himself above us, when in reality any one of God's children are a saint and a priest, but only God is our father. Ephesians 4:12, depending on the translation, uses either God's people/saints. And Revelation calls us priests in verses 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6.

I disagree... The Bible teaches that there is such a thing as clergy, who are set apart from lay members of the Church, and also gives indication of priestly function.

The priesthood as we know it today is not a strong motif in the New Testament. But this can be explained in terms of development of doctrine: some things were understood only in very basic or skeletal terms in the early days of Christianty. This is even true of doctrines accepted by all, such as the Holy Trinity or original sin. The canon of the biblical books was slow to formulate (4 centuries). Also, it has been argued that priesthood was a subdued feature of primitive Christianity because it had not yet finally separated from Judaism; therefore, the authority of Jewish priests was still accepted. Acts 2:46 describes the Jerusalem Christians as "day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes". The Apostle Paul was presenting offerings in the temple around the year 58 (Acts 21:26), acknowledged the authority of the Jewish high priest, described himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23:5-6), and observed Jewish feasts (Acts 20:6).

One can indeed find evidence in the Bible of a Christian priesthood. Jesus entrusts to His disciples a remembrance of the central aspect of the liturgy or Mass (consecration of the bread and wine) at the Last Supper (Lk. 22:19: "Do this in remembrance of me"; Paul may also have presided over a Eucharist – Acts 20:11). These same disciples were (like priests) models of a life wholly devoted to God, as a matter of lifelong calling. Jesus had chosen and "appointed" them, and they had become His "friends" (Jn. 15:15-16). He was their sole master (Mt. 6:24). There was no turning back in their ministry (Lk. 9:62), and they were called to a radical commitment involving even leaving possessions and their entire families (Mt. 4:22, 19:27; Lk. 14:26). The priest-disciple must accept hardships and privations and embrace self-denial (Mt. 8:19-20, 10:38, 16:24, etc.), and (if so called) celibacy, for the sake of undistracted devotion to the Lord (Mt. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:7-9). They served the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:5, 9:19; 2 Cor. 4:5), and dispensed sacraments (1 Cor. 4:1; Jas. 5:14), including baptism (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:38,41). A universal priesthood of "offering" (sacrifice) extending to "every place" in New Testament times is prophesied in Isaiah 66:18,21 and Malachi 1:11.

I know there are Non-Catholics that at times cite 1 Peter 2:5,9 ( Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6) to the effect that "All" Christians are priests. But Peter was citing Exodus 19:6: "you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." The problem with this is that the older passage couldn't possibly have meant that there was no priesthood among the ancient Hebrews, since they clearly had a separate class of priests (Leviticus: chapters 4-7, 13-14). This is even seen in the same chapter, since Ex. 19:21-24 ( Josh. 3:6, 4:9) twice contrasts the "priests" with the "people." Thus, it makes much more sense to interpret 1 Pet. 2:5 as meaning a people "specially holy" – like priests; a separate, holy, "chosen" people, as is fairly clear in context, in both parallel passages. The notion of "spiritual sacrifices" (faith, praise, giving to others) applies to all Christians (Phil. 2:17; Heb. 13:15-16).


Pax Christi

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

 

[fredjames]

If we receive the holy spirit then why do many people interprete Bible in many different ways and as a result many ideas pop up and with the ideas many church are formed and by forming churches the believes are branched and resulted in pulling people here and there? Why?

What is the 'interpretation' are you referring to?

 

[4enlightment]

Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Some people has the spirit of God in them, and some doesn't.

 

[Enga]

Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Some people has the spirit of God in them, and some doesn't.

I think the apostles and the new believers whom the apostles laid hand and pray for them have the spirit of God and the entire world do not have the Spirit of God. WE only receive the word of God and believe in Jesus and baptised in water but we do not have the spirit of God.

 

[dcontroversal]

Again you slip into the forum comfort zone of attacking RCC: The thread is not about RCC nor an RCC problem.

Why is it that post reformation protestant factions seem to agree on nothing of interpretation of scripture leading to endless fractures. "bible alone" and "discerning of spirit" clearly has not worked for you. You yourself engaged in passionate battles about the underpinning and vocation leading from OSAS, leading to inflammatory threads. Your opposition here, is at least two other protestant factions and positions who are equally passionate and convinced that their view is correct and inspired.

You should be asking why. Has the bible let you down, or is it interpretations of it, and who is the authority that has final say? In many denominations a pastor, in non denominatials the person themselves.

This was one of the questions that drove me to RCC - that none of you seem to be able to agree, so how can it be universal truth?

It is important. Stop looking at RCC, and look at the OSAS threads and try to answer why disagreement?

This just shows a lack of understanding on your part......I gave a solid answer based upon your question of who to believe.....I said go to the scriptures and be HONEST with what is set forth in scripture and then gave you three obvious truths that are rejected, ignored and overlooked by Catholics......here I will give them again and you can go look them up yourself to see that the RCC teaches error...hopefully you will open your eyes to the HOWS and WHYS of studying the bible and being honest with what it teaches........start with the bolded and read slowly!

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Your first mistake is assuming that the RCC is THE CHURCH......second.....you will not find Roman Catholic Dogma being preached by Jesus, Paul, Peter and or any other N.T. writer......as far as who to believe.......the scriptures are clear, the Holy Spirit will ago-hodos (lead and guide) into all truth if you are HONEST with what the bible actually has to say......lastly...Paul taught Timothy, Titus and all pastor/teachers to teach the word of God to FAITHFUL men who in turn would teach to faithful men who in turn would teach to faithful men etc......It is not wrong to listen unto a man who would teach from the bible.....the prolem is taking at face value what they teach and or say.....go to the scriptures and search to be able to see the validity of what they teach or a lack thereof....Here are a few for you as applied unto RCC dogma....

1. Call no man FATHER on this earth
2. The contradictory commands to ABSTAIN from MEATS (on Fridays) and or MARRIAGE (for priests)
3. There is ONE (1) mediator between God and MEN<--the man Christ Jesus

Jesus + The POPE = 2
Jesus + Mary = 2
Jesus + anyone = More than ONE (1)

Etc................!

 

[prove-all]

I think the apostles and the new believers whom the apostles laid hand and pray for them have the spirit of God and the entire world do not have the Spirit of God. WE only receive the word of God and believe in Jesus and baptised in water but we do not have the spirit of God.

no the power is only given to the first fruits now,

if you do not have the power of Gods spirit in you, youre downpament per say and gurantee,

the power that raised Jesus from the grave, will not raise you when he comes back.

 

[4enlightment]

I think the apostles and the new believers whom the apostles laid hand and pray for them have the spirit of God and the entire world do not have the Spirit of God. WE only receive the word of God and believe in Jesus and baptised in water but we do not have the spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 12:10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

And yet I will show you the most excellent way.

Exodus 35:31 and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills—

1 Samuel 10:10 When he and his servant arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he joined in their prophesying.

Isaiah 61:7 Instead of your shame you will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace you will rejoice in your inheritance. And so you will inherit a double portion in your land, and everlasting joy will be yours.

Matthew 6:20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

If the spirit of God isn't in some of us, then how can anyone understand the word.

1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Matthew 11:15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

John 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.”

 

[Jeff_56]

hopefully Enga is simply like the believers in the NT who had only been immersed in yochanans immersion for the forgiveness of sins,
who had not yet heard of the power of yahweh thus they did not deny him they simply had not met anyone who
could
tell them the full truth, as then yahweh provided.

Enga if this is so, it won't be until you actually meet someone (not online) who dwells in the presences of the most high yahweh, who has been immersed fully in yahshua,
then
you
may know and receive the power from yahweh that yahweh desires for you, as yahweh knows and
as
most
on this forum/site do not even know and have rarely seen.