Posted on 08/22/2009 4:27:02 PM PDT by NYer
“Perhaps someone with an “St.” before their name.”
Sorry, but he isn’t dead yet. That is required for you to listen, I take it?
Plus, there’s that creepy exhumation of the body in this whole “process”. Do they still take relics when they do that?
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. Today, there are more than 30,000 different non-Catholic Churches all claiming to have the "Truth". When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
“Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the “sheep” (the faithful).”
Constantine founded the Roman Catholic Church. The Church Christ referred to is the body of believers, not a specific organization. Organizations are of men.
“The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.”
Ah, but who in the Catholic Church interprets Scripture? Individuals.
There can obviously be more than one interpretation of scripture. Many times, that is OK. Many scriptures have multiple meanings, and are intended to be of use in different ways. However, obviously some questions only have one answer. That doesn’t mean we need to know that answer.
As an example, what is the EXACT interrelation involved in the Trinity? Although there are a number of verses that apply, God didn’t give us that answer. Therefor, it is a bad question to ask - although many in the church have done so, with many bitter disagreements.
This is an example of the sinfulness of man, not the imperfection of the Word.
The Eucharist - literally flesh and blood, or spiritually flesh and blood? I think the interpretation is very obvious - he is speaking spiritually, just as he was when talking about how he who eats and drinks will not hunger or thirst. I also think a literal interpretation is contrary to ‘do this in remembrance of me’, and it encourages the belief that we sacrifice Jesus many times. But the point of scripture is that we need to observe it, not try to understand every part of it in a philosophical manner.
One of the great errors of the young church was to fall prey to philosophy - trying to make God understandable, when no human can do so.
Some things are pretty clear cut. Are we supposed to focus on Mary, and call her Queen of Heaven and pray to her? Nope! Jesus made that very clear in Luke 11. He made it clear every time he addressed her...”Woman”. The Apostles made it very clear by making no mention of her at all - none. Zero. Not a single line in any epistle mentions her in any way. Meanwhile, many verses make it clear that we are to approach JESUS with confidence. We don’t need a mediator to Him. Jesus doesn’t meed Mary to explain human needs to Him. God is the King, and Mary isn’t His Mother or Spouse. She isn’t “Mrs God”. In a physical sense she was His mother, but not in a spiritual sense - Jesus existed before the world began.
Catholics say they do not worship Mary, but having read the declaration of her feast day, I’d like to know - if that isn’t worship, what is? If a woman crying, “Blessed are the breasts that nursed you” was misguided, and focusing on the wrong thing, then what is “Let all, therefore, try to approach with greater trust the throne of grace and mercy of our Queen and Mother, and beg for strength in adversity, light in darkness, consolation in sorrow; above all let them strive to free themselves from the slavery of sin and offer an unceasing homage, filled with filial loyalty, to their Queenly Mother. Let her churches be thronged by the faithful, her feast-days honored; may the beads of the Rosary be in the hands of all; may Christians gather, in small numbers and large, to sing her praises in churches, in homes, in hospitals, in prisons. May Mary’s name be held in highest reverence, a name sweeter than honey and more precious than jewels; may none utter blasphemous words, the sign of a defiled soul, against that name graced with such dignity and revered for its motherly goodness; let no one be so bold as to speak a syllable which lacks the respect due to her name. 49. All, according to their state, should strive to bring alive the wondrous virtues of our heavenly Queen and most loving Mother through constant effort of mind and manner. Thus will it come about that all Christians, in honoring and imitating their sublime Queen and Mother, will realize they are truly brothers...”?
Purgatory is another doctrine that isn’t optional. It isn’t that it just isn’t mentioned in scripture, it contradicts the very basis of our salvation. If God’s forgiveness is only partial, then the sacrifice of Jesus wasn’t whole. We might as well go back to killing goats.
The concept of indulgences is another. Forgiveness for sale? One might as well bottle the wine used in the Eucharist, and offer it for sale...buy the BIG bottle, if your sins are many!
Now, about the 30,000 denominations - they don’t exist. The guy who developed that number used a definition of denomination not shared by anyone else. He says there are 8,196 Protestant denominations, and 2,942 Roman Catholic denominations. In his counting, a lot depends on how ‘jurisdiction’ is defined. Since each church in the Southern Baptist Convention is autonomous, every church in my denomination is considered a denomination of its own...and when you use a standard like that, 30-40,000 may be possible.
Yet if you took the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith to a Baptist Church, perhaps 80-90% would agree to it. The only major split I know of among Baptists is free will vs predestination, and the large majority of Baptists I’ve known had no real opinion on either.
However, you might notice that the numbers for Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox don’t add up anywhere close to 30,000 - that figure includes many faith traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity.
Agreed.
And as this article clearly demonstrates, for good reason, since no way can chr*stianity be read into the "letter" of the Hebrew Bible.
It's a good thing the church fathers lived so long ago, or the sophisticated Catholics who chuckle at the trailer park prophets would be laughing their heads off.
First off my friend. I do not dislike Mr. MacArthur. I love him dearly. He helped wake me up from my own “private” hermeneutic’s. I simply did not know whether to accept his Calvinism as well. Therefore, I sought out the early Christians, and chose to trust them rather than the modernist christian interpretation. Therefore, I am also not Roman Catholic. I am Orthodox...and yes, they understand Greek just fine. After all, they never stopped using it, and they have followed St. Paul to the letter when he wrote. “So then, brethen, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Miriam's role was not her characteristics or value, 1. Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers 2. Joseph is descended from King David. 3. The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad 4. If a woman who has no brothers marries a man of the same tribe 5. Joseph and Miriam are married (each descended from King David)
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
but her bloodlines to King David,
having no brothers and
the exception started by
the daughters of Zelophehad.
There are five things that are important here:
and is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.
(These were daughters who had no brothers)
is in effect (Numbers 26, 27, 36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7).
She can inherit forever.
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Yah'shua (Messiahship).
You just made my point; you are your own pope. There can be only one Truth and one interpretation of that particular truth. The Eucharist IS literally flesh and blood. How dow we know? Because our Lord told us so. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. His listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction? On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
And what was their reaction? In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. John 6:66 tells us that "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood."
“They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?”
Because their hearts were bad, and their rejection of his teaching was a manifestation of their rejection of him. They were not following him as God, or because they sought the truth, but because of miracles. They were ‘disciples’ looking for an earthly King, perhaps.
In any case, we read, “63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”
Why did Jesus speak in parables? “9 And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, 10 he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.”
And as John 6 makes plain, not all his disciples were true either. They didn’t get an explanation because they wouldn’t have received it anyways.
“You just made my point; you are your own pope...”
In a sense. I am the one who will be judged for my life, so I am responsible for the decisions I make. On that day, it won’t help me to say, “But I trusted the Pope!” Not when we know that many Popes have been flagrantly evil men, with no sign at all of knowing or or caring about God.
In Matthew 16, we read, “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
It isn’t what others say that counts for us, “But who do you say that I am?”
“There can be only one Truth and one interpretation of that particular truth. “
If we are to accept the Roman Catholic Church’s official position on Scripture and doctrine, then how do we reconcile it when they change their minds?
If there can be only one interpretation and their interpretation is the only one allowed (which is a false reading of 2 Peter 1:20), then were they wrong in their interpretation before? What of the teaching regarding “limbo”? Benedict the 16th CHANGED THAT, did he not? Was all previous teaching on the subject error? What else do they have wrong?
Scripture is not a great mystery, only for the sages in robes, but is the Great Mystery - God’s Gift to us! Be mindful of Mark 7:5-7......
(5) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”
(6) He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
(7) They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ (8) You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
Can you give an example of the Catholic Church changing her position on Scripture?
“Can you give an example of the Catholic Church changing her position on Scripture?”
Not with only a cursory reading of your church’s history. I can certainly find examples that question dogma like Papal Infallibility, though.
Honorius comes to mind.
Quite a lot of PRACTICE has changed. Such as the selling of indulgences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.