Posted on 07/12/2011 6:58:08 AM PDT by marshmallow
What a silly argument. He was reading to understand... and failing to understand, he sought a teacher. This flies in the face of your assertion that Scripture may be easily understood by all who read it.
You have missed the point of the passage, namely, that this portion of scripture is harder than others, and he was asking the correct questions from the text ... "of whom does the prophet speak?"
No, you missed the point of the passage, namely, that he didn't understand what he was reading and needed a teacher to explain it to him. You are taking great pains to be obtuse because the text is plainly against your assertion.
Also, do you use this passage to support a doctrine that we as individuals cannot understand the text without a priest, church, etc? What about all the commands in scripture that we are to read, memorize, teach, preach, obey, etc. the scriptures? Does that not imply it is understandable?
The Israelites were given such instruction throughout their history and they had their personal scrolls of the Torah and instructions throughout their homes. However, they also had Scribes, Rabbis and Priests to explain the Scriptures to them for their common understanding.
Heresy isn't just getting something wrong, it is elevating one part of the truth to the whole truth. Yes, people are to hear (note that Romans speaks of hearing, not individually reading... this would happen at Church because St Gutenberg hadn't given us mass-produced Bibles yet) and meditate on the Scripture... but they aren't supposed to go their own way with their own interpretations. That is entirely the purpose of the Epistles... they were written to bring back into conformity what had lapsed in the various churches. They were written from the authority given by Christ to the Church to maintain the unity of Faith.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
It is the function of the Church to teach the principalities.
Well said.
This should be sufficient for you. But you see the problem is that Tradition has already tried to overwrite the Scriptures saying that "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:2-3 are not Mary's sons.
So my problem with the Tradition doctrine is that it overwrites the Scriptures blatantly.
Cordially,
Have I said otherwise? Again, this is a discussion of Sola Scriptura... the Bible Alone. Your verse here speaks the truth, as does all Scripture... what it doesn't say is that the Apostles were commissioned to write additional Scripture for the Church to follow. Using your doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I would like to see this commission. As I pointed out in an earlier post, I can surely show you where they brought preaching, instruction, their own testimony, and Tradition (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, Rom 10:17, 1 Pet 1:25, 1 Cor 11:2, Acts 2:42, Acts 20:35, John 21:25)... but brand new Scriptures that all were to follow? Good luck with that.
But you see the problem is that Tradition has already tried to overwrite the Scriptures saying that "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:2-3 are not Mary's sons.
No, the Church has endeavored to explain what isn't as readily apparent to us today as it was in the days immediately after Christ's Ascension. In this case, there isn't a separate word in Aramaic for brother, stepbrother, and cousin. These men were "brethren", yes, but not additional sons of Mary. Were they His biological brothers, surely Our Lord would have not commended His Mother to the household of St John at His Death on the Cross. These two situations are completely contradictory in Protestant interpretation... because you reject the authority of the Church and trust to your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).
Look at the context, not with a pretext.
The Lord Jesus Christs own words should have been sufficient as well as what the Apostle Paul said in 1 Timothy 3:16, but I see that it is not for you.
Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice, and the voice of another they will not follow" (John). How can you hear the Savior's voice if you cannot hear it in the Scriptures and say it has no authority??
How can you hear Him?? Do you really love Him?? How will you memorize the Scriptures and let the Holy Spirit teach you if you already have a pretext and an overwriting pattern?
No, the attack upon Sola Scriptura, is a Sophistry attack on Christ and His ordained Word (the Bible). It is the same as all the other attacks on the Bible from the same source who said:
"Indeed, Hath God said..."
It doesn't, your passage shows one case where one verse was hard for someone to understand. What you are trying to do is extrapolate that into "the whole Bible is not understandable without a teacher." I suggest you go through Psalm 119.
However, they also had Scribes, Rabbis and Priests to explain the Scriptures to them for their common understanding.
So lemme get this straight. You maintain that the Jews read, followed, obeyed, listened to, taught their children from their own personal copy of the scriptures (or the Torah portions, whatever) ... but they couldn't understand them without the teachers?
Seems to me it was the TEACHERS of Israel that didn't believe in Christ ... and the common disciple folks who did. Sorry, Psalm 19:7 still applies.
but they aren't supposed to go their own way with their own interpretations. That is entirely the purpose of the Epistles... they were written to bring back into conformity what had lapsed in the various churches.
So Paul the teacher wrote the epistles to correct ... but we cant understand that correction by reading it, we need another teacher to tell us what the teacher wrote?
It is the function of the Church to teach the principalities.
What principalities? Which principalities are you talking about?
Clearly, I’m wasting my time with you. If you happen to reply with anything that actually addresses my posts to you, I will consider forming a response.
May God open your eyes from your self-imposed blindness.
I have read Psalm 119 and understand it very well. You do realize that it was written at time when God's plan for the redemption of man was still hidden, right? It was not until the revelation of Christ that the Old Testament truly made perfect sense. We understood the Law and God's commands to us... but we didn't understand His plan until revealed by Christ. Even Christ's own disciples failed to understand even after His Death... He had to open their eyes to all that the Old Testament had proclaimed about Him before they could understand. Even then, they still failed to recognize Him until the breaking of the bread. You see, Scripture wasn't enough for them to understand... explanations weren't even enough for them to fully understand... it was only in the application of worship that their eyes were opened. That is what you find in the Liturgy of the Church. The Scriptures weren't meant for private interpretation, they were meant for public proclamation. Their home is the Liturgy of the Church where the Scriptures are fully realized.
So lemme get this straight. You maintain that the Jews read, followed, obeyed, listened to, taught their children from their own personal copy of the scriptures (or the Torah portions, whatever) ... but they couldn't understand them without the teachers?
Do you remember Jesus's answer to the lawyer's question about which is the greatest commandment? Jesus didn't reference the Ten Commandments or the Law of Moses... He pointed back to what animates the Law from Deut 6:5... Love. There, in their own Scriptures was the underpinning of the "new commandment" given by Christ but they did not recognize it fully until explained by Him. The Bible is clear when understood but private (and sometimes erroneous) interpretation muddies the waters and prevents us from being One as Christ is One with His Heavenly Father. This is the unity Christ wanted for us... One in Faith... and you don't get there without common teaching.
Seems to me it was the TEACHERS of Israel that didn't believe in Christ ... and the common disciple folks who did. Sorry, Psalm 19:7 still applies.
Actually, it was the leaders of the people (who feared the loss of their own authority) who rejected Our Lord. Those who were open to His Teaching, came to understand that He was the One promised by God. There were teachers among the people who weren't far from the Kingdom of God (Nicodemus and others)... but they still needed further instruction from Our Lord. I point out this instruction because Scripture is easily misunderstood--if not taught--even by those who study it the most.
So Paul the teacher wrote the epistles to correct ... but we cant understand that correction by reading it, we need another teacher to tell us what the teacher wrote?
He wrote to the churches about issues in those churches. Obviously, these letters were copied and sent to other churches. Clearly, there would need to be some explanation by someone at some point when confronted with the Letter to the Romans and the Letter of St James. In the former, we read that we are saved by our belief (Romans 10:9). In the latter we read that we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24). There is a very good reconciliation between the two and Scripture is not contradicted... but it needs to be taught to be understood.
What principalities? Which principalities are you talking about?
Is this a joke or are just trying to challenge everything I write?
So you read it ... and you understand it? Don't you mean you read it, asked your teacher to explain it to you, and now you understand it? I would ask for a new teacher, the first 30 verses decimate your view.
it was only in the application of worship that their eyes were opened. That is what you find in the Liturgy of the Church.
Hmm ...
What principalities? Which principalities are you talking about?
Is this a joke or are just trying to challenge everything I write?
Ah no, I was trying to figure out what the heck you're talking about here. You said the function of the Church is to teach principalities ... tell me what that means.
Ah, no. I read it. I looked up the Catholic teaching on the subject to make sure of my position. And no, it doesn't decimate my view. What it does is try to obfuscate the issue again. At the time of this writing, there were significant parts of the Old Testament yet to go and the New Testament not even conceived. Once again, my challenge isn't to find somewhere in the Bible where we are to follow Scripture (believe it or not, we do that in the Catholic Faith) but to show that Sola Scriptura is a fraud... these tangents keep getting further from that discussion.
Currently, you and I are arguing whether anyone can read the Scripture and understand it. I agree they can... but can they understand it the same as the Church for unity of faith? Let's see what the Magisterium has given us in the Catholic Church... unity. Let's see what has been wrought in Protestant congregations since the split from the Church... disunity and division. Why? Because each interpreter makes himself his own pope. The fractalization that has occurred over the last five centuries speaks loudly of the folly of private interpretation. Certainly, you're not going to argue that we are all One in the faith as Christ prayed we would be? The Doctrines and Dogma of the Catholic Church have been held firm back to their foundations in Christ. There is no such continuity in the Protestant congregations.
I would point out to you that Psalm 119 actually supports my position much better than your own. You do know, of course, that it is the beginning of the "Song of Ascents" (or other names in various traditions)... and this recitation is made by the presider over the ascent up to Jerusalem for their annual festivals? It runs through Psalm 133. These were recited ritually as part of a Liturgical-style procession in giving glory and honor to God for his favor to Israel. They are best understood Liturgically, i.e. through the eyes of the Church.
Ah no, I was trying to figure out what the heck you're talking about here. You said the function of the Church is to teach principalities ... tell me what that means.
I will admit here to my own private interpretation and apologize to you. Although "principalities" in Scripture generally refers to the Heavenly Hosts, in my haste I was applying it to the kingdoms of Earth as well. That is my error. I had already posted that the Church is the bullwark and pillar of the Truth according to 1 Tim 3:15. I pulled this other citation to reinforce the teaching authority of the Church. It is misapplied this way. One thing I would note, though, is that the passage in question shows that Our Lord uses the Church to demonstrate His Wisdom... not Scripture. Again, just as the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath... so Scripture was made for the Church, not the Church for Scripture. It is our guide and ground but not our sole authority for self-interpretation.
The inquiry involving the "Eunuch" sheds much light on their spiritual disposition. The argument you made relates that Phillip was referenced to make adequate explanation but that was YOUR position. The other side made what is known in legal parlance as " An admission against self interest". Look, if they don't' understand that their argument is validating your contention, how can you expect them to open their hearts to Jesus and accept His words bereft of their self imposed prideful interpretations.
These types would do well to ponder and peruse Ps 135:16 and Mk 8:18. Your references to the Lawyer and to Nicodemus are on point , adroit examples of your position yet they fall on deaf ears. When they utter such nonsense as "Look at context and not Pretext" you know that the aforementioned admonitions are relevant.
As one who made a living interpretating the most arcane and esoteric statutes of Caesar, I can attest that without extensive education in Greek Hebrew and Aramaic one would be lost and foolish to enter the arena of bibical interpretation. Therefore, we have a Magisterium directed by an indwelling of the Holy Spirit which the prideful rejects in favor of their own selfish desires. God bless and have patience with them
Tradition tells us that this is how we always interpreted scripture and how it has always been interpreted from the time of Christ and His Apostles. It does not supplement but rather complements.
the "professionals" is a wrong term -- a professional is like say Taize who interpreted scripture his own way. In orthodoxy, the clergy merely ensure that what is believed is what has always been believed since the time of Christ. the various doctors etc. from John Chrysostom etc. merely focused on and debated the deeper meanings of why we believed and practised what we did and do
For example, the Early Christians may not have understood why they broke bread each week, yet in the Didache (written AD 70) we know they did. They believed something that caused the Romans to say "these are cannibals, they eat the blood and flesh of their God" and Justin the Martyr had to refute this.
we read, pray and believe as a community, a community in Christ -- as individuals we are flawed, prone to error, incapable of even starting to understand the enormity that is God, which as a community in Christ we can start on this journey.
we read, pray and believe as a community, a community in Christ -- as individuals we are flawed, prone to error, incapable of even starting to understand the enormity that is God, which as a community in Christ we can start on this journey.
Thank you for your encouragement. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds on these threads.
If by "current bible interpretations" you mean "gay is okay" and "Jesus is just Archangel Michael", then yes, those are current and they disagree with what has always been believed and what the Apostles were taught by Christ, what they handed down to us
Fair enough. So if the Bible says "a bishop must be the husband of one wife" and some person or organization tells me "a bishop must not be the husband of one wife", then I know that the latter is full of it.
I get your dig. There is another possibility, though... that you are wrong in your interpretation. As the Catholic Church understands the Apostolic Succession, St Paul was a Bishop in the Church. He was not married. He even went so far as to call that condition a blessing!
This passage of Scripture is not a command to be married, rather it is a prohibition against multiple marriages. The Church rightly understands it in a number of scenarios but one is interesting: the condition of a man whose wife dies. He may become a priest and then a bishop. He has had but one wife. However, if he were to remarry and then she also died, he would not now be a good candidate for the celibate life. Why? In his remarriage, he showed his commitment to that Sacrament and demonstrated his greater desire to not be celibate. It is a logical position.
I guess that's progress.
but can they understand it the same as the Church for unity of faith? Let's see what the Magisterium has given us in the Catholic Church... unity.
Agreement with what the RCC teaches is not a definition of unity. "If you agree with me, we're unified" doesn't cut it. I am seeking the truth, you cannot have unity without truth.
Let's see what has been wrought in Protestant congregations since the split from the Church... disunity and division. Why? ... The fractalization that has occurred over the last five centuries speaks loudly of the folly of private interpretation.
I disagree, it speaks loudly of the folly of FAULTY interpretation.
Certainly, you're not going to argue that we are all One in the faith as Christ prayed we would be?
No, I wouldn't do that ... I am not blind to the impasse that exists that will not be bridged between our faiths.
The Doctrines and Dogma of the Catholic Church have been held firm back to their foundations in Christ ...
Again, we are talking about truth. Your subtle equivalence; that somehow "length of time" lends credibility to the truthfulness of a doctrine is particularly troubling for me. What's the difference whether something has been held for a long time or not ... its the truth of the claim that matters ... if it is not truth ... its nothing but a lie with alot of dust on it.
There is no such continuity in the Protestant congregations.
I'll give you that one ... but, again, truth before unity. Those who would worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. If a person is not worshiping in truth, they are not worshiping God at all! They are merely worshiping a facsimile of a god they have created.
It is our guide and ground but not our sole authority for self-interpretation.
Thus the basis for the reformation.
Thank you for the ping.
Thank you for the ping.
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.