tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post2676098204449981582..comments2024-03-13T17:03:38.660-07:00Comments on Answering Catholic Claims: DIALOGUE ON BIBLE INTERPRETATIONRussellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-49228008870432199802019-02-20T16:09:57.046-08:002019-02-20T16:09:57.046-08:00Hi Russell,
You might find this article interesti...Hi Russell,<br /><br />You might find this article interesting:<br /><br />http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/02/dialog-with-catholics.html#comment-formJesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-57687805617779116632019-01-12T23:05:58.453-08:002019-01-12T23:05:58.453-08:00The Christians of the first century used the Old T...The Christians of the first century used the Old Testament Scriptures. The New Testament writings were finished by the end of the first century, and the canon issue settled by the end of the second century. Thank you for demonstrating how lowly you view the Bible. Your comments make the say so of the Word of God appear irrelevant to your beliefs.Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-89266968145683183872018-07-12T08:26:08.245-07:002018-07-12T08:26:08.245-07:00Funny how the early church had no new testament, c...Funny how the early church had no new testament, church buildings, strict hierarchy, and had not one but several apostles and the teachings of Jesus.<br />Somehow it grew just fine without the Bible as we know it. The apostles taught the gospel and made corrections as needed which later became our new testament.<br /><br />Imagine how many more arguments there could have been if Jesus presented a complete new testament before His Ascension. The apostles would still have to interpret and teach, just as we see they did.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464921130729096020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-72627292269998607842018-07-12T05:54:48.163-07:002018-07-12T05:54:48.163-07:00You're correct. The Catholic Church was starte...You're correct. The Catholic Church was started to save the crumbling Roman Empire by combining the symbols of a fast growing faith with the cult of Mithras. <br /><br />The main argument against the literal Eucharist is obvious: there is no chemical transformation of the host and wine. Catholics take the allegory too literally; Protestants don't take it allegorically enough and treat it like a mere similie. But the wine does not become blood, except spiritually, which is another way of saying: it's an allegory. <br /><br />And which Cathiolic church? There are two. One for the Roman Empire and one for the Russian empire. Both claim authority from Peter. Both can't be right. But both protected scripture in the midst of their human fallability and compromise. <br /><br />I'll go with the believers who ended slavery. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01499040932698084948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-50663919907963983722016-10-11T05:11:40.752-07:002016-10-11T05:11:40.752-07:00If the Catholic Church ‘s claims of infallibility ...If the Catholic Church ‘s claims of infallibility are based on interpreting fallibly and your claim that they are wrong are coming from interpreting the bible fallibly then you have no case there since you and the Catholic Church are both fallible, we have no way of knowing who is interpreting correctly. We cannot rely on reason (trying to be consistence) because we are humans and our minds cannot be always consistent and we make errors and we are biased and also we interpret things based on our background. So from your way of seeing, there is no need of a infallible interpreter this means the Catholic Church is not wrong at all, its just that its interpretation of scripture led it to think that they should be a infallible interpreter and your interpretation led you to think that they should not be a infallible interpreter and from your logic since there is no infallible interpreter all these conclusions are permissible, and you should not expect the Catholic Church to accept your view which is fallible anyway and we should not as Catholics expect you to accept our views since they are fallible anyway.<br />Having noted that we should agree on one more thing that all the Teachings of the Catholic Church are Biblical. The reason is that they are there in the Scriptures but what we disagree on is the difference in interpretation. An example will be fitting here. You cannot say the Catholic Church‘s teaching on the Eucharist is not in the Bible because Jesus said This is my Body and This is blood, and this is there in the bible. What we do not agree on is what did Jesus mean, did he mean literal flesh or symbols. So our position is biblical meaning it can be found in the bible, but since no infallible interpreter is needed or can be found here on Earth it means the Catholic Position is acceptable as well as the opposition position. If Protestants really believe that there is no need for an infallible interpreter (which I doubt they do), why do they make noise about the Catholic Church having interpretations different/opposite from theirs? They are not being consistent in their logic at all. If I was protestant according to you logic, and if I hear the Catholics claiming Infallibility, I will simply just say it’s their fallible interpretation that has made them reach that conclusion. That’s a double standard by Protestants.<br /><br />NB……I would agree with this logic if the Catholic Church was started the way Protestant Churches were started by picking up the bible and then making conclusions however the CC existed before things were written down, teachings were passed on including how certain passages had always been interpreted and believed from the Apostles.<br />Perfect Mugwagwanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-47137186837340412032016-08-21T13:49:13.828-07:002016-08-21T13:49:13.828-07:00Thank you for the encouragement, Jesse. And thank...Thank you for the encouragement, Jesse. And thank you for defending the faith! <br /><br />Peace and GraceRussellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-88185908854161099702016-08-20T19:04:27.936-07:002016-08-20T19:04:27.936-07:00Hi Russell,
Thanks for your input. You have been ...Hi Russell,<br /><br />Thanks for your input. You have been very beneficial to me and many others.<br /><br />God bless,<br />JesseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-34755621993593087982016-08-20T13:32:35.171-07:002016-08-20T13:32:35.171-07:00Hi Anonymous,
I absolutely agree. Hi Anonymous,<br /><br />I absolutely agree. Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-71398252536177378862016-08-20T13:03:27.086-07:002016-08-20T13:03:27.086-07:00Hello Russell,
I believe that passages such as Ps...Hello Russell,<br /><br />I believe that passages such as Psalm 119:97-105 and Luke 1:1-4 make a great case for the perspicuity of Scripture. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-5956786497989051922016-08-13T13:02:32.301-07:002016-08-13T13:02:32.301-07:00Hi Russell,
Ultimate Gohan.....Hi Russell,<br /><br />Ultimate Gohan.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-22563612804640516042016-01-13T03:00:15.633-08:002016-01-13T03:00:15.633-08:00Hello nuntym . Were the men in the council og Hipp...Hello nuntym . Were the men in the council og Hippo and Cartage infallible or fallible? Why? How do you know the list of books was an infallible list and not a fallible list? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17300028583593446517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-9553231060523055432010-05-09T17:58:06.940-07:002010-05-09T17:58:06.940-07:00Hi Dave,
Thanks for your response and your encour...Hi Dave,<br /><br />Thanks for your response and your encouragement. You raise a good point about the Scripture being "canonized" in the 1500's (that is, at the Council of Trent). If it was so important to have infallible certainty on the canon, why did the Catholic Church wait more than 1500 years before "infallibly" declaring it?<br /><br />For more on this, you can check out my article, "The Canon and Infallible Certainty" elsewhere on this blog. <br /><br />Thanks again, Dave, for your concern in these important issues. I pray that God blesses you as you continue to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.<br /><br />RussellRussellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-84434004570565783882010-05-06T20:02:16.900-07:002010-05-06T20:02:16.900-07:00If one believes the church is "institutional&...If one believes the church is "institutional" ,that "the Church is the way ,the truth and the life", then for sure this church "gave" us the bible. If one believes the church is spiritual,universal (catholic-but NOT Roman),with no head but Jesus, then this church "passed" on the bible, as it was given by God.....One will have no problem to see in history that NO institution "gave" us the bible. Catholics can quote a council that "approved " of full new testaments ALREADY in existence. Even if they did approve of the 27 books for the first time (which they did not) ,was that council really "Roman Catholic" ? Did not Eusubios(?) whip up 50 bibles (27 n.t.books) for Constantine BEFORE this council ? For ANY denomination to claim "giving " us the bible is piracy ,the "gold" being false self- justification or legitimization. Anyways , did not Rome finally canonize scripture in 1500,s ? Thank you Russel , you prove the Holy Spirit is alive and well, for you and I are miles apart but one in bearing the same testimony.dave ruiznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-68413427889712608532010-01-20T12:44:14.417-08:002010-01-20T12:44:14.417-08:00Hi nuntym,
Thanks for your response.
But your r...Hi nuntym,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. <br /><br />But your response here is simply begging the question. You're assuming that the Catholic Church "determined" the canon (list of inspired books) of Scripture. But this opens up a whole lotta other questions. I do intend to address the "canon issue" in the very near future. Hope you'll stay with us to see it.Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17823479491839694646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730083483661000120.post-24915776972973248532010-01-18T21:24:03.916-08:002010-01-18T21:24:03.916-08:00You know, if I was the Catholic you were talking t...You know, if I was the Catholic you were talking to, I'd respond to your question of<br /><br />"But how does one who is searching for the truth, first determine that the Catholic Church is really the true Church, the (supposedly) infallible source of truth?"<br /><br />with the answer,<br /><br />"Well, what Church determined which books to put into the Bible in the first place?"Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824634648027054143noreply@blogger.com