"Private Interpretation"

[Logos1560]

Misrepresentation of history. It was not merely 'Anglican, but also 'Puritan' (even on the committee itself) and many others (scholars, musicians, so-called 'lay-persons', grammarians, etc) by the rules of the translation committee itself:


I do desire that you and others would cease from historic revisionism. King James himself sat down with the puritans (Genevans, etc) and Anglicans (and their varied persons), and met with his own learned men.

Perhaps you try to misrepresent or revise history or you have been misinformed. All the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England.

The Puritans were a party or group within the Church of England, and they had wanted to purify the Church of England of some Roman Catholic teachings and practices that remained in it. The Puritans were Anglicans. Archbishop Richard Bancroft had forced many in the Puritan party to conform to the official Church of England positions. The few Puritan-leaning members of the Church of England that were translators had been forced to conform by Bancroft's 1604 canons.

 

[utilyan]

I now await Adonia's reply and do not expect to further dialogue with utilyan here.

Still not telling us where you got your scripture other than circular reasoning of scripture itself.

Btw private conversation is an option you can click your little email icon above right.



"Here again, utilyan, have misrepresented the koine Greek text and its meanings and you know it. "rabbi" (G4461) is not the word "didaskalos" (G1320) is it utilyan?,"

John 1

38And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?”


John literally translates rabbi to teacher FOR YOU. John must be a misrepresenting Catholic

Ῥαββί ὃ λέγεται ἑρμηνευόμενον, Διδάσκαλε

1320. didaskalos^


Rabbi is spelled out simply what does it mean?
Ῥαββί.

It means Teacher. There is no way around this.

Look at all the greek texts it says Ῥαββί. Rabbi.


""The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church."

Who cares about the early church fathers they already questionable for being called father.


I would be more than happy to help you destroy the catholic church.

Again I suggest you start with the actual canon of scripture and give us grounds on why your source can be trusted.



You are not giving us your starting point. Just the circular reasoning of a bible falling out of the sky.

 

[Adonia]

I do beg your pardon, utilyan, but this conversation is between myself and Adonia

Our friend has the right to speak and to engage in the conversation and I value everyone's input and you should too. People can chime in at any point, that my friend is how this forum works.

 

[Adonia]

That just disproved what you said earlier, about "We (Catholics) don't do it.", and then you turn around and say, "We look to the [Catholic] Church for the correct interpretation.

No it does not. "Private Interpretation" is when everyone tries to interpret the Scriptures personally, the Catholic Church with it's authorization from God is not to be considered "private interpretation". Every orthodox believer believes in the truth of the interpretation of the Church.

 

[Adonia]

Adonia, a question: Are you a Catholic christian?

Of course. I am a Universal (Catholic) Christian. Just like some people are Baptist Christians, Anglican Christians, or Lutheran Christians. Unfortunately, the Body of Christ was torn asunder and from the Universal (Catholic) Church there came forth numerous Christian sects, far too many to list here.

 

[Walter]

In regards to the OP, Martin Luther put it best, 'My biggest fear is that every plough boy and farm girl will interpret scripture for themselves.'

 

[Alofa Atu]

Of course. I am a Universal (Catholic) Christian. Just like some people are Baptist Christians, Anglican Christians, or Lutheran Christians. ...

Thank you. You just proved to me, by your own use and examples, that the words "Catholic" and "Christian" are not synonyms. Excellent proof. Thank you.

 

[Alofa Atu]

In regards to the OP, Martin Luther put it best, 'My biggest fear is that every plough boy and farm girl will interpret scripture for themselves.'

Can you post a source, page number please for that. I am looking through all of the Martin Luther I have (and used google) and I do not see it. I ask, to be able to read its contextual setting and year of setting should it exist. Also, I would like the original language if possible.

For instance, I know Martin Luther said:

"... the pope also be destroyed; for he began his kingdom, not through power or the divine authority,
but through superstition and a forced interpretation of some passages of Scripture. Popedom is built
on a foundation which will bring about its fall. Daniel prophesies thus: “And through his policy he
shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; but he shall be broken without hand.” This refers specially
to the pope ..." - Table Talk, p 134 (138 PDF)

 

[Alofa Atu]

Our friend has the right to speak and to engage in the conversation and I value everyone's input and you should too. People can chime in at any point, that my friend is how this forum works.

They can do whatever they want, but that doesn't exempt you from responding to the discussion that began between yourself and I, does it?

utilyan has been thoroughly answered and is all that they will get, unless they decide to follow the light given.

So, just as it is utilyan's 'right', it is also my 'right' to say what I stated to said person. You of course seek for help, because you cannot actually address anything I asked. You need interruption to excuse yourself.

 

[Alofa Atu]

No it does not. "Private Interpretation" is when everyone tries to interpret the Scriptures personally, the Catholic Church with it's authorization from God is not to be considered "private interpretation". Every orthodox believer believes in the truth of the interpretation of the Church.

Adonia, that is 'private interpretation' by majority vote.

By the same logic, you just condemned Jesus who didn't agree with the Sanhedrin, the "church".

 

[utilyan]

They can do whatever they want, but that doesn't exempt you from responding to the discussion that began between yourself and I, does it?

utilyan has been thoroughly answered and is all that they will get, unless they decide to follow the light given.

So, just as it is utilyan's 'right', it is also my 'right' to say what I stated to said person. You of course seek for help, because you cannot actually address anything I asked. You need interruption to excuse yourself.

Brother you said I'm misrepresenting.

John 1

38And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?”

John clearly teaches Rabbi means Teacher.

I don't even get a "oops" do I?

 

[Adonia]

They can do whatever they want, but that doesn't exempt you from responding to the discussion that began between yourself and I, does it?

Which we have been doing.

So, just as it is utilyan's 'right', it is also my 'right' to say what I stated to said person. You of course seek for help, because you cannot actually address anything I asked. You need interruption to excuse yourself.

I feel I have addressed some of your points, but there are also some things that I might not have thought of, so yes, I welcome the input of others who believe as I do and can add to the discussion - and you are free to respond to them as you do to me.

For instance, brother Walter had a good opinion on divorce and how the Catholic Church looks at the issue and how the Baptists see it and that is something I had never explored before. So see, perhaps we both learned something new with his post in the context of biblical interpretation.

 

[Adonia]

Adonia, that is 'private interpretation' by majority vote.

No, that is the theological reasoning of the entire Church. Jesus said that "He who hears you, hears me" and we need to be able to rely on the appropriate authority to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise where do we go, to the myriad of interpretations out there coming from the thousands of Christian entities that each claims they have the truth? Or do I believe my own interpretation? I am a truck driver, not a theologian.

By the same logic, you just condemned Jesus who didn't agree with the Sanhedrin, the "church".

I am not condemning Jesus because I believe that He is God come to earth to set things right, the Sanhedrin are not. The various Jewish groups argued with each other and still do today as a matter of fact.

 

[Alofa Atu]

...I am not condemning Jesus because I believe that He is God come to earth to set things right, the Sanhedrin are not. The various Jewish groups argued with each other and still do today as a matter of fact.

The Sanhedrin was not a "Jewish group", it was the council of the "church" (Acts 7:38; Rev 12:1-2), and ordered after the instruction given to Moses (Exo 24:1), led by the high priest himself, having authority as the elders of the people. They were God's own people, chosen by him.

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

They rejected Jesus based upon their private interpretation of scripture. They had a majority vote against the word.

The Sanhedrin was the Council, and they were given the "oracles of God":

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Yes they argued with one another,, because of their private interpretation (Mat 22:20; Mar 12:24,27) as every so-called 'ECF" and council of catholicism has.

Do yourself a favour (really). Go and research what I stated about the canon of catholicism to the other, and actually know for yourself. They can't even figure out being a teacher (of the word of God) in the church is not the same as being called 'Rabbi' or 'Master', when there is only one such - Jesus Christ (not the pope, any cardinal, bishop, 'priest', etc). Why do you pretend that what I said isn't fact?

 

[Alofa Atu]

...I feel ...

Yea, there is a lot of that going on here.

 

[utilyan]

John was a fisherman. Matthew a publican. Simon a zealot.

Since you are "not a theologian", then you ought not to come to explain Rome's theology, since it is above you. You ought not even attempt to explain scripture by your own definition. What are you doing here?

Look you probably convinced him not to be catholic.

Should he be be a Jehovah's witness instead?

Still not telling us where you get the canon of scripture. Gnostic mystery meat?

Name a SINGLE LIVING PERSON ON EARTH who has a better understanding of Christianity than you do, "Theologian".

 

[Adonia]

The Sanhedrin was not a "Jewish group"

It certainly was.

and ordered after the instruction given to Moses (Exo 24:1), led by the high priest himself, having authority as the elders of the people. They were God's own people, chosen by him.

Did you even read what you have posted here? "Moses", "high priest", "elders of the people", "Gods own people chosen by him"? All that leads to but one conclusion - they were Jews, or Semites if you would rather use that word.

 

[Logos1560]

No, that is the theological reasoning of the entire Church..

Where have you proven from the Scriptures that Roman Catholics are the entire church, the entire body of Christ?

Do even all Roman Catholics agree 100% in all their theological views?

Do all Roman Catholics accept completely all the theological views of one man--the Pope?

Do you claim that every one of the popes through the years have agreed 100% in all their theological views?

 

[Alofa Atu]

Did you even read what you have posted here? "Moses", ...

Yes, I understood what I wrote. Moses was "Hebrew" of the tribe of tribe of "Levi." Same with Aaron, and the lineage of priests. Jews are primarily of Judah.

Yet, none of that has anything to do with what you stated or with what I responded with. I was speaking of matters of authority, and you attempted to swap with 'race'. I compared your position to that of the Sanhedrin, which rejected Jesus on the matter of majority vote, for they had rejected the word of God. My statement in regards Jews was rebuttal to your mere dragging the conversation to race, when I was speaking of authority.

I should have guessed this thread was going to go this way.

 

[Alofa Atu]

No, that is the theological reasoning of the entire Church. Jesus said that "He who hears you, hears me" ...

What are we to "hear" from the church?

2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Rom_10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

1Pe_4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Just as Philip had to "read" what was written in Isaiah to the Eunuch. Just as Peter preached, at Pentecost what was in David, Psalms, etc. Just as Paul preached in every place he went:

Act_18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Their foundation is the written word (Isaiah 8:20). Not themselves.

They follow Jesus, who said, "It is written ..." over and over ...

Now, I already showed you what the Canon was then. All you have to do is go look for yourself to confirm what I said was true, unless you are not interested in what is true, and simply want to continue justifying yourself.

Look, I took the time to go and look for myself. I am only interested in the truth (John 17:17; Psalms 119:142,151).

Another very rude person asked, if I convinced you to no longer be Catholic, what you should be. That's easy. There is only one other in all the world and Rome knows exactly who we are. But you ought to be one who goes upon their knees with the sincere question asking God, What is the truth?, and so long as you are honest in that request, God will show you, without my telling you, unless you ask me (and in kindness I will tell you).